The debate "The Bible and many other holy scriptures are out dated" was started by
October 6, 2015, 12:02 am.
45 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 41 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
PsychDave posted 24 arguments, Safooma1977 posted 4 arguments, Sumerian posted 1 argument, historybuff posted 1 argument, pajrc1234 posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
Hitmenjr posted 7 arguments, Alex posted 8 arguments to the disagreers part.
shawncola, Yuki_Amayane, Caesar, asaru, PsychDave, WaspToxin, Eechyobooty, Skeetc15, Robert16, leprechaundances, historybuff, sloanstar1000, KyleLedford, fuckthehatersss, liamjosephcash, HowdyDoody03, Aletin, Concerned_Liberal, Gman119, Safooma1977, Aphrodite6025, Sumerian, Shrey, pajrc1234, fester, juliette_os and 19 visitors agree.
bigB, ailasorecarg, Hitmenjr, otakunime00, dudemark, deca808, AmericanScholar, Dysfunctional, joeithn, AstroSpace, shawnster, Rtrt1123, stevenchen, Apologetics, Alex, KicknRush, Nury, Fettywap100, Neopatriarch and 22 visitors disagree.
Religion: Because people sitting in their tents three thousand years ago...
... knew more about the world than modern day scientists. That isn't a true statement.
What about if half of the book was just as outdated and recommended killing children for talking back to their parents, regulated how to sell children into slavery, applauded it's chosen people for making slaves of the daughters of their enemies after killing every man, boy and every woman who wasn't a virgin? At what level of outdated ideas and content would you consider the work itself outdated?
I would consider the flat world part outdated, but not the non outdated part. the book in general I would call not outdated, if only the one thing is wrong
So if a textbook you were reading said the world was flat but some of the rest of the information was accurate, would you consider it outdated?
it's not the whole bible, as suggested by the question, only a few parts.
We would be if your vote matched your words.
I don't know, but you are saying that I'm disagreeing with Jesus so I'm correcting you. I think we're done with this debate now.
You have already admitted that there are rules in the old testament that no longer apply. Since this is true, those sections are out dated. Why are we still discussing this?
we try or should follow the laws of God. that better
"keep the Sabbath holy" does not mean do no work, it means do less work, rest some, go to mass, pray extra. Jesus was accused of doing work on the sabbeth. we are not supposed to take the Lord's name in vain, when we do it is a sin.
So you are claiming that you have never worked on the sabbath or taken the Lords name in vain?
Those laws were not made by God, the ten commandments and laws by Jesus were. we follow the lews of God.
Certain parts of the old testament you don't follow. Why not? Were the laws abolished or has the church fallen to breaking God's laws?
did I say they were abolished?
Jesus said he had not come to abolish the laws. How do you interpret that to mean that they are abolished?
no, the the laws made by Moses were more like guidelines, and was very common then. The Pharisees took these laws and made them real strict, and really enforced them, jesus broke many of these laws. I'm agreeing with what Jesus did and said, don't think I said anything else.
But he explicitly says the laws still stand. Are you saying that you, or the church for that matter, know more than Jesus?
I said Jesus came to fulfill the prophets
Also, Jesus disagrees with your assessment of whether his coming removes the Old Testament laws.
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.
So you are saying that the church admits that the old testament is obsolete?
that is why we have the infallible church, to tell us these things.
certain parts of the old testament Jesus full filled, and we don't follow word for word. like stoning.
Thank you. You have demonstrated that you agree with the topic.
Because if so, you are admitting that your holy text is out dated and that you feel that we have moved beyond the need for some of its rules.
yes, but we don't follow those laws as you said we did.
Are they still in the Bible?
unless catholics still stone people...
I don't think those aply now. you said we were "stuck in the iron age" seems we are past those rules.
How about the many rules that are supposed to result in stoning people?
what rules don't make sense?Don't kill babies or we didn't come from nothing?
no. they are stuck in their iron age ideology. while the world advances they try to keep enforcing rules that haven't made sense for a thousand years.
what pope francis did was say "I shall not judge"
religion, at least the Catholic religion does not change its doctrines and morals to a tract people. the church is not going to marry gays to get people onto it.
According to latest research
coz' religions are taking stand against homosexuality people are steering away from religion.
I think it's sufficient to understand now religion needs to adapt.
the woman is not with one man more then the other. she is by herself. there are no. partnerships like marraige. Heaven is Eternal happiness with God. being with God is what makes heaven happy, not being with others. Let's say this woman went to hell, can both men be happy? of course. let's say they both go to hell, can they together be happy? no. We need God to obtain perfect happiness.
That is a non-answer. I can accept that there is no marriage in heaven, but it doesn't solve the problem of who the woman will spend time with. In this verse the woman is property to be distributed. They were asking who owned her in heaven, and Jesus says that people will neither marry nor be given in marriage. He addresses who owns her, but doesn't mention what happens if the men actually love the woman that each of the 6 brothers had sex with to try to get her pregnant for her dead husband. In my example if both men love her, they will want to be with her and spend time with her. Do you have an actual answer for how heaven is perfect if one of the men has to watch the woman he loves with another man?
Matthew 22:23-33 read that.
What about people who have two spouses? A woman marries a man but after two years he dies in a car accident. She grieves for 5 years but eventually meets someone new, marries him, and the live together for years. When she gets to heaven, does she stay with whichever she wants or is she OK in God's eyes to have both of them?
So it depends on why you are attracted to them...If your only ambition is to get in bed with her then that is a sin...If your attraction goes some where else like she has a pretty face...Our sexual desires are of the fleash and only belong to the one we will claim as our wife/husband in heaven.
I have a difficult time believing anything the Bible says.
No, all that teaches you is that if you are a jerk to your step child, if they marry into money you are screwed.
But couldn't you get the same information reading Cinderella?
If people are using it to justify laws and morality, yes. If it is causing people to oppose scientific evidence and try to force schools to teach religious beliefs instead or alongside scientific theory, then again yes.
Does it really matter what the Bible says?
So looking at a woman walking down the street and being physically attracted to her means you have committed adultery? If a wife catches her husband checking out another woman, that is grounds for divorce?
Again...the terms are outdated...not the concepts.
It does say that. I'm not sure how that makes it any less outdated.
But is it not true that in the old testament that adultery was a sin, then in the new testament he said we should not even look at a woman in a lustful way for it is just as bad as sleeping with her?
As to your argument that the old testament was replaced by the new with Jesus, perhaps you should break out your Bible.
For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence
The Bible is nothing but a collection of fairy tales. It was translated from dead languages and re-written and re-edited tons of times. Most or all of the stories were told orally 60 to 80 years after they actually happened two people who couldn't even read or write.
The old testemenent is outdated in some parts.
And I think you are confusing law with sin although many of them became laws by the Pharisees.
That was Old testament...When jesus came he revised the jewish laws that were unneed and perverted.
Disagreeing with your parents, worshiping another God, planting two crops in the same field, wearing clothes made of different fabrics, and a host of other things are all crimes in the Bible.
To us Christians they are very much relevant...Just because adultery isn't a crime doesn't mean that we should do it today...It was ment to prevent unholy crimes like in the broble.
The Bible advocates capital punishment for many things that are no longer even considered crimes. While there are positive messages, a great deal of it is no longer relevant.
The terms used are out dated...not the actual concepts.