reply to post by rick1
I'm probably gunna get kicked around for this, but here goes anyway.
I term myself an agnostic. (Neither a believer or not), though I do believe I am a basically good, law abiding person, with (for want of a better
expression) Christian Principles.
First, I think if you read the Ten Commandments, you will find the translation says "Thou shalt not murder" (as opposed to "kill").
While we're on the subject of translation and interpretation, let's chuck something interesting into the mix.
It is generally agreed "The New Testament" wasn't begun to be transcribed until many years after the crucifixion (some say 20 years, some say 40).
Surely there is a fair margin for error in the truth of the thing if it is written so long after an event. (doubt it? - look at our own portrails of
WWII - some fact - plenty of fantasy - some heroism - some cover-ups)
Also, it is commonly agreed that the Lord said words to the effect that there will be false prophets.
Let's just suppose that those who wrote (or had a hand in writing) the New Testament were of that persuasion (false prophets, or forces of evil if
you prefer) and the "Old Testament" may just have been dictated by God.
Consider this: The Ten Commandments were so important, they were written in stone and later (apparently) placed inside the 'Arc of the Covenant'.
Then Christ comes along. He is born a Jew and he dies a Jew. Much later after his death, bucket loads are written about him and a new religion is
The basis of this says that the old stuff (laws) no longer exist because Christ died for our sins and it's all out the window and there's a new set
The first set were so important, they were written in stone (the hardest material at the time) and jealously guarded. The new set of 'rules' has no
such honour. Wouldn't you think that if the first set of rules was that important and there were changes, they would have been written down in some
similarly tough material and guarded equally well? If we make contracts today and they are varied, we make new contracts. Wouldn't you think the
same might apply back then? This was the first basic contract (is you like) between God and the people.
I'm not saying this is right or wrong, I just question a few things.
First, the first Commandment - "Though shalt have no other Gods before me". NOT EXCEPT - Jesus, or Mary, or the Holy spirit. Are they "No other
Gods?" - Could there be bigger forces behind it? Just a question that's all.
Next "Thou shall not worship any graven image" NOT EXCEPT THE CROSS. and when you think about it, what is the symbol (or image) of Christianity -
the cross. What was the symbol on the Old Testament before the Cross? I don't think there was any (could be wrong) but it's intersting food for
thought and what do many Christians do when they walk into a church? Answer - kneel before the cross - interesting ain't it.
And how about "Though shalt observe the Sabbath (Sunset Friday to Sunset Saturday) That wasn't changed for years - even after the New Testament. But
it was till changed using the same excuse (Because Christ Died on the cross it allowed us to change the rules) - Just food for thought that's all.
Not saying I'm right or wrong - just posing a point of view. Let's suppose forces of evil (the devil) exist/s. What better way to turn the tide.
If you can't beat 'em - join 'em and slowly change it from within.
If you must bash someone - go ahead and bash me. As I said earlier, I post this not as something which is to be taken as right or wrong, just as
questions for consideration of enquiring minds.