Young Writers Society

Home » Literary works » Article / Essay » Literature


Are the Bible's Foundational Claims True?

by Esion


Are the Bible's Foundational Claims True? 

The Bible makes the claim to be the holy word of God, and it describes itself as perfect, inerrant, and absolutely moral. The Bible itself makes these extraordinary claims, and I agree with the late Hitchens when he said, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Not all claims are equal and so the Bible should have an impressive mountain of available evidence for us to prove these claims.

Genesis is an extremely vital and important book for both theological and historical reasons. Genesis in just the first few chapters establishes the reason for a savior, history of death and pain, and the origins of man. Being a foundation for modern doctrines of Christianity, it should hold incredibly well under intense scrutiny and criticism. However, I believe we will see that when met with opposition the Bible's foundations become exposed for what they are, rocky and unstable at best.

Genesis 1 details creation of everything, the cosmos, the earth, and the animals. When we look deeper into the timeline of creation, things get very messy. The creation account of the Bible is directly opposite of what we have observed through the scientific method. In Genesis, we have plants before the sun, earth before the sun and stars, and land animals before whales. While, in the fossil record we see the exact opposite as pictured in Genesis, so this seems to pose a problem for the Bible's foundation.

Now, some say that Genesis is a metaphor and not literal history. Feasibly this is true, I suppose the original intent of the author may never be fully known. But, it seems the other authors considered it as literal history. Paul, Jesus, and writers of the Gospel seem to believe that Genesis 1 was real history, not a metaphor. If we are looking at the Bible as a perfect book then I think we should let it interpret itself.

However, maybe you don't believe the Bible we have to be perfect, but just a copy of what was originally perfect or something to that effect. In that case, how do we decide what is a mistake? There was a time not long ago where there was no evolutionary theory, and so Genesis 1 was not nearly as contested as it is now. In that case, is the Bible only literally true until met with evidence to the contrary? That seems like a poor way of determining the words of God.

Continuing with that thought the Bible teaches there was no death before sin. Today we understand that lots of death had to occur for the mutations to occur to bring about the biodiversity we see. Romans 5:12 states “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned.” So, how can we point towards the Bible as the words of God if it seems to contradict all evidence?

The Bible has a man from dust, no death before sin, and creation all out-of-order. All of these claims are demonstrably false. However, the Bible is more than just a book of errant history, it is also a book that imposes a “perfect” moral code. The morality present in the Bible is nothing short of evil and if followed to the letter would lead to the destruction of modern society.

Slavery has been a thorn in the history of America. It paints a gruesome picture of us, and we praise those who fought to abolish such a horrible practice. So, if we as mere humans with limited capabilities can see the harm and pain slavery can cause, God should have no issue perceiving it the same. But despite that in the Bible we see the explicit and unequivocal support of slavery.

To quote the Bible on the subject (Leviticus 25:44-46 ESV)” As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land and they may be your property.You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.”

God clearly supported slavery. He went as far to explicitly mention they are their property forever. The word property or possession in the Hebrew is “achuzzah” which means, shows possession by inheritance, especially of land. This to say, God ordered people could own other people forever as if that was analogous to owning some property. That is clear and direct support of slavery in the Bible.

Some may point to this being an Old Testament passage. At the outset, God is unchanging(Numbers 23:19, Hebrews 13:8), so if He says this is moral now what would have changed? Secondly, even if by some stretch of interpretation the Old Testament is only relevant as history, God's morality still falls flat. If he supported slavery at all then, at some point it was moral to God. In conclusion, the New Testament never revises this view or corrects it. In fact, it reaffirms the Old Testament by saying this (Ephesians 6:5 NIV) “Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.” The Bible's morality is definitely more than rocky, it's immoral.

In these few examples I see many red flags and reasons to doubt the Bible's foundational claims. The Bible doesn't read as the words of God but of fallible men. With God's inspiration one would think that slavery, historical errors, and scientific errors wouldn't exist. In the perfect book however, we find these in abundance. One might subsequently say that the Bible rest on rocky foundations and ultimately would appear to be untrue, and I would be inclined to agree. 


Note: You are not logged in, but you can still leave a comment or review. Before it shows up, a moderator will need to approve your comment (this is only a safeguard against spambots). Leave your email if you would like to be notified when your message is approved.







Is this a review?


  

Comments



User avatar
271 Reviews


Points: 16577
Reviews: 271

Donate
Wed Mar 07, 2018 7:31 pm
rosette says...



Spoiler! :

(I apologize if my reasoning is sloppy. This essay greatly disturbed me, and I wrote this out feeling rather impetuous. I'm not looking to start a fight or debate a few hours over this; I'm just sharing a few issues I had with this).

The Bible doesn't read as the words of God but of fallible men. With God's inspiration one would think that slavery, historical errors, and scientific errors wouldn't exist.

I don't think errors do exist in the Bible. If they do, that was due to the translators. I understanding translating the Bible from it's original languages into English was a rather difficult task. But that's beside the point.

The fact that you're trying to destroy the Bible's foundations irritates me, in all honesty. If you're trying to prove something you believe, of course you'll find it. You'll find what you're looking for. But that doesn't mean it's the truth. The Bible itself states in 2 Peter 1:20 that "no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation". (KJV) Don't try to use the Bible to prove your own points or something you believe. The Bible says what the Bible says, and if something appears to have a contradiction or be false, why don't we adjust our own glasses and look deeper? It's likely that our perspective is off.

I don't like how you believe the scriptures on slavery and use them to prove some points, but yet you don't believe the scriptures on the Bible being the inerrant Word of God. You either believe the Bible or you don't. You can't pick and choose.

2 Peter 1:21 (KJV): For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
It wasn't like the writers of the Bible got together to write a legacy for their children. They were purely moved by God. He gave them the exact words. God is the author of the Bible. Not Moses or David or Paul. So if you're going to attempt to destroy the Bible's foundation, you'll have to destroy the author instead.

You state yourself that God is unchanging. He also never makes mistakes and His work is perfect (Deut 32:4) Every word of God is pure (Proverbs 30:5), and His way is perfect (Psalm 18:30). He does not make mistakes. So if you think He does, if you think the whole Bible is just one big fraud, I suggest you consider the fact that your interpretation of the scriptures might be at fault.




Esion says...


(just as a forward, because you seem to conflate me citing the Bible's position on an issue I don't believe the Bible. When it says that God is unchanging for example, I am purely using that as a point. I see no reason to accept the Bible is anything but a book written by men.)

"The fact that you're trying to destroy the Bible's foundations irritates me, in all honesty. If you're trying to prove something you believe, of course you'll find it. You'll find what you're looking for. But that doesn't mean it's the truth. The Bible itself states in 2 Peter 1:20 that "no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation". (KJV) Don't try to use the Bible to prove your own points or something you believe. The Bible says what the Bible says, and if something appears to have a contradiction or be false, why don't we adjust our own glasses and look deeper? It's likely that our perspective is off. "

This statement is wrong at every turn. Of course I could I came in with a bias I could potentially find something to justify it. However, I am coming at the Bible as objectively as possible. Meanwhile, you are showing an extreme bias towards the Bible when you say "and if something appears to have a contradiction or be false, why don't we adjust our own glasses and look deeper? It's likely that our perspective is off." Is that really the best way to truth? I do use the Bible to examine the Bible's claims. How else do you suppose I do that?

And when I look at the Bible I don't see perfection, love, and purity. I see errors, immoral judgments, and evil. I see the support and endorsement of slavery, misogynistic thinking, and obviously false assertions. I am more than welcome to talk through this with you in private or right here. I am not out to undermine the Bible or it's foundations to upset people that is simply a consequence. I point out these issues because I really care what's true, and I think the Bible isn't. If it's true I have yet to see the arguments for that view.

Thank you for reading this essay. I hope it made you consider the issues. I would love to have a discussion, but I am aware you said you weren't trying to start a debate and that's fine. Again thank you.



User avatar
841 Reviews


Points: 664
Reviews: 841

Donate
Tue Mar 06, 2018 2:22 am
Radrook wrote a review...



Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the Bible.

Please note that not all Christians believe that animals were immortal prior to the Adamic sin. Some believe that death was their lot because eternal life was reserved for sons of God such as angels and humans who were created in God's image.

You are right about Jesus and others who believed the Biblical accounts of creation to have been literal history. Also, the Bible makes it clear when it is speaking about historical events or just prophetic visions which include symbolic language.

Such books as Chronicles, Kings, Numbers, Exodus, and the books of the minor and major prophets are clearly describing historical events. So there really shouldn't be any confusion in reference to the intent of any book in the Bible.

