Relevance of Old Testament in Modern World

[Jon Miller]

By the way, I would appreciate it if atheists avoid participating in this thread. I want to further my understanding of the Bible in context of our modern societies, not turn this into another religiously faithful versus atheists flame-fest.

I agree, and can't see why certain atheists can't see this point of discussion. I think it shows a lack of ability in understanding arguments.

As I said in another thread. Both the OT and the NT are about man's relationship with God. Told from man's perspective. From this perspective, both the OT and the NT give valuable insight about man and God. And things like whether Job was literal events or not ceases to be relevant.

Now obviously the NT is more important, as Christ is the Word of God (made flesh). And He constantly referred to scriptures (the OT). Also, we don't have His writing, rather we have the writings of those who were followers of Him (once more man's perspective of God).

The themes of man's place in the NT and the OT don't really change much.

Also, it is obvious with Christ's continual reference to the old testament that it was very important. To understand Christ and his work, you have to understand the OT I think. Those who take a few passages of Paul's, and run with them, to mean that the OT is worthless and not valuable are not being honest with the communication between God and man.

JM/

[MrFun]

Good post, JM.

So given that Christ referred to writings that we now have in OT, and that he considered much of it be relevant during his time, does this mean that Christ would have Christian parents put their children to death for disrespecting them?

What parts of OT would Christ have found relevant, and what parts would he had instructed followers to disregard?

[DaShi]

If Christ needed miracles to get people to believe in him, why didn't he perform more and bigger miracles to save more people?

[Jon Miller]

Wasn't Christ always telling people not to tell others about His miracles?

I admit some were pretty open. These were meant, in my interpretation, to shock the populace and the religious leaders to make a decision. Which they did.

My argument, Mr Fun, is that the entire OT is relevant. Including Genesis/Job/etc. But stop reading it as a list of instructions and more as a story. It is about a relationship (man with God), and is heavily dependent on man, since it is told from man's point of view.

Even the obvious instructions (in both testaments), like the 10 commandments (in the OT), should be understood in in relation to the whole. This is something that many Christians believe, that the same God was involved in the relationship with man in the whole Bible. If so, it isn't a large number of separate stories or commands, but rather pieces of the whole. And should be understood as such.

JM

[a.kitman]

I agree, and can't see why certain atheists can't see this point of discussion. I think it shows a lack of ability in understanding arguments.

mrfuns first post was begging for atheist trolls. and try to keep republicans out of a thread about "understanding democrats" and vise versa.
doesnt have anything to do whit not understanding silly arguments.

[Jon Miller]

So what religious discussion isn't begging for atheist trolls?

JM

[Ben Kenobi]

I think it's hypocritical for Mr. Fun to ignore Christians and insist that atheists stay out of his thread.

I consider Fun to be trolling Christians here, not the atheists.

Provost has had appropriate questions.

[a.kitman]

jm it helps if he doesnt have a political agenda. and he couldnt probly have pointed it out in the opening post. would still get some trolls but wouldnt be begging for them.

[SlowwHand]

Why don't you butt out, rather than telling a thread starter the faults, as you see them?
I've seen your involvement in threads, and it's been safe, but trollish, bull****.

[Jon Miller]

Democrats and Republicans often have similar assumptions. Most of the atheists trolls or posts could be replaced with "But I don't believe in God". This doesn't add anything to the conversation.

Ben, because of your history on this site I wouldn't expect the homosexual posters to want to engage in discussions with you.

JM

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben, because of your history on this site I wouldn't expect the homosexual posters to want to engage in discussions with you.

So why is it right for Fun to simply exclude everyone he doesn't like.

Every post here from the atheists have been appropriate and on topic.

Why are you defending Mr Fun for his club thread and circle jerk?

[DaShi]

Ben is only religious to troll others.

[Jon Miller]

Provost H did have some good comments. I was just pointing out that the 'do you believe all of that' can be a good reply (to make people check themselves), but is from a 'I don't believe in God' perspective and so doesn't necessarily add much (as obviously any atheist would ask that/think that).

JM

[Jon Miller]

So why is it right for Fun to simply exclude everyone he doesn't like.

Is it now wrong for people to ignore you?

JM

[Ben Kenobi]

Provost H did have some good comments.

And that's my point.

Why are you labelling him and me as trolls, when we've followed the spirit of the thread.

You are the first person to mention anything about homosexuality. I've said nothing at all.

Are club threads allowed or not?