Rules and morality are two different things. You can have one set of rules but they would have no moral value.
Another problem non-OT believing Christians face is that the NT, including Jesus himself, clearly states that the OT is still valid. Many times.
So they must claim that some of the stuff in the NT can be false. But then, what can they know about god’s will?
Morality is a condition of the heart mind and spirit not a physical act. The physical act is only an outward expression. That being the case I don’t see how we can have a set of rules relating to physical acts that can possibly reflect morality. Killing in self defense or defense of others is not the same as murder although they are both killing. Our own justice system struggles with this every day.
As far as God is concerned, IMHO it’s the same thing. God judges the condition of our heart and spirit, the inner person, not our outward actions. Our actions do ultimately reflect who we are inside. Although we can try to hide who we truly are from others and even from ourselves we can’t hide from God. All will be revealed and the truth will set you free.
Really? Perhaps you could share how you can be so certain that this is what I meant.
I think there may be some middle ground between rejecting the OT in its entireity, and accepting it as the fundamentalists do.
My understanding of the Old Testament is that it is important (to Christians) because it is the background out of which Jesus arose. Therefore, in order better to understand His meaning, one needs to study the OT so as to understand His religious and philosophical background. He makes reference in one of the Gospels to “the sign of Jonah”. If you never read the story of Jonah, it would be difficult to determine what exactly He meant. Or if you had never read the 22nd Psalm, Jesus’ dying words on the cross (“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”) don’t make a lot of sense. In the same way, it is hard to understand why those who heard Him misunderstood this as a reference to Elijah - until you realize that He probably pronounced the J sound in Elijah as a Y - so ‘eloi’ sounds a lot like “e-li-yah”. More especially if the speaker is dehydrated and on the point of death.
There are lots of these kinds of examples. But that is rather different from the idea of accepting the OT as (you should pardon the expression) gospel, or rejecting it entirely as just old stories. As I said, it reflects a development of understanding.
Sure they do. But that goes to a distinction that has been made in other threads, between civil law, ceremonial law, and moral teachings. The short answer is that the moral part doesn’t change, the ceremonial part doesn’t apply anymore, and the civil part doesn’t apply to any but a Jewish theocratic state.
But certainly the hard part is deciding which is which.
Yes, if He truly gave a moral command. I have already mentioned that I believe He did not give a moral command to kill all the pagan peoples in the Promised Land.
As I mentioned, it must be more of a problem for Jews. But for Christians, the Bible (so to speak) doesn’t begin with Genesis; it begins with Jesus. We start with Him, and work backwards. Some of it is interesting, some informational, some is straightforward moral teaching, just as relevent now as it ever was. I don’t hear a lot of complaint, for example, of the near-obsession of many of the prophets with justice for the poor and downtrodden, or their condemnations of materialism, and so forth.
Regards,
Shodan
You’re right. More importantly they shouldn’t be using it as an argument against those things even if they do believe it, because they are dead wrong. I think the conflict will only help reveal the truth about the Bible and what it is or isn’t, which will even help Christianity in the long run although some will fight tooth and nail against it.
I think most people who don’t take the Bible literally don’t use it in those arguments.
Sure. I am certain because there is nothing else that you can mean. You have no access to any knowledge of the life and teachings of Jesus except whatever you find convincing in the NT…a book written by humans, etc. etc. etc.
What is “the moral part”, in your understanding?
Really? Prove it. 
It’s anything that expresses the “love the Lord about all else, and love your neighbor as yourself”. As I said, one starts with Jesus, and works on from there.
Thus the social justice themes of the Old Testament express moral teaching. So also does the emphasis on the exclusivity of God. The Ten Commandments are examples of how a person will act when loving God above all else, and loving your neighbor. One of the things that Jesus did was to extend the moral obligations that a good Jew should feel towards his fellow Jews to the outsider - the enemy Romans, outcasts, social pariahs (the “tax collectors and prostitutes” that He was always talking about), and so on. All this in addition to the more straightforward stuff about not committing murder or rape or theft, dealing honestly, etc.
Another major teaching of Christ was to extend the duty of the individual to do more than refrain from hurting someone else, and make it a duty of service to others. Hillel, a teacher of Judaism (a bit later than Jesus, and it is not known that they ever met or heard of each other) said something similar to, but not quite the same as, Jesus’ Golden Rule.
Hillel was challenged to state the whole law standing on one foot. He picked up one foot, and said, “What is hateful to thee, do not to thy neighbor.”
Jesus stated it as a positive - ‘do unto others as you would have others do unto you’. Not the same thing, quite. And much more in line with all that Jesus taught about “whoever wants to be the greatest of all must be the servant of all.”
Regards,
Shodan
Are you claiming that you have some other way of knowing what Jesus wants? I know you used a winky but my point was not unreasonable. Ultimately, every moral choice has to start with one’s own, self-apponted moral authority. And having started there, it has to end there.
Hillel came before Jesus (c. 60 BCE- c. 20 CE). There is some overlap in their lifetimes but Hillel’s Pharasaic school was established before Jesus was born.
That example really isn’t very helpful in this situation. If we used two plus two equals ninety-six, then we wouldn’t be able to build structures, explore science, etc. Using the objective in maths situations has an added benefit; we get accurate calculations for architecture/science and so on.
Using an objective standard of morals has no benefit implicit within it, as opposed to a subjective system. If I use the objective system rather than a subjective, different system, what benefit do I recieve?
Notice again what I mentioned earlier - the differences where Jesus stated the Golden Rule. The Leviticus passage is applied only to other Jews - Jesus applied to all, even enemies.
If the objective system is correct, as we are assuming it to be, then you gain the benefit of behaving morally. Thus if we used an incorrect system of arithmetic, we can’t build structures. If we use an incorrect system of morality, we cannot make correct moral decisions.
I am using “objective” in the sense of “something that can be definitely established as valid”.
It sounds very much like you are saying, “I want to act immorally, if it is is to my benefit”, which doesn’t sound very moral. An objective moral standard would show that something was evil even if people wanted it very much.
Regards,
Shodan
In the above post I said “God judges” I was uncomfortable with it when I wrote it But I was in a hurry. In thinking about it I’d rephrase.
God sees or reveals the condition of our heart and spirit. God doesn’t judge.
Alright, that makes sense. Then I suppose my answer is (if that is the case), “It’s a shame, but if I must act immorally then I will do so”.
Me too.
Ooh, and you’ve lost me there. My moral system is based around promoting happiness and pleasure (i.e. tangible things we enjoy) and the opposite to pain and suffering (tangible things we don’t enjoy). To give an example, if killing me would provide happiness to more people than it would unhappiness, then it would be correct in my view for someone to murder me. That certainly isn’t to my benefit. Under God’s system, it’s immoral. But under my system, it is the right thing to do, and as the tangible benefit, more people are happy. I believe that benefit is worth more than simply being moral.
even if you’re not posting I hope you might still be reading.
I appreciate your answers here. Especially to the last question. Even though we may not believe all the same specifics we share that common belief in the section I bolded. That’s what I appreciate about the spiritual journey. Our paths can be different yet the same in that sense, with the same destination.
I encourage you to see the same seeking and uncertainty you deal with in spiritual seekers who may not choose the Christian path. Look to their inner spirit not their choice of doctrine. Share ideas and see them as brothers and sisters. I encourage you to have the courage to question and examine your own beliefs. Is it truth? Is it tradition? Is it something else? That’s how we grow. Thanks for your honest input.
None of the laws applied to those who did not follow God. This distinction, however, is often used conveniently by Christians to ignore those laws that are inconvenient. The Sabbath is an excellent example. Its placement in the 10 comandments shows it is far more than a ritual or a civil law. It is certainly more a part of Judaism than the law against murder, for instance. Yes I know Jesus pooh-poohed the Sabbath - all the more reason to doubt his holiness.
That’s not the incident of which I was speaking - if you recall, Moses never made it to the promised land. You haven’t explained why you think this story is incorrect and the rest are true.
And Moslems see the entire story is about Islam - Abraham was a Moslem, remember. The contortions Christians do to make the OT story be about them would shame a creationist in a natural history museum. Matthew’s mistranslations and misreadings still don’t make Jesus fulfil the Messianic prophecies.
However, to get back on track, your response illustrates a point about god and morality. Your moral sense clearly does not allow you to believe that God could order a massacre. But why are you putting yourself over God? God can do whatever he pleases, and it is moral. If God commands it, slaughtering a million has the same morality as him curing a child with cancer. Our friend Mayo has the courage of his faith, at least.