Black and White, All or Nothing?

[Voyager]

I sometimes wonder if the part of the Bible that refers to hell was an idea made up by a man, similar to the command in the Bible that forbids women from talking in church? Is it possible that the men who wrote the Bible took things from their culture and added them to their text as they saw fit? Since women were not given the same rights as men during the era that the Apostle Paul lived in, maybe he saw fit to forbid all women from speaking in church. Likewise, in the era that the authors of the Bible lived in when they spoke of hell, it was a common punishment to burn people at the stake.

I also wonder if religious books like the Bible should be taken in black and white, all or nothing? It seems like most religious fundamentalists take their religious manual as the literal word of God. That's why Muslim extremists kill infidels, because the Qu'ran tells them to. If the New Covenant hadn't been added to the Bible, the modern Christian Bible that was put together by Constantine, a pagan ruler, would still have a valid command from Leviticus for believers to kill those who cursed their God (along with the gays and the adulterers).

I don't think religioin has to be black and white, all or nothing - but religious extremism is always all or nothing. It places law over mercy, and values doctrine more than a human soul. With religious fundamentalism, your worth and acceptance is based on your performance (or lack thereof).

Truth is, I used to be a fundie. If I would have read a post by someone like me (in my current mindset), I would have cursed them to hell. How dare they touch the Anointed One like that?? Yes, I was quite the zealot for Christ. That is, until I started seeing how destructive being a religious extremist was. One day, I realized how much hate and bigotry I had developed against people who weren't like me or who rejected my faith. I had become the very opposite of what I set out to become: A warm, compassionate lover of God who treated others like I wanted to be treated.

Unfortunately, the majority of religious extremists in every faith end up leaning to a doctrine of exclusion rather than one of inclusion. Just look at the wars over in the Middle East right now. Those wars were started by religious extremists who terrorize people of other faiths. They believe in their 4,000-year-old religious manual (the Qu'ran) where it says to "kill the infidels". (What many Christians don't realize is that the Bible instructs this same thing in Leviticus.)

It's a fact that religious fundamentalism is the cause of more murders and rapes than any other force known to mankind. You may not think that Christian extremists are as bad as Muslim extremists, but the only difference is that most Christians don't murder "infidels". However, they usually have the same level of hate and bigotry against people who reject their beliefs as Al Qaeda members do.

So, I will continue to resist and speak out against religious fundamentalism just like Jesus did.

:cool:

[profnachos]

You bring up many interesting points to ponder. Yes, if I had encountered a mindset described in your posting, I would have cursed you to hell just a few years ago. But you bring up issues that most fundies absolutely refuse to think through because of fear.

I am now interested in how the canon was put together. What credentials did these men have to vet each gospel and epistle and give it a collective thumbs up or down? What validation process did they go through? If my understanding is correct, the Canon took place in the 300's.

Fundamentalist Christians act as though the watershed of our faith took place at the Canon, not when Jesus died and rose from the dead. But yet, very little discussion about the Canon ever takes place. They believe Jesus died and rose from the dead only because the Bible tells them so. If the Cannon hadn't taken place, then what? For the first 300 years, Christians didn't have the New Testament, but yet that was the golden era of Christianity when Christians actually acted and lived as Christians.

We all know about the men who signed the declaration of Independance, and the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution. We know their names, and credentials. We are very familiar with the whole process

Well, the Bible is a lot more important, but yet how the Canon came together isn't talked about, but yet, we are to take them at their word without question.

In my case, the more I study the Bible, the more I distance myself from fundamentalism.

Jesus in the Bible spent much of his time with sinners.
Fundamentalists spend much of their time cursing sinners.

Jesus in the Bible commanded Peter to put down his sword.
Fundamentalists have not met a war that they don't like.

Jesus in the Bible hated sin, but loved sinners.
Fundamentalists hate sinners, but love the sin of self-righeousness and legalism. They are absolutely blind to their sins.

Jesus reached out to people of all races. He often singled out Gentiles for special praise.
Throughout history, fundamentalism has often served as the last bastion of racism and bigotry. Only when the rest of America moved past its racist history, did fundamentalists reluctantly follow suit, often kicking and screaming.

Those are just a few I can think of off the top of my head. Paul may come across as more fundamentalist than Jesus, but a closer look at Scripture reveals his stark contrast with fundamentalism as well.



I sometimes wonder if the part of the Bible that refers to hell was an idea made up by a man, similar to the command in the Bible that forbids women from talking in church? Is it possible that the men who wrote the Bible took things from their culture and added them to their text as they saw fit? Since women were not given the same rights as men during the era that the Apostle Paul lived in, maybe he saw fit to forbid all women from speaking in church. Likewise, in the era that the authors of the Bible lived in when they spoke of hell, it was a common punishment to burn people at the stake.

I also wonder if religious books like the Bible should be taken in black and white, all or nothing? It seems like most religious fundamentalists take their religious manual as the literal word of God. That's why Muslim extremists kill infidels, because the Qu'ran tells them to. If the New Covenant hadn't been added to the Bible, the modern Christian Bible that was put together by Constantine, a pagan ruler, would still have a valid command from Leviticus for believers to kill those who cursed their God (along with the gays and the adulterers).

I don't think religioin has to be black and white, all or nothing - but religious extremism is always all or nothing. It places law over mercy, and values doctrine more than a human soul. With religious fundamentalism, your worth and acceptance is based on your performance (or lack thereof).

Truth is, I used to be a fundie. If I would have read a post by someone like me (in my current mindset), I would have cursed them to hell. How dare they touch the Anointed One like that?? Yes, I was quite the zealot for Christ. That is, until I started seeing how destructive being a religious extremist was. One day, I realized how much hate and bigotry I had developed against people who weren't like me or who rejected my faith. I had become the very opposite of what I set out to become: A warm, compassionate lover of God who treated others like I wanted to be treated.

Unfortunately, the majority of religious extremists in every faith end up leaning to a doctrine of exclusion rather than one of inclusion. Just look at the wars over in the Middle East right now. Those wars were started by religious extremists who terrorize people of other faiths. They believe in their 4,000-year-old religious manual (the Qu'ran) where it says to "kill the infidels". (What many Christians don't realize is that the Bible instructs this same thing in Leviticus.)

It's a fact that religious fundamentalism is the cause of more murders and rapes than any other force known to mankind. You may not think that Christian extremists are as bad as Muslim extremists, but the only difference is that most Christians don't murder "infidels". However, they usually have the same level of hate and bigotry against people who reject their beliefs as Al Qaeda members do.

So, I will continue to resist and speak out against religious fundamentalism just like Jesus did.

:cool:

[Jerry]

Dear Voyager,,,
The concept of "Hell" is primarily a product of western culture ....The Hebrew word that is rendered as "Hell" simply means "The Grave" and really has no more extensive meaning ......In the Hebrew Talmud is mentioned an underworld called "Gehenna" ,only remotely similar to the western concept of "Hell"....The "Hell" that western culture has come to know and love :D :D Is derived from the writings of "Milton" and other writers of a similar bent ;)
Love Jerry

[yeshua'smags]

I was always taught that hell was just being separated from God for eternity. Not some huge "lake of fire" where you will burn. So the Hebrew meaning of hell being death is exactly that, when you die, you're dead, no eternal life. Being separated from God's love would be hell!

Isn't that where our free will comes in? You can choose life or you can choose death?

[hornblower]

Dear Voyager,,,
The concept of "Hell" is primarily a product of western culture ....The Hebrew word that is rendered as "Hell" simply means "The Grave" and really has no more extensive meaning ......In the Hebrew Talmud is mentioned an underworld called "Gehenna" ,only remotely similar to the western concept of "Hell"....The "Hell" that western culture has come to know and love :D :D Is derived from the writings of "Milton" and other writers of a similar bent ;)
Love Jerry


I was always told that gehenna is the trash heap outside of the city where they burned the trash.

So that kind of hits the nail on the head for me. I do think there is darkness and burning, sorry but this was my own little experience with the whole thing. Pretty scarrey.
Got my attention at least.

[ex-shep]

So, I will continue to resist and speak out against religious fundamentalism just like Jesus did.

:cool: [/SIZE][/QUOTE]

If you need to vent, it is safe here.

You have some excellent points, many of which I am guilty. The first thing which came to mind is the saying "he is so heavenly minded, he is of no earthly good".

I am guilty of the arrogant us vs. them mentality. Sometimes the mind control dynamics in the groups was such if I heard an opposing view, I would loose my salvation. The bible school was part of a movement which thought it was responsible for bringing the second coming. In a sense, I could see where I might, metaphorically speaking, have been in good company with Al Quieda. That was my mother's complaints of the groups.

For me, it was not the faith, but the immature arrogant practices. I am sure there is more I can say, but my creative juices have dried up for the moment.

Good post. Good points. Keep on posting. Next latte on me. :)

[hornblower]

Originally Posted by Voyager
I sometimes wonder if the part of the Bible that refers to hell was an idea made up by a man, similar to the command in the Bible that forbids women from talking in church? Is it possible that the men who wrote the Bible took things from their culture and added them to their text as they saw fit? Since women were not given the same rights as men during the era that the Apostle Paul lived in, maybe he saw fit to forbid all women from speaking in church. Likewise, in the era that the authors of the Bible lived in when they spoke of hell, it was a common punishment to burn people at the stake.


I often hear this quoted about womnen not talking in churches and this is what I was taught in church that the scripture means and it makes sense to me so I thought I would share it.

Paul was writing in answer to letters written to him about things churches were going through at the time. For one thing the jewish synogoes which Paul was a jew had a custom back then of the wormen being in the back of the church and completely seperated from the men. Men were thought of as the spitritual beings in the old jewsih religion but not in a way like they were exceptionally better exactly but that women were meant for other things then what men did like rearing children and keeping house. That didnt mean that they couldnt work at something but often women were thought of more or less as slaves in a way, property. I think you have to give leeway to the times things are written and understand that God NEVER said any of this stuff. How could He? God isnt a human being that has a womans or a mans Body He is Spirit and we dont understand Him really much at all except wed better get this one thing right at least in my book He is good and He is love!

Anyway what I was taught was that a woman or women were screaming or yelling at their husbands from this balcony or back room where the women were. Paul was simply saying to keep the peace let the women ask their husbandds what was going on when they get home and dont upset the whole meeting with yelling back and forth. He was making a desicion about an argument. Obviously that doesnt happen now since we dont have church like that. The women dont sit out of sight any more. They dont cover their heads any more. A lot of what is written is taken out of context not studied for its historical value and is used buy controilling persons for their own ends.
As for hell being a lake of fire thats in revelations, black and white. Who knows what revelations really means?

I dont think we will ever know untill it happens thats why it is a revelation of God not of man. Its prophetic. I could go on and on about that. Its called revelation because it is all a vision. This is what John SAW!

So study that. What is a vision? Often this has been my experience with what a vision is. Its a picture of things to come maybe or things that God is saying to us in a mystery. The things we are seeing are symbolic as the whole prophetic world and things that are spiritually discerned are. We cannot understand them with a natural mind, they have to be revealed to us as to what they mean.

I have my own little experiences with hell. I dont want to go there. I absolutely do believe that iit is all about a seperation with God so as far as Im concerned I think it would be as bad as anything could ever be.

[Doug64]

Lots to think about here.

In medival times farmers stored their potatoes in 'hell' - the ground.

I don't believe in a Dante's hell because it's not supported by scripture.
The dump in Jerusalem (as someone pointed out) was used as a symbol of an ever burning fire.

There are verses which say the unbelieving will simply cease to exist. The human boday decays and turns to dust. The same thing happens in cremation.

As far as the Bible is concerned, I tend to side with the literal rendering. I believe there are stories and metaphores included which are probably not directly inspired. There seems to be a move by some groups toward a neo-charismatic approach where the desire is to meld and work together even if it means watering down of some things. I hadn't heard that term before until I did a search on David Jeremiah who someone had referred to as a great teacher. I wanted to find out something about him and the term came up as something he is promoting.

doug

[outcast]

This is in response to Profnachos question about the canon and how it was put together, indeed by man. I've been thinking about this lately too. I've taken a number of theology courses, just for fun so that I could become one of those intellectual Christians my old church disdained. :) What I'm about to share is something I think all Christians should know. In fact, I think it should be taught in churches b/c it is a basic aspect of our faith. Unfortunately, I am usually in the minority on this.

Canon - Greek word meaning ruler, standard, or measurement

Why it was necessary?- By AD 200, there were a lot more gospels about Jesus floating around than what we study today. All claimed to be authentic and contain Jesus' real teachings. However, they differed vastly. Some even claimed Jesus was married or a homosexual - I'm sure you can understand how fundies view that one today.

When did this happen and how long did it take to form the canon?- Well, it started about AD 200 and it actually took several hundred years to determine if the modern books that we include in the NT should actually be there. Paul's writings along w/the four major gospels were the only things that were widely accepted. There were actually various canonical collections along the way such as the Muratorian Canon which included only some of what is in the modern NT and it also included parts of the Catholic Apocrypha.

In the 400's the codex translations of the NT were written and much of the modern NT is based upon these writings.

What are the criteria of the canon?- There are two basic criteria actually. First is whether or not the book taught valid/acceptable doctrines that held true when compared to already accepted writings and contributed to Christian growth. The second standard was that the document had to have been written by an apostle of Jesus (one of the 12) or by someone very closely taught/related to that apostle.

I hope this helps Profnachos. All of the above information comes from the book The New Testament: A Student's Introduction by Stephen L. Harris, pp. 20-33. I learned all this in a New Testament survey course. I also highly enjoyed taking a historical theology course b/c it caused me to see just how man made our modern doctrines can be. Very thought provoking. :)

[dougjb]

Hi outcast,
You gave a good post on the canon of scripture. Amen. I would like to give some food for thought.
What did Jesus and the apostles use as scripture? When Paul went on his missionary journey's, what Scripure did he use to preach from in the synagogues? When the Bereans examined the scriptures everyday to see if what Paul said was true, what scripture were they using? They were using the Old Testament. Ouch!! If they were using the OT, maybe they understood something that is being missed or perverted by the 21st century church.
I believe that they argued the New Testament from the Old Testament. Can you imagine arguing the gospel from the Old Testament. If it is the case that the earlier church defended the gospel from the old Testament, then what we have been taught in the 21st century may need serious and extensive reformulation.

Some food for thught
Dougjb

[profnachos]

This is in response to Profnachos question about the canon and how it was put together, indeed by man. I've been thinking about this lately too. I've taken a number of theology courses, just for fun so that I could become one of those intellectual Christians my old church disdained. :) What I'm about to share is something I think all Christians should know. In fact, I think it should be taught in churches b/c it is a basic aspect of our faith. Unfortunately, I am usually in the minority on this.

Canon - Greek word meaning ruler, standard, or measurement

Why it was necessary?- By AD 200, there were a lot more gospels about Jesus floating around than what we study today. All claimed to be authentic and contain Jesus' real teachings. However, they differed vastly. Some even claimed Jesus was married or a homosexual - I'm sure you can understand how fundies view that one today.

When did this happen and how long did it take to form the canon?- Well, it started about AD 200 and it actually took several hundred years to determine if the modern books that we include in the NT should actually be there. Paul's writings along w/the four major gospels were the only things that were widely accepted. There were actually various canonical collections along the way such as the Muratorian Canon which included only some of what is in the modern NT and it also included parts of the Catholic Apocrypha.

In the 400's the codex translations of the NT were written and much of the modern NT is based upon these writings.

What are the criteria of the canon?- There are two basic criteria actually. First is whether or not the book taught valid/acceptable doctrines that held true when compared to already accepted writings and contributed to Christian growth. The second standard was that the document had to have been written by an apostle of Jesus (one of the 12) or by someone very closely taught/related to that apostle.

I hope this helps Profnachos. All of the above information comes from the book The New Testament: A Student's Introduction by Stephen L. Harris, pp. 20-33. I learned all this in a New Testament survey course. I also highly enjoyed taking a historical theology course b/c it caused me to see just how man made our modern doctrines can be. Very thought provoking. :)

Excellent post indeed. So it went on for several hundred years and I understand that the books weren't broken into chapters and verses until the 14th century, but yet we hold them sacred. Somehow I was under the impression that some council met in the 300's and voted on each book and epistle.

Why isn't the history of the Canon taught in churches? What are they afraid of? Because it is not in the Bible? LOL. Can we say circular logic? Fundamentalists warn that anyone who adds or subtracts from the revelation is condemned to hell. Looks like a lot of people before the Canon committed that sin.

[dougjb]

Hi profnachos,
What I have experienced is not so much fear but laziness, sloth, indifference.:( The reasoning being that if there is not a need to do it why spend the time.:confused: :confused:
I guess need to be cliche'-ish here - it is just a sign of the times.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

some food for thought
Dougjb