Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

That doesn't really make much sense. I'm not referring to history. The old testament is the Torah! If Christians follow the teachings in the Bible, then shouldn't you also follow the teachings in the Old Testament? And if the Old Testament is the Torah, then you should also follow the laws set out for Jews.

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
Christianity IS a Semitic religion though, and the Old Testament is the Torah, so why not?

What I've heard on the matter amounts to the old testament being little more than backstory, with all its various tenets rendered null and void by the new testament, usually as a weasely point of defense against attacks quoting the various lunatic laws from the old testament. Of course, it rather falls flat on its face when christian leaders/idealogues draw just as heavily from the old testament as they do from elsewhere.

I cannot imagine that morality can come from an ancient book of folktales and laws; which is not to say that it cannot contain moral points, but rather they can only be apparent to someone who is already aware of them, at least on some level. Which of course by necessity falls back upon the social instincts of humans more than anything else: you know instinctively that antisocial behavior is unacceptable, here's a book that says as much (if cryptically, further obfuscated by poor translations and changing cultural norms), leading unfortunately to a conclusion akin to "wow this book says something my gut says is true, everything else it says must be too!"

 Ahtman wrote:
That argument was made against using Leviticus as an excuse to hate homosexuals, and doesn't really work as good example of rejecting the Bible as an immoral work. It also doesn't apply to many, if not most Christians. It feels like something an angst riddled kid would copy and paste from another website either in an attempt to shock, and/or that didn't understand the context, but thought it seemed edgy.
Don't be that guy. No one likes that guy, even other atheists.

*Disclaimer* I'm not saying that all religious people are immoral, they are like all people, some are and some aren't. I suppose the true test is whether as a percentage more religious people are moral than non-religious but as this is impossible to determine we can never say.

Sorry for being "that guy", just seemed an apt and interesting wall of text. It genuinely shocked me to read it and then I went through Lev. and it's all there. I understand that modern Christianity has moved away from certain parts of the bible (the old testament being part of the bible, and therefore the unchangeable and true word of God). There are also many examples in the new testament that would make any person shudder with it's immorality.

Most of Lev. is very immoral, and part of the bible, you can't write off bits (e.g. someone who gave loads to charity but is then found to have abused kids, that person is immoral, you can't just say that bits bad but the charity stuff was lovely.)

You can justify this with it being written before our time and/or say that certain things are just figurative, but then you as a person, or persons, are re-writing the bible with your own ideas, therefore changing the word of God.

The bible has also been re-translated (changed) many times.

The good stories that are picked out are chosen by people, and determined with their in-built morality without the need of teachings from the bible, that was my only point.

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
That doesn't really make much sense.

And saying Christians have to be Jewish doesn't make much sense either.

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
I'm not referring to history.

Of course you are, as you are talking about the Old Testemant, which is, essentially, a series of books about the history of the Hebrew god and his relationship to the Hebrews. The point of its inclusion is to contextualize what is to come, not to lay out a second set of rules in parallel with the teachings of Jesus Christ. You can't both follow "an eye for an eye" and "turn the other cheek" at the same time. The point of the New Testament is to lay out the (wait for it) new way of thinking and approaching mankind and G-d. The Old Testemant tells how it got to that point as well as laying a foundation for what was changed. We aren't talking about a book of rules like for a sport in which the only contents are just rules. It contains history, stories, metaphors, poems, and guidelines in an attempt to pass down not just rules, but also a sense of who they were, and who we might become. It is an incredibly complex tome. If Christians had to be Jews and follow (old) Jewish law, then they wouldn't be Christians, they would be Jews. They are different religions, with different beliefs (like say believing that the messiah has arrived), but a shared history. I have a shared history with the Iroquois nation, but that doesn't make me an Iroquois. Having an Old Testament doesn't make Christians into Jews.

DacGerm wrote:
*Disclaimer* I'm not saying that all religious people are immoral

And I didn't say you said that, I said your post was bad. for a number of reasons.

DacGerm wrote:
Sorry for being "that guy", just seemed an apt and interesting wall of text.

Actually, you are more of 'That guy' for "in case you take a "certain book" recommended for children too seriously, please read this letter". It also still doesn't seem like you understand the context of what you posted.

