the old testament to christians are looked at as a part of Salvation History...in that aspect they are valid...in your argument about courthouses and the ten commandments...Christianity today is very different than it was 50 years ago, and even over 200 years ago when this country (the USA) was founded. The Ten Commandments are still God's Law...even though Jesus came to fulfill the law, that does negate the fact that it is God's Law. When looking to start a new country, where would you look to guidance on what should be legal? Apparently, you would not look to God's law.
I think Kalvin did a good job explaining things. However, I would like to add that the slave/master situations you see the Bible not condemning nor condoning is very much like today's employee/employer relationships. I can bet you won't except this either, but hey who said you had to think on your own?
Actually it says in the bible you can beat the slaves as long as you don't beat them to death more from exodus And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. 21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
The Old Testament is historical. It was a time of trials and tribulations of man with rules and law that must be followed in order for man to go to heaven. Jesus was sent to fulfill the Old Testament, bring a message of peace and love and ultimately die on the cross for our sins because God knew that man could not live by the laws of the Old Testament alone and get to heaven. This is why you do not find such scriptures in the New Testament and that anti-Christians always refer to the Old Testament when trying to make an argument against Christianity. Christianity is the result of Jesus fulfilling the Old Testament. There were no Christians before Jesus, there was no New Testament before him. This is why it is called the "New" Testament. The "New" Testament of God. You ask if Christians follow the Old Testament. I posted some examples of Old Testament verses in context of today's world. When you view them, it seems silly when put in context. Are Christians selling their daughters into slavery? No. Do Christians own Mexican or Canadian slaves? No. Do Christians wear side curls? No. Do Christians burn bulls at an alter? No. Do Christians eat pork and shell fish and play football? Yes. The Old Testament is a historical document. No one denies it, but you'd be hard pressed to find any of those verses in practice by Christians today. Hence, the "New" Testament. Hence why you probably will not find or post any verses from the "New" Testament of God, because it is completely different than the "Old" Testament.
Christians believe the old testament and understand that God's plan is portrayed throughout. We believe that the old testament has a huge portion direct to specific people at a specific time. So when dealing with the Hebrew people as the crossed the desert certain things happened and the people were told to do certain things, those things are not for everyone at every time. The old testament foretells Christ's coming to the earth and the plan of redemption. It also shows judgement, punishment, mercy and grace. So, in other words, Christians are not told to follow the old testament rules that were not given to them. One thing specific the disciples said to stay away from was sexual immorality, which is in the old and new testaments. The old was not made void, but Jesus did fulfill the laws that we all failed on.
like I said earlier...its a part of salvation history...it shows God's work in the world through many different people.
Again, quite a contrast to American owned slaves isn't it? Slaved owned by Jews actually had some rights. Slaves even volunteered to be slaves. In today's society we call people who would have otherwise opted for slavery, homeless people. I guess it's better that they die nameless on the streets than subject themselves to a life of servitude towards an owner who feeds, clothes and houses them. Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. Do you think those slaves were poorly treated? Why do you feel it's okay to lump "all" slaveowners into a group and yet whine and consistantly play the "all" card when people discuss the attrocities committed by Muslims? Some slaveowners were assholes therefore all slaveowners were assholes so slavery is bad and should be outlawed. Some Muslims are assholes therefore, by your logic, all Muslims are assholes and Islam is bad and should be outlawed.
Let's remember too, that slavery was not invented in America. Heard that on Air America just a few moments ago..
The Jews who do not accept Jesus as the messiah, are they going to Heaven? I mean, they are God's Children right?
What difference does it make who invented it? Talk about moral equivalence It makes no difference who invented it, or who was part of it, its does not change the fact it is probably one of the most morally reprehensible practices in history I also did not lump all slave owners as abusers but I do group all slave owners as acters is terrible exploitive practice I can't even believe anyone would stick up for owning slaves
What does the Bible say? You're the expert. We call them agents. And of course you can't believe it. You don't know what slavery is all about and who, historically, willingly subjected themself to the practice in order to survive. Yes, how morally reprehensible. Someone so down in life that the only way they can survive is to have someone own them so they can have house, clothes and food to live. It's far more moral to let such people die alone in the streets. I'm sure you're going to go around town and hire homeless people right now aren't you? But, terrorism, that doens't even register to you as morally reprehensible.
I like how you threw in the bit about Cair. But I would like to clarify, you are willing to admit that there are Muslim communities who do not perpetute terror. Correct? The Bible is scripture and is loaded with unverified personal stories. Heck, it's not even the word of god as given to man. It's been translated, modified, reformed, improved, and diluted over time.
Hadith are basically the same as the NT except many were written before the death of the companions of Mohammed. The difference between Jesus and Mohammed if we cross the two religions is that Jesus was the Son of God. Mohammed was a man. He didn't have super powers. He didn't heal the sick or walk on water. He didn't turn water into wine or make 7 loaves of bread and 7 fish into enough to feed the many. Muslims do not believe that Isa was the Son of God, just as many Jews do not believe that Jesus was the Messiah. But Islam does hold a very special place for Isa as one of the most important prophets. It's not like Jesus is treated as a non-person or charlatan. They regard him as a man of God who brought the word of God to the people. Do you think post-Jesus Jews who do not believe he is the Messiah will go to Heaven?
Are you saying that the Dead Sea Scrolls are the same as the KJV? What about the NRSV? I believe you mentioned earlier that you are a KJV guy. Have you read the Dead Sea Scrolls?
What does the Bible say? It doesn't matter what we think will happen. Last I checked, back in the BCs people weren't speaking old english. What you meant to ask was "did the dead sea scrolls match the writings that the OT in the KJV was translated from?" And the answer is yes. With 2000 years between them. The dead sea scrolls validated the much more recently written copies of the hebrew text. But don't let the facts get in the way of your "telephone game" assumptions.