The passage in the Bible you like least.

[Teluog]

Well, if I need the culture knowledge is crucial to the understanding, so much for sola Scriptura.

It's no different from arguing that you need the writings of the Church Fathers to help with your daily Christian walk.

sola scriptura doesn't exclude studying the cultural background of Scripture, since Scripture was written with the assumptions of that culture, which we no longer have because our culture is drastically different. Thus, we need to study it in order to obtain those assumptions that the Spirit used when inspiring the Bible writers.

Denying these cultural embeddings is nuda scriptura, not sola.

[justgin]

Sure, I can close my mind to all of my questions, and just shout "JESUS is LORD". Is this what Jesus wants?

No, not at all. It wouldn't be from your heart. "A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still."

I'm just not sure how arguing in a forum is going to help you, if you're really serious about this. Is there anyone who changed camps from atheism to Christianity this way? I honestly don't know of one. Maybe you could seek out a strong Christian as a mentor to help you - someone whose opinion you respect even though you disagree. Maybe a respected apologetics-oriented pastor or someone he knows?

[Plantasm]

That's why apologetics is a fruitless enterprise. It requires that one defend the indefensible in many cases, nullifying any gains he/she may have made in another more reasonable area.

I'm not surprised. That's what slavish dogmatic obedience can do, and it's a problem that spans all religions, in particular the Abrahamic ones.

[lilpixieofterror]

That's why apologetics is a fruitless enterprise. It requires that one defend the indefensible in many cases, nullifying any gains he/she may have made in another more reasonable area.

I'm not surprised. That's what slavish dogmatic obedience can do, and it's a problem that spans all religions, in particular the Abrahamic ones.

Want some more poision to go into that well? Now, perhaps you can answer the question I asked. Why is it that atheist say that morality is relative and depends on the times, when it suits them, but then argue that something in the Bible is morally wrong (aka act like morality is absolute), the next minute? Either the passage is morally wrong and absolute morality does exist (which brings up the question of where this authority came from) or morality is relative and morality is determined by the times and perspective and therefore, there is nothing wrong with this passage at all. So what one will it be?

[Vlad(IL)]

No, not at all. It wouldn't be from your heart. "A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still."

I'm just not sure how arguing in a forum is going to help you, if you're really serious about this. Is there anyone who changed camps from atheism to Christianity this way? I honestly don't know of one. Maybe you could seek out a strong Christian as a mentor to help you - someone whose opinion you respect even though you disagree. Maybe a respected apologetics-oriented pastor or someone he knows?

Well, I was hoping that I'll get some good responses, but am afraid I'm not finding them. During my arguments, I'm throwing out the best that I think the other side makes, the arguments for which I have no response, and I hope that someone who has the answer responds logically. Giving the reason for the hope that I have.

Talking to pastors and mature believers on this point is fruitless. Because I know what their response is going to be. Based on their response already. They like that I'm studying the Word (and not to brag, but I think I know the Bible better than many of them, and some even want me to preach more often, etc...) And some even like the questioning.

But most advise me to just read the Word and pray. Read and pray. 30mins per day does not help? Try 1 hr a day. Etc....

And that would be fine if religion is not supposed to be based on reality. But if it's real, should not there be tangible answers? Why do we need commentaries today?

And by the way, the questions I'm posting are just the tip of the iceberg.

What I really want to know is that HOW the early Christianity spread through the centuries. I can see that at first, conversions were voluntary. But then, once the Church gained the power, what happened to the voluntary conversions?

If I were living in the 1200's Europe, would I be burned at the stake for questioning the faith? Why would God allow this to take place?

What is the meaning of

Matt. 16:18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Does it matter what means were used to build the Church?

[lilpixieofterror]

Well, I was hoping that I'll get some good responses, but am afraid I'm not finding them. During my arguments, I'm throwing out the best that I think the other side makes, the arguments for which I have no response, and I hope that someone who has the answer responds logically. Giving the reason for the hope that I have.

And what answers are you looking for? This argument here, for example, sounds good on an emotional level, but doesn't make logical sense. Think of it this way... if morality is relative and depends on the times, there is a huge problem with this.

1. One can not condemn the Bible for anything because after all, that was the morality and society of the times. So it may sound immoral to us today, but not to them; however; so what? Why does it matter what they did or what we do?
2. Why does a passage of time, determine what is true (or in this case moral)? If morality is relative, what makes my standard better then an older standard? In order to know that something is right, one first must know what they are looking for, to start with. An example I would say from the field I work in is how does one know that a bolt is the wrong bolt, when one does not know what the right bolt looks like or what it is, to start with? You can't and likewise, how can one know what is moral and immoral, if one doesn't know what morality looks like? AKA one must have a never changing, moral standard, to argue that something is wrong.

Talking to pastors and mature believers on this point is fruitless. Because I know what their response is going to be. Based on their response already. They like that I'm studying the Word (and not to brag, but I think I know the Bible better than many of them, and some even want me to preach more often, etc...) And some even like the questioning.

