Can somone explain to me

[pscot]

what role the old testament plays in Christianity? The old testament god is an implacably vengeful bigot. The new testament tells us every man is our brother and we are to love one another. Jesus may actually have lived. The old testament before Abraham is mainly a work of fiction created during the 6th and 5th centuries BC. It has little or no meaning in the context of what Christ taught, but the old testament is widely quoted while the words of Jesus seem to be mostly ignored, except for the story of the talents, which seems to justify flogging the help and kicking the indigent and feckless to the curb. How can one profess Christianity while embracing Leviticus?.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

1. The God explained in both the Old and New Testament sounds very much like a psycho sadist.

All those who wrote the Old Testament and the New Testament clearly believed in a god that, while all powerful, is playing rather sick jokes, life-or-death tricks and carrying out ugly experiments on his creation. A bit like the head scientist in a lab of animal experimentation: "Let's see what will happen if I punish them like this. Or, let me do absolutely nothing while they suffer. Oh look! They're suffering! Now THAT is fascinating! Let me take notes."

Seriously. I don't see a kindly entity in either of the biblical books.

[pscot]

2. The stories about the moral Mondays

protests got me thinking about this. There seem to be many Christians involved in the movement. I think the oligarchs, both in and out of government, are vulnerable to charges of immorality, as is capitalism. Exploiting others to their extreme detriment for personal gain; destroying the planet for personal gain seem to me to be profoundly immoral behaviours. Most people draw their morality from organized religion and the whole idea of killing anyone who differs from you is definably old testament. Why are Christians still dragging this atavistic baggage around?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

5. Religions that are well-financed, and which can get funding (for ex. Bible's required tithing)

are the ones that do the best, and so multiply like rabbits, because for preachers, it's a career.

Christianity is one of those within which preachers can make a nice living.

[pscot]

6. Truth

It's the model for Tupperware and Avon.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

7. Yes lol It is. And since people are scared...

I mean, death, illness, loneliness, job loss, hunger, loss of home, and all scary things of life are stressful and damaging, and we all need something to make us feel better. Some turn to cheap liquor. Others turn to whatever god they can be convinced of. Whatever gets you through the night, I guess.

[cbayer]

12. Tupperware and Avon? I don't see the similarity here.

[pscot]

21. It's evangelical

Thousands of Believers out there preaching the Dharma of convenient storage and lasting beauty.

[cbayer]

22. Seems like a pretty cheap comparison, but whatever floats your boat.

I guess it could be compared to this site as well.

[cbayer]

11. The average salary for christian ministers in the us is $28,000/year.

Of all the degreed professionals in America, the two lowest paid professions are in this order; pastor and teacher.

Despite the fact that pastors and teachers put in the longest hours every week and have to continue their education the receive the least in salaries

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/christiancrier/2013/12/15/average-pastor-salaries-in-united-states-churches/

Certainly, you are entitled to your rather extreme opinion here, but you are not entitled to make up the facts.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

19. But it's a career, and not everyone makes $28,000. Some make a great deal more. It's like any

career. But it is a career.

[cbayer]

20. Not sure what you mean by career or why that might be a bad thing.

That's the average salary. It includes the data regarding those mega-church ministers who make much, much more. It also includes many who make much less. Many ministers take on second jobs just to stay afloat.

While there are a few who appear to go in the profession for the bucks, most clearly do not.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

26. Well, to engage in promoting things spiritual for a profit... nt

[hrmjustin]

28. Most churches just barely scrape by.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

30. I guess I really have a horrible opinion of churches in this country. They're GOP

and generally behave like a GOP rally along with their God-worshiping.

[hrmjustin]

31. Maybe the loudest ones but not all.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

33. My sister's church is not a loud one, and doesn't focus much on GOP politics, and yet...

because the interpreters of the Bible were and are right wing in their views, the strong believers are right wing in their views. I'll give you one example, homosexuality. Neither the 10 Commandments nor Jesus speak out against homosexuality. However, the interpreters used by Christian churches publish myriad books against homosexuality, and speak out against homosexuality, as if it were one of the basic tenets of Jesus or the 10 Commandments.

[hrmjustin]

34. Yes many are rw but not all.

My church is very inclusive.

[cbayer]

29. As I just pointed out, there is not much if any "profit" for most ministers.

Generally they do it for other reasons. Most of them are smart enough to engage in a profit making career if they wanted to, but they chose this.

[hrmjustin]

32. I know plenty of clergy that just scrape by.

Yes there are jobs here in NYC that will where you will have a comfortable life but most clergy here mske no more and many times less than the average working class NYer.

[cbayer]

40. Of course you do. This is just one more in the long list of either misconceptions or

outright fabrications used to smear all churches.

But facts are clear and available in this case.

[hrmjustin]

27. It is a calling more than a career.

[Brettongarcia]

3. How Christians rationalize the Old Testament excesses

Many have noticed this problem with the violent Old Testament. To try to fix that, they work with certain key phrases in the New Testament; to suggest that the Old Testament is legitimately cancelled, or modified, or "fulfilled" in some spiritual way. So that the New Testament can go on with a new "law" or "covenant."

As part of this, many read the old physical wonders and horrors of the OT, as being merely spiritual metaphors.

This is what Father Robert Barron did a few months ago, for example. Though in the current First Things issue, he seems to be apologizing for this kind of too-modern, allegorizing reading of ancient scripture.

As indeed he should. The many various ways the NT and Christianity rationalized their departure from the Old Testament are pretty sophistical word-twisting exercises, after all.

[pscot]

4. That seems backward

If one believes in the teaching of Jesus, why is it necessary to justify the imaginings of the priestly class of a group of illiterate shepherds who lived 2500 years ago? Their version of morality works well for the war mongers and oligarchs, for the rest of us, not so much.

[Igel]

18. Because Jesus' quotes are often from those writings.

Many of his words allude to those writings, either the ideas, the laws, the stories and history, the events, or the people.

When he speaks in the setting attributed to him, those writings are what people would have had in mind. He would have known this. What he says and what they do are consistent with this.

When he said "justice" he wasn't speaking to those who went to Berkeley in the 1960s and 1970s, and talking about economic, environmental, or social justice. We forget that not everybody is local to us, not everybody speaks to us, personally, not everything is properly understood from our narrow POV. (And we do this even as we accuse others of committing the sin. We impose a burden on others we're often not willing to bear ourselves.)

He was speaking to those for whom "justice" was doing as the OT said to do to others: You treated people impartially when enforcing the law, which was defined as good. When he said "mercy' his listeners would have understood a certain thing, and he would have known that's what his words would have meant: Not being rigorous in seeking that the law be applied on a personal level, understanding their situations, being generous. "Righteousness" would have been acting in accord with God's will.

From the POV of a standard Jew in 25 AD, the same God who destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah was the one who said "love God with all your heart" and "love your neighbor as yourself." The same one who said not to look with pity on the poor nor with favor on the rich when judging a case of theft also said to help those who were poor and decried the arrogance of the rich. The OT God defended the poor as did Jesus. He decried the arrogance of the rich as did Jesus. And yet he was impartial--when the poor were disobedient, they also merited punishment. (This is rather new--a God that showed favor at the national and not the personal level.)

Jesus pointed out that God was merciful and that many of the iron-clad restrictions of the Pharisees were unmerited impositions. Steal God's showbread to survive, help a beast by pulling it out of the ditch on the Sabbath--they're not only okay, they're good. God forgave these offenses, obviously offenses against God, because life trumps property or such trespasses. Nobody made the mistake of thinking Jesus said it was okay for the poor to steal another person's bread, though; mercy required isn't voluntary or "being merciful", and so it would be up to the owner of the bread to decide what to do.


In short, the OT is around because without the OT Jesus has no background. People have already decontextualized the texts, deconstructed them to find their own truths and immediately reconstructed them around those newly-found truths, and that's with the OT stuck onto the NT. Either they have the background they appear to have or the people who already show blatant contempt for the texts should just be honest and say, "We should do this because I think it's right."

[Brettongarcia]

42. Seems partially right. But even sayings by "Jesus" DO work some changes on the OT

"It is written," Jesus says, "but I say unto you."

Here already Jesus "himself" seems to be changing some OT laws or sayings, somewhat. Jesus for example works, allows preparing food on a Sabbath; in direct contradiction to the Ten Commandments, and the death penalty for that. Jesus here legalistically citing obscure parts of David's experience, etc., to work these changes, and make them APPEAR entirely consistent with the old laws. Already too in Jesus, we see the physical promises of the OT - promises of literal physical real "water" and "bread" say, feeing the people of Moses in the wilderness - turned into spiritual metaphors; Jesus says his thoughts and actions are "water" and "bread indeed."

So many feel that there IS much difference between the OT and the NT. And that the "Jesus" of the text DOES seem to be changing things.

Though to be sure,scholars think even greater changes/"twist"s happened with Paul, c. 55AD.

[hrmjustin]

8. The old testament was a bunch of rules that Israeliles felt kept them in good standing with God.

Christians believe Jesus is the fulfillment of the covenant with God.


In the old testament you needed sin offerings to atone for your sins. Christianity says that by Jesus's death and resurrection we are freed from these sin offerings and we are redeemed before God.

[LiberalAndProud]

14. Did your god require a blood sacrifice to attone for the sins of the Old Testament?

Substitionary atonement is not a concept that rests easy with my conscience, or with my concept of a benevolent being.

[hrmjustin]

15. I have many questions as to why thr God I believe in would require the blood sacrifice

of his son.

[LiberalAndProud]

17. I once had an interesting conversation with my father on this subject.

He is a retired minister and unrepentant theist

Although in examining his theology, he rejects the notion of substitutional atonement, the act of communion is still very meaningful and comforting for him. Standing outside his faith, as I do, I have some trouble understanding that dichotomy.

[AtheistCrusader]

36. Not to be negative or imply anything specifically about you but

I have many questions around why, exactly, most Christians seem willing to share in the profit from that murder.

I can make no logical sense of any of it. None.

But, I don't think it's mean to be logical.

[hrmjustin]

45. It is all taken on faith.

I just accept this as a doctrine of my faith.

[Humanist_Activist]

9. Say what you will about the OT God(s), the worse they could do was kill you, NT God...

"The Father" will burn your ass for eternity.

[pscot]

10. Well, there's that

[AtheistCrusader]

37. And not just burn, but give you the gift of everlasting life, specifically so you CAN

burn, or be in separated anguish forever.


Quite a guy.

(I know some NT/modern Christians that don't believe in hell, they believe the sinners will be left alone, un-loved, separate from god, and that is supposedly a massive punishment too.)

[cbayer]

13. Lots of people profess christianity while rejecting much of what is in Leviticus.

There are other parts in the Old Testament that christians find very positive -

The ten commandments, psalms and ecclesiastes come to mind.

Unless one is a literalist, it is perfectly logical to take what makes sense and leave the rest alone (or even openly reject it).

[pscot]

23. And apparently there are plenty of Christians

willing to send drones off to murder innocents and arm themselves against their neighbors. What I'm really looking for is some moral basis for resistance to the society the Capitalists and Technocrats are designing for us. I didn't really intend to start an argument about religion (insert face palm here), but rather to learn if we can look to Jesus for some pushback against the nomenklatura.

[cbayer]

24. Apparently there are plenty of people of all kinds willing to support these things.

I have never seen any connection with religion in this respect. Have you?

I grew up in a culture that strongly promoted peace and continues to do so. The religious community that I was raised in was actively involved in the peace movement during Viet Nam and has continued to be active in all the anti-war movements since then.

There are communities of religious people who stand on street corners daily with signs advocating for peace.

