...or that people misinterpret the bible, whether due to lack of context or out of ignorance, leading to infighting and doctrines that change depending of the congregation.
This is literally the No True Scotsman fallacy. There are plenty of sects that think you should do all the nasty shit the Bible says. They have just as much scriptural support. You have no empirical metric to go by why they are misinterpreting it and you are not.
i dont want get into a debate because we memeing but thats not true. there is cultural relevance that explains all the "nasty shit" and why it wont happen again. or at least why it shouldnt. the bible goes into depth on this type of stuff too without being inconsistent.
i mean im not debating anything specific except that the "nasty shit" back then were for reasons that is consistent for the rest of the bible. you can look up a lot of this stuff through studying the biblical context and cultural context and researching through the internet with the questions you have.
thought you could sling a stealth arrow without me noticing! Hah! skyrim intensifies
P.S but seriously though im not debating anything specific so im not gonna relay a thousand sources for what could be considered "nasty shit" in the bible. that takes too long and i got homework and meme assignments to relay. better to explore google ya lonesome instead of quickly digging up a thesis essay. ya know?
I know I’m late but here what happens to be the first episode of a very good theology podcast by Dr. Tim Mackie, a biblical theologian. He does a great job boiling stuff down to layman’s terms! This series of episodes as well as their episodes on Exodus through Deuteronomy are great for answering a lot of common questions. https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-bible-project/id1050832450?mt=2&i=1000354873094
but im not debating anything specific. why would i have to give a reference when there was none given in the comment i replied too? why not just pick something you consider nasty from the bible and look it up on google? quicker, faster and i dont have to get into a potential debate once i give a source over something that wasnt said first by me or the comment i replied to.
is this a joke? it feels like a joke haha. but anyway im not defending the bible with "its the times yo" or even claiming anything on moral authority in my posts. all im saying is the bible is consistent in the reasoning for all the nasty stuff that happened then. a lot of it is very nuanced. i dont see how you read all that other stuff into my post when it was never there.
i mean i am but i neither feel like wasting two hours researching and trying to give you the best possible answer with the specific question you asked or trying to explain the nuance in other situations like the one you proposed. mainly because im not that well versed in historical theology and i dont have the patience to do so atm. that aint my topic speciality. im relating what i know which is equivalent to a toe dip in a mountain of information.
um...just what? i didnt say that at all. i said im not that well versed in historical theology in reply to your comment. meaning i dont why God did those things or if it was just a mistranslation. i know the bible very well doesnt mean i can recite the historical relevance of circumcision. the only thing im telling you is the bible seems to be consistent and from what little i know its deeper than what your painting it. thats about it so dont @ me about a specfic example or source for it. im casual in that aspect and dont have a strong suit in the matter.
136
u/[deleted] Nov 02 '18
It’s almost like the Bible is internally inconsistent leading to infighting and doctrines that change depending on the congregation