New testament vs old testament

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by PLATO


Which verses from the old testament do Christians not like?

There's always the one that's been used to justify slavery:
"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way."
Leviticus 25:44-46

Or selling daughters:
"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. "
Exodus 21:7-11

With the plethora of adulterers we've found in the televangelist community, amongst other religious groups:
"If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death."
Leviticus 20:10

Rapists marrying their victims, instead of imprisonment or the death penalty:
"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."
Deuteronomy 22:28-29

War brides:
"When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion."
Deuteronomy 21:10-14

I doubt these are often cited in the same breath by those claiming the Bible is on their side when they decry homosexuality, among other things.

Thus, what conclusion is there other than that they pick and choose which verses they want?

[Q Classic]

I don't fault them for picking and choosing so much, even though such inconsistency bothers me and makes me less likely to be convinced that their beliefs have sustained rigor.

I mean, some of those verses are pretty horrid, wouldn't you say?

[Jon Miller]

Picking out a sentence or two here or there is missing the point of the narrative.

Both Christians and those think that Christianity is stupid do so. Both parties are being ignorant.

JM

[Q Classic]

I'm not faulting Christianity as a whole. It's just not for me.

But if they're going to pick and choose verses, why not point out the ones they're not picking and choosing, regardless of how it fits in context? I assure you, the ones they're picking are often divorced from it as well.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Mrs Snuggles
I'm not faulting Christianity as a whole. It's just not for me.

But if they're going to pick and choose verses, why not point out the ones they're not picking and choosing, regardless of how it fits in context? I assure you, the ones they're picking are often divorced from it as well.

I pointed out that they do it also. And on Christian sites I argue with the Christians who do it.

JM

[Q Classic]

I know you pointed it out. I'm just saying, I'm aware of this, and I was merely using examples to illuminate my earlier point, and answer PLATO's inquiry.

[trev]

A large part of the Old Testament is about rules for the nation to live to, and provides a minimum ethical standard for the nations laws. This minimum standard was much higher than standards of the time, even though to us now they appear barbaric.
However on the individual level, Gods primary law both in the old Testament and the new Testament is to love mercy and act with justice.
So unless you are a President, King or dictator, the primary lesson from both the Old and New Testaments is the same, love the truth, show mercy and be compassionate to those who are suffering.
A Ruler when setting the rules for his country should meet the minimum requirements that are set in the Old Testament.
Slavery even though undesirable, did have a welfare function in the primitive agricultural societies, as those unable to support themselves could be supported by the slaveowner in return for unpaid work. The bible teaches that slaveowners were to care for their slaves and not abuse them.
In todays advanced society with more powerful governments, the government itself can supply the basic requirements for living to all and therefore slavery is no longer necessary for that purpose and is best made illegal as it is in most countries now.

[dannubis]

The most important and most tangible part of the OT is basically the social code of a nomad people that formed its own little kingdom (EXODUS). (It's easier to invoke a diety than to explain why you shouldn't be stealing....). It also contains a lot of the oral heritage and tradition of this people.

The new testament (the gospels) is about a very smart guy who basically said that in order to be rewarded after death, you have to live a good life, i.e. to don't do upon another what you don't want to be done upon you.

All the other **** in the Bible is interpretations by humans, so to be discarted.

[Nikolai]

Originally posted by Mrs Snuggles


There's always the one that's been used to justify slavery:
"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way."
Leviticus 25:44-46

Or selling daughters:
"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. "
Exodus 21:7-11

With the plethora of adulterers we've found in the televangelist community, amongst other religious groups:
"If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death."
Leviticus 20:10

Rapists marrying their victims, instead of imprisonment or the death penalty:
"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."
Deuteronomy 22:28-29

War brides:
"When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion."
Deuteronomy 21:10-14

I doubt these are often cited in the same breath by those claiming the Bible is on their side when they decry homosexuality, among other things.

Thus, what conclusion is there other than that they pick and choose which verses they want?

This is where you don't know Christian theology. In OT, under the old pact, God set the requirements for 1) a perfect life and 2) how the Jews as his people should live. This of course is impossible, so they had to sacrifice to atone. In NT, when Jesus came and died, he became the ultimate sacrifice by fullfilling the Law found in the OT for us(which he could do since he was God in flesh) and take our deserved punishment for failing this, death. This means that for all people who live after Calvary, the need for following the Law to get saved, is gone.

Most of the laws therefore are not relevant anymore, as they are fullfilled already. The ones you quote as such laws, made for a reality not present any longer. What's left is the ten commandments, summarized in the two big rules love God and love your neighbour.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Nikolai


This is where you don't know Christian theology. In OT, under the old pact, God set the requirements for 1) a perfect life and 2) how the Jews as his people should live. This of course is impossible, so they had to sacrifice to atone. In NT, when Jesus came and died, he became the ultimate sacrifice by fullfilling the Law found in the OT for us(which he could do since he was God in flesh) and take our deserved punishment for failing this, death. This means that for all people who live after Calvary, the need for following the Law to get saved, is gone.

How good that Jesus came at the rescue for those rapists that lacked the 50 silver pieces or didn't want to marry the victim.

[Nikolai]

Hehe... You know very well that those were different times. Lots of the laws were given to the Jews in a specific situation of history. God never changes, but man does. The gospel is in no way in opposition to the OT, but thankfully much of the laws of it is no longer relevant for us. In our society for example, a raped woman is no longer an outcast of society, so no need for that law, don't you agree?

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Nikolai
Hehe... You know very well that those were different times. Lots of the laws were given to the Jews in a specific situation of history. God never changes, but man does. The gospel is in no way in opposition to the OT, but thankfully much of the laws of it is no longer relevant for us. In our society for example, a raped woman is no longer an outcast of society, so no need for that law, don't you agree?

Why not make a law that prevents raped women from being outcasts in the first place?

Nothing easier than that:
Werniticus 1:1 If a woman is raped, you shall not cast the curse on her but on the man who knew her against her will. Those who are forced to lie with a man against their will shall not be guilty before MY face.

Nohing easier than that. Either God made stupid laws for his people or, and this is of course what I believe, these are man made laws for a desert nomad people in a specific historical context. As you say yourself, these were different times, but if God played a role in this and guided his people, he could have been a bit more daring...

[Nikolai]

I've never seen it as a good idea to tell a higher being, the one who created me, what he should have done. Since he did it that way, there probably was a very good reason. But I see your point. I just don't think we are informed enough to judge God.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Nikolai

This is where you don't know Christian theology. In OT, under the old pact, God set the requirements for 1) a perfect life and 2) how the Jews as his people should live. This of course is impossible, so they had to sacrifice to atone. In NT, when Jesus came and died, he became the ultimate sacrifice by fullfilling the Law found in the OT for us(which he could do since he was God in flesh) and take our deserved punishment for failing this, death. This means that for all people who live after Calvary, the need for following the Law to get saved, is gone.

Actually, I do know a bit of Christian theology, so there's no need for condescension. Just because I'm no longer religious doesn't mean I've forgotten my upbringing.

The point of my using those clips was not to make any sort of theological argument. The point was to show that modern Christian political thought in the US tends to be very selective about which segments of the Old Testament they choose to honor--and, more specifically, which verses of Deuteronomy they like to use as a club against certain minorities, while ignoring the other ones.

You'll see that early on, I do make the point that Christian theology, in theory, is supposed to be more heavily reliant on New Testament teachings; it's just when these Evangelicals who thrive off of condemnation instead of redemption use the Bible to support their hateful remarks, it almost invariably comes from Old Testament books.

With what I've quoted, in context, yes, it makes sense to view it as a code for the Israelites of yore. But those that would clip verses and twist them today are no more keeping them in context than I was.

Most of the laws therefore are not relevant anymore, as they are fullfilled already. The ones you quote as such laws, made for a reality not present any longer. What's left is the ten commandments, summarized in the two big rules love God and love your neighbour.

Yes.

Something Jesus pretty much said in the New Testament.

But you've sort of missed the thrust of my argument.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Nikolai
Hehe... You know very well that those were different times. Lots of the laws were given to the Jews in a specific situation of history. God never changes, but man does. The gospel is in no way in opposition to the OT, but thankfully much of the laws of it is no longer relevant for us. In our society for example, a raped woman is no longer an outcast of society, so no need for that law, don't you agree?

Of course many of those laws are archaic and barbaric. Many of them are outmoded.

Actually, almost all of them are.

And yet, some groups still use a few of those laws while ignoring the inconvenient ones when explaining why certain behaviors are against God's will, or some such.