Talk:But that was the Old Testament

Unsurprising that this article doesn't mention the new covenant, yet does selectively quote Matthew, as if chistians have no answer. They do, and it's an uncompelling one. Nutty Roux (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Uh, the quotes here are all continued awfulness from the new testament. The exact problem here is that people think that the new covenant proves that an evil era ended, but this article highlights that's just untrue. Ikanreed (talk) 18:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Uh, hence my observation that the answer you're hinting at is not compelling. The theological discussion of how what's moral in the NT does or does not derive from Mosaic law, Noachic law, or whatever other alleged covenants is not trivial. Sure, you can call the NT gruesome (it is), but all you're doing is making an empty comparison between it and the OT saying the functional equivalent of "hey the old testament god is a rotten creep (it is), these christians claim things have changed (not so clear), but their god is also pretty rotten (it is)." So what? Is it rotten in a way that's inconsistent with the OT? How. Why? Does the NT really promise anything different (not so clear — and the new covenant seems to be so widely misunderstood or even poorly formulated that it's used as an implicit justification for grotesque abuses and discrimination — e.g. poor treatment of women and others)? Why isn't Jesus allowed to be a creep (he really is? Does that have anything to do with redemption (not so clear)? How do you reconcile the claim that every bit of the law still applies (most christians don't even have a coherent understanding of whether the 10 commandments do — witness them fighting over public displays) with Jesus essentially redefining things on a completely ad hoc basis (it's convenient that he's allowed to if he really even did, I guess)? I'm glad you can read. Nutty Roux (talk) 20:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)