Living by the bible - but only selectively

OK, so now that we have flattened the snow, let's mush those religious huskies.

Question (I guess to TT-er "Space"):

Let's assume that the Bible has some level of credibility, if not in its entireity, than partially. And that lots of messages therein could be applicable to many.

Not to sound like a "pick-and-chooser", but isn't it ok to follow parts of the Bible but not other parts? (There are definitely other parts of this question, but let's go in stages, shall we?)

Anyway, what do you people think?

Any super religious TT-ers like to weigh in?

Any atheists? What do you think?

Only wimps back out of the camel/eye of the needle challenge !

Neither super religous nor an atheist, but it depends what you mean by "follow", from a christian point of view, the whole bible is important, and all of it is spiritually true, but in different ways, it starts off being part of the jewish mythology, a background if you will to the region and the people who had a special relationship with god and eventually gave rise to the 3 main monotheistic religions that came from the middle east. You cant really say its untrue, because the people then really did have that as their mythology. It also mentions some of the laws that god gave those people that arent so relevant anymore. Thats all true too, the people then really did have those laws and follow them. Then you have some books of prophesy, these represent the plans that god has for the future, as given to the prohpets via dreams etc. Thats hard to prove, but according to christianity, they are genuinly the prophesies as revealed to man by god. Theres also some history books mixed in their too, which arent perfect, but are far more accurate than any other historical works of that era.

Then we move into the new testament, where we are introduced to the messiah, the lord and saviour king of the jews jesus christ, as prophesised in the old testament. christians believe everything there too. But be careful some of it was written in parable, especially the words attributed to jesus, so cant be taken absolutly literally, sometimes its hard to understand exactly whats meant without prayer and a close relationship to god. There are also some letters that leaders of the early church wrote to specific churchs and communities. They were also written in response to specific situations and problems that people of the day were having back then, and should be more read to get an idea of the ideas that god wanted to get across to us and the approachs that he inspired the early church to take in various situations rather than a set of strict instructions to how we are to live today.

And then the best part, revelation, also a prophesy of a highly allegorical nature, tells us of the times that are yet to come, the last days of our planet, where terrible things shall come to pass, and everyone shall recieve the judgement that they deserve, good will finally triumph over evil, as the evil perishes in war, and indeed for eternity in hell and the good shall triumph and be lifted up to heaven to live forever with jesus. But there are a lot of interpretations as to how literal or how figurative this is supposed to be taken, only prayer and a close relationship with god, can help one contemplate the real truth behind it.

So to answer the question, I think a christian is expected to follow the bible in its entirety, but each part has a different way in which it should be followed appropriatley, i.e. with common sense, prayer and the guidance of the holy spirit.

To Quote A Classic...

Reverend Flavel: Blaspehmy! Shakespeare must go! So sayeth the Shepherd!
The Flock Members: SO SAYETH THE FLOCK!
Reverend Flavel: And what sayeth you, Mr. Carter?
Carter: [very angry at this point] Get the Flock out of here!
[the students all start cheering]
Reverend Flavel: This means war! HOLY WAR! Flock! FOLLOW!

ME NO WIMP!!! Me pass camel through eye of needle. Me make right fuckin' mess. Blood and camel guts everywhere. Took ages to chop that bastard up, mash 'im up good in the blender and then pour him through that eye. Even had to use Sulphuric acid on 'is bones... but, ma miracle numero uno is complete.

Anybody got any acid so's I can have a bash at the walkin' on the old water trick?

EDIT: Kza - I ain't readin' all that - it's too long. Fuck off.

So you don't follow anything in the Old Testament?


Isn't this rather arbitrary though how you have stated it?

And who decides what goes and what doesn't go in today's society? You?

Nah... it's far too Goth. Old hat that is.

So what do you think of this statement by Jesus about the old law:

Matthew 5:18
"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?searc...5:18&version=49

While at the same time, looking in the OT, it states a few reasons for capital punishment:

Click this link:
http://www.biblegateway.com/topical/topica...urce=1&tid=3998

including:

disobedience to parents,
adultery,
sodomy,
sexual immorality while still living in one's father's house,
stealing
etc.

Just asking.
Can anyone offer clarity?

Dont get high off your own supply
-Perdido 2006-

What do you mean by "follow"? If you mean blindly obey. Then no, not at all and I doubt anyone does these days. Do you? If you mean take into consideration each bit in its context and according to its purpose, then no I dont do that either.

The way I stated it, yes, but I think by reading the scriptures carefully we can work out which of the "laws" in the old testament were superseded by the coming of Jesus. Sometimes its explicit and sometimes its left up to interpretation. As a result I doubt any two people have exactly the same idea of what it means to live according to their religion, which is reasonable I think. We arent supposed to be clones, some people are inspired to various callings in life for example, we arent all church ministers, some of us arent inspired to any calling at all.

Nope not me, and certainly not any deity or representative thereof either. What goes on and what doesnt in todays society is decided mostly by a mixture of consensus of politically active people but mostly by the interests of those that have power in society, i.e. politicians, media, the heads of corporations etc.

I am actually glad society is governed along secular lines, the idea of some arbitrary religion deciding the laws that should be applied to citizens is abhorrent to me. Your capital punishment question is related. The idea that quotes from the first 5 books of the bible (where all the death penalty references in the link you posted above come from) should be used to form a law that could apply to people who arent even subject to that religion, (let alone christians in the modern era) is something we have wisely left to the past. We have moved beyond that. Religion and politcs shouldnt mix, its a personal thing really, should one choose to apply religous rules to themselves or not.

That's a fairly broad assumption . . .

I may add something useful soon.

EDIT: I've decided against adding something useful. Carry on.

"What do you mean by "follow"? If you mean blindly obey. Then no, not at all and I doubt anyone does these days. "

I think half the problems in the world now are because some strange people actually do, only according to their own twisted understanding of it. Unfortunately these people have POWER MWAHAHAHARRR

I'd call that another instance of Biblical contradiction, as, for many if not most Christians, the entire point of Jesus was to lay down a new law: one in which the covenant between god and man is based on grace, rather than works. And given that Islam, Judaism, and Christianity all spring from the font of the Old Testament, it seems fairly clear that there is some selectivity in all of those religions--both in what is not followed, and what is.

Given that there is some evidence to suggest that Deuteronomy--the book of the law--was inserted into the Bible by a politician keen on instituting reform, and that many of the more draconian measures the Old Testament is noted for spring from that book, I'd say there's a fairly clear cut case for being selective in what one chooses to heed. After all, how many people really believe a person deserves to die for backtalking their parents? And severe punishments for clothing made of mixed fibres? Seems a bit harsh, though there may have been sound economic reasoning for it at the time. Nevertheless, if you decide to follow every jot and title of Biblican law, we are all screwed. End of story. There's just too much...and too much that contradicts itself...for it to be otherwise.

Eye for an eye doesn't connect well with turn the other cheek...unless both eyes are coming from the victim's head. If you're gonna suggest earthbound law based on this stuff, you're gonna find it's an extremely difficult undertaking. Just ask the Puritans that landed in America. That's what they wanted to do. Didn't work out so well for them. They aren't around--at least in their institutionalized form--anymore.

Quakers, on the other hand, are. But then Quakers differed from Puritans in many respects--one of them being whether present-day revelation was possible, or if the direct connection between humans and god dried up somewhere right around the death of Christ. This has to do with adding to scripture, something that's also widely condemned in the more fundamentalist branches of the religion.

Maybe you could explain how someone could possibly follow every injunction contained in the Bible, especially in the context of the modern world? Anyone who insisted on following even half of them would be thrown in the nuthouse post-haste. There may be some ideas in there that do transcend their times, but there's a helluva lot of it that just isn't relevant to human experience any more.

BTW: you do know, of course, that the whole 'City on the Hill' project is essentially aimed at bringing on the Apocalypse? Basically, the idea is this: when a city is founded in which the law of the land is identical to the word of god, Jesus is gonna feel welcomed and is gonna return. At that point, woe betide anyone not in that city. There's been a fair few of these cities attempted. The Puritans tried it. So did the Mormons, and both Jonestown and Waco are examples of what happens when people become convinced that they are the ones that are gonna be handing Christ the key to their fair city. Just a thought.

BTW: while on the subject of selectivity, I was just curious--does your copy of the Bible contain these books, by any chance?

Gotta be careful, there. The Bible is a very political book.

There is something very fishy goind on here . A Topic about God that is 13 posts old and psioni has not come in to save us all...

[attachment=18351:attachment]

@Sin: perhaps he should try the search feature.

[quote name='Tomasino' date='Jan 23 2006, 10:42 pm' post='410127']
So what do you think of this statement by Jesus about the old law:

[Pedantic note:. 'Reportedly' said by Jesus. Can not for certain say that it actually was.

Shit gets lost in translation down the years. e.g. 'Celibate' used to be 'celebrate' until some dyslexic monk got his hands on the rewrite.

Are you really "just asking" or is their a hidden agenda?
Seeing as you brought the topics and questions up, how about providing your own opinion.
Sorry if this sounds cynical, but I often see these type of "just asking" or "just thinking" threads ending up being a pretext for the original poster to preach some well formed opinion which they never had any intention of changing.

"I'll be the judge of that"

"I'll decide"

(Been trying to get that in for months.)

isn't the whole point though what you take it to mean? i always thought it was a bit vague apart from some parts and very much open to interpretation.

Not sure what would be defined by 'following' (I've never read the whole Bible either to be honest). I have certain personal values that I broadly try and stick by, and its quite possible you could equate some of them to 'mesages' or 'christian values' in the Bible. However, I don't hold those values because the Bible says so, but just because I'd like to think it makes me a decent human being.

Ah, the theory of moral relativism.

Yes, it was originally a series of scrolls published in a Choose Your Own Adventure format (option A: papyrus #55, option B: papryus #162, option C, start over). An early anthology of these adventures were mistakenly confused for a single textbook by later Christian priests. It's hard to deconstruct, but if you read the words carefully, noting all pointers and symbology, you too, can choose your very own Christian adventure.

I have no hidden agenda here. I am asking mere mortals to offer clarity, which is possibly a risky feat.

I suppose if I were to scratch the bottom of my conscience for some sort of gratification sought, I might say I seek fellowship in my common man to discuss claims made by certain people in my life which should be addressed if they are true.

To be non-offensive while addressing this issue is by far the only approach, but an incredible struggle for me (understatement).

A random grab of issues could include sex, charity, and work, and what motivates one in involvement in each of these.

People get so freaked out about these, and I like to talk about such. Sometimes it gets exhausting.

For example:

I honestly don't think people are born gay or straight, they just develop a desire and then go with it.

If I am wrong on this, maybe I was born gay, but somehow I am very hetero now.

Did I have to be gay? No. Hetero? No.

But that is beside the point. Interesting to me is why so many gays are so adament about saying they were born gay and there is nothing they could do about it, almost self stating that being gay is like some disease or something they were born with and which now they are condemned to make the best of.

Hey people! If you are going to be gay, be proud of it! It's your choice (OK, in my opinion). Live with your choice and be glad about it!

(group hug)

One other point on that: If certain acts done in public piss off the soccer moms, maybe it is a cultural thing. I attend the Love Parade, but like hell I would take my kids. Not everyone is used to same-sexers smootching for example. I'm not saying don't kiss, just be cool and aware of different strata and cultures. Thank goodness there is a love parade. What a relief! (And a release).

Anyway, another example:
Why is pre-marital sex bad?
There are so many divorces now, what difference does it make if you get married or not? Why not just do a "biblical" knowing of someone? They are a person you are devoted to, you love, take care of, and are committed to, and heck, you might even live with.

So let's make marriage really easy:

Go down to the magistrat and sign a paper "We are living together" - which gives you all of the benefits of marriage for that possibly snapshot of time.

Sure, that would be expensive and there are a lot of issues that are not that simple to solve, but in the big picture, what is the big deal?

Do people who say they are Christian and are against pre-marital sex have an incredible clue about sex in general? Are they scared of it? Are there many women in Christian circles who have gone years/decades without gaining an orgasm from their husband due to his non-experience, timidity, bashfulness or just the unspoken tabu topic hushed up so much in this subculture of society?

And, a big question:
If pre-marital sex is against The Bible, why aren't those other things mentioned in the earlier part of this thread? Or why don't those other things retain the same level of punishment?

Who decided this since those things were "written"? What is it called, fornication, where is that found?

I suppose a big point is "If God says it, don't argue, what God says, you just follow".

I just think things are really selective and convenient. Too convenient.

Gawd I hope it is sfe to say the more you read, the more insight you gain.
If I do a "sex" search in theBible, all I am getting is that we should avoid incest, because it can cause birth defects or piss off your dad:
http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?q...x&qs_version=31

Please tell me I am wrong. And tell me some emperic method od selecting what you believe in the Bible.
I'm looking at my watch.

Another example:
If someone wants to screw up a relationship with their Almighty, what is a better way to do it?

(1) Sleep and live with someone you love (which I don't at the moment),
or
(2) Trying to make it hard for people to commit what you think is sin (supporting anti-abortion legislation, any gay marriage, etc.) while at the same time you make no effort in saving them from an eternal hell that you are so sure exists.

Is it all appeasement of conscience?

If Jesus is love, and that love lives inside you, why the fuck aren't you waking up and telling people about it, instead of spinning your fucking wheels and letting them all die and go to the hell that you believe in and instead pursuing selfish goals and trying to get your way in politics, etc?

Why aren't you running to edge of the cliff to grab their hand to keep them from falling instead of letting shit they do offend fucking little you?

Calling Jesus...

"Jesus! They're using your name!"

"What? No! I don''t know who they are. Please come. Quickly!"

Does anyone think Pat Robertson is really a representative of Christ?

I certainly don't.

Thanks for your time.

The confusion...the confusion

Why?

I see this is about sex, then. I always thought there was some weird ass sexual vibes coming from those women so keen on conversion. I remain convinced that it's essentially a substitute, with much the same motivations driving both seduction and conversion. I won't try to back that up here. It's just a gut feeling I have.

On the question of homosexuality, best wisdom I got was in a completely off-topic discussion I had with my then 5-year old daughter. We have awesome conversations, they take incredible tangents and are fueled by excellent questions (Why, when I'm angry, do I feel like throwing things? -- do you see what an incredible opportunity a question like that is to explore theories of human behavior? Mad.). Anyway, all signs suggested that we would be in Munich for some time to come, and in the interests of prepping my daughter for the German school system, and the history she would be exposed to in that system, I often found myself talking about unfair rules, and how sometimes rules should be broken, and that the place we were living in had rules, in the not so distant past, of this sort. Not wanting to hit a young child over the head with the full horror of the holocaust, but challenged to give an example of an unfair rule that should be broken that was in place in Munich, I lit upon the laws prohibiting trade between people based on their race or religion or culture--and one of those forms of trade--marriage. Basically telling her that there were laws against certain people marrying certain other people. As an aside, I did drop in the fact that such rules do still exist.

Her response: "Well of course that's unfair. If two people love each other, they should be allowed to get married."

Being of the firm conviction that were adults to comport themselves in such a way that they could explain all of their actions, without discomfort, to a 5-year old, the world would be a better place, I figure that if one of those 5 year olds can see it, I've no real room to argue.

And I don't care what god has to say upon the matter.

Do you have any proof whatsoever to back up this claim? Do you believe your own, single experience gives you enough knowledge to cast judgement on the entire homosexual population? Nevermind the overwhelming scientific evidence that counters your claim?

What a ridiculous thing to say. How many gay people do you know, or even how many have you talked to? I would say 0.

They are not saying there is nothing they can do about it because they are ashamed of it, they are saying it because people like you make the stupid suggestion that it is a choice.

I am not gay, but the amount of gay bashing coming from religious people and organisations I find particularly insulting and disturbing. It reminds me of people that we all for segregation 50 years ago in the states.

Recently there was an advert run on American TV (I am not trying to America bash here) that was run by a Republican showing two men getting married in a church, whcih was meant to disgust their voting base so that they wouldn't vote for the Democrat. The people that this ad was targetting are exactly the same type of people who would have been affected in the same way if a similar ad was shown 50 years ago with a black and white person marrying in a church.

Kids. It's very simple.

Do you need to justify your existence?

Yes or No.

Have to admit that I found that statement ridiculous as well: choice implies intellect, and desire has very little to do with intellect. You feel it or you don't. What you do to realize that desire...well, that has everything to do with intellect, but that's after the feeling. I likes me women. I never chose that. I just do.

Besides that, I completely fail to see what this has to do with 'selectively' reading the Bible.

Selectivity comes not only in the form of choosing to disregard parts of the Bible, but in the decision surrounding what to include. I grew up in a religion with 4 (count 'em, 4) holy books, one of which was the Bible. Some people argue that including the other three is wrong.

If the M&RC forum were a bit better noted for it's conduciveness to thoughtful exchanges, we could get into how this resembles the choices surrounding which books go into the 'Canon' (it's essentially the same debate)...something I could truly natter on about...but somehow, I don't see that playing as well as pictures of well-endowed, scantily clad women. So, since we're off topic anyway...anyone feel like leading us into temptation?

(Forgive me father...impure thoughts...impure actions...touch...body...dirty...impure...)

All the religions cultures and traditions share most of the same archetypes anyway, and have done since we first tasted hallucenogenic fungii etc early in our evolution, and begun to have mystical experiences. Its almost as if we all started with the same coloring book, and different cultures simply coloured it in with different colors. Or wrote books with the same plot and merely altered the settings to suit. The rules and laws we make up are like that too, differering because not every community has the same needs, or at least didnt in the times gone by. I wouldnt get too hung up in the specific rules laid out in the bible, unless you want to. If you are concerned about homosexuality being wrong then the best advice I could give would be not to fuck people the same sex as you.
Anyway what brought all these questions really? Are you concerned about how you are living? Or about other people? A lot of this is all pretty subjective. Unless you want to make a committment to a particular organized religion then I suggest you just do as you please provided it doesnt prevent anyone else from doing the same.

But I feel the issue you are trying to get at is something else...

Don't worry. If the people currently reading the thread is any indication of the terrain we're about to cover, it'll all be cleared up by day's end.

Ha I just saw this.
unfortunately have no time today...
but just to write just one post!

------
Matthew 5:18
"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

-------

This is true in the sense that When Jesus said this, The law was not fulfilled.
At Jesus death, all the requirements of the Law was fulfilled, He being the perfect sacrifice.
That means, the Covenent we are under today is the new covenant of Grace.

So When Jesus said these words, He meant it. All WAS accomplished at the Cross!

Power! man Power!
Without Jesus, we are all Dead! Forever!

32 posts and 20 hours elapsed before your entry - you're losing your touch psioni

"So Matt, how's the creative writing course going ?"
"Great, great, we're exploring the whole Dan Brown quasi-religious mystery thing"
"Cool, maybe you can show me some of your stuff some time ?"
"No problem, hey how about I bring a few guys from my class over some night ? You know , everybody brings a bottle of water, you chip in a loaf and a fish and we can do some readings."
"Sure, who's coming"
"Luke, John, maybe Mark but he might be getting his tattoo finished"
"Tattoo ?"
"Yeah, some winged lion thing ? Guy does too much posting on evangelist_on_acid.net if you ask me, anyway see ya Friday !"

What I like best is how well the smileys reinforce the message.

SHOCK AND AWE!

Who we gonna kill today Jesus?

I think over analysis causes paralysis. To put it simply (maybe I'm oversimplifying this topic), Jesus said "Love God above all and your neighbour as yourself" and that "Love is the fulfilling of the law". I think that is the ultimate message in a nutshell. But that's just me, I'm no cleric nor am I religious.

I just want to know how we could all be dead for "a bit". If yer dead, yer dead

Fuckin' good job we're not livin' right next door to all those Iraqi civilians then, ain't it.

@mork: whaddya mean, 'love'?

Well regarding God, probably agape, regarding other people, probably philia.

If you claim to be a member of a religion then you follow its rules. No religion says "Follow the stuff you agree with and ignore the rest." It's not a cafeteria; it's all or nothing, especially since one of the first rules in any religion says that you have to believe in all the bits.

Either follow it all or admit it's a load of shit.

woof.

Or akimbo.


Baddoggie's motivational techniques were never really going to be a big hit at the brain-washing camp.

that's nonsense. Who makes these rules? Further who says you have to follow them?

I say it is a cafeteria and I choose to believe in a talking snake, the power to clear my mind of noise and the ability to cast love spells on my favourite movie stars.

Wait, wait, wait! Didn't I hear somewhere that The Word of The Lord is "Love"? Ergo, all the devote Christians shouldn't be on TT at all.

Now get back to the orgy you sinners!

@sin: No shit. I tried to steer it that way back in post #30, but do they listen to me?

I agree the rules are nonsense which is why I belong to no religion. I didn't write the books; various scoundrels over the centuries have, most of whom claimed to have spent a few years wandering around in a desert. Every single major religion states right at the beginning of a book that its god(s) is/are the only true god(s) and that the religion is the One True Path. Failing to accept that can get you seriously killed in many countries even today.

woof.

Religion is not really like football. One of the great things about football/soccer is that the dimensions of the pitch and the whole conduct of the game are described in about 21 rules (it may be a bit more now that goalies can't pick up backpasses), and is perhaps one of the reasons for it's worldwide popularity.

To think that the 10 commandments are the [insert religion here]'s equivalent of a rule book is a bit simplistic. If you think the whole "holy book" makes up the rule book, then things are a bit more complicated. Concerning christianity, I think Kza's first post summed up the history and meaning of the bible quite well.

Didn't say anything about a 'a bit'.

If you are dead, Physically you are dead. but 'you' as a soul/spirit lives on.
(Why are you people so uneducated..huh?)
Once you are dead, you have no chance to change your future!

get it ?

*peace* and *war*. are 2 sides of the same coin.
-gone 4 today-