# Is there version of Christianity that rejects the Old Testament? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 22, 2004, 9:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-version-of-christianity-that-rejects-the-old-testament/265454 "2004-09-22T09:46:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-version-of-christianity-that-rejects-the-old-testament/265454/61 "2004-09-24T01:46:46Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#): > > (2) “turn the other cheek” – Jesus is proposing that his True Believers aspire to set the bar high in their moral decisions. It’s part of a longer passage containing teachings against being quick to use _even verbal_ violence: it tells Christians to go beyond tempering the desire for vengeance, to suppressing it. _HOWEVER_ as mentioned in this thread, the majority of brands of Christianity see this as not interferring in any way with the administration of justice against the wrongdoer. No (sane) mainstream Christian would say that this means that after 9/11 we should have just sat to wait for the next massacre, or that the Israeli Transit Authority should issue a special cut-price book of bus tokens for suicide bombers. > > Hey, the Sermon of the Mount _concludes_ with “be perfect, just as The Father is perfect” – an obvious impossibility. Jesus (or the evangelist) is presumably aware that any mere human will fall short of the standard, but is apparently using that unreasonable goal in order to motivate the Christian to do _more_ than is expected and never be satisfied that he’s already doing “good enough” (just before the “cheek” example, the Sermon literally tell Christians to “go the extra mile”). Exactly. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-version-of-christianity-that-rejects-the-old-testament/265454/62 "2004-09-24T01:50:23Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > Even if this is the case, Christianity does not use the Oral Law of Judaism, it just uses the written text. Sort of. _Sola Scriptura_ is doctrine in Protestantism. BUT the Catholic and Orthodox churches (be they Eastern, Western or Oriental) have tradition and scholarship be sources of the Magisterium alongside the biblical texts (texts which they believe must be interpreted by professionals anyway). Their own tradition and scholarship, certainly – but just as extensive and authoritative _for those churches_ as Talmudic scholarship is for Jews. And those churches add up to the nominal majority of Christianity. ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-version-of-christianity-that-rejects-the-old-testament/265454/63 "2004-09-24T01:51:28Z")
> [@zev\_steinhardt](#): > > She was _caught in the act_ and (assuming the story was true-- I have a concern or two with that story as well) should have paid the price for her crime. Keep in mind that in order to apply the death penalty under Jewish law, the witnesses have to warn the perpetrator that what they are doing is punishable by death - and then the perpetrator must state words to the effect of “I understand but am going to do so anyway.” If that’s the case - that she knew her act was illegal and capital and was forwarned right before committing the act and purposely chose to act anyway, then she should pay the penalty for the crime. But you’re helping make my point. If the above is what you believe, and presumably what most Jews believe, then this is in direct disagreement with what Jesus said, who said she should not be stoned. It doesn’t matter if you think Jesus was right or not. The issue is that Christians should follow what Jesus said, and what he said is in contradiction to what Jewsish law says. So, how can Jewish law be part of Christianity? ---
**Author:** ![zev\_steinhardt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/97f17d/32.png) [@zev\_steinhardt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zev_steinhardt)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-version-of-christianity-that-rejects-the-old-testament/265454/64 "2004-09-24T01:57:51Z")
Maybe we can cut to the chase here: **Polerius** seems to say (and if I’m wrong, please correct me) that Christianity can exist by simply following Jesus’ teachings without the trappings of the Jewish bible and it’s stories (myths, whatever…). Ultimately, I don’t think you can, for the following reasons: (1) What makes Jesus so special in Christianity is the fact that he is held to be the Messiah. His claim to being the Messiah is rooted in the prophecies of the Jewish Bible. Without those claims, there is nothing special about Jesus that couldn’t be applied to many other people in the world. You might as well start up a religion based on the teachings of Martin Luther King Jr. or Ghandi. It’s only because Christians maintain that Jesus was the messiah that makes his message anything special to begin with. (2) Jesus didn’t exist in a vacuum. He was a product of his times and the place he lived in. As such, his teachings took the form that it did. Had he lived in sixth-century Scandinavia, eighth century Arabia, or the Wild West of the 1870-80s, his “teachings” and life story would have taken a wildly different shape. But he lived where he lived while following the lifestyle that was laid down by the Jewish Bible. So to divorce him from that is like divorcing the story of George Washington from the American Revolution. Zev Steinhardt ---
**Author:** ![zev\_steinhardt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/97f17d/32.png) [@zev\_steinhardt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zev_steinhardt)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-version-of-christianity-that-rejects-the-old-testament/265454/65 "2004-09-24T02:01:41Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > It doesn’t matter if you think Jesus was right or not. The issue is that Christians should follow what Jesus said, and what he said is in contradiction to what Jewsish law says. So, how can Jewish law be part of Christianity? And that leads me back to the question I linked to earlier in the thread. Jewish law is NOT part of Christianity. Christianity has, more or less, tossed out Jewish law and no longer follows it. When was the last time you saw a Christian fast on _Yom Kippur_? When was the last time you saw a Christian put on _tefillin_ (Madonna aside… :rolleyes: ) ? But that still doesn’t mean you can completely divorce Christianity from it’s roots. At least not logically. See my last post. Zev Steinhardt ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-version-of-christianity-that-rejects-the-old-testament/265454/66 "2004-09-24T02:06:49Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > The issue is that Christians should follow what Jesus said, and what he said is in contradiction to what Jewsish law says. So, how can Jewish law be part of Christianity? Background supporting documents. Jesus says “I’ve come not to overthrow the Law and Prophets, but to fulfill them”. So the Christian Churches have included at least the Tanakh, and often additional materials, in their Bibles, as a way of indicating what is it that Jesus fulfilled (or rather, radically reinterpreted). ---
**Author:** ![t-keela](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a3d4f5/32.png) [@t-keela](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/t-keela)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-version-of-christianity-that-rejects-the-old-testament/265454/67 "2004-09-24T03:06:13Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > It seems that the God in the Old Testament (mean, vengeful) has nothing to do with the God in the New Testament (loving, forgiving). > > Also, Jesus’ “turn the other cheek” and “love your enemy” is the exact opposite of “an eye for an eye”. > > So, shouldn’t there be a sect in Christianity that rejects the Old Testament, and uses only the New Testament? > > My question is: is there such a sect, and, in general, does it make sense for Christians to reject the Old Testament? I’m not about to get into a debate with these guys on this subject **Polerius** as most here are well read regarding the scriptures and much more in regards to the same. I will however say this… You ask: “Is there such a sect…?” No major Christian theology that I am aware of rejects the Old Testament. There probably are some minor sects that do disregard much of the Bible in the sense that they teach directly from the New Testament. I have been to churches where they taught from the New Testament and used the Old more as a “history” of mankind and his relation with God. I’ve even heard preachers make this claim: The New Testament is what WE (Christians) should live by. The Old Testament is for the old world and the relationship man had with God before Christ. Jesus changed much of that and for those of us who are saved by Christ, we need only to follow his examples. This is on a small scale though and NOT any particular Christian sect AFAIK. Again you ask: “Does it make sense…to reject?” If you are Christian and believe in the teachings of Christ then you can not reject the Bible since it is where most of his teachings originated. Jesus did not reject the Bible so how can you. I’m not gonna argue analogies or examples like an “eye for an eye” and “turn the other cheek” because the contexts are different. Vengence on the other hand is something to be left for God, not man. Sounds kinda Christ-like to me. Yet it does imply a vengeful God, doesn’t it? Then again…there’s Revelations isn’t there? So…not exactly consistent is it? I agree with you that there are some contradictions though. Jesus admitted as much. Anyway, as far as I know (to answer your question) there are no major Christian sects which outright disregard the Bible. Personally, I try to live by the examples Jesus showed us. The Old Testament is not obsolete but not exactly something I try to follow by the book, so to speak. It’s pretty good reading for the most part though. Whether or not I accept all of this on a “scientific” level…is well nobody’s business. But I think living my life by these principles is a good thing. 🙂 live and let live ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-version-of-christianity-that-rejects-the-old-testament/265454/68 "2004-09-24T03:49:16Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > What do you mean? > > In one case, God tells people to stone someone to death. > > In the other case God (Jesus) tells people that they should not stone anyone to death (since only those without sin can do so, and no one is without sin, at least according to Christians) > > The two cases show God advocating two exact opposites. Jesus did not say that the stoning was wrong. He just said whoever threw the first one should be sinless. He didn’t even say the others had to be sinless, just the first one. Under the law, the person required to throw the first stone was the accuser. So Jesus was not commenting on the merit of legal punishment but on the qualifications of humans to carry it out (or to make a capital judgement). So Jesus was not condemning Jewish Law, he was making a statement about the ability of humans, on a _moral_ level, to be able to perfectly enforce it. That was not the same as saying that the laws should not be _obeyed_. ---
**Author:** ![Alan\_Smithee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/2acd7d/32.png) [@Alan\_Smithee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alan_Smithee)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-version-of-christianity-that-rejects-the-old-testament/265454/69 "2004-09-24T05:51:04Z")
I just closed the wrong tab in Firefox, deleting almost an hour’s worth of work replying to **Friar Ted** and **Ploycarp**. I almost wish for the time I still used IE. At least then it usually wasn’t my fault when a post got eaten! Now, after consuming an entire bag of choloate chip cookies in memory of my lost post, am prepared to recreate it as best I can. Any lack or defect you may find in this post was, I assure you, entirely absent in the original. 😉 Now then, I don’t think I’ve causght this much flak since I tried to give **Duck Duck Goose** advice on childrearing. Boy was I wrong then! > [@FriarTed](#): > > _Alan Smithee says:_ Paul spent quite a bit of ink trying to convince his flock that things like incest and idolotry, though no longer forbidden to Christians by the Torah (and in fact never forbidden to the Gentile Christians by the Torah) were nevertheless Not Good Ideas._Actually the Noachic laws do specifically forbid idolatry & the Rabbinic commentray thereof forbid incest as under the law against adultery._ But is are the Noahide laws part of Torah? In the narrowest sense of the word, no: there is no clear summation of the laws in Genesis. Rather, I believe they were derived (authoritatively) from the recognition that the Scriptures frequently presuppose a common morality not dependant on the revelation at Sinai. The point was not that Torah doesn’t provide laws for guiding the behavior of non-Jews, but that Judaism has always recognized that there are sources of morality accessible apart from the revelation of Sinai. (Whether they are accessable apart from _some_ divine revelation and whether righteousness is possible apart from the recognition of and response to that source are, I understand, open questions.) Christians believe they are accountable to universal moral principles accessible to anyone (to which Paul makes explicit recourse) as well as to those moral principles found in the teaching and example of Christ and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Since the Mosaic Law _includes_ and embodies (often in great depth and elaboration) the universal moral principles and has the same source as the teaching and example of Christ and the counsel of the Holy Spirit, it may be used as a source of _guidance_ as to how God would have us live out the universal moral principles, the sort of teaching Jesus might give on various matters (this requires careful study of the _ways_ in which Jesus used the Law, but he used and refered to it often and so it is implied that we are to do so as well), and what it would be consistant for us to believe is the guidance of the Holy Spirit (for example, God has been pretty consistant on the whole adultery thing, and so the Mosaic Law might serve as an example leading to skepticism in the face of one who claimed the Holy Spirit led him into adultery). In no case, however, is a Christian obligated solely by the force of the Mosaic Law itself. This is true even of the commandments against murder and adultery (or any if the 10 Commandments). There are **other** reasons for believing those acts to be unconcionable, which study of the Mosaic Law might nevertheless point to. > [@Polycarp](#): > > Well, I am not now, nor have I ever been, Jewish, though I learned a lot from a good friend going through Bar Mitzvah classes (he is now a rabbi, though we’ve been for the most part out of touch since high school graduation). > > But I use Tanakh to mean Old Testament regularly, usually defining one as the other in a brief parenthetical aside, outside any intra-Christian debate or discussion, simply as a mark of respect to Jewish readers of my posts. I certainly didn’t mean to imply that Jewishness and rudeness are the only two reasons for using the term “Tanakh.” The absence of a parenthetical definition and the context of a question that basically asked if the OP knew what he was talking about led me to suspect rudeness, and I contrasted that with what I saw as the most likely alternative explanation. I, too, sometimes use the term “Tanakh” out of respect. (Though, as an aside, I worry that coming from me it can be a bit too show-offy. As if I’m saying, “Hey, Jews, I’m not some ignorant Gentile! See, I know the lingo!” This may, however, be a reflection of the fact that on some level, that is exactly what I’m doing! :dubious: ) > [@Polerius](#): > > Woe is me, I don’t have a dictionary ☹ > > What on earth are you talking about? Type “define Tanakh” in Google and you get 11,000 results in 0.43 seconds. But, of course, I didn’t even bother to do that when writing my reply because it took me 5 picoseconds to figure out that Tanakh means Old Testament, based on the context. > > The reason I said “I don’t know what the “Tanakh” is, but I assume you are referring to the Old Testament”, is because I find it annoying when people use their own terminology when there is no need to. This is like if we were talking of Los Angeles and someone said “Yes I believe Atiquee is a nice city”, just because it is the name of Los Angeles in some native American language (ficticious example). > > If you want to bring up another term for the same concept being discussed, at least be decent enough to do what **Polycarp** says he does… Whoa, whoa, whoa! Calm down! The dictionary comment was a jab at **Necro Romancer** , not you! I was basically accusing him or her of taking a cheap shot at you by getting you to admit your supposed ignorance (which I agree _isn’t_ real, substantial ignorance, hence the cheapness of the shot). I still suspect, though I’m not sure, that this is what **Necro Romancer** was doing. I attempted to soften the charge by admitting that I may very well have committed the exact same rudeness myself. > [@Polerius](#): > > Gee, thanks oh Wise One :rolleyes: > > Why do you think I didn’t know what I was talking about? I was raised Christian and learned all the Old Testament myths (Adam and Eve, Noah’s Arc, …) when I was a kid, and I also learned about the teachings of Jesus. So I know a fair amount about the issue to be able to make the comparison. > > And as I said above, you don’t have to be a Bible scholar to see that Jesus’ “turn the other cheek” and “love your enemy” is fundamentally different from “an eye for an eye”. > > In general, I don’t see why Christians should accept as part of their religion a book that > > - Describes a God that has a “Chosen People” > - Describes a God that is mean and vengeful (not always, but a lot of times) > - Describes myths that are obviously false (like Noah’s Arc) > - Describes an attitude that is antithetical to Jesus’ teachings (“an eye for an eye”) > > I don’t see why the Ten Commandments\* and the teachings of Jesus can’t be the basis for a religion, without the need for extraneous myths. > > - I know these are from the Old Testament OK, **here** you actually have some cause for offence. That came across as belittling and patronizing you **far** more than I meant for it to. I appologize. I agree with the others who have explained why your premise is flawed, but I didn’t mean to express it so disrespectfully. I supose it must be some form of Gaudre’s Law that in a post berating another’s rudeness, I am even ruder to you myself. :o ---
**Author:** ![Alan\_Smithee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/2acd7d/32.png) [@Alan\_Smithee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alan_Smithee)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-version-of-christianity-that-rejects-the-old-testament/265454/70 "2004-09-24T06:19:22Z")
OK, now that that’s taken care of, here’s my take on the current debate. Jesus himself never advocated rejecting the Jewish law. On the contrary! He said, “Whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments [the Mosaic Law], and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven” (Mt 5:19, NRSV). Jesus clearly believed that his teachings were consistant with Jewish law and not contradictory to it. Where he did differ with (at least some of) the then-current religious authorities was in how the Law was to be obeyed. Commandments such as the one ordering the stoning of an adulterer were not actually to be carried out, according to Jesus, but were intended to set a moral standard for the community. This is not very different from the modern Jewish understanding of these commandments. There is almost no practical situation in which modern Judaism considers the necessary conditions for actually stoning someone to be met. Jesus effectively said that there are NO human circumstances in which the necessary conditions are met. The practice is rejected on very similar justifications by both traditions, in the one case on the basis of the Oral Law, and in the other on the words of Jesus. In neither case is the commandment itself rejected. ---
**Author:** ![Necro\_Romancer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/50afbb/32.png) [@Necro\_Romancer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Necro_Romancer)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-version-of-christianity-that-rejects-the-old-testament/265454/71 "2004-09-24T06:31:59Z")
> [@Alan Smithee](#): > > Whoa, whoa, whoa! Calm down! > > The dictionary comment was a jab at **Necro Romancer** , not you! I was basically accusing him or her of taking a cheap shot at you by getting you to admit your supposed ignorance (which I agree _isn’t_ real, substantial ignorance, hence the cheapness of the shot). I still suspect, though I’m not sure, that this is what **Necro Romancer** was doing. I attempted to soften the charge by admitting that I may very well have committed the exact same rudeness myself. No, I wasn’t taking a shot at **Polerius**. I don’t like saying Old Testament in general, and I especially don’t want to say it when the OP believes it’s inferior or invalid. I wasn’t going to write a time consuming post explaining why it’s, in my opinion, completely ridiculous for any Christian to believe the Tanakh is inferior or invalid if that poster has made their conclusion based on a few sentences they’ve heard in a movie or on the radio. ---
