Why can Christians pick and choose which parts of the Bible to believe?

[texan1]

In order to believe that the Bible is truly the word of God, it seems that you would have to believe that God can speak directly through humans. He spoke through the authors of the Bible who put the Holy Creator's words into this holy text.

Why then is it ok for mere humans to pick and choose which passages to believe in, which to take literally, which to disregard all together and how to interpret all facets of it? Most churches talk about a loving, forgiving God and talk about Jesus as the Prince of Peace. But when I read the Bible I can't seem to find this God in there. Much of what is in the Bible, especially the Old Testament, depicts an angry vengeful and frightening God (Leviticus for example). There are also laws outlined (in Dueteronomyfor example) that say women should be covered, they will be stoned to death in public for adultery, and are considered about as valuable as cattle. Most "Christians" I know certainly don't believe in these Taliban-like values.

Are there any Christians who might be able to explain how they reconcile this? Why you get to pick and choose only small sections of the Bible to believe in? And if you are free to do that, do you really believe it is the Divine Word? Do you think Christianity has actually evolved away from the Bible?

 

[Starfish]

The LDS perspective is that valuable parts of the Bible have been lost, and some parts have been altered through the many translations. Other parts of the Bible have no reason to be there. However, the Bible still contains much for us to gain from. It also contains the life of Christ and his words, which is part of the greatest value of the Bible.
We believe the Lord foresaw this happening to his book. So he set in place another book to be written, which contains his gospel. Upon it's completion, this book was hidden away, instead of being left in human hands subject to alterings and varied translations through the centuries.
So we have the Book of Mormon, a book of scripture, written in 600 BC to 400 AD, which clarifies and explains those confusing parts of the Bible. It was God's way of preserving his word in it's purity.

The Bible was written by prophets. The Book of Mormon was written by prophets. We also have prophets today, to help us clarify God's word, just as in times of old. So through the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and our current prophet, we are able to clearly understand the Gospel, Christianity, and what God would have us do.

Many religions do pick and choose, and we may appear to do the same; we just feel we have a better understanding of it.

 

[texan1]

Thank you so much for your thoughtful response Starfish. I'd be interested to hear from other Christian religions. This is one of the main reasons I doubt the Christian religion I was brought up in. Why do we follow some parts and disregard other parts? How do we know these prophets are really speaking the word of God? And why do so many prophets contradict each other? How do we know that some of them weren't just kind of crazy, like David Koresh in Waco? We just don't know that. I guess that's why it's called "faith". And Joseph Smith for example advocated polygamy which is now looked down upon by the mainstreem Morman church. So if that part of his prophecy is not true or accepted, how do we know any of the rest of it is? And this goes for Jesus and other prophets cited in Christianity. If they were really speaking the word of God why do we not accept all of it? Sorry to keep asking....I just think it's a fascinating question and the source of most of my doubts.

 

[EtuMalku]

Not being Christian I will refrain from replying to this but I wish to salute Starfish for a clear unbiased explanation of these scriptures, well done.

 

[Quiddity]

In order to believe that the Bible is truly the word of God, it seems that you would have to believe that God can speak directly through humans. He spoke through the authors of the Bible who put the Holy Creator's words into this holy text.

First things first. I don't believe God spoke directly to the authors of the Bible. Not in the same fashion you see in the OT; like the burning bush. Yes Christ is as direct as you get but most of what is written in the NT is via inspiration, which is not direct communication, but rather indirect communication.

 

[texan1]

Thank you Victor - so do you think that's where the "faith" part comes in? You just have to accept that Jesus was inspired by God?

And this may sound stupid, but what is the Old Testament then, and why was it written? Seems like it is a lot of stories that are akin to Greek mythology (with regard to Genesis for example) as well as a list of laws and punishments that give us a window into how people of that time lived. The New Testament is a little more understandable and digestable.

One reason for my doubt is that it seems if there was a God, it can't be anything like what is described in the Bible. Why would an entity capable of creating such beautiful complexity communicate his message in such a poor and confusing way, through one man in a remote middle eastern town which then took the message and broke off into different religions which are still at war today? As some sort of strange test? He didn't have any prophets to give the message to China or to the Native Americans for example. I am having such doubts.

 

[texan1]

And it seems that so many Christians believe in only some of the Bible as well, so maybe in their heart they also have trouble accepting it as true?

 

[PureX]

I am a non-religious Christian, which means that I do not believe that "God wrote the bible", or even that the bible represents God's mind or will. The bible is a collection of some of mankind's ideas and experiences relative to the concept they held of "God". And as such, I would read it knowing that some parts will likely be more useful to me in my time and place than others. I am in fact obliged to "pick and choose".

 

[Quiddity]

Thank you Victor - so do you think that's where the "faith" part comes in? You just have to accept that Jesus was inspired by God?

Well, it certainly has to be invoked. But it's not faith alone. There are hundreds of books that let you see it from all sorts of different perspectives that really don't require any faith at all. But yeah, faith is certainly involved in it.

And this may sound stupid, but what is the Old Testament then, and why was it written? Seems like it is a lot of stories that are akin to Greek mythology (with regard to Genesis for example) as well as a list of laws and punishments that give us a window into how people of that time lived. The New Testament is a little more understandable and digestable.

It's basically letters, songs, poems, etc. of the relationship between the Israelites and God. Some may have not even tooken place, while others are more plausible.

One reason for my doubt is that it seems if there was a God, it can't be anything like what is described in the Bible. Why would an entity capable of creating such beautiful complexity communicate his message in such a poor and confusing way, through one man in a remote middle eastern town which then took the message and broke off into different religions which are still at war today? As some sort of strange test? He didn't have any prophets to give the message to China or to the Native Americans for example. I am having such doubts.

Actually, the way it was written makes me believe it even more. Had it been in perfect order I think I'd be less inclined to believe. You gotta remember that no matter how God was to play it out, he wanted to do through us. That's where it gets messy. In fact, it's because I can see the humanity in the Bible that intrigues me even more. Usually hoaxes do a better job at convincing people. They aren't nearly as sloppy or out of order. They take the humanity out of things, if you know what I mean.

That make sense?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Why can Christians pick and choose which parts of the Bible to believe?

Because it's ours.

 

[Quiddity]

Because it's ours.

That's just not fair.

How can we critique you Christians if I can't start with my premises, understandings, and interpretations?

Just not fair...

Where is the fun in that?

 

[Wandered Off]

Because it's ours.

*cursing empty frubal gun*

 

[Dunemeister]

I offer this post merely as a summary. Perhaps it can help focus the discussion.

There are three issues in this discussion so far. First, there's the issue of how God inspired the authors of the bible. Did God directly or indirectly inspire the authors (and what's the difference)? Did God inspire all of the bible or just some of it? What weight do we give to the humanness of the scriptures as opposed to their divinity? Differing answers to these questions will generate different answers to the question, "What parts of the bible can/should/must I believe?"

Second, there's the issue of how and whether God has successfully preserved the original writings. Our LDS friends brought this one up, and it's good that they did. We don't have the originals of the sacred writings, only the copies, so did God preserve the original text adequately, or has it been corrupted enough that we are forced to "pick and choose what to believe"? Unfortunately, the LDS solution -- God gave us more scriptures -- only raises the question yet again for the LDS scriptures. Once again, we're forced to ask whether God in fact inspired them and whether he has successfully preserved them. (There's also the theological question of what sort of God would allow his scriptures to be so mangled in the first place, but having raised that issue, I just as quickly leave it.)

Third, even if we grant that God inspired the original writings in such a way that they have "authority", and also if we grant that God has perfectly preserved them, there's still the question how a book like the bible is "authoritative." If you read the bible, you notice that it is very light on commands (only 613 of them), and most of them clearly apply to contexts quite distinct from our own (Bronze age near eastern theocracy vs. modern western secular democracy). By contrast, it's very heavy on narrative. Assuming we can solve the contextual problem of the commands (not an easy task by any means, and the church to this day struggles with it), how can stories be "authoritative"? And then there are those portions of scripture that are talking about the future. How can predictions be "authoritative"? What does that even mean?

So, to those of you who thought being a Christian was a simple-minded affair: :slap:

 

[Katzpur]

How do we know these prophets are really speaking the word of God?

For Christians, I suppose a prophet could be considered to be speaking the word of God if his words help us develop a relationship with God and Jesus Christ, in particular. God's prophets will never encourage us to do things that would not be pleasing to God. That would be at least one indicator of a true prophet as opposed to a false prophet.

And why do so many prophets contradict each other?

I don't believe that true prophets (i.e. prophets who were actually called by God, as opposed to self-proclaimed prophets whom God had no part in calling) do contradict each other. Later prophets often build on what earlier prophets had to say, and this may lead people to see their words as contradictory. When you stop to realize, though, that if a prophet is actually chosen by God, his purpose is to act as God's spokesman. He will direct his remarks to a particular group of people and will tell them what God wants them to know. There may be a reason for God to give one group of people a commandment and then, at at later date, to tell a different group of people, through a different prophet, that they no longer need to keep this particular commandment. A good example of this would be the Law of Moses.

How do we know that some of them weren't just kind of crazy, like David Koresh in Waco? We just don't know that. I guess that's why it's called "faith".

When you get right down to it, yes, that's why it's called "faith." But with respect to people like David Koresh or Jim Jones (my person pick for crazy prophet of the last century), I think the best indication of his sanity would be how the lives of his followers are affected. Does such a person improve the lives of others or does he destroy those lives? Is the world made better because of his followers or worse? Obviously, these are subjective questions, but it's a place to start, at least.

And Joseph Smith for example advocated polygamy which is now looked down upon by the mainstreem Morman church. So if that part of his prophecy is not true or accepted, how do we know any of the rest of it is?

On the surface, that would appear to be the case. The Book of Mormon actually prohibits polygamy except when the Lord commands it for the specific purpose of "raising up seed" -- or, to put it in more colloquial English, to increase the population of a given group of people more quickly than would be the case if that people were practicing monogamy. We believe that Joseph Smith was authorized (commanded, actually) to institute the practice of polygamy on a very limited basis for a period of time early in the history of the LDS Church. You are right that it is prohibited by the Church leadership today, but that doesn't mean that it was wrong for the early Church members to have practiced it. There is no longer a reason for it to be practiced and so we are back to the practice of monogamy. As to how we know that Joseph's other teachings were acceptable to God, you already answered that: by faith and by the confirmation of their truth by the witness of the Holy Ghost.

And this goes for Jesus and other prophets cited in Christianity. If they were really speaking the word of God why do we not accept all of it? Sorry to keep asking....I just think it's a fascinating question and the source of most of my doubts.

I think it's an entirely reasonable question. Of course my response is going to reflect the LDS perspective, which won't be all that compelling to you, but from where we stand, God wouldn't be "the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow" if He were to suddenly just stop talking to His children. He promised in the Old Testament that He would never do that, that He would do nothing without revealing His secrets to His servants, the prophets. That's why we believe He continues to do so today. I think of it this way: If you were going to war against a very deceptive and cunning enemy, and could have only one resource at your disposal, which would you prefer -- a good book on military strategy or a living human being, someone with a strong military background and experience who understood your enemy and his tactics, and was familiar with the enemy's culture and worldview? I'd pick the living human being. If I could have the good book, too, so much the better. For this same reason, I'd pick a living prophet over a good book any day. Best of all, if I could have the book and the direction of a person who was called by God to help me understand it, that's what I'd prefer. If the prophet were able to help me understand what parts of the book were not relative to the decisions I was going to be expected to make, I wouldn't be too concerned.

 

[Katzpur]

Unfortunately, the LDS solution -- God gave us more scriptures -- only raises the question yet again for the LDS scriptures. Once again, we're forced to ask whether God in fact inspired them and whether he has successfully preserved them. (There's also the theological question of what sort of God would allow his scriptures to be so mangled in the first place, but having raised that issue, I just as quickly leave it.)

There's a simple answer to that question, Dunemeister, and it's the same answer essentially, to the question of what kind of a God would allow Adam and Eve to be tempted by a devious creature who promised them godhood for taking a bite out of an apple. It's called free will. How would you have expected God to have kept the Bible free from error and absolutely complete? He spoke to prophets and apostles and they were inspired to write down what He told them, but how exactly was He to make sure that none of the original documents were ever lost or transcribed incorrectly, unless, of course, He didn't involve human beings in the process in the first place? Wouldn't it be nice if He had hand-written in each of the world's languages every word He wanted us to know and delivered this collection of holy writ in nice leather-bound copies to each of us!

 

[texan1]

I appreciate all of these thoughtful answers!

 

[blackout]

We all pick, choose and arrange things/ideas/texts
to suit our own desired (or pre-scribed) beliefs.
It's what human beings do. It's how we construct.
And that's fine.

But most are unaware or will not admit to themselves this is so...
so then when we have to deal with a million people acting like
their own personally chosen interpretations are "universal truths",
as they try to correct and enlighten everyone else.

That part of the "human construct" I personally can do without,
and the bible just brings out the worst of this in people.

 

[Dunemeister]

There's a simple answer to that question, Dunemeister, and it's the same answer essentially, to the question of what kind of a God would allow Adam and Eve to be tempted by a devious creature who promised them godhood for taking a bite out of an apple. It's called free will. How would you have expected God to have kept the Bible free from error and absolutely complete? He spoke to prophets and apostles and they were inspired to write down what He told them, but how exactly was He to make sure that none of the original documents were ever lost or transcribed incorrectly, unless, of course, He didn't involve human beings in the process in the first place? Wouldn't it be nice if He had hand-written in each of the world's languages every word He wanted us to know and delivered this collection of holy writ in nice leather-bound copies to each of us!

Sorry, that won't do. Jesus promised "Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the ages." He promised that his Spirit would guide his followers into all truth, and that he would never leave us nor forsake us. He also insisted that "my sheep hear my voice, and I lead them out." With these promises in hand, it makes no sense whatsoever to propose that, within three short centuries, the church had gone completely off the rails (as nineteenth-century restorationist movements tend to proclaim), what with such fanciful doctrines as the Trinity and the dual nature of Christ. And apparently it got so bad by the 19th century that God had to raise up whole new agencies to replace the church wholesale (LDS church, Jehovah's Witnesses, just to name a couple). That scenario does not square with the promises Jesus gave us concerning his continued presence with the church and his continual guiding hand. If we take LDS and JW claims seriously, either God lost his voice (how can his sheep hear if he doesn't speak) or he ran out of believers (he's speaking all right, but he doesn't have any sheep), and that he permitted that situation to persist for close to 1600 years or so. Finally, after all these years, God finally puts in an appearance in the United States somewhere and starts all over again (with the LDS or the JW). But that just seems too incredible to believe.

 

[Starfish]

Sorry, that won't do. Jesus promised "Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the ages." He promised that his Spirit would guide his followers into all truth, and that he would never leave us nor forsake us. He also insisted that "my sheep hear my voice, and I lead them out." With these promises in hand, it makes no sense whatsoever to propose that, within three short centuries, the church had gone completely off the rails (as nineteenth-century restorationist movements tend to proclaim), what with such fanciful doctrines as the Trinity and the dual nature of Christ. And apparently it got so bad by the 19th century that God had to raise up whole new agencies to replace the church wholesale (LDS church, Jehovah's Witnesses, just to name a couple). That scenario does not square with the promises Jesus gave us concerning his continued presence with the church and his continual guiding hand. If we take LDS and JW claims seriously, either God lost his voice (how can his sheep hear if he doesn't speak) or he ran out of believers (he's speaking all right, but he doesn't have any sheep), and that he permitted that situation to persist for close to 1600 years or so. Finally, after all these years, God finally puts in an appearance in the United States somewhere and starts all over again (with the LDS or the JW). But that just seems too incredible to believe.

God was never really "gone", as he was always available to individuals who sought him. The LDS believe he guided Columbus to discover the new world, during those dark ages. But God's church left him. Therefore, there was no true organized church or authority to act in God's name upon the earth. As far as how quickly people can apostasize, was evident during Paul's ministry. He was constantly fighting the errors that continually crept into the church. For example, during WWII, the LDS Church headquarters was cut off from the church members in Germany. After the war, lots of procedural errors had to be corrected, that had started in the German congregations during the isolation.
Three centuries seems like plenty of time.

 

[Katzpur]

Sorry, that won't do. Jesus promised "Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the ages." He promised that his Spirit would guide his followers into all truth, and that he would never leave us nor forsake us. He also insisted that "my sheep hear my voice, and I lead them out."

That He did, and His promise takes us quite nicely back to the dilemma posed by the OP. There are over 30,000 different Christian denominations in the world today, no two of them teaching exactly the same doctrines, but each one claiming to be led by the Holy Ghost. Of these, a mere handful are insistent that they alone have 100% of the truth. The vast majority shrug off the differences between them as inconsequential, when they are really pretty important. If the Spirit has led each and every person to the truth, how would you explain the fact that you and I don't believe all of the same things? I would imagine that we're equally sincere in wanting to know the truth, but if you are led to believe one thing and I'm led to believe something else, we clearly have a problem.

With these promises in hand, it makes no sense whatsoever to propose that, within three short centuries, the church had gone completely off the rails (as nineteenth-century restorationist movements tend to proclaim), what with such fanciful doctrines as the Trinity and the dual nature of Christ.

Three centuries is not all that short a period of time, Dunemeister. We're talking twelve generations here. We're talking about a time when the Church was experiencing persecution from the outside and dissention from within. The canon we have today did not exist, and we don't have a single solitary one of the original documents from which the Bibles we have today were assembled. We have an emperor with a political agenda calling a council of churchmen to decide the nature of God, and casting into exile those who didn't vote the right way. Have you ever stopped to consider the fact that all of the participants in the First Council of Nicea were equally entitled to the guidance of the Spirit? It's a wonder the Church survived this era at all! Don't get me wrong; I do believe the Spirit was at work here, but definitely not in the way you suggest. Christianity did not cease to exist by any stretch of the imagination, and we have the Christians of this turbulent three hundred years to thank for that. Still, a train doesn't have to go very far off the track for a whole lot of damage to be done.

That scenario does not square with the promises Jesus gave us concerning his continued presence with the church and his continual guiding hand. If we take LDS and JW claims seriously, either God lost his voice (how can his sheep hear if he doesn't speak) or he ran out of believers (he's speaking all right, but he doesn't have any sheep), and that he permitted that situation to persist for close to 1600 years or so. Finally, after all these years, God finally puts in an appearance in the United States somewhere and starts all over again (with the LDS or the JW). But that just seems too incredible to believe.

The situation existed for as long as it did for a very good reason. Consider, for the sake of argument, the possibility that a restoration -- from the ground up -- really was necessary. Can you see it even getting off the ground in medieval Europe when the vast majority of the population couldn't even read? Think of the atrocities that took place during the Spanish Inquisition. Latter-day Saints think Joseph Smith was persecuted during the 1800's in America. I wonder how it would have been had God called a new prophet during the 1500s in Europe. Consider, too, the coming forth of the Book of Mormon -- regardless of what your personal feelings about it might be. Had such a manuscript turned up anywhere in the world prior to when the printing press was invented, how could anyone (even those who could read) have gotten access to it? You see a restoration in 19th century America as being a convenient fable, whereas I see it as part of a divine plan. It happened when and where it did for a reason. The time and the place were both right.