Is Selective Interpretation of the Bible a Sin?

[biosh]

This thread is a spin-off of the thread Are you gonna show your pride this weekend? (http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/showthread.php?t=172942)

Amidst the well wishes for our gay and lesbian friends for their celebration this weekend, came the usual condemnations of Christians quoting the bible. For example there was this exchange:
I've stayed out of these threads for long enough. It used to be amusing reading about people who claim to be Christian, yet still believe God is pleased with gays and those who side with them. You all need to read His word and get His view on it, see how He really feels. I have included a couple of links to different versions of the bible to show it isn't just one translation or another. Please read them before answering so you can make an informed reply. I'm not trying to start a flame war nor am I trolling, just shedding some light on the subject...

Book of Romans (http://www.catholicfirst.com/thefaith/bible/romans.cfm) particularily Ch. 1: 21-32 (This one's from a Catholic site)
Romans Ch:1 (http://www.bible.org/netbible/rom1.htm) again particularily Ch. 1: 21-32
And finally... (http://bible.gospelcom.net/) where you can read the same verses in many different translations and cross-reference them with the rest of the bible.

Thanks,
Steps to Recovery from Bible Abuse... (http://www.truluck.com/)

(A website by Dr. Rembert S. Truluck, bible teacher, preacher and pastor, who seeks to correct distortions of the bible by religious terrorists...)

If you prefer to believe one person, that's up to you. I prefer to believe the many, many language scholars who have spent years going over the oldest manuscripts available and translating them to English... and they seem to disagree with Dr. Truluck, who by the way, has no formal education in those languages.
Far worse than any atheist is the Christian who selectively interprets the bible in an attempt to justify their own intolerance. Surely that is the worst type of pride and contempt for god's word...

:(
This got me thinking that not only is selectively interpreting the bible a misuse of an excellent book, but for those who believe in it as the literal word of god - it is an outright sin!

The bible has many injunctions against various behaviours - Jesus himself condemns divorce, yet it is quite common even among our Christian friends. But the list of sinful behaviours is much more extensive - it includes: women wearing pants, eating lobster, worshipping god while wearing glasses, the death penalty for adulterers and children cursing their parents. Then, on the other hand, the bible endorses owning slaves from neighbouring nations... as much as I might fantasize about having a Californian bikini babe as my righteous slave, I still believe the bible must be regarded in it's historical context, not as a literal blueprint for modern law. There is much to be admired in the bible - it's many instances of encouraging peace and charity are prime examples. Yet, they are seldom cited in Christians' government advocacy for an end to wars or a workable end to poverty.

Yes, an atheist making proclamations against the bible is one thing. Far, far worse is a Christian who proclaims their belief in the bible as the literal word of god, then goes ahead and misuses it for reasons of pride and to advance their own mortal agenda of intolerance. It is certainly shameful and quite possibly one of the worst sins imaginable...

[NG]

This thread is a spin-off of the thread Are you gonna show your pride this weekend? (http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/showthread.php?t=172942)

Amidst the well wishes for our gay and lesbian friends for their celebration this weekend, came the usual condemnations of Christians quoting the bible. For example there was this exchange:

You'd think they would be nice enough to leave a thread clearly about people interested in going to the event alone for them. I guess that's too nice for them. I guess they prefer to be mean. No suprise.

Well their kind (the anti-gay crowd) is slowing disappearing. Just a minor annoyance like a fruit fly.

And to answer your question: Yes

They should repent and be saved.

[Txiasaeia]

You'd think they would be nice enough to leave a thread clearly about people interested in going to the event alone for them. I guess that's too nice for them. I guess they prefer to be mean. No suprise.

You'd think that people like you, who have absolutely no interest in the Bible (it's "junk," remmeber?) would not post in threads like *this*, either, as it has nothing to do with you. But hey, I'm on your ignore list, so it's not like you'll read this.

They should repent and be saved.

Somebody like you saying that Christians should repent. Wow. There's also a passage in the New Testament about removing the 4x4 from your own eye before talking about the speck of sawdust in others. For somebody who considers the Bible to be "junk," you're pretty adamant about forcing Christians to adhere to it, hmm?

Far, far worse is a Christian who proclaims their belief in the bible as the literal word of god, then goes ahead and misuses it for reasons of pride and to advance their own mortal agenda of intolerance. It is certainly shameful and quite possibly one of the worst sins imaginable...

And what right does a non-Christian have to judge Christians based on the Bible? But I'll answer your concerns. First, not every Christian believes the Bible is the literal word of God. Some branches of Christianity take it less literally than others, and some believe that it's completely metaphorical and mythical (i.e. based on truth, but the facts are not 100% accurate).

You yourself said "I still believe the bible must be regarded in it's historical context, not as a literal blueprint for modern law." This is exactly why the curious laws you mentioned (women in pants, eating lobster, etc.) are no longer practiced by some Christians and some Jews. There are certain groups of Jews (ultra-orthodox, hasidic) who keep all the commandments of the Torah, and some ultra-conservative Christian communities (mennonite, omish, hudderites, and other groups who consider themselves "Anabaptists") who try to not only keep all the laws of the Hebrew Scriptures, but the New Testament as well.

AMDr is exactly right - sexual immorality is condemned by Paul in the New Testament. Biosh, you're right - divorce is also not part of God's plan.

There is much to be admired in the bible - it's many instances of encouraging peace and charity are prime examples. Yet, they are seldom cited in Christians' government advocacy for an end to wars or a workable end to poverty.

You've been blinded by the recent debate on gay marriage. It's understandable. The uproar over this is like the light from a lighthouse, whereas other advocacy groups that are concerned about peace and charity (the Salvation Army, for instance) have the relative intensity of a flashlight.

Now, as for your question in the title of the thread: Is selective interpretation of the Bible a sin? "Selective" is the wrong word, but no. There are certain passages and commands that were designed for a certain place, time, and group of people. There's a passage in 1 Timothy (I believe) that says that women should be silent in church & if they have any questions, they should ask their husbands at home. Why? The theory is that there was a group of women who were going around to various churches and preaching some heresy (can't remember which one) which was causing a lot of stress and headaches for the rest of the church, male and female alike. Is it applicable now? I really don't think so; I've heard some wonderful sermons from female ministers, and I believe that a woman can be as effective in a position of leadership in a church as a man.

This is just one anacronistic example from the New Testament, but what about the Hebrew Scriptures? You have to understand that Jesus came not only to free us from our sins, but to free us from the onerous demands of the Law (Torah). This is not to say that we should chuck it all; indeed, if that were the case, we'd no longer need the Tanakh (Hebrew Scriptures) mixed in with the New Testament. Rather, our interpretations of the Hebrew Scriptures should be based on Jesus' command to love God and love our neighbours. It's all in the Gospels & the epistles and letters of Paul.

Now, biosh, what's the *real* reason that you started this thread? Was it really to ask this theological question, or was it to wonder why some Christians feel the need to attack homosexuality? If you're not a Christian, you have no right to use the Bible to condemn those who are Christian. Imagine if I started a post condemning Muslims for not living up to the Five Pillars, but I wasn't a Muslim myself. In my opinion, this thread is doing exactly the same thing.

[NG]

Originally Posted by Txiasaeia
You'd think that people like you, who have absolutely no interest in the Bible (it's "junk," remmeber?) would not post in threads like *this*, either, as it has nothing to do with you. But hey, I'm on your ignore list, so it's not like you'll read this.



Somebody like you saying that Christians should repent. Wow. There's also a passage in the New Testament about removing the 4x4 from your own eye before talking about the speck of sawdust in others. For somebody who considers the Bible to be "junk," you're pretty adamant about forcing Christians to adhere to it, hmm?



And what right does a non-Christian have to judge Christians based on the Bible? But I'll answer your concerns. First, not every Christian believes the Bible is the literal word of God. Some branches of Christianity take it less literally than others, and some believe that it's completely metaphorical and mythical (i.e. based on truth, but the facts are not 100% accurate).

You yourself said "I still believe the bible must be regarded in it's historical context, not as a literal blueprint for modern law." This is exactly why the curious laws you mentioned (women in pants, eating lobster, etc.) are no longer practiced by some Christians and some Jews. There are certain groups of Jews (ultra-orthodox, hasidic) who keep all the commandments of the Torah, and some ultra-conservative Christian communities (mennonite, omish, hudderites, and other groups who consider themselves "Anabaptists") who try to not only keep all the laws of the Hebrew Scriptures, but the New Testament as well.

AMDr is exactly right - sexual immorality is condemned by Paul in the New Testament. Biosh, you're right - divorce is also not part of God's plan.



You've been blinded by the recent debate on gay marriage. It's understandable. The uproar over this is like the light from a lighthouse, whereas other advocacy groups that are concerned about peace and charity (the Salvation Army, for instance) have the relative intensity of a flashlight.

Now, as for your question in the title of the thread: Is selective interpretation of the Bible a sin? "Selective" is the wrong word, but no. There are certain passages and commands that were designed for a certain place, time, and group of people. There's a passage in 1 Timothy (I believe) that says that women should be silent in church & if they have any questions, they should ask their husbands at home. Why? The theory is that there was a group of women who were going around to various churches and preaching some heresy (can't remember which one) which was causing a lot of stress and headaches for the rest of the church, male and female alike. Is it applicable now? I really don't think so; I've heard some wonderful sermons from female ministers, and I believe that a woman can be as effective in a position of leadership in a church as a man.

This is just one anacronistic example from the New Testament, but what about the Hebrew Scriptures? You have to understand that Jesus came not only to free us from our sins, but to free us from the onerous demands of the Law (Torah). This is not to say that we should chuck it all; indeed, if that were the case, we'd no longer need the Tanakh (Hebrew Scriptures) mixed in with the New Testament. Rather, our interpretations of the Hebrew Scriptures should be based on Jesus' command to love God and love our neighbours. It's all in the Gospels & the epistles and letters of Paul.

Now, biosh, what's the *real* reason that you started this thread? Was it really to ask this theological question, or was it to wonder why some Christians feel the need to attack homosexuality? If you're not a Christian, you have no right to use the Bible to condemn those who are Christian. Imagine if I started a post condemning Muslims for not living up to the Five Pillars, but I wasn't a Muslim myself. In my opinion, this thread is doing exactly the same thing.

Now he can read it. :D

1) You'd think someone would be polite enough to actually not continue to harass me after I've said I've found his extremism to be uncomterable. You'd think he'd be polite enough to add me to his ignore list. You'd think he'd be polite enough not to berate my by quoting my posts when I cannot defend myself b/c I have him on my ignore list. You'd think he wouldn't stalk me by starting to harass me on my blog

Tixxy - why do you insist on cyber stalking me?

mia2648 - Isn't there a policy against circumventing the ignore list wishes of other RFD users? I hope a mod sees this thread.

[Txiasaeia]

1) You'd think someone would be polite enough to actually not continue to harass me after I've said I've found his extremism to be uncomterable.

I've gone through a few definitions of "harassment," and none of them mean "an act that occurs when one asks for an apology from another person when said person made several disparaging remarks towards one's religion."

You'd think he'd be polite enough to add me to his ignore list.

Guess I'm not a polite person, then.

You'd think he'd be polite enough not to berate my by quoting my posts when I cannot defend myself b/c I have him on my ignore list.

You seem to be doing a great job defending yourself, despite the fact that I'm supposedly on your ignore list.

You'd think he wouldn't stalk me by starting to harass me on my blog

Huh?

Tixxy - why do you insist on cyber stalking me?

I'm not cyber-stalking you, I'm responding to a post you made. Let's not forget that you started claiming that I was "harassing" you after I wanted an apology from *you* for your comments towards my religion. So: you attacked me, I called you on it and asked for an apology, at which point you not only refused to do so but claimed that said request for an apology was "harassment" and made you feel "uncomfortable." Of course it made you feel uncomfortable, becuase you were wrong! It's only slightly amusing that, rather than facing up to your attack and apologising for it, you claimed that I was harassing you and from that point onwards put me on your ignore list. You said a bad thing, you were wrong, you refused to apologise.

By your own definition, you're "cyber stalking" me by including your little "attack" in the location field to the left of all of your posts. The only difference is that *I* can read that every time I see a post you've made here (not to mention everybody else), but you can't read posts like this because you've (supposedly) put me on ignore. Doesn't matter what forum you post in, you're spreading your little attack on me for more and more people to see. I'd consider *that* to be harassment much more than asking for an apology because of your hateful little diatribe towards Christianity.

By the way, as I've already explained to JAC, I consider your use of "Tixxy" to be demeaning and condescending and thus a personal attack. I don't know whether or not you were aware of this, so if you really did mean what you said in your post after Ryan announced the new RFD policy, I'd appreciate it if you'd cease using that perjorative and address me by my full nick. You know, copy and paste. Thanks.

[Txiasaeia]

Now he can read it. :D

You really shouldn't have quoted me just to annoy NG. If you've got a problem with him, don't drag me into it.

[NG]

Look I'm still here. Someone do me a favor and report my posts. Let's see if I get banned.

Ban away!

Wow. You're hyper. And must have alot of time to waste...

[Absolute]

You really shouldn't have quoted me just to annoy NG. If you've got a problem with him, don't drag me into it.

Sounds like just another troll trying to get some attention on here, even worse trying to provoke two users.

[biosh]

Now, biosh, what's the *real* reason that you started this thread? Was it really to ask this theological question, or was it to wonder why some Christians feel the need to attack homosexuality? If you're not a Christian, you have no right to use the Bible to condemn those who are Christian.
Actually, I'm a recovering catholic, so I feel comfortable in questioning some of the tenets of the faith of my childhood. It is indeed asked as a legitimate theological question, and due to the preponderance of Christian anti-gay dogma in this forum, homosexuality's place in the bible is bound to come up as an example.

Personally, I have read and thoroughly enjoyed the bible as a work of literature and for it's many still relevant guidelines for ethical living. I'm particularily in awe of Jesus "golden rule" - Matthew 7:12 - So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. It is a supremely karmatic statement of ethics, which unfortunately in my experience, I find very few Christians actually putting into practice.

Nonetheless, I appreciate your participation in the thread, and look forward to further (constructive) comments...

:)

[Txiasaeia]

Actually, I'm a recovering catholic, so I feel comfortable in questioning some of the tenets of the faith of my childhood.

Lol! Never heard that phrase before, although "recovering cathlolic" implies that Christianity is addictive. I've never heard that argument before, either ;)

It is indeed asked as a legitimate theological question, and due to the preponderance of Christian anti-gay dogma in this forum, homosexuality's place in the bible is bound to come up as an example.

Personally, I have read and thoroughly enjoyed the bible as a work of literature and for it's many still relevant guidelines for ethical living. I'm particularily in awe of Jesus "golden rule" - Matthew 7:12 - So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. It is a supremely karmatic statement of ethics, which unfortunately in my experience, I find very few Christians actually putting into practice.

It *does* sum up most of the Tanakh, I agree, but in what way do you find that most Christians don't put this rule into practice? Are you talking specifically about homosexual marriage? If so, how are Christians who oppose gay marriage not following this rule? Forgive me if I'm unclear; I've got a splitting headache and a child who's screaming at the top of his lungs, so if I sound snippy, it's not at you but at the child.

[biosh]

It *does* sum up most of the Tanakh, I agree, but in what way do you find that most Christians don't put this rule into practice? Are you talking specifically about homosexual marriage? If so, how are Christians who oppose gay marriage not following this rule? Forgive me if I'm unclear; I've got a splitting headache and a child who's screaming at the top of his lungs, so if I sound snippy, it's not at you but at the child.
No when quoting Jesus, I was just talking about the best the bible has to offer, not about gay marriage. My comment about Christians not following the golden rule is surely a broad generalization, but one I have observed frequently. And I don't exclude myself from those whom I've seen falter - nonetheless it is a beautifully simple summation a of ethics. But with the state of the world, I think it would be difficult to argue that it is being effectively implemented today...

[D.NGUYEN]

In my opinion, we should not be the one who judges, for we are all human and no one is above each other and so no one is therefore more righteous. I believe that God will one day do the judging, don't judge other people. Just live life that glorifies God, something that Christians do not do today. They call themselves christians because they are brought up to go to church but yet do not understand or have the willto follow christ. So the Key is to glorify God in whatever you do. Some of you say that one type of sin is worse than another but in God's view, everything is bad. Sin IS Sin! We all fall short of God's glory and is not worthy of his love, but yet, even though we break his heart, he sent his only son to come down to earth, not to be a king or anything wonderful, but to be a peasant, to be put to shame and humiliation and nailed on the cross, all because of God's love so that you can have a relationship with him. So you see, Do not judge others, one day we will all face God and he will decide for us. I'm only a lukewarm christian but I know that my God is amazing and I will never be forsaken. So think again about your arguments....is it worth it? Will it make you a better person if you prove the other person wrong? No. So be happy! :lol: ok I wrote too much.

[Txiasaeia]

My comment about Christians not following the golden rule is surely a broad generalization, but one I have observed frequently. And I don't exclude myself from those whom I've seen falter - nonetheless it is a beautifully simple summation a of ethics. But with the state of the world, I think it would be difficult to argue that it is being effectively implemented today...

I think that, if we're talking about sweeping generalisations, that the passage "All have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God" is much more accurate.

snip

Well put! I think this is a good summation of the ideals of Christianity, for those interested.