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

[Jistyr]

This is nothing new. Picking and choosing was done upon the creation of the Bible. They had a pile of gospels, determined some holy, lumped them together and threw the others away.

 

[Dunemeister]

Hi Dunemeister,

I know it may sound weird to people, but I actually agree with the fact that despite the current troubles in the world, we have evolved morally. When you look at our country for example with regard to civil rights. I mean, we still have work to do in that regard but we have certainly come a long way from the time of slavery for example. Just the idea of it appalls us now. I don't know if or how this has to do with the prophecies in the Old Testament but I can at least see where you are coming from I think. However, it is also interesting that the most morally backward communities (ie the Taliban) are run by theocracies and have trouble evolving from a moral standpoint. I think it was truly a blessing that our country was founded on the idea that church and state should be separate.

Okay, fair comment. But the notions of forgiveness and love are present and indeed permeate the Old Testament. To suggest for an instant that the Hebrews were incapable of understanding or implementing it is simply off-the-charts wrong. Nothing Jesus taught added ethically to what the Old Testament said. Rather, he internationalized and intensified it (hence there are theocratic and cultic passages that the Church regards as non-binding on Christians). I just object in the most strenuous terms the notion that the Hebrews were too stupid or immoral to either recognize or implement forgiveness when that is central to their religion.

 

[texan1]

Dunmeister,

I appreciate your input and I hope you didn't think I was insinuating that Hebrews were stupid or immoral.

 

[Katzpur]

I don't know wether to use the laugh face or the mad face.

:banghead3

Tee hee hee hee.

Use the frubal icon.

 

[RedRain]

What's the reference? Thanks.

John 16:13-15. Is that what you mean by reference?

There's plenty reason when you insult people for no good reason. Imagine honestly believing that the ancient Hebrews (and other ancient cultures) were simply too stupid or morally undeveloped to handle such things as love and forgiveness! I'd be just as angry (more, actually) if such outlandish tripe were directed at a living, breathing human being. But if I were a Jew, I'd have been personally insulted by the accusation that my forbears were stupid or morally dense.

I'll say it again because it bears repeating: deeper meaning, my arse. Report this post if you want to, I could care less.

To me, and it may just be to me, what Jesus says in John 16:12 speaks to what I'm saying:

"I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now."

How dare He, eh?

 

[blackout]

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraViolet
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.

The bible does not bring out the worst in anyone. It's people who, with their own distorted issues that manifest tragedy.

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.

Is this a tragedy?

I don't know. But it can certainly be tiring and obnoxious.
Probably it's religion that causes it more than the bible itself.
All the endless bickering about what the book ACTUALLY says/means.

Do any texts other than religous "holy books"
spark so much bickering? and RIGHTeousness?

I haven't seen it myself, but I don't mind being corrected if I'm wrong.

EDIT:
I do agree however that people's distortions/confusion of
their own meaning .... for universal meaning...
cause MUCH of the worlds tragedy.

 

[Dunemeister]

Competing interpretations of Karl Marx's Capital has caused plenty of death and suffering, not just headaches. That's just off the top of my head. There must be others.

The reason why the bible causes so much heat is not so much because it's religious but because it's extremely political. If Jesus is Lord, Bush isn't. Putin isn't. Chavez isn't. Etc.

 

[Starfish]

John 16:13-15. Is that what you mean by reference?

Yes. Thanks.
He's speaking of the Holy Ghost/Spirit. We believe the Holy Ghost is the third member of the Godhead, who doesn't have a body as the other two do, but is a spirit. His purpose is to testify of truth. We can all have access to him as we seek truth.
During Jesus' mortal life, the Holy Ghost didn't fully operate among the people. Before and after, yes, but not during. So Jesus promised his disciples that he would send a "comforter" to them after he left them.

Did I answer your question?

 

[Dunemeister]

John 16:13-15. <snip> "I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now."

Here, the issue isn't moral development or a new teaching coming. It's grief. The disciples have just come as close as they ever would to understanding that Jesus is actually going to leave them, and they are crestfallen, perplexed, and grieving. So they don't need and can't handle teaching at this point in time. They need comfort. Besides, even if they could have handled it, there wasn't time because Jesus' death was imminent. They'd have to wait. In inspiring the New Testament writings through the Holy Spirit, Jesus provided said those many things he intended to say.

There is absolutely no good historical, biblical, theological, or moral argument for the notion that normally educated persons, with a little bit of training to understand how the various genres of writing work, can't understand the bible in its fulness. There's no secret code or hidden meanings. That's not to say that the meaning of some passages isn't difficult to discern. That's only to say that no revelator or prophet or Johnny-come-lately has some sort of "key" or whatever to understand "hidden meanings" or "deeper meanings" in scripture. Rather, to understand scripture, all you need is a community of believers and tradition to work with.

 

[RedRain]

Here, the issue isn't moral development or a new teaching coming. It's grief. The disciples have just come as close as they ever would to understanding that Jesus is actually going to leave them, and they are crestfallen, perplexed, and grieving. So they don't need and can't handle teaching at this point in time. They need comfort. Besides, even if they could have handled it, there wasn't time because Jesus' death was imminent. They'd have to wait. In inspiring the New Testament writings through the Holy Spirit, Jesus provided said those many things he intended to say.

There is absolutely no good historical, biblical, theological, or moral argument for the notion that normally educated persons, with a little bit of training to understand how the various genres of writing work, can't understand the bible in its fulness. There's no secret code or hidden meanings. That's not to say that the meaning of some passages isn't difficult to discern. That's only to say that no revelator or prophet or Johnny-come-lately has some sort of "key" or whatever to understand "hidden meanings" or "deeper meanings" in scripture. Rather, to understand scripture, all you need is a community of believers and tradition to work with.

It's no good reasoning with someone as yourself. With your "vast" knowledge of all things religious, you are the only one that can be right.

I will see this quote as it appears plainly to me. That the people of that time could not handle certain things that Jesus would eventually need to show them. The explanation of their grief being too much doesn't really do it for me. Why then the great need for the Spirit of Truth to come? I don't think there is much more to discuss. It just seems to me you aren't seeing the true picture.

 

[deelo505]

Hi Dunemeister,

I know it may sound weird to people, but I actually agree with the fact that despite the current troubles in the world, we have evolved morally. When you look at our country for example with regard to civil rights. I mean, we still have work to do in that regard but we have certainly come a long way from the time of slavery for example. Just the idea of it appalls us now. I don't know if or how this has to do with the prophecies in the Old Testament but I can at least see where you are coming from I think. However, it is also interesting that the most morally backward communities (ie the Taliban) are run by theocracies and have trouble evolving from a moral standpoint. I think it was truly a blessing that our country was founded on the idea that church and state should be separate.

In response to deelo505 - I guess I am refering to the Old Testament in general. I've never really understood it's purpose and it troubles me sometimes. With regard to the teachings of Jesus Christ, (whether ot not you believe in him as the Son of God) he has some valuable messages. And yet, he doesn't seem to refute God's prophecies in the Old Testament. So when I say Christians ignore part of the Bible this is what I am referring to - the Old Testament in general. I grew up attending church regularly, went to a Catholic school and a Methodist University and the focus was generally on the positive messages of Jesus Christ. The dark and strange parts of the Bible (of which there are many) were never really acknowledged or refuted. Or if they were acknowledged, people would tend to layer quite a bit of symbolism on them in order to help justify those types of passages. Or they might disregard them all together as biases of translators and prophets. I guess that's what I mean by Christians only believing in some of the Bible. So I just wonder what Christians make of the OT. I just wonder - if the Old Testament is questionable, why is the New Testament above questioning as well? It really makes me question the validity of all of it, know what I mean?

And I think it varies from religion to religion as to where the focus is. For example, there is a STRONG focus on the VIRGIN Mary, and the VIRGIN birth and the value of a woman's VIRGINITY in the Bible, and in my Catholic upbringing. Many other female characters from the Bible that come to mind were "whores". And even though it wasn't preached specifically there definitely was a feeling that a large part of your worth as a woman relied on your virginity. And I think aspects of this manifests itself in the Catholic's stance on birth control, etc.

But other Christian churches don't seem to put as much focus on this.

Anyway, I hope I ansered your question. I apologize for my long-windedness.

i see what you mean. "Applying the Old Testament Law Today" by J. Daniel Hays this will most likely answer some of your old test. vs new testament questions. i came across it one day because i had the same question. its alot to read but its interesting.

 

[deelo505]

i see what you mean. "Applying the Old Testament Law Today" by J. Daniel Hays this will most likely answer some of your old test. vs new testament questions. i came across it one day because i had the same question. its alot to read but its interesting.

"Applying the Old Testament Law Today" by J. Daniel Hays

 

[deelo505]

"Applying the Old Testament Law Today" by J. Daniel Hays

OMG!!!! ITS BIBLICALSTUDIES.ORG .sry

 

[texan1]

Thanks!

