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

[uss_bigd]

Originally Posted by texan1

In order to believe that the Bible is truly the word of God, it seems that you would have to believe that God can speak directly through humans. He spoke through the authors of the Bible who put the Holy Creator's words into this holy text.

Why then is it ok for mere humans to pick and choose which passages to believe in, which to take literally, which to disregard all together and how to interpret all facets of it? Most churches talk about a loving, forgiving God and talk about Jesus as the Prince of Peace. But when I read the Bible I can't seem to find this God in there. Much of what is in the Bible, especially the Old Testament, depicts an angry vengeful and frightening God (Leviticus for example). There are also laws outlined (in Dueteronomyfor example) that say women should be covered, they will be stoned to death in public for adultery, and are considered about as valuable as cattle. Most "Christians" I know certainly don't believe in these Taliban-like values.

Are there any Christians who might be able to explain how they reconcile this? Why you get to pick and choose only small sections of the Bible to believe in? And if you are free to do that, do you really believe it is the Divine Word? Do you think Christianity has actually evolved away from the Bible?

For those who feel the bible is not a worthy basis let us keep that as a separete topic please? For argumentation sake, the life of Christ, Written by those who actually lived in his time and followed him when he was alive is written in the bible. therefore, the priority for studying christianity is the bible.

now:

1. Real Christians were never commanded to choose what to follow. (1 Cor 4:60)
2. which verses in the ot are you referring too? and i will explain what they mean.


3. There should only be a single authentic christian church.

proof?

by logic.

There is one undeniable rule of logic we have to adhere too.

" No two contradicting principles can be both true" one party can't say "this pen is blue" and another party will say "this pen is red". provided they are referring to same pen, Common sense would dictate they can't be both true.


by scripture:

Gal 1:6-7

"I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ."


"this means that even during the time of the apostles, there were already elements preaching a different gospel. which means, we should NOT be surprised why there are a lot of christians denominations today. the verse further states that "some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ" meaning there are people who will add, delete and choose what is in the bible."

so now, how do we find out the truth. well, the bible is complete it will not show a problem without a solution.

according to the prophet jeremiah

JER 6:16

This is what the LORD says:

"Stand at the crossroads and look;
ask for the ancient paths,
ask where the good way is, and walk in it,
and you will find rest for your souls."

ask for the old paths, of how the true religion is really practiced. if you wish to know more. ask.

[uss_bigd]

[quote=texan1;1108259]
Why then is it ok for mere humans to pick and choose which passages to believe in, which to take literally, which to disregard all together and how to interpret all facets of it? quote]

again, real Christian Doctrine never condoned choosing which to believe in.
and indeed all facets of the bible must be well regarded.

[Dunemeister]

Katzpur and I must acknowledge that we have gotten off the point. Originally, we were discussing the preservation of the bible, not the church, and I think we're veering off in that latter direction. I questioned whether God would permit his Word to be mangled so badly that a wholesale revision or a large-scale re-revelation would be required. Katzpur offered that, given human nature and free will, we shouldn't be surprised that such a wholesale replacement would eventually be necessary. Hadn't God said that heretics would arise?

Yes, heretics would arise, but God promised to preserve his scriptures intact. Almost at random:

Psalm 119:152 Long ago I learned from your decrees that you have established them for ever.

Psalm 119:160 The sum of your word is truth; and every one of your righteous ordinances endures for ever.

Isaiah 59:21 And as for me, this is my covenant with them, says the Lord: my spirit that is upon you, and my words that I have put in your mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth, or out of the mouths of your children, or out of the mouths of your children’s children, says the Lord, from now on and for ever.

Matthew 5:18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.

Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.

1 Peter 1:23 - 25 You have been born anew, not of perishable but of imperishable seed, through the living and enduring word of God. For ‘All flesh is like grass and all its glory like the flower of grass. The grass withers, and the flower falls, but the word of the Lord endures for ever.’ That word is the good news that was announced to you.

Revelation 22:18 - 20 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this book; if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away that person’s share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. (Note: In context, these warnings in Revelation apply only to the Book of Revelation, but given the other scriptures I've listed, we can be sure that God cares to preserve them as much as the prophecy of Revelation.)

This scriptural evidence of God's promise is vindicated by an examination of the physical evidence through the science of textual criticism, which demonstrates that the NT scriptures have been preserved with 99.5% faithfulness. Yes, that's right. In the NT, there is a mere half a per cent variation. And the variations that exist do not cause doctrinal problems. So I'd say God came through on his promise.

