Rejecting the Bad Parts

[Meriweather]

Defy means to stand up to. To take a stand against. It spurned the judgment that was handed down.
Maybe a better definition would be resistance without violence. Slapping was a way of impugning shame. Turning the other cheek was the way to refuse to be insulted.

Agree.

 

[ding]

Whoa, someone here got triggered bigly

Oh, you meant vasuderatorrent. Yeah. I agree.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Keep in mind, people of that day didn't go around looking to get slapped. But if they were unfairly slapped, Jesus proposed keeping one's dignity in tact.

Roman soldier? Meet Ms. Hoity Toity to the max. You see, there's them deserving of a good slap, and then there's your "unfair" slappage to consider.. Try not to get unnecessarily violent..

 

[ding]

Should Christians reject the bad parts of the Bible?

I say that Christians should reject the bad parts of the Bible.

They don't need to reject any part of the Bible. Christians should, however, find the parts of the Bible that speak to them the most and stand on them like a rock in the middle of a flooding river.

I guess I am just thinking out loud. I was hoping Christians could embrace the identical ethics of their atheist counterparts by embracing things that are good and rejecting things that are bad.

If atheists could see that the bad parts of the Bible can be rejected freely by Christians then atheists could view Christians as intellectual and moral equals. For example: Christ’s teachings to turn the other cheek, Christ’s teachings to avoid planning for the future, the description of homosexuals in Romans Chapter 1, and even teachings to pray nonstop. These are all horrible and disgusting teachings that Christians should be rejecting or at least ignoring. It would be good to see atheists and Christians agree that Jesus was dumb as hell when He said we should sell all that we own and give it to the poor. That’s just bad for society. Christians should ignore the Bible on that aspect and be able to enjoy the luxury to keep some of their belongings.

It is just a thought I guess. I’d like to see more Christians ignore the Bible on the stupider things and hold steadfast and fire on the good aspect of the Bible. You know, like atheists do. I guess in essence that would make the Christians atheists too. Oh well. Nobody said philosophy wasn’t complicated. I guess they just have to decide how bad they need to be labeled as “Christian”. If you need that label real bad you might want to go ahead and turn that other cheek.

Laughing leads to crying.

 

[ding]

Keep in mind, people of that day didn't go around looking to get slapped. But if they were unfairly slapped, Jesus proposed keeping one's dignity in tact.

Roman soldier? Meet Ms. Hoity Toity to the max. You see, there's them deserving of a good slap, and then there's your "unfair" slappage to consider.. Try not to get unnecessarily violent..

There is a time for everything.

 

[norwegen]

You've got to admit that taking it as literal "defiance" is funny though. This guy is supposedly "teaching" his flock to make fools of the Roman soldiers by turning their other cheeks once struck. Great for a laugh or two maybe, but how long before the soldiers simply begin responding with their spears or swords? Thus the "stupid." May have worked for some sort of gods. Not for actual slaves. But nah, it's all just brilliant:

Jesus instructed his disciples to turn their other cheeks to Roman soldiers?

The Romans didn't inspire the Sermon on the Mount, near as I can tell.

 

[LuckyDuck]

Jesus, if he truly existed at all, was just the world's first recorded Hippie

He is coming back as Patton. He is going to win this battle for our souls....

When Unicorns fly.

 

[ESay]

Jesus was addressing a single person who was asking a specific question about the next step for him, as an individual. That individual followed Jesus' to tally the cost like one would for a building or a war, before making such a commitment. We see that the rich young man thought the cost too great to take that next step

That is not exactly true. If you read the Sermon on the Mount, you will see that asceticism is part of that narrative. A person cant serve two masters.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Stop for a minute. Instead of hastily reading the Bible and jumping to wrong conclusions, I recommend studying not only the Bible, but the languages, cultures, and history of that era.

Pick and choose.. Pick and choose.. It's all good.. Massage what you like.. Reject the Bad Parts..

 

[Colin norris]

I’d like to see more Christians ignore the Bible

I would like to see more atheists do some in depth study on the Bible.

That's the same as godbotherers be g asked to renounce the Christianity.
What could possibly be in the bible that would change an atheists mind? It would simply confirm their atheism.

The bible is quoted as it should never be questioned. Of all the magical things that happened like immaculate conception and virgin births etc, is fantasy. That's why there are atheists.
It's the best reason to remain an atheist.

 

[Meriweather]

Pick and choose.. Pick and choose.. It's all good.. Massage what you like.. Reject the Bad Parts..

Actually no. It is about understanding. It is good to start with understanding the original intent of the author and getting to know the original audience (meaning its language, culture, history).

In many ways, it is the atheist who is massaging the message and changing it to something where one can be self-satisfied in rejecting it.

 

[Meriweather]

The bible is quoted as it should never be questioned. Of all the magical things that happened like immaculate conception and virgin births etc, is fantasy. That's why there are atheists.
It's the best reason to remain an atheist.

Of course it should be questioned, it is meant to be questioned! Beginning with the Jews in ancient times this was the whole point of scripture, to question and study--and this custom was picked up by the early Church. It wasn't until the advent of the Protestants that some of these denominations pushed reading over study, and a few hundred years later were pushing literal reading of the Bible.

As for miracles: Most often these are one time events that happened to an individual and have nothing to do with my life today. I am happy that Lazarus and Jairus' daughter were raised from the dead, but it has nothing to do with me or my life. However, when a miracle occurs in one's own life, miracles in other people's lives cannot be easily dismissed. In any case, the miracle, whether in one's own life or in the life of someone who lived in Biblical times should not take our eyes off the message.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Pick and choose.. Pick and choose.. It's all good.. Massage what you like.. Reject the Bad Parts..

Actually no. It is about understanding. It is good to start with understanding the original intent of the author and getting to know the original audience (meaning its language, culture, history).

In many ways, it is the atheist who is massaging the message and changing it to something where one can be self-satisfied in rejecting it.

Did you just type "self-satisfied" with a straight face?

events that happened to an individual and have nothing to do with my life today. I am happy

So you pick and choose? You don't understand yet so still need to study? Even though the internet easily provides all with virtually instant analysis far beyond any you could possibly type here in a lifetime?

 

[Meriweather]

You don't understand yet so still need to study?

Absolutely! The Bible is a collection of many books. Add Biblical history, cultures, and language and there is enough for several lifetimes of study.

 

[Grumblenuts]

You don't understand yet so still need to study?

Absolutely! The Bible is a collection of many books. Add Biblical history, cultures, and language and there is enough for several lifetimes of study.

So were The Arabian Nights, The Silmarillion, Pastafarian history,.. but none have enjoyed anything like the same level of online research or instant analysis available worldwide. Nothing nearly comparable to "The Bible." Why would one bother "studying" something that's so readily available to all? Few would waste a moment reading the Harry Potter series if it were known to be anywhere near as shot through with holes, self-contradiction, and stuff no one could possibly take seriously today. Yet those like you remain addicted, forever trying to fool others into believing such obvious fantasy real, or original, profound, useful, or whatever. I'd feel sorry for you if the waste and destruction wrought by your ilk didn't remain so ubiquitous and ongoing. You promote a diseased process, constantly shooting itself in the foot and calling it good.

 

[ding]

Stop for a minute. Instead of hastily reading the Bible and jumping to wrong conclusions, I recommend studying not only the Bible, but the languages, cultures, and history of that era.

Pick and choose.. Pick and choose.. It's all good.. Massage what you like.. Reject the Bad Parts..

I believe you are just looking for an excuse to rationalize your choice. What you and others fail to recognize is that the practical benefits of faith and spirituality are so superior to the lack of benefits of materialism that betting on theism is rational and betting on materialism is irrational. It’s not about infinite rewards after death, it is about practical rewards on the journey to death.

 

[Meriweather]

So were The Arabian Nights, The Silmarillion, Pastafarian history,.. but none have enjoyed anything like the same level of online research or instant analysis available worldwide. Nothing nearly comparable to "The Bible." Why would one bother "studying" something that's so readily available to all? Few would waste a moment reading the Harry Potter series if it were known to be anywhere near as shot through with holes, self-contradiction, and stuff no one could possibly take seriously today. Yet those like you remain addicted, forever trying to fool others into believing such obvious fantasy real, or original, profound, useful, or whatever. I'd feel sorry for you if the waste and destruction wrought by your ilk didn't remain so ubiquitous and ongoing. You promote a diseased process, constantly shooting itself in the foot and calling it good.

I am sure the reasons are many for choosing to study the Bible. My reason:

When I was younger I had an experience of God that didn't mesh with the Old Testament. The differences I saw in my experience and what I read in the old Testament were great, like night and day. So began years of study because I wanted to know why my experience was different. (Notice it was all about me. ) Eventually I began reading scholarly rabbinical commentary, which led to me to even older commentary, which led me into the study of biblical history, culture, and language. Reading the Bible based on the original language, history, culture was another night and day difference from reading it from the context of modern English and modern western culture. While my own experience did not mesh with the modern, it meshed quite well with the ancient.

We don't read the Bible the same way today as it was heard in Biblical times. Today, those who read it from the literal perspective in modern English through the lens of modern Western culture? It is like they are reading a different account. People in Biblical times would be scratching their heads. (On hearing our literal version, some might even become atheists. )

People either believe in God or they don't. I have no interest in getting atheists to believe, that is beyond my abilities. Big time. All I hope to do is to give atheists a better understanding of why people believe. The short answer is that we see God in our own lives today, right here, right now, and we see a way of living that brings us the most in life and brings out what is better in us. The Bible, no matter how we read it, has accounts of people in the past who discovered this as well.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Should Christians reject the bad parts of the Bible?

I say that Christians should reject the bad parts of the Bible.

Yes. And they generally do already. Thank goodness.

 

[BreezeWood]

Jesus, if he truly existed at all, was just the world's first recorded Hippie

He is coming back as Patton. He is going to win this battle for our souls....

.

He is coming back as Patton. He is going to win this battle for our souls....

.
no one is coming back, admission to the Everlasting requires an accomplishment by the individual rendering purity to their spirit to attain judgement for admission or that of all humanity accomplishing the feat together and becoming one in the same - for final judgement.

no one will do that for anyone - including a christian ram. .no sinners are allowed.

 

[ding]

Jesus, if he truly existed at all, was just the world's first recorded Hippie

He is coming back as Patton. He is going to win this battle for our souls....

.

He is coming back as Patton. He is going to win this battle for our souls....

.
no one is coming back, admission to the Everlasting requires an accomplishment by the individual rendering purity to their spirit to attain judgement for admission or that of all humanity accomplishing the feat together and becoming one in the same - for final judgement.

no one will do that for anyone - including a christian ram. .no sinners are allowed.

ummmm.... it's the exact opposite of that. No one is worthy on their own.