How about a new Council of Nicea?

[Mare Tranquillity]

The Bible obviously needs updating, it's got far too much useless baggage that has no bearing on either the practice or the philosophy surrounding the teachings of Jesus. A good example would be all the laws, rules, and ceremony around burnt offerings. Too, I think that the restrictions placed on menstruating women are no longer applicable, nor the bans on mixing crops in fields or fibers in clothing.

Some of the things in the Bible are currently illegal, such as owning slaves or beating them, selling children, or being required to marry your brother's wife if your brother dies, concubines are another unlawful anachronism.

The original Council of Nicea got together to make a single codified religion out of the hundreds of splinter groups that all claimed to be THE one and only true religion. They argued things out, threw out things they didn't like, and finally agreed on enough points to finalize a version of the Bible that was at least marginally acceptable to the large majority.

Today we have more than 4000 sects of Christians and they diverge widely on many theological points. For instance, some sects accept gay people, allow them to be preachers and officials, and would marry them if it was legal to do so. Other sects are hysterically opposed to this.

I'm open to suggestions about things that should be changed in the Bible and also to anyone's input on this idea: why? why not?

Try to have a reason for your position, if it was done once and the religion was still the Word of God, then why can't it be done a second time as well?

 

[numinus]

The Bible obviously needs updating, it's got far too much useless baggage that has no bearing on either the practice or the philosophy surrounding the teachings of Jesus. A good example would be all the laws, rules, and ceremony around burnt offerings. Too, I think that the restrictions placed on menstruating women are no longer applicable, nor the bans on mixing crops in fields or fibers in clothing.

Some of the things in the Bible are currently illegal, such as owning slaves or beating them, selling children, or being required to marry your brother's wife if your brother dies, concubines are another unlawful anachronism.

The original Council of Nicea got together to make a single codified religion out of the hundreds of splinter groups that all claimed to be THE one and only true religion. They argued things out, threw out things they didn't like, and finally agreed on enough points to finalize a version of the Bible that was at least marginally acceptable to the large majority.

Today we have more than 4000 sects of Christians and they diverge widely on many theological points. For instance, some sects accept gay people, allow them to be preachers and officials, and would marry them if it was legal to do so. Other sects are hysterically opposed to this.

I'm open to suggestions about things that should be changed in the Bible and also to anyone's input on this idea: why? why not?

Try to have a reason for your position, if it was done once and the religion was still the Word of God, then why can't it be done a second time as well?

How would you like it if somebody went around editing your posts in this forum?

After all, your posts are replete with logical errors, innuendo's and outright fallacies no one would miss. And if you would think it unreasonable to edit your posts, inconsequential and absurd as they are, what makes you think it is ok to edit the bible, something that bible scholars and historians are using for academic purposes?

If you don't agree with what the bible is saying, wouldn't it be much simpler if you did not read it?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

How would you like it if somebody went around editing your posts in this forum?

After all, your posts are replete with logical errors, innuendo's and outright fallacies no one would miss. And if you would think it unreasonable to edit your posts, inconsequential and absurd as they are, what makes you think it is ok to edit the bible, something that bible scholars and historians are using for academic purposes?

If you don't agree with what the bible is saying, wouldn't it be much simpler if you did not read it?

Hey, Nums, nice to hear from you again. If my work was being billed as the Word of God it would be held to a somewhat higher standard--or not, considering the stuff in the Bible.

So, I am to assume that permission to have slaves, to beat them, to sell children, to take virgins as the spoils of war are all acceptable activities to you and you believe that God says they are okay too?

 

[numinus]

Hey, Nums, nice to hear from you again.

You've been talking with me in the other forum -- which crashed just yesterday. You even have a thread there exactly like this one.

I felt that the population of morons there deserved more of my attention than here. After all, I have less reason to be controversial here, seeing that the membership here are more reasonable.

If my work was being billed as the Word of God it would be held to a somewhat higher standard--or not, considering the stuff in the Bible.

