Who are the NT epistles aimed at?

[Hope]

Following on from Rose's post# 113 on the '1H - what type of board do we want' thread:

I don't think they have the right to force it on others, but if that's what they think, then that's what they think.

Interestingly, a lot of what is in the New Testament epistles is aimed at the church and those within it.  I would agree that the church has sometimes tried to impose those ideas on those outside of the church (though when a society has an official religion or denomination - as has been the case in Europe over the centuries - it can sometimes be difficult to practically know who is outside of the church).  I often think that some here think that they are aimed at global humanity.  In a way they are, but only as humanity individually becomes part of the church.

[Gordon]

I often think that some here think that they are aimed at global humanity.

I'm fairly sure though you've said previously that Christianity was for 'all of humanity' (or similar expression): correct me if I'm wrong.

In a way they are, but only as humanity individually becomes part of the church.

Then in societies like the U.K. where Christianity is in decline we can reasonably conclude that any moral imperatives that are claimed for the NT are of declining relevance in a society that is becoming increasingly 'unchurched'.

[Hope]

I'm fairly sure though you've said previously that Christianity was for 'all of humanity' (or similar expression): correct me if I'm wrong.

Yes, I have said that, Gordon - which is why I stated "In a way they are, but only as humanity individually becomes part of the church" as my closing sentence.  Christianity is the 'good news' (gospel) of Jesus' offer of salvation to all of humanity.  The advice and guidance on how to live as a Christian, is only relevant to those who have chosen to join the church universal.

Then in societies like the U.K. where Christianity is in decline we can reasonably conclude that any moral imperatives that are claimed for the NT are of declining relevance in a society that is becoming increasingly 'unchurched'.

I wouldn't say that they are of declining relevance because that relevance is universal, as is the offer of salvation; they may, however, be of declining adherence.

Let's take a financial analogy.  Over the past 15/20 years, the use of cheques has declined at an ever increasing rate. That doesn't mean that they are no longer relevant, as there are still people and businesses who don't work electronically and the use of them is still valid.

[Gordon]

Yes, I have said that, Gordon - which is why I stated "In a way they are, but only as humanity individually becomes part of the church" as my closing sentence.  Christianity is the 'good news' (gospel) of Jesus' offer of salvation to all of humanity.  The advice and guidance on how to live as a Christian, is only relevant to those who have chosen to join the church universal.

Therefore those of us who have rejected Christianity can quite reasonably reject any such 'advice and guidance'. Moreover, since the UK isn't a theocracy it would be unreasonable to enact legislation based on enshrining Christian 'advice and guidance' on a society-wide basis here since not all elements within U.K. society subscribe to Christianity.

I wouldn't say that they are of declining relevance because that relevance is universal, as is the offer of salvation; they may, however, be of declining adherence.

You can't have it both ways: if Christian 'advice and guidance' is only 'relevant to those who have 'chosen to join the church universal' (whatever that is) then where the numbers joining are in decline then so is the relevance of the related 'advice and guidance', as has been illustrated nicely by recent SSM legislation being enacted in spite of religious objections.   

Let's take a financial analogy.  Over the past 15/20 years, the use of cheques has declined at an ever increasing rate. That doesn't mean that they are no longer relevant, as there are still people and businesses who don't work electronically and the use of them is still valid.

But declining rapidly, and becoming increasingly irrelevant to the point of being redundant for many of us (who has a cheque guarantee card and cheque-book these days?): a bit like Christianity really, so a good analogy.

[Khatru]

Seems to me that they are aimed at all of us.

Unless, that is, you are pointing out a contradiction, at which point the target will suddenly be narrowed down from all of humanity to a small group of people.

[Hope]

Seems to me that they are aimed at all of us.

Unless, that is, you are pointing out a contradiction, at which point the target will suddenly be narrowed down from all of humanity to a small group of people.

Khatru, whilst the drink-drive legislation is aimed at everyone, it only impacts those who drink and drive.  Similarly, the requirement for teachers and doctors in the UK to register with their respective General Teaching/Medical Council applies to the teaching/medical professions alone but is a national law which technically applies to everyone. 

The same applies to the teachings in the epistles.  The epistles were written to Christians in various churches across the Mediterranean area, and deal with issues that concerned the members of those churches.  The fact that the foundation on which Christianity exists is open to the whole of humanity means that - once someone joins 'church' - they come under the 'rules and regs' of that body in exactly the same way that anyone joining this board will not have been required to abide by the board's rules and regs before joining, but will be after joining. 

There is no contradiction, unless you are suggesting that we are all bound by every rule and reg that exists, even if we aren't involved in the life of many of the organisations/societies/nations/people groups to which each of them apply.

[Rhiannon]

Does that mean that if I join a church I can keep slaves?

[Hope]

Does that mean that if I join a church I can keep slaves?

No, because at no point does the New Testament condone the keeping of slaves (as I am sure you are aware, Rhi).  What it does do, hoiwever, is acknowledge that when people become Christians, they don't suddenly become perfect (something that some opponents of Christianity here seem to want to believe); instead, it seeks to empower such people to steadily become more mature in their faith and part of this is - in the case of slavery - initially treating their slaves better, and then ultimately releasing them.

Imagine the situation in - say - Rome if all those who had owned slaves had released them on becoming Christians.  You would have had the streets full of starving ex-slaves - after all, no welfare provisions for the unemployed in those days.  Woukd that have been kinder than retaining their services, treating them better, perhaps training them in a skill or 'profession' and then steadily allowing them their freedom once able to stand on their own economic feet?

[Rhiannon]

Right. So the part about slavery wasn't written for everyone. That was written for the society that the early church emerged from.

And yet the parts on sexual behaviour (including homosexuality) are for everyone apparently. How come?

[floo]

Yes, I have said that, Gordon - which is why I stated "In a way they are, but only as humanity individually becomes part of the church" as my closing sentence.  Christianity is the 'good news' (gospel) of Jesus' offer of salvation to all of humanity.  The advice and guidance on how to live as a Christian, is only relevant to those who have chosen to join the church universal.
I wouldn't say that they are of declining relevance because that relevance is universal, as is the offer of salvation; they may, however, be of declining adherence.

Let's take a financial analogy.  Over the past 15/20 years, the use of cheques has declined at an ever increasing rate. That doesn't mean that they are no longer relevant, as there are still people and businesses who don't work electronically and the use of them is still valid.

There is nothing good about the idea of 'you must be 'saved' or go to hell'.

[Hope]

Right. So the part about slavery wasn't written for everyone. That was written for the society that the early church emerged from.

Well, do you have any slaves?  Do we still have slave-owners?  If you/we do, those parts would still be relevant to you/society if you were a Christian.

And yet the parts on sexual behaviour (including homosexuality) are for everyone apparently. How come?

Are there still homosexuals in society?  Yes, so those parts also remain relevant.  But notice that the teaching is targetted at peope within the church.  Whether that means that there is 'wrong' and 'wrong' is open to debate.

[Gordon]

Khatru, whilst the drink-drive legislation is aimed at everyone, it only impacts those who drink and drive.

That seems a tad simplistic: this legislation impacts on all drivers in terms of their potential behaviour in knowing that they risking personal sanction and the safety of others. In fact, since the limits are lower here in Scotland compared to the rest of the UK drivers here have even less discretion over drinking and driving than elsewhere in the UK.

However, in terms of personal compliance with the regulations this is a self-selecting sample, where only those who intend to drive and consume alcohol are bound by this regulation: non-drivers and teetotal drivers are in that sense unaffected but the wider population also has a vested interest in this issue since we are all potentially at risk of those who drive under the influence.

So, on the basis of your earlier post in which you said 'The advice and guidance on how to live as a Christian, is only relevant to those who have chosen to join the church universal'  then drink driving is a poor comparison since it does potentially impact on everyone whereas, as you say yourself, any imperatives contained in Christian dogma alone apply only to card-carrying Christians.

Similarly, the requirement for teachers and doctors in the UK to register with their respective General Teaching/Medical Council applies to the teaching/medical professions alone but is a national law which technically applies to everyone.

Which means it differs from what you have said about the scope of Christian 'advice and guidance' which doesn't apply to everyone. 

The same applies to the teachings in the epistles.  The epistles were written to Christians in various churches across the Mediterranean area, and deal with issues that concerned the members of those churches.  The fact that the foundation on which Christianity exists is open to the whole of humanity means that - once someone joins 'church' - they come under the 'rules and regs' of that body in exactly the same way that anyone joining this board will not have been required to abide by the board's rules and regs before joining, but will be after joining.

So, therefore, these 'rules and regs' aren't binding on the 'whole of humanity' are they? 

There is no contradiction, unless you are suggesting that we are all bound by every rule and reg that exists, even if we aren't involved in the life of many of the organisations/societies/nations/people groups to which each of them apply.

