Simply put the old testament is the pick and choose portion of the bible. Only slightly more complex is their ability to ignore similar sentiment in the new testament.
Yeah, the sequel retconned a bunch, but is actually more “love your neighbor” and way less violent than the original.
But the it has that weird Paul tangent that’s just a collection of letters from a former Christian-hunter that changed sides where he gets really judgy about other Christians and he starts telling them how to act.
Are you sure this is in the vileble?
Yeah, repeatedly. It’s one of the Bible’s themes: love your neighbor and embrace outsiders.
As is: giving all your earthly excesses to the poor, feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, clothing the naked, and caring for the sick. Pretty much anything that a Republican says destroys society is something the Bible says you have to do to get into heaven.
Republicans suck balls 😡😡😡
Yeah. It has a lot of horrible shit but there are some fun ones in there.
Oh you mean in devilble! Yeah 🤣 I get it now 😁! 😂
Calm down, lemme get your iPad with thunderf00t you child.
It comes in ipad form?? Lol. Oh we’re going to hell. Fon forget your charger!
Half them can’t read, so they don’t know it exists.
The other half find their inability to read useful and don’t bother explaining so they can keep being assholes.
When I was young growing up Southern Baptist there was one time where the pastor preached about this verse, and the whiplash I felt when I heard family members bad-mouthing immigrants the moment they stepped outside is partly what led me to read the Bible myself, which led to me losing my faith.
Hello fellow former southern Baptist.
I hate to admit it took me way too long to realize the blatant hypocrisy.
Glad you made it out.
did you ditch the family too? sounds like the Bible was actually ahead on this one so itsweird you dump the faith instead (not overall, just the way you told the story had a whiplash of its own)
Just because you disowned your family doesn’t mean you have to project your misery in everyone else.
They probably just lost their faith in the society around them.
And started reading Bible with understanding instead of faith
Meanwhile, a few chapters later in the same book:
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
TBH I can’t blame Christians for being confused about what love looks like if this is what they believe God says.
33 That night the two girls got their father drunk, and the older daughter went and had sexual relations with him. But Lot did not know when she lay down or when she got up.
34 The next day the older daughter said to the younger, “Last night I had sexual relations with my father. Let’s get him drunk again tonight so you can go and have sexual relations with him, too. In this way we can use our father to have children to continue our family.”
35 So that night they got their father drunk again, and the younger daughter went and had sexual relations with him. Again, Lot did not know when she lay down or when she got up.
“yOu CaNt ApPlY mOdErN mOrAlItY tO ThE bIbLe!”
Then stop using it as the basis for your modern faith.
“ YoU CAN’t kNow Gods True nAtuRe”
Proceeds to give you prescriptive moral guidance as if they know gods true nature.
TBF you could pick the passages that do good and right for your fellow people and not the ones that are terrible. They ignore stuff they disagree with or find inconvenient all the time. So it’s a choice that says a lot about them for them to ignore the line to treat the asylum seeker or migrant well, but choose to obey some interpretation that does others harm.
The Mosaic laws are really quite interesting. These verses can work in tandem with those in Leviticus 19. There later is the understanding of why we were given the Mosaic laws, just for Jesus to disagree with them a bit later, which is explained in Matthew 19:3-8. "
3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”
4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”
8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning."
Many of the things discussed in the Pentateuch (first 5 books of the Bible, where the Mosaic laws lie), are just about how to live their day to day lives, and at the time they had many slaves, something that they wouldn’t be willing to change. Instead of this, God commands how to treat these slaves. The Old Testament is full of confusing stuff, but it certainly isn’t just from “the Jew section of the Bible” as suggested in another comment. It has value, but they must be understood through a specific lens, understanding the lives of the people God is talking to.
Thanks for the comment. If I may quibble:
and at the time they had many slaves[…]
If memory serves, the Mosaic laws are said to be delivered to the Jews 90 days into their wandering in the desert after crossing the Red Sea. Which means that the people who received these rules about slavery were all recently freed former slaves. Unless they immediately started re-enslaving each other while wandering the desert with manna raining from heaven and water springing up from the rocks, I would think that none of them owned slaves.
[…]something that they wouldn’t be willing to change. Instead of this, God commands how to treat these slaves.
That line of reasoning has never sat right with me.
God doesn’t want people to kill. He knows people will do it anyway. He doesn’t say “Make it quick and painless when you kill someone.” He says “Thou shalt not kill.”
God doesn’t want people to steal. He knows people will do it anyway. He doesn’t say “Only steal from people who are well off and can afford to lose some possessions.” He says “Thou shalt not steal.”
I cannot imagine the guy who tells people to cut some skin off the end of their penis has any problem with making big asks of people.
There is no archeological evidence of Israelites residing in Egypt at the time of Moses nor of their enslavement there.
It is widely agreed that the tribes of Israel decended from Canaanites and other locals.
I wish modern christians would revise the bible. It’s not like they haven’t done it before.
There’s no time of Moses. Moses is a mythical character (a lot of Christian like myself has no problems with the findings of archeology).
I can’t speak with confidence on the existence of Moses or a figure that was the basis of the legend.
By the “time of Moses” I mean around 1300BCE.
It’s hard to prove a man didn’t exist. It’s easy to state there is no evidence of Exodus as biblically described.
