Sins Of Scripture (book)

Holy does not mean literal. Therefore, I think one could say some parts are literal while others are not.

 

Thanks again for your discussion on these issues even though you're sick of theology. I enjoy reading your responses. I can understand your frustration but Unfortunately the nature of the D & D prevents anything more than a theological discussion on these issues.

 

great question. people who take it more literally than i do would probably ask of me the same thing.

i just read it given its context and purpose. why is this here? what is the author trying to do? what's he telling? when a book or letter begins with something like the Gospel of Luke...where he says, "look, i've investigated into this and here's what I'm reporting to you," then i don't think he's trying to hit metaphor.

however, when you read a story like Job...I personally am left with the feeling that the lesson of the story is important, whether the story is literal or not. i'm not dogmatic about it either way. there are those like Spong who insist it's metaphor. there are others who insist a story like that is to be taken literally. i don't care enough either way.

 

but with God, all things are possible.

 

Sorry I was innacurate in my language. What I meant to say was that if the whole Bible is holy then how can one decide that some parts are metaphorical and subject to interpretation or literal and to be taken at face value?

 

don't get me wrong...i'm not a fan of "religion" per se. for some, it can be a sense of comfort. but i don't think of my faith as religion. i don't think of myself as religious, though i'm sure many here do. it's not about religion to me.

spong just has way too much baggage with me, personally.

 

The wonderful philosophies (new testament) of love in the Bible reveal the nature and character of God.

All abuse and persecution either by a religious perveyor or a non-religious perveyor was carried out by humans who lack this love.

I can't think of one problem in the world today that doesn't boil down to wrong human choices- every problem whether it is war, abuse, prejudice, corporations, governments, environmental, health care, addictions, Iraq, ghettos etc - all come down to relationship problems- people do not exhibit the love that you mentioned as described in the new testament.

I don't know of any misery, any suffering, and wrong in the world that doesn't find its cause somewhere inside the heart of man.

Jesus said from within a man- out of the heart comes evil, murder, adultery, sexual sin, lies, blasphemy...

How much strife on this planet is the result of self-rightous religion
I would say all strife is a result of self-righteousness both of the religious and the non-religious. (self-righteousness is found in us all)

can a leopard change its spots? God doesn't ask that we try harder, He asks that we believe.

I would suggest to you that the message of the Bible is the testimony of God's Son, Jesus Christ. You must first believe this testimony.

I don't need to be told the right way to live (philosophy), I need to encounter a person who can change my heart. I need God's love.

Our problems lie within.

 

Spong is a polemicist, even though I mostly agree with him. He can be annoying, much like me in Garm.

If you read the Greek and Latin with any respectable textual scholars you get a different picture of the books that make up the new testament. They are polemical documents, too.

Just for clarification, I detest Paul, John and Matthew. They are products of pitifully desperate needs. I can tolerate Luke, and Mark is the alpha. So, read that how you want.

Jesus was likely an illegitimate kid that needed some nutty reason to be. Making everyone illegitimate was an equalizer. Dude was good a drawing and keeping a crowd, but the secrecy and obfuscation themes should ring a bell.

Have you read "Influence" by Robert Cialdini? Look at the cult chapter. Humans have some hard-wired response in the face of overwhelming evidence that a costly reality-map is false. I think you see some of that in the early disciples' response.

I admire Jesus as a (inevitably) flawed man, but have a hard time ascribing him divinity, apart from the divinity of every other man. The stories really are poorly written and full of preposterous detail. I really would love someone to show me a better way, as I still hunger for that sense of love and belonging I used to get in the church, before they exiled my friend, a gay priest. That event really led to a crisis of faith, for me. It was just something that had been building.

 

There is no fundamental inconsistency between Christianity and science. They are part of the same whole. And the bible is largely a story of the evolution of civilization.

My position on this is very similar to Max’s. The only thing I’d add is that a number of the contentious issues that tend be raised when people are talking about the literal interpretation of the Bible are positions that can’t be supported by a literal interpretation of the Bible. In other words, they are false issues. If you like you can pick your favourite issue and I can illustrate my point further, because the chances are better than even that it’s either a false issue or a significantly misunderstood one.

 

Can you pick one because I have no idea what you mean. How about a literal interpretation of the ascension or The Great Flood etc?

 

And you haven't found a sense of love and belonging on MySpace yet?

Seriously a crisis of faith is a tough thing. I would imagine though that not all Christian churches are the same so have you tried other churches? If you still feel a need for a spiritual community have you considered other religions?

