It seems that Christians are very quick to disown 90% of their "perfect" Word of God, as if they would cut out the Old Testament and use only the New Testament. Christians always use this excuse to distance themselves from the heartless brutality of the Old Testament, such as of the killing of women and children at the hands of Moses, Joshua, David, etc.
Logical fallacy #1. All Christians are the same. We're not.
That aside, let's look at the age old "what about the old testament?" debate. The reality, whether you like it or not, is that the new testament pretty seriously retcons the old. The existence of Christ not only eliminates the need for things like animal sacrifice, but also creates a broad shift in the focus of Jewish beliefs away from ritual and strict adherence to a single God, and towards charity, forgiveness (both mortal and immortal), acceptance, evangelism and a triune God, which would almost be viewed as a soft form of polytheism. Ultimately, Christianity is a different religion than Judaism, despite their shared root.
Yet they are sure quick to whip out Old Testament laws when it is convenient for them to do so. When the time comes for fire and brimstone, when they wish to heap upon us the 10 Commandments, the Creation Story in Genesis that they want to force into our schools, Noah and his Big Boat, or ask us to swallow Jonah and his fish, they will pull out their bibles and open up right to the appropriate Old Testament verse. But when we complain about the war criminal Moses, the infinite cruelty of the Plagues of Egypt and the Pharaoh who was intentionally hardened by God, the butcher Joshua, the criminal David and his murderous raids, Saul the terrible and the murder of the Amalekites and the hewing of the captured king, they say "Well, that's the Old Testament. Jesus came to bring the New Covenant."
To a certain extent, you're right. Many people claim to be literalists, but only when it's convenient. Nothing in the new testament would eliminate the need to keep kosher for example. On the other hand, there is also a lot of truth in the argument that the existence of Christ DOES mean a new covenant, and a new faith. When salvation is based on faith and forgiveness rather than action and adherence, things change. This is NOT a valid excuse for murdering abortion doctors or vilifying sinners. Christ was well known for preaching to the lowest of the low, and accepting all those who showed even the slightest sign of repentance or even openness.
Wait a minute... we are talking about THE Bible here. We are talking about the one and only God that the Christians worship, aren't we? Are there two bibles, and two gods? What these Christians are doing is arguing for something that they claim NOT to believe in... namely "moral relativism": they are saying that morality is not fixed, and changes as the times change.
First of all, there isn't one bible. There's also not two bibles. The bible is not a book. It's a library. Anyone who says otherwise does not understand the history of the bible. Some of the books are historical, some are collections of correspondence between churches, some are prophetic. Very few authors are responsible for more than a very small number of the many books in the library we call the bible.
As for moral relativism, you're confusing morals with rules. The essential morals of Christianity are essentially the same they have been since Christ started his ministry. They ARE different than the morals of Judaism, but that difference is well explained already. The rules as for how we best honor and adhere to those morals can and do change. In fact, they can and do vary based on the situation.
Thou shall not kill. Seems pretty simple. Of course, there's the little matter of the fact that many translations say
murder rather than
kill. Killing and murdering are not the same thing, but when does one become the other?
Exactly how do they do this? How do they create two bibles from the one? They say things like: "Jesus said he came to fulfill the law-- the old law passed away." I think what has happened here is that some ministers have intentionally misunderstood the book of Hebrews. It says: "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law." (Hebrews 7:12) The laws changed, not passed away. What changed was the need for a daily animal sacrifice (Hebrews 7:27-28). That is what the New Covenant was-- Jesus was a "human sacrifice" for the forgiveness sin, replacing the Old Covenant of sacrificing burnt offerings-- slaughtered animals-- for sins. (Hebrews 8:13). See also all of Chapter 9 of Hebrews, which describes the Old Covenant of burnt offerings, and Chapter 10 which describes how the New Covenant replaces the Old for the purging of sins. THAT is what the New Covenant is all about-- it means that Christians do not have to put on the butcher's apron and slaughter goats, because Jesus became the human sacrifice. That's what was changed. If the Christians are right about the "old laws passing away", then we could do away with the 10 Commandments, couldn't we? The "New Covenant" does not release followers of God from the killing of homosexuals, or witches, blasphemers and the worshippers of other gods either. The leaders of both the Catholic and Protestant Churches knew this when they murdered hundreds of thousands of people just a few hundred years ago.
When Christians
throw up the excuse "But that's the Old Testament", I ask: "What do you mean, it's the Old Testament?" Christians say "Well, it was different in those days..." All right then-- how? How was it different, so that cruel wars of extermination and the slaughter of innocent children were perfectly acceptable? Did people value their lives less in those days? The 50,070 who were killed by God for looking into the Ark of the Covenant, the 70,000 innocent men whom God killed because Joseph chose 3 days of pestilence, the hundreds of innocent townspeople murdered by David during his thieving "raids" in Gath, the tens of thousands of children and babies butchered by Moses, Joshua and Saul... and of course, the 42 little children whom God killed for mocking one of his prophets. Did they value their lives less than we do today? In what way were things "different" in those days that made all this okay?
I can understand why Christians would want to divorce the New Testament from the bloody Old Testament. You would have to to be able to maintain any kind of moral rectitude. But honestly, it cannot be done.
Actually, it can. I'll grant you that many pastors, for a variety of reasons, do interpret the scriptures poorly. However, things WERE different in the days of the old testament. One more time with feeling, the prophecy that some day there will be a Christ and the actual existence of one creates a massive and far-reaching shift in our relationship with God and the things that are done for or in spite of said god. The entire relationship is fundamentally changed.
The very first chapter of the very first book of the New Testament lists the genealogy of Jesus back to Abraham.
In Matthew Chapter 17, Jesus speaks to Old Testament figures Moses and Elijah, who's figures appeared before him. Moses... the monster who ordered a man's death for picking up sticks on the Sabbath, and who commanded Joshua to enter the Promised Land and leave no one breathing: men, women and children.
Matthew 24:37 is an undeniable link to the brutality of the Old Testament, where Jesus compares his second coming to the destruction of the Great Flood that killed the world's population.
In the New Testament Jesus makes constant references to "scripture". In Matthew 22:29 Jesus says: "You are in error, because you do not know the scriptures, or the power of God." Now, just what were these scriptures that Jesus was making reference to? The New Testament? At the time there was no such thing as a New Testament! There were only the scriptures of bloodthirsty villains like Moses and David. Every reference to "scripture" in the New Testament establishes one more link to the Old Testament. How many times does the New Testament refer to Old Testament "scriptures"? 52 times!
In the New Testament, Abraham is referred to 68 times, the ancient Israelites are mentioned 73 times, Jacob 26 times, Issac 20 times, Elijah 29 times, Isiah 22 times, Noah 8 times, King David is mentioned 58 times. How about this-- the name Mary (not just the Virgin Mary, but ALL Mary's) is mentioned 54 times in the New Testament. The name Moses, on the other hand, appears 80 times! You think these numbers don't establish an important connection? You don't think that Jesus held that the teachings of Moses were important?
Of course he did. He was a Jew. Was Moses perfect? Nope. Did things that in retrospect appear terrible happen at the hand of Moses? Yup.
None of that means that his teachings were not filled with a a great deal of important meaning.
The morals and teachings of the Old Testament were not eliminated and replaced by the New Testament. They were changed.
How about this. Jesus gives an absolute endorsement of the teachings and laws of Moses. "If you believe Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?" John 5:45
Will any Christian deny that, according to the bible, Jesus is the one and only same personage as the God of the Old Testament? Did Jesus condemn ANY of his father's bloody massacres? No. In Matt 5:48 he says "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in Heaven is perfect." (Matthew 5:48)
Do you think Jesus would have questioned any of his father's actions, like the many acts of genocide that litter the pages of the Old Testament? No. Remember what Jesus said when he gave the Lord's Prayer to his followers-- "Our Father who art in heaven... thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven."
Do you think Jesus would have ever disobeyed his father's commands, like when he ordered that his servants should "kill everyone that breathes" upon their entry to the Promised Land? No. In John chapter 10 verse 30, Jesus said: "I and the Father are one." Jesus would have been swinging a sword, hacking nonviolent men, women and children to death, right along side of Joshua and his armies of Israelites! Just picture that. Jesus, the Prince of Peace, splitting a small child in two with his blood-drenched sword.
In John 1:1, we read "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." In verse 14, we read: "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us." We are told explicitly that Jesus Christ IS THE GOD OF THE OLD TESTAMENT! You probably already accept this. But, by logical extension, you must also accept therefore that it was Jesus Christ who ordered the Israelites to slaughter millions of defenseless men, women and children in the conquest of Canaan; it was Jesus Christ who killed every firstborn child in Egypt; it was Jesus Christ who ordered king Saul to butcher thousands of children and babies in the genocide of the Amalakites; it was Jesus Christ who ordered the Israelites to capture and mass-rape 32,000 young girls of the Midianite tribe after killing their families; it was Jesus Christ who struck dead 50,000 innocent people at Beshemish for merely looking into the ark of the covenant; it was Jesus Christ who caused the painful asphyxiation of every man, woman, child and animal on the face of the earth during the flood of Noah (with the exception of 8); and it was Jesus Christ who condemned every person ever born to a state of eternal suffering, all because 6000 years ago a curious and naive woman ate a piece of fruit.
And to that, "Father, why have you forsaken me?" Jesus in heaven is a
part of the God of the old testament, not the whole thing. Jesus on earth was a mortal man with
some of God's power and knowledge. I realize that what I have just said is anathema to many Christians, but it is undeniable from the events of Jesus' life.
This goes back to what I've said many times already. In the old testament, God is all together and all in one place. With the birth of Christ, this ceases to be the case. The trinity of God, and therefore the very nature of God is changed, as is our relationship with God. ( I know, I know..... More anathema)
Also, from an analytical perspective, you have to remember that in addition to being omnipotent (all powerful) God is also omniscient (all knowing). Who is to say that these terrible, seemingly evil, event were not FAR less terrible than what would have happened without the intervention of God? What if looking into the ark of the covenant would have changed the nature of humanity and separate the entire human race from God eternally? I'm not saying that
is the case, but that it is the hight of human arrogance to assume we could possibly know one way or the other. That is the heart of faith. We
do not know. We can't know. Knowledge precludes faith.
Ok, maybe I am trolling a little, but I really do believe in God. I just It seems that have a very radical view on the Bible. I really see God as Math, and if something can't not be explained in some math problem...well.
I believe in Jesus, but I believe that he was a man. I believe that he was sent to cure our sins, but it's been setup from the time of the big bang for that to happen. I think Mary was rapped, and that explains the virgin birth. Yet, unless she was homorphadite, and she just met all the odds of it happening for her to get pregnant.
What I really look at on with my faith is the teachings of Jesus himself. Even if you are not a Christian one could not
throw his teachings out the window.
Yet, what what I'm really trying to get at is if I'm supposed to go along with all of the teachings front to back in the good book. Which ones should one pay attention too, and which ones should be ignored? Who is really to say what is right, and what is wrong in the Bible? In it's history it's been used for good, and evil just like the Koran has been in the history of time.
Now we come to the most interesting part of this whole thread. The real question at the heart of the matter.
First of all, let me say that while some of your methods may have been overly combative, I applaud the fact that you are asking the question. I strongly believe that unexamined faith is weak faith. I sincerely hope that your questions lead you to stronger faith in the long run, and I have faith that they will.
