Christian Moderation is Unbiblical

[DiscreteElite_]

Taking the Bible literally and acting in accordance to the Bible in its literal interpretation is immoral in today's standards. On the other hand, taking the Bible literally can have the possibility of turning you into an atheist. Christian moderation, however, does not take the Bible literally but metaphorically. As Sam Harris once said, "Religious moderation is the product secular knowledge and scriptural ignorance." So now, allow me to explain why Christian moderation is unbiblical.

The scripture that is against "private interpretation" is located in 2 Peter 1:20-21 (King James Bible used):

20: "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."

21: "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

Of course, atheists reject the argument that the Bible is infallible because the writers were moved by God. However, you see clearly in the Bible how it is against private interpretation.

What do you guys think?

[Cirion Spellbinder]

Yeah. I'd agree. People really only believe what is convenient and comfortable to them. Its much harder to actually persue to truth, especially when it's not convenient or comfortable.

[bobo0100]

Yes and no. There are instances in the bible where it is clearly not meant to be taken literally, such as the story of Jonah which clearly uses parody and comedy that would have been clear to the people at the time. However I would agree that a free roaming interpretation where anything can be taken as something abstract, forced, or completely ignored is unjustifiable.

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

Note that this does not support the idea that everything the bible says is meant to be taken as a true event.

[Mateo3112]

Totally agree

[apesttotheforum]

You forget that the stoning of homosexuals, murder of non-believers, etc is now obsolete. It was under the Old Covenant, which was rendered obsolete after the death of Jesus and the destruction of the Temple. We are now in a New Covenant, which is, essentially, what Jesus gave us. No doubt that the Bible has a violent past, but that was the culture of the time, I guess

[apesttotheforum]

Hebrews 8:7-13:
For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. But God found fault with the people and said:

‘The days are coming, declares the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
and with the people of Judah.

It will not be like the covenant
I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,
and I turned away from them,
declares the Lord.

This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.

No longer will they teach their neighbours,
or say to one another, “Know the Lord,”
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.

For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more.’

By calling this covenant ‘new’, he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.

[bobo0100]

You forget that the stoning of homosexuals, murder of non-believers, etc is now obsolete. It was under the Old Covenant, which was rendered obsolete after the death of Jesus and the destruction of the Temple. We are now in a New Covenant, which is, essentially, what Jesus gave us. No doubt that the Bible has a violent past, but that was the culture of the time, I guess

Matthew 5:17-19
17 “Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
18 For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or one tittle shall in any wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.

Is that a bible contradiction. Whatever can be done to save the holy book from such a gruelling contradiction. Well maybe if Jesus intended to change the rules he changed, and not the rules he didn't intend to change, than these quotes would work well together. "your old text book is obsolete, take this new, updated edition." Now apesttotheforum can you tell me the part where Jesus changes the law of the prophets in regards to "the stoning of homosexuals, [and] murder of non-believers?" Now if you pay attention to the early church the idea of a flexible moral law was introduced by Paul, who done many things that where not in accordance with the Old Testament. He represents one side of an argument, and the other side was lost to history. As is the victors way in war, and apparently bible history. But Paul to did not intend to change the law in regards to non believers and homosexual's, but is shown to be against both in his writings, deeming them Immoral.