• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The crap selective Biblical literalism has fostered

Xelor said:
And so is given a typical exculpation for the Bible's incoherence. The thing is this: the OP, thus this thread, is about Bible users' patristic hermeneutics incoherence, not the Bibles's expositive incoherence.
Click to expand...

"the Bible's incoherence"?

Here's a clue why you're bouncing off walls with your spiritually-challenged version of Biblical Christianity:

"The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." - 1 Corinthians 2:14
 
jmotivator said:
People do a lot of strange things. My point is that the BIBLE doesn't actually tell Christians to do 99% of the things Atheists think it does because Atheists never actually seem to read the New Testament... which happens to be the book that explains why we are Christians. A lot changed with the New Covenant.
Click to expand...

I get your point, but like I said I get my impressions these days from the ones loudly doing/saying things while proclaiming themselves Christians.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
I get your point, but like I said I get my impressions these days from the ones loudly doing/saying things while proclaiming themselves Christians.
Click to expand...

Well, good, I'm glad we can agree. I hear my mom asking me "Well, if your friends jumped off a cliff would you do it?". There are plenty of Christians who follow the gospel closely every day. You don't see them because you are outside and only seeing those who are Christians for all the wrong reasons, or your tuned to ignore those who don't irritate you. We're all that way.

Were you to ever be a Christian I am sure you would be one in a soup kitchen, or handing out blankets on cold nights because that is what we are called to do, and you see that.
 
jmotivator said:
Well, good, I'm glad we can agree. I hear my mom asking me "Well, if your friends jumped off a cliff would you do it?". There are plenty of Christians who follow the gospel closely every day. You don't see them because you are outside and only seeing those who are Christians for all the wrong reasons, or your tuned to ignore those who don't irritate you. We're all that way.

Were you to ever be a Christian I am sure you would be one in a soup kitchen, or handing out blankets on cold nights because that is what we are called to do, and you see that.
Click to expand...

We do charity work here and are also involved with a charity that works in Ethiopia. The groups we work with are not religious, but we do cross paths with groups that are church based from time to time. How those Christians feel about the hyper-power/money oriented and hyper-politicized "Christians" that are all over the media I'd like to know, but I don't know them well enough to bring the subject up.

FWIW, there is also a large mosque here that does a lot of charity work.
 
jmotivator said:
I know a lot of Evangelicals and Fundamentalists and the one thing you can say for certain is that they do not conform to your hate-soaked, ignorant stereotype.

Also, when you love someone you are invested in what is best for them, and you may even advise them that they should stop what is harming them. That doesn't mean you don't love them.

God made a clear delineation between Prophetic teaching and religious tradition (Key points in Red):

Matthew 15 New International Version (NIV)

1 Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked,
2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”
3 Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?
4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’[a] and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’[b.]
5 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’
6 they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.
7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
8 “‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
9 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules.’[c]”
10 Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and understand.
11 What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.”


So, as part of the New Covenant Jesus taught us (as also displayed in your quotes) that there are Christians who have hardened hearts, and so worship in vain He also ended thousands of years of tradition laws like food law. Elsewhere he taught against required dress codes and other tradition laws that were not laid out by the prophets and, most important, against enforcing God's laws on others.

Saying that some Christians don't follow the Bible is not an argument against Christianity. That reality is actually IN the Bible, and those who claim to be Christian and still try to enforce Old Testament laws are approaching the faith ignorantly, as an atheist does.
Click to expand...
Pink:

  1. Nor is such a remark meant to be an argument against Christianity.
  2. The theme I'm advancing isn't against Christianity.
 
Xelor said:
Red:
"You" who?


Blue:
??? What isn't impossible to discern and is thus objectively discernible is:
  • The application, with regard to a (or several) Bible passage(s) that doesn't endogenously assert its figurativity, of literality in patristic hermeneutics and the subsequent application/inclusion of those outcomes in one's assertions/arguments for or against a given person/group, place or thing.
  • The convenient incoherence, absent a given (set of) passage(s) endogenously asserting its (their) figurativity, of one's interpreting literally some thus unbenefitted passages and one's subsequently/concurrently interpreting figuratively other thus unbenefitted passages.
The central point of the OP pertains to the citer's patristic hermeneutics, not to whether a passage means "this or that." The only thing governing whether a given individual or system "flip flops" between literal and figurative interpretations of passages having linguistically identical structures -- tense, mood, voice, tone, etc. -- isn't open to debate. And it is that behavior, the predilection to "flip flop," about which my OP remarks.
Click to expand...

Elvira, of course.
 
Elvira said:
Bull hockey...the evidence speaks for itself...compare certain Christian's beliefs/actions to what Jesus taught...you cannot deny the 2 are contradictory, therefore one is lying and it ain't Jesus...
Click to expand...

???? What?
 
Xelor said:
Selective literalism continues to serve an important function for the Religious Right. It allows them to locate sin outside of the evangelical subculture (or so they think) by designating as especially egregious those dispositions and behaviors, homosexuality and abortion, that they believe characteristic of others, not themselves.
-- Randall Balmer, Thy Kingdom Come: How the Religious Right Distorts the Faith and Threatens America
​

---
Click to expand...

I'd like to meet a Christian who tried to live as instructed in the NT (preferably ignoring Revelation). That would be interesting.

Can't they all be accused of SBL? There are 10's of thousands of denominations. Every one differs a little as to what that "B" in SBL says.
 
ecofarm said:
Any discussion of Christian law must begin with the delineation of ceremonial and moral law. Jesus fulfilled the ceremonial law. Christians eat pork, for example, because ceremonial law was fulfilled.

The purpose of ceremonial law is foreshadowing Christ and illustrating the beauty of God. When Jesus fulfilled the ceremonial law, Christianity was created and ceremonial law left aside. Ceremonial still serves its purpose, aforementioned, but Christians can eat anything.

There's another reason ceremonial law was left aside. It was linked to the Pharisees' belief in salvation by act. Ceremony was employed as a means of absolution. Much like Luther 1500 years later, Jesus's objection was that salvation is by faith alone.

So, ceremonial and moral law. Gotta decide which goes into which category.

As an example of Christians disagreeing on the subject, Witnesses and Adventists view observing Sabbath to be moral law. Most of the rest of Christianity views it as ceremonial law.

In this vein, I propose:

1. Capital punishment is ceremonial law and fulfilled by the Crucifixion.

2. Abstinence from homosexual behavior is ceremonial law.

Each of these, like diet restrictions, were fulfilled and no longer apply as ceremonial requirements for Christians.
Click to expand...

Cool. That's 2 laws. Do the rest, write a book and we're done. Settled.
 
Xelor said:
7mPP.gif
Click to expand...

Christian...not BC
 
<alt>doxygen said:
Cool. That's 2 laws. Do the rest, write a book and we're done. Settled.
Click to expand...

All the laws are separated into those two categories. Different denominations do it differently. I'm not proposing a unifying theory, I'm setting parameters for a discussion on "literalism".
 
ecofarm said:
All the laws are separated into those two categories. Different denominations do it differently. I'm not proposing a unifying theory, I'm setting parameters for a discussion on "literalism".
Click to expand...

It was a joke, but I do wish there was such a thing. All the Abrahamic religions could use a reference.
 
Lovebug said:
Christianity came about with and after Christ. Why the uproar about the OT?
Click to expand...

From me, there's no uproar about the OT or NT. The Bible isn't the problem; the Bible is what it is. My beef is with folks whose hermeneutics are unsound/uncogent, inconsistent and/or incoherent.

FWIW, in "Selective biblical literalism's enabling sociological and psychological correlates with Trumpism" Part II and the first paragraph of Part III, I illustrated one selective literalism manifestation; however, there are others. (The topic of that thread is not at all the same as this one's, however.) None of them are legit.
 
jmotivator said:
Well, good, I'm glad we can agree. I hear my mom asking me "Well, if your friends jumped off a cliff would you do it?". There are plenty of Christians who follow the gospel closely every day. You don't see them because you are outside and only seeing those who are Christians for all the wrong reasons, or your tuned to ignore those who don't irritate you. We're all that way.

Were you to ever be a Christian I am sure you would be one in a soup kitchen, or handing out blankets on cold nights because that is what we are called to do, and you see that.
Click to expand...

I am sure you will find people of all different persuasions in soup kitchens or handing out blankets on cold nights, not just those who proclaim to be a Christian...humanity comes in all different shapes and sizes...there are identifying marks that set true Christians apart from all other peoples...

True Christians have full faith that Jesus Christ is God’s specially Anointed One and only-begotten Son...John 3:16

True Christians do more than merely confess their faith of faith...it is necessary that belief be demonstrated by works...Romans 10:10; James 2:17,26

True Christians strip off old personalities with their fits of anger, obscene talk, lying, stealing, drunkenness, and “things like these,” and they bring their lives into accord with Bible principles...Galatians 5:19-21; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; Ephesians 4:17-24; Colossians 3:5-10

True Christians render to Caesar what belongs to the superior authorities of this world​...honor, respect, tax...at the same time they remain separate from this world’s affairs...Matthew 22:21; John 17:16; Romans 13:1-7...and for this the world hates them.​..John 15:19; 18:36; 1 Peter 4:3, 4; James 4:4; 1 John 2:15-17

The main identifying quality by which true Christians are recognized is the outstanding love they have toward one another...“By this,” Jesus said, “all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love among yourselves.”​ John 13:34, 35; 15:12, 13

Last but certainly not least, true Christians imitate Jesus’ example as the Great Teacher and Faithful Witness of Jehovah...John 18:37; Re 1:5; 3:14..“Go...make disciples of people of all the nations” is their Leader’s command...Matthew 28:19, 20
 
<alt>doxygen said:
It was a joke, but I do wish there was such a thing. All the Abrahamic religions could use a reference.
Click to expand...

I don't see a problem with declaring abstention from homosexual behavior a ceremonial law. Jesus is married to everyone. Prophecy fulfilled, ceremony over.

Just like diet. Ceremony over, fulfilled.
 
Xelor said:
From me, there's no uproar about the OT or NT. The Bible isn't the problem; the Bible is what it is. My beef is with folks whose hermeneutics are unsound/uncogent, inconsistent and/or incoherent.

FWIW, in "Selective biblical literalism's enabling sociological and psychological correlates with Trumpism" Part II and the first paragraph of Part III, I illustrated one selective literalism manifestation; however, there are others. (The topic of that thread is not at all the same as this one's, however.) None of them are legit.
Click to expand...

Since Genesis, we recognize people as being imperfect. That's all.
 
Lovebug said:
Since Genesis, we recognize people as being imperfect. That's all.
Click to expand...

That people are imperfect also isn't the issue or an issue, really. The issue is the nature and extent of hermeneutic imperfections to which selective Biblical literalists hew and or invoke.

Consider this:
  1. Can an imperfect person do some things perfectly? Yes.
  2. Can an imperfect person select what things s/he does perfectly vs. imperfectly? Yes.
  3. Is the nature and extent of analytical rigor among those things? Yes.
  4. Does it stand to reason that a person would choose to do perfectly that which is important to them, that which they consider integral to their being? Yes.
  5. Do evangelical/fundamentalists attest to faith being integral to their being? Yes.
  6. One would then expect evangelical/fundamentalists to perfectly apply hermeneutics? Yes.
  7. Do they? No.
That it is possible to do so yet they do not is the problem.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
I don't see a problem with declaring abstention from homosexual behavior a ceremonial law. Jesus is married to everyone. Prophecy fulfilled, ceremony over.

Just like diet. Ceremony over, fulfilled.
Click to expand...

Works for me. The religious right ain't giving that fundraiser up, though.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
Works for me. The religious right ain't giving that fundraiser up, though.
Click to expand...

There are churches that accept homosexuality. Even preachers. It's only a matter of time before Christians declare abstention of homosexual behavior a ceremonial law. Death penalty too.
 
uptower said:
I've seen it written that over time people impose their own laws on religion. We've had two thousand years and multiple shifts in many cultures in order to redefine what is Godly.

A Biblical literalist should be horrified by trump and open to abortion for example. Instead, polar opposites.
Click to expand...

The account of Jesus' life and death was written 200 years after he died. Many of the original books of the Bible pre-date Jesus' birth. My point is that if you are Christian, then the spirit of Christ should be first and foremost, even over the allegedly written word of Christ. How many people pray to Jesus and accept his direct guidance? How many people live lives of compassion and humanitarian concern? These "Christians" are ungodly.

Not only that, they are idolaters and hypocrites. They'll put the book above the direct guidance of God Himself. They'll cherry pick Levitican laws according to personal convenience. They'll hate homosexuals but they'll touch unclean animals, consume blood in the form of undercooked meat, etc etc... if you're going to be a literalist then you should obey all of it.
 
Elvira said:
I am sure you will find people of all different persuasions in soup kitchens or handing out blankets on cold nights, not just those who proclaim to be a Christian...humanity comes in all different shapes and sizes...there are identifying marks that set true Christians apart from all other peoples...
Click to expand...

That wasn't my point. My point is that a good Christian would be following scripture, rather than acting against it.
 
Xelor said:
Pink:

  1. Nor is such a remark meant to be an argument against Christianity.
  2. The theme I'm advancing isn't against Christianity.
Click to expand...

Ah, but you are. That is precisely what "A Year of Living Biblically" does. He didn't live Biblically, because he lived life exactly counter to the commands of Jesus. He attempted to show the troubles of the Bible while ignoring how the Bible ultimately teaches people to live.

It's like those old tests they gave in school to see who follows instructions with 50 steps, and the first step says read all steps first, and the 50th step says skip steps 2 through 49.. The Bible doesn't ask you to skip ALL the steps, but the steps they tell you to follow are generally be kind to pothers and don't judge, and the steps they tell you to skip are "Don't wear mixed fibers", "Don't shave"... essentially all the stuff he did under the guise of being "Biblical" are the things the actual Bible tells you and no longer your concern.

In other words, if he "lives Biblically" but doesn't address the laws of the New Covenant then he was following the Torah, or the Quran... he was living a life of a Hasidic Jew or devout Muslim, not a Christian. So his findings of "Living Biblically" would be far more applicable to those groups, not Christians. When you give him props for not being a selective Biblical Literalist you couldn't be more wrong, he was such a selective Biblical literalist that he skipped the entire teachings of Jesus! :roll:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom