Subject:
|
A PSA on abstinence from Dr J
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 8 Feb 2004 14:10:05 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
469 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
Where’s Rev Smith when you need him?
|
Hi-ho.
| |
Well it should be pointed out that those are Old Testament books and while
Christ never repudiated them he didn’t exactly go around saying they were spot
on as moral guides given the new relationship of god with man that was
represented by the messiah...
|
Yes, you might think that if Jesus, as God-on-earth (or at least
someone-more-qualified-than-anyone-else-to-speak-on-God’s-behalf), wanted it to
be clear to people in his own time (and for all time) that the barbaric morality
which the Old Testament portrays as commanded by God, was in fact not what God
really commands, that this would have been of extreme importance to get across
as clearly as possible.
But that’s not what we have in the New Testament. On my reading of it, Jesus
does not repudiate or abolish the Law of the Old Testament at all, but stands
firm behind it:
“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a
dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of
the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the
kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great
in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV)
“It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of
the letter of the law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17 NAB)
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come
not to abolish but to fulfill.” (Matthew 5:17 NAB)
And what is this “fulfilment” of the Law? Given what Jesus says above, I have
never understood how anyone could possibly interpret this “fulfilment” as some
sort of “abolishment” (unless of course, they have a very vested interest in
trying to distance themselves from the morality of the Old Testament). Right
after saying this in Matthew, Jesus immediately goes on to give several
examples of Old Testament law, and then makes them even stricter!
To paraphrase Matthew 19:21-37...
- OT says that murder is wrong, but I say that anger is just as bad.
- OT says that adultery is wrong, but I say that lust is just as bad.
- OT says that divorce is permittable in some circumstances, but I say it is permittable in less circumstances.
- OT says not to break your oaths, but I say that you should not make any oaths, lest you break them.
It is only corcerning the next two issues that Jesus can be construed as
changing the Law. A paraphrase of Matthew 5:38-48...
- OT says “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”, but I say not to resist an evil person. If someone wrongs you, let them wrong you twice over.
- OT says “love your neighbor, hate your enemy”, but I say to love even your enemies.
Of course, it is those last two bits that contrast so starkly with the rest of
the Bible. It is very hard to reconcile how a God who commands those last two
things has anything to do with the God of the Old Testament. And it is
incoceivable to me that if these last two bits were God’s strongest, most
important moral guidance for mankind, He could choose to only reveal this
guidance so understadely, and after thousands of years of letting His people
mistakely believe that the Old Testament morality was his actual moral guide.
As pertains to the case at hand, assuming the guilt of child-murderer, what
*would* Jesus do? (A Jesus on earth, that is, having witnessed the crime.)
1) Stone the murderer to death
2) Torture him, and then kill him
3) Incarcerate him for life
4) Turn the other cheek (offer him another 11-year-old to murder?)
5) Cast out the evil spirit which made this man commit murder, thereby curing
him
6) Forgive his sins and lead him to salvation
Having read the Bible, the only one that I can probably rule out is #2. Strange
that this is the one John Neal chose as his recomendation. ;)
-Brendan
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: This is where I actually want a gun
|
| (...) Well it should be pointed out that those are Old Testament books and while Christ never repudiated them he didn't exactly go around saying they were spot on as moral guides given the new relationship of god with man that was represented by the (...) (21 years ago, 8-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
45 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
