Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] [POLITICS][RELIGION] Billy Graham and the Presidents

["Jim Locke" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On 9/5/07, Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED> wrote:

On Tue, 4 Sep 2007, Jim Locke wrote:

> I am a frequent reader of this forum

Then you know that Stephen is extremely knowledgable about Christianity
and the Bible and he likes to discuss it.  He'll almost certainly give you
long answers to serious questions.

I gathered that, yes.  A friend of mine is similar.  This friend is actually in the process of creating his own church (which he may hold in his own house).  He has several issues with churches and feels many people mis-interpret the Bible and has issues with translations also.

I agree many of the writings are common-sense.

Stephen, your last post echoed what I have heard from many dedicated Christians.
If the essence is grace and not law, then which laws are either significant, or more significant than others?
If Christians do not believe it's acceptable to stone to death a woman you plan to marry if it is discovered she is not a virgin on the wedding day, then why was it acceptable then and not now?
I am familiar with the basics of the "new lew" which Jesus taught in the New Testament.
Why did there need to be new law (Convenant)?  It seems to me since God is all-knowing and He created the stricter rules in the Old Testament he knew people would not be able to follow them as well as New Law which Jesus brought.
Were the Old Testament rules an experiment either for God's amusement or to try to prove people could not follow them?

> I learned the other night the Commandment "Thou shall not kill" is
> really a faulty translation.  It's proper translation is "Thou shall not
> murder." Both involve death of course, but killing is obviously a
> superset of murdering.

I'll comment on this.  It is interesting to see what happens when these
writings are taken very seriously.  You do have to think about
translations.  Also, you can have serious interpretation problems even
with a perfect translation.  Taking this example:

"Thou shalt not kill" -- kill what?  In some religions you can't swat a
fly and you have to watch where you step for fear of killing some lowly
insect (Jainism).  We always assume that "thou shalt not kill" referred
only to people, but how would we know that?

I agree.  If the Bible is really perfect and 100% accurate as many say, why is there so much lack of clarity in the writings?  Maybe it has always been intended to present a struggle, rewarding those with enough faith.

"Thou shalt not murder" -- now we have to define "murder."  We really have
to know the original word and all that it implied.  Maybe the meaning was
clear at the time, but it isn't all that clear today.  Many people believe
as Christians that they should not fight in wars.  Obviously, many other
Christians are huge supporters of every war they have a chance to get
involved with.

I believe I know the answer to the above question.  Killing in "self-defense" (which obviously has grey area itself) is not murder.  I think this is a major reason why the Bush administration kept touting WMDs that could be used against us in the Iraq war.  Bush mentioning God having him invade Iraq was one of the most loaded comments from him yet.  He has dropped the WMD issue since and says he thinks Iraq should be freed.
So, now the U.S. is involved in Nation-building which he stated a while ago he did not believe in.

Hmm, I'm getting a little off-track here.
 

So I don't find most rules from the Bible to give clear direction.  But
for me it isn't all that important because I don't believe that there is a
God or that the Bible as some connection to the supernatural ( e.g., "the
inspired word of God") and I don't see one iota of evidence that the Bible
has such a connection.  Thus I have to find other ways, other than Bible
studies, to decide what is right and wrong and what ought to be illegal.
Frankly, aside from the rules about idolatry and other gods, most of the
rules are just common sense and no divine intervention would be needed to
invent them.  Thus...

these could be scrapped:

1) "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."
2) "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image,"
3) "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain;"
4) "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy."

these are sensible rules and most societies will have something similar:

5) "Honor thy father and thy mother:"
7) "Thou shalt not commit adultery"
10) "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house,.....nor anything that is thy neighbor's

these rules are essential to a functioning human society:

6) "Thou shalt not kill."
8) "Thou shalt not steal."
9) "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."


Best,

Mike

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

-- 
- Jim Locke.
_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion