Buffet Christianity

[Zzyzx]

.
Buffet Christianity / Pick and Choose / Cherry Pick

Focus on parts of the Bible and ignore others. Claim that it is 'The word of God' also claim that parts have been superseded (God changed his mind about things?).

Paul/Saul and gospel writers disagree with many teachings of Judaism but claim that their icon was the Jewish messiah (denied by Jews).

The NT does not list the Ten Commandments. Those come from Judaism (but are revered in Christendom). However, 600+ other rules from Judaism are cast aside as though they don't apply to Christians. Why some and not others? Did God decide which rules no longer apply or which rules apply to which people? Or did humans decide?

Some Bible stories have come to be accepted as folklore or myth or parables (or simply ignored) while others are fiercely defended as true accounts. Did Samson push down a large building by brute strength? Did Jonah live for three days inside a fish? Did the sea part on command? Well, maybe not literally, only figuratively.

Did Jesus come back to life? "Now wait a minute. That is a true story."

Pick and choose.

Which stories, if any, are true and accurate accounts of events that actually happened in the real world AND how can that be determined?

[Mithrae]

I can't imagine that anyone considered books like Joshua, Chronicles or Lamentations to be the "word of God" when they were written; they're just legends, history, poetry and so on. But even after the tradition that all 'scripture' is inspired by God was developed, that has never been taken to imply that every part of it is literally true and universally applicable.

You can assume that those words on the tablet were just poetry and myth. But that doesn't negate the fact that people believed that God's word existed on a form of writing. Whether it was engraved in stone or on parchment paper, it's not an 18th century thing that God's Word was first written down.

You seem to be arguing against a straw man here. The issue raised by Zzyzx's comment isn't "Do people consider the bible the word of God/when did they start doing so?" Many obviously do, and have done so for thousands of years. The question is "Does viewing the bible as the word of God necessitate that "every part of it should be true and accurate"?" As I showed, historically many if not most people who have accepted the inspiration of the bible have nevertheless rejected the view that every word was dictated by God.

[JehovahsWitness]

The question is "Does viewing the bible as the word of God necessitate that "every part of it should be true and accurate"?"

Does viewing ( ie believing) the bible as the word of God make it necessary to accept every part of the bible to be true and accurate? No: such a view is not imposed nor it is necessary for the faith of many people. I however, and many like me choose to hold all the bible to be 100% "true and accurate" and hold that such a position as absolutely necessary for our faith.



RELATED POSTS

Is the bible authoritative while not necessary for being inerrant?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 13#p986513

How can we be sure the bible is TRUE?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 33#p796733

Go to other posts related to...

BIBLICAL INERRANCY , AUTHORSHIP & TRANSMISSION

[tonjun]

You seem to be arguing against a straw man here. The issue raised by Zzyzx's comment isn't "Do people consider the bible the word of God/when did they start doing so?" Many obviously do, and have done so for thousands of years. The question is "Does viewing the bible as the word of God necessitate that "every part of it should be true and accurate"?" As I showed, historically many if not most people who have accepted the inspiration of the bible have nevertheless rejected the view that every word was dictated by God.

Straw manning you? Really? I'm not sure about that. If telling you a general truth and asking you a question is to automatically be considered straw manning you, then there seems little point to exchange ideas here.

But yes, good job boy. You are right about people still rejecting parts of the Bible even though they claim to be Christian or otherwise.

[Mithrae]

I however, and many like me choose to hold all the bible to be 100% "true and accurate" and hold that such a position as absolutely necessary for our faith.

Mark 8:34 He called the crowd with his disciples, and said to them, "If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.

Mark 10:21 Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said, "You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me." 22 When he heard this, he was shocked and went away grieving, for he had many possessions.

Matthew 6:19 "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal; 20 but store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

Matthew 6:25 "Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing?

Luke 12:32 Do not be afraid, little flock, for it is your Fathers good pleasure to give you the kingdom. 33 Sell your possessions, and give alms.

Luke 14:33 So therefore, none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions.

If a person wants to be a Christian - a disciple of Christ (Acts 11:26) - yet feels that they can do so without giving up all their possessions, saying that they accept Christ's reported words as 100% true and accurate is... shall we say... stretching things a little Maybe they are true-ish? True for some people but not for me and Zacchaeus? "100% true" in some kind of technical sense, but just unintentionally and wildly misleading?

[tonjun]

If a person wants to be a Christian - a disciple of Christ (Acts 11:26) - yet feels that they can do so without giving up all their possessions, saying that they accept Christ's reported words as 100% true and accurate is... shall we say... stretching things a little Maybe they are true-ish? True for some people but not for me and Zacchaeus? "100% true" in some kind of technical sense, but just unintentionally and wildly misleading?

