Relevance of the Bible

[Mimicry]

Rather a hodge-podge, I'm afrad:

To what extent do you take the Bible within its historical context, and to what extent do you consider its message to be relevant to the current day?

The Bible holds some outdated views, for example, on the role of women, and on slavery. Of the Christians I know, none consider it right to condemn an adulterer to death, not least a disobedient child. Surely religious people would be the first to say morals are absolute, so wouldn't it be more consistent to continue these practices and punishments?

It's been suggested that there are health reasons for some of the practices suggested in the Bible. Shellfish and pork are 'unclean' meat; the isolation of women after childbirth is to prevent disease/infection. Should Christians have the freedom to cut out the parts that don't 'make sense', due to better medical care/food regulation available?

Surely you should either take the Bible as universally true, or wholly subject to interpretation? If it is both, how can you distinguish between the two?

Can Christians ever be entirely sure on modern day issues such as contraception or stem cell research which aren't explicitly mentioned in the Bible, or is it, at best, an informed guess? Can we assume God's opinion on these subjects: after all, He doesn't seem to have a highly logical, consistent, or generalised sense of morality: "Thou shalt not kill" versus the wars waged by the Israelites, capital punishment; Old Testament ideas later altered by Jesus.

[I'm no Bible scholar, so feel free to correct any false assumptions]

 

[solarwave]

I thought the commandment was "Thou shalt not murder" not kill, I feel there is a difference.

I reason we dont follow some of the Old Testament laws, but we do others is because everything changed because of Jesus. Basically get rid of the OT laws that go against the NT and keep the OT laws that are kept or dont against the NT. Eg: Jesus said that it doesn't matter what goes in to your mouth, but what comes out of it, so that means we can eat shellfish.

 

[chosenpath]

The times may change such as the industrial revolution, computers, etc., but human nature stays the same.

The Bible holds some outdated views, for example, on the role of women, and on slavery. Of the Christians I know, none consider it right to condemn an adulterer to death, not least a disobedient child. Surely religious people would be the first to say morals are absolute, so wouldn't it be more consistent to continue these practices and punishments?
If you are employed are you not a slave to your employer? I know that may sound harsh, but it is true. Man has just changed the word from slave to employee.
As far as the other examples God is consistent we will still be accountable for our sins if we do not repent.

It's been suggested that there are health reasons for some of the practices suggested in the Bible. Shellfish and pork are 'unclean' meat; the isolation of women after childbirth is to prevent disease/infection.

These are good examples of how God was protecting the Israelites from anything harmful. We have refrigeration today so many of the issues of unclean food have been rectified, however there is some shellfish that carry bacterias that are harmful when eaten raw. People still eat raw shell fish even with this awareness.

Surely you should either take the Bible as universally true, or wholly subject to interpretation? If it is both, how can you distinguish between the two?

Can you be more specific.


Can Christians ever be entirely sure on modern day issues such as contraception
Isaiah 66:9
Shall I bring to the time of birth, and not cause delivery?" says the LORD. "Shall I who cause delivery shut up [the womb]?" says your God.

Mark 19:18
He said to Him, "Which ones?" Jesus said, "'You shall not murder,' 'You shall not commit adultery,' 'You shall not steal,' 'You shall not bear false witness

or stem cell research which aren't explicitly mentioned in the Bible, or is it, at best, an informed guess?
It's not so much the stem cell research itself, but the proess in which its being obtained for the research.

Can we assume God's opinion on these subjects: after all, He doesn't seem to have a highly logical, consistent, or generalised sense of morality: "Thou shalt not kill" versus the wars waged by the Israelites, capital punishment; Old Testament ideas later altered by Jesus.

Who am I to question God's logic on matters of his creations.

 

[drich0150]

The bible is complete, and completely up to date in that, Because God is the same yesterday, today and will be tomorrow It shows the progression and ultimately the perfection in God holy and Righteous standard for us. Every single aspect of the Old and New testament laws would have to be up held if we were to work our way to a place to obtain righteousness..

So with that in mind enter our savior or the sacrifice for our short comings, and for our inability to up hold the law. Then the bible takes on a different dynamic in that it shows a new path of salvation apart from "works and observing the law." In Jesus.

So now, we are completely free from the law if we have and Maintain a relationship with God through Jesus. The law is still there and in effect, but because Jesus died for my sins I am not accountable to the letter of the law.. So why would a Christian obey the law? Why does a loving husband not cheat on his wife? or Why does he care for or protect his children? Love.. We do what we do, not for the sake of righteousness, but out of love and respect for the one who died to save us from ourselves. Or at least this is how it's supposed to work..

There are those who are bound and determined to "work there way into heaven." (By observing the letter of the Law)This is referred to as legalism , and not an approved doctrine according to Scripture, even though it is still a popular one. I do have chapter and verse if you or anyone else is interested in reading what the bible says in detail about the things I have summed up here.

 

[ebia]

Rather a hodge-podge, I'm afrad:

To what extent do you take the Bible within its historical context, and to what extent do you consider its message to be relevant to the current day?

Not either/or but both/and. One needs to understand the message in it's context in order to understand what it can speak to in a different context.

The Bible holds some outdated views, for example, on the role of women, and on slavery.

People hold views, books don't.

Of the Christians I know, none consider it right to condemn an adulterer to death, not least a disobedient child. Surely religious people would be the first to say morals are absolute, so wouldn't it be more consistent to continue these practices and punishments?

Morality can only happen in a context and it's practice cant' avoid being shaped by context. Morality cannot be a context-free concept.

It's been suggested that there are health reasons for some of the practices suggested in the Bible. Shellfish and pork are 'unclean' meat; the isolation of women after childbirth is to prevent disease/infection. Should Christians have the freedom to cut out the parts that don't 'make sense', due to better medical care/food regulation available?

The OT law served a number of purposes, one of which was to keep the Israel separate in and for the world. It would be completely inappropriate for Christians to try to keep a law that never was for all people in all times.

Surely you should either take the Bible as universally true, or wholly subject to interpretation? If it is both, how can you distinguish between the two?

It's both. It's a collection of narratives bound by a meta-narrative - not a set of context-free commands and prepositions. That's what distinguishes it from the Koran.

Can Christians ever be entirely sure on modern day issues such as contraception or stem cell research which aren't explicitly mentioned in the Bible, or is it, at best, an informed guess?

Part of being Christian is being called to struggle with the issues of one's context in, with, and for the world. Not to be certain - that's God's job - but to strive to be merciful, just, compasionate, ...

 

[chosenpath]

 

[Mimicry]

I thought the commandment was "Thou shalt not murder" not kill, I feel there is a difference.

What would you say the difference is?

I reason we dont follow some of the Old Testament laws, but we do others is because everything changed because of Jesus.

Did Jesus say that the OT laws should be partially or fully discarded? Are some of the OT laws now immoral?

 

[Mimicry]

the progression and ultimately the perfection in God holy and Righteous standard for us.

Do you mean that his initial standards for us were lower or imperfect before?

Every single aspect of the Old and New testament laws would have to be up held if we were to work our way to a place to obtain righteousness..

So, we are fallible, and not capable of upholding all of the laws. Why would God create laws knowing we are not created with the ability to uphold all of them, and if love for Jesus should automatically lead us to follow the correct morals? Are they just guidelines?

Also, do you think, in an ideal world, society would incorporate all those laws, including the less currently 'socially acceptable' ones, such as stoning adulterers... or would that make no difference/be a bad thing?

 

[Mimicry]

Not either/or but both/and. One needs to understand the message in it's context in order to understand what it can speak to in a different context.

Do you think humans can be trusted to take a message from one context and apply it to a different context properly? If we interpret the Bible wrongly on these grounds, can we still get into heaven, because we tried to the best of our intellectual capabilities?

People hold views, books don't.

Well, yes. I mean the views held by the writers of the Bible.

Morality can only happen in a context and it's practice cant' avoid being shaped by context. Morality cannot be a context-free concept.

Some people consider morals to be absolute. For example, you may say it is wrong to kill, whatever the context - for revenge, for self-defence, anything. This view isn't unheard of.

The OT law served a number of purposes, one of which was to keep the Israel separate in and for the world. It would be completely inappropriate for Christians to try to keep a law that never was for all people in all times.

I assume you're a practicing Christian. How do you decide which laws are appropriate for the type of person you are, and the time in which you live? Is there some specific method you follow, is it a spiritual intuition?

It's both. It's a collection of narratives bound by a meta-narrative - not a set of context-free commands and prepositions. That's what distinguishes it from the Koran.

What is the advantage of this?

Part of being Christian is being called to struggle with the issues of one's context in, with, and for the world. Not to be certain - that's God's job - but to strive to be merciful, just, compasionate, ...

I know that some Christians hold very strong, unbending views on things such as abortion, stem cell research, which aren't explicitly mentioned in the Bible. Do you think these people are wrong to be so certain?

 

[Mimicry]

The times may change such as the industrial revolution, computers, etc., but human nature stays the same.

The passing of time doesn't just bring technological or scientific changes, it also brings social change, and the Bible does talk a lot about society

If you are employed are you not a slave to your employer? I know that may sound harsh, but it is true. Man has just changed the word from slave to employee.