And in doing this, they use what they embrace as christianity and the their holy texts.

Religious groups have also been involved in OWS across the country and at many levels.

Does that answer your question?

[okasha]

35. If that's what you're looking for,

then you need to check out the liberation theologians such as Gustavo Gutierrez and Leonardo Boff.

Meantime, how much of the OT have you read, as opposed to having read about it?

[AtheistCrusader]

38. The ten commandments is a heap of bullshit.

1. I'm jealous, don't you dare worship any other gods.
2. Don't make any physical representations of anything that falls under #1.
3. Don't say my name with a shitty attitude.
4. Be lazy on sunday.

5. Honor your parents.
6. No murder.
7. No adultery.
8. No theft.
9. No fraud

10. Duplicate of 8.


As you can see, half of the 10 commandments isn't 'positive' or even useful. 1 and 2 are literally duplicates. 10 is a duplicate of 8.

God could fit in his jealous nature twice, forgot all about rape.


Edit: Oh and fuck #5. I'm supposed to honor my abusive, alcoholic, wife-beating father? Fuck that noise. Not a chance in hell. My father was a monster, and any being, supernatural or natural, suggests I need to 'honor' him, they got another thing coming.

[edhopper]

39. 10 isn't a duplicate of 8

it's thought police, you can't even think about wanting anything someone else has.

[justhanginon]

46. Are there possible exceptions for bright red Ferraris?

I saw one the other day in my area, (I don't live in what would be considered Frerrari territory). I reeeeaaally liked that red Ferrari although at my age I probably couldn't get in and out of the it any way. Never mind! I'll just keep my '97 Tracer and not even think about it. Sure was pretty though.

[okasha]

47. Not quite.

As explained by the nuns many years ago, you are allowed to want a bright red Ferrari for yourself. What you're not allowed to do is want to take away your neighbor's bright red Ferrari for yourself. You can want to have one, too. You just can't want to deprive your neighbor of hers so that you can have it.

[cbayer]

41. If it's a heap of bullshit to you, then shovel it right out your door.

Someone else may find it as exactly what they need to make their garden grow.

One could take any list or document and mold into into whatever they want. You did.

I am sorry you had an abusive, alcoholic, wife-beating father. That's a really terrible way to grow up and I think honoring him would be asking for something impossible. I hope though that there were men in your life who were able to step in and give you the good stuff. Maybe there were and they are the ones that deserve the honor.

[AtheistCrusader]

43. Nope.

Had to find my own way as a man. Fortunately in reading and talking to others I discovered philosophical tools like the Non-Aggression principle.


My point was, there is very little actual meat/content in the 10 commandments. 5 aren't even about being a better person in any way. One of those could actually be counter-productive. (Studies have shown, swearing is good for you.)

[cbayer]

44. That's too bad.

Had to do a little research on NAP, as I had not previously heard of it.

My point is that there is very little meat/content there for you, but that that is not the case for others.

There were particularly difficult times in pre-Katrina New Orleans, when some of the commandments were posted on billboards without comment. They had a great deal of meaning for the communities involved.

Swearing? One can swear all day long without breaking any commandments.

While I can see how they might not mean anything to some people, I fail to see how they could be bad for someone.

[okasha]

48. One of the joys of being a linguist

is being able to swear for a half hour or so without repeating oneself.

[cbayer]

49. I have found that is true living with someone who speaks multiple languages as well.

[Half-Century Man]

16. The Books of Moses (old testament) are the core writings of Judaism.

Christianity, at first sought to establish itself as the replacement of Judaism, that later morphed into replace all other religion. So has incorporated the Books of Moses into it's pantheon. Christianity picks and choses what parts they want to, or serve whatever purpose is at hand. They have done this with quite a few religions (Yule tree, easter eggs, easter bunny, winter celebration of JC's birth, are argued as being from Northern Europe's Odenism; the birth of a demi-human through sexual mixing of Divine and human likely from Hellenistic teachings; there are a lot of parallels between the sacrifice and restoration of Jesus and the Egyptian god Horus like replenishment/salvation.).

