Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Pick and Choose Fundamentalism
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 384 (430381)
10-24-2007 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Jaderis
10-24-2007 9:48 PM


Re: Never condemn others on a charge you do not understand yourself
So explain again how this justifies cherry-picking the laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy?
Why are sins such as murder, theft, adultery and homosexuality so much more egregious in the eyes of certain Christians than, say, working on the sabbath, back-talking to your parents or eating unclean foods?
If that wasn't clear, then perhaps this verse will sum up:
"When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.
Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.
Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you for the prize. Such a person goes into great detail about what he has seen, and his unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions. He has lost connection with the Head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.
Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: "Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!"? These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.
-Colosians 2:13-23
There is also another way to think about it in practical purposes. There are 10 Commandments of the 613 ordinances in Judaism. Why do you suppose they are distinguished from one another? Why separate 10 from the other?
Now, is there anything wrong with the Law? Absolutely not... Even the dietary laws? Surely not. As a matter of fact, I observe many of them, not for religious observances, as if my soul would depend upon the flesh of swine, but that it is a matter of cleanliness.
What becomes wrong about it is to hold this over people's heads as a bartering tool-- something God never intended. The lesson with the Law is that the Law is righteous, indeed. But the law cannot do one critical thing. The Law cannot change what you want to do.
Furthermore, the Law tended to do the exact opposite of what it was thought to designed for. Instead of faith, it took us to works. Instead of humility, it took us to pride. Why? Because in us it took our minds towards vanity where we thought we were the masters of our destiny. Our reliance on God faded, and it was us that kept the commands or faltered.
The greatest problem of the Law, of course, is our inability to keep it. See, if you desire to be under the Law, then you must follow the entire Law. You can't keep all the ordinances and only break one and be fine. How many laws do you obey every day? Probably quite a few. But would the keeping of those laws undermine the fact that you brutally murdered someone? I would think the family of the slain would say that your strict obedience of traffic laws are irrelevant.
It is the same with God here. Yes, those laws are great. And yes, obeying the law is better than having to be forgiven. The problem is, we are law breakers, despite our greatest intentions. Jesus then takes upon Himself the punishment due us. And God sacrifices Himself as a gesture of mercy.
The Law then becomes a shadow of the real thing. Or in reverse, we can illustrate it as the Law of God being like a truck that comes barreling toward us. The truck of judgment comes upon Jesus in our stead, so that the truck will not roll over us. Instead, only the shadow of the truck comes over us.
But unless you accept that Jesus is that perfect propitiation, you will be expected to uphold the Law in full. Denying it is to take upon yourself the truck of judgment rather than the shadow.

"Whatever weakens your reasoning, impairs the tenderness of your conscience, obscures your sense of God, or takes away your relish for spiritual things-- in short, if anything increases the power and the authority of the flesh over the spirit, that to you becomes sin, however good it may be in itself." -Suzanna Wesley

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Jaderis, posted 10-24-2007 9:48 PM Jaderis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Jaderis, posted 10-25-2007 3:37 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3425 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 17 of 384 (430406)
10-25-2007 3:37 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Hyroglyphx
10-24-2007 11:01 PM


Re: Never condemn others on a charge you do not understand yourself
Thanks for not answering my question at all. Again, why do some Christians take up such arms against sins such as murder, theft, adultery and homosexuality, but brush aside sins such as working on the sabbath, back-talking your parents or eating unclean foods?
If Jesus came to fulfill all the laws and we are all sinners anyway in need of salvation through Jesus, what's all the hubbub about?
I also find it interesting that I've been itching to bring up the point about "saved" Christians and the law and you touch upon that very thing here:
But unless you accept that Jesus is that perfect propitiation, you will be expected to uphold the Law in full. Denying it is to take upon yourself the truck of judgment rather than the shadow.
So, if you are "saved" then that is when you get to choose which laws you want to uphold?
It seems that way to me, especially in light of recent (and not-so-recent for that matter) *ahem* scandals. Sinning is quickly forgiven and forgotten when it is one of your own. This ties nicely in with the point that several here at EvC (and elsewhere) have addressed in various ways: if you are already "saved" what is to stop you from sinning?
Oh, I know there is something about not wanting to sin because of your personal relationship with God, but if you are no longer bound by the law and can pick and choose which laws to follow, then what is the difference between eating shellfish and fornicating? Between trimming your beard and stealing your neighbor's car?
Oh, and could you expound a little on this:
What becomes wrong about it is to hold this over people's heads as a bartering tool-- something God never intended.
What does that mean?

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London
"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-24-2007 11:01 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Elhardt, posted 10-27-2007 11:06 PM Jaderis has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 18 of 384 (430443)
10-25-2007 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by jar
10-24-2007 10:28 AM


Re: Just a small gnit.
jar writes:
I happen to think there really are Biblicists; Spidey, Brian and doctrbill come to mind from our current membership, but I have yet to come across a Fundie or Biblical Christian I would consider a "Biblicist."
For me, a Biblicist actually studies what is written in the Bible as well as the additional outside evidence related.
Sorry, my misquote. I believed I meant to use the term Biblical Christian to avoid the even more charged term Bibolator, either of which IMO would work.
Will change in OP and let this post stand as the record of my mistake.

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by jar, posted 10-24-2007 10:28 AM jar has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 19 of 384 (430570)
10-26-2007 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by anglagard
10-24-2007 3:09 AM


I have noticed that according to {Bibolators} one book in particular, Genesis, is considered literally inerrant, yet other books, such as Deuteronomy or Leviticus can just be ignored depending upon the personal whim of the fundie.
i'm going to offer a simple explanation, and one that will sound incredibly insulting at first, but i'm sure that many will admit to.
it's because genesis is the first book of the bible, and that's all they've actually read. the "it's one book, start at the beginning" mentality comes into play here. if you can make i through numbers, you've got some determination, but leviticus will shatter that. what a boring read those two books are! after that, all your average fundie really knows are the "proof texts."
as dwise1 states, it's all about fast indoctrination these days, and not actualy open and honest bible study and discussion. so people get all concerned about genesis being literal, without being too aware of books like kings (another boring read). they might know some isaiah here and there, but you'll be hard-pressed to find someone quoting the minor prophets. and they'll pick up on the "hot button" talking points, like homosexuality, without really much having processed even the message of the gospels. why, the very chapter of leviticus between the two "no butt sex" commandments says "love your neighbour as yourself."
...how Biblical fundamentalists pick and choose what portions of the Bible that one should live by and what portions one is allowed to ignore.
this is actually a sort of minor issue, i think. what people choose to follow or not follow is a personal decision, between them and their god. the problem is that they just can't leave it like that for other people. it seems to me that if we are saved by grace and grace alone, and we are all sinners, we have no right to condemn others for breaking rules we mostly choose not to follow. the fundamental message of the gospel is one of love and compassion, regardless of the law. when christians ignore this part, and choose to treat others with scorn because they do not follow the law, then it is somewhat fair game to turn their own claims around.
as jesus said, "judge not, lest you be judged." by the standard you condemn others, so will you be condemned. but forgive, and you will be forgiven. it seems to me that if we pick ONE part of the bible and ignore all others, it should be this part.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by anglagard, posted 10-24-2007 3:09 AM anglagard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by PaulK, posted 10-26-2007 2:00 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 20 of 384 (430575)
10-26-2007 2:00 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by arachnophilia
10-26-2007 1:15 AM


Here's a simpler explanation. They don't read for comprehension. They read to find things that back up their own beliefs. Reading for comprehension is out. That's how Buzsaw - who claims to be an expert on Biblical prophecy - could go into a discussion about the Olivet Discourse without even knowing that the version in Luke is signficantly different from that in the other two synoptics.
In fact it's quite amazing the lengths they will go to. NJ chopping a verse in two because he wants to hide the context. Buzsaw inventing a new meaning for the word English word "but" . It's impossible to believe that they honestly care about what the BIble says.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by arachnophilia, posted 10-26-2007 1:15 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by arachnophilia, posted 10-26-2007 2:02 AM PaulK has not replied
 Message 50 by Buzsaw, posted 10-26-2007 9:47 PM PaulK has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 21 of 384 (430576)
10-26-2007 2:02 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by PaulK
10-26-2007 2:00 AM


i think that probably comes after the "not reading" indoctrination stage, as they struggle to keep up with their beliefs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by PaulK, posted 10-26-2007 2:00 AM PaulK has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 22 of 384 (430600)
10-26-2007 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Taz
10-24-2007 12:49 PM


Interesting enough, this was something that was addressed when I was going to religious studies for my synagogue. The answer was that the people who wrote it was a minor tribe among many other tribes, and things were exaggerated to make them look more powerful.
That explanation made sense to me.. it doesn't make the 'bible' inerrent though

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Taz, posted 10-24-2007 12:49 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Taz, posted 10-26-2007 11:43 AM ramoss has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 23 of 384 (430618)
10-26-2007 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Taz
10-24-2007 12:49 PM


Taz writes:
Would an all loving god command a person to brutally murder hundreds of little infants?
I agree that He wouldn't. The devastation of Jericho was carried out by people who wanted to justify their actions by saying that God had commanded their actions and they recorded it that way. It was a blasphemy. That is how I would read it. It doesn't make the account of what happened incorrect, but then I'm not a literalist.
If the perpetrators of the crusades or the inquisition were to record their history I'm sure they would say that God justified their actions.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Taz, posted 10-24-2007 12:49 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Taz, posted 10-26-2007 11:53 AM GDR has replied
 Message 149 by Phat, posted 07-07-2009 10:43 AM GDR has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 24 of 384 (430623)
10-26-2007 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by ramoss
10-26-2007 9:16 AM


ramoss writes:
That explanation made sense to me.
You missed my point.
Whether it was exaggerated or not, the very same story is used today by christians everywhere to teach morals to their children. They don't teach it as an exaggerated myth. They teach it as an actually inerrant word of god. This is why everytime I ask christians on this board to explain to me why the story is moral, instead of saying "it was exaggerated", people like phat, gen, nem_jug, buzsaw, riverrat, etc. always say something like "they were sinful and deserved death". In fact, in chat one time phat actually said straight to my face "the people of jericho were given 40 years to repent..."
It's not the story itself that I have a problem with. I treat it as just another myth like the Illiad or Cortez's version of his conquest of Mexico. What I have a problem with is christians actually read the story literally and teach their children that according to the literal reading of the story god was just and the people of Jericho deserved what was coming to them.
Um, what about those 1 year olds who could barely walk? What about the unborn children and pregnant women? All them pro-life folks out there have been trying to make a case for the human status of a fetus (I believe the fetus IS a fully human being). What about those unborn children?
Here is a prophecy for the buzsaw fans. I prophecize that if any christian who's username I mentioned above responds to me here about this issue, he will use the typical excuses to justify horrendous murderous acts told in the story. Trust me, I went through the same phase. Tried everything I could and gave any excuse I could think of to justfiy mass murder and rape. I still don't know what happenned to my conscience during that period of time.

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by ramoss, posted 10-26-2007 9:16 AM ramoss has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by GDR, posted 10-26-2007 2:03 PM Taz has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 25 of 384 (430628)
10-26-2007 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by GDR
10-26-2007 11:23 AM


GDR writes:
If the perpetrators of the crusades or the inquisition were to record their history I'm sure they would say that God justified their actions.
I wonder if the people I mentioned in my previous post would actually try to make excuses for what the crusaders did to ALL the inhabitants of Jerusalem in the first crusade.
It doesn't make the account of what happened incorrect, but then I'm not a literalist.
I'm glad you're not a literalist. In other words, in the end your conscience triumphed over your interpretation of the text. Unfortunately, this is not the case for many, if not most, christians out there.
Coincidently, my ethics professor (Hebrew Scholar) back when I was in college told us once that he thought there must have been some kind of miscommunication between god and the Israelites there. He said this in one of our weekly bible debates. Anyway, this certainly stirred up the christian students (myself included). You wouldn't believe the excuses we made that night just to maintain that all of the bible was literally true and that god was always just. Kind of embarrassing (on my part at least) if you ask me now.

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by GDR, posted 10-26-2007 11:23 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by GDR, posted 10-26-2007 2:11 PM Taz has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 26 of 384 (430638)
10-26-2007 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Taz
10-26-2007 11:43 AM


Taz writes:
It's not the story itself that I have a problem with. I treat it as just another myth like the Illiad or Cortez's version of his conquest of Mexico. What I have a problem with is christians actually read the story literally and teach their children that according to the literal reading of the story god was just and the people of Jericho deserved what was coming to them.
I don't see why it is necessary to treat it as a myth though. As I said, I'm not a literalist but I do believe that the story is essentially correct although there is probably some Jewish symbolism in the part about the walls.
As far as being directed by God to kill everyone I would suggest, as I said, that them saying that God endorsed what they were doing justified their actions. It doesn't mean that they actually had God's approval.
I think that virtually all Christians would agree that God is the same then now and forever. Jesus told the early Jews that the way to defeat the Romans was to turn the other cheek and go the extra mile. In other words, love your enemy. He foretold the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD when they insisted on trying to bring about a military solution to Roman occupation. It is interesting to note that in the end the Christians did defeat the Romans non-militarily about 300 years later. I don't believe that God was any different in the early first century than he was at the time of the fall of Jericho.
The entire Bible is culturally conditioned and has to be read in that context. That does not mean that it isn't true, but just like I believe that we can learn about the world by other than scientific means, I also believe that we can learn more about God's message for us by going beyond a literally reading of the Bible.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Taz, posted 10-26-2007 11:43 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Taz, posted 10-26-2007 2:11 PM GDR has replied
 Message 45 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-26-2007 9:22 PM GDR has replied

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5915 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 27 of 384 (430641)
10-26-2007 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Taz
10-24-2007 12:49 PM


God Ordained Killing
Taz writes:
Would an all loving god command a person to brutally murder hundreds of little infants?
God ordained killing is the first clue in these OT passages that this is not God speaking.
First it is an admission that the God of the universe is limited and needs or requires his human agents to carry out these misdeeds. Does any really believe that God requires holy hit men? This god supposedly stopped the sun and the moon and hurled hailstones therefore it is clear that this god does not have any issues with making his power intersect with the material world.
Also I agree with GDR that these stories are blasphemous in that they use God to justify genocide and indiscriminate killing. If god gives life why can't god take it? Why does he need a human in the loop. God ordained slaughter is the theology behind suicide bombers and modern day Islamic terror. Same thought different time.
Second in genocide like described in various places in the OT there are victims on both sides of the sword. Hacking pregnant women and cleaving into two a wily and panicked 8 year old is going mess with ones mind (or soul if you will). Can you image rubbing shoulders in heaven with someone who has hacked pregnant women, the aged, the toddler and taken the virgin child as a wife?
Thirdly, the events described and the mores displayed fit quite comfortably within the era and region. Is this God talking or just men with a superstitious fixation on a father ultimate warrior figure... just like every other early civilization. Takes just a small measure of common sense to realize this.
This is the small god that the fundamentalists have chosen to worship.
Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Taz, posted 10-24-2007 12:49 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Taz, posted 10-26-2007 2:18 PM iceage has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 28 of 384 (430642)
10-26-2007 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Taz
10-26-2007 11:53 AM


Taz writes:
I'm glad you're not a literalist. In other words, in the end your conscience triumphed over your interpretation of the text. Unfortunately, this is not the case for many, if not most, christians out there.
I wouldn't say conscience but I would say that God given reason won out. It wasn't an issue for me as I became a Christian largely through the writing of CS Lewis who wasn't a literalist.
Actually, as near as I can tell literalism is a view held by a minority of Christians who are primarily North American. I have been reading parts of Josephus who was a 1st century Jew. He writes that Moses wrote enigmatically and with metaphor. That view has been held for centuries right through St. Augustine, CS Lewis and currently N.T. Wright.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Taz, posted 10-26-2007 11:53 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Taz, posted 10-26-2007 2:14 PM GDR has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 29 of 384 (430643)
10-26-2007 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by GDR
10-26-2007 2:03 PM


GDR writes:
I don't see why it is necessary to treat it as a myth though.
Me atheist. Me moral.
As far as being directed by God to kill everyone I would suggest, as I said, that them saying that God endorsed what they were doing justified their actions. It doesn't mean that they actually had God's approval.
Ok, so do you agree with me that people shouldn't teach this story to their children literally and claim it to be a moral example?

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by GDR, posted 10-26-2007 2:03 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by GDR, posted 10-26-2007 2:20 PM Taz has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 30 of 384 (430644)
10-26-2007 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by GDR
10-26-2007 2:11 PM


GDR writes:
Actually, as near as I can tell literalism is a view held by a minority of Christians who are primarily North American.
And yet this supposed minority group is somehow taking over America.
Sorry, I've never bought into this "silent minority" claim. The fact that a literalist like Bush could get into office by getting the fundamentalists to organize whole bus tours to the voting places should tell us something about their numbers.

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by GDR, posted 10-26-2007 2:11 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by GDR, posted 10-26-2007 2:34 PM Taz has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024