Does the Bible fit in present day believes? And should believes be taken from it?

Because the discussion here: Biblical Contradictions

Was getting off-topic a new thread has been created.


So the Bible says for instance that men should dominate over women. While I strongly believe that women and men are equal and should treat each other as such.

The problem I have with the Bible is that people choose to take parts out of the Bible and choose to ignore the rest. If you are going to live by the Bible you have to take the whole book otherwise except that some of it can't be translated to the present day and that it is a book with both good and bad ideas and believes.

What I mean by ignoring: The bible for instants says that it's ok to throw out your own daughter and stone her to death if she doesn't follow Christian believes. Now I don't know the exact part (Old testimony) but I do know it is in there. Would you say that that is good? or that woman are less than men? Or that homosexuality is bad, euthanasia a crime just as abortion?

And for Sources here you go:

http://www.pinn.net/~sunshine/book-sum/xtian2.html
Mostly about how not to be a victim but further down there are examples from the Bible.

http://www.cybercollege.com/antiwoman.htm
I would be very impressed if you could explain this

http://www.brfwitness.org/Articles/1975v10n3.htm
A passage:

There are two passages of Scripture that speak directly to the issue of the woman's place in the Church. 1 Timothy 2:12 says, "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 says, "Let your women keep silence in the churches, for it is not permitted unto them to speak ... and if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home"

Why are there no woman priests? Yes because the church doesn't allow it. Why? Because they use the passages to show this. There is no denying that the passages aren't being used to suppress woman.

So man should be the boss in his own household, this believe comes from the past when woman only took care of the children and cleaned...
What if the woman earns more than the man? Who raises the children most of the time? In a marriage no one should rule the household. Both partners should work together on upholding the household.


So my question is as said in the title:

There are many things in the Bible that don't fit with present day believes and values. As such shouldn't the Bible be rewritten after today's standards and shouldn't that be preached in churches and such in stead of the above?

You have interpreted wrong. The Bible says, "A husband should rule over his wife." Not women in general. Women were put on the earth to help man. While women are their own person, yes. But when a man and women are married, a man is in charge. That's the way it is now'a days as well. Most men are the ruler of their household.

EDIT: I already answered most of those questions...Why are you asking them again? Stoning was from the old days before Chirst came. When Jesus came, he changed a lot of laws. Same thing goes for most of those questions. Don't read half of the Bible and base that upon the whole thing...

Originally Posted by Dark Link

You have interpreted wrong. The Bible says, "A husband should rule over his wife." Not women in general. Women were put on the earth to help man. While women are their own person, yes. But when a man and women are married, a man is in charge. That's the way it is now'a days as well. Most men are the ruler of their household.

That it is in most cases doesn't make it right, does it?
And there are enough cases where the woman in the marriage earns more than the man.

I posted it because your not the only one around here, more people might want to respond to it. Post their own ideas on this matter.

Originally Posted by Nictel

That it is in most cases doesn't make it right, does it?
And there are enough cases where the woman in the marriage earns more than the man.

Husbands and Wives each have their own responsibility, each helping one another. Can a woman protect her family when a robber comes? Most of time, no. Can a man? Yes. It's the way God intended. Husbands and wives are both co-equal, but the man is the ruler of the household. On some aspects the wife can only do in the household, while there are other aspects that the husbands can't do.

The Bible makes some pretty blanket statements. The Ten Commandments combined with the New Testament, encompasses just about every aspect of human behavior. The world hasn't changed much since those days--but society has. Rules concerning slavery no longer apply because we no longer have slaves (although Biblical slavery laws could be interpreted and applied to household servants, such as manservants, etc.).

There is no denying that the passages aren't being used to suppress woman.

You use the word "suppress", which can easily be denied. Women can't be priests because priests are supposed to act "in the person of Christ" (in persona Christi), and, since Christ was a male, priests must then be male as well. It's a very logical and practical succeeding that most people could care less about, but it is very important nonetheless.

The bible for instants says that it's ok to throw out your own daughter and stone her to death if she doesn't follow Christian believes.

Revise your statement to say "Jewish," and then it's correct.

Also, the use of capital punishment for disobeying religious law in those days was abolished by Christ when He said, "Let the one without sin cast the first stone [at her]." God assumed 100% authority over religious punishment with that statement, being the only One without sin, other than the Blessed Mother.

Originally Posted by LionHarted

You use the word "suppress", which can easily be denied. Women can't be priests because priests are supposed to act "in the person of Christ" (in persona Christi), and, since Christ was a male, priests must then be male as well. It's a very logical and practical succeeding that most people could care less about, but it is very important nonetheless.

I have to disagree. God does not teach that women should not be able to preach unto men. Some women are more holy, and have a better knowledge of the Bible then that of men. It is a "custom" to some Christian religions fro there to be no women preachers. But Jesus himself said that he despises the customs of man. The Christian religion I am is Apostolic Pentecostal. And one of the main preachers is a woman. God does not say that women aren't allowed to teach the Word of God. Anyone who is willing and capable of doing so is allowed.

In the beginning, God created Man and then Woman. This was not politically correct and many feminists considered this a bad move.

Criminals beware! http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/laurenpowersp1big.jpg

Let the one without sin cast the first stone [at her]."

This can be used as a person who has never committed a sin. They may than throw the first stone.

because priests are supposed to act "in the person of Christ"

That the don't do in too many cases is not important? Yes of course it is. Well but isn't to act in the believes and values of Christ? Than a woman can be a priest and there are Christian sections that do allow women to be priests.

Revise your statement to say "Jewish," and then it's correct.

I do believe it is in the bible as well.

Rules concerning slavery no longer apply because we no longer have slaves

Rules concerning man being the ruler of the household no longer apply because women now can take care of themselves.

They still can take care of themselves, but the man is the leader of the household. Be happy, men get about 40 rules about their wives but women just have to submit to the man's leadership, more than a fair trade.

Let the one without sin cast the first stone [at her]."

Not sure what you were saying when quoting this, but this just means that you can cast the first judgement at people if you haven't sinned yourself.

Originally Posted by Cody

They still can take care of themselves, but the man is the leader of the household. Be happy, men get about 40 rules about their wives but women just have to submit to the man's leadership, more than a fair trade.


Not sure what you were saying when quoting this, but this just means that you can cast the first judgment at people if you haven't sinned yourself.

Hehe well maybe I should be happy but I'm not.

Well that's exactly what I meant, if you haven't sinned yourself so this also may be a normal person and not only god. So the story of being allowed to stone your own child if it doesn't follow Christian believes/ is sinful still goes. It says that it is ok to kill your own child for not believing that what you do. That is just so wrong.

Originally Posted by Nictel

This can be used as a person who has never committed a sin. They may than throw the first stone.

Originally Posted by Cody

Not sure what you were saying when quoting this, but this just means that you can cast the first judgement at people if you haven't sinned yourself.

When you find someone who has never committed sin, let me know. I'd like to meet him or her.

This can be interpreted as meaning "it is not in the right of human beings to judge or condemn."

That the don't do in too many cases is not important?

"Act in the person of Christ" means "to preside as Christ in the Mass and Sacraments." Obviously human beings aren't perfect.

Well but isn't to act in the believes and values of Christ?

Ideally, a priest should be a model Christian. Obviously in many cases this does not happen. However, being a good Christian is not the function of a priest. A priest is supposed to celebrate the Sacraments and preside over the Mass. Any other functions are purely supplementary.

Than a woman can be a priest and there are Christian sections that do allow women to be priests.

If men are any less qualified because they're not perfect, the fact that women aren't male and aren't perfect doesn't make them equals "in persona Christi."

I do believe it is in the bible as well.

Sure. The Bible is the sum of Jewish and Christian law, and a history of both. You're thinking the Old Testament, which contains Jewish law, much of which was abolished by Christ.

Rules concerning man being the ruler of the household no longer apply because women now can take care of themselves.

Women can take care of themselves. Okay; "themselves" and "the household" are not the same thing, unless I've got one jacked up Thesaurus..

Originally Posted by LionHarted

When you find someone who has never committed sin, let me know. I'd like to meet him or her.

Women can take care of themselves. Okay; "themselves" and "the household" are not the same thing, unless I've got one jacked up Thesaurus..

I will! *Starts Searching*


Ok I meant that by themselves they could also take care of others I wasn't totally clear let me rephrase:

Woman earns 200.000,- dollars a year because she is a good lawyer she is married to her husband who works in an office earning 30.000,- dollars a year.

Now who takes care of the household?

"to preside as Christ in the Mass and Sacraments."

I still don't understand why a woman can't do this. preside as Christ to act like Christ: I understand this as to act like him in words and believes and actions. Which has nothing to do with gender.

Originally Posted by Nictel

Hehe well maybe I should be happy but I'm not.

Well that's exactly what I meant, if you haven't sinned yourself so this also may be a normal person and not only god. So the story of being allowed to stone your own child if it doesn't follow Christian believes/ is sinful still goes. It says that it is ok to kill your own child for not believing that what you do. That is just so wrong.

You interpreted it wrong. God was addressing the whole crowd. Look closely to what He said. "Let he is without sin cast the first stone." His point was the all of them had sin. It isn't right for to kill someone because they believed for something else. Any normal human being has sinned at least once in their life. In fact, humans are born with sin. You should discipline you child. If a child doesn't believe in something that the parents want them to, that's too bad. The parent has total control over the child. That's the way it was back then, and it's they way it was now, except now parents’ discipline the children, instead of killing them. You should be thankful that Jesus came. Without Him, these laws would still be applied today. Now let's say that the child believed in something good, let's say God. And the parent said no. Then the rule doesn't apply to there.

Originally Posted by Dark Link

You interpreted it wrong. God was addressing the whole crowd. Look closely to what He said. "Let he is without sin cast the first stone." His point was the all of them had sin. It isn't right for to kill someone because they believed for something else. Any normal human being has sinned at least once in their life. In fact, humans are born with sin. You should discipline you child. If a child doesn't believe in something that the parents want them to, that's too bad. The parent has total control over the child. That's the way it was back then, and it's they way it was now, except now parents’ discipline the children, instead of killing them. You should be thankful that Jesus came. Without Him, these laws would still be applied today. Now let's say that the child believed in something good, let's say God. And the parent said no. Then the rule doesn't apply to there.

How can someone be born with sin? It hasn't done anything yet, unless you believe in reincarnation of course.

Wait! If the child doesn't believe in god it should be disciplined? But if it is the other way around the rule doesn't apply? That's very easy isn't, only applying it to cases that you find just. What if the parents were Christian and the child wants to follow Islamic believes?