Chuck Clement finds a couple of honyockers preaching on the bypass in Madison. The basic gist of their bad theology: remarried divorcees are adulterers, women should shut up, and salvation depends on your action, not God's:
Two men who are working in South Dakota this summer paid a proselytizing visit to Madison on Tuesday. Wilbur Graybill and Ryan Luedeker, both Missouri residents, held signs displaying a few of the tenets held by the Church of Monett, a religious institution located in a southwestern Missouri community.
Holding one white placard with black lettering that announced "To be married to the divorced is adultery," Graybill said the sayings displayed on the hand-held sign followed Jesus Christ's teachings from the Sermon on the Mount. Other sayings on Graybill's signs included "True Christians don't use guns or lawyers against evil," "Christian women are meek, quiet and modestly dressed" and "You must change for Christ to accept you" [Chuck Clement, "Missouri Men Preach Along SD-34 Bypass," Madison Daily Leader, 2014.07.09].
I invite Deb Geelsdottir, about whose clothing I cannot pass judgment but who has struck me in the comment section as anything but meek and quiet, to offer a Lutheran explanation of the mechanism by which Christ "accepts" us. I also invite readers to share the Scripture where the Lord says, "Don't ever hire an attorney."
I also recommend these men be careful which Madison women they call un-Christian for not being meek and quiet... and I warn them to say no such thing to my daughter, whom my wife and I will continue to teach to resist such patriarchal oppression. They might also want to watch out for my Christian friends who've married fine people who happened to have bad marriages before who raise good kids and uphold Christian principles.
The Missouri preachers make a fair point that signs are an easy way to get attention and reach lots of people. But I hope they complement their public display with a willingness to engage in honest conversation face to face with the sinners whom they condemn... assuming they are willing to even entertain a conversation with a woman who disagrees with their preaching.
I'm hoping these bible bangers don't eat the most popular breakfast meat in America, bacon.
As I recall the bible was pretty specific about eating pig.
I think they missed Matthew 6:1. And 7:1-2 as well.
Thanks for the invite Cory, though you know me well enough to guess that it was hardly necessary!
BTW, today I'm in Wisconsin visiting a friend since 3rd grade. Tomorrow I'll be in Oconomowoc serving on a panel discussion of eating disorders. Nary a bible in sight. I will be dressed much as I am today: Light button front print blouse, olive green cropped pants, nice flip flops, minimal jewelry. That's pretty much my summer wardrobe.
Lutheran orthodoxy tells us that Christ accepts us and forgives us eagerly and completely. Christ does so because it is his nature, his deepest and most profound desire, even the reason for his existence.
No one is forgiven because they've followed every rule, crossed every 'T' and dotted every 'I'. Never has a human being existed who could pull that off.
We ask, Christ forgives us. No hoops, no payments, no self-harm. Even if we continue to feel shame, we're still forgiven. It doesn't matter how we feel. We have absolutely no control over that forgiveness. We ask, Christ does it, end of story.
The hard part is that it seems too easy. We tend to like that economy of scarcity plan, and the whole Deserving thing. But there is no scarcity in the mercy business. It doesn't run out. No one can use up your share. There is enough to go around endless times. No one Deserves to be forgiven. But our friends, loved ones, family, even strangers forgive stuff. They all have their limits because they're humans.
Jesus Christ has no limits. None, zero. I figure, if he wanted the people who were killing him, as they were in the painful process of killing him, to be forgiven, then me and all my crap are probably pretty small potatoes.
Re: Attorneys
IIRC... Paul says something about Christians not suing one another, and Jesus has a line about settling up with your accuser so the book isn't thrown at you.
We saw 4 guys with signs like that on 41st street in SF last week - I just thought they over-juiced at Starbucks
I believe the bible quotes jesus as saying he cannot forgive you for denial of the holy spirit. the only unforgivable sin.
Bible bangers—there's a loaded term! I may borrow that, Roger. :-)
David, if those are the two points on which the Missouri gentlemen's sign is based, they still seem to be off the mark. They say "True Christians don't use... lawyers against evil." My fellow Christians shouldn't be evil, so I shouldn't need to sue them. If I'm accused of something and seek a just settlement, either I committed evil and should not resist my just punishment, or I am innocent and shouldn't worry about the book being thrown at me. The two scenarios you offer don't seem to preclude lawyering up when some un-Christian evildoer breaks a contract or my window and I need some help bringing him to justice... which help I might find in the Christian Lawyer Directory.
There's the problem with preaching by sign: it's hard to fit a complete and accurate explanation of one's theology on a placard small enough to carry but big enough to read from the road.
Bryce, that's about the only change I can think of that might make the "change" statement accurate. But then why not say that instead of using the broader, vaguer "change"?
Deb, is "nice flip flops" an oxymoron?
[Sorry, briefly possessed by Blackwell's ghost. ;-) ]
That's the authoritative explanation of boundless forgiveness, non-contingent on human agency, that I was looking for. Thank you, Deb. Notice that Deb's explanation would require a really big sign... or maybe not. Perhaps we can cover Deb's message with three simple words: "Jesus loves you." Yes, with a big fat period at the end.
...assuming, of course, that you believe in the continuing existence of this Jesus fellow.
If asked to defend their "you must change" claim, the preachers might cite James 2:14-26, the gist of which is that faith without works is dead. I'm not defending their signs, just imagining their justification for the claims.
I have a parent who believes that marrying a divorcee is adultery, so, even though she divorced in her thirties, remains single into her sixties. I don't recommend that route. It seems very lonely to me.
"Nary a bible in sight."
Not surprised as that is typical of apostates.
"Paul says something about Christians not suing one another, and Jesus has a line about settling up with your accuser so the book isn't thrown at you."
Yes we are not to sue fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, but the sign says against evil. Perhaps we are just to turn our backs to unbelievers. But 1 Corinthians 5 makes it clear that we are not to turn our backs when confronted with apostates. We are suppose to expose false teachers like Deb.
Is it a marriage when either, or both, parties abuse each other?
Is an abusive relation a "marriage created in heaven?
My brother married a woman who was once married to a guy that abused her. My brother loves his wife and her children with great passion and loyalty, and no abuse. Her first marriage was not a marriage made in heaven, her second one is. I think God has forgiven my SIL for the "wrong" thing that she did when sh was 16 years old, and does not consider her as an adulterer.
I find it amusing as to how some people judge others as being "true Christians" or not.
JeniW, a true Biblical Christian would not abuse their spouse. Jesus Christ did provide just grounds for divorce. What he opposed was what we have today, fault-free easy divorce. America is not a family-friendly society.
Sibby, you might want to check the definition of the word "apostate." Your usage of the term as a pejorative doesn't seem to jibe with what I understand the word to mean. i.e. Christians are apostates in the context of Judiasm, Protestants in the context of Catholics, etc. It simply means one rejects certain tenents of a given faith. By your own admission, you reject many of the tenents of the faiths to which you once subscribed as you continue with your research and discover new ways to look at things. That makes you an apostate, by definition. Nothing wrong with it. But you use the term as though there is. Further, you are unable to clearly articulate your belief system to others, probably because it keeps changing and evolving. But you accuse others of being apostates when they don't supbscribe to your current belief system du jour (yes, you appear to change what you believe almost daily, do you realize that?) If I were you, I'd look into finding a new buzzword. The apostate thing ain't workin'. At least not with any of the intelligent people who post here.
Bill, I am using the word in the context of the Bible.
Craig if siblings are over 18, should they have equal rights to marriage?
Craig, can a parent of a child sign a contract that impacts that child?
Years ago, while riding in a bus from Rochester, MN to Aberdeen, SD, there were three people in the bus. The bus driver, a young adult man, and myself.
The young man got into a conversation with the bus driver about Christianity. The young man would say something about Christianity and/or beliefs, and the bus driver asked him challenging questions. I did not get involved with the discussion, but I listened to parts of it.
I fell asleep, woke up about half hour to 45 minutes later, and they were still involved in the discussion. As I listened I started to wonder who was the young man trying to convince, the bus driver, or himself?
When groups like the above, and individuals judging who is Christian, and who is not, and judging "true Christians," I always wonder who they are trying to convince, others or themselves?
Sorry that last 2 comments belong on another thread.
Which part, Steve? Would you say the Essenes were apostates in the context of Judaism? Was Jesus? There is a lot of apostate action going on in the Bible. Which flavor are you talking about? I assume you no longer adhere to many if not most of the commandments given in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, do you? Do you subscribe to the socialism proscribed in the Acts of the Apostles? Do you subscribe to the belief that women should be subjugated and obedient to men?
Good point Mr. Fleming about the buzzwords being the au jour of the day. I have to say a discussion with Mr. Sibson is like dealing with my cat, although the cat does seem to be a lot more tolerant.
LOL, Jerry. And more consistant, no doubt. At least cats keep being cats. They don't suddenly morph into groundhogs or skunks every time somebody has a run in with them. LOL
sib-u said usa is not a family-friendly society. that would be a deserving conversation. though not a sociologist, what would be a top-10-list of characteristics in our society of 50 states and territories? big-tent stuff. then we could discuss how to make it family-friendly. 1. car and computer (includes smart fones) driven? 2. sexually cloistered while awash in porn and body objectification?? 3. nutritionally challenged profit-driven convenience cooking??? 4. work-slavery for 99% deprived of education, justice, appropriate heath-care, exercise, play and de-stressed daily existence???? 5. Environmental ignorance, waste and energy use????? 6. Criminal, adolescent and aged institutional warehousing????? 7. Under- and mis-funded education, science, medicine, philosophy (god) and technology??????? 8. Complete lack of emotional health, parenting skills???????? 9. Lack of mass-transit????????? 10. unwelcome to diversity and change while coddling guns and violence??????????
just spitballing
"There is a lot of apostate action going on in the Bible. "
Yes there is and it is continuing today.
So Jerry, would you like marriage equality in order marry your cat?
If "marriage" to an animal includes sexual activity, is that not considered cruelty to animals?
Thankfully, and finally, there are laws against being cruel to animals.
Because pets do not have social security numbers, so being "married" to a pet has no financial gain as there is when two people marry. Since animals do not have any concept of money, there are no financial gain for the pet if there is a "marriage."
According to the law, pets and livestock are considered property. No different from a car, TV, clothing, cell phone etc. It is not logical to have marriage equality for property.
The cat is a helluva lot smarter than you sir, but alas, it is a tomcat and we both are heterosexual.
Heidi offers Matthew 6:1...
"Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven."
...and Matthew 7:1–2...
"Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you."
Both take the fun out things, don't they? :-)
Yes, those are the instructions of Jesus if I'm not mistaken. The ones Sibby likes to cite are actually quotes from St. Paul, not JC.
Quite the contrast actually.
There are those who feel Paul was making up his own church and wasn't really all that familiar with Jesus's teachings as others were (Jesus' brother James for example.)
It's my understanding that when Paul talks about apostates, he's frequently talking about those who most closely followed the teachings of Christ (i.e. the apostles and their followers).
There was a lot of disagreement in the early Church. Perhaps Deb and/or Troy can expand on this further, I'm just recalling this from memory from things I've read along the way, and make no claim to being a professional theologian, biblical scholar or minister of any persuasion.
Here is what a half billion Christians are saying, NO to big oil and to all that they do to pollute our Mother. http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/07/11/group-representing-half-a-billion-christians-will-no-longer-invest-in-fossil-fuel-companies/
I wonder what our glorious overlord in Pierre along with his handmaidens in the legislature will say about this.
Cory, use those in context. For example 1 Corinthians 5: 9-13
9 I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people-- 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat. 12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."
That is why Bill Fleming is an apostate, He frequently attacks the Bible. Who are you Bill to judge the Apostle Paul? The Book of Acts gives credibility to Paul. I will follow Acts before I will follow Bill Fleming:
In Matthew 7:16 Jesus says, “Ye shall know them by their fruits.” It’s not what they say but what you see in their lives that matters. A false teacher cannot produce good fruit because evil cannot produce good (v. 17).
False teachers will produce evil fruit, but they will try to cloak it. Inevitably they hide their bad fruit under ecclesiastical garb or isolate it from accountability. People can’t get near enough to them to see the reality of their lives. Some of them hide their evil fruit under a holy vocabulary or an association with fruitful Christians. Some of them cover their evil fruit with biblical knowledge. But they can’t hide it from everyone all the time. If you closely examine a false teacher, you will see his evil fruit.
http://apprising.org/2010/09/16/john-macarthur-biblical-warning-about-false-teachers/
Since Jesus didn't write anything down, we have only what others say he said to go by. Paul doesn't ever quote Jesus, and of course he justifies himself when he tells his story, the same as you or any other preacher would do.
All I'm saying is, Paul's words and Jesus' words are not accredited to the same person, even in the Bible. Paul said what he said, and Jesus said what he said. It's pretty simple Sibby. No need to get your dander up.
Bill, both were quoted in Acts. In fact, Jesus is quoted speaking directly to Paul. Who wrote Acts? From Acts we learn Paul's mission was to bring the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the gentiles. Doesn't that include you Bill?
You're confusing the point, Steve which is typical. What I am saying is, there is a difference in recommended behavior between what is given as the words of Jesus, and what is given as the words of Paul. If Jesus says not to judge one another and Paul says you should, I'm wondering why you would prefer to follow Paul's advice and not Jesus'. It's just a curiosity, but certainly not just mine. Thomas Jefferson for one often wondered the same thing.
"If Jesus says not to judge one another and Paul says you should, I'm wondering why you would prefer to follow Paul's advice and not Jesus'. "
You have misunderstood Jesus. You have ears but cannot hear and eyes but cannot see.
And Thomas Jefferson was not a Christian. He was a universalist, just like you New Agers today.
I want universal health coverage so I am a universalist, woo woo.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/boehner-demands-dems-health-care-plan-irony-reels
SOH Boner wants to see Dems healthcare plan. I thought they voted 5o times to de-fund the Dems plan. Can wingnuts really be this stoopid?
I am fascinated by this discussion. But I still wonder why no one, including Deb, will give me their take on Rev. 2:23, which had a profound impact on me during my Bible study. (I should note, however, that Sibby explains it is okay for the deity to kill babies who have parents that apparently don't believe the party line, ala Stalin).
Bat, I think Deb did finally address it on the other long post.
The earliest gospel was written in 70CE, a good 40 years after Jesus died. His quotes are probably not verbatim, but they might be pretty close.
On the other hand, the ending of Mark is made up. Mark ends on verse 8. Most Bibles refer to "later additions, subsequent endings" or something similar. Then the added verses are there. The correct version ends with the statement that after the women met the risen Jesus, in their emotional turmoil, they fled and never told anyone anything. Later editors felt that had to be incomplete. Matthew and Luke were written with Mark as the authors' source and they used the later ending.
I wondered, if the truth is that the women said nothing, how do we know about Jesus' resurrection? Oh, John was the last Gospel written.
BCB, I'm sorry I didn't directly address your question.
I tried to copy Rev 2.23 from my bible app, but it didn't work. The gist of the verse is a threat, a warning of impending danger or retribution. In Revelation it's described as God's vengeance on people who don't behave properly. It says that if people are not obsequious enough, obedient enough, their children shall be given terminal diseases. God will do these things to prove to the world that God is the baddest, the nastiest, the most fearsome God ever.
It sounds to me like a god with massive insecurity issues, a very weak ego, and probably some traumatic childhood experiences.
That's the very type of verse that made me feel like I was totally unlovable, undesirable, unworthy, and lower than dirt.
But here's the thing Bearcreek, it's not about God. My guess is that it's a way for John of Patmos to tell the Hebrews, "Take heart my friends. God will have the last word. We have not been abandoned. These tyrants time will end. Remember how God killed all those Egyptian kids and then we were freed? This time it might be Roman families who suffer to get Caesar's attention."
There is no exact description of what each word or phrase means, but the general sense is that it was probably something like that. Their Roman rulers would have been clueless about the Exodus from Egypt because it was centuries before the Roman nation was even in it's infancy. But for the Israelites it's something every child has been taught from a young age, something that continues to be a keystone of their entire culture.
A very good book about Romans is written by the Rev. Barbara Rossing. She is one of the foremost Revelation experts. I have an Amazon link, but I urge you, if you're going to buy it, to get it from an independent bookstore. Look in the used book section of Amazon where they will list several.
http://www.amazon.com/Rapture-Exposed-Message-Hope-Revelation/dp/0813343143/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1405141973&sr=1-1&keywords=rossing+barbara
Thanks for your take Deb. Another friend of mine made a similar argument about the entire chapter. I must admit, however, that it is a tough argument to swallow when then the text seems directly contrary by asserting these sentiments to be the words of JC. In any event I appreciate the contrary perspective.
Jerry, I hope some investors will send folks around to Madison, Winner, and elsewhere with signs reading, "God says No to Keystone XL". That message might be less theologically shaky than our Missouri friends' statements.
What you're referring to BCB, is what we've been told beginning in childhood. There are many writings of all kinds, ancient and contemporary, that use metaphors, symbolism, and other literary tools. Revelation is no different. Think about Orwell's Animal Farm.
Remember too that what I've explained to you is the 'take' of hundreds of thousands of Christians around the world. It does not fit with the official theology as approved by the church hierarchy or the loud TV preachers. That's all. That and it's really upsetting to conservative Christians.
Hi Deb,
Would you say that Daniel, Ezekiel, Matthew 24 and the other "prophetic" parts of the Bible are also subject to the same explanation? A coded message of hope for people under oppression getting around the censors?
Even so, how did these books get canonized by councils hundreds of years later by people who weren't a part of the "in crowd" that understood the code? To my knowledge, Athanasius and Augustine don't discuss the interpretation that Babylon = Rome... and they were instrumental in getting Revelations in the NT. When you look at a chronological list of which writings were considered authentic (eg Clement of Rome cites 1 Corinthians on par with Scripture in 95-97) you see quick acceptance of the four gospels and Paul's major letters, but a dubious status for Revelations until the 4th century. It didn't "catch on" for its coded message.
Regardless of speculation for why it was written, do you agree that it's in the Bible and was accepted by the church for its plain meaning?
I'm more than fine if it's your opinion that Rev should be kicked out of the Bible today... Christian history would definitely have gone better if it was never accepted in the first place. Blow up the whole Bible if you'd like. But we can't rewrite history and suggest that Rev was put in the Bible because the people making that decision understood it was a code... unless you have some Augustine/Athanasius era quotes to back that up.
Kind regards,
David
why should there be any pretext to mock a work of literature?
christianity has killed billions to save millions: it's just that simple.
No David, I wouldn't say that other parts of the Bible are to be understood metaphorically. Some are legends, and Daniel is a good example of that. I've never suggested that Revelation ought to be tossed from the Bible. I think there is always a need for hope.
It's not Revelation itself that I object to, it's the blatant misuse of it that needs to be remedied.
The fact is, David, it's been several years since I read Rossing's book or had an opportunity to discuss it with other theologians, so I don't recall details about Revelation's inclusion in the canon.
One thing I do know, is that today's TV preachers and right wing types know the history of the book, but continue to misuse it because it suits them, they are determined to maintain ignorance, they refuse to consider any new information, or other reasons known only to them.
BTW, good questions David.
Thanks for the reply. I'm anti-Revelations. (As was Jerome and Luther.) Get it out. Put it with the other apocalyptic and gnostic weirdoes.
I think it's easier to persuade people that Rev is total craziness and has never contributed a positive thing to any society, and thus should be taken out... than to try to persuade people it's "a message of hope".
The "hope" most people would get from a prima facie reading is that sort of false hope that their car will be driverless in case of rapture... or worse, hope that their jerk co-worker will go to a lake of fire where the smoke never ends.
Kind regards,
David
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKmUd0zHW4w
There is always excuses you can find in the bible to do what you feel like. How about obeying jesus in your everyday life. (Love your enemies) that is simple we need no further explanation. (To marry a divorce person) that's so simple and easy to understand. I stand with them.
Funny David, and true about "hope".
Agreed Lloyd.
Lloyd, if I read you corectly, you're saying our Missouri friends are correct. Marry once, find it doesn't work, and you're stuck? Any further loving relations you have are adultery? Getting marriage wrong the first time condemns one who seeks to follow Christ to a lifetime of chastity and soulmate-lessness?
First of all, Jesus said "whosoever will come after me let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me". So with that in mind let's
look at divorcing your spouse 1. Jesus taught very clearly that it's adultery. 2. It's not a loving thing to do, Jesus taught love, that would be breaking that comment. So if a person feels like he's condemned if he can't remarry it's because he is living for he's own pleasure and not seeking after what Jesus wants for him.
It is sad when marriages turn out bad. But that's no excuse to put away what Jesus taught. He will return and judge us by his words (john 12:48) it's your choice here which way you want to do things. but after you die your choices determine where you go.
Lloyd, when you say "after you die your choices determine where you go," are you saying your behavior (moral code) is based upon what sort of reward or punishment you might receive based on that conduct, rather than how that behavior affects your fellow human beings?
When a marital spouse becomes abusive, a criminal, gets involved with drugs, or other inappropriate behaviors, the person he/she is married to is obligated to remain married?
I don't think that Jesus would tell someone to stay in an environment or situation in which they are being abused or neglected.
My mother stayed married to my father for the "sake of the children," but my siblings and I knew full well that their marriage was a farce, and we all would have been better off if they had divorced.
It is hard for me to think that Jesus would hate people so much that he would want them to stay in an abusive relationship.
Lloyd, if a second marriage following divorce is adultery, is the adulterer forgivable? Or is it a specific class of sin that is worse than say, taking advantage of the poor? Greed? Lying?
Bearcreek , here is your answer. love the Lord thy God with all thy heart soul mind and strength and thy neighbor as yourself (this is my moral code) if you do this, you will do what He taught us.
Jeniw, If a situation is so bad that it requires them to separate, I don't think that would be wrong. But it is wrong to remarry, unless the other partner has died.
Deb G, adultery is forgivable if you separate from your second marriage and repent and remain single or be reconciled with your first spouse.
Lloyd, I agree with and respect your personal choice to "love . . . thy neighbor as yourself (this is my moral code)," especially since it appears that you have adopted this moral code without God's coercion or threat of hellfire damnation. To me that is a moral judgment reflecting your goodness as a fellow human being.
As for doing what God teaches, this creates more significant issues, especially since we both know there are religious people who think God teaches them to mistreat, hurt, silence, condemn or even kill those fellow humans who do not "love the Lord thy God with all thy heart soul mind and strength. . . ." Although I am an atheist I could not love a God like the one described in the Bible even if I thought such a God existed. If factually true, the repeated stories of the Biblical God imposing death and destruction upon innocent children and adults offends my morality so deeply that I could not choose to worship such a God. And I have yet to hear or read any reasonable moral justification for such atrocities. For example, I have been told that the Passover killing of Egyptian babies is justified because the children killed were children of non-believers, and as such these kids deserved to be slaughtered. Under my moral code toward humans, which is substantially identical to yours, this type of treatment toward others is morally reprehensible.
Uh oh. If I'm reading this right, Lloyd first advocated a strict adherence to the exact words of the Lord, but then backed away to his own conditionality. "If a situation is so bad that it requires them to separate, I don't think that would be wrong." Where's the explicit Scriptural justification for that exception? Or is Lloyd admitting that even he has to do some interpretation to make Jesus's general advice address specific situations?
I am curious: does this blanket adultery charge leveled by Lloyd and our Missouri friends apply to any post-divorce activities that would be considered adulterous during the marriage? Is it adultery for a divorcee to procreate with a new partner? To cohabitate? To kiss and cuddle? To go on a date? Are all of those activities prohibited to the divorcee under the strict interpretation Lloyd/Missouri were offering?
Lloyd, if a spouse divorces at the age of 25 (or any other age,) because he/she has been in an abusive situation, he/she will be punished forever by not being allowed to marry someone else. What a hateful and abusive God you believe in.
Perhaps it is better never to get legally married, and just live together.
I must disagree with the limitations Lloyd places on God's will and mercy.
I believe God takes delight in all humanity and grieves all our losses. That does not mean that God is necessarily pleased by all of our actions. I think God is much more tolerant of our strengths and weaknesses than we are. I don't believe God's delight is in unrelenting judgment of creation.
Lloyd, I don't see the overriding judgment in Scripture. Looking through the Gospels, the best record we have of Jesus' life, I cannot find one single instance of Jesus refusing to forgive anyone who asked. In fact, Jesus gave away forgiveness so freely that even people who didn't ask were forgiven. If Jesus is God on earth, then I see bucket loads of unconditional love and forgiveness flowing freely.
What about that parable of Lazarus and the rich man? He was sure sorry about his earthly deeds, yet dude had to burn...
I'm salvation-challenged, so help me out. I don't like the idea of Jesus giving everyone a free pass... but are all those remarried divorcees going to burn for their adultery? Is the sin of adultery through remarriage somehow uniquely damning? Or is every contravention of Jesus's dictates going to trump all those prayers and professions and, since even the nicest among us fall, send everyone to Heck in a hair-shirt handbasket?
Deb-OT. Ever been to the Grotto of the Redemption in West Bend,iowa? If so,what did you think of it?
Hi Cory,
I think the best construction on these verses is that a significant part of Jesus's message is to not be concerned about "this world" but to instead focus on the "kingdom of God". Early believers really thought Jesus was returning next Sunday. If that's the case, who has time to go to court? Who has time to remarry? Jesus is coming like a thief in the night. Jesus is coming before the end of this generation. "But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God."
No one would want to be caught in a moment of selfish pleasure when Jesus storms the earth, catching you with your pants down.
So, basically, it's a kind of morality that assumes we're in a perpetual state of emergency.
Alternatively, some speculate that Jesus's parents were divorced, hence his strong words on the subject. The Gospels don't mention Joseph's whereabouts after the story of young Jesus being left in Jerusalem talking to the rabbis at the temple. When Mary interacts with adult Jesus, she doesn't have her husband.
Kind regards,
David
From what I'm reading here, women are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
God and Jesus expect women to stay in abusive relationships that cause mental anguish, physical harm, and all too often death at the hands of her husband.
Next they are told to subject themselves to abuse and possible and stay in marriage because Jesus is going to come one day and make things right.
So, on the one hand women suffer and die in a marriage and if they leave that marriage it is called adultery and are condemned to hell or something for not obeying Jesus and God.
It is obvious that males, not men, wrote the big book.
Mr. C, you and I agree more than you want to admit.
Thanks grudz, see, there is hope for you.
Mike, I haven't been to the grotto, though I've heard of it.
David, Jesus was not the judge in that particular parable.
I am a Lutheran, though I believe this is fairly common among Christians. The most authoritative part of the Bible is the Gospel section. That is the center of "Christ"ian belief. The rest of Scripture follows. Jesus said, "If you have seen me, you have seen God." I take that to indicate that what Jesus said and did is more important than anything else.
In summary: Since Jesus never turned away anyone who requested mercy, never imposed any conditions prior to granting forgiveness, granted forgiveness even to some who didn't ask - that's how God is.
David, very good comment about the time frame early followers of Jesus had in mind. Turns out they were wrong by a couple thousand years.
Ms. Geelsdottir, marry me. Unless you have let that Mr. Stranahan fellow photograph you.
Now Grudz, you know I'm promised to another.
But, just in case I change my mind, what do you have to offer?
We have been misled by the society we are living in. we have abortion, homosexuals, adultery, lying, stealing, laying up treasures on this earth, immodesty, and many more that we do not even think about as immoral. there are a few people here and there that hold to some good values. we here so often that, that would be a evil God to make us live by all these moral standards that we threw out the window. how about looking on God's side what he made us for, and then we go to twist it up and say that he is a blame that we can't be happy, which really maybe we are the blame as humans that we transgressed his laws. Seek and ye shall find nock and the the door shall be opened.
Lloyd: out to lunch much?
Well first Lloyd, you are operating under the idea that your God created everyone. That is a pesronal belief - not a fact.
Second, you are lumping in acts such as homosexuality with stealing and lying and then trying to suggest they are all as equally immoral. This suggests you believe homosexality is a choice rather than a core central part of a human being. Although I find that viewpoint incredibly sad and disconnected from reality, if that is your sincere belief then you need to be blaming the heterosexual couples... they are the ones responsible for having all these gay kids. Also, perhaps you can share at what point in your life you made the decision to abstain from homosexality and devote yourself full-time to the heterosexual team? If it truly is a choice... then clearly you have made that choice correct?
Third, your idea of "good values" may not be the same as everyone else, so if you take your faith seriously you may want to dial down the amount of judging. It isn't for you to tell others what to believe or how to believe it.
Fourth, who is this "nock" fellow and why would I want to seek him out?
Fifth - I'll leave you with a little quote that I found intersting and which seems to apply to your view. I say this because your statements don't appear to have a judicial connection, but rather one staked in your personal faith.
"If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits." ~Dan Barker
"Second, you are lumping in acts such as homosexuality with stealing and lying and then trying to suggest they are all as equally immoral. This suggests you believe homosexality is a choice rather than a core central part of a human being."
So is pedophilia, so do you want to include that as a right to equal marriage? The choice you refer to is free will. You can act on your animalistic desires, or you can chose to follow Jesus Christ.
" It isn't for you to tell others what to believe or how to believe it."
earlier in another thread you suggested that the minority opinion is irrelevant and we must do what the majority wants. I hope you are beginning to understand that man-made laws causes chaos.
"If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits."
It also requires faith, perhaps even more so, to believe there is no God and/or the Bible is a book of myths.
One thing I find continuously fascinating is how pessimistic many of the "true believers" seem to be. One of my theology teachers back in the day told me that the word "Gospel" means "good news." And that any time when someone's preaching it sounds like "bad news" they're not really preaching the Gospel, by definition.
Beyond that, if a person doesn't find peace, comfort and compassion for others in their faith, it is perhaps time to ask themselves why they need it.
Because, I submit, morality based on fear and loathing, is no morality at all.
Like I said before Bill, you have ears but cannot hear and eyes but cannot see.
That doesn't mean anything, Sibby. It's nonsense, just as most of what you write is. Gobbledeegook. Pseudo-theological drivel. Mumbo jumbo.
Steve you can try to switch topics mid-steam and refer back to your obsession with pedophilia if you wish, but I'm not biting. You cease to be relevant when all you are interested in doing is changing the subject and trolling.
Truth requires no faith. You won't ever see a room full of scientists and historians in a room shouting about how great gravity is or how amazing cellular division is as they try to convince themselves or others that they are facts.
Most admit we don't have all of the answers and likely never will, but it doesn't take faith to accept that fact. Faith is a cop-out due to one's inability to seek truth. They have given up and stopped searching because they are convinced greater men before them had all the answers. Faith is for the weak-minded and those who lack any desire to learn.
I won't speak for any atheist out there, but most I have met never claimed to know everything, and they surely aren't sitting around preaching their views as fact. Most admit they simply don't know - but unlike most religious people, they are willing to learn and adapt their opinions based upon the evidence. This is why you see so many former Christians distancing themselves from their 'faith' as they age - because they come to the realization over time (and via education) that faith is a silly notion and one which relies upon circular logic to exist.
Circular logic, exactly Craig. In Sibby's mind that's perfectly reasonable. Want to marry your dog? No problem, he's your property, just sign the papers on his behalf.
"You won't ever see a room full of scientists and historians in a room shouting about how great gravity is or how amazing cellular division is as they try to convince themselves or others that they are facts."
But we do have government schools promoting the myth of macro evolution as scientific fact when it is entirely faith based, or even worse...total deception.
And Bill speaking of circular logic: arguing that homosexual don't have choice because they can't help and then denying the same is true for pedophiles is an example of not facing the fallacy of your position.
http://www.amazon.com/Straight-Surprisingly-Short-History-Heterosexuality/dp/0807044431
"Faith is for the weak-minded and those who lack any desire to learn."
False allegation Craig. My faith in the Bible as being God's Word includes reading the book every day, and then testing it against scientific facts, other worldviews, and also those of you on this blog. What you need to understand about truth is that intelligence is not enough. It also requires discernment, which can only be utilized with those who possess wisdom. Wisdom is not the same as intelligence.
Discernment based on wisdom says that if you reject the Bible but still say you are a Christian, then your faith is derived from yourself. (Atheists have the same faith, in themselves.) That means you are following the serpent from Genesis. How then can you say you are following the Son of God? Go for it Deb. Perhaps now you may understand why atheists like your brand of so-called Chrsitianity...it is false.
When did you decide to quit being gay, Sibby?
http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2014/07/17/hatewatch-headlines-71714/
Hi Sibby,
I have a question for you, one that I've wrestled with for quite a while...
How do we know that a text, any text, is inspired by God? By text, I mean book/letter/epistle/article/scroll/fragment/engraving... anything with words. What properties would a text have to have to lead us to believe that the text is truly inspired rather than one that claims inspiration, but claims it falsely?
If a text has properties A, B, and C we know it is probably inspired by God.
If a text has X, Y, and Z we know it's certainly inspired by God.
Fill in the letters for me, please. I really want to know the answer.
Kind regards,
David
I'll say it again, gay marriage is love. When I see two beautiful gay men walking hand in hand - I see love. People like Sibby and Pastor Hickey and all the others out there that are against gay marriage: they are really against love, and they are afraid. They don't want to see people happily married and full of love. It scares them for some reason, though I don't know why. Love between two people of the same sex has been around forever. You can't dictate who someone can or can not love.
Bill, I too have noticed how pessimistic many of the "true believers" seem to be. I think this is likely the result of what Sartre calls "bad faith" and the corresponding human anguish that results from seeking something outside of one's self upon which to assign responsibility. Religions tend to be classic means of exercising bad faith, as they seek some spiritual refuge in order to avoid their human responsibility.
When people ascribe to beliefs and myths and attempt to have true faith in these beliefs and myths it necessarily results in an inner turmoil and anguish. A natural way to seek disassociation from this inner anguish is through pessimism and anger, focusing on perceived faults of others, especially those who are different.
OK students, pay attention. Jenny just gave the justification that were should be able to marry dogs that we love.
David, believing the Bible is God's Word is a matter of faith. Science cannot prove that it is, nor that it isn't. There are some organizations that argue that science so far has not proven the Bible to be wrong. See Creation Ministries.
http://creation.com/
Today I'm wondering why it is that these religious goofies, Lloyd and Sibson continually TARGET gays and women in their testimonials. There are plenty of things in the Bible that are supposedly sins, "Christians" commit those sins daily and hide from responsibility by targeting gays and women. Is there something in the Bible that ranks how bad or naughty which sin is and an aggravated punishment for sins. For instance, is child abuse, which we don't hear Christians talk about, a lesser sin than stealing a candy bar from Walgreens?
I'm just a layman, I've never read the Bible and have no desire to, Sibson probably has a label for me and will likely send me to hell because he has divine powers and has a greater knowledge of the Bible than ordained preachers and ministers. I don't care.
In the Bible and the Ten Commandments are there not greater sins committed by man than homosexuality or what women do with their lives and bodies?
"When people ascribe to beliefs and myths and attempt to have true faith in these beliefs and myths it necessarily results in an inner turmoil and anguish."
That would be applied to those who have blind faith, and thereby bad faith, in the myth of macro evolution. I has resulted in tortured individuals, such as Hitler.
" I has resulted in tortured individuals, such as Hitler." priceless.
Sibby can't differentiate between the love one can have for a canine, and the love a human can have for another human being, apparently.
Roger, for most of my life I had no inclination to read the Bible. I was satisfied with my philosophical outlook and was both agnostic and apathetic about the existence of God. Then I became interested in some of the writings of Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins. I attended a debate between a Christian apologist and David Silverman, President of American Atheists. At the end of the debate both sides urged the audience to read the Bible in its entirety.
Given the impact of this book in history and the current use of the verses from the book to argue for or against public policies I thought perhaps I should read it before forming any opinions about its contents. I read it and it really opened my eyes and turned me into an atheist.
Contrary to my expectations it turned out to be a fascinating book full of surprises in the stories it relates. One example is the story of Daniel and the lions' den. When I was a child I was taught that this story showed God's power and mercy in saving Daniel from the lions. When I read the story in the Bible I found out the "rest of the story" that I was never told as a child. The day after Daniel was released, the King arrested the soldier who had turned Daniel in for violating the King's rule along with his wife and children and put them in the Lion's den. God did not intervene and these folks and their children were ripped to shreds!
After reading the Bible in full - King James version, I decided to read the Book of Morman and the Koran. Neither were as fascinating as the Bible, but it interesting to see the cross references to the Bible. Roger, when looked at objectively the Bible is a wonderful read. I recommend that you reconsider and give it a shot.
Jenny, tell that to my wife who has a deep affection for our dog named Precious. My wife refers to me as daddy when speaking to the dog. Do you want her phone number so you can tell her see is crazy?
Have you ever cried when your dog died? Or have you never owned a dog?
We have laws that rightly say we cannot abuse our spouses. Are you saying the animal abuse laws should be removed?
With all of that said, I do not believe we should be allowed to marry our dog. I also believe we should not let men marry men and women marry women, simply based on the standard of "love".
Roger, your comment about the ten commandments brings to mind another surprise I discovered when reading the Bible. There are two sets of the ten commandments and they conflict! They are at Exodus ch 20 and Exodus ch 34. This leads to the question, which set of the ten commandments control?
The stone tables with the first set of ten were smashed by Moses, and God provided a second set of stone tables to replace the first. Interestingly, the general public seems to think there is only one set and that is the first, which was smashed by Moses, rather than the second set, which incidently includes the command: "10. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother’s milk." Exodus 34:26
"Sibson probably has a label for me and will likely send me to hell because he has divine powers and has a greater knowledge of the Bible than ordained preachers and ministers. I don't care."
Roger, I don't condemn nor hate you for not believing. God does not condemn or hate you for not believing.
You have condemned yourself based on your own free will.
For that I am sincerely sorry.
"In the Bible and the Ten Commandments are there not greater sins committed by man than homosexuality or what women do with their lives and bodies?"
Roger, yes there is. It is called the unpardonable sin:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/unpardonablesin.html
Steve I couldn't find that command in Ex 34, the ten commandments on the tables that replaced the tables Moses broke. Here is that list:
1. Thou shalt worship no other god (For the Lord is a jealous god).
2. Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.
3. The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep in the
month when the ear is on the corn.
4. All the first-born are mine.
5. Six days shalt thou work, but on the seventh thou shalt
rest.
6. Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, even of the first fruits of the wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year’s end.
7. Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leavened bread.
8. The fat of my feast shall not remain all night until the
morning.
9. The first of the first fruits of thy ground thou shalt bring
unto the house of the Lord thy God.
10. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother’s milk.
Are you sure the only unforgivable violation is not the seething of a kid in its mothers milk?
Sorry Sibson, it is only your opinion that I have condemned myself and therefore do not need you to be sorry for me, in fact, I am sorry for you in your continued diatribes and the messages of hate you present as some form of Christianity.
BCB, did you go to the link. It is covered in the NT.
Roger, not my opinion. It is a principle of Biblical Christianity. Either you believe or you don't. We all have a choice.
Sibby, I did go to the link, but I thought it made more sense to look to the Bible itself to see what the ten commandments actually say.
Steve,
Let me be more succinct, it is actually none of your business.
BCB, come to think about, Commandment number one could be an example of conduct from those who committed the unpardonable sin. Perhaps that will help you better understand God's wrath.
"We all have a choice." -- Steve Sibson
Sibby, your link condemns those who "speak badly" about the Holy Spirit, not about those who ignore God and worship other Gods. I see nothing about speaking badly or otherwise in the ten commandments?
David, living in a perpetual state of emergency seems empirically to be a bad idea. Dozens of generations of Christians who chose to do that would have been wrong and would have missed out on getting a lot of useful things done. History leans toward the conclusion that Jesus isn't coming on Friday to resolve our issues, so if there's evil to fight, we probably should go ahead and lawyer up. And Jesus isn't coming to take the kids to the heavenly petting zoo on Friday, so you divorcees, if you've found some nice new partners who can help you parent, take the plunge.
Even if I were a Christian, I'd have no problem looking Jesus in the eye and saying, "Yup, that's the advice I gave, and I'm sticking with it, because hiring that lawyer and marrying that nice lady helped do what looked like the Lord's work."
Steve: "My faith in the Bible as being God's Word includes reading the book every day, and then testing it against scientific facts, other worldviews, and also those of you on this blog."
I'd love to hear how you test the bible against "scientific facts". I'm not sure what you're doing, but I'm fairly certain it has little to do with the scientific method. That is sort of the point Steve... which is why religious people rely upon faith (because they surely cannot prove the statements in the Bible other than some geographical references etc.).
Of course perhaps you are both more intelligent, and full of more wisdom than the average Christian and have figured out who to apply the scientific method to authenticate statements from the Bible. In that case, I'd be curious to see your research and evidence on how you have proven concepts I've read in the bible such as walking on water, turning water into wine, building a seaworthy craft capable of holding two of every animal on the planet along with the food required to sustain them including how you managed to ensure you had both male and female for tens of thousands of animals, proving the existence of talking animals, verifying how a stick can turn into a serpent, people turning into salt, or how you explain the absense of mentioning any animal not directly found within 500 miles or so of the Middle East (no mention of Dinosaurs, Bison, Koala Bears, or Kangaroos).
By the way, this is probably a good time to explain that it isn't anyone's duty to disprove a theory or statement. Thus when someone says "nobody has disproven the bible" it is simply evidence they don't understand how science or evidence works. You cannot disprove a theory, but you can test your hypothesis and formulate conclusions.
I could claim I have a secret base on the planet Mars full of a trillion dollars worth of gold bullion, but if I make that claim it is my duty to prove it, not your duty to disprove. Hopefully that is clear.
Meanwhile - back in the real world, we can test concepts such as evolution, and the reality is if one accepts any level of evolution, they must accept what you refer to as macro-evolution, because the truth is the only difference is the time scale you are looking at.
If you accept minor evolutionary changes occur over time, then you acknowledge evolution. Period. There is no need to discern between micro and macro, because macro is merely the culmination of changes over a longer period of time.
Thus if you don't beleive in "macro" evolution, what you are really saying is that you don't believe in evolution. This suggests you don't have an explanation for many of the fossils we have discovered, and that you have no way to explain how peppered moths shifted from one color to another over a relatively short period of time (technically that is natural selection, but related to the concept). In fact, you probably can't even explain why humans have been getting taller over the past several hundred years or how certain weeds have adapted to the invention of the lawn mower by growing outward rather than upward (examples of adaptive evolution).
I'm sure you acknowledge some level of evolution - and it would be naive and ignorant to suggest the concept doesn't exist. Therefore, how can one claim evolution exists, but only to a point... where is must stop and no further evolution can occur?
Of course if you're a visual guy... perhaps this image might help:
http://i.imgur.com/Ixhb2Dc.png
In short... be careful when you toss out the words like "myth", because scientific theories such as evolution or gravity or relativity have much more evidence to support them than practically anything from the book you place so much faith in.
As for Lloyd's latest comment this a.m., I'm a little disappointed. Yesterday morning, he seemed to open to door to at least excusing some separations, even if he was still going to hold to saying any further relations with anyone else were adultery. Deb challenged that position, citing Jesus's boundless capacity for forgiveness. I questioned whether Lloyd's blanket prohibition basically meant friendly interaction of any sort with potential new mates, including no cohabitation to get help raising kids, which seems unnecessarily cruel and unproductive. Thinking about what Deb and David said, I questioned whether the sin of adultery, which is what Lloyd believes Jesus would call a divorcee marrying a new spouse, sends the divorcee to hell in a way that other sins do not.
Then Lloyd goes off track with one of those all-to-general complaints: we're all sinning, we've fallen away from all standards, everything sucks, we need to look at things the way God looks at things and do what he says!
That's what we're trying to figure out in applying Christianity to a very specific and common human problem: you fall in love, you get married, you have kids... and for whatever reason, the relationship becomes destructive. You get out of the relationship, distance yourself and your kids from the destruction... and you meet a new person, not a perfect person, but someone who loves you and your kids, someone who would make a better spouse and parent than the person you left and than the empty chair at your table. What interest do Jesus and the church have in keeping those people apart? How do we keep society from coming apart at the seams by preventing that union?
Banning that divorcee from companionship and help with parenting seems about as loving and practical as quarantining menstruating women.
Hi Cory,
Totally agree. I don't think those verses help us in "normal" moral times. I was just trying to explain the context in which they were written.
Take what's good in the Bible and apply to your life, and discard the rest. Do the same for any book you read.
Kind regards,
David
David, if I'm reading Steve and Lloyd correctly, then my proper response to your advice on intelligent, selective reading should be, "See you in hell!"
Funny thing is, your advice opens the door for atheists to read the Bible and live by its best principles.
Hi Sibby,
"believing the Bible is God's Word is a matter of faith"
The way I understand "faith" (and "belief") is that we use these words only when we don't "know" something. For instance, I could say "I believe my wife is out shopping" if someone asks me where she is, but I don't know for sure. Ask my who my great-grandmother was, and I'd say "I believe her name was Bertha Bergan... but I'd have to look it up to be sure."
Contrast that to things you and I "know". We know that Cory is from Madison, SD. We know that this discussion is happening on the Internet. We know that the sum of angles within a triangle equals two right angles.
Things we know should always give us more confidence than things we merely believe, correct?
For all texts you and I come across, the default assumption is that it was written by a person. No other critter writes texts, and texts don't happen accidentally. (Now at this point-in-time one could program a computer to write poetry, but the computer itself was made and programmed by humans... there aren't any texts that we've encountered that didn't have any human involvement.)
Now we also know that any human could easily write "Thus saith the Lord" into any text they themselves have written. But what standard do we use to accept that any such text actually is from the Lord? Do we grant divine status to all texts that claim it? Or do we require some sort of evidence?
Your approach that "it hasn't been disproved" or "it can't be disproved" filters practically nothing. If I told you that Star Wars was a true story, you can't disprove that claim... and would thus be forced to believe it. If I told you your wife robs banks when you weren't watching her (a penny at a time)... that also can't be disproven.
Does reasoning really work like that? Do you really believe everything that can't be disproven? Do you believe in the divinity of the Koran and Book of Mormon, which also claim inspiration? If not, then what standard do we apply to books that claim divine status?
Kind regards,
David
Cory, I too noticed that Lloyd did not respond to my statement about reading the Bible from the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) out.
As I've read the days comments to this point, I've noticed some inaccurate condemnations and generalizations regarding Christianity. I fully understand where that comes from. People like Sibson, Channette, Pat Robertson and others make so much noise, gain so much attention, and claim to be one of the few "real" Christians.
Madizens, I am a Christian. There are millions of Christians like me in that we support the same rights for every citizen. My church hosted Drag Queen Bingo last year. We believe God loves them. We believe that if Jesus could hob nob with tax collectors, prostitutes, Samaritans, and other rejected folks, we could share bingo, hosted by drag queens, with our neighborhood. It was a lot of fun and well attended.
I used to be as hard on Evangelicals as anyone here. Then I got to know some of them. There are evangelicals who are big supporters of the green movement, marriage for all, peaceniks, etc.
I hope that you will find a way to be more specific than the generic term "Christian." There are hundreds of varieties. It would be hard to say that Most Christians agree on anything.
Oh, about "Faith." By it's very nature, faith cannot be proved. But faith is critical in any endeavor. Faith in things yet unknown is what gives us courage to try. I believe Christian faith falls in a similar category.
I don't get the concept of a rock hard religious faith that cannot tolerate questioning. Faith grows through examination and testing, in a way similar to science.
If I find that my faith has become rigid and fossilized, then I no longer have a living, breathing asset. I have Hard and Fast Rules where faith is no longer required. One need only follow the rules.
I want faith that is warm and elastic, strong enough to hold, flexible enough to allow space for new understandings and growth. I have no desire at all to be judge and jury over anyone else. As a Lutheran pastor, that Is Not My Job! As a human being, that Is Not My Job! What a relief!
Hi Cory,
Well, sure, they can say "see you in Hell". Fortunately they don't have the power to make it so.
My take is that the Bible represents one part of humanity's moral trajectory. The stories of King David are amazing in that they show the king is held to a higher standard (unlike, say, how the Pharaohs thought of themselves). The minor prophets pioneered the message of care for widows and orphans. The Gospels busted up legalism and broke down barriers between man/woman slave/master... gave us the Golden Rule (kinda) and taught us to love all people as brothers and sisters.
But the trajectory didn't stop there. Other advances after Jesus's time include, off the top of my head:
-Habeas Corpus
-Democracy
-Freedom of speech, press, religion
-Abolition of slavery
-Equal status for races
-Equal status for women
-Equality of opportunity
-Public education
-Right to a jury trial
-Right to a public defender
-Minimum wage
-No child labor
Most advances like these don't "contradict" the principles of the New Testament, but they are still absent from Jesus's teaching. The Fundamentalist approach to the New Testament lifts this 1st century morality up as the apex of morality, rather than just a (major) step in the right direction. And when there is a conflict between the two (lawyers, divorce, re-marriage, ordained women, etc) they thus don't even consider not siding with the Bible.
I'm also pretty sure that everyone picks-and-chooses with respect to the Bible, I'm just transparent about it. The good parts are as "easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill".
Kind regards,
David
Deb, I hope my comments aren't read to mean all Christians. I try to use the phrase "many Christians," but I am sure I have also said "most Christians." I recognize that stereotyping Christians is just as bad as stereotyping other groups.
That said, it appears to me that people who declare themselves "Christians" must necessarily have a set of common beliefs in mind. I would think they include: (1) original sin; (2) an afterlife; (3) the necessity of believing in Christ as a God; and (4) seeking forgiveness for sinning. Are there other traits you think "all Christians" share, or is my description inaccurate?
As you point out, I recognize that there are many different ways for a Christian view the Bible and, as Cory points out the door is even open "for atheists to read the Bible and live by its best principles." Indeed, I was not an atheist until I read the Bible from cover to cover, yet as an atheist I still like to go back to the Bible from time to time and read parts over. I keep it at my desk within reach.
Many aspects of my own moral code are similar to some of the moral ideas in the Bible, but I do not believe I need it to determine what is right and wrong. For example, I fully agree with Steve Hickey that the death sentence is immoral, but this is not because the Bible says thou shall not kill. I am very glad that some Christians feel compelled to oppose the death sentence whatever their rationale.
I am troubled when I hear and read arguments from individuals or groups that use the Bible to hurt others and discriminate against others. And I think one reasonable explanation is that if people who call themselves Christians can pick and choose which moral precepts to accept from the Bible, then they can justify such nastiness by focusing on particular passages that support their agenda.
Jenny, marriage is more than just love. Marriage is a legal contract between two people who will hopefully love each other, and will be able to maintain a long term relationship
A legal contracts contains all the rights and responsibilities that go with it, and provides protection for both parties.
That is all that most gay couples who want to do, that is, to be able to enter into a legal contract with the person they love and are committed to, that includes all the legal rights, responsibilities, and protection of a contract.
Nothing more, nothing less.
BCB, thanks for your response.
I think your short list of Christian basics is pretty good. I'd remove Original Sin. It's an interpretation that requires a tremendous amount of effort to reach. Indeed, the first humans were Originally without flaw or shame. Though acquired later, it is not genetic. Shame is not something that can be passed to one's children in the sense that they are born with it. Socially speaking, families indeed pass to their children a variety of characteristics, but that is via familia interactions, not genes.
Furthermore, if some Christians believe in original sin, how can they believe that a fetus is innocent?
I believe in Original Grace. The grace God offers is a thing freely given, regardless of whether we're "good or bad."
Original Sin was not something the early followers of Christ had heard of. However, it sure came in handy when it came to controlling Roman citizens and subjects. As the official church became more powerful, and money grew, corrupt officials created more ways to fleece the flock. Original Sin was a bonanza!
To be sure, not all members of the pontificate were corrupt, but there have always been enough.
The Bible as a landmark (a booster rocket?) on the upward trajectory of human moral development, but not the culmination (apogee)? David, you are getting more interesting with old age.
Addressing much more about sex than divorce, Sioux Falls writer Dianna E. Anderson backs up this notion that reality is messier than the Bible, and that Bible readers need to adapt:
--------------------------
The white evangelical church is a huge fan of making sure everyone else is following their idea of Biblical thought – everyone must be a virgin on their wedding day. Everyone must produce lots of Christian children. Everyone must stay married, no matter the circumstances. It’s a simple plan.
But real life is messy. Real life, with real people created by our real God, reflects far more diversity than that simple, white evangelical plan with a yard and white picket fence could ever be. Gay people exist. Trans* people exist. People divorce. People are infertile. People choose to have sex outside of marriage. People choose to wait. People have those choices stolen from them. People grow up without mothers. Without fathers. People grow up with two dads or two moms or just one parent. People have a set of parents and then their parents’ special friend. People will never have any desire to experience sex.
This is the vastness of the human experience. Not all of it is good. Not all of it is bad. But it is complex, it is complicated, and it is not easy to understand.
The patent absurdity of American evangelical purity culture is that it claims waiting until heterosexual marriage is the way to healthy sexuality for absolutely everyone. Its morality is king, no matter what your situation. The plain, bald truth is that it’s not. People need to be equipped to know themselves, to know the best path for them, to explore their sexuality safely. And we will not get to a place where that is possible without accepting that “stay a virgin until marriage” is an inadequate sexual ethic to cover the complexity of human sexuality [Dianna E. Anderson, "Unlearning Purity Culture: The Simple Complexity of God's Plan," blog, 2014.07.14].
--------------------------------
Is Anderson just another culture-accomodationist headed to hell with me and David? Or is she pointing to an inclusivity that Jesus would endorse?
Deb, you have an interesting take on the idea of "original sin." A Wikipedia article asserts the concept was first alluded to in the 2nd Century during a religious controversy and then pretty much nailed down afterwards by Augustine. The article asserts that it is a major belief in most variations of Christianity, as well as in variations of Judaism. On the other hand, Robin Lane Fox apparently argues that the concept was based on a mis-translation of Augustine's writings. I don't know how you all can keep this stuff straight!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin#Criticism
I too have noted the apparent inconsistency of original sin with the notion of an "innocent" fetus.
The concept of "original grace" is very interesting. Isn't that the idea that by grace alone, rather than by good works, can a person get into heaven? And is it similar to the Jehovah Witness idea that once given it cannot be lost (although I have heard they think it is given to only a specific number of humans)?
Hi Cory,
Old age? I've only outlived Jesus by two months!
Interesting article, but I won't be surprised if someone accuses you of promoting smut. ;)
Hey Sibby,
Cat got your tongue? I know it was like 20 posts back, but I'm sincerely interested in why you accept the Bible as God's Word and not the Koran? Pretty sure they both meet your criteria of "science so far has not proven wrong".
Kind regards,
David
God Bless you brothers for getting the Word of God out. I am praying for you daily.
You know we miss you all. And hope to see you and your family soon.
Sister Conniejo