Dissillusioned with the Old Testament
I find it interesting that even today, Christianity has a “better than thou” attitude. Here is an example of a law laid down in the old testament. If a man rapes a woman, he must marry her, for he has violated her.
If a woman is accused of adultry, even without evidence, she will be brought before the priest for judgement. In this case it’s drinking water with dust from the *floor* in it, and if she gets sick, she’s guilty, and if not, she’s innocent.
Here are websites that better illustrate my point:
http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/14618.htm
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/index.html
My personal belief is that the old testament laws no longer have any authority, but that is not what is taught today by many churches. What is perhaps even worse is the history that these laws imply.
Sure, the Catholic Church have brought their share of problems, from the crusades, inquisitions, and beyond. Other churches have as well. But all of that pales in comparision to the injustice of some of these laws.
Am I judging God when I say that? No, I’m judging the idiots who considered those to be God’s law. Is that wrong of me? Perhaps, but I’m not forcing you to agree with me. I’m making a personal judgement and presenting it for you to draw your own conclusions.
Does anyone find it interesting that Jesus Christ’s entire purpose in life was to abolish those laws through his sacrifice on the cross? It’s as plain as day. Why would Jesus Christ need to have this purpose?
Would it be because these laws were not the will of God?
And yet, they are still treated as such.
The question must be posed: Did God’s will change with Christ’s death on the cross, or did mankind simply mess up when they wrote those laws?
Mainstream opinion is of the former. I think it’s the latter. Why? Because the former basically says “Mankind has been perfect in interpreting God’s will in the past, but then he changed his mind.”
The latter says “God is perfect and had to take action to correct the fallibility of mankind.”
Which one has a higher chance of being correct? I believe the second one is much more probable. This conclusion begs to have the following question asked:
If we mucked it up so badly the first time around, how do we know we’ve not done it again?
I’ll leave you with that question, and I look forward to hearing your replies.
