Buchananeer

Hello all,

As I am new here, I'm sure there have been many similar topics to what I'm about to post, but hey, might as well get some information out of all sides here.

I'm more agnostic than anything, and my "deconversion" from Christianity has been, strangely enough, due to reading the Bible, as opposed to hearing the snippets from different parts in different sermons.

Well, on with the show. I started reading the Pauline letters, and got to the book of Titus. Chapter 2 has some really neat parts in it. Parts that, in our modern society, would be highly frowned upon.

I believe 1 Timothy also says something similar.

Of course, all you ladies out there, don't forget Titus 2:3-5.

Now, I discussed this all with a friend of mine, a missionary convert from southern India. She told me to look at the time this was taking place in, and that it was acceptable practices. But that only raised a question for me. If we know these practices are "inhuman", and inherently "wrong", why would Jesus and his apostles be afraid of speaking out against it? I mean, I remember this from the gospels:

Now you'll all pardon me, but my poor agriculturally-based thinking processes are having a damn hard time reconciling this. If we knew these practices were "wrong", even at the time, what's wrong with speaking out against it then? Didn't they speak what people do is evil?

I should probably stop pugilating the deceased equine, shouldn't I?

Well, take care,
Buchananeer

BibleBelted

I think you will find that your have travelled the same path that many of us here have, myself included.

Pastors and preachers may say that you should read the bible so god's truth will be revealed to you, but they meticulously avoid the type of scriptures you have quoted here. With good reason of course, because they are barbaric and absurd.

Many, if not most, of us here are ex-christians who de-converted not because we didn't read the bible, but because we DID read it, AND comprehended what we read.

Anyone who reads the bible without fear or prejudice will conclude that it cannot be the word of anything other than ignorant, superstitious humans.

[ May 02, 2002: Message edited by: BibleBelted ]</p>

cloudyphiz

exactly, and this is why jesus just doesn't impress me.

as for the distinction between atheist and agnostic, it's my attitude that once you get past believing in a spiteful, schizophrenic wargod-in-a-box it's all just a matter of semantics.

welcome to the club.

-gary

Wafel

Buchananeer:

Much more candy over <a href="http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/" target="_blank">here</a>

Buchananeer

Thanks for the link. It makes reading what I've read more interesting with that viewpoint.

I wonder, though, if there are any that would defend the position as my friend attempted to, by saying that such behavior was acceptable for the time, but we as humans 'grew up' and realized what we were doing was 'against god'.

I dunno. Seems like a very weak argument to me.

Later, darlings.
Buchananeer

hezekiah jones

I'm thinking "t-shirt" here.

BibleBelted

Buchananeer posted:

Seems damn weak to me, too, but it's the only one I ever get from fundys when I bring up these sacred passages.

Once heard a preacher say that before the Civil War (American) that some people used the bible wrongly to defend slavery. Of course, they don't take questions in church so nobody got to ask where you could find all the anti-slavery parts.

[ May 02, 2002: Message edited by: BibleBelted ]</p>

KeithHarwood

Looks like moral relativity to me, as distinct from the absolute morality which is what Christianity is supposed to be about.

(Or is that `relativistic morality', the closer you get to the speed of light the more moral you get?)

The_Gorgonzola

Heheh...the faster one talks the more moral they sound!! heheh