The Redundant Old Testament

[Cluny the Scourge]

In the thread regarding whether or not Same-Sex Marriage is forbidden by the Bible, it has been pointed out that although certain books of the Old Testament are explicit on the subject, those same books are also completely explicit on a wide range of other points which are routinely ignored by Christians.

With particular regard to Thanatos' promise that he will answer this point in another thread if it is opened:

I'll answer this in another thread, if you'll start it. My point still stands, and the OP is flat out wrong.

Here is the issue:

And for those who think that it was only in the Old Testament, and that Jesus brought in something completely new, to throw away the old law:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

- Matthew 5:17-19

And there are clear verse about a subject very close to the hearts of many Christians - "man-love":

"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

- Leviticus 20:13

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

- Leviticus 18:22

And in consequence I, and others I would expect, would like to hear an account from Thanatos about how he:

Never wears clothing woven of more than one kind of material (e.g. polyester/cotton mixes). [Lev 19:19]

Does not cut his hair at the sides of his head [Lev 19:27]

Sacrifices bulls [Lev 1:9]

Never touches a football (or anything else from the skin of an unclean animal) [Lev 11:6-8]

Doesn't do any kind of work on the Sabbath (and approves of the death-penalty for the disgusting deviants who do) [Lev 23:3][Exodus 35:2]

Doesn't light fires on the Sabbath [Exodus 35:3]

Doesn't eat bread from Jan 15th-22nd (if it has been with yeast, anyway, as all bread in ordinary shops does) [Lev 23:5-6]

Thinks that tattoos are a sin [Lev 19:28]

Thinks it is a sin for boys to be uncircumcised [Lev 12:3]

Supports the death penalty for people swearing at their parents [Lev 20:9] [Exodus 21:17]

Supports the death penalty for adultery [Lev 20:10]

Would burn a prostitute to death if she were the daughter of a priest [Lev 21:9]

Supports the death penalty for blasphemy [Lev 24:10-16]

Would refuse to let a woman who had given birth to a boy within 33 days come into a church [Lev 12:4], or within 80 days if it was a girl [Lev 12:5]

Thinks farmers who plant fields with more than one kind of seed are sinners [Lev 19:19]

Doesn't think it is wrong to raid Canada and Mexico for slaves [Lev 25:44] - or beating the ones you take [Exodus 21:20-21]

Doesn't think it is wrong for people to sell their daughters [Exodus 21:7]

And never, EVER eats bacon, pork, sausage or rabbit [Lev 11:3-7]

OR shrimp, lobster, calamari, scallops, oysters [Leviticus 11:9-12]

OR anything with fat on it [Lev 3:17]

There is more of this twaddling garbage, but I cannot be bothered to hunt it out.

This, then, is the query any right-minded person puts to Thanatos or any other Christian:

Does the fact that you pay no attention to these laws,which Jesus made perfectly clear still apply, mean that in fact the old laws of the Old Testament are not applicable today?

Or does it mean that you do not truly believe what you claim to believe at all?

[Da Skinna]

You godless sodomite you...

It has to be said. The OT is full of crap. Most books are. Because a lot of people take for literal what is said in a book, and praise higher than all other books, changes no fact.... it is a book.

And ironically enough, Oscar Wilde put it succinctly: "There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written or badly written. That is all."

And Holy Books are for the most part full of plot holes...

[Thanatos]

As I've said elsewhere:

Jesus was the fulfillment of the Law, and was also the master of the Law, being the Son of God. He brought in a New Testament, which, while still condemning the same things, nevertheless preached that mercy was to be the rule from now on.

Just because you are to be merciful towards the sinner does not mean that the sin itself is to be tolerated. It is still just as reprehensible and detestable as it was back in the Old Testament.

As for the food, it was shown in the New Testament that all foods were now open for consumption.

[Cluny the Scourge]

Jesus was the fulfillment of the Law, and was also the master of the Law, being the Son of God. He brought in a New Testament, which, while still condemning the same things, nevertheless preached that mercy was to be the rule from now on.

