Contributors

Sunday, January 05, 2014

Whither the Old Testament

Are we, as Christians, bound by Old Testament law? Conservative Christians sure like to think we are. This is largely because they enjoy the whole "sinners in the hands of an angry god" meme as it frightens them into abstaining from doing "naughty" things. But most Christians say that we aren't completely bound by them anymore and I am one of them. Of course, the Bible says two different things so it's up to each one of us to take the time to study the material and context of what is being said. This article breaks it down quite nicely.

Many traditional Christians have the view that only parts are applicable, many Protestants have the view that none is applicable, dual-covenant theologians have the view that only Noahide Laws apply to Gentiles, and a minority have the view that all are still applicable to believers in Jesus and the New Covenant.

The entire link identifies and describes the various views and has sublinks with well sourced material on the study of the meaning of the passages listed above. Take some time to read through all of it. It becomes clear rather quickly that the people who believe that all of the OT is still applicable are very much in the minority.

I fall into the category of only parts of the Old Covenant are applicable although it's interesting to note that there are many who believe none are. So, the Abrahamic Covenant, the Land Covenant, and the Davidic Covenant are out. An eye for an eye is now gone, as Christ directs in Matthew 5. All of the ceremonial laws are no longer applicable either.

But what about sin? The Old Testament clearly states that God punishes sinners. But with the New Covenant of Jesus, that is longer true. Take note of the verses used in this link. Look familiar?:)

Indeed, the father of Protestantism understood this very well. Martin Luther explained this as Justification by Faith. He wrote “Faith alone is the saving and efficacious use of the word of God.” He then looked to Romans Chapter 10, verse 9 as being absolutely fundamental for believers in Christianity. The passage states, “If you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” This was his justification of faith. One did not need to pay a penance for sins, whether through confession or indulgences, to get into heaven (recall that indulgences, or the paying of money or service to the church, was one of his major gripes with Catholicism). One simply needed to believe that Christ was God and that he was resurrected and then they would be saved. Luther explained justification this way in his Smalcald Articles:

The first and chief article is this: Jesus Christ, our God and Lord, died for our sins and was raised again for our justification (Romans 3:24-25). He alone is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29), and God has laid on Him the iniquity of us all (Isaiah 53:6). All have sinned and are justified freely, without their own works and merits, by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, in His blood (Romans 3:23-25). This is necessary to believe. This cannot be otherwise acquired or grasped by any work, law, or merit. Therefore, it is clear and certain that this faith alone justifies us...Nothing of this article can be yielded or surrendered, even though heaven and earth and everything else falls (Mark 13:31).

I bolded the parts that Christian conservatives seem to have trouble understanding in terms of sin, faith and confession. In framing the argument regarding indulgences in this way, Luther was able to remove the people that had inserted themselves between the common man and the Lord: the papacy. Interestingly, Christian conservatives have assumed the role of Pope these days, saying that they and only they are interpreting the Bible correctly. Luther had something to say about them as well.

…Every baptized Christian is a priest already, not by appointment or ordination from the Pope or any other man, but because Christ Himself has begotten him as a priest…in baptism.

What this means is that every man who is baptized and accepts Christ is no less a valid interpreter of the Bible than anyone else. All that is needed are the Five Solas. This launched a larger critique on the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church. In On Papal Power, Luther wrote “when the attempt is made to reprove them with the Scriptures, they raise the objection that only the pope may interpret the scriptures”  In the early 16th century, the pope had the final say on exactly what was meant by the scriptures, not Luther and certainly not the common man. Luther saw this, along with the authority to issue decrees and convening councils as theft, writing, “they have cunningly stolen our three rods from us, that they may go unpunished”

Further, Luther abhorred the decadence of the church, stating that they were hiding behind self created authority “so that they can practice all the knavery and wickedness which we see today” Luther’s teachings were a direct threat to Rome. If people simply looked to the Bible and got their faith “free” from God, with no intermediaries, how long would it take for the power of the papacy to erode? The flow of financial rewards to the church would ebb as well. Luther also challenged church authorities by asserting that there was no hierarchy leading up to God. All men were priests and equal in the eyes of God.

Thus, members of the clergy should not have special accommodations or privileges. Luther again...

Every baptized Christian is a priest already, not by appointment or ordination from the Pope or any other man, but because Christ Himself has begotten him as a priest…in baptism. (But) the preaching office is no more than a public service which happens to be conferred on someone by the entire congregation all the members of which are priests. 

The office of the priest is one that is democratically elected by all of the people, not by papal order. He is no more closer to God than anyone else. This is how Luther’s argument became a much broader threat to church leaders and led to deep erosion with them as well as the clergy. He laid the foundation for Protestantism which, at its core, rejects intermediaries or interpreters of what the Bible "really means."

If, at this point, Luther sounds very New Testament heavy, it's because he is. Recall the New Covenant

The Christian view of the New Covenant is a new relationship between God and humans mediated by Jesus which necessarily includes all people,both Jews and Gentiles, upon sincere declaration that one believes in Jesus Christ as Lord and God. The New Covenant also breaks the generational curse of the original sin on all children of Adam if they believe in Jesus Christ, after people are judged for their own sins, which is expected to happen with the second arrival of Jesus Christ. Thus as the Apostle Paul advises that the Mosaic Covenant of Sinai does not in itself prevent Jews from sinning and dying and is not given to Gentiles at all (only the Noahic covenant is unique in applying to all humanity), Christians believe the New Covenant ends the original sin and death for everyone who becomes a Christian and cannot simply be a renewal of the Mosaic Covenant since it seemingly accomplishes new things. 

New things indeed. This would be where the grace part comes into play. There was no grace in the OT but now there is with the sacrifice of Jesus.

So, we aren't really bound by parts of the Old Testament any longer. There are no sinners in the hands of an angry god. Since this is the case, it puts into question many OT ideas (see: homosexuality, noun, not mentioned in the Ten Commandments or by Jesus at all) and, thus, it follows logically that some of it is just wrong. As a people, we evolved culturally over the time period between the OT and the NT and grew spiritually.

Recall that Jesus said, "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." This last one is His New Commandment, detailed in John 13: 33-35.

Little children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye shall seek me: and as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go, ye cannot come; so now I say to you. A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

Seems pretty straight forward to me.

60 comments:

Juris Imprudent said...

Amazing, all of the source materials in the world and you rely on wiki and theo-pedia. Do you accept those from your students by chance?

Could you not find an actual Lutheran website like this or this?

I mean really. You want to pretend that you can think - at least pretend a little more convincingly.

Juris Imprudent said...

Now, you focus on Luther because he laid the foundation for Protestantism - of which there are many flavors (with varying degrees of tolerance for one another). I'm still looking for the branch of Christianity you claim teaches how parts of the Bible go from valid to not.

Lutheranism itself teaches salvation differently than does the Catholic church, but so far as I know, they don't teach the Bible differently. Again, if you have an actual link on that point, by all means share it.

Mark Ward said...

All of the links from wiki are very well sourced and that's why I used them. Did you read them? Or the sources? Did you even read anything I wrote? It appears that you haven't because you continue to ask the same asinine questions. We had this same problem with the Stiglitz book. You ask for evidence and then stomp your feet and refuse to read what I provide.

If you disagree with what I or the sources are positing, explain why. Most Christians either believe that only parts of the OT are applicable or none of it is applicable. The minority believes all of it is applicable. Again, if you disagree, explain why. Refuse to do so and it will be painfully obvious how little you know about this (honestly, the problem all along).

Juris Imprudent said...

All of the links from wiki are very well sourced and that's why I used them.

Do you accept wiki as a source for your own student's papers?

You made a very direct statement about how a part of the Bible was no longer applicable. Why don't you describe what this process is that changes the validity of a Biblical precept/passage.

Juris Imprudent said...

Let me try it this way:

Protestantism makes the Bible central to faith - which the Catholic (or Eastern) church does not.

As a Protestant, you say that parts of the Bible are no longer correct, e.g. the relation of men to women. Was the Bible ever correct about this, or was it always wrong? If it was once correct, what about God's inspired Word changed?

Mark Ward said...

Well, I guess you don't know as much about this subject as you claimed. Or as I thought you did.

Juris Imprudent said...

Well, I guess you don't know as much about this subject as you claimed.

But you aren't going to educate me, are you? You're just going to make a childish and empty taunt and then not actually prove that you know something I don't.

childish and dishonest - you do so love to live up to that tag.

Juris Imprudent said...

And I would really like to know M - do you accept wiki as a source for your students' papers? I know when my son was in high school it was very clear that it was not acceptable. What are your standards?

Mark Ward said...

So, you didn't even bother reading some of the sources provided just because they were wiki? That's a genetic fallacy. Wiki isn't all good or all bad. It's not monolithic. I don't have a problem with Wiki links if they are well sourced and not flagged. I teach my students to be evaluative of any source, not just wiki. I was under the impression that you already did this when you examined source material.

So, check out the sources and the external links in each piece. Evaluate Luther's writings and the bibilical verses I've included. Explain further what you meant by the OT applying to God's chosen people. Evinced your understanding of Supersessionism, abrogation of OT laws, dual covanent theology and the New Covenant.

Mark Ward said...

Hypothetically, imagine a society that has decided that raping and murder is acceptable. Using your own logic, is that society right while the Bible is wrong - because society has 'moved on'?

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html

This is the slippery slope argument so yet another logical fallacy. You're also failing to understand the "keep my commandments" part of my assertion contained in this thread. Gender roles are not part of Mosaic law but murder certainly is. Mosaic Law also says to honor thy father and mother which demonstrates equality.

Of course, the Bible has conflicting things to say about rape.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/rape.html

What should we believe?

Juris Imprudent said...

So, you didn't even bother reading some of the sources provided just because they were wiki?

No, I did read them, but I wonder why you rely on that rather than primary material. Laziness, what?

And none of the material you have provided actually matches what you are claiming - do you not get that or is this just your typical game?

Mark Ward said...

Did you read the external links which support each link? They fully support the information given. You also seem to be very obsessed with wiki when I provided both biblical text and writings by Luther as well.

And none of the material you have provided actually matches what you are claiming

This would be the part where you explain how that is the case. Obviously a problem for you because you only want to be a critic for me. If you don't think I made my case, explain how I failed. You're not really making an argument.

You say you don't want me to educate you but then you also continue to question me as if you somehow need more information than what I have already provided. That makes no sense. I don't want to educate you at all. I want you to make your own argument that counters mine and then we can have a discussion. The governor cancelled school today so feel free to post away and I will respond. I actually have some free time:)

GuardDuck said...

Not a slippery slope. Don't be stupid.

You're also failing

Not failing anything. My post examines YOUR ARGUMENT. Your argument WAS NOT qualified by any verse. You put it out there on its own. If your argument cannot stand then amend it or retract it.

Juris Imprudent said...

This would be the part where you explain how that is the case.

Happy to. You previously stated that the relationship between men and women (i.e. with women being subservient) - as discussed in the Bible (both OT and NT I do believe) is no longer applicable.

A straight-forward reading says that when the Bible was written (again, OT and NT) this was true, or perhaps at least tru-ish. Our society has evolved and therefore religious belief must adjust also even if those passage remain unchanged. Alternatively, it could be read as saying that the Bible was wrong when those passages were written, and therefore the Bible has always contained an error about how men and women should relate. It was never applicable or appropriate. That of course opens up a number of other problems.

Or, do you have another explanation?

Juris Imprudent said...

You say you don't want me to educate you

You really do have a reading comprehension problem, don't you? Go back and read what I wrote, until it sinks thru that thick skull of yours.

Mark Ward said...

So now you are just talking about gender roles? I thought we were talking about whether or not OT laws are still applicable. Whatever, we can come back to it. No school again today:)

The society in which the Bible was written was a patriarchal society. It makes perfect sense that its contents would be male dominated. The passages in the Bible that deal with women being submissive to their husbands (here they are: http://www.openbible.info/topics/being_submissive) are not religious beliefs, per se. They are simply civic instructions to various groups of people. Take a look at the context of 1 Timothy, for example. Paul is the likely writer of this book but we don't know for sure. This book was written as advice to his younger colleagues about the role of women in the church.

Ephesians, which contains the verse, "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord" was originally thought to have been written by Paul but that has recently been called into question. Here, again, the author is talking about the organization of the church.

As you look through all of these verses, a common theme emerges. They aren't talking about Mosaic law (God ordained). They are talking about civic law (man ordained). So, it's perfectly acceptable to adjust those views as they aren't "God breathed." That's where GD errs by equating murder (mosaic law) with a civic belief (women being submissive to their husbands). One could also point to Galatians 3:28 ("There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus") as negating the other passages. Galatians was written by Paul and his audience was early Christian communities. Here, Paul is actually talking about Gentile Christians and Mosaic law.

Interesting, though, that he brought in rape because, as I mentioned above, the Bible seems to already condone it. Here is the link again.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/rape.html

What do you think? Pretty awful, if you ask me. But this brings us back to how Jesus negates some of the OT. John 8: 2-11

2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

11 “No one, sir,” she said.

“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”


A key verse in the NT, wouldn't you agree? Not only does it illustrate that women should be more respected but it shows that with Jesus, some of the OT is no longer applicable, especially as it relates to sin. Certainly, there is a clear shift with Jesus to a more egalitarian role for women in the person of Mary Magdelene. She was present at Christ's death and the first to witness his resurrection, something no one else can claim. That speaks volumes to me.

GuardDuck said...

That's where GD errs by equating murder (mosaic law) with a civic belief (women being submissive to their husbands)


Uhhm, no.

Your statement, to refresh your memory:

These are great examples of how our society has moved past this male dominated view of sexual roles. It simply does not apply to today.

Now, that statement does not exist in a vacuum, so let's see the text around it - to put it in context.

But then I thought about the thirty verses of the Bible which state that women should be submissive to their husbands. These are great examples of how our society has moved past this male dominated view of sexual roles. It simply does not apply to today. Reverend Jim's wife represents a very small part of the Christian community in terms of this belief. Even the most hard core conservative Christians don't treat women the way the Bible allows. Are these millions of women "fake" Christians? Obviously not. Even by her own standards, she is as well.

Homosexuality, mentioned far less than wives being submissive to their husbands, is another example of how our culture has changed. The people of that time viewed it as taboo and learned behavior. Today, we can see that people are born that way and the question we need to ask ourselves is this: if God is so against homosexuals, why does S/He keep making them?


Nope, nothing there about people who think the Bible says such things about submissive wifes are incorrect because they are reading the Bible incorrectly. What YOU said is that society has moved on therefore the Bible is wrong.

That, again, is the logic of the argument YOU presented. Don't lay any of the blame of that on me. I am not equating shit to shit other than the argument YOU presented.

Using YOUR argument and turning its logic into something you didn't like caused you to freak out. Not my fault - it's your logic.

So again, your argument says:

The Bible says that wives should be submissive. Society has 'moved on' and disagrees with the Bible. Therefore the Bible is wrong.

That is the argument you presented. The logic of it is such:

The Bible says X is wrong. Society says X is acceptable. Therefore the Bible is wrong and society is correct.

Your argument has no other factor for determining which is right and which is wrong other than society's approval. Hence when I substituted murder or rape for 'X' it looked utterly ridiculous to you - since you didn't realize how utterly ridiculous your logic was.

Now again, that is your logic. If you don't like it modify it or recant it.

Mark Ward said...

So again, your argument says:

No, that's what you say my argument says or how you are erroneously understanding it. You're basically lying, GD and you're doing it to score "comments points" and show off for the four people that read these threads.

I'd like to see you counter what I have presented here with some of your own thoughts and cease obsessing about the straw man version of me you have created. What do you think about Supersessionism, abrogation of OT laws, dual covanent theology and the New Covenant?

GuardDuck said...

I don't give a shit Mark.


But you did say what I QUOTED you as saying. If you can't communicate it effectively - try again.

Mark Ward said...

If you don't give a shit, then why are posting comments in a thread about Christianity?

GuardDuck said...

Let me re-phrase.

I don't give a shit about your out of context, non-comprehended, illogical arguments until your earlier out of context, non-comprehended, illogical arguments are dealt with.

In this case, several times you have made the very same argument you are now telling me is a voice in my head. You have a lot of nerve to do so to begin with. You have even more nerve to do so without trying to even fucking explain why my characterization of your argument is wrong.

In the lack of any valid argument to the contrary I will continue to assume that said argument is still your argument and you are still welcome to amend or recant.

Mark Ward said...

So, it's more about me and my style of presenting an argument than the substance of what I assert or the subject matter? What's that called again?

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

Yeah, that's it.

See, GD, you never actually deal with the subject matter. Only me and how I am presenting the material. You are essentially issuing an imperial edict that I'm wrong but not explaining why.

In order to explain how I am illogical, you have to actually present an argument yourself, meaning you have to use substance. So, how am I illogical? I have a very long comment above with text from the Bible and the historical and cultural context in which passages on gender roles were written. How is it wrong?

Juris Imprudent said...

So now you are just talking about gender roles?

Ah, the I'm a deliberate fuckwit gambit. This thread is just about played out, isn't it?

“Go now and leave your life of sin.”

Oh, but M has declared that sin no longer matters either.

I'm not going to play childish (and dishonest) games with someone who refuses to put away childish things.

GuardDuck said...

So, it's more about me and my style of presenting an argument than the substance of what I assert or the subject matter? What's that called again?

So, it's more about you and the complete lack of logic, moving goalposts and fluid and ever changing rationale that has no substance because you won't let yourself actually get pinned down to examine something you said.

There, fixed it for you.

Juris Imprudent said...

The society in which the Bible was written was a patriarchal society.

Ah, for both OT and NT, right?

But let's unpack that just a little, shall we? The society in which the Bible was written - in other words the Bible is merely a reflection of a social context. Do tell me what Christian church, what pastor, what scholar of the faith, in ALL of the WORLD teaches the Bible is a literary product of ancient society versus the Bible being the Word of God, literal and inerrant or inspired. Which one M?

I don't know of any Christian church that says such a thing. But again - if you have one, share it - I can handle being wrong. Funny how you can't handle being wrong. That is kind of a childish thing isn't it M?

I mean, what the heck if the Bible isn't the Word of God - then yeah, you can say pretty much anything about it. I just don't think you can call it the basis for your belief in Christianity.

GuardDuck said...

Oh, but M has declared that sin no longer matters either.

Yeah, he keeps saying that. But then his own posts disagree....like this very quote from this post:

The New Covenant also breaks the generational curse of the original sin on all children of Adam if they believe in Jesus Christ, after people are judged for their own sins

It's almost as if he doesn't even read his own links prior to posting them. A quick scan and he 'thinks' it backs up his point...then paste it.


So Mark? If people are still judged for their own sins, could you recommend a reference material to find a list of such sins? Maybe in portable and convenient form such as a book.....

Mark Ward said...

Do tell me what Christian church, what pastor, what scholar of the faith, in ALL of the WORLD teaches the Bible is a literary product of ancient society versus the Bible being the Word of God...

William J Webb, professor of New Testament at Heritage Theological Seminary, Ontario, Canada, is a specific example. He is a Baptist minister who wrote a book called Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis. He is part of the larger egalitarian movement in the church (Quakers, Seventh-day Adventists, Northern Baptists, and some Pentecostal churches such as the Assemblies of God and United Church of God). His central theme is that there are some commands in the Bible that are transcultural and some that cultural only to that time. He thinks commands on homosexuality still apply today but the commands on women do not. Egalitarians believe that Galatians 3: 28 supercedes other commands. Again, we are back to contradictions in the Bible but if you study the context and the progression, you can see which writings are civic instruction and which are spiritual commands (something GD still can't seem to understand) and mitigate some of the dichotomies.

Here is a review and summary of Webb's book

http://www.sbts.edu/documents/tschreiner/6.1_article.pdf

Other specific examples would be the United Church of Canada and the United Church of Christ who accept homosexual relationships and do not think they are sinful. There are also some groups like this...

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm

that examine homosexuality in the context of the times and explain the differences between today and then quite well. I have a post coming later in the week about this link.

Of course, the broader answer to your question is most of them, juris, which is what I have been trying to get you to discuss. Supersessionism, abrogation of OT laws, dual covanent theology and the New Covenant? Or are we going to talk about that or continue with genetic fallacy?

The heart of the problem here is that neither one of you want to put forth your own views (another example of why you don't want to debate in a more formal setting). It's obvious now that you don't really know about this stuff, are insecure about that and just want to fuck with me. Think we can get off that and have a more equal give and take? I think it would be an interesting discussion to wade into the egalitarian and complementarian positions regarding the Bible and worthy of further comment from me.

GuardDuck said...

The heart of the problem here is that neither one of you want to put forth your own views.... Think we can get off that and have a more equal give and take?

Do you put forth your own views, including the logic you have used to get to them? And when you do, and we critique them what do we get in return?

So, if I were to put forth my own view, would you not critique it whatsoever or would you be a hypocrite?

GuardDuck said...

you can see which writings are civic instruction and which are spiritual commands (something GD still can't seem to understand) and mitigate some of the dichotomies.

But something that you still can't seem to understand is that I have not made any commentary regarding such. I have only made commentary about your commentary. I have not said one action is such and another is something else. You have. I simply distilled your 'logic' and using your own words brought it back around to you.

You keep throwing out links. More and more stuff bypassing and failing to address issues that you were called on weeks ago.

Juris Imprudent said...

William J Webb

Excellent. Interesting choice too, given he is egalitarian with respect to men and women in heterosexual relationships but not homosexuality.

We are a multi-faith group. As of late-2012, we consist of one Atheist, Agnostic, Christian, Wiccan and Zen Buddhist. Thus, the OCRT staff lack agreement on almost all theological matters, such as belief in a supreme being, the nature of God, interpretation of the Bible and other holy texts, whether life after death exists, what form the afterlife may take, etc.

OK that is funny - particularly since they are NOT a Christian church of any type, are they M?

Let me see if I understand you - is the Bible (all of it) the Word of God, or is it just the writing of a bunch of men at various times? Me, I believe it is the latter, but I don't profess to be a Christian.

Mark Ward said...

Good question and one worthy of response. It's both and that's what I have been saying all along. Some elements of the Bible are command from God (Mosaic law). Others are civic instruction, some which apply today and some don't. Society does get to decide the latter as it is not God ordained.

I realize that there are some denominations that claim all is the word of God but when you look at context and audience for each book, it becomes clearer. In looking at the various camps of Supersessionism, abrogation of OT laws, dual covanent theology and the New Covenant theology, one can see there is a lot of contention over what is the "true" interpretation.

GuardDuck said...

I realize that there are some denominations that claim all is the word of God but when you look at context and audience for each book, it becomes clearer.

that's what I have been saying all along

Actually that's what NMN was trying to tell you, and you argued he was wrong. As to context that's what both of us were trying to tell you - every time you took something out of context to support something that you changed your position on when you got pinned down.

The problem with you saying that you've been 'saying something all along' is that you get mad when questioned as to what you actually are saying, so we have no freeking idea what you actually are saying. Unless, of course, when we quote your exact words back to you - then you tell us that's not what are saying.

Mark Ward said...

when we quote your exact words back to you

Where exactly did I say that murder and rape could be excused if society changed?

Mark Ward said...

I'm adding in another pastor from above, John Shelby Spong, Episcopalian now retired.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Shelby_Spong

http://johnshelbyspong.com/

Check this out...

It is not fair to expect secular journalists to be biblical scholars, nor should it be anticipated that they would spend the necessary time to research the issue. It is for that reason that they tend to accept uncritically the oft-repeated Evangelical Protestant and Conservative Roman Catholic definitions that the Bible is anti-gay. If these people were honest, they would have to admit that the Bible is also pro-slavery and anti-women.

There is also a widely accepted mentality that if the Bible is opposed, the idea must be wrong. That is little more than nonsensical fundamentalism. The rise of democracy was contrary to the "clear teaching of the Bible," as the debate over the forced signing of the Magna Carta by King John of England in 1215 revealed. The Bible was quoted to prove that Galileo was wrong; that Darwin was wrong; that Freud was wrong; that allowing women to be educated, to vote, to enter the professions and to be ordained was wrong. So the fact that the Bible is quoted to prove that homosexuality is evil and to be condemned is hardly a strong argument, given the history of how many times the Bible has been wrong. I believe that most bishops know this but the Episcopal Church has some fundamentalist bishops and a few who are "fellow travelers" with fundamentalists.

The Bible was written between the years 1000 B.C.E. and 135 C.E. Our knowledge of almost everything has increased exponentially since that time. It is the height of ignorance to continue using the Bible as an encyclopedia of knowledge to keep dying prejudices intact. The media seems to cooperate in perpetuating that long ago abandoned biblical attitude.

That is not surprising since the religious people keep quoting it to justify their continued state of unenlightenment. That attitude is hardly worthy of the time it takes to engage it. I do not debate with members of the flat earth society either. Prejudices all die. The first sign that death is imminent comes when the prejudice is debated publicly. The tragedy is that church leaders back the wrong side of the conflict, which is happening today from the Pope to the Archbishop of Canterbury to the current crop of Evangelical leaders. That too will pass and the debate on homosexuality will be just one more embarrassment in Christian history.


http://jackiesmagic.blogspot.com/2009/01/another-awesome-bishop-spong-q-2.html

Mark Ward said...

I should add that this was written in 2009 so not the new Pope:)

GuardDuck said...

Where exactly did I say that murder and rape could be excused if society changed?

You claimed that certain things in the Bible that were true for that society at the time the Bible was written are no longer true due to society having changed. You did not limit these statements to things the Bible specifically said only applied to those people or those times. Thus, the logic YOU used is that societies changes, in and of themselves, were the rationale for the Bible no longer being correct.

I will quote YOU:

Then there are the beliefs that were only true for that time...the ceremonial laws about food, appearance, and dress...the subjugation of women...sexual mores...attitudes about slavery...anyone with a brain realizes that those things applied to that time but not ours.

Here you claim that these things no longer apply. Not because the Bible in any way makes them only applicable to certain people or a certain time, but because society has decided they no longer apply. Hence, your logic is that society decides what is applicable, not the Bible.

It's that it was written (by men) over 2000 years ago in a different language in a different culture. Some things simply don't apply to today.

Here you again claim that because the Bible was written by a different culture some things just don't apply. You do not say that those things don't apply because somewhere in the Bible it says it only applies to that different culture. Hence the assumption must be made that those things don't apply simply because the culture is different.

It was written thousands of years ago by a different culture in a different language. We have come a long way since then and while there are many fundamentals that clearly are still applicable today, several parts of the Bible are not. For example, I'm not going to let men from thousands of years ago dictate sexual mores today.

Here you again claim that the Bible was written a long time ago and some things are not applicable today. You even go so far as to say that 'you' won't let writings from the Bible dictate mores of today. You again don't claim that any writings in the Bible provide specifics that certain things are only applicable to people long ago and not to people today. Hence you are saying that society's changes overrule what the Bible says. Further, your statement that you won't let that happen mean that you find yourself to be the arbiter of what the Bible is right or wrong about based upon your own mores.

So, let me see if I understand you correctly here. Human civilization has not advanced at all in the last 2000 years on any sort of level...culturally, sexually, religiously, economically, politically...and everything that is written in the Bible (by men, not women) applies to today. Everything. Is that accurate?

Here you are claiming that because civilization has "advanced" in certain ways then things in the Bible are no longer applicable. Again, not showing any reference to things the Bible may say to excuse those things from being applicable just because civilization has "advanced". Again, the statement is that society's changes in and of themselves determine whether the Bible is applicable.


Con't...

GuardDuck said...

Part 2

Of course not. Their views on homosexuality came from the same place that that Muslim views on homosexuality came from-ignorance and fear. That was THEIR culture, not our culture. If you think about it, saying homosexuals are going to burn in hell really isn't very American.

I have several Bibles and one of them is the King James. The words of Jesus are written in red. There isn't a single word about homosexuals in any of His words. Nor is there one word about abortion (that's actually true of the rest of the Bible save for Exodus 21:22-23) for that matter. Since He was silent on the subject, He obviously had more important things on his mind for us.


Now here you are claiming that since Jesus said nothing about these subjects then they are written by men and therefore wrong. That would be an argument I could live with, in a logical sense, from you. But it would have to be consistent. In other words, you would have to claim that ANY words in the Bible not said by Jesus were wrong. But you don't do so. So we're back to it's wrong just because you say it is.

You are also again claiming that these things written in the Bible only pertain to 'their' culture not 'ours' – again without reference – and thus the different culture in itself gets to determine what parts of the Bible are right or wrong.

The historical context of this makes perfect sense as children were generally thought of as "less than" during this time period. It really wasn't until the Industrial Revolution that cultural attitudes shifted to the concept of the "Precious Child."

This would be an excellent example of how a teaching in the Bible no longer applies to today.


Here you claim again that because society is different than when the Bible was written then certain segments just simply don't apply. Again, no reference to anything in the Bible that exempts based upon society changing.


We're talking about people over 2,000 years ago who lived in a different culture, spoke a different language and were not as advanced as we are today. They were trying to sort out what God and Jesus meant to them and they failed at some points

Here you claim that today's society is more 'advanced' than those that wrote the Bible, thereby inferring that a more 'advanced' society can disregard the words in the Bible. Again, without saying anything about the Bible giving that more advanced society cause to dismiss parts, but rather due to simply being more 'advanced'.

So, a thinking person has to recognize what was right for their times and what is right for today

Here again you claim that since society has changed one can determine what parts of the Bible are 'right'.


These are great examples of how our society has moved past this male dominated view of sexual roles. It simply does not apply to today.

Here you again claim that since society doesn't view certain acts the same way that past societies did, then the Bible does not apply. Again, no mention of segments of the Bible that say said acts only apply to certain peoples or at certain times. This of course would have to lead one to believe that you did indeed mean that when society and the Bible differ in opinion, society's opinion is the correct one. Of course you could have meant more specifically 'our society' rather that a general 'society'. But that would necessarily mean that only our society is correct – and that would be silly, wouldn't it?

GuardDuck said...

Part 3

Homosexuality, mentioned far less than wives being submissive to their husbands, is another example of how our culture has changed. The people of that time viewed it as taboo and learned behavior.

Another example of you claiming that society's view is more correct than the Bible's view.



All of these quotes essentially state the same thing. That the position or point of view of the current society is different than that of those that 'wrote' the Bible. That the current society no longer views certain issues the same way those other societies viewed those issues and therefore the current society does not have to abide by what the Bible says on those issues.

Distilled down to less words that says – 'The position of society is right, the Bible is wrong'. *

That is your position in each of these quotes. You probably don't like it, but there it is.

Which gets us to the question I asked of you prompting your question at the top.

I asked,

Hypothetically, imagine a society that has decided that raping and murder is acceptable.

Hypothetically. A question asked to determine if the logic of your thought pattern is valid.

Using your own logic, is that society right while the Bible is wrong - because society has 'moved on'

Note, despite your mis-characterization, I did not say you said 'that murder and rape could be excused if society changed'.

You did, however, say that if society changed, then it could disregard the parts of the Bible that it disagreed with*. And the question, used to test the validity of your own logic, is if society changed so that X was no longer deemed unacceptable, what happens to your premise if you change X?

Hence the hypothetical. It is used to determine the validity of your logic. You screeched about it, which means that you don't even accept your own logic.

If you don't like the idea of this statement:

'our society has moved past the Bible's view of murder. It simply does not apply to today.'

Then you can't like the logic of this statement:

'our society has moved past the Bible's view of X. It simply does not apply to today.'

And if you don't like the logic of that, then you can't like the logic of your view:

'our society has moved past this male dominated (the Bible's) view of sexual roles. It simply does not apply to today.'



*No? If you disagree with that you are more than welcome – as asked several times – to amend or retract all those statements I quoted above.

Juris Imprudent said...

Good question and one worthy of response. It's both and that's what I have been saying all along.

I see, so you are both a man and a woman.

Society does get to decide the latter as it is not God ordained.

But "society" wrote the whole thing - the Godly parts and the not-so-Godly. So of course they get to decide - just as you do.

I'm sure this all makes sense - if you are insane.

Juris Imprudent said...

I realize that there are some denominations that claim

That is something of an understatement.

Juris Imprudent said...

...one can see there is a lot of contention over what is the "true" interpretation.

What could possibly be contentious about every single person, not just the groups called denominations, making up their own interpretations?

Contentious? Don't be silly!

You do realize though this means you cannot criticize NMN's interpretation because his is just as valid as yours.

Mark Ward said...

Actually, I think NMN should go on believing his interpretation of the Bible and never change. It's probably better for him, the people around him, and society at large.

GD, you seem to be lumping all things in the Bible into one category. Murder is just the same as defining the role of women in the congregation of early Christian fellowships. That is completely illogical. I don't know how many more ways I can try to get you to understand that murder falls under Mosaic law and the rest of it does not. Take a look at this...

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hombiblvalid.htm

Read through it carefully and see if you understand as this is exactly what I am saying. I have a post going up with it tomorrow. By not recognizing the context or the source material and continuing to obsess over things I said, you are essentially being willfully ignorant.

Regarding the issue of rape, the Bible actually does condone it somewhat so on that subject your line of thinking makes even less sense. Our society has indeed moved on and thinks that rape is horrible. That's a good thing, right?

Juris Imprudent said...

Actually, I think NMN should go on believing his interpretation of the Bible and never change.

Now that is funny considering how much pain you have gone to to convince him otherwise.

You see, that is why I can respect him more than you, even though I agree with neither. He has a sincere and deep faith, whereas you change with every puff of breeze.

Anonymous said...

The Bible never condones rape. Period. That's just more Markadelphian "interpretation".

GuardDuck said...

GD, you seem to be lumping all things in the Bible into one category.

I really, really wish you would just read the words I write and not try to inflect some hidden or subtle 'thought' behind what I write. I am not comparing murder to women's roles in the Bible. I am using the logic of YOUR statements.

The logic of 'the Bible is wrong because of X reason. That your explanation of X reason CAN INDEED be used to compare murder to women's roles then the failure is the logic of YOUR reasoning - not that I think the two are similar. The constant is your reason why the Bible is wrong. If you can claim the Bible is wrong, and solely for the reason that 'society has changed' then that same reason would HAVE to apply to any hypothetical society and whatever hypothetical changes.

If you disagree with the hypothetical situation I have presented then you have to re-examine your reasoning and explanation about why the Bible is wrong. In other words, if the Bible is indeed wrong about the things you have claimed, then it CANNOT be just because 'society has changed' and MUST be for some other reason.

Since the basis of your arguments are such, and you even disagree with the logic of YOUR own argument, then you need to do some self reflection about your conclusions because they are not supported by the logic of the argument you are using.

Mark Ward said...

GD, you seem to be having great difficulty in understanding the differences between Mosaic law (transcultural)and other commands in the Bible (cultural). What part don't you grasp?

Murder falls under Mosaic law. Rules for gender roles do not. Therefore, society can indeed change the latter because they are cultural to that time. My logic puts murder in a different category along with stealing, adultery, honoring your mother and father, perjury, and coveting. These are transcultural laws and if you are a Christian, this is the foundation of your faith. Yet things like beating your child with a rod, stoning women who don't cry out in a city while they are being raped or women being submissive to me are cultural commands and only applicable to that time. Therefore, wrong for this time as society has changed. This is also true for all the Jewish ceremonial laws (eating shrimp and pork, hairstyles, sacrifice etc).

Why does it have to be all or nothing with you in terms of the Bible? Do you think I said that? Where did I say that? I've always said the Bible gets some things wrong and society has moved on. None of those things that I have said are wrong are part of Mosaic law. Do you understand this now?

You see, that is why I can respect him more than you, even though I agree with neither. He has a sincere and deep faith, whereas you change with every puff of breeze.

Ah, that's sour grape because you (once again) assumed that I lacked knowledge on a particular topic. And isn't this the part where, according to you, I'm supposed to deeply laugh from my belly because you are an agnostic or whatever? It seems to me that calling into question the strength of my faith rings pretty hollow when the best you can muster is "I can't prove that God does not exist."

Anonymous said...

Murder falls under Mosaic law.

As does homosexuality. Therefore…

Therefore, society can indeed change the latter [non-Mosaic law] because they are cultural to that time.

You're contradicting your own "logic" again, Mark.

Mark Ward said...

http://www.spokanebiblechurch.com/study/Bible%20Doctrines/Mosaic%20Law.htm

Agree or disagree, NMN?

GuardDuck said...

Dammit Mark, I am not fucking misunderstanding anything.

Your statements of your arguments DID NOT say anything regarding these things when YOU SAID THEM.

Your statements state that:

The Bible is wrong about certain things.

The Bible is wrong about these thing BECAUSE society has moved on.

That was YOUR ARGUMENT.

If you had done your google work prior to that and had known about the differences between Mosaic law and other commands AT THE TIME YOU MADE THE ABOVE ARGUMENTS, you would not have stated them the way you did.

Even now, you CANNOT state them the way you did BECAUSE THEY ARE STILL FLAWED LOGIC.

Even at this point your argument has AGAIN contradicted itself. Now your argument is that:

The Bible is wrong about certain things.

The things it is wrong about don't apply to our culture.

The information needed to figure out whether it applies to us or not is contained within the Bible.

That train of logic fails because if the Bible is the source used to determine whether it applies to us or not then THE BIBLE IS NOT ACTUALLY WRONG because it contains the clauses that invalidate what you considered to be wrong.

For crap's sake, it sure would be nice if you stuck with your argument for a microsecond once in a while. But really, when you change your entire premise you probably should at least admit that your earlier one was wrong and should be ignored.


Juris Imprudent said...

I really, really wish you would just read the words I write and not try to inflect some hidden or subtle 'thought' behind what I write.

Oh M is just so post modern - the text is only what the reader feels about it. It has nothing to do with anything the author might actually be trying to tell us.

GuardDuck said...

Oh M is just so post modern - the text is only what the reader feels about it. It has nothing to do with anything the author might actually be trying to tell us.

That of course fits in well with him telling me that I focus too much on his words. As if looking at what he actually says and discussing it is somehow an absurd action.

Perhaps he is right and anything he says really does have no meaning, even to him, and should be ignored henceforth.

Anonymous said...

C'mon, GD, get with the program. Mark's really talking about Belgian waffles! All this politics stuff is just code to hide what he's really saying!

But I'm on to him. He admitted it when he wrote, "maybe someone else can dream up something even more wonderful than I intended." After all, aren't Belgian waffles far more "wonderful" than what's actually written here? Of course what he writes doesn't mean what it sounds like in English!

Anonymous said...

On a more serious note, I have to say very well done, GD. Your detailed analysis makes it brutally clear exactly how utterly absurd Mark's claims are. Again, well done.

Mark Ward said...

Is this the part where you guys try to get a rise out of me so I continue to pay attention to you guys?

GuardDuck said...

Ahhh, the misdirect gambit with the Belgian waffles variation. Très Clever, yet bold. Truly I am in the presence of a master.......

Mark Ward said...

It's been pointed out to me that you guys must not have a lot of attention paid to you in the real world so that's why you say the things you do...sort of like teenagers do who are ignored by their parents. You act out and say things based on a massive insecurity. External validation is needed by most people, I suppose, but not nearly to the extent that you guys crave it.

As I have stated previously, you like to show off for each other and see who can one up the other in "Markadelphia Obsession." All of your comments aren't about substance. They are about me. You pour over every word I say as if it was some great thing of importance and then fixate on my points over and over again hoping to find something that you can latch onto to "win" in front of the other four and the imaginary people you think read comments.

But the things you say...how you say them...your style of interaction...the ideology you believe in...all profoundly anti-social, save for comments sections of blogs. Very few people accept it and very many think it's completely nuts. This is exactly why you refuse to have a debate in a larger forum. It's safe here with your toadies to egg you on. Out there, scawee...

I don't really need external validation. I have a blog and make comments because I love a good debate and it challenges me to delve deeper into subjects I find interesting. Speaking of which...juris said this above...

You see, that is why I can respect him more than you, even though I agree with neither. He has a sincere and deep faith, whereas you change with every puff of breeze.

What exactly is NMN's faith? I've asked him a few times previously and received no response. The way I see it, he must be a Messianic Jew because that's really the only group that believes absolutely everything in the Bible. Most Christians believe that only some of the OT is still applicable, some think none is and very few think all of it is. This is a very simple and wonderful fact that for some reason, you guys don't like. Why?

Juris Imprudent said...

Most Christians believe that only some of the OT is still applicable

There are social standards advanced within the NT that do not comport with your expectations - so it isn't only a matter of the OT no matter how much you try to lie your way to that.

This is a very simple and wonderful fact that for some reason, you guys don't like. Why?

It isn't anything all that simple or wonderful. The history of Christianity is that such doctrinal differences have caused community schisms at the mildest and unholy violence at the worst.

It is massively hypocritical for you to argue that your version of Christianity should prevail in the social sphere when you insist on putting down the versions you don't agree with. Either religion intrudes into the political or it doesn't - but you can't argue for only some (i.e. that which you support).

Your opinions, on any matter, are an excellent illustration of the parable of the house built on sand.

Mark Ward said...

It is massively hypocritical for you to argue that your version of Christianity should prevail in the social sphere when you insist on putting down the versions you don't agree with

This is exactly what NMN does yet he is somehow a "true Christian." All Christians, really, don't follow every single word of the Bible. If they say they do, they are lying. It's not meant to be an all or nothing text, something you really don't like for whatever reason.

Juris Imprudent said...

This is exactly what NMN does yet he is somehow a "true Christian."

Really? Who has ever said that? I certainly don't recall him saying so.

It's not meant to be an all or nothing text, something you really don't like for whatever reason.

Really? How exactly do you know what it is meant to be? Did God have a little side-bar discussion with you in church one day, or speak to you in a dream. I mean, what the hell is one more voice in your head?

Anonymous said...

This is exactly what NMN does yet he is somehow a "true Christian."

NMN is only pointing our your illogical and secular beliefs that don't square with the Bible. You are the one trying to justify society rather God determines the rules and he just points out that you have it reversed.