Selectively reading the Bible

[wacki]

The Bible is consistent throughout it's many books that marriage is between man and woman. The book of Romans is fairly harsh against homosexuality and other books are consistent with the book of Romans.

There are denominations that are pro gay-marriage. There are several that support partial birth abortions. (I say partial birth because there might be an argument that the Bible isn't against early abortions.) My question is, how much of the bible's basic moral beliefs do you have to throw out before you can say someone isn't a follower of the Bible?

Please, do not bring up examples of not eating pork. Those rules were made for very specific reasons and they are normally confined to a single book. I'm talking about basic moral principles that are consistent throughout the Bible. If it doesn't satisfy these conditions then it doesn't pertain to this thread and you are creating a strawman argument.

[cambraceres]

It depends on what you define as a "follower of the bible". This is a problem of how exclusive to make the term. If one follows every consistent principle except one, some would say that person is not a follower. But if you have a person who follows only one of these consistent principles, he is indeed less of a follower. So it is a matter of definition and degree.

I have read the entire bible, and can not recall one single pro-gay passage.

Cambraceres

[BluffTHIS!]

wacki,

If someone is not following any major moral principle, then he is not "a follower of the Bible", assuming he both knows what he is doing is wrong, and also does not repent of same and try to do better in the future. Thus, one might subscribe to enough of the tenets of Christianity to call oneself a Christian, without living the Christian life at that point in time that will lead to eternal life.

To label some not a Christian though, as pertains to beliefs rather than actions, such a person would have to deny major doctrines that almost all denominations agree upon such as the divinity of Christ (e.g. Unitarians aren't Christians).

[Central Limit]

[ QUOTE ]

I have read the entire bible, and can not recall one single pro-gay passage.


[/ QUOTE ]

There are passages in the story of David (I believe the passages occur in Samuel II) that some people have interpreted as pro-gay. David seems to have a homosexual relationship with Jonathan, son of King Saul. Since David is one of the greatest heroes in the Bible, his involvement in a homosexual relationship has been cited by some as pro-gay.

Whether or not David and Jonathan actually had a homosexual relationship has been fiercely debated by Biblical scholars for centuries. Whether or not that can then be construed as a pro-gay passage in the Bible has also been fiercely debated.

[bunny]

Personally, I dont regard being a Christian as an ethical issue but a metaphysical one so it may well have skewed my answer. Nonetheless, I would think that ethical laws indicated in the Bible have differing degrees of importance (your pork example is a law that only applies in some periods of time, do not murder applies all the time - this is the sort of thing I mean). So I would say you have to follow the "important" ones pretty much all the time but lapses with regard to the less important ones are more forgivable.

I guess this is pretty much an empty statement - "you have to follow the ones you have to follow" but I think it has some content as I would argue our moral faculties allow us to distinguish which is which (although in a fallible way).

[AceofSpades]

[ QUOTE ]
(your pork example is a law that only applies in some periods of time, do not murder applies all the time - this is the sort of thing I mean). So I would say you have to follow the "important" ones pretty much all the time but lapses with regard to the less important ones are more forgivable.

I guess this is pretty much an empty statement - "you have to follow the ones you have to follow" but I think it has some content as I would argue our moral faculties allow us to distinguish which is which (although in a fallible way).

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you agree that your moral faculties are based on your upbringing, and local culture at the time? And that is how you determine the relative importance of the laws and whether they are universal or temporary? So having sex during a woman's period or wearing mixed cotton fiber clothing wouldn't be wrong now, but some others would?

About the dietary requirements, didn't paul rescind those anyway?

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
There are passages in the story of David (I believe the passages occur in Samuel II) that some people have interpreted as pro-gay. David seems to have a homosexual relationship with Jonathan, son of King Saul. Since David is one of the greatest heroes in the Bible, his involvement in a homosexual relationship has been cited by some as pro-gay.

Whether or not David and Jonathan actually had a homosexual relationship has been fiercely debated by Biblical scholars for centuries. Whether or not that can then be construed as a pro-gay passage in the Bible has also been fiercely debated.

[/ QUOTE ]

The bible never said they did anything other than the customary kisses which were normal for the time. David married the daughter of Saul and Saul's daughter loved David deeply. So I think this is stretching it in more ways than one. If you read the rest of the Bible it makes it blatantly obvious what it's views are.

As for fiercely debated by "biblical scholars", well the twin towers being destroyed by missiles are fiercely debated in the politics forum by junior "detectives and historians". That doesn't give it any more credibility.

Still, this is getting off topic.

[Central Limit]

maybe this will give it some more credibility then:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_and_Jonathan

An excerpt:

"David and Jonathan were heroic figures of the Kingdom of Israel, whose intimate relationship was recorded favorably in the Old Testament books of Samuel. There is debate amongst religious scholars whether this relationship was platonic, romantic but chaste, or sexual."

[bills217]

What does it matter even if it was sexual? Who cares?

The Bible records David doing some other pretty reprehensible things, although it clearly doesn't endorse them.

This reminds me of the "Well, the Bible contains stories about slavery, therefore God says slavery is OK!" argument.

*yawn*

[MrWookie]

Christianity is not a religion of moral principles. That's probably the biggest mistaken idea that both Christains and non-Christians have about Christianity. Mormonism is a religion of moral principles. Buddhism is a religion of moral principles. So is Taoism, and the list goes on. But not Christianity. Christianity is religion of love. Loving your God. Loving your fellow man. Those are the two most important commandments, and all else is secondary. Whether or not one Christian thinks homosexuality is wrong, or another thinks abortion is OK, or another commits murder, they can all be Christians: loving, and loved by God. On the other hand, all Christians know that they love imperfectly, that their love falls short of God's love for them. We do our best, but God's grace can fill in the gaps.

Now, I'm not saying throw morality out the window. Morality is a convenient system to help keep track of the best ways to love one another. But it's not a deal breaker in Christianity. We can debate it, and it's good to further extrapolate the best ways to show your love for one another. But when it comes down to it, acting on love is what's key. And if we don't, that's where forgiveness (and more love!) come into play.

To more directly answer your question, the point where you stop calling someone a Christian is where they stop loving Jesus, and where they stop showing any love for their fellow man.

Edit: forgot a word.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Mormonism is a religion of moral principles. Buddhism is a religion of moral principles. So is Taoism

[/ QUOTE ]

No, no, and no.

[MrWookie]

Well, it's possible that I'm making the same mistake about these religions that others make about Christianity. Regardless, my post stands.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Would you agree that your moral faculties are based on your upbringing, and local culture at the time? And that is how you determine the relative importance of the laws and whether they are universal or temporary?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think these influence my moral faculties but I dont think they determine them fully. I am also a moral realist - so I think all moral laws are universal, the current cultural consensus of what is right is just our collective best guess.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
maybe this will give it some more credibility then:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_and_Jonathan

An excerpt:

"David and Jonathan were heroic figures of the Kingdom of Israel, whose intimate relationship was recorded favorably in the Old Testament books of Samuel. There is debate amongst religious scholars whether this relationship was platonic, romantic but chaste, or sexual."

[/ QUOTE ]

You haven't around long enough to know the poster DEAD but he had a bad habit of editing wikipedia for his benefit. Wikipedia is simply a very good way to find other sources, nothing more. Also, it never mentions WHO the debating scholars were. Again, the wikipedia page on 9/11 seems to treat the "researchers" with the same respect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories

I haven't read the original aramaic versions of Samuel but the KJV and RSV version do say some things that could feed someone with an agenda. If David was gay he wouldn't of put so much effort into collecting the dowry for King Saul. Also, that follow the maxim "bro's before ho's" and I know lots of people that seem to never get along with their wives. I'm sure you do too. And considering for every 1 ambiguous comment there are 20 very clear comments:

Romans 1:27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

And there are many more like it...


There is only one valid counter argument in my opinion. And that is "well then what is the point of that story?" and for that I don't know. But, I will talk to someone that will know.

[MidGe]

I am not sure if I follow the logic of the OP and other posts rightly here, but doesn't this indicates that obviously the bible is wrong and could not be godly. I mean it denies what is!?

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Christianity is not a religion of moral principles.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a bold statement that you haven't supported very well at all. I'm starting to think you don't really know a lot about christianity.




[ QUOTE ]
To more directly answer your question, the point where you stop calling someone a Christian is where they stop loving Jesus, and where they stop showing any love for their fellow man.


[/ QUOTE ]

My original question was:

My question is, how much of the bible's basic moral beliefs do you have to throw out before you can say someone isn't a follower of the Bible?

It was NOT about christianity. Not everyone that uses the bible is considered a "christian".

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
My question is, how much of the bible's basic moral beliefs do you have to throw out before you can say someone isn't a follower of the Bible?


[/ QUOTE ]

More than those statements in the bible that are obviously not in accord with the real world, with reality. Anything less is just being discrimanatory bur still a follower of the bible in spirit rather than in the letter.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]

More than those statements in the bible that are obviously not in accord with the real world, with reality.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is a matter of opinion. It is also something I do not want to debate in this thread. I have a very specific question and I fear you are more preoccupied with promoting your own agenda than engaging in a philosophical discussion about a very specific question.

[ QUOTE ]
Anything less is just being discrimanatory bur still a follower of the bible in spirit rather than in the letter.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is often a used as lame excuse for reading selectively. Any rule that allows you to "pick and choose" as you so happen to feel is often only pampering selfish behaviors or denial. There are always exceptions of course.

Without bringing up anything specific, I would consider basic moral principles "the spirit of the bible". TO qualify they have to be consistent throughout the bible and revolve around interpersonal behaviors. From there it's a matter of defining what is a "basic moral principle". I would think the Ten commandments would qualify wouldn't you? Obviously that's not the only thing that should qualify.

[miketurner]

Since I am unaware of any denominations that are “pro gay marriage”, I have to ask... what do you mean exactly? Are they “tolerant” or do they say it is “the right thing to do”?

As MrWookie said, the 2 most important commandments are loving your God, & loving your fellow man. Jesus said this when directly asked.

There is also a lot said about not judging others in the Bible.

It would seem consistent to me (right now at least, with my current understanding) that being supportive of gay marriage is an act of love and non-judgement. A trait that is of high value in the Bible. On the other hand... I, myself, should not lay down with another man. I can acknowledge that it is wrong, and simultaneously be loving and tolerant of people who do.

A similar (but opposite) question is “what about the congregation that holds protest carrying signs that read ‘God hates you’ and ‘[censored] are going to hell’?” To me, these people are coming closer to throwing out the Bible’s basic moral beliefs. *shrug*

[cambraceres]

Those people who carry around signs and author infernal diatribes may well be ignoring certain platitudes that are indeed consistent throughout the bible. The bible does repeatedly and decisively say that homosexual behaviour is wrong, and in addition says that those who engage in it are to be judged accordingly.

This oversight is the result of many Christians believing that they need to convert the heathens on every front. They travel vast distances to help third world peoples to be able to pray in the middle of their squalor and disease.
This is the cause for their inept interventions into the activist community.
These individuals believe that demonstrating against homosexual groups is not wrong, they believe that God's explicit mandate against this activity means they are not judging, merely affecting a change in what God has already deemed an unfit facet of society. Perhaps they are correct, within their own moral constructs, to say that Homosexuals are "Pre-judged" by god to be wrong and hedonistic. With this iron-clad moral sanction, they attempt to convert these people they only way they know how. It is another example of how Christianity allows for nearly infinite moral rationalizations.

Cambraceres

This primary oversight

[miketurner]

[ QUOTE ]
The bible does repeatedly and decisively say that homosexual behaviour is wrong, and in addition says that those who engage in it are to be judged accordingly.

[/ QUOTE ]

My current understanding is that they will be judged by God, not by me.

Jesus said “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?”

[cambraceres]

hat's what I meant, judged by God, that's what the bible says. I'm sory I didn't think this would be an area of confusion.

I consider your point to be the major oversight of those who "take up the banner of Christ to do battle with the forces of Satan". It seems obvious to me that if God says do not judge, then you should not judge (assuming Christian belief that is). But you see the rules are in a way set in opposition. You are not to judge, but to affect change presupposes a judgement, or how else would one know that something required change? The reason they attempt to bring change is a rule of human nature. It feels good to believe that you are acting righteously, and to go and work and strive to bring your beautiful way of life to others is seen as the correct action.

So you see, the human rule of working toward what you believe, and the Biblical rule of not passing judgement are incompatable in this world.

Cambraceres

[miketurner]

[ QUOTE ]
hat's what I meant, judged by God, that's what the bible says. I'm sory I didn't think this would be an area of confusion.

I consider your point to be the major oversight of those who "take up the banner of Christ to do battle with the forces of Satan". It seems obvious to me that if God says do not judge, then you should not judge (assuming Christian belief that is).

[/ QUOTE ]

My bad. We are in agreement then.

[ QUOTE ]
But you see the rules are in a way set in opposition. You are not to judge, but to affect change presupposes a judgement, or how else would one know that something required change? The reason they attempt to bring change is a rule of human nature. It feels good to believe that you are acting righteously, and to go and work and strive to bring your beautiful way of life to others is seen as the correct action.

So you see, the human rule of working toward what you believe, and the Biblical rule of not passing judgement are incompatable in this world.

Cambraceres

[/ QUOTE ]

I don’t think the rules are in opposition. Without looking it up... the Bible says something like “let your life be an example” not “Bible thump them heathens into submission” /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

People just take it upon themselves to be in other peoples business. That has nothing to do with the Bible... it’s just people. The Bible says to “spread the good news”, not “tell ‘em they’re going to hell!” /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Central Limit]

[ QUOTE ]
And considering for every 1 ambiguous comment there are 20 very clear comments:


[/ QUOTE ]


I'm not claiming the Bible is pro-gay. An early poster said there was no passage in the Bible that was pro-gay. I replied that there are a few passages where that is debatable. I excerpted the early poster's words so that it would be clear that I am not arguing that the Bible is pro-gay.

Now, as to which biblical scholars: I have read at least one. I read "King David: The Real Story of the Man who Ruled Israel" by Jonathan Kirsch. In it, he addresses the debate in great detail. He cites arguments by scholars on both sides of the debate.

I don't care which side of the debate you prefer. I'm merely saying that the issue has been debated by biblical scholars. I am right. Those who say it has not been debated or that anyone who did debate it is a crack-pot are wrong.

So, let me summarize. (1) I don't care if David was gay or not. (2) Whether he had a gay relationship with Jonathan has been debated by legitimate biblical scholars. Those who say otherwise are wrong.


Now, on to a separate point. The Bible is often contradictory. Sometimes God tells you not to kill. Sometimes he tells you to kill and gets mad when you don't.

Sometimes the bible says Noah had two of each animal on the ark. Sometimes the Bible says Noah had 7 pairs of each animal on the ark.

If you consider both the New Testament and the Old Testament you get even more contradictions. In the Old it says males must be circumsized. In the New, not so much...

I find the Bible so full of contradictions that the question of whether you follow the Bible has tremendous room for interpretation.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
That is a matter of opinion. It is also something I do not want to debate in this thread. I have a very specific question and I fear you are more preoccupied with promoting your own agenda than engaging in a philosophical discussion about a very specific question.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am attempting to find out what your very specific question is! I have no agenda here.


[ QUOTE ]
This is often a used as lame excuse for reading selectively. Any rule that allows you to "pick and choose" as you so happen to feel is often only pampering selfish behaviors or denial. There are always exceptions of course.

Without bringing up anything specific, I would consider basic moral principles "the spirit of the bible". TO qualify they have to be consistent throughout the bible and revolve around interpersonal behaviors. From there it's a matter of defining what is a "basic moral principle". I would think the Ten commandments would qualify wouldn't you? Obviously that's not the only thing that should qualify.


[/ QUOTE ]

I would say let see what the great majority of bible followers agree on: God is Love. That is unless I got that wrong. In that case, I would say that every statement that contradicts this is either a translation error or not placed in its correct context and should be ignored or its meaning changed in such a way that there is no conflict with the notion of an infinite love.

I do not take the ten commandments as a basic moral principle, not all ten anyway.

[The Dude]

wacki,

I'm not 100% you're looking at this correctly. Someone can be for the legalization of gay marraige and yet still believe that homosexual relationships are wrong. I fit in that category. Just because I believe something is morally wrong, doesn't mean I think it should be illegal. I don't think adultery should be illegal, but I certainly don't condone it, or think it's okay.

That said, you are probably talking about people who believe gay marraige (or whatever) are not morally wrong. This is a little more complicated. There are plenty of people who pick and choose what to believe out of the Bible, and they can do so for different reasons. Many Christians don't believe the Bible is infallible, many Christians aren't educated enough to know what the Bible says about everyting, and many Christians just aren't motivated enough to attempt to apply themselves to following the Bible.

It's very difficult to answer your question, because there are no defined lines. However, in a much more broad sense, I would say "who cares?" As a Christian, I am much more interested in answering the question "how can I help this person grow closer to God?" than "is this person a Bible follower?" Whether or not somebody is "a Bible follower" or "saved" or whatever, my goal is still to help them grow closer to God. I make a very conscience effort to not put labels on people that try to define where they are with their relationship to God, and I think everybody else should do the same.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
It's very difficult to answer your question, because there are no defined lines. However, in a much more broad sense, I would say "who cares?" As a Christian, I am much more interested in answering the question "how can I help this person grow closer to God?" than "is this person a Bible follower?" Whether or not somebody is "a Bible follower" or "saved" or whatever, my goal is still to help them grow closer to God. I make a very conscience effort to not put labels on people that try to define where they are with their relationship to God, and I think everybody else should do the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't this imply that they don't need the Bible to be closer to God? In that case, isn't it possible for someone to reach God without being Christian, or even through some other religion? Do the words really matter that much if this view is accurate? If God is love, and I act in a loving way, does that mean I'm following God even if I don't believe in Him?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's very difficult to answer your question, because there are no defined lines. However, in a much more broad sense, I would say "who cares?" As a Christian, I am much more interested in answering the question "how can I help this person grow closer to God?" than "is this person a Bible follower?" Whether or not somebody is "a Bible follower" or "saved" or whatever, my goal is still to help them grow closer to God. I make a very conscience effort to not put labels on people that try to define where they are with their relationship to God, and I think everybody else should do the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't this imply that they don't need the Bible to be closer to God? In that case, isn't it possible for someone to reach God without being Christian, or even through some other religion? Do the words really matter that much if this view is accurate? If God is love, and I act in a loving way, does that mean I'm following God even if I don't believe in Him?

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont think this implication follows. I think the quote is answering the question how should we act (as followers who believe) to make it easier for someone else to get close to God. Certainly, if the Bible is accurate, good works alone are not enough to achieve salvation.

In other words they do need the bible to be closer to God, but how we act can make it easier for them to make the leap of faith required.

[madnak]

In that case, whether a person is a Bible follower is critically relevant.

[tcreast]

I think a previous poster said that Christianity isn't a religion of moral principles and i would like to try to elaborate on this point a bit.

I don't really feel like Christian morality is a matter of following any rules or guidelines. in Romans 7, verse 4, Paul says "So, my dear brothers and sisters, this is the point: You died to the power of the law when you died with Christ. And now you are united with the one who was raised from the dead. AS a result, we can prduce a harvest of good deeds for God." This unification with the one who was raised from the dead refers to the Holy spirit's coming and "dwelling in us" after we've accepted Jesus Christ as savior. Christian morality deals with one's attempts to really allow God to work in his life. It means trying to grow toward God so that your moral decisions are results of God's guidance, rather than your feeble attempts to follow a basic set of rules. I agree with a previous poster who discussed the idea that Christian morality is about love. So I guess what I'm saying is that I feel like the Bible is very important in that we can grow closer to God by reading and studying his word. However, I believe that Christian morality is ultimately about allowing God to guide the course of your life, and that the Bible is an important means by whcih to grow closer to him.

[spaminator101]

u cant throw out any of it
however u cant add any too it either
truth be told no one follows the Bible. shock!
seriously no one keeps every basic moral principle

but God still loves us

now that said, of course i beleive that gay marriage is wrong and should be outlawed and personally find it hard to beleive that you could have an abortion of ne kind or be gay or do something like that and then clame that your a Christian.

[Peter666]

Personal interpretation of the bible is the conundrum of Protestantism. It is obvious that without an objective authority making final decisions, anyone can believe whatever they wish and call themselves "Christians". Of course, this term means nothing before God and many "Christians" will find themselves in Hell for not following God's intended teachings.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
...without an objective authority making final decisions, anyone can believe whatever they wish and call themselves "Christians"....God's intended teachings...

[/ QUOTE ]

Who is the arbiter and on what basis, besides your own view and beliefs?

[Peter666]

That would be the Catholic Church which claims absolute and objective authority direct from God on teachings concerning faith and morals. Anyone who willfully and with full knowledge claims this authority for himself outside of the Church is considered a damned heretic.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
That would be the Catholic Church which claims absolute and objective authority direct from God on teachings concerning faith and morals. Anyone who willfully and with full knowledge claims this authority for himself outside of the Church is considered a damned heretic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreeing to that is your own view and beliefs, surely? I mean, many other christian sects claim similar authority!

[Peter666]

"I mean, many other christian sects claim similar authority!"

Let them produce their evidence. As far as the Catholic Church goes, there is an unbroken line of descendants from St. Peter and the other apostles as represented by Catholic popes and bishops. That is substance, not mere opinion.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
As far as the Catholic Church goes, there is an unbroken line of descendants from St. Peter and the other apostles as represented by Catholic popes and bishops. That is substance, not mere opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would not put too much credence on a lineage that was, amongst other, dependent on murder and/or simony for its development. But that's only my view, you may decide to ignore those aspects and call it miraculous that the lineage isn't tainted by it. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[cambraceres]

The vulgar flow of wealth and notoriety has nothing to do with religious sanctity.