Chocolate Box Bible

[H3LL]

Discussing (well talking to a wall really) with xians of various flavours from fundy to tea-and-biscuit believers I usually end up asking the question "Are you a chocolate box xian that just chooses the bits you like from the bible?"

I admire the ones that admit that they do and it works for them.

The others either state that it is all true or that they only really believe the parts about Jesus [NT].

The 'all true' fundy is an easy mark as the old testament can be torn to pieces by a mildly inquisitive 5 year old although still a complete waste of breath.

The next category is the one I have difficulty with as I'm not sure of my facts, so maybe you can help.

I understand that Jesus clearly states in the NT that the OT is to be followed as the word of god. Therefore, you cannot say that you follow the teachings of Jesus and ignore the OT.

Am I right?

Thanks.

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

Discussing (well talking to a wall really) with xians of various flavours from fundy to tea-and-biscuit believers I usually end up asking the question "Are you a chocolate box xian that just chooses the bits you like from the bible?"

I like the Bible as a collection of ancient literature.

Sure I've read the whole thing, but now I usually just skip to the hot parts.

 

[Iacchus]

Discussing (well talking to a wall really) with xians of various flavours from fundy to tea-and-biscuit believers I usually end up asking the question "Are you a chocolate box xian that just chooses the bits you like from the bible?"

I admire the ones that admit that they do and it works for them.

The others either state that it is all true or that they only really believe the parts about Jesus [NT].

The 'all true' fundy is an easy mark as the old testament can be torn to pieces by a mildly inquisitive 5 year old although still a complete waste of breath.

The next category is the one I have difficulty with as I'm not sure of my facts, so maybe you can help.

I understand that Jesus clearly states in the NT that the OT is to be followed as the word of god. Therefore, you cannot say that you follow the teachings of Jesus and ignore the OT.

Am I right?

Thanks.

I only believe in the parts of the Bible that I understand.

 

[clarsct]

See. Now I've heard just the opposite. I was told that all the laws in the Old Testament were laid down to keep Man out of trouble. God sent Jesus(himself?) to die for our sins so that we would no longer have to be held up to that rigorous standard. (I guess Heaven's attendance was slipping..) At any rate, since Jesus came along, we no longer have to follow the laws. We just have to believe in Him and He will wash our sins away with his blood.

In other words, God gave us a 'get out of jail free' card and now we can sin like bastards and be washed clean by Jesus(God).

So either he was wrong when he set the laws up, or his creation, created to be a lot like him, is flawed. So horribly flawed that we just can't win the game he set up for us and set us into. So he cheats for us.

Or is there something I'm missing?

 

[Iacchus]

If we do not obey the laws of God which are written on our hearts, we have no recourse but to subject ourselves to external authority. This is primarily the difference between the New Testament and the Old.

 

[clarsct]

If we do no obey the laws of God which are written on our hearts, we have no recourse but to subject ourselves to external authority. This is primarily the difference between the New Testament and the Old.

Wha?


Huh?


I've read this about three times. Still haven't made sense of it. If we don't obey ourselves, we MUST obey an external authority?

Nope...still not making sense. Could you clarify?

 

[Darat]

Discussing (well talking to a wall really) with xians of various flavours from fundy to tea-and-biscuit believers I usually end up asking the question "Are you a chocolate box xian that just chooses the bits you like from the bible?"

I admire the ones that admit that they do and it works for them.

The others either state that it is all true or that they only really believe the parts about Jesus [NT].

The 'all true' fundy is an easy mark as the old testament can be torn to pieces by a mildly inquisitive 5 year old although still a complete waste of breath.

The next category is the one I have difficulty with as I'm not sure of my facts, so maybe you can help.

I understand that Jesus clearly states in the NT that the OT is to be followed as the word of god. Therefore, you cannot say that you follow the teachings of Jesus and ignore the OT.

Am I right?

Thanks.

No.












Oh you wanted a bit more then that?

The reason why I say "no" is when you look at most of the established and organised Christian denominations you find that the Bible is not their only text or reference. Also the different denominations often use different versions of the book, excluding or including texts that the others consider to be valid or invalid.

There isn’t even one box of chocolates to choose from.

(Personally if there was one that offered just milk chocolates strawberry creams they’d have a good chance of snagging me!)

 

[Iacchus]

Wha?

Huh?

I've read this about three times. Still haven't made sense of it. If we don't obey ourselves, we MUST obey an external authority?

Nope...still not making sense. Could you clarify?

Well, what does Jesus tell the woman who was about to be stoned for adultery when He releases her? ... "Sin no more." So clearly the "laws of sin" are still in effect. Also, what do they mean by letting those folks who are in prison "out on good behavior?" Which is to say, to the degree that we can't answer the question of right and wrong within ourselves, we become subject to external authority.

 

[H3LL]

Re: Re: Chocolate Box Bible

No.

Are you sure? Is there no common text for xians where Jesus verifies the authority of the OT?

I accept it is possible for some of the smaller/more bizarre sects, but is that the case with more main-stream denominations?




It would have to be coffee creams for me.

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

Well, what does Jesus tell the woman who was about to be stoned for adultery when He releases her? ... "Sin no more."

Judicial stoning for adultery was not practised in Jesus' time. Sure it's in the Old Testament, but things got more "liberal" after the time of Ezra. There was no abrupt transition to New Testament style thinking.

If there's any truth to that story at all, it's more along the lines of Jesus facing down a lynch mob. So the idea was to get her out of there quickly.

 

[Iacchus]

There was no abrupt transition to New Testament style thinking.

Yet clearly Jesus represents the contrast which exists between the two ... "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." Matthew 5:17

If there's any truth to that story at all, it's more along the lines of Jesus facing down a lynch mob. So the idea was to get her out of there quickly.

Yet for some reason, they felt the need to justify what they were doing by reinacting the laws of the Old Testament. Correct?

 

[Iacchus]

Are you sure? Is there no common text for xians where Jesus verifies the authority of the OT?

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." ~ Matthew 5:17

 

[Darat]

Re: Re: Re: Chocolate Box Bible

Are you sure? Is there no common text for xians where Jesus verifies the authority of the OT?

I accept it is possible for some of the smaller/more bizarre sects, but is that the case with more main-stream denominations?

Oh there probably are some that are common to many if not all that can be interrelated that way. But then you hit the second part of my reason for saying no e.g. they do not rely only on the text of the Bible for their doctrines.

It would have to be coffee creams for me.

HERETIC! BURN THE WITCH!

 

[Oleron]

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." ~ Matthew 5:17

This is the key to the matter, IMO.

I've always thought that xians, especially the happy-clappy 'right-on' types, viewed the OT like a mad old aunt who keeps gatecrashing their coffee mornings. It's just not middle-class enough.

They laugh nervously when it is quoted, pretending they have a clue what it is talking about. They'd really much rather be reading Corinthians.

In fact the only reason they need to keep it around at all is that the NT was written specifically to match up with the prophecies in Isaiah, Jeremiah and Daniel (and a couple of other books). The rest is just plain inconvenient and most honest xians would like to give it back to the Jews.

When the OT gets too awkward to explain away, they usually resort to the 'get out clause' that Jesus came to establish a new covenant with his people, overriding the old covenant. Thereby all apparent contradiction between the old and new testaments are explained away in a puff of logic.

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

Yet for some reason, they felt the need to justify what they were doing by reinacting the laws of the Old Testament. Correct?

Perhaps. But the false implication of the story the way it is told is that that forgiving way of thinking started with Jesus, when it was already part of mainstream Judaism.

Which is why I doubt it happened at all, though that cannot be proven one way or the other.

 

[BillyJoe]

Originally quoted by Iacchus
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fill your belly."

chocolate jesus

Don’t go to church on sunday
Don’t get on my knees to pray
Don’t memorize the books of the bible
I got my own special way
Bit I know jesus loves me
Maybe just a little bit more

I fall on my knees every sunday
At zerelda lee’s candy store
Well it’s got to be a chocolate jesus
Make me feel good inside
Got to be a chocolate jesus
Keep me satisfied.

[from "Mule Variations" by Tom Waits]





BillyJoe

 

[H3LL]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Chocolate Box Bible

Oh there probably are some that are common to many if not all that can be interrelated that way. But then you hit the second part of my reason for saying no e.g. they do not rely only on the text of the Bible for their doctrines.

That seems reasonable. It doesn't make it any easier when so many xians have no idea where their beliefs actually come from.

HERETIC! BURN THE WITCH!

OK! OK! Strawberry creams...Yum!!! (BTW, my aunt eats coffee creams late at night in the woods)

 

[H3LL]

This is the key to the matter, IMO.

I've always thought that xians, especially the happy-clappy 'right-on' types, viewed the OT like a mad old aunt who keeps gatecrashing their coffee mornings. It's just not middle-class enough.

They laugh nervously when it is quoted, pretending they have a clue what it is talking about. They'd really much rather be reading Corinthians.

In fact the only reason they need to keep it around at all is that the NT was written specifically to match up with the prophecies in Isaiah, Jeremiah and Daniel (and a couple of other books). The rest is just plain inconvenient and most honest xians would like to give it back to the Jews.

When the OT gets too awkward to explain away, they usually resort to the 'get out clause' that Jesus came to establish a new covenant with his people, overriding the old covenant. Thereby all apparent contradiction between the old and new testaments are explained away in a puff of logic.

That would match well with my experiences of xians also.

 

[pmurray]

If a person picks and chooses from the Bible, then they must have some criteria on which they base their choices. Isn't it obvious, then, that it is that criteria that they obey, and not whichever scriptures they claim to believe?

 

[stamenflicker]

Think about this way if it helps. Christians believe that God is and has been in the business of creating a faith family. It works for me to draw comparisons with my own family.

Small children need rules. Lots of rules. "Don't run on wet concrete." "Look both ways before you cross the road." "Don't sleep with your sister."

As children mature, they need less rules and more opportunities to be free, gain independence, and learn from their mistakes.

Paul refers to the law as a "school master" that a person no longer needs. The law was a great thing for immature people of faith. It gave them something to objectify, something to follow. And they followed for the sake of following and they followed to stay safe.

Religion was in its human infancy and its childhood. A good school master was needed, not just in the religious sense-- there are numerous "laws" and such that came from non-religious sources.

But a time ought to come, and I believe came, in the religious family when the rules just weren't all that necessary anymore. It was graduation day so to speak-- 18 years old and out of the house so to speak. Wild with abandon or wise and principled the faith family now had the freedom to formulate itself for better or worse.

Men like Phelps in the post below just never graduated. Islam (still heavily rule driven) is working to graduate... but as Paul sums up his schoolmaster teaching, it was for "freedom's sake that we were made free."

Yeah, free to pick and choose. Free to pee on an electric fence if I want... free to face the consequences of that action. Free to grow up, live and learn-- hopefully attentive to what is good, true, and beautiful. Free to figure for myself which of dad's rules I want to apply in my own household, or in my own life.

There's no real contradiction here for the Christian picking and choosing-- its the hard core right and the hard core left that wants it to be a problem...

My 2 cents,

Flick