Problem with the Bible

[TonyG]

Long time lurker, first time poster...

Recently I was in a "discussion" with a buddy of mine who is bible purist (believes it word for word). I told him I couldn't put any faith in a book that tells me it's an abomination to eat shellfish, but that slavery is ok. His response was that it couldn't be taken literally and that the times change. Who are we to decide what rules should still be followed?

 

[MSizer]

Long time lurker, first time poster...

Recently I was in a "discussion" with a buddy of mine who is bible purist (believes it word for word). I told him I couldn't put any faith in a book that tells me it's an abomination to eat shellfish, but that slavery is ok. His response was that it couldn't be taken literally and that the times change. Who are we to decide what rules should still be followed?

Welcome aboard. You'll get a varied range of opinions on that, some of which will side with your view, some of which will treat it literally.
cheers.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Long time lurker, first time poster...

Recently I was in a "discussion" with a buddy of mine who is bible purist (believes it word for word). I told him I couldn't put any faith in a book that tells me it's an abomination to eat shellfish, but that slavery is ok. His response was that it couldn't be taken literally and that the times change. Who are we to decide what rules should still be followed?

Is your buddy also a vegan who eats steak?

 

[TonyG]

Welcome aboard. You'll get a varied range of opinions on that, some of which will side with your view, some of which will treat it literally.
cheers.

Your take?

 

[TonyG]

Is your buddy also a vegan who eats steak?

My point exactly....

 

[MSizer]

Your take?

My take is that theological answers always depend on "Faith", which means somewhere in the argument reality was ignored so as to skate around an issue that is in conflict with their dogma. They seem to think that's ok. I (and many others of course) disagree wholeheartedly, but they'll continue conveniently rationalizing away the flaws in thier opinions.

 

[Mister Emu]

Some excerpts from Summa Theologica:

Proportionately, therefore, the ceremonies of the first-mentioned state which foreshadowed the second and third states, had need to cease at the advent of the second state

The Old Law is said to be "for ever" simply and absolutely, as regards its moral precepts; but as regards the ceremonial precepts it lasts for even in respect of the reality which those ceremonies foreshadowed.
from http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2103.htm

Gives a general western view...

 

[TonyG]

Some excerpts from Summa Theologica:

Proportionately, therefore, the ceremonies of the first-mentioned state which foreshadowed the second and third states, had need to cease at the advent of the second state

The Old Law is said to be "for ever" simply and absolutely, as regards its moral precepts; but as regards the ceremonial precepts it lasts for even in respect of the reality which those ceremonies foreshadowed.
from

Gives a general western view...

Isn't that as simple as following good moral values? Why does religion have to play a role? A reasonable person doesn't lie, cheat, steal, kill, etc. regardless of their personal religious beliefs.

 

[Riverwolf]

Long time lurker, first time poster...

Recently I was in a "discussion" with a buddy of mine who is bible purist (believes it word for word). I told him I couldn't put any faith in a book that tells me it's an abomination to eat shellfish, but that slavery is ok. His response was that it couldn't be taken literally and that the times change. Who are we to decide what rules should still be followed?

First step: recognize that the Biblical canon (any of the canons will do for this) is not a single book, but a small library of books. Think of the Old Testament, which is the Jewish Tanakh with a reordering of the books, as a "best of" collection of Jewish writings, and the New Testament as a "best of" Christian writings. Like any "best of" collection, there's always that one book, song, painting, whatever, that we wish was on there, and that one that is on there that we think shouldn't be there.

 

[Mister Emu]

Isn't that as simple as following good moral values? Why does religion have to play a role?

Because, unfortunately, nobody can "simply" be moral 100% of the time.

 

[TonyG]

Because, unfortunately, nobody can "simply" be moral 100% of the time.

Very true, but honestly we don't have to be. Nor does anyone follow religion "beliefs" 100% of time. It's absurd to think that even the Pope himself doesn't have a sexual thought from time to time. It's human nature... but then I'm opening a whole other can of worms

 

[Mister Emu]

Nor does anyone follow religion "beliefs" 100% of time. It's absurd to think that even the Pope himself doesn't have a sexual thought from time to time.

You reiterate my point...

But this is moving away from the topic...

Your friend is a descendant of a line of philosophy, that he may not be fully aware of, in which certain aspects of the OT are viewed as ceremonial and were made unnecessary with the incarnation.

 

[Archer]

Long time lurker, first time poster...

Recently I was in a "discussion" with a buddy of mine who is bible purist (believes it word for word). I told him I couldn't put any faith in a book that tells me it's an abomination to eat shellfish, but that slavery is ok. His response was that it couldn't be taken literally and that the times change. Who are we to decide what rules should still be followed?

You reiterate my point...

But this is moving away from the topic...

Your friend is a descendant of a line of philosophy, that he may not be fully aware of, in which certain aspects of the OT are viewed as ceremonial and were made unnecessary with the incarnation.

Add to EMU, to hold one on is to hold all. Is he a Jew? If not he better read what the new testament has to say about the old yoke.

 

[Charity]

Long time lurker, first time poster...

Recently I was in a "discussion" with a buddy of mine who is bible purist (believes it word for word). I told him I couldn't put any faith in a book that tells me it's an abomination to eat shellfish, but that slavery is ok. His response was that it couldn't be taken literally and that the times change. Who are we to decide what rules should still be followed?

First of all "Welcome to the forum"

I would lean toward calling your buddy a "fundamentalist"
I suggest you read it for your self, sincerely meditate (not necessarily am I suggesting pray unless you believe in prayer) and do lots of study, read on some other religions and then draw your own conclusions.

 

[averageJOE]

I've had this discussion before. The most common response I get is that all of that changed in the NEW Testament. I usually get directed to the NEW Testament. (And Archer is trying to do the same with you.) The New Testament "says" that people can now eat whatever they want.

To me, the New Testament should just be called "Wait!! God changed his mind!!: Testament."

 

[Charity]

I've had this discussion before. The most common response I get is that all of that changed in the NEW Testament. I usually get directed to the NEW Testament. (And Archer is trying to do the same with you.) The New Testament "says" that people can now eat whatever they want.

To me, the New Testament should just be called "Wait!! God changed his mind!!: Testament."

I understand your confusion but if you will read it then you will understand why people are telling you this.....Don't take anyone's word for it, read it "yourself".

 

[McBell]

To me, the New Testament should just be called "Wait!! God changed his mind!!: Testament."

Exactly.

Though for some reason people seem to think that by saying he "Fulfilled" the law, they can stick to their "never changing god" dogma.

Oh, the gymnastics.....

 

[TonyG]

I've had this discussion before. The most common response I get is that all of that changed in the NEW Testament. I usually get directed to the NEW Testament. (And Archer is trying to do the same with you.) The New Testament "says" that people can now eat whatever they want.

To me, the New Testament should just be called "Wait!! God changed his mind!!: Testament."

Exactly! This was my original point. So He changed his mind and they created the sequel? When does the third installment come out?

 

[McBell]

Exactly! This was my original point. So He changed his mind and they created the sequel? When does the third installment come out?

Depends upon your PoV.

Some say that the Book of Mormon is the next instalment.
Some say that the Koran is the next instalment.
Some say that there will not be another instalment.

 

[Charity]

Exactly! This was my original point. So He changed his mind and they created the sequel? When does the third installment come out?

God never changed His mind, He is the same, yesterday, today and forever....

The whole sacrificial system of the OT was a symbolic portrayal to be fulfilled in Christ.