The Biggest Contradiction Of The Bible (imo) (salvation, soul, hell)

[Rider's Pantheon]

Originally Posted by Rider's Pantheon

The Bible sanctions slavery, the beating of slaves, and the selling of children into slavery. It also sanctions murder, and genocide. It is the doctrine of terrorism. I've been posting quotes from the Bible that CLEARLY illustrate this. To falsely give credit to the Bible for eradicating slavery is just a flat out lie, and propaganda.

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Christians like to claim what is Christianity and what is not, regardless of what the dogma actually teaches. The guy from "Duck Dynasty" is a good example. If you look at the doctrine that dude was following, you'd clearly see it is Moses he takes to influence, which is all a part of Christianity, yet you got people (mostly on the left) who claim that that is not "Christian like", which is just straight-up propaganda. I have told these people that Moses actually called for the deaths of gays, and they flat out deny it. Islamists do that as well. They have this rosy outlook of their religion, regardless of the actual teachings. It's a cover-up.

[Rider's Pantheon]

Originally Posted by nateswift

Right, Paul should have said, "Slaves revolt under your masters and murder them in their sleep, this will demonstrate the love of Christ better than doing your best for someone even though that person is unjustly placed in charge of you." Dead revoutionaries are better for spreading the idea of love than actually demonstrating it. How long can you stand on your ear?

The Bible clearly approves of slavery in many passages, and it goes so far as to tell how to obtain slaves, how hard you can beat them, and when you can have sex with the female slaves.

[whoppers]

Originally Posted by Rider's Pantheon

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)


When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)



The most immoral book ever made.....

I'm already familiar with all this, but you have YET to address my counter-arguments. You really do keep chirping the same refrain: the Bible is immoral, because it sanctioned slavery. That's not a very compelling argument, since you have chosen to ignore the ancient context and the things I have already pointed out, as well as what others have written.

You're arguing from a very ignorant standpoint, I'm afraid. Pop criticism of the Bible is exactly why it's called that: it's shallow, uninformed and only convinces the likeminded. I really fail to see the point of preaching to the choir if you are unwilling to engage the subject in a more informed manner.

We get it - you don't have to keep posting it. You think the Bible is immoral because you think it promotes slavery in a general sense that supports your view. Let us know when you dig a little deeper.

[Rider's Pantheon]

Originally Posted by whoppers

I'm already familiar with all this, but you have YET to address my counter-arguments. You really do keep chirping the same refrain: the Bible is immoral, because it sanctioned slavery. That's not a very compelling argument, since you have chosen to ignore the ancient context and the things I have already pointed out, as well as what others have written.

You're arguing from a very ignorant standpoint, I'm afraid. Pop criticism of the Bible is exactly why it's called that: it's shallow, uninformed and only convinces the likeminded. I really fail to see the point of preaching to the choir if you are unwilling to engage the subject in a more informed manner.

We get it - you don't have to keep posting it. You think the Bible is immoral because you think it promotes slavery in a general sense that supports your view. Let us know when you dig a little deeper.

I am quoting the Bible. You are trying to convince me that the Bible is anti-slavery when the Bible is actually pro-slavery, and I am arguing by quoting the Bible. Your only argument has been to call me shallow and uninformed, when all I am doing is quoting what the Bible says on the matter. The Bible is also especially bad because it slanders Egypt as slave holders of the Jews, which never happened. You call me shallow and uninformed while at the same time you are staking everything on what the Bible says about Egypt, and then, ignoring the passages in the Bible that are BLARRINGLY pro-slavery. I suppose you think that Zelophehad, the man murdered for picking up sticks on Moses's Sabbath deserved to die too. And the 3000 Jews torchured and killed for erecting the golden calf also deserved to die.....We don't have to talk about pro-slavery, we can also talk about how the Bible sanctions murder. The Bible was used to condemn Jesus to death....or we could also talk about how the Bible also sanctions genocide......slavery is just one on a list of horrible things it teaches....

[Wardendresden]

---and have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him--a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all. So, as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience--

Colossians 3:10-12

For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise.

Galatians 3:27-29

who shows no partiality to princes and does not favor the rich over the poor, for they are all the work of his hands?

Job 34:19

For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes.

Deuteronomy 10:17

And Peter opened his mouth and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons

Acts 10:34

You shall not wrest judgment; you shall not respect persons---

Deuteronomy 16:19a

Since you call on a Father who judges each person's work impartially, live out your time as foreigners here in reverent fear.

I Peter 1:17

--knowing that whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free

Ephesians 6:8

And you shall consecrate the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants. It shall be a jubilee for you, when each of you shall return to his property and each of you shall return to his clan.

Leviticus 25:10

If your brother becomes poor beside you and sells himself to you, you shall not make him serve as a slave: he shall be with you as a hired servant and as a sojourner. He shall serve with you until the year of the jubilee.

Leviticus 25:39-40

Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.

Exodus 21:16

We know the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful,---for slave traders and liars and perjurers, and for whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine.

I Tim 1:9-10 abbreviated


The Bible is a bit more complex than simplified thinking can distinguish.--WD

[whoppers]

Thank you, Warden! Your comment summed everything up very nicely.

Originally Posted by Rider's Pantheon

I am quoting the Bible. You are trying to convince me that the Bible is anti-slavery when the Bible is actually pro-slavery, and I am arguing by quoting the Bible. Your only argument has been to call me shallow and uninformed, when all I am doing is quoting what the Bible says on the matter. The Bible is also especially bad because it slanders Egypt as slave holders of the Jews, which never happened. You call me shallow and uninformed while at the same time you are staking everything on what the Bible says about Egypt, and then, ignoring the passages in the Bible that are BLARRINGLY pro-slavery. I suppose you think that Zelophehad, the man murdered for picking up sticks on Moses's Sabbath deserved to die too. And the 3000 Jews torchured and killed for erecting the golden calf also deserved to die.....We don't have to talk about pro-slavery, we can also talk about how the Bible sanctions murder. The Bible was used to condemn Jesus to death....or we could also talk about how the Bible also sanctions genocide......slavery is just one on a list of horrible things it teaches....

As Warden pointed out - as I have also -, the issue of slavery in the Hebrew Bible is much more complex than you are trying to paint it. I did not say that the Bible was ONLY anti-slavery. I very specifically pointed out that due to the composite authorship of the Hebrew Bible, and changing societal norms, that the issue of slavery was allowed, softened, and argued against by the various different tradents. There is no thing as an all-encompassing "rule" of slavery in the HB.

If you missed this, then you haven't read my posts. Warden has given you some citations, by the way, since you're not willing to do a little research on the subject yourself, but are content with seeing things as either black-or-white in the Hebrew Bible. When I called you "ignorant" on the matter, it wasn't meant as an insult. When I use that term, it simply means what the definition implies: that you are unaware of something. No insult meant. You need to get away from the uninformed mentality of a Christopher Hitchens or a Richard Dawkins, and dig a little deeper. They are great writers, but woefully uninformed about the Hebrew Bible.

As for the many horrible things in the Hebrew Bible - I have already commented on that as well. It's an ancient text with ancient ethics. What do you expect? As for Zelphehad and the Israelites (they were not Jews yet, they were Israelites) - sure that was horrible. I don't deny that. I personally don't think those things ever happened, so it's difficult to say they "deserved" it. You may be confusing me with some sort of Fundamentalist Bible-thumper, which I am most definitely not. The issue is - once again - the ANE context of these law-codes. Do you think that the other law-codes of the ANE were any less severe? Not in the slightest! Does this justify them? No, of course not - but I'm not someone who is using the Bible as my moral guide.

Your issues have been addressed, but you haven't really taken the time to address our counter-arguments. If you wish to see the Hebrew Bible as teaching some standard theology throughout all the books, then this is an error in thinking. It simply isn't so. Until you realize that, you can pick out all the horrible things you want and it will only show that the ancient Israelites were - at times - capable of the same violent tendencies that all humans are capable of. You choose, however, to ignore the many beneficial laws and teachings of the Hebrew Bible.

[Shirina]

Originally Posted by Wardendresden

The Bible is a bit more complex than simplified thinking can distinguish.--WD

First of all, those Bible verses are not saying that slaves and princes don't exist or that having a slave is wrong. Most of those verses are merely saying that Jesus doesn't play favorites.

Secondly, the rest of those verses give detailed instructions on how to implement slavery thus proving that the Bible sanctions it. If slavery was forbidden in a carte blanche fashion, there would be no need to have these meticulous rules regarding who you can or cannot sell. The fact that these rules exist shows that slavery is condoned on a general level, but there are conditions and exceptions.

I do have to agree with Rider on this point. Even reading the full book where slavery is condoned, there is nothing that convinces me that slavery was not condoned. God had the perfect opportunity to make slavery as sinful as murder, but instead God appeased a culture and society that thought nothing of seeing people as property.

And if God really existed, and if God actually inspired the Bible, I believe slavery would have been banned completely. BUT ... because the authors were fully human and were inspired by nothing more than their imaginations and older myths, the status quo was maintained. Having to suddenly free your slaves in order to be a Jew or Christian was simply too much - perhaps too liberal for the times.

I've said in another post that any belief system that requires dependency is dangerous. It is dangerous because that kind of blind obedience leaves one susceptible to all kinds of crazy ideas. One of those crazy ideas COULD have been the abandonment of slavery. Instead, people have had to endure bondage from 3,000 B.C to 1865 A.D. because there was naught but our own moral compasses to put an end to it. I find it obvious that the Biblical authors had no desire to give up their own slaves, so naturally God didn't want them too, either. How ... convenient.

[TroutDude]

Every single Christian, from laid-back Unitarian to foaming-at-the-mouth Fundamentalist, cherry picks the bible to focus on what they want to see - not necessarily what's there.

The world would be a much better place had that book never been assembled.

[Wardendresden]

Originally Posted by Shirina

First of all, those Bible verses are not saying that slaves and princes don't exist or that having a slave is wrong. Most of those verses are merely saying that Jesus doesn't play favorites.

<snip>.

Most Christians would hold with primacy of the NT over the old. Of new revelation versus ancient. And the last verse I quoted was this--

Quote:
We know the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful,---for slave traders and liars and perjurers, and for whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine.
I Tim 1:9-10 abbreviated

Now how is that not saying slavery is wrong?

P.S. Most "slavery" in early Israel was a type of indentured servitude--for which, according to Hebrew law, God set aside a time when all inhabitants would be set free.

[whoppers]

Originally Posted by TroutDude

Every single Christian, from laid-back Unitarian to foaming-at-the-mouth Fundamentalist, cherry picks the bible to focus on what they want to see - not necessarily what's there.

The world would be a much better place had that book never been assembled.

I dunno - I like having a day off from my work week ha ha! At least give it that...

An interesting tidbit I came across recently in my travels was the fact that many social programs that exist in Judeo-Christian influenced countries which we take for granted do not exist in countries without that influence, for various reasons related to that influence. There's something to be said for that.

It's just typical that slavery is ALWAYS brought up in these discussions. Yeh, we get it - it's easy to attack an ancient text for ancient practices. Too easy.


But we will never know what would have happened if the book had never been assembled. It was. It had a profound impact on Western Civilization, and that's that. We can only decide whether it needs to continue to have the same influence it has, and if it does whether it should receive the update it has sorely needed for a long time. I think the main problem is the idea of Sola Scriptura. The current Pope is making some interesting strides, but he is not beholden to Sola Scriptura like Protestants are. Times are changing, and religion always changes with it.