As some of you may know, I am a Catholic who has considered, on numerous occasions, the possibility that my religion may be incorrect, and maybe there is no correct religion. In most cases, I will cease debate and turn into discussion mode while I seek some answers. In most cases, personal experience wins me over, and what may appear to be coincidence on the outside appears to me as God showing me he exists. I've looked at every single one of them, and while they seem like improbable and personally moving coincidences, how improbable and moving was the formation of our universe? I've never been a Christian who believed that only through a believer's eyes could the world be beautiful; but now I finally can see the beauty of the world through more atheistic eyes. Like the stereotypical Christian, I am very conservative and reflective, and I will probably continue to be that way no matter what I choose to believe. But I am very concerned with the content of my own Bible. I'm not stupid; I've always known there were mentions of slavery as an everyday thing and women as inferior, but I've always been able to rationalize that the Bible was not written by God. Men wrote it, inspired by God, and the events, not the in-between pre-industrial male attitude, were what I needed to listen to. But even now I wonder why the Old Testament is so foul and cruel, and why even parts of the New Testament are so sexist. Even if Jesus hadn't died for our sins, wouldn't God want to create the world that he hopes to see one day, not smite the world until his son was born?
In this thread, I seek for Christians to justify the Bible. I don't have quotes on hand, but those of you who have read the Bible should know which ones I speak of. I will pop in once in a while with a quote I have a question about. In this thread, I will debate as an Atheist. In any other thread, for the time being, I will debate as a Christian. The reason I made this thread is simple: when I debate with atheists, I get a one-sided view to take in. But if I debate with Christians, I can get an actual balance. I am not ashamed to admit that my faith falters. It won't change my character whether I am right or wrong about religion. But when this much doubt surrounds my mind, I am simply curious.
I am a child, so I am not making any official decisions until adulthood. I want to take in the possibilities for the next few years, officially, and debate with Christians to see if I can win. Anyone is welcome in this thread, but it is mainly for Christians to defend the Bible, not a Christianity vs Atheism thread. I know there are threads on the Bible, but I want to use specific Bible quotes, rather than generalize the entire thing.
This is a good perspective. Still, it leaves me wondering if the "Christian God" is evolving with his morality as people are, or if he has a sole perspective which he refuses to share with us. Neither one is very satisfactory.
Well God is and always was moral. The fact is times change, and back in the day having slaves was the normal way of life. Its exactly like us having t.v's now a days. Slaves were considered as objects, and God had to make rules that would be sufficient for the laws at the time. To say all of a sudden that having a slave was a sin back in the day, it would be exactly like God saying electricity was a sin in our time. It would cause complete chaos, and everyone would turn away from God with doubts and disbeleif. God understands everything, and knows that killing is a sin (one of the ten commandments), but understand all laws must be played out correctly. Maybe in the future electricity will be a sin, or even money will be a sin... God understands this and will show his laws to all when the time comes.
Like alt said, in this day and age we see slaves as another human being... back in the day we saw them nothing more than a pet that does everything for us... Killing a slave back then would be like us killing an ant these days...
And remember the old testement was written a long time ago, therefore having laws and scriptures bassed on what was happening during that time.
Moses, from the Old Testament, freed the slaves from Israel, then hiked a mountain and God told him to write them down on tablets. Either way, God should've included slavery in them. Maybe morals are subjective, but when the subject is one all-perfect entity, there shouldn't be a change in morals; this would indicate he either was or is imperfect.
I don't understand this. God should've including slavery into the ten commandments because there was slavery in Israel?
New Bible quote, but feel free to continue our discussions on these ones as well. I have a personal Bible but not on me, and the text is slightly different online than I remember, but we should come to the same conclusion. Since the Old Testament is so fuzzy, I'm using a New Testament quote. 1 Corinthians 14: 34-35: women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. I know what I would say as a Christian to defend this quote: it was written by sexist men, and therefore has no connection to God's word. But Jesus, the physical preacher, never once told his disciples not to believe such sexist and idiotic remarks. With quotes like these clouding the New Testament, all I am left to believe is that the writers of the Bible were arrogant and ignorant. And the testimony of racist, sexist, arrogant, and ignorant men really holds no viability in a world where no other sources of evidence exist in favor of religion in general, let alone a specific one.
I don't understand this. God should've including slavery into the ten commandments because there was slavery in Israel?
No, I was giving Alt a biblical summary. On a seperate note, I was saying God should've included slavery in his commandments. It had nothing to do with the freed slaves.
Well God is and always was moral. The fact is times change, and back in the day having slaves was the normal way of life. Its exactly like us having t.v's now a days. Slaves were considered as objects, and God had to make rules that would be sufficient for the laws at the time. To say all of a sudden that having a slave was a sin back in the day, it would be exactly like God saying electricity was a sin in our time. It would cause complete chaos, and everyone would turn away from God with doubts and disbeleif. God understands everything, and knows that killing is a sin (one of the ten commandments), but understand all laws must be played out correctly. Maybe in the future electricity will be a sin, or even money will be a sin... God understands this and will show his laws to all when the time comes.
THIS was the answer I was looking for. Perfectly said; killing a sin to steer people in that direction does indeed justify the act in my eyes. And a first for this thread:
1 Corinthians 14: 34-35: women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
The key words in these verses are "as the law says." This is the law of the land, not of God. My Bible clearly does not capitalize the word "law." And even though God commands us to follow the law of wherever we live, it is not because he thinks all laws are right, but because we should respect authority under any circumstances, even if it is wrong.
Additionally, in this time period, women were seen as subservient. Maybe it was because they were sexist. It doesn't matter though. In the Middle East today, women are seen exactly the same way as they were back then, probably even worse. It's just their way of life.
The key words in these verses are "as the law says." This is the law of the land, not of God. My Bible clearly does not capitalize the word "law." And even though God commands us to follow the law of wherever we live, it is not because he thinks all laws are right, but because we should respect authority under any circumstances, even if it is wrong.
Hmm; that's an interesting way to put it. I can see no flaw in this logic. All I can really say, and not against God but to the writers, is that they should've made that clearer. There's no denying that sexism existed in the law back then, and even still a little today. Hopefully it wasn't a passionate belief among God's chosen people, especially since I think I remember Jesus himself going a different way (for the sake of debate, I didn't want to bring that up).
Jews were slaves of Jews as well. That is not discrimination because of skin color whatsoever.
But God knows everything, right? So he knew that by not calling it immoral then, the long-term effect would be eventual discrimination against skin color.
Your studying for the PSAT? Hmm..maybe I should do that :P
women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
Yay!!! Just did a study on this, lets do this thing. First off this verse is related directly to Timothy 4 which is
9I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.
11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15But women will be saved through childbearingâ"if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
Both verses talk about women in the church correct, and both have been used by feminists and other advocates to say as you are presenting that the bible is sexist. First off in your verse it lists things that are expected of all people at church. Possibly however there were women in the church being very obnoxious and Paul decided to reiterate proper church behavior if you would. Remember we don't know the circumstances under which this verse was written. Now if you would move onto my verse it's a bit more clear.
I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.
Lets clear something up in the middle east at this time period hair=breasts. Rewrite this in our language be modest and don't show off the fact you have money (gold and pearls) and showing yourself sexually.
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.
Now Ephesians 5
22 Wives, be in subjection unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
23 For the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ also is the head of the church, being himself the saviour of the body.
24 But as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives also be to their husbands in everything.
Basically submit, you don't have to be tortured or underneath or in servitude, just have respect for those above you.
I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.
Now let me ask are men and women equal..Nope! I'm sexist you say well no, let me give you an example would you feel more comfortable with a male or female caretaker for your young child? How about a male or female president. Both jobs are extremely important, but some are tailored specially for men or women just based on the way we think, and what we care about. So should a women be a pastor, well no, but should they be in charge of mentoring programs or childcare yes! That's the beauty of it we each have a special job.
Both verses talk about women in the church correct, and both have been used by feminists and other advocates to say as you are presenting that the bible is sexist. First off in your verse it lists things that are expected of all people at church. Possibly however there were women in the church being very obnoxious and Paul decided to reiterate proper church behavior if you would. Remember we don't know the circumstances under which this verse was written. Now if you would move onto my verse it's a bit more clear.
This is another good answer as well; things are circumstantial, but I never considered that circumstance before. As an added note, I'm not a feminist or anything. I'm actually really conservative, and hate being accused of sexism. As a Christian I know this is not a verse that is believed or followed by the majority of Christians.
Lets clear something up in the middle east at this time period hair=breasts. Rewrite this in our language be modest and don't show off the fact you have money (gold and pearls) and showing yourself sexually.
The modesty thing is justified, I think. As these are letters, I guess they may not have as much viability as the Gospels.
Basically submit, you don't have to be tortured or underneath or in servitude, just have respect for those above you.
Yeah, but that's a form of slavery, as it's unpaid. Even if it isn't torturous, I don't think that's justifiable.
Now let me ask are men and women equal..Nope! I'm sexist you say well no, let me give you an example would you feel more comfortable with a male or female caretaker for your young child? How about a male or female president. Both jobs are extremely important, but some are tailored specially for men or women just based on the way we think, and what we care about. So should a women be a pastor, well no, but should they be in charge of mentoring programs or childcare yes! That's the beauty of it we each have a special job.
Men and women are not equal, but they are equal in dignity. That's what I generally mean when I say this; I do happen to stereotype men and women differently, mainly because all the people I know do not break the stereotype.
Yeah, but that's a form of slavery, as it's unpaid. Even if it isn't torturous, I don't think that's justifiable.
You submit to people all day, your parents, your teachers, when you open the door for someone that could be considered submision. It isn't bad.
Men and women are not equal, but they are equal in dignity. That's what I generally mean when I say this; I do happen to stereotype men and women differently, mainly because all the people I know do not break the stereotype.
Exactly that's pretty much the purposes of the verses.
You submit to people all day, your parents, your teachers, when you open the door for someone that could be considered submision. It isn't bad.
Sure, but those end eventually. Opening a door is optional and ends in five seconds. At least where I live, you can drop out of school at age 16. Your parents no longer have control over you once you are 18. Marriage is till death do us part, and it wasn't a form of training to be an adult.
Your parents no longer have control over you once you are 18.
That doesn't give us good reason to be wild maniacs, especially to authority. Turning 18 allows a person to consider an authority figure's opinion without having to immediately submit to it, though you should still honor and respect the person's belief, as they are probably older and wiser.
That doesn't give us good reason to be wild maniacs, especially to authority. Turning 18 allows a person to consider an authority figure's opinion without having to immediately submit to it, though you should still honor and respect the person's belief, as they are probably older and wiser.
That's not at all what I was saying. Everybody is a slave to society, but that's not something that can never change in a positive way. My point being, a husband is not necessarily wiser than his wife. Maybe older (but hopefully not too much ).
