old/new testament again!!

sorry to bring this old chestnut up again, but id like some clarity if possible preferably from the more liberal christians or knowledgeable atheists.

I like jesus he seems like a decent enough fella, he seems to have a good moral structure which i could buy into (if i could ignore all the magic/god part). so i can understand people choosing to follow his teachings. my question is - how do christians that follow the teaching of christ and the new testament decide what sections of the old testament they are going to take literally or decide are allegorical. how are the mosaic laws explained or dismissed? would i be right in saying a lot of christians dont follow mosaic law but nearly all follow the 10 commandments? are they not part of mosaic law?

most of the old testament is dismissible because it is simply invention (god destroys the whole world because some people are evil, but then sends his only son to save the evil people? please). most of what is left can be dismissed because morals from 1000BC do not apply today.


from the new testament one should bear in mind jesus most important command: love each other. everything else is gravy. one could mention how paul's teachings become more and more patriarchal but they were meant as the footnotes to the first rule, guidelines for a society to function in that time and those circumstances.

today we have achieved a certain degree of enlightment (not the spiritual kind, but the no longer ignorant superstitious peasants kind). today we can see the world around us and adjust. we see gays and, bearing gods number 1 rule, we should see that what they do in the privacy of their own homes is none of our damn bussiness. we can see that women are no longer required to stay home in order to avoid being killed by marauding barbarians, diseases, or packs of wolves, and it is ok for them to have a career.


there are some christian (universal, really) values that will never be changed. the rest, we should take an example from jesus, who was a reformer, and reflect on them. we will see that god won't condemn us to eternal pain and anguish because we eat pork on fridays.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
sorry to bring this old chestnut up again, but id like some clarity if possible preferably from the more liberal christians or knowledgeable atheists.

I like jesus he seems like a decent enough fella, he seems to have a good moral structure which i could buy into (if i could ignore all the magic/god part). so i can understand people choosing to foll ...[text shortened]... nt follow mosaic law but nearly all follow the 10 commandments? are they not part of mosaic law?

As soon as you dismiss the supernatural element, like liberal critics like Zippy above,
nothing in the Bible makes sense, its the folly of the materialist and rationalist, to
rationalise events which are outside the scope of a natural occurrence. They are then
in the position of having to explain away the teachings of Christ and the apostles, who
themselves, upheld the Biblical account, Christ himself stating of the Bible, 'you word,
[the Bible], is truth'. It is noteworthy that Christ made reference to Jonah, to Sodom
and Gomorrah, to the flood, as did Peter and other apostles, when pressed for an
answer of why they did this if these events were not real to them, they are bereft, just
ask them.

As for the Mosaic law, its no longer applicable in practice, but its principles remain, it
was an archetype, for the Christ and the heavenly arrangement, if you know
anything about it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
As soon as you dismiss the supernatural element, like liberal critics like Zippy above,
nothing in the Bible makes sense, its the folly of the materialist and rationalist, to
rationalise events which are outside the scope of a natural occurrence. They are then
in the position of having to explain away the teachings of Christ and the apostles, ...[text shortened]... as an archetype, for the Christ and the heavenly arrangement, if you know
anything about it.

why is no longer applicable, who decided?

what is meant by the 'principles'. isnt a set of laws also a set of principles? by saying weve kept the principles is like saying weve kept the laws, isnt it?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
sorry to bring this old chestnut up again, but id like some clarity if possible preferably from the more liberal christians or knowledgeable atheists.

I like jesus he seems like a decent enough fella, he seems to have a good moral structure which i could buy into (if i could ignore all the magic/god part). so i can understand people choosing to foll ...[text shortened]... nt follow mosaic law but nearly all follow the 10 commandments? are they not part of mosaic law?

They all need to be taken into account, the difference is that the OT was for the
Law and God's grace was given through Jesus Christ in the NT. You have to look
at each in context.
Kelly

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
As soon as you dismiss the supernatural element, like liberal critics like Zippy above,
nothing in the Bible makes sense, its the folly of the materialist and rationalist, to
rationalise events which are outside the scope of a natural occurrence. They are then
in the position of having to explain away the teachings of Christ and the apostles, ...[text shortened]... as an archetype, for the Christ and the heavenly arrangement, if you know
anything about it.

yes, love and tolerance doesn't make sense. god sending his son to teach mankind love and tolerance doesn't make sense. in fact, the only way god makes sense is if he genocides some people during the flood, conquest of canaan, wars with whomever threatens israel, gruesome punishments for the most minor of offences, subjugation of women, a gruesome horrible apocalypse with pain and horror and a separate dimension filled with eternal(!) pain and horror in which, if we are to believe the bible, most of todays humanity will end up in.


yes, a god of love cannot make sense without the above.

Originally posted by KellyJay
They all need to be taken into account, the difference is that the OT was for the
Law and God's grace was given through Jesus Christ in the NT. You have to look
at each in context.
Kelly

"They all need to be taken into account"

this could have many meanings, you are not saying 'they most be followed' or 'they can be ignored'. so what does 'taken into account' mean. it suggests to me that you are saying each law doesnt have to be followed to the same level, is this correct?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
sorry to bring this old chestnut up again, but id like some clarity if possible preferably from the more liberal christians or knowledgeable atheists.

I like jesus he seems like a decent enough fella, he seems to have a good moral structure which i could buy into (if i could ignore all the magic/god part). so i can understand people choosing to foll ...[text shortened]... nt follow mosaic law but nearly all follow the 10 commandments? are they not part of mosaic law?

You are reading the OT with a modern era perspective.

If you lived back before the time of Moses, what would the world look like? Most people were slaves at that time. So basically, you had a few elite rulers snapping the whip for the rest of society. Then came Moses.

People say that the Bible endorses slavery, but here we have the beginning of the Bible showing God wanting to deliver people out of slavery. We also see God giving man a "sabbath". At this time, these ideas were revolutionary. Why on earth would the powers that be give the common man any type of power or rights such as these? Although the Bible did allow for slavery among Hebrews, after about 7 years they were to be freed. Those who were not Jews were not as fortunate, but it shows that the Bible is one of the first documents to come out against slavery by in large. Of course, looking at it through our lens today, these people look to be no better than the Egyptians who held them in bondage for 400 or so years, but I think we have the benefit of this lens SPECIFICALLY because of the movement of freedom started by the Mosaic law. After all, even slaves did not work the Sabbath.

We also have Jesus coming out against slavery by saying that those who sin are a slave to sin. At the same time, however, we see that he wishes slaves to obey their masters. Is this a contradiction? If we look at the fate of slave uprisings, like that of Sparticus in Rome, we see the fruit of such rebellion. There is a better approach. Why not change the hearts of men rather than kill them and have those that killed them seek slaves of their own?

And lastly, Jesus spoke of love being the greatest commandment. So does that mean that the wicked are simply given a hug and kiss and sent on their merry way? No, love demands justice. There is no love in ignoring the pain inflicted by the "innocent". It is the reason that we all must die someday. Jesus came to take that sin upon himself, and then free our hearts from bondage to that sin so that we don't feel compelled to continue in it.

From my vantage point, God walks a balancing act. On the one hand, he wishes to show those he loves mercy for their sins, however, he also wishes to judge those who have harmed those he loves. So in the end, it is a balancing act of mercy and grace and judgement. We see this juggling act in the OT. Not all the wicked are destroyed, but some are. I think those that were destroyed were done so to preserve mankind from destroying himself altogether as well as making it possible for Jesus to come and give hope to us all.

Originally posted by whodey
You are reading the OT with a modern era perspective.

If you lived back before the time of Moses, what would the world look like? Most people were slaves at that time. So basically, you had a few elite rulers snapping the whip for the rest of society. Then came Moses.

People say that the Bible endorses slavery, but here we have the beginning of the B ...[text shortened]... himself altogether as well as making it possible for Jesus to come and give hope to us all.

my op was not about my perspective of the old testament. im interested to know how liberal christians feel about the o.t. what do they believe when it comes to the o.t.

sometimes i get the feeling liberal christians will quote o.t. when they want to show a belief of theirs and other times they will distance themselves from o.t. quotes. im wondering if thats how they see it and how do they decide whats okay and whats not.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
why is no longer applicable, who decided?

what is meant by the 'principles'. isnt a set of laws also a set of principles? by saying weve kept the principles is like saying weve kept the laws, isnt it?

the Mosaic law is no longer applicable in practice, fr example, we do not offer up animal
sacrifices for sins, however, also contained in the law is a moral code, for example, you
must not steal, you must not covet ec etc, all of which are applicable in principle to
Christians.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
yes, love and tolerance doesn't make sense. god sending his son to teach mankind love and tolerance doesn't make sense. in fact, the only way god makes sense is if he genocides some people during the flood, conquest of canaan, wars with whomever threatens israel, gruesome punishments for the most minor of offences, subjugation of women, a gruesome horrible ...[text shortened]... f todays humanity will end up in.


yes, a god of love cannot make sense without the above.

no one is talking about love etc, we are taking about how you will explain away Christs
teachings on the flood and other supernatural events, which apparently to Jesus, were
quite real.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no one is talking about love etc, we are taking about how you will explain away Christs
teachings on the flood and other supernatural events, which apparently to Jesus, were
quite real.

we've been through this, jesus had to destroy the hate between men, not teach them quantum physics. he had to get his message as fast as possible because it was known to him that sooner of later, the asholes will try to kill him. he had no time to pause every 5 minutes in his sermon to explain geology, physics, genetics, chemestry, mathematics, etc to whatever yahoo would interrupt him because there was something he didn't understand. he communicated what was important, what was needed to be heard at that time and he allowed us to figure the other stuff out for ourselves, like the impossibility of a global flood as portrayed in the bible.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no one is talking about love etc, we are taking about how you will explain away Christs
teachings on the flood and other supernatural events, which apparently to Jesus, were
quite real.

in short, either the luke, mark, john gospels are lying and jesus never said noah's flood happened, either they don't remember exactly what was said(the gospels were written years after jesus' death) and they had to find another comparison. which they did in the other even in which people were supposedly very bad.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
in short, either the luke, mark, john gospels are lying and jesus never said noah's flood happened, either they don't remember exactly what was said(the gospels were written years after jesus' death) and they had to find another comparison. which they did in the other even in which people were supposedly very bad.

so lets get this dear Zippy, your argument is, that the gospel writers were

1. lying or could not remember what Jesus taught
2. that the text of the gospel is corrupt
3. that christians had to find another comparison of some kind

evidence nil.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the Mosaic law is no longer applicable in practice, fr example, we do not offer up animal
sacrifices for sins, however, also contained in the law is a moral code, for example, you
must not steal, you must not covet ec etc, all of which are applicable in principle to
Christians.

who decides its not applicable? it could be argued that the o.t. could produce several moral codes if a person cherry picks certain parts to form a theme. im sure it would be possible to form a christian off-shoot that focus's more on the violence and vengeful god than the loving forgiving god (im not saying they are mutually exclusive here, just that you could steer in one direction more than the other if you wanted).

for example - god kills the caananites because they did something bad. one person a few hundred years later could say - 'god is telling us that ethnic cleansing is okay if we think a nation is morally corrupt'. another person may read it and say 'god was using the morals of that time to help steer humanity in the right direction, this not something man kind has the authority to do, just god'.

who do christians rely on to decide how to interpretate, is the bible still being re-interperated as time goes on?