Next, you need to answer a few questions for yourself. You don't have to share the answers, but you need to decide what they are.
1. Are you a literalist, parablist, or like most people, do you fall somewhere in between?
2. How much faith do you have that the men who put pen to paper wrote it down the way God intended? (does't matter whether it's intended to be literal or not, just whether or not is what it was meant to be)
3. How much faith do you have that the bible you may read today is an accurate translation?
Let's assume that you're somewhere in the middle on all 3, like I am. What are you left with? You're left with a scripture that is a mix of parable and literal, that is more or less what God intended it to be, but probably isn't perfect.
Sounds pretty awful, right? I don't think so.
What we are left with is the responsibility to do exactly what you're doing. Ask questions. I could sit with you and a bible, and I could show you what I believe to be literal, what I believe to be parable, what I believe to be right and what I believe to be changed by Christ or changed by man. But at the end of the day, that's still just me.
I suggest you try different denominations, read a LOT of books, listen to good pastors, listen to bad pastors, keep having these debates, and pray often. Through it all, don't look for details. Look for meaning. Look for values. Look for morals. The truth has a way of rising to the top.
And now a few parting thoughts that didn't fit in above.
You said that you see God as math. I INSTANTLY relate to this. Originally, I went to college for a degree in mathematics with a minor in physics. In fact I had a physics professor who had started his teaching career at a Catholic high school. He told us that the first day of every freshman physical science class, he would ask the class to list as many of God's commandments as they could. Invariably, the class would rattle off maybe half of the 10 commandments and then flounder, at which point he would tell them they were all wrong.
He would ask them, "If God is all powerful, and 'commands' something, can you actually break that commandment? Of course not. The '10 commandments' are really 'God's strongly worded suggestions.' Any other ideas?"
As you can imagine, most every class would respond with stoney silence. See where I'm going yet?
He would proudly proclaim that he knew God's real commandments, and expected all of them to know them as well. Then, he'd write Newton's 3 laws on the board, point to them and say, "These commandments you can't break."
I really believe that God
is in the math, so let's take that idea a few steps further.
God created the entire universe with concrete rules. Not the commandments, but the laws of physics. The "divine proportion" which is seen in the growth of so many living things. The fact that the genetic material responsible for the formation of life, which can and does result in such a broad spectrum of different forms of life, somehow causes all animals over a certain size to share so many characteristics despite their differences.
So, God creates this universe of rules and mathematics. He create life. He creates man. And he gives man the greatest gift he could. It's a greater gift than life, and arguably a better gift than salvation. He gave us free will.
God has chosen to allow us to do evil, because it allows us to do good as well. It allows us to question the bible, and in doing so it allows us to find faith and meaning in it's verses. It sounds glib, but what is good in the absence of evil? What is the point of morality if there is no option to be less than moral? What is salvation unless there's something to be saved from?
Yet, what happens when free will goes astray? There have been a few examples in biblical history where free will lead the human race so far astray that God chose to intervene and correct our course. The floods, the plagues, the birth of Christ.
Why were these corrections so frequent at the beginning, and so rare today?
The first time free will lead us astray, it introduced pain, death and shame to the world for the first time. Each time God has made a 'major course' correction on behalf of man, we've come closer to the course he intends for us. Think of it as "playing the long game." We have free will within our lives, yet God has a plan for us over the course of human existence. We can't understand that plan in full because we're not God, but that doesn't mean there isn't one.
As far as Mary being raped, I think that's actually a bit silly. I try not to say things like that in these kinds of debates, but it really is. You believe in following the teachings of Christ and the examples of his life. That means you must believe in at least
some of the miracles of the gospels. Even the merest of those miracles is no harder to believe than a virgin birth. In fact, given that we are talking about the son of God, it seems like one of the smallest leaps of faith in the entire new testament. I think your aversion to that particular miracle warrants some examination on your own part.
.....as far as wishing to be the hammer or the nail...I wish to be neither, lol!
