On the thread about polygamy, sprint has encouraged me to fork and create a new topic about  the relationship between the Old Testament and the New Testament in the formulation of Christian doctrine.. Yes I know Christianity is not a doctrine, it's a loving relationship between God and his children etc. but you get my drift

So here's a few questions, please answer what you can, and please include which kind of Christianity you believe in.

1) Do the writings in the OT hold any authoritative meaning, such that a believing Christian should strive to implement them in his/her daily life?

2) If the OT has authoritative meaning, what is the criteria for NT doctrine overriding (abrogating) them?

3) Are the practises and customs of the Prophets (Peace be upon them all) from the OT considered wrong and anti-Christian? Such as polygamy, abstaining from eating flesh of swine etc. If so why, what is the scriptural basis for this, and why did God allow it one day, yet not the next? how can an abhorrent unGodly practise have once been Godly and acceptable?

4) There are plenty of "movements" within Christianity that do still practise the customs of the OT. SDA, LDS, Messiancs etc. Are they misguided and unChristian?

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1214380323/11#11

Coincidentally, I've posted 2 comments on the Personal freedoms, rights and Australian values thread. There, I highlighted the neo-theocratic Christian Recontructionism and Dominionism movements whose values includes reverting back to OT biblical laws or the 613 Laws over secular law.

In answer to your question on what kind of Christianity do I believe in.... I don't. I believe in secular law and ethical conduct. I believe in "Liberté, Equalité, Fraternité". I believe that there is no right or wrong argument when it comes to religion. Arguing is futile because no one is going to be convinced. Enlightenment is a personal discovery of self. It is not achieved because someone tells you something. It is achieved when you discover the truth that is true only to you. You believe in what you are compelled to believe in. It's your choice and your enlightenment. I respect that as long as you respect my choices.

Everyone is wrong because everyone believes that they are right. You will never have the moral high ground simply because of the fact that you believe that the moral high ground belongs only to you. I say this in reference to Jews, Christians and Muslims. The blinding fact is that you all have a very violent and interconnecting history (and present). It written down in all your respected Books. It's convenient to simply ignore them or brush them aside when arguing your point.

It's a matter of interpretation. Sure. However, its that people do interpret them to their own agenda is where conflicts arise. You only have to read up on people like Abraham Kuyper, Francis Schaeffer, Shiek Hilali, Abu Bakr Bashir, Rousas John Rushdoony, George Grant, Osama bn Ladin to see that sacred writings are in the eye of the beholder. It is each religion's (Christianity and Islam) responsibility to teach the correct interpretation and reign back thoses who misrepresent. I am empathetic to the Islamic religion and Muslim culture but I do understand Sprint's bigotry (although I cringe everytime he misquotes or misrepresents). The islamic world has been very inactive in the reigning in of extremism. Very vocal against it, yes. But, not a lot of action. 1.6 billion Muslims (the largest religion) and yet a few hundred thousand (million!) extremist seems to be hard to handle. Western countries (read: Christian) have reigned in extreme ideas quite efficiently. Take for example Intelligent Design (a Christian infused subject) which tried to manifest itself within our secular education. It has been rebuted and overwhelmingly knocked back in this Christian society.

Citing Wahhabism and terrorists as an indicator of Islam while ignoring Dominionism and Reconstructionism in Christianity; or citing the crusades and the inquisition as examples of Christianity while ignoring hate clerics and terrorists justifying their actions on the Qur'an, negates the moral high of both sides.

Anyway, these are my views as a secularist. Keep fighting the good fight!

:)

Thanks for your view Acid, even though it isn't quite on topic, still nice to know where you stand on the issues you've detailed.

You have a point in saying that religion is a matter of belief, and arguing over which beliuef is the more correct one or isn't, is pointless. But that was not the intention behind opening this topic. It is to clarify further what different Christians believe regarding the OT. I didn't mention anything Islamic, as it's really not an Islamic topic. However, if you'd like to open a topic that discusses such things feel free.

Acid - that is a very thoughtful and valid posting.
It is much more worthy of its own thread and I thoroughly encourage you to start a thread with that topic.

Much better to keep topics aligned.

Abu - thanks for starting this thread. 2nd half of the state of origin, see you afte rthat !!!!!!!!!

Yeah, I did go a little off topic there. LOL. Sometimes I get into "the zone" and will tend to dribble away. I brought up Islam because it felt right for me to mention it at the time. I've reproached Sprint several time on his misuse of the Qur'an and the hadiths. And, there are many aspects of Christianity that I do not agree with. For the sake of a balance view I thought I'd express my brief thoughts on the subject of Islam.

