Ok abominators this is for you.

That's exactly it suebee, it's all about cultural relativity.

It bugs me that folks quote old testament scripture when infact God sent us Jesus and a New Covenant/Testament to supercede the Old Covenant/Testament.

oops! too late to edit my previous post.

Of course the Old Covenant/Testament of the Christian Bible is based on the Hebrew Bible and therefore stands on it's own in Judaism. Laura Schlesinger is coming from an Orthodox Jewish position so of course wouldn't be quoting the New Covenant/Testament. Just to clarify that I wasn't being "bugged" by Judaism.

I do love Prof. Kauffman's response.

[Apocalipstic]

It does seem ironic that Evangelicals who claim to believe that the New Testament "was sent" as a new Covenant with Jesus and superceeds Old Testament, use the Old Testament as an excuse for bad, bigoted and homophobic behavior....to mention just a few things.

It makes ZERO logical sense.

Like how can you love your neighbor as yourself and turn the other cheek andf also believe in an eye for an eye.

Or be against abortion no matter what and FOR the death penalty. Zero logic.

My father said I was an abomination back when I was 21, it sounds funny to say, but if I really think about it, it seems pretty heavy and maybe a drop strong.

What about "thou shalt not judge"? calling someone an abomination seems pretty judgemental to me.

Originally Posted by apocalipstic

It does seem ironic that Evangelicals who claim to believe that the New Testament "was sent" as a new Covenant with Jesus and superceeds Old Testament, use the Old Testament as an excuse for bad, bigoted and homophobic behavior....to mention just a few things.

It makes ZERO logical sense.

Like how can you love your neighbor as yourself and turn the other cheek andf also believe in an eye for an eye.

Or be against abortion no matter what and FOR the death penalty. Zero logic.

My father said I was an abomination back when I was 21, it sounds funny to say, but if I really think about it, it seems pretty heavy and maybe a drop strong.

What about "thou shalt not judge"? calling someone an abomination seems pretty judgemental to me.

I have always been very careful NOT to use the Old Testament/Covenant in any theological debates - on those very rare occasions I put my head above the theological parapet. Although sadly my church managed such hypocrisy and used that Leviticus quote when it decided I couldn't lead a music group because despite living celibately I did live with a woman and therefore was "giving the impression of sin!". It irritates me immensely, for as you say, there is no logic at all in believing the New Covenant supecedes the old one and then using the old one to justify your actions.

[Apocalipstic]

Originally Posted by Incubus

I have always been very careful NOT to use the Old Testament/Covenant in any theological debates - on those very rare occasions I put my head above the theological parapet. Although sadly my church managed such hypocrisy and used that Leviticus quote when it decided I couldn't lead a music group because despite living celibately I did live with a woman and therefore was "giving the impression of sin!". It irritates me immensely, for as you say, there is no logic at all in believing the New Covenant supecedes the old one and then using the old one to justify your actions.

We were told in Sunday School not to even sip water at parties so we would not give the impression we were "drinking".

[waxnrope]

Current teaching among many liberation theologians (including many feminists ... see Luise schottrof, for example) is that using "Old" and "New" is antiJudaistic, and the preferred terms are Hebrew and Greek Bible, or First and Second Testament.

[Apocalipstic]

Originally Posted by waxnrope

Current teaching among many liberation theologians (including many feminists ... see Luise schottrof, for example) is that using "Old" and "New" is antiJudaistic, and the preferred terms are Hebrew and Greek Bible, or First and Second Testament.

It has been a long time since I have hung out at church . but I can see your point! Thank you.

I may have to go with First and Second Testament, since the Testaments were not all originally written in Hebrew and Greek...and I strive for logic...not that I usually find it. Grin.

[WolfyOne]

Originally Posted by Incubus

That's exactly it suebee, it's all about cultural relativity.

It bugs me that folks quote old testament scripture when in fact God sent us Jesus and a New Covenant/Testament to supercede the Old Covenant/Testament.

Being Jewish, I don't think the new testament supercedes the old. I'm not religious in a practicing way, but I think there are a few religions that don't see it as superceding.

I think Dr Laura is full of crap and can read into the bible any way it suits her needs. She can only speak from her me place not mine, thank goodness. In fact, we have a bible here from 1951 and when looking at new ones and it at the same time, the wording has changed from bookmaker to bookmaker.

[Apocalipstic]

Originally Posted by waxnrope

Current teaching among many liberation theologians (including many feminists ... see Luise schottrof, for example) is that using "Old" and "New" is antiJudaistic, and the preferred terms are Hebrew and Greek Bible, or First and Second Testament.

I must admit to having a good giggle this morning fondly remembering having dropped 2nd Testament three times and finally making an F in it because I could not stomach the class at Baptist college.

Originally Posted by WolfyOne

Being Jewish, I don't think the new testament supercedes the old. I'm not religious in a practicing way, but I think there are a few religions that don't see it as superceding.

I think Dr Laura is full of crap and can read into the bible any way it suits her needs. She can only speak from her me place not mine, thank goodness. In fact, we have a bible here from 1951 and when looking at new ones and it at the same time, the wording has changed from bookmaker to bookmaker.

I don't believe that any of the Bible can be taken literally thousands of years after it was written, yet people continue to use it as an explanation and excuse for REALLY bad behavior.

I mean, let's say one does believe in the Second Testament...then I have to question if they have actually read it, because I don't see Jesus running around calling people abominations.

The wording of the Bible changes all the time. Things were added in the Middle Ages because it was thought it sounded better, differences were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls...and honestly everyone translates from their own point of view....and you have translations of treanslations of translations going on. It is like a game of telephone.

[Apocalipstic]

I like abominable better than abomination!