I don’t have much to add to the great discussion your having, but as a sort of side point,”Thou shall not kill” is such a vague and poorly phrased commandment, at least if that’s the best translation. everyone seems to take it as “Dont murder people for most reasons” which is really quite different. the only way to stop killing anything actively is to be dead and that’s not even an option if you can’t kill. sorry I’m on phone so this is poorly and curtly typed, but all meaning to say that there has to be a lot lost with the really poor communication going on and not just by me. as I said earlier maybe it was better in the original language though.
Thou shall not kill” is such a vague and poorly phrased commandment
In modern English, yes. A few thousand years ago in Hebrew, the actions of hunting animals for food were probably not easily confused with murdering other humans.
Yeah, let’s believe in what that guy says./s What a dumb book.
“That’s from the Jew section of the Bible.”
There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male and female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Galations 3:28
damn it just keeps coming up! Its like this whole bible thing was really trying to get this whole ‘dont be a dickhead’ point home, shame its not working so well
I disagree with the statement mentioned in the original comment, but this isn’t a proper argument against it. In that verse, they’re discussing who Jesus came for. Instead, you can look at Matthew 5, in the sermon on the mount, which says that Christ did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. As such, the laws cannot be disregarded.
So then animal sacrifice is meant to be continued by Christians? The “did not come to abolish but fulfill” thing is really an explanation for abolishment. He didn’t destroy the law but completed it, so it’s done. And by law we basically mean Leviticus. So yes, Leviticus pretty much is irrelevant. By your argument and the argument embedded in OPs post Christians should still be stoning women and not eating pork.
How can you know which chapter of Matthew starts the sermon on the mount and not know pretty much the most core concept in Christian theology? Like that is almost the whole central point of Jesus is that he abolished the law by fulfilling it. That and salvation. That’s like the two things.
Firstly, animal sacrifice had a purpose, and that purpose was replaced by the ultimate sacrifice, Jesus Christ. With the pork topic, I’m not entirely educated, but I know it’s a debated topic.
To the actual meat of this, how could you take “Jesus didn’t abolish but fulfill the law”, then say that Jesus abolished the law by fulfilling it? I’ve been studying this across Romans 6, 7, 8; and also the entire book of Galatians both discuss the law in full. As I’m studying, I’ve also been writing an essay on the topic. I’ll share when I finish it. Until then, here’s a mini summary. Regardless, we can at least agree that Jesus didn’t contradict himself (assuming you’re coming from a Christian background).
The law (Mosaic laws, Moses’s laws) was created for a few purposes: firstly, to prevent us from sinning aka doing the things that distance us from God; Second, many of the laws were created for the cleanliness and safety of the people, although most of these things are considered common sense today. We’re gonna focus on the former, being closer to God.
Jesus commands that the greatest 2 commandments are to love God, and love others. In loving Jesus, you don’t want to sin, and avoid it as second nature. It’s 2 opposing forces, desires of the flesh vs your love of Christ, as the latter increases the latter will naturally decrease. In doing so, Jesus has fulfilled the purpose of the law, but still hasn’t abolished it. I could add verses if you’d like, but I’d have to double check where they are. The laws have still not been abolished though, since how are we to know what is sin unless the law shows us. Although, we still have the Spirit of discernment which allows us to differentiate the original purpose of the law, the intention of the heart, and allows us to widen our scope and know whether certain things are sin or not regardless of if they’re explicitly mentioned in the Bible. This same spirit allows us to determine whether something is just against the Mosaic law for health/cleanliness reasons (some people will claim pork is under this category, but as I said I’m not entirely sure), for avoiding Pagan traditions (like the mention of tattoos), or whether it’s truly distancing us from God.
Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.
That same section they always quote to hate on gay people
Of course then why doesn’t Israel do this?
They find the gospel even more confusing with all that radical love shit
When old testament says to love someone instead of just smiting people, you know that shit is serious.
The artwork is giving off serious Asterix and Obeid vibes; do you know where it’s from?
Man you are not going to believe this… Asterix and Obelix
For real? Damn, talk about an iconic art style! Do you happen to know which story this is from?
I think it was from Asterix and the Secret Weapon, but I lost this book so I can’t check ^^.
Man you are not going to believe this … it’s from Asterix in Ohio.
You’re right…
But they hate themselves so maybe it’s consistent in a weird way.
🤔
Or Matthew 25:40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
Because their religion isn’t christ, it’s racism
They’re more of the ‘conquest and smashing babies against the rocks’ kind of old testament.
But then they’d also have to abide to the ones about not judging other people since only God can do that…
Yes, but God told them so it’s okay.
Ah, I forgot I was being silly. Sorry about that.
Old Testament is too easy for them to ignore
Ok, how about from the New Testament: "Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these.” - Mark 12:31
Bible: “Love your neighbor”
Christian: Loves everyone in their wealthy gated neighborhood. Hates everyone else.
Matthew 25:31-46 is one of the few places in the Bible where Jesus specifically says something will send you to hell, but avoiding that involves treating homeless people and immigrants like people so I guess they’d rather go to hell. They get REALLY mad if you point this out, because they’re more into weekly vibes-based meetings with people in their social class than following the teachings of the religion.
Full verses
Matthew 25:31“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. 34Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers,f you did it to me.’
41“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’45Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
“Yes all your neighbors; I didn’t effing stutter, did I?!!” —Jesus, probably
Any of it is. They’ve always cherry-picked.
Unless it reinforces their reactionary beliefs.
Unironically, one of the core beliefs of Christianity is that Jesus Christ dying was the creation of a new covenant with man.
