And in Afghanistan....

[Ebin]

Does that make it okay to preach as standard procedure forever?

But the question is, is what the bible says forever, or only when the conditions that give rise to such exist?

For instance, slavery. I'm pretty sure that everyone will agree that slavery is not moral, and rightly been outlawed. But it does say in the bible how to treat slaves and deals with capturing them.
So how can these two positions be reconciled? Is the bible saying slavery should exist forever?

Or is the much more sensible, and the way biblical law* actually works out, is that if you are in a culture that permits slavery, you must treat your slaves to this standard, and if in a culture that forbids it, well then it's forbidden.
Plus slavery in the bible was a great deal more merciful than the surrounding cultures. One of the base ideas when dealing with slaves was to remember that they were human, per Deuteronomy 15:15, which, even though it is talking about hebrew bond servants is taken as a commandment to treat your slaves well "You shall remember that you were slaves in the land of egypt etc..."

*I think that we are having a misunderstanding regarding the term "biblical law." I see that you mean what is explicitly spelled out in the bible, whereas when I think of biblical law, I think of the bible, and the mishnayot (the Law of Moses, written down around the time of the destruction of the first temple) and the talmud.

Sorry for heading a little OT, but this is how I am used to doing things, veering all over the place to compare similar ideas.

So because the Bible was behind in the times we must now Pick and choose what we want to believe? The bible is the HOLY BIBLE. At no point does it say "These teachings are subject to the time". Also, if this bible is so holy then why is it so behind? Why does it approve of Slavery when it's immoral?

 

[Taimat396]

I have the impression he got worked up by Christianity changing its teachings

Which is just reinterpreting the bible to suit them.

 

[Ebin]

I have the impression he got worked up by Christianity changing its teachings

Which is just reinterpreting the bible to suit them.

Which is picking and choosing what you want to believe 

 

[Dryvus]

Well, the canon Bible books were picked and chosen already, so it's keeping in the spirit of things.

 

[Toffey]

Didn't the Greeks used to do something like this?

 

[Tralfaz]

Didn't the Greeks used to do something like this?

What?  Argue about Biblical passages for page after page? 

 

[DameGreyWulf]

I have the impression he got worked up by Christianity changing its teachings

Which is just reinterpreting the bible to suit them.

Which is picking and choosing what you want to believe 

There's my sentiments to what LordOS had to say.

"Well, it makes more sense to my morality this way!"

When a book is supposedly supposed to be regarded as God's word forever 100% never changing don't you question it ***** etc etc etc etc, seems rather blasphemous to try and work it to what "no longer applies" and what "only applies here" and what "applies now."

 

[Ebin]

What really upsets me about that is if you pick and choose what you want to believe out of the bible... Well you aren't really following Jesus, you're now following your mental construction of Jesus. Which really adds no credibility to a belief which is questioned every day.

 

[Dryvus]

When a book is supposedly supposed to be regarded as God's word forever 100% never changing don't you question it ***** etc etc etc etc, seems rather blasphemous to try and work it to what "no longer applies" and what "only applies here" and what "applies now."

The more sane Christians don't take it as the literal word of God.

 

[DameGreyWulf]

That's the thing, though.

 

[LordOfShadows]

I have the impression he got worked up by Christianity changing its teachings

Which is just reinterpreting the bible to suit them.

Which is picking and choosing what you want to believe 

There's my sentiments to what LordOS had to say.

"Well, it makes more sense to my morality this way!"

When a book is supposedly supposed to be regarded as God's word forever 100% never changing don't you question it ***** etc etc etc etc, seems rather blasphemous to try and work it to what "no longer applies" and what "only applies here" and what "applies now."

And that is the base of the whole argument - how to interpret the bible. It has to be interpreted, even if it is simply reading it off a page. In Judaism there is a tradition stretching back to moses for the correct interpretation.
Christianity, especially Protestant Christianity did away with most of that and replaced it with the new testament.


And just to confuse you a bit, there is a saying "There are seventy ways to interpret each verse in the bible. And they are all correct."  - Even if they are diametrically opposed.

 

[Jhessail]

Or you could just ditch the ridiculous thing in its entirety and live happily ever after, eh?

 

[Archonsod]

At no point does it say "These teachings are subject to the time".

At no point does it say "The following is a work of fiction" either. I've already complained to trading standards.

 

[Ebin]

At no point does it say "These teachings are subject to the time".

At no point does it say "The following is a work of fiction" either. I've already complained to trading standards.

How did that go? Well I hope.

 

[LordOfShadows]

Or you could just ditch the ridiculous thing in its entirety and live happily ever after, eh?

But that would take all the fun out of it!!!