FWIW, the context of my statement "Slavery was wrong" was in speaking about American and European style slavery, which is perfectly described by Exodus 21:16. Slavery can refer to a number of things, though. It can also refer to indentured servitude, which was quite different than what Exodus 21:16 references. That would be a contract for debt to be paid off by a number of years of labor. Also, the New Testament did not initiate revolutions to overthrow immoral social institutions of pagan governments. Christianity might have something to say regarding those social institutions, but Islamic style violent revolution to convert everyone by the sword to Christianity were not what the New Testament was about. The New Testament called people to faith in Christ where they were at in the existing pagan social hierarchy. The same thing probably would have happened with a polygamous family that came to Christ. That is not God's design, just as slavery is not God's design, but that is where some people were at when they came to Christ.
I look at it this way. Yes, errors have been made in the transmission of copies. That is true. However, we have such an abundance of manuscript evidence that a very very large percentage of those transmission errors are obvious and detectable. When you have a large body of manuscript evidence that is actually a huge advantage in knowing where the errors are in transmission. Among those transcription errors where it is unclear which variant is incorrect and which one is correct, these are usually inconsequential and do not drastically have an impact on the meaning of a text. None of them to my knowledge overthrow or change fundamental Christian doctrine. My final point to rebut your objections here is this: a perfectly preserved copy of each book is not necessary for us to know what the Bible says. What is necessary for us to know what the Bible says is a body of evidence that allows us to deduce what the original text said. And we have such a body of evidence to deduce what the original authors wrote to an extremely high degree of accuracy.
"Thou shalt not kill": some legal and linguistic problems - PubMed. Thou shall not kill was actually a mistranslation of thou shalt not murder. That’s a pretty material difference. What Does ‘This Rock’ Refer to in Matthew 16:18? The meaning of Peter and the rock passage has been interpreted different with profoundly different results. Hell in Christianity - Wikipedia. At least 3 different words in the various translations with different meanings in the Bible were translated to Hell. One could plausibly argue that hell doesn’t even exist based upon the original words. These are not inconsequential definitional matters. Now I am sure you are going to say your personal interpretation is absolutely correct and the millions who interpret it different are definitely wrong. That is what you will say, but deep down you know you may be wrong, and if so given your rigid philosophy of biblical doctrine, your misinterpretation may cause you to spend eternity in hell. You can deny it, but you know you think about it.
Why aren't these "pro-life people" demanding their elected officials provide adequate support to new mothers and babies? Or children more broadly?
And here we have the difference between the Left and the Right. Adequate support to new mothers and babies should come primarily from...drum roll please...the fathers. Swampbabe essentially says the same thing in her posts about "helping mothers" i.e. it all must come from the government. So, if you would rather support private charities that help trafficked women, single moms, etc. and put 80-95% of the money toward helping them your charity doesn't qualify; but, if you want higher taxes for a system that delivers about 30% of the money toward helping the intended you're a wonderful, loving, intelligent human being, i.e. not a Republican. SMDH. My demands on elected officials are primarily to keep law and order and otherwise leave me alone. When we expect government to solve every problem we're diminishing our own ability to try to heal a sick world.
The difference between us is that I'm perfectly fine with the father providing adequate support. But in situations where he cannot or does not, I believe it is our job as a society to ensure that the mother and child have what they need. I don't bullshit about government inefficiencies to try and justify indifference towards suffering. The government helping people who need it in no way diminishes our ability to do for others. And while we're talking about "the right," I'll simply note that most of your ideological allies do not want a government that leaves people alone. Is your argument that Jesus did not want Caesar feeding the poor?
The plural of anecdote isn’t data. There are people who support single mothers but they are in the minority. You couldn’t support Trump and be pro single mothers.
Any Christian who says the Bible addresses abortion is a liar and will go to hell for heresy trying to play God by making up commandments themselves. Enjoy the eternal burning fire you heretics and Pharisees! Its fun damning people. Maybe I might go be a conservative.
The Bible has been translated and retranslated. Copied and recopied from languages that had about a 30th of the words that modern English has. If you are looking for nuance in the Bible it isn’t original it is a modern addition.
I'm not arguing the Bible teaches slavery is good. I'm arguing the Bible, given the multiple verses across the Old and New Testaments instructing slave owners on how to treat their slaves (rather than admonishing them to free their slaves) doesn't say slavery is wrong.
Yep no doubt about it. This is from Bible gateway. Apparently god is not as pure as some of our legislators.
Thank you for doing your part. I know many try. But I still think you miss the mark. We can argue whether a woman has a right to choose, and I know we will never reach agreement, and I know each side has their own true gut affirmation that they are correct. And it is, I real life, besides the point. The passion and resources thrown into LEGISLATING anti-abortion would be better expended — obviously IMO — on protecting the lives already born. You’ve successfully criminalized abortion. Now, where’s the laws that mandate food, shelter and healthcare for all children?? Where’s the lobbying? Where’s the ferocious public relations campaign? Where’s the weekly sermons? Where’s the judicial placement to achieve the goals? It’s nowhere, because the passion is not there. And all of the volunteer tome that we all put in to do our part doesn’t change the reality. Too many unwanted children are malnourished, poorly educated, and don’t receive appropriate healthcare (not to mention the missing structure needed to raise a child). And they are forgotten.