 

MySpace is not quite a church. . I appreciate your response, because I am still reading and actively searching for a personal relationship with God, and community. I've looked at lots of things, I actually look every day. I've read some Hindu scripture, and the notion of the Self is interesting. I've read a lot of Bhuddist teachings, but I don't think life is an illusion or desire is suffering.
Taoist ideals seem very sensible to me, but there's the problem of evil. You don't just go with the flow if emperor is Hitler. Sometimes there needs to be a stand and a sacrifice. I don't really understand the rather tribal idea of exclusive Gods with demanding ritual observances like in Judiasm or Islam. That's one message of Jesus that I respect - you can't put God in a box. Not even a golden box with special handles and a tent. It's rather presumptive to try and control God that way, with magic .

Yes, I'm looking at other churches, even in my own, but I obviously have a problem with the idea of exclusive divinity, which seems very first century. It seems strange that the guy who consistantly referred to himself as the "son of man" was ascribed some sort of biological messianic divine lineage, kind of like Caeser being a son of Hercules.

Well, back to work. May God be with you.

 

Well, neither of those are very controversial. If God is who he says he is then the ascension is not hard to believe, and whether the great flood was the flooding of the world Noah lived in, say near the Black Sea before the natural dam where the Bosporus strait is now burst, or whether it happened in another way (remember that if God is God then lots of things become possible) these tend not to be very contentious issues.

An issue like homosexuality, however, is very divisive and my be an appropriate one to look at given paxon’s post. Some Christian groups are very vocal and judgmental about homosexuality, and this is often, rightly or wrongly, associated with “fundamentalist” Christian groups. (I think some Catholic groups have a strong reaction to it these days perhaps in response to the recent scandals). In response to this, some Christian groups on the extreme other end of the spectrum have tried to counter this by saying that the Bible isn’t literal on this and/or that this was a product of the time and not relevant now. Both of these positions drive me bonkers because the former can’t be justified from the Bible, and the latter only justifies the former by suggesting that it is a Biblical position and then it counters that by denying the timelessness and inerrancy of the Bible. Both sides need to read their Bibles and find out what it really says about homosexuality.

Let’s look at Romans for example. This is a letter written by Paul that was to be read to a crowd of Romans. It lists things that are sins by the law, but it’s real purpose is to convict the listeners of their judgmentalism and legalism, which then as now are two of the most important issues in the Christian church.

I’ll pick it up here in Romans 1: 24
“24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”
Now, you can just picture the crowd becoming self-righteous, some knitting their eyebrows in disgust, others perhaps offering up some cat calls. But Paul continues:

“28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice.”
The level of self-righteousness in the crowd now rises and more cat calls and open displays of contempt are seen, and now Paul begins to real them in:

“They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.”
Now the crowd quietens down in a hurry as people, somewhat confused, begin to sort out what’s going on. He can’t be lumping gossip and boastfulness in with sexual immorality can he?! Indeed he is, because sin is sin is sin is sin. Now Paul continues, pulling the line tight and convicting his listeners of their own sin and hypocrisy:

“1You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? 4Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?

These are strong words, and words that are just as appropriate today as they were then. He goes on to explain that we are no longer to live by the law, or judge others by the law, or to judge others at all for that matter. We are to live by faith, through the sacrifice Christ made on the cross for our sins, which made us clean in God’s eyes. Our sins have been atoned for in the way Old Testament sins were atoned for, though a sacrifice, but this was the big one, once and for all, for all who chose to enter into a relationship with God. God literally no longer sees our sins after this point. We are no longer subject to the law. (But note that this does not mean that you can willfully break the law without serious consequences).


paxon:
I don’t know the particulars of the situation with your friend, but I think if someone is a practising homosexual in a religion that does believe that that’s a sin, then without any judgmentalism involved I think it may be inappropriate for him to be a leader in that community. I think that that would be the case if he was willfully going against the stated values of the community in any way, from homosexuality to jaywalking, I should add. If they were harsh and judgmental with him, otoh, or they kicked him out of the church altogether, then the above passage applies IMO. That is not Christian behaviour. I would encourage you to look around at other Christian churches because there is quite a variety. All will have their strengths and weaknesses but I’m sure there are ones that you’d feel much more comfortable in. There will also be churches that tell you anything you want to hear so a good church is one that connects with you and challenges you but that doesn’t as rule offend you. No church is perfect just like no human is perfect and there will be some things in all churches that offend you now than then. I kept looking until I found a non-denominational church that was a very good fit for me, and from my experience I would strongly encourage you to look around and try a large number of them and I’m sure you will find ones that you will feel comfortable with and nourished by.

 

God can create the universe, stars, planets, all living things. But He can't:

1) Flood the earth
2) Raise someone/himself into heaven
3) Create a virgin birth
4) Part the sea
5) Walk on water

Some of you have a very small god.

The amazing thing is that He'd willingly leave His place in heaven to die on the cross for us while we spat on Him.

 

Shut up dork.

 

That’s hardly called for. What exactly is your problem?

 

Morons who cliam you are spitting on God if you don't take the Bible literally.

 

That’s not the way I interpret what he said. I think he was referring to that fact that people literally spat on Jesus during his crucifixion.

 

In reference to the other part of his post.