The books of Moses in their current form were probably transcribed in the 6th and 5th centuries BCE. If I remember correctly, analysis of the writing styles indicate 6 different writers were involved. Not all of the old oral stories were include into what was intended to be the tome of core values. Not all religious writing of the Jewish religion are in the Torah (the Five Books of Moses). The Christian version of the Books of Moses is based on Greek translations made at the Library of Alexandria some time during the Seleucid Imperial period. There has been a chain of translations after that, and subtle changes have crept in. For example, in Hebrew the Books of Moses are nearly conversational; not esoteric and flowery.

Leviticus needs to be taken in context. It is a set of rules given to late bronze age fugitives (released either through Divine deliverance or ejected by force) to weld them into a cohesive unit. The rules were strict and need to be to insure survival in a hostile environment. Leviticus is one part of a larger whole. The people for whom Leviticus (the followers of Judaism) treat it as part of a larger whole. People who didn't yet exist for a thousand years pick "sound bites" out of it to serve selected purposes.

The people in the 6th century BCE were certainly aware of the fact the world constantly changed. Spheres of influence shifted all the time. What was happening now, had happened in the past; they knew that. So, the focus was on the lesson not so much the details of the story. And the parable was born. A traditional technique used to teach or reinforce a religious principle. It is well known that the Biblical writers used parables.

Bear in mind, the stories in the Bible were written by people less knowledgeable than us. Mythos was used to answer questions which would be later answered by science. Their estimation of the age of the world was off. In all probability, our current estimation is off as well and will be adjusted as new knowledge becomes available. As humans we do the best we can at any given moment, then as now.

[struggle4progress]

25. Leviticus 19:

... When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very edges of your field, or gather the gleanings of your harvest. You shall not strip your vineyard bare, or gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and the alien ... You shall not defraud your neighbor; you shall not steal; and you shall not keep for yourself the wages of a laborer until morning. You shall not mock the deaf or put a stumbling block before the blind ... You shall not render an unjust judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great: with justice you shall judge your neighbor. You shall not go around as a slanderer among your people, and you shall not profit by the blood of your neighbor ... You shall not hate in your heart anyone of your kin; you shall reprove your neighbor, or you will incur guilt yourself. You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against any of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself ... Do not profane your daughter by making her a prostitute ... You shall rise before the aged, and defer to the old ... When an alien resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress the alien. The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt ... You shall not cheat in measuring length, weight, or quantity ...

So "you shall love your neighbor as yourself" already appears in Leviticus: it followed immediately by "I am the Lord," which at least suggests it is intended to be taken very seriously. A few sentences later, we read "The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you" with a similar refrain suggesting it is intended to be taken very seriously. Such passages seem to me inconsistent with your claim "the old testament god is an implacably vengeful bigot"

What we actually find in these texts is a mixture of ideas, some of which seem more consistent with modern ethical thought than others; this is not surprising, since the texts are quite old, and the society to which they were originally addressed was somewhat different than our own

Thus an injunction such as "you shall love your neighbor as yourself" appears to conflict with the subsequent passage if a man has sexual relations with a woman who is a slave, designated for another man but not ransomed or given her freedom, an inquiry shall be held; they shall not be put to death, since she has not been freed (Lev 19:20) for various reasons: it assumes slavery as a social reality and apparently does not object to the killing a woman "designated for another man" on the grounds that a different man had sexual relations with her. The injunction here perhaps protects an enslaved woman from death if raped, but it seems only a tiny step in the direction towards better ethical ideals, such as elimination of slavery and elimination of the death penalty for certain sexual acts: it is difficult to understand how a community that really accepted "you shall love your neighbor as yourself" as an ethical ideal could consider killing a woman "designated for another man" on the grounds that a different man had sexual relations with her, consensual or otherwise

Such conflicts occur throughout the texts, and must necessarily produce some tensions in a serious reader, who wants to understand what is actually being said