The Bible is a lot of different collections of many different books written, re-written, and orally transmited tales, of which at various points of history different Christian traditions have chosen which ones were canon and which ones were not (and therefore were taken out of the Bible), often with political actors influencing their decisions. If God inspired them all to write the Bible, how does it come that different Christian traditions chose different books? How come that plenty of its meaning got lost across plenty of languages if there was divine help? How come that an English Bible and a Russian Orthodox one may say substantially different things, merely due to translation divergences that piled on during centuries? If you accept all of this, how can all of them be saying the truth, if they dissent from each other? If only one of them says the truth, how do you know which one is it? If only one particular version of the Bible is the correct one, why doesn’t God correct the record to make sure the hundreds of millions of Christians through the world who are following wrong ones aren’t led astray?
While it’s true that some denominations have slightly different canons, they all still have the same set of core books. As for the other books, you need to see if it’s consistant with the others. There’s some that are fine, there’s some (ie the gospel of thomas) that are partly fine but also have some serious crap , and there’s some (ie the gospel of judas) that are full of crap.
How come that plenty of its meaning got lost across plenty of languages if there was divine help? How come that an English Bible and a Russian Orthodox one may say substantially different things, merely due to translation divergences that piled on during centuries?
This why new translations should always be translated from the original languages. Yes, sometimes there was no access to the original-language versions, in those cases good on 'em for doing the best they could with what they had.
why doesn’t God correct the record to make sure the hundreds of millions of Christians through the world who are following wrong ones aren’t led astray?
Not everybody is held to the same standard. If you do something wrong and you don’t know any better, it doesn’t count as a sin until you know. And being a Christian isn’t about what you do, it’s about who you know.
While it’s true that some denominations have slightly different canons, they all still have the same set of core books. As for the other books, you need to see if it’s consistant with the others. There’s some that are fine, there’s some (ie the gospel of thomas) that are partly fine but also have some serious crap , and there’s some (ie the gospel of judas) that are full of crap.
Alright, so you have a belief that the “most complete” set of books that most Christian traditions chose (already flimsy ground, but let’s carry on), were chosen by divine influence, that whatever potential distortions or misinterpretations of the original texts do not fundamentally skew its original intended meanings, and I’m also going to add to the list that you believe that plenty of its contents must be understood as allegory or excused because they’re the result of a very different cultural context, because I don’t think you are going to excuse that passages such as this:
Allowing corporal punishment of slaves as long as they don’t drop dead.
There is a severe degree of arbitrariness in deciding that a very specific set of books that were chosen and translated by fallible human beings, under the watchful gaze of rulers that were often arbitrary and politically motivated, were divinely inspired to declare the Universal truth of an All-Powerful god, but you should also pass it all through the prism of your personal interpretation, because that All-Powerful god couldn’t be bothered to make the job any easier for you, or even worse,
Not everybody is held to the same standard. If you do something wrong and you don’t know any better, it doesn’t count as a sin until you know. And being a Christian isn’t about what you do, it’s about who you know.
Perhaps that god has decided to personally curse you, because not only weren’t you born among the billions of human beings that aren’t Christian, but you were raised as a Christian with the capacity and will to get yourself involved in theological discussions, which in your view, brings you ever closer to the knowledge of your god, and therefore increases your responsibility to behave as you think is moral, even if it brings you pain, doubt, heartbreak or confrontation with your neighbours, your community or your congregation. Why should you be loaded with this responsibility, out of the millions of people who have lived more comfortable lives, with more capacity to raise their own status over the abuse and exploitation of others, many of whom didn’t even have the responsibility of being Christians, and didn’t have to deal with the challenges and difficulties of your own life? It all sounds to me like you’re grasping a burning nail for the flimsy chance that an omnipotent being that could and should treat you better does actually really exist.
The Jewish authorities appear to be right in referring this law, like those in Exodus 21:26-27, Exodus 21:32, to foreign slaves (see Leviticus 25:44-46). The protection here afforded to the life of a slave may seem to us but a slight one; but it is the very earliest trace of such protection in legislation, and it stands in strong and favorable contrast with the old laws of Greece, Rome, and other nations. If the slave survived the castigation a day or two, the master did not become amenable to the law, because the loss of the slave was accounted, under the circumstances, as a punishment.
And as for this
Perhaps that god has decided to personally curse you, because not only weren’t you born among the billions of human beings that aren’t Christian, but you were raised as a Christian with the capacity and will to get yourself involved in theological discussions, which in your view, brings you ever closer to the knowledge of your god, and therefore increases your responsibility to behave as you think is moral, even if it brings you pain, doubt, heartbreak or confrontation with your neighbours, your community or your congregation. Why should you be loaded with this responsibility, out of the millions of people who have lived more comfortable lives, with more capacity to raise their own status over the abuse and exploitation of others, many of whom didn’t even have the responsibility of being Christians, and didn’t have to deal with the challenges and difficulties of your own life? It all sounds to me like you’re grasping a burning nail for the flimsy chance that an omnipotent being that could and should treat you better does actually really exist.
I’m glad I know these things and am able to debate them. Yes, I’ll be held to a higher standard, but I know Jesus and I can introduce other people to Him. I live in australia, so it’s all legal but even if it weren’t, I’d still be with Him. I have missed out on things before (not very often, but mostly due to things being on Sabbath) but I’m prepared to give up more. Jesus never said it’d be easy (He said it’d be hard), but with His help, imma do what He says.
As I predicted earlier, you immediately jumped to justify the passage within its historical context, which isn’t a very coherent position for someone who claims that their only faith is in whatever the Bible says. The passage itself may or may not be a good argument to argue about the morality of the Israeli peoples from that time compared to their neighbours (which would be ok if you wanted to claim the moral righteousness of your cultural tradition), but it establishes a terrible precedent in a book you claimed has been inspired by an All-Powerful, omniscient, and benevolent being (which I find far more relevant to this discussion, since we’re discussing theology), as that means that this being would not care enough to make sure that the text that would supposedly contain their revelation for the rest of the history of humanity, would make it clear or not whether slavery is right or wrong. I don’t believe in superstitions, but if I did, I would hold one that claims to be the ultimate judge of right and wrong to a much higher standard. Which is quite ironic, since you allow this hypothetical being of which you can’t even verify its existence to squeeze you dry, but you won’t even demand the bare minimum from it.
If you ever decide you’ve had enough trying to defend the indefensible, please be kinder to yourself. I don’t think you deserve this punishment.
The Bible is a lot of different collections of many different books written, re-written, and orally transmited tales, of which at various points of history different Christian traditions have chosen which ones were canon and which ones were not (and therefore were taken out of the Bible), often with political actors influencing their decisions. If God inspired them all to write the Bible, how does it come that different Christian traditions chose different books? How come that plenty of its meaning got lost across plenty of languages if there was divine help? How come that an English Bible and a Russian Orthodox one may say substantially different things, merely due to translation divergences that piled on during centuries? If you accept all of this, how can all of them be saying the truth, if they dissent from each other? If only one of them says the truth, how do you know which one is it? If only one particular version of the Bible is the correct one, why doesn’t God correct the record to make sure the hundreds of millions of Christians through the world who are following wrong ones aren’t led astray?
And it started here.
While it’s true that some denominations have slightly different canons, they all still have the same set of core books. As for the other books, you need to see if it’s consistant with the others. There’s some that are fine, there’s some (ie the gospel of thomas) that are partly fine but also have some serious crap , and there’s some (ie the gospel of judas) that are full of crap.
This why new translations should always be translated from the original languages. Yes, sometimes there was no access to the original-language versions, in those cases good on 'em for doing the best they could with what they had.
Not everybody is held to the same standard. If you do something wrong and you don’t know any better, it doesn’t count as a sin until you know. And being a Christian isn’t about what you do, it’s about who you know.
Alright, so you have a belief that the “most complete” set of books that most Christian traditions chose (already flimsy ground, but let’s carry on), were chosen by divine influence, that whatever potential distortions or misinterpretations of the original texts do not fundamentally skew its original intended meanings, and I’m also going to add to the list that you believe that plenty of its contents must be understood as allegory or excused because they’re the result of a very different cultural context, because I don’t think you are going to excuse that passages such as this:
Allowing corporal punishment of slaves as long as they don’t drop dead.
There is a severe degree of arbitrariness in deciding that a very specific set of books that were chosen and translated by fallible human beings, under the watchful gaze of rulers that were often arbitrary and politically motivated, were divinely inspired to declare the Universal truth of an All-Powerful god, but you should also pass it all through the prism of your personal interpretation, because that All-Powerful god couldn’t be bothered to make the job any easier for you, or even worse,
Perhaps that god has decided to personally curse you, because not only weren’t you born among the billions of human beings that aren’t Christian, but you were raised as a Christian with the capacity and will to get yourself involved in theological discussions, which in your view, brings you ever closer to the knowledge of your god, and therefore increases your responsibility to behave as you think is moral, even if it brings you pain, doubt, heartbreak or confrontation with your neighbours, your community or your congregation. Why should you be loaded with this responsibility, out of the millions of people who have lived more comfortable lives, with more capacity to raise their own status over the abuse and exploitation of others, many of whom didn’t even have the responsibility of being Christians, and didn’t have to deal with the challenges and difficulties of your own life? It all sounds to me like you’re grasping a burning nail for the flimsy chance that an omnipotent being that could and should treat you better does actually really exist.
from here
And as for this
I’m glad I know these things and am able to debate them. Yes, I’ll be held to a higher standard, but I know Jesus and I can introduce other people to Him. I live in australia, so it’s all legal but even if it weren’t, I’d still be with Him. I have missed out on things before (not very often, but mostly due to things being on Sabbath) but I’m prepared to give up more. Jesus never said it’d be easy (He said it’d be hard), but with His help, imma do what He says.
As I predicted earlier, you immediately jumped to justify the passage within its historical context, which isn’t a very coherent position for someone who claims that their only faith is in whatever the Bible says. The passage itself may or may not be a good argument to argue about the morality of the Israeli peoples from that time compared to their neighbours (which would be ok if you wanted to claim the moral righteousness of your cultural tradition), but it establishes a terrible precedent in a book you claimed has been inspired by an All-Powerful, omniscient, and benevolent being (which I find far more relevant to this discussion, since we’re discussing theology), as that means that this being would not care enough to make sure that the text that would supposedly contain their revelation for the rest of the history of humanity, would make it clear or not whether slavery is right or wrong. I don’t believe in superstitions, but if I did, I would hold one that claims to be the ultimate judge of right and wrong to a much higher standard. Which is quite ironic, since you allow this hypothetical being of which you can’t even verify its existence to squeeze you dry, but you won’t even demand the bare minimum from it.
If you ever decide you’ve had enough trying to defend the indefensible, please be kinder to yourself. I don’t think you deserve this punishment.