 

[uss_bigd]

For those who feel the bible is not a worthy basis let us keep that as a separete topic please? For argumentation sake, the life of Christ, Written by those who actually lived in his time and followed him when he was alive is written in the bible. therefore, the priority for studying christianity is the bible.

now:

1. Real Christians were never commanded to choose what to follow. (1 Cor 4:60)
2. which verses in the ot are you referring too? and i will explain what they mean.


3. There should only be a single authentic christian church.

proof?

by logic.

There is one undeniable rule of logic we have to adhere too.

" No two contradicting principles can be both true" one party can't say "this pen is blue" and another party will say "this pen is red". provided they are referring to same pen, Common sense would dictate they can't be both true.


by scripture:

Gal 1:6-7

"I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ."


"this means that even during the time of the apostles, there were already elements preaching a different gospel. which means, we should NOT be surprised why there are a lot of christians denominations today. the verse further states that "some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ" meaning there are people who will add, delete and choose what is in the bible."

so now, how do we find out the truth. well, the bible is complete it will not show a problem without a solution.

according to the prophet jeremiah

JER 6:16

This is what the LORD says:

"Stand at the crossroads and look;
ask for the ancient paths,
ask where the good way is, and walk in it,
and you will find rest for your souls."

ask for the old paths, of how the true religion is really practiced. if you wish to know more. ask.

If i may just reiterate.

 

[deelo505]

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.[/quoti

it is interesting. but i guess we wont know anything for certain til we can ask the big man himself huh?lol

 

[uss_bigd]

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.[/quoti

it is interesting. but i guess we wont know anything for certain til we can ask the big man himself huh?lol

his words are written, all you have to do is read.

 

[deelo505]

Thanks!

your welcome ,hope it helps you out

 

[Dunemeister]

I will see this quote as it appears plainly to me. That the people of that time could not handle certain things that Jesus would eventually need to show them. The explanation of their grief being too much doesn't really do it for me. Why then the great need for the Spirit of Truth to come? I don't think there is much more to discuss. It just seems to me you aren't seeing the true picture.

Well, let's look at the passage in question, then: John 16:4 - 15:

I did not say these things to you from the beginning, because I was with you. But now I am going to him who sent me; yet none of you asks me, &#8220;Where are you going?&#8221; But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your hearts. Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. And when he comes, he will prove the world wrong about sin and righteousness and judgement: about sin, because they do not believe in me; about righteousness, because I am going to the Father and you will see me no longer; about judgement, because the ruler of this world has been condemned.

I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, because he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine. For this reason I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.

I've bolded the references to the Holy Spirit. The disciples can't hear more teaching at the moment, not because they are too dense or spiritually immature, or whatever you care to call it. Rather, they are grieving. This is generally not a good place to learn from. They are grieving because Jesus, their rabbi, their teacher, their mentor, the one who is showing them the way to truly be Israel, is leaving. Jesus is of course their teacher, and if he goes, who will teach them, especially since they all know they need more instruction? No wonder they are panicked and sorrowful! They are losing their only source of truth. As they said before, "Teacher, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life." So what to do now that Jesus is being taken away? Jesus says he will send the Advocate (elsewhere called the Comforter). The Spirit will be their new source of truth to replace that which is being taken away.

So as far as I can tell, my interpretation makes sense of the text. It shows how the disciples' grief prevents their learning at the moment and how the Holy Spirit, who brings truth, provides the necessary comfort. The disciples couldn't handle the truth, not because they were spiritually unready, but because they were too sad to contemplate more truth (and because Jesus was leaving them in just the next few hours, so there wasn't any time for sustained teaching).

Oh, and by the way. I may have had some scholarly background in biblical studies, but I'm far from thinking I have all the answers. If you can show me that your interpretation makes better sense of the text in its context, I'll gladly admit my error. But I have to be honest with you. It seems like you hold to your interpretation because this revelator of yours holds that view, and if you were to admit error in this case, that might threaten your teacher's status. Believe me, I understand this. I'm sort of in that boat with respect to Jesus. I'm rather inclined to reject doctrines and ideas that go against Jesus' teachings, for example. If Jesus is wrong, my whole way of life is called into question, and I'm rather loath to give up on a way I've spent the last couple of decades cultivating. But at least I can be sure of my ground, my Rock. The same really can't be said of modern prophets who come along to straighten us all out.

 

[Starfish]

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.[/quoti


it is interesting. but i guess we wont know anything for certain til we can ask the big man himself huh?lol

Minor correction: The LDS Church does not look down upon polygamy. It just does not practice it at this time, and tries to not be confused with those sects who do. It's a principle the Lord uses occasionally in history, for his own purposes. The LDS Church fully reveres Joseph Smith as a prophet of God.