If christians don't like people talking about the old testament so much, you'd think they would circulate books that only had the new testament in them. Though that would make the bible a hell of a lot shorter. In the states, we like to read left to right, which means new readers have to drudge through the worst parts of the bible before getting to the kind of good parts about three quarters of the way through.

(November 6, 2016 at 5:00 pm)Chad32 Wrote: If christians don't like people talking about the old testament so much, you'd think they would circulate books that only had the new testament in them. Though that would make the bible a hell of a lot shorter. In the states, we like to read left to right, which means new readers have to drudge through the worst parts of the bible before getting to the kind of good parts about three quarters of the way through.

Good News For Modern Man


I have one somewhere.

It's just the NT, and the language and vocabulary was perked up to a mid 60s sensibility.  It was a big deal back in the day (I think mine was given to me at church) and I recall the minister doing sermons based on it.

It was illustrated with simple b/w drawings too.  I recall (accurately I hope) Jesus and the fig tree being one of the illustrations.


Of course now, I realize it was vile, it's departure from the sacred King James 1611 was enormous, and of course, any believers that believe that particular version are damned.

Here's an example of the illustrations in Good News For Modern Man:




I'm sure you all realize and agree, this is on par with Piss Christ as for being

offensive to God.


And recall, I was a kid when this book was given to me!!

(November 6, 2016 at 5:00 pm)Chad32 Wrote: If christians don't like people talking about the old testament so much, you'd think they would circulate books that only had the new testament in them. Though that would make the bible a hell of a lot shorter. In the states, we like to read left to right, which means new readers have to drudge through the worst parts of the bible before getting to the kind of good parts about three quarters of the way through.

There are plenty of only new testaments out there, but the bible is the total of the old and the new testament. The teachings and events that are contained in the new testament were first presented to people who only knew the old testament. The new testament doesn't exist on its own and is understood in light of the old.

Indeed. And all the Old Testament stuff about killing homos is an especially important teaching unto this very day, even if precious little else is.

When's the last time you heard of a leper or somebody with a goiter being kicked out of church ??? Hell, the Southern Baptists don't even do that.

(November 6, 2016 at 6:27 pm)vorlon13 Wrote: Indeed.  And all the Old Testament stuff about killing homos is an especially important teaching unto this very day, even if precious little else is.

When's the last time you heard of a leper or somebody with a goiter being kicked out of church ???   Hell, the Southern Baptists don't even do that.

That's because we're not supposed to kick lepers out of church.

(November 6, 2016 at 6:23 pm)Lek Wrote: The new testament doesn't exist on its own and is understood in light of the old.

What does it mean to understand the NT in light of the OT? That just sounds like an empty phrase.

(November 6, 2016 at 6:23 pm)Lek Wrote:

(November 6, 2016 at 5:00 pm)Chad32 Wrote: If christians don't like people talking about the old testament so much, you'd think they would circulate books that only had the new testament in them. Though that would make the bible a hell of a lot shorter. In the states, we like to read left to right, which means new readers have to drudge through the worst parts of the bible before getting to the kind of good parts about three quarters of the way through.

There are plenty of only new testaments out there, but the bible is the total of the old and the new testament.  The teachings and events that are contained in the new testament were first presented to people who only knew the old testament.  The new testament doesn't exist on its own and is understood in light of the old.

To this date there is still no agreement on what should even be in the fucking thing.

That should be a clue to you, Lek.   But then they don't call you 'clueless' for nothing.

(November 6, 2016 at 6:44 pm)Lek Wrote: That's because we're not supposed to kick lepers out of church.

So, assuming you're against homosexuality, I guess you're not wearing cloths of two different fabrics, don't shave hair or beard and certainly don't eat shellfish.

(November 6, 2016 at 7:48 pm)abaris Wrote:

(November 6, 2016 at 6:44 pm)Lek Wrote: That's because we're not supposed to kick lepers out of church.

So, assuming you're against homosexuality, I guess you're not wearing cloths of two different fabrics, don't shave hair or beard and certainly don't eat shellfish.

Except for homosexuality, which is spoken about in the new testament, whether I do or not doesn't make any difference to God. I'm not under those laws and regulations. They have been superseded, by the new covenant. Even the pagans during the old testament times were not under that covenant, which was made with the nation of Israel. As for homosexuality, even if it is immoral, I'm not supposed to stone a homosexual.