Thoughts on this apologetic

[Hungry Hungry Hippo]

I've been wondering about something recently and I wanted to ask you guys about it. Sometimes I'll hear opponents of Christianity argue that, in order to be a true Christian, one must abide by all of the OT laws - even the ones that are highly immoral and unethical (i.e. Deuteronomy 21:18-21). There are a few common apologetics that I'll hear in response to this, and I'm wondering what your thoughts are regarding them.

The first one goes something like "Well, those laws were intended for the ancient Hebrews, modern day Christians aren't expected to follow them." I'm genuinely curious in regard to this, what does the bible have to say on that? What OT laws are gentile Christians expected to obey, and which ones do they get a pass on? Could you guys refer me to any literature on this matter?

The second thing they'll sometimes do is just throw Matthew 22:34-40 back at the person in question:
The Great Commandment
But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.

What do you guys think? Is that a fair counter-argument or are there problems with it?

The last one I'll hear (that I guess is somewhat related to the first apologetic I listed) is that Jesus's death on the cross gives them a free pass from having to obey the OT laws. Now, I've heard that the consensus among the scholarly community is that really the only thing that this gives Christians a pass on is having to offer sacrifices to YHWH. I guess I'd like to ask if you guys can verify that as being correct, and then if there's any further literature you might recommend that critiques this apologetic.

Thanks!

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Give 'em this:

Matthew 5:17-19  'Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.'

Jesus is being questioned by the Pharisees, and is referring specifically to the Law of Moses.

Boru

[Metis]

Honestly it depends what kind of flavor Christian you're debating Milleby, they all have different views on the reliability or interpretation of different verses although the premise you explain above does hold water with most of them. Jesus fulfilled the "ceremonial" requirements of the OT, that is the need to sacrifice and uphold Kashrut amongst other things. What they don't believe was "fufilled" are moral commands; don't steal, don't put your dick anywhere but your wifes Vajayjay etc.

Moral commands that contradict each other are overwritten by the NT, so Solomons harem was cool but after Jesus said about two becoming one it wasn't anymore.

I honestly wouldn't get caught up in a scripture debate to begin with; ask them why you should talk about the Bible in particular as opposed to the Koran? Better yet, pick up a copy of a text from a dead religion (I like to use Ovid's Metamorphoses myself) and quote verses from that to support your moral position; the Metamorphoses is awesome for this because there are so many episodes of kinky sex, murder, abortion, genocide and rape within to use as divine examples or commands, better still it's all neatly divided up between chapters and verses so you can quite neatly and fairly quote yourself with references like "Scylla 16:23". When they object to your standard of morality call them out for being a hypocrite bitch

[Minimalist]

One of the surest ways to identify bullshit is when it tries to be all things to all people.

For the fuckers who don't like the line in Matty, quoted above, they wrote this:

10 Brothers and sisters, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. 2 For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. 3 Since they did not know the righteousness of God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. 4 Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

Romans 10

You see, this way they cover all the bases.


Of course, when they want to bash queers they still gleefully fall back on this OT horseshit.

[Pyrrho]

As has already been said, different Christians take different positions on the Old Testament rules.  You might want to read:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_...d_Covenant

As stated there:

Many Christians believe that only parts are applicable, others believe that none are applicable, dual-covenant theologians believe that it remains valid only for Jews, and a minority have the view that all are still applicable to believers in Jesus and the .

In practice, many Christians do exactly what Minimalist suggests above, and that is be totally inconsistent in their approach, and trot out the Old Testament when they like it, and pretend it does not matter when you bring up some part of it they don't like.

In other words, many Christians are totally dishonest sleaze-bags when it comes to this.  I think you will find that, in practice, that is what you will most frequently encounter.  But you should read the article at the above link, as you will, perhaps, occasionally encounter someone who takes a consistent approach.

[robvalue]

The thing is, there's no such thing as a true Christian. It's all entirely arbitrary. If someone calls themselves a Christian, then no one can say with any authority that they are not. They can give their opinion that they are a lousy Christian of course.

If a Christian says the bible is the word of God though, and says it should be followed as such, then they are almost certainly going to be a massive hypocrite. That's pretty unavoidable, because anyone living by biblical morality would be dead or in jail very fast.

Christians like the idea that the bible is the word of God, but whenever it's convenient it's also the fallible word of man and so on. There's no end of excuses why they only follow the bits they like. In the end, all they are doing is reinforcing their own values with righteousness. And in some tragic cases, taking on bad values they normally wouldn't in order to be considered a better Christian.

Not having to follow the OT is unsubstantiated, in my opinion. The NT makes this very clear, that the old law stands. The fact that everything contradicts itself just means you can't follow it all even if you wanted to. Even if it is the case that they can ignore the OT, it's an admission that God "got it all wrong" and had to learn how to be a better God. They'd never admit that of course.

[Alex K]

Those who discard the laws of the OT, are they willing to throw out the ten commandments?

[Tonus]

The first one goes something like "Well, those laws were intended for the ancient Hebrews, modern day Christians aren't expected to follow them." I'm genuinely curious in regard to this, what does the bible have to say on that? What OT laws are gentile Christians expected to obey, and which ones do they get a pass on? Could you guys refer me to any literature on this matter?

I think it was Paul who first floated the idea that the old testament law died with Jesus on the cross, and that from then on Christians were to follow Jesus' example and teachings and not the old commandments. Jesus' own sacrifice replaces the animal sacrifices of the old testament, and he does away with the list of laws given the Israelites along with the ten commandments.

With the ease of having Christ as an intercessor, Christians can rest easy even in the face of such onerous new concepts such as thought-crime (Matthew 5:21-30), because absolution is just a prayer away. This allows them to sidestep the subtle dangers of the new approach to worship. They can also dismiss the crude and brutal god of the OT --and his ridiculous laws-- as somehow necessary due to the backwards and intransigent nature of the cultures of the time.

There are a number of questions to ask regarding this. Not only did Jesus offer the contradictory messages regarding the importance of the old law (Matthew 5:17-20, versus Matthew 12:3-8), but the laws themselves remain 'on the record' and we can judge the god of the OT by them. The explanations regarding the culture of the time make god seem helpless in the face of stubborn humans. But otherwise we must wonder about the odd and almost rambling nature of the old law and just what it might say about a god who spends an inordinate amount of time reminding his chosen people to remember that he's god, or an even greater amount of time explaining exactly how they must prepare their animal sacrifices. It shouldn't take long to get into "mysterious ways" territory, though, at which point the conversation might hit a wall.

[Pyrrho]

Those who discard the laws of the OT, are they willing to throw out the ten commandments?

If they were consistent, they would.  But they typically are not consistent, as mentioned in post 5 above.

[vorlon13]

Christers NEVER acknowledge Jesus failed to list all 10 Commandments when He was asked which to keep.

Still, anytime the christers want a 10 Commandments display on public land, they always want all 10.

Additionally, I'm pretty sure most christers are clueless there are many ways of parsing the 10 out of scripture, and I'd posit whenever they are advocating for a particular display, it most likely isn't actually parsed the way the poobahs of their specific schism mandates.