The Old Testament Covenant was given to a very specific group of people in a very specific place for a very specific time in history. Trying to paint Christianity in a broad brush because they don't follow some of the laws that were never given to them is pretty dumb, even if there is a shared history between the two faiths.

The Old Testament if no irrelevant and Christians are not being hypocritical when they draw on it to learn without following the old covenant since the old laws were never ours to follow. It served a specific purpose to the people it was given to.

If it's irrelevant and superceded by the New Testament, why do you include it in the Bible?

Did you miss the part where I said that its not irrelevant? Or where Ahtman talked about its role and importance?

You're basically saying that we don't really need what the Old Testament said, just elements of the history and background. Therefore, as a religious text, it's irrelevant. I don't need a book with Ogham inscriptions to understand Celtic paganism, do I? Or a book about Viking runes to understand Asatruism? But if your church leaders are going to quote it and its laws, then it gives the impression that, in fact, you do try to follow the Old Testament. And if you don't need to follow the laws, then why would you include it in your bible?

Christianity is a hodge-podge of so many religions it's ridiculous.

DacGerm wrote:
*Disclaimer* I'm not saying that all religious people are immoral

And I didn't say you said that, I said your post was bad. for a number of reasons.

DacGerm wrote:
Sorry for being "that guy", just seemed an apt and interesting wall of text.

Actually, you are more of 'That guy' for "in case you take a "certain book" recommended for children too seriously, please read this letter". It also still doesn't seem like you understand the context of what you posted.

I know you didn't say that, I put it in after because I didn't want to cause any offence with what I wrote below that, which had nothing to do with Christianity as a whole, just that morals do not come from Christian teachings.

The bit "in case you take" etc, that was in the original email, and not written by me, looking back it is exceptionally patronising but I think the guy writing it thought that he was justified as he was replying to something just as patronising. That said, can't fight fire with fire.

I should learn to quote better and have put that whole thing in quotes (starting at that line), my bad. I might just do that.

How do you know which bits of the bible are valid though, who tells you, do you decide yourself?

Considering that none of the explanations have anything to do with what you wrote, and that it is obvious that you already have your mind made up and hold steadfast in your "it's in your book so you must be Jewish or why else include it" though, there isn't really any point in talking about it.

But yes, do better understand one thing you need to know the history of another related thing. Pretty basic really.

 d-usa wrote:
Considering that none of the explanations have anything to do with what you wrote, and that it is obvious that you already have your mind made up and hold steadfast in your "it's in your book so you must be Jewish or why else include it" though, there isn't really any point in talking about it.

But yes, do better understand one thing you need to know the history of another related thing. Pretty basic really.

That makes sense, I apologise if I set the other guy off. Do you see the whole bible like this, I could understand that.

DacGerm wrote:
How do you know which bits of the bible are valid though, who tells you, do you decide yourself?

Depends on the person I would suppose. Some let an organization tell them, some decide for themselves. Some research and spend a great deal of time and energy struggling over it, and others just take it as it is.

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
You're basically saying that we don't really need what the Old Testament said, just elements of the history and background.

You know what's fun?

Trolling religious threads with false dichotomy fallacies. Either you follow the parts of the Old Testament that in many cases Jesus himself flouted, or you aren't Christian.

You sir, are a champion.

No, you're made up in your mind. When I go to church, the Old Testament is referred to pretty much every time. I've watched videos of pastors who quote the Old Testament and its laws. Some of the first biblical stories a child learns is the Garden of Eden and Noah's Ark - both are from the Old Testament. Today in history, when watching something about Segregation, there was this southern pastor who was referencing some obscure law in the Old Testament on why segregation was for god. This therefore makes me feel that Christians are supposed to follow the Old Testament. I'm not sure what denomination you are, but that's what I've been taught.

I never said that Christians are "Jewish". The religion itself, much like Islam, is Semitic in origin. Don't put words into my mouth. And anyway, why are you taking it as such a major insult?

Again, no, we don't really need to know the history of another related thing. To fully understand Economics, I don't need to know the history of Economics. Some case studies may be useful, but by no means is it necessary. To understand the Lord of the Rings, I don't need to have taken a degree in Anglo Saxon Norse and Celtic, nor would I need to know anything about the Anglo Saxons, Norse or Celtic peoples. To understand how the Singaporean government works, I don't need to know about how Singapore used to be the 14th state in Malaysia etc. etc. and how Singapore used Israeli training methods etc etc and now there are GRCs and SRCs etc. etc.

DacGerm wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Considering that none of the explanations have anything to do with what you wrote, and that it is obvious that you already have your mind made up and hold steadfast in your "it's in your book so you must be Jewish or why else include it" though, there isn't really any point in talking about it.

But yes, do better understand one thing you need to know the history of another related thing. Pretty basic really.

That makes sense, I apologise if I set the other guy off. Do you see the whole bible like this, I could understand that.

Personally, I see the entire Bible as true. That doesn't mean it is an accurate historical text or that everything happened exactly as written. Let's take the first chapter of Genesis, for me it's a lesson that God created everything. I don't believe I means that God made everything one day a a time over 6 days. I believe that the lesson is that God created everything methodically and with a plan over a period of time. First came this, then that, and not all at once but over time. It doesn't set forth to explain how God created or exactly how long it took, just that He did. In that context it doesn't disprove evolution or geology, and it isn't disproven by that.

Many portions of the Bible tell the stories that God wants to tell to teach lessons and to predict future events (for the Israelites), not to teach history. In that regard the Bible is true as a historical book regarding the message and plan of God throughout history, but not necessarily as a historical text regarding factual recordings of actual events.

Many lessons and teachings from the Old Testament are useful and relevant to me as a Christian, and it laid out the message leading to the New Testament.

As to what most other Christians believe I can't really tell you other than that most mainstream denominations don't hold that Christianity falls under the old covenant.

 Ahtman wrote:

DacGerm wrote:
How do you know which bits of the bible are valid though, who tells you, do you decide yourself?

Depends on the person I would suppose. Some let an organization tell them, some decide for themselves. Some research and spend a great deal of time and energy struggling over it, and others just take it as it is.

Fair does.

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
The religion itself, much like Islam, is Semitic in origin.

But that doesn't mean that everything semetic is the same, follow the same teachings, or has the same outlook, so it doesn't make sense to say that because some ancient Jewish laws and history are included in a religious text that it must mean that Christians (which, to be honest just to broad a term to encompass the varieties of religious expression on the part of the followers of Jesus) have to follow those ancient laws of an earlier form o their religion.

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
And anyway, why are you taking it as such a major insult?

Now who is putting words into peoples mouths?

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
To fully understand Economics, I don't need to know the history of Economics.

Actually, to fully understand it, you do.

 d-usa wrote:

DacGerm wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Considering that none of the explanations have anything to do with what you wrote, and that it is obvious that you already have your mind made up and hold steadfast in your "it's in your book so you must be Jewish or why else include it" though, there isn't really any point in talking about it.

But yes, do better understand one thing you need to know the history of another related thing. Pretty basic really.

That makes sense, I apologise if I set the other guy off. Do you see the whole bible like this, I could understand that.

Personally, I see the entire Bible as true. That doesn't mean it is an accurate historical text or that everything happened exactly as written. Let's take the first chapter of Genesis, for me it's a lesson that God created everything. I don't believe I means that God made everything one day a a time over 6 days. I believe that the lesson is that God created everything methodically and with a plan over a period of time. First came this, then that, and not all at once but over time. It doesn't set forth to explain how God created or exactly how long it took, just that He did. In that context it doesn't disprove evolution or geology, and it isn't disproven by that.

Many portions of the Bible tell the stories that God wants to tell to teach lessons and to predict future events (for the Israelites), not to teach history. In that regard the Bible is true as a historical book regarding the message and plan of God throughout history, but not necessarily as a historical text regarding factual recordings of actual events.

Many lessons and teachings from the Old Testament are useful and relevant to me as a Christian, and it laid out the message leading to the New Testament.

As to what most other Christians believe I can't really tell you other than that most mainstream denominations don't hold that Christianity falls under the old covenant.

I can kind of understand that, I don't agree but I can see where your coming from, it's certainly one of the most thought through argument I've heard (not just forums). There are some bits though that I just couldn't gleam anything nice from, however abstractley I look at them, but each to their own.

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
If it's irrelevant and superceded by the New Testament, why do you include it in the Bible?

That is a question for whatever Lateran Council decided what should be in the Bible. However, theologically I believe it is true that the Christ established a new covenant between God and Man, which supercedes the Old Testament covenant. Hence why Christians are not forbidden pork, for example.

