Are you thinking of passages from the Old Testament? Namely from the books of Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth and/or Samuel? There's an evolution of human behaviour and moral expectation in the Bible that most people won't understand because they quite simply haven't read it. In short, Jesus came and changed many things. What you've mentioned isn't what's expected of Christians post Jesus Christ.
Biblical Discussion
- Thread starter Harlequin
- Start date
- Tagged users None
It's still the bible. The bible says that those things are right, that God is unchanging and that those are the things he thinks humans should do, and in some cases has ordered humans to do. Jesus is a major contradiction because he's changing things that are supposedly unchanging, like Gods will. But lets not get into an argument about that. The fact is that there are many, many different interpretations of the bible, so you can't really say that the book determines whose a 'real Christian' and who isn't, when the actual book itself teaches contradictions.
The Bible doesn't say selling your daughters for sex is right. There are contextual examples that can be read from the books I mentioned, but it's written that these examples were because of humanity's wickedness. Humanity needed absolute discipline in those times they didn't have the moral perspective they did in Jesus' time. That is what is in the Bible. The Bible doesn't instruct Christians in general to behave in those ways. Humanity then was different to what it was later, both from a scriptural perspective and as a simple fact of the timeline of humanity.
Humanity needed absolute discipline like daughters being sold as sex slaves, and towns being destroyed and everyone murdered except the virgins who were to be raped? Whatever. I'm not even going to get into it, because quite frankly I find it twisted and sick that any God would order that of beings he supposedly loves and created in his own image, so if they're wicked wtf is he. Point is, many people perceive the bible differently and that is a fact. There are numerous contradictions in the bible and that is also a fact. So there's no absolute guidebook to being a Christian, when the same book can be interpreted in so many different ways.
You can aim your disdain at whomever you please, I just thought it was slightly unbecoming of you to offend an entire following of a religion because of a grievance you have with a selection of them.
I take it you've read the Bible from Genesis to Malachi, Matthew to Revelations then Sheechiibii? You haven't Google searched this and come to a half baked opinion based in ignorance?
I take it you've read the Bible from Genesis to Malachi, Matthew to Revelations then Sheechiibii? You haven't Google searched this and come to a half baked opinion based in ignorance?
I've read enough to be disgusted and never want to pick it up again. I'd rather spend my life doing something meaningful than reading something I find reprehensible, and I think I'd be a hypocrite to do otherwise. I know many Christians though, and have discussed the stories in the bible with them many times and I respect their interpretations, just like I respect your interpretation of the bible, whatever that may be. Many people take the stories in the bible to mean different things, they interpret them differently. Most find ways of excusing the horrors and enhancing the positives, and who am I or anyone else to tell them that their interpretation is wrong? It's a belief system, and can't really be interpreted 'wrongly'. Hence why I don't think there's such a thing as a 'real' Christian. Because the bible is not an impartial, objective guidebook. It's a huge book full of stories that can be read in many different ways with messages that can be taken to mean many different things. Just because I find some of it horrific, and think some of the messages in it are awful, doesn't make me any more right than someone who reads the same story and interprets it in a totally different, more positive way.
Your the one saying it means something other than what is plainly written. I'm not saying you're wrong for that either. But to try and say it's not ambiguous, when you yourself don't take what is written in it at face value doesn't really work.
What I mentioned is written.
Deuteronomy 9:4-6
"After the Lord your God has driven them out before you, do not say to yourself, “The Lord has brought me here to take possession of this land because of my righteousness.” No, it is on account of the wickedness of these nations that the Lord is going to drive them out before you. It is not because of your righteousness or your integrity that you are going in to take possession of their land; but on account of the wickedness of these nations, the Lord your God will drive them out before you, to accomplish what he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Understand, then, that it is not because of your righteousness that the Lord your God is giving you this good land to possess, for you are a stiff-necked people."
Romans 8:1-4
"Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death. For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
There are many many many more passages that speak of the Old law, Moses' laws, the commandments and how they were laws for a hard hearted people. There is a clear development in the Bible that many naysayers refuse to acknowledge.
-- Hmm, sorry didn't see your post Jesse.
Deuteronomy 9:4-6
"After the Lord your God has driven them out before you, do not say to yourself, “The Lord has brought me here to take possession of this land because of my righteousness.” No, it is on account of the wickedness of these nations that the Lord is going to drive them out before you. It is not because of your righteousness or your integrity that you are going in to take possession of their land; but on account of the wickedness of these nations, the Lord your God will drive them out before you, to accomplish what he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Understand, then, that it is not because of your righteousness that the Lord your God is giving you this good land to possess, for you are a stiff-necked people."
Romans 8:1-4
"Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death. For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
There are many many many more passages that speak of the Old law, Moses' laws, the commandments and how they were laws for a hard hearted people. There is a clear development in the Bible that many naysayers refuse to acknowledge.
-- Hmm, sorry didn't see your post Jesse.
Spinning this off into a separate thread, because there is a discussion to be had. Also BECAUSE I CAN. 
Oh man. I just pmed my response lol
Copy-paste time
I completely understand that many of the old testament laws were cast aside when you reach Jesus and the new testament. However, I have a problem with God's decisions and orders in the old testament, and I don't think that the changes Jesus made and the rules he decided to keep or discard excuse what happened in the old testament. But I really don't think there is a right or wrong way to look at it. Many people do have different interpretations of the bible. Some Christians don't include the old testament as part of their religion at all, some people believe it doesn't matter because of the changes Jesus made. I view the bible as a whole, and it states there is only one God and it states he is unchanging and it states that he made the rules in the old testament, and what is written there is his word. Just because it then goes on to say that Jesus made changes in the new testament doesn't, to me anyway, do away with what he did in the old testament. But that is my interpretation of the story.
You have provided valid quotes, but there are others which state that Jesus was not there to abolish the old testament rules. In Matthew 5:17 he says "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil". This contradicts other statements about him coming to change the laws now that the people are different. This is a contradiction, and there is no way to say who is right - those who say that the old laws still matter, or those that say they don't.
Copy-paste time
I completely understand that many of the old testament laws were cast aside when you reach Jesus and the new testament. However, I have a problem with God's decisions and orders in the old testament, and I don't think that the changes Jesus made and the rules he decided to keep or discard excuse what happened in the old testament. But I really don't think there is a right or wrong way to look at it. Many people do have different interpretations of the bible. Some Christians don't include the old testament as part of their religion at all, some people believe it doesn't matter because of the changes Jesus made. I view the bible as a whole, and it states there is only one God and it states he is unchanging and it states that he made the rules in the old testament, and what is written there is his word. Just because it then goes on to say that Jesus made changes in the new testament doesn't, to me anyway, do away with what he did in the old testament. But that is my interpretation of the story.
You have provided valid quotes, but there are others which state that Jesus was not there to abolish the old testament rules. In Matthew 5:17 he says "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil". This contradicts other statements about him coming to change the laws now that the people are different. This is a contradiction, and there is no way to say who is right - those who say that the old laws still matter, or those that say they don't.