Also note that there are many things allowed to happen in this world which are described as temporary. That's why it speaks of a new world where all these things will not exist nor be remembered. That is the thematic promise provided. Paradise was lost and it will be regained and regaining it involved Jesus.


Suggestions

Reducing the spacing between paragraphs would enhance readability by making it unnecessary for the reader to pause and leap to the one below.

Qualifications are necessary when referring to Christian beliefs since all Christians don't believe identical things because they don't understand the same scriptures the same way.




Esion says...


Thanks for the review Radrook. Sure, I agree that Christians have differences in beliefs and not all will interpret the passages the same. So, I disagree that the Bible is clear on the intent of the passage when people come to widely different views. I try to take every side into account but obviously some people may read the Bible differently. However, I think that in itself poses an issue. Why do so many people have different views on the same passage?

"Also note that there are many things allowed to happen in this world which are described as temporary. That's why it speaks of a new world where all these things will not exist nor be remembered."

So, was slavery one of those temporary things? If yes, why did God allow slavery? If you disagree with my view that the Bible is pro slavery I would love to hear it. Is slavery moral? If not, why and how did you come to that conclusion?



Radrook says...


There is a misconception that all interpretations are of equal validity when they are not. Many interpretations can be shown to be seriously flawed. For example, there are interpretations which accuse Jesus of having been in a homosexual relationship with the Apostle John. Other interpretations accuse Ezekiel of having seen helicopters. Still others say that the devil was thrown out from heave as described in Revelation at the Garden of Eden when the Apostle john clearly explains at the outset that the the things shown were yet to happen. So no, not all interpretations are equal, In fact, some are downright illogical and silly.


About slavery, I personally don%u2019t consider it an ideal situation. In fact, I consider it an affront to human dignity. Why did God allow it? Well, why does God allow everything else that is happening? One interpretation that seems to make some sense is that it is to provide a rebuttal to the Satanic accusations that were brought up at Eden. Mankind didn%u2019t need God. God knew that mankind didn%u2019t need him and wanted to keep mankind under his foot to prevent mankind from succeeding without him. So in response he allowed mankind to give it a try. The results are recorded in human history which is generally disastrous. During this test the institution of slavery arose and the descendants of Abraham became enmeshed in it in Egypt. Within the context of allowing mankind to try things out for themselves God allowed a certain version of this to be practiced albeit with certain restrictions which prevented the horrendous abuses prevalent in the un-supervised one. Now, I will not attempt to refute your decision to categorize this system as equally cruel as the non Jewish ones because obviously you have already been presented with the evidence and have rejected it. Which is your right of course.



Esion says...


"About slavery, I personally don't consider it an ideal situation. In fact, I consider it an affront to human dignity." So you agree slavery is immoral? If so, my question then becomes, why did God allow Israel to have slaves, buy slaves, and beat their slaves? It is right in Exodus 21 and it is very explicit.

"God allowed a certain version of this to be practiced albeit with certain restrictions which prevented the horrendous abuses prevalent in the unsupervised one." So was God incapable of simply saying "Thou shall not own people."? Why would God have to allow anything, he's God, and if he is the arbiter of morality, then why couldn't he denounce it?



Radrook says...


I provided the answer in my previous response where the issues raised in Eden are mentioned.



Esion says...


I am not sure what you mean by the "issues raised in Eden."



Radrook says...


That mankind could do without God and that God is a liar who wants to keep mankind under his feet for selfish reasons. So God permits mankind and Satan a certain time to prove their pointy and see if indeed it is true or not. Within the parameters of that allotted time many things are permitted to happen which are unrighteous until the refutation to the accusation is thoroughly demonstrated. Otherwise mankind and Satan would say that h did not allow enough time for mankind to have reached the pinnacle of their capabilities.



Esion says...


"Within the parameters of that allotted time many things are permitted to happen which are unrighteous until the refutation to the accusation is thoroughly demonstrated. " But the thing is slavery wasn't just permitted to happen by men to other men. It was specifically mandated by God. He gave his stamp of approval and the New Testament upholds slavery. So is slavery now moral?



Radrook says...


I don't see it that way and neither was I taught that he approves of it. If he did, then it would emerge in his new world that he promises to establish but it doesn't and it won't.

Revelation 21:4 NIV
He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death' or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."

1 Corinthians 15:26
The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

2 Peter 3:13 NIV
But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells.

I was taught that he allows it as a temporary inconvenience within those parameters of the Edenic issues and that he provides rules for his chosen people Israel so that they can use it in a more decent manner. The other poster explained the differences and you rejected his explanation so it would be a waste of time for me to do the same. But I do respect your right to an opinion. It certainly isn't easy to reconcile many of the things that we observe with a loving God. But the best explanation I have is the one I provided. It is up to you to either reject or accept it. that is between you and the creator.



Esion says...


"I was taught that he allows it as a temporary inconvenience within those parameters of the Edenic issues and that he provides rules for his chosen people Israel so that they can use it in a more decent manner." How can slavery ever be done decently? Didn't you just say that it's "I personally don't consider it an ideal situation. In fact, I consider it an affront to human dignity."? Owning people is wrong. The argument that God couldn't or wouldn't make a command against slavery is a nonsensical argument. The Old Testament is full of hundreds of laws and many of them are of little or no value. Leviticus says that we shouldn't eat shellfish. Would it have been too much for God to say, "Thou shall not own your fellow man"? I don't find it very convincing that God had to let us figure slavery out on our own. If God can regulate slavery, then why couldn't he abolish it?



Radrook says...


I already explained that his actions are to be understood within the parameters of the issues that arose in Eden and that requird a response.



Random avatar

Points: 0
Reviews: 104

Donate
Mon Mar 05, 2018 11:15 pm
KatjaDawn wrote a review...






Esion says...


Thanks for the review Katja. %u201CIn biblical times, people often sold themselves as slaves to be able to pay off debts%u201D This is true in part, but this is not what the verse said in my essay. It states that you can buy slaves from the nations around you and they are your property forever and can be passed on to your children. The only indentured servitude version of %u201Cslavery%u201D was for the Jewish people to other Jewish people, and even that carries a loophole to keep them forever.

To your next point %u201Cthe bible specifically told the slave owners to treat their slaves fairly and justly (col. 4:1)%u201D Again, only true in part, the Old Testament says the following (Exodus 21:20-21) %u201CWhen a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.%u201D I don't think the Old Testament paints the same picture as Colossians in the New Testament.

Regardless of whether the slavery was nice or not is ultimately irrelevant. Owning people is always wrong. If you treat them like royalty or like dirt makes no difference. The morality of the issue doesn't change. I think we would agree that slavery is immoral, so why does God endorse it?

Finally, I believe that foundational aspect of the Bible is that it is God's word. Furthermore, God is perfect and incapable of making a wrong judgment. I think those claims are very evident from the Bible. If these foundational truths are wrong, then why believe the rest of the extraordinary claims of the Bible?



Esion says...


Sorry, not sure why it posted like that. Hopefully you can still make sense of it.


Random avatar
KatjaDawn says...


I absolutely agree with your additional points! Again, with the treatment and involvement of slavery, I still argue that this is a cultural issue. Slavery in biblical days was more so viewed as a job (with a "contract"), how the slaves were kept, I would argue, depends on the culture and timeframe. As for slaves being struck with a rod and dying: this would be considered murder, and as such breaks one of the commandments, which would mean the believer doing so has damned himself unless he repents. mistreatment of the slave would also be considered a sin, as it goes again much of what Jesus taught us (loving one another, treating each other with respect, etc.) (John 13:34 is a really good example of this!). I would also like to add that much of the bible is historical and compiled by many different people over years and years. Historical and God's word, we must be clear on what is specifically God's law, and what cultural times called for. Jesus changed much of how God's laws were upheld (that is NOT to say he changed the laws), so again.... cultural. New testament vs. Old testment arguements would take days to discuss. So, my main point involving slavery: Yes, owning people is wrong. I would argue slavery in that day and age was more of a job contract, and any mistreatment or rules that make it seem as though they were being mistreated should be clarified as man's doing. should the slave be killed or mistreated: the "owner" has gone against God's law, and thus will pay or repent. Thus, God does NOT endorse slavery in the way that you and many others are using the term. God is perfect and incapable of wrong judgment, yes. As i have stated probably multiple times already, the bible is a huge mix of history and Godly law. It is important to study everything in context and learn what is what. And yes, it made sense. :)



Esion says...


" Yes, owning people is wrong. I would argue slavery in that day and age was more of a job contract, and any mistreatment or rules that make it seem as though they were being mistreated should be clarified as man's doing" So, the verse that says you can beat your slave if they don't die in a day or two, is that just men or God? It comes from the same book where you cite the 10 commandments. as a foundation to the Bible. So how can you pick and choose what's God and what's man?


Random avatar
KatjaDawn says...


When I stated that, I meant the actions that we take, are our own. If I have someone who works for me, and I beat them, it was my own action. To go more in depth on this verse you point out within Exodus Chapter 21 , we learn of the specific rules of which slaves were to be kept, treated, for how long, etc. This chapter also talks of the treatment of people in different scenarios... It even talks of what it to happen to a bull that mulls a person. Regardless of what your opinion is on the topic of slavery, this was a system, custom even, that people often entered to pay off debts or if they committed a crime.It was very similar to a form of job, and the modern slavery that we know of, was very different. Murder was punishable by death in this time, as it was an action that went against the commandments as you stated, but Jesus had not yet come. "12 Anyone who strikes a person with a fatal blow is to be put to death.", as you stated, the owner was not to be punished should the slave survive. This is because the person would not have committed murder. As far as i saw, the verse specifically doesn't say you can beat the slave if they DIDN'T die, %u201CAnyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property". And the reason I cited the commandants as God's Law, versus the rules given to slave owners is because we know as a fact (from a believer's stance) the commandments were directed given to Moses. The rules given to slave ownership, is not something that applies to us today and It wasn't something that applied to modern slave ownership, as for VERY obvious reasons, slavery was not at all what it was in biblical days. This is not picking and choosing, but understanding what was cultural, meant for the Israelites, Jews, or what was intended for the people before Jesus came. Sorry if my responses seem unorganized, I'm trying to word everything appropriately as quickly as possible to respond quickly. If you'd like to continue this responding/debating, perhaps it would be easier to use the messages?


Random avatar
KatjaDawn says...


I meant directly given to Moses from God, by the way :)



Esion says...


I fundamentally disagree. If you buy someone and own them forever, can beat them if they don't die, and treat them like property, it is slavery. Slavery in the most cruel sense and it wasn't a different or nicer version. Again, even if I were to concede that it was a more humane than modern slavery the problem still remains. The Bible says you can buy people as property? Do you agree with that? If not, on what basis did you determine that slavery is wrong? The Bible says it's okay. So, by what method did you conclude that slavery is immoral. It's pretty clear that slavery was allowed, whether or not it was violent is another issue. We have both agreed that slavery is immoral, but if your morality comes from the Bible, how did you determine that? Feel free to message me if you like about this anytime.


Random avatar
KatjaDawn says...


I determine the morality based on what Jesus taught us. Mosaic law (which is what slavery was permitted under) also called for adulterers to be stoned to death. The easiest and most known story to use as an example: when the Pharisees attempted to discredit Jesus, they brought a woman accused of adultery to him. To which he responded with "He who is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at her". We can probably both agree that just because someone commits adultery, stoning them is immoral. Whether or not we view slavery as "nicer" vs "not" as you stated, can be ignored and we can point out that just because something was considered appropriate under Mosaic law, does not mean God wants or considers it "okay" now. Likewise, the Bible does not say "slavery is okay" just because there were rules given for slavery under mosaic law. Again, the bible is a LOT of history. Jesus came and his teachings show us clearly that just because something was under Mosaic times, does not make it moral today. (He didn't change the laws, rather how they were upheld).



Esion says...


I have already explained that the New Testament, which I assume you take to be authoritative, reaffirms the position of the Old Testament. Paul told slaves to obey their masters as if they were obeying Christ. So, no, just because Jesus tried to change the way laws were upheld doesn't affect the Bible's position on slavery. Even if he did redo it in some sense, it still begs my original question of why allow it all?

"We can probably both agree that just because someone commits adultery, stoning them is immoral." Absolutely. But, the Old Testament called for the stoning of adulterer, homosexuals, and sabbath workers. So, is part of your Bible immoral and if Jesus is God or equal with God, then what makes the Old Testament's claim any less moral? It seems to me you are trying to use Jesus to undo the immorality Old Testament, but Jesus said

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. So then, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do likewise will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven"

Jesus seems to value the Law of the Old Testament. Even if we say Jesus fulfilled the law, that still has yet to explain away slavery. If slavery was endorsed by God why would that ever change and was it moral?


Random avatar
KatjaDawn says...


