"What about the issues in the Old Testament with families like masters sleeping with their servants and men having many wives or even the issue of “inter-family” relationships and the like? Was it a population issue? When did the law change? Why was it okay then and not now?"
Great question! The problem is, the Bible rarely makes commentary on historical events. If it did, we would see notations like “[and this was not only sinful but STUPID because God’s plan for marriage is one man, one woman for life, and bad things happen when we disobey His commandment].”
The fact that sinful, unwise behaviors are recorded (without commentary) in the Bible doesn’t mean it was OK any more than newspapers reporting on crime means they condone it. They’re both just telling you what happened.
Hope this helps!
11 comments
Right!
Because things were always the way I think they should be today.
Examples:
- George Washington didn't wear a wig. No, he wasn't a fag. He wore a toupée.
- All the pictures of Jesus are wrong: he wore pants like a real man.
- King David didn't have multiple wives, they were all the same person playing wholesome role games.
- Trump never boasted about touching a woman's anatomy, he was talking about her little kitty cat.
- King David's wives didn't have names that sound like brownie muzzi terrorists (Ahinoam, Abigail, Maachah, Haggith, Abital, Eglah, Bath-shua). Those are all good English names that have been misinterpreted over time.
The problem is, the Bible rarely makes commentary on historical events. If it did, we would see notations like “[and this was not only sinful but STUPID because God’s plan for marriage is one man, one woman for life, and bad things happen when we disobey His commandment].”
Yeah, except that god brags in "Two Samuel" about how he personally gave David his master's possessions, going out of his way to emphasize he included all his master's wives, because David was totes special.
I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you all Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more.
2 Samuel 12:8 NIV
Nowhere in the Big Book of Multiple Choice does her invisible friend condemn polygamy any more than it condemns slavery. Sue, like every other apologist, is trying to impose upon the BBoMC what she wants to believe. Maybe she could give that whole "it was a kinder, gentler slavery polygamy" excuse a spin.
See that there ? Common fundie tatics.
It's taking and adding to the Bible which is not only condemned but something fundies do all the time that's probably worse than cherry picking.
May not matter to non theists but to them it's putting words into gods mouth. And yet they've been doing this since the dawn of the church and a great portion of doctrines developed comes from what they add.
The problem is, the Bible rarely makes commentary on historical events
...and on, say... condemnation in the part of Scripture concerning David and Jonathan .
For if comments of the condemnatory kind weren't forthcoming from your 'God', the notion that the Bible wasn't the word of your 'God': but by flawed, imperfect men who created a fairytale purely for their own socio-political control methods, is the least of your problems: your precious BuyBull not 'Truth' but is a proven Lie , therefore...!
...ergo you being forced to accept S-SM being the least of your problems II.
Everything in the Bible is historical now.
If the Bible is to be used as a guide on how to behave, then you NEED the notations that this, that or the other behavior is/was sinful.
Newspapers report CRIMES, yes, and usually also the sentence later on.
No, this doesn't help. It's just a lot of moving the goal-posts, jumping through hoops, of "this is stupid, why would you do this now? and "that is important, you must follow that" (though both sounds equally stupid).
Oh very good, girl named Sue. The Bible doesn't put those notations in, YOU did.
Maybe that's because the Bible doesn't have a problem with polygamy, most ancient cultures practised it. The only ones who didn't were those ancient Greek city states, but not the Macedonians, and then later the Romans, from whom your concept of monogamous marriage came from. That's why bigamy is a crime in Western countries, today. WHOOPS!
Your one man, one woman only marriage comes not from the Bible, but clearly only from your bigotry. Thank Zeus our lawmakers see it differently.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
