NationStates Jolt Archive

So here's a religious question that actually has more relevance than most people would think: Which one carries more weight, the Old Testiment or the New Testiment? Which do you think should be followed more closely? And don't say both; it's impossible. Eye for an eye vs. turn the other cheek.

Markuk']So here's a religious question that actually has more relevance than most people would think: Which one carries more weight, the Old Testiment or the New Testiment? Which do you think should be followed more closely? And don't say both; it's impossible. Eye for an eye vs. turn the other cheek.
The New Testament is what most Christians would say, since Christ "came to fulfill the law" of the Old Testament.

The Baghavad Gitah. It has much cooler miracles.

Markuk']So here's a religious question that actually has more relevance than most people would think: Which one carries more weight, the Old Testiment or the New Testiment? Which do you think should be followed more closely? And don't say both; it's impossible. Eye for an eye vs. turn the other cheek.

a cheek for an eye?

That question has no relevance at all. The bible's supposed to be followed as a whole. Neither is more important than the other. So yeah, it is impossable. And i'm saying that because you saying don't just prooves how ignorint you are on the complexities of both that you can only hope to understand. As harsh as that sounds, it's true by you just started this up.

If you're a Jew and not a Christian, then the New Testament wouldn't have much value.

If you're a Christian, and you say the New Testament is more important, then you have a problem with demeaning God's word and you have problem with Jesus being the fulfillment of the law.

Now, are you suggesting that Christ did not exist prior to the New Testament times and that once Jesus was born the Old Testament became secondary? If so, then you have a problem with Jesus' quoting Old Testament well before the first New Testament book was written.

I think your question is .....(I edited out the word because it could have been considered flaming)...

and, you also have a problem with Christ being part of the Trinity.

I don't think you can find a single christian who follows the OT completely. It is nearly impossible in this day and age. That is why Christ came, to renew the spritual laws and change the social laws.

New testament... duh.

Markuk']So here's a religious question that actually has more relevance than most people would think: Which one carries more weight, the Old Testiment or the New Testiment? Which do you think should be followed more closely? And don't say both; it's impossible. Eye for an eye vs. turn the other cheek.actually it is possible. while some of the 'laws' of the first covenant were revoked by Jesus, others are still present. the thing is you read the Old to get the laws and the teachings and in the New you have which were "repealed" and what new ones are in place.

Turn the other cheek. Jesus came to spread that message, the message of the New Covenant. The Old Testament's laws are horrific if you really look at them and I find it sad that so many people still follow that eye for an eye rule. Personally I think Jesus, the man who said love thine enemy, would be dismayed at that. It also can't hurt to remember your Ghandi - An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind.

It also can't hurt to remember your Ghandi - An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind.actually the world would loose their depth perception... and for me, I would like my Dentist to have his Depth perception.

The New Testament is more relevant nowadays, simply because the Old Testament perception of God was probably colored by the barbarism of ancient times. It's clear to me that the God of the New Testament and Old seem very different - but God Himself says He doesn't change, so that must mean it was some external factor that caused the divide.

Further, I also find that some of the things Paul said seem skewed to me based on his surrounding society's view of women. However, if you look at how women were treated back then, Paul was actually ahead of his time in the things he said - he actually did look at women as the spiritual equivalent of a man.