How much do you know about the Bible *debate*

[Lord Mhoram]

Kym,

No hard feelings.

Foul,

I'd say 80 to 90% of KW is composed of Christians, and they’re among the best folks I've had the pleasure of knowing. Except Zeph.

Why, thank you Foul.

[Kymbierlee]

OH, no- LF. You misunderstood my meaning. I meant this part:

It's just another way to help people reach love and understanding."

The same can be said for the teachings of most major religions.

[Worm of Despite]

But of course. Why would I disagree?

[Plissken]

43 out of 50. Would've been a little higher, but apparently there are a few questions where the punishment isn't "stoned to death."

(To all of the whiners: This stuff only seems hostile to those who don't want to admit that Christianity picks and chooses which bits to follow from the collected writings in the Bible. If it didn't, sacrificing a daughter after successfully slaughtering your enemies would still be considered "Holy" behavior. Be thankful the rest of us find the stuff that's been rejected mildly amusing mythology. Otherwise, we might decide that "Fundamentalist Christians" are just as whacked out as "Fundamentalist Jihadist Muslims".)

[Iryssa]

I started doing this, and then realized that for some questions NONE of the answers were really right.
I don't think the person who wrote the quiz really knew the Bible.
Most of them are OT-specific, too...if they knew the Bible as they should they'd know that under the New Covenant most of the prohibitions about food and the like were done away with.

[Iryssa]

*rolls on the floor laughing her butt off*
Okay, did it, only tried to put myself in an atheists shoes while I was doing it...got a 32/50
Some of their explanations were so taken out of context and uninformed it's just laughable.

[Cybrweez]

I agree Iryssa, I had a good laugh too. When I look at this quiz, I think if these are the type of people to fight against church and state, maybe combining them IS a good idea (altho I don't think it is).

[Plissken]

I don't think the person who wrote the quiz really knew the Bible.
Most of them are OT-specific, too...if they knew the Bible as they should they'd know that under the New Covenant most of the prohibitions about food and the like were done away with.

Really. Do you know your Bible well enough to tell us where to find the lifting of those prohibitions?

[Plissken]

>hums the Jeopardy theme<

Bueller...

[Edge]

Really. Do you know your Bible well enough to tell us where to find the lifting of those prohibitions?

John. 1:17

Why do some insist that Christians are ‘under law’ today? We are not under law, but grace. The law came by Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus.

Galatians 3:25

Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law

Rom. 6:14-15

We are not under Law, but grace

The new covenant is spoken about first in the book of Jeremiah. The old covenant that God had established with His people required obedience to the Old Testament Mosaic law. Because the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23), the law required that people performed rituals and sacrifices in order to please God and remain in His grace. The prophet Jeremiah predicted that there would be a time when God would make a new covenant with the nation of Israel.

"'The day will come,' says the Lord, 'when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah....But this is the new covenant I will make with the people of Israel on that day,' says the Lord. 'I will put my law in their minds, and I will write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people" (Jeremiah 31:31,33). Jesus Christ came to fulfill the law of Moses (Matthew 5:17) and create a new covenant between God and His people. The old covenant was written in stone, but the new covenant is written on our hearts, made possible only by faith in Christ, who shed His own blood to atone for the sins of the world. Luke 22:20 says, "After supper, [Jesus] took another cup of wine and said, 'This wine is the token of God's new covenant to save you – an agreement sealed with the blood I will pour out for you.'"

Now that we are under the new covenant, we are not bound by the law. We are now given the opportunity to receive salvation as a free gift, not as a reward for any of our good works (Ephesians 2:8-9). Through the life-giving Holy Spirit who lives in all believers (Romans 8:9-11), we can now share in the inheritance of Christ and enjoy a permanent, unbroken relationship with God. Hebrews 9:15 declares, “For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance – now that He has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.”

[Edinburghemma]

I got 12 only. What a shambles for an excommed Mormon.

[Plissken]

Really. Do you know your Bible well enough to tell us where to find the lifting of those prohibitions?

John. 1:17

Why do some insist that Christians are ‘under law’ today? We are not under law, but grace. The law came by Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus.

Galatians 3:25

Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law

Rom. 6:14-15

We are not under Law, but grace

The new covenant is spoken about first in the book of Jeremiah. The old covenant that God had established with His people required obedience to the Old Testament Mosaic law. Because the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23), the law required that people performed rituals and sacrifices in order to please God and remain in His grace. The prophet Jeremiah predicted that there would be a time when God would make a new covenant with the nation of Israel.

"'The day will come,' says the Lord, 'when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah....But this is the new covenant I will make with the people of Israel on that day,' says the Lord. 'I will put my law in their minds, and I will write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people" (Jeremiah 31:31,33). Jesus Christ came to fulfill the law of Moses (Matthew 5:17) and create a new covenant between God and His people. The old covenant was written in stone, but the new covenant is written on our hearts, made possible only by faith in Christ, who shed His own blood to atone for the sins of the world. Luke 22:20 says, "After supper, [Jesus] took another cup of wine and said, 'This wine is the token of God's new covenant to save you – an agreement sealed with the blood I will pour out for you.'"

Now that we are under the new covenant, we are not bound by the law. We are now given the opportunity to receive salvation as a free gift, not as a reward for any of our good works (Ephesians 2:8-9). Through the life-giving Holy Spirit who lives in all believers (Romans 8:9-11), we can now share in the inheritance of Christ and enjoy a permanent, unbroken relationship with God. Hebrews 9:15 declares, “For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance – now that He has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.”

YAY EDGE! Although the last is just the interpretation that provides the basis for this tenet of Christian teaching, these are indeed the usual texts to support it!

You have earned the right to giggle at all those who read the Bible and go, "WTF?!" on this point.

Now explain to us the picking and choosing of certain bits of the Mosaic Law to still define sins.

(Also explain all the people who claim that they would've done better if only the test-makers had stuck to what Christians still believe and agree with, instead of what's actually in the Bible. Just because there are questions that refer to things that make us uncomfortable now doesn't mean that those things aren't in the Bible.)

[Lord Mhoram]

Plissken,

Now explain to us the picking and choosing of certain bits of the Mosaic Law to still define sins.

I agree, it's ludicrous.

The main reason is political advancement.

"Homosexuality is a sin." Really. So is eating meat and dairy together. So is wearing clothing woven of two threads.

"But we aren't under the Old Law anymore." Then what you said about homosexuality is absolute crap.

"Keep the Ten Commandments in the courthouse!" But I thought we weren't under the Old Law anymore.

Fundamentalism is filled with contradictions.

[Plissken]

And then there's the re-defining of Mosaic Law to fit with the times. Adultery has been redefined, as has been the Sabbath. The production of graven images is not only ignored, but condoned and marketed by most churches.

That's three out of the Big 10, and just off the top of my head...

[Edge]

YAY EDGE! Although the last is just the interpretation that provides the basis for this tenet of Christian teaching, these are indeed the usual texts to support it!

You have earned the right to giggle at all those who read the Bible and go, "WTF?!" on this point.

Now explain to us the picking and choosing of certain bits of the Mosaic Law to still define sins.

(Also explain all the people who claim that they would've done better if only the test-makers had stuck to what Christians still believe and agree with, instead of what's actually in the Bible. Just because there are questions that refer to things that make us uncomfortable now doesn't mean that those things aren't in the Bible.)

Thank you.

As far as the relevance of Mosaic Law goes: it's a matter of different categories.

Levitical Law dealt with specific cultural issues: laws like 'don't piss inside the encampment', 'don't eat shellfish', etc. made perfect sense in that time and place, and moreover reflected a knowledge of hygiene beyond current societal norms.

They also formed the basis for a legal system, clearly spelling out terms for retribution, determination of guilt/innocence, etc. - again, in a cultural context.

Commandments regarding animal sacrifice were an integral part of the Old Covenant - they were God's way of providing atonement, so that He wouldn't have to out-of-hand condemn every single person who lived and died before the establishmant of the New Covenant.

The 10 commandments addressed morality in a broader sense, as they were dealing with basic attitudes (hate, envy, etc.) rather than the minutae of everyday life. Even though in context the commandments were specifically for the Israelites ("This is what you shall tell the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel", "These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel"), they give a clear picture of God's priorities. In a nutshell: to love Him, and to love and respect your fellow man, and his property.

Some of the more 'awkward' commands, which seem barbaric to us, make perfect sense in OT context. For example: commandments pronouncing the death sentence on practioners of divination, rebellious teenagers, et al.

In context: those were practices and behaviour patterns inspired by demonic influences. Man was not given authority over demonic powers until after the Atonement, so from that point of view it was the only way to stop the spread of a malignant influence.

Finally, the Scriptures serve partially as a record of events, and it's a mistake to think that all recorded events were necessarily commanded or even condoned by God. For example, the king who sacrificed his daughter. This idiot made an unasked-for promise to God, that if he was victorious in his battle, he would sacrifice the first living being to enter his camp... which turned out to be his daughter. He assumed that God would not provide a way out, and he went ahead and murdered her.

[Plissken]

None of which addresses the points Mhoram and I raised - the original translation of the prohibition against adultery, for instance, had nothing to do with pre-marital sex. In fact, the contextual argument can be made that it didn't even apply to husbands.

The basis for the prohibition against Onanism, which has been used against everything from masturbation to oral sex to non-procreative sex, wasn't even about semen "spilled upon the ground." The sin in question was Onan's refusal to impregnate his sister-in-law.

Believe me, I understand your point that all of this was contextual for the time it was written. That's the point. I also hope you'll be making that point, along with the "Love God and Love Your Neighbor" point the next time someone tries to get legislation passed on the basis of God's "Unchanging" and "Moral" Law.

[Avatar]

Good posts both of you.

--A

[Cybrweez]

Edge, don't forget in Acts where Peter has the vision of eating all kinds of things, and he's shocked, but God says, 'Eat up!'.

Plissken,

Now explain to us the picking and choosing of certain bits of the Mosaic Law to still define sins.

I agree, it's ludicrous.

The main reason is political advancement.

"Homosexuality is a sin." Really. So is eating meat and dairy together. So is wearing clothing woven of two threads.

"But we aren't under the Old Law anymore." Then what you said about homosexuality is absolute crap.

Actually, homosexuality is spoken of in the NT, and mentioned as a sin there too. But not dairy and meat, and don't forget Peter's vision.

"Keep the Ten Commandments in the courthouse!" But I thought we weren't under the Old Law anymore.

Fundamentalism is filled with contradictions.

This is a huge stretch. I don't see a contradiction. I see this country's laws founded on the Bible, and the 10 commandments represent that foundation. To fight against those who don't understand that is a separate issue from whether we are under the 10 commandments or not.

[Plissken]

Actually, our laws only include about four of the Big 10, and some of those are modified. (Most of the rest, we actually have protections from.) The stretch is in crediting the Big 10 for our laws - not stealing, killing, or lying in court were all made illegal long before Moses.[/i]

[Lord Mhoram]

Cyberweez,

Actually, homosexuality is spoken of in the NT, and mentioned as a sin there too. But not dairy and meat, and don't forget Peter's vision.

Yeah, St Paul talked about homosexuality in his letters to the Romans.

Looked at from this point of view, Paul's prohibitions may, again, have been about the spiritually polluting influence of the old pagan religions.

Although this may not have been Paul's intent at all, the point is an interesting one to consider. Many early bishops in the Christian Church had been influenced by the Greek Stoic philosophers. The Stoics believed one had to abstain from indulging in sexual pleasure (and other pleasures of the flesh) as much as possible because they distracted one from the pursuit of higher ideals (a belief shared by Buddha as well).

So to the potential Christian convert, here was the old religion on the one hand, offering ready sexual gratification as part of religious worship, and here -- on the other hand -- was the Christian religion, offering (at least according to some who taught it) a life of sexual chastity. To the average man on the street, the sexier religion may have seemed considerably more appealing. Leading to the ire of St. Paul against these the pagan temple whores. And who can blame him. It's hardly fair is it?

If indeed St. Paul's words, spoken in Greek, can truly be translated as referring to these temple whores and their patrons, then his admonitions have very little to do with homosexuals in general.

Evidence that this may indeed be the case, comes to us from records dating from the 8th through 18 century of same sex weddings performed within various branches of Christianity. Illustrations of these ceremonies show the priest placing the hand of a man, upon that of his male betrothed in exactly the same fashion as in male/female marriages. The obvious conclusion here is that early Christian fathers, relying on texts that predated the King James era English language translation of the Bible, found nothing within the bible itself to prohibit these relationships.

Of course, it has not been satisfactorily proven that sexual gratification was expected within these relationships. Meaning that the evidence, thus far absolutely supports the sanctity of the love between same sex partners. But it does not absolutely prove that their sexual union was everywhere granted the same approval as in a heterosexual union.

Still, the imagination is tantalized by scattered evidence which, if accurate, would indicate that in at least some instances, a physical relationship was acknowledged and sanctioned. For example, we have records describing St. Serge as the "sweet companion and lover" of St. Bacchus.

So as you can see St Paul's writings are open to interpretation. Christ himself, according to the Gospels, never mentions homosexuality.
www.rotten.com/library/sex/sodomy/bible/

This is a huge stretch. I don't see a contradiction. I see this country's laws founded on the Bible, and the 10 commandments represent that foundation. To fight against those who don't understand that is a separate issue from whether we are under the 10 commandments or not.

Talk about huge stretches. Separation of church and state: you either have the laws of all religions in America (of which there are many) or you have none at all.