Islam and Christianity are not bad doctrines (despite what the opponents of both sides say). There are goood teachings within both sacred texts. I view both Books with reverance. It's the believers that drives people like myself away from either faith.

Anyway, once again its good to have you (and Malik) here. Its good to have a Muslim viewpoint on some topics.

:)

acid - off topic happens.
But I still encourage you to start oyur own threaon your topic.
I thought it was very good, and coming from a neutral viewpoint would be better.

Hi Abu,

Good on you for starting a thread.
Don't worry, it is not a trap.
It is just the only way of "catagorising" topics.
These are my answers, so you may get differing ones from other christians.

1/ No, a xian has no interest in implementing the OT laws in our daily lives.

2/ The OT has no authority over me. I am free from it.

3/ The practises from the OT are not "wrong." They are for jews.
I am not a jew. For jews they are right.

4/ yes, there are some christian sects that do not follow the NT teachings as I see them.
Though they and I differ on teachings/characteristics, in the main we agree.
eg, one of my workmates is a 7th day adventist.
I have been to his church, it is great. I'ld be happy to go there again.
They do not celebrate birthdays, I do.

Thanks for your reply sprint.


Quote:

No, a xian has no interest in implementing the OT laws in our daily lives

But aren't some parts of it still valid according to Christians, like the 10 Commandments?


Quote:

The practises from the OT are not "wrong." They are for jews. I am not a jew. For jews they are right

So you think polygamy is valid practise for Jews?


Quote:

eg, one of my workmates is a 7th day adventist.

SDA are one of the more interesting Christian groups. I remember when I first debated with one of them, as they brought something so powerful, yet so simple. Why do you celebrate on Sunday? when there's absolutely no scriptural basis for it. The scriptural basis is for the Sabbath (meaning seventh day in Hebrew, and Arabic btw). So how do you explain this according to your beliefs about the OT and it's irrelevance in Christian's lives?

As for birthdays, I can see their point. There's absolutely no Christian basis for it whatsoever, nor Islamic basis either for that matter, and I personally do not celebrate birthdays.

Hi Abu,

There is no part of the OT that is of a day to day concern to xians.
Parts of the OT are VERY interesting, but they are not binding.

You can prob try to trick me if you want with a play on words.
But that is my take on it.



I don't know what is valid for jews. I am not a jew.


Whenever I celebrate, does that matter ?
Does a religion have me, or am I spiritually freed ?

The word "religion" actually comes from the Latin word meaning "to bind", so I dunno, you tell me?

If your religion doesn't control you, then how is it really a religion? Even according to mainstream Christian doctrine, your love for Jesus is supposed to control your actions isn't it?

abu - you are starting to touch one of  the truths of the Bible.

"The word "religion" actually comes from the Latin word meaning "to bind", so I dunno, you tell me?"



The word 'religion' is in the Bible about 8 times. Invariably with bad connotations.
The work spiritual appears many hundreds of times.

Guess which one we are ?


This may be why I like athiests. Most are very spiritual.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2008 at 11:46pm:

This may be why I like athiests. Most are very spiritual.

Not in my universe  ;D unless you include Bundaberg Rum.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2008 at 10:45pm:

1/ No, a xian has no interest in implementing the OT laws in our daily lives. 2/ The OT has no authority over me. I am free from it. 3/ The practises from the OT are not "wrong." They are for jews. I am not a jew. For jews they are right.

A short reading from Matthew 5:

17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20  For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Very good point muso, I don't know how Christians can claim that the OT is not to be followed, when it's quite strikingly clear in this verse. Instead they twist and interpret verses from other books that are very unclear, just to try and stamp out the practises of the OT, like polygamy for example.

I really don't know the procedures Christian scholars take to decide which verse is considered authoritative over another, when an apparent contradiction appears, but in Islam, if a clearly worded verse says something, and a vaguer verse appears to point to the opposite, it's quite obivous which one is considered authoritative on the matter.

that's because people like sprint are christians by convenience.

abu_rashid wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2008 at 10:05pm:

I really don't know the procedures Christian scholars take to decide which verse is considered authoritative over another, when an apparent contradiction appears, but in Islam, if a clearly worded verse says something, and a vaguer verse appears to point to the opposite, it's quite obivous which one is considered authoritative on the matter.

Oh they use a similar process to Islam. Usually it's bitter older people (with Catholicism, add 'sexually frustrated' to the list of descriptors) who want to impose their own very conservative values on society that get to pick the verses where the emphasis lies. They have no real need for sex anymore, so they discourage it generally with a perspicacious choice of holy verses. In Christianity and Islam, the emphasis depends on the particular branch of the religion.

With the Qur'an there are also contradictions. I know that you'll come up with ready to serve arguments against this, but although the Qur'an is actually more internally consistent than the Bible, there remain internal contradictions.

For example, we have three who are called the first true believer:

2:132  The same did Abraham enjoin upon his sons, and also Jacob, (saying): O my sons! Lo! Allah hath chosen for you the (true) religion; therefore die not save as men who have surrendered (unto Him).

7:143   And Moses fell down senseless. And when he woke he said: Glory unto Thee! I turn unto Thee repentant, and I am the first of (true) believers.

39:12  And I [Muhammad] am commanded to be the first of those who are muslims (surrender unto Him).

Could Allah have a son?

39:4  If Allah had willed to choose a son, He could have chosen what He would of that which He hath created.

6:100-1  Yet they ... impute falsely, without knowledge, sons and daughters unto Him. ... The Originator of the heavens and the earth! How can He have a child?

Were any of Noah's family drowned?

11:42-43 Noah cried unto his son and he was standing aloof - O my son! .... and the wave came in between them, so he was among the drowned.

37:75-77 And Noah verily prayed unto Us, and gracious was the Hearer of his prayer. And We saved him and his household from the great distress, And made his seed the survivors.

I can give you more examples of course.

abu_rashid wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2008 at 10:05pm:

Very good point muso, I don't know how Christians can claim that the OT is not to be followed, when it's quite strikingly clear in this verse. Instead they twist and interpret verses from other books that are very unclear, just to try and stamp out the practises of the OT, like polygamy for example. I really don't know the procedures Christian scholars take to decide which verse is considered authoritative over another, when an apparent contradiction appears, but in Islam, if a clearly worded verse says something, and a vaguer verse appears to point to the opposite, it's quite obivous which one is considered authoritative on the matter.

Just a few episodes of a televangelist's rant will tell you the OT is trotted out and preached whenever convenient. The Catholic Church has (or had) a reading from the old testament included in the Mass as I recall.

Although, I believe it's generally true that Christians consider the NT more binding than the OT, I don't believe there is any formula for determining which is the more binding when applied to real circumstances in one's life. Does anybody know of one?

Hi malik - I became a christian through a number of spiritual experiences and thorough my own decision.


Muso - As you quoted, what jesus did was "I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them".
So they are still valid. If you want to be a jew, follow the OT. You can do that.
The 10 commandments are not "wrong."
Thing is, they are too tough for humans.
When we break any of the 10 commandments, we remove ourselves from God.
Seems, humans regularily do that.


How is a human to right that wrong we do often ?

muso,


Quote:

Oh they use a similar process to Islam. Usually it's bitter older people

Actually a lot of Islamic scholars are young people, and always have been. In fact out of all the trained people of knowledge I know, very few of them are over 40. Either way, age shouldn't really be an issue, unless you're ageist?


Quote:

With the Qur'an there are also contradictions. I know that you'll come up with ready to serve arguments against this,

Nope, just going to have a look at the original Arabic text and see if there actually is any contradiction. You just expect a ready to serve response, because this is a ready to serve argument that yo've found on answering-islam.com or something.


Quote:

For example, we have three who are called the first true believer

Well actually the first verse doesn't say anyone is the "first true believer" at all, did you actually look at this first? or just paste it verbatim without even examining it? I don't expect you to find your own "contradictions" in the Qur'an, but if you're going to paste other's "pre-fab" contradictions, at least make sure they actually appear to contradict.


Quote:

2:132  The same did Abraham enjoin upon his sons, and also Jacob, (saying): O my sons! Lo! Allah hath chosen for you the (true) religion; therefore die not save as men who have surrendered (unto Him).

See, nothing about first true believer.. Anyway.. onto the second so called contradiction:


Quote:

7:143   And Moses fell down senseless. And when he woke he said: Glory unto Thee! I turn unto Thee repentant, and I am the first of (true) believers.

For a start Moses (Pbuh) said this, not God, so it's not a contradiction from God. Humans are liable to say things which can contradict.

Either way the meaning of the verse, if you read it is quite obviously "I'm the first one who'd do that!!" not "I was the first person ever to have done that in all recorded history". In Arabic this is a very common sentence  I'm the first to help you, I'm the first to welcome to you etc. Doesn't mean I'm the first person in all recorded history who's ever helped you. This one is quite clear.

Two down, one to go, even if the last one doesn't even hold the meaning that is claimed is irrelevant, since the other two verse aren't going to contradict it anyway.

Now in Islam, it's well known that the first believer was Adam (Pbuh), the first human, so quite obviously if it's mentioned in any other situation that someone is the first believer the meaning is not literal "The first person ever in recorded history to believe, and nobody believed before me", but it is a meaning of "I am the first to line up to be counted as a believer". First and last have many different shades of meanings in Arabic, they are used figuratively so many times throughout the Qur'an to refer to so many different things. For instance a group of people are known as "Al-awaleen" (al-awal = the first and -een is the plural suffix) so the literal meaning is "the first ones" but the actual meaning of this term is just "people from earlier times" or "ancients" whilst the opposite "Al-Akhireen" (al-Akhir = last, and again -een the plural suffix) which literally means "the last ones" refers to people of later times, but not necessarily the current time. Awal and Akhir appear so much in Arabic speech with so many different figurative meanings.


Quote:

6:100-1  Yet they ... impute falsely, without knowledge, sons and daughters unto Him. ... The Originator of the heavens and the earth! How can He have a child?

Strangely the verse is cut short? Strangely there's a question mark there on what we're led to believe is the end of the sentence, and it's actually mid sentence?

The continuation reads "and he doesn't have a wife" How can he have a son and he doesn't have a wife is a little different to "How could he have a child".

Anyway onto the last one...


Quote:

37:75-77 And Noah verily prayed unto Us, and gracious was the Hearer of his prayer. And We saved him and his household from the great distress, And made his seed the survivors.

It doesn't say every single member of his household was saved. Unless it's being that specific, neither can you in your claim.

Also the word translated as household is "ahl" which can have many meanings, one of which is extended family or tribe, another of which is co-religionists, for instance "Ahl al-Kitab" are the Jews and Christians, the "People of the Book", they're not a single household. Or "Ahl as-Sunnah", the Muslims, people who follow the Sunnah of Muhammad (Pbuh). Either way, it never specified every single member of "ahl".


Quote:

I can give you more examples of course.

Don't bother.

I'm the kind of person who will waste my time sincerely answering from my own knowledge, you just want to paste from websites by people who haven't even double checked their own claims..

I must say, I'm quite disappointed, I exspected a slightly more challenging and stimulating argument from you muso, this was definitely neither of those.

abu_rashid wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 10:05pm:

I'm the kind of person who will waste my time sincerely answering from my own knowledge, you just want to paste from websites by people who haven't even double checked their own claims..

If you can find the website where I allegedly cut and pasted from, I'd be totally amazed. The only things I cut and pasted were the Qur'an verses, and I shortened them for the sake of brevity.

Your answers remind me of a Movie Script. Let me see if I can find the reference:  

"Say any word, and I'll tell you how the root of that word is Greek."

"Kimono, kimono, kimono. Ah! Kimono is come from the Greek word kimona, which is mean winter. What do you wear in the winter? A robe! So, there you go!"

If you are claiming responsibility for that pathetic attempt to find contradictions yourself personally, then I'm even more disappointed.


Quote:

2:132  The same did Abraham enjoin upon his sons, and also Jacob, (saying): O my sons! Lo! Allah hath chosen for you the (true) religion; therefore die not save as men who have surrendered (unto Him).

How on earth could you have misread this to mean the first believer?

Your lame attempt to compare this to someone using false cognates to prove a link between words doesn't cover up the fact that your so called contradictions are absolute nonsense. Nice try but.

Back to the drawing board Coyote.

Abu says;
"I'm the kind of person who will waste my time sincerely answering from my own knowledge"

Well that I assume would necessitate the use of a crayon, and the back of a postage stamp. ;D

Seriously Abu, your self proclaimed knowledge is merely the regurgitation of dogma passed on to you from the most dubious of all sources, religious bigots.
Original thought is exceedingly rare, you have displayed none, in any of the responses from you that I have read, so do not confuse rephrasing irrational arguments that impress you, with actual thought.

I sincerely proclaim that I did not consult any other resource than the Qur'an itself when answering those ridiculous claims. Believe or not, it's no loss to me.

abu_rashid wrote on Jul 5^th, 2008 at 1:24pm:

I sincerely proclaim that I did not consult any other resource than the Qur'an itself when answering those ridiculous claims. Believe or not, it's no loss to me.

Abu Rashid,

I'm not doubting your understanding of Islam. In fact there are inconsistencies in all the Holy books - many more in the Bible as I stated earlier. Even Malik made references to some of them earlier when he talked about vaguely worded passages versus more strongly worded passages, and he was quite correct.

However, it's not crucial. It's just a point I made in passing. You misjudge me if you think I'm one of the typical critics of Islam. I've worked with Muslims in many different countries and I count them as my friends. As I said in another thread, I have even sent Eid cards to some of them.  

So let's drop the subject if it's offensive to you. I have no wish to cause offense.