"Christians" and the TFP
 

A recent post by a member about "finding god" elicited a slew of responses by several self-proclaimed Christians. Now some of these people also frequently post expletive laden posts, hateful/angry posts, pornographic/sex posts, about being drunk/doing drugs, etc, etc.

So I have some questions about this.

1) Now I have been made aware (with a bit of hostility) that some "Christians" here believe that the Bible is not an accurate representation of the facts. So this may contribute to a different view of "sins" than mainstream Christianity holds. If this is so, why identify onself as part of a group that the general populace believes has a different set of standards and rules than what you believe? Is there such an overwhelming need to be a part of an established "name"?

2) In this "anything goes" Christianity, is there anything at all about your actions that sets you apart from the "heathens", other than professing to be a Christian?

3) For those that do believe in a more literal translation of the Bible, how do you justify regular participation in topics that, at the very least, are extremely un-Christ-like?


P.S. Before somebody says "Do a search, this topic was already discussed", I am not interested in what somebody had to say about this a year ago, I want to know what they think today.

"Now I have been made aware (with a bit of hostility) that some "Christians" here believe that the Bible is not an accurate representation of the facts."

Yes....no. Many of us don't take it "literally" as if such a thing were possible. If a person uses a literal interpretation as a strawman to attack Christianity as a whole...there may be some hurt feelings. There isn't liscense to attack in return, but there is an obligation to be clear...Christianity is not a monolith. but i take scripture very seriously...

"In this "anything goes" Christianity"

Nothing could be further from the truth. Jesus cussed, i think i can too. I try very hard not to aim those words at people in anger, tho.

"pornographic/sex posts" Read Song of Solomon. The first thing God does is create. Sex, eros, and the creative and connective nature of humanity is not in conflict with the spiritual.

"about being drunk/doing drugs, etc, etc."

Jesus drinks, people call him a drunk on many occasions. I try to make my use of chemicals (alcohol in my case) responsible. But there is no blanket prohibition of intoxicants by the bible. Wine flows through that book...

All of this doesn't mean i am a libertine. my beleif in God entails a committment to live a different life than i did. I am called to love tenderly, do justly, and walk humbly with my God. It isn't about a code of details. it's about what i live for.

" how do you justify regular participation in topics that, at the very least, are extremely un-Christ-like?"

What posts? I don't mean to be smartass at all. What posts? My participation on this board...and i think of other liberal Christians...doesn't conflict with my religious idenity. I enjoy this place because i can have a Christian idenity....and not be the only one, but also enjoy hearing other persepctives as well.

I'm not sure what you expect "Christians" to look like. I'm sorry if some of us dissapoint...but i think it's safe to say... we're sinners saved by grace. we're not perfect, and we may post in anger or somethign like that. but that's the only sin i can know i've committed on the TFP.

Believing that the Bible is not necessarily literally true is not mutually exclusive with believing that the Bible is an important and guiding text. Contextual theology is not a new thing, nor is it something that the majority of respected Christian theologians do not understand and agree with.

More contemporary Christian theology places much more focus on the deeper and broader teachings of Christianity as opposed to looking to the Bible as some "rulebook" to "get to Heaven."

If you sincerely want to understand the basis for this, I suggest you check out the PBS documentary "From Jesus to Christ: The First Christians." Your local library probably has a copy. It has four hour-long parts. And, because I'm sure someone would be more than happy to criticize me for pointing to some PBS show when it comes to religious thought, the only reason I even know about this documentary is from watching it in a class of mine on contemporary Catholic theology, at a Catholic university.

Another theological philosophy that may shed some light on the intepretations of many different biblical texts is that of the "two books." That is to say, theer are essentially two "books" to learn about God from - the first is the Bible and the second is Nature. Since God is behind both, they cannot be in conflict. So, using an easy example, if the Bible says the earth was created in 6 days and nature (through science) tells us it was created in X billion years, one must be wrong in the literal sense. And there's plenty of evidence it's not science. (Not to mention of course that the Bible provides two different creation stories with reversed orders)

1) One's interpretation or understanding of a group's beliefs based on popular concept rather than fact is rarely a good idea.
The question is reminiscent of someone asking in response to another annoucing they are Jewish regarding avarice, parsimony, or elitism.
Or asking, how can they be a Jew if so many people hate them?

Yes, some people do like the security of remaining within and being labeled by an established 'safe' group as there are those that attend church by habit and/ or tradition. However, there is also the group that has made a very conscious decision to believe or disbelieve.

2) If it really is an 'anything goes' Christianity, I would say, there would be no difference other than chosen self-identifier.

3) Being brand new to the forum thus I am not certain by what you mean un-Christ-like.
I can say, as was addressed earlier, Christians are no more perfect than any other human (that is why those called saints are extraoridnary) and therefore subject to vices and virtures anyone else is apt to fall prey.

All I really have to say is.....I've never claimed to be perfect, God does not expect perfection from me. I believe he expects me to treat people the best I can. The bible is not literal, I look at it as a reference book....stories and parables written by man about their own personal struggles with god. Lots of us could right a book like that.

I could most certainly write a huge book on my life and how I have seen god work in it and If I put a "christian" stamp on it, I dont think it would be that much different. I dont lie, I dont steal, I dont manipulate, I do my best to help my fellow man, I try not to be selfish. I try to be accepting of other people in their ways. I dont see how thats so different from what Christ did....he associated with the "sinners" he didnt keep himself hidden away proclaiming IM THE MOST PERFECT PERSON IN THE WORLD, other people did that for him....same as you might say something similiar about someone in your life. He had his time of doubt, he had his time when he questioned god....same as I do. So by my definition I dont think Im so far from "christ like"

No one is perfect, no one will ever be perfect, Since the days of adam and eve god has known how man is...he made us....I truely truely believe what he wants from us to to be tolerant of others and their belief's, to help our fellow man, and to be good to one another. I do not believe wine and cigarettes and a naked picture here and there are gonna keep me out of heaven. I believe hyposcrisy would....I do not tell people you should/shouldnt do something from a "god" stand point....what they do and how they live their life is between them and their particular "higher power" If the "heathens" were good enuff for Christ to associate with, break bread with, talk to etc, they its good enuff for me. :)

