How much is too much?

[.Ted]

I have seen a LOT of people, not necessarily here though, that are way into the Old Testament. And I understand. After all, it has the Ten Commandments and very interesting stories. But I've seen when people take it too far. This is mostly my gripes, and feel free to post yours too. Debate is encouraged, too.

One example is people's problem with gays/lesbians/bisexuals. Okay, it is written that a homosexual should be put to death or something similar. But since God apparently hates the sin (and keep in mind, ONLY the sin), certain people choose to hate the sinners. We're all sinners. Why hate people's choices, too?

And that's just one example. People are way too much into the Old Testament, it looks like they prefer it over the New one. One of my former teachers actually wants his ex-wife executed because she committed adultery. Adultery cases happen often, but he was dead serious about this.

And finally, I just want to make it clear. The Old Testament, specifically books like Leviticus and Deuteronomy, were created for ancient and modern day Israel. When the Israelites escaped Egypt, they needed laws lest they became corrupt. Even if they were extreme. God wanted to see how devout they were. Basically, the Jews follow the laws of the Old Testament, and Christians and Jews are different in many ways.

So there you have it. Don't criticize the U.S. government for what they're currently doing. If you don't like the laws in this great country, go live in Israel. I appreciate your zeal, but remember. This is a different time. God needed to be extreme when He let His people out of Egypt or they woudn't have listened.

BTW, I'm not putting down the Old testament or anything. I'm just saying we have to focus more on the teachings of the New Testament. There are things in the Old Testament that are welcome in the New one, but note that not everything in the Old Testament is in the New Testament. one more reason some Jews hated Jesus was because they felt threatened and believed Jesus was changing their laws.

 

[der Astronom]

This is precisely the reason why I dislike the concept of a singular, "central" doctrine in Christianity. You have to pick and choose which parts of the bible are moral, and which ones aren't--by what standards are you doing that? Who or what inspired the moral standards that we have today in the western world? Where is the criteria by which you decide that the Old Testament is not moral, and therefore, not appropriate for those living in America? If it's not moral, why is it still part of the bible?

Why not simply admit that there are better ideologies and philosophies to go by, which as a whole, function better with fewer contradictions and wierd stuff that needs to be weeded out, or even to suggest to people to make use of their experiences and reflections? There is no easy way of determining morality, and I don't encourage the idea of looking for "answers" in a singular book, which probably don't exist anyways, or aren't particularly useful.

 

[.Ted]

You make some good points.

I really can't explain everything, since I'm no expert. But I know, if the stories are indeed real, God made those laws solely -- I can't stress that word enough -- for the Israelites, thousands of years B.C. Meaning there were no Americans, no Canadians, no Europeans (perhaps except the Romans)....well, you get what I'm saying.

Much of the Old Testament, if not all of it, came from Judaism. The "extreme" laws and stories we find in the Old Testament -- again, if the stories are real, as some believe it's nothing but stories -- were made as the Israelites were wandering in the desert. Like today's religions, beliefs, etc., not everyone believed in what God had planned for them. Some complained, some didn't believe. And there was always the "danger" of worshipping something else in the surrounding nations.

There was no choice but to be extreme with the people, as God didn't want His nation to become corrupt at that time. That would explain the laws and the stories found in the Old Testament, if they are true.

Sorry if I rambled on, but back to the topic. The Bible really came from the Catholic Church (or so I hear). Catholics take a different approach when it comes to the Old Testament. Like the following metaphor. The Old Testament is like a maid who brings a kid to school. Once the kid makes it to school safely, it's not the maid's problem anymore.

It's really a shame on how many people want to interpret the Old Testament. The Jews are an exception in my mind, since they had it in the first place. It does contain interesting stuff (from a Christian point of view, at least). But once someone is alone with their Bible and feel whatever theory they come up with is accurate and believe everyone else is wrong, they feel they have to "save" everyone else by any means necessary.

I don't think it's necessary to follow the Old Testament to the extreme. Look what it's done. That's why many gays and lesbians are so against religion. They don't feel like the way they are won't be accepted. Like they don't get enough of that from society.

