Except that the Bible isn’t the only religion…and the Bible contradicts itself grievously.
“Thou shalt not kill (murder.)”
“Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.”
Sin has no definable meaning; crime, at least, does.
Quite wrong. Many Jews suggest that the dietary restrictions are passé, and have no more relevance today than the rules against mixing fabric in weaving.
Many Jews not only are content to eat ham-and-cheese sandwiches, but suggest that this is perfectly acceptable now, as the old rules simply don’t apply any longer, any more than the laws about having the Rabbi look over your warts for signs of growth, or having to go to the temple in Jerusalem to have your meat butchered.
They can suggest anything they want, but I have yet to meet a Jew that calls him or herself devout and also eats pork. It’s “okay” in the sense that God isn’t going to strike you with plague anymore(there are already enough ways for Jews to die in this world without God helping), but you will never hear a practicing Jew argue that the dietary laws simply do not apply. A secular Jew, maybe. But again, that goes back to my cite a couple pages back that shows that the “moderately religious” tend to reject all views that disagree with secular society, which doesn’t make them moderately religious at all. It makes them secular.
Sin is breaking the rules of a particular religion. Hence what is considered a sin in one religion could be completely fine in another. Take the Sabbath for example. The original meaning was Saturday in the Jewish faith, but it was changed to Sunday for Christians. Today in my world some stores are open 365 days a year. No rest on the seventh day for the wicked.
I know very few Christians who have read the 81st or 82d K J V psalm and even know it is there, plus John 10 where Jesus seems to be saying, the word God is not as most humans think it means, Jesus doesn’t seem to think of himself as any more divine than any other person he is speaking to, it seems to be a matter of how one chooses to see it.
An alternative is believeing the Bible was never meant to be taken as the literal word of God, or an instruction book on how to live, but meant as a guide or a tool which we use in seeking God.
In fact Jesus stresses actually seeking God rather than following the traditions of men, {dogma?}
IMO this is a more honest and accurate approach. Those who do claim the Bible is literally the word of God are much more likley to pick and choose and create their own justifications for which verses they follow and which ones they ignore or bend. The seeker who acknowledges their imperfect humanity and sees the Bible as something that must be interpreted through a human lens and with the help of the Holy Spirit. so when faced with the question of divorce the seeker looks within and seeks insight and inspiration about what the correct moral path is, rather than having to follow blind rigid dogma.
If the non believer wants to call this “creating your own religion” that’s fine. That’s accurate in that each seeker has a unique relationship with God and must decide for themselves the sincerity in their hearts and how much they rationalize and cater to theirn own preferences.
If you want to claim, “You’re not following the Bible” the answer is " No I’m not, who said I was supposed to?" The idea is not to follow some other person’s interpretation or dogma but to have your own relationship with God and to seek that guidence.
The Bible says the HS will lead us into all truth and that God must be worshipped in spirit and truth. it also says any person seeking God can go directly to the source.
Again, for those Christians who sensibly see the Bible as just a spiritual tool rathger than a rigid rule book, this is not true.
Are they still Jews after they ignore their religious teachings?
I didn’t grow up religious and was always confused by people saying they were Catholic simply because their parents were? It’s one thing to say “My family is X” or “my background is X” but another to claim it in forst person when you don’t care about observing the traditions.
Sure they are. We don’t do excommunication. I can see excluding people who directly profess another religion, but not those not following all the rules of ours. Now, I’d not be surprised at the existence of someone who eats pork and still calls himself devout, but I have no examples (not knowing many who call themselves devout.) But you don’t have to be devout to be Jewish. And then we have the whole cultural/ancestry thing.
I’d bet that they went through all the rituals. Assuming no one kicked them out of the church, I don’t see why they shouldn’t be considered Catholic.
If we want to destroy organized religion, just convince them to kick out every person not following their laws to the letter. Be hardly anyone left within a year. Alas, Religion Inc. is smarter than that.
This makes sense to me. It’s not like we were born into a particular religion. Most of us get recruited before we’re old enough to make our own choices, which might explain why there are so many “non-practicing” adherents as adults. This does create a big problem for the groupthink school of religious thought however. Maybe spiritualism is a better words.
That’s your problem, then. There are many.
So the literalists are more likely to cherry pick the parts they like than the non literalist seeker who is doing nothing but cherry pick the parts they like?
Rarely have I seen so many words in a row that look like english but make so little sense to me at all. Keep in mind this is from a non believing viewpoint.
I was being sarcastic.toward adaher. I’ve known lots of Christians who acknowledge they are less than devout.
The fact that you don’t grasp the point is not the failing of the post.
I think this goes to the fact that so many people interpret what they read a different way, or wish it to be. One reason there are so many divisions of Christianity. Contradictions tend to throw one off.
My suspicion is that it is less this.
And more this. The quoted post describes cherry picking for both parties but treats the second one as if its somehow more valid than the first. You may feel the second one is more valid but that doesn’t make it anymore valid.
Contradictions are a sign that the truth is buried elsewhere.
Or it could just be that the real point was grasped: Both sides are doing the exact same thing, taking the parts of the Bible they want to believe in, but just using different words to do it.
And of course your opinion that it isn’t more valid doesn’t make it true right?
it isn’t about my feelings. It’s about the definition of words and decent reasoning concerning those definitions.
If someone believes the Bible is the inerrant word of God and a blueprint or instruction manual for living a Christian life then they are bound by the terms of their own declared belief to obey the scriptures in a more literal way. When they don’t that can realistically be called “picking and choosing”
OTOH, if someone sees the. bible as merely an inspired study guide that must necessarily be interpreted and considered with more recent facts and moral understanding ( slavery, women’s equality, etc.) then they by definition of their beliefs , are not bound to follow the Bible in a literal way. There is a real and legitimate difference between “cherry picking” and interpretation.
You can’t make any realistic claim that someone isn’t “following the Bible” if their own belief system tells them they are not bound to.
I’m glad you posted this, as it makes your point much more clear. I, too, was a bit befuddled by the way you phrased it originally.
Now, put this way, yes, definitely. If someone defines himself as a “loose constructionist,” and then constructs loosely, that makes sense. But if someone defines himself as a “strict constructionist” and still constructs loosely, one has to look at him askance. There would seem to be a contradiction between the label he chooses for himself and his actual behavior.
(“I’m a grammatical purist, damn if’n I ain’t.”)