Questions about the Bible , I ask as I read

[Bozo Erectus]

Im an Old Testament Trekkie. Only the Original Series is the true Word of the Prophet Gene Roddenberry (peace be upon him)

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

But yes, I would say fiction is only when the author knows it is not true, even if he passes it off as real. If the author thinks it is true (as with mythology) I would hesitate to call it fiction in that sense.

 

[Sidhe]

Im an Old Testament Trekkie. Only the Original Series is the true Word of the Prophet Gene Roddenberry (peace be upon him)

Peace be upon you brother, I come with a new message one written by the "sons" of Rodenberry, blessed be his name, it is the book of Generations, it is a new covenant stating a message of those born after the great ones known now only as Kirk,Spok, Bones etc: I fear the names of the saints are too hallowed to all be spoken in one place. Could I come inside and talk to you about the new testament?

 

[Masquerouge]

However, the prohibitions against homosexuality in the NT were written by Paul, who is generally considered to have had authority in these matters, as with other moral or doctrinal issues, as he was an apostle.

I see an interesting parallel with the Hadiths in islam. It looks as if the most controversial "scriptures" in both religions do not come directly from the Prophet himself but in indirect ways: the apostles for Jesus, and what Mahomet was supposed to have said for the Hadiths.
I will need to research that.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Peace be upon you brother, I come with a new message one written by the "sons" of Rodenberry, blessed be his name, it is the book of Generations, it is a new covenant stating a message of those born after the great ones known now only as Kirk,Spok, Bones etc: I fear the names of the saints are too hallowed to all be spoken in one place. Could I come inside and talk to you about the new testament?

Yes, these teachings have reached our ears here in the hinterlands. Your Prophets Picard, Riker, Data, Troi and Crusher are well known to us, but we do not endorse your 'Latter day Saints'

 

[Sidhe]

Yes, these teachings have reached our ears here in the hinterlands. Your Prophets Picard, Riker, Data, Troi and Crusher are well known to us, but we do not endorse your 'Latter day Saints'

gesticulates the letter T as you mention the Saints of the new testament

Are you sure sir, we wont take but a few moments of your time

 

[aneeshm]

On to my next query ( because the second has been satisfactorily answered by giving the context ) :

In Genesis ( I'm going back a bit , I know ) 25.29-34 :

Was it right of Jacob , a man of God , to deny his brother food when he was starving ? Has Jacob no familial love for his brother that he has to use such tactics to gain Esau's birthright ?

 

[Markus6]

Was it right of Jacob , a man of God , to deny his brother food when he was starving ? Has Jacob no familial love for his brother that he has to use such tactics to gain Esau's birthright ?

Nope, but it happened and so is in there. The bible's full of God using people who continually make mistakes for his will and using wrong doings for his glory.

 

[Homie]

As I see it, Jacob, although the father of the chosen people, were FULL of errors and faults, a very important person, but a person nonetheless, he was far from perfect. His sons, the Israelites, were also far from perfect.

About the specific situation you mentioned, yes Jacob did require his birthright in a dishonorable way, taking advantage of his brother's hunger. Esau is also at fault in this story, he apparently didn't think much of his birthright if he traded it away for a meal.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

On to my next query ( because the second has been satisfactorily answered by giving the context ) :

In Genesis ( I'm going back a bit , I know ) 25.29-34 :

Was it right of Jacob , a man of God , to deny his brother food when he was starving ? Has Jacob no familial love for his brother that he has to use such tactics to gain Esau's birthright ?

If Esau really was starving, then what Jacob did was wrong. Again, that depends on how literally you want to take it. Although I generally believe such things are historical, I would see this as a symbol of Esau giving up his birthright (which passed to Jacob) because he preferred physical pleasure to spiritual fulfillment. Even if it were a real event, unless Esau was at the point of death his willingness to give up his birthright was also wrong. And as Homie points out, the OT shows the flaws of the patriarchs as well as their virtues.

 

[Homie]

It wasn't symbolic of Esau giving up his birthright when he actually did give up his birthright. I think this one is as plain as day, as aneehm reads through the Bible, he will find much harder ones.

 

[aneeshm]

Let me quote the exact passages :

29 Once when Jacob was cooking some stew, Esau came in from the open country, famished. 30 He said to Jacob, "Quick, let me have some of that red stew! I'm famished!" (That is why he was also called Edom. [g] )

31 Jacob replied, "First sell me your birthright."

32 "Look, I am about to die," Esau said. "What good is the birthright to me?"

33 But Jacob said, "Swear to me first." So he swore an oath to him, selling his birthright to Jacob.

34 Then Jacob gave Esau some bread and some lentil stew. He ate and drank, and then got up and left.

Esau was actually starving to the point of death .

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

It wasn't symbolic of Esau giving up his birthright when he actually did give up his birthright. I think this one is as plain as day, as aneehm reads through the Bible, he will find much harder ones.

I meant that if one sees this event not as literal but as metaphorical, it would be a symbol of Esau gradually giving up his birthright for less. In fact, its symbolic value is important; at least in my church, perhaps others, we speak of the dangers of giving up one's divine birthright for a mess of pottage (as the KJV call it). We are big on OT analogies that way.

@Aneeshm: Maybe he was exaggerating? Like I said, if one takes that whole passage literally then what Jacob did is wrong; goes to show that even prophets of God have flaws and faults.

 

[El_Machinae]

In fact, you'll see time and again that the prophets have foibles. Big, serious, foibles.

Jacob's actions here are not presented for moral direction, though

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

In fact, you'll see time and again that the prophets have foibles. Big, serious, foibles.

And why shouldn't they? They were humans. I sometimes think that the reason that the authors of the Bible were willing to discuss the faults of earlier prophets was so that they wouldn't use the faults of their current prophets to ignore them. Or something like that.

 

[Homie]

I really enjoy someone asking questions because they are actually curious and want an answer, and not because they want to poke fun and ridicule.

I encourage you to ask more questions as I'm sure there will be, as big as the Bible is.

 

[Sidhe]

I heartily concur with hommie, my threadbare learning of the OT, only having read the juiciest or most interesting books is in for a serious treat. If I can interject anything from an agnostic point of view, ie without bias I'll try to, but this is mostly an armchair excercise for me, watching and learning

Best thread on OT of the month by a long shot IMO. This no doubt will be a monster thread.

 

[HannibalBarka]

The simple reason is so that they would not lose focus off God and go after the gods that were around them. In fact the very first Commandment says "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." The simple answer is that God is the True God. Jeremiah 10:10 But the LORD is the true God, he is the living God, and an everlasting king: at his wrath the earth shall tremble, and the nations shall not be able to abide his indignation.

So it's OK to kill pagans if it's to focus on the true Lord. You're right that is indeed a very good reason.
That said, Aneeshm, The Bible, and the Koran for that matter, when read literaly are indeed very intolerant. Middle Age Christian Europeans would have most certainly exterminated Hindu (if Hindu were in Europe) if they could. They had no mercy for all Christian sects (Cathars for example). Thankfully, people did not read the Bible literally any more; well at least most people

 

[ironduck]

The writers of the bible thought they were writing the truth, wether they were right or not.

How do you know? Did you ask them?

Also, would you say that is true for all other religious texts?

 

[Elrohir]

That's fair But
1. I've heard Christians quoting the OT so many times for matters of moral laws that I was a bit amazed by Elrohir's answer on the status of OT.
2. Are the references against homosexuality made by Jesus himself? Or can something that's written by someone else also become a moral law as long as it is in the NT?

So that's what my "problem" is.

1. Well, you most commonly hear the OT quoted as a source for Christian moral laws because they are stated very clearly and simply there. (Thou shall honor the Lord thy God, though shalt not murder, etc...And I know that's not the right order, those are just the shortest ones) The NT reinforces these laws and legitimate, but expands them to cover how you think, and feel as well. Christ was quite a revolutionary for suggesting that hating someone in your heart was just as much a sin as killing them. (If not both equally punishable by the Earthly authorities)

2. Those specific references are not made by Jesus. He spoke about various things, but to my knowledge, homosexuality is not actually mentioned in any of the Four Gospels. (Adultery certainly is, and is acknowledged as a sin by Christ, if that helps) That particular verse was written in a letter by the Apostle Paul, to the Romans.

It is considered by most Christians (Those who believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, anyway - which, in my opinion, would be all of them) to be the Word of God and true if it is in the Bible. The reason we take Paul's letters and writings (Those that are included in the NT canon) as Scripture are because we believe he was writing with divine authority and guidence, just the same as the writers of the Four Gospels, and of the OT were.

Did that help?

The question of what parts of the Bible, the OT in particular, to be considered relevant and which not, is I think a problematic one and shows the difficulty in using the Bible as the only source of moral law. However, the prohibitions against homosexuality in the NT were written by Paul, who is generally considered to have had authority in these matters, as with other moral or doctrinal issues, as he was an apostle.

I'm afraid I don't see the issue. When, in the OT, it's referring to, say, circumcision or the sacrifice of animals, that part is part of the Covenant, that was fulfilled by Christ, and was replaced by a New Covenant. When declaring certain actions moral or immoral (Murder, adultery, homosexuality, theft, idolatry, etc...) then it has no changed, as that is different from the Ceremonial Laws. (Most of which were actually intended only for the Levites, not the general population, or even for all Jews to follow)

To be perfectly fair, however, there are Messianic Jews who believe you must obey all of both OT and NT law, including the Ceremonial Law. (They make an exception for sacrifices, seeing as Christ is the Ultimate Sacrifice) I believe this goes contrary to several passages in the NT.

Actually I believe I'm falling pray to being cynical about all the biggotry that the bible has fostered. For a start I in no way think God ever told anyone to hate homosexuals we are just programmed naturally to find the behaviour somewhat distasteful and we manifest this in laws.

Without intending to turn this into a debate about homosexuality (Or, inevitably, gay marriage) God never tells us to hate anyone. The Fred Phelps crowd, who go around with their "God Hates Fags" playcards are at best, terribly misguided, and at worst, utterly un-Christian. On the contrary, we are told repeatedly to love everyone, even other sinners; the idea that Christians are supposed to hate homosexuals is simply a terrible misconception.

And as for homosexuals being "programmed naturally", that has yet to be proven conclusively; and even if it was, it wouldn't mean anything. Say that it is genetic: So what? Sinful imperfections exist in all of us. Alcaholics have a real, physical disorder, and yet we still expect them to receive treatment, and not drive drunk. Just because something is genetically determined (Which, it hasn't been proven in this case, anyway) doesn't mean it's not wrong, or they shouldn't be expected to control it if it is.

The fact is that what God says in the bible to me is pure and simply what man says, so I don't really have to take any of it seriously as you do, if I did though I certainly wouldn't trot out chronological fallacy, these are patently laws for another time, if you want to keep them burning in your heart for eternity do so that is your right, but don't expect the rest of the non christian world to follow.

It's your right to have your own opinion. Everyone can, and will make up their own minds; but don't expect Christians to stop trying to convince you. You should be flattered, in our minds we are trying to save you from a terrible fate; in your position, I would be most insulted if Christians didn't try.

I never called you a small minded biggot actually, I called people who troll threads with God's so called message biggots, as far as I know I've never seen you post the actual wording until now, most people don't bother because none but the devout fundementalist take it that seriously, and it goes down like a lead balloon normally, so please if your going to report someone do it for the right reason, not for an imagined slight, that doesn't exist, thankyou very much.

You said "It's only small minded biggots, who pull them [Bible verses condemning homosexuality] up on internet forums....." That is clearly saying that if you put those verses up, then you are a "small minded bigot", which I resent.

And anyway I quoted Homie if anyone should be offended it's him and it wasn't directed at him either

Because it sounded to me as if you were insulting me, and it still does.

EDIT: of course Islamics don't have to follow Christian laws, or Hindus or Budhists? I'm not talking about who it's meant to represent, I'm talking about who is meant to follow these edicts, allbeit it's my opinion it's no one.

Christians believe our moral code is correct, of course. (I know of no one who believes what they believe is wrong ) So I would say if a Muslim, or a Hindu or a Buddhist commits what is in my opinion a sin, I would say he has still sinned, even if he doesn't believe it. But they don't "have to", as in we'll hit them over the head if they don't, or anything. I'm afraid I don't quite understand what point you're trying to make here.