Problem with the Bible

[TonyG]

Depends upon your PoV.

Some say that the Book of Mormon is the next instalment.
Some say that the Koran is the next instalment.
Some say that there will not be another instalment.

Sure... but if/when the next "gospel" comes about, there will be masses of people claiming it to be gold no matter the message. People as a whole take religious beliefs entirely too far

 

[Mister Emu]

When does the third installment come out?

When you die...

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Depends upon your PoV.

Some say that the Book of Mormon is the next instalment.
Some say that the Koran is the next instalment.
Some say that there will not be another instalment.

I'm pretty sure Dianetics is the latest installment.

Hey, Scientology obviously works for Tom Cruise - it must be right.

 

[averageJOE]

I understand your confusion but if you will read it then you will understand why people are telling you this.....Don't take anyone's word for it, read it "yourself".

No confusion here. The Old Testament is pre-Jesus and the New is post-Jesus.
So give us your answer. Why did god change his mind?

 

[Riverwolf]

Exactly! This was my original point. So He changed his mind and they created the sequel? When does the third installment come out?

God never changed his mind. "Fulfilled" the law, in my opinion, means that Jesus fully embodied the Law without even trying: something no one else could do.

According to Jesus, therefore, the Law remains unchanged, because, while he fulfilled it, no one else has.

BTW, the third installment is the Qur'an. ^_^ The fourth installment, which was released about a hundred years ago, is the Kitab-i-Aqdas. That will be the last installment for another thousand years.

 

[TonyG]

I'm pretty sure Dianetics is the latest installment.

Hey, Scientology obviously works for Tom Cruise - it must be right.

quoting the mighty Ricky Bobby...

“I’m on fire! I’m on fire! Help me Jesus! Help me Jewish god! Help me Tom Cruise! Tom Cruise use your witchcraft to get the fire off of me!”

 

[McBell]

God never changed His mind, He is the same, yesterday, today and forever....

The whole sacrificial system of the OT was a symbolic portrayal to be fulfilled in Christ.

So you are saying that God purposely set man up to fail in order to send himself as his son to fulfill the laws that he knew before he even started creating the universe that man would not be able to keep?

Perhaps it is just me, but God changing his mind sounds loads better.

 

[averageJOE]

God never changed His mind, He is the same, yesterday, today and forever....

The whole sacrificial system of the OT was a symbolic portrayal to be fulfilled in Christ.

So you are saying that God purposely set man up to fail in order to send himself as his son to fulfill the laws that he knew before he even started creating the universe that man would not be able to keep?

Perhaps it is just me, but God changing his mind sounds loads better.

Ummm....Charity? I believe Mestemia just asked you a question.

 

[Charity]

So you are saying that God purposely set man up to fail in order to send himself as his son to fulfill the laws that he knew before he even started creating the universe that man would not be able to keep?

Perhaps it is just me, but God changing his mind sounds loads better.

I still say God didn't change.....God never set man up to fail, Man himself failed. That wasn't part of the plan....It's like death, God didn't create death Cain did that when he killed Abel. People turned to their own ways.

God's plan for deliverance was built on the sacrificial system. Jesus accomplished what the OT priests could only hope for. After the Garden of Eden, He promised victory over evil and a Deliverer. After the Garden of Eden God instituted the Blood sacrifice, final deliverance came with Christ's sacrifice.

How ever you think it sounds best to you, so be it.....

 

[Charity]

Ummm....Charity? I believe Mestemia just asked you a question.

Ummm....averageJoe I know that....thanks, geeeezz ....thinks to herself "a real talking parrot here"

 

[Buttons*]

Long time lurker, first time poster...

Recently I was in a "discussion" with a buddy of mine who is bible purist (believes it word for word). I told him I couldn't put any faith in a book that tells me it's an abomination to eat shellfish, but that slavery is ok. His response was that it couldn't be taken literally and that the times change. Who are we to decide what rules should still be followed?

Well, the shellfish law should be literal... but the Bible doesn't really say "Slavery is wonderful!" It just discusses slavery, because it was part of that ancient world....

 

[TheKnight]

Long time lurker, first time poster...

Recently I was in a "discussion" with a buddy of mine who is bible purist (believes it word for word). I told him I couldn't put any faith in a book that tells me it's an abomination to eat shellfish, but that slavery is ok. His response was that it couldn't be taken literally and that the times change. Who are we to decide what rules should still be followed?

There are a lot of problems with both the question you ask and his answer to it.

The question you asked (in the form of a statement) was "how could I believe in a book that tells me it is an abomination to eat shellfish, but that slavery is OK?" The problem with that question is that you're assuming that your preconceived notions of morality are correct and that the book (if it is true) should conform itself or portray itself similar to your own moral values.

