What part of 'ALL' cannot be understood?

[WhoeverLovesGod01]

Luke 11:53-54:

When Jesus left there, the Pharisees and the teachers of the law began to oppose him fiercely and to besiege him with questions, waiting to catch him in something he might say.

 

[seebs]

That's nice.

I think at this point all I can conclude is that no one is ever going to give me an actual methodology for understanding Leviticus, except for "here is the list of how my church decides which ones to follow".

I've been asking long enough, and it's not that the answers haven't been what I hoped; it's that I've never gotten an answer at all, beyond the purely semantic "well, you follow moral laws but not ceremonial ones", which does nothing to help me distinguish the categories.

I will thus stick with my current theory. Every time someone tries to show me that a Levitical passage is relevant, they do so by showing me external justification for the position it shows. Therefore, I can rely on those external justifications, such as other books of the Bible, or reasoning from the moral teachings of Jesus. I never need to incorporate Leviticus into my moral reasoning.

That was what I thought.

 

[kopilo]

So it's ok to take stuff without asking if you are doing so for the church, and ok to lie if you intend to do good thereby?

Not intend, something noble isn't intended, it is done, is it not?

 

[seebs]

Not intend, something noble isn't intended, it is done, is it not?

Intent seems to be at issue. Risking your life to save someone else's is noble in the effort, even if you fail.

Think about it. Would you go to a fireman's funeral and explain to those assembled that, because he did not actually successfully rescue the child he went into the building to try to save, his sacrifice was not noble?

Thus we speak about the intent of the action, even though the action's outcomes may fall short.

 

[kopilo]

Intent seems to be at issue. Risking your life to save someone else's is noble in the effort, even if you fail.

Think about it. Would you go to a fireman's funeral and explain to those assembled that, because he did not actually successfully rescue the child he went into the building to try to save, his sacrifice was not noble?

Thus we speak about the intent of the action, even though the action's outcomes may fall short.

No because he didn't intend to become a fireman he became a fireman.

Would you try to say someone who lays on the couch all day and says that they intend to become a fireman is noble?

 

[WhoeverLovesGod01]

Proverbs 16, 5:

God can't stomach arrogance or pretense; believe me, he'll put those upstarts in their place.

 

[seebs]

No because he didn't intend to become a fireman he became a fireman.

Would you try to say someone who lays on the couch all day and says that they intend to become a fireman is noble?

No, but I might say that a kid who intends to become a fireman is noble, even if he dies long before he's big enough.

 

[kopilo]

see post #146

 

[ebia]

Not intend, something noble isn't intended, it is done, is it not?

An element of both is required.

 

[crumbs2000]

I know where you got that from:

http://www.evilbible.com/do_not_ignore_ot.htm

Evil Bible? Not a good source of wisdom.

Middlemoor, I have read the verses and many others and it doesn't take someone else to tell me what it's about. You keep claiming it's the truth when you yourself can't even explain the massive inconsistencies and errors in translation.

I call myself a Christian, as a matter of faith. I don't believe in the bible like you do as the absolute truth.

The more I read it the more I come to the conclusion that it was put together AD HOC by some people who wanted control others by rules so ridicuolous that no one - even Christians of today except maybe for the Amish or other hardcore 'OT law' followers, practices.

I have read all the Christian apologetics about the verses we discuss and you know what? It's stretching the truth and mostly trying to fit in their own model/slant on things much like the translators of the bible did.

What I am beginning to also find, and this is just from my own readings and working out for myself what I believe in, is that it seems to me that the translators and the early church who put the bible together, were in fact shoe-horning NT to the OT prophecies and maybe something were made up to make it fit. Hence the inconsistencies with the teachings. How on earth can it be alright to kill thousands and Moses' men to keep the virgins as their sex slaves and then all of a sudden - HEY THAT'S SO WRONG!! Yet it says that the Old laws apply and are binding to the very end when I thought that the old laws were finsihed when Christ died?

If you can't see what's wrong with this picture, Middlemoor, then you have stronger faith than me. But as I said, even as you quote Proverbs - there is something else in the bible onecan find to nullify it. With something this great or monumental - We are talking about the Bible here, there shouldn't be any inconsistencies. Well I'm taking the stand that God is perfect and would not want to confuse us - otherwise what point is there for that since - as humans we already have enough misunderstandings with each other.

A perfect God will produce a flawless perfect work. The Bible is clearly the work of men, with good intentions but nevertheless, it is a work which demands faith. One cannot say that it is the truth for sure.

That's my own finding and that's why I would never say that the bible is the inerrant and infallible word from God. Maybe some parts are but who's to know?

 

[RealityCheck]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to crumbs2000 again.
​

 

[Loundry]

Is 2 Timothy 3:16 a complete lie? If so, why do you even bother reading a Bible?

Good question!

 

[Chajara]

Someone rep crumbs2000 for me.

 

[UberLutheran]

1) That scripture, when it was penned under Paul's name, was referring to the Old Testament.

The New Testament had not been penned and/or canonized, yet.

I say it was written under Paul's name because, if you will do a syntactic and grammatical analysis of 1 and 2 Timothy, you'll see that it really could not have been written by the same person who wrote Romans, Galatians and Ephesians.

2) We liberals DO take the Bible seriously. However, we don't worship the Bible as God.

 

[B®ent]

2) We liberals DO take the Bible seriously. However, we don't worship the Bible as God.

Neither do we Fundamentalists. We simply believe God is powerful enough to preserve His Word. We also believe every part of the Bible is inspired by the Spirit, and perfectly preserved, for the teaching, correction, and edification of Christians.

[bible]2 Timothy 3:16[/bible]

We (Fundamentalists) do NOT believe 2 Timothy 3:16 is a lie.

We worship God in the SPIRIT OF TRUTH.

Whoever does not like the truth will be welcomed into hell for eternity; or at the very least, for a very long time until they might be reconciled. (I am on the fence in regards to universalism)

 

[seebs]

The problem comes from the fact that many fundamentalists call the Bible by the title ("the Word of God") that is used exclusively to refer to Jesus. This leads to confusion about doctrine in some cases, and there are posters at CF who genuinely believe that the Bible is "co-equal with God" or that it existed "in the beginning" because of John 1:1.

This becomes a source for confusion, and more care taken with these distinctions would probably be less of a stumbling block to some.

 

[UberLutheran]

Neither do we Fundamentalists. We simply believe God is powerful enough to preserve His Word. We also believe every part of the Bible is inspired by the Spirit, and perfectly preserved, for the teaching, correction, and edification of Christians.

[bible]2 Timothy 3:16[/bible]

We (Fundamentalists) do NOT believe 2 Timothy 3:16 is a lie.

We worship God in the SPIRIT OF TRUTH.

Whoever does not like the truth will be welcomed into hell for eternity; or at the very least, for a very long time until they might be reconciled. (I am on the fence in regards to universalism)

Am I to conclude that non-fundamentalists do not worship God in the spirit of truth?

My experience with many fundamentalists is that they are "cafeteria Christians" — they pick out the parts of the Bible they want (others) to follow literally, and ignore the other parts.

If one follows the Scriptures literally (as fundies like to say they do) then you follow the Jewish dietary laws to the letter; you believe that women who are menstruating are unclean for seven days; you believe that women are worth 3/5 of the value of men; and you stone your disobedient children to death.

I have yet to see a supposed fundamentalist do any of these things — even though Scripture is quite specific that these things ARE to be done.

I have never found anything in Scripture which says we are to leave our intellects at the door when we attend church to worship God; which says anything specifically favoring or disfavoring evolution or creation; or says that Democrats and liberals are going to Hell.

Nor have I found anything in Scripture which suggests that we are to worship Scripture, though there is a LOT in Scripture which speaks against those who take a very narrow, legalistic approach to Scripture and religion and who try to hold others to standards that those people don't even follow. In fact, that's the purpose of the story of Jonah; Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Amos spoke at length about just that; it was one of the reasons Jesus was so very unpopular with the Pharisees and the Sanhedrin; and it's also the basis for Romans 1-3 and 13-15; the entire letters to the Galatians and Ephesians.

 

[outlaw]

Neither do we Fundamentalists. We simply believe God is powerful enough to preserve His Word. We also believe every part of the Bible is inspired by the Spirit, and perfectly preserved, for the teaching, correction, and edification of Christians.

“What I am saying I say not with the Lord’s authority but as a fool in boastful confidence.” 2 Corinthians 11:17

 

[B®ent]

“What I am saying I say not with the Lord’s authority but as a fool in boastful confidence.” 2 Corinthians 11:17

Yes. Paul specified where he was speaking his own mind, rather than words from the Spirit. But, unknown to Paul at the time, even those words were inspired of God, and would be useful to the Body of Christ. We know this because they were canonized.

You see, we have something called faith. It means we trust that God has preserved His Word, and in Christ we have hope of Glory. Meanwhile, according to you and other liberals, the entire Bible could be a hoax, and Christ could be a fraud, because God apparently doesn't care enough about us to make sure the Bible was preserved down through the ages.

 

[B®ent]

Am I to conclude that non-fundamentalists do not worship God in the spirit of truth?

Conclude whatever you wish. If this were my site, I would say what I feel. But I'm bound by the rules here. If I said what I truly felt, and spoke from my heart, I would probably be banned within an hour.

My experience with many fundamentalists is that they are "cafeteria Christians" — they pick out the parts of the Bible they want (others) to follow literally, and ignore the other parts.

Judging by your own lifestyle, which you've been open about in the past, you're ignoring at least four parts of the Bible, including two passages in the New Testament. So who is "picking and choosing" now, eh?

If one follows the Scriptures literally (as fundies like to say they do) then you follow the Jewish dietary laws to the letter; you believe that women who are menstruating are unclean for seven days; you believe that women are worth 3/5 of the value of men; and you stone your disobedient children to death.

The NT provides an illustration of which OT laws are moral, cultural, and political. The moral laws remain valid to this day. For example, it is not OK now for you to murder your neighbor, or lay with your neighbor's wife. Likewise, it is not okay to lay with a man as you would with a woman -- that is an abomination in the sight of the Lord Almighty. Need I explain more?

Do you think it is now OK to commit adultery?

I have yet to see a supposed fundamentalist do any of these things — even though Scripture is quite specific that these things ARE to be done.

I have never found anything in Scripture which says we are to leave our intellects at the door when we attend church to worship God; which says anything specifically favoring or disfavoring evolution or creation;

I am not violently opposed to theistic evolution.
Like universalism, I hold no opinion on the matter.

or says that Democrats and liberals are going to Hell.

Honestly I think it is pretty hard for a (theological) liberal to make it to heaven. But, on the other hand, I think everyone will be surprised who shows up at the pearly gates.

Nor have I found anything in Scripture which suggests that we are to worship Scripture,

Just because we don't agree the Bible is an unreliable collection of tales does not mean we worship it. We just believe it is a sacred book, should be respected, and that we should have faith in what it says, because it is the Word of God.

though there is a LOT in Scripture which speaks against those who take a very narrow, legalistic approach to Scripture and religion and who try to hold others to standards that those people don't even follow. In fact, that's the purpose of the story of Jonah; Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Amos spoke at length about just that; it was one of the reasons Jesus was so very unpopular with the Pharisees and the Sanhedrin; and it's also the basis for Romans 1-3 and 13-15; the entire letters to the Galatians and Ephesians.

Jesus was unpopular with the Pharasees not because the Pharasees were legalists. Rather, the Pharasees were clean on the outside, evil on the inside. All they cared about was the outward apparance. Jesus recognized this. The Pharasees held others to standards which they themselves, in their hearts, did not meet.

Jesus was a man of the letter just as well as the Spirit.
He came not to revoke a single letter of the Law.