It’s possible to believe that Jesus was God but that the Bible was written by humans.
Zoe:
badchad, thanks for posting the verses which may seem to support judgment of others. They present examples of how the Bible contradicts itself.
Yes they do.
*quote:
“In righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.” (Lev.19:15)
quote:
Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. For with the judgment you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. (Matthew 7:1-2)
The first verse quoted is from the Old Testament. To me it can be interpreted to mean either:
- It is righteous to judge thy neighbor or
- Only if you are perfect should you judge your neighbor.
If the first interpretation is correct, then it contradicts the New Testament verse that says Do not judge. If the second interpretation is correct, no one should be judging anyone because none of us are perfect.*
Why bother interpreting it to your likes at all if you have already concluded that one of them doesn’t count?
When I find contradictory verses, I try to consider the source. The Old Testament was written before the birth of Jesus. For me, any teaching from the New Testament outweighs the Old.
Like I said.
Some of your quotations were from Paul – a man who admited to making many mistakes.
Like believing in the supernatural?
Everyone seems to think I’m a judgemental Christian because I tell people what the bible says about them. There are also brainless comments and questions on this forum about topics like “How could God do this, or how could he allow that?” James reminds us that we should be quick to listen and slow to speak, and for the person who is quick to listen (not just to people on this forum, but to the apostles and their teaching, for one) will come to an understanding as to why a God who’s so all loving could flood the world. The bible says that God is the same today as he was yesterday, and for a while I struggled not understanding how he could be so different in the OT as he seems to be in the new. What’s different isn’t God. It’s the revealing of his attributes that are different, and God has revealed to us all that while he loves each one of us, and would will that we would all be saved, he is also a holy judge, and will hold the world to account.
You guys must realise that all of this stuff about loving people and not judging them is something I agree with. But you must also realise (apart from the people who have taken it upon themselves to decide what parts of the bible are true and what bits aren’t- Zoe for example) is that God’s attributes (his love, righteousness, etc) are all infinite, and that one isn’t suspended when another is active. God can both be loving and ready to punish at the same time, as a loving father disciplines his child (check Hebrews for the scriptures on that one).
Bar the pendulum swinging too far in one direction (which can happen) it is for all of us to preach the gospel- those of us who are followers of Christ. And what is the gospel? It is the work of the cross, and for the cross to make sense, the schoolmaster of the law must bring to life our sin so that we can die. If the reality of Hell, the lawlessness (and selfishness) of homosexuality, sex before marriage, lying, stealing, looking at a woman with the desire to sleep with her (as Jesus says that makes a man an adulterer in his heart) is an incorrect use of the scriptures to you, then you need to ask yourself the reason of why the ten commandments were given in the first place.
Paul says that if it wasn’t for the law, he wouldn’t have known what sin was, and with the many parables Jesus tells of people who will be rejected by the father (what happened to the people thrown outside in the wedding feast parable?) there isn’t a Christian alive who can reason by the scriptures, except by dogmatic misinterpretation, that what I’ve mentioned on this forum is an inaccuracy. It is the gospel message that people have fallen short of the glory of God (that ALL have sinned and will stand before God as guilty) and that the only way of dealing with our sin is to accept the atoning sacrifice of Christ upon the cross.
Compassion is needed, yes. Love and mercy for the sinner? I’d be a resounding gong without it. But reality people- reality! If you think I sound rough and unloving, and have a hard line on sin, then look how serious God is about your (and other people’s) sin. Look what he did to his son upon the cross.
Now I know someone is going to be busting to reply. Try and remember what James says about listening. Reply if it’s really going to do me some good, but if not, just consider- that’s all I ask. Some people in this world have a very unreal understanding of sin. I talk to people on the streets all the time, and I can see how they reject God by their actions. People on this forum are saying, “Poor homosexual! or Poor relaxed Christian!” but let me tell you, as Christ himself said, if they do not repent, they will perish. I’m not the judge. I do not judge (or try not to, since I’m not perfect). I just relay what God has said, old testament and new.
Feel free to email me btw, in case I don’t come back here (for lack of time), if you feel the need to talk to me about this.
^^ Hmmm… long post eh? Hope that’s okay with everyone…
OF course, when one is not carefully culling (mis)quotes to make a point, one notices that the actual command is
[ul][li]Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.[/ul]or, rendered in the NIV[ul] 'Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.[/ul]In other words, when one is called to judge in a case of law, refrain from allowing the wealth of one party to compromise your decision.[/li]
The “judgement” in this passage is not the judging of a person, but the application of good judgement to situations. (I realize that among those who wish to impose arbitrary literalism on everything, such complex distinctions are difficult.)
Again, the passage clearly establishes that the judgement is applied to situations or actions, not to people. Only in the second clause is a judgement of a person, indicated, and there it says “he will not be judged.”
At last! We actually have an instance in which a person may be judged! And what is Paul’s actual command? If someone among the community of Corinth is publicly engaging in immorality, or engaging in greedy or swindling business practices, or committing idolatry, they are to be excluded from the community to avoid giving scandal, (i.e., excommunicated.) There is no command to judge the person, only to judge the actions, and if they give scandal, to put the person outside the community. And what does he say of those outside the community? God will judge them.
The complete passage is:
Note that the statement regarding the judging of the world is juxtaposed with judging the angels and is contrasted with judging things in “this life.”
Paul is addressing the issue of members of the Corinthian community filing tort actions against each other over petty complaints. He notes that at the end, the saints will be qualified to judge the world, but that at this time, the community should be able to find some wise member to act as a judge or mediator for small disputes so that they are not giving scandal outside the community.
Again, no one is given permission (much less a commmand) to judge the quality of a person–only to referee private disputes between individuals.
Excellent post, Tom~. I wish I’d thought to check out the context of those passages myself. Alas, I have a feeling your explication will be lost on some in this thread.
Diogenes the Cynic
Excellent post, Tom~. I wish I’d thought to check out the context of those passages myself. Alas, I have a feeling your explication will be lost on some in this thread.
I don’t think so. Judge the action or situation ok, but not judge the person. What do you think every fundie is doing when he preaches about varius moral sins? You know, hate the sin not the sinner bla bla bla. I think for all practical purposes Tom’s distinctions are meaningless.
Um… in what way is this non-judgmental? If you find a way to say it’s not, fine, but if you did this to me I’d still call it preachy, obnoxious, pretentious, condescending…
So, you’re going to continue attacking “liberal” positions by pointing out disagreements with “fundie” actions and vice versa, pretending that it is all one?
That is consistent with your posts in other threads, so far. Switch meanings, switch arguments, anything to keep the attacks coming without actually addressing the issues. Fair enough. Thanks for being up front about your intentions and practices.
Psa 119:105 "Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path. "
Well first lets get one thing straight, The Bible is inspired by God, inerrant and infallible. Someone once told me that the bible is always easy to follow if it agrees with your lifestyle. Once it differs …well the Bible suddenly is a little harder to follow and doesnt look so appealing. I having a little de ja vu here polycarp because i sware we had this conversation before. Oh wait I found it. Here is my statement
I will once again bring up the arguement on a different parallel. hypothetical Nomadic_One is angery one day, “argh, im angery”. Nomad decides to go and drive home as to get away from the world very fast. And drives 75 miles an hour (the speed limit being 65) when suddenly, he sees the cherries light up and the siren blare. uh-oh Nomad is caught but he is responsible and pulls over because he is not worried of a ticket because he is wearing his seatbelt. What officer Nomad still gets a ticket for speeding even though he was wearing HIS SEATBELT! What a realization on that day for poor Nomad that he has to abide by all the laws and not just get by with following some and ignoring others, and those that he is following also wont cover for those he wont follow. OK the reason for the …er parable of sorts is to state the fact that one cannot go through life following only certain laws based on ones own conditions.
It is a struggle to follow everything. I realize that, I stumble alot but one thing I think some people of this board need to realize is that one cannot take only part of the bible and have everythng still be koshier.
Well Im not sure about condemning but as to using the WORD OF GOD to use as grounds for a healthy lifestlye I totally agree. It would be blasphemy not to as it is the word of God.
sigh badchad you took the verses I had in mind. …are you sure your not a Christian in desguise. 
Mat 7:21 Not everyone who says unto me ‘Lord, Lord’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven,
but he who does the work of my father
…which is followed by
Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
[interesting]
For you are like whitewashed tombs, which on the outside look beautiful, but inside they are full of the bones of the dead and of all kinds of filth. So you also on the outside look righteous to others, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.
[/interesting]
-I need to remember to try to remember that with my own personal walk.
BTW Lekatt, Jesus is God manifested in the flesh. -refer to my fullness of the Godhead thread.
one last thing, polycarp,
Can you tell me where you see this? I see showing love and acts against condemnation but I dont see the prohibition on quoting scriptures. God bless bro. I love you all.
[random good verse of the day]
2 Timothy 3:16-17: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”
[/random good verse of the day]
Sorry the Mat 7:21 verse is a follow up to skyzoos post. Sorry i didnt make that clearer.
Reactor, welcome to SDMB. I hope that you find the time that you spend here worthwhile.
Great post, Tom! You certainly did your homework on it!
tomndebb:
So, you’re going to continue attacking “liberal” positions by pointing out disagreements with “fundie” actions and vice versa, pretending that it is all one?
I don’t recall making a distinction between judging actions or people in my original reply. Do you? If you ask any person of faith who are get Polycarp excited about judgement I’d wager they would say they are not judging him only his actions. None of them would say that they are actually deciding if he should go to hell or not. Rather just giving a friendly warning. So like I said earlier I don’t think you distintions have much effect on the topic. Certainly not from my perspective.
That is consistent with your posts in other threads, so far. Switch meanings, switch arguments, anything to keep the attacks coming without actually addressing the issues.
In arguing theology I have to address it from a certain perspective. Sometimes adopting a perspective that is not my own, though I don’t recall having hid the fact that I was doing so and have given clarification when asked. The issue I have been addressing primarily is the inherent inconsistency of liberal interpretation of the bible and I think I have been quite up front about it.
Cite?
First you would have to establish that it is the word of God. How do you know the Koran isn’t the word of God and that you’re not going to burn for your Christian idolotry?
Did you bother to read tomndebb’s contextual clarifications of those quotes?
Ironic choice of scripture…
Poly’s thesis was that Jesus condemned cold and mindless legalism in favor of compassion. When compassion conflicts with the written word. The written word is wrong.
You can’t use scripture to validate scripture. It’s circular, don’t you know.
Well first lets get one thing straight, The Bible is inspired by God, inerrant and infallible
Cite?
–Can you show me a site to dis-prove it?
Burden of proof is on you here, pal. Sorry. Especially given your claims about the authority and validity of the book.
I’m convinced that people who use circular logic know that it’s circular. They’re just convinced that the supposed existance of The Almighty Loophole removes any need for logic on their part.
If something cant be dis-proved…then how is it not proven?
Study some logic and (I hope) you’ll figure it out pretty fast. Again, the burden of proof is on you. If you can’t prove the existence of god, how is it not dis-proved? (See? It goes nowhere.)
just where does one go about finding this all knowing “logic”. and how does it supercede faith. marley love you bro.