Okay, so now that I've talked to all my close friends and family about it, I can now talk about it here.
A couple of months back I asked myself a question I felt was central to my faith - and that is would I accept the Old Testament without the New? Would I accept Judaism had Christ never come. After much consideration I decided the only honest answer is no, and I'll explain why.
There's very little ethical or factual problems with the New Testament and the teachings of Christ. However the New Testament isn't perfect, and the authors got some of their facts wrong - like Luke's census, the location of Jesus casting Legion out and into the pigs and who bought the "field of blood". These errors "we" generally ignore as being largely irrelevant. Some evangelicals even make the claim that the original wording was in fact correct - yet we're not talking about passages with disputed wording and scholars believe they have the original wording.
One important error is Isaiah 7:14 as quoted, or rather misquoted, by Matthew. Now I've changed my mind on this, Matthew has used this passage as a prophecy when it wasn't. In fact the entire New Testament contains only one genuine prophecy given by Jesus twice and that is the destruction of Jerusalem by siege. I have a hard time believing any theory that Jesus didn't give that prophecy, but is it really remarkable? Maybe not after all Jerusalem had already before been taken by siege on four separate occasions in the past millennium. Even if it hadn't fallen in 70AD to siege it still would have 614AD, or the time after that, or the time after that and the prophecy would still be fulfilled.
So this brings us back the OT and starting with Noah what Christians want to see is different interpretations of what is actually written. Noah is instructed to build an Ark - God tells him he will destroy all of creation (Gen 6:7: So the Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.”) and that the ark will protect him. Now any way you look at this story as a real historical flood it means that God is lying to Noah about the extent of what will be destroyed, and also he could have sent Noah on a day or two's journey to get out of the flood zone before it came. Maybe a week's journey, maybe a month's journey. Heck even if all of Turkey was to be flooded he still could have sent Noah to Egypt, Europe, India, China, Africa, or plenty of places that weren't destroyed in Noah's flood.
Also it's not the only lie that he tells, the other one that comes to mind is that they can go take possession of the Promised Land as an eternal inheritance. That land is now occupied by: Israel, Lebanon, Syria, and what little is left of Palestine. So much for being an "eternal" inheritance.
Then we come to Leviticus where the punishment for Adultery is death, the punishment for, well many sins, is death. Now what I was always told is an interpretation I disagree with which is that "the Ancient Hebrews/Jews were more civilized and had better liberties than other nations". Rubbish. Gen 22 tells us of God testing Abraham to sacrifice Isaac to him - that means the Hebrew God demands that his followers are willing, if asked, to sacrifice their children to him - what makes that better than the Egyptian gods or the Roman gods? Furthermore, women had near equal-rights to men in ancient Egypt not in ancient Judaism. So this idea that the ancient Hebrews were "ahead" of any social curve is flat-out wrong.
It also means that Christians should believe that it is fair and just that Adulterers, etc, be put to death. Not that we will necessarily do it, but should recognize that God says it's fair and just and what He wants in Leviticus. So far, I've had some Christian friends of mine say "but that's 'just' Leviticus"... 'just'? The Torah was the most important part of the Hebrew scriptures to the Jews. They followed its teachings to the letter. Now Jesus didn't dispute that, what he disputed was where Pharisees had added to the teachings. You can turn to Leviticus and it's God who says Adulterers are to be put to death, not the Pharisees.
So in summary, I've decided to reject the Old Testament as reliable scripture and hence become agnostic.
A couple of months back I asked myself a question I felt was central to my faith - and that is would I accept the Old Testament without the New? Would I accept Judaism had Christ never come. After much consideration I decided the only honest answer is no, and I'll explain why.
There's very little ethical or factual problems with the New Testament and the teachings of Christ. However the New Testament isn't perfect, and the authors got some of their facts wrong - like Luke's census, the location of Jesus casting Legion out and into the pigs and who bought the "field of blood". These errors "we" generally ignore as being largely irrelevant. Some evangelicals even make the claim that the original wording was in fact correct - yet we're not talking about passages with disputed wording and scholars believe they have the original wording.
One important error is Isaiah 7:14 as quoted, or rather misquoted, by Matthew. Now I've changed my mind on this, Matthew has used this passage as a prophecy when it wasn't. In fact the entire New Testament contains only one genuine prophecy given by Jesus twice and that is the destruction of Jerusalem by siege. I have a hard time believing any theory that Jesus didn't give that prophecy, but is it really remarkable? Maybe not after all Jerusalem had already before been taken by siege on four separate occasions in the past millennium. Even if it hadn't fallen in 70AD to siege it still would have 614AD, or the time after that, or the time after that and the prophecy would still be fulfilled.
So this brings us back the OT and starting with Noah what Christians want to see is different interpretations of what is actually written. Noah is instructed to build an Ark - God tells him he will destroy all of creation (Gen 6:7: So the Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.”) and that the ark will protect him. Now any way you look at this story as a real historical flood it means that God is lying to Noah about the extent of what will be destroyed, and also he could have sent Noah on a day or two's journey to get out of the flood zone before it came. Maybe a week's journey, maybe a month's journey. Heck even if all of Turkey was to be flooded he still could have sent Noah to Egypt, Europe, India, China, Africa, or plenty of places that weren't destroyed in Noah's flood.
Also it's not the only lie that he tells, the other one that comes to mind is that they can go take possession of the Promised Land as an eternal inheritance. That land is now occupied by: Israel, Lebanon, Syria, and what little is left of Palestine. So much for being an "eternal" inheritance.
Then we come to Leviticus where the punishment for Adultery is death, the punishment for, well many sins, is death. Now what I was always told is an interpretation I disagree with which is that "the Ancient Hebrews/Jews were more civilized and had better liberties than other nations". Rubbish. Gen 22 tells us of God testing Abraham to sacrifice Isaac to him - that means the Hebrew God demands that his followers are willing, if asked, to sacrifice their children to him - what makes that better than the Egyptian gods or the Roman gods? Furthermore, women had near equal-rights to men in ancient Egypt not in ancient Judaism. So this idea that the ancient Hebrews were "ahead" of any social curve is flat-out wrong.
It also means that Christians should believe that it is fair and just that Adulterers, etc, be put to death. Not that we will necessarily do it, but should recognize that God says it's fair and just and what He wants in Leviticus. So far, I've had some Christian friends of mine say "but that's 'just' Leviticus"... 'just'? The Torah was the most important part of the Hebrew scriptures to the Jews. They followed its teachings to the letter. Now Jesus didn't dispute that, what he disputed was where Pharisees had added to the teachings. You can turn to Leviticus and it's God who says Adulterers are to be put to death, not the Pharisees.
So in summary, I've decided to reject the Old Testament as reliable scripture and hence become agnostic.
For Religion & Health see:[/b][/size] Williams & Sternthal. (2007). Spirituality, religion and health: Evidence and research directions. Med. J. Aust., 186(10), S47-S50. -LINK
The WIN/Gallup End of Year Survey 2013 found the US was perceived to be the greatest threat to world peace by a huge margin, with 24% of respondents fearful of the US followed by: 8% for Pakistan, and 6% for China. This was followed by 5% each for: Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, North Korea. -LINK
"That's disgusting. There were clean athletes out there that have had their whole careers ruined by people like Lance Armstrong who just bended thoughts to fit their circumstances. He didn't look up cheating because he wanted to stop, he wanted to justify what he was doing and to keep that continuing on." - Nicole Cooke
The WIN/Gallup End of Year Survey 2013 found the US was perceived to be the greatest threat to world peace by a huge margin, with 24% of respondents fearful of the US followed by: 8% for Pakistan, and 6% for China. This was followed by 5% each for: Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, North Korea. -LINK
"That's disgusting. There were clean athletes out there that have had their whole careers ruined by people like Lance Armstrong who just bended thoughts to fit their circumstances. He didn't look up cheating because he wanted to stop, he wanted to justify what he was doing and to keep that continuing on." - Nicole Cooke
