Tercel

I agree with Joseph. 'nuff said.

Bree

But why? I'm not trying to pick a fight - just understand why some Christians think that only following some of the rules in the Bible is OK!

The "good Christians" seem to think that following ALL of the rules is bad, but the "bad Christians" think that only following SOME of the rules is bad. Who is right?

Sephiroth

I don't agree with Joseph. 'nuff said.

Yeesh Tercel, you could at least try to formulate an argument on why you think Joseph is right.

Samsa

Sounds to me like 'good and bad' are being used as synonyms for 'flexible and dogmatic'.

Of course no one, not even extreme fundies, follows the NT's prescriptions exactly. Otherwise you'd see Christians everywhere running round without hands or eyes (though a few do take a knife to their nads).

I think the essential difference lies more in whether a Christian uses the 'Good Book' as a guide for actions, or as a justification. In the first case, a Christian will find whatever moral tenets apply to what decision he/she is making, and decide whether they're applicable. This type of Christian doesn't have their mind made up at the beginning. The moral tenets are something they take into account along the way.

The second type of Christian decides what they're gonna do, then picks and chooses the rules that fit. Does anyone really think that Fred Phelps or Billy Graham don't do things they'd like to because of their religion? Phelps would find an excuse to persecute gays even if Jesus clearly stated that they must be accepted.

His type don't do any moral weighing up. They've decided ahead of time what they'll do, and can always find God's rubber stamp somewhere.

Gemma Therese

Wow, I thought I would have shown up in a post by now.

Gemma Therese

Oxidizing Material

There, happy now?

seebs

It's a question of what's "rules" and what's "advice", to some extent. Let's say, hypothetically, that in one place, I'm told that some people burned with "unnatural" lusts because they had turned from God, and in twenty places, I'm told to love my neighbor, even if my neighbor strikes me as weird.

Which of these should I intepret in terms of the framework established by the other? I say I take the "love your neighbor" thing as a framework, and take the "unnatural lusts" thing as an example referring to specific people, and leave the question of whether other people's lusts are unnatural alone, because it doesn't change what I should do much. Fred Phelps says that the "unnatural" lusts pretty much redefine the way in which we think of "loving our neighbor", so as to include cheering at our neighbor's kid's funeral, to show how "unnatural" the kid was. Instead, I restrict my preaching about sexual morality mostly to stuff that seems to be really hurting people; in some cases, this would include promiscuity, for instance.

I think my answer is overall a better job of following the rules. I am taking the most-repeated sections of the NT as the framework within which everything else must be understood.

Tercel

I agree with Joseph's attitude that someone who "doesn't judge" and is "openminded" is good. It tends to annoy me when I see Christians condemning others, or trying to force their opinions on others. I don't know what Bible they're reading, but mine says "love thy neighbour" an awful lot and tells me to be kind and gentle when explaining my beliefs to others, and not to judge others etc.

As Seebs notes, that which is oft-repeated and specifically placed as most important rules, should clearly be given the highest priority, with everything else being interpreted in light of that.

Jesus said that 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' (Matthew 22:37-39)
And in the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10) Jesus explains that the command includes loving ones enemies (the Samaritans were the religious enemies of the Jews).
Jesus also said that the one who loves God is the one who obeys his commands. (John 14:21)

Hence if the greatest command is to love God and to love God is to obey his commands, then it only puts extra emphasis on the second command: To love thy neighbour.Which is stated 10 times like that, and as "love one another" 15 times, and variations on the them countless oodles of times more.

In almost every book of the New Testament, the theme of love for others and being kind, caring, honest, and not judging others is discussed at least one. Only someone with extremely severe tunnel vision could miss it.
Thus when these people get up and condemn others, try to force their views on others etc are they acting as Christians? Of course not!
And yet none of the supposed evils these people spend their time condemning have even a small fraction of the number of Biblical verses against them that loving others has in support of it.

This has another issue related to it also: "Is a True Christian someone who puts an extremely high emphasis on the Bible as the inerrant word of God which should be used to answer everything?"
I would say: Certainly not, and that such a high view of the Bible is not only unfounded (due to obvious contradictions etc), but is an recent development and aberration in Christianity. Someone is a True Christian if they live their life serving God and others and if their loving and caring nature to all can be clearly seen through their kind words and loving actions.
These Fundamentalist bible-thumpers are simply supposed Christians who have simply added a new doctrine of "The BIBLE" to their Theology (and in my experience it comes at the expense of actually knowing any Theology).

Of course this sounds rather harsh, and some might wonder if I'm not judging them. In a way, I am, but the difference is that I only offer my opinions when asked for them (as you guys have asked me here) and I don't ram it down anyone's throats or given sermons about the evils of Fundamentalism. And I'm not about to condemn them to Hell or call them evil people - I just happen to think they are factually mistaken on this issue. Hey, all of my best friends are Fundamentalists.

HelenM

Bree I'd say you've got the argument exactly right.

Just to add a bit more of it:

Since we live on earth up to 100 years and heaven or hell is for eternity...so the argument goes, that means that preaching the gospel takes precedence over everything else, that some people might be saved from hell.

I agree with you that sometimes people say "My beliefs make much more sense than theirs" and/or "Obviously I'm a true Christian and they aren't" but to an outside observer it's not easy to see why.

love
Helen

Panta Pei

I hear tell Spandex, as yet, has no representative saint...hrmmmm.

<suddenly overwhelmed by a mysterious urge to play Uno...shakes it off>