As a non-believer who lives in a culture that reveres the Bible, the older I get, the stranger it seems that those who revere and promote the values of the Bible live in ways that are the opposite of the way people lived in the Bible.
For example, I often hear that marriage is for one man and one woman, but in the Bible, it looks like marriage was for one man and one woman when there only was one man and one woman, but after that, it was for one man and however many women he could afford to take care of, plus however many concubines. Yet polygamy is largely frowned upon today, Somewhere along the line polygamy seems to have fallen out of fashion among Bible believers, and while that's fine, by my reading, the Bible can't be used to support that view.
And matrilineal descent in Judaism seems curious, given that there is patrilineal descent in the OT. So somewhere along the line that changed too.
And as far as I can tell, there is nothing in the OT or NT that suggests that prophecy has ended, yet the idea that is has ended prevails in Judaism and Christianity. Where did this idea come from, and how did it come to override the Bible?
And to my eyes, slavery is a normal part of life in the OT and NT, so it seems strange (for example) that the USA had a Civil War about it, when the most revered book of both sides that fought is okay with slavery.
Now, no one has to own slaves, of course, but God and people in the Bible are okay with it, so arguments for doing away with it must come from somewhere besides the Bible, and that seems like a strange thing for people who revere the Bible to do.
And sacrifices. Even Christians continued to offer sacrifices after Jesus' death in the NT, so the idea that Jesus' death did away with sacrifices doesn't work for me. And I think Jews make rebuilding a Temple harder than it needs to be. Is it better to nitpick about where a Temple should be located to the point that it cannot be rebuilt without antagonizing others, or to be a little flexible and build it somewhere else so that Jews can be more Torah observant and Gentiles can live out Zechariah's dream (14:16-21)?
The Bible revolves around sacrifices and a priesthood, sacrifices were offered in various places, a Temple once stood in Shiloh, the Tabernacle was now here, now there, but now it can all only happen in a very particular part of Jerusalem? Why not build a Temple in another part of Jerusalem? If the meaning of "Mount Zion" has shifted over time (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Zion), why not shift it again, for the sake of being able to live the way that people in the Bible do?
Or why not make a new Bible, one that promotes post-biblical values? You shall not have multiple wives or concubines. You shall not have slaves. You shall not have any prophets. You shall not offer sacrifices. Otherwise, why revere a book and a God that promotes these ways of living?
For example, I often hear that marriage is for one man and one woman, but in the Bible, it looks like marriage was for one man and one woman when there only was one man and one woman, but after that, it was for one man and however many women he could afford to take care of, plus however many concubines. Yet polygamy is largely frowned upon today, Somewhere along the line polygamy seems to have fallen out of fashion among Bible believers, and while that's fine, by my reading, the Bible can't be used to support that view.
And matrilineal descent in Judaism seems curious, given that there is patrilineal descent in the OT. So somewhere along the line that changed too.
And as far as I can tell, there is nothing in the OT or NT that suggests that prophecy has ended, yet the idea that is has ended prevails in Judaism and Christianity. Where did this idea come from, and how did it come to override the Bible?
And to my eyes, slavery is a normal part of life in the OT and NT, so it seems strange (for example) that the USA had a Civil War about it, when the most revered book of both sides that fought is okay with slavery.
Now, no one has to own slaves, of course, but God and people in the Bible are okay with it, so arguments for doing away with it must come from somewhere besides the Bible, and that seems like a strange thing for people who revere the Bible to do.
And sacrifices. Even Christians continued to offer sacrifices after Jesus' death in the NT, so the idea that Jesus' death did away with sacrifices doesn't work for me. And I think Jews make rebuilding a Temple harder than it needs to be. Is it better to nitpick about where a Temple should be located to the point that it cannot be rebuilt without antagonizing others, or to be a little flexible and build it somewhere else so that Jews can be more Torah observant and Gentiles can live out Zechariah's dream (14:16-21)?
The Bible revolves around sacrifices and a priesthood, sacrifices were offered in various places, a Temple once stood in Shiloh, the Tabernacle was now here, now there, but now it can all only happen in a very particular part of Jerusalem? Why not build a Temple in another part of Jerusalem? If the meaning of "Mount Zion" has shifted over time (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Zion), why not shift it again, for the sake of being able to live the way that people in the Bible do?
Or why not make a new Bible, one that promotes post-biblical values? You shall not have multiple wives or concubines. You shall not have slaves. You shall not have any prophets. You shall not offer sacrifices. Otherwise, why revere a book and a God that promotes these ways of living?
Statistics: Posted by John2 — Thu Jun 06, 2024 2:11 pm