Email address obfuscation in effect -- please
click here to turn it off.
[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
Jim Locke wrote:
On 9/5/07, *Mike Miller* <EMAIL:PROTECTED
<mailto: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.
You do need to be careful about this. First of all, people starting
their own churches is extremely common in the USA, and each person feels
that they have their own particular piece of wisdom on how to properly
understand the Bible. You should remember that this is a centuries old
tradition going back to the time of Christ. Furthermore, if we neglect
some of the wisdom collected over the ages (especially geniuses like
Augustine), we do so at great peril. It can be rather like trying to
rediscover advanced mathematics by yourself, when you only have
knowledge of basic arithmetic.
I think that one of the issues is getting a good balance between trying
to get wisdom from personal revelation (i.e. the Holy Spirit) versus
getting it from the Bible. To emphasize one at the expense of the other
is dangerous, and house churches can go in both directions. I really
recommend that you do both - read the Bible a lot, and pray and pray a
lot. Do try it - read the Bible and at the same time ask God to open
your eyes so that you understand it - you may well be very surprised at
what you will see.
The worst cases (and these I recommend you avoid) are churches that deny
the Trinity or the deity of Christ. Obvious examples are the Mormon
Church or Jehovah's Witnesses, but they are by no means the only
examples. It is true that the word "Trinity" never appears explicitly
in the Bible. Nevertheless the concept it represents is clearly in the
Bible. This was worked out at length by rather clever people in the 4th
century, and you will find these issues discussed and reasoned at length
in books on systematic theology. That is one reason why I so strongly
recommend you read a book on systematic theology.
I agree many of the writings are common-sense.
Unlike Mike, I would say that it is the first 3 commandments that are
the most important. Or as it says elsewhere, the two great commandments
are "love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and body"
and "love your neighbor as yourself." Modern humanism would tend to
emphasize the second of these, but Christianity can only really be
understood when it is the first of these that is put first.
Christianity and the whole Bible is predicated on the notion that God
really does exist, that our purpose is to please God and not necessarily
vice versa, and that God really does work and interfere in creation on
an ongoing basis, and that he really does care about you personally. If
God becomes reduced to some kind of concept - perhaps an artifact
designed to bring about good social order, then you really have
completely and utterly missed the point.
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?
If you read the Old and New Testaments at length, you will begin to see
that they are not two separate documents with contradictory aims, but
actually join into a unified document of tremendous coherence. The
notion of a "new law" is mentioned in many places in the Old Testament,
in particular at great length in the Prophets.
The particular issue you bring up (stoning non-virgins) is not one that
I can answer easily. I have my own theories and ideas about it, but I
don't think that my answer nor anyone else's can really be regarded as
definitive. And there is a sense in which you are trying to answer the
hard questions, when you still haven't acquired the basics.
One of the key issues that really needs to be totally grasped is that
true Christianity consists of a relationship with God. And one must be
"born again," or "regenerated," to experience this relationship.
> 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.
The notion of "Biblical inerrancy" has different shades of meaning to
different people. I take my understanding from 2 Timothy 3:16 and 2
Peter 1:16-20, which essentially state that the words of the Bible come
from God. But it doesn't necessarily imply that, for example, Genesis 1
and 2 should be interpreted completely literally.
"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.
I personally believe that it was the right thing to do for Bush to
invade Iraq. I also believe that his in this regard his actions are not
inconsistent with Christian teaching. But to my mind these are nuanced
issues, and I can respect people who disagree with me.
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 <mailto:EMAIL:PROTECTED>
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion
<http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion>
--
- Jim Locke.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion
_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Home | FAQ | Server | Presentations | Mailing Lists/Archives | Member Tools | Links | Sponsors | Contact