The crap selective Biblical literalism has fostered

[ecofarm]

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.

 

[Daisy]

I knew you'd be on top of this one. So i need some help.

Context is still open to interpretation. There are Christians who see context differently than you do. And they always have. These debates have been going on since the beginning. No one has ever been able to figure out to everyone's satisfaction what it all means and what is the one way. If there isn't a "one way" then the debate is irrelevant, especially to me. If there is, it's time to settle on what it is. Or so it seems to me.

True and Jesus warned of teachings that would go against the scriptures...so did Paul...so did John and they gave the reason for such confusion...the god of confusion, Satan...

Jesus words at Matthew 13:19..."Where anyone hears the word of the Kingdom but does not get the sense of it, the wicked one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart; this is the one sown alongside the road."

Paul's words at 2 Corinthians 4:3-5...If, in fact, the good news we declare is veiled, it is veiled among those who are perishing, among whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, so that the illumination of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through. For we are preaching, not about ourselves, but about Jesus Christ as Lord and ourselves as your slaves for Jesus’ sake."

1 John 5:19..."We know that we originate with God, but the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one."

The key is to diligently study and dissect God's Word for yourself...perhaps you will even need help in understanding , as the Ethiopian eunuch did in Acts 8:26-39..."He said: “Really, how could I ever do so unless someone guided me?” Acts 8:31

Call your local kingdom hall and ask for someone to come and study the Bible with you free of charge, no commitments, no obligations...any one of them would be more than happy to...

 

[Xelor]

Sorry, I was referring to Jacobs; I erred with my use of "OP".


OM

Fair enough.

I'm not likely to defend/support Jacobs. If he's a member, he'll have to do that for himself. LOL I merely used his book as a rubric to introduce the thread's topic.

How do you know that they are wrong and you are right? Christian A always insists that he is right and Christian B is wrong. And they both quote scripture to back up their positions.

No it doesn't. Example.............

And the Lord said unto John "Come forth and receive eternal life". But John came fifth and won a toaster instead.

Kitsune and Danarhea, your posts preceded Omega Man's above post. If you follow the exchange, you'll find he was mistaken about the nature, specifically regarding voice, of the content in the OP. If you backwards-trace his and my above posts, in his posts to which you both replied, he thought he was remarking with regard to something he was not.

 

[jmotivator]

Jesus said a lot of things, some even an agnostic like myself greatly admire. But his followers in the USA these days follow/empower Donald Trump and the "prosperity" gospel. The rest of us watch and learn what followers of Jesus are like from them.

Follow your path but remember, others learn what you think from what you do, not what you say.

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.

 

[Bum]

Why should there be multiple interpretations on Christianity? If they all lead to the salvation of my immortal soul then it doesn't matter which one I pick. If only one gets me to Heaven while the others send me to Hell, then God is an asshole.

Differing factions vying for power.....you control the message, you control the masses.

 

[Xelor]

I knew you'd be on top of this one. So i need some help.

Context is still open to interpretation. There are Christians who see context differently than you do. And they always have. These debates have been going on since the beginning. No one has ever been able to figure out to everyone's satisfaction what it all means and what is the one way. If there isn't a "one way" then the debate is irrelevant, especially to me. If there is, it's time to settle on what it is. Or so it seems to me.

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.

 

[Xelor]

Context is everything...if you read a scripture and it seems to contradict another scripture, then it is being taken out of context...

Example...John 10:30...

"I and the Father are one.”

Now, is this scripture to be taken literally or figuratively? Is Jesus also God or is he the son of God? First, read the surrounding scriptures and you will see that Jesus meant it to be taken figuratively...how do we know this? In previous verses, Jesus speaks of how his Father gives him the power to grant everlasting life...

John 8:28..."Jesus then said: “After you have lifted up the Son of man, then you will know that I am he and that I do nothing of my own initiative; but just as the Father taught me, I speak these things"

John 5:19..."Therefore, in response Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to you, the Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever things that One does, these things the Son does also in like manner."

Even after returning to heaven, the Bible still speaks of Jehovah God and Jesus Christ as having the relationship of father and son...they are not One literally, but figuratively...they are both in union, with the same goals in mind...one in action and cooperation, not in person...

1 Corinthians 15:24,25..".Next, the end, when he hands over the Kingdom to his God and Father, when he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power. For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet."

1 Corinthians 15:27,28...For God “subjected all things under his feet.” But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ it is evident that this does not include the One who subjected all things to him. But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone."

Red:
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.

 

[Xelor]

I don't think that in terms morality, Jesus said anything that hadn't been said before. He just added more conditions.

Ginger Rogers danced backwards and in high heels. LOL

​

 

[Xelor]

​

They teach you well how NOT to be a true follower of Christ...

Where're my bagpipes??? ....

​

 

[Xelor]

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.

This thread isn't envisioned as a discussion of Christian law. It was created to entreat discussion about people's exploitation of selective Biblical literalism to justify their ascribing to "this or that" in the world that they like and to justify their rejecting "this or that" in the world that they don't like. (See post 31. It may also help to either re-read the OP or read the related-topic OP of "Selective biblical literalism's enabling sociological and psychological correlates with Trumpism" )

 

[btthegreat]

Edited so I can fit my post, apologies [/URL]​

The Year of Living Biblically: One Man's Humble Quest to Follow the Bible as Literally as Possible[/URL][/I]

In "The Year of Living Biblically," A.J. Jacobs tells of his "quest to live the ultimate biblical life. To follow every single rule in the Bible as literally as possible. I obey the famous ones:​

• 
  [*=1]The Ten Commandments
  [*=1]Love thy neighbor
  [*=1]Be fruitful and multiply

But also, the hundreds of oft-ignored ones.​

• 
  [*=1]Do not wear clothes of mixed fibers.
  [*=1]Do not shave your beard
  [*=1]Stone adulterers

He did so to discover whether he was "missing something essential to being a human? Or was half the world deluded?"​

Jacobs thus spent over a year living as a Biblical literalist, a real one. Now that is what it is, but for however foolish I may find Biblical literalism, I give the guy props for not being a selective Biblical literalist. What is selective Biblical literalism (SBL)? It's the practice of elevating certain biblical principles over others in order to best accommodate one’s personal opinions and behavioral preferences. It's the operative psychopathy that allows supposed followers of Christ to condone and embrace a host of nonsense including:

• Anti-Semitism
• Grotesque sexism
• Slavery
• Colonialism
• Segregation
• Marginalization of divorced people
• LGBT inclusion
• Donald Trump/Trumpism

For example:

• SBL-ists abjure stoning rebellious children (Deuteronomy 21:18), yet plenty of them condone the death penalty as retribution for murder (Genesis 9:6).
• By now, most folks, are aware of Old Testament (OT) passages condemning sodomy, yet Jesus Himself never mentions it. He does, however, discuss divorce: "Anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery." (Matt 5:32) How hard must one look to find an SBL-ist who's divorced or wedded to a divorcee? Not hard at all, just go to church.
• One need only read the Golden Rule as Jesus gave it to see the incongruity between SBL and its adherents' practices.
• SBL-ists disregard 1 Corinthians -- "any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled disgraces her head," yet adamantly hew to Timothy to "do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet." Apparently Paul's sartorial remarks are to be taken as culturally influenced, but when he discusses leadership, it’s suddenly considered a "Biblical" thing.

Now sure as I think SBL is utter nonsense, I can respectfully disagree with folks who exhibit the probity of being consistent about their SBL. I didn't tell them to literally interpret any passage of the Bible; it's they who proffer literal interpretations. Okay, fine. So, they tacitly declare their cognition is that the Bible is to be take literally. I understand that and can comprehend the Bible thus when considering it and SBL-ist's behavior and remarks. But sure as God made green apples, along comes a passage and the instant I hold and SBL-ist accountable to construing it literally, they suddenly have a figurative interpretation.

How can anyone interact, converse with someone who does that? I mean, really. If someone presents as having a strong stance about something, which is most certainly how SBL-ists present themselves as goes the Bible and what it says, is it asking too much of them to expect they arrived at that stance after careful and comprehensive of all that's entailed in, implied by and incumbent upon them as a result of their having said stance, namely that of the Bible being aptly read literally? In short, no.

I guess what worries me…is that if I had been alive 160 years ago or 60 years ago, and the issues of the day were, respectively, slavery and segregation-I worry that I might have been one of those people quoting scripture in defense of slavery and segregation.
-- Randall Balmer, Thy Kingdom Come: How the Religious Right Distorts the Faith and Threatens America​

I read The Year of Living Biblically . It was a more entertaining read that the subject suggests, and there was enough humor to keep me turning pages. Here he is doing a tet talk https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=a+year+of+living+biblically&view=detail&mid=37DA8B7EDB84482ACF2B37DA8B7EDB84482ACF2B&FORM=VIRE

 

[Xelor]

Off-Topic:

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.

I'm no Atheist, but I stayed at a Holiday in Express last night...LOL


Seriously, though, I have read this,

Luke 6:27-31:
27 "But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,
28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.
29 If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them.
30 Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back.
31 Do to others as you would have them do to you."​

And, as goes a change from the OT "law" to the NT "law" Jesus gave, I've read this:

Matthew 22:36-40
36 “"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”"
37 Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'
38 This is the first and greatest commandment.
39 And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'
40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."​

So you tell me, which of those things do evangelical/fundamentalist Christians do?

I know, sure as the day is long, myriad evangelical/fundamentalist Christians, as well as non-evangelical/-fundamentalist ones, who do or would have done unto folks things they wouldn't have done unto themselves. But, yes, with Jesus' arrival, there was a "new game going on and a new set of rules," so to speak, and far too often Christians don't even hew closely, or at all, for that matter, to what Jesus declared is the second most important commandment.​

 

[Xelor]

I read The Year of Living Biblically . It was a more entertaining read that the subject suggests, and there was enough humor to keep me turning pages. Here he is doing a tet talk a year of living biblically - Bing video

TY for sharing that.

You realize, right, that the OP/thread isn't about that book?

 

[btthegreat]

TY for sharing that.

You realize, right, that the OP/thread isn't about that book?

yes I do and I agree with your views as I understand them. I even learned a couple of vocabulary words along the way. If you watch the video to its conclusion, you will see that he touches upon a couple of points you discuss, just as he does in the book. His communication style is more wry, gentle and sheepish ( pun intended) than yours. For some who may visit this thread, this Tet talk may get them just a little closer to the same destination without reading the book. It certainly won't hurt.

 

[Xelor]

yes I do and I agree with your views as I understand them. I even learned a couple of vocabulary words along the way. If you watch the video to its conclusion, you will see that he touches upon a couple of points you discuss, just as he does in the book. His communication style is more wry, gentle and sheepish ( pun intended) than yours. For some who may visit this thread, this Tet talk may get them just a little closer to the same destination without reading the book. It certainly won't hurt.

Red/Off-topic:
Yep...Isn't everyone's? LOL

 

[Logicman]

"... Jesus didn't have a damn thing to say about homosexuality/gays."

Jesus is God in the Bible (numerous scriptures). As God, Jesus is the one who gave Moses the Leviticus law against gay sexual relations to begin with; and he’s the one who inspires all Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16), including prohibitions against gay sexual relations in Romans 1:26-27 and I Corinthians 6:9-10, etc.

It’s also worth noting that Jesus didn’t mention wife beating or other sins such as pedophilia either, and there are not many folks who would argue he approved of those behaviors. So Jesus was under no obligation to reiterate the moral laws against homosexual sin that already existed, unless there were clarifications to be made.

 

[Xelor]

Jesus is God in the Bible (numerous scriptures). As God, Jesus is the one who gave Moses the Leviticus law against gay sexual relations to begin with; and he’s the one who inspires all Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16), including prohibitions against gay sexual relations in Romans 1:26-27 and I Corinthians 6:9-10, etc.

It’s also worth noting that Jesus didn’t mention wife beating or other sins such as pedophilia either, and there are not many folks who would argue he approved of those behaviors. So Jesus was under no obligation to reiterate the moral laws against homosexual sin that already existed, unless there were clarifications to be made.

You must have one of these....

 

[Northern Light]

It's selective literalism though. You don't see these people adhering to every proscription and prohibition in Leviticus, do you? It's the culture of Christiandom, when it comes down to it. It has nothing to do with how Jesus would've treated others. People take the word of the Bible over the spirit of Jesus to their own detriment and to the harm of their fellow human beings.

 

[uptower]

It's selective literalism though. You don't see these people adhering to every proscription and prohibition in Leviticus, do you? It's the culture of Christiandom, when it comes down to it. It has nothing to do with how Jesus would've treated others. People take the word of the Bible over the spirit of Jesus to their own detriment and to the harm of their fellow human beings.

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.

 

[Xelor]

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.

Red:
Perhaps that's what happens. To the extent it is, Marx was right.

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people.”
-- Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right​

 

[jmotivator]

Off-Topic:

I'm no Atheist, but I stayed at a Holiday in Express last night...LOL


Seriously, though, I have read this,

Luke 6:27-31:
27 "But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,
28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.
29 If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them.
30 Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back.
31 Do to others as you would have them do to you."​

And, as goes a change from the OT "law" to the NT "law" Jesus gave, I've read this:

Matthew 22:36-40
36 “"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”"
37 Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'
38 This is the first and greatest commandment.
39 And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'
40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."​

So you tell me, which of those things do evangelical/fundamentalist Christians do?

I know, sure as the day is long, myriad evangelical/fundamentalist Christians, as well as non-evangelical/-fundamentalist ones, who do or would have done unto folks things they wouldn't have done unto themselves. But, yes, with Jesus' arrival, there was a "new game going on and a new set of rules," so to speak, and far too often Christians don't even hew closely, or at all, for that matter, to what Jesus declared is the second most important commandment.​

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.

 

[ecofarm]

This thread isn't envisioned as a discussion of Christian law. It was created to entreat discussion about people's exploitation of selective Biblical literalism to justify their ascribing to "this or that" in the world that they like and to justify their rejecting "this or that" in the world that they don't like. (See post 31. It may also help to either re-read the OP or read the related-topic OP of "Selective biblical literalism's enabling sociological and psychological correlates with Trumpism" )

Literalism includes the division between ceremonial law and moral law. Someone living "by the book" is allowed to eat pork. So one can't start throwing out OT law and pretending Christians are to observe it. That depends. Even literal interpretation - depends.

 

[Daisy]

Red:
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.

The thing is this: I was talking to Kitsune about how the Bible is misinterpreted at times because of context and yes, even literal versus figurative...

 

[Daisy]

​

Where're my bagpipes??? ....

​

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...

 

[Logicman]

You must have one of these....

(Spinning)

You must have your blinders on so you can ignore the truth that demolishes your sophomoric theology.