Why Don't Christians Follow the Bible?

[Pardus]

Taoism has the answer to this and so does science.

Science has the easier quote.
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

 

[gnomon]

Why didn't the first Christians follow the Bible?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Why didn't the first Christians follow the Bible?

*sigh*

 

[Pardus]

Why didn't the first Christians follow the Bible?

No chicken or the egg debates please.

 

[gnomon]

Well forgive me for insinuating that the meaning of Christianity given for this thread is too obtuse when questioning why they don't follow the Bible. As in .... which Christians?

Let's see, Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Gnostic, the various and rich history of Christians predating "The Bible" and not too mention the numerous denominations around the world since then.........go figure.

I truly love how pretty much anyone questioning Christianity in this thread missed my point about why don't any the reconstructed pagans built off Celtic paganism slap the heads of their enemies on a pole outside their home.

Or did the Jews actually follow all those laws laid out in the Old Testament at the time those laws were supposedly given?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Or did the Jews actually follow all those laws laid out in the Old Testament at the time those laws were supposedly given?

That is their passion. The reason why Jews have been persecuted from ancient to modern times is because they keep the Sabbath and follow the deitary laws. Some laws - such as killing people for not keeping the Sabbath, killing children, etc - were only applied in times of great stress (such as the Maccabean revolt).

In ancient times when these laws concerning killing may have been applied literally, Roman fathers also had the right to kill their children for disobedience, and Greeks and Romans both killed Jews for keeping the Sabbath.

Jews also have a long tradition of midrash and rabbinic interpretation which seeks to apply the law in contemporary situations.

 

[gnomon]

That is their passion. The reason why Jews have been persecuted from ancient to modern times is because they keep the Sabbath and follow the deitary laws. Some laws - such as killing people for not keeping the Sabbath, killing children, etc - were only applied in times of great stress (such as the Maccabean revolt).

In ancient times when these laws concerning killing may have been applied literally, Roman fathers also had the right to kill their children for disobedience, and Greeks and Romans both killed Jews for keeping the Sabbath.

Jews also have a long tradition of midrash and rabbinic interpretation which seeks to apply the law in contemporary situations.

Thank you. I find that interesting.

I find extrapolation of cultural norms from religious texts often shaky. Especially when the extrapolation comes from one or two lines out of thousands and some of those words may be highly questionable as far as historical accuracy or authenticity. Not to mention such documents might reflect the upper classes but not necessarily that of the population as a whole.

Imagine if the only literary artifact modern humans left behind was the Weekly World News.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Thank you. I find that interesting.

My pleasure.

I find extrapolation of cultural norms from religious texts often shaky.

The thing is, religion is a the representation of cultural norms. In the Bible we have the preservation of an ancient cultural norm - the norms of a religious group. These norms may be intended to be a literal record or encased in myth.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

OTOH, Paul is (IMO) quite misogynistic as well, though those passages from the Epistles are often disregarded. When people hold up Paul's opinion as the excuse for their treatment of homosexuals and then treat women as equals in spite of Paul's opinion, we can see that it's not the authority of Paul, nor the authority of the Bible that dictates their actions. Either that, or they're willing to apply the larger themes that you mentioned of compassion and love to their wives, sisters and mothers, but not to their gay neighbors. There's still an inconsistency that isn't rooted in the Bible, yet the Bible is often given as an excuse for it.

I guess the main point, as I see it, is – if Christians don’t follow, or aren’t recognizing parts of the bible, then how can the rest of the bible be truthful? How can some verses be God’s words, and other can’t be.

I do find it kind of funny when an atheist takes a more literal interpretation than the strictest Christian fundamentalist.

 

[Autodidact]

No one said it was wrong, parts no longer apply.

So you would disagree with Pastor Land, then, when he says:
"Biblical truth is truth with a capital T...and it should apply to every area of our lives."

How do you decide what applies and what doesn't?

 

[Autodidact]

It's more than a little sophomoric and thoughtless to troll a religion based on a logical inconsistency (eg., following part of the Bible rather than the whole thing) when the religion does not have its basis a rational or logical construction.

Perhaps learning something about biblical interpretation or Christian traditions would help you solve this problem (if indeed it is an honest question in the first place, which I highly doubt).

For example, would you want Christians to follow the entire Bible literally, refusing to acknowledge positive interpretations of the verses in both ancient and modern Judaism and Christianity that you point out as negative? Yet you know that Christians don't follow the Bible literally and criticize them for it, which is not only stupid but immature. You are either ignorant of biblical interpretation in a variety of traditions or you are purposefully constructing them to portray a religion in an embarrassing and negative light, which is trolling.

This seems to me to be admitting that Christians don't in fact derive their beliefs or actions from the Bible in any consistent or coherent way, but cherry pick according to their current situation and values.

I mean, I full agree that Christianity "does not have its basis a rational or logical construction," but that hardly speaks well for it, does it? I mean, The Cat in the Hat doesn't have its basis a logical construction, but that doesn't exactly recommend it as a basis for organizing your life, does it?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

OTOH, Paul is (IMO) quite misogynistic as well, though those passages from the Epistles are often disregarded. When people hold up Paul's opinion as the excuse for their treatment of homosexuals and then treat women as equals in spite of Paul's opinion....

I have found that the folks opposed to homosexuality will not treat women as equals.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

This seems to me to be admitting that Christians don't in fact derive their beliefs or actions from the Bible in any consistent or coherent way, but cherry pick according to their current situation and values.

Like I said:

Perhaps learning something about biblical interpretation or Christian traditions would help you solve this problem

 

[Autodidact]

Like I said:

Not really. The fact that Christians do something doesn't make it correct. I'm pretty familiar with Christian apologetics, and while I know they say that Jesus "fulfilled" the law, it is not at all clear what they mean or whether that makes sense. If you want to make an actual argument, as opposed to just alluding to one, you need to go ahead and do so.

 

[Autodidact]

Why don't Christians follow the Bible?

Most people, I believe, find the Bible too complicated to read themselves so they let others (Preachers, priests, Teachers and so on) give them what is in the Bible (or so they think) so they can follow it. They think they are following the Bible without realizing that it may be some one's interpretation of the Bible.
I always tell others of my faith it is a good idea to read the Bible for yourselves (or listen to it on tape) so you can get the gist of it and get your own interpretation to compare with others.

This is also an excellent way to deconvert.

For the OP, you are quoting OT Law that was fulfilled when Jesus died and rose again.

You realize that you are doing exactly what you just accused preachers, priests, teachers and so on of doing, right? What does it even mean for a law to be "fulfilled." Laws aren't fulfilled; you either have to follow them or you don't. That's like saying a pizza was infatuated or a book was perspicacious; it just makes no sense.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Not really. The fact that Christians do something doesn't make it correct. I'm pretty familiar with Christian apologetics, and while I know they say that Jesus "fulfilled" the law, it is not at all clear what they mean or whether that makes sense.

Meaningless babble.

If you want to make an actual argument, as opposed to just alluding to one, you need to go ahead and do so.

If you had read the thread, you would have seen it. Besides, the OP doesn't require a counter-argument because all it is is bait, and thoughtless and ineffective bait at that.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The Cat in the Hat doesn't have its basis a logical construction, but that doesn't exactly recommend it as a basis for organizing your life, does it?

By the way, the Cat in the Hat has no place in the founding of a 2000 year old religion, and no religious group has found continuing meaning in it over hundreds of years. If the Cat in the Hat was a motivating force for love and peace in the world, I would try to show just a little bit of respect for both it and the people who tried to follow it.

That analogy is a miserable failure of the greatest magnitude. I wonder if such artlessness is shown by its orignator with respect to the arts and music, which also do not have their foundation in logic but have assisted people in finding meaning in their lives...

Generally I have found that athiests are somewhat capable to show respect and healthy curiousity towards religion, and an appreciation for the meaning that believers find in it. Thankfully, the dreadful lack of careful consideration and thought on this thread is the exception to the rule.

 

[Autodidact]

Meaningless babble.

I thought it was pretty clear and meant something. Did you have difficulty in understanding it? My point is that because there is a tradition, or something that Christians do, does not imply that they are correct. You have to actually lay out what the tradition is for us, so we can discuss and see whether it has any merit.

If you had read the thread, you would have seen it. Besides, the OP doesn't require a counter-argument because all it is is bait, and thoughtless and ineffective bait at that.

No, I haven't read the thread yet; I usually post as I read each post. Sometimes I find something later that responds to my point. If that is the case, can you provide the post that I haven't gotten to yet? Thank you.

If it doesn't "require a counter-argument" and is thoughtless bait, then I suggest that you don't take it. But asserting that it is refutable, without refuting it, is not persuasive.

 

[Autodidact]

By the way, the Cat in the Hat has no place in the founding of a 2000 year old religion, and no religious group has found continuing meaning in it over hundreds of years. If the Cat in the Hat was a motivating force for love and peace in the world, I would try to show just a little bit of respect for both it and the people who tried to follow it.

Those are all true statements about The Cat in the Hat, but not relevant to this discussion. We were not discussing meaning or influence, but truth value and behavior. Or to put it differently, The Cat in the Hat may be less influential than the Bible, but it is equally logical. Is the Bible true, and something we should accept in its entirety, or should we pick and choose according to our personal values system. There is certainly ample room for disagreement as to whether the Bible is a motivating force for love and peace or hatred ad war. Those of us whose ancestors survived the Crusades, pogroms and inquisition tend to see history differently. btw, had I used Red Fish Blue Fish as my example I would have disagreed vociferously, as its philosophy is so important and influential:
From there to here,
From here to there,
Funny things are everywhere.

And even more significant to me personally:
Have you done these things? You should.
These things are fun, and fun is good.

That analogy is a miserable failure of the greatest magnitude. I wonder if such artlessness is shown by its orignator with respect to the arts and music, which also do not have their foundation in logic but have assisted people in finding meaning in their lives...

If you think the analogy is not apt, show us why. So far you have not done so. My point is that declaring your religion to be illogical is not a good argument in its favor.

If you consider the Bible only as art, and not as a source of commandments or actual statements about the world, if you do not believe there was an actual Jesus who was actually resurrected, or an actual Yahweh who has commanded us to do and not do certain things, then I really don't have an argument with you. I mean, when it comes to art, chacon a sons gout, n'est-ce pas?

As I said, I agree fully that neither the Bible nor Christianity have their foundations in logic. Now, other Christian readers, do you agree with angellous?

 

[lunamoth]

Ay yi yi, I must be crazy to re-enter this hornets' nest of a thread, but I agree with AE that you can't discount the thousands of years of interpretation, oral law (jewish) and tradition that shape and ameliorate the writings of the Bible. (He's probably cringing that I'm agreeing because I'm not much of a debator and much less versed in all of this than you all seem to be.) No matter how much someone insists that they are reading the Bible 'plainly' or for it's clear meaning, Christianity is not just based upon the Bible. If it were possible to find someone completely unfamiliar with all of our religions and hand them a Bible, the religion they'd come up with would have very little resemblence to the various flavors of Christianity we have today.

My understanding is that Jews don't go around stoning people or poking out eyes for eyes...their oral tradition (I think) focuses on the principles of the law and finds all the reasons God would not allow such barbaric practices...yes it's a 'law,' but it's highly improbable that anyone can meet the conditions under which it is possible to carry out the law, is one way I've heard it explained. But autodidact, I believe you are Jewish as so understand this much better than I do.

But the same is true for Christianity. The religion is based upon the Bible and what we think we know about the life and resurrection of Christ (tradition). But given even those baselines, it's all a matter of how one interprets, what one empahsizes, and what one diminishes. That's why there are so many flavors of Christianity, none of them following a 'literal' interpretation of the Bible, as if that even makes sense. You are right when you say above, "You have to actually lay out what the tradition is for us, so we can discuss and see whether it has any merit." And, you have to first agree with has merit, what could possibly qualify as correct.

I think it's perfectly appropriate to decide that Christ exemplified love, forgiveness, compassion, and inclusion and base your interpretation on those principles. And I believe AE when he says that Christian theologians, scholars, and faithful have done similar things with the NT as the rabbis have done with the OT laws, although from where I sit it seems to have been a messier process given how many different sects of Christianity have arisen.

While in theory I could agree that one could take pretty much any book, any set of words made permanent by writing, and formulate a worldview based upon them, it is ridiculous to compare the Bible to the Cat in the Hat (or Even Red Fish Blue Fish ) simply because the Bible contains a much richer, vastly more complex body of writings representing the evolving wisdom and theolgoy of thousands of years, than a child's book written by one person using kindergarten words. It's like saying my kitchen prints are as inspring as a tour of Le Louvre.