Dear President Bush, please help me with these issues

[musicman]

thanks for the clarification. Not being a Christian, I never knew that about the relation between the New and Old Testaments. In that case, the spoof is rather unfair to Christians--except if they use parts of the Old Testament in support of certain positions, but not others.

I hope no one thinks I'm a religious bigot, especially my wife--who's Christian and takes our daughter to church every Sunday.

Mariner.

It is a thorny question, I'll admit. And I'm certainly no Bible scholar. But, I guess the important distinction that has to be made is that the New Testament is not necessarily the NEGATION of the Old, but rather the fulfillment. I imagine just about any Christian you'd meet on the street could explain it better than I; I confess that I'm a fairly lazy believer. But, it seems to me that some passages of the New Testament are pretty specific about what applies and what doesn't.

And, I find no bigotry whatever in your post.

 

[5stringJeff]

Unfortunately, the religious right-wing nuts seem to ignore that part of the New Testament. But more to the point, religions in general have more than their share of silliness, mean-spiritedness, ignorance and general cussedness to ever be taken as seriously as so many people take them. While some of their moral observations are relevant, many are not and thus their moral pronouncements should be regarded, not as absolute rules of moral behavior, but rather as guideposts to point us in the proper direction. We should keep that which is good and useful and beneficial while discarding that which is harmful and useless.

First, Bully, I'd like you to show me the "religious right-wing nuts" who are trying to enforce the passages you plagarized.

Second, I think no1tovote4 nailed your question right on. The new covenant established by Christ's death and resurrection has negated the need for us to follow the dietary and other restrictions found in the Old Testament law - though the moral law (i.e. the Ten Commandments, etc.) is upheld.

Third, do you hold your own religion (which if I recall correctly is Theraveda Buddhism) to the same standard as you hold others? Do you denounce mean-spirited Buddhists? Do you take Buddhism as a guidepost? Do you discard the parts of Buddhism that you don't like?

 

[no1tovote4]

Theravada Buddhism? That is my faith! Mine, Mine! j/k (Not about the faith, but the ownership!)

 

[nakedemperor]

You're missing the point, Mariner. No1tovote4 is quite right - the New Testament is the FULFILLMENT of the Old - it is the new law. "Evolving legislation" is a novel way to put it, but that's basically about the size of it.

According to scripture, why was the new testament necessary? I'm ignorant...


Also, are fundamental tenants about what is acceptable according to God (e.g. slavery) mentioned in the new testament? Does God ever change his mind or contradict himself?

 

[5stringJeff]

According to scripture, why was the new testament necessary? I'm ignorant...


Also, are fundamental tenants about what is acceptable according to God (e.g. slavery) mentioned in the new testament? Does God ever change his mind or contradict himself?

NE, the New Testament describes the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. It describes the first 30-40 years of the Christian Church, and has several letters from different apostles regarding Christian theology, living, rules for the church, etc. Two of the most theological of the books are Romans and Hebrews. In Romans, Paul describes why Jesus' death and resurrection frees us from the Old Testament Law. In Hebrews, the author (thought to be Paul by some, but not all) describes in detail why Jesus is the author of a new covenant. The old covenant that God established with the Israelites (think Moses and the Ten Commandments, plus all the stuff Bully posted in the original post) came with a large rulebook. The New Testament, especially in Romans and Hebrews, explains that the old covenant has been replaced with the new one - as was prophesied by Old Testament prophets like Isaiah and Jeremiah (not the bullfrog).

To answer your second question, God estblished many rules for slavery in the OT, and it was allowed in the New Testament as well. Many have disparaged Christianity because of this. However, the codes for slavery were always much more lenient than the codes established by contemporary governments. For example, all slaves were to be set free after seven years of service under Old Testament law, and Paul states that it was permissible for slaves to seek their freedom. In fact, the the book of Philemon in the New Testament is a letter from Paul to a slaveowner (Philemon). One of Philemon's slaves, Onesimus, had escaped. Paul sent Onesimus back To Philemon - and asked, in the letter, for Philemon to consider Onesimus as an equal, not as a slave.

As to the bigger question of whether God contradicts Himself, I don't think that I've ever seen a credible instance of that in the Bible.

 

[Avatar4321]

According to scripture, why was the new testament necessary? I'm ignorant...


Also, are fundamental tenants about what is acceptable according to God (e.g. slavery) mentioned in the new testament? Does God ever change his mind or contradict himself?

If you really want to understand, read it. Its really the only way you can learn for yourself. We can tell you what it says all day but until you read for yourself you wont know for yourself.

Im am unaware that slavery is a fundamental tenant either the old or new testament. Its tolerated, but a tenant? The message of both volumes is that God will free us from slavery. Hence the Exodus as a type for Freeing us from the slavery of sin.

I dont think God really changes his mind but i guess that depends on what you mean by it. the same principles that were in play before are still implay. there mind be rules that change. For example, we are not commanded to build an ark like Noah or to preform animal sacrifice. etc. Those change because the conditions we are in change and we have to survive different circumstances then those in the past. hence why we dont have to build an ark.

 

[nakedemperor]

If you really want to understand, read it. Its really the only way you can learn for yourself. We can tell you what it says all day but until you read for yourself you wont know for yourself.

Im am unaware that slavery is a fundamental tenant either the old or new testament. Its tolerated, but a tenant? The message of both volumes is that God will free us from slavery. Hence the Exodus as a type for Freeing us from the slavery of sin.

I dont think God really changes his mind but i guess that depends on what you mean by it. the same principles that were in play before are still implay. there mind be rules that change. For example, we are not commanded to build an ark like Noah or to preform animal sacrifice. etc. Those change because the conditions we are in change and we have to survive different circumstances then those in the past. hence why we dont have to build an ark.

I mean.. its just so long.. and boring..

Sorry, to clarify, I didn't mean slavery was a fundamental tenant, I was wondering about the fundamental tenants that made slavery, under any circumstances, permissible in the eyes of God. Christianity loses a lot of credibility for me on that one, I guess.

 

[5stringJeff]

I mean.. its just so long.. and boring..

Sorry, to clarify, I didn't mean slavery was a fundamental tenant, I was wondering about the fundamental tenants that made slavery, under any circumstances, permissible in the eyes of God. Christianity loses a lot of credibility for me on that one, I guess.

As far as the Bible being boring, I would recommend you read the gospel of John. Parts of it read like a good novel.

As far as slavery, I will only say this: not until the 19th century did any society claim that slavery was absolutely morally wrong, and all religions officially tolerate it; and the people at the forefront of the abolition movement were - and are - Christians.

 

[Semper Fi]

Just whatinthehell are you talking about?

Teresa "shove-it" Heinz-Ketchup of course.

 

[sagegirl]

Bully Simply delicious

 

[TheEnemyWithin]

Alright, BullyPulpit....Your unsurpassed level of idiocy never fails to amaze me. Enjoy your permanent stay in the Iggy Pit of No Return.