That does not answer the question.

"Mercy" explains the references to harsh penalties for sins like adultery, prostitution, etc.

And you claim that food is also explained in the New Testament (though you have not said where or how this is so).

But you have not answered whether or not you actually think it is a SIN in the first place to do THESE things:

Never wears clothing woven of more than one kind of material (e.g. polyester/cotton mixes). [Lev 19:19]

Does not cut his hair at the sides of his head [Lev 19:27]

Sacrifices bulls [Lev 1:9]

Never touches a football (or anything else from the skin of an unclean animal) [Lev 11:6-8]

Doesn't do any kind of work on the Sabbath (and approves of the death-penalty for the disgusting deviants who do) [Lev 23:3][Exodus 35:2]

Doesn't light fires on the Sabbath [Exodus 35:3]

Doesn't eat bread from Jan 15th-22nd (if it has been with yeast, anyway, as all bread in ordinary shops does) [Lev 23:5-6]

Thinks that tattoos are a sin [Lev 19:28]

Thinks it is a sin for boys to be uncircumcised [Lev 12:3]

Would refuse to let a woman who had given birth to a boy within 33 days come into a church [Lev 12:4], or within 80 days if it was a girl [Lev 12:5]

Thinks farmers who plant fields with more than one kind of seed are sinners [Lev 19:19]

Doesn't think it is wrong to raid Canada and Mexico for slaves [Lev 25:44] - or beating the ones you take [Exodus 21:20-21]

Doesn't think it is wrong for people to sell their daughters [Exodus 21:7]

Simple answer: Thanatos isn't Jewish.

Exactly. He's Christian. Meaning the Old Testament is redundant for him and it is not open to him to argue that homosexuality is a sin simply because it says so in the Old Testament.

[finsternis]

Jesus was the fulfillment of the Law, and was also the master of the Law, being the Son of God. He brought in a New Testament, which, while still condemning the same things, nevertheless preached that mercy was to be the rule from now on.

Just because you are to be merciful towards the sinner does not mean that the sin itself is to be tolerated. It is still just as reprehensible and detestable as it was back in the Old Testament.

As for the food, it was shown in the New Testament that all foods were now open for consumption.

What about everything else? Does that mean that wearing clothes of different materials is still a sin? But we must tolerate it. That's what you are saying?

EDIT: and if mercy is the rule, then why don't Christians have mercy on homosexuals and allow them to live happily?

[Kiljan Arslan]

delete multiple tabs opened whoops!

[Ummagumma]

As I've said elsewhere:

Oh, the quote of a quote didn't appear.. You know what you typed anyway.

I was just wondering, I can't remember any parts in the NT where Jesus specifically states anything about 'Oh , and once I'm gone you can forget all of those laws I made everyone abide by for centuries - I was just messing with you.. I'm quite partial to Lobster myself!' All of this 'He is fulfilment of the Law, therefore we don't have to obey it any more' is applied after the fact, for whatever reasons.

I am fairly sure there is a passage in the OT about 'He who comes as a prophet and changes My laws is not My prophet, but the Devil', or some such.

[kev-o]

Simple answer: Thanatos isn't Jewish.

[Thanatos]

Simple answer: Thanatos isn't Jewish.

That's right, I'm Mexic- I meant Chinese/White.

Doggone all of you, making me think I'm Mexican.

[dwringer]

I have spoken with devout Christians on the issue of whether Mosaic law was repealed by Jesus, and they have all understood it to mean that it was, in fact , repealed.

When pressed they still seem to pick and choose parts of the Old Testament that should still stand, however.

When I ask for clarification of how this should be, they tell me that i "simply don't understand" and that I should spend many years studying Biblical scholarship.

So to the OP as well as Thanatos: you simply don't understand. You should spend many years studying biblical scholarship.

In the meantime, be gay or not, but realize that God is watching.



*barfs for having said that last part *

[bushbush]

Bible is horribly written, dont read it too literally.

[kev-o]

What about everything else? Does that mean that wearing clothes of different materials is still a sin? But we must tolerate it. That's what you are saying?

In this case, no. In the early days of the Church, there was a divide over simple rituals. Should gentile Christians follow Jewish rituals/customs/traditions/laws? A prime example was Circumcision. Jews are required to have their males circumcised and St. Peter (a Jewish Christian) saw that this custom should continue in Christianity (called The Way back then). St. Paul (a gentile Chrisitian) on the other hand objected and stated that gentile Christians do not need to follow the ways of Jews. The fued went before a council in Jeurusalum and ruled that gentile Christians do not have to follow Jewish laws.

[finsternis]

In this case, no. In the early days of the Church, there was a divide over simple rituals. Should gentile Christians follow Jewish rituals/customs/traditions/laws? A prime example was Circumcision. Jews are required to have their males circumcised and St. Peter (a Jewish Christian) saw that this custom should continue in Christianity (called The Way back then). St. Paul (a gentile Chrisitian) on the other hand objected and stated that gentile Christians do not need to follow the ways of Jews. The fued went before a council in Jeurusalum and ruled that gentile Christians do not have to follow Jewish laws.

Then Christians don't have to follow the creation BS (not theory, not hypothesis, the BS). They don't have to follow the nothing in the Old testament then. And since homosexuality in only forbidden in the old testament (as far as I know), then they don't have to be homophobic either. However, since Jesus "brought in a New Testament, which, while still condemning the same things, nevertheless preached that mercy was to be the rule from now on" (Thanatos) means that Christians MUST have mercy. But they don't NEED to be homophobic. Thus Christians must allow homosexual marriage and be friendly toward homosexuals since they MUST show mercy (and be good and all that other stuff) but DON'T NEED to be homophobic. And I think that we all agree that if you must do something, but you don't need to do the opposite, then there is no question on what you will have to do. There is no conflict or debate: Homosexuality is right from a Christian's point of view.

EDIT:

You do understand that there is a difference between Theological law, and that of Pharisaical law, Cluny? One is from God, the other is from Jewish culture.

Where is the line between god's law and the Jewish tradition? They are both in the same book and they are both written by the same people. Where is the line? What do you consider a Jew speaking and god speaking?

[Thanatos]

You do understand that there is a difference between Theological law, and that of Pharisaical law, Cluny? One is from God, the other is from Jewish culture.

And for you, finsternis, in reply to your last question I once again quote myself:

[quoteJust because you are to be merciful towards the sinner does not mean that the sin itself is to be tolerated. It is still just as reprehensible and detestable as it was back in the Old Testament.[/quote]

You don't kill them anymore, but that doesn't mean you allow it to happen. However, violence is not called for in the New Testament, but prayer.

[Cluny the Scourge]

You do understand that there is a difference between Theological law, and that of Pharisaical law, Cluny? One is from God, the other is from Jewish culture.

And how do you distinguish between these?

Are there annotated notes in Leviticus - the bizarrely out-of-date rules all being in the exact same Book - which tag each verse saying "Theological, make sure you don't forget it", or "Pharisaical, you can conveniently forget about it"?

Or is it, rather, that you simply decide which is which to suit your personal preferences and tastes?

[kev-o]

Then Christians don't have to follow the creation BS (not theory, not hypothesis, the BS). They don't have to follow the nothing in the Old testament then.

They don't have to but quite a few do, albeit picking and choosing.

However, since Jesus "brought in a New Testament, which, while still condemning the same things, nevertheless preached that mercy was to be the rule from now on" (Thanatos) means that Christians MUST have mercy.

To be merciful doesn't mean to be accepting. Take God for instance. He is both merciful and just.

Homosexuality is right from a Christian's point of view.

As long as a homosexual doesn't commit homosexual acts then yes.

As for the whole Homophobic thing, to be against something or to dislike something doesn't mean one is afriad of what they dislike. I dislike bugs but does that make me arachnophobiic? No. I dislike heights but I don't mind flying.

