Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by Crabtownboy, May 11, 2009.
What is it with people in the last month? This article is blasphemous. The author of this article, Miguel De La Torre, is a complete moron and a blasphemer. This is the same guy who called Jesus a racist.
Shame on you Crabtownboy for posting this blasphemy and promoting this heretic.
I agree with Matt Wade on this. Crabtownboy, your politics are shameful -- but it now appears that your theology is also rather less than solid.
1. You're gonna get shutdown for posting this...I don't necessarily disagree. Its pretty inflammatory.
2. ABPNews has completely discreditted itself by posting this foolish man's editorials. I can't even defend them (which I had in the past) to friends and family.
3. While I do agree that a completely literalistic read of the Bible isn't necessarily possible (we all take certain passages allegorically...well even the authors of Scripture take certain passages allegorically) there is a marked difference between literalism and authority. When we read the Scriptures we do so through the lens of the New Covenant, which shapes and configures (with the aid of the Holy Spirit) how we understand Old Covenant laws.
And I agree with Rippon who agrees with Matt Wade.
This article is written by an unbeliever who can not understand the Word of God because he is still dead in his sins. And yes I can make that judgement based on the "fruit" I see.
This article is so asinine that it really is not worth the effort to respond to it. Obviously the author has no clue of how to study let alone interpret the Bible.
TROLL TROLL TROLL!!!!
Heh heh...sorry guys I have been wanting to say that for some time now ever since someone called me that for my "obama hate" thread...a-n-y-w-a-y-s...
Don't take it so personally chaps...the OP is obviously trying to provoke a reaction and you're giving him exactly what he wants. I used to belong to a community on yahoo filled with Librals who continuously spat the most illogically horrific blasphemy at every turn so this is not so bad honestly.
What is crabtown's point....that we cannot interpret the bible literally in every passage...we all agree about that don't we.
But where he errs is in his own warped interpretations in the examples he quotes. Will adress that tomorrow I think...nighty night!
Some passages are obviously symbolic or allegorical. Jesus is described in various ways, such as a lamb, a vine, a door, etc.
Some passages merely relate what the some people were doing without endorsing those actions, and sometimes condemning them. They are not instructions for us to follow. We are not commanded to marry 700 wives, nor was Solomon.
The Law was also intended for a specific people. Some of the provisions seem harsh to us today. In fact, they are harsh.
That doesn't diminish the Scriptures in any way, to me. They are a perfect treasure, still.l
My only point in posting the piece was that I thought it might promote some rational discussion. Seems is won't. Sorry about that. Just because a person posts a piece does not mean that he/she either agrees or disagrees with the article.
I agree we cannot interprete all passages literally. And I agree we have to take the Bible message as a whole and not quote proof texts. My guess is the arthor of the article/editorial would agree with these two statements and may well have written the article to show this to be true.
Me thinks some took the article too literally.
The article makes an interesting point worthy of discussion. There are obvious area's of the scripture that are taken literally and those that are not. Divisions in Christianity are caused by such misunderstandings and personal opinions with regard to the Scritpures. First of All for those posters who shouted "BLASPHEMY" show me what was said that falls into this critism or is it the point that he challenged the literal view of interpretation of the bible?
To say that any command given by God is immoral is blasphemy.
Well, maybe a legitimate question is who around here is a "literalist" and why do you hold to that belief?
then a follow up, why do we believe that certain parts of the Scriptures are fine to be interpret allegorically and others literally? Can be multiple ways of viewing a text (both a literal and allegorical meaning)?
maybe this will get things back on track
Where did you get the quote several immoral regulations or commands that appear in the Bible
from. Maybe I'm blind, but I did not see in the article on in the replies. But it does bring up an interesting question, does the OT statement of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth still hold true and if so how do we reconcile that with Christ's command to love your enemy and turn the other cheek?
I believe that an eye for an eye does not hold now. Why? Because, with Christ we have a full representation of God on earth and that gives us a better understanding of God thanpeople had who lived in OT times.
God gradually revealed himself as people were able to understand. The fullest revelation was in Christ's live on earth ... and we are still working out our understanding of that revelation. Gradually we understand a bit more and more about God and thus God does not change, but we in our understanding change and change our lives accordingly
The most important consideration of a literal interpretation is context, context, context.
Followed by the a consideration of the revelation to date and divine expectations of the historical addressee.
Followed by a consideration of the cultural setting(s) and language use of parables, figures of speech, similes, etc.
Followed by the intent of the Book i.e. The Book of the Acts of the Apostles is history, The Book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ is prophecy.
We all know that. The OP is simply showing us the lengths to which some will go to undermine the faith of babes in Christ.
Luke 17:1 Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!
2 It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.
Mark 9:42 And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
Would you say stoning a homosexual to death is illegal on in our society immoral?
Or how about an adulterer?
Or how about a man or woman who was divorsed (after being married as a christian) and remarried? Scritptures states that they are commiting adultery. (about 1/2 of church membership would be purged). Should we kill them too? How about excommunicating people under this law?
How would you determine that I have no idea.
And in our country if we went through out killing palm readers and mediums rather than making TV shows about them would that not be illegal or immoral?
God does not command us to do that in this day and age. Regardless, it doesn't matter what society deems moral or immoral. That's the problem with liberal theology. It forgets that God is the one by which all morality is judged. If he said to stone someone in the OT, then rest assured it was moral to do so.
Maybe you are blind. It is in the article and the quote from the article you posted.
Somehow I think that this article is not meant to bring about meaningful discussion concerning the Bible. Rather, it was written to do one thing and that is to cast doubt. Personally, it does nothing to change my mind or perspective of the Bible as being the authoritative word of God. And, for those who already doubt or hold to a liberal viewpoint of the Bible, it only affirms what they already believe.
So, killing people in these circumstances is right. God has made his statement. The bible is the word of God. God is unchanging therefore God still wants these people to be killed. So since we are not doing this in our country we are therefore in violation of God's law and his moral standard. In order to set things straight we must then go out and kill all these people? Is this your contention?
No, you know it isn't.
God did make those commandments in the OT. Is it your contention that his commands at that point in time were immoral?
"The proof is in the pudding!" as the saying goes.
I suggest that the OP and the ensuing thread prove to be a text-book example which proves one can 'prove' anything from the Bible, if and when one limits the discussions to 'proof-texts' thus here proving, yet once again, that -
"A text out of context is often nothing more than a pretext for a proof-text." :tear: