Are Christians offended by the Bible?

[ChristineES]

If that's the case, then keep religion for its own time and setting and get on with the 21st century!
And big deal about what Jesus did, the New Testament also said that women are not allowed to teach and should not talk in church.
Keep religion where it belongs (ie. whichever damn century it originated from) and let your mind and life grow and expand outside of it. Religion only holds people back!

Religion has never held me back. New things aren't necessarily better than the old things. Paul was the one who said that about women- Jesus never said it. There are female prophets in the OT, as well. But that is really not the point, is it? Being a Christian has not limited me as a woman nor has it limited me as a human being. If it had, I would be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen and not here speaking my mind about my faith.

There are a few things better now- women do have more rights among a few other things. But you have to look at the whole picture and not just at the parts that suit you. But it is always your choice.

 

[Shiranui117]

And what do you suppose is the reason for why that particular guideline was for this particular society, and why wouldn't adherents to the Messiah of that society adhere to those guidelines, of whom it was for "Israel and Judah"?

Because Jesus was to come to the world through the Jews, and God needed to make sure that the Jews recognized Him as the only true God, putting away the worship or even acknowledgement of the existence of any other gods. The Law was a way to keep Israelite/Jewish culture/identity alive even in times of exile or captivity, so that they would never turn away from God.

Christians are from many diverse ethnicities and cultures, and IDK about you, but the last time I checked, we don't need to adhere to any one set of ethnic laws in order to keep our faith until the bitter end.

 

[Shiranui117]

There are legally valid religious exemptions for work, and there may be an obligation to not accept work that requires work on Sabbath. Jews are not permitted to accept work on Sabbath, but now it's okay for gentiles apparently. If Jews can get out of work on Sabbath, there's no excuse for a commandment-accepting Gentile. Also, how does one "keep Sabbath" exactly if they're not keeping it as it says to keep it in the text? Can one reinvent what it means to "keep Sabbath"?

The point of the Sabbath is to acknowledge that God's needs are more important than our own, and that His will is above ours, and we should take time out to pray to Him and meditate on His works and the Scriptures.

If we keep that in mind, then it's possible to hold Sabbath all the time--not just from Friday evening to Saturday evening. Heck, we can have little Sabbaths all week long, whenever we can make time for God.

Would you consider that a "reinvention" of what it means to keep Sabbath?

Indeed. And perhaps that shame stems from a peculiar lack of insistence on the "works" aspects of what Jesus commanded because of theologies that attempt to downplay any need for such?

In some Protestant, once-saved always-saved, faith-alone theologies, yes.

I'd like to think that the Catholics and Orthodox have been doing a fairly respectable job, all things considered.

That's part of the point, the aspects of how to treat a slave are thus still a part of Christianity, and if anything, that's a good thing because Israelite slave rules were relatively more generous than others. There is nothing about Christianity that says the slave rules of Israel are obsolete. Christians weren't exactly always immune to having slaves until the last few hundred years either. The point is that one cannot use the "Get out of OT free" card with regards to that issue.

I think you misunderstood what I meant. Christianity is ambivalent on the issue of slavery, though in cases where slavery is present, we do have guidelines for how that dynamic should work in order to respect the human dignity of both parties.

Giving guidelines on how slaves and slavemasters should behave, if such a social dynamic is present, is different than advocating for or against slavery.

Isn't that exactly not what Christianity was about? Wasn't Christianity about maintaining the core beliefs and principles and not becoming like the ways of the world? How does it adapt exactly, other than accepting the rule of the emperor?

Christian beliefs or morals do not conform to the culture, though Christianity can form a symbiotic relationship with the host culture, redeeming the good parts of it, and doing its best to remove the bad.

 

[Shiranui117]

I think you're missing my point.

As an example, consider how Mosaic Law tells farmers not to reap the edges of their fields. This was done as a form of charity: the intent was that these crops would be available for travellers and the destitute. This rule had nothing to do with keeping separate; if anything, it decreased degree of separation between the Jews and the people around them.

Mosaic Law isn't all about "separateness" and the Ten Commandments aren't all about "righteousness", so your reasoning for why one is still followed and the other isn't just doesn't work.


Yes, they do follow it - that was my point. They follow it despite it having nothing to do with righteousness.

But for the record, here's the whole list of commandments that have nothing to do with living a righteous life:

- having no gods before God
- not making graven images
- not taking God's name in vain
- keeping the Sabbath

Some numbering systems put these into 3 commandments, some 4, but either way, they're about ritual and separateness, not righteousnes.

Actually, I'd say that the first two in that list are the two laws/commandments that are more about separateness than anything else. Effectively, they say:

- don't worship the gods of your neighbours
- don't worship in the manner of your neighbours.

Like I just said above, I think this commandment is mainly about separateness: "don't do the things your neighbours do for their gods."

It depends on how important you consider worshipping and believing in the one true God to be. If recognizing only the one true God is considered unimportant, then yeah, you could say that it has nothing to do with living a righteous life.

Also, I'm going to make an addendum to the second one you listed: "not making graven images and worshipping them." Big difference there.

Not taking God's name in vain is all about being respectful and mindful of God. The Sabbath is likewise about being obedient and mindful of God. Both of these are good, righteous things to do.

:sarcastic

Yes, there's nothing like this in the New Testament:

Ephesians 6:5:

Romans 13:1-2:

Doesn't contradict what I said. Telling people how slavery should be done, if it IS done, is different from saying that it should or should not be practiced period.

The Ten Commandments - the thing you just told us tells us how to live a "righteous life" - numbers a man's wife among his property.

I wouldn't say that the man's wife is his "property," but a wife is something that a husband has. You could just as easily say that a husband is something that a wife has.

 

[gweber41]

To be fairly honest, I don't think any Christians clarified the approach taken by the person who made this video. If one was to believe they are Christian and follow this video makers path, could you say they are wrong or are not practicing Christianity properly? Who is the authority to say that? Who is to say the one who made this video isn't a Christian?

I agree Kassault so I'll attempt to. The video's first verse Leviticus 20:13 did two things:

1. It condemned committing homosexual acts as a sin by calling them detestable.
2. It prescribed the punishment for it in the state of Israel as death.

I believe it is a ridiculous jump from this obvious interpretation of the Scripture to the modern day homosexual community all deserve to die of AIDS.

The second series of verses (1 Corinthians 14:34-35, 1 Timothy 2:12) regard women's roles in the church. They definitively teach at least one thing: that men have authority over women (at least in the Church). Some Christians believe these verses give timeless, universal regulations for every church in every culture. However, I believe that though men should still hold positions of authority, in our era, that does not mean women must remain silent. In Paul's day, there were the rulers who had a voice and the ruled who didn't. Now, in a more democratic world, there can be authority and appropriate respect for that authority while still allowing for the ruled to have a voice.

The final verse of the video is Deuteronomy 22: 20-21. Like the first verse, this is a verse pertaining to the legal system of the nation of Israel. It does not apply to us today.

The question then remains, are these rules, even if they don't apply today, just and fair? I've struggled with this question but I think they are. God has an extremely high view of sex. The union between a man and a woman is a picture in the Old Testament of God and Israel and in the New Testament of Christ and his Church. Therefore, when that picture is perverted, God is justifiably angry. God hates that, and I think the main problem we have with these verses is us. We need to hate that sin more.

 

[Shermana]

The point of the Sabbath is to acknowledge that God's needs are more important than our own, and that His will is above ours, and we should take time out to pray to Him and meditate on His works and the Scriptures.

That is A point of the Sabbath, but not THE point.

Does God have a need for us to not light fires? To not carry a heavy object?

Sabbath is NOT about a day for prayer and study and worship, that's a common misconception, EVERY day is meant for prayer and study and worship. Sabbath is a day meant for REST.

If we keep that in mind, then it's possible to hold Sabbath all the time--not just from Friday evening to Saturday evening. Heck, we can have little Sabbaths all week long, whenever we can make time for God.

That defeats the purpose of THE Sabbath day.

Would you consider that a "reinvention" of what it means to keep Sabbath?

Absolutely. I imagine any religious Jew would as well.

In some Protestant, once-saved always-saved, faith-alone theologies, yes.

It is indeed the mainstream trend in most if not nearly all Protestant theologies.

I'd like to think that the Catholics and Orthodox have been doing a fairly respectable job, all things considered.

There does seem to be at least some semblance of works. However I believe I was speaking in relation to the law.

I think you misunderstood what I meant. Christianity is ambivalent on the issue of slavery, though in cases where slavery is present, we do have guidelines for how that dynamic should work in order to respect the human dignity of both parties.

And the point is, that it's not against Slavery. It's pro-status quo if anything. Which would by default mean pro-slavery when there's slavery.

Giving guidelines on how slaves and slavemasters should behave, if such a social dynamic is present, is different than advocating for or against slavery.

Again, it's pro-status quo, which means pro-slavery when there's slavery. It specifically says for slaves to not try to flee from their predicament, so that has its implications.

 

[Shermana]

Because Jesus was to come to the world through the Jews, and God needed to make sure that the Jews recognized Him as the only true God, putting away the worship or even acknowledgement of the existence of any other gods. The Law was a way to keep Israelite/Jewish culture/identity alive even in times of exile or captivity, so that they would never turn away from God.

Christians are from many diverse ethnicities and cultures, and IDK about you, but the last time I checked, we don't need to adhere to any one set of ethnic laws in order to keep our faith until the bitter end.

Ask any Jew whether the Law is about "Ethnic" Law or if its about a basic Law that is established not just for the establishment of a culture, but for God's ideal society and ways to live. The Law is a LOT more than just accepting God as the one true god of the gods, THE god, the "Most high god". You're not addressing the aspect of what made this "Priest people" a "Holy people". This Law was for the purpose of making them Holy. As a people. Not as an ethnicity. Gentiles living among them and converts were and are expected to follow this Law as well. The standards of Holiness now suddenly change?

What faith do Christians need to adhere to exactly other than "believing in Jesus" however they interpret "believing in Jesus" to mean? They all have their own sets of what laws and statutes they need to abide to (And many if not most Protestants have no laws or statutes, a rather "Do as thou wilt" mentality as long as you believe in Jesus!)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It depends on how important you consider worshipping and believing in the one true God to be. If recognizing only the one true God is considered unimportant, then yeah, you could say that it has nothing to do with living a righteous life.

Also, I'm going to make an addendum to the second one you listed: "not making graven images and worshipping them." Big difference there.

Not taking God's name in vain is all about being respectful and mindful of God. The Sabbath is likewise about being obedient and mindful of God. Both of these are good, righteous things to do.

I see a huge double standard in what you're saying here. Remember that this is your explanation of why the Ten Commandments still apply but the rest of Mosaic Law doesn't. Exactly which commandment in Mosaic Law couldn't be described as "being respectful and mindful of God"?

Why would keeping the Sabbath be more important than, say, circumcision?

Doesn't contradict what I said. Telling people how slavery should be done, if it IS done, is different from saying that it should or should not be practiced period.

The passage in Romans 13 tells the slave that his master was appointed to the position of slave master by God. I think this is an unambiguous endorsement of slavery.

I wouldn't say that the man's wife is his "property," but a wife is something that a husband has. You could just as easily say that a husband is something that a wife has.

All I can say is that we have different interpretations of this passage.

BTW: the mere fact that the whole Ten Commandments is addressed to the man (as evidenced by the fact that it says "your neighbour's wife" not "your neighbour's wife or husband") points to a social dynamic where the woman is inferior.