[finsternis]

To be merciful doesn't mean to be accepting. Take God for instance. He is both merciful and justice.

Yes, but that wasn't the only thing that Jesus taught. Not to do harm to other and love them (pretty sure that denying someone a right just because of the way they were born is a harmful and evil thing).

They don't have to but quite a few do, albeit picking and choosing.

Yeah, that's what I said. They don't have to. But they have to love everyone. Then they must love homosexuals and allow them to be happy (since they don't have to be homophobics)

As for the whole Homophobic thing, to be against something or to dislike something doesn't mean one is afriad of what they dislike. I dislike bugs but does that make me arachnophobiic? No. I dislike heights but I don't mind flying.

Homophobia: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

So as you see, it is not just fear, it is hate too. However we use the term Homophobia, just like we use the term Theory of Evolution (even though it is a law, not a theory, since it has already been proved). Names stick, it is a fact of life.

[Kiljaden]

...use the term Theory of Evolution (even though it is a law, not a theory, since it has already been proved). Names stick, it is a fact of life.

NO!
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no...
NO! ....... NO!

I was agreeing with you this whole thread man, but then you had to go say something ignorant. Now I must correct you.

In science there are two things, fact and Theory. Fact says something demonstratable happens. Theory describes how and why said fact happens. Scientific Theory and "theory" (as in "I have a theory lol") mean two different things. We should really come up with a new word for Scientific Theory since so many people think that it's interchangeable with the definition that means "idea".

Theory is the graduation point in Science, it gets no better than that. Theory means that the system has survived grueling testing, input from thousands of the smartest people in the world, and is now accepted by the entire scientific world as the best CURRENT explanation of the natural phenomena we know to happen.

Think of it this way:
Earth as a spatial object- Fact
Flat Earth Theory - Held strong for thousands of years and was useful to to point that it was meaningful at the time.
Round Earth Theory - With new evidence and greater understanding, need, and desire for a more accurate model of the Earth, the old Theory about the Earth was modified.

-Evolution is a fact. Evolution happens and has been demonstrated to have happened in the past and still happens in the present.
-The Theory of Evolution is a Theory. It describes how and why Evolution happens. The Theory includes explanations of things like Speciation, Genetic Drift, Mutations, Natural Selection, etc, and how they pertain to cumulative changes in allele frequency over time.

There are no laws and proofs in biology, or most scientific fields. There are only Laws and Proofs in Mathematics - where things are absolutely certain. Nothing in science is absolutely certain. There may at some point be discovered a new mechanic that drives change in allele frequency in a population's genome over time, but the current theories (such as Atomic Theory and General Relativity and Cell Theory) BEST EXPLAIN how and why things happen.

[kev-o]

(pretty sure that denying someone a right just because of the way they were born is a harmful and evil thing).

Since when is marriage a right? And besides that, there is nothing stopping gays from getting married. Or even in a church for that matter.

So as you see, it is not just fear, it is hate too. However we use the term Homophobia, just like we use the term Theory of Evolution (even though it is a law, not a theory, since it has already been proved). Names stick, it is a fact of life.

No thats blatent PC. This same line of reasoning is with rascism and Islamophobia. If one speaks out against it they're immediatly branded a bigot. Its nothing more than intellectual thuggery to silence people who disagree.

[finsternis]

Since when is marriage a right? And besides that, there is nothing stopping gays from getting married. Or even in a church for that matter.

It is something that heterosexuals can do, but homosexuals can't. And what do you mean that there is nothing stopping homosexuals from getting a legal marriage? Do you live in Canada? Or some European country that allows it? If so, then I understand what you mean. But here in the US (and Latin American) it is not allow. Just in case you don't know.

No thats blatent PC. This same line of reasoning is with rascism and Islamophobia. If one speaks out against it they're immediatly branded a bigot. Its nothing more than intellectual thuggery to silence people who disagree.

I do not understand what you mean. It is just a word. It is in the Dictionary. We use it to describe the hate of homosexuals.