Board index ‹ Bible

[Newbie]

I thought all you had to do was accept Jesus as your savior and you were a Christian and Saved?

I believe in God, the holy trinity, and that Jesus died on the cross for my sins. I have a relationship with God. I pray. I attend Church. I serve. However, I blatantly disagree with many of the teachings of the Bible. I am a gay rights advocate, have no issue with sex before marriage, believe that abortion is the woman's choice (however I personally would never be able to justify the act myself), etc. I think it's extremely twisted how so many fellow Christians judge or force their fellow brothers and sisters to follow all of these biblical rules instead of loving and accepting each other. For fear of what? Do you not believe that God will forgive us of our sins if we love and trust in him throughout every decision we make in life, whether it is considered a sin in ancient text or not?

Another issue I have is the fact that it is a proven fact that society changes over time. The teachings of the Bible were directed to a completely different society of people. Back when it was written, law was a completely different concept, people married younger, and education was not as prevalent. In an era where the norm is to get married in your late 20s/early 30s (with varying exceptions), schooling is considered the main priority during your teenage and young adult years, there are thousands and thousands of career options and jobs available, are we really expected to follow the same rules written for people who lived in a time where your main goal at 15 was to get married and start a family?
It doesn't add up to me. I have recently been unsure if I can even call myself a Christian when I seem to have such polar opposite views of everyone else in my religion.

Thoughts? Thank you in advance for being respectful and thoughtful in your responses.

P.S. - I feel that I must add this to avoid confusion. I do believe many of the stories and occurrences written in the Bible. It's many of the outright dictations that I have a hard time accepting. My belief is that, as Christians, what is asked of us is to build a strong and personal relationship with God our Father and encourage others to do so as well without judgement.

[jimwalton]

Wow. I read through the string of comments. Lots of misunderstanding written here. Maybe my thoughts can help. The Bible is primarily the written ("legal") contract between God and people. Sort of the kind of "party of the first part" and "party of the second part" kind of language. As the expression of the covenant (contract), the bulk of it is to tell us what God is like. It's where God reveals himself. It tells us about his side of the deal, our side of the deal, what will happen if we abide by the contract, and what will happen if we don't. It explains those things through the telling of narrative (history), poetry, prophecy, wisdom literature, letters, etc.

With that understanding, it's quite impossible to be a Christian and not believe in the Bible, which is the revelation of who the God is that you have committed your life to, and the covenant by which you claim faith, salvation, and a future. Without that, you have no God and no salvation.

But I think, honestly, your question is about other matters. Contrary to what others have said in this thread, the Bible is not an archaic book of mythologies, shared ignorances, mistakes and contradictions. Whoever says that hasn't done their homework. But maybe let's talk (way too briefly) about some things you've mentioned.

You obviously disagree with the sexual ethics of the Bible. Conversation that would be most helpful would delve into why you think as you do, what you think the Bible is teaching and why, and (most importantly) how these things pertain to the revelation of who God is and the covenant he has established with humans.

I agree with you that oftentimes Christians can come across as judgmental, but frankly I have found many non-Christians to be very judgmental too. That certainly doesn't excuse Christians, who have been specifically taught not to judge others (Mt. 7.1).

The books of Galatians and Romans are about "the biblical rules". Basically they say that the rules don't hold sway over us any more, but they also insist that doesn't mean we get to make our decisions about how to behave and how to live.

You say that we should just be loving and forgiving and know that God will forgive us no matter what. But love without reason is nonsense. If I love someone, I'm not just going to stand around while they ruin their lives. I'm not going to let them hurt themselves and others without confronting them about it and trying to make them STOP! I LOVE them. Love without boundaries of some kind is just apathy, and freedom without definition is pure anarchy. It's certainly not the way to have a relationship with God.

Have the rules of society changed? Sure they have. The Bible was not written to be an ethics textbook, but a book that tells us what God is like, and about the covenant he has set up. So lots of things that are in Bible that are perceived as "rules for them" are not "rules for us." The principles of God's character and his covenant, though, haven't changed, and that's what we need to dig down to. You can't just read the Bible one inch deep, just as you don't quit college after one class. There's a very deep river there to be explored and understood.

You said "what is asked of us is to build a strong and personal relationship with God our Father and encourage others to do so as well without judgement." That's true; Jesus said it too: The two most important commands are to love God and to love each other. But that's not all there is to Christianity. There is also truth (Jn. 17.17), obedience (Jn. 14.15), and service (Jn. 13.14-17), among other things. The lead sentence of the story isn't the whole story.

[Weary Moon]

I absolutely agree with you. What you've said is very similar to what my boyfriend tells me almost daily. He has been Christian for 25 years. I am definitely a baby Christian in comparison. It's hard to touch on everything your wrote because I'm at work but I want to say something about my issues with the Bible's stance on sexuality to state that I do understand His word as a way to protect us because He loves us, as many outcomes that can hurt us come from sex outside of a God graced relationship. I do understand that staying pure for the one God chose you to spend your life with is the only way to truly protect yourself. I have similar understanding about other major controversial topics in regards to God's written word. However, I also believe it's near impossible to expect everyone to live up to those expectations. Sex is human nature. It should be reserved for love, in a relationship that, if a negetive consequence were to develope from it, both parties would desire to stay and work through it together. In other words, marriage, the way it was millions of years ago when people eloped at 15 years old. People date and remain engaged for years to decades before committing to marriage, now.

[jimwalton]

Thanks for the conversation. You're (obviously) right that the way we do marriage is very different from the way they did marriage, but there are some things that are the same: two becoming one, commitment, and loyalty, among others.

Sex is human nature, unarguably. But it's interesting that in the very next sentence you use the word "should," which reveals at least two things: (1) There is an "ought" character of sexuality, where we understand that we're not just animals humping each other at a whim. There is an ethical obligation, and we all recognize that, regardless of what a person chooses to be their sexual ethics. We all know there is an "ought" part of sex, and a "wrong" part of sex. (2) Sexual expression is a choice, not a right, a mandate, or an irresistible instinct. Your use of the word "should" discloses that you understand that sex is something we regulate. A dog can't help it. People can. And since sex is a "should," and a "choose," and possible to be "reserved" (all your terms), then it's not irresistible human nature, but regulatable human nature. Hence God's teachings about what purity, responsibility, and morality are all about.

[Meatloaf]

You are one of the only Christians I've talked to with a logical approach to this particular question. I ultimately do not agree with your view because I understand the bible to be inspired by men, not a cloud god. But, if I did still believe, this would be my position exactly. I appreciate the elegance of your writing. I do have one question though. You said, "So lots of things that are in Bible that are perceived as 'rules for them' are not 'rules for us.' " Can you elaborate on some specific examples there? How do you tease apart which aspects of biblical doctrine god intends as a depiction of his character from general ideas that no longer apply in the 21st century?

Here is a hypothetical question: Assume that it is the 23rd century and we haven't annihilated ourselves yet, and that science and philosophy have advanced at the same exponential pace as they have over the last century. It must be possible that the distance between "rules for them" and "rules for us" would continue to evolve in the way they have until now. Do you think the bible is infinitely pliable to that kind of situation? There are a finite number of words and stories in the bible, so it seems logical to posit that we could eventually work ourselves up to a situation where the entire bible is no longer "rules for us" according to your argument. Thoughts?

You also said, "The Bible was not written to be an ethics textbook, but a book that tells us what God is like"

Now, there seems to be some statements and examples of god's morality in the bible, right? Have you ever studied ethics formally? Secular ethics get their authority from the understanding of philosophy and mainstream science, while the bible gets its authority from a deity. Right?

[jimwalton]

Thank you for your kind words. I'll upvote you in return.

> I understand the bible to be inspired by men, not a cloud god

I won't go too deeply into it, because you didn't ask, and maybe don't want to engage, but I would say that most people have an improper understanding of inspiration. The main thrust behind the idea of inspiration is to emphasize that God is the source of what it written, that it is revelation of the person of God, and that it has the power or authority consequent to both of those thoughts. The path of that "breath of God" coming to us (in the 21st century) is a human one: it is the writer's language, his cultural context, his understandings of science, etc. What we know about the Bible is that God communicated in the locutions of the human author, accommodating his verbal and cultural framework (without which communication would have been compromised). The human author, then, wrote to his intended audience in the linguistic and cultural context known to them all, and that illocution carried the authority of God, the source of the words. That doesn't mean we believe everything the author did—we don't need to believe that the sky was a solid dome to be committed to what he said in the instructions, blessings, promises, etc. The authority of the words is not in the cosmic geography, because that's incidental to the warning or the promise or whatever the message of the text was. We can easily (and justifiably) set aside the cultural locutions as we grasp the meaning intended by the author. Critics want to dismiss the whole on the basis of faulty science or primitive notions of cosmic geography, not understanding that God's accommodations relating to words and phrases don't detract from the authority of the blessings or warnings of the text.

> Can you elaborate on some specific examples there?

I think you're mistaken to assume that the "rules for them" and "rules for us" have been evolving. The Law of Moses was a temporary measure from the start (Gal. 3.1-25, and much of Galatians). God wanted to tell his people that they should have certain attitudes. He did that by commanding actions (the Law) with the idea that they would see the attitudes behind them. They failed. Jesus, on the other hand, is said to have fulfilled the Law (in general, not just one part of it). He fulfilled it in that he did what the law failed to do: showed people how to live. Jesus preached the attitudes (Mt. 5-7 and other places), but more importantly lived an example of them (Phil. 2.5-8 et al), thus accomplishing what the law failed to accomplish. We can, in a sense, ignore the law ("rules for them") because we follow Christ's example, the one who fulfilled the Law, and by doing that we'll get the actions of the law and the attitudes of the heart, not because they're written on a list, but because we follow a person. So all of the Law was fulfilled in Christ, and the "rules for them" are not the "rules for us".

You wanted specific examples. Are you ready? What goes and what stays? It all goes. The law was a tutor given to bring us to Christ (Gal. 3.24-25; 4.1-7). Jesus didn't bring a revelation, he was THE revelation. The Law is still there (Rom. 3.31), and therefore is eternal as the Old Testament promises, but its authority is in pointing to Christ, not in providing a list of "rules for us". We don't live by it any more (Rom. 4.13-14). There was no "evolution" about it, nor will it continue to evolve, as you propose.

> there seems to be some statements and examples of god's morality in the bible, right?

I agree with you that secular ethicists derive their theories from sundry philosophical reasonings, observations of humanity and culture, and spiritual notions, and, as such, viewpoints are not in short supply. Christians get their ethics from the Bible, but it's systematically gleaned more than it's pragmatically presented for study. In the Bible sometimes ethics are described, sometimes synthesized, sometimes interpreted, and at other times observed. We discern, infer, and integrate. As mentioned above, the authority comes from the breath of God indwelling the locutions, and the pragmatic task comes from the person of Jesus, as foreviewed in the Old Testament and expounded in the New.