Biblical Morality - what do you really believe?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sair
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, as Catholics we adhere to the teachings of Jesus Christ found in the New Testament. The quiz seems to be based of Old Testament teachings, eye for an eye, cut off the part of the body that made the person sin, etc.

Most Christians don’t follow all of the laws of the Old Testament at least completely. The ones that follow parts of the Old Testament teachings typically don’t literally follow the parts that involve hurting or killing someone. Otherwise of course, they would be considered some kind of strange cult and be arrested, or end up killing themselves in some sort of sacrifice.

I believe the person that designed this quiz intended to make people think that The Bible isn’t a good moral set of teachings, or that it’s outdated, or something. He bases this entirely off of the Old Testament.

In a sense we are to live by Christ’s example, not live by how we interpret the Old Testament.
 
Fatal error: Call to a member function handleException() on a non-object in /home/fourdeg/php2/templates/QuizTemplate2_0.php on line 47
Click to expand...
**

Is what I get upon clicking the link.
Catholic morals or not, they seem to be effectively shut down.**
 
06convert said:
Well, as Catholics we adhere to the teachings of Jesus Christ found in the New Testament. The quiz seems to be based of Old Testament teachings, eye for an eye, cut off the part of the body that made the person sin, etc.

Most Christians don’t follow all of the laws of the Old Testament at least completely. The ones that follow parts of the Old Testament teachings typically don’t literally follow the parts that involve hurting or killing someone. Otherwise of course, they would be considered some kind of strange cult and be arrested, or end up killing themselves in some sort of sacrifice.

I believe the person that designed this quiz intended to make people think that The Bible isn’t a good moral set of teachings, or that it’s outdated, or something. He bases this entirely off of the Old Testament.

In a sense we are to live by Christ’s example, not live by how we interpret the Old Testament.
Click to expand...
Now, see, this is the bit that I find troublesome. If certain actions - such as rape, incest, killing of innocents, to name a few - are wrong because they are against the law of God, then surely these actions have always been wrong and always evil in God’s sight. Why, then, are these and other wrong actions condoned if not openly encouraged throughout the Old Testament? We can’t be dealing with a different God in the New Testament, and supposing God to be a perfect being, why the apparent about-face? I genuinely don’t understand this.
 
Sair said:
Now, see, this is the bit that I find troublesome. If certain actions - such as rape, incest, killing of innocents, to name a few - are wrong because they are against the law of God, then surely these actions have always been wrong and always evil in God’s sight. Why, then, are these and other wrong actions condoned if not openly encouraged throughout the Old Testament? We can’t be dealing with a different God in the New Testament, and supposing God to be a perfect being, why the apparent about-face? I genuinely don’t understand this.
Click to expand...
The Old Testament Law is easily misinterpreted if you assume every account is an endorsement or that every permission is a prescription.
There are rapes in the Old Testament. They always either lead to catastrophe for a whole tribe, are specifically called terrible crimes, or pass as part of an account without comment because it’s clearly wrong. When the newspapaer says a man held up a family at gnpoint, does it have to say every time that this is wrong, or can we assume it?
The rule of an eye for an eye is as opposed to the primitive ANE norm of a life for an eye. The OT law’s constant repetitions that the laws apply to everyone is a repudiation of laws for the rich and other laws for the poor. It doesn’t mean you have to poke out an eye. It means you have to stop at poking out an eye, not take both, and not kill the man who poked your eye out. But the New Testament tells us how Christ gave us the law of turning the other cheek. This isn’t the opposite of the eye for an eye rule, but a deepening of the rule of refraining from taking a life for an eye.
In the early days of Israel, it was a tiny, inexperienced, lawless band of refugees whose destiny was to bring the Savior to the world. They had a duty to group self-defense. But then that duty was fulfilled and now the law intended for that purpose is fulfilled as well. We no longer have a duty to keep any one tribe or country distinct and safe from collapse, as the purpose of that project is done. Now we must all follow the fulfilled law, which Christ taught us.
 
This quiz is ridiculous.

It’s the old, tired tactic of taking a rule or moral from Mosaic law and trying to apply it to today…it rarely works. There are, of course, moral absolutes like it is wrong to kill an innocent that never change, but these are not addressed.
 
Exactly 06convert !
To live by Christ example !
Christianity is Jesus !
Therefore I am opposing the ‘’bibliolatry ‘’.
I just finished to read the book , where the author in attempt to re-examine and reforming the traditional Christianity suggest to re-write the Bible in a new version.
The new version without Old Testament violence , the Bible , author thinks , should represent Christian God and not a unjust and cruel invented God of the Old Testament.
There are not a few people , who think like that.
For many , the Old Testament is even temptation in their faith struggle.
May be because we today , can not imagine the circumstances of the life in that Old Testament period. The book which spread over a thousand years.
Exploring the Old Testament we see that , very often the individual books were not the product of a single effort.
Some of them only took shape gradually.
For example - the Exodus .
The book of Psalms it took centuries to develop fully.
Between the oldest and the latest psalms there is an interval of eight hundred years.
The old testament reflects the whole of the long existence of a people.
May be reading the Old Testament we should more see it as an Old Testament , with understanding that there is a New Testament.
Actually for the people who just converted , I always advise to read the New Testament first , not just to read but to study the New Testament books.
In the New Testament there is the complete understanding of Supreme Being with His natural and moral Divine attributes .
 
Athanasiy said:
Exactly 06convert !
To live by Christ example !
Christianity is Jesus !
Therefore I am opposing the ‘’bibliolatry ‘’.
I just finished to read the book , where the author in attempt to re-examine and reforming the traditional Christianity suggest to re-write the Bible in a new version.
The new version without Old Testament violence , the Bible , author thinks , should represent Christian God and not a unjust and cruel invented God of the Old Testament.
.
Click to expand...
If the God of the Old Testament is ‘invented’, why is the OT still taught in the Catholic Church? Why is it adhered to firmly by many Christian churches? And most importantly, given that Jesus was raised as a man within the Jewish tradition, which obviously upheld the value of the OT books and teachings, would you suggest that Jesus adhered to the commands of an ‘invented’ God? And, in the final analysis, who’s to say that the NT God is any less ‘invented’ than the OT God?

Too many questions here. The only semblance of certainty in this regard comes from what someone else, who claims authority, tells you to believe - and that is often to distrust the evidence of your own eyes, your own senses, and the ability of your own intellect to understand the world around you.
 
I do not deny that the people were writing the Bible .
The people with their human limitations.
May be , I have a little different theory from the traditional one , but I do agree with the ‘’limitation of human perception of the Divine truth ‘’ .
Let’s say the writer of Genesis , definitely lacks the scientific view , right ? he could even borrow the legends of the time to tell the story.
Also . when we start more deeply to explore some other passages from the Bible.
In some ways the questions can rise about the purity of Revelation ; whether the Revelation was ‘pure’, as traditionally scholars understood it ; or it still was in some ways ‘’ meditated through human beings‘.
Then , of course in one degree or another , the questions can rise about the ‘‘conditional’’ or ‘‘fallibility’’ of the Bible.

I personally think we should be more worry about the things we understand , not about the things which we don’t understand in the Bible .
I mean that the human beings , usually looking for self-justification.
We do not like to hear that we are sinners , who need repair of our life , the sinners who need to repent and who need forgiveness.
That’s what I mean telling about the paying attention to the things which we understand very clear only trying to make it complex for our self- justification.
 
and saying about ‘’ the invented God of Old Testament ‘’ I was saying about the thoughts of the author of that book , and not my own thoughts.
 
The site fails to adhere to the Apostles’ interpretation of the Bible, thus does not accurately represent biblical morality.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top