Why Don't Christians Follow the Bible?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

True, very true.

Except I left out the word "wouldn't" for some reason.

btw, what does Lapsed Atheist mean?

It means that I've stopped not going to church and stopped not reading the Bible, but in my heart I still don't believe in God.

It's my attempt at a little humour.

BTW - in case you were curious, the "Boltzmann Chicken" title is my attempt to focus the ideas inherent in the Boltzmann Brain problem on spontaneous poultry instead of spontaneous intelligence.

 

[Autodidact]

Except I left out the word "wouldn't" for some reason.


It means that I've stopped not going to church and stopped not reading the Bible, but in my heart I still don't believe in God.

It's my attempt at a little humour.

BTW - in case you were curious, the "Boltzmann Chicken" title is my attempt to focus the ideas inherent in the Boltzmann Brain problem on spontaneous poultry instead of spontaneous intelligence.

I don't know, but crypty is awfully cute. Here's some friends for him:

 

[~Amin~]

So, back to my original question, why do Christians not follow the entire bible, even though it says they must?

Simple same reason why most Muslims , Jews , Christians, dont follow scripture
is because they follow there desires , devils , imotions etc and worship themselves
or the creation instead of God.

 

[Muffled]

Simple same reason why most Muslims , Jews , Christians, dont follow scripture
is because they follow there desires , devils , imotions etc and worship themselves
or the creation instead of God.

There is probably some of that but A Christian walking in the spirit is not submitted to: his own desires, devils, emotions, ego or the creation but are submitted to God by His grace through the Paraclete and that may or may not coincide with men's view of the scriptures.

 

[Sonic247]

btw the discussion about polygamy serves as an excellent example of how Christians do and don't follow the Bible. Whatever your position on these matters of cultural relativity and inerrancy, this is a good example to explore. No one can doubt that:
Polygamy is practiced in the OT, and seems to have existed in NT times as well.
Polygamy is never prohibited. (And remember, this is a God who knows how to prohibit. The OT alone contains 613 commandments, and none of them against polygamy.)
Jesus did not condemn it.
The Bible does regulate polygamy.

Nevertheless, most modern Christians will assert that it is prohibited, and proceed to do what they call exegesis (or, if intellectual, hermeneutics) to show why it is NOT Biblical.

My understanding is that this was completely cultural. The ANE people did practice polygamy, and the Romans did not. When Christianity became the official Roman religion, Church leaders decided to go with the Roman, monogamous model, and decreed monogamy for Christians. It is not, however, required in the Bible.

It is prohibited for us (in America) because we are supposed to obey the laws of the government if they don't force us to brake the laws of God, no one can completely follow the law of God it's true but it's God that judges the heart and it's motivation, for instance perhaps your motivation is to take out your bitterness against God and is done only to condemn, but once you condemn someone else you are condemning yourself unless you are free from what you are accusing the other person of. It's easy to look at any group of people and say they have hypocrites, but the same thing you accuse others of you do yourself, you said people use some parts of the Bible and not others, just like you are right on the Bibles position on hypocrisy but ignore the fact that homosexuality is associated with a mind turned away from God in the New Testament and a sin that carried the death penalty in the Old Testament and use the Bible to suit your own purposes. But the way to understand the Bible is not to read it, or even profess it as the hypocrites you condemn but to live it- like it says in the Psalms- "A good understanding have all they that keep his commandments" the first of all the commandments (positionally not chronologically) is to love God with all your heart and mind, if you showed this characteristic Christians would take what you say more seriously.

 

[Autodidact]

It is prohibited for us (in America) because we are supposed to obey the laws of the government if they don't force us to brake the laws of God, no one can completely follow the law of God it's true but it's God that judges the heart and it's motivation, for instance perhaps your motivation is to take out your bitterness against God and is done only to condemn, but once you condemn someone else you are condemning yourself unless you are free from what you are accusing the other person of. It's easy to look at any group of people and say they have hypocrites, but the same thing you accuse others of you do yourself, you said people use some parts of the Bible and not others, just like you are right on the Bibles position on hypocrisy but ignore the fact that homosexuality is associated with a mind turned away from God in the New Testament and a sin that carried the death penalty in the Old Testament and use the Bible to suit your own purposes. But the way to understand the Bible is not to read it, or even profess it as the hypocrites you condemn but to live it- like it says in the Psalms- "A good understanding have all they that keep his commandments" the first of all the commandments (positionally not chronologically) is to love God with all your heart and mind, if you showed this characteristic Christians would take what you say more seriously.

1. Punctuation is your friend. Please stop challenging your readers and make friends with punctuation. I suggest starting with the period. Commas are also helpful. Finally, the occasional paragraph works wonders.
2. Maybe you forgot that I'm an atheist? How on earth would it matter to me what the NT says about homosexuality? Are you sure you know what the word "hypocrite" means? About the most hypocritical thing I do is to occasionally mutter "God help me," when my kid is driving me nuts.
3. So the only reason that polygamy is wrong is that it's against the law? Other than that, no Biblical prohibition against it? Any other Christians out there agree with this? (btw, I think you're right. If it were legal, your religion would not prohibit it. How do you feel about that?)
4. So how about slavery then?

 

[sojourner]

There's a right way and a wrong way to "follow the Bible." These latest postings ain't it.

 

[Autodidact]

There's a right way and a wrong way to "follow the Bible." These latest postings ain't it.

Could you be a little more vague?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Could you be a little more vague?

If soj doesn't humor you, I'll give it a go sometime.

 

[LongGe123]

Hey guys, I've just watched this very interresting video on YouTube by a christian woman preacher called Monica. The Video is: - Do You Have The Blood Of The Bride On Your Hands? Its very relavent to this thread.
Its a very good watch, I'd recommend watching it. In it she bascially says (using lots of Bible quotes) that the bible should be taken as God's word, word for word, and that Christians who add to the Bible with their own theories, or logic, are sinning. She also says that following traditions or cultures is not an excuse for not following the Bible. Meaning that cultures may change, but the word of God doesn't.
She makes some very good/interesting points.
I wonder what she'd have to say about Pauls' "women shouldn't preach + should be silent" verses though.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Hey guys, I've just watched this very interresting video on YouTube by a christian woman preacher called Monica. The Video is: - Do You Have The Blood Of The Bride On Your Hands? Its very relavent to this thread.
Its a very good watch, I'd recommend watching it. In it she bascially says (using lots of Bible quotes) that the bible should be taken as God's word, word for word, and that Christians who add to the Bible with their own theories, or logic, are sinning. She also says that following traditions or cultures is not an excuse for not following the Bible. Meaning that cultures may change, but the word of God doesn't.
She makes some very good/interesting points.
I wonder what she'd have to say about Pauls' "women shouldn't preach + should be silent" verses though.

She's not in a church perhaps.

What she would have to say about atheists would also be interesting.

 

[LongGe123]

Yeah, she's done a video on atheists - she calls them Satanists.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Yeah, she's done a video on atheists - she calls them Satanists.

Can you stand to watch stuff like that? :biglaugh:

News to you that you're a Satanist.

 

[LongGe123]

Yeah, she's abit wacko for sure. But she's got alot of good comments off people - which means people are really listerning to her and following what she says, which is quite a scary thorght. reach:

 

[Muffled]

Hey guys, I've just watched this very interresting video on YouTube by a christian woman preacher called Monica. The Video is: - Do You Have The Blood Of The Bride On Your Hands? Its very relavent to this thread.
Its a very good watch, I'd recommend watching it. In it she bascially says (using lots of Bible quotes) that the bible should be taken as God's word, word for word, and that Christians who add to the Bible with their own theories, or logic, are sinning. She also says that following traditions or cultures is not an excuse for not following the Bible. Meaning that cultures may change, but the word of God doesn't.
She makes some very good/interesting points.
I wonder what she'd have to say about Pauls' "women shouldn't preach + should be silent" verses though.

The Sanhedrin thought it was following the Bible by having Jesus crucified. The truth is that they were following the wickedness that existed in their hearts.

 

[Sonic247]

1. Punctuation is your friend. Please stop challenging your readers and make friends with punctuation. I suggest starting with the period. Commas are also helpful. Finally, the occasional paragraph works wonders.

Maybe so but that's irrelavant, you forgot to mention my terrible spelling.

2. Maybe you forgot that I'm an atheist? How on earth would it matter to me what the NT says about homosexuality? Are you sure you know what the word "hypocrite" means? About the most hypocritical thing I do is to occasionally mutter "God help me," when my kid is driving me nuts.

Are you sure about that, sometimes it's hard for a person to even know themselves.

3. So the only reason that polygamy is wrong is that it's against the law? Other than that, no Biblical prohibition against it? Any other Christians out there agree with this? (btw, I think you're right. If it were legal, your religion would not prohibit it. How do you feel about that?)

Well besides the verse I said before about two being one I don't know of any others. It wouldn't really bother me either way, since I want to be a pastor one day I'm prohibited from having more than one wife anyway , I just know it is harder on the wives to be in this kind of relationship, and in any story in the Bible having alot of wives is never really a benifit to anyone.

4. So how about slavery then?

Slavery is one of the signs of a dedicated Christian- "though I be free from all men yet have I made myself a servant to all that I might gain the more."

 

[Autodidact]

Maybe so but that's irrelavant, you forgot to mention my terrible spelling.

It's a question of being considerate to others--your readers. It's one of those instances of trying to treat other people as you would like to be treated.

Are you sure about that, sometimes it's hard for a person to even know themselves.

Whatever. The instance you described is not one of hypocrisy. Since I am not Christian, disregarding whatever the Christian holy book may say on the subject of homosexuality is not hypocrisy for me, as it is for say Ted Haggard or the many other Christian hypocrites who do this.

Slavery is one of the signs of a dedicated Christian- "though I be free from all men yet have I made myself a servant to all that I might gain the more."

Maybe you missed my point. I was referring to your right to own other people as slaves. What does your Bible tell you about that?

 

[Sonic247]

It's a question of being considerate to others--your readers. It's one of those instances of trying to treat other people as you would like to be treated.

Well I'm glad that saying God help me isn't the only instance of hypocrisy you can see in your life, I would be alot less offended,(not at all actually) if someone wrote me a post with bad grammer then if they wrote the way you did.Are do you think that your posts are considerate of others?

Whatever. The instance you described is not one of hypocrisy. Since I am not Christian, disregarding whatever the Christian holy book may say on the subject of homosexuality is not hypocrisy for me, as it is for say Ted Haggard or the many other Christian hypocrites who do this.

Maybe so but if you use one part of the Bible and say it is clearly taught then you should use the same standard for every part of the Bible.

Maybe you missed my point. I was referring to your right to own other people as slaves. What does your Bible tell you about that?

I don't think it would be appropriate, we are freed to serve not be served. It speak clearly against stealing men which is were slaves come from so we would not support it with our money or else we would be a part of that sin. However it says he that is called being a servant is the Lords freeman and he that is called being free is the Lords servant, and if a slave is a christians he shouldn't mind but that if he can be made free to use it.

 

[Autodidact]

Well I'm glad that saying God help me isn't the only instance of hypocrisy you can see in your life, I would be alot less offended,(not at all actually) if someone wrote me a post with bad grammer then if they wrote the way you did.Are do you think that your posts are considerate of others?

I do my best. I do not consider sharp disagreement to be discourteous in an internet debate forum.

Maybe so but if you use one part of the Bible and say it is clearly taught then you should use the same standard for every part of the Bible.

What are you referring to?

I don't think it would be appropriate, we are freed to serve not be served. It speak clearly against stealing men which is were slaves come from so we would not support it with our money or else we would be a part of that sin. However it says he that is called being a servant is the Lords freeman and he that is called being free is the Lords servant, and if a slave is a christians he shouldn't mind but that if he can be made free to use it.

What makes you think it's a sin? It's not prohibited or condemned anywhere in the Bible, so on what basis do you decide that it's a sin?

This would be an instance of that punctuation problem I was referring to. Would it help if I punctuated one of your paragraphs for you? It really is helpful to your readers. If nothing else, it makes your intent much clearer, which is the purpose of writing, after all.

 

[Sonic247]

What makes you think it's a sin? It's not prohibited or condemned anywhere in the Bible, so on what basis do you decide that it's a sin?

I already said why: it supports men-stealing which is a sin. That's like saying it wouldn't be a sin to buy Hitler's gas chambers for him.