And let me say one more thing, in case an anti-Catholic is reading this. As I mentioned, it is believed the Bible came from the Catholic Church, as no other form of Christianity existed during the first millenium A.D. (1-1000). The fact many people accept the Bible but hate the Church is like this metaphor. It's like someone loving the coconut but shows lack of appreciation for the tree. Or like loving fast food but hating the restaurant. You get what I'm saying.

To my dear Atheist friends: Sorry if what I explained in this post is almost entirely biblical, but I don't think I could explain it some other way.

 

[der Astronom]

I'm actually more concerned at the fact that people still use the bible as some source of morality, despite the fact that it's got more holes poked into it than a block of swiss cheese does. Is that not indication that there is, in fact, better and more interesting philosophies and moralities out there, which as a whole, function better than the bible does? Would you not prefer a morality where you are told killing is wrong in general cases than one where you are told killing is wrong and killing people because some higher up told you to is okay?
Why not just ditch the Old Testament entirely, and nevermind the fact that the New Testament has Revelations, which means god is still judging you, and his love isn't unconditional, and find a more modern set of morals that jive better with modern society and your personal lifestyle better? I mean, something told you there was something wrong with the Old Testament, and that's why you're not following it. Something told you there was something wrong with discriminating against gays, and people of other religions and thinking of them as being evil, even if the bible might say they are--whatever was it?

If you still believe the bible holds some sort of significance in your life, by all means, you are entitled to it. But I generally don't see a particularly good reason to cling on to books for morality; especially ones that are obsolete for nearly 2000 years and don't really reflect modern morality so well anymore.

 

[.Ted]

I mean, something told you there was something wrong with the Old Testament, and that's why you're not following it. Something told you there was something wrong with discriminating against gays, and people of other religions and thinking of them as being evil, even if the bible might say they are--whatever was it?

Best answer I can come up with: my conscience. If the Bible doesn't answer something that bothers me, I just follow my conscience. If I think it's right, I belive it's right. I don't follow the Old Testament entirely, but I follow what seems right.

I believe we're born to pursue our beliefs, especially if we take our time searching. We all choose different paths as we grow and mature. You chose your own path not just because of the so-called "Christians'" bad examples, but also because your choice seems more logical in your mind. If that wasn't the case, you'd just believe what any fool would tell you.

As for me, I'm sticking to Catholicism. The reason is because I did my research in Christianity, and to me Catholicism is the logical choice. If someone were to challenge my beliefs, I wouldn't turn my eye the other way. No. I'd stand my ground and fight. Whatever anyone's beliefs are, they are worth fighting for. If they ever took away freedom of choice and made it illegal, then they can just toss me in jail.

But keep in mind, I still believe we should all take the time in our search. We can't just take someone's word for something. We have to find out if that person is telling the truth or just stating a theory.

 

[der Astronom]

Then would you say your conscience does a better job of determining what's good for you and what isn't than the bible does? I mean there's just so much you have to ignore to get some meaning out of it. I don't think it's any different from admitting that your conscience determines for you what's right and what's wrong, and therefore, what's moral. Did you really need to say you were Catholic to have the same effect?

Or perhaps here's something that might be taken into consideration--what if the Catholicism as you know it changes and becomes something else you don't like? Or what if something happens in the news that makes you realize that the Catholicism everyone believes in is different from what you thought it was?

For example, I heard that certain priests (don't know for certain if they are catholic or not) are still not being punished for child abuse or molestation; in fact, they are being supported in it. If you found out something like this happened in your religion, would you still consider it necessary to call yourself a Catholic, even if your conscience mostly decides for you what is right and wrong?

 

[FinalHeart]

I'm Catholic, but I don't take the Bible literally. I take it for it's supposed to be, moral guidelines on how to live your life. Even then, I have to pick and choose what morals I agree with based upon my morals. For example, the Ten Commandments are great rules to live by, if you ask me. However, once we get into the anti-homosexual and anti-shellfish things, I really don't see the point.

Then there's the people who use the Bible as a reason to do pretty much whatever they need to, only picking and choosing the parts they want. This is especially prevalent in politics. For example, the anti - Gay marriage "movement". There seem to be two main reasons people are against gay marriage (excluding homophobia, which actually originates from religion in the first place): the Bible says its wrong and that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. Both of these things come from modern religion. After all, people such as the Greeks didn't even have sexual orientations. Whoever you loved, you loved, and no one questioned it. Once the religions of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam started spreading, this was changed. Starting to go off track, but basically people are using religion as an excuse for political policies. Which is unconstitutional, obviously.

At the same time, we can't get rid of religion. That'll never happen. No matter how scientific future civilizations will be, people always need something to believe in, to look forward to in the afterlife. If there's nothing to look forward to, people will start to lose hope. Religion has its place in the world, even if it does cause its fair share of problems.

 

[.Ted]

Or perhaps here's something that might be taken into consideration--what if the Catholicism as you know it changes and becomes something else you don't like? Or what if something happens in the news that makes you realize that the Catholicism everyone believes in is different from what you thought it was?

Catholicism has never changed ever since it came to existence. New things are added to it, but that's about it. Since it survived a bit more than two millennia without any actual changes, I really don't think it will change now. It survived this long, while other Christian sects -- usually founded after Martin Luther died -- just come and go.

For example, I heard that certain priests (don't know for certain if they are catholic or not) are still not being punished for child abuse or molestation; in fact, they are being supported in it. If you found out something like this happened in your religion, would you still consider it necessary to call yourself a Catholic, even if your conscience mostly decides for you what is right and wrong?

I can't say anything in their defense. And I really believe they should be punished by those actions. There's always bad in what's supposed to be good, and vice versa. Sadly, by the way things are looking, Catholicism is no exception.

I'd still call myself a Catholic, though. Maybe that kind of behavior is not discouraged, but I don't think it's encouraged either. After all, not all priests are doing it. Or at least I hope they aren't. The Bible forbids many kinds of things, including incest, rape, murder, etc. I think abuse is in there somewhere but I'd have to check.

But yeah, you make good points. But this is America, after all (at least I think everyone here is from America, sorry if you're not). Corruption can always slip through the cracks, and what can be done about it?

 

[der Astronom]

I'm Catholic, but I don't take the Bible literally. I take it for it's supposed to be, moral guidelines on how to live your life. Even then, I have to pick and choose what morals I agree with based upon my morals. For example, the Ten Commandments are great rules to live by, if you ask me. However, once we get into the anti-homosexual and anti-shellfish things, I really don't see the point.

If you can pick and choose and live life how you wish, is there a reason why you need the bible then?

Then there's the people who use the Bible as a reason to do pretty much whatever they need to, only picking and choosing the parts they want. This is especially prevalent in politics. For example, the anti - Gay marriage "movement". There seem to be two main reasons people are against gay marriage (excluding homophobia, which actually originates from religion in the first place): the Bible says its wrong and that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. Both of these things come from modern religion. After all, people such as the Greeks didn't even have sexual orientations. Whoever you loved, you loved, and no one questioned it. Once the religions of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam started spreading, this was changed. Starting to go off track, but basically people are using religion as an excuse for political policies. Which is unconstitutional, obviously.

The problem is that the converse is true too; if people using the bible to support their views against gay marriage are wrong, by the principle that they are using an authoritative book to support a subjective view, then is it not possible for your views to be wrong, simply because you are using a book to support morals you believe to be good? It's not any better than admitting that you believe certain things to be good or bad, merely because they are your opinions, and you chose to believe them, and not necessarily because some book said so.

I think there are people who are more secularist than they think they really are. They call themselves Christian, Catholic or whatever, but in the end, they all adhere to the principles of secularism. They just won't admit to other people that they are secularists, either because they're unaware of it or because they fear the social implications, or because they simply just believe in god.

At the same time, we can't get rid of religion. That'll never happen. No matter how scientific future civilizations will be, people always need something to believe in, to look forward to in the afterlife. If there's nothing to look forward to, people will start to lose hope. Religion has its place in the world, even if it does cause its fair share of problems.

It is not necessary for a man to have religion in order to have hope. There are lots of other things a man can look forward to in life--it doesn't have to be religion. Some people will continue using it, and others realize that there is life out there without religion.

Catholicism has never changed ever since it came to existence. New things are added to it, but that's about it. Since it survived a bit more than two millennia without any actual changes, I really don't think it will change now. It survived this long, while other Christian sects -- usually founded after Martin Luther died -- just come and go.

What if you fundamentally disagree with the new things that get added to it?

But yeah, you make good points. But this is America, after all (at least I think everyone here is from America, sorry if you're not). Corruption can always slip through the cracks, and what can be done about it?

Nothing, apparently. At least not directly. But you can choose to stop calling yourself a Catholic if it comes to the point where the corruption is no longer a lesser part of your religion anymore than it is a part of any large organization, and you don't want to have anymore to do with such people.

It's like this I guess. If a man agrees with the basic principles of a group, he finds it is acceptable to join the said group. But if these principles are changed to the point where he no longer agrees with some of the principles, and they no longer resemble (or only somewhat, I guess) what he believes, or his principles change, he finds it necessary to leave the group. It would be the same as if he never joined to begin with. A man does not consider it worth his time to join a group for which only some principles are ones he agrees with.

 

[.Ted]

What if you fundamentally disagree with the new things that get added to it?

I still wouldn't leave. Yes, it may sound crazy to a lot of people. But some of the new things aren't so bad. About a year or so ago, they added something about not littering. It's simple, and prevents Sloth (which is a major sin, at least to us). I can live with some things, like no birth control. Perhaps eventually I'll find something that I won't like, but that doesn't mean I'll renounce the Catholic faith. I hated school when things got tough, but I didn't quit. I hate corruption of any kind, but it's not like I can make a difference. I'm probably going to hate my next job, but that's not a good reason to quit. Whatever law the U.S. government passes, it's either obedience and guaranteed freedom or breaking that law to show how much I disagree and risk time in prison.

Perhaps, in many eyes, I'm wasting my time, nay, my life for the Catholic Church. But I personally agree with many of its beliefs, and I'm not just blindly following it. I'm not using my time for anything else, but I'm always open to many ideas, theories, and philosophies because, after all, the Bible leaves so many questions unanswered.

Nothing, apparently. At least not directly. But you can choose to stop calling yourself a Catholic if it comes to the point where the corruption is no longer a lesser part of your religion anymore than it is a part of any large organization, and you don't want to have anymore to do with such people.

Agreed. I can choose that, and probably would if Catholicism becomes entirely corrupt. Long ago, corruption could in fact be found in Catholicism. Normally a priest would hear confessions and forgive that person's sins if that person truly repents. But back then -- around the 15th or 16th Century -- many of them would charge a fee to do that, more like a bribe. That, of course, was wrong. And that was just one example of how corrupt Catholicism once was. But it wasn't the principles themselves that corrupted the Church, but rather the people, most of them doing something different than what's supposed to be done.

Martin Luther, a Catholic himself, didn't agree with what was going on, so he founded new beliefs and whatnot. He was excommunicated for his actions, but sadly many people renounced the Catholic faith because of how corrupt it was. And thus many Christian sects were born, and today we know them as part of Protestantism.

Today, things are different from back then. Catholicism learned from that mistake, and you definitely won't find as much corruption as it had back then. The Reformation (if that's the name; I forget what the name was) was part of history, and history never lies.

It's like this I guess. If a man agrees with the basic principles of a group, he finds it is acceptable to join the said group. But if these principles are changed to the point where he no longer agrees with some of the principles, and they no longer resemble (or only somewhat, I guess) what he believes, or his principles change, he finds it necessary to leave the group. It would be the same as if he never joined to begin with. A man does not consider it worth his time to join a group for which only some principles are ones he agrees with.

I just have to agree. If Catholicism ever rejects the Trinity, or rejects the idea of loving our neighbor (which I define as our fellow man), or even rejects any of the teachings Christ taught, I'd walk out and leave. Perhaps not immediately, since I'm as devout as I can be. That, and I'm not good with hasty decisions.

Funny how this went from the extremities of the Old Testament to the principles of Catholicism.