Pick and Choose Fundamentalism

To repeat the OP: I just finished reading the book I was referring to in the OP, namely The Year of Living Biblically by A.J.Jacobs. In this book the author actually tries to live according to all the rules of the OT and NT for a year as they come up in his reading of the RSV.From page 4:

quote:

---

I am trying to obey the entire Bible, without picking and choosing.

---

The difficulties the author has in following such commands as not mixing fibers in his garments requires a fiber expert with a microscope just to fulfill. Of course commands to stone to death any witches, Sabbath violators, disobedient children, and those who engage in forbidden sexual practices can not be taken literally without a likely quick trip to prison, so such rules are obeyed symbolically, such as using pebbles. The book rather quickly shows the difficulty, if not outright impossibility, of obeying all the OT rules in the modern age.One thing that should be mentioned is he sure has a forgiving and supportive wife.However the best part of the book is where he summarizes his conclusions after meeting theologians from Orthodox Jews to Creation Museum shills to his guru-like uncle by marriage.From page 327-329:

quote:

---

There’s a phrase called “Cafeteria Christianity.” It’s a derisive term used by fundamentalist Christians to describe moderate Christians. The idea is that the moderates pick and choose the parts of the Bible they want to follow. They take a nice helping of mercy and compassion. But the ban on homosexuality? They leave that on the countertop.

​

Fundamentalist Jews don’t use the phrase “Cafeteria Judaism,” but they have the same critique. You must follow all of the Torah, not just the parts that are palatable.

​

Their point is, the religious moderates are inconsistent. They’re just making the Bible conform to their own values.

​

The year showed me beyond a doubt that everyone practices cafeteria religion. It’s not just moderates. Fundamentalists do it too. They can’t heap everything on their plate. Otherwise they’d kick women out of the church for saying hello (“the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak . ” - 1 Corinthians 14:34) and boot out men for talking about the “Tennessee Titans” (“make no mention of the names of other gods . ” - Exodus 23:13).

​

But the more important lesson was this: there’s nothing wrong with choosing. Cafeterias aren’t bad per se. I’ve had some great meals at cafeterias. I’ve also had some turkey tetrazzini that gave me the dry heaves for sixteen hours. The key is in choosing the right dishes. You need to pick the nurturing ones (compassion), the healthy ones (love thy neighbor), not the bitter ones. Religious leaders don’t know everything about every food, but maybe the good ones can guide you to what is fresh. They can be like a helpful lunch lady who - OK, I’ve taken the metaphor too far.

​

Now, this does bring up the problem of authority. Once you acknowledge that we pick and choose from the Bible, doesn’t that destroy its credibility? Doesn’t that knock the legs out from under it? Why should we put stock in any of the Bible?

​

“That’s the big questions, “says one of my rabbis, Robbie Harris. I put the question to Robbie as well as every other member of my advisory board. There’s no simple or totally satisfying answer. But let me offer two interesting ideas from them:

​

The first is from the pastor out to pasture, Elton Richards. Here’s his metaphor: Try thinking of the Bible as a snapshot of something divine. It may not be a perfect picture. It may have flaws: a thumb on the lens, faded colors in the corners. But it still helps to visualize.

​

“I need something specific,” says Elton. “Beauty is a general thing. It’s abstract. I need to see a rose. When I see that Jesus embraced lepers, that’s a reason for me to embrace those with AIDS. If he embraced Samaritans, that’s a reason for me to fight racism.”

​

The second is from Robbie himself. He says we can’t insist that the Bible marks the end of our relationship with God. Who are we to say that Bible contained all the wisdom? “If you insist that God revealed himself only at one time, at one particular place, using these discrete words, and never any time other than that - that in itself is a kind of idolatry.” His point is: You can commit idolatry on the Bible itself. You can start to worship the words instead of the spirit. You need to “meet God halfway in the woods.”

---

This is the conclusion from someone who actually tried to practice what so many only preach.

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

If I may be entitled to bring something up quickly, what about those who are not pick and choose fundamentalists? I'm not talikning about those that ignore science completely and take the entirety of the bible (contradictions and flaws) seriously; I'm talking about "moderate" Christians- those that may take up to the entire Bible as a metaphor or allegory. It is at these people that I direct this question: Where, without any base for belief or fact supporting your personal religion, do you get your religion? I'm just curious.

---

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
- Stephen RobertsI'm a polyatheist - there are many gods I don't believe in
- Dan Foutes

The yaer of living Biblically is an interesting attempt, but misses the point of the New Testament. When the Jews began taking the Christian message to Gentiles, the developed a problem. Many wanted to insist that the gentiles obey all the Jewish laws. Paul opposed them and it was decided that only 4 minimal laws needed to be obeyed. The Christian Jews still had to obey the laws, at least when living among the Jews. This allowed the Christian to live in other cultures, adopting their culture. The main constraint was to care more for the other person than one self. So, if the culture sacrificed children (burn them to Molech, etc) then the Christian couldn't do it because that was not loving to the child. Leviticus is a set of laws for the Jews and interesting as history. As for Genesis, again it is treated as history. After all, Abraham was promised the land. I am not a child of Abraham, so I have no right to the land and I can't obey that covenant (law) in Genesis either.

'I'm talking about "moderate" Christians- those that may take up to the entire Bible as a metaphor or allegory.'So if a man called Jesus said "I am the light," it's metaphor, but the existence of Jesus is itself allegory. How much does that non-existence matter, if the moral teaching of 'Jesus' is followed because it is held to be optimal?

greentwiga writes:

quote:

---

Paul opposed them and it was decided that only 4 minimal laws needed to be obeyed.

---

And this, of course, is in direct conflict to what Jesus said: Not one jot, not one tittle of the law shall be changed till all be fulfilled.Therefore, what we tend to call "Christianity" is actually "Paulinism."

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

'And this, of course, is in direct conflict to what Jesus said: Not one jot, not one tittle of the law shall be changed till all be fulfilled.'Maybe all has been fulfilled.

genesis doesnt contain the mosaic law code, leviticus and deuteronomy do.

Laws and covenants were given to specific people or groups of people. Noah was commanded to build an ark. We aren't building arks. The Jews were given a set of laws. The argument in acts was over whether gentiles would be required to follow the laws. All, not just Paul, agreed that the gentiles did not have to follow the Jewish laws. There are other commands in Genesis that we do not follow, such as moving to Canaan (given to Abraham) There is much of Exodus and Numbers, etc that we follow as absolutely as we do Genesis. This would be the history of the Exodus. It is the history of Genesis that is our focus.

ochaye responds to me:

quote:

---

Maybe all has been fulfilled.

---

That would certainly explain the crankiness of certain people. The world ended, this is hell, and they are upset that they didn't actually get to go to heaven like they thought they would.You do realize that by "all be fulfilled," Jesus meant the end of the world, right?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

greentwiga responds to me:

quote:

---

The Jews were given a set of laws.

---

And Jesus was a Jew. And Jesus was telling all who would follow him that they would need to follow the Jewish law: Not one jot, not one tittle of the law shall be changed till all be fulfulled. He exhorted those who listed to follow the law and teach others so.Jesus did not do away with the need to follow Jewish law. Christians who think they can get away with wearing cotton-polyester blends, eating shellfish, working on the Sabbath, etc. are certainly not following Jesus.They're following Paul.Why do you place the commands of Paul above the commands of Jesus?

quote:

---

The argument in acts was over whether gentiles would be required to follow the laws.

---

But according to Jesus, that answer is yes, you must. It's a direct commandment from him: Not one jot, not one tittle of the law shall be changed till all be fulfilled.Paul said something different.Are you a follower of Jesus or a follower of Paul?

quote:

---

All, not just Paul, agreed that the gentiles did not have to follow the Jewish laws.

---

Incorrect. There's a reason that there was such a schism in the early times of Christianity. It was precisely over this: James was preaching the teachings of Jesus and living up to the commandment that the law must still be followed. He wasn't having much success ("You want me to cut off my what?!")Paul, on the other hand, was playing fast and loose with the edicts of Jesus. He happened to be better at convincing people who weren't Jews to follow his new-fangled religion by telling them they didn't actually have to practice the law that Jesus commanded them to.Are you a follower of Jesus or a follower of Paul?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

'You do realize that by "all be fulfilled," Jesus meant the end of the world, right?'It may be that he meant that all of the law will be fulfilled. His parameter may have been moral, not temporal.

ochaye responds to me:

quote:

---

His parameter may have been moral, not temporal.

---

Incorrect. He was talking temporal. You didn't actually bother to look up the verse, did you? I realize that I didn't give out the specific chapter and verse, but surely you know the verse and can look it up, right? Because I left a bit out: Clearly, Jesus means that the law has not changed ("Think not that i am come to destroy the law.")Too, Jesus is clearly talking about the physical end of the world and that it will happen Real Soon Now . Have heaven and earth passed?No?Then all has not been fulfilled and you must still keep the law.Do you follow Jesus or do you follow Paul?You want more proof that Jesus was talking about the physical end of the world and that it was going to happen very soon? Are you implying that there are some 2000-year-old people wandering around?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

The Mosaic Law Code is not the issue. The issue is why do those who find a book infallible still manage to pick and choose what parts to follow and what parts to ignore.Your diversionary and simplistic comment fools few, if any, around here.

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

Ain't that the truth. A subject (or thread) in and of itself.

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

'Have heaven and earth passed?'"'Til heaven and earth pass, we will not leave here without getting our money."They got their money.