The Danger of using "Biblical" as an adjective....

[mkgal1]

My Take: The danger of calling behavior ‘biblical’ – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

We talk about “biblical families,” “biblical marriage,” “biblical economics,” “biblical politics,” “biblical values,” “biblical stewardship,” “biblical voting,” “biblical manhood,” “biblical womanhood,” even “biblical dating” to create the impression that the Bible has just one thing to say on each of these topics - that it offers a single prescriptive formula for how people of faith ought to respond to them.

But the Bible is not a position paper. The Bible is an ancient collection of letters, laws, poetry, proverbs, histories, prophecies, philosophy and stories spanning multiple genres and assembled over thousands of years in cultures very different from our own.

When we turn the Bible into an adjective and stick it in front of another loaded word, we tend to ignore or downplay the parts of the Bible that don’t quite fit our preferences and presuppositions. In an attempt to simplify, we force the Bible’s cacophony of voices into a single tone and turn a complicated, beautiful, and diverse holy text into a list of bullet points we can put in a manifesto or creed. More often than not, we end up more committed to what we want the Bible to say than what it actually says.~excerpt from article

I would love to have a decent discussion on this. What would make it possible, is for everyone to start with a common premise---realizing that there may be other ways to look at things. IOW....we all can't help looking at things through our own lens. We *all* have certain bias....no one is completely perfectly objective.

So.....if everyone could voice their opinions with "I believe this because".....instead of saying "it's this way".....or "God said".....or "the Biblical way to look at it is....." that may just make things more respectful.

 

[ByronArn]

My Take: The danger of calling behavior ‘biblical’ – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs




I would love to have a decent discussion on this. What would make it possible, is for everyone to start with a common premise---realizing that there may be other ways to look at things. IOW....we all can't help looking at things through our own lens. We *all* have certain bias....no one is completely perfectly objective.

So.....if everyone could voice their opinions with "I believe this because".....instead of saying "it's this way".....or "God said".....or "the Biblical way to look at it is....." that may just make things more respectful.

My favorite is "Biblical marriage", which is usually defined as a marriage between one man and one woman. But this ignores the fact of the many Biblical marriages which were between one man and many women. For example, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, Solomon…

 

[LinkH]

My favorite is "Biblical marriage", which is usually defined as a marriage between one man and one woman. But this ignores the fact of the many Biblical marriages which were between one man and many women. For example, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, Solomon…

These polygamists would not have condemned a monogamous marriage as being against God's law. Certain things that certain groups in society try to pass off as 'marriage' are not marriage at all.

 

[mkgal1]

My favorite is "Biblical marriage", which is usually defined as a marriage between one man and one woman. But this ignores the fact of the many Biblical marriages which were between one man and many women. For example, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, Solomon…

Exactly.

Also......something to consider is that the Bereans were praised for their open-mindedness......how they were willing to stretch and mature in their thinking. If we are going to hold to narrow beliefs......how would we ever mature in our way of thinking?

And the people of Berea were more open-minded than those in Thessalonica, and they listened eagerly to Paul's message. They searched the Scriptures day after day to see if Paul and Silas were teaching the truth~Acts 17:11

 

[Kol]

So.....if everyone could voice their opinions with "I believe this because".....instead of saying "it's this way".....or "God said".....or "the Biblical way to look at it is....." that may just make things more respectful.

No game. I refuse to undermine what I have to say with a conditional.

But you're right about the Bible not being an instruction manual. It's a story, not a dry technical document of "thou-shalt-nots."

Good topic.

 

[LinkH]

Exactly.

Also......something to consider is that the Bereans were praised for their open-mindedness......how they were willing to stretch and mature in their thinking. If we are going to hold to narrow beliefs......how would we ever mature in our way of thinking?

I don't see where the Bereans were praised for their open-mindedness. They were praised for being noble in that they searched the scriptures to see if what they were taught was true.

They wanted to know if what they were hearing was 'Biblical'.

It is good to be open to what God has to say, and therefore to be open to what the scriptures really teach. It is not good to be open to every wind of doctrine that blows by.

 

[Romanseight2005]

I don't see where the Bereans were praised for their open-mindedness. They were praised for being noble in that they searched the scriptures to see if what they were taught was true.

They wanted to know if what they were hearing was 'Biblical'.

It is good to be open to what God has to say, and therefore to be open to what the scriptures really teach. It is not good to be open to every wind of doctrine that blows by.

Your absolutely right. But they were openminded in that Pauls message along with the disciples, was very new, and did require being open minded to what was being taught to them. If they were closed minded to it, they wouldn't have sought the scriptures regaling it. They would have automatically decided that it didn't fit with what they had been taught for many years by their Jewish priests, and just turned their noses up at it, so to speak.

 

[LinkH]

Your absolutely right. But they were openminded in that Pauls message along with the disciples, was very new, and did require being open minded to what was being taught to them. If they were closed minded to it, they wouldn't have sought the scriptures regaling it. They would have automatically decided that it didn't fit with what they had been taught for many years by their Jewish priests, and just turned their noses up at it, so to speak.

We agree about something.

I wonder how many priests would have made it up to Berea. It sounds like the Saducees had a pretty good arrangement living in Jerusalem. I wonder how likely it was for other priests to be among the diaspora. Sceva's sons were in Ephesus. I wouldn't be surprised if priests were a rarity in diaspora synagogues.

 

[Avniel]

No game. I refuse to undermine what I have to say with a conditional.

But you're right about the Bible not being an instruction manual. It's a story, not a dry technical document of "thou-shalt-nots."

Good topic.

I agree with you kol. However I do believe the bible instruct us and teaches us what to do to please God.

 

[ImperialPhantom]

My Take: The danger of calling behavior ‘biblical’ – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs




I would love to have a decent discussion on this. What would make it possible, is for everyone to start with a common premise---realizing that there may be other ways to look at things. IOW....we all can't help looking at things through our own lens. We *all* have certain bias....no one is completely perfectly objective.

So.....if everyone could voice their opinions with "I believe this because".....instead of saying "it's this way".....or "God said".....or "the Biblical way to look at it is....." that may just make things more respectful.

+1

"Biblical" is too code word for uber conservative, right wing, stereotypical and often borderline oppressive. If someone or something ACTUALLY follows the Bible and what Jesus taught as opposed to following the Don Wildmon gospel, then I say let it speak for itself.

 

[dayhiker]

I agree with the original article. The Bible is written over hundreds of years and was influenced by many cultures and many authors. Yet God was involved in all that.

Its interesting to read 1 Cor.1-4 and think about the 4 leaders that the Corinthians were holding up in pride as to who they were following. Paul tells them they are immature in their selecting leaders. Paul says they are to speak the same thing. But Paul never actually says that the different groups are saying something wrong and what it is. He never corrects their doctrine that they are getting from following Paul, or Appolas, or Peter or Christ saying this one is wrong here but right on this point. It was their attitude of being proud because they liked ones teacher over another I suppose.
Here we have 4 teachers/groups following 4 teachers ... their teaching must have been different enough so people could distinguish themselves by following them. They were Biblical ... but it wasn't that they were wrong in the different things they taught, or examples they used. Its the pride of the receiver that was wrong and so what Paul address.
I think most people who use the phrase "Biblical *" are doing the same thing that the Corinthians were doing. Yup, I've done it many time myself. I pick the Biblical verses that have a different perspective on the topic just to show there are different views within the Bible its self. The one woman and one man marriage is great because there are so many great men of God who didn't follow that formula.

 

[LinkH]

There are stories about murder in the Bible, but the overall teaching of scripture is not to murder people. So murder is unbiblical. I don't see a problem with saying that.

Loving your neighbor is Biblical.

Practicing homosexual sex, fornication, adultery, etc. is unbiblical. There are examples of some people doing some of these things in scripture, but the message of the Bible is against these things.

I don't have a problem with someone using the term Biblical or unbiblical. The issue is whether the term is used rightly or not.

 

[cactusrose]

I think that the point would be its all Biblical if its in the Bible.The proper way to say something is wrong if we think so is to say that goes against what we are taught by example in the Bible.Or right.There are examples in the Bible that this is right.

Murder is always wrong a sin.But killing isn't always wrong or a sin.They both result in death but by example we learn the difference.And both are Biblical.

Anything in the Bible is Biblical.Using the term Biblical to insinuate its right and unBiblical to say its wrong doesn't make sense to me.

What is the message and the reasoning behind the examples that makes something right or wrong .Is all Biblical.So to be accurate it would be phrased that goes against the teachings of whats right or wrong in the Bible in this circumstance.

 

[cactusrose]

Oh and just to clarify on the example of murder.Its not that murder is unBiblical.Its for me anyway we are taught in the Bible murder is wrong and why.That is Biblical.Not "un" Biblical.

Biblical shouldn't be in my opinion to mean something is right.

UnBiblical should only mean its not mentioned in the Bible or cant be related to the Bible.But that doesn't necessarrily mean its wrong either.

 

[LinkH]

Biblical shouldn't be in my opinion to mean something is right.

UnBiblical should only mean its not mentioned in the Bible or cant be related to the Bible.But that doesn't necessarrily mean its wrong either.

That's not the way people use it though. 'Biblical' is widely used to refer to things that are in accordance with the teaching of scripture, and 'unbiblical' is used to refer to things that are not in accordance with the teaching of scripture.

While we are on the topic of changing the way words are used in the language, I'd still like to turn back the clock on the word 'disrespect'. Back 30 or more years ago, some folks turned the word into a verb, and now you can 'dis' someone. It was originally a noun.

I'd also like to get rid of the word 'impacts' as a plural unless it refers to something like separate occurences of meteorites hitting the moon.

I'd really like to get rid of the pagan names for the days of the week, the word 'Easter', and the pagan names of months of the year. I'd probably toss the words 'music' and 'mentor' for their pagan origins. But we'd have to replace them with words that other people understand or we wouldn't be able to communicate.

But I don't have the power to change the whole language right now.

 

[cactusrose]

[QUOTEThat's not the way people use it though. 'Biblical' is widely used to refer to things that are in accordance with the teaching of scripture, and 'unbiblical' is used to refer to things that are not in accordance with the teaching of scripture.][/QUOTE]

What people?

 

[ChristianGolfer]

That's not the way people use it though. 'Biblical' is widely used to refer to things that are in accordance with the teaching of scripture, and 'unbiblical' is used to refer to things that are not in accordance with the teaching of scripture.

Well, more accurately, "Biblical" is used to refer to things the speaker thinks are in accordance with the teaching of Scripture.

The point is that it causes confusion and that it so easily distorts the truth.

By doing so they're also essentially being lazy. What it boils down to is a logical fallacy - an appeal to authority. What those who use it are implying is "My opinion is the right opinion about how people should live and the Bible agrees with me, therefore no one can argue with me."

I grew up in the Church so I've personally seen a lot of variations of this. But just about every religious leader ever used some form of language manipulation to coerce people into not questioning, not studying, just believing. From "touch not the Lord's anointed" to "it was Satan who questions 'did God really say'" to "the Bible says it, I believe it, end of discussion."

They are all tactics with the same end goal: just believe what you're told and don't think about it too much.

Unfortunately, it seems that most people prefer to just be told what to believe. They talk a big talk about how important the Bible is, how Scripture is the ultimate authority, etc, but they can't be bothered to read it for themselves much less actually study it. It's just so much easier to find someone else who will tell you what the "Biblical" way is.

The truth is, for every teaching that someone claims is "Biblical" we can most likely find a counter-example in the Bible.

While we are on the topic of changing the way words are used in the language,

You know, we weren't actually on that topic.

So, are you intentionally attempting to derail or do you really not get what this thread is about?

 

[mkgal1]

I don't have a problem with someone using the term Biblical or unbiblical. The issue is whether the term is used rightly or not.

I think that's the point of the article. As decided by whom? That's "flattening out the text" or forming it to fit our opinions (the person using "biblical") of what is "right".

 

[LinkH]

I just don't find some of the ideas in this thread to be Biblical.