yellowroom

I'm not sure the Liberal vs Fundie/evo split can be explained on New/Old Testament lines. It's more along the basis that Liberals tend to use the Bible (Old and New) as a starting point for a position, and build on it with research, discussion and prayer. Whereas Christians at the other end of the spectrum use it as the finishing point for any position - "The bible says" ends the conversation, it is the Revealed Word of God and therefore needs no further discussion.

I've always been taught that the New Testament always trumps the Old, wherever they may conflict. The reason we still keep hold of the Old Testament as it still a useful historical document on God's relationship with humans and we can still learn from it.

Captain Cheesestick

This. The point of the crucifixion is a New Covenant after all. The curtain does rip in half. It's not as if there is one covenant that covers the Old Testament after all.

kimilseung

I understand that to some, new trumps old.

but what about the reconciliation? HS mentions a curtain, like the curtain of Oz, The God of the old testament is revealed by Jesus to be nothing more than bluster, and is all for love and compassion. Where does that leave the God of the Old Testament?

A new covenant? so the old was meaningless? It still sounds like a dichotomy, but I do not get the overlap.

Leslie

Jesus is God. God of the Old Testament sent Jesus (himself) to die for our sins so he wouldn't have to kill us all - or somfink like that.

SultanOfSwing

I'm not sure, from a purely philosophical point of view, that there has to be a reconciliation.

Christians, by definition, follow the teachings of Christ, which can be found in the New Testament thus rendering the Old Testament as a book of history and ancient 'wisdom'. One who follows the OT solely is following Judaeism, surely?

Jesus, not that I knew him personally, at least the Jesus one reads about in the NT, doesn't exactly strike me as one who would approve of the fire and brimstone bible thumpers, if you ask me.

This is an agnostic's interpretation of the terms, I hasten to add ...

Captain Cheesestick

This will sound like a cheap fob-off but it really makes a lot more sense of you read the whole thing. It's a bit complex to explain quickly I guess. It'll take awhile but from an intellectual/theological standpoint it makes a whole lot more sense.

kimilseung

This is how it seems to me, however, this is not how most Christians actually see it.

SultanOfSwing

Well, yes - it's +/- 66 books depending on how your cloth is cut, so I'd say it would be a bit complicated to explain in a few forum posts

I have read most of it, being a lapsed Anglican, so I have somewhat of an understanding. I like many of the ideals held by the more liberal Christians (peace and goodwill, love thy neighbour, all the common sense stuff) but I just couldn't really buy into the whole thing if I was being honest with myself.

kimilseung

I do not see it as a fob off from you, but I would see it as a fob off from God.

A requirement to read such an extensive compilation of material as an entry point to understanding to avoid damnation; from a God that has given us the limited attention span that most of us have.

I will have read it all, not from beginning to end, but over time, I do not remember most of it.

SultanOfSwing

I find the works of Carl Sagan to be infinitely more enlightening. That's the kind of stuff that started to draw me away from all things ecclesiastical in the first place ...

yellowroom

But that is clearly not the case as it would damn anyone that couldn't read, which would mean most people before the middle of the 19th Century!

As Christians, to avoid damnation all you need to do is (to coin a phrase) accept Jesus as your Lord and Saviour.

Most Christians then want to study scriptures to find out what that then means to do that (ie follow Jesus) in the context of living their life, and many of them come to understand and love him even more because of that reading and study.

Captain Cheesestick

Yeah I understand that view. It's the Hitchens/Harris argument that if God wanted to strike a new grand bargain with his children then it seems odd that He'd do it by sending a man to a generally illiterate part of the world to advocate certain ideas with the intention of being crucified very shortly afterwards and having only a few records of the events compiled in a very big, complex book for people to learn about it from. Quite the stumbling block if you come at it from that end of things.

cindyabs

The blue and red one? You looked like Sven Little Feather.

kimilseung

It still would damn most of those people as they would not have heard about it anyway. Even in modern times, there are those that have not been exposed to Christianity, even verbally.

cindyabs

Shoe on the other foot, damning something you know nothing about.