Chocolate Box Bible

[Phideaux]

Inconsistant criteria

If a person picks and chooses from the Bible, then they must have some criteria on which they base their choices. Isn't it obvious, then, that it is that criteria that they obey, and not whichever scriptures they claim to believe?

That’s the problem I see when I question them also. The buffet believers have a way out for everything based on some inconsistent criteria.

They might believe something is literal until science makes it impossible to swallow. Then they claim, "That part is just allegorical!"

So I ask what criteria they use to decide what is literal and what is not. They remind me the Bible is made up of all sorts of things, from poetry, to God's actual words. So, you just have to have the Holy Spirit to know the truth.

Huh? “God” has not graced me with the Holy Spirit to understand. How's THAT for criteria?

 

[H3LL]

Something that I turned up in another thread and following Darat's point earlier.

Jesus clearly cites Exodus as correct and to be followed in both Mark and Matthew.

Is there a denomination where Mark and Matthew are excluded?

 

[stamenflicker]

The buffet believers have a way out for everything based on some inconsistent criteria.

But then the criteria are inconsistant because morality itself is inconsistant and relative to a degree. If you really stop and think about it, there are only a very, very small handful of morals that are (or ought to be) consistant across every situation.

Example:

1) Physically or sexaully abusing infants is wrong.

I doubt we can concoct a scenario in which the above statement is not a moral truth.

But what about abuse in general? Who defines abuse? Am I abusing my child when I put him in "time-out?" Do I have permission to spank my child or not?

What about abusing an older child or an adult? Who defines what is abuse? Is a 22 year old female having intercourse with a 15 year old boy always abuse? It is according to our law.

Life is inconsistent so how do we expect the criteria to remain steadfast? Picking and choosing is "wisdom in action" and should be desirous for believers, not the opposite.

Flick

 

[RamblingOnwards]

I understand that Jesus clearly states in the NT that the OT is to be followed as the word of god. Therefore, you cannot say that you follow the teachings of Jesus and ignore the OT.

Am I right?

Thanks.

As with all things religious, both yes and no

The predominant teachings of the gospels are that the spirit of the old testament laws should be obeyed, even when that conflicts with the letter -

Matthew 15:3-6

3Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4For God said, 'Honor your father and mother'[a] and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.' 5But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,' 6he is not to 'honor his father[c]' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition

In this light, a fairly typical understanding of this passage:

Matthew 5:17-18

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

is that the 'Law' referenced here is God's will - the overall plan he has for creation, rather than the technical details in Leviticus.

Jesus is written as breaking the laws when it was moral to do so - usually because someone or something was in physical or emotional need. However, he and his followers did keep to the various forms required by the OT.

The biggest disconnect between the old and new testament laws comes from the teachings of Paul. He still kept to the dietary requirements of the OT, but was the first to really advocate different/new laws for Christians - most notably the preferably no wife, but maximum one rule. It is also obvious that as the Christian church attracted more and more non-Jewish followers, the rules were relaxed to allow for individualistic expression of faith:

Romans 14

1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

Largely, it boils down to the sentiment:
'If you have a close personal relationship with God, he will lead you in the way he wants you to live your life."

 

[stamenflicker]

Rambling...

Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition

I am glad you quoted this verse because I find it interesting. The word "nullify" is actually means "to make void."

Now Jesus surely new that according to the prophet Isaiah,

"My word will not return to me void." Is. 55:11

This had to infuriate the scriptural literalists of his day. What was Jesus really trying to do? I think he was pointing toward the two different kinds of word, one being the law (comprised of words, little w) and the being the intent of the law (comprised of a Word, big W) but that's a theological essay in itself.

In short, Jesus fulfillment of the law was more about the intent of the words than the words themselves. I mean wasn't this what he was teaching the whole time anyway?

Couldn't Jesus have picked some other day besides the Sabbath to heal people? Why not Tuesdays and Thursdays? Why did he do it on the Holy Days and get everyone pissed off?

Jesus was picking at scabs and pointing out to people at every step that religion is more than just "following the rules." My opinion: "Man was not made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath was made for man."