Now, I would not posit that you should set aside your moral values for the sake of an objective examination of the book because that would mean having to admit your moral values may not be correct. But, if you truly wished to determine the truth value of the book, it might help to study the book in depth to see where it is coming from.

Second, his answer presupposes that your evaluation of the morality of the Bible is correct and therefore he comes up with the illogical and contradictory answer that "it couldn't be taken literally and that the times change."


So, in response to your claim about shellfish and slavery I would suggest two things. One, it is incorrect to automatically assume that a system which places shellfish consumption on a lower moral level than slavery is something you could not believe in. Two, the slavery that is allowed in the Bible is most likely not the kind of slavery that you are thinking of. Biblical slavery is very much like servant-hood. In fact, the Hebrew words for slavery and servant-hood, slave and servant, are the same.

Also, keep in mind that while a person is allowed to buy slaves, they are not allowed to break any of the Torah laws when it comes to the slave. Therefore, they must treat the slave like they would any other human being because the Torah does not allow an exception in their treatment just because they have been contracted for service.

 

[TheKnight]

The whole sacrificial system of the OT was a symbolic portrayal to be fulfilled in Christ.

Where does God, when He gives the sacrificial system, say that it is meant to be fulfilled in the death of the Messiah?

I still say God didn't change.....God never set man up to fail, Man himself failed. That wasn't part of the plan....It's like death, God didn't create death Cain did that when he killed Abel. People turned to their own ways.

What? So God isn't in control?

God's plan for deliverance was built on the sacrificial system.

Really? Does God say that in the Torah when He mandated the sacrificial system? Does he ever say "This is how you deliver yourself. You bring me blood."?

Jesus accomplished what the OT priests could only hope for.

Jesus didn't do anything but talk and die.

 

[Humanistheart]

Long time lurker, first time poster...

Recently I was in a "discussion" with a buddy of mine who is bible purist (believes it word for word). I told him I couldn't put any faith in a book that tells me it's an abomination to eat shellfish, but that slavery is ok. His response was that it couldn't be taken literally and that the times change. Who are we to decide what rules should still be followed?

That is interesting. Some see that jesus 'fullfilled' law and thus the OT parts that permit, approve, or encourage slavery no longer apply. Jesus permitted slavery, in a way, but some will interepret this as he was addressing the existance of slavery, not that he was okaying it. And some simply ignore it or say he's god he can do what he wants. Nothing god can do (dispite how cruel, unethical, or hypocritical) can be wrong. It's odd, and hard to follow sometimes, but that's the christian faith for you.

 

[Father Heathen]

Well, the shellfish law should be literal... but the Bible doesn't really say "Slavery is wonderful!" It just discusses slavery, because it was part of that ancient world....

That's the thing - Why would God, the ultimate and all-powerful authority of righteousness, bow to the savage and unjust social norms of a bunch of primitive mortals? He could kill people's firstborn children due to having his ego bruised, but he couldn't lift a finger to stop the rape, torture and enslavement of innocent people?

 

[Humanistheart]

Well, the shellfish law should be literal... but the Bible doesn't really say "Slavery is wonderful!" It just discusses slavery, because it was part of that ancient world....

It gives specific instructions on how to aquire slaves and how they are to be treated. I think that's a good deal more than just simply discussing slavery.

 

[TheNorthernExodus]

It gives specific instructions on how to aquire slaves and how they are to be treated. I think that's a good deal more than just simply discussing slavery.

The ancient Hebrew version of slavery is a world away both in practice and principle from the more recent new world middle passage version, that needs to be made very clear here.

 

[TonyG]

The ancient Hebrew version of slavery is a world away both in practice and principle from the more recent new world middle passage version, that needs to be made very clear here.

"When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife.

That doesn't sound like much choice there...

 

[Buttons*]

That's the thing - Why would God, the ultimate and all-powerful authority of righteousness, bow to the savage and unjust social norms of a bunch of primitive mortals? He could kill people's firstborn children due to having his ego bruised, but he couldn't lift a finger to stop the rape, torture and enslavement of innocent people?

Who's to say that an all powerful God would really care? I don't follow Christianity, but you don't believe in it either... so I can't understand your outrage at this topic.

 

[Buttons*]

It gives specific instructions on how to aquire slaves and how they are to be treated. I think that's a good deal more than just simply discussing slavery.

Yes, and it is a norm that every culture had in the Old Testament. It would have been useful when people had slaves. I mean, if you really wanted to have them, I'm sure you could move to the Middle East and purchase a few... Living the Biblical life lol.