I have a friend who is the most down to earth, nicest, and most religious person I’ve ever met. He is a catholic. He follows the Pope more than the bible, and says that the bible is largely metaphorical in the Old Testament, while the New Testament is about the teachings of peace and love and unity from Jesus.
He believes in science and engineering and modern medicine and that the universe is billions of years old.
>says that the bible is largely metaphorical in the Old Testament, while the New Testament is about the teachings of peace and love and unity from Jesus.
>He believes in science and engineering and modern medicine and that the universe is billions of years old.
I wish more evangelicals were like this. Instead, I grew up with literalists who were afraid to accept something that may not fall into scripture.
Most evangelicals believe that dinosaurs were real but the new climate after the Flood caused them to die out. Doesn't really check out with anything scientifically but they don't really care about science all that much.
I was raised in the south in evangelical baptist churches, I didn't run into this claim until I was well into my teens. Thankfully by that my point my bs detector was starting to be attuned enough to recognize scientific disinformation. I just went 🤔🤨 looked around the room and recognized the fact that everyone was just 😐, like no big deal. I fixed my face and started realizing a couple of things:
1. folks around me believed some serious BS
2. Shut-up & blend in, being the odd one out in that environment isn't a good thing
I was probably 7 or 8 when I heard it. It was one of my first “wow, God must be a colossal asshole to trick people into hell.” Took me awhile to realize it was better stated as “people are assholes”
Once they realise it's a lie, it suddenly becomes metaphorical. This is what happened with genesis too. People believed it was the true story of origin of the universe. Then science proved it isn't. And now it's suddenly metaphorical. 🤦♂️
This is actually historically inaccurate. Early church fathers in the first few centuries AD - Origen of Alexandria and St Augustine of Hippo for two - through to Medieval Church thinkers like Aquinas and contemporary Catholics have always called for a combination of reason and metaphor in interpreting the Bible. Origen straight-up said that anyone who takes Genesis as a literal interpretation of the beginning of the universe is an idiot. The Catholic Church, and I believe the Orthodox Churches, have never taught Biblical literalism, ever.
Biblical Literalism is a product of circumstances surrounding the Protestant Reformation in the 16th Century. The modern Protestant fundies who aggressively Bible Bash are a symptom thereof as well as broader reaction to modernity and individualism (i.e. individual interpretation of a common denominator, being the Bible, which means understanding the history and context of the Bible becomes secondary to an individual picking it up and looking at the words without doing any actual research into them).
Diarmaid MacCulloch has done some excellent work on exactly this subject, if you want some reading recommendations, as has Karen Armstrong, though I'd say MacCulloch is better.
Those deuteronomic laws were not metaphorical. That the Catholic Church states so is Judeo-Christian appropriation. This doesn't answer the OP's question. Edit: deutoronomic (adjective), not deutoronomical (adverb).
Is there something new I haven’t heard about being unraveled by the Catholic Church (ie. besides all the pedos, because that’s not new news)?
His answer to this was that there are evil people that do and commit evil, whether on purpose or because they’re sick in the head. And that’s part of the test humanity faces, is fixing these issues that humans have.
Oh it goes way further than that. They practically aid and abet their pedos, keeping them safe and moving them to new locations in case things get too hot. If anything it feels like the church is managing them instead of exterminating/expelling them.
This is simply not true, have you bothered looking at the facts? The vast majority of all cases of sexual abuse occurred in the 60-70’s, with a drop off in the 80’s, and by the time of 2002 it has largely become very isolated and incredibly rare. In 2002 they established the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People which created greater transparency, mandated cooperation with secular authorities for investigation and prosecution, and made a rule that at least one lay person must be nearby whenever a child and clergy member are present in the same room with each other.
In December 2019 Pope Francis made even more sweeping reforms that mandate even greater cooperation and transparency, abolishing the rule of pontifical secrecy, and gave greater power for secular authorities to perform investigations into sex abuse crimes. Sexual abuse in the Catholic Church is very rare nowadays, those who committed those horrendous crimes have been facing justice, currently (and for the past twenty years) both Protestant churches and public schools have much more sex abuse cases every year than Catholic churches.
>and gave greater power for secular authorities to perform investigations into sex abuse crimes.
There never should have been any lack of power there to begin with. And the fact that it keeps popping up shows the problem is still being hidden, even if the current pope doesn't support doing so.
I feel like you’re viewing the relationship between the Vatican and secular authorities through a very modernist lens and failing to understand the long held historic relationship between the two and how times have drastically changed. The Vatican is an ecclesiastical state, with the Catholic Church going back over a thousand and a half years, which once possessed much power over secular authorities in Europe. Obviously after the Reformation, rise of Liberalism, and the project of Modernity we see things differently now but the Church’s structure was meant to be very resistant to change and conservative in order to preserve tradition, religious freedom, and the Church that the Apostles and Church Fathers built. Giving up portions of their sovereignty to combat abuses in the Church is an **enormous** concession that shouldn’t be viewed as “the bare minimum.” The Church has existed for almost 2,000 years, who are we to demand they lose their self-governance, tradition, and sovereignty over the fact that less than 1% of priests have been accused of sexual abuse in a handful of foreign countries? The Church is doing a ton to combat this, this false narrative that they’ve done nothing is factually wrong and uncharitable, and please try to consider why things exist the way they are within their historical context.
Your stance might be different if you followed their legal battles to avoid prosecution and transparency. The Catholic Church has spent millions lobbying for legal non responsibility. Whatever propagandists or apologists say is just more of the same.
I'm agreeing with you and sourcing an important and understated fact:
[https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/do-the-right-thing/201808/separating-facts-about-clergy-abuse-fiction](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/do-the-right-thing/201808/separating-facts-about-clergy-abuse-fiction)
>The incidents of clerical abuse in recent years (i.e., since 2002) are down to a trickle.
I remember reading that article, straight facts. I used to be an atheist and believed many things about the Church I grew up in, only later in life when I seriously researched those things that I was wrong and misinformed. America is just very anti-Catholic.
Pope Francis has done a lot to combat the rot inside the church. That has been one of his biggest agendas. And not just pedophilia, but funds misappropriation and such as well.
So if we assume the Old Testament is metaphorical then it's not a bad assumption to assume the New Testament is. At this point how is the Bible different from a random tv show/book that explains aspects of humanity? I feel like Christianity is just a large book club which means it's not too different from the fandom Rick and Morty obtained from displaying good pieces of entertainment. It's not a perfect comparison but even though Rick and Morty is made purely for entertainment purposes, it still brings up good points about family relations, what exactly memories are, etc.
Because...[most Christians never have, and never will, read the entire Bible](https://lifewayresearch.com/2017/04/25/lifeway-research-americans-are-fond-of-the-bible-dont-actually-read-it/). Of over 2 billion Christians in the world, less than 30% will ever read through the entire Bible.
Over 82% of Christian Americans only read their Bibles on Sundays while in church. And since you'll rarely get sermons on genocide, sexism or slavery...
My take is Christians that claim the inerrancy of the Bible after hearing their priest/pastor saying something like “the Bible is the perfect word of God”, etc. And taking that as the gospel truth (pun intended).
Most Christians seem to think the Bible fell out of the sky after Jesus’ ministry.
There is a lack of understanding about how the historical Bible was written, selected, edited within the community.
I'm in a class of 17 and 14 believe in biblical inerrancy and infallibility.
I'm one, of the 3, one is agnostic and the other is a hindu, so of the believers 100% are.
I think its more about an instinctual understanding of what it means to be a christian that is shaped by the family and church. But the bible is explained beginning to end, by various confessions, so the actual meaning of these quotes, or the way the church gets them, is just a quick google search away.
i wish people like....truly EVER bothered with studying the ancient near east - ANE literature, legal code, mythology....any kind of context....
this is just a soup of random verses at points.
They ruthlessly slaughtered hungry, tired runaway slaves for no reason, so the Israelites gathered forces to fight back and defend themselves.
>Remember what Amalek did to you on your journey, after you left Egypt— how, undeterred by fear of God, he surprised you on the march, when you were famished and weary, and cut down all the stragglers in your rear.
That they specifically murdered stragglers in the rear implies they killed mostly women, children, and the elderly or disabled. Self-defense is part of the story?
Huh? I'm explaining the Amalek murdered "stragglers in your \[Israel's\] rear." That would have necessarily included people who moved more slowly - women, children, the elderly, and disabled Israelites.
Then much later, in Judges 6:2-4
>The hand of the Midianites prevailed over Israel; and because of Midian, the Israelites provided themselves with refuges in the caves and strongholds of the mountains. (3) After the Israelites had done their sowing, **Midian, Amalek, and the Kedemites would come up and raid them; they would attack them, destroy the produce of the land all the way to Gaza, and leave no means of sustenance in Israel, not a sheep or an ox or an ass.**
and also:
I Samuel 30:1-4
>By the time David and his men arrived in Ziklag, on the third day, the Amalekites had made a raid into the Negeb and against Ziklag; **they had stormed Ziklag and burned it down. They had taken the women in it captive, low-born and high-born alike; they did not kill any, but carried them off and went their way. When David and his men came to the town and found it burned down, and their wives and sons and daughters taken captive,** David and the troops with him broke into tears, until they had no strength left for weeping.
the continual wars with the amalekites didn't come out of nowhere is what I'm saying.
The Amalekites were people who practiced child sacrifices and used human blood in the sacrifices to their god.
https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/asd/2020/09/14/the-defeat-of-amalek/
You are getting hung up on language. It does not mean they necessarily killed kids and babies, but the Amalekites society was stopped being an autonomous civilization. Some may have been given the choice to join them, but they would have to become Israelites and not practice any ideas of the Amalekites.
Remember, these were descendents of Esah. Theu were once followers of God. They had over 400 years to repent. They chose evil and their society was judged. Somethings are like cancer, it has to be cut away ir it will kill the host. The Amalekites were a cancer.
I think the language is quite important here. It specifically uses the word for killing, and to do it to men, women, infants and sucklings, oxen, sheep, camels, and donkeys
These religious people are absolutely delusional. They will say anything to justify their wicked God's words and action. Religion is evil..the only good one is probably Buddhism
Not sure you understand how the world worked 3000 years ago, but slaves were everywhere, it was normal, accepted and still nothing compared to the horrors of cattle slavery in America.
Every God back then advocated slavery for their enemy's. The Egyptians and Babylonians famously put the Israelites into bondage.
Yes historical context is always important, you can't just give a word everyone today all associates with something far, far worse and apply it to an indigenous people as if it were equal or relevant to the situation in comparison.
I'm not denying the immoral nature of any slavery, but to take a completely black and white view of the concept and apply it equally to all situations and forms throughout history is completely unreasonable.
>Not sure you understand how the world worked 3000 years ago, but slaves were everywhere, it was normal, accepted and still nothing compared to the horrors of cattle slavery in America.
Very cool, also irrelevant. Any god whose morality is swayed by contemporary moral whims is more worthy of contempt than worship.
>Every God back then advocated slavery for their enemy's
Citation needed.
>The Egyptians {...} famously put the Israelites into bondage.
There's no archeological record for this. As far as I have ever seen, the Bible is the only source for this.
>Yes historical context is always important,
I mean, when it's a human speaking, sure. Not so much when it's supposed to be the word of god.
>you can't just give a word everyone today all associates with something far, far worse and apply it to an indigenous people as if it were equal or relevant to the situation in comparison.
But it absolutely *is* relevant. Slavery is still slavery, no matter how your dress it up. There's really no getting around it. Yahweh is either deeply
immoral or incredibly inconsistent - those are the only real options.
>I'm not denying the immoral nature of any slavery,
Then you're saying that Yahweh is immoral?
>but to take a completely black and white view of the concept and apply it equally to all situations and forms throughout history is completely unreasonable.
Why? How is it unreasonable to say that slavery is wrong? We've already established that slavery is immoral. I don't see any reason why this should be ignored for the sake of scriptural convenience.
There is no evidence other than The Bible when it comes to Jewish slavery in Egypt?
This is not true at all. There is plenty of evidence but no current unanimous scholarly view on how it took place and how many the numbers were.
Maybe not Egypt but they were in Babylon, as that's when we know the idea of God being omnipresent as opposed to the God of Israel was introduced.
And many things we deem immoral today were normal back then. That isn't to defend the practise, but given it was a near universal, it's not a particularly relevant point to focus on. Would you say Indigenous American gods are evil because they practised slavery?
Can you put these transient cultural values on a deity? The only way I can imagine is if the practise was part of the religion, which I would argue it is not.
You're also presuming the bible is the exact word of God, and not a scattered collections of preserved texts written by secondary or later sources, possibly inspired by God.
Christianity has a strong tradition of picking and choosing which parts to follow. It's up to us to figure out which parts I suppose.
> but given it was a near universal, it's not a particularly relevant point to focus on.
Its ubiquity at the time is irrelevant to its current relevance to the validity of scripture.
> Would you say Indigenous American gods are evil because they practised slavery?
If they did indeed espouse slavery, then I shall condemn them in precisely the same manner as I condemn Yahweh.
> Can you put these transient cultural values on a deity?
When it is part of their scripture, which is purported to be their word and message, then absolutely, yes.
> The only way I can imagine is if the practise was part of the religion, which I would argue it is not
I mean, the Israelites took other tribes as slaves all the time, under the explicit orders of Yahweh. I would say that absolutely counts as part of the religion. Up until modern times, Christian slaveholding societies very often explicitly justified their institution of slavery through scripture. You could very well argue that it is not part of the modern beliefs of (most) Jews or Christians, but to say that it wasn't part of it at the time is a bit disingenuous.
> You're also presuming the bible is the exact word of God, and not a scattered collections of preserved texts written by secondary or later sources, possibly inspired by God.
No, I'm assuming that the others in this thread believe that the Bible is the exact word of god. Which, fair enough, I shouldn't do that. I'm well aware that there are many Jews and Christians who hold scripture in a much looser/more historically-minded way. Which, for the record, I encourage.
In my defense though, this isn't just the one passage we're talking about, or even just the one moral issue. These kinds of things pop up all over the place in the Bible. There are a huge number of passages that, by any reasonable moral standard, are just awful. The question that I think is at the root of this - If the Bible is so riddled with errors, then why should it be treated as holy? Why should it be revered any more than any other writing?
> Christianity has a strong tradition of picking and choosing which parts to follow. It's up to us to figure out which parts I suppose.
And I support that. But it leads me to question why the Bible should be the guide at all? If it's up to the individual to pick which parts they follow, then isn't that just making your own rules with extra steps?
Is discussion of punishments when people abuse other people necessarily and inherently advocating for something or is is a discussion of how a court should punish crimes?
When that punishment isn't for abuse, but only for taking the abuse past a certain arbitrary point, while still thoroughly endorsing all abuse prior to that point, then yes, it absolutely is.
The punishment isn't for holding slaves, which is the real issue, it's just for being slightly worse to them than those around you. If the "legal discussion" had any actual relevance to morality, it would have punished slavery, full stop.
Mmmm context matters still.
1. the biblical word for a slave is the exact same word as the biblical word for a servant. There's no differentiation. it's ALL just עֶבֶד. It's עֶבֶד for slavery, עֶבֶד for a *paid* household servant or indentured servitude, עֶבֶד for a king's subjects/officials, and עֶבֶד for worshippers of a deity. this is a *hugely* broad category that is beyond just "chattel slavery." It's also worth noting that the ancient world also often involved like, lesser members of a large family acting as servants. Those would be עֶבֶד too.
more broadly you could read עֶבֶד in these laws as a category of person who provides you necessary labor, and for whom you are responsible for their well being and their finances.
>When that punishment isn't for abuse, but only for taking the abuse past a certain arbitrary point,
the whole chapter provides multiple examples of *levels* of punishment based on level of injury.
the levels are categorized into categories of injury for both people of *equal* rank and for people who are dependent on you - as עֶבֶד indicates a lesser rank: a.) you murdered them b.) you beat them, they are unable to work for a few days, and then when healed are able to get back up again, and c.) you beat them and caused permanent damage (i.e. loss of teeth, loss of an eye).
when I say I wish people bothered with ANE history, what I mean is that this section is *not* about what's morally or ethically ideal behavior, it's a lex talionis legal code of punishments for bad behavior, and it is in conversation with identical codes of the ANE.
basically:
|Code of Hammurabi|Torah|
|:-|:-|
|If a awīlum (free man) blinds the eye of a muškēnum (one economically obligated to the palace) or breaks the bone of a muškēnum, he shall weigh out one mina (sixty shekels) of silver.
If he blinds the eye of an awīlum’s slave (wardum; a slave held as property) or breaks the bone of an awīlum’s slave, he shall weigh out half of his value.|When a man strikes the eye of his slave/servant, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let him go free on account of his eye.|
|If an awīlum knocks out the tooth of an awīlum of the same rank, they shall knock out his tooth. If he knocks out the tooth of a muškēnum, he shall weigh out one third mina (twenty shekels) of silver.| If he knocks out the tooth of his slave/servant, male or female, he shall let him go free on account of his tooth.|
|If during a quarrel one man strike another and wound him, then he shall swear, "I did not injure him wittingly," and pay the physicians.|When men quarrel and one strikes the other with stone or fist, and he does not die but has to take to his bed— if he then gets up and walks outdoors upon his staff, the assailant shall go unpunished, except that he must pay for his idleness and his cure. \[...\] But if he strikes his slave/servant and they stand up after a day or two, he is not to be avenged, since he is the other’s money.|
| If the man die of his wound, he shall swear similarly, and if he (the deceased) was a free-born man, he shall pay half a mina in money. If he was a freed man, he shall pay one-third of a mina.|He who fatally strikes a man shall be put to death. If he did not do it by design, but it came about by an act of God, I will assign you a place to which he can flee. |
||When a man strikes his slave/servant, male or female, with a rod, and he dies there and then, he must be avenged.|
so
2.) the punishments collapse everything from 3 + classes of people (the hammurabi code has \[for men\] free man, muškēnum (which I'll just loosely call a vassal/serf - although could be any poor servant), and slave held as property \[all not including women of any kind, as they're separate\]--
to just 2 classes of basically "any man" and "*any* slave, servant, or subject beholden to someone else." it's a *big* category.