**Author:** ![Alan\_Smithee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/2acd7d/32.png) [@Alan\_Smithee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alan_Smithee)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-version-of-christianity-that-rejects-the-old-testament/265454/72 "2004-09-24T06:35:52Z")
> [@Necro Romancer](#): > > No, I wasn’t taking a shot at **Polerius**. I don’t like saying Old Testament in general, and I especially don’t want to say it when the OP believes it’s inferior or invalid. Fair enough. > [@Necro Romancer](#): > > I wasn’t going to write a time consuming post explaining why it’s, in my opinion, completely ridiculous for any Christian to believe the Tanakh is inferior or invalid if that poster has made their conclusion based on a few sentences they’ve heard in a movie or on the radio. Agreed. In this instance, that appears not to be the case. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 9:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-version-of-christianity-that-rejects-the-old-testament/265454/73 "2004-09-24T09:10:01Z")
It seems I always get to these things late… > [@C K Dexter Haven](#): > > Jesus wasn’t trying to promulgate a civil code. In fact, to the contrary, he implied that the Romans could handle the civil code (“Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s…”) and he preached an individual moral standard. (One that’s impossible to follow, by the way: think of that “turn the other cheek.” Who argues that, after the Sept 11 attacks, we should give al-Quada some more planes?) That probably wasn’t intended straight-faced, but a follower of “Jesus’” cheek-turning dictum (and that’s what I believe it was, a dictum) would not argue that we should give al Queda more planes, but _ **more buildings** _, which is exactly what was decided should be done. In my view, to claim that following “Jesus’ moral code” is impossible is just to give Christians an excuse for not really trying. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 9:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-version-of-christianity-that-rejects-the-old-testament/265454/74 "2004-09-24T09:29:33Z")
> [@C K Dexter Haven](#): > > Ah, so the notion that after Sept 11, we should give al-Quada more planes… that’s “something pure to aspire to”? Sorry, but I think most reasonable people would reject “turn the other cheek” as a horrible philosophy, not a noble ideal. **Polerius** is far closer to the goal of “Jesus’” teachings and dicta, **Dex**. There’s nothing “horrible” in turning the other cheek at all, especially not for a true follower of Christianity. Dr. King had it right when he said (or quoted, IIRC): _ **"An eye for an eye would leave the whole world blind."** _ Without intending to insult my Jewish friends, Hebraic laws and teachings _were_ often more or less abominable – or at least rude – and it should come as no surprise. After all, they were written largely by fairly ignorant goatherds whose culture was no match for the more enlightened civilizations of the time. Jesus’ teachings, like the Stoics and Cynics, was more advanced and sophisticated yet they called for living a hard and difficult life in which it was _literally_ necessary to turn the other cheek; it was no weak little symbolic idea! These guys _meant it!_ Now, if you find that goal too stringent (as do I) or, worse, “horrible”, then all that can be said is that we’re not Christians. It _cannot_ be said that to follow these teachings is “horrible”! ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 9:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-version-of-christianity-that-rejects-the-old-testament/265454/75 "2004-09-24T09:34:14Z")
> [@zev\_steinhardt](#): > > So, **Polerius** , what then do you think Jesus was advocating? That people could injure other people or damage their property and that they should have no recourse to recover damages? It did not mean that people in general should have no recourse, it meant that Christians must not _apply_ for recourse! ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 9:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-version-of-christianity-that-rejects-the-old-testament/265454/76 "2004-09-24T09:52:57Z")
> [@zev\_steinhardt](#): > > Do you _really_ think we should love our enemies? Is that realistic. And when I say “enemies” I don’t mean the guy who lives down the block from you and causes you occasional trouble about your lawn decoration. I’m talking about the “I want to kill you and your family” type of enemy. Do you really want to love them? Yes! At least if you want to be a Christian! Now, that doesn’t mean that you can’t seek to protect your family (or at least I so suppose), but loving such an enemy is mandatory for a Christian, and in any case might very well be the best defense. Remember, to be a follower of “Christ” was never meant to be easy! If it was, then just about _anyone_ could call themselves a Christian. (I am of the belief that very, very few people are Christians in the sense of truly following “Jesus’” teachings). > [@zev\_steinhardt](#): > > I don’t know why you are so hung up on “turn the other cheek.” If someone were to mug you and take your wallet, will you also give him access to your bank account? No, it only means you can’t fight back. If you were a true “Jesusian” Christian, you wouldn’t _have_ a bank account or wallet in the first place. > [@zev\_steinhardt](#): > > If someone (God forbid) were to murder a relative of yours, would you parade others from your family in front of him too? Heck, if someone were to simply spit in your face, would you hold out your chin to him so he could do it again? “Turning the other cheek” is an open invitation for abuse, not a practical way to run one’s life. You and others are manifestly missing the point. Christian principles were never meant to be guidelines for living a “practical” life! They are for living a _Christian_ life, which requires great sacrifices, certainly including turning the other cheek. (But nowhere does it say you must offer up your family members to be murdered; Christianity contains teachings for _individuals_, not collective groups.) Christians are taught to separate from their families and give everything they have to the poor; being spit on without fighting back would be a very trivial sacrifice indeed. Far more is demanded. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 10:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-version-of-christianity-that-rejects-the-old-testament/265454/77 "2004-09-24T10:05:56Z")
> [@zev\_steinhardt](#): > > IOW, if someone breaks into your home and robs you, it’s a sign of righteousness to “turn the other cheek” and let them get away with it? > > That’s not righteousness - on the contrary, that’s furthering robbery! No, that’s righteousness for a Christian. In my view you are not helping yourself, dear Zev, by contrasting your beliefs in such a stark way with what most people – certainly sincere Christians – would consider to be, or at least akin to being, nobility of character. The morality you appear to hold seems more than a bit overly materialistic and legalistic, which to my mind is hardly praiseworthy. And your remark about abetting robbery is also a serious misfire: there is nothing immoral about handing over your wallet to a robber; indeed, bank tellers and the like are _required_ to just hand over the loot. They are never prosecuted for abetting a robbery! ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 10:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-version-of-christianity-that-rejects-the-old-testament/265454/78 "2004-09-24T10:11:54Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > What about a moral obligation to prevent further victimization of the innocent? Christ effectively taught that loving the thief and sharing His teachings with the thief would be enough – or at least all that a Christian should do – to protect other potential victims. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 10:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-version-of-christianity-that-rejects-the-old-testament/265454/79 "2004-09-24T10:16:12Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > Regarding the basic question in the OP: > > Compare [this](http://bible.cc/leviticus/24-14.htm) > to [this](http://www.gnic4u.com/withjesus/stone.shtml) > > and tell me if these two statements should be part of the same religion. \*\*Excellent, **Polaris!** That “needs to be bronzed and erected into a monument placed at the entrance of Great Debates”, so that all those who wish to claim or imply manifestly unfair similarities between Judaism and Christianity can be sent over to look at it. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 10:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-version-of-christianity-that-rejects-the-old-testament/265454/80 "2004-09-24T10:24:06Z")
> [@zev\_Reinhardt](#): > > The whole “let he who is without sin…” story presents a similar problem. So, only people who are perfect are authorized to punish others? IOW, we have to allow all the thieves, murderers, etc. in our midst to go because we ourselves aren’t perfect? You’ve done it again, Zev. The answer is an unabashed “YES” to sincere Christians. And well it should be! Christianity is not about appointing deputies and gathering posses, as you very much seem to be painting Judaism to be. What is so exceedingly difficult for you to grasp? Christ taught that wrongdoers should be loved and be given his teachings, not rounded up and punished or slaughtered! It is up to the _individual_ to choose a moral, Christian life – it is never to be imposed on someone! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-version-of-christianity-that-rejects-the-old-testament/265454.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-version-of-christianity-that-rejects-the-old-testament/265454.md?page=5)