Why can Christians pick and choose which parts of the Bible to believe? (Jesus, punishment)

[Victor]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

Because it's ours.

That's just not fair.

How can we critique you Christians if I can't start with my premises, understandings, and interpretations?

Just not fair...

Where is the fun in that?

[Wandered Off]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

Because it's ours.

*cursing empty frubal gun*

[Dunemeister]

I offer this post merely as a summary. Perhaps it can help focus the discussion.

There are three issues in this discussion so far. First, there's the issue of how God inspired the authors of the bible. Did God directly or indirectly inspire the authors (and what's the difference)? Did God inspire all of the bible or just some of it? What weight do we give to the humanness of the scriptures as opposed to their divinity? Differing answers to these questions will generate different answers to the question, "What parts of the bible can/should/must I believe?"

Second, there's the issue of how and whether God has successfully preserved the original writings. Our LDS friends brought this one up, and it's good that they did. We don't have the originals of the sacred writings, only the copies, so did God preserve the original text adequately, or has it been corrupted enough that we are forced to "pick and choose what to believe"? Unfortunately, the LDS solution -- God gave us more scriptures -- only raises the question yet again for the LDS scriptures. Once again, we're forced to ask whether God in fact inspired them and whether he has successfully preserved them. (There's also the theological question of what sort of God would allow his scriptures to be so mangled in the first place, but having raised that issue, I just as quickly leave it.)

Third, even if we grant that God inspired the original writings in such a way that they have "authority", and also if we grant that God has perfectly preserved them, there's still the question how a book like the bible is "authoritative." If you read the bible, you notice that it is very light on commands (only 613 of them), and most of them clearly apply to contexts quite distinct from our own (Bronze age near eastern theocracy vs. modern western secular democracy). By contrast, it's very heavy on narrative. Assuming we can solve the contextual problem of the commands (not an easy task by any means, and the church to this day struggles with it), how can stories be "authoritative"? And then there are those portions of scripture that are talking about the future. How can predictions be "authoritative"? What does that even mean?

So, to those of you who thought being a Christian was a simple-minded affair:

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by texan1

How do we know these prophets are really speaking the word of God?

For Christians, I suppose a prophet could be considered to be speaking the word of God if his words help us develop a relationship with God and Jesus Christ, in particular. God's prophets will never encourage us to do things that would not be pleasing to God. That would be at least one indicator of a true prophet as opposed to a false prophet.

And why do so many prophets contradict each other?

I don't believe that true prophets (i.e. prophets who were actually called by God, as opposed to self-proclaimed prophets whom God had no part in calling) do contradict each other. Later prophets often build on what earlier prophets had to say, and this may lead people to see their words as contradictory. When you stop to realize, though, that if a prophet is actually chosen by God, his purpose is to act as God's spokesman. He will direct his remarks to a particular group of people and will tell them what God wants them to know. There may be a reason for God to give one group of people a commandment and then, at at later date, to tell a different group of people, through a different prophet, that they no longer need to keep this particular commandment. A good example of this would be the Law of Moses.

How do we know that some of them weren't just kind of crazy, like David Koresh in Waco? We just don't know that. I guess that's why it's called "faith".

When you get right down to it, yes, that's why it's called "faith." But with respect to people like David Koresh or Jim Jones (my person pick for crazy prophet of the last century), I think the best indication of his sanity would be how the lives of his followers are affected. Does such a person improve the lives of others or does he destroy those lives? Is the world made better because of his followers or worse? Obviously, these are subjective questions, but it's a place to start, at least.

And Joseph Smith for example advocated polygamy which is now looked down upon by the mainstreem Morman church. So if that part of his prophecy is not true or accepted, how do we know any of the rest of it is?

On the surface, that would appear to be the case. The Book of Mormon actually prohibits polygamy except when the Lord commands it for the specific purpose of "raising up seed" -- or, to put it in more colloquial English, to increase the population of a given group of people more quickly than would be the case if that people were practicing monogamy. We believe that Joseph Smith was authorized (commanded, actually) to institute the practice of polygamy on a very limited basis for a period of time early in the history of the LDS Church. You are right that it is prohibited by the Church leadership today, but that doesn't mean that it was wrong for the early Church members to have practiced it. There is no longer a reason for it to be practiced and so we are back to the practice of monogamy. As to how we know that Joseph's other teachings were acceptable to God, you already answered that: by faith and by the confirmation of their truth by the witness of the Holy Ghost.

And this goes for Jesus and other prophets cited in Christianity. If they were really speaking the word of God why do we not accept all of it? Sorry to keep asking....I just think it's a fascinating question and the source of most of my doubts.

I think it's an entirely reasonable question. Of course my response is going to reflect the LDS perspective, which won't be all that compelling to you, but from where we stand, God wouldn't be "the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow" if He were to suddenly just stop talking to His children. He promised in the Old Testament that He would never do that, that He would do nothing without revealing His secrets to His servants, the prophets. That's why we believe He continues to do so today. I think of it this way: If you were going to war against a very deceptive and cunning enemy, and could have only one resource at your disposal, which would you prefer -- a good book on military strategy or a living human being, someone with a strong military background and experience who understood your enemy and his tactics, and was familiar with the enemy's culture and worldview? I'd pick the living human being. If I could have the good book, too, so much the better. For this same reason, I'd pick a living prophet over a good book any day. Best of all, if I could have the book and the direction of a person who was called by God to help me understand it, that's what I'd prefer. If the prophet were able to help me understand what parts of the book were not relative to the decisions I was going to be expected to make, I wouldn't be too concerned.

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by Dunemeister

Unfortunately, the LDS solution -- God gave us more scriptures -- only raises the question yet again for the LDS scriptures. Once again, we're forced to ask whether God in fact inspired them and whether he has successfully preserved them. (There's also the theological question of what sort of God would allow his scriptures to be so mangled in the first place, but having raised that issue, I just as quickly leave it.)

There's a simple answer to that question, Dunemeister, and it's the same answer essentially, to the question of what kind of a God would allow Adam and Eve to be tempted by a devious creature who promised them godhood for taking a bite out of an apple. It's called free will. How would you have expected God to have kept the Bible free from error and absolutely complete? He spoke to prophets and apostles and they were inspired to write down what He told them, but how exactly was He to make sure that none of the original documents were ever lost or transcribed incorrectly, unless, of course, He didn't involve human beings in the process in the first place? Wouldn't it be nice if He had hand-written in each of the world's languages every word He wanted us to know and delivered this collection of holy writ in nice leather-bound copies to each of us!

[texan1]

I appreciate all of these thoughtful answers!

[UltraViolet]

We all pick, choose and arrange things/ideas/texts
to suit our own desired (or pre-scribed) beliefs.
It's what human beings do. It's how we construct.
And that's fine.

But most are unaware or will not admit to themselves this is so...
so then when we have to deal with a million people acting like
their own personally chosen interpretations are "universal truths",
as they try to correct and enlighten everyone else.

That part of the "human construct" I personally can do without,
and the bible just brings out the worst of this in people.

[Dunemeister]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

There's a simple answer to that question, Dunemeister, and it's the same answer essentially, to the question of what kind of a God would allow Adam and Eve to be tempted by a devious creature who promised them godhood for taking a bite out of an apple. It's called free will. How would you have expected God to have kept the Bible free from error and absolutely complete? He spoke to prophets and apostles and they were inspired to write down what He told them, but how exactly was He to make sure that none of the original documents were ever lost or transcribed incorrectly, unless, of course, He didn't involve human beings in the process in the first place? Wouldn't it be nice if He had hand-written in each of the world's languages every word He wanted us to know and delivered this collection of holy writ in nice leather-bound copies to each of us!

Sorry, that won't do. Jesus promised "Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the ages." He promised that his Spirit would guide his followers into all truth, and that he would never leave us nor forsake us. He also insisted that "my sheep hear my voice, and I lead them out." With these promises in hand, it makes no sense whatsoever to propose that, within three short centuries, the church had gone completely off the rails (as nineteenth-century restorationist movements tend to proclaim), what with such fanciful doctrines as the Trinity and the dual nature of Christ. And apparently it got so bad by the 19th century that God had to raise up whole new agencies to replace the church wholesale (LDS church, Jehovah's Witnesses, just to name a couple). That scenario does not square with the promises Jesus gave us concerning his continued presence with the church and his continual guiding hand. If we take LDS and JW claims seriously, either God lost his voice (how can his sheep hear if he doesn't speak) or he ran out of believers (he's speaking all right, but he doesn't have any sheep), and that he permitted that situation to persist for close to 1600 years or so. Finally, after all these years, God finally puts in an appearance in the United States somewhere and starts all over again (with the LDS or the JW). But that just seems too incredible to believe.