He said repentance and the remission of sins...
edit: Luke 24:47
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why Don't Christians Follow the Bible?
- Thread starter LongGe123
- Start date
edit: Luke 24:47
Repentace is just the condition attached to the offer, and it's supposed to be a personal act between God and the individual.
For one human to point to another human and say, "This is what you need to repent of" is ridiculous. It isn't up to any human being to make those determinations for anyone else.
It's supposed to be an offer, not an inditment; "You can have the cure, but if you want to keep it you'll have to stop doing whatever it is that made you sick in the first place", not, "You and what your doing makes me sick, and you'd better cut it out".
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
It's more than a little lamentable that people who know almost nothing about a religion are criticizing its followers. It's so sad that it's almost breath-taking. Someone who's not supposed to judge is mistaken for being judgemental, being criticized (JUDGED) by an outsider who points to a small passage about not judging.
How circular can one possibly be? Give me a break.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
I see then that you've abandoned the meaningless accusation that the Christian in question is not following the Bible with regard to shaving, breaking the Sabbath, and etc from the Old Testament and moved on to New Testament questions. This is a slight progression.
Paul is indeed talking about the world at large in Romans 1, when he characterizes homosexuality in the Gentile world (UNBELIEVERS) as a punishment for their rebellion against God. In 1 Cor 6, homosexuality inside the church is condemned as an ongoing rebellion within the church, a sin that keeps people from participating in the kingdom of God.
Christians who would like to affirm homosexuality need to reconstruct Pauline Christianity a bit.
There is no injunction in the Bible for Christians to prevent non-believers from participating in homosexual acts, but since heterosexuality is part of Christian theology (eg., the unification of Christ (male) and the church (female)) and is part of Paul's teaching (that homosexuality is rebellion against God, many Christians feel that homosexuality should be prevented in society to prevent God's judgment.
It's not playing hard and loose at all with Paul or the New Testament. Paul is explicitly against homosexuality, and that was never questioned until Christians wanted to affirm it in the post-modern age. To follow Paul literally is to be against it as he was, but as I have argued many times, this goes against Christian compassion and love in our modern era.
gnomon
Well-Known Member
I don't consider these judgements so much as observations. I'm not critiquing anything here except hypocricy, ie, a priciple rather than a person or group of people (which is what I feel the OP was doing).
If any of it happens to apply to a person or group of people, that's not my problem, it's theirs.
If a man is sinning, it is between himself and God. If someone is sinning and does not realize he is sinning, is that still a sin? That is the question we should ask.
The thing is that in the NT, particularly Jesus, told us that God would show us mercy if we showed others mercy, and God would judge us the way we judge others. Those are Jesus teachings. It is not Jesus teachings to go up to a nonbeliever and tell him he is going to hell if he doesn't stop sinning. It is only taught to tell a believer that he is sinning and in private. To the nonbelievers we are supposed to teach the gospel to them. But if they don't want to hear it, I think our job is over until they do want to hear it (which may be never). If they reject it, what is the use of keep trying to teach it to them?
If you go by your Church's teachings and they are not the same that is taught in the Bible, then what can you do? You can read the Bible and find out for yourself.
The thing is that in the NT, particularly Jesus, told us that God would show us mercy if we showed others mercy, and God would judge us the way we judge others. Those are Jesus teachings. It is not Jesus teachings to go up to a nonbeliever and tell him he is going to hell if he doesn't stop sinning. It is only taught to tell a believer that he is sinning and in private. To the nonbelievers we are supposed to teach the gospel to them. But if they don't want to hear it, I think our job is over until they do want to hear it (which may be never). If they reject it, what is the use of keep trying to teach it to them?
If you go by your Church's teachings and they are not the same that is taught in the Bible, then what can you do? You can read the Bible and find out for yourself.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Some measure of competence is required to identify hypocrisy, wouldn't you agree?
There's something about "observing" someone else's servant and making rather uninformed characterizations ("judgments") about their activity.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Ah, yes, that Christians who believe that the Bible is inspired by God and follow the New Testament should kill their children, burn people alive for not observing the Sabbath, and so on. Criticizing Christianity for this is absurd and artless.
Who gets to decide what should be taking literally or not? Saying the passage isn't to be taken literally is not an answer, it is just avoiding the question. Saying not to take that passage literally is still a Pick 'n' Mix. You pick the parts you like, and then when someone says you ignore parts you say that those bits aren't meant to be taken literally.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
It's using principles of interpretation, which have been around since Aristotle (and his Greek successors) and the rabbis (Jewish interpreters). Both have influenced Christian interpretation. People have been interpreting philosophers, poets, plays, and other literature for a long time before the Christians wrote or interpreted anything. By the Christian era, people were well aware of metaphors, hyperbole, and other figures of speech which are not to be taken literally. Christianity also employed a little thing called myth, attaching mythological elements to just about everything.
So to the artless person who knows nothing of metaphors, figures of speech, and other modes of expression other than plain literal thoughtless reading, it seems like "Pick and Mix." But there is some sophistication in the Christian writings that employ a variety of literary devices and tools.
Yes but it seems like each individual Christian picks the bits they like and says that those bits are to be taken literally, and everything that they don't like is a metaphor. It is like Pick 'n' Mix and it has to be otherwise you wouldn't have such a wide variety of Christians. I never said it is a bad thing they do it but surely you can admit that everyone choses the bits that best fit them to believe them literally?
However the dreamer gets so lost in metaphors, figures of speech etc etc that they apply these same principles to everything.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
It may seem that way to you, and it may even happen. I'm sure that there are individual Christians who ignore the complexity of the New Testament, but the wealth of Christian tradition from their leadership does not. There are no Christian denominations who have interpreted the Bible anything like the OP. And no, I don't think that everyone arbitrarily and thoughtlessly chooses what to apply literally and what to recognize as a literary device. There are ways to determine literary tools, as well as methods of interpretation and application that pastors, scholars, and other thinking people actually use. Laypeople have study bibles and commentaries to help them recognize literary tools according to ancient and modern rules of rhetoric.
Yes, there are irresponsible interpreters of the Bible. However, it's rich complexity and diverse use of literary tools makes it a rich repository of meaning.
Absolutely. I think it's best left in the hands of those with as little emotional attachment and investment in the issues as possible.
I think that may be what JC was getting at when he said, "Thank you father that you have revealed these things to babes.."
The Pharisees had too much invested in the way things were to be able to look at anything he was saying objectively.
But if one of these servants knocked on my door with orders from his master to paint my house a certain colour whether I wanted them to or not, you can bet I'm going to at least see what the work order says (and you can bet I'm probably going to tell them to get lost no matter what it says).
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Ha! Well this work order is from an ancient foreign culture and is in Greek. :biglaugh:
Let's just have a drink and forget the whole damn thing.
All the less reason to take it seriously (they've never even seen my house).
It is of course a good thing the emphasis is put on the love side of the bible and not the hate side. The question is who originally chose what parts should be taken literally or not? What would it be like if when Christianity was forming they put the emphasis on the hate? And I never said they chose what parts thoughtlessly, it probably required a lot of thought.
It's when people look for meanings that aren't there that is the problem.
P.S you like to edit your posts just as I'm quoting you don't ya :drool:
Let's just have a drink and forget the whole damn thing.
Ok, now we're interpreting all this in the same light.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
I dunno about that. I agree that applying a 2000 year old foreign document to modern life is de facto insane.
Nevertheless, I respect its antiquity and that people all over the world have derived profound meaning from it. Perhaps it also has meaning for me. Like sojourner says, it's not the perfection of the Bible that's made it last so long, it's that people have been re-interpreting it for centuries.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
The New Testament itself emphasizes love more than anything else. Anything that can be construed as hate is peripheral to the message of the NT. From the very beginning, Christianity has been a movement that emphasized love and compassion. This is reflected in the NT and early and late Christian writings. As Christianity was melded into the Roman state with Constantine, its doctrines were used to facilitate the mission of the state. This eventually brought the Dark Ages to Europe, and the religious wars and killing in the name of Christ by both Catholics and Reformers.
Christianity was eventually redeemed from its bloodthirstiness by the separation of church and state in the West, and once again made its mission of peace central to its message and mission.