Your approach to Scriptural principles.

[tall73]

I have noticed in a couple of different threads that some of us are coming from different angles in regards to Scriptural principles. This can be something important to understand in our discussions as there are a fair number of principles for living laid out in Scripture. To illustrate what I am speaking of I am going to quote a few comments:

So, don't you think it's important to not only have biblical principles but also to ensure that they work in practice? I'm a practical person. If a principle doesn't work in practice, then it's not work practicing.

At no point did I say the Bible isn't inspired, I'm just asking why you or anybody else thinks a celibate man is the 100% Biblical authority over how you conduct your sex life with your spouse, to the exclusion of the wants or needs of your spouse.

The celibate man is Paul in I Corinthians 7.

Tall, I wonder about the piece you are asking on Paul's inspiration. My question is, why does it matter so much? For me, the question to ask is not whether someone believes it's inspired, but whether it's inspired or not, is Paul's advice fair and reasonable.

At least two of these seem to state, and one may certainly imply that Scriptural principles should only be held to if they are fair, reasonable or make sense, or if they work in practice.


So just to see where folks stand on these things, how many of you think a biblical imperative should be followed or held to because it is in the Bible. And how many think that it should only be followed if it is reasonable and works?

For those in the latter group, how do you test this? What is your process of selection?

Even with marriage related issues our starting point can often determine where we end up, so I think this might be helpful to see what views people have.

 

[mkgal1]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I believe that mostly everyone that posts in this forum believes in adhering to "Biblical principles"----the issue is, there may be a difference in what those are (and we're not unique in that.). That's why there are so many denominations under the umbrella of "Christianity".

IMO.....if it's unreasonable and doesn't "work".....then it's not a principle of God's. One Bible teacher I've listened to has divided things up based on John 10:10 (Christ came to bring life; Satan's agenda is to kill, steal, destroy). If something kills (relationships; trust; love....etc)....most likely, it's not from God.

" A good tree cannot bear bad fruit"~Matthew 7:18

 

[tall73]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I believe that mostly everyone that posts in this forum believes in adhering to "Biblical principles"----the issue is, there may be a difference in what those are (and we're not unique in that.). That's why there are so many denominations under the umbrella of "Christianity".

IMO.....if it's unreasonable and doesn't "work".....then it's not a principle of God's. One Bible teacher I've listened to has divided things up based on John 10:10 (Christ came to bring life; Satan's agenda is to kill, steal, destroy). If something kills (relationships; trust; love....etc)....most likely, it's not from God.

" A good tree cannot bear bad fruit"~Matthew 7:18

Now your version is a little more nuanced than the quotes above. So let me make sure I understand. You are saying that there are different understandings of Scriptural principle, so if something doesn't work it is not a REAL principle?

So how long do you try it before you decide it doesn't work? Is it only you that tries it or do you observe others?

What are some things you would class under that?

Do you think certain biblical passages do not apply, or just some interpretations of them?

 

[tall73]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I believe that mostly everyone that posts in this forum believes in adhering to "Biblical principles"

What you have indicated here is not quite the same as this:

So, don't you think it's important to not only have biblical principles but also to ensure that they work in practice? I'm a practical person. If a principle doesn't work in practice, then it's not work practicing.

Now perhaps she can clarify and say that your version is what she meant. Otherwise, it sounds like she is saying she won't go by Biblical principles unless they work for her practically.

 

[ValleyGal]

Tall, I wonder about the piece you are asking on Paul's inspiration. My question is, why does it matter so much? For me, the question to ask is not whether someone believes it's inspired, but whether it's inspired or not, is Paul's advice fair and reasonable.

This particular quote of mine is taken out of context. When I made the comment, it was in reference to when I work with people, and how I interact with others. This means, when I work with someone and I offer them scripture and they argue back and say "I don't believe scripture is inspired," I will come back and ask them "whether it's inspired or not, do you think it's good advice that could work in your situation?"

Ftr, I do believe that the Bible is the inspired and inerrant (in its original context) word of God. When there is disagreement on interpretation, it's often simply interpretation. There have been doctrinal, theological, hermaneutical, eschatalogical (etc) debates going on for hundreds of years that will never be resolved. There are also different perspectives, each one of us being on a different place in our spiritual journey and coming from unique backgrounds and cultural frameworks. I believe this is, in part, is why the Bible says we need to bear with one another in love, and to be patient with those who are young in their faith, etc. I also believe we need to be discerning when it comes to using scripture when working with other people for these reasons.

Years ago, a pastor challenged me to study divorce and remarriage, to learn why I believe what I believe. I went to him much, much later and said my views have changed....and that was the point of his challenge. I had grown up in a strict, legalistic church, and I needed to finally learn truth. Now I do not just sit back and trust that the pastor knows it all; rather, if something does not sit right, I go home and dig through all my resources until I settle differences for myself, and find scriptural support for why I believe what I do. And I leave it at that. We are not all going to agree on everything 100% of the time, and our many, many denominations prove.

And I believe this is a much healthier attitude when working with couples using scripture with them. I will not use scripture to "correct" or confront people based on my own interpretation or understanding. Rather, it is more important to find out theirs, and work with that.

 

[LinkH]

I take a very conservative approach to scripture, I guess you could say. I treat it as an inspired book.

My understanding of the Old Testament laws, many of them, is that they were given to the nation of Israel. In Acts 15 and 22 we see that Israeli Jews were expected to keep the Law when they came to faith, but God was also gathering to Himself a people for His name, and the did not have to be circumcised or obey the Law of Moses. However, there were certain things that could be seen in the law that were forbidden to Gentiles. God gave Noah meat to eat, but not blood, and Gentiles could therefore not eat blood. There were various sexual sins forbidden to Israel, for which Gentiles were driven from the land. Fornication is forbidden to Gentiles, etc. In addition, neither Jew nor Gentile are justified by the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ.

I believe we can understand the Bible by having revelation and understanding through the Spirit of revelation. There are some things unbelievers can see in scripture. But sometimes it seems like even basic and simple truths right there in scripture have to be opened by the Spirit. One sees and another does not, though it would seem that simple reading and logic would open it up. I find this very interesting. It is also interesting when you read or even memorize scripture and then at a certain point in time, a truth is opened up that seems so obvious.

I tend to take a more literal approach to scripture, but I also think the Lord can speak to it prophetically in an allegorical-- for lack of a better word-- way. I know a man whose been a missionary overseas who wanted to do Jewish evangelism. He said the Lord spoke to him through that verse that says behold I open a door that no man can shut. To him, that verse spoke about a specific calling in addition to what it literally meant in context. I know the pot that is marred in Jeremiah 18 and can be remade refers to Israel, but I think the Lord wants to remold me as well.

I also believe it is good to study history, culture, and language to understand the Bible. But I also know there are a lot of so-called experts out there who don't know what they are talking about or who have an agenda. I've corresponded for over 20 years with a Greek scholar, a professor, who used to be a chair at a state university. I ask him if I have questions about Greek. I had the opportunity to meet with him in person in the cabin where he has his Bible study up in the mountains of North Carolina. He shared with me his concern that few seminarians, even professors who taught Greek, really knew the language. He named an exception he could think of. Many preachers who comment about Greek and Hebrew argue from Bible dictionaries and shallow descriptions of how the grammar works, the 'silly non rules' as he called them, rather than the usage of the language.

I also realize that while it can be helpful to look at culture and history, there is a lot of sophistry that goes on. For example, if out of the billion facts about the ancient world that were lost, someone has evidence about priestesses in Ephesus, that, therefore, we are supposed to interpret Paul's statements about Eve as being commentary on pagan priestesses in the city. Or a preacher I read recently was arguing that the Corinthians had brought a kind of pagan speaking in tongues into the church because the Greeks had something similar with the oracle of Delphi. It made no sense at all the context of the passage to say this, and sounds close to the unpardonable sin to me since it involves attributing a gift of the Spirit to something 'pagan.'

Be that as it may, I still it is valuable to understand the New Testament, usually, from the perspective of a first century Jew (which is usually a description of the author) and sometimes from the perspective of a first century Grecco-Roman believer (the reader in some cases.) So I value this perspective in interpreting the text. But I weary of people who take the approach that "This text doesn't mean what it clearly says because there were pagan prostitutes in such and such a city." It also irritates me when someone who has 'Dr.' in front of their name spouts some nonsense about the Greek that I can quickly disprove with a couple of Google searches.

 

[seeingeyes]

I have noticed in a couple of different threads that some of us are coming from different angles in regards to Scriptural principles. This can be something important to understand in our discussions as there are a fair number of principles for living laid out in Scripture. To illustrate what I am speaking of I am going to quote a few comments:

The celibate man is Paul in I Corinthians 7.