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
You're basically saying that we don't really need what the Old Testament said, just elements of the history and background. Therefore, as a religious text, it's irrelevant. I don't need a book with Ogham inscriptions to understand Celtic paganism, do I? Or a book about Viking runes to understand Asatruism? But if your church leaders are going to quote it and its laws, then it gives the impression that, in fact, you do try to follow the Old Testament. And if you don't need to follow the laws, then why would you include it in your bible?

Christianity is a hodge-podge of so many religions it's ridiculous.

Its rediculous only if you can't handle both complexity and simplicity.

Complexity. Old testament: This is the history of the furry guys with robes and mahtza balls. Its the histroy of the mother country.
Simplicity: New testament. Now that you know that here's the creed going forward: be excellent to each other people and quit being bags.

Like...ok?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
Again, no, we don't really need to know the history of another related thing. To fully understand Economics, I don't need to know the history of Economics. Some case studies may be useful, but by no means is it necessary.

You don't need to know the basic history of economics to be an economist? So no history of Marxism, Feudalism, etc, just jump right into random walk (get it, jump into walking get it get it?)?

Yes. Frazzled made a good point about it.

You can know the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and get a decent understanding of them.

Or you can study the history of the UK and the settlers, the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence, and the Federalist Papers to really get an understanding of the thoughts and intentions of the writers of the Constitution.

Not even talking about Christianity here, but saying that you don't need to know the history of anything to understand anything is pretty dumb.

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
To fully understand Economics, I don't need to know the history of Economics. Some case studies may be useful, but by no means is it necessary.

Actually, you really do need to know the history of economics to have a useful understanding of economic. People staring at demand and supply graphs in isolation and thinking they've got enough knowledge to champion or attack economic theories is kind of why the general understanding economics is in such a dreadful place. And even at the academic level, poor understanding of economic history has led to some pretty theories that just don't work - the whole of the Efficient Market Hypothesis (certainly the strong form, and likely the weak form as well) is completely shot down by a proper understanding of the existance of market bubbles throughout history.

Anyhow, to answer your greater question, there's a lot of ways in the New Testament to see why the rules of the Old Testament don't apply anymore, but my favourite, and the one I think much of the debate on the issue comes from is in Acts of the Apostles. In this, Peter is a leader in the new church, and has a dream. In this dream he sees all manner of forbidden food - pig, shellfish etc, and he says he can't eat these foods, but a voice says to him "Don't call anything unclean that God has made clean."

Which is a pretty damn good reason, religiously speaking, to stop worrying about all that purity nonsense and keeping yourself pure from the world God created.

But there's a split in how this story is understood - because from the vision God was only literally talking about food. So now it's okay to eat shellfish, but all the other laws about homosexuality and the rest, well they would still apply. Except if you read the whole of the story, that's not how Peter understood it. He then received a knock on the door, it's from a Roman Centurion - about as unclean as people can get, and someone that under the old rules, Peter should never have welcomed into his home. And yet Peter does, saying "You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him. But God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean."

And so others have interpreted Peter's vision as a rejection of all of the Old Testament's ideas of purity.

And that's why some Christians think that just as we can now eat bacon, so is it also alright to be or to accept homosexuality. While others think that Peter got the story all wrong and God was just talking about crabcakes.

It's Lobsterfest at Red Lobster right now.

 sebster wrote:

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
To fully understand Economics, I don't need to know the history of Economics. Some case studies may be useful, but by no means is it necessary.

Actually, you really do need to know the history of economics to have a useful understanding of economic. People staring at demand and supply graphs in isolation and thinking they've got enough knowledge to champion or attack economic theories is kind of why the general understanding economics is in such a dreadful place. And even at the academic level, poor understanding of economic history has led to some pretty theories that just don't work - the whole of the Efficient Market Hypothesis (certainly the strong form, and likely the weak form as well) is completely shot down by a proper understanding of the existance of market bubbles throughout history.

Anyhow, to answer your greater question, there's a lot of ways in the New Testament to see why the rules of the Old Testament don't apply anymore, but my favourite, and the one I think much of the debate on the issue comes from is in Acts of the Apostles. In this, Peter is a leader in the new church, and has a dream. In this dream he sees all manner of forbidden food - pig, shellfish etc, and he says he can't eat these foods, but a voice says to him "Don't call anything unclean that God has made clean."

