|
Do you mean it's an (seemingly) essential part of the general practice of Christianity, or that the Christian faith requires it? Please explain.
I don't understand the distinction you are trying to make.
I mean to ask, (and are you saying) is selecting some of the Bible (and disregarding or not adhering to some) required doctrinally, or is it simply the practical application of the faith by (again, seemingly) most believers?
|
|
If the Bible is the Word, the Word is with God, the Word is God... then you can't pick and choose which parts to believe in.
To say that they can't do it ignores the very real fact that they do it and always have. In fact, to pick and choose is an essential part of the faith.
What makes it an essential part of the faith?
Essential in terms that failing to do so makes the faith untenable? --(practically essential)--
Or essential in terms of a requirement, doctrinally within the faith? --(essential due to regulatory requirement, so to speak)--
|
The 10 Commandments are often referred to, as is Genesis, Exodus, Proverbs and the Psalms.
The 10 Commandments are not in Genesis.
In addition, I can't think of any other place in the Bible that talks about the 10 Commandments as a whole. Individual commandments are quoted all throughout the Bible -- but even then not really as a reference to the 10 Commandments.If the Bible is the Word, the Word is with God, the Word is God... then you can't pick and choose which parts to believe in.
It's ironic that you are talking about "pick and choose which parts" with this statement. You are misquoting John 1:1 here. And "the Word" in this case is not the Bible.
|
|
The 10 Commandments are often referred to, as is Genesis, Exodus, Proverbs and the Psalms.The 10 Commandments are not in Genesis.
In addition, I can't think of any other place in the Bible that talks about the 10 Commandments as a whole. Individual commandments are quoted all throughout the Bible -- but even then not really as a reference to the 10 Commandments.
A) the quoted post does not •say• that they are in Genesis
b) umm.... Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5?|
|
The 10 Commandments are often referred to, as is Genesis, Exodus, Proverbs and the Psalms.The 10 Commandments are not in Genesis.
In addition, I can't think of any other place in the Bible that talks about the 10 Commandments as a whole. Individual commandments are quoted all throughout the Bible -- but even then not really as a reference to the 10 Commandments.
A) the quoted post does not •say• that they are in Genesis
b) umm.... Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5?
Hmmm. Perhaps I misread his comment. He was talking about how the Old Testament was referred to throughout the Bible and then went into the 10 Commandments.
Deuteronomy really comes across as a retelling (and he didn't mention it) -- but one additional reference that happened (in theory) around the same time is hardly "often referred to".Anyway, sorry I misunderstood the original post.
|
|
The 10 Commandments are often referred to, as is Genesis, Exodus, Proverbs and the Psalms.<snip>
Hmmm. Perhaps I misread his comment. He was talking about how the Old Testament was referred to throughout the Bible and then went into the 10 Commandments.
Deuteronomy really comes across as a retelling (and he didn't mention it) -- but one additional reference that happened (in theory) around the same time is hardly "often referred to".Anyway, sorry I misunderstood the original post.
It goes around, I thought you were trying to say that the commandments weren't in the bible.
I think he was saying that "[the commandments] and [other books] were often referred to by [whoever] was justifying [whatever] based on the old testament."
See? That way we all make sense! ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's accurate to say that dying (in order to be reunited with God in Heaven) is key to the Abrahamic religions. Is this generally true of most religions?
To some extent, it's true of Hinduism and its direct descendants -- the idea of working off a cosmic burden of sins through successive reincarnation.
Look to a lot of the now-smaller religions, however, and suddenly it's not true. Zen Buddhism is all about achieving enlightenment in this life, and teaches that the "self" (including an immortal soul) is an illusion. Any number of animistic beliefs put the emphasis on a kind of living continuity, from ancestors to the present. In some ancient Australian Aboriginal beliefs, the two main states were sleeping (dreaming) vs. waking, representing different eras of creation -- and life vs. death would be sort of meaningless in view of that kind of juxtaposed frame of reference.
Christianity teaches that we are all lost, and that a holy Creator has made a way back to fellowship with Him by accept the free gift of His grace, as provided in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Other religions teach that you can 'find' enlightenment or that your inherent goodness will get you to Heaven or that a littany of works and behaviors is the pathway to earning salvation. We would suggest that these are man's efforts to get back to God, or to ordain ourselves as our own gods. Instead, Christianity is predicated on grace through the provision of God, who wants us reconciled to Him despite our sin.
Paul says itbest and most simply in Ephesians. For it is by grace we are saved, through faith. We did nothing to earn it ourselves, lest we brag about our righteousness. Instead, eternal life with God is a gift offered us through Jesus Christ, our Lord.
I find that if we understand this central notion for all of Christianity, we can accomplish a lot in civil religious conversation. We can differentiate among accurate and aberrant representations of scripture. We can alleviate a lot of suspicion about the 'arrogance' of Christianity when we realize that the central claim of the faith is that God has provided a way versus the idea that we can find a way, or that the path to Heaven (enlightenment, whatever) must meet in any way with our own approval. And I think most importantly, we can dismiss claimants of the title of Christianity that do not found themselves in this essential doctrine. So when an imposter like Robert Tilton talks about salvation through giving, or asks you to measure your faith by how much you give to his attempts to minister to others, you know he does not represent Christianity and perhaps ought to be beaten with a stick.
A large, heavy, perhaps even spiky, stick.
... but the verses should be interpreted in such a way to promote the fruits of the spirit, sometimes what promotes the fruits of the spirit can only be reached through challenge and debate (as I had to go through a process of challenge and debate to accept that God makes people homosexual and God doesn't make mistakes).
I will not be engaging the issue of homosexuality again (I never cared to except when the Bible is misrepresented on it). But I want to raise this concentration on filtering all Scripture through the 'fruits of the spirit'. It strikes me as very Mars Hill/emergent church. The Bible doesn't teach that other teachings are mitigated by the presence of the Holy Spirit in my life. It teaches that He influences all areas of my life. Therefore, I am not to excuse sin for the sake of being gentler, or to shut down my witness in the interest of being more humble. Do I misunderstand you, DD?
But I want to raise this concentration on filtering all Scripture through the 'fruits of the spirit'.
Its just another mechanism for avoiding the bible being wrong/disagreeing with modern sensibilities.
I've seen people claim as "modern sensibilities" things which did not promote the fruits of the spirit
Such as?
You posted this just as I was in the middle of editing my previous post. A good example (not from my personal life, but a good example all the same) can be seen in the movie Kinsey.
I've never seen the movie. Could you explain it briefly? I think its about something that happened in the 1950's, so it would not be modern.
Dr Kinsey was one of the most revolutionary and brilliant scientists of the past century. His study in human sexuality has not only lead to major social rights gains, but medical gains as well. But, his research was against "modern sensibilities" and nearly ended his career on multiple occasions.
How to put this without getting you hung up on the jargon and semantics...
Modern, as I'm using it, means recent, current, "more or less now". An example from the 50's isn't going to provide that.
This is, obviously, an ever moving term, since time advances.
People rarely use the bible to determine their morality. They read the bible so it conforms with the morality they already have. When society started to advance racial equality low and behold, so did he bible.
In the 1950's the society didn't support homosexuality (even to the extent that it does so now) so the bible wasn't read that way.
If in the year 2150 society holds the non human personhood of whales, dolphins, and chimps as a given then the bible will be read to support that as well.
To claim that people don't use the Bible to determine their morality is just as valid as claiming that they don't use anything else (tv, movies, news, education, etc.) But, at some point, they get their morality from somewhere. They aren't born with it (most of it, anyway).
Where they get their morality is from their environment and, for many people, that environment includes church and Bible.
.
In many parts of today's world, "modern sensibilities" doesn't support homosexuality and I'm talking about in 2012.EXACTLY.
In those same areas where homosexuality isn't accepted, with the very same bible, the bible is interpreted (fairly imho) to be against homosexuality. In the areas where homosexuality is accepted that part is either played down, relegated to the old testament "that doesn't apply anymore" ,re interpreted, or phased out as not being a fruit of the spirit.
Religion does not seem to be the horse in this relationship: its the cart. Society pulls a reluctant and very heavy religion along behind it.
but it raises the question as to how people came to decide that whales, dolphins, and chimps are persons. Where a lot of that process (nearly all of that process) is going to take place is religion. Science certainly isn't equipped to decide what "personhood" should mean.I don't see religion doing that. Religion usually seems behind the times and on the side lines.
I think the change in how we see animals comes from exposure, empathy, and a lack of need.
If we don't need to kill whales for oil, we don't try as hard to justify their killing. If we're not ranchers we don't need to hate wolves. Likewise the racial superiority movement largely grew out of the slave trade.
Empathy is something we're hard wired for. We're social animals, and we have to get along with our tribe, but... we can kill anything outside of that.
Nature documentaries, disney cartoons, pets, stuffed animals all tend to push animals to the "in" side of the tribe rather than the outside. Even inner city kids that have never seen a deer used to pale when kids asked what the coyotes ate and I'd honestly tell them bambi.
and btw your definition of "modern" is arbitrary for the sake of this discussion. Because you've given no reason to elevate one particular point in time over any other, I'm going to ignore it.. best answer i could hope for i suppose...
But, at some point, they get their morality from somewhere. They aren't born with it (most of it, anyway).
Where they get their morality is from their environment and, for many people, that environment includes church and Bible.
Research seems to suggest that the ability to develop moral reasoning is inborn, after millennia of evolution from ancestors living in a communal society. Granted, the YECs in the audience can always discount that with the rest of science; and just like the rest of evolution, there's no saying whether a God "directed" part or all of the process, but there you have it.
I first want to remind everyone that I'm trying not to get drawn into the specific moral discussion that is being used as an example here. I prefer a wider range of examples instead of just one, because invariably, I will be accused of hating a reference group jsut for coppoerating with an example I didn't bring up. Please understand the situation.
