Living Biblically

[SteveII]

Since it is in effect "Till heaven and earth pass," we can be pretty sure it is still in effect.  Of course, I expect you to pretend that Jesus meant nothing by those words, that it is just extra verbiage to be ignored.  That is the way of most Christians, to ignore bits they don't like and pretend that things mean something other than what they plainly say.  Great job trying to weasel out of it so quickly!  I knew it would not be long for someone to do that, and you have not disappointed.

So, it is your opinion that looking for context across all of Jesus' teaching and actions and Paul's teachings to help understand a 2 sentence teaching is somehow wrong or disingenuous? 

You also have to delineate between the different laws. You have the basic commandments and the ancillary moral laws, you have the ceremonial laws, and you have the judicial laws set up for a theocracy. Which one was he talking about? 

Christ's purpose was to fulfill the law, --provide the final sacrifice that satisfied the requirement for atonement. The law still serves the purpose for which it was created: to show that we fall short. If you take it the way you want to, then Jesus' life and atonement does not make sense--sacrifices are still necessary. Paul has a whole bunch of versus that clarify--but perhaps you will claim they are contradictory--which is nonsense--since doctrine is developed by incorporating all we know on 1) the subject matter from all recognized authorities, 2) harmonizing it with the nature of God and the obvious plan of redemption, and 3) harmonizing it with other doctrines that affect it. It is not done lightly and we now have 2000 years of thinking on the various subjects. There is an answer to ever objection you can think of. You might even get more that one variation to choose from depending on xyz interpretation on a given subject.

[Spooky]

Kill your son.

[Crossless2.0]

Yes, Beccs, there is no reason for you to botch being an orthodox Jew when -- presto chango! -- you can take cherry picking to new, audacious levels of achievement.  All you have to do is uncritically accept Paul's ramblings, and you can disregard virtually any part of the Hebrew Bible that makes you squeamish or that seems inconvenient, while keeping the stuff that confirms your prejudices.  Talk about a win/win!  With Paul's handy Get-Out-Of-OT-Embarrassment-Free card in your back pocket, you can learn the art of talking out both sides of your mouth: paying lip service to the parent faith of your upstart religion (the religious tradition of your alleged savior no less), while obnoxiously insisting that you are upholding God's real plan and defending the true faith -- especially against those silly Jews who have the chutzpah to think they understand their own prophetic tradition better than the Gentiles.  Because, you know, Old Testament . . .

Who needs ceremonial and judicial law when all you need to know can be condensed to a bumper sticker?  Just read John 3:16 over and over until you flatline see the light.  Then you too can become an expert in the mysteries and glorious plan of the great, if undemonstrated, Yahweh, anger management 12-stepper and former collector of foreskins.

No, you don't need to do all that to "live biblically". Just act like you 1) Love God with all your heart, mind, and soul, 2) your neighbor as yourself, and 3) exhibit the "fruits of the spirit" (love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control). Pretty much if you do these things, most of the other things follow. 

Matter of fact, if you successfully act out these, you would be behaving better than most Christians. 

But behavior isn't really the bottom line, is it?  It is not a great stretch to imagine a theistic Buddhist or a Hindu exhibiting precisely those qualities (or, for that matter, an atheist exhibiting each quality other than #1).  Yet, according to most of the staunch Christians I've ever encountered, each person would nevertheless deserve damnation.  Why?  Because it's not about what you do or don't do; it's primarily about what you believe.  And what do Christians believe?  A train load of childish nonsense that should make a self-respecting, half bright child of twelve blush for shame.  Believe you are unworthy by your very nature and deserving of an alleged god's eternal wrath; believe in vicarious redemption and in the blood sacrifice of Jesus to wash away humanity's alleged sin debt to this god; believe in Jesus' resurrection; believe he will return again (any day now, they've been bleating for two-thousand years) to institute this god's kingdom on Earth, etc.  Oh, and let's not forget the great unspoken commandment: whatever you do, try really hard not to notice the complete lack of good evidence that this peculiar god even exists.  Stick to the story no matter what -- even if that means corrupting your intellectual integrity with cheap sophistry to avoid admitting what is obvious: you're playing make-believe.

[SteveII]

But behavior isn't really the bottom line, is it?  It is not a great stretch to imagine a theistic Buddhist or a Hindu exhibiting precisely those qualities (or, for that matter, an atheist exhibiting each quality other than #1).  Yet, according to most of the staunch Christians I've ever encountered, each person would nevertheless deserve damnation.  Why?  Because it's not about what you do or don't do; it's primarily about what you believe.  And what do Christians believe?  A train load of childish nonsense that should make a self-respecting, half bright child of twelve blush for shame.  Believe you are unworthy by your very nature and deserving of an alleged god's eternal wrath; believe in vicarious redemption and in the blood sacrifice of Jesus to wash away humanity's alleged sin debt to this god; believe in Jesus' resurrection; believe he will return again (any day now, they've been bleating for two-thousand years) to institute this god's kingdom on Earth, etc.  Oh, and let's not forget the great unspoken commandment: whatever you do, try really hard not to notice the complete lack of good evidence that this peculiar god even exists.  Stick to the story no matter what -- even if that means corrupting your intellectual integrity with cheap sophistry to avoid admitting what is obvious: you're playing make-believe.

You are right, good people exhibit these qualities. 

Why do you think that 2+ billion people believe what would make a "half bright child of twelve blush for shame?" Is it that you understand it better than they do and see the error of their way or is it that you don't understand it as well as you think you do? The biggest problem is that you start with the premise there is no God. What if there is? Would Christianity be the same "childish nonsense" you think it is?