In my experiences, Christians are human with temptations and blemishes like the rest of us. However, they have something that non-Christians do not. They have the Bible and Christ's forgiveness to support their choices. When I went to church, the preacher would not help a lady being hit by her husband in church. There were men who were having affairs, but attending church next to their family like nothing was amiss. There were the local drunks who would always be at church hung-over the next day. I think that these types of people use the church as a reassurance that they are 'good' people. People view God's forgiveness as an eraser that lets them start again fresh. Why else would so many criminals become self-professed Christians hours before execution?
Now, I know that not all Christians are like this.
Another thing is that the Bible is opened to interpretations. Just as in a previous post, the words and situations in the Bible can make any action all right. Even though adultery is a sin, God overlooked it because Sara couldn't get pregnant. So her husband was permitted to sleep with a servant so he could have a child. If I looked hard enough I could probably find a quote that would could be interpretted as sleeping and eating is evil. I think that you have to live life for what you think is right and if you think you have really messed up you can always ask for forgiveness at your death bed and everything will be erased. :thumbsup:

Like Flip Wilson used to say, "The devil made me do it".

We all have sin, there isn't much we can do about that. Is the bible a rule book on how to get to heaven? Yes, but what people don't understand is there is only 1 rule: Accept Jesus as your lord and personal savior, believe in him and you will get to heaven. Now the rest of the bible tells you how you *should* live your life, living your life for God has benifits beyond that which we know. I have lived the sinful life and I have lived the rightous life, let me tell you the rightous one is so much more enjoyable. So I can't pick up girls at the bar and have one night stands.... does that bother me? Not in the least I have been given so much more by choosing to live for God and not just accept Jesus as my lord and personal savior.

This is a choice that all christians must make, will I mearly accept God's love or will I also love him in return.

See....this is where many Christians get the bad publicity. The above post pretty much tells alot of people they are going to someones Hell. I do of course realize the biblical statements that proclaim this as truth, but I simply cannot accept the requirements and be honest with myself.
I am going to be completely Candid here, and hope to avoid offending anyone with the following statement. I have tried many times in the past to have discussions about the condemnation of my soul do to my failure to accept Jesus as my savior. Through these discussions I have come to a conclusion I do not very much like, but will have to live with. It serves no further purpose to attempt to gain information from those Literal Christians who judge me........for they have no information left to give. I simply cannot accept that I am doomed to this Hell, because a book says so.
No, I am not angry or spiteful of those who deem me heathen......just dissapointed.

As a Catholic, I must say I also agree with tecoyah. The idea that simply "accepting Jesus" is the one and only "key" is not only simplistic in my opinion, it is also completely missing the broader messages of Christianity and of Jesus' ministry.

This is one of the (very many) reasons I am confident in my choice of Catholicism within the realm of Christian religions: despite the fact that there are varying views and interpretations by many within the religion, there is a general understanding that the above concept is simply not the case. At least not in the way most people mean it.

Is it perfectly reasonable, as a Christian, to believe that Ghandi, "Buddha," and other similar people have achieved the closeness with God that we refer to as "Heaven?" Yes, and Catholic thought says this as well.

First I did not say anyone is going to hell did I? I never made any statement like that at all. As a Christian I know that I cannot say who goes to heaven and doesn't in fact the bible directly tells me not to make comments about that, I should not judge others or claim to be above them in anyway. It is a humble life that is a Godly life, Jesus the most holy man ever spent his life washing the feet of others.

So don't say i'm making a bad name for christians because i'm proclaiming hell for everyone else. That is not what I do.

All I know is that I am going to heaven because I believe. It does not take works to get to heaven, this is all over the bible if you want I can find you countless verses that say not by works but by grace. Or believe and you will be saved. I know that Jesus is A way to heaven, are there other ways? Maybe. Afterall anything is possible through God. I know what he has promised me.

Anyone who claims the bible to be the word of God and has studied the message of the bible cannot say it takes more than grace to be saved without ignoring large parts of the bible. The book Galatians is directly about legalizing religion which is what so many people have done. There is not a score card to get into heaven, we don't get letter grades when we get there. Just remember the first will be last and the last will be first.

This is really funny, I was just perparing for my next weeks bible study and the chapter we are doing is ephesians chapter 2. Go read that it is directly about being saved by grace not works.

here is a snippit 2:8-9

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith -- and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God -- not by works, so that no one can boast.

Perhaps I misread your comment, or misunderstood the implications . If so my apologies, as stated , no offense was intended. This is why I prefaced my reply in the way I did, as I have been in this position numerable times. I am well aware of the scriptures, and do not require reiteration of what is said within. I simply understand it differently than you do.

I guess that's why "some people say" (as they say over at Fox News ;))* that I'm not "Christian" since I'm "Catholic." As for me, I say bullocks.

This much I can agree with you on. There is no scorecard. Much like there is no "rulebook." This includes the "believe in Jesus" rule. This idea was, of course, the primary argument by the Christian slaveholders as a justification for their actions. They "believed" and, therefore, had no need to concern themselves with the goodness of their actions, for they "believed" that Jesus died for their sins. Well, whether or not this is the intended conclusion of that concept is irrelevant - it is the *logical* conclusion.

Anyway, we could re-debate the entire reformation, or we could just agree to disagree on that topic. I vote for the latter.

* If you haven't seen the movie "Outfoxed," just ignore my Fox News comment :)

I would be interested in seeing links to those posts.

I'm not saying that they don't exist, but I don't recall any off hand.

As for myself, I admit that I occassionally put a "hell" or a "shit" into a post, but I don't know if this qualifies as "expletive laden".


First, I feel a need to examine this phrase,

"with a bit of hostility"

I will make the assumption that you are refering to THIS THREAD when you say this. After re-reading the thread, I still don't see that anyone replied to you "with a bit of hostility", but whatever. If anything, when people say things like,

and "some 'Christians' here" with "Christians" in quotes, well, that indicated someone with some hostility of their own.

Then there is the question of this:

When I specifically said,

And

To which you never replied, to be telling.

The fact is that it is generally considered rude to thread jack and while I've been guilty, I avoided doing so in that thread and pointed you to the proper forum to answer your question.

Now to the question.

It is simple fact that the Bible is a collection of stories, both from Hebrew and early Christian tradition which was collected together by consencious at the Council of Nicea in the 4th century.