Nonsense.

It's inspired by god -- hence truth passed throught the prism of human experience.

So, I am to assume that permission to have slaves, to beat them, to sell children, to take virgins as the spoils of war are all acceptable activities to you and you believe that God says they are okay too?

There is no sense in omitting the fact that slavery and all that did exist at the time of the patriarchs up to the end of the acts of the apostles. It is the social milleu in which salvation history unfolds.

Did you think that slavery was the point of the bible?

Or did you think it was even possible to convey a moral truth without the context in which it was given?

Why, then, would you want to omit something as vital as that, eh?

 

[Dr.Who]

The Bible obviously needs updating, it's got far too much useless baggage that has no bearing on either the practice or the philosophy surrounding the teachings of Jesus. A good example would be all the laws, rules, and ceremony around burnt offerings. Too, I think that the restrictions placed on menstruating women are no longer applicable, nor the bans on mixing crops in fields or fibers in clothing.

Some of the things in the Bible are currently illegal, such as owning slaves or beating them, selling children, or being required to marry your brother's wife if your brother dies, concubines are another unlawful anachronism.

The original Council of Nicea got together to make a single codified religion out of the hundreds of splinter groups that all claimed to be THE one and only true religion. They argued things out, threw out things they didn't like, and finally agreed on enough points to finalize a version of the Bible that was at least marginally acceptable to the large majority.

Today we have more than 4000 sects of Christians and they diverge widely on many theological points. For instance, some sects accept gay people, allow them to be preachers and officials, and would marry them if it was legal to do so. Other sects are hysterically opposed to this.

I'm open to suggestions about things that should be changed in the Bible and also to anyone's input on this idea: why? why not?

Try to have a reason for your position, if it was done once and the religion was still the Word of God, then why can't it be done a second time as well?

You dont seem to understand what happened in the original council of Nicea let alone what is happening in Christianity.

Our understanding of the bible is progressing today and new versions or translations are being produced to keep up with that fine tuning. No need for a council to accomplish what is being done.

I much prefer the more credible scholars doing that work today than I would ever trust the likes of you to be involved in any way in such a project.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Nonsense. It's inspired by god -- hence truth passed throught the prism of human experience.

This is one of the assumptions to which I refered: it is not in the least provable. It's story with no more provable basis that the Koran or 'Gita.

There is no sense in omitting the fact that slavery and all that did exist at the time of the patriarchs up to the end of the acts of the apostles. It is the social milleu in which salvation history unfolds.

Did you think that slavery was the point of the bible?

Or did you think it was even possible to convey a moral truth without the context in which it was given?

Why, then, would you want to omit something as vital as that, eh?

In the Bible God says it alright to have slaves, take virgins as the spoils of war, and orders genocide including bashing babies to death before their mother's eyes. This is the "inspired Word of God"? Why do you think so many Christians supported slavery? It says right in the Bible that keeping slaves is alright in God's eyes. I think those things should be taken out of the Bible.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

You dont seem to understand what happened in the original council of Nicea let alone what is happening in Christianity.

Our understanding of the bible is progressing today and new versions or translations are being produced to keep up with that fine tuning. No need for a council to accomplish what is being done.

I much prefer the more credible scholars doing that work today than I would ever trust the likes of you to be involved in any way in such a project.

So, the "good" people like you (as opposed to the bad people like me) have been fine tuning the Word of God for 2000 years? Was it good people or bad people who ran the Inquisition? Promoted slavery? Committed genocide? Did they do it because the Bible said it was okay?

Why hasn't the acceptance of slavery been "fine tuned" out of the Bible by you "good" people?

 

[numinus]

This is one of the assumptions to which I refered: it is not in the least provable. It's story with no more provable basis that the Koran or 'Gita.

I have already said this in the other forum -- use your CONSCIENCE -- its a god-given faculty to discern right from wrong.

If, in all honesty, your conscience does not permit you to follow any of the commandments in the bible, then by all means, don't follow them.

In the Bible God says it alright to have slaves, take virgins as the spoils of war, and orders genocide including bashing babies to death before their mother's eyes. This is the "inspired Word of God"?

What exactly do you want me to say? I am in no position to judge the political necessities of the social millieu more than three thousand years ago against what I know to be moral imperatives.

Besides, what emerged as the 'jewish' people from the time of the patriarchs, were, in all likelyhood, not entirely the descendants of abraham. There certainly was assimilation of other peoples during that turbulent time. And if there was some sort of assimilation, then it couldn't have been all murder and mayhem as you would like to believe, now, could it?

Why do you think so many Christians supported slavery?

There you go again. Why are you hell-bent on ascribing mosaic law to christians? Not all mosaic law is adhered to by christians. In fact, the only mosaic law pertinent as far as christians are concerned, is the decalogue.

There certainly isn't anything remotely supporting slavery in the ten commandments, now, is there?

It says right in the Bible that keeping slaves is alright in God's eyes. I think those things should be taken out of the Bible.

I think it is enough that the gospels and the acts of the apostles superseded mosaic law. And if that is still not clear to you, then you should read augustine's civitas dei. Clearly, being a 'slave' is a socio-political and economic relation that has nothing to do with the divine order.

The difference between the city of man and the city of god was so well expounded, I would even venture to say that it was the prototypical separation of church and state -- that is, after jesus' 'give to ceaser...'.

 

[numinus]

So, the "good" people like you (as opposed to the bad people like me) have been fine tuning the Word of God for 2000 years? Was it good people or bad people who ran the Inquisition? Promoted slavery? Committed genocide? Did they do it because the Bible said it was okay?

Why hasn't the acceptance of slavery been "fine tuned" out of the Bible by you "good" people?

Did you really think christians, following the dictates of their individual consciences, and acting in what they percieve to be divine revelations in the bible, were not part of the over-all effort to abolish slavery from the world?????

The same people who were being targeted as slaves were the same people who were being converted to christianity by its missionaries. And that social order simply cannot withstand the blatant contradiction from the christian imperative -- not only in europe or the americas, but in asia as well.

 

[Dr.Who]

This is one of the assumptions to which I refered: it is not in the least provable. It's story with no more provable basis that the Koran or 'Gita.



In the Bible God says it alright to have slaves, take virgins as the spoils of war, and orders genocide including bashing babies to death before their mother's eyes. This is the "inspired Word of God"? Why do you think so many Christians supported slavery? It says right in the Bible that keeping slaves is alright in God's eyes. I think those things should be taken out of the Bible.

Frankly you are just full of nonsense but you dress it up so it looks good.

The slavery in the bible was nothing like the slavery in America. It was much more like employment. And it provided an institutional means for people who would starve otherwise to be gainfully employed.

Things should be taken out if they were not written in the originals. Otherwise it is just revisionist history. If revisionism were allowed the bible would indeed have been changed many times like you imagine it was.

I know of no place that the bible supports bashing of babies before mothers eyes. In the real world, describing an event (even a future event) is not the same as endorsing it. In fact, I suspect this proves you are biased to the point of being nuts.

 

[Dr.Who]

So, the "good" people like you (as opposed to the bad people like me) have been fine tuning the Word of God for 2000 years? Was it good people or bad people who ran the Inquisition? Promoted slavery? Committed genocide? Did they do it because the Bible said it was okay?

Why hasn't the acceptance of slavery been "fine tuned" out of the Bible by you "good" people?

Good people like me and bad people like you? Are you even reading the same language that I am writing?

 

[dahermit]

Frankly you are just full of nonsense but you dress it up so it looks good.

The slavery in the bible was nothing like the slavery in America. It was much more like employment. And it provided an institutional means for people who would starve otherwise to be gainfully employed.

It is well documented that in Roman slavery (same time period as Biblical slavery) that if a slave attempted to escape and was caught, they were crucified. If one slave in the household killed his master, all the slaves were burned alive. If it were not involuntary, it would not have been slavery. If you cannot provide a citation that Biblical slavery was any different, then "Frankly you are just full of nonsense but you dress it up so it looks good."

I know of no place that the bible supports bashing of babies before mothers eyes. In the real world, describing an event (even a future event) is not the same as endorsing it. In fact, I suspect this proves you are biased to the point of being nuts.

Read Numbers 31: 17, 18. Killing all married women, all boys, keeping the virgin girls for rape. If you consider yourself a Bible scholar and you are unaware of these passages or worse yet, you ignore them, "...this proves you are biased to the point of being nuts."

 

[Dr.Who]

It is well documented that in Roman slavery (same time period as Biblical slavery) that if a slave attempted to escape and was caught, they were crucified. If one slave in the household killed his master, all the slaves were burned alive. If it were not involuntary, it would not have been slavery. If you cannot provide a citation that Biblical slavery was any different, then "Frankly you are just full of nonsense but you dress it up so it looks good."

Roman slavery would have been during the NT times. The biblical examples of slavery took place during the OT times. And I fail to see how the way Romans treated slaves has any bearing at all on how Hebrews treated slaves.

The Hebrew OT is full of laws on how slaves were to be treated well. Here is a link that lists many of the ways that they were treated well:

http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=...ry1.pdf+bible+slaves+treated+well&hl=en&gl=us

Including provisions that they were not to be abused, were to be freed at times, were not be be sold into slavery against their will, could own property, had free time, etc. As I said; it was much more like a job.

Read Numbers 31: 17, 18. Killing all married women, all boys, keeping the virgin girls for rape. If you consider yourself a Bible scholar and you are unaware of these passages or worse yet, you ignore them, "...this proves you are biased to the point of being nuts."

The Hebrews were at war with the Midianites. All men and married women ( the unmarried women were supposed to be killed during battle too but the soldiers disobeyed by taking them captive - meaning that it was not commanded by God that they do so) were killed as a part of that war. Specifically because they were guilty individually and as a people of sin so that their deaths were deserved. The passage makes a clear distinction between spoils of war and captives so that MT's characterization of them as spoils of war would be completely opposite of what the passage said. Additionally, the assumptions that as captives they were raped is complete conjecture on the part of those who say that it happened. Given the context of the laws for treating captives if the Hebrews followed those laws then they were treated well. They would only have been raped if other laws were violated. We can only believe they were raped if we ignore other laws, laws that are given in earlier passages which make it illegal to rape and illegal for Hebrews to marry (or probably even to produce children with) Midianites.

I would add that I never claim to be a biblical scholar. Just a person who actually reads what is there. And I will note that you did not at all refute my statement that the babies were not bashed in front of their mothers.

 

[dahermit]

I would add that I never claim to be a biblical scholar. Just a person who actually reads what is there. And I will note that you did not at all refute my statement that the babies were not bashed in front of their mothers.

It states that all males were to be killed (Regardless to age, all mothers were to be killed). Does it really matter if they were killed in front of their mothers? Male babies(innocent) were killed, that is the point. Do you really think that the babies were taken gently from their mothers to be dispatched? Is that what you have convinced yourself to believe?

 

[dahermit]

The Hebrew OT is full of laws on how slaves were to be treated well. Here is a link that lists many of the ways that they were treated well:

http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=...ry1.pdf+bible+slaves+treated+well&hl=en&gl=us

Including provisions that they were not to be abused, were to be freed at times, were not be be sold into slavery against their will, could own property, had free time, etc. As I said; it was much more like a job.

Then you will agree that it is time to have a new council to update the meaning of slavery in that period inasmuch as it cannot be compared to what we have come to know as slavery in current context? Sounds more like indentured servants.