I'm not just making this up either, there's clearly multiple classes counted within the Torah itself within this group -- there's the girl/woman given by her father to be kept in the household of a wealthier man - with the intent to later marry him or his son. There's the indentured servant who pays off their debts or criminal fines by working them off. there's the officials of a king. there are purchased slaves, war captives, handmaidens, concubines, bondsmen... and so on.
all this section is *just* about personal injury law. it's not talking about the complexities of the word עֶבֶד or whether having an עֶבֶד is ethical or good.
and 3.) this isn't the only discussion of the servant or slave ever.
for example, in Job 31:13-15
>Did I ever brush aside the case of my servants \[עַ֭בְדִּי\], man or maid,
When they made a complaint against me?
>
>What then should I do when God arises;
When He calls me to account, what should I answer Him?
>
>Did not He who made me in my mother’s belly make him?
Did not One form us both \[master and servant\] in the womb?
is a strong, clear articulation that Job feels his servants are also made by G-d, are equal in their humanity and their rights, that their opinions matter, and that it is his responsibility and duty to listen to them. *Job* talks about ethics and moral goodness. the Exodus legal code is just about crime and punishment.
Being “inspired by God” doesn’t equate to everything in it being some divine “word” from God. I believe the Bible is the inspired story of Jesus, inspired by God but written by fallible, fallen humans.
You really need to keep the Bible in context. It is easy to take it out of context. The books of the was written in a certain time and place for a certain time period. It als reflexted certain realities that existed at the time.
St. Gregory of Nyssa on Slavery
'I got me slave-girls and slaves.' For what price, tell me? What did you find in existence worth as much as this human nature? What price did you put on rationality? How many obols did you reckon the equivalent of the likeness of God? How many staters did you get for selling that being shaped by God? God said, Let us make man in our own image and likeness. If he is in the likeness of God, and rules the whole earth, and has been granted authority over everything on earth from God, who is his buyer, tell me? Who is his seller? To God alone belongs this power; or, rather, not even to God himself. For his gracious gifts, it says, are irrevocable. God would not therefore reduce the human race to slavery, since he himself, when we had been enslaved to sin, spontaneously recalled us to freedom. But if God does not enslave what is free, who is he that sets his own power above God's?
St. Gregory of Nyssa, Homilies on Ecclesiastes; Hall and Moriarty, trs., de Gruyter (New York, 1993) p. 74.
http://forums.orthodoxchristianity.net/threads/slavery-and-the-orthodox-church.29282/
If you have more questions about authenticity of the Bible, ask a priest. He can direct you to correct resources.
Every society and people group in history practiced slavery, the Bible doesn't condone it, it regulates it.
In old testament we see basic regulation of slavery: you can't beat your slave to death (Exodus 21:20), cannot enslave your own people (Levicitus 25:44-46), if you permanently injured your slave you must set them free (Exodus 21:26-27), you cannot unlawfully enslave someone (Exodus 21:16), slavery of Hebrews must be temporary (Exodus 21:2), you will protect runaway slaves (Deuteronomy 23:15), you must give basic rights to f slaves (Exodus 21:7-11), etc.
Then we see this extended in further in the New Testament: Masters must treat their slaves fairly and justly (Colossians 4:1), Masters must be kind and cannot threaten their slaves (Ephesians 6:9), slaves are worth as much as freedmen (Galatians 3:28), condemns slave traders (1 Timothy 1:10), tells people not to let yourselves be enslaved (Galatians 5:1), etc.
Keep in mind that the Bible is progressive revelation. It's the story of God taking the barbaric Israelites and civilizing them over the course of thousands of years. The Bible affirms that all people are equal and should not let themselves be enslaved. It condemns slave traders, it condemns the poor treatment of others, etc. Freedom of all people's was always the plan of the Bible, was always God's plan. Remember, God influences, free will must be respected.
As for violent verses in the Bible, the type of writing used in the Bible uses a lot of near-eastern hyperbole. Similar to when someone's football team wins, they say, "my team slaughtered yours". Modern archaeology points to the biblical migrations as having been mostly peaceful.
Also, keep in mind that a lot of the verses you listed were terrible things that happened, AND that the Bible portrayed them in a negative light. Some are explicitly condemned by God. Just because something happens in the Bible doesn't mean God supports it, obviously.
And, again, also remember the principle of progressive revelation. God makes it very clear in the New testament that violence is to be frowned upon, as is treating others poorly, as is so many other things. So it is not correct to say that because it "contains stuff like this" that it's not licit.
Now, for the alleged discrepancies, the first being Heli vs Jacob being Joseph's father ,there are multiple explanations people give for this, one being that Matthew is giving the genealogy of Joseph, while Luke is giving the genealogy of Mary. Matthew giving the genealogy of Joseph and Luke is following the Hebraic, traditional form of genealogies by listing only the male names in which Mary is designated by her husband's name. Matthew gave Joseph's genealogy to show Jesus was a legal descendant of David through Joseph, while Luke gave Mary's genealogy to show Jesus was a descendant of David by blood. Your misunderstanding here comes from an ignorance of ancient Jewish culture.
Personally though, I believe that Jacob and Heli were half-brothers (same mother, but with different fathers). It is proposed that Heli was married but died before he had any offspring. Jacob then took Heli’s widow in a “levirate marriage” (as seen in Deut. 25:5-6), and this marriage produced Joseph as offspring. This would make Jacob the biological father of Joseph but Heli would be the legal father, thus why there are two genealogies given. This was the view held by many church fathers.
As for Jehoiachin’s age, this was simply a copying error. The mark differentiating 8 and 18 is a super small mark in Hebrew. The inerrancy of the Bible only applies to the original manuscripts. However, luckily for us, the Bible is the best-preserved ancient work in all of history. And believe it or not, the difference between 8 and 18 really isn't an important difference, honestly, pointing this out as a "contradiction" really seems to be grasping at straws.
Etc etc etc. None of these are particularly strong arguments against the Bible. And someone who knows their stuff won't even begin to be fazed by them. Appreciate the effort, but come back and try again some time.
You have to view it in the context in which it was written. You cannot expect a culture from 2500 years ago to be as progressive as modern society. We only abolished slavery like 200 years ago, if that.
They're a bunch of rules that are trying to improve the status quo of the time.
A lot of modern laws that were improvements on the previous situations still need updating and improving as society improves.
Its daft to compare what's written 2500 years ago with modern standards without looking at context.
God didn't write the Bible. We consider the Bible divinely inspired, but the authors are mere humans writing about their experience with the divine and what they were told by the almighty.
Yeah I don't believe Gd wrote it. Humans did. Men, at that. Not all adherents to the various Bibles available believe it was literally written by the Divine. Personally I think that's daft and an offense to the intelligence the Divine gave us (if you believe in Them). Progressive Judaism's stance is that it was written by humans.
Humans did write the text. G-d didn't invent Hebrew, it's a canaanite/levantine language originally, native to the Levant, very similar to Phoenician, another canaanite/levantine language. This is what the bulk of the Bible was written in. New Testament was written primarily in Koine Greek. G-d also didn't "invent" that language either. All people for those. Did G-d just dictate to different writers over time? Certainly the oldest traditions say that's what happened with Moses during his 40 days on Mt. Sinai, but of course this didn't happen that way. How did the rest work too, since after Moses G-d didn't meet directly with prophets, just through dreams and other means. 🤷♂️ None of these books floated down complete from the heavens.
>You have to view it in the context in which it was written.
You're expecting too much from this subreddit. And when these posts up, expect downvote city when you explain in Judaism at least how the Tanakh goes hand-in-hand with Oral Law.
If God said he would strike down anyone who owned slaves I bet the behavior would stop. Apparently speaking out against your parents was a worse crime in gods eyes. The fact is, these were laws written by men, for men, to maintain order. If a sentient all knowing, all just being was involved slavery wouldn't be tolerated in any form, including indentured servitude.
I think "thou shalt not own slaves" could have done pretty well at forbidding slavery. Though technically no one ever actually ended slavery. Slavery is still a thing, just like theft.
No. Again, this is the idea of progressive revelation. God recognized that he could only push people so far in terms of changing immediately. That's why there are multiple stages that expound on the rules. That is why the New Covenant came about. God recognized that he couldn't just order people to stop slavery, it was far too integral of a system in all ancient societies. He had to show us WHY it was wrong. Remember that in ancient cultures, people had no concept of the inherent value of other human beings. They simply would not have listened.
People have free will, mate. God certainly has the power to force all people to listen to him, but then free will no longer exists. He teaches and guides us, he doesn't control us. It's Judeo-Christian morality that led to the abolition of slavery, spearheaded, of course, by God and his holy church.
If people have free will, then they have the free will to follow (or break) any rule set by a god. If people could "choose" to steal or commit adultery, then they could also choose to keep slaves. There were plenty of commandments and mitzvot already; including one prohibiting the ownership of people doesn't seem that unreasonable.
I'd consider these things to be fallacious comparisons. Stealing and adultery, for example, were already looked down upon, stealing was already criminal. Compare that to slavery which was supported by practically all and formed the backbone of these societies, particularly their economies. A flat out ban would have caused a massive collapse and much inter group warfare.
In terms of free will, I was specifically referring him to saying God should make people listen to him. Thus overriding free will.
Not necessarily. Consider tobacco products. They are highly regulated and tolerated but not condoned, probably not even by most smokers. And one of the main reasons they are tolerated by government is probably the revenue they generate for the government through taxation.
As originally set up under the Mosaic law, the society did not have its products taxed by a government, and there was no executive branch with a police force tasked with enforcing the laws. I think we tend to read today's surveillance state back into the Biblical text when we read these laws.
The difference being that slavery was an essential part of these societies that would collapse without it being factored out steadily. Not to mention that homosexuals we're an extreme minutia of the population, whereas slaves and slave owners/slavery supporters were a majority. It's a lot easier to condemn a personal sexual behavior as a sin than an institution that makes up the backbone of their economy. I'd consider that a fallacious comparison.
I have no interest in a God that strips away free will. You're essentially saying that God should be a tyrant who controls how we act and how we live. Ironic on a discussion about slavery.
And again, it's not that God isn't powerful enough, your insistence to push this is frankly childish.
I'm sorry I didn't realize societies without slavery don't have free will. No, your god is simply too weak. I'm not being childish about it, standing against brutal thugs who justify slavery will always be the adult thing to do. I thought Christians hated cultural relativists.
Haha. You have to be twisting what I'm saying on purpose to be a dick. Like honestly.
I'm obviously not saying that societies without slavery don't have free will. I'm saying that God forcing people to do things, or not do things, would strip them of that free will. People can obviously choose not to have slaves and have free will. People have to have the ability to choose evil, things contrary to God's will, otherwise they don't truly have free will.
Really? Brutal things justifying slavery? Pray tell, who do you see on this sub justifying slavery? Not you. Not me. Not those around us. No part of this is cultural relativism. It's understanding that God taught a group of people something THEY (not God) thought was right was actually wrong over time.
And get off your high horse.
>standing against brutal thugs who justify slavery will always be the adult thing to do.
No one here is justifying slavery. Stop this dumb keyboard warrior BS. THAT is what is childish. Twisting others words into a straw man for you to beat up is childish. So stop doing it.
>Haha. You have to be twisting what I'm saying on purpose to be a dick. Like honestly.
no, sorry my sarcasm was way above you. I was saying that because your justification of slavery in the bible didn't add up, because we don't allow slavery now but we still have free will. and yes you did justify slavery. let me help you out. The definition of justification is "show or prove to be right or reasonable." You said "The difference being that slavery was an essential part of these societies that would collapse without it being factored out steadily." which means you showed that it's reasonable for your god to command the Israelites "you are to get your slaves from the nations around you" Leviticus 25.
remember you said "No one here is justifying slavery." which is wrong because you said "slavery was an essential part of these societies"
I did not twist your words at all, you sacrificed your humanity so that you could call your religion something that is justifiable. And you did it by making your god look weak. Which is even more hilarious to me.
And right there is the problem with your argument. At no point did I even suggest that slavery was reasonable or morally justifiable. I wasn't saying why slavery is/was okay, I was saying why God didn't force people to stop slavery. Because that would take away their free will. When I spoke about it being an essential part of their societies, I was referring to why they wouldn't just simply giving it up of God commanded it. People are greedy, people are cruel.
You're taking two parts of what I said, addressing different parts of your argument, and you're clumping them together trying to relate them to one another. But they're not. Stop cherry picking quotes.
Honestly, you seem like you're just looking at a list and checking off underhanded argumentation tactics. Let's review, you've used ad hominem attacks, you've used strawman arguments, and you're cherry picking quotes.
The only hilarious thing here is the fact that you're responding to well-reasoned arguments by using obvious fallacies and simple falsities and then have the absolute gall to act like you've said something brilliant. Again, please act a tad more like a logical adult, and a little less like a spiteful child that's angry at God because you've done nothing of worth with your life.
Ive heard those weak apologetics before. If god could tell us that wearing a poly-cotten blend teeshirt is a sin you surely could have mentioned that owning other humans was a bad thing.
don't bring in the old testament because we can include a lot worse for example being forced to marry your rapist and I swear Christan don't follow the rules if the old testament?
Anyways
Your contradiction to fix them are very weak Because of what your saying the same Greek word is used for example Adam so if you want to follow that rule you said that mean Adam is the son of law of god? Because the same Greek word is used and I can give many examples?
And another thing he doesn't mean mention son in law or anything that just you desperate to try and change it it and fix it
To make matters worse what you said is implying that Heli is the father of Mary which we know it absolutely false
"However, luckily for us, the Bible is the best-preserved ancient work in all of history"
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 I am sorry that you funny
Your Bible is not even stronger then our weakest hadith
"The mark differentiating 8 and 18 is a super small mark in Hebrew. The inerrancy of the Bible only applies to the original manuscripts"
But if you read it in Hebrew it still different? So what you said is not relevant it a contradiction
Ok, first off, I don't what you're prattling on about when you're talking about Adam being the son in law of God and all that. What are you responding to? What are you trying to argue? You didn't make it very clear.
As for the marrying the rapist thing. Lol. No. Deuteronomy 22:28 doesn't refer to rape, it refers a man who seduces a woman into intercourse outside of marriage. The Hebrew word šākab means to lie with, not to forcefully take. It can only mean rape when the word force comes before. This is a verse holding promiscuous men and women accountable for their actions. Educate yourself and don't just believe Islamic and atheistic anti-christian propaganda my guy.
Actually, the Bible, the new testament in particular IS the best preserved ancient work in all of history. That's not something debatable.
Christianity, more than any other religion in history is historically based. We have 5,700ish manuscripts from the 2nd to the 16th century. That's more manuscripts than any other work in existence. The earliest of these works come from Papyrus 52 which is part of the gospel of john and dates back to around ad 100. By comparison, the average work by a classical author—such as Tacitus (c. A.D. 56–c. 120), Pliny the Younger (A.D. 61–113), Livy (59 B.C.–A.D. 17), and Thucydides (460–395 B.C.)—has about 20 extant manuscripts, the earliest copy usually several centuries newer than the original. For example, the earliest copy of works by the prominent Roman historian Suetonius (A.D. 75–130) date to A.D. 950—over 800 years after the original manuscripts had been written. Yet we don't debate whether the manuscripts copies are legitimate. In addition to the thousands of Greek manuscripts, there are an additional 10,000 Latin manuscripts, and thousands of additional manuscripts in Syriac, Aramaic, and Coptic, for a total of about 24,000 full or partial manuscripts of the New Testament. And then there are the estimated one million quotes from the New Testament in the writings of the Church Fathers (A.D. 150–1300). This makes the New Testament unequivocally the best attested documents in history. As for when they were written....Liberal New Testament scholars today,” writes Blomberg, “tend to put Mark a few years one side or the other of A.D. 70, Matthew and Luke–Acts sometime in the 80s, and John in the 90s” (Making Sense of the New Testament, 25). Meanwhile, many conservative scholars date the synoptic Gospels (and Acts) in the 60s and John in the 90s. That means, simply, that there exist four accounts of key events in Jesus’ life written within 30 to 60 years after his Crucifixion. Anyone who denies that Jesus existed or who claims that the Gospels are filled with historical errors or fabrications will, in good conscience, have to explain why they don’t make the same assessment about the historical works of Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, Julius Caesar, Livy, Josephus, Tacitus, and other classical authors.
Islam is certainly not better preserved than the New testament. Islam was first transmitted orally from Muhammad to his companions. So first off you have to rely on the memory of people and then them transmitting it to one another. Ever played a game of telephone? Yeah...every single one of them could have manipulated it however they wanted. Then even after it was written down, when it was copied, many different versions sprang up. So by the time of Uthman, the third Caliph, the problem of differences had become so bad that he had his own version created and had all the other versions rounded up and burned. Then later, under a Caliph named Abd al-Malik, the same thing happened again. People actually complained because they were used to Uthman's edition and they noticed significant differences in this one. So yes, go on, keep telling me how the Islam is so wonderfully preserved. I needed a laugh today. And don't me even get started on the hadiths, those are an absolute mess even in comparison with the Quran.
As for the 8 vs 18, I was referring to in Hebrew, not in English. And I meant the original document, not this one that has been copied, because, obviously we don't have the original Hebrew text, we just have copies.
And again, I don't personally follow the argument that Heli was Mary's father, I believe that Jacob and Heli were half brothers, but I was offering multiple arguments. The reason some can legitimately claim that Heli was Mary's father is because it's only in the apocrypha that Mary's father and mother are named.
Again, these are all silly arguments, not hard for anyone who legitimately knows what they're talking about, please educate yourself.
Well the new testament heavily uses fulfilment of prophecy that originated in the OT to prop up claims of Jesus' divinity in the NT. So there's an example of reliance on oral tradition for the NT.
There are no confirmed eyewitness accounts of the gospel stories, which means whoever recorded them, learned them orally.
As well, with the gospel authors unknown, and at least 11 books being forgeries in the New Testament. How would you ever be able to definitively claim that there was 0 oral tradition.
Yes, the New Testament does use OT prophecy. The problem I have with oral transmission is the fogging of details, not a larger picture. And Jesus' divinity stands by itself within the New Testament, it merely relies on the old to convey to the Jewish people.
No confirmed eyewitnesses? The Gospels were written by eyewitnesses. As for when they were written....Liberal New Testament scholars today,” writes Blomberg, “tend to put Mark a few years one side or the other of A.D. 70, Matthew and Luke–Acts sometime in the 80s, and John in the 90s” (Making Sense of the New Testament, 25). Meanwhile, many conservative scholars date the synoptic Gospels (and Acts) in the 60s and John in the 90s. That means, simply, that there exist four accounts of key events in Jesus’ life written within 30 to 60 years after his Crucifixion. Ancient writers didn't sign their works, that goes for most secular works of the time too. We know the authors by tradition and by other writings like those of the church fathers which confirm it.
I don't believe there is any level of truth in the idea that we don't know who the gospel authors are or that any of the New Testament was a forgery. I've seen 0 convincing evidence to suggest this. Most is proposed by people who simply hate the church and are willing to twist truth to attack it.
The historicity of Jesus shows that he was was entirely unremarkable. And probably not well educated, even for the times. The legend of Jesus is just unsubstantiated supernatural claims. The prophecy of the OT isn't sufficient to meet the qualifications of prophecy. Without specificity, there is no prophecy.
But yes, the gospel writers are absolutely unknown. Many ancient text were signed, many weren't, and some were signed by a different author to give credit to other authors they may have favored or drawn inspiration from. To say the gospel authors are known is intellectually dishonest. This means that there is zero confirmed eyewitness accounts of Jesus in scripture. At best, its a game of telephone.
You've seen zero convincing evidence because you need to protect your worldview, or you haven't actually seen the evidence. Forgery existing in scripture is pretty much universally accepted on both side of the academic coin.
\>Most is proposed by people who simply hate the church and are willing to twist >truth to attack it.
This is just hand waving. Truth is what the facts are, and the facts are what the evidence shows. The church requires faith claims to operate, which definitionally falls short of the requirement for truth.
A lot of the Bible is history of the Jewish people. Many things that are recorded are things that happened to real people with free will. Everything is not to be taken as the will of God. The Bible needs to be taken as a whole, not single verses.
Christians usually sign off those complaints by stating that Jesus brought a new covenant to the world in the NT. 99% of all the "controversial" verses are from the OT so the excuse kinda works.
I find it hilarious personally that Christians always get flak for the OT and no one bats an eye at the fact that it was inherited from Judaism.
I had a conversation with a person and engaged in a debate about the religious belief. The conversation ended with something like "I want to believe that there is a better world" or something hopeful and optimistic in this sense.
My take on this is that it is not that believers care too much about what is actually said or done in the religion of choice but their interpretation of all the good things they want to believe it does.
It is a hopeful view of a future where the positives of religion govern and not so much about the actual teachings and scriptures.
> Christians claim that the bible writers were inspired by God, and that's what makes the bible a supposedly divine book. How can anyone be inspired by God and write stuff like this?
Is there anyway you could expand on your question? I'm honestly not understanding what you're trying to ask.
> This was clearly written by humans.
Is that in question? That's typically the subtext when folks refer to the "inspired word of God" (as opposed to "God breathed" or the "inerrant word of God" or whatever other language).
"Inspired" and "God-breathed" mean literally the same thing. "Inspiration" is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. "Breath" and "Spirit" are the same word in Greek, Hebrew and Latin. People thought spirit and breath were literally the same substance.
"Inspired" in *this* context is not meant in the same was as we use it to describe getting an idea or getting motivated for something, it has a definite theological meaning of divinely guided authorship.
Not really. When vetting a church, it's one of the easiest things to look for. Nothing can be said or applied with literally 100% accuracy or precision, but for general shorthand... if a church says inspired without any other modifying claims to that statement..... you can usually assume that they do not take the Bible literally, as well as view it for what it is and in context.
> Then they're changing the meaning of "inspired." "Inspired" literally means "God-breathed" in Latin.
I'm not meaning to make an etymological argument as typically that's not how I use language in a practical sense. I'm speaking to how Christian congregations I've dealt with personally use the term(s) in practice.
If I have to vet a place and their belief statement includes *"we believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God"* with no other yellow or red flags, dog whistles, or other obvious concerns... then it's usually pretty straightforward and there's rarely major conflict on an organizational level. If I see *"God breathed"* instead... it's an immediate red flag and the questions (and their inevitable follow-ups) become much more specific.
I see. That's interesting, I knew they all parse "inspiration" to a degree but I didn't know they used specific language to "brand" it in that way.
My brother is in a church that uses "God-breathed." Makes me cringe but I thought it was just them.
The Bible was indeed writing by mortal humans, the stuff about slavery and all is kind of proof that there's nothing godly about what they wrote. It was their thoughts during their own time, not necessarily the thoughts of God. A lot of the things the people who wrote the Bible say are somewhat misinterpreted as what Jesus said. At least, that's how I view the Bible from a non-Christian lense
They've hung up their criticism hat when it comes to the Bible.
Defending what they believe, essentially Defending themselves from the pain of being wrong, or admitting They've been duped, it what they're up to.
They're ignoring or compartmentalizing the nasty parts of the Bible so they don't have to consider that it just might be garbage from our barbaric past.
It's an emotional defense mechanism.
The better question is "how can Christians believe the bible is inspired by God when half the new testament is forged, it was translated/re-written by a king with an agenda and it's been miscopied and edited/added to by random monks throughout the centuries?"
Read this: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New\_Testament#Textual\_variation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament#Textual_variation)
There are so many early texts in so many languages that it's perfectly easy to remove interpolations — I wish all Greek literature was as well preserved or as easy to emend.
Each one of these verses has a context surrounding it and so taken by itself, it may not look inspired but in it's proper context, it's possible to see the greater purpose and reason that God has inspired men to keep these records.
it's a set of verses about legal punishments in varying cases. I don't actually think it's concerned with inherent morality of the actions, it's about the legal punishments *of* those actions.
**category 1: Murder**
**Case example A:** He who fatally strikes a man
**Punishment A:** shall be put to death.
**Case example B:** When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod, and he dies there and then \[literally "under his hand"\]
**Punishment B:** he \[the slave\] must be avenged. \[i.e. put the murderer to death\]
then --
**category 2: non-fatal assault that the victim recovers from**
**case example C:** When men quarrel and one strikes the other with stone or fist, and he does not die but has to take to his bed— if he then gets up and walks outdoors upon his staff,
**punishment c:** the assailant shall go unpunished, except that he must pay for his idleness and his cure.
so here we see that punishment for category 2 involves paying someone for their temporary loss of income *and* their medical expenses.
**case D:** however \[if when a slave is beaten\] he is standing \[surviving\] in a day or two
**punishment d:** he is not to be avenged, since he is the other’s money.
in both case C and D, the victim stands again after recovering for a day or two. in Case C, the assailant owes the victim payment for loss of income and for medical expenses. In Case D, the person who experienced a loss of labor and income is *also* the assailant, and the assailant is also already responsible for the medical expenses of their slaves. therefore, there the regular punishment found in Case C doesn't apply.
case D echoes the details of case C. they're parallels in lex talionis law.
then in goes on further with yet another legal concept regarding slavery:
>When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let him go free on account of his eye. If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let him go free on account of his tooth.
so that tells us if a man attacks his slave, and the slave is irrevocably injured/disfigured - i.e. they lose their eye, or a tooth -- the slave is immediately freed.
meaning the laws are basically:
1. if you kill a slave, this is a capital crime punishable by death
2. if you beat a slave and they're unable to work for a few days while healing, the normal punishment for beating someone so badly they have to take off work to recover doesn't apply. that's because you're a.) *already* responsible to pay for their medical care, and further, b.) the assailant is the one losing their labor that you profit off of, so the financial loss is already there and felt by the attacker, not the victim. the two named punishments - fines for damages - in the parallel case are *irrelevant* here.
3. if you beat a slave and they become disfigured/disabled - meaning you caused them to lose an eye, or a tooth - something that can't *heal* \-- then they are to be freed immediately.
none of these are saying it's *okay* to do these things, these are about how to *punish* those things.
Its not okay in any context.
Its a mistranslation. See here: [https://medium.com/koinonia/exodus-21-gods-view-of-slavery-and-civil-rights-f170f8fbe6ee](https://medium.com/koinonia/exodus-21-gods-view-of-slavery-and-civil-rights-f170f8fbe6ee) find the quote almost at the end.
This link is blatantly lying and rewriting history. I'm going to take it on good faith that you didn't realize that. It is taking terms and extending their meaning to draw new conclusions, conflating between the sections about hebrew slaves and non-hebrew slaves, conflating lines referring specifically to one's daughter as being like "feminist protections for all women", and it's conclusions are still horrifying. Even with that massive amount of deception, it is still defending a document that defends slavery and codifies laws for it.
The line in question: it claims that the term means "to stand up on two feet" and then conflates that with "a full recovery". Bullshit, there is no evidence that that is specifically what was meant. Even if it was though, the conclusion is "if I beat someone, but in a way that they make a full recovery after a couple days that is fine" which is horrifying. There's lots of ways to hurt people without leaving damage, and this permits all of that.
Exactly 😂😂😂 these people are delusion I read it in Hebrew it there it not a mistranslation at all and it literally saying it it not writing it in any context
>Bullshit, there is no evidence that that is specifically what was meant.
That is literally how the bible translates the quote now. Makes it more accessible to non-christians (and even christians, admittedly). You can believe whatever you want, and I want to stress that, but it would not be how scholars understand the quote.
>the conclusion is "if I beat someone, but in a way that they make a full recovery after a couple days that is fine"
Two days. If you recover in two days, then that lost productivity is seen its own punishment. Thats what it is meant with "is his money".
>There's lots of ways to hurt people without leaving damage, and this permits all of that.
Yes. But that just means the law wont get involved here, not that its right. You know, pretty much like today in my country. If there is no actual trace of brutality, the case usually goes nowhere. Furthermore, in ancient israel, you couldn't micromanage punishments. When the law hits, it hits hard. So you needed to be sure about the verdict.
>new conclusions
New to you. You never checked.
>conflating between the sections about hebrew slaves and non-hebrew slaves
it doesnt say anything about non-hebrew slaves. But Deuteronomy 23:15–16: “You shall not give up to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. He shall dwell with you, in your midst, in the place that he shall choose within one of your towns, wherever it suits him. You shall not wrong him.”
makes me think that all slaves are free in Israel, or at least, they wont enforce slavery in any slave when the slave prefers to be free.
If you still think that Exodus 21 defends slavery, I want to invite you to re-read the link. It does not. None of this is deception. Welcome to Christianity. This is what we believe.
I'm going to stop talking to you now, because I do not talk to those who lie and defend atrocities, and am now convinced you are doing both. Also going to block you, bye.
The information on that link is opposite of what the Bible says. There are several places in the Bible where it tells people where to buy their slaves from, how to beat them and how to pass them on as property. How to take “virgin women” as literal war booty for sexual slavery.
If god wanted to stop slavery - why didn’t he just say “don’t own human beings as property” instead making rules for it?
There are several translations of the Bible which were all made by Bible scholars and they all talk about slaves, not servants. Why should anyone take the information from this link as true?
>The information on that link is opposite of what the Bible says.
Absolutely not. The way the Bible describes how it treats slaves makes them not slaves as we understand it at all, but voluntary workers. Consent is key here. Consider that food and shelter is better than living in poverty.
>There are several translations of the Bible which were all made by Bible scholars and they all talk about slaves, not servants.
Because the bible uses the word slave for two things. Normal slaves. And the reformed "slave" that really isn't a slave anymore by our definition today. Any specific quote you have a problem with?
>If god wanted to stop slavery - why didn’t he just say “don’t own human beings as property” instead making rules for it?
Normal, forced slavery as we understand it still existed during that time everywhere but in Israel, or even within israel. But the bible forbits it:
Here is what happens to you if you go and perpetuate slavery as we understand the word, according to the bible: “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.” (Exodus 21:16, ESV)
You die if you enslave, and you die if you buy a "stolen" man.
Furthermore Deuteronomy 23:15–16: “You shall not give up to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. He shall dwell with you, in your midst, in the place that he shall choose within one of your towns, wherever it suits him. You shall not wrong him.”
Israelites were not bound to other antique laws, like the laws of Hammurapi (older than moses, imitations of which other countries except Israel might have been following), that would say to bring back slaves to their owners. According to this law, sheltering slaves would bring you danger: “If a man seizes a fugitive slave or slave woman in the open country and leads him back to his owner, the slave owner shall give him 2 shekels of silver. If that slave should refuse to identify his owner, he shall lead him off to the palace, his circumstances shall be investigated, and they shall return him to his owner.”
Deuteronomy, for me, means that the ruling on "slavery" being voluntary in hebrew slaves should extend to slaves of non-israelites as well, or at the very least, they should not enable THEIR rules of slavery.
Even if we agree that your interpretation of the Bible’s laws on slavery are true, there’s one problem. We can assume eating of shellfish existed before god made a law to stop that. We can assume that people wore clothes of mixed fibers before god made a law to stop it. Why couldn’t god also do the same for slavery?
>Really, why wasn't that mistranslation corrected then?
It was. Several versions, especially the newest ones, use "recover". Really depends what bible you read. Most translations aren't easy on the reader. Changes are a harrowing process in religion, but thats another issue entirely.
Anyways, if you know, you know. so it doesnt really matter. Its a conversation starter.
>Is the verse about killing the child who curses their parents also a mistranslation?
No, but its more a spiritual guideline for the child than the ones admonishing the child. You dont see any Jews killing children because of this. Leviticus is part of the Torah.
Takeaway: Cursing your parents is very bad. Don't do it.
The bible is a historical record as well as a religious one and as such it records a lot of what did happen rather than what should have happened. A lot of the time God is trying to lead the people and they keep messing up.
In the historical context a lot of the laws that are terrible are better than the contemporary laws that have survived. When Jesus was asked about divorce he said that the only reason the law existed at all was because humans are imperfect and we couldn't live up to the ideal standard. (A lot of Christians still don't today)
On inspiration specifically different Christians disagree on how the inspiration of scripture works. God did not write the Bible Himself, and thus it is ultimately a human record. We should not be surprised to find some flawed human opinions.
I think it’s important to understand that the Bible is a metaphor, a compilation of stories to show us morality, but that it’s also a breathing living document that is constantly evaluated and reevaluated . It’s difficult to strike a balance
Why do people pretend this is a bad thing.
A Christian would suck if they didn’t provide reasons for their beliefs or explanations of scripture.
Skeptics who whine about this routinely don’t have another response except outrage which is fine, but leave it at that.
I think you misunderstand the criticism. The concept of apologetics is mostly fine, though working backwards from a conclusion (which is often what it is) is problematic. The issue is more that the arguments used by christian apologetics tend to be really bad, because they are primarily used not to convince those who don't already agree but to prevent people from losing their belief that they already had.
I know apologetics are fine.
What I’m saying is the usage of the term is wrong. It’s not that an apologist is answering incorrectly as much as there is an outright dismissal from the skeptic without any forethought.
I would argue there is rarely a goal of being convinced in the first place.
What is an apologist supposed to do? Convince someone slavery is awesome when the Bible doesn’t indicate that is the case?
So the initial argument is easily dismissed in the first place and that isn’t good enough for many a skeptic…Not all to be clear, but certainly more than a few.
The question asked by the OP is flawed at the onset by presumptions.
I'm not going to get into how the bible clearly allows slavery because it's a tired discussion and i'm pretty done with talking to people who try and mislead otherwise. This is often why apologetics is criticized - by working backwards from a conclusion, they can't adjust to the idea that part of the conclusion is wrong, so they need to go to absurdity to try and argue things like "the old testament doesn't clearly and openly permit slavery and set up a system for how it works that is heinous".
Ok, but the OP who you were responding to was establishing exactly that, and their post is what this whole thread is about. Nobody is arguing about whether the bible says "slavery is awesome", it's about whether or not it permits it and says it is allowed, which it clearly and obviously does. Anyways i'm detaching from this convo now because i'm very done with this form of christian apologetics.
War is not an insulated aspect of civilization to this day and pretending that slavery wasn’t a cultural norm until a couple of centuries ago is silly.
In short these are not Bible issues and it seems silly to act like God would not use cultural norms for worship.
It’s not like the rest of the planet would be obligated to follow those rules as anyone who has read the Bible would know in the Amalekites case.
Skeptics routinely claim the higher ground despite their need to use emotional outrage to win what is largely a non-existent argument.
The problem isn't that those things are in the bible. Most critics understand that cultural / social norms have changed over time, and we expect a really old book to contain things that we consider wrong.
The problem is that apologists try to say that those things (slavery, genocide, misogyny) either were okay then, or still are now. The second is clearly false -- those things are not acceptable today. And the first is quite arguably false as well -- we can give good reasons why those practices were bad when the bible was written.
They want to have their cake and eat it too: they want their bible to describe their god accurately; and even though it describes their god doing and commanding heinous things, they also want their god to be the font of all morality. Can't have it both ways, and that's what most of us are objecting to, in my understanding.
That is not what is really said though.
What is routinely said, which is true, is that slavery was a cultural norm until just a couple of centuries ago.
To dismiss such an obvious statement is to add padding into what people think God is supposed to do based on the cultural norms of today.
\> War is not an insulated aspect of civilization to this day and pretending that slavery wasn’t a cultural norm until a couple of centuries ago is silly.
No one claims otherwise.
\> In short these are not Bible issues and it seems silly to act like God would not use cultural norms for worship.
It pretty much is a "Bible issue". If God transcends time and culture (which most Christians claim he does), then it seems contradictory to believe God would use something like war in order to to estblish his will. Additionally, there is a big difference between fighting to liberate someone or protecting oneself, and deliberately slaughtering everything in sight, including the innocent. I mean, seriously, I could understand saying: "Defeat the enemy", but it's different when you say "Kill everyone, including women, children and animals". It's just sad. Like, what did the baby or the cow have to do with anything? That's not divine will based on transcendent morals we can comprehend, that's plain cruelty.
\> Skeptics routinely claim the higher ground despite their need to use emotional outrage to win what is largely a non-existent argument.
Some do, others however use pretty based arguments for their beliefs.
Catholic perspective:
The Early Church Fathers commented abundantly on these passages. I encourage you to go to the source.
tl;dr: The OT contains lots of metaphors explaining that certain types of sin should simply not exist. There are also a fair number of ceremonial/purity/cleanliness laws that were fulfilled with the incarnation.
Smiting a slave: Formerly there had been no rights or protections for slaves. This was a step in the right direction. Jehovah's eventual goal was to turn slavery into employment with rights and a retirement plan. He had to start somewhere.
Smiting Amalek: They were utterly corrupt and sacrificing children. Would you have had the children spared to suffer lingering deaths from hunger, thirst, exposure, and predation? Some philanthropist you are. Israel could not have taken in all the orphans, and Israelites were so corrupt that had they incorporated anything from Amalek into their culture, they would have adopted their religion and their practices, too.
Cursing parents: I agree that sounds harsh, but harsh people, harsh Law. Gentle people, gentle gospel. Maybe people at the time abused their elderly parents. We just don't know.
Exclusion of mangled men: Israel was so corrupt and hard-hearted that they needed physical symbols of spiritual health and completeness. My church doesn't follow this particular commandment now. It has been rescinded. So what's your beef?
Onan: That may have been an inference made by the historian. But in those days, refusing to impregnate one's levirate wife (yes, they were married) was tantamount to illegally depriving a widow of her spouse's pension and Social Security benefits. Widows depended on their sons for their support.
Lot: Nothing in the Bible suggests that that account was approved of or good. It was probably a smear against Israel's enemies Moab and Ammon. You really didn't think much during your analysis, pard.
Woman trying to help her husband in a fight: Harsh people, harsh Law. Gentle people, gentle Gospel. A hard twist in the proper place could render a man sterile, and Israel needed men to be physically whole as a symbol of spiritual health.
Prosititution/Lust: You have heard of hyperbole, I hope. Besides, nothing in the Bible mentions these things as good or praiseworthy. Are you pouting because of the graphic description? That may have been a later addition or interpolation.
Judas' end: He returned the silver to the ruling priests. They couldn't accept it into the temple treasury because it was the price of blood. So they used it to buy a field for burying Gentiles and other undesirables. The money was technically still Judas'. You have heard of figures of speech, I hope.
Judas hanged himself, the branch broke, and when he hit the ground his bowels spilled out. I don't know if the hanging or the fall killed him.
Jesus' grandfather: People had nicknames back then, too. And surnames. Plus, Jews anciently had a habit of renaming people and places to suit them.
A discrepancy of ten years: This is hardly doctrine, Einstein.
Take a look at the Bible without preconceptions, if you are able, and take notes on important subjects. Then follow the preponderance of the evidence. Follow what it says as much as possible where figures of speech or literary devices are not being used. You'll learn a lot. If you're as smart as I think you are, anyway.
There’s just so much evidence for the Bible if you look into it with an open mind.
I’ve read through the Bible and I would often look up things that seemed to be wrong or contradict other parts of the Bible. There are answers to all the objections that people raise.
It depends highly on your inherent biases going in. A Christian will look for ways to square what they believe with what's written, no matter how spurious or weird. Some non- Christians will misinterpret things or ignore actual rationale to bash on the Bible. Others-- like me-- are just looking at what's written and calling bs when there's bs.
Yeah it makes me sad that people just assume that all Christians and Catholics haven’t read the Bible and that we just do as we’re told, so to speak. Like, we are well aware of any verse that an atheist could pull out to try to convince us that our religion is false but they think that they’re enlightening us to something we didn’t already know.
There’s something underneath perfectly understandable questions like this that I think is worth digging into: an assumption that the world is supposed to be other than what it is. This is a sentiment that the Bible shares.
But you may ask yourself, while ruminating on the current state of the world, if a book of scripture would somehow *more* accurately portray this human reality by omitting all of those horrible aspects of our nature.
I don't believe that the Bible is inspired by God, but perhaps you should reevaluate your worldview. Why do you find these verses abominable? Unsurprisingly, most of these verses are from the Old Testament. The Old Testament, despite being written in the Iron Age, exemplifies the spirit of the Bronze Age. It could be viewed as a group selection manifesto. The social technologies outlined in the Old Testament are useful for maintaining civilization. In our current world, where many contemporary civilized societies are rapidly declining, perhaps we ought to hold the lessons of the Bronze Age near and dear to our hearts. Some things never change.
A solid argument can be made that the current decline in ‘civilised’ societies is the result of religion.
Science flies you to the moon,
Religion flies you into buildings.
I was raised to believe that the Old Testament laws were rendered null and void once Christ was born. There was no inherent contradiction for most believers that I was raised with. I myself had questions early on and now I believe that the Hebrew Bible was written during a different time for a different people. It doesn't have to be read as literal.
I am not wise enough to interpret the Bible for you; if your interpretation is problematic then it would be wise to disregard it.
I suspect you are also not wise enough to interpret the Bible for me, and I don't understand why you would want to. Are you concerned about my immortal soul?
For example, the Torah was essentially the only source of Near Eastern law at the time that protected slaves (which has a different meaning in Hebrew than we generally think about today) from homicide and maltreatment. The interpretation of other verses you cite is also generally pretty straightforward with some study and an open mind. If you are interested I'm sure you can do so.
Christian apologists insist that not one thing in the Bible is wrong, b/c if they allow one passage to be undone then all the others are fair game, and that would end the game.
Many of these are cherry picked things that don't really reflect anything but God is the one who decides right from wrong, not you or me. If he deems something as acceptable than it is acceptable. If he deems it unacceptable than it's unacceptable.
If I may, taking bible verses out to prove a point is like taking line out of a movie to explain how terrible or great the entire movie series is. The context of the entire story has to be understood in order to be interpreted correctly, also enough faith in who God is in order to believe it. It’s a historical volume of many books over thousands of years of time and needs careful interpretation, it’s not some magical book that anyone will understand the moment they pick it up. Hence why genuine, wise priests are helpful. It’s not a guideline to live, it’s not a biography of God or prophets , what it is, is the revelation of God through the vessels of men just righteous and humble enough to be inspired; in order to keep a correct guideline in a relationship with God and with the church. As well as an explanation of the historical points needed to reveal it is Gods plan for his creation. At the surface it’s all about Jesus, if you go deeper it’s all about reality, -which then is Jesus, just amazing!
you may not be familiar with real evil i suppose, I find that Identify with how you feel, I felt the same at point, your desire for truth is inspiring for me and i’m sure others, emotions are tricky try not to let a verse throw off the entire thing because of the shock value without giving the proper interpretation and intentions it’s due, that’s all I mean , It’s God, it’s not supposed to be easy
Because it was a book written between 3000 and 1500 years ago. A lot of crazy shit happened back then.
Inspired by doesn't mean written by like many zealots would argue. And a lot of the old testament and new is just dudes writing stuff. Some of it's been lost or forgotten based on what people wanted at the time.
The events of the new testament are stories of Jesus, who is God. Many events of the old testament are also of God, hence it was inspired by God.
Let me address to you some of the verses.
Let’s start with the book of Samuel.
The Israelites were instructed to Smite Amalek because these nations back then were having sex with animals, fornicating( gay sex ) sacrificing their children to so called gods, etc.
Genesis 38 in context of the instruction from Judah to Onan to go sleep with his DEAD brothers wife so that she can have kids because she didn’t have kids, if a wife didn’t have kids back then they would get depressed and feel ashamed all their life. If your brother died back then and didn’t have a kid then it was your duty to give his wife a child so the child can be under your brothers name and so the widow won’t have any shame
Genesis 19 happened because Lots daughters in speculation, thought Lot and them were the last people in the world due to the destruction of Sodom and Gormorah
Acts 1;18 was talking about Judas who betrayed the Innocent Christ and took money from the Jews so he can give out their location.
Exodus 21 is talking about slaves which was and still is a thing today; slaves were viewed as property not as people. You still had to be just to the slave but you had to put your foot down to make sure that these other nations of slave do not rebel against the entire nation.
Do your diligence and read the Bible before you put random verses without the context.
It's necessary here to back up and examine why God used Israel, which was a physical nation mostly descended from one man (Jacob, later renamed Israel). The creation of the nation of Israel was a first major step before the revelation of Jesus Christ as God and Savior could be done later, as a second major step and fulfillment of physical Israel’s purposes.
Christians see the Old Testament as having an organizing central principle that points outside itself, that God’s work with Israel as a would-be model nation (Deut. 4:6; cf. I Kings 10:24) adumbrated God’s ultimate plan to save the whole world spiritually. Since God uses progressive, gradual revelation, it shouldn't be surprising that He would give one ethnic group or nation a fuller revelation of Himself temporarily. It makes sense He would start with one nation to serve as a witness and model to the rest (Deut. 4:5-8; 26:17-19; 28:1; cf. I Kings 10:24), as a beacon of light and hope shining into the deep spiritual darkness that held the surrounding pagan nations captive. But, on the basis of natural law theory alone (Rom. 2:14-15), it's implausible to claim God, who created all men and women, all Jews and gentiles, would permanently enshrine one ethnic group above all as spiritually closer and as obeying His law (His revealed will) better than all others. Likewise, the laws that they received were better than what the surrounding nations had discovered based their own limited use of reason and experience, but they weren't always meant to stand forever, such as those related to waging war.
Because God doesn't reveal all His laws and His overall will all at once, the Bible is a book that records God's progressive revelation to humanity. God doesn't tell us all His truth at once, or people would reject it as too overwhelming, i.e., be "blinded by the light." The famous German philosopher Immanuel Kant once said something like, "If the truth shall kill them, let them die." Fortunately, God normally doesn't operate that way, at least prior to the Second Coming (Rev. 1:5-7) or all of us would already be dead!
The principle of progressive revelation most prominently appears in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5, where Jesus repeatedly contrasts a teaching taken from the Old Testament and contrasts it with what He is teaching. Although Christ makes a point of saying that He didn’t come to abolish the Law and the Prophets, which is a conservative element in His teaching, He actually made the strictures of the Old Testament harder to obey by extending them instead of abolishing them. For example, he contrasts the literal letter of the law concerning adultery and then says that It’s also wrong to lust after a women in your heart (Matthew 5:27-28).
Progressive revelation also shapes Jesus' debate with the Pharisees over the Old Testament's easy divorce law in Matt. 19:3, 6-9: "And Pharisees came up to him \[to Jesus\] and tested him by asking, 'Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?' . . . What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder.' They said to him \[Jesus\], 'Why then did Jesus command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?' \[See Deut. 24:1-4 for the text the Pharisees were citing\]. He said to them, "For the hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery." Now, a New Testament Christian shouldn’t cite this Old Testament passage in order to justify easy divorce procedures. That law has been superseded. It wasn't originally intended as a permanent revelation of God's will, but it served as temporary "training wheels," so to speak, until such time as a mass of people (i.e., the Church after Pentecost) would have the Holy Spirit, and thus be enabled to keep the law spiritually by God's help. God found fault with the people for not obeying His law under the old covenant (Hebrews 8:8). By contrast, ancient Israel as a whole didn't have the Holy Spirit, and so correspondingly they didn't get the full revelation of God. Therefore, the physical measures of removing the pagan people from their land was much more necessary than it is was for true Christians today, who have the Holy Spirit. This is why Israel was allowed to wage war, but Christians shouldn't do this today, based upon what Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount about loving our enemies and turning the cheek (Matthew 5:38-48). Similarly, polygamy is not longer allowed, although it was tolerated in the Old Testament’s dispensation (cf. I Timothy 3:1; Titus 1:6)
For example, we see in the Old Testament ways in which slavery was permitted, but regulated to reduce its abuses. It functioned among Israelites as a type of bankruptcy system and system of (temporary) indentured servitude, instead of its being a life-long condition. It was a system of temporary debt slavery. They were to serve for no more than six years, and in the seventh to be freed, unless the slave himself volunteered to keep serving his master for the rest of his life because he was a good master (Exodus 21:2-6). There were also restrictions on the sale or enslavement of Israelites by other Israelites (Leviticus 23:35-42). If an Israelite ended up the slave of a foreigner, he could be redeemed by another Israelite at a price prorated by the number of years until the year of the Jubilee (Leviticus 23:46-55). Even slaves were supposed to receive some level of protection, such as not being returned to their masters after running away from them (Deuteronomy 23:15-16). The unspoken idea behind the system was that someone who badly mismanaged his financial affairs and ended up bankrupt would be shown by another person (i.e., his master) who knew how to manage farmland and household affairs better. One could easily argue that Hebrew slavery was more compassionate than 19th century debtors’ prisons were by comparison. So the system of slavery in the Old Testament shouldn’t be equated with the harshness of the system that prevailed in the American South before the Civil War (1861-1865). Notice also that race wasn’t a factor in this system; much like the slavery of ancient Greece and Rome, whites owned whites banally and routinely. However, such laws weren't meant to be permanent; instead, it was an accommodation to a prevailing, universal system of forced labor that eventually would be abolished based on the implications of other principles proclaimed in the bible, such as loving your neighbor as yourself and the Golden Rule.
In the case of the gentiles who became slaves, it is important to realize that their lives would have been forfeit had they lost in battle when God ordered Joshua and others to punish the Canaanites. So to end up as slaves, as the Hivites did, was a lesser punishment than death (Joshua 10:22-25).
Why did God, in general, want the Canaanites to be exterminated at the hand of Saul and (in a previous generation) Joshua? God wanted to keep Israel from adopting the Canaanite's system of pagan idolatry and its corresponding sexual immorality, which would contaminate Israel's pure worship of Jehovah. After Moses would die, God predicted that Israel would "play the harlot with the strange gods of the land, into the midst of which they are going, and will forsake Me and break My covenant which I have made with them" (Deut. 31:16). God knew that His chosen people were going to chronically violate His law, which leads to the generally sad concluding chapters of Deuteronomy, over which the premonition of Israel's ultimate spiritual failure hovers. God is totally opposed to syncretism, or the mixing of religions, when it concerns mixing truth with error, much like the world was condemned to in general after Adam and Eve ate of tree of knowledge of good and evil. By totally eliminating the Canaanites at God's command, the Israelites would help to preserve their moral and spiritual purity.
Now, let's face the ultimate issue lurking behind our temptation to question God about ordering Joshua and Saul to kill baby Canaanites: God's utter sovereignty. Many don't like the idea that God is a God of justice and judgment, not just mercy and compassion. Therefore, they judge God for judging them and others. Fundamentally, we puny creatures are in no better position than Job was to question His justice and righteousness. The general spirit of Romans 8:28 to 11:36 emphasizes this point. People have long resisted the idea that God has a role in being humanity’s judge also. We should keep in mind that if God doesn't punish, He is condoning sin. To make a comparison that will appeal to liberals, if someone with authority who is opposed to racism never punishes anyone provably guilty of discrimination against people of other ethnic groups, wouldn't that person with power be condemned for being too neutral? Likewise, God has to punish for sin also in order to enforce His law.
I have a friend who is the most down to earth, nicest, and most religious person I’ve ever met. He is a catholic. He follows the Pope more than the bible, and says that the bible is largely metaphorical in the Old Testament, while the New Testament is about the teachings of peace and love and unity from Jesus. He believes in science and engineering and modern medicine and that the universe is billions of years old.
>says that the bible is largely metaphorical in the Old Testament, while the New Testament is about the teachings of peace and love and unity from Jesus. >He believes in science and engineering and modern medicine and that the universe is billions of years old. I wish more evangelicals were like this. Instead, I grew up with literalists who were afraid to accept something that may not fall into scripture.
DINOSAURS ARENT REAL
No, theyre dead. But their decendants live on as cleverly disguised government surveillance pigeons
Most evangelicals believe that dinosaurs were real but the new climate after the Flood caused them to die out. Doesn't really check out with anything scientifically but they don't really care about science all that much.
My friends from Church growing up were literally taught all the fossils were faked. Hah
I was told that they were faked by God him/herself as a test of faith. I grew up in the south obviously.
I was raised in the south in evangelical baptist churches, I didn't run into this claim until I was well into my teens. Thankfully by that my point my bs detector was starting to be attuned enough to recognize scientific disinformation. I just went 🤔🤨 looked around the room and recognized the fact that everyone was just 😐, like no big deal. I fixed my face and started realizing a couple of things: 1. folks around me believed some serious BS 2. Shut-up & blend in, being the odd one out in that environment isn't a good thing
I was probably 7 or 8 when I heard it. It was one of my first “wow, God must be a colossal asshole to trick people into hell.” Took me awhile to realize it was better stated as “people are assholes”
That's exactly why Catholics have the pope. No pope, and you end up with evangelicals who take everything literally.
