"Good" & "Bad" Christians?

[Acrobat]

@Belaqua

Once again, that you can cite some earlier Christians who took allegorical interpretations means little. A decrease in a vast amount behaviors shows a decline over time in literal interpretations of the Bible. This is not debatable. I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself here.

@Acrobat

That you understood what a fictional story was as a child means nothing.

The Bible contains very specific instructions on how to live that are quite literal. Good Christians follow at least some of these. Bad Christians do not.

Not sure what's so hard to comprehend here guys. You guys are trying to argue that the sky isn't blue. I'm simply not falling for it. Good try though.

The Bible contains a variety of things, much of the Bible contains stories like that of the flood, exodus, Samson, Ruth, David, etc..

When we read narratives, the point isn’t to recognize that some or all elements of the story are fictional, the author intent isn’t so that you acknowledge the fictional nature of the story, but rather it’s meaning. Now there are other parts of the Bible that are not stories, that provide instructions for early Hebrew tribes etc..., but I wasn’t speaking about this.

The NT, provides accounts for the Christian life, and what it ought to look like, as embodied in the person of Christ, his early followers, and it’s early community.

This life as outlined in the NT, strips off all political ambitions, and center itself around an otherworldly kingdom, referred to as the kingdom of God. It’s not a return to some tribal form of Judaism expressed in earlier passages of the OT.

Your entire argument otherwise seems to center around one verses in the entire NT cannon, of christ indicating he’s come to fulfill the law and not to abolish it, and not long after doing so he commands turn the other cheek, over an eye for eye, as example of fulfilling the law.

Unless you’re accounting for what he means by fulfilling the law here, as indicated when taken into context, your likely to butcher the meaning of it, like creationist quote mining Darwin’s passage about the eye.

[EgoDeath]

Once again, Jesus came not to destroy the Law or the prophets, but to fulfill them. @Acrobat

You either take these Laws literally, or you don't. You're either following what god told you to do, or you're not. It's really very simple.

[Belacqua]

@Belaqua

Once again, that you can cite some earlier Christians who took allegorical interpretations means little. 

It means little TO YOU, because you are sure that earlier Christians took everything literally. You have yet to offer any evidence for this. 

A decrease in a vast amount behaviors shows a decline over time in literal interpretations of the Bible. 

For example?

This is not debatable. I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself here. 

It is debatable, because what you say is a vast oversimplification. You can repeat yourself a lot, apparently, yet it doesn't prove your point. 
Rather than repeat it yet again, how about a link to something reputable, or a scholarly book, or someone who has reasons, not just assertions.

[Acrobat]

Once again, Jesus came not to destroy the Law or the prophets, but to fulfill them. @Acrobat

You either take these Laws literally, or you don't. You're either following what god told you to do, or you're not. It's really very simple.

Okay please explain to me what Jesus meant by fulfilling it? He provides example of fulfilling the law, when he takes the OT instruction of an eye for an eye, and transforms into turn the other cheek? How does the latter fulfill the former?

If the laws were unfulfilled before, what does Christ mean by fulfilling them?

The meaning of fulfilling the law, is significant, not something that can be set aside when trying to understand the meaning here, in fact latter NT writers indicate its love that fulfills the law.

[EgoDeath]

@Belaqua

I've already given you a few examples. You've yet to comment on those example. And like I said, varied interpretations of the Bible have always existed. In general, however, less and less people are taking the Bible literally. Pretty sure there was even a gallup poll about this? Anyway, I don't need to defer to an authority's opinion here.

Plenty of Bible verses leave no room for interpretation and are very literal. If you're a Christian and you don't follow these LAWS, you're very clearly not a very good Christian.

That you want to dance around that point and say "Oh! But not every Christian took the bible literally" means nothing.

I'm not repeating myself anymore, this shit is common sense dude. That's why we don't stone adulterers anymore or burn witches. Holy fuck you're dense.

[Acrobat]

interpretation and are very literal. If you're a Christian and you don't follow these LAWS, you're very clearly not a very good Christian.

So Paul, early Christians, not even Jesus were Good Christians? I mean Jesus stopped an adulterer from being stoned, paid very little reverence for ideas like not doing things on the sabbath, etc...

It seems to be that the only good Christians, were some non-christian Jews that existed a few hundred years before Jesus, at least from your criteria.

[EgoDeath]

Once again, Jesus came not to destroy the Law or the prophets, but to fulfill them. @Acrobat

You either take these Laws literally, or you don't. You're either following what god told you to do, or you're not. It's really very simple.

Okay please explain to me what Jesus meant by fulfilling it? He provides example of fulfilling the law, when he takes the OT instruction of an eye for an eye, and transforms into turn the other cheek? How does the latter fulfill the former?

If the laws were unfulfilled before, what does Christ mean by fulfilling them?

Now you're attempting to change the argument here. Stay on point. "Oh! But I am staying on point!"

No you're not. That the Bible has glaring contradictions in it means nothing. I'm not repeating myself anymore. 

Besides, turning the cheek may not mean literal pacifism. But even if it does, so what if the Bible contradicts itself? What's new?

edit:

To your second post, that the Bible has glaring contradictions in it, means little.

[Belacqua]

In general, however, less and less people are taking the Bible literally. Pretty sure there was even a gallup poll about this? Anyway, I don't need to defer to an authority's opinion here.

There it is again, the assertion. With no evidence. 

That you want to dance around that point and say "Oh! But not every Christian took the bible literally"  means nothing. 

I am not dancing. I am saying, with evidence, that not every Christian took the Bible literally. It was standard theology not to take the Bible literally. 

https://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Vol-Works...oks&sr=1-1

Unless you want to declare by fiat that Augustine was not Real Christian. 

I'm not repeating myself anymore, this shit is common sense dude. That's why we don't stone adulterers anymore or burn witches. 

If it's common sense you should be able to demonstrate it, or at least link to someone who does more than repeat himself. 

Jesus says stoning adulterers is problematic. It would be a literal interpretation not to stone them.

Holy fuck you're dense.

If you could get your ego to die just a little more, so that you didn't believe yourself quite so much, you'd see that what you're saying here is not supported by history.

[Acrobat]

Okay please explain to me what Jesus meant by fulfilling it? He provides example of fulfilling the law, when he takes the OT instruction of an eye for an eye, and transforms into turn the other cheek? How does the latter fulfill the former?

If the laws were unfulfilled before, what does Christ mean by fulfilling them?

Now you're attempting to change the argument here. Stay on point. "Oh! But I am staying on point!"

No you're not. That the Bible has glaring contradictions in it means nothing. I'm not repeating myself anymore. 

Besides, turning the cheek may not mean literal pacifism. But even if it does, so what if the Bible contradicts itself? What's new?

It’s not a contradiction, there’s a relationship between the idea of an eye for an eye, and turn the other cheek, that lays at the heart of the meaning of what it means to ‘fulfill’ the law. Hence why Jesus uses it as an example in the same passage.

You seem to support the argument that the verse you quoted indicates that real Christians ought practice an eye for an eye, a point refuted in the same passage your quoting a from.

[EgoDeath]

And your theory that Early Christians were these mild-mannered moderates who took an allegorical interpretation of the Bible is not supported by history.

Let us remember the Inquisition.

This conversation is going nowhere, you're not even reading what I'm actually saying to you, as evidenced by me giving you multiple examples of a decline in literal interpretations and you simply not responding to those. You're well-known around here for being particularly slippery so your behavior in this thread is no surprise.

You and acrobat seem to post at the same times too. Interesting.

Have a good one.