confused

still trying to work out which bits of the bible i'm suposed to take literally and base my life on and which bits are just desribing what happened. which characters in the bible are suppose to be role models (what to do) and which are suppose to be the 'baddies' (what not to do??)

according to Fee and Stuart 'testament' is another word for covernant. interesting.

as a kid it always seemed fairly random which bits of the bible we listened to and which we didn't, but i figured their must be some logic behind it which at some point in growing up became clear. after all, all the adults i knew seemed fairly unanimous in which bits they actually applied to our lives and which bits were ignored (or at least ticked off as not relevant) and after all, the majority can't be wrong.

i guess this becomes most challenging when i meet people who take literally bits i have assumed were not meant to be taken literally. for instance 'sell all that you have and distribute it amoung the poor' (jesus in Luke 18) "Of course that's not to be taken literally... that doesn't make sense" i say to myself, almost unonsciously, until i met someone who thinks it's a blatently obvious fundamental part of following christ, and has taken this command literally more than once.

and are we suppose to take paul literally in 1 corinthians 11:5
' every woman that prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head...'
and paul goes on for several verses making it pretty clear that God wants women to have their head covered and dosn't want men to. To paul this is common sense type stuff. He concludes in verse 16. 'but if any one seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, not do the churches of God' ... so are we not 'the churches of God??? click here for the full argument of christians who do take this literally

huh?? um..... i guess it was only paul talking, not jesus that said that.... but hang on, if i think that then....

well, lets not go there.

fee and stuart have some interesting thought in 'how to read the bible for all it's worth'

"all of the old testament law is still the word of God for us even though it is not still the command of God to us. The bible contains all sorts of commands that God wants us to know about, which are not directed toward us personally. if we are not concerned about building parapets around the roof of our houses (deut 22:8) we should none the less delight in a God who cared that houseguests not fall off a roof with which they were unfamiliar, and therefore he taught people to build their houses with that sort of love for neighbour in mind..."

they go on to say only that which is explicitly renewed in the new testament can be considered part of the 'law of christ'. included in this category would be the ten commandments, since they are cited in various ways in the new testament as still binding to christians and the two great commandments for deuteronomy 6:5 and levitius 19:18 (love the lord your god with all your heart and love your neighbour as yourself) "No other specific Old Testament laws an be proved to be strictly binding on christians, valuable as it is for Christians to know all the laws."

so what am i saying? i'm not quite sure?
maybe some of you who hold this mysterious logic could fill me in?