Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

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


Message 12 of 384 (430356)
10-24-2007 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by anglagard
10-24-2007 3:09 AM


Never condemn others on a charge you do not understand yourself
I have noticed that according to Biblicists (using jar's term) 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.
Of the five books of the Pentateuch, Genesis is almost entirely a chronicling of the first people. It is supposed to be a historical lesson which is interlaced with symbolism. Therefore, the only arguments that can be made against the book of Genesis is questions about its historicity, veracity, and accuracy.
The bulk of the remaining deals with a lot of history, but much of it also deals with Jewish customs and Laws-- laws, mind you, that were given by Moses, as opposed to given to Moses.
So you ask: Why not then view the other books of the Torah with the same importance. Well, I can't speak for everyone, but as a Christian, I can speak for myself.
I view those books as every bit as important as any other. I also reject the notion, propositioned by some Christians, that the Old Testament is of no importance any longer because of Jesus. I reject that rationale because if you want a well-rounded understanding of why Jesus did and say the things He did, one has to first understand those customs and Laws.
You may further ask: Why is the Law no longer important then? Did Jesus do away with the Law?
It still is important. It will always be important. And Jesus did NOT do away with the Law, but rather, He fulfilled it-- as He is our Passover, He is our sacrificial Lamb, He is our atonement. All of these sentiments are gleaned from the Tanahk. They are very important.
Perhaps, though, I am not explaining it as well as the Scriptures could. So without further delay:
Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and brag about your relationship to God; if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law; if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of infants, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth” you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself?
You who preach against stealing, do you steal? You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? You who brag about the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? As it is written:
    Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. If those who are not circumcised keep the law's requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker.
    A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God.
    What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God.
    What if some did not have faith? Will their lack of faith nullify God's faithfulness? Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written:
      But if our unrighteousness brings out God's righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? Someone might argue, "If my falsehood enhances God's truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?" Why not say”as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say”"Let us do evil that good may result"? Their condemnation is deserved.
      What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin....
      But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.
      There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished” he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
      Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.

      "It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

      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 13 by ringo, posted 10-24-2007 8:02 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
       Message 14 by Jaderis, posted 10-24-2007 9:48 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

        
      Hyroglyphx
      Inactive Member


      Message 15 of 384 (430374)
      10-24-2007 10:22 PM
      Reply to: Message 13 by ringo
      10-24-2007 8:02 PM


      Re: Never condemn others on a charge you do not understand yourself
      If you're going to quote great swaths of the Bible, how about giving a citation?
      I forgot. Thanks.

      "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 13 by ringo, posted 10-24-2007 8:02 PM ringo has not replied

        
      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

        
      Hyroglyphx
      Inactive Member


      Message 45 of 384 (430710)
      10-26-2007 9:22 PM
      Reply to: Message 26 by GDR
      10-26-2007 2:03 PM


      What it all means
      I don't see why it is necessary to treat it as a myth though.
      I agree, especially since its quite obvious that a large amount of text in the Bible is historically accurate. As a for instance, it was believed for a long time that the Hittite civilization was just a myth-- that no such people named the Hittites ever existed.
      The argument entailed that, if the Hittite civilization was as vast and encompassing as the Bible claimed, why was there no direct evidence? Of course, soon after discovery after discovery was made pertaining to the Hittites, every bit as impressive as the Bible detailed.
      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.
      I don't really know what a literalist is any more than I know what a fundamentalist is. The meanings have become too obscured, especially since those who call themselves literalists recognize the difference between allegory and commonality.
      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.
      What I see sometimes is passages that state something happened only to have someone speculate that it was sanctioned by God just because its found in the Bible. Often times it is just listed as a historical fact that is not giving any indication as to how God dealt with it. Others are not so unambiguous. It all depends on the passage.

      "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 26 by GDR, posted 10-26-2007 2:03 PM GDR has replied

      Replies to this message:
       Message 52 by GDR, posted 10-26-2007 10:28 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
       Message 63 by PaulK, posted 10-27-2007 5:38 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
       Message 73 by Brian, posted 10-27-2007 8:33 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

        
      Hyroglyphx
      Inactive Member


      Message 237 of 384 (515389)
      07-17-2009 4:13 PM
      Reply to: Message 232 by Taz
      07-17-2009 12:09 PM


      Re: Double standards?
      I remember one of my philosophy professors asked a hard core christian if god could stomp his own toe. The christian thought about it for a moment and said he didn't think god would do that. People were like "that's not the question!" Good luck getting a straight answer out of peg on this one.
      That's just a stupid question. I would have replied that I don't believe in an anthropomorphic God who would even have toes in the first place so the question is invalid.
      That's even worse than the non-sequitor, "Can God create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it?"
      I'm curious though why you say that Christians lie? Everybody has lied. That makes us all liars, so try not and get too high and mighty.
      Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

      "Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

      This message is a reply to:
       Message 232 by Taz, posted 07-17-2009 12:09 PM Taz has not replied

        
      Hyroglyphx
      Inactive Member


      Message 240 of 384 (515393)
      07-17-2009 4:22 PM
      Reply to: Message 238 by Hill Billy
      07-17-2009 4:15 PM


      Re: More evil than I thought
      If I have foreknowledge that inserting a super heated steel rod in your rectum will cause intense pain,
      and,
      You choose to insert said red hot poker in your butt,
      I am response able for your pain because I knew it was gonna happen?
      You make a good point save the fact that God, presumably, is omniscient and you aren't. You would be making an educated guess.
      God would have to be culpable for your disposition since he is the author of all of life. If God gave you an insatiable lust, but then instructed you not to act upon it, then what kind of sadist does that make God?
      How is that fair amd reasonable expectation?
      Our entire purpose for existing is to satisfy his ego. If all glory to God is the ultimate goal, which according to the bible it is, then, again, how does that not make him a sadist?

      "Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

      This message is a reply to:
       Message 238 by Hill Billy, posted 07-17-2009 4:15 PM Hill Billy has not replied

        
      Hyroglyphx
      Inactive Member


      Message 242 of 384 (515398)
      07-17-2009 4:28 PM
      Reply to: Message 239 by Perdition
      07-17-2009 4:21 PM


      Re: More evil than I thought
      If God knows, and I mean really knows, every minute detail of every thought we're going to have and every action we're going to take, how can we have free will?
      I understand the difference between foreknowledge and predestination. It's like an undercover operation. The police are aware of what you are going to do through evidence and surveillance, but they aren't forcing you to do it. I get that part and I think to a degree he is right.
      The problem is that God allowing these things to happen without forcing your hand doesn't somehow absolve him of his sadism. Imagine sticking men and women in the same room, giving them their sex drives, but then saying don't eat the forbidden fruit. He says, "Ah, but I gave you freewill! You could have opted not to." Sure, that's true. But imagine blaming the monkey for eating the banana when you dangled it in his face! He's just following the desires imparted by God. God therefore is responsible for every action that happens because he wrote the template for it all.

      "Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

      This message is a reply to:
       Message 239 by Perdition, posted 07-17-2009 4:21 PM Perdition has replied

      Replies to this message:
       Message 243 by Perdition, posted 07-17-2009 4:32 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

        
      Hyroglyphx
      Inactive Member


      Message 264 of 384 (515498)
      07-18-2009 11:41 AM
      Reply to: Message 243 by Perdition
      07-17-2009 4:32 PM


      Re: More evil than I thought
      In my example, can I turn right?
      I've pondered predestination versus freewill and can only conclude that we have no real way of knowing either way. Deja' vu just makes it that much more difficult.
      I suppose though that it is entirely possible that there could be infinite possibilities concerning the future, and that one could be headed down a certain path which will lead to door X, but at any given time one could opt to go down door B, but not that we are even aware of such possibilities.

      "Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

      This message is a reply to:
       Message 243 by Perdition, posted 07-17-2009 4:32 PM Perdition has replied

      Replies to this message:
       Message 266 by themasterdebator, posted 07-18-2009 8:24 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
       Message 289 by Perdition, posted 07-20-2009 2:57 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

        
      Hyroglyphx
      Inactive Member


      Message 317 of 384 (516146)
      07-23-2009 3:48 PM
      Reply to: Message 309 by Theodoric
      07-23-2009 9:07 AM


      Re: Double standards?
      Notice it says Hebrew slave, male at that. What about all the non hebrew, non male slaves? Even from just this slight reading you can see that they were treated differently.
      Hebrews have always seen themselves as consecrated from the rest of society. Their book demands it, as they believe it to be a commandment from God.
      Slavery was and is a brutal practice. It doesn't matter how you rationalize the bible, it promotes and supports a brutal practice.
      I'm not defending the bible or going against the bible, but what Peg said, at least in this instance, is true. Not all slavery was as it was portrayed in Roots. A slave back then had a purpose and had the ability to survive. The most despised people of the day were neither slaves nor slavemasters. They were the people who couldn't find steady labor.
      Of course this is not to disagree with you that there were not brutal moments of disgusting mistreatment, or that some people were not taken against their will. That did happen on occasion, but what you read about in the last days of slavery was usually nothing like it was thousands of years before this. It also varied considerably among different ethnic groups.
      Maybe it would be ok for you and your family to agree to be enslaved. Even the new testament condones and promotes the master/slave relationship.
      That's because you aren't aware of what slavery meant in those days or perhaps even how the slavetrade worked only a few hundred years ago. Most slaves were sold by their own people, because they were slaves back in their own country before they were slaves in another. That's how the slavetrade worked.

      "Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

      This message is a reply to:
       Message 309 by Theodoric, posted 07-23-2009 9:07 AM Theodoric has replied

      Replies to this message:
       Message 319 by Theodoric, posted 07-23-2009 5:01 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

        
      Hyroglyphx
      Inactive Member


      Message 351 of 384 (517360)
      07-31-2009 11:22 AM
      Reply to: Message 346 by DevilsAdvocate
      07-30-2009 10:49 PM


      Re: Double standards?
      So what is evil then?
      Whatever God deems evil is evil. He of course is able to change his mind at will, regardless of contradiction. Must be nice.

      "I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death. " Thomas Paine

      This message is a reply to:
       Message 346 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-30-2009 10:49 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

        
      Hyroglyphx
      Inactive Member


      Message 355 of 384 (517525)
      08-01-2009 9:54 AM
      Reply to: Message 354 by Peg
      07-31-2009 11:03 PM


      Re: Less logical than I thought
      The angels live forever because God allows them to live...Adam & Eve could have been permitted to live forever also, but they werent because God did not allow them to.
      I think what he is pointing out is that you can't have your cake and eat it too, which is in the spirit of the title of the thread. If anyone is going to take the inerrant and literal interpretation of the bible, they don't get to cherry pick on things that don't suit their religious and personal agenda's. They just have to accept it for face value.
      Various passages have the LORD instructing Hebrew soldiers to dash upon the rocks, little children and ambushing and slaughtering whole villages because they worshiped idols. And according to the bible, it was God who ordered all this carnage.
      So if you want to be a literalist, then you have to accept this as true and Godly. But how can you defend something so transparently immoral and call it moral?
      Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

      "I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death. " Thomas Paine

      This message is a reply to:
       Message 354 by Peg, posted 07-31-2009 11:03 PM Peg has replied

      Replies to this message:
       Message 356 by Peg, posted 08-03-2009 2:56 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

        
      Newer Topic | Older Topic
      Jump to:


      Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

      ™ Version 4.2
      Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024