DD: You are exactly committing the flaw of interpretive bias you are judging parts of the Church for doing. First, by rationalizing language the Bible doesn't use, as per when you say 'mention of the word fruit obviously means fruit of the spirit'. Allow the bright men who wrote Scripture the flexible use of a good metaphor. Paul goes on in Ephesians to talk about the armor of God, but when he alter makes war and battle analogies, he isn't obsessed over the metaphor. The fruits of the spirit are traits we will demonstrate as faithful and humble believers. They do not counter other fruits and gifts that some might say run counter to their display. For example, if I say a fruit of the spirit is gentleness, and then Jesus runs moneychangers out of His temple, is He somehow lacking in Spirit? Of course not. If I judge the sin of someone who struggles with it, am I not acting according to those fruits because they don't feel loved in that moment? I love my kids, but they still receive discipline, judgment, reproof. And it's as gentle as I can make it, but they wouldn't always say so.
I just think trying to connect all Scripture to this dramatized description of the "fruit of the Spirit", going so far as to eisogetically connect other uses of the word fruit to the allegory, might cause you to miss the boat.
I would add that religion can often be behind the times, insofar as religion is a focus on ritual and expectation based on faith, but practiced by imperfect people. Faith is not behind the times, evidenced by its durability through time. I'd argue that while Biblical principle is never wrong, understanding of and application of those principles can be. Attempts to recreate the early church by baptizing the dead or praying a staid prayer instead of actually communicating with God are examples of how religion can be practiced while faith and principle take a back seat.
Your point is?..
EXACTLY.In those same areas where homosexuality isn't accepted, with the very same bible, the bible is interpreted (fairly imho) to be against homosexuality. In the areas where homosexuality is accepted that part is either played down, relegated to the old testament "that doesn't apply anymore" ,re interpreted, or phased out as not being a fruit of the spirit.
That society is dragging religion along. Religion and religious debate is not leading the charge towards a better morality. Its holding us back or, at best, sitting on the side lines and having as much effect about what gets done as a cheerleader in a football game.
This does not necessarily follow from the previous paragraph.
More religious areas have tended to be further behind the times on everything from race to animal rights to gay rights.
Religion isn't always an early innovator. That's not the same as saying that it is "behind the times". Sometimes it is an early innovator (the calls to end slavery being an example).
What makes you say its an early innovator on slavery? Religion was one of the biggest sources of justification for a patently evil system and continued to be so right through the civil war. I think this stems from religions ability, if not requirement, to believe completely implausible and irrational scenarios. Once you accept a talking snake as reality its pretty hard to categorically deny the possibility of God placing a curse on Ham's descendants.
If religion is equally saying "Slavery good" and "slavery bad" then it isn't leading the way or even helping.
You were talking about whales having personhood, not whether we could justify killing them. Please stick to one thing at a time.
Fine, one animal per idea.
If we don't need to kill rabbits to make warm clothes because of advances in syntheics, the arguments for killing rabbits to make warm clothes become weaker.
B-b-b-b-ut...I like cheerleaders!
Religion itself is not the desirable end. Religion is what happens when imperfect people apply themselves to faith imperfectly.
Religion may have been used to advocate slavery by people who twisted it, but Biblical Christianity does not. Have we not talked about this before. It's a great first step to disabusing you of preconceptions about faith.
Religion may have been used to advocate slavery by people who twisted it but Biblical Christianity does not
There's too much support for slavery in the bible (old and new testaments) for me to believe that the bible had to be twisted to support it. I realize that slavery is contradictory to the entire idea of loving your neighbor, but loving your neighbor is not the sum total of the bible. If it were there would be no need for Christianity.
The bible outright contradicts itself in a number of places. This isn't a problem for me, but the desire if not need, to see it as one coherent, cohesive message leaves the reader with the need to patch the holes. In that patching is a lot of room for both legitimate interpretation and illegitimate imposition of ones own values on the test. Either of these can (and have been) used for good or ill, as the person wants.
You're defining biblical Christianity as the Christianity that was right after the fact. You have a bible calling for love, which chattle slavery clearly is not. But you also have a bible steeped in the racial superiority of the Hebrews over their neighbors, and the cold hard calculus of salvation that means killing heathens so their descendants will avoid eternal damnation makes a scary amount of sense.
Its very easy to pick the "right" interpretation in hindsight when your target has been painted for you by what is actually right. I think the bible, if anything, makes hitting that target harder.
Have we not talked about this before. It's a great first step to disabusing you of preconceptions about faith.
You'd have to have the facts on your side for that, and you don't. You keep relying on your own preconception that the bible speaks of a good god, and therefore anything in the bible needs to be read to avoid Yawey doing anything bad.
I do not share that preconception.
You engage is the very same eisegesis to condemn slavery that more liberal Christians engage in to avoid condemning homosexuality. In 100 years your view will be widely decried as unbiblical the same way you decry the pro slavery readings of 200 years ago. The bible won't change, but people will, and their reading of the bible will change accordingly, as it always has.
I think this is a good thing. It shows that you, like most Christians, are decent people who seem to know where they should end up, even if your map is faulty.
B-b-b-b-ut...I like cheerleaders!
Religion itself is not the desirable end. Religion is what happens when imperfect people apply themselves to faith imperfectly.
Religion may have been used to advocate slavery by people who twisted it, but Biblical Christianity does not. Have we not talked about this before. It's a great first step to disabusing you of preconceptions about faith.
Hardly, the bible is replete with examples of religious law and command from the greatest profits of Judaism and christianity with regards to slave ownership.
Moses himself brings back laws from his meeting with 'god', which deal with this subject. In fact they are so important that after the ten commandment, and the rules for how to make god an alter, the fact that you cannot keep a Hebrew as a servant for more than six years(Exodus 21:2). The word servant in the bible mean slave, we know this because repeatedly, the bible discusses the purchase, sale and ownership of servants. see statements such as
-"If thou buy a Hebrew servant...."(Exodus 21:2-6)
-"And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant...."(Exodus 21:7)
God doesn't just hand down laws, or allow them to be made in his name by his most powerful profits, he actively provides support to the Israelites in battles where they take sex slaves.
The bible, even in the new testament, never explicitly bans slavery.
I mean, if Yahwah can find space for "I am the lord your god, and you shall have no other god before me", he could have found space for "mmm, depriving others of their freedom and keeping them as slaves in pretty s!#$ty guys, would you mind not doing that? Especially the sex slavery, i mean that's especially nasty." or just 'Thou shall not keep slaves or engage in slavery" But mmm, I guess those graven icons are just to dangerous to be replaced by a decent moral idea like that.
The Bible does support slavery, but it does not support chattle slavery. The Bible gave very strict standards of behavior towards slaves which required them to be treated well.
Does that mean that I'm supporting slavery? I'm certainly not supporting it in our day and age, but economies and technologies change. Would it have been better for these slaves to be free men? I think that's an interesting question. In the US, we put a lot of emphasis on freedom, but is that better, in an objective sense, than slowly dying of hunger and oppression? I don't think everyone would prefer a life of starvation to a life of slavery.
Yeah, totally, the bible is amazing. I mean it doesn't ever say that it's okay to make a slave choose between a life time of further servitude and his wife and children, does it...
Oh opse, yep, sorry, my mistake, it does.
"4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.
5 “But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’ 6 then his master must take him before the judges.[a] He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life."
(Exodus 21)
IF that is your point, then make it. You've not yet demonstrated that society is dragging religion along. I'm waiting for you to do so.
Religion was one of the last , longest, and "best" justifications for the morality of slavery from beginning to end.
Areas that are more religious tend to be behind the times on social issues.
Religion thought it had every right to kill people outside of the religion until it was forcibly removed from power. The papal states functioned more or less the same way iran (another religiously influenced state) does: slowing technological progress, banning books, preventing women's rights.
Church attendance (which i'm using as a rough measure of religiosity)
When women got the right to vote
When it stoped being illegal to engage in homosexuality
States ranked by animal protection laws
The holy text remains exactly the same, and yet society and the interpretation of it changes. HOW is that possible if (as you assert) the religious debate is urging society along?
You've asked for my argument, you have yet to give one for your own position.
This is what I'm waiting for you to prove.
More religious areas have tended to be further behind the times on everything from race to animal rights to gay rights.
I don't think proof is possible for someone that considers Heliocentrism a social contruct. I can provide evidence and a plausible argument, and let you do the same.
I'm waiting for you to prove this idea that religious debate is what moves society forward.
You don't find debate helpful?
I don't find the religious debate helpful for a few reasons
1) Few if any people are paying attention
2) People don't argue based on their holy text/religion. They use what they they beleive to be true and then MAKE the text agree with that, hiding their actual reasons and rational. It adds an unnceccesary layer of obfuscation that prevents whats really going on from being seen.
Again, what is your point? At first, you were asserting that if society at some point in the future comes to believe that these animals have personhood, that interpretation of the Bible will change. Then, you started talking about being a good steward (ie. not killing rabbits unless we need to), but the Bible is already interpreted to be telling us to be good stewards. So, I don't know what your point is anymore.
I didn't use the term being a good steward. You brought it in yourself, and confused yourself with it.
The points are one and the same: People will take their/societies accepted morality and decide what their religion says based off of that, rather than the other way around.
The Bible gave very strict standards of behavior towards slaves which required them to be treated well.
Exodus 21:20“If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
That is not treating them well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My friends, theBible is going to say any horrible thing you want it to say if you're going to draw conclusion regardless of evidence. BNW: We have talked about the dramatic differences between what you are calling slavery and the slavery of Hebrew times. You choose to advance your criticism of the Bible unfazed. But you're simply wrong, bro.
In a different culture, being a well-treated servant is a good thing. The surrounding folks would simply eat you or burn you to death if they conquered your area. Having large families and capable fighters was a matter of survival. So God tells them to treat people well, better than anyone treated their slaves, and gives established rules by which family groups may be grown, captives may earn freedom, etc. There's a wealth of information about the vast differences between slavery as you narrowly define it, and slavery described in the Bible. I will remind you that in the very same chapter about slavery that fans of the Skeptics Eisogetic Approach to Scripture Without Knowing Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek make reference to, there is a prohibition against slavery as we know it: seizing people against their will and selling or buying them as slaves is punishable by death.
We who argue over minimum wage and live free of fear from encroachment by barbarians can sit in judgment over the struggles of ancient humanity. But we're silly to. The Bible was written at one point to communicate principle for all points. WHen you look at New Testament scripture, you get an even clearer understanding that eisogetic literal interpretations are abused by beleivers and skeptic, and fully miss the point of sound doctrine and a gospel of grace. I invite you all to look past preconceptions and study with open minds.
The bible outright contradicts itself in a number of places. This isn't a problem for me, but the desire if not need, to see it as one coherent, cohesive message leaves the reader with the need to patch the holes. In that patching is a lot of room for both legitimate interpretation and illegitimate imposition of ones own values on the test. Either of these can (and have been) used for good or ill, as the person wants.
My good friend, I do not beleive the Bible has any mixture of meaningful error, no erros in transmission that affect truth, principle or doctrine, and no contradictions. I do believe that if you want to choose to believe the Bible contradicts itself without caring to study it, you can find some apparent contradictions. I believe each of those contradictions has a credible explanation. I'm excited to look over a few outright contradictions with you to test that theory. Usually, these expressed contradictions are along the lines of who was the first person to see Jesus after the resurrection and such. I'd challenge you on presenting any meaningful contradiction that impacts the meaning of any text. Maybe one or both of us will learn something along the way.
You're defining biblical Christianity as the Christianity that was right after the fact. You have a bible calling for love, which chattle slavery clearly is not. But you also have a bible steeped in the racial superiority of the Hebrews over their neighbors, and the cold hard calculus of salvation that means killing heathens so their descendants will avoid eternal damnation makes a scary amount of sense.
The Bible is not steeped in racial supremacy. By this claim, do you mean the belief of some Jes that they are the only people that matter? I think you'd find that a) both Testaments of the Bible counterindicate this, and b) most Jews don't feel that way. If I misunderstand the assertion, please let me know. I think it's clear that the God presented in the Bible is the complete opposite of racist.
You'd have to have the facts on your side for that, and you don't. You keep relying on your own preconception that the bible speaks of a good god, and therefore anything in the bible needs to be read to avoid Yawey doing anything bad.
Yet which of us has studied the Bible, misunderstandings about it, misrepresentations about it, etc? I can make the exact opposite claim fromthe one you made above, that you need the Bible to be ignorant, sinister, hypocritical, etc. So, between the two of us, perhaps the truth lies in what the Bible actually says, which then necessitates reading and studying it. I've yet to see one response to the presence of the verse that makes slavery as we understand it today punishable by death. I have yet to see the study from you about how the surrounding tribes were not significantly more barbaric when it comes to slavery. The facts aren't on your side or my side, they are, and you and I should choose to recognize them regardless of our preconceptions. Having been an agnostic who studied scripture, it would seem I moved past some of those issues based on what I found to actually be true about Scripture.
I am willing to rise to this challnge any time it's thrown down. Please provide an example of how I am as guilty of eisogesis as anyone else. I try very hard not to be, and I have a pretty good understanding of the term, and also of the Bible in full context. Not the best, sure. But the idea that I read beliefs into Scripture needs evidence, since I try to draw beleif from the Bible instead of justify belief with it.
@DD: I dispute the notion that we are expressly forbidden from judging sin. First, the Bible is clear on sin - those things which separate us from God, whether specifically forbidden, or made into an idol and palced before Him. Second, Jesus passes authority to his Church to preach the gospel, discern what is and isn't of the Spirit, etc. Third, Paul very specifically discusses disipline and pastoral authority, and lays out a proper plan for honest, loving and firm rebuke of sin within the church, as well as within the believer. Finally, your use of the Scripture to say the Bible says not to judge is, once again, eisogetical. Jesus says not to be a hypocrit. Not to judge unless you are prepared to be judged by the same standard. Jesus did not say 'just let the world misrepresent my word and tolerate everything. Hey, anything goes.'
Now, hopefully you don't misunderstand me to mean "Steve gets to pass judgment over the souls, lives and intentions of other people." Because I neither mean that nor practice it. I believe the Bible judges truth and we, who God keeps here as salt and light, are to stand for that truth and fight against false teachings.
. I do believe that if you want to choose to believe the Bible contradicts itself without caring to study it, you can find some apparent contradictions
No.
I will not have you re writing history of everything from the middle east to religion to our last conversation. Yes we discussed this before. Yes you raised objections. No, you didn't manage to correct me on anything.
I have studied it. Probably not as much as you, definitely not the way you have, but i have. Its disingenuous of you to toss aside the hard work i have done over the years reading the bible, looking through history, and discussing these topics with a wide variety of Christians by using the ad hom that I haven't studied: a claim you can always make regardless of how much work I do. If i hadn't studied this stuff to the degree that you could blithely dismiss my objections you should be able to call me out on my errors without the ad hom. You can't.
I can make the exact opposite claim fromthe one you made above, that you need the Bible to be ignorant, sinister, hypocritical, etc.
I have no reason to WANT to see contradictions in the bible, much less a need to. Its claims of spontaneous creation, talking snakes, spiritual beings, talking donkeys (well one), magic and miracles clearly put it in line with the thousands of other myth and mythologies we have in this world regardless of its consistency or lack thereof. I don't see a lot of contradictions in norse mythology and it doesn't leave me awake at night wondering if i need to die in battle to get to Valhalla.
I simply have no motive to do what you're suggesting.
You choose to advance your criticism of the Bible unfazed. But you're simply wrong, bro.
Let me be clear, because this seems to escape you no matter how many times i say it. Being slightly better than the american slave trade is nothing to crow about. It is far, far FAR short of the sort of morality one can reasonably expect from the lord and author of morality. Being not as bad as one of the greatest travesties amoung the many atrocities in human history is not remotely the same as being good.
I'm excited to look over a few outright contradictions with you to test that theory. Usually, these expressed contradictions are along the lines of who was the first person to see Jesus after the resurrection and such. I'd challenge you on presenting any meaningful contradiction that impacts the meaning of any text. Maybe one or both of us will learn something along the way.
I'd imagine you've seen most of the small stuff. I'm talking the big picture. 3,000 years of Jewish history and NONE of them figure out that God's a trinity? The new testament comes along and he is? Love thy neighbor as thyself does NOT mesh with most of the old testament, which is take their land, kill the boy children, and rape the women. You do not force a woman to marry her rapist. It is not love to kill a woman for not crying out rape when she's in a city. Jesus stopped a stoning that was clearly prescribed by the old testament. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone is diametrically opposed to the rock quarry industry required to keep up with the long list of things in the old testament that call for the death penalty.
The Bible is not steeped in racial supremacy. By this claim, do you mean the belief of some Jews that they are the only people that matter? I think you'd find that a) both Testaments of the Bible counterindicate this, and b) most Jews don't feel that way. If I misunderstand the assertion, please let me know. I think it's clear that the God presented in the Bible is the complete opposite of racist.
God chose the Jews. He acts for them, not other groups of human beings. He gave them land, assisted them in battle, sent plagues and misfortunes to their enemies, and provided them with guidance. He cared so much about the purity of their male line that he went so far as to order the execution of male toddlers to prevent interbreeding (interbreeding with the females was fine enough)
Genesis 17:7 And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you
Deut 14 For thou art a holy people unto the LORD thy God, and the LORD hath chosen thee to be His own treasure out of all peoples that are upon the face of the earth
Exodus 19:5 Now therefore, if ye will hearken unto My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, then ye shall be Mine own treasure from among all peoples; for all the earth is Mine;
We know that racism is wrong, but in the bible its a simple, given fact. Try talking about white people as the chosen people, destined to conquer a nation, and holy unto the lord and see if the FBI doesn't start investigating you as a hate group.
I've yet to see one response to the presence of the verse that makes slavery as we understand it today punishable by death.
Fact check! *wavey lines for flashback*
Written by me, on this thread, Here
__________
Yes. the bible condemned slavery OF JEWS. Jews could only be slaves for 7? years. You're applying that to a general prohibition on slavery despite the rest of the bible because to you slavery is wrong and the bible has to be right.
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
______________________
So yes.. you HAVE seen a response to this. And its yet more evidence of the special treatment Jews were entitled to according to their own religion. Mind you, Americans do the same thing with some of our search and seizure laws...
I know you get at least one generation of slaves out of the purchase if you buy a woman, I don't know if it keeps going after that.
Those are bought slaves that are inherited . How is that different from chattel slavery? This is an example of the eisegesis you were looking for. You're talking something that clearly and explicitly only applies to jews and taking it to apply to everyone.
I have yet to see the study from you about how the surrounding tribes were not significantly more barbaric when it comes to slavery.
Wouldn't that be up to you to show that they ARE more barbaric?
From the code of hamurabi, which is very similar to the rules in the bible.
116. If the prisoner die in prison from blows or maltreatment, the master of the prisoner shall convict the merchant before the judge. If he was a free-born man, the son of the merchant shall be put to death; if it was a slave, he shall pay one-third of a mina of gold, and all that the master of the prisoner gave he shall forfeit.
-Sounds pretty much like the beating of the slaves in the bible discussed above
If he be the slave of some one, his owner shall give the physician two shekels.
-slave healthcare
Having been an agnostic who studied scripture, it would seem I moved past some of those issues based on what I found to actually be true about Scripture.
Do you have any idea how often i hear this from apologists? It ranks a full shot on the drinking game. (The 1/4 drinks from context are what add up to get you hammered though)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My friends, theBible is going to say any horrible thing you want it to say if you're going to draw conclusion regardless of evidence. BNW: We have talked about the dramatic differences between what you are calling slavery and the slavery of Hebrew times. You choose to advance your criticism of the Bible unfazed. But you're simply wrong, bro.
In a different culture, being a well-treated servant is a good thing. The surrounding folks would simply eat you or burn you to death if they conquered your area. Having large families and capable fighters was a matter of survival. So God tells them to treat people well, better than anyone treated their slaves, and gives established rules by which family groups may be grown, captives may earn freedom, etc. There's a wealth of information about the vast differences between slavery as you narrowly define it, and slavery described in the Bible. I will remind you that in the very same chapter about slavery that fans of the Skeptics Eisogetic Approach to Scripture Without Knowing Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek make reference to, there is a prohibition against slavery as we know it: seizing people against their will and selling or buying them as slaves is punishable by death.
We who argue over minimum wage and live free of fear from encroachment by barbarians can sit in judgment over the struggles of ancient humanity. But we're silly to. The Bible was written at one point to communicate principle for all points. WHen you look at New Testament scripture, you get an even clearer understanding that eisogetic literal interpretations are abused by beleivers and skeptic, and fully miss the point of sound doctrine and a gospel of grace. I invite you all to look past preconceptions and study with open minds.
This is a great response.
I think the problem so many of us nonbelievers have with the Bible is the way some small minority of users abuse the historicity of the 'anthology' to promote and advance their own warped and patently anti-Christian views and behaviors. Unfortunately, this minority of abusers are not only abusing the Book, but their positions of authority by misguiding legions of followers to, at best, accept their corrupted principles, and at worst work to further them.
So God tells them to treat people well, better than anyone treated their slaves, and gives established rules by which family groups may be grown, captives may earn freedom, etc. There's a wealth of information about the vast differences between slavery as you narrowly define it, and slavery described in the Bible. I will remind you that in the very same chapter about slavery that fans of the Skeptics Eisogetic Approach to Scripture Without Knowing Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek make reference to, there is a prohibition against []bslavery as we know it: seizing people against their will and selling or buying them as slaves is punishable by death.[/b]
Citation please. I'd almost be willing to put money on the fact that it is a corner case about the treatment of other Hebrews.
But it's pretty clear that gods big book of how to be moral is keen on taking slaves in general.
"10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.
16 However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes."
(Deuteronomy 20:10-16)
What with the raiding for sex slaves.
"So the assembly sent twelve thousand fighting men with instructions to go to Jabesh Gilead and put to the sword those living there, including the women and children. 11 “This is what you are to do,” they said. “Kill every male and every woman who is not a virgin.” 12 They found among the people living in Jabesh Gilead four hundred young women who had never slept with a man, and they took them to the camp at Shiloh in Canaan.
13 Then the whole assembly sent an offer of peace to the Benjamites at the rock of Rimmon. 14 So the Benjamites returned at that time and were given the women of Jabesh Gilead who had been spared. But there were not enough for all of them.
15 The people grieved for Benjamin, because the LORD had made a gap in the tribes of Israel. 16 And the elders of the assembly said, “With the women of Benjamin destroyed, how shall we provide wives for the men who are left? 17 The Benjamite survivors must have heirs,” they said, “so that a tribe of Israel will not be wiped out. 18 We can’t give them our daughters as wives, since we Israelites have taken this oath: ‘Cursed be anyone who gives a wife to a Benjamite.’ 19 But look, there is the annual festival of the LORD in Shiloh, which lies north of Bethel, east of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem, and south of Lebonah.”
20 So they instructed the Benjamites, saying, “Go and hide in the vineyards 21 and watch. When the young women of Shiloh come out to join in the dancing, rush from the vineyards and each of you seize one of them to be your wife. Then return to the land of Benjamin. 22 When their fathers or brothers complain to us, we will say to them, ‘Do us the favor of helping them, because we did not get wives for them during the war. You will not be guilty of breaking your oath because you did not give your daughters to them.’”
23 So that is what the Benjamites did. While the young women were dancing, each man caught one and carried her off to be his wife. Then they returned to their inheritance and rebuilt the towns and settled in them.
24 At that time the Israelites left that place and went home to their tribes and clans, each to his own inheritance."
(Judges 21:10-24)
I can go on, but frankly there is only so much rape, forced marriage and sex slavery I can bare to read about at this time in the morning.
Shame on you for trying to defend this ghastly stuff, seriously, shame on you.
I'm Conan, and I approve of this message.
I have studied it. Probably not as much as you, definitely not the way you have, but i have. Its disingenuous of you to toss aside the hard work i have done over the years reading the bible, looking through history, and discussing these topics with a wide variety of Christians by using the ad hom that I haven't studied: a claim you can always make regardless of how much work I do. If i hadn't studied this stuff to the degree that you could blithely dismiss my objections you should be able to call me out on my errors without the ad hom. You can't.
Let's be fair, BNW. I have never said I ahve corrected you on anything, and saying you stick by preconceptions despite evidence is far removed from any claims of ad hominem behavior. Thinking you're wrong isn't any more a personal attack than you thinking I am wrong. Correct?
I see the claim that you have studied and put in hard work, but with no responses to the explanations I offer from studying Scripture, I still have to disagree with your conclusions. Moreover, you don't budge from your initial claims despite evidence to the contrary.
There was a guy on FB a few weeks ago. He said the Bible displayed a heartless and bloodthirsty God because his prophet had bears attack and kill young children. He was snarky and vehement about the whole thing - totally self-righteous in his judgment of God's behavior. I gave him a quick word study, about how in that passage the word for young boy also means young man. About how their poking fun wasn't being a nuissance to an old man, but instead was intentional blasphemy directed specifically at God, and accompanied a damaging accusation of leprosy, which was obviously taken very seriosly. Finally, I noted this prophet didn't sic bears on them, he told them God would deal with them and he wouldn't have to. They kept on until bears came out of the woods and, yes, mauled them.
Dude's response was "See, I told you, God let a prophet murder little boys for making fun of his baldness." The evidence didn't matter to him at all. The use of the words, the vital cultural implications - none of it. You are not so snarky and smug as this guy, to your credit. But you do some of the same thing. You use a pasasge that uses the word slavery, and then you judge the entire character of the Bible. When someone points out important details like Jubilee, the social status slaves had, the fact that people sold themselves into slavery to pay debt or re-honor their family, the fact that other tribes in the area simply ate or raped their slaves, the cultural implications of needs large, quick-breeding family groups just to survive, the prohibition of slavery as we understand it today, and more, you don't budge. Instead, you are found in a different thread a few weeks later saying the exact same thing as if no one had ever challenged it.
Now you can say you don't like me personally and you just don't think I tackled the issue properly, but that's hardly fair. Everything I said above I've said in more detail and has an impact on the discussion of the Bible and slavery. The facts are that slavery as we understand it
is NOTHING like slavery in the Bible. No one can make you accept that, but please don't dismiss criticism that you maintain that position despite the evidence with accusations of ad hom.
Now you can say you don't like me personally and you just don't think I tackled the issue properly, but that's hardly fair. Everything I said above I've said in more detail and has an impact on the discussion of the Bible and slavery. The facts are that slavery as we understand it is NOTHING like slavery in the Bible.
You mean that it isn't the ownership of one human being by another, in which the 'owned human' performs services, sexual acts or labour for the owner.
You see 'slavery as we understand it' differs from person to person. Having had to study the basics or roman culture at school, classical models of slavery are not new to me. Ancient hebrew slavery is much more like roman slavery, than that of the triangle trade, certainly. It is arguably less bad than triangle trade slavery too.
But it is still a vile practice.
It still includes ownership of other humans (taken either by force, sold into slavery or those who have indentured themselves), it provides rights for the owner to do violence to said property, it allows for rape of slaves taken as concubines or wives.
It is still a terrible and immoral practice. One that is sanctioned by Yahwah.
Let's be fair, BNW. I have never said I ahve corrected you on anything
No, you are simply acting as if you have. As if your appeals to your own authority were sufficient evidence that you are right, and I am supposed to change my mind based on your say so.
and saying you stick by preconceptions despite evidence is far removed from any claims of ad hominem behavior.
This is certainly an ad hom when you don't provide any evidence of this ever happening. Your entire argument rests on the perceived characteristic of my stubbornness and unwillingness to look at the evidence. This is a reasonable amount of snark to add or a conclussion to the argument, but alone its nothing but a disingenuous ad hom. Claims that I am ignoring the evidence would require that you PROVIDE some evidence for me to ignore.
I see the claim that you have studied and put in hard work, but with no responses to the explanations I offer from studying Scripture, I still have to disagree with your conclusions. Moreover, you don't budge from your initial claims despite evidence to the contrary.
.. WHAT evidence? You playing six degrees of separation with strom's concordance is not evidence. I have very clearly said "here's the problem, here's the bible verrse that goes along with it, explanation please..." and your response is to commit the very same eisegesis you deride in others by bouncing different bible verses from accross the bible off of each other.
Dude's response was "See, I told you, God let a prophet murder little boys for making fun of his baldness." The...
There's a reason for this. Its not that people are being stubborn, not listening to you, not giving you a fair shake, ignoring evidence, or are having their minds clouded by satan.
Your explanations suck.
They're bad, horrible, obviously contrived tripe desperately clinging to any excuse you can possibly fabricate to avoid what should be pretty obvious. You're hiding behind some deliberately obfuscated translation errors that somehow every single professional translator over the last 2,000 years missed.
You really can't expect people to change their minds based on these hand waves you're doing, or use people not accepting your explanations as evidence of closed mindedness.
Now you can say you don't like me personally and you just don't think I tackled the issue properly, but that's hardly fair.
I do like you personally but i would like to reach through the internet and hit you so hard that I'd knock you into an honest argument.
Everything I said above I've said in more detail and has an impact on the discussion of the Bible and slavery. The facts are that slavery as we understand it is NOTHING like slavery in the Bible.
Kill the men, take the women. Buy the foreigner, pass him off to your kids. Beat your slave, just don't kill him. It sounds SLIGHTLY better than American slavery. What you don't seem to acknowledge is that I'm not arguing it was the same, I'm saying that it was bad, and I don't buy the rational that the people had to be enslaved or killed.
What would you do as a DM if you had a "paladin" acting like that? Kicking in the city gates, killing the men , killing a boy child, and taking his older sister to the altar for a marriage?
What would we do with a soldier that tried that argument?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This may sound trite and even a little unfair, but if any of us--very religious people included--saw a post-apocalypse movie with the same exact scenarios depicted in the last several posts, committed by the characters in the film, we would universally recognize them as The Bad Guys.
If this is true for you (reader of this post), then you need to explain to yourself how you can possibly read the same exact events in a bronze-age story and pass it off as acceptable behavior; pass it off as the guidance of a loving deity/leader.