| BMaker11 said: I will not. Because those writings are supposed to be the word of God, objective, and timeless. "Man's law will change. God's law is always the same" Meaning the "context of the times" is irrelevant, since scriptures, being "holy", "transcend time" and are "always right". I hate that "context of the times" is used to justify that the Bible condoning things like slavery, because "it was a different time and doesn't apply to today's world" but then flip the script and use the Bible to enforce anti-homosexual sentiments because "This is God's word". Either it's right about everything, being the divine word of the creator, or people are just picking and choosing what to believe and adhere to. But if you're picking and choosing, that means you have a moral compass independent of the Bible that tells you that invading a country, killing all the men and children, livestock, agriculture....but keeping the virgin women "alive for yourselves" (I'm not making this up, either)...is wrong. But then, don't use that same compass to say homosexuality is wrong "because the Bible says so". |
Context is everything! Many of the laws were given for a very specific period of time. (i.e. hygiene laws that were in effect during time periods when there was no knowledge of germs, quarantine laws when there was no knowledge of how diseases spread)
Now for something like slavery, you need to realize that slavery in ancient Israel was NOT the same as slavery today. It's basically a different definition. Slavery, as it was practiced in US history, for instance, would never have flown in Bible times. The fact that we choose to use the same word to describe a different scenario is on us.
First of all slavery in ancient Israel was something you sold yourself in to, to pay debts, and was essentially a long term work contract. You would not be kidnapped and forced to work.
Second, in ancient Israel, there was a periodic "Jubilee year" in which all slaves were freed and land reverted back to its original families. This meant that noone was born into slavery, and noone had to die in slavery. Slavery back then was essentially the situation people in heavy debt find themselves in today: they have to work to pay their debts, not able to accumulate anything. The difference being that within their lifetime, they would be freed and have land once again, guaranteed.
If someone beat their slave to death, they'd be put to death too, because slaves were people, not property, and it would be murder.
Likewise, when it talked about the nation of Israel's wars, and sometimes they would be commanded to purge almost everyone. Sounds pretty heartless, right? But how are you judging this?
Look for a moment, at the Middle East, some individuals have been fighting, and full of hatred for generations and generations. Millions have died. Countless people grow up hating those in the next country, and conflicts with no end in sight continue. Boys see their fathers die, grow up angry, and when they are old enough, have more children who they will teach to hate. Is this somehow better than killing a few thousand people? Objectively, it's so, so much worse. But we don't have the benefit of being about to see the horrible effects of a war ripple through time. God does. Did the Israelites purge every nation in the land of Canaan? No. Were they always ordered to kill everyone? No. We see a story that looks bad on the surface, not considering the endless generations of conflict that could have been the result under different circumstances. But there's more to the story: When we have no faith, death is the ultimate 'bad outcome', and this story is merely a tale of bloodshed. In the context of a loving creator giving these orders, however, we know that 1) the commands were given for the best outcome in the long run 2) In the prophecied ressurection, the creator has the ability to bring back anyone killed in these purges that didn't deserve it.