Slavery was a custom, and No where did God say "thou shalt own slaves". Slavery was not and is not a law of God. Slavery was a custom that was given rules. As with many practices under mosaic law, they are not upheld today. Slavery doesn't need to be "explained away", again, it was a custom that was given rules and is not a law of God nor is it endorsed by God. Permitted, under specific rules to prevent mistreatment and murder, even if by todays standards it was "immoral". Regardless, it is not permitted today. Why it was allowed, is not something I believe anyone can explain. If i answered in my own opinion, I would once again argue that it was more of a Job. But many others can answer too in their own opinions based on their biblical research... But we can't speak for God. All I can say, is what God permitted before Jesus is much different than what he permits today. Jesus preached about loving thy neighbor and not judging others for we all have sinned. So... again. Not endorsed by God. Permitted under rules. It is not allowed today- should you own a slave today (and I do mean actually own and enslave someone), that would more than likely be against God's laws. The biggest thing to keep in mind, is when Jesus came, animal sacrifice and murdering sinners (stoning, etc) was no longer permitted because Jesus became the ultimate sacrifice. Killing animals is something we would view today as wrong, stoning too, so it's really not that hard to see that there were things permitted back then that changed thanks to Jesus's fulfillment.



Esion says...


God allowed people to own slaves right? How is that any different from a direct command? Slavery isn't just immoral to our modern standards, it was and will always be immoral. Slavery, in the sense of Exodus 21, was in no way a job. Being someone's property isn't a job. "All I can say, is what God permitted before Jesus is much different than what he permits today." Why? Why would God appear so different? I completely agree and it's part of the reasons I don't believe. Is the God of the New Testament the God of the Old Testament? Sure doesn't seem like it to me. Neither Jesus, nor any of the New Testament authors, wrote against slavery. The New Testament just reaffirms the Old Testament. There was no change in position.

" should you own a slave today and I do mean actually own and enslave someone), that would more than likely be against God's laws" It might be more than likely that a loving God ,if one existed, would have outlawed slavery but the Biblical God didn't. He explicitly allowed it. At the end of the day if God is powerful enough to say don't eat shellfish, then he could and should have said the same about owning people. He doesn't do that and actually endorses it.


Random avatar
KatjaDawn says...


You stated that God allowing slavery to happen is the same as God giving a direct command to do it. So the real question is, why does God allow anything bad to happen? We all know, realistically, this is a sick and cruel world where bad things happen. It is a fallen state in which sin is permitted to run rampant. But why does God allow any of it? The answer is simple: Free Will. it is not God who commits heinous acts, but man. And yes, many things done under free will (murder, lying, adultery) are even against basic commandments. But then we must bring into question once more, what happened when Jesus came? The adulteress (or accused adulteress) brought to him to be stoned, yet he stated that only one who has not sinned may cast the first stone at her. Yet, under God's law adultery is a sin. Under mosaic law, adulterers should have been stoned. But Jesus very easily showed us that now that he had come, and after he died for us, only God can forgive our sins and man cannot judge one another in this way. Before Jesus, God permitted mankind to do sacrifices as well, yet after Jesus, we no longer have to do this. It is really not hard to see that Jesus's sacrifice changed much of how life was and would become. There are an infinite number of scenarios we could bring to question that, perhaps, the bible does not explicitly speak against or even for. But the problem with trying to create scenarios to show that the "bible doesn't speak against it" and thus saying "it promotes it" or this is God's way of saying it's okay, is that there are many many many other passages within Jesus's teachings in particular that show us that many things are wrong or right, and should or should not be done. Many practices (including slavery) were allowed/permitted, because: 1. Jesus had yet to come, and thus sins were handled differently. (as, Jesus's sacrifice gave us a way to have our sins washed away), 2. Customs back then were not what they are today. But if slavery were exactly the same, slaves were told to love and obey their masters. This is no different than Jesus telling us to turn the cheek. If a man is enslaving you (of course, this is wrong if we view it as slavery and not a job), then we should love him, as sinning in turn will not make us right. 3. God cannot give and then selectively take away free will or he would not be a righteous/just God. Thus, should man choose to commit heinous acts, unfortunately that man can do so. That DOES NOT mean he will not be punished. God is Just, and thus, this man will be punished. This is no different then our justice system (other than the fact that you can't lie to God and should you not repent, you will pay for every heinous or sinful thing you've done).

It is important to understand that allowing something to happen is not synonymous with promoting it or endorsing it.




Kindness is the language the deaf can hear and the blind can see.
— Mark Twain