Which is a pretty damn good reason, religiously speaking, to stop worrying about all that purity nonsense and keeping yourself pure from the world God created.

But there's a split in how this story is understood - because from the vision God was only literally talking about food. So now it's okay to eat shellfish, but all the other laws about homosexuality and the rest, well they would still apply. Except if you read the whole of the story, that's not how Peter understood it. He then received a knock on the door, it's from a Roman Centurion - about as unclean as people can get, and someone that under the old rules, Peter should never have welcomed into his home. And yet Peter does, saying "You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him. But God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean."

And so others have interpreted Peter's vision as a rejection of all of the Old Testament's ideas of purity.

And that's why some Christians think that just as we can now eat bacon, so is it also alright to be or to accept homosexuality. While others think that Peter got the story all wrong and God was just talking about crabcakes.

Ha, this is the only time I've actually seen an answer to the question I've always wondered (IE, if Leviticus condemns homosexuality, why do most of these hardliners still eat bacon and do all kinds of other stuff forbidden by Leviticus?). Thanks, Seb!

 RatBot wrote:
Ha, this is the only time I've actually seen an answer to the question I've always wondered (IE, if Leviticus condemns homosexuality, why do most of these hardliners still eat bacon and do all kinds of other stuff forbidden by Leviticus?). Thanks, Seb!

Not a problem

 RatBot wrote:

Ha, this is the only time I've actually seen an answer to the question I've always wondered (IE, if Leviticus condemns homosexuality, why do most of these hardliners still eat bacon and do all kinds of other stuff forbidden by Leviticus?). Thanks, Seb!

Well, there are also a number of prohibitions against homosexuality within the the NT, and one must not discount readings of preference. Some (very few) people treat the NT prohibitions as confirming evidence of the OT prohibitions.

 dogma wrote:

 RatBot wrote:

Ha, this is the only time I've actually seen an answer to the question I've always wondered (IE, if Leviticus condemns homosexuality, why do most of these hardliners still eat bacon and do all kinds of other stuff forbidden by Leviticus?). Thanks, Seb!

Well, there are also a number of prohibitions against homosexuality within the the NT, and one must not discount readings of preference. Some (very few) people treat the NT prohibitions as confirming evidence of the OT prohibitions.

That's also true, but I generally see people trot out Leviticus far more frequently than the NT proscriptions.

 dogma wrote:
Well, there are also a number of prohibitions against homosexuality within the the NT, and one must not discount readings of preference. Some (very few) people treat the NT prohibitions as confirming evidence of the OT prohibitions.

Sure, but they're all quite ambiguous. Whether they refer to homosexuality, or to male prostitutes/pederasts/the exploitation of younger men once they'd become adults in their own right etc... is a matter of considerable debate.

I think it is fair to say that if there had been no historic condemnation of heterosexuality, those passages would have been interpreted very differently. But I think its also fair to say that given there was an historic condemnation of homosexuality, then a lot of the interpretations that look to narrow the definition down to a very specific kind of homosexuality start to look pretty contrived.

So... everyone kinds of gets to make of it whatever they please.

 sebster wrote:

 dogma wrote:
Well, there are also a number of prohibitions against homosexuality within the the NT, and one must not discount readings of preference. Some (very few) people treat the NT prohibitions as confirming evidence of the OT prohibitions.

Sure, but they're all quite ambiguous. Whether they refer to homosexuality, or to male prostitutes/pederasts/the exploitation of younger men once they'd become adults in their own right etc... is a matter of considerable debate.

I think it is fair to say that if there had been no historic condemnation of heterosexuality, those passages would have been interpreted very differently. But I think its also fair to say that given there was an historic condemnation of homosexuality, then a lot of the interpretations that look to narrow the definition down to a very specific kind of homosexuality start to look pretty contrived.

So... everyone kinds of gets to make of it whatever they please.

It's not just homosexuality in the New Testament though, there are bits about slavery (endorsing it, especially the bit explaining how best to whip etc), horrible sexism which led woman to be second class citizens for years (to some extent still are now) and many many more.

There are also numerous bits in the New Testament about how the Old Testament is the law of God and should be obeyed word for word.

I can quote where some examples of these in the New Testament if you like.

Of course everything is down to "interpretation", but you can intemperate a duck as a swan but you'd be plain wrong.