At least two of these seem to state, and one may certainly imply that Scriptural principles should only be held to if they are fair, reasonable or make sense, or if they work in practice.

So just to see where folks stand on these things, how many of you think a biblical imperative should be followed or held to because it is in the Bible. And how many think that it should only be followed if it is reasonable and works?

For those in the latter group, how do you test this? What is your process of selection?

Even with marriage related issues our starting point can often determine where we end up, so I think this might be helpful to see what views people have.

Wisdom will be proven by her children.

 

[tall73]

This particular quote of mine is taken out of context. When I made the comment, it was in reference to when I work with people, and how I interact with others. This means, when I work with someone and I offer them scripture and they argue back and say "I don't believe scripture is inspired," I will come back and ask them "whether it's inspired or not, do you think it's good advice that could work in your situation?"

I did not gather that from the original context, but thank you for clarifying. That helps me better understand where you were coming from.

Ftr, I do believe that the Bible is the inspired and inerrant (in its original context) word of God. When there is disagreement on interpretation, it's often simply interpretation. There have been doctrinal, theological, hermaneutical, eschatalogical (etc) debates going on for hundreds of years that will never be resolved. There are also different perspectives, each one of us being on a different place in our spiritual journey and coming from unique backgrounds and cultural frameworks. I believe this is, in part, is why the Bible says we need to bear with one another in love, and to be patient with those who are young in their faith, etc. I also believe we need to be discerning when it comes to using scripture when working with other people for these reasons.

Years ago, a pastor challenged me to study divorce and remarriage, to learn why I believe what I believe. I went to him much, much later and said my views have changed....and that was the point of his challenge. I had grown up in a strict, legalistic church, and I needed to finally learn truth. Now I do not just sit back and trust that the pastor knows it all; rather, if something does not sit right, I go home and dig through all my resources until I settle differences for myself, and find scriptural support for why I believe what I do. And I leave it at that. We are not all going to agree on everything 100% of the time, and our many, many denominations prove.

I would agree with that.

And I believe this is a much healthier attitude when working with couples using scripture with them. I will not use scripture to "correct" or confront people based on my own interpretation or understanding. Rather, it is more important to find out theirs, and work with that.

Now that could be problematic in my view.

There are some legitimate debates regarding quite a few passages. However, there are also some interpretations that do not account for any of the actual content of the passage and are just out in left field. If the interpretation of the person you are working with is that far off, you would not say anything?

 

[tall73]

I take a very conservative approach to scripture, I guess you could say. I treat it as an inspired book.

My understanding of the Old Testament laws, many of them, is that they were given to the nation of Israel. In Acts 15 and 22 we see that Israeli Jews were expected to keep the Law when they came to faith, but God was also gathering to Himself a people for His name, and the did not have to be circumcised or obey the Law of Moses.

However, there were certain things that could be seen in the law that were forbidden to Gentiles. God gave Noah meat to eat, but not blood, and Gentiles could therefore not eat blood. There were various sexual sins forbidden to Israel, for which Gentiles were driven from the land. Fornication is forbidden to Gentiles, etc. In addition, neither Jew nor Gentile are justified by the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ.

It may be beyond the scope of this thread, but since you mentioned it, do you find a specific reference to the Noahide requirement of strangling in the OT?

Also, why do you think he particularly referenced sexual immorality and not other shared moral values?

In any case, I agree, we have to take the law of Israel as a reflection of principles, but given to a particular people in a particular context of the covenant. So some of the particulars may not still be valid, but some of the principles may.

This is where everyone gets involved in interpretation a bit, but in any case you can see a lot of the particulars spelled out in the NT.

I believe we can understand the Bible by having revelation and understanding through the Spirit of revelation. There are some things unbelievers can see in scripture. But sometimes it seems like even basic and simple truths right there in scripture have to be opened by the Spirit. One sees and another does not, though it would seem that simple reading and logic would open it up. I find this very interesting. It is also interesting when you read or even memorize scripture and then at a certain point in time, a truth is opened up that seems so obvious.

Agreed here,

1Co 2:13 And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.
1Co 2:14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.


However, it seems like God also opens the hearts of unbelievers at some point to be receptive:

Act 16:14 One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul.

I tend to take a more literal approach to scripture, but I also think the Lord can speak to it prophetically in an allegorical-- for lack of a better word-- way. I know a man whose been a missionary overseas who wanted to do Jewish evangelism. He said the Lord spoke to him through that verse that says behold I open a door that no man can shut. To him, that verse spoke about a specific calling in addition to what it literally meant in context. I know the pot that is marred in Jeremiah 18 and can be remade refers to Israel, but I think the Lord wants to remold me as well.

I also believe it is good to study history, culture, and language to understand the Bible. But I also know there are a lot of so-called experts out there who don't know what they are talking about or who have an agenda. I've corresponded for over 20 years with a Greek scholar, a professor, who used to be a chair at a state university. I ask him if I have questions about Greek. I had the opportunity to meet with him in person in the cabin where he has his Bible study up in the mountains of North Carolina. He shared with me his concern that few seminarians, even professors who taught Greek, really knew the language. He named an exception he could think of. Many preachers who comment about Greek and Hebrew argue from Bible dictionaries and shallow descriptions of how the grammar works, the 'silly non rules' as he called them, rather than the usage of the language.

I largely agree. Given that Koine is a dead language however, that is not unusual. The closest as I understand it to the language is on Crete or similar locations where the language was isolated and did not change as much. But even in the case of those who may read it regularly they do not have the opportunity to pick up current connotations and cues from an active culture that speaks it as they would in Bible times.

I also realize that while it can be helpful to look at culture and history, there is a lot of sophistry that goes on. For example, if out of the billion facts about the ancient world that were lost, someone has evidence about priestesses in Ephesus, that, therefore, we are supposed to interpret Paul's statements about Eve as being commentary on pagan priestesses in the city. Or a preacher I read recently was arguing that the Corinthians had brought a kind of pagan speaking in tongues into the church because the Greeks had something similar with the oracle of Delphi. It made no sense at all the context of the passage to say this, and sounds close to the unpardonable sin to me since it involves attributing a gift of the Spirit to something 'pagan.'

Yes, I too wonder about which discovered facts should be applied to interpretation. Some seem legitimate, but we do not have the ability to fully reconstruct their culture to know what was referenced.

Be that as it may, I still it is valuable to understand the New Testament, usually, from the perspective of a first century Jew (which is usually a description of the author) and sometimes from the perspective of a first century Grecco-Roman believer (the reader in some cases.) So I value this perspective in interpreting the text. But I weary of people who take the approach that "This text doesn't mean what it clearly says because there were pagan prostitutes in such and such a city." It also irritates me when someone who has 'Dr.' in front of their name spouts some nonsense about the Greek that I can quickly disprove with a couple of Google searches.

Yes, while the theological sections of the NT can be difficult at times, the practical ones are generally straight forward.

It sounds like we have fairly similar perspectives. You referenced the Greek, so let me ask do you believe in one form or another of verbal inspiration or some other form?

I generally hold to thought inspiration, without a requirement that God pick the specific word. The words are still valuable as a reflection of the author's style, and to understand what he was trying to get across from what he was shown, in my view.

 

[ChristianGolfer]

At least two of these seem to state, and one may certainly imply that Scriptural principles should only be held to if they are fair, reasonable or make sense, or if they work in practice.

So let me flip that around and we'll do a thought experiment.

Do you think there are Biblical principles that are unfair, unreasonable or don't work in practice?

If there are Biblical principles that are unfair, unreasonable or don't actually work, then what does that say about the God who inspired the Bible?

And if there aren't Biblical principles that are unfair, unreasonable or don't actually work, then what is the problem with people judging those principles according to those standards?

So just to see where folks stand on these things, how many of you think a biblical imperative should be followed or held to because it is in the Bible. And how many think that it should only be followed if it is reasonable and works?

My view is that Jesus and Love trump any person's interpretation of Scripture. If the "principle" or "imperative" that someone claims is "biblical" doesn't match the nature of Christ and of love then it shouldn't be followed.

Just because something is in the bible, doesn't mean it's something God wants us to do. Remember that even Satan quoted Scripture when it served his purposes.

 

[ValleyGal]

There are some legitimate debates regarding quite a few passages. However, there are also some interpretations that do not account for any of the actual content of the passage and are just out in left field. If the interpretation of the person you are working with is that far off, you would not say anything?

I do have certain things I debate about and speak my mind. I would never do it with a client. I do it here on boards, and I've done it in private conversations in real life. But I would never do it with a client.

I do understand there are "counsellors" out there who call themselves "biblical counsellors" who use scripture to correct and confront. For clients who want this kind of approach, they are welcome to go and see them. Personally, from seeing the very surface of this approach, it's a very condescending approach, self-righteous and can be very shameful/ing for the client. My approach is more of an ally, coming alongside, learning about the client, and using a gentle approach for accountability while honouring their values, not mine (during my work with them). But that's in a work context.

I am Mennonite Brethren. One of our core values is that of peace, non-confrontation, living a quiet life. I personally add "live and let live." So I don't really function well with a lot of conflict in my life.

If someone is way out in left field, it would depend on the issue. Imo, the idea of polygamy is way out in left field. Do I argue with people who believe in it? Not a lot, because our laws protect us from it, and because a surprising number of people (almost all of them men) believe in it. There is a reason I don't challenge a lot of things - people are going to believe something and then twist scripture or take it out of context in order to support their own theory. It's impossible to reason with someone who is unreasonable.

Some people are more concerned with theology, some with doctrine, some with prophecy, etc. I am more concerned with principles for Christian living. Because this is my concern - for myself as well as for clients - for me it's more important to focus on principles that teach us how to live with other people. So I care about things like boundaries, interpersonal communications, healing past wounds, having emotional intelligence, being of sound mind, etc.

Since I know a little about healing and woundedness, and what it means to be on the wrong end of the bully-whip, and how all that can come out in our behaviour, I would rather approach someone from a place of compassion and inquiry rather than righteous knowledge and correction. I know the former to build trusting rapport, and the latter to be condescending (most of the time, because it is rarely handled the way the Bible says it should be).

If people are way off base in their behaviour and their relationships, according to biblical principles, I'm not going to point out scripture to them - typically. Chances are, they know what it says anyway, and don't know why they do the things they do, or do not actually live by what they say they value. This is where I come in (professionally). I help people identify their values, and gain a clear sense of how they are or are not living according to those values. It's not up to me to change those values, but I can challenge them - in the same way my old pastor challenged me to study divorce and remarriage.

That is not to say I haven't challenged people, because I have. But it is very, very rare, and I usually only use scripture for support. Rather, I will point out how others perceive their behaviour and appeal to their emotion and intelligence. If someone mistreats another, it does no good to say "the Bible says _____ is sin." But if you instead say "Do you love _(name)_"...then find out how it is loving to do _(behaviour)_ against them, that is a way to provide self-revelation regarding the chasm between the person's own value (love) and their behaviour. Iow, if I just tell people what is morally right or wrong, chances are they will hear it but it has not become personal to them. If someone figures it out for themselves, it is revelation and becomes personal, and often this is the catalyst for change. It's one of the tidbits I learned when I trained in motivational interviewing.

I know that's probably way more than you asked for, but there it is.

 

[mkgal1]

Wisdom will be proven by her children.

I love that! That's what I've been trying to express when I've mentioned fruit.

BTW....in the Complete Jewish Bible translation, the text reads like this:

Well, the proof of wisdom is in all the kinds of people it produces."

Isn't that basically what Hetta was saying, too? Because that's how I understood her.

 

[mkgal1]

Also.....directly from the words of Christ:

"What sorrow awaits you Pharisees! For you are careful to tithe even the tiniest income from your herb gardens, but you ignore justice and the love of God. You should tithe, yes, but do not neglect the more important things

It seems to me that justice (fairness) is a priority to God, so why would it be in His character to allow for unfairness (injustice)?

Isn't one of His attributes that He is just?

 

[seeingeyes]

I love that! That's what I've been trying to express when I've mentioned fruit.

Indeed. That's the way that Jesus taught us to sort through ideas: “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits."

 

[mkgal1]

This blog came through my inbox today, and I thought of this thread.

In chapter 17 of John’s gospel we find Jesus last prayer while on earth. There he prays that his followers would be one. Unified so that “the world would know you sent me and have loved them.”

It is becoming increasingly clear to me that it is likely we Christians will never be unified when it comes to the Bible and how to interpret it.

You see, I have friends who are Reformed, baptist, Mennonite, Lutheran, Anabaptist, Catholic, Wesleyan, and Pentacostal. I have friends who baptize their babies, and friends who dedicate their babies. I have friends who cross themselves as they pray, and friends who pray with their eyes open. I have friends who will not set foot in a Christian bookstore, and friends who read every book in the Left Behind series.

And they read the same Bible.

The Bible isn’t bringing a lot of unity.

Our disunity doesn’t exist because some value the Bible more than others. That’s the great fallacy. No, the disunity comes because we read and interpret the Bible differently. Everyone – everyone – picks and chooses which parts they will emphasize. Which means that differing interpretations will always exist.

I’m learning that’s okay. We can’t force everyone to use the same method of interpretation. Nor do we want to. That would stifle creativity and learning and diversity and expression. And I’m not sure that’s what Jesus was after when he prayed for unity. Jesus prays specifically that we would be brought to “complete unity.” I think that unity, complete unity, only comes when we are mature enough to stay relationally connected with others in the midst of our disagreement. Complete unity is when we can be together and not be forced to think like each other. Christian unity is not a massive exercise in groupthink. Christian unity is Jew and Gentile, slave and free, male and female, progressive and conservative coming together around the one thing that reconciles us and unites us.

Jesus.

There is one thing we have to agree on, and that is Jesus and the role his life, death, and resurrection plays as it assumes the center place in God’s work to reconcile and restore. Jesus is the Word of God that unites us. Christians have never, and will never be united around how to rightly interpret the scriptures. But Christians can be united around the person of Jesus. Because that’s what he came to do. To reconcile. And he gave each one of his followers the ministry of reconciliation. Unity among the body of Christ should exists simply because each one of us has the responsibility to attend to the ministry of reconciliation. When we see division or when we cause to division, we should work to reconcile.

Unfortunately, what we see is a lot of taking sides. And I’m as guilty of that as anyone.

Let me for just a moment loop back around to the Bible. I don’t want you to hear what I’m not saying. I’m not saying the Bible isn’t important. I’m saying the Bible, that double-edged sword, does exactly what a sword does – it separates and divides. This is why the Bible is secondary to, and must be interpreted by looking at the Word made flesh. “All scripture is God-breathed” and “makes us wise” to our need for salvation. “All scriptures is God-breathed” and “equips us for every good work.” But we are never told we will be united in or around scripture. Unity is realized in Christ who reconciles us to himself, and to each other.


- See more at: Disunity in Reading the Same Bible | From One Degree to Another | Nate Pyle

 

[seeingeyes]

I think that unity, complete unity, only comes when we are mature enough to stay relationally connected with others in the midst of our disagreement. Complete unity is when we can be together and not be forced to think like each other. Christian unity is not a massive exercise in groupthink. Christian unity is Jew and Gentile, slave and free, male and female, progressive and conservative coming together around the one thing that reconciles us and unites us.

This is spot on.

 

[LinkH]

It may be beyond the scope of this thread, but since you mentioned it, do you find a specific reference to the Noahide requirement of strangling in the OT?

Genesis 8:9.

I think we best understand this by looking at other passages in the Bible. Mosaic law against the eating blood required that an animal be slaughtered and the blood poured out. The people of Israel sinned against the Lord by eating plundered cattle without first slaughtering it, so Saul had them drain the blood out of the animals on a certain rock.

Also, why do you think he particularly referenced sexual immorality and not other shared moral values?

I don't know. Other scripture indicates murder is wrong. So does the passage about the covenant with Noah. Maybe it just wasn't a point of controversy, since Gentiles knew murder was wrong.

 

[mkgal1]

It's your thread, Tall......so if that's a topic you want to discuss, then it's within the scope of this thread. I see that as falling into the broader topic of "approaches to Scripture" (JMHO).

I had to look Noahide laws up (I'd never heard that mentioned).

The Noahide Laws, are a set of moral imperatives that, according to the Talmud, were given by God[1] as a binding set of laws for the "children of Noah" – that is, all of humanity.[2][3]

Accordingly, any non-Jew who adheres to these laws is regarded as a righteous gentile, and is assured of a place in the world to come (Hebrew: עולם הבא‎ Olam Haba), the final reward of the righteous.[4][5]

That seems contrary to this verse:

Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.~Galatians 3?24

 

[mkgal1]

Wait! Link......Tall asked this question:

do you find a specific reference to the Noahide requirement of strangling in the OT?

and you answered:

Genesis 8:9

which reads:

But the dove could find no place to land because the water still covered the ground. So it returned to the boat, and Noah held out his hand and drew the dove back inside.

What does *that* have to do with "strangling"?

 

[Hetta]

My view is that Jesus and Love trump any person's interpretation of Scripture. If the "principle" or "imperative" that someone claims is "biblical" doesn't match the nature of Christ and of love then it shouldn't be followed.

^^ This.