But most advise me to just read the Word and pray. Read and pray. 30mins per day does not help? Try 1 hr a day. Etc....

And I am personally against that type of reasoning because it leads to people leaving the flock and ignoring hard questions. I would advise studying, mentoring, reading, and prayer is not bad, but it shouldn't be used to dodge hard questions. After all, when Jesus was asked questions, did he say to pray about it or did he answer?

And that would be fine if religion is not supposed to be based on reality. But if it's real, should not there be tangible answers? Why do we need commentaries today?

Because we are far removed from the culture of the Bible and it's customs so some of those ideas, don't make sense to us. It's just like reading any other peice of liturature that one is disconnected from. Why do older books, often have footnotes and dictionaries attached to describe certian words, events, customs, etc? Because we are removed from that time and need a guide, for the story to make sense. Same with the Bible, the Bible is a book, correct? So shouldn't we do the same thing?

And by the way, the questions I'm posting are just the tip of the iceberg.

I dont' really find your questions that hard.

What I really want to know is that HOW the early Christianity spread through the centuries. I can see that at first, conversions were voluntary. But then, once the Church gained the power, what happened to the voluntary conversions?

And how is some Christians (acting against the commands of Christ) proof that all of Christianity is false? People who don't follow their faith, is not evidence that their faith is wrong, if anything, it is evidence that what Paul said, is right on the money when he said that everybody has sinned and everybody has fallen short of the glory of God and those who call themselves Christians, are not exempt from this observation.

If I were living in the 1200's Europe, would I be burned at the stake for questioning the faith? Why would God allow this to take place?

Why does God allow lots of bad things to happen? The problem of evil is a very old argument that has been around since the early days of the church. The answer though, is found in the scriptures, so what is it?

What is the meaning of

Matt. 16:18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Does it matter what means were used to build the Church?

And again, how is some Christians (acting against the commands of Christ) proof that all of Christianity is false? Simply put, your arguments and questions are really not that hard and they have been arguments and questions brought up, asked, and answered, for centuries. I would advise you to start with Lewis and move into more complictated stuff because if Jesus himself endured a horrible death, on the cross, what makes me any different when it comes to suffering?

[Raphael]

I'm just not sure how arguing in a forum is going to help you, if you're really serious about this. Is there anyone who changed camps from atheism to Christianity this way? I honestly don't know of one.

Teal and Storico spring to mind.

(I think Teal was an athiest when she first joined. Storico definitely was and credited TWeb for her coming to know her Lord.)

I miss Storico And I miss Curt.

[showmeproof]

I do have a question I have always wondered about...

Do you believe that we should respect cultures and if so, what is the problem with this custom?

Do you believe that morality is relative? I'm sure you do, being an atheist (because that is the logical conclusion of atheism), why are you using your personal, moral standard, to judge the moral standards of a people living thousands of years ago? What makes yours any better then theres?

I have always noticed that many atheist have often dodged these questions, when discussing the Bible because how can morality be relative at one minute, then absolute, in the next? What makes your standard any better then theres?

Fair questions and not surprisingly they have answers. I think we should respect cultures so long as they do not impinge on human rights. This is, admittedly a latter day view. The problem with this custom is that it is immoral because it impinges upon human rights.

Here is my problem with this. God was supposedly in direct contact with Moses. The statement in Deuteronomy is made on behalf of the Lord your God. It is the theist who argues absolute objective morality....do you want to sign up for counting this moral. I see a few of you say 'its progressive for its time'...that is altogether different than stating that morals are absolutely objective. So it seems that you flip flop where passages are uncomfortable with the 'its progressive for its time', yet you attempt to call an atheist out as being a moral relativist. Can't have it both ways folks. I am using my moral standards to judge this group because 1) I find it abhorrent, 2) If morals are absolutely objective you either have to denounce this as moral or immoral the 'for its time' standard is inapplicable. 3) I am trying to see which way people will go with this verse...will others denounce it or will they attempt to defend it. We have all seen the latter happen. People on this thread are defending it....why? Would you subscribe to this practice...do you think it one we should reinstate? In other words, I am applying absolute morality to this situation to put the lie to those who subscribe to absolute morals but fail to apply it. They cop out and say 'it was progressive for its day.

My moral standards are better than theirs because I have a larger moral circle. My moral practices don't stop at the end of my tribe, they are equally applied to everyone.

[showmeproof]

You are talking about a post in an entirely different thread relating to an entirely different verse. You can't pull one context and connect it to another context. In the following equation 3x^2 +x-x^2+2x=0 you cannot come up with the solution by adding the x^2 values, and the x values you must combine the like term, then factor. One term isn't the same as another.

Scripture is interpreted on four levels: P [Pshat] - literal, simple - BREADTH Plain text in this case the culture, the story
R [Remez] - parable, allegory - LENGTH what does this connect to?
D [Derasha] - seek, search - DEPTH what is being said otherwise?
S [Sod] - inner, mystical - HEIGHT how does this apply in my inner most soul?