I suspect the issue you are implying but not addressing here is that in by saying Christianity 'is open to the whole of humanity', which is a ridiculously grandiose claim, you are suggesting that specific Christian imperatives should apply to all of humanity by default in that Christians, based on what you say, see all of humanity as being potential Christians - would that reflect your view?

     

[floo]

I had a bruising personal encounter yesterday with a Biblical literalist, fundie relative, who refused to drop the topic of getting me 'saved'. In the end I let them have it with all barrels blazing as I was so fed up they wouldn't respect my wish not to talk about the subject.

[Gordon]

Are there still homosexuals in society?  Yes, so those parts also remain relevant.  But notice that the teaching is targetted at peope within the church.  Whether that means that there is 'wrong' and 'wrong' is open to debate.

So this 'teaching' isn't binding on non-Christians - right?

[Hope]

That seems a tad simplistic: this legislation impacts on all drivers in terms of their potential behaviour in knowing that they risking personal sanction and the safety of others. In fact, since the limits are lower here in Scotland compared to the rest of the UK drivers here have even less discretion over drinking and driving than elsewhere in the UK.

Re-reading my post, perhaps this analogy wasn't that clever.  But the law still applies to everyone, even if it only affects a few.

So, on the basis of your earlier post in which you said 'The advice and guidance on how to live as a Christian, is only relevant to those who have chosen to join the church universal'  then drink driving is a poor comparison since it does potentially impact on everyone whereas, as you say yourself, any imperatives contained in Christian dogma alone apply only to card-carrying Christians.

Which means it differs from what you have said about the scope of Christian 'advice and guidance' which doesn't apply to everyone.

Not quite true.  As I said later in the post (a bit which I notice you gloss over rather hurriedly) the message of Christianity is for the whole of humanity - Christ makes it clear that whilst he himself came predominantly to the Jews (though not exclusively), his job was to restart the work that the Jews had originally been 'chosen' for - namely to witness to the world.  He then instructed his disciples to 'go out into all the world'.

Christian dogma is fundamentally about the universal nature of the gospel of Jesus' offer of salvation.  That said, authors of the epistles were specifically writing to those who had accepted the offer that Jesus provided and still provides.  As I pointed out to Rhi in a previous post, the teachings of the epistles are still relevant to Christians today and - in some ways still relevant to society today - after all, it was on them that the likes of Wilberforce and Shaftesbury based their opposition to slavery and the slave trade.  Or are you suggesting that society ought to do away with opposing slavery because it is based on something that was/is only really applicable to Christians?

So, therefore, these 'rules and regs' aren't binding on the 'whole of humanity' are they?

Potentially, yes they are.  Were the whole of humanity to become Christians, those rules and regs would apply to them.  As such, the rules are for all humanity.. I also believe that it will be those rules and regs that will be used in the Final Judgement.  I appreciate that you and others here don't pay much attention to such a concept - but that isn't my look-out.

I suspect the issue you are implying but not addressing here is that in by saying Christianity 'is open to the whole of humanity', which is a ridiculously grandiose claim, ... [/quote]Why is it a 'ridiculously grandiose claim'?  If God is the creator of all things, then he is perfectly able - even entitled - to offer salvation to all things.

... you are suggesting that specific Christian imperatives should apply to all of humanity by default in that Christians, based on what you say, see all of humanity as being potential Christians - would that reflect your view?

See above - underlined.

[Hope]

I had a bruising personal encounter yesterday with a Biblical literalist, fundie relative, who refused to drop the topic of getting me 'saved'. In the end I let them have it with all barrels blazing as I was so fed up they wouldn't respect my wish not to talk about the subject.

Whilst I can understand your frustration - I've felt it with some of the politician we get at the doorstep (albeit this happens very rarely ) - Floo, you also have to remember that, as with the politicians, people such as your relative feel that they are duty-bound to try to get you to change your mind - if only for your own good.

[Gordon]

Re-reading my post, perhaps this analogy wasn't that clever.  But the law still applies to everyone, even if it only affects a few.

Unlike Christian 'rules and regs', which don't apply to everyone, which is what you seem to be saying.

As I said later in the post (a bit which I notice you gloss over rather hurriedly) the message of Christianity is for the whole of humanity - Christ makes it clear that whilst he himself came predominantly to the Jews (though not exclusively), his job was to restart the work that the Jews had originally been 'chosen' for - namely to witness to the world.  He then instructed his disciples to 'go out into all the world'.

No glossing over it at all: this is no more than a faith-based claim based on ancient anecdote, and a grandiose one at that.

Christian dogma is fundamentally about the universal nature of the gospel of Jesus' offer of salvation.  That said, authors of the epistles were specifically writing to those who had accepted the offer that Jesus provided and still provides.  As I pointed out to Rhi in a previous post, the teachings of the epistles are still relevant to Christians today and - in some ways still relevant to society today - after all, it was on them that the likes of Wilberforce and Shaftesbury based their opposition to slavery and the slave trade.  Or are you suggesting that society ought to do away with opposing slavery because it is based on something that was/is only really applicable to Christians?

The 'universal' bit is grandiosity if this implies that it is relevant to the 'whole of humanity', as you've suggested. I doubt you are seriously suggesting that society wouldn't have tackled the issue of slavery were in not for the efforts of Christians, commendable though there efforts were. Morality isn't exclusive to Christianity you know, and nobody has ever suggested to my knowledge that some aspects of Christian thought are compatible with other moral outlooks, especially since some of those both predate Christianity and have influenced Christianity.

Potentially, yes they are.  Were the whole of humanity to become Christians, those rules and regs would apply to them.  As such, the rules are for all humanity.. I also believe that it will be those rules and regs that will be used in the Final Judgement.  I appreciate that you and others here don't pay much attention to such a concept - but that isn't my look-out.

More grandiosity, which is surprising to see since in the society we both live in Christianity is in decline.

Why is it a 'ridiculously grandiose claim'?  If God is the creator of all things, then he is perfectly able - even entitled - to offer salvation to all things.

Which is a grandiose claim in itself

[floo]

Whilst I can understand your frustration - I've felt it with some of the politician we get at the doorstep (albeit this happens very rarely ) - Floo, you also have to remember that, as with the politicians, people such as your relative feel that they are duty-bound to try to get you to change your mind - if only for your own good.

It should be illegal to bombard people with religion and politics if they make it quite clear they have no wish to participate in the discussion of those topics.

[~TW~]

Gordon what is wrong with you and your mates you keep going back over the same old ground.The whole lot of you are so boring.

 So a quick recap God says he is I AM.You say no.Now you must have noticed people die.God says he will catch up with you then, he has a place for you,in a dimension where time does not exist.

 You can then be happy with your hitlers and mass killers for ever.

 So give up on these stupid questions please.

    ~TW~

[floo]

Gordon what is wrong with you and your mates you keep going back over the same old ground.The whole lot of you are so boring.

 So a quick recap God says he is I AM.You say no.Now you must have noticed people die.God says he will catch up with you then, he has a place for you,in a dimension where time does not exist.

 You can then be happy with your hitlers and mass killers for ever.

 So give up on these stupid questions please.

    ~TW~

And you can be happy with your evil deity who was supposed to have exterminated all humans and animals apart from the sycophant, Noah, and a few animals.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

I would agree that the church has sometimes tried to impose those ideas on those outside of the church

Children for example?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

What it does do, hoiwever, is acknowledge that when people become Christians, they don't suddenly become perfect (something that some opponents of Christianity here seem to want to believe); instead, it seeks to empower such people to steadily become more mature in their faith and part of this is - in the case of slavery - initially treating their slaves better, and then ultimately releasing them.

Could you just remind us please of the bit that says, "keeping slaves is a really, really bad thing to do and you should stop it, only for practical reasons you can keep them for a bit according to the following work conditions provided of course you free them once these transitional arrangements are done with."?

Ta everso.

[~TW~]

And you can be happy with your evil deity who was supposed to have exterminated all humans and animals apart from the sycophant, Noah, and a few animals.

Perfectly happy yes  .but you should be happy with Gordon and the rest so be happy as each tick of the clock brings you closer to the place they call hell.Where the clock does not tick just darkness and no time so you will not need a watch 

  ~TW~

[bluehillside Retd.]

TW,

Perfectly happy yes  .but you should be happy with Gordon and the rest so be happy as each tick of the clock brings you closer to the place they call hell.Where the clock does not tick just darkness and no time so you will not need a watch 

What about those Timex jobs we had in the 70s with fluorescent hands? Would they do?

[~TW~]

TW,

What about those Timex jobs we had in the 70s with fluorescent hands? Would they do?

 I doubt it this darkness you can cut with a knife,but what good is a knife in a world of disembodied spirits.in a timeless zone.


 ~TW~