Chocolate Box Bible

[H3LL]

Discussing (well talking to a wall really) with xians of various flavours from fundy to tea-and-biscuit believers I usually end up asking the question "Are you a chocolate box xian that just chooses the bits you like from the bible?"

I admire the ones that admit that they do and it works for them.

The others either state that it is all true or that they only really believe the parts about Jesus [NT].

The 'all true' fundy is an easy mark as the old testament can be torn to pieces by a mildly inquisitive 5 year old although still a complete waste of breath.

The next category is the one I have difficulty with as I'm not sure of my facts, so maybe you can help.

I understand that Jesus clearly states in the NT that the OT is to be followed as the word of god. Therefore, you cannot say that you follow the teachings of Jesus and ignore the OT.

Am I right?

Thanks.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by H3LL
Discussing (well talking to a wall really) with xians of various flavours from fundy to tea-and-biscuit believers I usually end up asking the question "Are you a chocolate box xian that just chooses the bits you like from the bible?"

I like the Bible as a collection of ancient literature.

Sure I've read the whole thing, but now I usually just skip to the hot parts. :p :D

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by H3LL
Discussing (well talking to a wall really) with xians of various flavours from fundy to tea-and-biscuit believers I usually end up asking the question "Are you a chocolate box xian that just chooses the bits you like from the bible?"

I admire the ones that admit that they do and it works for them.

The others either state that it is all true or that they only really believe the parts about Jesus [NT].

The 'all true' fundy is an easy mark as the old testament can be torn to pieces by a mildly inquisitive 5 year old although still a complete waste of breath.

The next category is the one I have difficulty with as I'm not sure of my facts, so maybe you can help.

I understand that Jesus clearly states in the NT that the OT is to be followed as the word of god. Therefore, you cannot say that you follow the teachings of Jesus and ignore the OT.

Am I right?

Thanks. I only believe in the parts of the Bible that I understand.

[clarsct]

See. Now I've heard just the opposite. I was told that all the laws in the Old Testament were laid down to keep Man out of trouble. God sent Jesus(himself?) to die for our sins so that we would no longer have to be held up to that rigorous standard. (I guess Heaven's attendance was slipping..) At any rate, since Jesus came along, we no longer have to follow the laws. We just have to believe in Him and He will wash our sins away with his blood.

In other words, God gave us a 'get out of jail free' card and now we can sin like bastards and be washed clean by Jesus(God).

So either he was wrong when he set the laws up, or his creation, created to be a lot like him, is flawed. So horribly flawed that we just can't win the game he set up for us and set us into. So he cheats for us.

Or is there something I'm missing?

[Iacchus]

If we do not obey the laws of God which are written on our hearts, we have no recourse but to subject ourselves to external authority. This is primarily the difference between the New Testament and the Old.

[clarsct]

Originally posted by Iacchus
If we do no obey the laws of God which are written on our hearts, we have no recourse but to subject ourselves to external authority. This is primarily the difference between the New Testament and the Old.

Wha?


Huh?


I've read this about three times. Still haven't made sense of it. If we don't obey ourselves, we MUST obey an external authority?

Nope...still not making sense. Could you clarify?

[Darat]

Originally posted by H3LL
Discussing (well talking to a wall really) with xians of various flavours from fundy to tea-and-biscuit believers I usually end up asking the question "Are you a chocolate box xian that just chooses the bits you like from the bible?"

I admire the ones that admit that they do and it works for them.

The others either state that it is all true or that they only really believe the parts about Jesus [NT].

The 'all true' fundy is an easy mark as the old testament can be torn to pieces by a mildly inquisitive 5 year old although still a complete waste of breath.

The next category is the one I have difficulty with as I'm not sure of my facts, so maybe you can help.

I understand that Jesus clearly states in the NT that the OT is to be followed as the word of god. Therefore, you cannot say that you follow the teachings of Jesus and ignore the OT.

Am I right?

Thanks.

No.












Oh you wanted a bit more then that? ;)

The reason why I say "no" is when you look at most of the established and organised Christian denominations you find that the Bible is not their only text or reference. Also the different denominations often use different versions of the book, excluding or including texts that the others consider to be valid or invalid.

There isn’t even one box of chocolates to choose from.

(Personally if there was one that offered just milk chocolates strawberry creams they’d have a good chance of snagging me!)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by clarsct
Wha?

Huh?

I've read this about three times. Still haven't made sense of it. If we don't obey ourselves, we MUST obey an external authority?

Nope...still not making sense. Could you clarify? Well, what does Jesus tell the woman who was about to be stoned for adultery when He releases her? ... "Sin no more." So clearly the "laws of sin" are still in effect. Also, what do they mean by letting those folks who are in prison "out on good behavior?" Which is to say, to the degree that we can't answer the question of right and wrong within ourselves, we become subject to external authority.

[H3LL]

Originally posted by Darat
No.

Are you sure? Is there no common text for xians where Jesus verifies the authority of the OT?

I accept it is possible for some of the smaller/more bizarre sects, but is that the case with more main-stream denominations?




It would have to be coffee creams for me. ;)

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Well, what does Jesus tell the woman who was about to be stoned for adultery when He releases her? ... "Sin no more."

Judicial stoning for adultery was not practised in Jesus' time. Sure it's in the Old Testament, but things got more "liberal" after the time of Ezra. There was no abrupt transition to New Testament style thinking.

If there's any truth to that story at all, it's more along the lines of Jesus facing down a lynch mob. So the idea was to get her out of there quickly.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
There was no abrupt transition to New Testament style thinking.Yet clearly Jesus represents the contrast which exists between the two ... "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." Matthew 5:17 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=5&version=9)

If there's any truth to that story at all, it's more along the lines of Jesus facing down a lynch mob. So the idea was to get her out of there quickly. Yet for some reason, they felt the need to justify what they were doing by reinacting the laws of the Old Testament. Correct?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by H3LL
Are you sure? Is there no common text for xians where Jesus verifies the authority of the OT? "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." ~ Matthew 5:17 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=5&version=9)

[Darat]

Originally posted by H3LL
Are you sure? Is there no common text for xians where Jesus verifies the authority of the OT?

I accept it is possible for some of the smaller/more bizarre sects, but is that the case with more main-stream denominations?



Oh there probably are some that are common to many if not all that can be interrelated that way. But then you hit the second part of my reason for saying no e.g. they do not rely only on the text of the Bible for their doctrines.



Originally posted by H3LL


It would have to be coffee creams for me. ;)

HERETIC! BURN THE WITCH!

[Oleron]

Originally posted by Iacchus
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." ~ Matthew 5:17 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=5&version=9)

This is the key to the matter, IMO.

I've always thought that xians, especially the happy-clappy 'right-on' types, viewed the OT like a mad old aunt who keeps gatecrashing their coffee mornings. It's just not middle-class enough.

They laugh nervously when it is quoted, pretending they have a clue what it is talking about. They'd really much rather be reading Corinthians.

In fact the only reason they need to keep it around at all is that the NT was written specifically to match up with the prophecies in Isaiah, Jeremiah and Daniel (and a couple of other books). The rest is just plain inconvenient and most honest xians would like to give it back to the Jews.

When the OT gets too awkward to explain away, they usually resort to the 'get out clause' that Jesus came to establish a new covenant with his people, overriding the old covenant. Thereby all apparent contradiction between the old and new testaments are explained away in a puff of logic.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yet for some reason, they felt the need to justify what they were doing by reinacting the laws of the Old Testament. Correct?

Perhaps. But the false implication of the story the way it is told is that that forgiving way of thinking started with Jesus, when it was already part of mainstream Judaism.

Which is why I doubt it happened at all, though that cannot be proven one way or the other.

[BillyJoe]

Originally quoted by Iacchus
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fill your belly."
chocolate jesus

Don’t go to church on sunday
Don’t get on my knees to pray
Don’t memorize the books of the bible
I got my own special way
Bit I know jesus loves me
Maybe just a little bit more

I fall on my knees every sunday
At zerelda lee’s candy store
Well it’s got to be a chocolate jesus
Make me feel good inside
Got to be a chocolate jesus
Keep me satisfied.

[from "Mule Variations" by Tom Waits]


:)


BillyJoe

[H3LL]

Originally posted by Darat
Oh there probably are some that are common to many if not all that can be interrelated that way. But then you hit the second part of my reason for saying no e.g. they do not rely only on the text of the Bible for their doctrines.

That seems reasonable. It doesn't make it any easier when so many xians have no idea where their beliefs actually come from.


Originally posted by Darat
HERETIC! BURN THE WITCH!

OK! OK! Strawberry creams...Yum!!! (BTW, my aunt eats coffee creams late at night in the woods)

[H3LL]

Originally posted by Oleron
This is the key to the matter, IMO.

I've always thought that xians, especially the happy-clappy 'right-on' types, viewed the OT like a mad old aunt who keeps gatecrashing their coffee mornings. It's just not middle-class enough.

They laugh nervously when it is quoted, pretending they have a clue what it is talking about. They'd really much rather be reading Corinthians.

In fact the only reason they need to keep it around at all is that the NT was written specifically to match up with the prophecies in Isaiah, Jeremiah and Daniel (and a couple of other books). The rest is just plain inconvenient and most honest xians would like to give it back to the Jews.

When the OT gets too awkward to explain away, they usually resort to the 'get out clause' that Jesus came to establish a new covenant with his people, overriding the old covenant. Thereby all apparent contradiction between the old and new testaments are explained away in a puff of logic.

That would match well with my experiences of xians also.

[pmurray]

If a person picks and chooses from the Bible, then they must have some criteria on which they base their choices. Isn't it obvious, then, that it is that criteria that they obey, and not whichever scriptures they claim to believe?

[stamenflicker]

Think about this way if it helps. Christians believe that God is and has been in the business of creating a faith family. It works for me to draw comparisons with my own family.

Small children need rules. Lots of rules. "Don't run on wet concrete." "Look both ways before you cross the road." "Don't sleep with your sister."

As children mature, they need less rules and more opportunities to be free, gain independence, and learn from their mistakes.

Paul refers to the law as a "school master" that a person no longer needs. The law was a great thing for immature people of faith. It gave them something to objectify, something to follow. And they followed for the sake of following and they followed to stay safe.

Religion was in its human infancy and its childhood. A good school master was needed, not just in the religious sense-- there are numerous "laws" and such that came from non-religious sources.

But a time ought to come, and I believe came, in the religious family when the rules just weren't all that necessary anymore. It was graduation day so to speak-- 18 years old and out of the house so to speak. Wild with abandon or wise and principled the faith family now had the freedom to formulate itself for better or worse.

Men like Phelps in the post below just never graduated. Islam (still heavily rule driven) is working to graduate... but as Paul sums up his schoolmaster teaching, it was for "freedom's sake that we were made free."

Yeah, free to pick and choose. Free to pee on an electric fence if I want... free to face the consequences of that action. Free to grow up, live and learn-- hopefully attentive to what is good, true, and beautiful. Free to figure for myself which of dad's rules I want to apply in my own household, or in my own life.

There's no real contradiction here for the Christian picking and choosing-- its the hard core right and the hard core left that wants it to be a problem...

My 2 cents,

Flick

[Phideaux]

Originally posted by pmurray
If a person picks and chooses from the Bible, then they must have some criteria on which they base their choices. Isn't it obvious, then, that it is that criteria that they obey, and not whichever scriptures they claim to believe?

That’s the problem I see when I question them also. The buffet believers have a way out for everything based on some inconsistent criteria.

They might believe something is literal until science makes it impossible to swallow. Then they claim, "That part is just allegorical!"

So I ask what criteria they use to decide what is literal and what is not. They remind me the Bible is made up of all sorts of things, from poetry, to God's actual words. So, you just have to have the Holy Spirit to know the truth.

Huh? “God� has not graced me with the Holy Spirit to understand. How's THAT for criteria?

[H3LL]

Something that I turned up in another thread and following Darat's point earlier.

Jesus clearly cites Exodus as correct and to be followed in both Mark and Matthew.

Is there a denomination where Mark and Matthew are excluded?

[stamenflicker]

The buffet believers have a way out for everything based on some inconsistent criteria.

But then the criteria are inconsistant because morality itself is inconsistant and relative to a degree. If you really stop and think about it, there are only a very, very small handful of morals that are (or ought to be) consistant across every situation.

Example:

1) Physically or sexaully abusing infants is wrong.

I doubt we can concoct a scenario in which the above statement is not a moral truth.

But what about abuse in general? Who defines abuse? Am I abusing my child when I put him in "time-out?" Do I have permission to spank my child or not?

What about abusing an older child or an adult? Who defines what is abuse? Is a 22 year old female having intercourse with a 15 year old boy always abuse? It is according to our law.

Life is inconsistent so how do we expect the criteria to remain steadfast? Picking and choosing is "wisdom in action" and should be desirous for believers, not the opposite.

Flick

[RamblingOnwards]

Originally posted by H3LL
I understand that Jesus clearly states in the NT that the OT is to be followed as the word of god. Therefore, you cannot say that you follow the teachings of Jesus and ignore the OT.

Am I right?

Thanks.

As with all things religious, both yes and no :)

The predominant teachings of the gospels are that the spirit of the old testament laws should be obeyed, even when that conflicts with the letter -

Matthew 15:3-6

3Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4For God said, 'Honor your father and mother'[a] and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'[b] 5But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,' 6he is not to 'honor his father[c]' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition


In this light, a fairly typical understanding of this passage:

Matthew 5:17-18

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.


is that the 'Law' referenced here is God's will - the overall plan he has for creation, rather than the technical details in Leviticus.

Jesus is written as breaking the laws when it was moral to do so - usually because someone or something was in physical or emotional need. However, he and his followers did keep to the various forms required by the OT.

The biggest disconnect between the old and new testament laws comes from the teachings of Paul. He still kept to the dietary requirements of the OT, but was the first to really advocate different/new laws for Christians - most notably the preferably no wife, but maximum one rule. It is also obvious that as the Christian church attracted more and more non-Jewish followers, the rules were relaxed to allow for individualistic expression of faith:

Romans 14

1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.


Largely, it boils down to the sentiment:
'If you have a close personal relationship with God, he will lead you in the way he wants you to live your life."

[stamenflicker]

Rambling...

Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition

I am glad you quoted this verse because I find it interesting. The word "nullify" is actually means "to make void."

Now Jesus surely new that according to the prophet Isaiah,

"My word will not return to me void." Is. 55:11

This had to infuriate the scriptural literalists of his day. What was Jesus really trying to do? I think he was pointing toward the two different kinds of word, one being the law (comprised of words, little w) and the being the intent of the law (comprised of a Word, big W) but that's a theological essay in itself.

In short, Jesus fulfillment of the law was more about the intent of the words than the words themselves. I mean wasn't this what he was teaching the whole time anyway?

Couldn't Jesus have picked some other day besides the Sabbath to heal people? Why not Tuesdays and Thursdays? Why did he do it on the Holy Days and get everyone pissed off?

Jesus was picking at scabs and pointing out to people at every step that religion is more than just "following the rules." My opinion: "Man was not made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath was made for man."

Or better put, humanity doesn't exist in order for us to be religious, but religion exists in order for us to be more human.

Flick

[Robin]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
Jesus was picking at scabs and pointing out to people at every step that religion is more than just "following the rules." My opinion: "Man was not made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath was made for man."

Or better put, humanity doesn't exist in order for us to be religious, but religion exists in order for us to be more human.

Flick
I thought he was just saying "oh stop being such a fundy pain in the neck!"

[BillyJoe]

BTW, I love the title of this thread. I have used it already in casual converstion. :D
Just hope there's a chocolate jesus in there. ;)

bj

[Darat]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
BTW, I love the title of this thread. I have used it already in casual converstion. :D
Just hope there's a chocolate jesus in there. ;)

bj

Ask and ye shall receive:

http://www.jesusoftheweek.com/jesii/230/


http://www.jesusoftheweek.com/art/j2k1-26.jpg

[Ossai]

RamblingOnwards
Largely, it boils down to the sentiment:
'If you have a close personal relationship with God, he will lead you in the way he wants you to live your life." And how does one obtain this close personal relationship with god, why by living your life as god wants.

Ossai

[BillyJoe]

Ossai: You are too cynical.....oops, I mean cynical too. :D

Darat: I want my jesus hangin' from a cross! No less. :D

BJ
(edited to remove offensive material. :D )

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
Jesus was picking at scabs and pointing out to people at every step that religion is more than just "following the rules." My opinion: "Man was not made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath was made for man."

Or better put, humanity doesn't exist in order for us to be religious, but religion exists in order for us to be more human. Dare I say it? It does sound "logical." Unfortunately, there are still many who view religion as a means of putting us in bondage.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by BillyJoe

Darat: I want my jesus hangin' from a cross! No less. :D

Ask and ye shall receive..

http://www.ndaf.org/Media/HESLOPP1.gif

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
Rambling...



Or better put, humanity doesn't exist in order for us to be religious, but religion exists in order for us to be more human.

Flick Sounds good, but what is ' more human ' ?

How has religion done this ? If you allow that ' more human ' doesn't mean ' better ', I would allow that religion does it as well as anything else..


It's interesting that we can point to science, and show how it has actually made life better, while the promise of religion and a better life, usually involves dying first.

[RamblingOnwards]

Personally, I think that it's hard to deny that religion has trailed popular morals rather than led them. However that isn't to say that if a Christian isn't a fundamentalist then they are a hypocrit.

flick - that's interesting, I hadn't thought about that aspect before :)

In general -

Fundamentalists, apparently by virtue of being louder than everyone else, seem to have imposed their definition of Christianity on everyone else - A Christian is someone who believes the bible.

Most denominations are quite upfront about what is required to be a (whatever) Christian - and many do not emphasise a belief in the bible. Others specify which books, or to what degree the scriptures 'have to' be believed. Many, in fact, consider fundamentalism to be heretical (bibiolatry - worshipping a book instead of God). This is a good site for an overview of various confessions of faith: http://www.creeds.net .

The 'older' denominations also rely on the 2000 years of accumulated Christian scholarships to influence what it means to be a (whatever) Christian.

My point in short - just because a Christian doesn't believe in the bible in toto , it doesn't neccessarily mean they are making it up as they go along.

[stamenflicker]

This is a good site for an overview of various confessions of faith: http://www.creeds.net .

We did a study on this back in January, notice how they move from simple to complex as time progresses. Even the message Paul preached (1 Corinthians 15:3-7) was not nearly as complex as the apostle's creed, which when compared to the "Baptist Faith and Message" is still about 1/20 of the size of text needed to be endoctrinated Baptist today.

It would probably make a cool thread just see what has been added to the "prerequistes" of belief over the centuries. It's pretty indicative of divisivness and fear in the church if you ask me...

Flick

[H3LL]

Originally posted by RamblingOnwards
Many, in fact, consider fundamentalism to be heretical (bibiolatry - worshipping a book instead of God).

I've not heard that one before. Thanks.

[Black-Kettle-Pot mode]
BTW it's bibliolatry when I looked on dictionary.com
Is the other one worship of infant's protective garments?
[/Black-Kettle-Pot mode]

;)