Old Testament vs New Testament

[i-need-a-martini]

I have been told numerous times on here that Christians believe in the New Testament and the Old Testament is not irrelevent.

In particular I was told that the Old Testament is Pre-Christian and describes a DIFFERENT God with different attitudes. And that the New Testament is a stand-alone book so I assume.

Can someone please explain why?

(preferably someone who is religious and has actually read the books)

[the_bob_delusion]

It's a useless discussion. Every Christian pick and choose what they want to believe out of the OT or the NT. Even fundamentalist do too but find ways to justify out the ugly bits. 

Here's the key question. What's something contained in the OT or NT about morality or ethics that you wouldn't otherwise have known  if you didn't have it available???? What's something that only fundamentalist would do purely becauase it's justified in the OT and NT?

[muppet_detector]

Katy, very interested to read what you have to say about personal responsibility.

Yes, it is a powerful text, in its entirety. I doubt that any book has or has had as great an impact or influence on any society, past and present.

It is pretty amazing to consider that a book written collated over 16 centuries ago is still very relevant.

The Bible has the distinction of being the bestseller of all time. Since the invention of the printing press over 500 years ago when the first Bible was mass produced, it has continually been at the top of the list with over 150,000 copies sold or given away every day!

It's a book that contains everything.

Exciting adventures, history, letters, historical facts, lyrics to songs, poetry, murder, mystery, tyranny, the underdog. Even if you don't believe in the essence of the Bible, it is truly an exceptional book to read and understand. 1600 years later, people still debate the messages and meanings (or the plot (for the non believers) of the contents.

The Bible has been used to justify wars and to found relief organisations. It has been used to support slavery and condemn it. It has been used to fuel hatred and to promote love and understanding.

It's a book that "has it all". It's not just a religious text, it's a work of history and a literary masterpiece.

[muppet_detector]

Bob, the key questions are how morality and ethics are formed and have been formed since "the beginning". And how or by who was it decided that certain actions are morally and ethically acceptable.

We aren't born with morals or ethics. These are learned values depending on our environment and circumstances, Environments and circumstances that have been changing, developing and evolving since "the beginning".

[muppet_detector]

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

"I'm not convinced that when the Bible was written in 400AD".

Oh! That's when it was written. I often wondered. So, the fact that Jesus referred to the scrolls of Moses and read them in the Temple is rubbish because they hadn't been written yet?

---

It has taken me a while to respond to this, but now I feel I know how to comment.

I should have used the word collated instead of written, for that I apologise.

But lets put this into perspective.

According to Jewish tradition, Moses wrote the first five books of Old Testament. These books cover everything from the creation of the world, human's early history, the emergence of Isreal's ancestors and their formation as a nation under Moses.but many still debate who did write them. What most agree on is that the scrolls belonged to the community living near the caves, a jewish separatist group known as the Essenes. Their own diocuments saay they were written in the mid second century BCE by someone called the "Teacher of the Righteousness". They were monastic in nature and believed that they alone followed God's law, and they awaited the day when God would overthrow the corrupt priesthood in Jerusalem as well as the political powers of their day.

This community was destroyed by the Romans during a Jewish uprising known as the jewish Revolt in 66 - 72 CE, but not before they hid their writings in ceramic pots in the caves for protection where they remained undiscovered for 2,000 years.

The Dead sea Scrolls were discovered in 1947. They included many religious and non religious scrolls as well as thousands of fragments of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament). This discovery demonstrated how carefully scribes copied the biblical texts over the centuries, but they also revealed differences between the ancient and modern texts.

My original post was about the collation of the books that we collectively know as the Bible. I was not referring to the individual books whether they were included or excluded from what we now know as the Bible.

[iapetus_rocks]

---

@muppet_detector wrote:

Bob, the key questions are how morality and ethics are formed and have been formed since "the beginning". And how or by who was it decided that certain actions are morally and ethically acceptable.

We aren't born with morals or ethics. These are learned values depending on our environment and circumstances, Environments and circumstances that have been changing, developing and evolving since "the beginning".

---

But, we are born with a brain which gives us the ability to consider that we shouldn't do anything to others which we would not like them to do to us.

That's morality in a nutshell (assuming all participants are sane).

It's not so hard to learn the Golden Rule. (it's a rule which makes redundant all of the religious dogma from all the religions which try to force their utter rubbish down our choking throats).

[muppet_detector]

At best, that is an evolutionary view of what morals are. This view is about survival and reproduction and has nothing to do with moral truth and is considered to be without rational basis to modern society.

There are 5 stages of the development of morals, each stage, as I said, are learned values influenced by environment and circumstance.

[iapetus_rocks]

At least, the Golden Rule is an existential view of what constitutes morality (the given here, is that all participants are sane)

I didn't read the info on your links though I opened them, because I have read these theories before. it's fine to have an intellectual view of morality and it's a topic worthy of intellectual consideration; but we live in a real world, and real people are more apt to understand and appreciate real things which relate to their personal reality.

[iapetus_rocks]

The Golden Rule . . .  and all the rest is "commentary".

It's just that this commentary (commentaries) so often justifies the expolitation and the subjugation of others.

[muppet_detector]

 Personal reality is subjective. Morals are formed by personal boundaries and as evidenced in the conversation between myself and Katy, are flexible depending on the environment and circumstances. It is too simplistic to state though shalt not steal, murder, lie, covet etc. It has been established that our boundaries are not fixed.

[iapetus_rocks]

You subscribe to the "relative morality" idea?

You subscribe to the opinion that morality is relative and depends on time, place and culture? I disagree.

Of course personal reality is subjective . . that's what "personal" means. However, we all live in this world, and how we treat each other is an objective circumstance, no matter how we might personally interpret that exchange.

Islam says it's ok and even a "good thing" to despise the "infidel", whereas historically, the Christian church has held out that Muslims were the infidels, and not worthy of the same treatment that Christians deserve.

It's all utter rubbish. We are all human beings, and as such all of us deserve equal consideration, yes, even the women.

I'll listen to what anyone says, but I'll not forget to watch and observe what they do.