Pages: 1

 

2007-04-09 23:52:41
twiistaaa
Member
+87|7115|mexico
in christianity is the old testament still considered law? or is it simply used now for some type historical purpose? im asking because often atheists cite the old testament usually in regards to of its well.. poor rules and archaic ideas, but if it is no longer important then it sort of makes the whole book redundant right and also using it as an argument?

so why is it even reproduced if its as far as i can see, no longer in use (except maybe genesis and some of the philosophical parts)? ive never really thought about it i suppose.
2007-04-09 23:55:36
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|7002
The problem is that some protestant denominations take the old testament as law and as historical fact. Christianity is not just one homogenous faith.
2007-04-10 00:08:41
twiistaaa
Member
+87|7115|mexico
ok, so i understand there are differences within christianity itself. i suppose i didnt take that into consideration. but i mean just in the church you belong, or your view of the old testament.
2007-04-10 00:10:37
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|7002
Well I'm an atheist (ex-Catholic) - the Vatican decrees how the bible should be interpreted and does not allow ordinary people to interpret it themselves: that task falls to the priesthood. Their take on it is that the Old Testament is pretty much fully superseded by the teaching of JC, as far as I can recall.
2007-04-10 00:41:56
SpaceApollyon
Scratch where it itches
+41|6967|Finland

twiistaaa wrote:

in christianity is the old testament still considered law? or is it simply used now for some type historical purpose? im asking because often atheists cite the old testament usually in regards to of its well.. poor rules and archaic ideas, but if it is no longer important then it sort of makes the whole book redundant right and also using it as an argument?

so why is it even reproduced if its as far as i can see, no longer in use (except maybe genesis and some of the philosophical parts)? ive never really thought about it i suppose.
Isn't it "the word of God"?
...and as such, isn't it all or nothing?
2007-04-10 01:14:22
PureFodder
Member
+225|6732
When I was at church (ex-C of E) they gave the kids the lovely stories about God creating the world and Noah and all the animals, then skipped forward to the new testament.
2007-04-10 01:20:37
Bernadictus
Moderator
+1,055|7184

PureFodder wrote:

When I was at church (ex-C of E) they gave the kids the lovely stories about God creating the world and Noah and all the animals, then skipped forward to the new testament.
Yes, infect minds when they are most vulnerable, the rest of the O.T. is a kind of blood filled movie.

http://www.evilbible.com/ has a lot of passages of the O.T. showing how 'loving' God is, yet Christians leave the O.T. as it is, only grasping back to the N.T., as if the O.T. is not important.

http://www.evilbible.com/do_not_ignore_ot.htm
2007-04-10 03:22:43
De_Jappe
Triarii
+432|6974|Belgium

Christianity is NT and also the OT if not contradicted by the NT. So actually it's both, but in case of doubt, the NT always has right as it was the latest book.
2007-04-10 04:39:59
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+796|7132|United States of America

CameronPoe wrote:

Well I'm an atheist (ex-Catholic) - the Vatican decrees how the bible should be interpreted and does not allow ordinary people to interpret it themselves: that task falls to the priesthood.
Why can't you interpret it yourself? You don't have to agree with everything the Vatican says, or even anything they say for that matter.
2007-04-10 04:53:51
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+796|7132|United States of America

Bernadictus wrote:

Yes, infect minds when they are most vulnerable, the rest of the O.T. is a kind of blood filled movie.

http://www.evilbible.com/ has a lot of passages of the O.T. showing how 'loving' God is, yet Christians leave the O.T. as it is, only grasping back to the N.T., as if the O.T. is not important.

http://www.evilbible.com/do_not_ignore_ot.htm
Interpret it yourself. It's a bit more difficult when they cut and paste a couple of lines from the book out of context but the creators of such a website used an interpretation that makes it sound distasteful. Give any number of people the same passage, even the uber-atheists on this forum here, and I guarantee the ideas about it will not be the same. The difficult thing is that you have people who only focus on the negative side of the Bible in the modern world, and those people who neglect how changes in society have made some of it outdated, such as the whole idea of kings and monarchy. However again, out of context and interpretations of what you read are important. I find it odd that somehow people seem to only want one interpretation (I need a thesaurus) of the Bible, even those who call it work of fiction, but of course you should desire more opinions on any other book.
2007-04-10 04:59:28
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|7002

DesertFox423 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Well I'm an atheist (ex-Catholic) - the Vatican decrees how the bible should be interpreted and does not allow ordinary people to interpret it themselves: that task falls to the priesthood.
Why can't you interpret it yourself? You don't have to agree with everything the Vatican says, or even anything they say for that matter.
That's the Catholic religion - don't ask me about the whys and wherefores.
2007-04-10 04:59:39
KylieTastic
Games, Girls, Guinness
+85|6899|Cambridge, UK

