Do you even understand what the new covenant is all about?
“Do you even understand what the new covenant is all about?”
I have some understanding. Of course, it is not perfect. Since the New Covenant is described only in broad terms, the details are left open to analysis, moral judgement and interpretation. I am not so conceited as to believe, or so full of hubris to claim, that I know it all, with certainty (and thereby pass certain judgement on other humans, such as those who practice with a brown scapula).
My argument is against fundamentalist literal reading of scripture, as it can lead to tragically detrimental results. I highlight some flaws of that approach, by specifying significant moral conflicts, which a literal reading can not resolve (slavery, etc.).
Do you mean to imply that the Old Testament has been removed from scripture by the New Covenant? Totally overwritten? Or only some things in the Old Testament? If only some, how can you determine which? Literal reading does not cover each point.
If you leave it to the Holy Spirit (as subjectively experienced by individuals) to make all judgements, you are no longer using a literal fundamentalist approach at all. A major problem with either approach, is that it leaves no check on extremism. If the text says to kill, a fundamentalist must OBEY. If the Spirit reveals that everyone should drink the Kool Aid, then the individual would have no moral authority to do otherwise. Reverend Jim Jones claimed guidance from the Holy Spirit when he had hundreds killed, and instructed parents to poison their children.
There are many things prescribed in the Old Testament, which are not specifically addressed in the New. Therefore, a literal, fundamentalist reading cannot but OBEY whatever heinous and barbaric practices were codified a few thousand years ago in the Old Testament, unless they are literally and explicitly revoked.
I gave some examples of explicit rules for conducting slavery, and for punishing rape by forcing the rapist to marry the victim. You apparently cannot or will not address these specific concrete points. Slavery is God’s will - yes or no? Rape permissible after military conquest? Torture? Genocide?
The Catholic approach is to have a body of scholars study the scriptures, and to form a consistent moral basis for judging - to produce reasoned and well-vetted guidance and interpretation, to resolve conflicts, and to promote the spirit and intent of the New Covenant. Common sense, and loving compassion for others can override literal compliance with a text, where there is good reason, and avoid the unlimited possible deviations of relying on subjective individual revelation.
What I have been hearing from this fundamentalist argument on this thread, mirrors the same points that I have argued with fundamentalist Wahhabi Muslims. Sunni Islam made a decisive shift in the 11th century toward blind obediance to the written scripture. The book, “The Incoherence of Philosophers” by al Ghazali, has been credited with convincing many muslims that it was wrong to try to to figure out matters of religion on your own - a fundamental error. They argued against attempting to to apply any intellectual or moral check on what the individual accepts from scripture as God is greater than anyone’s limited intellect - the only defensible option in their view is to simply OBEY (submission, as they say).
As a result, there is no consistent morality left in their interpretation of Islam - except what is in the interest of Islam. For example, it is considered wrong to kill - unless it is in the interest of Islam. It is generally wrong to lie, unless it is in the interest of Islam (where it becomes a duty), and so on, with with theft, rape, more killing, etc.
If you exclude intellectual analysis and moral judgement as checks on what you accept (as in either literal fundamentalism or subjective revelation), you open the door to violent extremism at the worst, but pretty much guarantee closed-mindedness as a constant.
I can see how the certainty and simplicity of a fundamentalist approach can comfort and support people people in their efforts to do better, avoid doing evil, and to draw closer to God. As such, I can see that it can be a helpful practice for a lot of people (as is the brown scapula).
There can be negative aspects to almost everything, even love can result in jealousy and possessiveness and other negative manifestations. With fundamentalism, you must guard against extreme conclusions that exceed normal bounds of reason or morality, and a rigid certainty that causes bigoted condemnation of others as heretics or fools.