Or better put, humanity doesn't exist in order for us to be religious, but religion exists in order for us to be more human.

Flick

 

[Robin]

Jesus was picking at scabs and pointing out to people at every step that religion is more than just "following the rules." My opinion: "Man was not made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath was made for man."

Or better put, humanity doesn't exist in order for us to be religious, but religion exists in order for us to be more human.

Flick

I thought he was just saying "oh stop being such a fundy pain in the neck!"

 

[BillyJoe]

BTW, I love the title of this thread. I have used it already in casual converstion.
Just hope there's a chocolate jesus in there.

bj

 

[Darat]

BTW, I love the title of this thread. I have used it already in casual converstion.
Just hope there's a chocolate jesus in there.

bj

Ask and ye shall receive:

http://www.jesusoftheweek.com/jesii/230/

 

[Ossai]

RamblingOnwards

Largely, it boils down to the sentiment:
'If you have a close personal relationship with God, he will lead you in the way he wants you to live your life."

And how does one obtain this close personal relationship with god, why by living your life as god wants.

Ossai

 

[BillyJoe]

Ossai: You are too cynical.....oops, I mean cynical too.

Darat: I want my jesus hangin' from a cross! No less.

BJ
(edited to remove offensive material. )

 

[Iacchus]

Jesus was picking at scabs and pointing out to people at every step that religion is more than just "following the rules." My opinion: "Man was not made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath was made for man."

Or better put, humanity doesn't exist in order for us to be religious, but religion exists in order for us to be more human.

Dare I say it? It does sound "logical." Unfortunately, there are still many who view religion as a means of putting us in bondage.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Darat: I want my jesus hangin' from a cross! No less.

Ask and ye shall receive..

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Rambling...



Or better put, humanity doesn't exist in order for us to be religious, but religion exists in order for us to be more human.

Flick

Sounds good, but what is ' more human ' ?

How has religion done this ? If you allow that ' more human ' doesn't mean ' better ', I would allow that religion does it as well as anything else..


It's interesting that we can point to science, and show how it has actually made life better, while the promise of religion and a better life, usually involves dying first.

 

[RamblingOnwards]

Personally, I think that it's hard to deny that religion has trailed popular morals rather than led them. However that isn't to say that if a Christian isn't a fundamentalist then they are a hypocrit.

flick - that's interesting, I hadn't thought about that aspect before

In general -

Fundamentalists, apparently by virtue of being louder than everyone else, seem to have imposed their definition of Christianity on everyone else - A Christian is someone who believes the bible.

Most denominations are quite upfront about what is required to be a (whatever) Christian - and many do not emphasise a belief in the bible. Others specify which books, or to what degree the scriptures 'have to' be believed. Many, in fact, consider fundamentalism to be heretical (bibiolatry - worshipping a book instead of God). This is a good site for an overview of various confessions of faith: http://www.creeds.net .

The 'older' denominations also rely on the 2000 years of accumulated Christian scholarships to influence what it means to be a (whatever) Christian.

My point in short - just because a Christian doesn't believe in the bible in toto , it doesn't neccessarily mean they are making it up as they go along.

 

[stamenflicker]

This is a good site for an overview of various confessions of faith: http://www.creeds.net .

We did a study on this back in January, notice how they move from simple to complex as time progresses. Even the message Paul preached (1 Corinthians 15:3-7) was not nearly as complex as the apostle's creed, which when compared to the "Baptist Faith and Message" is still about 1/20 of the size of text needed to be endoctrinated Baptist today.

It would probably make a cool thread just see what has been added to the "prerequistes" of belief over the centuries. It's pretty indicative of divisivness and fear in the church if you ask me...

Flick

 

[H3LL]

Many, in fact, consider fundamentalism to be heretical (bibiolatry - worshipping a book instead of God).

I've not heard that one before. Thanks.

[Black-Kettle-Pot mode]
BTW it's bibliolatry when I looked on dictionary.com
Is the other one worship of infant's protective garments?
[/Black-Kettle-Pot mode]