DesertFox423 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Well I'm an atheist (ex-Catholic) - the Vatican decrees how the bible should be interpreted and does not allow ordinary people to interpret it themselves: that task falls to the priesthood.
Why can't you interpret it yourself? You don't have to agree with everything the Vatican says, or even anything they say for that matter.
For many years the church(s) kept the Bible from the masses by keeping it in Latin, when the first translations were done into English the authors were persecuted and to own a English Bible was heresy. For a long time (especially the Catholics) fought against an English Language version to stop the people being able to read and interpret it themselves. Quiet a few were burned for owning the English Bible.
2007-04-10 05:16:36
IG-Calibre
comhalta
+226|7189|Tír Eoghan, Tuaisceart Éireann

KylieTastic wrote:

DesertFox423 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Well I'm an atheist (ex-Catholic) - the Vatican decrees how the bible should be interpreted and does not allow ordinary people to interpret it themselves: that task falls to the priesthood.
Why can't you interpret it yourself? You don't have to agree with everything the Vatican says, or even anything they say for that matter.
For many years the church(s) kept the Bible from the masses by keeping it in Latin, when the first translations were done into English the authors were persecuted and to own a English Bible was heresy. For a long time (especially the Catholics) fought against an English Language version to stop the people being able to read and interpret it themselves. Quiet a few were burned for owning the English Bible.
an interesting interpretation for the reason of the use of Latin, however, Latin is still used in Law and medicine today because it is a dead language, the meaning of words don't change unlike a living language like English - hence why it is still spoken in the Vatican today, it's pretty much a conspiracy theory to say it was to Vail it from the masses - though I was at school just as they stopped teaching Latin..

Edit : Prime example of bad biblical interpretation? look at the Louis Theroux thread when he challenges that dumb cunt from the Westboro Baptist church about homosexuality not being in the 10 commandments - she responded that "thou shall not commit adultery" as vindication for god hating Homosexuals, I though he should of challenged her more strongly on that miss interpretation, and she's supposedly a lawyer? when Adultery has fuck all to do with the act of homosexuality..

Last edited by IG-Calibre (2007-04-10 05:30:33)

2007-04-10 05:53:57
KylieTastic
Games, Girls, Guinness
+85|6899|Cambridge, UK

IG-Calibre wrote:

an interesting interpretation for the reason of the use of Latin, however, Latin is still used in Law and medicine today because it is a dead language, the meaning of words don't change unlike a living language like English - hence why it is still spoken in the Vatican today...
I agree its not the reason it was in Latin (that was because Latin was the language of the educated in the west and thus the sensible one to translate the original texts into). However it was a reason the Church (state) resisted translation to English, declared it heresy, and did burn people for it. Giving direct access to the less (un) educated majority was considered a large revolutionary change which controlling organisations always fear.

IG-Calibre wrote:

....it's pretty much a conspiracy theory to say it was to Vail it from the masses....
I don't think its a conspiracy theory, as I think its well documented history that the translation was resisted, that it was heresy. John Wycliffe and William Tyndale (both early translators) were burned for this 'crime' - they even exhumed Wycliffe to do it. In fact William Tyndale, although burned for heresy and treason for it, is actually credited for much of the translation in the King James version.

Edit: But History is always open to interpretation itself and after a quick seach there are Catholic groups that refute this and say it was just the heretical prologue in Tyndales version that caused the problem.

Last edited by KylieTastic (2007-04-10 06:00:52)

2007-04-10 06:38:11
IG-Calibre
comhalta
+226|7189|Tír Eoghan, Tuaisceart Éireann

KylieTastic wrote:

IG-Calibre wrote:

an interesting interpretation for the reason of the use of Latin, however, Latin is still used in Law and medicine today because it is a dead language, the meaning of words don't change unlike a living language like English - hence why it is still spoken in the Vatican today...
I agree its not the reason it was in Latin (that was because Latin was the language of the educated in the west and thus the sensible one to translate the original texts into). However it was a reason the Church (state) resisted translation to English, declared it heresy, and did burn people for it. Giving direct access to the less (un) educated majority was considered a large revolutionary change which controlling organisations always fear.

IG-Calibre wrote:

....it's pretty much a conspiracy theory to say it was to Vail it from the masses....
I don't think its a conspiracy theory, as I think its well documented history that the translation was resisted, that it was heresy. John Wycliffe and William Tyndale (both early translators) were burned for this 'crime' - they even exhumed Wycliffe to do it. In fact William Tyndale, although burned for heresy and treason for it, is actually credited for much of the translation in the King James version.

Edit: But History is always open to interpretation itself and after a quick seach there are Catholic groups that refute this and say it was just the heretical prologue in Tyndales version that caused the problem.
I'd say the Heresy lay in the Translation, i'd imagine, (as is the trouble with the bible imo) there is a certain Dilution occurs when things are bandied about in different languages. What one arrives at, at the end (ad termino )  in English may not do actual justice to the original verse. This becomes apparent to speakers of other languages when they see works from their language translated into English.  Dunno if it merits burning them as heretics though tbh, or, declaring it as the word of God - The same issues are debated and argued  over the translation of the "I Ching"

Last edited by IG-Calibre (2007-04-10 07:39:41)

2007-04-10 07:28:22
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7204|Argentina
Don't forget that the Old Testament is the Jewish Bible, so two Religions take that for law.

 

Pages: 1

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard