British Expatriate Network

I was just reading the.....err.... previous thread thread, not the one with women's genitalia wink but the one which had a reference to the Bible.

Now, as you might know I'm not a Christian but I have a question which kind of follows on a line of reasoning of JohnA......
As you know there's the Old Testament and the New Testament now after reading that earlier thread do christians just follow the New testament or all of it? What with all the shenanigans with the Ten Commandments and this court stuff going on i just thought I'd ask?

Incidentally.... Did anyone see the canadian current affairs TV programme The Fifth Estate on CBC last night about Benny Hinn? o

Not being the church going type either, so opening the door to get hammered myself as did John. As I have always seen and heard it, all these christian religions have come about by them reading exactly what they want to hear out of any format of the bible. If either version came with a list of contents and index we would not have all the problems we have in the world. How exactly can there be so many interpretations of the same thing, after all they even rewrote the damn thing and gave it a New Testament.

Appears to me at least those who read the Koran understand it has one version and all translatons are considered as such. Even thou each reader can find a meaning that relates to themselves, all these texts have one thing in common and that is spread the word. Now if there is only one god why would he have more than one guide book to devide his subjects is beyond me.

I made a statement that a eye for a eye is taken from the bible ...A TRUE STATEMENT ,

Christians choose which part of the bible they follow and thats up to them ,but to tell me the old testament is not part of the bible ( THE BOOK ) is stupid and wrong .

Christians follow the new testament but quote and use the old when it suits them ,pick and choose

The point MADE is a good one.
if the religion doesnt follow the old testament part of the bible then why is the *ten commandments *so important to them ..but *eye for a eye * is not ???

Cant have it both ways , ill get hammered again but do i care NO ....bring it on
) ) )

Its a game that some play on here, if they cant win be rude call john names ( then pretend they didnt ) .or twist and change what i say to make a point .

Its sad but bordom brings out the worse in some folks .

Blimey JohnA have a beer with your medication,you're starting to sound paranoid. :wink:

Romans 8 clarifies a lot.

Christians don't pick and choose what parts of the Bible are relevent and what are not.

Of course there is relevence in the Old Testament - Jesus himself followed it, quoted it and used much of it in his teachings.

What has been superceded by Jesus' sacrifice on the cross are the Jewish laws of obedience and sacrifice - these are just not relevent in the Christian life. You can't work your way to salvation. Christianity is all about relationships, and this is less relevent to Jews, where their religious observence is much more self-focussed.

When you read the bible for guidance, you don't just look for some little sound-bite that meets your objectives. First of all, you have to read it prayerfully, and more often than not, this will lead you to a clear passage. You also have to read it in light of the nature of God and what he wants for us - it's unlikely that revenge is going to be the right answer. If you don't believe in it, you are unlikely to find the answers you seek.

You think somebody should pass me that joint we have been talking about ANNE ? :wink: :D :)

Amerscot thats all well and good .but with respect we are getting away from the point of what all the pisstaking and rudeness was about .

I just made a statement that *a eye for a eye * was in the bible thats all A brief true statement .
As usuall the prima donnas come on here and make it something that it wasnt .

enough of this B/S

I'm not even sure where all this came about as I usually just tune out if a thread gets nasty and name calling, but, just in case any one cares, John is of course right that the lex talionis is part of the Old Testament, but it is also useful to note that Christ's view on the whole thing was a bit more analytical and critical of taking the rule purely on face value.

Matthew 538 – 42

“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away.”

Not quite the same is it.

Not trying to push a point here, by the way. I’m not a Christian and I do think that there are HUGE inconsistencies in the Bible and I detest the way some Christians use the Bible to support their own petty little agendas. But, it is “some” Christians, not all (okay, lots, in Texas). And it’s not quite as simple an issue as it might first appear. Although, when is anything?

Big smiles. Play nice, folks.

What is your point, John?

The whole thing with the bible is that it is selective.

It isn't one book but a selection of 'books' or writings, much written many many years after the events they record at a time when history was mostly oral.

Of course those writing the 'books' had agendas, much as many of those reading them do today and these will have influenced what they wrote. As such the Bible is a wholly unreliable historical text.

It is also worth keeping in mind that somewhere along the line someone played editor, looking through many writings and deciding which were included and which were excluded. (there are apparently a few missing books). This process happened even further after the event and with its own agenda.

Beyond that, the books were translated, repeatedly, and - you guessed, time and prejudice influenced those too.

All told the Bible is really little more than a collection of myth, legends and political propaganda.

Separately, I was listening to something on NPR within the past couple of weeks. (I wasn't paying full attention as I was driving in snow and thus my radio litening was somewhat distracted by the elements). However they wre discussing some study or other that had interviewed kids in America on Bible knowledge. The findings showed that a lot of kids who are supposedly in Christian educations actually have a very patchy and partial knowledge of the Bible. The problem being that the various christian fundamentalist groups teach the bible according to their agendas and thus play up some parts and ignore incovenient bits.

The funniest part was at the end when they described how one girl nearly got lynched by her peers when she told the class she had heard from a non-believer that Jesus wasn't even a Christian but a Jew :lol:

Such people are hopefully rare and not representative of mainstream christians, but clearly the evolution of the Bible continues.

roll

:roll: now go back and read what you ACTUALLY put, John.

and grow up - you are acting like a child. If you take a step back and a deep breath you may just have the chance to live long enough to read what Ameriscot and TexasBrit pointed you to. :)

HERE IT IS IN ITS FULL UNABRIDGED VERSION for you that cant READ ??perhaps you will learn to comprehend a sentence when you get a more open mind

quote by me on previuos post

You should believe in the *eye for a eye * argument ,after all it comes from one of your favourite books the bable .

end of quote


You need to not be so irritable when a satement about your faith is posted .,you got you nose bloody . if you dont like the heat stay out of the fucking kitchen .

I DONT BELIEVE ameriscot and Tex brit are disagreeing with me just pointing out the significent of the old testament in the christian faith and in fact my statement was correct * see tex brit post first peragraph*

A point you cant seem to comprehend

exactly, you were directing that I should believe - and no one told you it wasn't in the Bible but only in the Old Testament. why should I believe in this statement when, as has been pointed out to you already, that is part of the old teachings and not Christianity. :roll:

There is no way I'm going to lose any breath over trying to explain something to you further than that point because you never listen, as you have just proven here. You think you are the expert on Christians and Christianity and yet you insist on telling Christians what they should believe in.

You are getting yourself all worked up over this like a child having a tantrum. For some reason you feel that I am the one being irritable when all I have done is put you right and said it might be better for your health to not act so childishly. Afterall, you may find the Pope actually out lives you :wink:

p.s. I await the apology which I know will not be forth coming but I can live in hope :)

exactly, you were directing that I should believe - and no one told you it wasn't in the Bible but only in the Old Testament. why should I believe in this statement when, as has been pointed out to you already, that is part of the old teachings and not Christianity. :roll:

[/quote]

OK, question here from someone who is or was Cof E a long time ago, not lapsed, just forget where i left it, but are you saying Ben that Christians no longer use the Old testament, and if so does this make you a Born again Christian. I'm not stirring , really, just kind of astonished. Although i no longer attend church one of my best friends is a vicar, over here he's called a priest(?) and he uses both, mind, he's always been a bit of a stick in the mud. Hated the idea of women in the church and such, hence his journey to California.
I'm in a fog about this. When I attended various churches, CofE, baptist, Wesleyians, Mehodist, even RC, we always used both the old and new testaments. Have things changed so radically that now Christ is worshipped but his father's teachings forgotten?