Since that time, Christians everywhere have been struggling to understand them.

The liberal hermeneutical view that some stories (Adam and Eve, Noah, etc) probably did not happen literally but were part of the collected Hebrew creation myth also is not a recent development.

But whether these stories are literal or not has no bearing on what it means to be "Christian", which seems to me to be the source of your question #1.
So long as a person believes in the Gospel of Jesus, then I will call them "brother", even as I may disagree with some of their politics.

As to Fred Phelps (and some others), I personally feel that he ignores and twists the teachings of Jesus, and in doing so, is sinning greatly.

Or in other words,

and

As for myself, I believe Jesus is the prophesized Christ, who was born among us, died and rose again.

The beliefs on homosexuality that Fred Phelps's and others who call themselves "Christian" aside, what else but "Christian" should I call myself?

I answered this previously, but I will answer it again. First of all, if you choose to call someone "heathen", that is up to you, but I would NEVER deny that anyone who calls themselves "Christian" is a Christian.

Nor do I feel any great need to defend my calling myself Christian to you or anyone else.

Calling myself such hinges solely on what I stated above.

As to my actions, I attempt to put them in line with the two greatest commandments that I referenced in the previous thread.

Like all Christians, sometimes I am more successful than others.

I don't understand why you are reticent to do a search if your purpose is indeed to learn different viewpoints on the subject.

I assure you that many of my thoughts from a year ago will remain true today. I may not however, have the inclination to make another megapost about the topic such as this.

I don't have a bible handy, but I don't seem to remember christ saying: Looketh not at pictures of naked women, for it is sin." Nor do I remember him saying "Drinketh not, and smoketh not anything." As a CHRISTIAN, I do what I can to follow the guidelines of what is good, and what is bad. It seems to me that if a priest 2000 years removed from Jesus says "Sexuality is bad" without any evidence from the gospels, I don't feel the slightest inclination to listen. And certainly, an outrageous post on what I can say is Not the last bastion of Christianity that says I'm not being Christian for following my own instincts isn't going to sway me.

Lebell,

Your dig about it "being telling" that I didn't respond to your request to start a thread in Philosophy seems kind of strange, since it's posted in a thread started by me in Philosophy :hmm: But you are right. It is telling that I wasn't able to get around to it in a timely enough manner for you, and I apologize.

I've got some other things to say on the topic, but I figured I post this by itself since I was the one (who apparently is still) being accused of "starting a fight".

mrklixx,

I was talking about that you didn't respond to my last post in the "Sweden loves Fags" thread in General.

I posted the link so people can go make up their own mind, but it always catches me by surprise when someone thinks that being redirected to another forum == not getting answered.

In any event, I am looking forward to your post.

I don't understand this at all. Any literal interpretation used to prove a point is a "strawman attack"? But then where did you get the information that supports the following statements, if not from literal translation?
That's why I asked before, which parts should be taken literally and which parts shouldn't? Because it wouldn't do me any good to post scriptural references if they don't happen to be chapters/verses that you "believe".



I almost put a caveat in my original post about the "not perfect, just forgiven" line, but the I figured I'd wait to see how long it was until somebody used it. I didn't have to wait very long. Put it this way, an alcoholic that visits a bar every day, is not trying to live a sober lifestyle.


A Lebellian? A member of the "Happy Jesus Joy Club"? I don't know. I just don't understand this overwhelming need to be labeled as a member of a group, just because it's a "popular" name. Just like the push for Mormons and Catholics to be classified as Christians. Why not just be satisfied with being Mormons and Catholics?

I'm glad that your beliefs are rock solid, and you are 100% sure that they have never changed or will never change. But I know quite a few people whose beliefs have changed over time. And for those unwilling to accept change, there is always cut/paste. ;)


Maybe I should have approached this from a different angle, since apparently contrary to the bible (depending on which verses one selectively believes", things like pornography, lust, fornication, etc aren't actually sins, then maybe I should ask what exactly does qualify as a "sin"? Or is the entire concept of "sin" one of those "literal translation faux pas"?

um...Catholics are Christians and always HAVE been Christians. Your statement otherwise tells me all I need to know about the worth in debating with you.

Uh, just wanted to point out that the Catholic faith was the
first christian faith. First there was the unified Catholic church, then the Schism, producing the Roman Catholic church and the separate Orthodox church. Then Reformation and Martin Luther's 95 Theses, which effectively separated the Protestant faiths (and allnon Catholic/Orthodox faiths fall into this category) from Catholicism.

So if you're saying that Catholics (or Mormons, for that matter) are not christian, then you're wrong. Period. This isn't theology, its history.

Could you please point out exactly where I said that they weren't. You make far too many assumptions. And am I supposed to be offended by your backhanded comment about my debating "worth"?

You're misreading. When people use Fred Phelps, or other extreme viewpoints as a strawmen...When being the operative word...the response is usually sharp. I, and many others, are tired of our faith being defined by some unfortunatly famous haters.


If you really think that i have my bible highlighted...you're oversimplfying things greatly. Read the text, discuss, read commentaries, discuss, pray, apply...that's how i test scripture in my life. What do you think should be going on? What does "beleive" mean anyways? You're using it to mean literal reading, if i interpret you right. Which makes the whole question bollocks. No text is self interpreting.


That's an insult.



Sin is violence, it is separation. It is what we do to harm other beings and ourselves.

To whom?

So violence is the only sin?

Well for instance, "anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." and "Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body" seem pretty self explanatory, and yet it's not on the sin list here.

You put our faith in quotes, you imply that we're hypocrites, and then you suggest that we are drunk on sin. You target a section of this community, not just a group of people...but specifically the people here at the TFP. Tell me who you're insulting.

No. That's not what i said.

To the rest of it...

Those verses are part of a continuing conversation about sexual ethic of the faith community. There is also the issue of self-interpretation. You're not using nearly the same definition of the word. You are assuming that if its in the book, it simply got there by magic. Someone wrote that. I ask why. That's why nothing will ever be self-interpreting. You want to proof text. I'm telling you that that is not a useful form of debate.

I would be happy to discuss the broader topic, but in the face of your behavior on this and other threads...I will respectfully decline.

1st Corinithians delt directly with this split, catholics, lutherans, baptists, ect. It is funny how people still argue about this. I'm a Christian, nothing more, nothing less. Read 1 Corinthians chapter 3 to see what paul said about the divisions of the church.

Sorry, wrong answer. You make assumptions and then try and represent them as facts. Just like Lebell and SecretMethod70. I put "Christians" in quotes because one of the points I am trying to make is that people are so tied that label that it becomes more important than the actual mechanics of their individual faith, as perfectly demonstrated by Bryndian_Dhai and SecretMethod70 getting bent out of shape because they assumed that I thought that Catholics didn't deserve a "Christian" sticker on their sweater-vest.

This condescending superiority complex from you, SecretMethod70, and Lebell is no real surprise given the subject, but it's disappointing nonetheless.

It's interesting for me to observe that you feel a necessity toward literal interpretation of ancient texts as well as a lack of comprehension regarding the implications of your own statements. "You did not literally state that Catholics, or Mormons, ought not be considered Christians, so therefore it must not be present in your statements." Now, perhaps you didn't intend to give that impression, but if that's the case then I see a severe lack of acknowledgement on your part regarding how the rest of the world works and thinks.

Anyway, to the point regarding labels (and if that's what you were trying to discuss, why didn't you say it in the first place?), most people around the world understand the term "Christian" to be one who believes that Jesus was not only a spectacular person and teacher, but somehow divine and specially connected to what we call God as well. Your implication (whether literally stated or not, and whether intended or not) that Catholics are not Christian flies in the face of this accepted understanding. So, to the majority of the world, by denying Catholics (I'm not sure about the particulars of the Mormon relationship with Jesus) the "right" to call themselves "Christian," you are, in effect, telling them that they are not what they think they are. You are TELLING them what to believe as opposed to observing what they believe. Now, if you'd like to say that Catholics are not "Christian fundementalists," that is perfectly reasonable. There are certain understood guidelines to that label, such as a more literal interpretation of the bible, that Catholics freely admit they do not share. But "Christian" and "Christian fundementalist" are not one in the same.

No, the mechanics of my faith are not less important than a label with which to identify. However, I'd venture to say most people are not going to have someone tell them that they are not or do not have the right to say that they are a part of a varied and diverse grouping such as "Christian." Anyone who, at the core of their faith, understands Jesus to be Christ is a "Christian." The fact that you do not agree with the way in which they interpret the meaning of this existence does not grant the ability to deny them "membership" to this exclusive club you'd apparently prefer that it be.

I'm willing to accept that many people may have different understandings of the meaning of Jesus as Christ than I do...what I'm wondering is why aren't you?


And, on a completely separate note, if you keep on making subtle flames and calling other members of the board asses (don't think I didn't notice), you'll find that your time here will become much less enjoyable or lengthy.

Edit...Smeth said it all when it comes to the tone of this discussion. I hope that's the end of such things.

The label means a lot. What you think is the only thing that deserves it...is not the definition of Christianity. Never has been, either. That's what we're trying to say. The label means a lot, in its multiple meanings. Telling someone that they are not Christian when they identify as such is something very rude to do. The response to this provocation, has in my opinion, been quite civil.

Superiority, i make no claim to. Take a look at what you've posted. It's inflammatory. No serious debate or discussion is possible in those terms.

Americans, in general, are way too far religious. Go secular, it's much easier!! ;)

I would say just the reverse actually

I'm pretty sure, no scratch that, I'm absolutely sure that you have no idea what I do or don't agree with. I never once said that anyone should be denied anything. It's just a real shame that paranoia can't be overcome, and when somebody takes a non-traditional route, they are labeled the "inflammatory bad guy".


Speaking of exclusive clubs. I see now that it is OK for members of "the club" to make all kinds of backhanded digs (addressing someone's worth, condescending remarks about "behavior", etc), but if I make a play on an age old saying about jumping to conclusions, I get threatened with discipline. Again not unexpected, but disappointing.

Well, religion when combined with intelligence and common sense (meaning an understanding of history and science) is really not that difficult at all IMO. Difficult to live still? Sure. Difficult to get along with others? Not really. I would modify your statement to say that Americans, in general, are way too blindly religious and lack the mindset to more broadly apply religion to the world.

But, now we're getting onto the topic of a different thread.

Sorry you felt I meant it that way. I simply meant that it was clear you are not open to the statements any of us are making and it is, therefore, probably not worth the time and effort.

Your worth as a person is something which I really have no basis, or right really, to form an opinion on.

Let me start by saying that I'm not religious at all. I think I was baptized a Protestant, but...

The way I understand it, the only really important thing in the Bible for Christians is the New Testament. That's where Jesus shows up, and that's where God stops smiting people. Here you get an expansion on the 10 commandments (only important thing in OT in my opinion) that adds a sense of morality and loving your neighbor. But if you really want to be a good Christian, you don't need a Bible. You need to help other people. Brighten up someone's day. Not punch that asshole in the face. Not killing or stealing. Am I a good Christian? By these guidelines, I think so.

Now what I mean by the OT being "unimportant" is that it doesn't have much bearing on how to be a good Christian besides the 10 commandments. I very much doubt that many Christians follow the exhaustive rules laid out in leviticus.

Just an opinion from an atheist. :)

that's a pretty marcionistic view...

i won't tell you you're wrong, but to be orthodox, one would have to affirm the hebrew scriptures much more than that.

there's a lot more going on...the exodus story is a necessity, IMO.

After Googling marcionism, that's not really what I meant. What I was taught is that OT and NT God were the same, but people interpreted him differently. Back in the day, when they were fighting a battle (and winning), God was supposedly mowing down the enemies. NT brought a new understanding of him along with Jesus.

And I'm not exactly orthodox... :)

i used marcion because there seemed to be a sharp line between hebrew scripture and new testament.

if you read the prophets...there is a significant amount of revision to the "smite 'em all" rhetoric. and even in the pentatuch...the first five books...there are other notes to the tune.

it's something that has to be looked at in total. to speak to the topic of the thread a bit...we don't interpret the story in terms of the detail. we interpret the detail in terms of the story.

I think a good analogy is just like Californians and Texans also consider themselves Americans.

The old testament is the new testament concealed. And the new testament is the old testament revealed. They go hand in hand, the old testament forshadowed the new from the very beginning. Just no one knew what it was saying until Jesus made it all clear.

Well, I've honestly only read most of exodus and the gospels. And I skimmed Revelation because 8-headed goat demons are the most amusing code I've read.

Although sometimes you have to interpret the story. I'm hesitant to say it, because I'd rather not start another argument. But what about the creation stories? Modern science has proved them not quite accurate. And I'm sure if I read through the Bible, I could find other examples. Sometimes the story is just a story. But when interpreted, you find a moral.

That's one way to look at it. Anoter would be that the authors of the New Testament tailored it to the Old Testament in many ways as they wrote for the Jews of their time, applying Jesus to the prophecies so as to better explain him and his purpose. This doesn't undermine Jesus or who he is at all, but it is simply a different explanation and understanding of what went into the stories that we have today. The broader truths are still present.

It's difficult to explain all this in just one or a few posts however. I stand by my recommendation to watch that PBS documentary I mentioned earlier in this thread.

There are religious threads that I enjoy and members I enjoy talking to.

I usually get a lot out of such threads.

I also enjoy discusing my faith.

I get a lot out of those threads as well.

But arguing and defending myself against insults does not appeal to me.

I will continue to monitor this thread from an administrative view, but that is all.

I would also advise members to review the board rules regarding respecting each other's beliefs, (or lack of them).

False accusations could very well be construed as an insult. So you are right, it would be nice if all members had to abide by the rules.

I'd worry about thread jackage, but this discussion is the best thing going here, IMO.

By story, i mean the larger text. The story of genesis is about creation. There's no header that says "scientifically accurate" or anything. It's a story. you can read it as history, but i don't think the meaning is there. it reads like poetry. God's breath (ruah or spirit) moves over the water, and calls each thing in to being.

How that becomes a science textbook is beyond me. I'm willing to admit, i may be wrong. And i would take it seriously, if on the last day i was called to account for causing the scriptures to be held in low regard.

I'll close with a quote...it deals with why many things about the bible got turned in to truth claims. he begins by asserting that for some time, myth and history operated on similar levels and were not distinct. What happened when they were separated by modernism was to put a priority on "objective" history.

See what I mean.

If you believe that the Bible is the word of God I find it incredibly hard to believe that you don't think looking at naked people on the internet is a sin.

Exactly. The problem is when you get people who won't believe anything except the Bible. I look at it a a "holy-fied" Aesop's Fables. Was there a fox who wanted grapes? Not one that talked, at any rate. But the stories can tell us something about ourselves. (I think I might have changed my mind about the importance of the OT)

You know...after I made my post saturday morning and then left to go out of town I was really looking forward to coming back and reading the things others had said....it was even a topic of discussion amongst the group of people I was with. Its really sad that it degenrated like it did....it had much potential

best part of tfp? there's always another thread. i'm not sure where you wanted to steer things...but why don't we give it another shot?

and to Slavakion...i doubly agree with the fables comparison. when you literalize the text, the other thing that happens is that the "meaning" gets fixed. the book is of little use that way...the point is to struggle with the questions, and think with in the story.

The problem, though, is that some people go too far in the other direction. The question shouldn't be simply a matter of "How likely is this to have happened?" but also a matter of "How does this story read?" Much of Genesis, for example, doesn't even sound like history; it sounds like myth. Kings and Chronicles, on the other hand, sound like history. The gospels sound like eyewitness reports (usually, at least). All text needs to be interpreted according to what sort of text it is.

I guess the point is that, while it's not going to bother me that people take Genesis to be myth, the general historical accuracy of the gospels should be something all Christians agree on. Here, in this case, to say that the gospels are merely nice stories is to deny an idea that has been central to Christianity since its beginning - the death and resurrection of Christ. I can't stop you if you want to believe this, but it would seem to be at best misleading to say you were a Christian in this case.

You are absolutely right. It is a great shame that prejudice, hypersensitivity, and paranoia had to turn this into a witch hunt of sorts. If more people would have posted like you and fistf did, straight answers without judgmental personal digs, and preconceived conclusions, then I think that this thread could have been much more productive.

I, myself really wasnt trying to steer things in anyway.....I was simply looking forward to seeing how "we heathens that claim to be christians" (paraphrasing from the original post) responded to why we consider ourselves that way, when we know good and well we are sinning. I was thinking the responses would be more "spiritually" based and not scriptually...and certainly not the antagonistic vein its going in, or the catholic/christian debate since there is already another thread going on about that. SM70, I thought in his initial post, posted some very good information...then they were put on the defensive and it screwed the whole thing up :crazy:

I think that one of the problems that people may have is that even with today's technology (video/audio recording devices, computers, internet, etc), it would be impossible to obtain the level of implied accuracy, such as private conversations, and events such as the birth that were prior to their meeting that could not have been "witnessed" first hand by the credited author. And if it was merely "divine dictation" then there is really no need for the "perspective" of four authors that all come from the same "ghost writer".

james allison has said of the gospels that they are not primitive histories, or biographies of Jesus. they are witnesses. they are the apostolic response to the ressurection, the way they saw the last few years of their lives in light of what happened on Easter.

i think that's kind of smart.

There are some events in the gospels that no one outside of Jesus witnessed, it is true, but these are pretty few and far between, and it's possibly that Jesus may have related them after his resurrection. Other than that, the writers may have simply interviewed people who were there - Mary or Joseph, for the story of the birth, for example.

What I find interesting about the idea of looking at the Gospels as historically accurate is how they differ on what one would think to be the most important topic: Jesus' capture and death. If the Gospels are historically accurate, then we should surely expect the least divergence on a topic such as Jesus' capture and death. But, instead, there is just as much divergence here than throughout any other part of the Gospels.

Take the capture, for instance. In the Gospel of Mark, it says (chapter 14)...

Mark was written not long after the first Jewish revolt failed and the temple was destroyed. These people whom Mark was writing for struggled with the feeling that Jesus had abandoned them. Likewise, one sees in Jesus' capture, in the Gospel of Mark, that Jesus himself is abandoned at his time of need ("And they all left him and fled"). He is begging God, asking to not allow this to happen, but he will do what God wants. One sees a Jesus not in control and feeling abandoned. Precisely the feeling of the persecuted, Jewish community for whom Mark was writing. This is how they felt in their lives and in their deaths: abandoned and alone.

Now, in the Gospel of John (chapter 17), Jesus prays to God as well, but he does not beg God to free him from death. Instead, he makes a lengthy prayer regarding his followers and the world and one gets the impression that he is relatively comfortable with his fate. In chapter 18, Jesus is captured:

The first thing we notice is that it is no longer a crowd of people capturing Jesus, but soldiers. Sure, soldiers COULD be described as a crowd, but WOULD they be? Furthermore, throughout this scene one sees a Jesus who is in control of the situation: "Jesus, knowing everything that was going to happen to him," "When he said to them, 'I AM,' they turned away and fell to the ground," "if you are looking for me, let these men go," "Put your sword into its scabbard. Shall I not drink the cup that the Father gave me?" This is a sharp contrast to the capture in Mark, where Jesus lacks control of the situation. Here, over and over again, Jesus is shown in complete control, ordering the soldiers regarding what to do with the others, stunning them with his declaration, "I AM," and, most of all, not abandoned. No one flees.

Now, there is Jesus' death. One of two events that, were the Gospels truly historically accurate, there would stand to be almost no divergence on. Yet, there is. In Mark, Matthew, and Luke, Jesus eats a Passover meal before he dies. However, he does not do so in John - the last supper is eaten before Passover begins. In John, the process of Jesus crucifixion begins at noon on the day of preparation for Passover - the time when the Jewish priests begin slaughtering the lambs for passover, creating an effective metaphor in the story.

Indeed, the Gospels appear to be so historically accurate that they can't agree on which day their Messiah died. But, of course, this assumes that they care to be historically accurate. But what if they don't? In my mind, these "issues" are not issues at all. In fact, understanding things like this has only led to a greater appreciation of the Gospels and their message. Clearly, John is trying to tell the reader something about Jesus - in fact, he says it explicitly in the very beginning of his Gospel (1:29), "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world." Being historically accurate about the day on which Jesus died is unimportant. Likewise, it is clear, when reflecting upon the community for which Mark was writing, why he chose to create certain images such as Jesus' followers abandoning him and Jesus begging God to let him live if there is a way. There are far more examples: literal historical accuracy is relatively unimportant throughout the Bible. Instead, there is far more to be learned when one takes into account the processes through which the Gospels (and the Bible) were written - keeping in mind the intended audiences and the cultures of their times.

What I meant when I said that a Christian has to believe that the gospels are historically accurate about the death and resurrection of Christ was merely that a Christian has to believe that these events actually happened, not that they have to believe that the accounts are literally true in all their details.

ah ok, I misunderstood. Yes, generally speaking I would agree. However, I do think that there's credence to the argument that far more contents of the Gospels are symbolically true (as opposed to being superficially true) than is commonly accepted by most.

You are using a translated version of the Bible. I would take into account that the translation could have caused some distortion, because it took more than one person to translate the bible.

I just say, becasue at my church our pastor know hebrew and latin so this added to discusions that we have. Well we do take the Bible literaly. I am Luthern and we follow the bible true to its word.

I'm using a translated version because we're discussing on an english internet forum. However, nothing I said is something that hasn't already been said by various Biblical scholars and theologians.

But, you're right, translation can have an affect on things. In this case, however, I'm quite confident that is not the case.

MrKlixx, who was it that made such bold statements and then you found lurking about in what you deem to be non Christian places?

Out of curiousity....Do you believe the version you use has not been translated?
And if so, What language is it written in?

Here is something to chew on as well:

http://www.abwoon.com/PrayersoftheCosmos.html

Neat book.

But no we do use the King James Bible. Just when certian things get come up we look at what was written in the original text. I am no expert though.

Example
We go by the literal translation of creation. Because the wording used for day meant "from sun up to sun down" and the fact that the original sin brought about death, so there can not be evolution before the original sin. Because sin is the cause for death. And evolution only works if there is death.

edit: i can not remember all the lang. that my pastor knows. Hebrew and latin are two. I think he knows German as well and a few others.

Since I've already been deemed a troublemaker, I don't think it would be too wise for me to point fingers at individuals, do you? I will say that some of the people that shocked me most with their revelation of Christianity have not even posted to this thread.

Since you are the only person that has posted that you believe the bible is literal, and since I have yet to get a straight answer about what actions people believe to be sins , I'll ask you. Do you believe that things like lust, pornography, extramarital-sex, substance abuse, etc, are sinful?

tecoyah...

i wouldn't give that too much credit. the aramaic in the text sticks out already. the grammar of all of them is greek...not semitic. i think the NT is all original greek compositions, with small passages as exceptions.

mrklixx of course those things are sinful. The question should not be what is sinful but what happens with the sin I have. There is nothing I can do to avoid sin competly. We all succumb to sin in one way or another. The beauty of Jesus is it doesn't matter.

Look what happens to the sinner in 1 Corinthians chapter 5 (specifically verse 5).

Understood. The point I was attempting to make is that the scriptures and holy texts have been translated , regardless of the version you decide to follow.. Having read several versions I was struck by the similarities, as well as the differences. The linked translation (while corrupted by translation) is quite beautiful, and sets a far more peaceful tone to the Bible, and to my mind, displays Christianity in a much more acceptable light.

I admit I am not a Christian by most standards, primarily because most Christians would not have me in their flock. But that will never prevent me from developing an understanding of the teachings of the Christ, any more than not becoming a Monk prevents me from learning of the Buddah.

So what would you say to people who label themselves as Christians who do not believe that those things are sins, and don't need to be dealt with as such?

And while it may be impossible to avoid sinful things completely, isn't it possible, and even "strongly recommended" to make a conscious effort to avoid situations that meet the sinful criteria?

And just to prove that I don't pretend to have the answers, I'll tell you that I read 1 Cor 5:5 in several different translations, and I have no idea what it means.

i cor 5:5...read the preceeding verses, and the problem of the text is a couple. man lives with his father's wife, and they may or may not be bumping uglies. my guess would be not, that they are claiming radical celibacy.

Paul can't really take this...while it is profoundly anti social...and Paul loves that...its going to be misunderstood and bring slander down on the community. He tells the church to stop praying for the man, to cease admitting him in to the group. Paul hopes this will bring the man to repentance, at least in time for the Big Show. his concern is shown several verses down...associating with the man will cause others to stumble.

so...associating with sexual immorality is bad. but paul doesn't define it for us. and i think it's quite possible to hold a Christian definition of sexual immorality that doesn't conflict with erotica, or some of the things that you mention as un-Christian.

But,is it not Paul making these judgements, and not the Christ. Again we get into translation, and interpretation of the teachings of the Christ. I think the issue here has little to do with what this great man taught us, but instead how we are to blend these things into our social settings. This cannot be done without first understanding the fundamental messages in these lessons.
My personal descisions regarding this difficult issue is to disregard the many interpretations of scripture as accurate dictations of the words of Jesus, and instead delve into the "message" contained within. I do this by reading numerous translations of the same passage, and attempting to reverse engineer what the Christ actually meant. I do the same with Hindu texts, and Celtic mythology.
There is no reason, In my opinion, to limit my spiritual growth to the teachings of a single path or manifestation of what we refer to as God. I find it likely there have been many Avatars on this Earth, and the Christ is but one of them.

The part I was pointing out in 1 Cor 5:5 was the last little bit, dealing with the man being saved. Despite his sins.

Do people who sin need to be delt with? Not in the way you are implying. We are to love the sinner and do nothing to make him sin more. In the end it is not us who says who is right or wrong. The bible clearly states this many times. Do not judge others.... Remove the plank from your own eye.... There is even a verse that says directly do not say who is going to heaven and hell.

God is the one who judges all in the end not us. It is our job as Christians to be there for the sinner when they are ready. We should not persecute them, we should not slander them, we should not put them down, we should not gossip about them, we should not put ourselfs above them, no instead we should only love them. That is what the bible teaches us.

I agree with everything that Rekna says; one of the verses from scripture I like to quote runs "I do not even judge myself." At the same time, we should not merely let them continue in their sin. I don't think it's appropriate to castigate random people on their street for their sins, but if you see a friend who is a Christian in a sinful lifestyle, or someone in your church if your in a certain sort of position in that church, you're not only allowed, but required to try and get them to repent.

I haven't heard that one before, but I'd like to be able to quote it to those 'god hates fags' baptists - Not that it would make them any more reasonable Christians, people or otherwise.

There are many people who follow a religion, nationality, football team, pub, brand, company or games console for no reason other than that they are exposed to [it] at some time in their life. [It] fills a hole and provides a sense of identity and community.

Not everyone thinks about the implications or remifications of their beliefs - in fact very few people want or even care to. Christianity may be as successfull as it is because it allows those who are not interested in philosophy to leave all the thinking up to Bishops and Priests, and be told what is right or wrong by them in the same way a Doctor tells us to stop smoking, or loose weight, or lower our blood pressure. Healthy spiritual living and healthy physical living are not too distant from one another - over indulgence leads to self harm, both spiritually and mentally.

BTW: This isn't a dig at Christianity or Christians, I know and understand that there are many who intently and deeply think about and consider everything about the world from within their religious framework

The idea of a moral, or absolute right or wrong is a nice way of simplifying a difficult concept so that your average Joe can understand it. If you went to the Doctor about a cold and he started talking about the way a virus enters a cell and translates its genetic code into the host, causing it to replicate the virus' code over and over again, which causes changes to various passageways in your nose and triggers the release of enzymes and hormone levels in your system, and how they delicately interact with one another to in turn effect the sugar and salt levels in your blood which in turn might effect...etc...etc...You might stop listening - However, if he says, take 2 aspirin before bed - you're happy.

As for helping others to live a healthy spiritual lifestyle, I think it's just as acceptable to tell someone they are doing something they shouldn't, as it might be to steer them clear of the dessert tray once in a while.

Each of the the above is a tricky balance to find between caring for someone's (spiritual and physical) health on one hand, and being an interferring busy-body on the other. One more reason why Priests (and Doctors) are so handy, they both have (or should have) the authority to point out where the rest of us are going wrong - or at least be there to turn to when we are spiritually (or physically) ill.

I'm sorry that you both (Rekna & asaris) typed lengthy responses based on a misinterpretation of what I typed. On a second read, I do see how it's possible that it be translated that way, and I apologize for not being clearer. It is amusingly relevant though on a thread that is somewhat about translation and interpretation. Hope nobody went out and started a religion based on what I said in my last post. :D

What I meant was, that if and individual that is a self-professed Christian does not view the "obvious" sins as sinful, then that individual will not treat them as sins and "deal" with them accordingly (i.e. avoidance, repentance, etc).

As to 1 Cor 5:5, I'm wondering if that verse wasn't used in things like the Salem witch burnings, because that's definitely one interpretation that crossed my mind. "deliver such a one to Satan(-->hell-->fire) for the destruction of the flesh(by fire), that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus."

That seems like a good idea, except John 14:6 seems to state (in just about any translation), that Jesus did not agree with you.

Ah....but, who was John but another Man ....attempting to translate the teachings. That becomes irrelevant in the context of my personal faith, as I find my own ability to garner meaning from the basic messages, on Par with John.
I have simply decided that the fewer humans between me and the teachings....the more accurate is the likely interpretation.

Please understand I do not think myself "Better" than anyone else at interpreting these teachings. I am just different in my reading of intent in scripture.

A sin is a sin, and there is no way to get out of it.

What are you looking for in my answer?

We should try to live our lives in a manner that is out lined in the following versus folloeing John 14:6. Once you have sinned you are guilty in all of them. There is no lesser sin than any other. Murder/rape are just as guilty as stealing a peice of candy from the store.

But, becuase of Jesus we are forgiven of our sins, and we are sinnless in God's eyes. Since we can never be sinnnless as Jesus was we should try to live our lives in a good manner. Help those who need help, live an all around good life, and all the usual stuff that are associated with Christians. But, technoically we have been forgiven, and as those passages (John 14-15) state that those who truely beleive try to live that way. Basically alll it says is that those who truely beleive will live their lives that way, while there will be those who say one thing and act out another.

there's no responsible reading that can support the idea that they were going to burn the guy. Flesh means something very different to Paul, nor do they have any state power to do somethign like that. Paul expresses hope that the wayward will return, in many places.

and yeah, it's Paul trying to settle a dispute. he would not have expected us to make it scripture.

