A few things I don't like in the bible...help?

[Matterhorn]

First off, atheists, unless you have read the bible then please don't comment on this unless you actually have something to add. I don't need the answer to the question I'm about to ask be "God's not real! You're a fool!...and you probably are gay..."

I read a few things in the bible and they don't sit right with me. It says that if you are a bastard (illegitimate child) then you can't enter the congregation of the lord. (You'll go to hell) This doesn't seem like the god that I grew up knowing. Why would He send you to hell for the sins of your parents? It also says if you're castrated then you also go to hell. This isn't fair to me because why would He even give you life if you were just damned to hell from the start? I don't understand this and, although my faith isn't shaken, it just does not sit right with me.

[Lord Rahl]

Is that in the OT? If you're Christian then you should understand that anyone can go to Heaven.

[Matterhorn]

Is that in the OT? If you're Christian then you should understand that anyone can go to Heaven.

Yeah, Deuteronomy. Wait, so does the New Testimant overrule the Old Testimant? If it does than you totally just answer my question I have been agonizing over for the past 6 months! Thank you!

[Ciabhán]

First off, atheists, unless you have read the bible then please don't comment on this unless you actually have something to add. I don't need the answer to the question I'm about to ask be "God's not real! You're a fool!...and you probably are gay..."

I read a few things in the bible and they don't sit right with me. It says that if you are a bastard (illegitimate child) then you can't enter the congregation of the lord. (You'll go to hell) This doesn't seem like the god that I grew up knowing. Why would He send you to hell for the sins of your parents? It also says if you're castrated then you also go to hell. This isn't fair to me because why would He even give you life if you were just damned to hell from the start? I don't understand this and, although my faith isn't shaken, it just does not sit right with me.

The rule about bastards is definitly OT. It was more than likely put in place because of inheritance laws and all the terrible buggery that could break out if a fella had a bunch of bastards.

I vaguely remember hearing at some point when I was in university that the laws about fornication had to do with this and not actually because of prudishness. Basically by fornicating you were risking creating bastards, who could possibly endanger the tribe, and who because of this were condemned to She'ol, thus they'd stone the out of you for it.

It makes sense as later European laws about fornication had everything to do with inheritance and making sure that paternity was established and thus everyone knew who was supposed to get what.

Wait, so does the New Testimant overrule the Old Testimant?

It's been a bloody long time since I learned all this but I believe the New Covenant put into place by Jesus does 'overrule' the Old Covenant and a lot of the old laws. Only for Christians of course. Jews still have to go with the OT.

[Matterhorn]

It's been a bloody long time since I learned all this but I believe the New Covenant put into place by Jesus does 'overrule' the Old Covenant and a lot of the old laws. Only for Christians of course. Jews still have to go with the OT.

Wow, why don't they put that in the fine print. I mean, people have been butchered by the thousands because of different views on what the Bible says! Thanks though.

[Ciabhán]

Wow, why don't they put that in the fine print. I mean, people have been butchered by the thousands because of different views on what the Bible says! Thanks though.

Well first off I'm atheist so my religious study ended when I left secondary school years ago. I did study religion in university a bit as well but not religion for religious folks so much as religion in the anthropological sense. So that being said I'm not an authority on Christianity though I was raised that way.

Secondly not everyone would agree with any view so people's interpretation of things will always differ. Hence the many sects of Christianity.

[Squiggle]

Well first off I'm atheist so my religious study ended when I left secondary school years ago. I did study religion in university a bit as well but not religion for religious folks so much as religion in the anthropological sense. So that being said I'm not an authority on Christianity though I was raised that way.

Secondly not everyone would agree with any view so people's interpretation of things will always differ. Hence the many sects of Christianity.

In this respect the views are pretty uniform. It's been theological orthodoxy since basically the start of Christianity to interpret the law of the OT to be fulfilled through Jesus Christ. No stoning required, food laws inapplicable to gentiles, etc.

[Ciabhán]

In this respect the views are pretty uniform. It's been theological orthodoxy since basically the start of Christianity to interpret the law of the OT to be fulfilled through Jesus Christ. No stoning required, food laws inapplicable to gentiles, etc.

Shockingly then you and I agree on something regarding religion for the first time...

[Matterhorn]

Well first off I'm atheist so my religious study ended when I left secondary school years ago. I did study religion in university a bit as well but not religion for religious folks so much as religion in the anthropological sense. So that being said I'm not an authority on Christianity though I was raised that way.

Secondly not everyone would agree with any view so people's interpretation of things will always differ. Hence the many sects of Christianity.

Finally! An atheist who I didn't want to push in front of a bus. Thank you for respecting my beliefs even though you may disagree with them.

And for further reference don't call them sects. That's not what they are, a sect is a completely different and complicated thing. They're called denominations.

[Ciabhán]

Finally! An atheist who I didn't want to push in front of a bus. Thank you for respecting my beliefs even though you may disagree with them.

And for further reference don't call them sects. That's not what they are, a sect is a completely different and complicated thing. They're called denominations.

I'm Northern Irish. They're sects where I come from boyo.

As to the rest...I'm rather open about things. My children are being raised to decide for themselves. I've taken them to Mass, and I've explained things in as neutral a way as possible. I want them to grow up and make their own choices about what they believe. As such it wouldn't behoove me to be a to people that might be my own childrens co-religionists/co-atheists in the future.

[Phier]

And for further reference don't call them sects. That's not what they are, a sect is a completely different and complicated thing. They're called denominations.

While I think you are cleaving rabbits bringing it up....

In the context of Denominations, the Christian Church has two primary Denominations – Protestant and Catholic, but within each, there are around 1500 Sects. Within the Protestant faith, there are sects of Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Amish, Quakers, and many more. Within the Catholic Denomination, there are sects such as Orthodox, Greek, Roman, Episcopalian, and numerous more offshoots. What differentiates them is the interpretation of the original tradition and set of beliefs.
Judaism has four primary Denominations: Orthodox, Masorti, Reform, and Reconstructionist. Several examples within Orthodox Judaism, are the sects of Hasidism, Misnagdim, Modern, Messianic, Sepharadic, and many more.

As such it wouldn't behoove me to be a to people that might be my own childrens co-religionists/co-atheists in the future.

The hope is that they keep their mouth shut when some future authority figure is of a religious bent My son who just turned 6 is already questioning Santa being real so I'm not worried about him being religious, but I do worry about how to make sure he behaves in such a way as to not draw the petty wrath of the religious.

[Lord Rahl]

Yeah, Deuteronomy. Wait, so does the New Testimant overrule the Old Testimant? If it does than you totally just answer my question I have been agonizing over for the past 6 months! Thank you!

You should refer to what's called the "Sermon on the Mount". As Jesus said,

¹⁷“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

That is one verse from the whole sermon but I believe Jesus, and forgive me if I'm incorrect, sort of reinterprets the Mosaic laws and sets things straight on what is the truth, at least with commandments to follow in order to be holy and be accepted into Heaven. I guess the best way to think of it is if the Mosaic law is the US Constitution and Jesus simply made amendments. So, basically whatever Jesus says is the truth, since He's God, and Jesus supersedes considered true in the Old Testament.

Wow, why don't they put that in the fine print. I mean, people have been butchered by the thousands because of different views on what the Bible says! Thanks though.

That's what studying the Bible is all about. It's such a large book that interpretation can vary a lot. I suggest you find a Bible study guide or something. I know some versions of the Bible have a lot of footnotes and other notes to assist in understanding.

[CamilleBonparte]

Guess this means I can't be a Jew.

[SigniferOne]

A lot of the laws in the OT were there for the preservation of the Jewish people, which, being the only people that accepted God, yet being both highly disbursed and due to mass impiety getting disbursed even more, needed needed a code of preservation unlike any other. That's what the OT laws of Deuteronomy are. Moses made the people of Abraham survive despite almost everything. The Christian view is that human life is forfeit from the perspective of God, so there was nothing unjust in perishing all other people so as this feeble and fickle people could move on. When the line of David sufficiently advanced according to prophecy, and was fulfilled (as spread by the original Christians who were Jews themselves nonetheless!), the old laws of survival were replaced by universal grace. That's what the New Testament represents.

[Elfdude]

In completely simplistic terms yes the bible has a lot of contradictions. This is one of the major issues with a book touted as the ultimate authority on morality. It requires people who are already moral to determine what is moral in the book, thus using it to teach morality as you can probably understand is a bit difficult to do.

There's many other things in the OT and even the New Testament you probably don't agree with and that's completely normal. Explaining why this is IMO is a much more important question than assigning responsibility for it to god. Which is to say we know god did not write your bible why would you blame it on him that it says immoral things?

The important thing to realize here is that it's historical fact that the bible was written by men, the bible we know and love today wasn't even assembled till long after Jesus died. These men selected teachings from letters and other religious texts as a standardization of sorts. However they did not do it in the way that you would expect a scientist or a scholar to do it but in the way you'd expect a politician to do it. They slanted the views deliberately. For example the OT is popularly known as the 'Jewish' portion of the bible even though they differ very fundamentally on basic teachings. The Torah teaches questioning god and critical thinking, Abraham isn't rewarded for blind faith, he's rewarded for knowing good from evil enough to tell god no. This is like night and day with the christian OT which teaches us to be completely subservient to authority.

Essentially these men skewed any 'true' godliness that might've been in the original religious writings with cherry picking to support their own agendas which at the time was maintaining power and attempting to unite europe under a common religious empire.

That's what I typically blame the immoral sentiments in the bible. Was the bible ever moral? Perhaps. Can we possibly know what those original writings were? No. The bible IMO opinion teaches two beautiful things, the concept of treating others as you wish to be treated and the concept of a moral ideal. I.E. Jesus teaches us to turn the other cheek when someone attacks us. This is a moral ideal but it's application isn't necessarily literal. The idea behind it is responding to violence with violence begets more violence. The only thing which has the power to resolve hate is love. While this isn't uniquely christian (I personally think many other philosophies and religions carry out this message better) it describes what I like to think of as a 'good' god. If god isn't good then meh, if he doesn't exist then meh, I don't need to worry about the totality of my sins upon my judgement to continue to act good. The benefits of doing so seem readily apparent to me.

In the end you've reached a crossroads where you must decide how to interpret the bible. Is it literal? If it is Jesus says the old laws are still valid. Is it perfect? If it is there should be no flaws in it. Did a perfect being create it? If it was then it too should be perfect. Is it flawed? If so then men must've written part of it. Did men write it? If so it should be flawed. Did men attempt to skew it? If so there should be errors which speak of motivations other than morality.

I myself refuse to trust my morality to 2,000 years of men toying with meanings, translation errors, typos, grammatical errors, missing books, and contradictions. I know what's right and wrong, perhaps we should trust in the tree of knowledge which blessed all of humanity with the knowledge of good and evil. Yes, I am an atheist, however I grew up religious and if nothing else it instilled in me a sense that god if he does exist is good and as long as I am good he won't fault me something as trivial as faith.

[Old_Scratch]

Yes, I'm an atheist, but I do have something constructive to add. There are many harsh and unusual laws in the OT that are generally not adhered to by most Christians these days. The vast majority of Christian beliefs come from the NT, but one cannot entirely disregard the OT, after all the ten commandments are OT. So it really depends on the specific beliefs of your sect of Christianity to determine how much of the OT is to be taken as law.

Of course there are many ways to interpret it. There is the oft discussed quote from Matthiew 5:17-18 where Jesus seems to say that the OT law is not to be changed, but it can be argued both ways, some of his wording is ambiguous. I'd ask your priest/minister for more specific info since views on the subject of OT law varies quite a bit.

[ash874]

First off, atheists, unless you have read the bible then please don't comment on this unless you actually have something to add. I don't need the answer to the question I'm about to ask be "God's not real! You're a fool!...and you probably are gay..."

I read a few things in the bible and they don't sit right with me. It says that if you are a bastard (illegitimate child) then you can't enter the congregation of the lord. (You'll go to hell) This doesn't seem like the god that I grew up knowing. Why would He send you to hell for the sins of your parents? It also says if you're castrated then you also go to hell. This isn't fair to me because why would He even give you life if you were just damned to hell from the start? I don't understand this and, although my faith isn't shaken, it just does not sit right with me.

i think the problem is from two sources
religious people's decision to
1. treat each word of the bible as true
2. submit to the notion that god has western 20 century liberal values
both notions are easy to debunk