[lunamoth]

You can't discuss the Bible without discussing the Church.

I don't pick and choose in the Bible. It is all the sacred history of our redemption. I read it all through the lens of the God I know in Christ.

[Jeremy Mason]

Originally Posted by 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.

The bible does not bring out the worst in anyone. It's people who, with their own distorted issues that manifest tragedy.

[Sola'lor]

Originally Posted by Jeremy Mason

The bible does not bring out the worst in anyone. It's people who, with their own distorted issues that manifest tragedy.

Agreed.

[texan1]

Hi there,

If any of y’all are still tuning into this thread……This is in response to uss_bigd: there are countless passages in the Bible that depict the violence of God as well as the fact that he places far more value on men than women. (It seems that a women’s virginity is more important than anything else.) But here are some passages that came to mind when I wrote the original question:

*Deuteronomy 22: 13-21 – kind of long to paste here, but in summary it says that if a man decides he doesn’t like his new wife, says bad things about her and claims she is not a virgin, her father must use a cloth to produce the “tokens of her virginity”. If these “tokens” can be produced, the man pays the father a fee and must keep the wife (how fun for her!). If the “tokens” cannot be produced, the wife will be stoned to death in public.

*I Corinthians 14:34-35 – “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."

*Judges 19:24-25 – “Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go."

This kind of weird stuff appears throughout the Bible. Their meanings are very clear; I certainly don’t need them to be explained to me. Do you believe in your heart that this kind of stuff should be well regarded? I don’t think any of us can deny that the Bible is not so good for the ladies in the house. However, most of the Christians that I know are truly good people that I would never label as abusive or chauvinistic. I personally think it’s because they are guided by compassion and reason more than the Bible. That’s kind of why I asked the original question – do you think Christianity has evolved away from the Bible? Are we holding on to it via a few soundbites so to speak? (I’ve never been to a church service where the preacher said outright “submit to your husbands!”, etc.) And if so, how can you reconcile this? And if it can be interpreted by individuals based on their beliefs and the type of guidance they seek in their life, I don’t think I would be a terrible person if I didn’t seek guidance from the Bible. Can we really consider the Entire Bible to be sacred?

Sorry to be so long winded and repetitive here. I am new to this forum and am so appreciative of all of your intelligent answers (and welcome more!). This is a great place to voice my questions and air out my doubts.

[RedRain]

I don't know how well I can explain what my version of Christianity(Swedenborgianism) truly teaches, but I feel like it would resolve two of the larger issues being discussed here.

According to Emanuel Swedenborg, an 18th century scientist turned spiritual revelator, the Bible was preserved and not mangled over the ages, but watched over by God and has been kept in relative perfection.

It must be kept in it's perfection for this reason, that it contains an internal meaning even down to the letter and this internal meaning is continuous throughout the whole of the Bible.

The reason, then, that the Old Testament is full of seemingly odd commandments and narratives is because the people in the time that it was written would not have been able to handle the real truth, that God does not get angry, that your neighbor should be loved as yourself. They would not have been able to accept a doctrine of forgiveness. The value in this doctrine for us today is the internal meaning of those stories.

Just to give some sort of idea of what this internal meaning would look like. The story of the children of Israel wondering through the wilderness represents the struggle each one of us goes through individually. When they are commanded to completely annihilate a certain people it is representative of a certain evil desire in ourselves that must be completely removed.

Just in summary, the people of those days would not have understood what God was telling them if He said what He really wanted to say. So what He did was give them laws to follow, that were good laws for a barbaric society, and at the same time he hid within those laws a message for anyone who would choose to see deeper.

I know this might come off as odd, it is a little hard to explain. Swedenborg wrote over 30 books of theology. I get off on the whole internal meaning thing though. I love the idea of looking deeper and deeper and deeper.

[Dunemeister]

Originally Posted by RedRain

The reason, then, that the Old Testament is full of seemingly odd commandments and narratives is because the people in the time that it was written would not have been able to handle the real truth, that God does not get angry, that your neighbor should be loved as yourself. They would not have been able to accept a doctrine of forgiveness.

It takes a lot to make me angry, but this passage really did it for me. This is such condescending BS. 'Oh, those poor ancient people wouldn't have been able to handle love because it was too "advanced" for them' says your teacher? Pah! What makes him think that we're morally advanced beyond the Bronze Age culture to which much of the OT was written (or that he was morally advanced beyond them)? Not to mention that love and forgiveness is embedded deeply into every warp and woof of the OT. Deeper meanings, my arse.