| glassmountain:
stfuconservatives:
nextyearsgirl:
This is an enormous chain and I’m sorry, but I need to say this:
The laws in the Old Testament were set forth by god as the rules the Hebrews needed to follow in order to be righteous, to atone for the sin of Adam and Eve and to be able to get into Heaven. That is also why they were required to make sacrifices, because it was part of the appeasement for Original Sin.
According to Christian theology, when Jesus came from Heaven, it was for the express purpose of sacrificing himself on the cross so that our sins may be forgiven. His sacrifice was supposed to be the ultimate act that would free us from the former laws and regulations and allow us to enter Heaven by acting in his image. That is why he said “it is finished” when he died on the cross. That is why Christians don’t have to circumcise their sons (god’s covenant with Jacob), that is why they don’t have to perform animal sacrifice, or grow out their forelocks, or follow any of the other laws of Leviticus.
When you quote Leviticus as god’s law and say they are rules we must follow because they are what god or Jesus wants us to do, what you are really saying, as a Christian, is that Christ’s sacrifice on the cross was invalid. He died in vain because you believe we are still beholden to the old laws. That is what you, a self-professed good Christian, are saying to your god and his son, that their plan for your salvation wasn’t good enough for you.
So maybe actually read the thing before you start quoting it, because the implications of your actions go a lot deeper than you think.
/An atheist who understands Christian theology better than Bible-thumpers do.
^
(mic drop)
boom
Yes and no. The reason Christians generally don't celebrate Passover or otherwise sacrifice animals is indeed because Christ dying on the cross is supposed to be a sacrifice of infinite value, freeing everyone from the need to sacrifice.
But on the other hand, it is possible to observe the moral laws without being technically beholden to them, a distinction that you ignore in your treatment of theology. There are few theologians who will argue that being washed free of sin by accepting Christ means you can go out and murder, rape, steal, and so forth, which is where the assertion that Christians are totally free from the law logically leads. How exactly such actions affect a person is interpreted very differently by Calvinists, Lutherans, Catholics, etc., but they generally agree that it is still undesirable to behave in that way. The idea that there is no obligation to follow the moral laws laid out in the Old Testament has been discussed seriously for hundreds of years, and it did not wind up in mainstream Christianity: it is included on Wikipedia's list of Christian Heresies as Antinomianism.
Between the two extremes of "follow all the laws" and "follow none of the laws," there is a lot of argument in theological circles about the degree to which old laws should be followed. If you look at the example Jesus himself set, it basically boils down to the idea that the laws exist to help people, not harm them; he intervenes in the stoning of a woman to suggest that he who is without sin cast the first stone (nobody has the stones to be the one to start, so they wind up leaving her alone) and he heals others and allows disciples to pick and eat corn on the Sabbath (violating the rule about not working on the Sabbath.) The one time he really does enforce the rules is when he takes a whip and drives all the bankers (moneylenders) out of the Temple, because he gets angry that people are being exploited and shortchanged in what is supposed to be a holy place.
From what the Bible says about Jesus, I don't think he would countenance people who want to kill, imprison, or generally make life hell for gays (they are, after all, the modern equivalent of those who wanted to stone a woman for being a prostitute, rather than showing her sympathy) and I'd say that hate-mongering is probably the kind of stuff he has in mind when he says people will appropriate his name to say horrible things (interpreting scriptures to suit political causes is literally older than Christianity.) However, I'm not sure that the best counter to oversimplified religious extremism is another oversimplified argument, and a viewpoint identified with heresy. |
True
