When you say your religion is OT-only, does that mean you are Jewish by religion? If so, you'd be the first religiously Jewish person I've debated here on the Forums.
The division between two testaments is both the largest division in the Bible, and the most crucial. You would not believe how many times I've tried to provide evidence of Jesus' resurrection (largely from the four gospels and the letters of Paul) only to get a response like "[insert Old Testament book] totally says that the earth is flat, therefore, you can't take anything in the Bible seriously!" Yeah.
Thanks for the explanation! I was entirely unaware of a lot of the things you brought up, so your post was rather enlightening. Thanks! :>
I am indeed Jewish, though I wouldn't call myself religious. I participate in some of the main rituals because my family does (and frankly, they won't let me get out of it, haha).
I'm still fairly surprised by how starkly different the two are, but I agree that a debate working that way doesn't exactly work. But then, my feelings are similar regarding why I really don't think religious texts belong in modern debates, but that horse has already been beaten to death, so we'll leave it at that.
it happens to be in the US and many other countries.i just thought i'd put those two quotes next to each other
Concerning Old Testament punishments
Concerning what you can and cannot eat
Now, both of those are from a Christian perspective. If you, or anyone else, do not accept Jesus' claims or the authority of the New Testament, then obviously they won't hold any sway.
But i do agree with what you said. If one only accepts the Old Testament I don't see how they could pick and choose homosexuality as an issue but ignore stuff like what food they eat or planting seeds together or a host of other random things. If I was a serious Jew I don't see how I could harp on homosexuals but wear denim jeans with a cotton shirt.Oh! Please, please, PLEASE don't misunderstand what I said to mean that Christians don't or shouldn't hold the OT in the highest regards, read it, and follow its guidelines. The New Testament places the highest emphasis on the OT, as the foundation for everything in the NT.
Ah, I see. As I said, I figured the NT reinforced the OT, but I didn't realize there were so many differences as well. Having only read what's considered the OT and never the new one, I wouldn't have known. But yes, it's hard to have a debate when one person cites a religious text and another believes that text holds no ground in a modern debate or simply doesn't agree with it/believe it authentic/etc. I'm glad we can still debate between people with different beliefs, though. :>
Now, this entire polygamy discussion is getting ridiculous. Look at it like this:
What is heterosexual marriage?
A man has the right to love and marry any one woman, and any woman has the right to love and marry any one man.
What is homosexual marriage?
A man has the right to love and marry any one man, and any woman has the right to love and marry any one woman.
What is polygamy?
A man has the right to love and marry multiple women at once, and there is also a marriage bond between the wives.
The same right does not apply to women.
What is polyandry?
There have been very few cases of this compared to polygamy, but it is when a woman has the right to marry multiple husbands at once. There is no marriage bond between the husbands. Often, the husbands are brothers, and the woman is often just seen as shared property. Polyandry is hardly comparable, it rarely occurs in modern times and it is virtually ignored.
Polygamy generally does not allow women to have multiple husbands as it allows men to have multiple wives. The dynamics are substantially different, and it often only happens to allow brothers to share their property (ie the woman). For this reason, polygamy is unfair.
Homosexual marriage means it's okay for any one person to marry any one person they love, regardless of gender. Polygamy means it's okay to let any one man marry a number of women, and it often creates a dynamic that revolves around ownership or a group dynamic
centered around the single husband.
Point is, homosexual marriage aims to make it okay for any two people to marry, while polygamy aims to make it okay for men to have multiple wives. It's unfair at its core because it doesn't work equally for both genders. Group marriage, however, would be fine by this logic, because it doesn't encourage anyone to own anyone else, and the group dynamic isn't centered around a single person.
It's equal opportunity for everyone, which is what we are talking about at the core.
Personally, I just say if you want to discuss polygamy, move it to a new thread. :/
~Psychic