Just In
Community
Forum
V
More
for The Meaning of God's Laws in Daily Life

7/8/2010 c1 Lord Vivian Darling
You GENIUS. Thank you for writing this. Religion's bonkers.
8/20/2007 c1 640steps2themoon
Is this real? Whether it is or not, that is ridiculously funny! I love it! A great way to point out that you can't take everything in the bible so literally, or pretty much everyone in the country would have to be beheaded, burned at the stake, stoned, etc. I love this! I'm so showing all my friends!

-Allison
7/20/2007 c1 jerneyxs
Well, it's been explained by Dawes121 anyway...

Too bad scorpionheart4 did not read that explanation... he/she might have actually learned the reality of it all.

Of course, some parts of the Bible are indeed literal and some parts are not absolutely literal... any Bible scholar can tell you this and can elucidate the different parts with clear explanation. It is indeed profoundly fascinating... and it is also quite evident, upon any substantial degree of study, that all of the parts fit together as a magnificent whole. The study of the Bible is extremely illuminating.

To suggest that anyone takes the Bible as "the only source of truth" is really quite preposterous - an assertion that does not stand up to even slight scrutiny. Obviously, there are truths that are not contained in the Bible which we encounter every day... and there are various ways of discovering these various truths.

Yes, the Bible contains truth. Sacred truth of profound importance. But to state this reality - that the Bible contains truth and only truth - is not the same thing as saying that all truth is contained in the Bible. It is quite different.

What the Bible gives us is a source of recorded revelation which, being divinely inspired, contains spiritual truths for the edification of our souls and does not contain any spiritual error of any kind.

Of course, the "context" of time and place does influence the style and manner in which records are written in some respects, but it does not at all affect the greater spiritual truths, which are eternal. That which is divinely inspired comes from the eternal God who is outside of time and space (which are indeed elements of His creation) and is not in any way limited or constrained by the "context" of time and place as we mere humans know it.

There is nothing the least bit "disturbing" about accepting the revelation of God, as it has been preserved for all peoples, according to historical evidence and the highest levels of philosophical teaching. It is, rather, much more "disturbing" to think oneself superior to the act of accepting the revelation of Almighty God.

Moreover, it is consistently amusing on a lower level, but indeed disturbing on a higher level, to encounter people who insist on fabricating a false idea of Christianity based in their own ignorance - and mocking Christians for it.

Yes, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing...

But there are sources of Christian Catechism that can instruct and enlighten... and most - if not all - can be found on the Internet.

All the best.
6/21/2007 c1 scorpionheart4
Very funny. It does raise good points for all who insist on taking the Bible literally. After all, I have always found it a little disturbing that some people insist on taking one highly symbolic piece of litature not only literally, but as the only source of truth. I mean they do have to recall the context in which the Bible was written, and do they really want to live like people did back then? Probably not. Anyway, it was amusing.
12/17/2006 c1 Dawes121
Hi. I don't know anything about Dr. Laura's personal religious decisions, but the answer to that letter is that those laws, as correctly interpreted in the light of the exact language used as well as the conditions of that time, are part of the Old Covenant with the Jewish people, put in place for a temporary time until the coming of the Messiah.

As part of a covenant with God, most of those laws were designed to help the Jewish people maintain their health in difficult times and to provide definite limits on the behaviours in which they engaged in order to protect them. It was always clearly understood to be a temporary measure. With the coming of the Messiah (the Christ) and with His death on the Cross (the perfect Sacrifice) - the Old Covenant was made void and the New Covenant, the everlasting covenant, was in place. (Hence, at the time of His death, the veil in the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom.)

This new and everlasting covenant is the covenant of the Christians, those who accept the Messiah as foretold, and who are therefore the direct spiritual descendents of the Jewish people of Old Testament times.

Regarding the prescription against homosexual behaviour, it appears many times throughout sacred scripture. It is not merely part of the Old Covenant.

In addition, homosexual behaviour is clearly in violation of the design of God in the extraordinary and profoundly beautiful complementary natures of man and woman, and the holy union that is therefore meant to take place between man and woman in order to provide the solid and sacred basis for the conception and nurturing of every human soul.

I hope this helps to answer the point.

God bless.
12/17/2006 c1 38almostinsane
All I can say is I'm glad I follow the New Covenant in the New Testament. Merry Christmas! God bless!

Twitter . Help . Sign Up . Cookies . Privacy . Terms of Service