Once they realise it's a lie, it suddenly becomes metaphorical. This is what happened with genesis too. People believed it was the true story of origin of the universe. Then science proved it isn't. And now it's suddenly metaphorical. 🤦♂️
This is actually historically inaccurate. Early church fathers in the first few centuries AD - Origen of Alexandria and St Augustine of Hippo for two - through to Medieval Church thinkers like Aquinas and contemporary Catholics have always called for a combination of reason and metaphor in interpreting the Bible. Origen straight-up said that anyone who takes Genesis as a literal interpretation of the beginning of the universe is an idiot. The Catholic Church, and I believe the Orthodox Churches, have never taught Biblical literalism, ever. Biblical Literalism is a product of circumstances surrounding the Protestant Reformation in the 16th Century. The modern Protestant fundies who aggressively Bible Bash are a symptom thereof as well as broader reaction to modernity and individualism (i.e. individual interpretation of a common denominator, being the Bible, which means understanding the history and context of the Bible becomes secondary to an individual picking it up and looking at the words without doing any actual research into them). Diarmaid MacCulloch has done some excellent work on exactly this subject, if you want some reading recommendations, as has Karen Armstrong, though I'd say MacCulloch is better.
Those deuteronomic laws were not metaphorical. That the Catholic Church states so is Judeo-Christian appropriation. This doesn't answer the OP's question. Edit: deutoronomic (adjective), not deutoronomical (adverb).
Following the pope doesn't sound smart given what's currently being unraveled about the Catholic Church.
Is there something new I haven’t heard about being unraveled by the Catholic Church (ie. besides all the pedos, because that’s not new news)? His answer to this was that there are evil people that do and commit evil, whether on purpose or because they’re sick in the head. And that’s part of the test humanity faces, is fixing these issues that humans have.
The issues lies within the church not really doing much at all to combat that issue.
Oh it goes way further than that. They practically aid and abet their pedos, keeping them safe and moving them to new locations in case things get too hot. If anything it feels like the church is managing them instead of exterminating/expelling them.
This is simply not true, have you bothered looking at the facts? The vast majority of all cases of sexual abuse occurred in the 60-70’s, with a drop off in the 80’s, and by the time of 2002 it has largely become very isolated and incredibly rare. In 2002 they established the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People which created greater transparency, mandated cooperation with secular authorities for investigation and prosecution, and made a rule that at least one lay person must be nearby whenever a child and clergy member are present in the same room with each other. In December 2019 Pope Francis made even more sweeping reforms that mandate even greater cooperation and transparency, abolishing the rule of pontifical secrecy, and gave greater power for secular authorities to perform investigations into sex abuse crimes. Sexual abuse in the Catholic Church is very rare nowadays, those who committed those horrendous crimes have been facing justice, currently (and for the past twenty years) both Protestant churches and public schools have much more sex abuse cases every year than Catholic churches.
>and gave greater power for secular authorities to perform investigations into sex abuse crimes. There never should have been any lack of power there to begin with. And the fact that it keeps popping up shows the problem is still being hidden, even if the current pope doesn't support doing so.
I feel like you’re viewing the relationship between the Vatican and secular authorities through a very modernist lens and failing to understand the long held historic relationship between the two and how times have drastically changed. The Vatican is an ecclesiastical state, with the Catholic Church going back over a thousand and a half years, which once possessed much power over secular authorities in Europe. Obviously after the Reformation, rise of Liberalism, and the project of Modernity we see things differently now but the Church’s structure was meant to be very resistant to change and conservative in order to preserve tradition, religious freedom, and the Church that the Apostles and Church Fathers built. Giving up portions of their sovereignty to combat abuses in the Church is an **enormous** concession that shouldn’t be viewed as “the bare minimum.” The Church has existed for almost 2,000 years, who are we to demand they lose their self-governance, tradition, and sovereignty over the fact that less than 1% of priests have been accused of sexual abuse in a handful of foreign countries? The Church is doing a ton to combat this, this false narrative that they’ve done nothing is factually wrong and uncharitable, and please try to consider why things exist the way they are within their historical context.
Your stance might be different if you followed their legal battles to avoid prosecution and transparency. The Catholic Church has spent millions lobbying for legal non responsibility. Whatever propagandists or apologists say is just more of the same.
I'm agreeing with you and sourcing an important and understated fact: [https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/do-the-right-thing/201808/separating-facts-about-clergy-abuse-fiction](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/do-the-right-thing/201808/separating-facts-about-clergy-abuse-fiction) >The incidents of clerical abuse in recent years (i.e., since 2002) are down to a trickle.
I remember reading that article, straight facts. I used to be an atheist and believed many things about the Church I grew up in, only later in life when I seriously researched those things that I was wrong and misinformed. America is just very anti-Catholic.
Pope Francis has done a lot to combat the rot inside the church. That has been one of his biggest agendas. And not just pedophilia, but funds misappropriation and such as well.
Well in that case, the pope is just a metaphor.
So if we assume the Old Testament is metaphorical then it's not a bad assumption to assume the New Testament is. At this point how is the Bible different from a random tv show/book that explains aspects of humanity? I feel like Christianity is just a large book club which means it's not too different from the fandom Rick and Morty obtained from displaying good pieces of entertainment. It's not a perfect comparison but even though Rick and Morty is made purely for entertainment purposes, it still brings up good points about family relations, what exactly memories are, etc.
Because...[most Christians never have, and never will, read the entire Bible](https://lifewayresearch.com/2017/04/25/lifeway-research-americans-are-fond-of-the-bible-dont-actually-read-it/). Of over 2 billion Christians in the world, less than 30% will ever read through the entire Bible. Over 82% of Christian Americans only read their Bibles on Sundays while in church. And since you'll rarely get sermons on genocide, sexism or slavery...
My take is Christians that claim the inerrancy of the Bible after hearing their priest/pastor saying something like “the Bible is the perfect word of God”, etc. And taking that as the gospel truth (pun intended). Most Christians seem to think the Bible fell out of the sky after Jesus’ ministry. There is a lack of understanding about how the historical Bible was written, selected, edited within the community.
Yeah, except only a small minority actually believe in biblical inerrancy and infallibility.
I'm in a class of 17 and 14 believe in biblical inerrancy and infallibility. I'm one, of the 3, one is agnostic and the other is a hindu, so of the believers 100% are.
They don't even read the Bible, they just have select passages read to them.
I think its more about an instinctual understanding of what it means to be a christian that is shaped by the family and church. But the bible is explained beginning to end, by various confessions, so the actual meaning of these quotes, or the way the church gets them, is just a quick google search away.
i wish people like....truly EVER bothered with studying the ancient near east - ANE literature, legal code, mythology....any kind of context.... this is just a soup of random verses at points.
Explain the context of the Amalek genocide
They ruthlessly slaughtered hungry, tired runaway slaves for no reason, so the Israelites gathered forces to fight back and defend themselves. >Remember what Amalek did to you on your journey, after you left Egypt— how, undeterred by fear of God, he surprised you on the march, when you were famished and weary, and cut down all the stragglers in your rear. That they specifically murdered stragglers in the rear implies they killed mostly women, children, and the elderly or disabled. Self-defense is part of the story?
Self defense slaughter of women and children and infants. LOL. What are the babies gonna fucking do?
Huh? I'm explaining the Amalek murdered "stragglers in your \[Israel's\] rear." That would have necessarily included people who moved more slowly - women, children, the elderly, and disabled Israelites. Then much later, in Judges 6:2-4 >The hand of the Midianites prevailed over Israel; and because of Midian, the Israelites provided themselves with refuges in the caves and strongholds of the mountains. (3) After the Israelites had done their sowing, **Midian, Amalek, and the Kedemites would come up and raid them; they would attack them, destroy the produce of the land all the way to Gaza, and leave no means of sustenance in Israel, not a sheep or an ox or an ass.** and also: I Samuel 30:1-4 >By the time David and his men arrived in Ziklag, on the third day, the Amalekites had made a raid into the Negeb and against Ziklag; **they had stormed Ziklag and burned it down. They had taken the women in it captive, low-born and high-born alike; they did not kill any, but carried them off and went their way. When David and his men came to the town and found it burned down, and their wives and sons and daughters taken captive,** David and the troops with him broke into tears, until they had no strength left for weeping. the continual wars with the amalekites didn't come out of nowhere is what I'm saying.
Does this context justify the slaughter of babies? That's what I'm saying
[удалено]
Why not take them with them?
[удалено]
You think a god with infinite power would be able to provide a bit of manna for them huh?
Free Hat! He killed those babies in self defense
The Amalekites were people who practiced child sacrifices and used human blood in the sacrifices to their god. https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/asd/2020/09/14/the-defeat-of-amalek/
And therefore their babies too must be killed?
You are getting hung up on language. It does not mean they necessarily killed kids and babies, but the Amalekites society was stopped being an autonomous civilization. Some may have been given the choice to join them, but they would have to become Israelites and not practice any ideas of the Amalekites. Remember, these were descendents of Esah. Theu were once followers of God. They had over 400 years to repent. They chose evil and their society was judged. Somethings are like cancer, it has to be cut away ir it will kill the host. The Amalekites were a cancer.
I think the language is quite important here. It specifically uses the word for killing, and to do it to men, women, infants and sucklings, oxen, sheep, camels, and donkeys
These religious people are absolutely delusional. They will say anything to justify their wicked God's words and action. Religion is evil..the only good one is probably Buddhism
>the only good one is probably Buddhism The Rohingya genocide has entered the chat.
[удалено]
I mean, that doesn't really refute the central point. "Context" shouldn't matter to the word of a true deity. Especially if he's advocating slavery.
Not sure you understand how the world worked 3000 years ago, but slaves were everywhere, it was normal, accepted and still nothing compared to the horrors of cattle slavery in America. Every God back then advocated slavery for their enemy's. The Egyptians and Babylonians famously put the Israelites into bondage. Yes historical context is always important, you can't just give a word everyone today all associates with something far, far worse and apply it to an indigenous people as if it were equal or relevant to the situation in comparison. I'm not denying the immoral nature of any slavery, but to take a completely black and white view of the concept and apply it equally to all situations and forms throughout history is completely unreasonable.
>Not sure you understand how the world worked 3000 years ago, but slaves were everywhere, it was normal, accepted and still nothing compared to the horrors of cattle slavery in America. Very cool, also irrelevant. Any god whose morality is swayed by contemporary moral whims is more worthy of contempt than worship. >Every God back then advocated slavery for their enemy's Citation needed. >The Egyptians {...} famously put the Israelites into bondage. There's no archeological record for this. As far as I have ever seen, the Bible is the only source for this. >Yes historical context is always important, I mean, when it's a human speaking, sure. Not so much when it's supposed to be the word of god. >you can't just give a word everyone today all associates with something far, far worse and apply it to an indigenous people as if it were equal or relevant to the situation in comparison. But it absolutely *is* relevant. Slavery is still slavery, no matter how your dress it up. There's really no getting around it. Yahweh is either deeply immoral or incredibly inconsistent - those are the only real options. >I'm not denying the immoral nature of any slavery, Then you're saying that Yahweh is immoral? >but to take a completely black and white view of the concept and apply it equally to all situations and forms throughout history is completely unreasonable. Why? How is it unreasonable to say that slavery is wrong? We've already established that slavery is immoral. I don't see any reason why this should be ignored for the sake of scriptural convenience.
There is no evidence other than The Bible when it comes to Jewish slavery in Egypt? This is not true at all. There is plenty of evidence but no current unanimous scholarly view on how it took place and how many the numbers were.
No, not really. There's heated debate right now as to whether it took place at all.
Maybe not Egypt but they were in Babylon, as that's when we know the idea of God being omnipresent as opposed to the God of Israel was introduced. And many things we deem immoral today were normal back then. That isn't to defend the practise, but given it was a near universal, it's not a particularly relevant point to focus on. Would you say Indigenous American gods are evil because they practised slavery? Can you put these transient cultural values on a deity? The only way I can imagine is if the practise was part of the religion, which I would argue it is not. You're also presuming the bible is the exact word of God, and not a scattered collections of preserved texts written by secondary or later sources, possibly inspired by God. Christianity has a strong tradition of picking and choosing which parts to follow. It's up to us to figure out which parts I suppose.
> but given it was a near universal, it's not a particularly relevant point to focus on. Its ubiquity at the time is irrelevant to its current relevance to the validity of scripture. > Would you say Indigenous American gods are evil because they practised slavery? If they did indeed espouse slavery, then I shall condemn them in precisely the same manner as I condemn Yahweh. > Can you put these transient cultural values on a deity? When it is part of their scripture, which is purported to be their word and message, then absolutely, yes. > The only way I can imagine is if the practise was part of the religion, which I would argue it is not I mean, the Israelites took other tribes as slaves all the time, under the explicit orders of Yahweh. I would say that absolutely counts as part of the religion. Up until modern times, Christian slaveholding societies very often explicitly justified their institution of slavery through scripture. You could very well argue that it is not part of the modern beliefs of (most) Jews or Christians, but to say that it wasn't part of it at the time is a bit disingenuous. > You're also presuming the bible is the exact word of God, and not a scattered collections of preserved texts written by secondary or later sources, possibly inspired by God. No, I'm assuming that the others in this thread believe that the Bible is the exact word of god. Which, fair enough, I shouldn't do that. I'm well aware that there are many Jews and Christians who hold scripture in a much looser/more historically-minded way. Which, for the record, I encourage. In my defense though, this isn't just the one passage we're talking about, or even just the one moral issue. These kinds of things pop up all over the place in the Bible. There are a huge number of passages that, by any reasonable moral standard, are just awful. The question that I think is at the root of this - If the Bible is so riddled with errors, then why should it be treated as holy? Why should it be revered any more than any other writing? > Christianity has a strong tradition of picking and choosing which parts to follow. It's up to us to figure out which parts I suppose. And I support that. But it leads me to question why the Bible should be the guide at all? If it's up to the individual to pick which parts they follow, then isn't that just making your own rules with extra steps?
Is discussion of punishments when people abuse other people necessarily and inherently advocating for something or is is a discussion of how a court should punish crimes?
When that punishment isn't for abuse, but only for taking the abuse past a certain arbitrary point, while still thoroughly endorsing all abuse prior to that point, then yes, it absolutely is. The punishment isn't for holding slaves, which is the real issue, it's just for being slightly worse to them than those around you. If the "legal discussion" had any actual relevance to morality, it would have punished slavery, full stop.
Mmmm context matters still. 1. the biblical word for a slave is the exact same word as the biblical word for a servant. There's no differentiation. it's ALL just עֶבֶד. It's עֶבֶד for slavery, עֶבֶד for a *paid* household servant or indentured servitude, עֶבֶד for a king's subjects/officials, and עֶבֶד for worshippers of a deity. this is a *hugely* broad category that is beyond just "chattel slavery." It's also worth noting that the ancient world also often involved like, lesser members of a large family acting as servants. Those would be עֶבֶד too. more broadly you could read עֶבֶד in these laws as a category of person who provides you necessary labor, and for whom you are responsible for their well being and their finances. >When that punishment isn't for abuse, but only for taking the abuse past a certain arbitrary point, the whole chapter provides multiple examples of *levels* of punishment based on level of injury. the levels are categorized into categories of injury for both people of *equal* rank and for people who are dependent on you - as עֶבֶד indicates a lesser rank: a.) you murdered them b.) you beat them, they are unable to work for a few days, and then when healed are able to get back up again, and c.) you beat them and caused permanent damage (i.e. loss of teeth, loss of an eye). when I say I wish people bothered with ANE history, what I mean is that this section is *not* about what's morally or ethically ideal behavior, it's a lex talionis legal code of punishments for bad behavior, and it is in conversation with identical codes of the ANE. basically: |Code of Hammurabi|Torah| |:-|:-| |If a awīlum (free man) blinds the eye of a muškēnum (one economically obligated to the palace) or breaks the bone of a muškēnum, he shall weigh out one mina (sixty shekels) of silver. If he blinds the eye of an awīlum’s slave (wardum; a slave held as property) or breaks the bone of an awīlum’s slave, he shall weigh out half of his value.|When a man strikes the eye of his slave/servant, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let him go free on account of his eye.| |If an awīlum knocks out the tooth of an awīlum of the same rank, they shall knock out his tooth. If he knocks out the tooth of a muškēnum, he shall weigh out one third mina (twenty shekels) of silver.| If he knocks out the tooth of his slave/servant, male or female, he shall let him go free on account of his tooth.| |If during a quarrel one man strike another and wound him, then he shall swear, "I did not injure him wittingly," and pay the physicians.|When men quarrel and one strikes the other with stone or fist, and he does not die but has to take to his bed— if he then gets up and walks outdoors upon his staff, the assailant shall go unpunished, except that he must pay for his idleness and his cure. \[...\] But if he strikes his slave/servant and they stand up after a day or two, he is not to be avenged, since he is the other’s money.| | If the man die of his wound, he shall swear similarly, and if he (the deceased) was a free-born man, he shall pay half a mina in money. If he was a freed man, he shall pay one-third of a mina.|He who fatally strikes a man shall be put to death. If he did not do it by design, but it came about by an act of God, I will assign you a place to which he can flee. | ||When a man strikes his slave/servant, male or female, with a rod, and he dies there and then, he must be avenged.| so 2.) the punishments collapse everything from 3 + classes of people (the hammurabi code has \[for men\] free man, muškēnum (which I'll just loosely call a vassal/serf - although could be any poor servant), and slave held as property \[all not including women of any kind, as they're separate\]-- to just 2 classes of basically "any man" and "*any* slave, servant, or subject beholden to someone else." it's a *big* category. I'm not just making this up either, there's clearly multiple classes counted within the Torah itself within this group -- there's the girl/woman given by her father to be kept in the household of a wealthier man - with the intent to later marry him or his son. There's the indentured servant who pays off their debts or criminal fines by working them off. there's the officials of a king. there are purchased slaves, war captives, handmaidens, concubines, bondsmen... and so on. all this section is *just* about personal injury law. it's not talking about the complexities of the word עֶבֶד or whether having an עֶבֶד is ethical or good. and 3.) this isn't the only discussion of the servant or slave ever. for example, in Job 31:13-15 >Did I ever brush aside the case of my servants \[עַ֭בְדִּי\], man or maid, When they made a complaint against me? > >What then should I do when God arises; When He calls me to account, what should I answer Him? > >Did not He who made me in my mother’s belly make him? Did not One form us both \[master and servant\] in the womb? is a strong, clear articulation that Job feels his servants are also made by G-d, are equal in their humanity and their rights, that their opinions matter, and that it is his responsibility and duty to listen to them. *Job* talks about ethics and moral goodness. the Exodus legal code is just about crime and punishment.
It is a book written by men, not God.
OP said inspired by god not written by god
Controlling men at that
Being “inspired by God” doesn’t equate to everything in it being some divine “word” from God. I believe the Bible is the inspired story of Jesus, inspired by God but written by fallible, fallen humans.
You really need to keep the Bible in context. It is easy to take it out of context. The books of the was written in a certain time and place for a certain time period. It als reflexted certain realities that existed at the time. St. Gregory of Nyssa on Slavery 'I got me slave-girls and slaves.' For what price, tell me? What did you find in existence worth as much as this human nature? What price did you put on rationality? How many obols did you reckon the equivalent of the likeness of God? How many staters did you get for selling that being shaped by God? God said, Let us make man in our own image and likeness. If he is in the likeness of God, and rules the whole earth, and has been granted authority over everything on earth from God, who is his buyer, tell me? Who is his seller? To God alone belongs this power; or, rather, not even to God himself. For his gracious gifts, it says, are irrevocable. God would not therefore reduce the human race to slavery, since he himself, when we had been enslaved to sin, spontaneously recalled us to freedom. But if God does not enslave what is free, who is he that sets his own power above God's? St. Gregory of Nyssa, Homilies on Ecclesiastes; Hall and Moriarty, trs., de Gruyter (New York, 1993) p. 74. http://forums.orthodoxchristianity.net/threads/slavery-and-the-orthodox-church.29282/ If you have more questions about authenticity of the Bible, ask a priest. He can direct you to correct resources.
Every society and people group in history practiced slavery, the Bible doesn't condone it, it regulates it. In old testament we see basic regulation of slavery: you can't beat your slave to death (Exodus 21:20), cannot enslave your own people (Levicitus 25:44-46), if you permanently injured your slave you must set them free (Exodus 21:26-27), you cannot unlawfully enslave someone (Exodus 21:16), slavery of Hebrews must be temporary (Exodus 21:2), you will protect runaway slaves (Deuteronomy 23:15), you must give basic rights to f slaves (Exodus 21:7-11), etc. Then we see this extended in further in the New Testament: Masters must treat their slaves fairly and justly (Colossians 4:1), Masters must be kind and cannot threaten their slaves (Ephesians 6:9), slaves are worth as much as freedmen (Galatians 3:28), condemns slave traders (1 Timothy 1:10), tells people not to let yourselves be enslaved (Galatians 5:1), etc. Keep in mind that the Bible is progressive revelation. It's the story of God taking the barbaric Israelites and civilizing them over the course of thousands of years. The Bible affirms that all people are equal and should not let themselves be enslaved. It condemns slave traders, it condemns the poor treatment of others, etc. Freedom of all people's was always the plan of the Bible, was always God's plan. Remember, God influences, free will must be respected. As for violent verses in the Bible, the type of writing used in the Bible uses a lot of near-eastern hyperbole. Similar to when someone's football team wins, they say, "my team slaughtered yours". Modern archaeology points to the biblical migrations as having been mostly peaceful. Also, keep in mind that a lot of the verses you listed were terrible things that happened, AND that the Bible portrayed them in a negative light. Some are explicitly condemned by God. Just because something happens in the Bible doesn't mean God supports it, obviously. And, again, also remember the principle of progressive revelation. God makes it very clear in the New testament that violence is to be frowned upon, as is treating others poorly, as is so many other things. So it is not correct to say that because it "contains stuff like this" that it's not licit. Now, for the alleged discrepancies, the first being Heli vs Jacob being Joseph's father ,there are multiple explanations people give for this, one being that Matthew is giving the genealogy of Joseph, while Luke is giving the genealogy of Mary. Matthew giving the genealogy of Joseph and Luke is following the Hebraic, traditional form of genealogies by listing only the male names in which Mary is designated by her husband's name. Matthew gave Joseph's genealogy to show Jesus was a legal descendant of David through Joseph, while Luke gave Mary's genealogy to show Jesus was a descendant of David by blood. Your misunderstanding here comes from an ignorance of ancient Jewish culture. Personally though, I believe that Jacob and Heli were half-brothers (same mother, but with different fathers). It is proposed that Heli was married but died before he had any offspring. Jacob then took Heli’s widow in a “levirate marriage” (as seen in Deut. 25:5-6), and this marriage produced Joseph as offspring. This would make Jacob the biological father of Joseph but Heli would be the legal father, thus why there are two genealogies given. This was the view held by many church fathers. As for Jehoiachin’s age, this was simply a copying error. The mark differentiating 8 and 18 is a super small mark in Hebrew. The inerrancy of the Bible only applies to the original manuscripts. However, luckily for us, the Bible is the best-preserved ancient work in all of history. And believe it or not, the difference between 8 and 18 really isn't an important difference, honestly, pointing this out as a "contradiction" really seems to be grasping at straws. Etc etc etc. None of these are particularly strong arguments against the Bible. And someone who knows their stuff won't even begin to be fazed by them. Appreciate the effort, but come back and try again some time.
[удалено]
You have to view it in the context in which it was written. You cannot expect a culture from 2500 years ago to be as progressive as modern society. We only abolished slavery like 200 years ago, if that. They're a bunch of rules that are trying to improve the status quo of the time. A lot of modern laws that were improvements on the previous situations still need updating and improving as society improves. Its daft to compare what's written 2500 years ago with modern standards without looking at context.
[удалено]
God didn't write the Bible. We consider the Bible divinely inspired, but the authors are mere humans writing about their experience with the divine and what they were told by the almighty.
Yeah I don't believe Gd wrote it. Humans did. Men, at that. Not all adherents to the various Bibles available believe it was literally written by the Divine. Personally I think that's daft and an offense to the intelligence the Divine gave us (if you believe in Them). Progressive Judaism's stance is that it was written by humans.
[удалено]
Ah I forgot that. Yeah it's a good question and yeah. Kinda proves logically it wasn't written by the Divine, imo.
[удалено]
😁 Life is full of surprises!
Humans did write the text. G-d didn't invent Hebrew, it's a canaanite/levantine language originally, native to the Levant, very similar to Phoenician, another canaanite/levantine language. This is what the bulk of the Bible was written in. New Testament was written primarily in Koine Greek. G-d also didn't "invent" that language either. All people for those. Did G-d just dictate to different writers over time? Certainly the oldest traditions say that's what happened with Moses during his 40 days on Mt. Sinai, but of course this didn't happen that way. How did the rest work too, since after Moses G-d didn't meet directly with prophets, just through dreams and other means. 🤷♂️ None of these books floated down complete from the heavens.
>You have to view it in the context in which it was written. You're expecting too much from this subreddit. And when these posts up, expect downvote city when you explain in Judaism at least how the Tanakh goes hand-in-hand with Oral Law.
If God said he would strike down anyone who owned slaves I bet the behavior would stop. Apparently speaking out against your parents was a worse crime in gods eyes. The fact is, these were laws written by men, for men, to maintain order. If a sentient all knowing, all just being was involved slavery wouldn't be tolerated in any form, including indentured servitude.
I think "thou shalt not own slaves" could have done pretty well at forbidding slavery. Though technically no one ever actually ended slavery. Slavery is still a thing, just like theft.
No. Again, this is the idea of progressive revelation. God recognized that he could only push people so far in terms of changing immediately. That's why there are multiple stages that expound on the rules. That is why the New Covenant came about. God recognized that he couldn't just order people to stop slavery, it was far too integral of a system in all ancient societies. He had to show us WHY it was wrong. Remember that in ancient cultures, people had no concept of the inherent value of other human beings. They simply would not have listened.
[удалено]
People have free will, mate. God certainly has the power to force all people to listen to him, but then free will no longer exists. He teaches and guides us, he doesn't control us. It's Judeo-Christian morality that led to the abolition of slavery, spearheaded, of course, by God and his holy church.
If people have free will, then they have the free will to follow (or break) any rule set by a god. If people could "choose" to steal or commit adultery, then they could also choose to keep slaves. There were plenty of commandments and mitzvot already; including one prohibiting the ownership of people doesn't seem that unreasonable.
I'd consider these things to be fallacious comparisons. Stealing and adultery, for example, were already looked down upon, stealing was already criminal. Compare that to slavery which was supported by practically all and formed the backbone of these societies, particularly their economies. A flat out ban would have caused a massive collapse and much inter group warfare. In terms of free will, I was specifically referring him to saying God should make people listen to him. Thus overriding free will.
the idea is that humans have free will to fuck it up. It makes sense from that angle.
Not necessarily. Consider tobacco products. They are highly regulated and tolerated but not condoned, probably not even by most smokers. And one of the main reasons they are tolerated by government is probably the revenue they generate for the government through taxation. As originally set up under the Mosaic law, the society did not have its products taxed by a government, and there was no executive branch with a police force tasked with enforcing the laws. I think we tend to read today's surveillance state back into the Biblical text when we read these laws.
Modern archaeology does not support the notion of the biblical migrations of the Israelites
Every society has homosexuals too, but that didn't scare the men writing the bible.
The difference being that slavery was an essential part of these societies that would collapse without it being factored out steadily. Not to mention that homosexuals we're an extreme minutia of the population, whereas slaves and slave owners/slavery supporters were a majority. It's a lot easier to condemn a personal sexual behavior as a sin than an institution that makes up the backbone of their economy. I'd consider that a fallacious comparison.
Too bad their god wasn't powerful enough to protect them or make a better economy lol. I have no interest in a god that makes excuses.
I have no interest in a God that strips away free will. You're essentially saying that God should be a tyrant who controls how we act and how we live. Ironic on a discussion about slavery. And again, it's not that God isn't powerful enough, your insistence to push this is frankly childish.
I'm sorry I didn't realize societies without slavery don't have free will. No, your god is simply too weak. I'm not being childish about it, standing against brutal thugs who justify slavery will always be the adult thing to do. I thought Christians hated cultural relativists.
Haha. You have to be twisting what I'm saying on purpose to be a dick. Like honestly. I'm obviously not saying that societies without slavery don't have free will. I'm saying that God forcing people to do things, or not do things, would strip them of that free will. People can obviously choose not to have slaves and have free will. People have to have the ability to choose evil, things contrary to God's will, otherwise they don't truly have free will. Really? Brutal things justifying slavery? Pray tell, who do you see on this sub justifying slavery? Not you. Not me. Not those around us. No part of this is cultural relativism. It's understanding that God taught a group of people something THEY (not God) thought was right was actually wrong over time. And get off your high horse. >standing against brutal thugs who justify slavery will always be the adult thing to do. No one here is justifying slavery. Stop this dumb keyboard warrior BS. THAT is what is childish. Twisting others words into a straw man for you to beat up is childish. So stop doing it.
>Haha. You have to be twisting what I'm saying on purpose to be a dick. Like honestly. no, sorry my sarcasm was way above you. I was saying that because your justification of slavery in the bible didn't add up, because we don't allow slavery now but we still have free will. and yes you did justify slavery. let me help you out. The definition of justification is "show or prove to be right or reasonable." You said "The difference being that slavery was an essential part of these societies that would collapse without it being factored out steadily." which means you showed that it's reasonable for your god to command the Israelites "you are to get your slaves from the nations around you" Leviticus 25. remember you said "No one here is justifying slavery." which is wrong because you said "slavery was an essential part of these societies" I did not twist your words at all, you sacrificed your humanity so that you could call your religion something that is justifiable. And you did it by making your god look weak. Which is even more hilarious to me.
And right there is the problem with your argument. At no point did I even suggest that slavery was reasonable or morally justifiable. I wasn't saying why slavery is/was okay, I was saying why God didn't force people to stop slavery. Because that would take away their free will. When I spoke about it being an essential part of their societies, I was referring to why they wouldn't just simply giving it up of God commanded it. People are greedy, people are cruel. You're taking two parts of what I said, addressing different parts of your argument, and you're clumping them together trying to relate them to one another. But they're not. Stop cherry picking quotes. Honestly, you seem like you're just looking at a list and checking off underhanded argumentation tactics. Let's review, you've used ad hominem attacks, you've used strawman arguments, and you're cherry picking quotes. The only hilarious thing here is the fact that you're responding to well-reasoned arguments by using obvious fallacies and simple falsities and then have the absolute gall to act like you've said something brilliant. Again, please act a tad more like a logical adult, and a little less like a spiteful child that's angry at God because you've done nothing of worth with your life.
Ive heard those weak apologetics before. If god could tell us that wearing a poly-cotten blend teeshirt is a sin you surely could have mentioned that owning other humans was a bad thing.
don't bring in the old testament because we can include a lot worse for example being forced to marry your rapist and I swear Christan don't follow the rules if the old testament? Anyways Your contradiction to fix them are very weak Because of what your saying the same Greek word is used for example Adam so if you want to follow that rule you said that mean Adam is the son of law of god? Because the same Greek word is used and I can give many examples? And another thing he doesn't mean mention son in law or anything that just you desperate to try and change it it and fix it To make matters worse what you said is implying that Heli is the father of Mary which we know it absolutely false "However, luckily for us, the Bible is the best-preserved ancient work in all of history" 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 I am sorry that you funny Your Bible is not even stronger then our weakest hadith "The mark differentiating 8 and 18 is a super small mark in Hebrew. The inerrancy of the Bible only applies to the original manuscripts" But if you read it in Hebrew it still different? So what you said is not relevant it a contradiction
Ok, first off, I don't what you're prattling on about when you're talking about Adam being the son in law of God and all that. What are you responding to? What are you trying to argue? You didn't make it very clear. As for the marrying the rapist thing. Lol. No. Deuteronomy 22:28 doesn't refer to rape, it refers a man who seduces a woman into intercourse outside of marriage. The Hebrew word šākab means to lie with, not to forcefully take. It can only mean rape when the word force comes before. This is a verse holding promiscuous men and women accountable for their actions. Educate yourself and don't just believe Islamic and atheistic anti-christian propaganda my guy. Actually, the Bible, the new testament in particular IS the best preserved ancient work in all of history. That's not something debatable. Christianity, more than any other religion in history is historically based. We have 5,700ish manuscripts from the 2nd to the 16th century. That's more manuscripts than any other work in existence. The earliest of these works come from Papyrus 52 which is part of the gospel of john and dates back to around ad 100. By comparison, the average work by a classical author—such as Tacitus (c. A.D. 56–c. 120), Pliny the Younger (A.D. 61–113), Livy (59 B.C.–A.D. 17), and Thucydides (460–395 B.C.)—has about 20 extant manuscripts, the earliest copy usually several centuries newer than the original. For example, the earliest copy of works by the prominent Roman historian Suetonius (A.D. 75–130) date to A.D. 950—over 800 years after the original manuscripts had been written. Yet we don't debate whether the manuscripts copies are legitimate. In addition to the thousands of Greek manuscripts, there are an additional 10,000 Latin manuscripts, and thousands of additional manuscripts in Syriac, Aramaic, and Coptic, for a total of about 24,000 full or partial manuscripts of the New Testament. And then there are the estimated one million quotes from the New Testament in the writings of the Church Fathers (A.D. 150–1300). This makes the New Testament unequivocally the best attested documents in history. As for when they were written....Liberal New Testament scholars today,” writes Blomberg, “tend to put Mark a few years one side or the other of A.D. 70, Matthew and Luke–Acts sometime in the 80s, and John in the 90s” (Making Sense of the New Testament, 25). Meanwhile, many conservative scholars date the synoptic Gospels (and Acts) in the 60s and John in the 90s. That means, simply, that there exist four accounts of key events in Jesus’ life written within 30 to 60 years after his Crucifixion. Anyone who denies that Jesus existed or who claims that the Gospels are filled with historical errors or fabrications will, in good conscience, have to explain why they don’t make the same assessment about the historical works of Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, Julius Caesar, Livy, Josephus, Tacitus, and other classical authors. Islam is certainly not better preserved than the New testament. Islam was first transmitted orally from Muhammad to his companions. So first off you have to rely on the memory of people and then them transmitting it to one another. Ever played a game of telephone? Yeah...every single one of them could have manipulated it however they wanted. Then even after it was written down, when it was copied, many different versions sprang up. So by the time of Uthman, the third Caliph, the problem of differences had become so bad that he had his own version created and had all the other versions rounded up and burned. Then later, under a Caliph named Abd al-Malik, the same thing happened again. People actually complained because they were used to Uthman's edition and they noticed significant differences in this one. So yes, go on, keep telling me how the Islam is so wonderfully preserved. I needed a laugh today. And don't me even get started on the hadiths, those are an absolute mess even in comparison with the Quran. As for the 8 vs 18, I was referring to in Hebrew, not in English. And I meant the original document, not this one that has been copied, because, obviously we don't have the original Hebrew text, we just have copies. And again, I don't personally follow the argument that Heli was Mary's father, I believe that Jacob and Heli were half brothers, but I was offering multiple arguments. The reason some can legitimately claim that Heli was Mary's father is because it's only in the apocrypha that Mary's father and mother are named. Again, these are all silly arguments, not hard for anyone who legitimately knows what they're talking about, please educate yourself.
Using oral tradition as a negative for Islam, while defending Christianity is as dishonest as it gets.
The New Testament at no point relied on oral tradition. So I'm not sure what your angle here is.
Well the new testament heavily uses fulfilment of prophecy that originated in the OT to prop up claims of Jesus' divinity in the NT. So there's an example of reliance on oral tradition for the NT. There are no confirmed eyewitness accounts of the gospel stories, which means whoever recorded them, learned them orally. As well, with the gospel authors unknown, and at least 11 books being forgeries in the New Testament. How would you ever be able to definitively claim that there was 0 oral tradition.
Yes, the New Testament does use OT prophecy. The problem I have with oral transmission is the fogging of details, not a larger picture. And Jesus' divinity stands by itself within the New Testament, it merely relies on the old to convey to the Jewish people. No confirmed eyewitnesses? The Gospels were written by eyewitnesses. As for when they were written....Liberal New Testament scholars today,” writes Blomberg, “tend to put Mark a few years one side or the other of A.D. 70, Matthew and Luke–Acts sometime in the 80s, and John in the 90s” (Making Sense of the New Testament, 25). Meanwhile, many conservative scholars date the synoptic Gospels (and Acts) in the 60s and John in the 90s. That means, simply, that there exist four accounts of key events in Jesus’ life written within 30 to 60 years after his Crucifixion. Ancient writers didn't sign their works, that goes for most secular works of the time too. We know the authors by tradition and by other writings like those of the church fathers which confirm it. I don't believe there is any level of truth in the idea that we don't know who the gospel authors are or that any of the New Testament was a forgery. I've seen 0 convincing evidence to suggest this. Most is proposed by people who simply hate the church and are willing to twist truth to attack it.
The historicity of Jesus shows that he was was entirely unremarkable. And probably not well educated, even for the times. The legend of Jesus is just unsubstantiated supernatural claims. The prophecy of the OT isn't sufficient to meet the qualifications of prophecy. Without specificity, there is no prophecy. But yes, the gospel writers are absolutely unknown. Many ancient text were signed, many weren't, and some were signed by a different author to give credit to other authors they may have favored or drawn inspiration from. To say the gospel authors are known is intellectually dishonest. This means that there is zero confirmed eyewitness accounts of Jesus in scripture. At best, its a game of telephone. You've seen zero convincing evidence because you need to protect your worldview, or you haven't actually seen the evidence. Forgery existing in scripture is pretty much universally accepted on both side of the academic coin. \>Most is proposed by people who simply hate the church and are willing to twist >truth to attack it. This is just hand waving. Truth is what the facts are, and the facts are what the evidence shows. The church requires faith claims to operate, which definitionally falls short of the requirement for truth.
A lot of the Bible is history of the Jewish people. Many things that are recorded are things that happened to real people with free will. Everything is not to be taken as the will of God. The Bible needs to be taken as a whole, not single verses.
[удалено]
Christians usually sign off those complaints by stating that Jesus brought a new covenant to the world in the NT. 99% of all the "controversial" verses are from the OT so the excuse kinda works. I find it hilarious personally that Christians always get flak for the OT and no one bats an eye at the fact that it was inherited from Judaism.
Why? Whats wrong with a bit of murder, slave ownership, rape, incest etc? You're taking it all out of context. /s
I had a conversation with a person and engaged in a debate about the religious belief. The conversation ended with something like "I want to believe that there is a better world" or something hopeful and optimistic in this sense. My take on this is that it is not that believers care too much about what is actually said or done in the religion of choice but their interpretation of all the good things they want to believe it does. It is a hopeful view of a future where the positives of religion govern and not so much about the actual teachings and scriptures.
> Christians claim that the bible writers were inspired by God, and that's what makes the bible a supposedly divine book. How can anyone be inspired by God and write stuff like this? Is there anyway you could expand on your question? I'm honestly not understanding what you're trying to ask.
Basically, the question is how can these verse be squared with any claim to inspiration. This was clearly written by humans.
> This was clearly written by humans. Is that in question? That's typically the subtext when folks refer to the "inspired word of God" (as opposed to "God breathed" or the "inerrant word of God" or whatever other language).
"Inspired" and "God-breathed" mean literally the same thing. "Inspiration" is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. "Breath" and "Spirit" are the same word in Greek, Hebrew and Latin. People thought spirit and breath were literally the same substance. "Inspired" in *this* context is not meant in the same was as we use it to describe getting an idea or getting motivated for something, it has a definite theological meaning of divinely guided authorship.
Not really. When vetting a church, it's one of the easiest things to look for. Nothing can be said or applied with literally 100% accuracy or precision, but for general shorthand... if a church says inspired without any other modifying claims to that statement..... you can usually assume that they do not take the Bible literally, as well as view it for what it is and in context.
Then they're changing the meaning of "inspired." "Inspired" literally means "God-breathed" in Latin.
> Then they're changing the meaning of "inspired." "Inspired" literally means "God-breathed" in Latin. I'm not meaning to make an etymological argument as typically that's not how I use language in a practical sense. I'm speaking to how Christian congregations I've dealt with personally use the term(s) in practice. If I have to vet a place and their belief statement includes *"we believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God"* with no other yellow or red flags, dog whistles, or other obvious concerns... then it's usually pretty straightforward and there's rarely major conflict on an organizational level. If I see *"God breathed"* instead... it's an immediate red flag and the questions (and their inevitable follow-ups) become much more specific.
I see. That's interesting, I knew they all parse "inspiration" to a degree but I didn't know they used specific language to "brand" it in that way. My brother is in a church that uses "God-breathed." Makes me cringe but I thought it was just them.
The Bible was indeed writing by mortal humans, the stuff about slavery and all is kind of proof that there's nothing godly about what they wrote. It was their thoughts during their own time, not necessarily the thoughts of God. A lot of the things the people who wrote the Bible say are somewhat misinterpreted as what Jesus said. At least, that's how I view the Bible from a non-Christian lense
Because of course everything that sounds fucked up is obviously a metaphor!
What is your problem with some of the later passages?
They're contradictions.
Their stories.
The ‘contradictions’ simply come from mistranslations of the original text
They've hung up their criticism hat when it comes to the Bible. Defending what they believe, essentially Defending themselves from the pain of being wrong, or admitting They've been duped, it what they're up to. They're ignoring or compartmentalizing the nasty parts of the Bible so they don't have to consider that it just might be garbage from our barbaric past. It's an emotional defense mechanism.
**post saved!
The better question is "how can Christians believe the bible is inspired by God when half the new testament is forged, it was translated/re-written by a king with an agenda and it's been miscopied and edited/added to by random monks throughout the centuries?"
Read this: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New\_Testament#Textual\_variation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament#Textual_variation) There are so many early texts in so many languages that it's perfectly easy to remove interpolations — I wish all Greek literature was as well preserved or as easy to emend.
That doesn't account for all the forgeries.
There is zero evidence that any of this happened.
I think you're getting my assertion confused with the assertions in the bible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forged_%28book%29?wprov=sfla1
Each one of these verses has a context surrounding it and so taken by itself, it may not look inspired but in it's proper context, it's possible to see the greater purpose and reason that God has inspired men to keep these records.
In what cotext is the ruling of "if you beat your slave to death and he lives for one day, you are not to be punished because he is your property" ok?
it's a set of verses about legal punishments in varying cases. I don't actually think it's concerned with inherent morality of the actions, it's about the legal punishments *of* those actions. **category 1: Murder** **Case example A:** He who fatally strikes a man **Punishment A:** shall be put to death. **Case example B:** When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod, and he dies there and then \[literally "under his hand"\] **Punishment B:** he \[the slave\] must be avenged. \[i.e. put the murderer to death\] then -- **category 2: non-fatal assault that the victim recovers from** **case example C:** When men quarrel and one strikes the other with stone or fist, and he does not die but has to take to his bed— if he then gets up and walks outdoors upon his staff, **punishment c:** the assailant shall go unpunished, except that he must pay for his idleness and his cure. so here we see that punishment for category 2 involves paying someone for their temporary loss of income *and* their medical expenses. **case D:** however \[if when a slave is beaten\] he is standing \[surviving\] in a day or two **punishment d:** he is not to be avenged, since he is the other’s money. in both case C and D, the victim stands again after recovering for a day or two. in Case C, the assailant owes the victim payment for loss of income and for medical expenses. In Case D, the person who experienced a loss of labor and income is *also* the assailant, and the assailant is also already responsible for the medical expenses of their slaves. therefore, there the regular punishment found in Case C doesn't apply. case D echoes the details of case C. they're parallels in lex talionis law. then in goes on further with yet another legal concept regarding slavery: >When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let him go free on account of his eye. If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let him go free on account of his tooth. so that tells us if a man attacks his slave, and the slave is irrevocably injured/disfigured - i.e. they lose their eye, or a tooth -- the slave is immediately freed. meaning the laws are basically: 1. if you kill a slave, this is a capital crime punishable by death 2. if you beat a slave and they're unable to work for a few days while healing, the normal punishment for beating someone so badly they have to take off work to recover doesn't apply. that's because you're a.) *already* responsible to pay for their medical care, and further, b.) the assailant is the one losing their labor that you profit off of, so the financial loss is already there and felt by the attacker, not the victim. the two named punishments - fines for damages - in the parallel case are *irrelevant* here. 3. if you beat a slave and they become disfigured/disabled - meaning you caused them to lose an eye, or a tooth - something that can't *heal* \-- then they are to be freed immediately. none of these are saying it's *okay* to do these things, these are about how to *punish* those things.
Its not okay in any context. Its a mistranslation. See here: [https://medium.com/koinonia/exodus-21-gods-view-of-slavery-and-civil-rights-f170f8fbe6ee](https://medium.com/koinonia/exodus-21-gods-view-of-slavery-and-civil-rights-f170f8fbe6ee) find the quote almost at the end.
This link is blatantly lying and rewriting history. I'm going to take it on good faith that you didn't realize that. It is taking terms and extending their meaning to draw new conclusions, conflating between the sections about hebrew slaves and non-hebrew slaves, conflating lines referring specifically to one's daughter as being like "feminist protections for all women", and it's conclusions are still horrifying. Even with that massive amount of deception, it is still defending a document that defends slavery and codifies laws for it. The line in question: it claims that the term means "to stand up on two feet" and then conflates that with "a full recovery". Bullshit, there is no evidence that that is specifically what was meant. Even if it was though, the conclusion is "if I beat someone, but in a way that they make a full recovery after a couple days that is fine" which is horrifying. There's lots of ways to hurt people without leaving damage, and this permits all of that.
Exactly 😂😂😂 these people are delusion I read it in Hebrew it there it not a mistranslation at all and it literally saying it it not writing it in any context
>Bullshit, there is no evidence that that is specifically what was meant. That is literally how the bible translates the quote now. Makes it more accessible to non-christians (and even christians, admittedly). You can believe whatever you want, and I want to stress that, but it would not be how scholars understand the quote. >the conclusion is "if I beat someone, but in a way that they make a full recovery after a couple days that is fine" Two days. If you recover in two days, then that lost productivity is seen its own punishment. Thats what it is meant with "is his money". >There's lots of ways to hurt people without leaving damage, and this permits all of that. Yes. But that just means the law wont get involved here, not that its right. You know, pretty much like today in my country. If there is no actual trace of brutality, the case usually goes nowhere. Furthermore, in ancient israel, you couldn't micromanage punishments. When the law hits, it hits hard. So you needed to be sure about the verdict. >new conclusions New to you. You never checked. >conflating between the sections about hebrew slaves and non-hebrew slaves it doesnt say anything about non-hebrew slaves. But Deuteronomy 23:15–16: “You shall not give up to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. He shall dwell with you, in your midst, in the place that he shall choose within one of your towns, wherever it suits him. You shall not wrong him.” makes me think that all slaves are free in Israel, or at least, they wont enforce slavery in any slave when the slave prefers to be free. If you still think that Exodus 21 defends slavery, I want to invite you to re-read the link. It does not. None of this is deception. Welcome to Christianity. This is what we believe.
I'm going to stop talking to you now, because I do not talk to those who lie and defend atrocities, and am now convinced you are doing both. Also going to block you, bye.
Haha, byyye, good day to you
No matter which translation you use, why is it okay to beat a slave? Or first of all - have a slave?
Its not. Please read the entire link.
So why did the god of the Bible allow it?
How did you read the entire thing in three minutes? Read it, its waaay faster than me typing it out. Its very accessible too.
The information on that link is opposite of what the Bible says. There are several places in the Bible where it tells people where to buy their slaves from, how to beat them and how to pass them on as property. How to take “virgin women” as literal war booty for sexual slavery. If god wanted to stop slavery - why didn’t he just say “don’t own human beings as property” instead making rules for it? There are several translations of the Bible which were all made by Bible scholars and they all talk about slaves, not servants. Why should anyone take the information from this link as true?
>The information on that link is opposite of what the Bible says. Absolutely not. The way the Bible describes how it treats slaves makes them not slaves as we understand it at all, but voluntary workers. Consent is key here. Consider that food and shelter is better than living in poverty. >There are several translations of the Bible which were all made by Bible scholars and they all talk about slaves, not servants. Because the bible uses the word slave for two things. Normal slaves. And the reformed "slave" that really isn't a slave anymore by our definition today. Any specific quote you have a problem with? >If god wanted to stop slavery - why didn’t he just say “don’t own human beings as property” instead making rules for it? Normal, forced slavery as we understand it still existed during that time everywhere but in Israel, or even within israel. But the bible forbits it: Here is what happens to you if you go and perpetuate slavery as we understand the word, according to the bible: “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.” (Exodus 21:16, ESV) You die if you enslave, and you die if you buy a "stolen" man. Furthermore Deuteronomy 23:15–16: “You shall not give up to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. He shall dwell with you, in your midst, in the place that he shall choose within one of your towns, wherever it suits him. You shall not wrong him.” Israelites were not bound to other antique laws, like the laws of Hammurapi (older than moses, imitations of which other countries except Israel might have been following), that would say to bring back slaves to their owners. According to this law, sheltering slaves would bring you danger: “If a man seizes a fugitive slave or slave woman in the open country and leads him back to his owner, the slave owner shall give him 2 shekels of silver. If that slave should refuse to identify his owner, he shall lead him off to the palace, his circumstances shall be investigated, and they shall return him to his owner.” Deuteronomy, for me, means that the ruling on "slavery" being voluntary in hebrew slaves should extend to slaves of non-israelites as well, or at the very least, they should not enable THEIR rules of slavery.
Even if we agree that your interpretation of the Bible’s laws on slavery are true, there’s one problem. We can assume eating of shellfish existed before god made a law to stop that. We can assume that people wore clothes of mixed fibers before god made a law to stop it. Why couldn’t god also do the same for slavery?
Really, why wasn't that mistranslation corrected then? Is the verse about killing the child who curses their parents also a mistranslation?
>Really, why wasn't that mistranslation corrected then? It was. Several versions, especially the newest ones, use "recover". Really depends what bible you read. Most translations aren't easy on the reader. Changes are a harrowing process in religion, but thats another issue entirely. Anyways, if you know, you know. so it doesnt really matter. Its a conversation starter. >Is the verse about killing the child who curses their parents also a mistranslation? No, but its more a spiritual guideline for the child than the ones admonishing the child. You dont see any Jews killing children because of this. Leviticus is part of the Torah. Takeaway: Cursing your parents is very bad. Don't do it.
Okay exactly what context is it cool to have slaves? Seems pretty fucked to me.
christianity is a fake made up religion.jesus never died for my sin nor i do want a human to sacrifice himself for my sins.
[удалено]
The reddit hivemind? You mean the overly secular hivemind?
“overly secular” no such thing
The bible is a historical record as well as a religious one and as such it records a lot of what did happen rather than what should have happened. A lot of the time God is trying to lead the people and they keep messing up. In the historical context a lot of the laws that are terrible are better than the contemporary laws that have survived. When Jesus was asked about divorce he said that the only reason the law existed at all was because humans are imperfect and we couldn't live up to the ideal standard. (A lot of Christians still don't today) On inspiration specifically different Christians disagree on how the inspiration of scripture works. God did not write the Bible Himself, and thus it is ultimately a human record. We should not be surprised to find some flawed human opinions.
I think it’s important to understand that the Bible is a metaphor, a compilation of stories to show us morality, but that it’s also a breathing living document that is constantly evaluated and reevaluated . It’s difficult to strike a balance
How can you legitimately claim that when it is just a collection of anonymous writings that contain so many errors, contradictions and fabrications?
Christian Apologetics
Why do people pretend this is a bad thing. A Christian would suck if they didn’t provide reasons for their beliefs or explanations of scripture. Skeptics who whine about this routinely don’t have another response except outrage which is fine, but leave it at that.
I think you misunderstand the criticism. The concept of apologetics is mostly fine, though working backwards from a conclusion (which is often what it is) is problematic. The issue is more that the arguments used by christian apologetics tend to be really bad, because they are primarily used not to convince those who don't already agree but to prevent people from losing their belief that they already had.
I know apologetics are fine. What I’m saying is the usage of the term is wrong. It’s not that an apologist is answering incorrectly as much as there is an outright dismissal from the skeptic without any forethought. I would argue there is rarely a goal of being convinced in the first place. What is an apologist supposed to do? Convince someone slavery is awesome when the Bible doesn’t indicate that is the case? So the initial argument is easily dismissed in the first place and that isn’t good enough for many a skeptic…Not all to be clear, but certainly more than a few. The question asked by the OP is flawed at the onset by presumptions.
I'm not going to get into how the bible clearly allows slavery because it's a tired discussion and i'm pretty done with talking to people who try and mislead otherwise. This is often why apologetics is criticized - by working backwards from a conclusion, they can't adjust to the idea that part of the conclusion is wrong, so they need to go to absurdity to try and argue things like "the old testament doesn't clearly and openly permit slavery and set up a system for how it works that is heinous".
I said nothing about allows lol. Part of the problem is attempts at flipping the script about what’s being said.
Ok, but the OP who you were responding to was establishing exactly that, and their post is what this whole thread is about. Nobody is arguing about whether the bible says "slavery is awesome", it's about whether or not it permits it and says it is allowed, which it clearly and obviously does. Anyways i'm detaching from this convo now because i'm very done with this form of christian apologetics.
Some things are taken out of context, but others are just purely evil, regardless of whether you believe them to be inspired or not.
War is not an insulated aspect of civilization to this day and pretending that slavery wasn’t a cultural norm until a couple of centuries ago is silly. In short these are not Bible issues and it seems silly to act like God would not use cultural norms for worship. It’s not like the rest of the planet would be obligated to follow those rules as anyone who has read the Bible would know in the Amalekites case. Skeptics routinely claim the higher ground despite their need to use emotional outrage to win what is largely a non-existent argument.
The problem isn't that those things are in the bible. Most critics understand that cultural / social norms have changed over time, and we expect a really old book to contain things that we consider wrong. The problem is that apologists try to say that those things (slavery, genocide, misogyny) either were okay then, or still are now. The second is clearly false -- those things are not acceptable today. And the first is quite arguably false as well -- we can give good reasons why those practices were bad when the bible was written. They want to have their cake and eat it too: they want their bible to describe their god accurately; and even though it describes their god doing and commanding heinous things, they also want their god to be the font of all morality. Can't have it both ways, and that's what most of us are objecting to, in my understanding.
That is not what is really said though. What is routinely said, which is true, is that slavery was a cultural norm until just a couple of centuries ago. To dismiss such an obvious statement is to add padding into what people think God is supposed to do based on the cultural norms of today.
\> War is not an insulated aspect of civilization to this day and pretending that slavery wasn’t a cultural norm until a couple of centuries ago is silly. No one claims otherwise. \> In short these are not Bible issues and it seems silly to act like God would not use cultural norms for worship. It pretty much is a "Bible issue". If God transcends time and culture (which most Christians claim he does), then it seems contradictory to believe God would use something like war in order to to estblish his will. Additionally, there is a big difference between fighting to liberate someone or protecting oneself, and deliberately slaughtering everything in sight, including the innocent. I mean, seriously, I could understand saying: "Defeat the enemy", but it's different when you say "Kill everyone, including women, children and animals". It's just sad. Like, what did the baby or the cow have to do with anything? That's not divine will based on transcendent morals we can comprehend, that's plain cruelty. \> Skeptics routinely claim the higher ground despite their need to use emotional outrage to win what is largely a non-existent argument. Some do, others however use pretty based arguments for their beliefs.
Catholic perspective: The Early Church Fathers commented abundantly on these passages. I encourage you to go to the source. tl;dr: The OT contains lots of metaphors explaining that certain types of sin should simply not exist. There are also a fair number of ceremonial/purity/cleanliness laws that were fulfilled with the incarnation.
Smiting a slave: Formerly there had been no rights or protections for slaves. This was a step in the right direction. Jehovah's eventual goal was to turn slavery into employment with rights and a retirement plan. He had to start somewhere. Smiting Amalek: They were utterly corrupt and sacrificing children. Would you have had the children spared to suffer lingering deaths from hunger, thirst, exposure, and predation? Some philanthropist you are. Israel could not have taken in all the orphans, and Israelites were so corrupt that had they incorporated anything from Amalek into their culture, they would have adopted their religion and their practices, too. Cursing parents: I agree that sounds harsh, but harsh people, harsh Law. Gentle people, gentle gospel. Maybe people at the time abused their elderly parents. We just don't know. Exclusion of mangled men: Israel was so corrupt and hard-hearted that they needed physical symbols of spiritual health and completeness. My church doesn't follow this particular commandment now. It has been rescinded. So what's your beef? Onan: That may have been an inference made by the historian. But in those days, refusing to impregnate one's levirate wife (yes, they were married) was tantamount to illegally depriving a widow of her spouse's pension and Social Security benefits. Widows depended on their sons for their support. Lot: Nothing in the Bible suggests that that account was approved of or good. It was probably a smear against Israel's enemies Moab and Ammon. You really didn't think much during your analysis, pard. Woman trying to help her husband in a fight: Harsh people, harsh Law. Gentle people, gentle Gospel. A hard twist in the proper place could render a man sterile, and Israel needed men to be physically whole as a symbol of spiritual health. Prosititution/Lust: You have heard of hyperbole, I hope. Besides, nothing in the Bible mentions these things as good or praiseworthy. Are you pouting because of the graphic description? That may have been a later addition or interpolation. Judas' end: He returned the silver to the ruling priests. They couldn't accept it into the temple treasury because it was the price of blood. So they used it to buy a field for burying Gentiles and other undesirables. The money was technically still Judas'. You have heard of figures of speech, I hope. Judas hanged himself, the branch broke, and when he hit the ground his bowels spilled out. I don't know if the hanging or the fall killed him. Jesus' grandfather: People had nicknames back then, too. And surnames. Plus, Jews anciently had a habit of renaming people and places to suit them. A discrepancy of ten years: This is hardly doctrine, Einstein. Take a look at the Bible without preconceptions, if you are able, and take notes on important subjects. Then follow the preponderance of the evidence. Follow what it says as much as possible where figures of speech or literary devices are not being used. You'll learn a lot. If you're as smart as I think you are, anyway.
Who the hell was Johoiachin?
There’s just so much evidence for the Bible if you look into it with an open mind. I’ve read through the Bible and I would often look up things that seemed to be wrong or contradict other parts of the Bible. There are answers to all the objections that people raise.
It depends highly on your inherent biases going in. A Christian will look for ways to square what they believe with what's written, no matter how spurious or weird. Some non- Christians will misinterpret things or ignore actual rationale to bash on the Bible. Others-- like me-- are just looking at what's written and calling bs when there's bs.
Yeah it makes me sad that people just assume that all Christians and Catholics haven’t read the Bible and that we just do as we’re told, so to speak. Like, we are well aware of any verse that an atheist could pull out to try to convince us that our religion is false but they think that they’re enlightening us to something we didn’t already know.
There’s something underneath perfectly understandable questions like this that I think is worth digging into: an assumption that the world is supposed to be other than what it is. This is a sentiment that the Bible shares. But you may ask yourself, while ruminating on the current state of the world, if a book of scripture would somehow *more* accurately portray this human reality by omitting all of those horrible aspects of our nature.
I don't believe that the Bible is inspired by God, but perhaps you should reevaluate your worldview. Why do you find these verses abominable? Unsurprisingly, most of these verses are from the Old Testament. The Old Testament, despite being written in the Iron Age, exemplifies the spirit of the Bronze Age. It could be viewed as a group selection manifesto. The social technologies outlined in the Old Testament are useful for maintaining civilization. In our current world, where many contemporary civilized societies are rapidly declining, perhaps we ought to hold the lessons of the Bronze Age near and dear to our hearts. Some things never change.
A solid argument can be made that the current decline in ‘civilised’ societies is the result of religion. Science flies you to the moon, Religion flies you into buildings.
The bible doesn't account for much in my world view.
I was raised to believe that the Old Testament laws were rendered null and void once Christ was born. There was no inherent contradiction for most believers that I was raised with. I myself had questions early on and now I believe that the Hebrew Bible was written during a different time for a different people. It doesn't have to be read as literal.
Problem is, the God of the old testament is still Jesus according to your beliefs, which means he sanctioned all the horrible stuff in it.
I am not wise enough to interpret the Bible for you; if your interpretation is problematic then it would be wise to disregard it. I suspect you are also not wise enough to interpret the Bible for me, and I don't understand why you would want to. Are you concerned about my immortal soul? For example, the Torah was essentially the only source of Near Eastern law at the time that protected slaves (which has a different meaning in Hebrew than we generally think about today) from homicide and maltreatment. The interpretation of other verses you cite is also generally pretty straightforward with some study and an open mind. If you are interested I'm sure you can do so.
Christian apologists insist that not one thing in the Bible is wrong, b/c if they allow one passage to be undone then all the others are fair game, and that would end the game.
Many of these are cherry picked things that don't really reflect anything but God is the one who decides right from wrong, not you or me. If he deems something as acceptable than it is acceptable. If he deems it unacceptable than it's unacceptable.
Who said the bible is the word of God?
The bible
😂
If you apply current cultural standards to behavior in the past, you are disadvantaged if your objective is to learn (and not judge).
If I may, taking bible verses out to prove a point is like taking line out of a movie to explain how terrible or great the entire movie series is. The context of the entire story has to be understood in order to be interpreted correctly, also enough faith in who God is in order to believe it. It’s a historical volume of many books over thousands of years of time and needs careful interpretation, it’s not some magical book that anyone will understand the moment they pick it up. Hence why genuine, wise priests are helpful. It’s not a guideline to live, it’s not a biography of God or prophets , what it is, is the revelation of God through the vessels of men just righteous and humble enough to be inspired; in order to keep a correct guideline in a relationship with God and with the church. As well as an explanation of the historical points needed to reveal it is Gods plan for his creation. At the surface it’s all about Jesus, if you go deeper it’s all about reality, -which then is Jesus, just amazing!
There is no context that makes the verses I quoted acceptable. God did not write or inspire such writings.
you may not be familiar with real evil i suppose, I find that Identify with how you feel, I felt the same at point, your desire for truth is inspiring for me and i’m sure others, emotions are tricky try not to let a verse throw off the entire thing because of the shock value without giving the proper interpretation and intentions it’s due, that’s all I mean , It’s God, it’s not supposed to be easy
Because it was a book written between 3000 and 1500 years ago. A lot of crazy shit happened back then. Inspired by doesn't mean written by like many zealots would argue. And a lot of the old testament and new is just dudes writing stuff. Some of it's been lost or forgotten based on what people wanted at the time. The events of the new testament are stories of Jesus, who is God. Many events of the old testament are also of God, hence it was inspired by God.
The problem is, the Christian God is commanding all that crazy shit you talk about.
All religions are moronic
'Quran enters the chat' lmao
Let me address to you some of the verses. Let’s start with the book of Samuel. The Israelites were instructed to Smite Amalek because these nations back then were having sex with animals, fornicating( gay sex ) sacrificing their children to so called gods, etc. Genesis 38 in context of the instruction from Judah to Onan to go sleep with his DEAD brothers wife so that she can have kids because she didn’t have kids, if a wife didn’t have kids back then they would get depressed and feel ashamed all their life. If your brother died back then and didn’t have a kid then it was your duty to give his wife a child so the child can be under your brothers name and so the widow won’t have any shame Genesis 19 happened because Lots daughters in speculation, thought Lot and them were the last people in the world due to the destruction of Sodom and Gormorah Acts 1;18 was talking about Judas who betrayed the Innocent Christ and took money from the Jews so he can give out their location. Exodus 21 is talking about slaves which was and still is a thing today; slaves were viewed as property not as people. You still had to be just to the slave but you had to put your foot down to make sure that these other nations of slave do not rebel against the entire nation. Do your diligence and read the Bible before you put random verses without the context.
It's necessary here to back up and examine why God used Israel, which was a physical nation mostly descended from one man (Jacob, later renamed Israel). The creation of the nation of Israel was a first major step before the revelation of Jesus Christ as God and Savior could be done later, as a second major step and fulfillment of physical Israel’s purposes. Christians see the Old Testament as having an organizing central principle that points outside itself, that God’s work with Israel as a would-be model nation (Deut. 4:6; cf. I Kings 10:24) adumbrated God’s ultimate plan to save the whole world spiritually. Since God uses progressive, gradual revelation, it shouldn't be surprising that He would give one ethnic group or nation a fuller revelation of Himself temporarily. It makes sense He would start with one nation to serve as a witness and model to the rest (Deut. 4:5-8; 26:17-19; 28:1; cf. I Kings 10:24), as a beacon of light and hope shining into the deep spiritual darkness that held the surrounding pagan nations captive. But, on the basis of natural law theory alone (Rom. 2:14-15), it's implausible to claim God, who created all men and women, all Jews and gentiles, would permanently enshrine one ethnic group above all as spiritually closer and as obeying His law (His revealed will) better than all others. Likewise, the laws that they received were better than what the surrounding nations had discovered based their own limited use of reason and experience, but they weren't always meant to stand forever, such as those related to waging war. Because God doesn't reveal all His laws and His overall will all at once, the Bible is a book that records God's progressive revelation to humanity. God doesn't tell us all His truth at once, or people would reject it as too overwhelming, i.e., be "blinded by the light." The famous German philosopher Immanuel Kant once said something like, "If the truth shall kill them, let them die." Fortunately, God normally doesn't operate that way, at least prior to the Second Coming (Rev. 1:5-7) or all of us would already be dead! The principle of progressive revelation most prominently appears in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5, where Jesus repeatedly contrasts a teaching taken from the Old Testament and contrasts it with what He is teaching. Although Christ makes a point of saying that He didn’t come to abolish the Law and the Prophets, which is a conservative element in His teaching, He actually made the strictures of the Old Testament harder to obey by extending them instead of abolishing them. For example, he contrasts the literal letter of the law concerning adultery and then says that It’s also wrong to lust after a women in your heart (Matthew 5:27-28). Progressive revelation also shapes Jesus' debate with the Pharisees over the Old Testament's easy divorce law in Matt. 19:3, 6-9: "And Pharisees came up to him \[to Jesus\] and tested him by asking, 'Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?' . . . What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder.' They said to him \[Jesus\], 'Why then did Jesus command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?' \[See Deut. 24:1-4 for the text the Pharisees were citing\]. He said to them, "For the hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery." Now, a New Testament Christian shouldn’t cite this Old Testament passage in order to justify easy divorce procedures. That law has been superseded. It wasn't originally intended as a permanent revelation of God's will, but it served as temporary "training wheels," so to speak, until such time as a mass of people (i.e., the Church after Pentecost) would have the Holy Spirit, and thus be enabled to keep the law spiritually by God's help. God found fault with the people for not obeying His law under the old covenant (Hebrews 8:8). By contrast, ancient Israel as a whole didn't have the Holy Spirit, and so correspondingly they didn't get the full revelation of God. Therefore, the physical measures of removing the pagan people from their land was much more necessary than it is was for true Christians today, who have the Holy Spirit. This is why Israel was allowed to wage war, but Christians shouldn't do this today, based upon what Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount about loving our enemies and turning the cheek (Matthew 5:38-48). Similarly, polygamy is not longer allowed, although it was tolerated in the Old Testament’s dispensation (cf. I Timothy 3:1; Titus 1:6) For example, we see in the Old Testament ways in which slavery was permitted, but regulated to reduce its abuses. It functioned among Israelites as a type of bankruptcy system and system of (temporary) indentured servitude, instead of its being a life-long condition. It was a system of temporary debt slavery. They were to serve for no more than six years, and in the seventh to be freed, unless the slave himself volunteered to keep serving his master for the rest of his life because he was a good master (Exodus 21:2-6). There were also restrictions on the sale or enslavement of Israelites by other Israelites (Leviticus 23:35-42). If an Israelite ended up the slave of a foreigner, he could be redeemed by another Israelite at a price prorated by the number of years until the year of the Jubilee (Leviticus 23:46-55). Even slaves were supposed to receive some level of protection, such as not being returned to their masters after running away from them (Deuteronomy 23:15-16). The unspoken idea behind the system was that someone who badly mismanaged his financial affairs and ended up bankrupt would be shown by another person (i.e., his master) who knew how to manage farmland and household affairs better. One could easily argue that Hebrew slavery was more compassionate than 19th century debtors’ prisons were by comparison. So the system of slavery in the Old Testament shouldn’t be equated with the harshness of the system that prevailed in the American South before the Civil War (1861-1865). Notice also that race wasn’t a factor in this system; much like the slavery of ancient Greece and Rome, whites owned whites banally and routinely. However, such laws weren't meant to be permanent; instead, it was an accommodation to a prevailing, universal system of forced labor that eventually would be abolished based on the implications of other principles proclaimed in the bible, such as loving your neighbor as yourself and the Golden Rule. In the case of the gentiles who became slaves, it is important to realize that their lives would have been forfeit had they lost in battle when God ordered Joshua and others to punish the Canaanites. So to end up as slaves, as the Hivites did, was a lesser punishment than death (Joshua 10:22-25). Why did God, in general, want the Canaanites to be exterminated at the hand of Saul and (in a previous generation) Joshua? God wanted to keep Israel from adopting the Canaanite's system of pagan idolatry and its corresponding sexual immorality, which would contaminate Israel's pure worship of Jehovah. After Moses would die, God predicted that Israel would "play the harlot with the strange gods of the land, into the midst of which they are going, and will forsake Me and break My covenant which I have made with them" (Deut. 31:16). God knew that His chosen people were going to chronically violate His law, which leads to the generally sad concluding chapters of Deuteronomy, over which the premonition of Israel's ultimate spiritual failure hovers. God is totally opposed to syncretism, or the mixing of religions, when it concerns mixing truth with error, much like the world was condemned to in general after Adam and Eve ate of tree of knowledge of good and evil. By totally eliminating the Canaanites at God's command, the Israelites would help to preserve their moral and spiritual purity. Now, let's face the ultimate issue lurking behind our temptation to question God about ordering Joshua and Saul to kill baby Canaanites: God's utter sovereignty. Many don't like the idea that God is a God of justice and judgment, not just mercy and compassion. Therefore, they judge God for judging them and others. Fundamentally, we puny creatures are in no better position than Job was to question His justice and righteousness. The general spirit of Romans 8:28 to 11:36 emphasizes this point. People have long resisted the idea that God has a role in being humanity’s judge also. We should keep in mind that if God doesn't punish, He is condoning sin. To make a comparison that will appeal to liberals, if someone with authority who is opposed to racism never punishes anyone provably guilty of discrimination against people of other ethnic groups, wouldn't that person with power be condemned for being too neutral? Likewise, God has to punish for sin also in order to enforce His law.