• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    246 months ago

    I thought the old testament was supposed to be irrelevant/null and void after Jeebus and the new new testament.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      27
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      But actually following Jesus’ teaching would be way too progressive. As far as I remember he was basically a hippie, advocating for love, helping each other out and the poor, and strongly against hate and capitalism. And he didn’t quite like the old traditions. So I think as a christian as of today you definitely need some counterbalance and some other book to point at to defend your conservatism, egoistcal behaviour and hate towards people who aren’t 100% like yourself.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      136 months ago

      Yeah but that doesn’t let us demonize minorities so we can radicalize the population into voting against their own interests for the benefit of the oligarchyyyyyy

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        16 months ago

        I hate when people do things like demonize minorities.

        Just the other day I saw a member of $ethnicgroup helping someone they hardly knew. If even a member of $ethnicgroup could do that how much better the rest of us should act.

        Another time this woman of $ethnicgroup came to someone and begged for their child’s life. That someone said they were only here for his group not people of $ethnicgroup. So the woman groveled at his feet and called herself $ethnicslur until the man agreed to help.

    • FlashMobOfOne
      link
      fedilink
      English
      96 months ago

      That only applies to the Old Testament passages that forbid usury, of course.

      I went through 18 years of being forced to go to church and never learned the word.

      Methinks that was purposeful.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      3
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Jesus: I came not to enforce the law, but to fulfill it.

      Paul: Well, what he AKSTUALLY meant is blah blah ceremonial law vs moral law blah blah sex is yucky, I mean sinful!

      I mean, it’s more complex than that, but Paul wrote like he understood the necessity of reproduction, but didn’t really comprehend what sexual urges actually feel like. He also wrote such long rambling sentences that he makes Charles Dickens look concise and clear.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        26 months ago

        Matthew was just trying to repair the damage to James, very likely.

        Paul: OT is gone except the parts I like

        James: OT is still there even oral parts drifting around it.

        A huge difference in how the religion should be practiced.

        Now if you were a writer 5 decades later and needed to redeem the image of James, while still showing that he was wrong, this could be a good way to do it. It wasn’t that James was super wrong, he just misunderstood something Jesus said at one point. Could happen to anyone.