This is taken from this multi faith website, http://www.interfaithdebate.com/, but since no ones replied, I'd like to ask the Christians on this forum. Can any one explain these quotes to me? I'm not 100% sure if they're in the bible, so forgive me if they aren't. The last two especially shocked me.
Sacrifices:
'"If the offering is a burnt offering from the flock, from either the sheep or the goats, he is to offer a male without defect. He is to slaughter it at the north side of the altar before the LORD, and Aaron's sons the priests shall sprinkle its blood against the altar on all sides. He is to cut it into pieces, and the priest shall arrange them, including the head and the fat, on the burning wood that is on the altar. He is to wash the inner parts and the legs with water, and the priest is to bring all of it and burn it on the altar. It is a burnt offering, an offering made by fire, an aroma pleasing to the LORD.
" 'If the offering to the LORD is a burnt offering of birds, he is to offer a dove or a young pigeon. The priest shall bring it to the altar, wring off the head and burn it on the altar; its blood shall be drained out on the side of the altar. He is to remove the crop with its contents and throw it to the east side of the altar, where the ashes are. He shall tear it open by the wings, not severing it completely, and then the priest shall burn it on the wood that is on the fire on the altar. It is a burnt offering, an offering made by fire, an aroma pleasing to the LORD." Leviticus 1:10-17
This is the first thing I found by opening the book of leviticus. It goes on like this for quite a few chapters.
Homosexuals:
"'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." Leviticus 20:13
Working on Sundays (sabbath):
"The LORD then gave these further instructions to Moses: 'Tell the people of Israel to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you forever. It helps you to remember that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. Yes, keep the Sabbath day, for it is holy. Anyone who desecrates it must die; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community. Work six days only, but the seventh day must be a day of total rest. I repeat: Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death." Exodus 31:12-15
The "cut the hand of a woman" thing:
"If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity." Deuteronomy 25:11-12
I may not be a Christian but I'm pretty sure that since nearly all of those quotes are verses from the Old Testament they would practically say that none of those decrees matter today since the New Testament pretty much canceled out anything laid out in the Old.
I didn't understand in general, I don't know an awful lot about the Christian holy book, and seeing those quotes shocked me. It was, in fact, quoted by an Atheist on that forum.
Anyway thanks for the answers to both of you. However, the Old Testament is part of the bible right, so surely Christians must follow it? I mean if part of the bible is some what false or however people view it, then surely that has a bad reflection over all?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to incite hate or attack Christianity, I would just like to know.
However, the Old Testament is part of the bible right, so surely Christians must follow it? I mean if part of the bible is some what false or ....
The old testament is a bit like a history of what went on before Christ.
There are also passages that purport to predict the coming of Christ. In my view, this is the main reason the old testament is included as a part of the bible.
The "Old" testament and "New" testament have those names for good reason.
The "Old" testament and "New" testament have those names for good reason.
-
I'm glad you mentioned this. It has been one of those christian terms that I never understood why, but who gave them the terms "old testament" and "new testament", and when did they get their names?
who decided that "old testament" is for history lessons only and none of its content applicable to all christians (presumably all of old testament content were followed by Jesus pbuh, right?) and when did this happen first time?
Thank you for your contribution to this thread, there just seems to be so many questions that keep us searching. I guess God had a great problem creating mankind, he hoped we would be kind to each other, and not sin.
I sense that the law was given to us in gradual ways, so that we might understand. The only command for Adam was not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge.
There were no laws between the times of Adam and Moses, so when Cain killed his brother Abel, he was not braking any law. There was not a law of thou shall not kill until Moses.
Laws condemn, and I sensed that God gave Adam and the generations to come, the knowledge of good and evil, but God did not give laws against doing evil.
I cannot pretend to understand how and why God gave us the laws in the way he did. Maybe he looked on the sins of the generations leading up to the time of Moses. Because of the evil that had happened, God gave what seems to be very harsh laws, in the hope that we might live in fear of the law, and God, and stop doing evil.
In the spirit of searching for a greater good law.
Eric
You will never look into the eyes of anyone who does not matter to God.
I didn't understand in general, I don't know an awful lot about the Christian holy book, and seeing those quotes shocked me. It was, in fact, quoted by an Atheist on that forum.
Anyway thanks for the answers to both of you. However, the Old Testament is part of the bible right, so surely Christians must follow it? I mean if part of the bible is some what false or however people view it, then surely that has a bad reflection over all?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to incite hate or attack Christianity, I would just like to know.
The Old Testament includes laws for Jews living under a Jewish state, and seeing as we are not Jews, these laws do not apply. The OT provides a fantastic mixture of worship, poetry, history, prophet stories and erotic literature that are revered by Christians, however we see the parts of the OT regarding Jewish law exactly as they are: that is, parts of the OT regarding Jewish law.
I'm still slightly confused, and I don't meant to offend anyone, but if parts of the bible are to be ignored and some to be followed, doesn't that kind of dilute the strength of the bible?
I don't know, if its not meant to be followed, why is it in the bible?
I'm still slightly confused, and I don't meant to offend anyone, but if parts of the bible are to be ignored and some to be followed, doesn't that kind of dilute the strength of the bible?
I don't know, if its not meant to be followed, why is it in the bible?
Thanks
None of the Bible is to be ignored. Understand! But different parts of it were written for different people. None of the Bible is ignored. The verses you quoted are by no means ignored, especially by Jews attempting to establish Jewish law.
I'm still slightly confused, and I don't meant to offend anyone, but if parts of the bible are to be ignored and some to be followed, doesn't that kind of dilute the strength of the bible?
I don't know, if its not meant to be followed, why is it in the bible?
Thanks
As a former Christian I may be able answer this:
Bible is a Greek word and means "Collection of Books" or library. There are many bibles not just ones with religious significance such as a "Mathematicians Bible" which is a collection of math books.
This poses no problem to Christians, as the Bible is not one book and is a compilation of books written over many thousands of years and by different authors. The books are typically collected into 2 parts, the OT and the NT.
The OT being the books written prior to the birth of Prophet Isa(as) and the NT after.
Jews follow the OT (or what Christians would call the OT) and Christians follow the NT. Many Christian bibles do contain both the OT and the NT, the OT being for historical reference and the NT being what a Christian should follow. Some Christian Bibles do not contain the OT and just have the NT.
So the point being, many Christians will say the books in the OT were written for specific people at specific times and were completed at their specific time.
We know that prior to the Qur'an there were other books revealed and were the word of Allaah(swt), the books being the Tauret, Zaboor and Injil. we have no need or concern of finding true unchanged copies of those books, because we know they were written for specific people at specific times. We know the Qur'an is the final and complete book written for all people of all times. We need not try to find the truth in the Tauret, Zaboor, and Injil and if we did find correct intact copies of either, it would be a moot point as the Qur'an is the completion.
Christians view the NT in the same way we see the Qur'an, in that they believe it is the final revelation and anything written before it was written for a specific purpose, for specific people at a specific time.
Bible is a Greek word and means "Collection of Books" or library. There are many bibles not just ones with religious significance such as a "Mathematicians Bible" which is a collection of math books.
This is not quite correct, the Greek word biblos or biblion meant a scroll of convenient size and derives from the word for papyrus or byblus or what the ancient world used to write on. Latin speaking Christians borrowed the word biblia meaning the whole collection of books OT and NT but treated it as a singular noun and from that we get the English word Bible.
Jews follow the OT (or what Christians would call the OT) and Christians follow the NT. Many Christian bibles do contain both the OT and the NT, the OT being for historical reference and the NT being what a Christian should follow. Some Christian Bibles do not contain the OT and just have the NT.
This is a little muddled, if Christians speak of the Bible they mean both OT and NT but it is possible to buy just a NT and this is done more for conveniences than any other reason as it is obviously relatively small. If Jew speaks of the Bible it is usual to say Hebrew Bible meaning of course just what Christians would call the OT. Jews know what OT means but would never themselves use that term.
It is however not true that the OT is just for historical reference and Christians accept the OT and NT in their entirety as the word of God. This is obviously true because the Bible for Jesus and early Christians was the OT. No Christian that I know or have even known would take any other view
We know that prior to the Qur'an there were other books revealed and were the word of Allaah(swt), the books being the Tauret, Zaboor and Injil. we have no need or concern of finding true unchanged copies of those books, because we know they were written for specific people at specific times
In what sense do you know this as either you accept that the Tauret, Zaboor and Injill correspond to the Biblical Torah (5 books of Moses), Injeel (Gospel), Zaboor (Book of Psalms) or you are talking about books that as far as we know no one has ever seen - please explain?
We know the Qur'an is the final and complete book written for all people of all times. We need not try to find the truth in the Tauret, Zaboor, and Injil and if we did find correct intact copies of either, it would be a moot point as the Qur'an is the completion.
christianity is a pagan religion catering to a pagan mass with some roots in Abrahamic faith.. if you look at it this way, you'll feel better about all the contradictions!
Just scribes who invent things as they go along!
peace
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
christianity is a pagan religion catering to a pagan mass with some roots in Abrahamic faith.. if you look at it this way, you'll feel better about all the contradictions!
Just scribes who invent things as they go along!
peace
I suppose every religion's 'pagan' other than Islam? Hey, I do love all these assertions you make, usually with 0% evidence. Perhaps it wouldn't hurt a little to research a topic before voicing your (generally invalid and erroneous) opinion. No...?
Ah well, don't worry. Just a thought. You don't have to take it to heart. What do I know, I'm only predicted 3 As in my A Levels and am applying for the UCL. It's not like I'm clever or anything...
christianity is a pagan religion catering to a pagan mass with some roots in Abrahamic faith.. if you look at it this way, you'll feel better about all the contradictions! Just scribes who invent things as they go along!
peace
If what you say is true I might say Islam is a religion that only exists because it demands blind obedience to a book that is full of manipulated texts, satanic revelations, lost or unretained texts with scores of interpolations. One example will do:
One wonders why the brief verse 57:17, devoted to divine omnipotence, has a place in a context devoted to hypocrites
Perhaps you would like to read "in Search of The Original Koran" by Mondher Sfar ISBN978 -1-59102-521-4
If you persist is stating what is patent nonsense and stay within the thread we might be able to look not at our differences but at our similarities.
I suppose every religion's 'pagan' other than Islam? Hey, I do love all these assertions you make, usually with 0% evidence. Perhaps it wouldn't hurt a little to research a topic before voicing your (generally invalid and erroneous) opinion. No...?
Ah well, don't worry. Just a thought. You don't have to take it to heart. What do I know, I'm only predicted 3 As in my A Levels and am applying for the UCL. It's not like I'm clever or anything...
I don't find you clever, just an average kid-- is your 'sarcasm' meant to denote that 'intelligent folks' subscribing to paganism sustains some veracity in it passages then be my guest.. It doesn't change the facts from our perspective, gods impregnating a woman and dying x 3 doesn't fare well with many by way of logic or by way of monotheism!
Naturally, every religion has a bit of truth in it, however Christianity by and large appears to be nothing but Greek mythology with a few different characters, taken down a few notches to appeal to the masses.
Br. Uthman, I thought I was very respectful, I am merely voicing my understanding of Christianity, can't a person do that without having it be perceived as an attack? Christians don't mind worshiping a dying man/god who forsake himself after a night of prayer to himself .. why should I have to bite my tongue from pointing out loud what their beliefs are if they have no problem with said beliefs themselves?
sob7an Allah
Last edited by جوري; 02-22-2010 at 10:48 PM.
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
If what you say is true I might say Islam is a religion that only exists because it demands blind obedience to a book that is full of manipulated texts, satanic revelations, lost or unretained texts with scores of interpolations. One example will do:
One wonders why the brief verse 57:17, devoted to divine omnipotence, has a place in a context devoted to hypocrites
Perhaps you would like to read "in Search of The Original Koran" by Mondher Sfar ISBN978 -1-59102-521-4
If you persist is stating what is patent nonsense and stay within the thread we might be able to look not at our differences but at our similarities.
I don't think you know patent nonsense if it slapped you in the face. I don't need to read books you subscribe to for your faith to be a teeny bit more attractive for the mere fact that you subscribe to a faith where prophets sleep with their daughters after warning folks of sins of the flesh, or gods that can't choose their apostles while alive, or makeup their mind as to their commandments is already a tale-telling sign of how much common sense you have in the subjects and beliefs you choose to subscribe.. Good luck with your books of stuff and nonsense availing you when push comes to shove!
all the best
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
In what sense do you know this as either you accept that the Tauret, Zaboor and Injill correspond to the Biblical Torah (5 books of Moses), Injeel (Gospel), Zaboor (Book of Psalms) or you are talking about books that as far as we know no one has ever seen - please explain?
You may be reading a little more into my statement then I intended. Quite simply I was stating we know Allaah(swt) has sent messages to all people. It is basically an assumption that some of these books would have been sent to the Jews and Christians. So essentially we accept that the books would have been the Tauret, Zaboor and Injil, as originally revealed. We have no accepted proof that what exists today is the same as what was originally sent. But, it is a moot point as The Tauret and Zaboor were specifically sent to the Jews for that era and the Injil was sent specifically to the Christians of that specific era.
format_quote Originally Posted by Hugo
How would you recognise them if these were found?
I wouldn't. But, even if I had some way of recognizing them, it would not be applicable as the message given in them was not for all people. Only the Qur'an is the final message and is applicable to all people.
I thought I was very respectful, I am merely voicing my understanding of Christianity, can't a person do that without having it be perceived as an attack? Christians don't mind worshiping a dying man/god who forsake himself after a night of prayer to himself .. why should I have to bite my tongue from pointing out loud what their beliefs are if they have no problem with said beliefs themselves?
Skye, while I may not be among them, there are many Christians who truly in their hearts believe that Islam is a pagan religion, and that Muhammad (pbuh) behaved in immoral ways. They have a variety of reasons. If they were to present them in a thread that was asking for Muslims to explain their faith without actually engaging the content of the questions being asked, would you see that as respectful or as simply contentious behavior?
I can respect that you do view Christianity as just an offshoot of paganism; each person is entitled to their own view of any religion. But I don't respect that you present that view as if it is sufficient in itself to answer the question being asked. That's what is disrespectful about your posting.
Your post, regarding the pagan nature of Christianity, has nothing to do with the actual issue being discussed with regard to how Christians make use of what is termed the Old Testament. Hence, though I trust you don't intend it this way, it comes across as little more than just one more verbal attack against Christianity and not at all an attempt to either understand it (which you have previously stated you have no desire to do) nor to deal with the issue in question. The result is that you produce tangents to the thread that lead to unproductive discussions of unrelated issues. That, IMO, is not just disrespectful to Christianity -- you're a Muslim, what do you care -- but also disrespectful to the individuals who are seriously searching for answers to their questions that get lost in the tangents your posts produce. And since most of thoe questions come from your fellow Muslims, can you see how you are actually disrepecting your own brothers and sisters in Islam?
I would love to talk about how Christians view the Tanakh, and the place it has in the Christian faith. Both it's use and its non-use. How it contains both ritual and ceremonial laws that Christians on the whole don't feel they are compelled to observe, and a moral law that Christians generally do feel is applicable to not only them but all persons. But you've moved us from that discussion to one of the origins of Christianity. And yet, you haven't said why it is a pagan religion. Only that in your view it is nothing more than Greek mythology. Now, I suspect this is because you completely misunderstand Paul's arguments that are steeped fully in the Torah, and anything but Greek in nature. But, if I take the time to respond to this tangent accusation you've made that Christianity is a pagan religion, then I'm likely to leave unaddressed the real issue about how Christians whether those passages that the OP cited are pertinent to the Christian? How we do understand them? In what way they might have been intially understood and if they are understood differently today, then how and why?
And, if you respect your fellow LI members and their posts, it is my hope you'll join us in that discussion rather than engage in ad hominem arguments against the Christian faith such as you did in your response to Hugo --"you subscribe to a faith where prophets sleep with their daughters" --, or unsubstantiated expressions of personal opinion such as you did in your response to Supreme -- "Christianity by and large appears to be nothing but Greek mythology."
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks