Bible as a Whole or Pick & Choose

[Molly]

First, let me say that I am a Christian. But this has always bothered me: Why do Christians follow some parts of the Bible and not others.
- - Observation of weekly Sabbath, but not the 'seventh year Sabbath' that is prescribed just before the weekly sabbath (Ex 23:10)
- - We condem sodomy per Lev 18, but disregard the rules about not wearing garments of two different kinds of threads or not clipping your hair at the temples as per Lev. 19
- - We follow the commandments at the beginning of Exodus 20, but we do not follow the commandment concerning acceptable altars (made of earth or uncut stone, with no steps leading up to it) which appears in the same chapter as the "standard" commandments.
I think that if you believe that the Bible is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, then you should embrace/believe the entire Word and NOT just what is convenient.

[RavenWhitefang]

The bible is nothing but a book of convenience, and is filled with many contradictions that alot of followers turn a blind eye towards. It will continue to be pick and choose because there are so many restrictions in mainstream religion that they have to have some type of freedom somewhere. Considering that the bible does not date back as far as most people would like to believe, it is simply a tool for control from the ruling class to keep the sheep in line and scared to commit "sin". A law is fine as long as it is abided by, but make it supernatural and condemnable to your soul if you renig on it, then people change their attitudes and are more easy to control.

[gracestamper]

First, let me say that I am a Christian. But this has always bothered me: Why do Christians follow some parts of the Bible and not others.
- - Observation of weekly Sabbath, but not the 'seventh year Sabbath' that is prescribed just before the weekly sabbath (Ex 23:10)
- - We condem sodomy per Lev 18, but disregard the rules about not wearing garments of two different kinds of threads or not clipping your hair at the temples as per Lev. 19
- - We follow the commandments at the beginning of Exodus 20, but we do not follow the commandment concerning acceptable altars (made of earth or uncut stone, with no steps leading up to it) which appears in the same chapter as the "standard" commandments.
I think that if you believe that the Bible is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, then you should embrace/believe the entire Word and NOT just what is convenient.



I think so too. But really, how many people actually love the enemy, in his absence or how many people could TOTALLY forgive the WORLD?
When you get some one that does that there is no justice left. Hell forgive the guy that raped your wife and let him do it again?

This is why there is no balance.

[Philosopher Foelhe]

I think that if you believe that the Bible is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, then you should embrace/believe the entire Word and NOT just what is convenient.

Well, there's the rub. According to Christianity, Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Not the Bible. Frankly I think a lot of Christians out there worship the bible - and they don't worship the parts they don't like, so really they worship themselves. That's sort of related to your point, but I don't think worshipping the bible in the first place is a good idea. Let's face it, it's a book. And books just can't defend themselves from editors.

Of course, some Christians do try to worship God, and they use the bible as directions. But it's just like a compass. If the needle is obviously pointing the wrong way, do you follow it anyway, or do you trust that something is screwing with your equipment?


I think so too. But really, how many people actually love the enemy, in his absence or how many people could TOTALLY forgive the WORLD?
When you get some one that does that there is no justice left. Hell forgive the guy that raped your wife and let him do it again?

I think you've confused "forgiveness" with "passive agressiveness". If a guy tries to kill me, I'll slap him in jail so he can't hurt anyone else. That doesn't mean I can't forgive him. It just means steps must be taken to make sure he doesn't harm anyone else. There's a big difference between "revenge" and "precaution".

[gracestamper]

I think you're probably right about my having revenge and precaution confused. Forgive me?

[Molly]

Thanks for the correction Philo :) ...actually it is Jesus who is the Way, the Truth, the Life....but Jesus is The Word (John 1). So how can you accept Jesus but reject his Word?
I also understand that there are apparant contridictions between testements (eg eye for an eye vs. love your neighbor) but this is explained by Jesus in that the old and new testements are to stand alone . The NT is not a revision/overhaul of the OT and the NT is not meant to fit inside the OT(Mt9, Mk2, Lk5). Mt 5:20 says your righteousness must surpasses that of the Pharisees.
What I'm asking about is within Testements, why does Christianity accept part of the message and then reject the next sentence?
p.s. I do not worship the Bible. I worship God. The Bible is the path to understanding God.

[Mezurashi]

the 'Pick and Choose' form of personally constructed morality (the Chinese Buffet of Spirituality, if you will) is both the most sensible yet most dangerous manner in which to envision/construct one's framework of ethical guidelines. (was that solipsism or what?)

the direct conflict I see is the nature of Dualism, the need for Evil to Balance Good in the great big cosmic tapestry. Zen based forms of spirituality try to get around this by approaching life from the POV of Correctness of Action, not good or evil. but even there, there exists the dualism of Correct vs. Incorrect.

If an individual can create their own ethical framework out of bits and bytes (the Greatest Hits version of the Bible, perhaps) and have that structure withstand exposure to reality, more power to them. but I don't judge those who choose to accept the whole, pre-assembled package as being lesser or worse or anything like that, it is, in the end, just another choice in a sea of options.

DIY is not for everyone - and though I feel that those who can't take care of the basic needs on all levels (able to tell a child a bedtime story, kill and butcher an animal for food, build and equip a basic home, maintain an internal combustion engine in good working order, surf the Net for the choicest porn, take in a pair of pants that are a touch too wide and make chicken soup from scratch) are close to useless I know there are those who would consider my skill-set a mere toddler's knowledge of the world.

and, really, given what I've seen of others' attempts at DIY'ing something, well, maybe it's a Good thing more people are just accepting enforced structure. they (the general They) sure aren't all that competent at self assembly...

[Philosopher Foelhe]

I think you're probably right about my having revenge and precaution confused. Forgive me?

Hey, no problem. Any ethical question that involves throwing someone into jail in love is going to take a second to wrap your head around.


What I'm asking about is within Testements, why does Christianity accept part of the message and then reject the next sentence?

Oof. I'll try to be unbiased, but this is the reason I left the church in the first place. Tell me if I drift into "The Bible is STUPID!" mode. :mad:

Keep in mind that God did not actively write the bible. Even the most adamant Christian says that it was inspired by God, and written by human hands. Also keep in mind that the Bible has been in human hands for a long, long time.

I know a lot of people say the bible is perfect. I don't believe so. A lot of people, even Christians, don't believe so. (I can argue for this, but it would probably be a circular argument, so lets move on.) If a book has been stained by people with an agenda, the truth from that PORTION of the book is gone. Not all of the book, but that part.

Another point you have to consider is that the bible is a compilation. Who chose what could be put into the bible, and what should be left out? Again, people. We can understand why the book of, say, Matthew was chosen, or the book of Genesis, because those discuss "history". But most of us don't know who Leviticus is, or why he was chosen to write the laws of the bible. So he could have his own agenda. See?

Now, it's possible God could protect the bible from "editing". But how? The only way he could stop people with access to the book from changing it is either popping up every time somebody thought about it and saying, "No, bad idea," or... taking away our free will. Has he done either of these things? Not likely. So we just assume that the book could be flawed by now. And blindly following a map that might be flawed is a mistake.


the direct conflict I see is the nature of Dualism, the need for Evil to Balance Good in the great big cosmic tapestry. Zen based forms of spirituality try to get around this by approaching life from the POV of Correctness of Action, not good or evil. but even there, there exists the dualism of Correct vs. Incorrect.

... I think I see what you're saying here. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Well, yeah, but that assumes everyone will 1) use the pick-and-choose method, and 2) come up with a "good" perspective. Some people are just bastards. The nice guys balance them out.

Also, keep in mind that duality often exists as a pendulum. Sometimes it slides to the "goodness", sometimes toward "evil". So if I ever have kids, and I see an opportunity to get the pendulum over to "goodness" for awhile, I'll do it. Maybe it'll swing back in ten years, but hopefully by then my kids will have some of the tools needed to deal with it.

[repentantsinner]

.........oh Lord the SUM thy words is truth.........and Jesus is the word who was made flesh and dwellt among us. Test peopkle to see if they can confess that.

[Philosopher Foelhe]

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say, but I should point out that "the sum THY words is truth" doesn't apply if some idiot changed the bible to pursue his own agenda. But perhaps I misunderstand you.

[repentantsinner]

if some "idiot" changed it would not be God inspired...........if we want the real bible we would have to go to the original hebrew and greek.

[Philosopher Foelhe]

Agreed, and that's why we should be careful. Finding the originals would be nigh impossible in this day and age.

Besides, even if we DO find the originals... again, this is a compilation. Put together by human hands. How do we even know the books selected were the ones inspired by God? Or that other books that were inspired were left out, because the compiler disagreed with them?

[repentantsinner]

if you go to www.americaslastdays.com David Eels says he can prove the bible by a numeric code.

[Philosopher Foelhe]

Pfft. That's the funny thing about numbers - they always add up.

Don't get me wrong - numeromancy is a fun pasttime that I've partaken in before. And I can't actually find the place on this website where the guy talks about numbers. But keep in mind that these numbers aren't laid out in a chart - this guy selects the numbers from passages, and lays them out in a pattern. (Again, can't find where he actually does his numeromancy, but that seems like common sense to me.) And because numbers are order given form, if you lay out enough numbers in ANY form, people will see patterns.

[liberdave]

Why do Christians follow some parts of the Bible and not others.

Because it contradicts itself any chance it gets. God's storyboard/editor was out tempting the world with knowledge when it was supposed to be proofed.
which begs the question ---why would god NOT want us to have knowledge?----
sorry, just a tangent, rhetorical question.