If you are wondering more on the topics discussed here read Romans chapters 1 and 2.

In chapter 1 Paul talks about the sinful, immoral men and women throughout time. It talks about how God gave them over into their sin so that through their sin they would recieve their due punishment. Then in chapter 2 it talks about not judging others because doing so makes us hypocrits. It is God's judgement not ours. God knows so much more about the circumstances than we do. Another interesting part of chapter 2 is the verse that says God will show no favortism.

I was reading along the posts and yea this one caught my eye.. simply because It proves a very good point. Though all the posts I read where very good this one seems seems to be the opinion I lean towards... But yea I take scripture seriously.. I try to live as good as I can and not any better or worse.. I simply accept that I am not perfect but that I am not the worst and that I cant judge myself and neither can anyone else judge me in that way... So yea.. I refuse to beleive I am going to go to hell because a book say's so, or any person beleives that I am sinfull... At least I accept what I am instead of living a lie, which would be to me far worse..

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this, martinguerre, but it seems clear that Paul assigns are greater authority to most of what he writes than merely just good advice from an Apostle. There is at least one passage (the one where he says it is better to be single than to be married) where he is at pains to say that this is just his opinion, not the word of the Lord. That implies that he thought that the rest of what he writes IS the word of the Lord.

In general, I'm skeptical of metaphorical interpretations of any part of the NT, not just the moral teachings, but especially those. It's just far too easy. I guess at the end of the day, I'll admit the possibility that they're metaphorical, but how many people reject the teaching first, and then try to explain why it's metaphorical, rather than vice versa?

One thing a lot of people don't take into account is that Paul was chosen by Jesus. He was on the road to damascus when Jesus appeared to him and commanded him to do what he did. He makes this clear in the greating of every letter he writes. What he writes is more than just his opinnion (except where he states otherwise, as noted in the post above).

While I agree that Saul/Paul was chosen by God, what I don't agree with is the automatic assumption that everything Paul wrote or said is in accordance with God's will.

In the end, Paul was still a fallable human being. He was also inextricably linked to Jewish tradition and viewpoints.

This is why I think, for example, that he comes out against homosexuality (that being a deadly sin to Jews not to have a male heir).

This is not "cafeteria Christianity", but an understanding of who said what and from what perspective.

Paul also had no use for women

I guess then it comes down to did Paul prophesize or was he just speaking for himself all the time. If he was prophesizing then the bible teaches us that everything he said must be truth or else he is a false prophet and comes from Satan.

That passage you cite...he's playing extra careful on an issue he can't solve. But i find no good evidence that Paul beleived his words to be scripture. He had no idea there would be a New Testament in any way shape or form.

His letters are impromtu, crisis theology. There is much to be learned from them. I preach from them regularly. I read them closely.

But i always keep in mind that he never intended them to be universal decrees.

PS: Shanifaye, i'm happy to tell you that you're mistaken. look at the parts of the letters where he thanks his benefactors. The church in corinth is run by pheobe, women are adressed as prophets, deacons, elders, and evangelizers. I think paul had a complicated relationship to women, but it is clear that he recognizes women as authorities, and they bail out his ministry more than once.

I think that such a view ignores Paul's human nature as well being a little too black and white in my opinion.

News flash, all prophets were and are human

I guess I should clarify my possition on this a bit. We need to take what Paul says seriously, we cannot ask weather or not what he said is true or not. There are times where he makes opinions and he states them as such and there are other times he makes decrees. We should take those decrees seriously. One thing we do need to ask though is who are the decrees he made applicable to. Some things he said were meant to deal with a specific church and others were ment for the whole church not any one.

Rekna,

Question: Do you think revelation still occurs?

Yes definatly. Some people are blessed with the gift of prophecy, some are gifted with the gift of teaching, some are gifted with other things. There are verses directly related to that.

Do I think there is a single person on earth who speaks for God, ie a single prophet? No not at all. But I think God speaks to many different people for different reasons, in fact I have met a couple differnt people who claim to have the gift and they have some very convincing stories. Whether or not they are true i'm not sure but I don't see why they would lie to me considering they were gaining nothing from me and had nothing to gain by lieing.

I'm with Rekna on this, but I wanted to add that I would be very suspicious of, if not reject out of hand, any 'revelations' which contradicted accepted scripture.

Rekna,

If all biblical revelation is by definition true, then how does one reconcile old testament revelation that tells the Israelites to slaughter their enemies with the teachings of Jesus who told us to love our enemies and to turn the other cheek?

It's called the new testament that split the curtian of the church, abolishing the laws of the old testament allowing all to go to heaven through the grace of Jesus Christ. What was taught at the time of the old testament does not always apply to today. See about any letter from paul to a church in the new testament and you will see how paul specifically tells people to stop following the old laws as if they were laws. Because it is not the law that makes one righteous.

Yet this directly contradicts what Jesus said:

Mt 5:17 - "Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. "

*nods

you can call us "cafeteria christians" but the slur just hides the fact that any reading of the scripture will have to dismiss parts to accept others.

Yes and no. Reading scripture while remaining cogniscant of the situations in which they were written - including the fact that the Gospels were NOT written by their attributed authors and were also written to address specific communities - can enable one to read the scripture as a whole and glean a message from all parts of it. Just not a literal, black and white, or easy message.

Why someone comes and what they do are completly different. Christ didn't come to abolish law, but to fulfil it because the law always pointed to christ not to the law but we as people took the law as a set of rules which said how we get to heaven. But Christ made it clear it is not the law or following of the law that saves us but instead it is by grace alone. This is repeated in the bible countless times. Over and over it is stated by grace not by works. By faith. Believe and be baptised. That is what saves us not any sort of fulfilment of the law. We do not earn our way into heave. No christian is better than the next, for all it takes to be a christian is to believe. So if one believer spends his life to helping others he is no better in heaven then the one who spends his life devoted to other things. But your reward for being devoted to others on earth comes on earth. He rewards us in our lives for being devoted to him. The laws of the OT are no longer laws but instead suggestions of what we should do. For a belief in Christ is all we need. unless you are suggesting Jesus was a liar.