Slaves have no right to wages, or right to leave work. Slavery and employment [free labour] has existed side by side for centuries: the word hasn't changed... the former has just been phased out. The Bible does not condemn the practice of slavery itself. If the Bible does not condemn slave owners, are you following non-Biblical morality if you say that it's wrong?

We have refrigeration today so many of the issues of unclean food have been rectified

Would this justify us not following the rules? Or do you think God would want us to follow these rules, for the sake of respect and obedience?

Can you be more specific.

If we were to take the Bible in context, we might assume that some parts are no longer applicable to us. If we were to take the Bible as universally correct, we would assume that all parts are applicable to us. But if we did both: if we said some parts are no longer applicable, and some parts are, it would be hopelessly confusing to discern which was which.

Do you mean contraception, or abortion, when you quote those passages?

It's not so much the stem cell research itself, but the process in which its being obtained for the research.

I see. Incidentally, is there anything the Bible that says life starts at the moment of conception, or something to that effect?
Presumably, if an embryo did not have to be destroyed in the process, stem cell research would not be a moral issue.

Who am I to question God's logic on matters of his creations.

I meant that we can't guess what God's opinion is on certain matters by using our own methods of logic, or reasoning.

 

[Lukaris]

Re conception, see Jeremiah 1:5. Re abortion see the massacre of the innocent chikdren by Herod during the birth of Christ (Matthew 2:16-18). Alternatives to type of stem cell research in the popular media http://www.corcell.com. Early Christians clearly knew from the Gospel that abortion is condemned http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/didache.htm

 

[chosenpath]

The passing of time doesn't just bring technological or scientific changes, it also brings social change, and the Bible does talk a lot about society.
Are you familiar with the sociological spiral theory? Whether on a Macro or Micro level as a society our human nature still regresses.

Ecclesiastes 1:9
That which has been [is] what will be, That which [is] done is what will be done, And [there is] nothing new under the sun.

Jesus actually inspired us to move forward.

Ephesians 4:22
that you put off, concerning your former conduct, the old man which grows corrupt according to the deceitful lusts, and be renewed in the spirit of your mind,


Slaves have no right to wages, or right to leave work. Slavery and employment [free labour] has existed side by side for centuries: the word hasn't changed... the former has just been phased out. The Bible does not condemn the practice of slavery itself. If the Bible does not condemn slave owners, are you following non-Biblical morality if you say that it's wrong?


John 8:34
Jesus answered them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin.
Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Would this justify us not following the rules? Or do you think God would want us to follow these rules, for the sake of respect and obedience?

Let me give you an example:
Matthew 12:10-12
And behold, there was a man who had a withered hand. And they asked Him, saying, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?"--that they might accuse Him. Then He said to them, "What man is there among you who has one sheep, and if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not lay hold of it and lift [it] out? Of how much more value then is a man than a sheep? Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath."

1 Corinthians 10:28, 30-31
But if anyone says to you, "This was offered to idols," do not eat it for the sake of the one who told you, and for conscience' sake; for "the earth [is] the LORD's, and all its fullness."

But if I partake with thanks, why am I evil spoken of for [the food] over which I give thanks? Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.


If we were to take the Bible in context, we might assume that some parts are no longer applicable to us. If we were to take the Bible as universally correct, we would assume that all parts are applicable to us. But if we did both: if we said some parts are no longer applicable, and some parts are, it would be hopelessly confusing to discern which was which.


The bible in it's entirety is universally correct and this is not an assumption its faith.

I see. Incidentally, is there anything the Bible that says life starts at the moment of conception, or something to that effect?
Presumably, if an embryo did not have to be destroyed in the process, stem cell research would not be a moral issue.


Isaiah 44:24
Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, And He who formed you from the womb: "I [am] the LORD, who makes all [things], Who stretches out the heavens all alone, Who spreads abroad the earth by Myself;

Jeremiah 1:5
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations."

I meant that we can't guess what God's opinion is on certain matters by using our own methods of logic, or reasoning.

That is correct he provides the Holy Spirit as a helper to those who diligently seek him.

Luke 12:12
For the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say."

John 14:26
But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.

2 Peter 1:21
for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God* spoke [as they were] moved by the Holy Spirit.

 

[drich0150]

Do you mean that his initial standards for us were lower or imperfect before?

Jesus says He came to "complete" the law. In doing so he took a command like Do not commit adultery and completed the law by adding, if you look at a woman lustfully you have committed adultery in your heart..

So, as a matter of the Old testament and all of the law it contains being God's last word.. It isn't.

God's law is a reflection of his will, and the Law Moses received was only what the people of Israel would be able to understand and abide by. If God let his complete will be known, then it is doubtful that anyone then could comprehend the the sacrifice that he himself was prepared to make. So for the time, inorder to establish the standard of sin and sacrifice, Which is all he set out to accomplish. He gave the Israelites enough law to obtain this goal.

So, we are fallible, and not capable of upholding all of the laws. Why would God create laws knowing we are not created with the ability to uphold all of them, and if love for Jesus should automatically lead us to follow the correct morals? Are they just guidelines?

This is the most beautiful part of what God has done for us. Because he knew we could not up hold the law, and because he requires a blood sacrifice for sin (The wages for sin is death) Jesus dies and it is his perfect blood (The one without sin) became the ultimate sin sacrifice..

Now that we have a complete understanding of the model of sin and blood sacrifice. We can look at the extensions Jesus made of the existing law and realize that no matter our efforts, we must have Jesus and the blood sacrifice he made to cover the parts of the law we ourselves can not up hold.

Yes, we do our best to up hold the law, but as I said before it is not a requirement for salvation.. We do it to maintain a relationship with God. Because the Law is a reflection of God's will, And the will of God is written on all of our hearts, Now it becomes a matter of who it is we live for. Do we live for God, or do we live for ourselves? If we live for God then when we mess up there is forgiveness to be found, but if we live for ourselves then we will be left to account for our deeds.

Also, do you think, in an ideal world, society would incorporate all those laws, including the less currently 'socially acceptable' ones, such as stoning adulterers... or would that make no difference/be a bad thing?

Honestly it makes no difference, the standard and example of God;s will for "Sin and blood sacrifice" has already been established. So has the completion of the Law in the teachings of Jesus, and finally we have the ultimate blood sacrifice for all of our sins. (Our, being people with standing relationships with God)
So no matter what this world does from this point forward, we have all that we need to start and maintain a relationship with God.. That's what all of this life, and the bible is about.

It would be nice to see more of God's law being used as the standard in which we choose to govern ourselves, but at the same time what does it matter how those without God choose govern themselves? because God's law or not, no one can be justified through the Law. The Law of God exists for one reason, to point for the need of a Savior. And if you reject the savior then what does it matter who's law you break?

 

[ebia]

Do you think humans can be trusted to take a message from one context and apply it to a different context properly?

Of course we will make mistakes - but there is no alternative.

If we interpret the Bible wrongly on these grounds, can we still get into heaven, because we tried to the best of our intellectual capabilities?

Christianity isn't about getting into heaven - but that's a whole separate topic.

Well, yes. I mean the views held by the writers of the Bible.

The various writers of the bible aren't at the same stage in the story that we are.

Some people consider morals to be absolute. For example, you may say it is wrong to kill, whatever the context - for revenge, for self-defence, anything. This view isn't unheard of.

I don't think such a view is actually sustainable. For the most part, with maybe a few exceptions, it's almost to say much about morality in a context free way - most of the words one has to use imply a context. Claiming that morality can be context free strikes me as increadibly naieve. When you question the detail people have to add context to explain what it means. What we get in the bible is not a context free set of commands, but a narrative to live in congruence and continuity of.

I assume you're a practicing Christian. How do you decide which laws are appropriate for the type of person you are, and the time in which you live? Is there some specific method you follow, is it a spiritual intuition?

By wrestling with the issues - you can't have a fool-proof algorithm.

What is the advantage of this?

Try reading the koran. Stories teach people things, and the best stories can teach to any age and context. But learning always involves hard work and mistakes on the part of the learner. Attempts at context free "answers", on the other hand, simply don't work. Which is why almost every culture in human history has gone the story route for it's most imporant stuff.

What we have in the bible is a story, but one that has not finished. A story in 5 acts (Creation, Fall, Israel, Jesus, and Church). We have the openning scenes of the last act recorded in Acts and the Epistles, we have some glimpses of where the play is going in Isaiah, the last couple of chapters of Revelations, 1 Cor 15. etc. It's our job to improvise our bit of the story in continuity and in character with what has gone before.

I know that some Christians hold very strong, unbending views on things such as abortion, stem cell research, which aren't explicitly mentioned in the Bible. Do you think these people are wrong to be so certain?

It's dangerous to be absolutely certain of anything. One should always be prepared to have one's assumptions challenged and one's opinion changed or one has given up learning and growing. On the other hand, one must also have the courage of one's convictions when it matters.

 

[solarwave]

What would you say the difference is?

Did Jesus say that the OT laws should be partially or fully discarded? Are some of the OT laws now immoral?

Personally I call murder unjustified killing. Otherwise you would have everyone in the army locked up and God is said to have killed people in the Bible. I think it makes more sense to call what the army do for protection of peace 'killing' and what crazy people do for no good reason 'murder'.

I would say that some of the OT laws are now immoral yes. Also the things Jesus said did change from the OT (see my first post about shellfish).