Christians: Can you defend these verses of the Bible?

stlrtruck said:

I don't stick to the "That was then, this is now" application to the bible. If that was the case then I'm sure God would have commanded a new bible be written every so often. I mean let's face it, some authors re-write their book every year or every 5 years just to pocket the money.

Click to expand...

First of all, the religion section of any bookstore - including (especially) the most doctrinaire bookstores - are chock full of people pocketing the money by repeating various formulaic praises of God; so the difference in publishing dollars is probably in favor of orthodoxy. It is the single best-selling book in history; it is, therefore, the least likely book to be ecclipsed by sales of sequels.

Secondly: since you don't stick to the "That was then, this is now" application, do you keep kosher? Trim your beard? Suffer witches to live? Kill homosexuals? Take disobedient children to the city gates and stone them?

You are correct that one must read the bible in its context. But reading it in its context consists of "That was then [i.e., those circumstances]; this is now."

So with that in mind, we have to realize that God has given us a step by step guide on how to live for Him. And truly that's what we should be wanting to do, assuming you have accepted ************ as Lord and Saviour.

Click to expand...

Bad assumption

First, the Old Testament

Click to expand...

Your parochialism is noted. The value-neutral term is Hebrew bible. The traditional term among the people who produced these works is Tanakh.

was for the times before ************ and while we can still apply God's principles from that period to today's living, the laws were made void when ************ died on the cross.

Click to expand...

"That was then, this is now."

As for the verse in 1 Corinthians, I did the service a year ago on Father's Day and I quoted this verse, not as a means to say that "Men are better than women" but instead that Men need to have an understanding of the bible and God's word so that when the moment arises, they should definitely have Godly answers and be able to apply Godly principles to life situations.

Click to expand...

Once again, your heart is in the right place, as your conclusion indicates; but the fact is, you could not live with yourself if you lived the way the recipients of these books lived. By that I mean either at the outset of the religion Jesus practiced, or at the outset of the religion that celebrates Jesus. Hell, not more than a couple of decades went by before Christians found themselves unable to even eat the same diet Jesus ate, or to practice circumcision.

Second, we have to be careful of two things. One is that we are reading a translated copy of the bible and sometimes the translations are not accurate. Two is taking bible verses out of context without having an understanding of audience of the intended author.

Click to expand...

Errors and willful perversions of translation are indeed an interesting subject, and #2 is indeed one of the many pitfalls one can fall into when reading the bible. It is also necessary to take into account the preexistent texts copied into biblical stories in the case of the Hebrew bible, and to take into account the interests of various factions in the case of both the Hebrew and Greek bibles. It is also instructive in studying any ancient texts, to understand that word choice, style, and rhetoric amount to something like a fingerprint, and to understand that just because somebody told you two joined passages were written by the same person does not mean it is so.

Finally, it takes blind faith to know that God is infallable...I've learned that many people today can blindly trust their coach or favorite team but lack even 1/10 of this trust in God.

Click to expand...

God can be infallible, indeed, in most formulations must be infallible. The men who record the bible are not necessarily so -- although the orthodox among Christians and Jews will always insist (as is in their interest) to the contrary.

The Kabalists and of course the Reform, among Jews, and many modern Christians, will admit as much.

PFnV

The best place on this planet to discuss God (all the peoples God) is by a campfire out in the middle of nowhere with several gallons of red wine (jesus liked wine) and some Lamb Chops to put over the fire and "cook on a stick" in this atmosphere one can feel God inside softly saying, "ahhh, this is good"

Look Up, The Stars Twinkle And Shine, God Is Happy With You, Campfire, Wine, Lamb Chops, Salt Shaker, Friends, God Is Truly Great.

We'll all get together up yonder in a little while---(Johnny Cash)

Harry Boy said:

The best place on this planet to discuss God (all the peoples God) is by a campfire out in the middle of nowhere with several gallons of red wine (jesus liked wine) and some Lamb Chops to put over the fire and "cook on a stick" in this atmosphere one can feel God inside softly saying, "ahhh, this is good"

Look Up, The Stars Twinkle And Shine, God Is Happy With You, Campfire, Wine, Lamb Chops, Salt Shaker, Friends, God Is Truly Great.

We'll all get together up yonder in a little while---(Johnny Cash)

Click to expand...

heaven without pizza isnt a place i want to be.

patriotspride said:

heaven without pizza isnt a place i want to be.

Click to expand...

They must have pizza in heaven... AND it helps ya get there faster! LOL

Bump. Too interesting to just let fade away...

My $ .02 - I grew up in a Christian denomination in which ordaining women was a norm from the beginning. Never was an issue for me. The primary reason it seems to me that so many misconstrue what Paul is saying (in Timothy) is that they are committed a priori to the concept of male authority in the church leadership, ignoring the one primary piece of hermeneutic guidance that gets buried more than any other: authorial intent. Paul wrote to the church at Ephesus to correct a specific problem that arose from "false teachers" (Elders no less) who were leading the younger widows into all kinds of crazy behavior, even to disrupting their meetings together for worship and instruction. In that specific situation he speaks to that issue, and provides a corrective remedy, which Timothy is to help carry out. There is no indication that this is a directive aimed at the rest of the home churches in existence, and Paul's primary intent - as stated in the letter - is to fix what's broken at Ephesus.

I also understand that, with my background, others could accuse me of an a priori commitment to female leadership in the church. Could be - no one comes with a clean slate. I dunno, seems like if God is going to gift half the population with the ability to lead...

That's my story and I'm sticking to it. Thanks to all who have contributed to this thread. Including the pizza/heaven thingy. :rocker:

Note: I more often hear Timothy quoted than 1 Corinthians in support of Girl Gagging, and so used that in my comments. The rationale is the same for both: Paul's intent was directed at specific issues, not creating a theology book.

The stuff about "that was in the old testament, so it's negated by "Jesus"", doesn't make any sense.

First, God is a constant. So according to God, it's OK to beat your slaves and kill them (as long as it takes a couple days) and it's OK to kill children who are disobedient, etc. God and Jesus are THE SAME, are they not? Jesus is God, right? Can we agree on that? OK, then, Jesus didn't "change" anything, he is God, the same God who did all those seemingly cruel backwardass things in the Old Testament.

Didn't Jesus say that he didn't come to "change one bit of Mosaic law"? Well, then, why insist that he did? All Mosaic law gets thrown right out the window! Neato. Why? "Cause Jesus, the son, died on a cross for our sins". That is truly a line that is repeated so much that I think people who say it don't realize what utter gibberish it is. "God so loved us that he sent his ONLY SON to die on a cross...so instead of being tortured (which we really deserve, cause like Adam bit an apple a long time ago), we can go to heaven!...well unless you're such a jerk that you don't or can't force yourself to believe this stuff...then you deserve to go to hell! To be tortured. Cause God loves you!".

How can any person in their right mind believe this nonsense? The same group that calls Mormonism a cult is involved in the biggest most idiotic cult of all time. How ironic.

maryjane said:

The stuff about "that was in the old testament, so it's negated by "Jesus"", doesn't make any sense.

First, God is a constant. So according to God, it's OK to beat your slaves and kill them (as long as it takes a couple days) and it's OK to kill children who are disobedient, etc. God and Jesus are THE SAME, are they not? Jesus is God, right? Can we agree on that? OK, then, Jesus didn't "change" anything, he is God, the same God who did all those seemingly cruel backwardass things in the Old Testament.

Didn't Jesus say that he didn't come to "change one bit of Mosaic law"? Well, then, why insist that he did? All Mosaic law gets thrown right out the window! Neato. Why? "Cause Jesus, the son, died on a cross for our sins". That is truly a line that is repeated so much that I think people who say it don't realize what utter gibberish it is. "God so loved us that he sent his ONLY SON to die on a cross...so instead of being tortured (which we really deserve, cause like Adam bit an apple a long time ago), we can go to heaven!...well unless you're such a jerk that you don't or can't force yourself to believe this stuff...then you deserve to go to hell! To be tortured. Cause God loves you!".

How can any person in their right mind believe this nonsense? The same group that calls Mormonism a cult is involved in the biggest most idiotic cult of all time. How ironic.

Click to expand...

No need to be so angry and insulting. There are many intelligent people who happen to believe and interpret things differently than you. I agree that many Christians spend much too much time being harsh and judgemental rather than expressing the message of love that is behind the teachings of Christ. Paying the penalty of our sins so that we may have eternal life, for me, is the greatest act of love I can imagine.

But I do appreciate your questions, for I once had them too, and it wasnt something someone could convince me of, I had to experience it for myself.

There is an excellent book, The Case for Christ, by a former non-believer named Lee Strobel, that explains these things far better than I could. If you get a chance, take a read, not to necessarily change your mind, but to get an understanding on maybe where the believers come by their faith and why.

Lifer said:

No need to be so angry and insulting. There are many intelligent people who happen to believe and interpret things differently than you. I agree that many Christians spend much too much time being harsh and judgemental rather than expressing the message of love that is behind the teachings of Christ. Paying the penalty of our sins so that we may have eternal life, for me, is the greatest act of love I can imagine.

But I do appreciate your questions, for I once had them too, and it wasnt something someone could convince me of, I had to experience it for myself.

There is an excellent book, The Case for Christ, by a former non-believer named Lee Strobel, that explains these things far better than I could. If you get a chance, take a read, not to necessarily change your mind, but to get an understanding on maybe where the believers come by their faith and why.

Click to expand...

I think most believers don't ask themselves rational questions. They've moved to kind of a "post rational" analysis. It feels good. I had to go to church for years as a kid, a very fundamentalist church, so I'm familiar with all the arguements and have read a lot of the stuff.

God paid the penalty for your sins. And who decided what the penalty was going to be? God. So God sets up a ridiculously cruel punishment system and then comes down to earth and "satisfies" the punishment by spilling his blood so no one has to be punished at all. What a nice guy!

Well, only if they believe the above. IF they don't believe it, either becuase they've never heard of it, or because it just doesn't move them, then they get tortured forever. Even if they've lived a very clean sober life. And if you're a total jerk and have caused much suffering, it's OK, as long as you repent before you die.

How does a Christian believe this stuff? How do you go about yoru day thinking that about 99% of your fellow humans are in for unimagineable permanent torture at the hands of your all loving God? Because they weren't able to make themselves believe in something....how do you make yourself believe something that you don't believe anyway?

At some point do you just say "this is madness"?

maryjane said:

I think most believers don't ask themselves rational questions. They've moved to kind of a "post rational" analysis. It feels good. I had to go to church for years as a kid, a very fundamentalist church, so I'm familiar with all the arguements and have read a lot of the stuff.

God paid the penalty for your sins. And who decided what the penalty was going to be? God. So God sets up a ridiculously cruel punishment system and then comes down to earth and "satisfies" the punishment by spilling his blood so no one has to be punished at all. What a nice guy!

Well, only if they believe the above. IF they don't believe it, either becuase they've never heard of it, or because it just doesn't move them, then they get tortured forever. Even if they've lived a very clean sober life. And if you're a total jerk and have caused much suffering, it's OK, as long as you repent before you die.

How does a Christian believe this stuff? How do you go about yoru day thinking that about 99% of your fellow humans are in for unimagineable permanent torture at the hands of your all loving God? Because they weren't able to make themselves believe in something....how do you make yourself believe something that you don't believe anyway?

At some point do you just say "this is madness"?

Click to expand...

again, I think you are over-simplifying and putting your harsh and angry spin on the story and im not going to debate it with you. I would say, though, your 99% is way, way off. Unlike a lot of unbiblical teachings, the path is not, in reality, per scripture, that narrow. Yes, a belief in ************ is required, but all the other hoops that some teach to control, being perfectly holy, doing this or that, is not. And there many, many believers in the world.

beyond that, i wish you luck in your spiritual journey.

Deuteronomy 2:1,2

Such ‘castration’ did not relate to congenital defects or to an accidental condition. (Compare Le 21:17-21; De 25:11,*12.) Evidently, therefore, it had to do with deliberate emasculation for immoral purposes, such as homosexuality. Such a one was to be kept out of the congregation, not being allowed to associate with it, thereby protecting its purity.

God did not invent or create religion. He gave us the Bible using 40 different writers to write down his thoughts.
Much of the laws recorded in the Old Testament were replaced after Jesus came to earth. He respected the laws, but many of them were misused by the Jews and were not properly shared with the people.
Thats why Jesus remarked that the people at the that time "were like sheep without a shepard." and referred to the Jewish leaders and Pharisees as "blind guides."

In the end, man created religion. And through religion it has done a magnificent job of screwing up the Bible.

Today people call religious leaders father. Um, I think thats wrong to do
Worship the dead, dress up as ghosts, demons and murderers for Halloween, then 2 months later celebrate Jesus birth. Nice.

Falsely celebrate Jesus birthday on December 25th, let alone celebrate it at all as we are not told to in the Bible.
Religions hold hands for centuries with political leaders and bless troops as they go off to war rather than try to stop wars.
Who's the easter rabbit. Whats easter anyways? Whats the true origin of christmas? Who's Santa Claus? whats the origin of celebrating New Years?
and on and on and on.

Funny thing is many so-called christian religions know these things are false, buuuut they just don't feel like sharing that truth. If they did, they may prove how useless they are anyways as I'm sure many would celebrate these holidays anyways.

Sad.

Lifer said:

again, I think you are over-simplifying and putting your harsh and angry spin on the story and im not going to debate it with you. I would say, though, your 99% is way, way off. Unlike a lot of unbiblical teachings, the path is not, in reality, per scripture, that narrow. Yes, a belief in ************ is required, but all the other hoops that some teach to control, being perfectly holy, doing this or that, is not. And there many, many believers in the world.

beyond that, i wish you luck in your spiritual journey.

Click to expand...

LIfer, these are valid points MJ is raising. The salvation system does, indeed, seem to be "If you believe, I'll spare you the torment, which I myself created."

And the apologia is steeped in the idea that you, the believer, are to blame in the first place.

I have to say it's a bit much, from a non-Christian perspective. There are two obvious questions begged here:

1. HOW can one believe in Hell, and
2. WHY would one believe in Hell?

Maryjane's done us all a service and put aside "chapter and verse" thinking, and gone straight to the level of argument. Since all argument will be clothed in scripture anyway, it seems like it just saves us all a penis-measuring contest in which we use biblical verse as the ruler.

Let's get to the actual argumentation its ownself: Why would one believe in Hell? HOW does one manage to believe it?

PFnV

PatsFanInVa said:

Let's get to the actual argumentation its ownself: Why would one believe in Hell? HOW does one manage to believe it?

PFnV

Click to expand...

My understanding of the Bible is that hell is a place of punishment for the spirit beings (angels) who rebelled against God and were chucked - lock, stock and tomahawk - out of heaven.
I recall wondering, if, after the whole OT/NT story plays out - the fall, redemption, everything new again - some lousy angel does the same thing all over again, and God has to implement another plan to deal with that.
And this is where hell comes in, IMHO - hell is a visible object lesson for spirit beings as to the consequences of rebelling against their creator. The point being, that this tangible reminder will preclude another cycle of rebellion, redemption, etc.
In my opinion, hell was never created for the punishment of man, but for Satan and his crowd. No human goes there by God's desire or will - only by a rejection of God's offering of a way out.
There's no comprehensive treatment of this in Scripture, just an outline of information on which I base that which I believe to be the most reasonable explanation of what I read/see.

Well that's certainly a new one on me - there is a Hell, but it's not for us, so we needn't worry about it.

Any others here want to discuss the role of Hell in the afterlife, or did I simply misunderstand the thousands of caricaturists claiming I was going to burn for eternity? Were they saying I was a "spirit being", but a bad one?

JLC, good answer by the way, and more than anyone else bothered with. A little Miltonian for my tastes but I'll take it, given the alternatives one gets hereabouts.

PFnV

PatsFanInVa said:

Well that's certainly a new one on me - there is a Hell, but it's not for us, so we needn't worry about it.

Any others here want to discuss the role of Hell in the afterlife, or did I simply misunderstand the thousands of caricaturists claiming I was going to burn for eternity? Were they saying I was a "spirit being", but a bad one?

JLC, good answer by the way, and more than anyone else bothered with. A little Miltonian for my tastes but I'll take it, given the alternatives one gets hereabouts.

PFnV

Click to expand...

Actually this is what JLC said.......

"In my opinion, hell was never created for the punishment of man, but for Satan and his crowd. No human goes there by God's desire or will - only by a rejection of God's offering of a way out."

He didnt say we didnt have to worry about it. He said it wasnt MEANT for us.
And I really liked the way it was said it is not Gods desire, but mans rejection of the way out, which causes the issue.

Thanks, JLC.

Okay, JLC, weigh in here if you would...

It wasn't meant for us, but we still have to worry about it? This seems to be Lifer's idea of what you said.

I believe he means -- and Lifer, correct me if I'm wrong here -- that we can still GO to Hell, even though it wasn't "meant" for us?

So there are things we can do which land us in Hell, or there are not? If so, are these things that God did not consider or did not know we could or would do? If not, what does "meant" mean in this context?

Thanks,

PFnV

Hebrew and Christian texts are written by humans, so all the words are filtered through the eyes of the person writing it.

This applies not just for cultural questions like you have raised, but also more practical issues like what were the texts talking about concerning prophets getting into chariots and going up into the sky?

My personal opinion about chariots is that they were space ships that went up into space, which in text somehow became a chariot going up into the heavens. I know this isn't really what you were asking, but another example of how texts are warped based on human perception.

PatsFanInVa said:

Okay, JLC, weigh in here if you would...

It wasn't meant for us, but we still have to worry about it? This seems to be Lifer's idea of what you said.

I believe he means -- and Lifer, correct me if I'm wrong here -- that we can still GO to Hell, even though it wasn't "meant" for us?

So there are things we can do which land us in Hell, or there are not? If so, are these things that God did not consider or did not know we could or would do? If not, what does "meant" mean in this context?

Thanks,

PFnV

Click to expand...

Rather than get into an issue over what JLC said, I will rely on the Word says.
That way the important focus wont be lost.

we might as well have an argument about Lord of the Rings.

Wildo7 said:

we might as well have an argument about Lord of the Rings.

Click to expand...

true. Shouldnt argue anyway. Nobody ever came to Faith because thet lost the arguement.

Whats interesting to me how many people WILL go on and on discussing matters pertaining to "The Force" or Klingons or Aliens and things featured on "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" and will take many theories as faith things involving extra-terrestrials or Ghosts or all sorts of supernatural things, they'll pay big money to Psychics and they will believe their Grandmother watches over them like in the movies. Or they believe in a Heaven concocted up by Albert Brooks where the Sushi is great or in the one that Patrick Swayze went to.

But when a man fulfills hundreds of prohesies that were written long before his time in a book that has been researched and challenged more than any other in history and STILL has never been disproven, people will say "Awww, that cant happen....anyone believing in that must be stupid"

Its nothing I care to argue about, its just interesting to me how a society so wanting to believe any fairy tale that it hears gets so closed minded and "scientific" about anything involving the idea of a Creator.