You as an atheist, I suspect, are going to find many many things wrong with religion, and you will likely be willing (based on my impression of how you just attempted to do this) to pull ideas out of context to pretend as though you may have some sort of an argument.

I will stick to this argument here, which is this context, this verse and this history. If you'd like to fuss with me about the civil and spiritual laws. you may do so in the other thread.

The context in both threads had to do with dismissing a wife. Same context.

[showmeproof]

Of course they are. They are only capable of emotive thinking. Rational thought does not even enter into the equation. When I hear the crybaby rantings of people such as SMP, it always strikes me just how much resemblence they have to the tantrums that children throw when they don't get their way. Threads like these are full of the cries of retarded children.

Yeah that smooths thing out nice. I won't even repeat what you said....reflect on it. You are probably right, every one who disagrees with you has no semblance of rationality. If you were in Tektonics you might receive an ovation for that quip.

[showmeproof]

Matthew 19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

It seems to me that the passage in question is not so different in character from the passage Jesus spoke of here:Moses made concessions to the age and audience-- in other words, the Mosaic Law holds to high ideals which it sometimes struggles to realize in practice. This is not an unfamiliar phenomenon for our own time and culture: the ideals we cling to are imperfectly implemented in society at large. Sometimes, we make concessions to those imperfections simply for the sake of making it possible to live with our neighbors, but in doing so, we can often become complacent in something that is in fact evil.

How is Deuteronomy 21:10-14 held to high ideals?

[Mountain Man]

Well, if I need the culture knowledge is crucial to the understanding, so much for sola Scriptura.

Only if you have no idea what the doctrine of Sola Scriptura really says. If you think we need to forsake the knowledge of history in order to maintain the authority of the Bible then you are greatly mistaken. To have the fullest understanding of scripture, you need to know the context in which it was written.

[Mountain Man]

Well, I was hoping that I'll get some good responses, but am afraid I'm not finding them.

Your questions have been answered, and they're in line with scripture and historical Christian orthodoxy, so I'm not sure what else you're looking for. Frankly, you strike me as someone who's mind is already made up, and you're here to validate your doubts rather than resolve them

[fm93]

The cultural context was that these were a people in direct contact God, according to the Bible.

To be blunt, no. God used prophets and mediators to convey his message. During Temple Judaism, only the priest would have access. In fact, God even said "You cannot see my face and live", and Moses, when he was in God's presence, said "I am trembling with fear." (Hebrews 12:21)

So no, the people weren't in direct contact with God. You apparently still haven't gotten over the pop-Christian notion of God as a slumber party buddy.

[fm93]

I mean, how do we know what's literal and what's not?

You use textual/contextual/historical/literary evidence, as well as common sense. For instance:

Luke 14: 33"So then, none of you can be My disciple who does not give up all his own possessions.

What are the chances that Jesus literally meant discipleship requires giving up every single thing you own, from your house to your own clothes? Do you really think Jesus and the disciples did their evangelizing in the buff? And how could the disciples acquire items without stealing if they didn't have money? And why was Joseph of Arimathea, whom the gospels say was a disciple, rich without being condemned? Furthermore, if every single believer gives away every single possession, then where would all the possessions go? If they went to other believers, those believers would have to in turn give those possessions away so they could remain disciples. Eventually, all the believers would be dirt poor, with no possessions. And if you don't have any possessions, it's kind of hard to help others, don't you think?

Clearly, we aren't supposed to give away EVERYTHING. The disciples obviously had to keep cloaks, sandals, bags, staves, money, etc.

If you read from Luke 14:25, you'll see that large crowds were following Jesus. It's after this that he begins mentioning the "prerequisites" for being a disciple. See the point? He wasn't interested in shallow disciples--he wanted deep, committed followers. Thus, he used hyperbole to shock the audience, letting them know that discipleship isn't something easy and comfortable.

Also, I'm curious how you think the following applies to us today.

Mat. 10: 1Jesus summoned His twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every kind of disease and every kind of sickness. (Btw, looks like Judas Iscariot had this same authority?)

They were given a special mission--to inform the people that the kingdom of heaven was at hand. The kingdom of heaven, however, was represented in Jesus. So the mission was to tell the Jews that the Messiah had arrived, that the age of the Law was about to end, and that the age of the Messiah would soon begin, and that Jesus would establish a spiritual reign in the hearts of the people. Since the age of the Law has ended and we are now in the age of the Messiah, those specific instructions don't apply to us.

Matt. 10: 5These twelve Jesus sent out after instructing them: "Do not go in the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter any city of the Samaritans;
6but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
7"And as you go, preach, saying, 'The kingdom of heaven is at hand.'
8"Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. Freely you received, freely give.
9"Do not acquire gold, or silver, or copper for your money belts,

Does Verse 8 apply to us today? Is this what we are commanded to do also? And if 8 does not apply, how can we be sure that 7 and 9 are applicable?

Answered above.