Wargarden

I am curious as to what anyone(especially Protestants, Catholics, and Jews) considers to be the moral code found in the NT. And can you back it up? Where the O.T provides painstaking detail throughout Leviticus, Deutronomy, and Exodus on moral norms and practices(for a specific society, for all times), the NT Gospels provides you with "Love your neighbor," and "Blessed are the Blah Blah Blah", and "Love God above all,".

Are Paul's writings sufficent as to how to act when all the things he really talks about are who wears what hats, how long your hair can be, and how to practice faith and sacraments, none of which are even in the realm of moral/immoral action?

Also, the very troubling "set the old books on the shelf", or keep 'em. This is very unclear in Luke:

"The law and the prophets were until John [the Baptist]: since that time the kingdom of heaven is preached."
Luke 16:16
Clearly one should adhere to the New Covenant of the "Spiritual and Glorious-not the legal"(II Corinthians 3), since the passing of John the Baptist. Please clarify how one acting spiritually and glorious can be doing anything moral? And what does it mean to act in accordance with spirit and glory?

But wait,what if we are not to forget the old ways? Again Luke:
"It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail."
Luke 16:17

And Matthew:

"Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven."
Matt 5:18-19

What to do? Keep just the good ones? Nope, we get 10 big ones and and the first four have everything to do with faith and zero to do with moral action or consequence.

And lets not forget that Paul often disagreed with his eternal savior:
"Ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ .... We are delivered from the law, that being dead."
Rom 7:4,6

And,
"Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances."
Eph 2:15

I have often heard that the Bible can heklp make one moral if only one would believe it and follow it. Well, heres the chance to prove it. COnsidering all this,(and anything else that might be relavent) is there a consistent moral code of practical importance present in the NT?

That was alot longer than I thought it would be.
Later folks.

echidna

I still associate the NT with the first faltering steps towards secularism, that divinity can be associated with humanity, that Jesus was far less dictatorial than his OT predecessors.

In fact he is notorious for speaking in parables, less commonly answering questions directly, often simply responding with another question or an illustration. I well remember a sermon from Melbourne Uniting Church’s Father Francis McNabb saying that instead of the Church having “positions” on every damn issue, they should take a leaf from the NT & observe that what Jesus actually was doing was discussing complex issues rather than issuing simplistic commandments.

echidna

That said, there is also a lot of bickering between the various authors as they grapple with their own confusion.

luvluv

I'm thinking the Sermon on the Mount was the major ethical statement of Jesus.

That and the parable of the good samaritan, the parable of the sheep and the goats, and the parable of the prodigal son. Taken together they make a pretty clear moral outline. I also think that Jesus's life was supposed to be his primary moral lesson. He valued people and God over religious institutions, and established a kind of religious proletariatism (made-up word?) by which it was made clear that God cares as much about the poor as He does about anyone else (even though these sentiments about taking care of the poor are all over the prophetic books of the OT, Jesus maybe brought the idea back into prominence).

Wargarden

Greetings to the planet Lovetron from Earth. How's things going in your neck of the galaxy?

Thanks for the responce. Being one who believe's the dignity of humanity and its acommplishments are insulted and "laid-low" by attributing the things we come up with to some god, the Sermon on the Mount offers a little more refreshing viewpoint on morality in almost realistic terms. It's really what most people want to hear(speaking for "most people"), no killing, no anger for no reason, resolution of conflict quickly before it escallates out of control, give to those who need, and if someone steals something of yours give him all of it because he might really need it now, and all the really good stuff is waiting for you in Heaven.

And I think all these would be nice, though the last one seems to "pie-in-the-sky" for me. I'm working hard to change things in this life for the better, not for my ego, not for my own good feeling, and not for some eternal reward(bought with the blood of an innocent, if you believe it, and if you can live with yourself for it), but for the reward that innocencent blood may never need spilled, or so innocence may not suffer for any cause or reason(worldly or spiritual). And this idealism kept in check by knowledge that many persons do not keep this goal and actually (whether knowingly or unknowingly) work against such progress.

Matt 5:27-28 deliniates a great problem with helping to change the world for the better. "That
who so ever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath already committed adultery in his heart."
Seeing as how the really only pumps blood and is NOT a recording unit of a humans thoughts, one could say one had committed adultery in the mind. Now, we already have the burden of a not easily controled imagination, the control appears after the thought as one either commences to the action of the thought, or resists the urge to action(in any case good or bad). Would you really say someone is being good or helpful if they have the urge to create a new medicine that could save many ives, but never act on it? So how can you call someone bad who never acts on his bad impulses, if you can't call someone good who never acts on their good impulses?
Simply, intention plays no part in morality beyond that persons feeling of guilt or reward for ACTING on those impulses. Others judgement bears no weight on intention because other can only truly know the effect of one's action.

The things in people's heads, like gods and monsters, need to stay there until the actual effects are felt or seen, judgement should be reserved.

"...for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body be cast into Hell."(Matt5:29) If you can't control it, cut it off. Extreme prevention, but it works. But, there's no need for such extremes if people just can seperate their mind from their body and realize the mind controls the body. And if you can't, accept the consequences(good or bad). Not some consequence of Hell or Heaven, the consequence is NOW. Deal with it NOW insted of sluffing it off onto sometime PAST YOUR DEATH when you can do nothing about it(no matter what you believe).

I'll find some of the parable stuff and get back to ya. Sheep and goats = like a lamb to the slaughter, goats know better.

Appriciate the chance to talk. No hostility, just curiosity. Come visit Earth sometime, some of us are really trying to make real changes for the better of everyone, not just the pious.

dk

To understand the NT without the OT would be impossible, so this might lead some to find the NT confusing. First I think a person needs to remember the Bible records salvation history, not a secular history. The Jews (Israel tribes of Judah and Benjamin) have survived, grown and prospered for 3 thousand years under the Law of the OT. The Ancient Egyptians, Persians, Greeks, Romans and Macedonia with a higher culture and superior technology are unknown today except by archeological digs, relics and ruins. How a backward oppressed unsophisticated Israeli tribe from 3,000 years ago continues to prosper into the 3rd Millennium across Europe, North Africa, Russia, Middle East and North America preserved by the OT Law defies explanation, but remains a living testimony to the viability and reliability of OT Law. The underlying premises of OT Law and justice are simply covenants (blood oaths) and “an eye for eye”. If we could take 21st Century Orthodox Jews with Mr. Peabody’s Way Back Machine to the Davidic Kingdom they would thrive like fish in water. This is a remarkable story by any measure. Even if the Middle East is not the cradle of civilization it enjoys and suffers a tumultuous geography connecting Asia with Europe and North Africa.

That said, life down the centuries has not been easy for Jews, and in many respects they have suffered far more of history than they forged. The sovereign Davidic Kingdom lasted a relatively short period of time. It is clear that if OT Law was reliable and brutally inadequate. The lesson of the OT is that the Law alone is insufficient, and the NT a fulfillment of the Law. I think the late Richard Daley of Chicago machine politics said it best(I paraphrase), “The police do not create disorder, they preserve it”. Justice under a mentality of “an eye for an eye” dictum is brutal and contentious lacking a capacity for mercy, rehabilitation and restoration. The underlying brutality leads people to error 1) many hate the law, 2) gleefully transgress the law, and 3) to grievously abuse the law as a weapon. Jesus said, “Render unto Caesar those things that are Caesar”. The NT is not about an earthly kingdom but completes the OT law by replacing amending “an eye for an eye” with Matthew 11, “28 Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For My yoke is easy and My burden is light." Paul pointed out the inadequacies of OT law, Romans 2 “14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves,” ....(snip) ... “21 You, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preach that a man should not steal, do you steal? 22 You who say, "Do not commit adultery," do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23 You who make your boast in the law, do you dishonor God through breaking the law? 24 For "the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you," as it is written. 25 For circumcision is indeed profitable if you keep the law; but if you are a breaker of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.”

The AntiChris

dk

You are one of those rare individuals with the gift to be able to take a complex subject and effortlessly make it totally incomprehensible.

Chris

dk

Hey Chris,

I'll try again. This isn't a simple question because in one sense the OT and NT are the same, and in another sense they are different. The unity of Jewish people is under OT Law established by the Covenants of the OT. Christians (by the NT) are under a Unity of NT Law established by the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. [LIST=1][*]The Bible is a salvation history, as opposed to a secular history.[*]OT Law is based on covenants (blood oaths), and "an eye for an eye" justice. note: justice gives a person that which is due him, nothing more or less.[*]Israelites have prospered and grown for 3,000 years under the OT Law, a living testament to it’s reliability.[*]OT Law is brutal i.e. devoid of mercy, contrition and restoration, except from God .[*]NT distinguishes between what is due Caesar (government), and what was due God.[*]NT distinguishes the burden of OT and NT Law.[*]NT documents that Gentiles (without revelation) can know the law, hence became a law unto themselves.[*]NT completes OT justice with sacrifice (of Jesus on the cross), mercy, and forgiveness. By “complete the OT justice” I mean, what was believed in the OT of the future, in the NT is believed as historical fact.
[\LIST]

Conclusion: In the sense that the OT and NT both tend to the same end they compose a unity of faith. But in the sense that the OT is believed on the fulfillment of a future covenant, and the NT is believed on the fact of Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection they are different.

[ August 24, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]</p>

The AntiChris

Thanks dk.

Chris