words should mean things

[deird1]

One thing that really bugs me when discussing random topics with Christians is when someone will say:

"[this thing I don't like] isn't biblical."


You know what else isn't biblical?

- karaoke
- railway trains
- electric lights
- sushi
- hairspray
- skiing
- kangaroos
- tissues


The problem is, they're using "biblical" as the ultimate trump card, without thinking about what it means. "The Bible is good, hence 'biblical' is better than 'not biblical'," with no further justification needed.

And if I try to define what "biblical" could mean, well, there's "this thing is mentioned in the Bible", "this thing is approved of by the Bible", or "the thing could be argued for, using the Bible as support", for starters. Which might be perfectly relevant to the conversation - but if you don't say which one you mean...

...well, if you don't say, then I'm going to assume that you don't really know, because you've never had to put more thought into it than "is it biblical?" Whatever that means.

Comments

[beer_good_foamy]

You know what else isn't biblical?

The Bible (as a complete work) itself, surely? ;)

[curiouswombat]

Great minds - my first thought was 'printing' - so their Bibles aren't biblical either...

[glorious-pancake-morning.blogspot.com]

YOU'RE not biblical.

[curiouswombat]

I thought not only of printing, but also the concept of 'biblical' meaning something a little different, as in "I knew him, but not in the Biblical sense..."

[doughtier]

Also biblical: sacred whores of both genders, approved incestuous sexual relationships, cheating parents and siblings and spouses, and selling your brother to slavery in Egypt.

|Meduza|

[redsixwing]

*fist bump of solidarity*

[velvetwhip]

I have to concur with the person above who mentioned that, in the strictest sense, the Bible isn't Biblical (especially not in English and all...)


Gabrielle

[snickfic]

I would tend to assume that "not Biblical" means that the thing "is disapproved of and/or contradicted by" the Bible, depending on what sort of a thing it is, ie, tattoos vs. Freudian psychology. But you're right, there are multiple possible interpretations.

Yanno, I'd be fascinated sometime to compare notes with you on Aussie vs. American evangelicism (since what you're talking about here sounds like evangelical reasoning).

[deird1]

Well for starters, there's no such thing as Aussie evangelicism. I'd never heard of the term until I started hanging out with Americans. :)

But yes, it'd be fascinating to compare notes...

[swellen.livejournal.com]

"Well for starters, there's no such thing as Aussie evangelicism."
Not quite sure what makes you say that. Certainly Sydney Evangelicals would disagree with you quite strongly, and I know people from all over the country who identify themselves as 'evangelicals'.

[deird1]

I stand corrected.

I've certainly never heard the term used by Australians.

[swellen.livejournal.com]

Sorry, that wasn't meant to be a criticism... as a former Sydney Evangelical who still loves them but now disagrees with them on some major issues, I am still a little twitchy when I hear the term "evangelical". :D

[snickfic]

I think you must have some flavor that's at least somewhat comparable, though, since we import stuff from you guys now and then. For example, Darlene Zsesch (which I almost certainly misspelled) and her worship movement was big over here for a while.

[deird1]

Definitely. There just isn't the same sharp divide between "evangelical" and "mainline". We mostly just think in terms of denominations.

I can't spell her name either...

[snickfic]

Whereas the term "evangelical" here is useful because many of the people who would put themselves in that group (whether they use the term or not) are of the opinion that denominations are icky. (Or, you know, rigid and prone to legalism and excessive ritual. Probably they'd be more likely to say that.) There's a lot of suspicion here towards church leadership beyond the individual congregation.

[deird1]

There's a lot of suspicion here towards church leadership beyond the individual congregation.

Whereas our denominations pretty much ignore church leadership beyond the congregation, even though it's out there somewhere...

(Broad simplification, but:
Anglicans - have bishops who get quoted in the news occasionally. As an Anglican churchgoer, I can tell you that we pretty much go "Oh, how nice, a bishop", smile, and then go back to what we're doing.
Presbyterians/Methodists/Uniting - have national conferences or some such thing, and discuss stuff at great length. Then go back home and change nothing at all.
Baptists - have national conferences which no-one ever notices. They are purely an excuse to swap recipes worship ideas.
Pentecostals/Assemblies of God - just announce "this is our denomination!" and then don't really pay attention to any other churches from the same one.
Salvos/Catholics/miscellaneous - not part of the "main" group, so we have no idea how they operate. *shrugs*)

[a2zmom]

No one has ever tried that on me. I'm going to count my (non-Biblical) blessings.

[verity]

Seriously. No one has ever tried to say that to me, but my social group tends to be a bit self-selecting.