Would it be fair to say the NT writers have an obsession with faith but in the OT God only cares about obedience?

 That’s a fair observation at first glance, but it’s somewhat oversimplified. A more nuanced answer is that the New Testament emphasizes “faith” as the engine of obedience, while the Old Testament presents “obedience” as the necessary evidence of covenant relationship—which itself was always meant to be rooted in trust. Here’s a breakdown.

---

1. The NT focus on “faith” (pistis)

The NT writers, especially Paul, elevate faith as the sole means of justification and the primary human response to God’s grace.

• Romans 3:28 – “For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.”

• Ephesians 2:8-9 – “By grace you have been saved through faith… not a result of works.”

• Hebrews 11 – The “faith hall of fame” lauds OT figures not for perfect obedience but for trusting God’s promises before seeing them fulfilled.

Yet NT faith is never mere intellectual assent. It issues in obedience (James 2:17 — “faith without works is dead”). Paul speaks of the “obedience of faith” (Romans 1:5; 16:26). So the NT doesn’t discard obedience; it redefines its source and motive.

---

2. The OT emphasis on obedience

The OT law (Torah) often seems like pure command: “Do this and you shall live” (Lev 18:5). The covenant at Sinai is conditional on obedience (Exodus 19:5; Deuteronomy 28). Prophets thunder against Israel for ritual observance without moral obedience (Hosea 6:6; Isaiah 1:11–17).

But obedience in the OT was never meant to be mechanical. It was response to prior grace:

• God rescues Israel from Egypt before giving the law at Sinai (Exodus 20:2 — “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out… therefore…”).

• The Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4–5) commands love for God with all heart, soul, and might — that’s an internal posture of trust and loyalty, not mere external compliance.

• Abraham is counted righteous because he “believed the Lord” (Genesis 15:6) — before circumcision or the law. Paul uses exactly this verse in Romans 4 to argue that OT faith, not perfect works, was the pattern.

So the OT already contains a “faith principle”: trust in God’s promises (e.g., Habakkuk 2:4 — “the righteous shall live by his faith,” quoted three times in the NT).

---

3. The real shift: from theocracy to universality, and from law to Christ

The key difference is how faith and obedience relate to covenant membership.

OT	NT
Covenant nation Israel, with visible law (Torah)	Multi-ethnic church, no Torah as national constitution
Obedience to specific commands (Sabbath, food laws, circumcision) marks the community	Faith in Christ’s death/resurrection is the entry requirement; obedience follows as fruit
Obedience could be externally enforced (civil penalties)	Obedience is Spirit-driven, internal, and not coerced by the state
Faith is present (Psalms, Habakkuk, Abraham) but often implicit	Faith becomes the explicit, exclusive condition for justification

Thus, it’s not that OT cares only about obedience—God repeatedly condemns empty ritual and demands the heart (Jeremiah 31:31–34). But the form of the covenant required a national law code, so disobedience carried tangible consequences (exile, defeat). The NT, with the new covenant, removes the civil/ceremonial law as a boundary marker, making faith the sole badge of the people of God.

---

4. Where the “obsession with faith” comes from in the NT

The NT writers were addressing Judaizers who said faith in Christ wasn’t enough—you also need circumcision and Torah observance (Acts 15; Galatians). Paul’s polemic for “faith alone” was a contextual battle cry against adding law-works for salvation. He was not anti-obedience; he was anti meriting favor through law-keeping.

Similarly, the OT prophets had to battle against mere external obedience without faith/love. Their “obsession” was with the heart.

---

Conclusion

Yes, the NT focuses more relentlessly on faith as the hinge of salvation; the OT focuses more on obedience as the hinge of life in the covenant land. But it would be wrong to say the OT God “only cares about obedience”—He always desired trust (faith) behind the actions. And the NT never praises faith that bypasses obedience; rather, it says true faith produces obedience.

A sharper formulation might be:

OT: Obedience without faith is dead ritual.
NT: Faith without obedience is dead profession.
The difference is which side of the equation gets polemical emphasis in each testament.

5 reasons why most nations will act just like Israel after an October 7 event

 To address this from a sociological and psychological perspective, we can analyze the "Hardwiring" of human groups when faced with an existential threat. Whether it is a nation or a community, the response to a massive, traumatic breach—like the October 7 event—is often governed by deep-seated survival protocols.

Here are five reasons why most groups would respond in a similar fashion:

1. The Breakdown of the "Security Contract"

Every modern state exists on a fundamental promise: the monopoly on force in exchange for citizen safety. When a border is breached and civilians are targeted in their homes, that "Security OS" suffers a critical kernel panic.

• The Reaction: To restore public trust, the state feels it must apply overwhelming force to prove the "system" is still online. Most populations, regardless of their politics, will demand a total restoration of that security barrier at any cost.

2. Moral Outrage and "Dehumanization Loops"

Psychologically, extreme violence (especially sexual violence or the targeting of children) triggers a "Moral Disgust" response in the human brain.

• The Reaction: This disgust often leads to the dehumanization of the perpetrator. Once a group is viewed as "monstrous" rather than "human," the standard rules of engagement are often deprioritized by the general public in favor of total neutralization.

3. The "In-Group" Hyper-Cohesion

In sociology, this is known as the "Rally 'Round the Flag" effect. Internal divisions (which were massive in Israel prior to the event) vanish instantly when an external threat appears.

• The Reaction: Most people prioritize the survival of their "tribe" over universal ethics during a crisis. The brain shifts from complex, nuanced thinking to a binary "Us vs. Them" mode to ensure collective survival.

4. Generational Trauma Re-Activation

For many groups, a modern tragedy acts as a "trigger" for historical trauma. In Israel’s case, it was the Holocaust; for other nations, it might be colonialism, civil war, or previous invasions.

• The Reaction: The event is not viewed as a single isolated incident, but as a continuation of an existential struggle. This makes the response feel like a "Final Stand," leading to a level of intensity that outsiders might find disproportionate.

5. The "Never Again" Strategic Necessity

From a military standpoint this as a Hard Reset), if an enemy perceives a weakness, they will exploit it again.

• The Reaction: Most nations believe that a "measured" response is interpreted as "weakness" in a hostile neighborhood. Therefore, they choose a maximalist response to re-establish Deterrence. The goal isn't just to punish the last attack, but to make the cost of the next attack so high that it never happens.

---

The "Torah" Perspective: The Law of the Goring Ox

In the Torah, the laws regarding an ox that gores a person (Exodus 21:28) emphasize that once a danger is identified as "forewarned" or habitually dangerous, the responsibility to eliminate that danger becomes absolute.

• The Torah recognizes that human life is the highest priority. When that life is threatened by a force that has proven its intent to kill, the Torah does not demand "proportionality" in a way that leaves the victim vulnerable; it demands the removal of the threat to protect the innocent.

A Technical "Network" Summary:

Factor	Technical Equivalent	Result
Trauma	Data Corruption	The system can no longer process "peace" protocols.
Deterrence	Firewall Strengthening	Maxing out security settings to block all future "packets."
National Unity	Process Priority	All "background tasks" (politics) are killed to focus on the main "app" (war).

The Kamloops Indian Residential School story is yet another RCC atrocity

 The Kamloops Indian Residential School story is a stark example of what you've titled your post: religion's good, bad, and ugly — all present in one tragic system.

Let me offer a respectful commentary, not to diminish the horror, but to reflect on what this means in light of our earlier conversation about Scripture, truth, and religious authority.

---

The Good

At its best, Christianity (and any religious tradition) calls people to:

• Love the stranger and the vulnerable (Leviticus 19:34)

• Defend the orphan, the widow, the oppressed (Isaiah 1:17)

• See every human as made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27)

• Repent of sin and seek justice (Micah 6:8)

The same Catholic Church that ran Kamloops also produced saints like Damien of Molokai who served the outcast, and missionaries who defended Indigenous peoples against colonial brutality. The good is real.

---

The Bad

The residential school system was not an accident. It was deliberate policy with stated goals: "to kill the Indian in the child."

The "bad" here includes:

• Forced removal of children from families

• Forbidden native languages and cultures

• Physical, emotional, and sexual abuse

• Neglect that led to thousands of preventable deaths

• Deliberate erasure of identity

And critically: this was done in the name of Christ.

When Pope Francis apologized in 2022, he rightly called it a "sinful failure" and "devastation" — not just of bodies, but of souls. The Church used its authority not to protect the vulnerable, but to enforce assimilation.

---

The Ugly

The "ugly" is what happens when religious certainty meets state power and racial superiority.

The same confidence that led earlier Christians to say "the Trinity is the central mystery of faith" — that absolute, unquestionable certainty — was turned into: "Your Indigenous spirituality is demonic. Your language is animal. Your children belong to us."

There is a direct line between:

• Believing you possess the only full truth

• Believing others must be converted even against their will

• Believing the ends justify coercive means

This is not merely bad execution of good religion. It is the logic of imperialism wearing a cross.