[Crossless2.0]

I don't start with the premise "there is no god". I start with the observation that the arguments believers use to support their claim that there is a god aren't worth a damn, and so I am an atheist. There could be a god. I don't know; hence, I'm an agnostic atheist. If I learned there is a god, I'd be shocked if it actually turned out to be the peculiar character described in the Bible. When I try to imagine what a god capable of creating this magnificence we are a part of might be like, I imagine a far loftier and more majestic being than the one dreamed up in your favorite barbarous backwater shithole in southwest Asia a few thousand years ago.

And nice try on the appeal to popularity, but no. Can 2+ billion people be wrong? Of course they can. You will never convince anyone, not even yourself, that these 2+ billion Christian believers are all on board because the evidence is so damned compelling. People arrive at all kinds of ludicrous beliefs for all kinds of reasons that have nothing to do with good evidence or sound arguments. You know it's true, and I suspect you would have no problem reaching that conclusion about any number (even billions!) of people who belong to non-Christian religious traditions. You just want to carve out a special space where Christian claims are treated differently.

In my home, your holy book occupies the same shelf as Homer, books on ancient mythology, the Koran, the Gita, etc.

[Cyberman]

Do the things you suggested if you want to live as a Jew under the old covenant, which no longer applies to anyone.

Then tear it from the book.

[CapnAwesome]

So, as of July first, I have decided that I need to spend a year living Biblically.

This will involve, but is not limited to:

I will be keeping a slave but I will not beat him
I will not eat shellfish
I will not get a tattoo
I will not lie with a man as I do with other men (It will be known as Beccs' Year of Lesbianism)
I will not eat pig products
I will not associate with women when they are "unclean" (on their periods) - This could lead to a lot of time not talking to myself.
I will not teach men.  My current intern will just have to put his career on hold for a year
I will take disobedient children to the edge of town and stone them to death (the cops have to accept my freedom of religion argument, right?)
I will stone to death anyone working on the Sabbath (See above)


Any other suggestions are welcome.

You don't mean "Biblically" then. You mean according to the OT Jewish ceremonial law, judicial law, and some moral laws (you cherry picked from all three). You might want to start raising farm animals for the annual sacrifices too.

Of course Christians never cherry pick which biblical commands they want to obey, right?

[Jackalope]

And what does fulfill mean? I would think that is pretty important to understand all the words in a sentence you use to make your point.

I would think that focusing on that one point and ignoring the wall of shitty advice dispensed in the NT is pretty fucking stupid. (that is to say, deflecting the criticism laid against it. Ignoring the advice clearly a good thing to do.)

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Why?  Because you say so?  She didn't say she was going to live like a Christian; she said "Biblically".

No, not because I say so, because there is a name for the documents that contain the list of laws she cherry picked. They are contained in the Torah. This is specifically a Jewish book. If you refer to the Bible, you would be adding a whole bunch of other Jewish books and then 27 more NT books. Since the culmination of the Bible is the NT, living "biblically" would have to include those teachings (which supersede many of the laws in the Torah).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah

The Bible didn't exist until the English wrote it.  There was no "book" until they created it.

[Randy Carson]

No, not because I say so, because there is a name for the documents that contain the list of laws she cherry picked. They are contained in the Torah. This is specifically a Jewish book. If you refer to the Bible, you would be adding a whole bunch of other Jewish books and then 27 more NT books. Since the culmination of the Bible is the NT, living "biblically" would have to include those teachings (which supersede many of the laws in the Torah).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah

The Bible didn't exist until the English wrote it.  There was no "book" until they created it.

The English, huh?

The Canon and the Councils

Council of Rome (382 A.D.)

Convoked by Pope Damasus, this council produced the Roman Code.  The Roman Code identified a list of scriptural books identical to canon that would be defined by the Council of Trent. Pope Damasus I approved the work of the first Council of Constantinople, accepting St. Athanasius’ list as divinely inspired, and indicated that if any bishop used a list of books inconsistent with the Roman canon he would need a convincing explanation.

Council of Hippo (AD 393)

This council reiterated the list of books established by the Council of Rome.

First Council of Carthage (AD 397)

This council reiterated the list of books established by the Council of Rome and also affirmed the Decree of Damasus issued in 382 A.D. Carthage, unlike Hippo, sent its decisions to Rome for ratification.

Pope Innocent I (AD 405)

In a letter to Exsuperius, the Bishop of Toulouse, Pope Innocent listed the same books established by the Council of Rome.

Second Council of Carthage (AD 419)

This council, presided over by Augustine, reiterated the list of books established by the Council of Rome and notified Pope Boniface of its action.

Pope Boniface (ca. AD 420)

Pope St. Boniface I (418-422) ratified the decision of the Council of Carthage and declared the canon settled for the Western Patriarchate. Boniface also sent the decision to the Eastern patriarchs in Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. At that point, the Catholic Canon of Sacred Scripture was informally accepted worldwide.

Second Council of Nicaea (787 A.D.)

This council formally ratified the African Code which contained the same list of books that Trent would name “canonical”.

Council of Florence (1441 A.D.)

This council defined a list of inspired books identical to those defined by the African Code and the Second Council of Nicaea.

Council of Trent (1546 A.D.)

On April 8, 1546, this council produced a decree, Sacrosancta, which was the first, formal canonical definition of Old and New Testament scripture. This was the third formal affirmation of the list by an ecumenical council and at least the eighth overall.