I would say almost all famous pastors don't follow that commandment; to sell all possessions.

They got big houses, nice cars, and some fancy suits. Check out Joel Osteen's crib and his very own jet:
https://www.velvetropes.com/backstage/joel-osteen-house

Woo they doing it big for Christ.

Although I like TD Jakes, even if he is not completely following that command.

There's my buffet arbitrage in action.

[Mithrae]

They got big houses, nice cars, and some fancy suits.

In fairness though, it would be nice to think that there's a bit of a difference between simply not following Jesus' teachings (like most Christians) and brazenly doing the exact opposite (like most famous preachers and a sizeable fraction of Christians in wealthy countries). Jehovah's Witnesses are a comparatively modest denomination for example, with only ~51% of their US members having household incomes above $30,000 per year (the global average being around $10,000).

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 ... us-groups/

[JehovahsWitness]

Jehovah's Witnesses are a comparatively modest denomination for example, with only ~51% of their US members having household incomes above $30,000 per year (the global average being around $10,000).

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 ... us-groups/

Emphasis MINE


Yes, this is because we choose not just to "talk the talk but to walk the walk": we understand Jesus instructions to mean, not to refrain from having honest work to support ourselves and our families but no refrain from making money and career the main focus of our lives. We chose to live modestly and focus our lives on spiritual activities.

Thanks to surveys such as the Pew Reports we have verifiable, quantifiable evidence that Jehovahs Witnesses actually apply Jesus words in real life, not just in theory.


JW



RELATED POSTS

Did Jesus not teach his followers to hate their families?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 09#p921209

Should Jesus words about abandoning "all things" be taken literally?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 89#p908689

Did Jesus sin when he threw the money-changers out of the temple?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 99#p976999

Did Jesus stipulate that all his followers should renounce ownership of all material possessions?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 20#p835720

Did Jesus expect his disciples to give up absolutely everything they owned?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 61#p908161

Would the "Acts model" allow for Christian ownership of houses?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 13#p980613

Is there proof JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES are the religion that put spiritual things ahead of working for money?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 85#p909585

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES , JW's FINANCES and ... CHURCH LEADERSHIP [/quote

[Overcomer]

There's nothing arbitrary about the contents of the Bible. They may look that way to the uninformed, but when you study the book in depth using proper rules of exegesis and looking at the cultural and historical settings things become clear. So, in answer to the question re: how to understand Scripture, the answer is always study and pray for guidance from the Holy Spirit.

For example, let's take the laws in the Old Testament. I hear people ask things like -- why do you Christians eat pork when the Bible says not to. It's important to note that there were three kinds of laws given to Israel -- ceremonial, civil and moral. The ceremonial (rules regarding worship) and civil (legal rules regarding how people got along) laws were meant for the nation of Israel at that time. They were not intended for everybody. Nor were they intended to be eternal. That's why we eat pork today. In a hot, arid Middle Eastern country, it wouldn't have been wise to eat pork because of trichinosis.

On the other hand, the moral laws still apply and always will. The Ten Commandments will always be relevant.

The 613 rules that the Pharisees added to those of God are man-made, not God-ordained, so there is no reason for anybody to follow them. Nobody has to worry about walking only so far and no farther on the Sabbath, for example.

Historic Christianity has remained consistent on the primary doctrines -- One God existing in three persons (God the Father, God the Son, God the Spirit), Christ coming to earth as God Incarnate, Christ dying to atone for our sins and resurrected on the third day, salvation coming as a gift from Christ, accepted in faith, not earned, and, lastly, looking forward to Christ's return when he will deal with evil once and for all.

There are disagreements over secondary doctrines that have nothing to do with salvation -- such as whether a person should be fully immersed when baptized or merely sprinkled with water, for example.

As to why there are any differences at all between Christians, it's important to remember that we all start out as babies and have to learn to become mature believers. We have all of the baggage of the world to "unlearn" which affects our understanding. The Bible talks about this as a renewing of our minds. And then there's the devil and his minions -- always trying to lead us astray, confuse us, lie to us. It's an ongoing spiritual battle.

Put another way, Jesus initiated the kingdom of God when he came the first time (the kingdom of God being a kingdom in which everything is done perfectly according to God's will) which means that we will see some of that kingdom on earth now. However, it will not be fully implemented until Christ's return. Theologians call this the "already-but-not-yet" aspect of the Kingdom of God.

[Mithrae]

The ceremonial (rules regarding worship) and civil (legal rules regarding how people got along) laws were meant for the nation of Israel at that time. They were not intended for everybody.

Don't most Christians claim to be heirs of God's covenant with Abraham, the man of faith and father of many nations? Paul made quite a point of emphasizing the Abrahamic covenant over those of Moses. Genesis is unequivocally clear what the sign of that covenant was to be:

• Genesis 17:4 "As for me, this is my covenant with you: You shall be the ancestor of a multitude of nations. 5 No longer shall your name be Abram, but your name shall be Abraham; for I have made you the ancestor of a multitude of nations. . . .
  9 God said to Abraham, "As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. 10 This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 Throughout your generations every male among you shall be circumcised when he is eight days old, including the slave born in your house and the one bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring. 13 Both the slave born in your house and the one bought with your money must be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."

Nor were they intended to be eternal.

Are you sure that you've read your own scriptures? There are literally too many references to laws which Yahweh commanded to be 'perpetual,' lasting 'forever,' 'everlasting' commandments for 'all generations' for me to list them all! But just a couple of examples showing the eternal nature of the Aaronic priesthood and perpetual atonement for sin by the sacrifice of goats (not even lamb!) should suffice:

• Exodus 40:12 Then you shall bring Aaron and his sons to the entrance of the tent of meeting, and shall wash them with water, 13 and put on Aaron the sacred vestments, and you shall anoint him and consecrate him, so that he may serve me as priest. 14 You shall bring his sons also and put tunics on them, 15 and anoint them, as you anointed their father, that they may serve me as priests: and their anointing shall admit them to a perpetual priesthood throughout all generations to come.
  
  Leviticus 16:29 This shall be a statute to you forever: In the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you shall deny yourselves, and shall do no work, neither the citizen nor the alien who resides among you. 30 For on this day atonement shall be made for you, to cleanse you; from all your sins you shall be clean before the Lord. 31 It is a sabbath of complete rest to you, and you shall deny yourselves; it is a statute forever. 32 The priest who is anointed and consecrated as priest in his fathers place shall make atonement, wearing the linen vestments, the holy vestments. 33 He shall make atonement for the sanctuary, and he shall make atonement for the tent of meeting and for the altar, and he shall make atonement for the priests and for all the people of the assembly. 34 This shall be an everlasting statute for you, to make atonement for the people of Israel once in the year for all their sins. And Moses did as the Lord had commanded him.

If (as Jehovah's Witness claims) passages like these and many others were "100% true and accurate," then certainly all Jews were 100% correct to reject the Christian gospel and the Jewish NT authors were 100% blasphemous in preaching a different message. Of course even many Gentile Christians claim that they are a 'spiritual Israel' or somesuch... in which case they too should be obeying these everlasting statutes.

It's difficult to see why anyone would imagine the biblical collection to be the 'word of God' or otherwise wholesale 'inspired' by God to begin with - in fact it seems rather blasphemous to attribute some of its brazen falsehoods and vile atrocities to any deity worth the name - but for those who are committed to that dogma, one might hope that they would at least be perceptive enough to recognize that it only has even the slightest possibility of being true in the vaguest, most general sense: Any notion of verbal inspiration just makes their god a flat-out liar, again and again and again.

[tonjun]

The ceremonial (rules regarding worship) and civil (legal rules regarding how people got along) laws were meant for the nation of Israel at that time. They were not intended for everybody.

Don't most Christians claim to be heirs of God's covenant with Abraham, the man of faith and father of many nations? Paul made quite a point of emphasizing the Abrahamic covenant over those of Moses. Genesis is unequivocally clear what the sign of that covenant was to be:

• Genesis 17:4 "As for me, this is my covenant with you: You shall be the ancestor of a multitude of nations. 5 No longer shall your name be Abram, but your name shall be Abraham; for I have made you the ancestor of a multitude of nations. . . .
  9 God said to Abraham, "As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. 10 This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 Throughout your generations every male among you shall be circumcised when he is eight days old, including the slave born in your house and the one bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring. 13 Both the slave born in your house and the one bought with your money must be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."

Nor were they intended to be eternal.

Are you sure that you've read your own scriptures?

Boom! Bingo!

I'm with Mithrae here.

Let's also not forget Jesus said, " ...the Father is greater than I." (John 14:28)
Coming straight from Jesus' mouth.
Not the Apostle Paul or whoever never even met Jesus; those were Jesus' words.
Then Christians took someone like Paul who never met Jesus and claimed that Jesus is God. Yet Jesus never said so.
Complete rubbish and unreliable.
Forget about it.