This is an important issue

Of course I join you in disliking the sort of arrogant dismissiveness that assumes that the mighty words of the past have somehow become antiquated through the invention of the lightbulb. I don't even have to refer to God to say that I don't care for the type of post that says nothing more than, "the bible is full of out-dated concepts, that have no purpose in modern life" – that's the same sort of attitude that offhandedly dismisses great philosophy, literature, and art from the past, simply because it doesn't fit present fashion. It wasn't at all clear to me, though, whether Sprite was saying, "I have rejected the portions of the Bible that don't fit in with what I want," or whether he was instead saying, "I have rejected the portions of the Bible that seem to me not to be in keeping with how God revealed himself through Jesus." For example, I may feel – to use an example a certain somebody once used :) – that the bits of the Bible in which God exhorts the Israelites to spear innocent babies and cattle are not in keeping with the God revealed by Jesus, who dies for his enemies. Perhaps I am wrong; perhaps there is indeed a way in which the two can be reconciled. But I wouldn't consider the belief that certain portions of the Bible have a more mature understanding of God to be a sinful belief. Very few churches over the centuries have preached that each and every part of the Bible is of equal worth. If they did, all Christians would be Orthodox Jews, following each jot and tittle of the law. Certainly an argument could be made for the virtues of such a life. But Jesus himself said that, in cases where following a commandment literally will cause you to go against the spirit of the commandment, your obligation is to follow the spirit rather than the letter of the law. Likewise, I think, if following the Bible literally leads you to kill innocent babies rather than to follow the spirit of the entire Bible, then I think that loyalty to God demands that you use the same sort of thoughtfulness in understanding the intent of the Bible that you would use in trying to understand the civil laws of our land – which, by the way, also include "out-dated concepts, that have no purpose in modern life." That doesn't mean that law – civil or religious – is of no use; it just means that blindly following the law does not do justice to the intent of the Framer of the law. Likewise (to get back to our area of agreement), blindly rejecting the law holds the same danger. What is needed is careful consideration of biblical passages, not automatic dismissiveness or submissiveness. In the words of an ad campaign for the Episcopal Church: "Jesus died to take away your sins. Not your mind." Heather [E-mail]   [Home Page]