Have you read the whole Bible enough to make claims about it?

[Shermana]

It's possible that you misunderstand what someone means when they say this.

If you look at hebraic law (which preceeded Jesus) there are hundreds of different instructions to follow. (I forget the exact number, but I vaguely recall it being between 600 and 800 different laws, excluding duplicates.)

Indeed, I understand very well that Jesus was implying ALL the laws. It is perhaps you who misunderstood what I'm saying here. Many Christians (mostly all) believe that you don't have to obey any of the Law, and that Jesus was REPLACING the law with these two commandments, rather than what he actually says is that he summarizes them.

However, the jewish sage Hillel the elder was once challenged to recite the entire law while standing on one foot. In response, he said:
"That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn."

"Go and learn" means "Go read the rest of the details".

In the same manner, I could claim that the only thing Jesus taught was the great commandment. For example, the golden rule (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you) is an explanation of how to "love others as you love yourself."

That's kind of what I'm saying most Christians do.

Hillel did not see the Torah as containing hundreds of laws. He saw it containing one law, and hundreds of explanations. Similarly, it's possible that the christians you hear aren't ignorant of what Jesus said. They just see most of it as examples which explain one teaching.

Well in that case, I guess you're basically saying the same thing I'm saying that the "Summary" INCLUDES all those commandments as being contained in those laws.

I've read the entire new testament, and the majority of the old testament.

Very good. Most haven't even done that.

Depends on the claim. My memory is not perfect. My understanding of the context the bible was written in (the society it was written in, the history of the author, the intended audience) is limited.

Well the discussion is about whether or not one should be willing to make bold assertions and claims as if matter of fact about the subject if they only have a limited understanding.

It depends on my goals. I found a couple chapters to be wonderful cures for insomnia. However, if my goal is to learn how to treat people better, I don't think I really need to know the proper way to consecrate a temple or sacrifice a lamb.

That's fine I guess but it's important to know the specifics of even the Temple sacrifices to be able to discuss the implications of Jesus as a sacrifice I'd think.

In your classes in school, did you have to read the entire textbook before the first discussion group? Did you even have to read the entire textbook before the final exam?

If you wanted to pass the Honors classes, you really needed to read the whole chapters.

I recommend that people learn about their beliefs. I think they'll learn faster if they engage in discussions during the learning process.

I agree.

Do you ever discuss matters of personal health? If so, when did you get your medical degree?

Can't really compare.

I'd actually lean the other way. People should begin participating in discussions even at the very beginning of the learning process.

I agree.

I think knowledge of a few key verses is crucial.

Yes, however as you agree....

I see too many christians cherry-picking verses that serve their own biases without acknowledging that those verses should only be examined in relation to the most important teachings (the great commandment, the golden rule, the love chapter).

Indeed. And then there's the problem of the context of those verses. It seems that they'll ignore vast swaths of the text but rely on just a few cherry picked verses which they think somehow negates or trumps all the other verses that indicates something very different than the conclusion their confirmation bias entails.

 

[Karl R]

Well in that case, I guess you're basically saying the same thing I'm saying that the "Summary" INCLUDES all those commandments as being contained in those laws.

I think our views our similar, but not the same. I'll use the statement of yours which I quoted to demonstrate the differences.

I think we can both see how "Thou shalt not commit adultery," would be contained within "Love others."

But according to a strict, biblical interpretation of the term "adultery," I could cheat on my wife without committing adultery (provided I had sex with an unmarried woman).

The bible describes adultery as sex between a man and a married woman who is not his wife. (The marital status of the man is irrelevant.) This definition reflects the cultural biases of the times. As someone who will "cherry-pick" the great commandment and golden rule as being more important than the ten commandments, I would say that me cheating on my wife is equally as adulterous as her cheating on me.

When I was younger (and single), two different men explicitly told me that I had their permission to have sex with their wives. Even though a strict old testament interpretation would say that a single man having sex with a married woman is adultery, I consider it to be an exception if the spouse has explicitly given permission in advance. I don't see how the great commandment and golden rule prohibit that behavior.

Taking it from a specific example to general cases:
I don't believe that we should ignore the old law just because we have the great commandment and golden rule.

I don't believe that we should include the entire old law. (I get the impression that you believe people should, though you don't say so explicitly)

I believe that each part of the old law has to be reexamined in light of the great commandment in order to see if it needs to be kept, discarded or modified.

 

[Shermana]

That is correct, adultery only applies to a married woman. A married man can go on the town all he wants technically. As long as he stays away from married women.

Whether you believe we should include the entire old law however has nothing to do with what Jesus actually says on the matter, which is that you DO have to. Likewise, what I believe has nothing to do with it. We're talking about what the text itself says. Anyone who teaches to break the LEAST of the commandments shall be called the Least in the Kingdom. I'm not taking the risk of being called the least to say the least.