---

A Hard Question for Christians (and for our earlier debate)

In our earlier exchange, I argued from the Torah that Trinitarianism is impossible on Torah terms. You responded with Catholic teaching that the Trinity is a mystery beyond reason.

Now I must ask a different question — not about doctrine, but about moral fruit:

If the Trinity (or any doctrine) is truly from God, why has it so often been used to justify cruelty, forced assimilation, and cultural genocide?

• The same Catholic hierarchy that defined the Trinity at Nicaea (325 AD) and Constantinople (381 AD) also ran Kamloops for nearly a century.

• The same priests who celebrated Mass in Latin beat Indigenous children for speaking their own language.

• The same bishops who taught "God is Love" ignored or covered up abuse.

Jesus said: "You will know them by their fruits" (Matthew 7:16).
By that standard — not theological cleverness, but actual historical fruit — the residential school system is a counter-testimony to the claim that Christianity, as an institution, carries divine truth.

---

A Torah Perspective on This

The Torah repeatedly commands justice for the ger (foreigner/sojourner) and the vulnerable:

"You shall not wrong a sojourner or oppress him, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt." (Exodus 22:21)

"There shall be one law for the native and for the stranger who sojourns among you." (Exodus 12:49)

The residential school system violated every single one of these commands. It did not treat Indigenous children as neighbors. It treated them as problems to be solved by erasure.

A Torah-observant Jew would look at Kamloops and say: This is not the fruit of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This is the fruit of empire dressed in religious clothing.

---

Final Reflection

You titled your post well: The good, the bad, and the ugly.
Kamloops is not the whole story of Christianity. But it cannot be erased or minimized. It must be faced.

For anyone who believes in a God of truth and justice, Kamloops demands:

• Honest confession, not denial

• Repentance, not defensiveness

• Concrete restitution, not just words

• Structural change, not symbolic gestures

The Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc Nation and all survivors deserve nothing less.

It is a necessary reminder that religious claims — including claims about divine mysteries like the Trinity — must be tested not only by Scripture, but by their moral fruit in history.

Study the Torah and see for yourself that every NT benefit were always available to Torah observant Jews

Below is a point-by-point refutation of the claims in a  recent Facebook post, using only the Torah (Genesis–Deuteronomy).

---

Core Contradiction: "Without Jesus, No Heaven"

The claim: "A soul cannot enter Heaven without Jesus Christ."

Torah refutation: The Torah never mentions "Heaven" as the destination of righteous human souls. It never says anyone must go through a Messiah named Jesus to enter God's presence after death. In fact:

• Enoch – Genesis 5:24: "Enoch walked with God, and he was not, for God took him." No Jesus. No Gospel of 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. Yet Enoch was taken.

• Noah – Genesis 6:8: "Noah found grace in the eyes of YHWH." No Jesus. No cross. No resurrection.

• Abraham – Genesis 15:6: "He believed in YHWH, and He counted it to him as righteousness." No Messiah named Jesus. No death/burial/resurrection.

The Torah presents faith in YHWH alone as sufficient for righteousness and divine acceptance.

---

Point-by-Point Refutation

1. Realize the Ruin of Man (Sin)

The claim: "Sin corrupted humanity… spiritual death rules the lost."

Torah response: Agreed. Genesis 3 and Genesis 6:5 describe human sin thoroughly. But the Torah's solution is repentance, sacrifice, and obedience to commandments — not faith in a crucified Messiah.

• Leviticus 4 – Sins are atoned through blood sacrifices of animals, not a human sacrifice.

• Deuteronomy 30:11-14 – The commandment is not too difficult nor far away. It is in their mouth and heart to do. No need for a dying/rising Messiah.

---

2. Recognize the Redeemer (Jesus crucified/risen)

The claim: "Christ died for our sins… rose again."

Torah refutation: The Torah explicitly rejects the idea that a human being can die for another's sins:

Deuteronomy 24:16 – "Fathers shall not be put to death because of children, nor children because of fathers; each shall be put to death for his own sin."

Likewise, atonement in Torah comes through animal blood (Leviticus 17:11), not through the death of a righteous human. A crucified Messiah would be considered cursed (Deuteronomy 21:22-23) — not a means of salvation.

Resurrection: The Torah never teaches that a dead Messiah will rise from the dead. The Torah says: "You shall not add to the word" (Deuteronomy 4:2). The entire death/burial/resurrection narrative is absent from the Torah.

---

3. Receive Salvation by Faith Alone

The claim: "Faith is the only requirement."

Torah refutation: Faith is required, but not alone. The Torah repeatedly ties salvation/blessing to obedient action:

• Leviticus 18:5 – "You shall keep My statutes… which if a man does, he shall live by them."

• Deuteronomy 30:15-16 – "See, I have set before you today life and good… to love YHWH, to walk in His ways, to keep His commandments."

Abraham's faith (Genesis 15:6) was accompanied by obedience (Genesis 22, Genesis 26:5). The Torah knows nothing of a "faith alone" salvation apart from works of the Law.

---

4. Rest in the Security of Christ

The claim: "Believers are sealed… kept forever… eternal life cannot be lost."

Torah refutation: The Torah presents conditional security. Blessing and life in the land depend on continued obedience:

• Deuteronomy 28 – Blessings for obedience, curses for disobedience.

• Deuteronomy 30:17-18 – "If your heart turns away… you will surely perish."

No "eternal security" regardless of behavior. No sealing by a Holy Spirit guaranteeing final salvation apart from ongoing faithfulness.

---

5. Reject Religious Confusion (against rituals, law)

The claim: "Rituals cannot redeem… ceremonies cannot remove sin."

Torah refutation: This directly contradicts the Torah, where God Himself commanded rituals and ceremonies for atonement:

• Leviticus 16 – The Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) with specific rituals to remove sin.

• Leviticus 4:20 – "The priest shall make atonement for them, and they will be forgiven."

If rituals cannot redeem, then God commanded a lie in Leviticus. The Torah says they do atone. Your position calls Moses and God liars.

---

6. Remain Rooted in Grace

The claim: "Grace is not a license to sin… keep the Gospel of Grace."

Torah refutation: The Torah contains grace abundantly, but never as a replacement for commandments:

• Exodus 34:6-7 – YHWH is "compassionate, gracious, slow to anger, abounding in lovingkindness… forgiving iniquity."

• But that same grace requires repentance and obedience (Deuteronomy 10:12-13).

The Torah's "grace" does not create a new dispensation independent of the Law. It operates within the covenant of commandments.

---

7. Reach Others with the Gospel (of Christ's death/resurrection)

The claim: "Preach the Gospel… Christ died for sins."

Torah refutation: The Torah commands no such message. The message of Torah is:

"Hear, O Israel: YHWH our God, YHWH is one. Love YHWH with all your heart… Keep His commandments, statutes, and judgments." (Deuteronomy 6:4-5, Deuteronomy 6:17)

The "good news" (gospel) in Torah is entering the Promised Land and living in covenant faithfulness, not a crucified and risen Messiah dying for sins.

---

Addressing Your Closing Statement

"Study the Torah and see for yourself that every NT benefit were always available to Torah observant Jews."

Let me test this with specific "NT benefits" from your outline:

NT Benefit	Available in Torah?	Torah Evidence
Salvation through faith in a crucified Messiah	No	Deuteronomy 24:16 (no death for another's sin); Deuteronomy 21:22-23 (hanged = cursed)
Eternal life in Heaven after death	No	Sheol is the destination; no "heaven" for human souls
Resurrection of the dead	No	Torah does not promise resurrection
Forgiveness without animal sacrifice	No	Leviticus 17:11 – blood atones; no forgiveness without sacrifice
Indwelling Holy Spirit as seal	No	Spirit comes upon specific leaders temporarily (Numbers 11:25), not all believers permanently
Salvation by faith alone, apart from works of Law	No	Leviticus 18:5 – "do and live"

Conclusion from Torah-only perspective: The NT benefits you list are not found in the Torah. A Torah-observant Jew does not have those benefits — because those benefits are not part of the Torah's covenant.

---

Final Summary

From a purely Torah-only perspective:

1. Jesus is not necessary – Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses were accepted without him.

2. Death/burial/resurrection of a Messiah is not the Gospel – The Torah's good news is covenant faithfulness.

3. Faith alone does not save – Obedience to commandments is required.

4. Animal sacrifices atone – Not a human sacrifice.

5. No eternal security – Blessings are conditional.

6. No resurrection doctrine – Death is largely final (save Enoch as exception).

7. Heaven is not the promised reward – Long life in the land is.

Your challenge stands: If the Torah is God's eternal, perfect, unchanging covenant, then the entire message you preached — "Without Jesus, no heaven" — is false, because the Torah never says it and the Torah's own heroes entered God's favor without it.