Outkast is a stay at home mom? That’s rich. But gay marriage is wrong? No wonder Outkast hates Titus 2 and gives me a hard time for quoting it to Sarah Rode. Young ladies in combat training, men staying home while the wife leaves the kids all day to go out and be the breadwinner…all this is in blatant contradiction to the Bible, the book Christians claims to live by. And while they ignore the stuff about male/female sex roles in the Bible that they don’t like, or conflicts with their “feelings”, they never stop raising heck about homosexuals ignoring the parts of the Bible about the roles of male and female that they don’t like.

I used to find the idea of grace a bitter pill. At first I really didn’t think of myself as all that bad. Later, I came to see ways in which I had hurt people without even realizing it, and the depths of my self-centeredness. Still, I was used to being able to excel at most things I tried, and the fact that I couldn’t change myself into a better person (at any rate it sure didn’t seem to be working) really galled me. I wanted to earn God’s praise, as I always had earned praise for my excellent work in school and work.

Over the years that changed. I don’t remember any dramatic turning point, but now I am grateful that I am forgiven for my thoughtless words or action, for the times I am more concerned about what I want than the needs of others around me, and for sins I have committed that I have no need or desire to list in a public forum like this.

As for whether people have an obligation to forgive me - there are some stories Jesus told along those lines. If someone had nothing to be forgiven for, perhaps it would be hard to argue why he would be obligated to forgive others. But if, as Christians believe, we are all in need of forgiveness by God, forgiving others for how they have wronged us is natural and only right in light of how much more God has forgiven us.

I do struggle with the idea of people going to hell. My father believed that everyone would eventually be reconciled with God. There are some theologians who believe this, but it has generally been considered a heresy. However it works out, I do not think that God sends anyone to hell for arbitrary or capricious reasons. And I don’t think it’s based on intellectual acceptance or non-acceptance of certain doctrines.

The Bible says over and over that the righteous will see God, those who are pure of heart and whose actions also are pure and just. Often that’s interpreted to mean that hypothetically, someone who never sinned would go to heaven, but there is no such person (except Jesus), so the only way is to be imputed Jesus’ righteousness through faith in him. Not that I disagree with that - but too often the emphasis ends up being on belief in something about Jesus and not on living righteously. I allow myself to speculate that what matters most to God is that we recognize ourselves as people who have messed up, often badly, in need of His grace. (It was after all the people who thought they were just fine spiritually that Jesus rebuked most severely.) I would think that hearing the message of Jesus would make someone more easily accept that message of grace than if they had never heard it - but I allow myself to hope that even those who have never heard (or have heard a distorted version of what it means to be a Christian and rejected it) may receive God’s grace if they recognize in some way their need for it.

My mother did not believe in grace. She believed in karma, that everything good or bad that happens is deserved, whether for thoughts/words/actions in this life or a previous one. She was a miserable person because she could not make herself into the person she thought she ought to be. But she abhorred the notion that an innocent person could have died for her sins. If someone was going to suffer for her sins, it was going to be her. In her last coherent conversation with me, she talked about how bad everything was and said it must be because she was not a better person and God must hate her. That is what I would call “a bitter pill.” Shortly before she died, I prayed for her to receive God’s grace and she breathed a faint “Amen,” so I hope that near the end she was finally able to accept something better than what she felt she deserved.

Ask people of other countries whether our system of gov’t “has been a resounding success” and they’ll strongly disagree.

They will? We have had one civil war and otherwise complete peace as far as government function and structure is concerned. You could make an argument, but it is going to be a very very bad one.

As an American, I personally believe the US C. is the best of any, but most people will always prefer their own form of gov’t so our personal beliefs about it are not something objective.

I did not say the best, merely that it was successful.

Look at some of the ancient empires, how long they lasted, and how much they accomplished. Our republic is crumbling after a mere 200+ years in comparison.

It is crumbling?

The original issue was that you claimed the Bible is useless because people can’t agree on its interpretation, but now you’re changing to another objection since that one didn’t hold up as a consistent principle you apply across the board. The C. can be considered vague enough to cause quite a few problems. So now you’re switching to “The C. is better than the Bible because it works.”

The US Constitution is supposed to be changed by people over time to adapt to what the people want with time. The Bible is held to be the absolute word of god for all eternity.

When we can vote on amendments to the Bible then they can be discussed as similar.

You presume that the Bible is at fault for how people fail to practice it.

Fault is not the issue, efficacy is the issue. If its job is to tell us how we should live, it is bad at its job. So bad, in fact, that two sincere believers can hold completely different ideas about the exact same thing and feel completely justified in holding them.

The Bible has this purpose: To tell us about God and what he wants from us, to show us how badly we fail, to provide the means of helping us rise above our failures, and to offer mercy when we don’t. What people do with that is their own responsibility.

But it does not really tell us what god wants from us. What does he want from us? Does he want us to stone abortionists or not? Does he want us to kill those who kill others or not? Does he want us to use contraception or not? Does he want women to be priests or not? Should we stone witches or not? Should we judge sinners or should we not judge sinners? These are questions the Bible presumes to answer but does not.

The Constitution, on the other hand, tells us how our government should be structured, and I rarely see Senators waltzing into the White House saying, “I’m really the president!” and pointing to something in the Constitution to justify it. The Constitution is fantastic at its job, and it even allows amending if we feel the collective need to do so. (And the most important distinction between the Bible and the Constitution is that the Constitution is merely the guide for political organization, it does not presume to hold answers for personal happiness.)

I don’t know if you’ve read my article yet, but I showed how consistent the egalitarian interpretation is, and that it shows there is no such male over female ordered by God.

Yes, your interpretation.

Anyway, please read my article, and I hope someday you’ll come to realize that Jesus died for you and rose again to offer you life.

And if I don’t realize it, Jesus will have me roasted eternally. Ah… infinite love.

I’m not the one claiming one thing is useless while the other is not, so the case for the Bible being such is yours to make.

… because it is the foundation for our system of government, which has been a resounding success (compared to other forms of government). It is over 200 years old and has only been amended 27 times (that works out to a little over once per decade).
The US Constitution has been the model for democracies around the world.

All of these are of course highly debatable. Ask people of other countries whether our system of gov’t “has been a resounding success” and they’ll strongly disagree. As an American, I personally believe the US C. is the best of any, but most people will always prefer their own form of gov’t so our personal beliefs about it are not something objective. Look at some of the ancient empires, how long they lasted, and how much they accomplished. Our republic is crumbling after a mere 200+ years in comparison.

And you’ve ignored the fact that the C. is highly debated even among our own people. The original issue was that you claimed the Bible is useless because people can’t agree on its interpretation, but now you’re changing to another objection since that one didn’t hold up as a consistent principle you apply across the board. The C. can be considered vague enough to cause quite a few problems. So now you’re switching to “The C. is better than the Bible because it works.”

If it was good at promoting happiness, Christians would be happier than non-Christians.
If it was good at strengthening marriages, Christians would suffer less divorce than non-Christians.
If it was good at promoting morality, Christians would be far more moral in their behavior than non-Christians.
To quote Spock, “You proceed from a false assumption.” You presume that the Bible is at fault for how people fail to practice it. You also presume that God is a cosmic hedonist who only exists to make people happy, or that he is a puppet master who forces people to do what he says.

The Bible has this purpose: To tell us about God and what he wants from us, to show us how badly we fail, to provide the means of helping us rise above our failures, and to offer mercy when we don’t. What people do with that is their own responsibility.

Even aside from all the disputed areas, the Bible has one unmistakable message: Jesus, the prophesied Messiah, lived the perfect life we couldn’t live, died in our place to pay the price we couldn’t pay, then rose from the dead to provide the eternal life we couldn’t provide. God did it all for us, and all we have to do is accept it. How can that be too much to ask? How can that be not good enough for you?

That, Adam, is what works. Millions through history have testified to this fact, just as you testify to the success of our C. Not all agree the C. is best, and not all agree the Bible is best. They are in the same boat by your standards, and you have yet to prove otherwise.

The women in this thread defending the idea of being subservient to their husbands. Their arguments are Biblical in only a superficial sense. Their real arguments are about the practical realities of their lives and pointing out that their husbands do not, in fact, lead the family by making all important decisions. And that is great, because the Bible’s “god>men>women” attitude is positively destructive.

Two errors in what you say here: one, that their arguments are a failure of the Bible and not the people making the arguments, and two, that the Bible teaches man over woman.

I don’t know if you’ve read my article yet, but I showed how consistent the egalitarian interpretation is, and that it shows there is no such male over female ordered by God. True that most who give lip service to male supremacy don’t live it out in practice, but there are also Americans who give lip service to the C. but live like they hate it. Same thing.

Anyway, please read my article, and I hope someday you’ll come to realize that Jesus died for you and rose again to offer you life. I have to attend to some projects I’ve been putting off and probably won’t have time to post here, at least for a while. Please consider whether your objections to the Bible really are consistent, that is, you apply them to all major documents that affect people’s lives.

You will have to make your case that the US Constitution is functionally useless, and it will be a very hard case for you to make, because it is the foundation for our system of government, which has been a resounding success (compared to other forms of government). It is over 200 years old and has only been amended 27 times (that works out to a little over once per decade).
The US Constitution has been the model for democracies around the world.

The Bible, on the other hand, seems to excel in only one area: being vague enough that myriad splinter groups can develop myriad theological backstories and still feel justified in claiming allegiance to it.
If it was good at promoting happiness, Christians would be happier than non-Christians.
If it was good at strengthening marriages, Christians would suffer less divorce than non-Christians.
If it was good at promoting morality, Christians would be far more moral in their behavior than non-Christians.

Case in point: The women in this thread defending the idea of being subservient to their husbands. Their arguments are Biblical in only a superficial sense. Their real arguments are about the practical realities of their lives and pointing out that their husbands do not, in fact, lead the family by making all important decisions. And that is great, because the Bible’s “god>men>women” attitude is positively destructive.

Pauline:

Since I have grown up in a culture whose values and literature were heavily influenced by the Bible, and since I have limited knowledge of cultures without that background, that’s a difficult question to answer acurately. How much of what I think I get from the Bible is actually being read into the Bible, and how much that I think is only in the Bible is actually present somewhere else?

I have no idea who your husband is, but I have a very hard time imagining that he has the moral and intellectual courage you appear to have. I would not mind you being my boss. That entire paragraph is breathtakingly honest.

But the main thing that I see in the Bible, especially in the New Testament, that I do not see much of outside of the Bible or those aspects of our culture influenced by the Bible, is the idea of grace. Many people share my mother’s point of view - you get what you deserve. Or at least you should get what you deserve. That idea is present in the Bible also, but also it has a very strong theme of grace - being forgiven although I do not deserve it, and receiving good gifts that I have not earned. This grace is to lead, not to doing what I please because I can get away with it, but to joyfully living out a new life that grace enables me to live the way God meant life to be lived.

So people get the “eye for an eye” idea from the Bible and they get “turn the other cheek” from the Bible. You will notice that the same people will hold these contradictory ideas in their head and say they have Biblical justification for each whenever it suits their emotional reactions.

I think you will find that the idea of receiving “grace” from a higher authority is a bitter pill (to say the least). What is it that you actually need forgiveness for? And beyond that, why do others even owe it to us to forgive us? Perhaps that is the most mature and healthy way for someone to live, but does it really matter if I refuse to forgive someone who stole from me?

What is so powerfully insidious about Christ’s message, especially, is how duplicitous it is. He tells you to turn the other cheek but he is perfectly happy to send (or “allow you to be sent” for the moral cowards out there) you to everlasting fire. And all this after he (or god, or whatever) earlier said “eye for eye, tooth for tooth”.

Where is the consistent moral instruction? If the Bible is my guide I have multiple mixed messages and I am left to interpret them. If I am interpreting moral behavior anyway, why even burden myself with a Bible? Why not just go straight to the moral judgment using whatever faculties I have that I am supposed to use to decipher the Bible?

If that had been the way of thinking, you might have been handling finances from the beginning and the ugly mess of transition (and the eternally irritating conflict with male ego) could have been avoided from the outset. Maybe he cooks better than you and you will never know (or anything, really, I do not presume to know your home life).

Adam Beckham,
Since I have grown up in a culture whose values and literature were heavily influenced by the Bible, and since I have limited knowledge of cultures without that background, that’s a difficult question to answer acurately. How much of what I think I get from the Bible is actually being read into the Bible, and how much that I think is only in the Bible is actually present somewhere else?

But the main thing that I see in the Bible, especially in the New Testament, that I do not see much of outside of the Bible or those aspects of our culture influenced by the Bible, is the idea of grace. Many people share my mother’s point of view - you get what you deserve. Or at least you should get what you deserve. That idea is present in the Bible also, but also it has a very strong theme of grace - being forgiven although I do not deserve it, and receiving good gifts that I have not earned. This grace is to lead, not to doing what I please because I can get away with it, but to joyfully living out a new life that grace enables me to live the way God meant life to be lived.