Men have authority over women

[DeepShadow]

So are systems theorists "heightist" when the choose a leader among peers based on height? Are they "birthdayist" when they select by birth date?

Thank you for your definition of sexism, it clear up a lot. As it does not require that women (or men) be second-class, it is therefore possible for sexism to occur among accepting equals. This the begs the question, is sexism wrong if there is no assumption of superiority or inferiority?

 

[DeepShadow]

If a man can do the job so can a woman and vice versa. Woman serve in the police force and are just as effective as men. In fact men are starting to be encouraged to become primary school teachers here.

Just because they are a woman does not mean they can't do everything you do just as well.

I never said anything against any of this, in the model or otherwise. The model claims that women could lead as effectively as men. According to the model, it's not females in the lead that's the problem, it's the contestable leadership among peers.

Something else to chew on for anyone who thinks the Mormon system is oppressive to women: Utah Territory was the first place in the U.S. to allow women to vote. It lost that upon becoming a state. Polygamous wives left their children in the care of sister-wives so that they could attend colleges and become doctors.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I never said anything against any of this, in the model or otherwise. The model claims that women could lead as effectively as men. According to the model, it's not females in the lead that's the problem, it's the contestable leadership among peers.

I'm so glad you brought this up, since in our marriage, it isn't an issue whether or not a woman is capable of leadership. As a matter of fact, we both recognize that between my husband and me, I am more scholarly, educated, and have much more experience in teaching and supervisory positions out in the professional world than he does. We both recognize that I have the ability - if I really wanted to - to take care of the family by myself if Heaven forbid something were to happen to my husband.

He wouldn't want it any other way.

No, for us, his leadership comes from my naturally turning to him to protect and provide for us. There never really is a declaration of "Man=One Person in Charge of Everything!" in our house.........it comes from 1) his desire to protect us and provide for us, and 2) I honor that in him and let go of trying to do everything myself.

We get so skewed from the idea of what a head of household really implies, that if anyone were to spend a week in our house, it's really my husband that does more listening to me when it comes to what I like, envision, desire, etc. than him giving any orders. The only orders that come out of his mouth are to the kids, but that's how we feel it should be.

If anything, my husband does a lot to elevate me in so many ways that it's no problem for me to honor his wishes - which many times pale in comparison to my own. He's a simple guy with simple needs, and I'm - well - not.




Peace,
Mystic

 

[Prometheus]

If a man can do the job so can a woman and vice versa. Woman serve in the police force and are just as effective as men. In fact men are starting to be encouraged to become primary school teachers here.

Just because they are a woman does not mean they can't do everything you do just as well.

I feel it needs to be said that if a woman is denied a job because she does not have the physical strength of a man, it is not sexism. It is judging a person's ability of strength, not their sex. If a woman can't be a fireman because she can't carry people out of burning buildings, weaker men and the physically handicapped would be denied as well.

So are systems theorists "heightist" when the choose a leader among peers based on height? Are they "birthdayist" when they select by birth date?

You have yet to provide any evidence that God made some kind of cosmic coin toss before the beginning of the world. All you have is speculation. If you could back up your claim then I would reconsider my position.

This the begs the question, is sexism wrong if there is no assumption of superiority or inferiority?

Yes, if it still limits freedom. If a case neither limited freedom nor assumed superiority/inferiority, it wouldn't be sexism.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I feel it needs to be said that if a woman is denied a job because she does not have the physical strength of a man, it is not sexism. It is judging a person's ability of strength, not their sex. If a woman can't be a fireman because she can't carry people out of burning buildings, weaker men and the physically handicapped would be denied as well.

"Fireman" is a sexist term. The gender-nuetral, non-sexist term would be "firefighter," as it does not call attention to gender. :cover:

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Remember that there are MANY things a woman can naturally do that a man will never be able to do. You know, pregnancy, birth, breastmilk........

From what I gather, men understand very much how vital a woman is. All I seek to do is return the favor and have my man understand how vital he is. And I assume Christian women who feel the way I do seek the same thing.




Peace,
Mystic

 

[DeepShadow]

I feel it needs to be said that if a woman is denied a job because she does not have the physical strength of a man, it is not sexism. It is judging a person's ability of strength, not their sex. If a woman can't be a fireman because she can't carry people out of burning buildings, weaker men and the physically handicapped would be denied as well.

In all fairness, the part that is really questioned by women's right's activists is whether or not firefighters really ever need to do these things! We looked into this a little in my IO Psych class, and it appeared that some of these tests that select for upper body strength were added around the time women started applying.

You have yet to provide any evidence that God made some kind of cosmic coin toss before the beginning of the world. All you have is speculation. If you could back up your claim then I would reconsider my position.

If I understand you correctly, you've made a blanket statement that any selection based on gender MUST be based on gender prejudices. I submitted a "white crow," a possible exception to your rule. I don't know if the model applies, but even as speculation, it demonstrates that not all cases of gender discrimination need be based on prejudice. The model backs that up quite well, and I'm sure that if I can think of one reason, God can think of a lot more.:sarcastic The fact is, if the model is true, then God might not want us to find out about the coin flip, because that would lead us to try things out way, selecting leaders based on experience or IQ or whatever.

You are free to refute by showing how the model can't apply to Christian (or Catholic or LDS) situations. IF you can show, for example, where God claims that men are superior to women, then this is not a case of leadership among peers, and the model fails to apply. But note you'll have to show that God says men are superior in all things, not just in one way.

Yes, if it still limits freedom. If a case neither limited freedom nor assumed superiority/inferiority, it wouldn't be sexism.

Welcome to one of the fundamental points of game theory: individual freedom is not always in the individual's best interests. For a great example of this, look at the model from A Beautiful Mind, where all the guys want to ask the prettiest girl out. Crude as he is, the main character lays out a model wherein their individual freedom to ask the prettiest girl is contrary to their goals in the long run.

 

[Prometheus]

In all fairness, the part that is really questioned by women's right's activists is whether or not firefighters really ever need to do these things! We looked into this a little in my IO Psych class, and it appeared that some of these tests that select for upper body strength were added around the time women started applying.

Well, it was merely one example.

If I understand you correctly, you've made a blanket statement that any selection based on gender MUST be based on gender prejudices. I submitted a "white crow," a possible exception to your rule. I don't know if the model applies, but even as speculation, it demonstrates that not all cases of gender discrimination need be based on prejudice. The model backs that up quite well, and I'm sure that if I can think of one reason, God can think of a lot more.:sarcastic

The fact is, if the model is true, then God might not want us to find out about the coin flip, because that would lead us to try things out way, selecting leaders based on experience or IQ or whatever.

If the model is true you need to show that it is. If all you intend to offer is speculation then you're going to lose the argument. There is much more to suggest that men are superior than there is to suggest the sexes are equal. I can entertain the possibility that there was a "coin toss" and God doesn't tell us about it, but it's less likely than my theory. The Bible has given me a lot more ammunition to work with.

Welcome to one of the fundamental points of game theory: individual freedom is not always in the individual's best interests. For a great example of this, look at the model from A Beautiful Mind, where all the guys want to ask the prettiest girl out. Crude as he is, the main character lays out a model wherein their individual freedom to ask the prettiest girl is contrary to their goals in the long run.

I'd rather have the freedom to eat candy than be forced to eat a salad. Freedom, to me, is of far more worth than "my best interests." God shouldn't babysit us by assigning leaders at all and let us make our own choices/mistakes.

 

[DeepShadow]

If the model is true you need to show that it is.

I'm surprised this is such a hard concept for you. I'm offering a theory. Theories are never proven true, they only fail to prove false. If you can prove it false, I'll discard or modify it, just like any other theory.

If all you intend to offer is speculation then you're going to lose the argument.

Not if you fail to offer a counterargument, I won't.

There is much more to suggest that men are superior than there is to suggest the sexes are equal.

Then try offering some. If all you intend to offer is your opinion repeated ad nauseum, you're going to lose this argument.

I can entertain the possibility that there was a "coin toss" and God doesn't tell us about it, but it's less likely than my theory. The Bible has given me a lot more ammunition to work with.

They what are you waiting for?! Use all that ammunition!!

You say your theory is less likely than mine, fine, here's the hurdle you have to beat:
Part 1: Men and women are equal

2 Ne 26:33 "For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile."

1 Cor 7:3-4 "Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife."

1 Cor 11:11 "Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord."

1 Ne 35 "Behold, the Lord esteemeth all flesh in one; he that is righteous is favored of God."

Part 2: Man's rule is not to oppress women

D&C 121:36-37 "...the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.
That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man."

Part 3: And both together....

"By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners."--The Family, a Proclamation to the World

There, now you trot out all the scriptures that say men are better than women, and we'll compare.

I'd rather have the freedom to eat candy than be forced to eat a salad.

So would I, but such things aren't the province of game theory. Game theory is political science, and so deals with the choices of the individual having bad consequences for the individual THROUGH the breakdown of the group. Eat candy all you want, but when my family bear the consequences of your choices, that's a whole 'nuther ball game. One of the most fundamental laws of society is that your right to throw a punch stops at my nose.

Freedom, to me, is of far more worth than "my best interests."

Good for you, but who are you to say what's good for me? Who are you to say I'm being sexist to my wife? Where's our freedom to choose the structure and organization for our family and our church?

God shouldn't babysit us by assigning leaders at all and let us make our own choices/mistakes.

What makes you think he doesn't let us make mistakes? You act as if you don't have choices, and yet you obviously do. God has made suggestions. Follow them--and get the stated benefits in exchange for the stated sacrifices--or find your own way, and take whatever consequences come! Why are you griping about being offered advice? Do you gripe this way at PSA's, too?

If this is one of the few places where God does more than offer advice (i.e. he flipped the coin) it's only because this is a system that would be almost impossible for humans to set up. Not only would it require that everyone accept the coin flip, but it would require us agreeing on the criteria for the coin flip (i.e. do we make it gender-based, or maybe a matter of height? What about age?). All those things can be second-guessed later, and all it takes is one doubter to make the whole thing moot.

 

[Lindsey-Loo]

Genesis 3:16

Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

This was a curse on women from God. Because we know that childbirth is still painful, the curse must still be in effect. So Christians must accept that, when married, men and women are not equal partners. The man is in charge.

If you don't have a problem with men having authority over women, then you are a true Christian. If you think men and women should be equals in marriage, you're not a true Christian.

Actually, you are wrong. We don't follow the Old Testament any more, so that verse would therefore be void. However, the principal is still correct as we see in the New Testament:

And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.
1 Timothy 2:12

For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body.
Ephesians 5:23

So yes, not only are husbands the head of the household, women are not allowed to hold spiritual authority over men. And yeah, I actually believe this. So I guess that makes me a true Christian.

 

[Prometheus]

There, now you trot out all the scriptures that say men are better than women, and we'll compare.

Your BoM versus aren't going to be recognized as scripture by the majority of Christianity so I don't feel like they need to be addressed here. We are in the Biblical Debates forum, not the Book of Mormon Debates forum.

As for your only two versus from the Bible, neither say anything about equality. 1 Cor 7:3-4 does not mention anything about superiority. All it tells is for the spouses to treat each other with respect. 1 Cor 11:11 could be just as easily worded to be, "Nevertheless neither is the master without the slave, neither the slave without the master, in the Lord."

Now for my versus, which are all from the Bible, by the way. Some of them I, and others, have already mentioned, but I will repeat them.

Genesis 3:16

Leviticus 27:3-7

Numbers 30:3-16

Deuteronomy 5:21

Deuteronomy 21:11-14

Deuteronomy 22:23-24

Judges 9:53-54

Isaiah 3:12

1 Corinthians 11:3

1 Corinthians 11:7-9

1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Ephesians 5:22-24

Ephesians 5:33

Colossians 3:18

1 Timothy 2:11-12

1 Peter 3:1

1 Peter 3:2-6

1 Peter 3:7

Then there are the other 50 or more verses which speak of women and wives as property, to be given and taken at mens' leisure.

Guess Who? has it right. She's sexist and she's honest about it. This is a true Christian.

 

[Lindsey-Loo]

Ummm...how could I be sexist against my own gender? That's just dumb.

Now let's examine your claim that the Bible speaks of women as property to be given and taken at mens' leisure more closely.

Again, your OT verses are void because Christians don't live by the Old Testament. Women may have been treated like property at that time, but it was because of the culture, not the religion.

So let's look at the New Testament verses instead.

But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
I Corinthians 1:3

There are some parallels in this verse...it says that the head of woman is man, but it also says that the head of Christ is God.

Is God the Father in any way better than Christ? Is Christ God's property to be given and taken at His leisure? I think not...so therefore, I would have to assume that the same is true for the parallel in this verse (man being the head of woman).

For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man. 9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.
1 Corinthians 11:7-9

I would encourage you to examine this verse in context:

Head Coverings


2 Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. 3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. 6 For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man. 9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. 10 For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. 12 For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.
13 Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? 15 But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her[a] for a covering. 16 But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.
1 Corinthians 11:2-16

This verse is simply saying that it is not proper for a married woman to worship with her head uncovered, just as it is not proper for a man to have long hair.

Let your[a] women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. 35 And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.
1 Corinthians 14:34-35

This verse tells us that women can't hold authority over males in the church (i.e., preach, lead songs, lead prayers, etc.) Women just have differant jobs within the congregation than men do. There are lots of things we women do for the church that, quite frankly, most men just aren't that good at! It's all part of God's plan for a congregation to run smoothly.

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.
Ephesians 5:22-24

Once again, we must read this verse in context:

Marriage—Christ and the Church


22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. 28 So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. 30 For we are members of His body,[d] of His flesh and of His bones. 31 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”[e] 32 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.
Ephesians 5:22-33

Women must support and respect their husbands, but husbands must also love their wives, and nourish her and cherish her as his own flesh, just like the Lord does His church. If the husband loves his wife unconditionally, as commanded, then why shouldn't she respect him?

As for verse 33 in that same chapter, same as above.

This post is getting lengthy, more to come.

 

[daemonikus]

just to jump in out of nowhere here. this is a quote from the livescience website. i cant post url's yet so if you want to look it up all i did was google 'men and women' and it was on the first page:

Scientists find it very interesting that while men and women use two very different activity centers and neurological pathways, men and women perform equally well on broad measures of cognitive ability, such as intelligence tests.

it would of course be silly to say that men and women were alike in every way except physical appearance. but to say that men are 'made' to be leaders and women are 'made' to be followers in terms of marriage and the church is equally ridiculous. those statements are based on nothing but religious propaganda generated by a society where men were the dominant force in the first place and (surprisingly...although in some ways not) has survived as a legitimate train of thought even in todays society where logic, reason and evidence really should be what people look to for answers. not mythical fairy tales long dead.

 

[Prometheus]

Ummm...how could I be sexist against my own gender? That's just dumb.

Yet you do it regardless. There's nothing in the definition of discrimination that says you can't discriminate against the same class you belong to.

Again, your OT verses are void because Christians don't live by the Old Testament. Women may have been treated like property at that time, but it was because of the culture, not the religion.

That excuse doesn't fly with me.

Whether you live by it today or not is irrelevant. It's very obvious that God, for a few thousand years, did allow and encourage women being treated this way.

 

[kiobe]

Genesis 3:16

Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

This was a curse on women from God. Because we know that childbirth is still painful, the curse must still be in effect. So Christians must accept that, when married, men and women are not equal partners. The man is in charge.

If you don't have a problem with men having authority over women, then you are a true Christian. If you think men and women should be equals in marriage, you're not a true Christian.

That makes a true Christian? Authority? Why would God make it so painfull for women that some die during childbirth? Doesn't God love women? Why would He want to see them in pain?

 

[Lindsey-Loo]

Yet you do it regardless. There's nothing in the definition of discrimination that says you can't discriminate against the same class you belong to.



That excuse doesn't fly with me.

Whether you live by it today or not is irrelevant. It's very obvious that God, for a few thousand years, did allow and encourage women being treated this way.

It is relevant, because if in fact we don't live by it today, it means that Christians wouldn't be sexist. (No duh?) Not to mention that Christians wouldn't kill witches, sacrifice animals, etc. It doesn't matter what God did or didn't do thousands of years ago, because again, that was simply part of the culture at the time. It's part of the reason the New Testament was introduced.

BTW, I don't discriminate against myself. I simply acknowledge the fact that I'm not always good at the things most men are good at, and men are not always good at the things I would be good at. I'm aware that there are men and women who break the mold, but come on people...why do you think women aren't included in the draft-pool-thing when they turn 18 in this country? I just acknowledge that men and women are differant, physically and mentally. And I acknowledge that God acknowledges this, too.

 

[daemonikus]

It doesn't matter what God did or didn't do thousands of years ago, because again, that was simply part of the culture at the time. It's part of the reason the New Testament was introduced.

and yet christians will claim not only that god is 'the same yesterday today and tomorrow' in spite of blatant cultural shifts throughout the bible. all of a sudden the new testament culture got it right??? thats just ludicrous.

BTW, I don't discriminate against myself. I simply acknowledge the fact that I'm not always good at the things most men are good at, and men are not always good at the things I would be good at. I'm aware that there are men and women who break the mold, but come on people...why do you think women aren't included in the draft-pool-thing when they turn 18 in this country? I just acknowledge that men and women are differant, physically and mentally. And I acknowledge that God acknowledges this, too.

i myself have never disputed that there are differneces, often significant ones, between men and women. i think the question is whether those differences have such a negative effect as to disallow women from being leaders in the home and at church. and what are the limitations for men? why are women the ones who have limitations? its simple. it was the culture, not god!!!

 

[Lindsey-Loo]

and yet christians will claim not only that god is 'the same yesterday today and tomorrow' in spite of blatant cultural shifts throughout the bible. all of a sudden the new testament culture got it right??? thats just ludicrous.

I would never claim this. Most Christians would, true enough. But then again, most Christians would try to weasel their way out of the NT Bible verses that say women can't have authority over men. My philosophy is that if you're going to accept the Bible, you need to accept all of it, not just the parts you like.

i myself have never disputed that there are differneces, often significant ones, between men and women. i think the question is whether those differences have such a negative effect as to disallow women from being leaders in the home and at church. and what are the limitations for men? why are women the ones who have limitations? its simple. it was the culture, not god!!!

Well, let's just say it. Generally speaking, women are usually the "weaker vessel" in the marriage. Generally speaking, women are more emotional and men are more realistic. Women generally follow their hearts more, men generally follow their brains more. I'm not sure if this is a valid point or not, but why is it that rape is almost always the male overpowering the female, not the other way around?

If recognizing all of the above makes me sexist, than whatever, so be it. Again, I know that there are very strong, realistic women, and weak, emotional men. But it seems to me that the Bible would be far more complicated and far longer if God had to lay down the rules for special allowances in each marriage, concerning men and/or women who break the mold. (Women who are more masculine, or men who are more feminine.) Am I making sense here? Or are these just half-crazed ramblings from someone who is hyped up on cold medicine right now (I'm dealing with allergies ).

 

[Prometheus]

It doesn't matter what God did or didn't do thousands of years ago, because again, that was simply part of the culture at the time. It's part of the reason the New Testament was introduced.

Are you seriously telling me that you make no distinction between who God actually is and what a culture merely believed Him to be?

My philosophy is that if you're going to accept the Bible, you need to accept all of it, not just the parts you like.

The OT is part of (the larger part, in fact) the Bible. Please practice what you preach. Don't pick and choose that you accept the NT and weasel out of the OT. If you are really going to reject the OT and only accept the NT, I'd like you to do me a favor and find just one NT verse that even implies that the OT is not to be accepted as God's word.

 

[Lindsey-Loo]

The OT is part of (the larger part, in fact) the Bible. Please practice what you preach. Don't pick and choose that you accept the NT and weasel out of the OT. If you are really going to reject the OT and only accept the NT, I'd like you to do me a favor and find just one NT verse that even implies that the OT is not to be accepted as God's word.

My pleasure. To imply that I am a hypocrite, after years of studying this subject...well, just don't even go there...I'm not the smartest person out there, but I'm thorough in my research, and I would never hold someone else to a standard that I don't hold myself to. I wouldn't even be having this discussion unless I'm quite sure of what I'm talking about. (Despite the cold medicine and allergies)

A New Covenant


7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8 Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the LORD. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds[a] I will remember no more.”[b]
13 In that He says, “A new covenant, ” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
Hebrews 8:7-13

In case you were unaware, the Old and New Testaments are often referred to as the old covenant and the new covenant. With the coming of Jesus, and the writing of the NT, the OT has become obsolete and has vanished away.

ob·so·lete

https://secure.reference.com/premiu...tp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/obsolete /ˌɒb

səˈlit, ˈɒb

səˌlit/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ob-suh-leet, ob-suh-leet] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation adjective, verb, -let·ed, -let·ing.
–adjective 1.no longer in general use; fallen into disuse: an obsolete expression. 2.of a discarded or outmoded type; out of date: an obsolete battleship. 3.(of a linguistic form) no longer in use, esp., out of use for at least the past century. Compare archaic. 4.effaced by wearing down or away.

Is that satisfactory?