07 Jan '14 07:15>
The Bible is a more versatile book than many of its practitioners realize. There are passages in it that can be used to support almost any position on issues you may wish to take. If you are warlike, you like OT stories of conquest. If you are peaceful, you like Jesus' teachings on meekness and being slow to anger.
If you are a chauvinist, you go with the Apostle Paul's restrictions on women, from not permitting them to teach, and submitting to their husbands as unto the Lord. If you are a fan of gender equality, you point to the heroism of Esther, the faith of Moses' mother, and the purity and innocence of the virgin Mary. You point out stories in the Bible where wise women have taught men a thing or two, like the lady who convinced her town to execute a traitor so King David would not destroy their city.
If you are a gay-basher, you read Leviticus and Paul literally. If you are a gay supporter, you insist that Paul's passages were actually condemning the Roman practice (of that time) of taking young (underage) males as sexual consorts.
If you are a slaveholder, you point out Noah's cursing of his son, Ham, the (alleged) father of blacks, and other Pauline admonitions that slaves must obey their masters. If you are an abolitionist, you point out Gal 3:28's "there is no slave or free...but we are all one in Jesus".
When I look at history, I don't see religion leading the morals of society. Quite the opposite. Progress happens; religion resists, but eventually succumbs to the pressure and falls in line with the rest of society.
I think in a couple decades, gays will get married in churches and nobody will think much of it.
Ironic that so many people consider the Bible to be unchanging in its moral direction despite its successful incorporation into many various societies with (sometimes radically) different moral codes.
Also ironic that Bible believers insist that Bible is the best evidence of the existence of an objective moral code.
If you are a chauvinist, you go with the Apostle Paul's restrictions on women, from not permitting them to teach, and submitting to their husbands as unto the Lord. If you are a fan of gender equality, you point to the heroism of Esther, the faith of Moses' mother, and the purity and innocence of the virgin Mary. You point out stories in the Bible where wise women have taught men a thing or two, like the lady who convinced her town to execute a traitor so King David would not destroy their city.
If you are a gay-basher, you read Leviticus and Paul literally. If you are a gay supporter, you insist that Paul's passages were actually condemning the Roman practice (of that time) of taking young (underage) males as sexual consorts.
If you are a slaveholder, you point out Noah's cursing of his son, Ham, the (alleged) father of blacks, and other Pauline admonitions that slaves must obey their masters. If you are an abolitionist, you point out Gal 3:28's "there is no slave or free...but we are all one in Jesus".
When I look at history, I don't see religion leading the morals of society. Quite the opposite. Progress happens; religion resists, but eventually succumbs to the pressure and falls in line with the rest of society.
I think in a couple decades, gays will get married in churches and nobody will think much of it.
Ironic that so many people consider the Bible to be unchanging in its moral direction despite its successful incorporation into many various societies with (sometimes radically) different moral codes.
Also ironic that Bible believers insist that Bible is the best evidence of the existence of an objective moral code.