Regarding your question about whether the New Testament supersedes the old; the 'old testament' is Judaism's book that contains the Torah, writings and prophets aka Tanakh. It cannot be superseded. The New Testament stands on its own and has no true relationship to the so-called"Old Testament" except that Jesus was Jewish. Both 'books' are cultural mythology, which can provide guidance for those who wish to embrace it.
Plenty of blood spilled in the name of religion, because people will fight to protect themselves and family, but even more for their soul. That has been exploited over the centuries, and even today.
Nonetheless, we shouldn’t blame the Divine for what people do.
To that point: My thankfully late uncle was a Southern Baptist minister in Florida and Texas in those megachurches. He was the biggest bigot ever encountered. I asked him how as a man of the cloth he could say such things as he did that were so bad I will not corrupt this honored venue repeating them. The last time I saw him was at my aunt‘s funeral c. 25 years ago by now. Even before she was in the ground, he had already calculated the percentage of widows to widower in his military retirement community in Florida. So much for the benefits of being a faithful wife! He had the audacity to remarry within six weeks. The poor baby couldn’t exist on his own? Smnh.
After he taunted my father for being an armored infantry soldier in World War II, I sent in a copy of Wilfred Owens’ poem, “Dulce Et Decorum Est,” which describes a WWI poisoned gas attack. It concludes by saying to those who order others to war, that if they had seen the results of such attacks, they would no longer reiterate, “the old lie, Dulce et pro partria more,” (it is sweet to die for one’s country). His daughter replied for him by reply email that “Your education ruined you!” I beg to differ. And to point out that these who thump the Bible are often the worst characters, but as we have free will, it’s our individual choice how we deploy that will to do as we please. Ultimately, it matters whether belief exists or not, because even if one declines to believe in God or an afterlife, how that guides one’s choices matters because it forms one’s character by which one is remembered—favorably or with disgust.
Kindly don't dismiss my idea out of hand. I want people to contemplate if the model of the divine is toxic to humanity. If you can disprove that idea through scientific inquiry, you will have advanced human thought. Dismissing it without consideration is an act of oppression.
I did not “dismiss it out of hand.” You “want people to contemplate…” which is fine, and, as the saying goes, “I’ll fight to the death for your right to say it.” However, that nicety works in both directions, and your freedom ends whereat my nose begins.
When you said "we shouldn't black blame the divine" you dismissed the idea. I think indulging the model of the divine in your thoughts is toxic. That's the idea of this article.
I am glad to see the question and have the opportunity to further contemplate it. I have indeed considered the possibility and agree that 'the divine in human form' is dangerous to entertain as fact. This is especially true when the 'belief' leaks into governance and policy decisions.
How do you feel about the question of whether the New Testament supersedes the Old Testament?
We need to read it in the context of how much suffering it has caused... old or new testament.
Yuuuup.
Regarding your question about whether the New Testament supersedes the old; the 'old testament' is Judaism's book that contains the Torah, writings and prophets aka Tanakh. It cannot be superseded. The New Testament stands on its own and has no true relationship to the so-called"Old Testament" except that Jesus was Jewish. Both 'books' are cultural mythology, which can provide guidance for those who wish to embrace it.
Do not presume to ASSume, Mr. Rhein. You also misquoted me. Fix it.
Rudeness rarely elicits a positive and satisfying result. Mr. Rhein was initiating a conversation in response to your query of how he 'feels.'
Plenty of blood spilled in the name of religion, because people will fight to protect themselves and family, but even more for their soul. That has been exploited over the centuries, and even today.
Nonetheless, we shouldn’t blame the Divine for what people do.
To that point: My thankfully late uncle was a Southern Baptist minister in Florida and Texas in those megachurches. He was the biggest bigot ever encountered. I asked him how as a man of the cloth he could say such things as he did that were so bad I will not corrupt this honored venue repeating them. The last time I saw him was at my aunt‘s funeral c. 25 years ago by now. Even before she was in the ground, he had already calculated the percentage of widows to widower in his military retirement community in Florida. So much for the benefits of being a faithful wife! He had the audacity to remarry within six weeks. The poor baby couldn’t exist on his own? Smnh.
After he taunted my father for being an armored infantry soldier in World War II, I sent in a copy of Wilfred Owens’ poem, “Dulce Et Decorum Est,” which describes a WWI poisoned gas attack. It concludes by saying to those who order others to war, that if they had seen the results of such attacks, they would no longer reiterate, “the old lie, Dulce et pro partria more,” (it is sweet to die for one’s country). His daughter replied for him by reply email that “Your education ruined you!” I beg to differ. And to point out that these who thump the Bible are often the worst characters, but as we have free will, it’s our individual choice how we deploy that will to do as we please. Ultimately, it matters whether belief exists or not, because even if one declines to believe in God or an afterlife, how that guides one’s choices matters because it forms one’s character by which one is remembered—favorably or with disgust.
Kindly don't dismiss my idea out of hand. I want people to contemplate if the model of the divine is toxic to humanity. If you can disprove that idea through scientific inquiry, you will have advanced human thought. Dismissing it without consideration is an act of oppression.
I did not “dismiss it out of hand.” You “want people to contemplate…” which is fine, and, as the saying goes, “I’ll fight to the death for your right to say it.” However, that nicety works in both directions, and your freedom ends whereat my nose begins.
When you said "we shouldn't black blame the divine" you dismissed the idea. I think indulging the model of the divine in your thoughts is toxic. That's the idea of this article.
I am glad to see the question and have the opportunity to further contemplate it. I have indeed considered the possibility and agree that 'the divine in human form' is dangerous to entertain as fact. This is especially true when the 'belief' leaks into governance and policy decisions.