Babysitting question

[atheist buddy]

Imagine you HAD TO leave your child with a babysitter. You HAD TO.

You only had two options.

Either you leave your child with Person A or with Person B

Person A is a member of the American Skeptic's Society and only carries out actions that he believes are rational and just on the basis of rational thought. That's all you know about the person.

Person B is a fundamentalist Christian who follows the edicts of the Bible to the letter and believes that God's law trumps man's law. That's all you know about the person.


Question for debate: Who do you leave your child with?


My answer: With the skeptic. This way there at least is a chance that he will not kill my child for misbehaving.

[dianaiad]

We are TALKING about your god beliefs.

Actually, no, Blastcat, we aren't. You aren't, anyway. ...and you don't get to define my beliefs for me. here's a suggestion: rather than dictating to me what my beliefs 'really' are, and then going at them hammer and tongs, why don't you ask me, and then if you have a problem with them, you address them?

It would be quite refreshing, actually, to have someone actually do that.

I don't see where you have any gripes coming. If God exists, then I think you can see that He's doing the best He can with a bunch of obstreperous offspring who, frankly, don't listen very well.

THE BEST HE CAN?.. How ridiculous. Sorry.

Poor, poor, all-knowing, all-powerful god..he's doing the very best he can. He might LIKE to do better.. but he can't. He just can't DEAL with these silly little creatures of his?

Not if these 'silly little creatures of his" actually CAN make their own decisions. You can't have this both ways. Either we have free will, in which case we CAN do stupid and evil things without His interference, or we don't, in which case then you might have a point. I believe that we do. Since you claim that we ARE discussing MY beliefs, you have to deal with that.

If we have free will, then we have free will. We can choose to do evil. God will not interfere.

That's silly. An all powerful god can do ANYTHING. ...

Omnipotence isn't omnipotence if one cannot choose NOT to do something one is able to do.

So, the problem of evil remains. Don't tell me that an all powerful, all knowing being cant DEAL with a bunch of recalcitrant dimwits.

OH COME ON.

I believe that He deals with us just fine. Decisions have consequences. Some are natural and expected results of actions taken (refusing to leave your home on the side of Mt. St. Helen during an eruption is going to get you dead), and some are the workings of justice (stealing something can get you caught, tried and jailed).

Consequences and justice come after the decision, though, not before. if not so, how would it be 'justice?'

If he does not exist, then blaming Him for any of this is useless...not to mention more than a little bit idiotic.

Atheists don't believe in any god. PERIOD. So, YEAH.. if any one of us blamed what we think doesn't EXIST for anything.. it would be WAY more than just a little idiotic, for sure.

BUT, we DON'T actually blame any god.. .. duh.. If we BLAME anyone .. we blame the people who take old superstitious fantasies as LITERALLY TRUE. IN my personal view, it's really WEIRD that grown-ups would take ancient fairy tales as true.

Y'know, I'd accept that if you weren't so determined to tell me what I 'really' believed so that you could yell about it. most of the stuff you rail at doesn't apply to those beliefs, and you STILL claim that you are discussing [my] beliefs.

I can only conclude, then, that you have a definite idea of God; not my beliefs about Him, but of God Himself, since you insist that I accept that idea...and you don't like Him.

(shrug)

What, are you afraid that if someone came up with an idea of God that you COULDN'T despise, you'd have to think about Him with a bit more charity?

But it's even MORE weird that someone would think that I believe in something that I don't believe in. I don't believe in gods. ATHEISTS are DEFINED as non god believers.. so of course, unless you find a CRAZY kind of atheist.. not one of us is going to blame or have EMOTIONS about that mythical, fictional character.

Fictional characters aren't real. So we can tell the difference between what is real, and what is fictional.

Can you?

Indeed. What's more important, I can tell the difference between the God you insist I believe in, and the God I actually do believe in. When you figure out the difference, we might actually get somewhere.

[sf]

Exodus 21 begins with "Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them." (verse 1) Who is "thou" and "them" in this context?

I, for one, do not pretend to know the intent of unidentifiable people writing two thousand years ago. Do you?

In this case, we just need to look back five verses:

"And the Lord said unto Moses, Thus thou shalt say unto the children of Israel, Ye have seen that I have talked with you from heaven." (Exodus 20:22)

So:

Thou = Moses
Them = The children (people) of Israel

Therefore, Exodus 21:1 can be read as:

Now these are the judgments which [Moses] shalt set before [the children of Israel].

Getting back to our conversation:

If they follow the Bible's edicts to the letter, they will kill the child at the first sign of disobedience.

Citation please.

exodus 21

Exodus 21 begins with "Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them." (verse 1) Who is "thou" and "them" in this context?

These instructions were spoken to the children of Israel, not for us today, so we need not be concerned about leaving our child with the "fundamentalist Christian" and having our child killed:

Imagine you HAD TO leave your child with a babysitter. You HAD TO.

You only had two options.

Either you leave your child with Person A or with Person B

Person A is a member of the American Skeptic's Society and only carries out actions that he believes are rational and just on the basis of rational thought. That's all you know about the person.

Person B is a fundamentalist Christian who follows the edicts of the Bible to the letter and believes that God's law trumps man's law. That's all you know about the person.


Question for debate: Who do you leave your child with?


My answer: With the skeptic. This way there at least is a chance that he will not kill my child for misbehaving.

(emphasis added)

[atheist buddy]

[Replying to post 4 by atheist buddy]

Well, if they follow the Bible's edicts to the letter they CANNOT be rational and caring.

I disagree with your statement. In all the Christians around the world who have children, how many kill them?

Very few. That's because most Christians don't follow the edicts of the Bible.

I mean, most Christians have never even READ the bible!

I also wonder why you apply Old Testament laws to the time when the New Covenant is clearly in effect?

Can somebody please explain to me how the New Covenant invalidates the Ten Commandments and all other Law?

Why would you claim that the Law has become invalid, when Jesus clearly said that it's easier for the heavens and earth to pass away than for the smallest tittle or detail of the Law to become invalid?

The New Covenant, as clearly spelled out in Hebrews 8 and Jeremiah 31, is simply an upgrade in the system whereby God's law, instead of being written on paper, is written in people's hearts directly.

This is reinforced by Paul in the NT.

Nowhere in the Bible does Jesus or anybody else say that "Thou shalt not murder" or "kill gay people" or "don't beat your slaves too heavily" is no longer valid.

The New Covenant is simply an upgrade in the recording of the law. Instead of being transcribed on paper and then uploaded into your heart by reading it, it's uploaded by God directly into your heart.

Kind of how instead of putting music on CDs and then playing them on our computers, we download mp3s directly into our hard drives.

The music is still the same. And the Law is still the same.

This is clearly established by scripture. Please find me a passage that says otherwise.

And besides, you don't just disobey the Old Testament edicts. You also disobey the NEW Testament edicts, as clearly spelled out by Saint Paul, the Apostle of Christ. Saint Paul clearly says that women are not allowed to speak in church or hold positions of authority.

What have you done today to follow the Inspired Word of God, written by the hand of the Apostle of Christ? Have you prevented any woman from teaching? Have you written any letter to congress demanding that all female senators and representatives resign immediately? Have you silenced any woman who attempted to speak in church?

You haven't have you? Why not, because you realize that St Paul was a monster of immorality and bigotry for commanding such things, you realize you're a better human being than he is, and you feel in no way obligated to follow his hideous commandments.

Jesus says, Let the little children come to me. He also says that if we cause the children to stumble, it would be better for us to have a millstone hung around our necks. Clearly He loves children. If Jesus came from God (which Christians believe), then it makes little sense that we would be directed to hurt them.

Big whoop. Everybody loves children. And Jesus said love yourenemies, so he would loive children even if they were his enemies. Completely and utterly meaningless.

The fact that Jesus, just like everybody else (especially catholic priests), liked children, doesn't mean that he invalidated the law whereby they should be punished if they misbehave.

Jesus specifically said that if anybody tries to change even the slightest detail of the letter of the law, he will be the last in the kingdom of heaven.

I don't know how clearly your Lord and Savior can spell out that you must follow the Law, before you'll start paying attention and start killing gay people as the Lord commands.

[atheist buddy]

Exodus 21 begins with "Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them." (verse 1) Who is "thou" and "them" in this context?

I, for one, do not pretend to know the intent of unidentifiable people writing two thousand years ago. Do you?

In this case, we just need to look back five verses:

"And the Lord said unto Moses, Thus thou shalt say unto the children of Israel, Ye have seen that I have talked with you from heaven." (Exodus 20:22)

So:

Thou = Moses
Them = The children (people) of Israel

Therefore, Exodus 21:1 can be read as:

Now these are the judgments which [Moses] shalt set before [the children of Israel].

Getting back to our conversation:

If they follow the Bible's edicts to the letter, they will kill the child at the first sign of disobedience.

Citation please.

exodus 21

Exodus 21 begins with "Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them." (verse 1) Who is "thou" and "them" in this context?

These instructions were spoken to the children of Israel, not for us today, so we need not be concerned about leaving our child with the "fundamentalist Christian" and having our child killed:

Imagine you HAD TO leave your child with a babysitter. You HAD TO.

You only had two options.

Either you leave your child with Person A or with Person B

Person A is a member of the American Skeptic's Society and only carries out actions that he believes are rational and just on the basis of rational thought. That's all you know about the person.

Person B is a fundamentalist Christian who follows the edicts of the Bible to the letter and believes that God's law trumps man's law. That's all you know about the person.


Question for debate: Who do you leave your child with?


My answer: With the skeptic. This way there at least is a chance that he will not kill my child for misbehaving.

(emphasis added)

So what you're saying is that we don't need to follow the Ten Commandments unless we're Jewish?

So the New Covenant, whereby the law is now written in our hearts, and - by Paul's words - is written into everybody's heart, including Gentiles, is no longer valid? The New Covenant is kapput? Is there a New New Covenant that you invented, whereby we just get to follow whatever Biblical edicts we feel like, and get to ignore the ones we don't like?

[sf]

Can somebody please explain to me how the New Covenant invalidates the Ten Commandments and all other Law?

Why would you claim that the Law has become invalid, when Jesus clearly said that it's easier for the heavens and earth to pass away than for the smallest tittle or detail of the Law to become invalid?

It doesn't invalidate it, it fulfills it (Matthew 5:17-18).

The New Covenant, as clearly spelled out in Hebrews 8 and Jeremiah 31, is simply an upgrade in the system whereby God's law, instead of being written on paper, is written in people's hearts directly.

This is reinforced by Paul in the NT.

Nowhere in the Bible does Jesus or anybody else say that "Thou shalt not murder" or "kill gay people" or "don't beat your slaves too heavily" is no longer valid.

The New Covenant is simply an upgrade in the recording of the law. Instead of being transcribed on paper and then uploaded into your heart by reading it, it's uploaded by God directly into your heart.

What does it mean to "fulfill" the law? The law is composed of various rules that have two parts: 1) a course of action to take/not take and 2) a punishment for not following part 1.

Let's take your example of Leviticus 20:13, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Part 1 = If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman
Part 2 = both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them

To fulfill this part of the law before Jesus' sacrifice, both persons involved in the prohibited act must be put to death. Now that Jesus gave his life to take punishment for our sins (1 Peter 2:24), we can choose to assign our punishment to Jesus. The rule (part 1) still stands, but part 2 can be accomplished by Jesus instead of our own death.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 4 by atheist buddy]

Well, if they follow the Bible's edicts to the letter they CANNOT be rational and caring.

I disagree with your statement. In all the Christians around the world who have children, how many kill them?

Very few. That's because most Christians don't follow the edicts of the Bible.

I mean, most Christians have never even READ the bible!

If you include in your count all the Christians who have ever lived, you would be correct; Christians were 'read to,' by the clergy for over fifteen hundred years.


At least.

However, if you are going to talk about the sort of Christian described by the OP....You know (well, you wrote it, so you should know) the modern 'fundamentalist Christian" who "lives the bible to the letter," then you have certainly identified a subset of Christians who do read the bible.

Now I don't know about anybody else, but you weren't talking about 'most Christians.' You were talking about a specific subset, who, by the requirements of belonging to that subset, would necessarily have to have read the bible.

But even then you have a problem, since those Christians who actually read the bible have also read the New Testament, where it is made rather clear that the Law of Moses no longer applies.

Which leaves your argument with a problem or two.

[Peds nurse]

[Replying to post 4 by atheist buddy]

Well, if they follow the Bible's edicts to the letter they CANNOT be rational and caring.

I disagree with your statement. In all the Christians around the world who have children, how many kill them?

Very few. That's because most Christians don't follow the edicts of the Bible.

I mean, most Christians have never even READ the bible!

I wonder how you would know whether or not most Christians read the Bible or not? And, are you saying for those that have read the Bible, they would be killing their children? Surely, this would make media somewhere don't you think?

I also wonder why you apply Old Testament laws to the time when the New Covenant is clearly in effect?

Can somebody please explain to me how the New Covenant invalidates the Ten Commandments and all other Law?

It doesn't invalidate the Ten Commandments, but it does invalidate other laws. The animals that were required for sacrifice for the atonement of sins is not needed since Jesus atoned for our sins. Killing of tribes who would not give up the land or were sacrificing their children in fire for their Gods, isn't a long standing commandment or a law.

Why would you claim that the Law has become invalid, when Jesus clearly said that it's easier for the heavens and earth to pass away than for the smallest tittle or detail of the Law to become invalid?

It also says that He has come to fulfill the law, of which His death has done. Jesus tells us to not set aside the Commandments, of which were 10.

The New Covenant, as clearly spelled out in Hebrews 8 and Jeremiah 31, is simply an upgrade in the system whereby God's law, instead of being written on paper, is written in people's hearts directly.

The New Covenant is Jesus's blood poured out for us (Luke 22:20). It is also His Spirit given to us, in which the veil is removed, and we can talk to Him freely. In Hebrews 8, Jesus is superior to the Old Covenant. For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. By calling this covenant new, he has made the first one obsolete., and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.

Nowhere in the Bible does Jesus or anybody else say that "Thou shalt not murder" or "kill gay people" or "don't beat your slaves too heavily" is no longer valid.

He does say that we are to love Him, love others, and pray for our enemies. How can we love others if we kill them? He doesn't say love people who only love you, and actually he talks against that.

This is clearly established by scripture. Please find me a passage that says otherwise.

I did...Romans 8

And besides, you don't just disobey the Old Testament edicts. You also disobey the NEW Testament edicts, as clearly spelled out by Saint Paul, the Apostle of Christ. Saint Paul clearly says that women are not allowed to speak in church or hold positions of authority.

Women were used in the Bible. We are not in church, and I am not saying that I have authority over you. More importantly, it also says to Love God..so, how can I be disobeying, and you are not?

What have you done today to follow the Inspired Word of God, written by the hand of the Apostle of Christ? Have you prevented any woman from teaching? Have you written any letter to congress demanding that all female senators and representatives resign immediately? Have you silenced any woman who attempted to speak in church?

No, but I am loving you...right now...

You haven't have you? Why not, because you realize that St Paul was a monster of immorality and bigotry for commanding such things, you realize you're a better human being than he is, and you feel in no way obligated to follow his hideous commandments.

Not at all. I believe that God instructed him to say such things. I believe that if God gives me a voice to speak His truth, then I must. I believe that Jesus commanded us to love Him, and by doing so, my love for others cannot be silent. I believe that I am supposed to be on this forum, for what good is it to love only those who believe as you do?

Jesus says, Let the little children come to me. He also says that if we cause the children to stumble, it would be better for us to have a millstone hung around our necks. Clearly He loves children. If Jesus came from God (which Christians believe), then it makes little sense that we would be directed to hurt them.

Big whoop. Everybody loves children. And Jesus said love yourenemies, so he would loive children even if they were his enemies. Completely and utterly meaningless.

But not everyone does love children. Jesus calls US to love our enemies, which is not meaningless at all...

The fact that Jesus, just like everybody else (especially catholic priests), liked children, doesn't mean that he invalidated the law whereby they should be punished if they misbehave.

Jesus specifically said that if anybody tries to change even the slightest detail of the letter of the law, he will be the last in the kingdom of heaven.

I don't know how clearly your Lord and Savior can spell out that you must follow the Law, before you'll start paying attention and start killing gay people as the Lord commands.

So, in a nutshell, you are promoting for Christians to kill children and gay people? And you call Christianity messed up thinking....WOW!!!!

[atheist buddy]

[Replying to post 4 by atheist buddy]

Well, if they follow the Bible's edicts to the letter they CANNOT be rational and caring.

I disagree with your statement. In all the Christians around the world who have children, how many kill them?

Very few. That's because most Christians don't follow the edicts of the Bible.

I mean, most Christians have never even READ the bible!

If you include in your count all the Christians who have ever lived, you would be correct; Christians were 'read to,' by the clergy for over fifteen hundred years.


At least.

However, if you are going to talk about the sort of Christian described by the OP....You know (well, you wrote it, so you should know) the modern 'fundamentalist Christian" who "lives the bible to the letter," then you have certainly identified a subset of Christians who do read the bible.

Now I don't know about anybody else, but you weren't talking about 'most Christians.' You were talking about a specific subset, who, by the requirements of belonging to that subset, would necessarily have to have read the bible.

I wasn't referring to the subset identified in my OP. I was directly responding to the comment by Peds Nurse, referring to, I quote, "All the Christians around the world", and asking me how come they don't kill their children. I simply pointed out that unlike the literalist Christians who DO follow the Bible (and definitely read it), most Christians don't.

Why is it so difficult to get such a simple logical argument across?

SET: CHRISTIANS

SUBSET 1: CHRISTIANS WHO HAVE NEVER READ THE ENTIRE BIBLE AND DON'T FOLLOW ALL ITS TEACHINGS

SUBSET 2: CHRISTIANS WHO HAVE READ THE ENTIRE BIBLE AND FOLLOW ALL ITS TEACHINGS

SUBSET 3: CHRISTIANS WHO HAVE READ THE ENTIRE BIBLE AND DON'T FOLLOW ALL ITS TEACHINGS

Most Christians are in subset 1. Some are in subset 3, very few are in subset 2.

But even then you have a problem, since those Christians who actually read the bible have also read the New Testament, where it is made rather clear that the Law of Moses no longer applies.

I continue to fail to understand why you say that the Ten Commandments are no longer valid. Is it ok to murder now? Is it ok to steal? Is it ok to lie? Is it ok to let gay people live?

Where in the world do you get this notion that the New Covenant means that the Commandments have been abolished, in direct contradiction to the words of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

The New Covenant is simply God changing the recording device which he uses to communicate the law to us. At first he used prophets that he spoke to, and relied on them to write the law down.

Then in the new covenant, he decided to write the law directly into our hearts, as specified in Hebrew, Jeremiah and the Pauline texts.

God just changed the downloading method, much like going from dial-up to cable internet.

Nowhere, and I mean NOWHERE, in the Bible does it say that Thou Shalt Not Murder, or, Thou Shalt not Steal or Thou Shalt Not Suffer a Witch to Live have become invalid or have been abolished. NOWHERE.

To the contrary Jesus clearly states that he has come to fulfil the law, not to abolish it, and that it's virtually impossible for any portion of the Law to become invalid.

Please, in the name of Peter Pan, tell me what your justification is for holding to a position that not only has zero positive support in scripture, but is actually the diametrical opposite of a crystal clear position stated multiple times by the Son of Man himself!


I'm sorry, but there is NO scriptural justification for not killing gay people, not owning slaves, not killing witches, not forcing women to marry their rapists, not forbidding women from speaking in church, etc. You are against all these things because you realize that the authors of the Bible are morally wrong in commandning them.

Of course you cannot admit the authors of the Bible are wrong, because you think the author of the Bible is God.

Which leaves your argument with a problem or two.

It seems to me that youre the one with problematic arguments.

My position is very simple. I don't kill people for being gay, because killing people for being gay is wrong, has always been wrong, will always be wrong.

I don't prevent women from holding positions of authority (as Paul commands) because subjugating women is wrong, has always been wrong, will always be wrong.

I don't own slaves because slavery is wrong, has always been wrong, will always be wrong.


Can you say that killing gays, subjugating women and owning slaves has always been wrong? You can't can you? Becuase that makes the Bible wrong.

And yet you have the gall to say that my argument has a problem or too. lol

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 77 by Peds nurse]

It doesn't invalidate the Ten Commandments, but it does invalidate other laws.

Where, exactly, is the official list of laws that have been invalidated (that Christians are not required to obey) and the list of laws that DO apply?

If there is no official, authorized list HOW do Christians know which laws to obey and which they can ignore? Do Christians just follow whatever laws they choose and ignore the rest?

The Ten Commandments are NOT listed in the NT, are they? If not, doesn't that indicate they are Jewish, not Christian?

It also says that He has come to fulfill the law, of which His death has done.

How did the death of Jesus "fulfill" 615 laws of the Jewish Bible (the OT)? For instance, how did his death fulfill the law against wearing garments of mixed fabrics?

Jesus tells us to not set aside the Commandments, of which were 10.

Isn't Jesus quoted as saying there were only TWO commandments? How do ten get in there?

In Hebrews 8, Jesus is superior to the Old Covenant. For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. By calling this covenant new, he has made the first one obsolete.

A covenant means an agreement between two or more parties stipulating that they are bound by its terms. (Actual definition: an agreement, usually formal, between two or more persons to do or not do something specified).

Who, exactly, are the parties / people who have agreed to do or not do something?

Since no one has authority to make an agreement for another person (unless specifically authorized " as with a Power of Attorney or similar vehicle) " WHO signed (agreed) for any of us?

A mandate (or command) is VERY different from a covenant. It is defined as: an official or authoritative command; an order or injunction. A dictator who says "Worship me and you get to live but fail to worship and you will be punished very severely" is issuing a mandate / command " NOT a covenant.

The difference is that in covenants the parties agree willingly and in mandates / commands they are ordered to do or not do certain things whether they agree to be bound by the edict or not.

Who agreed on the part of anyone living now?


Further, PN, if the old laws were defective and in need of change, what does that say about the supposed originator of those laws? Not very wise, right? Would it not be more sensible to consider all the "laws of God" to be laws made up by humans and attributed to God?

Other religions have laws that they attribute to their gods. Does that mean they came from gods and were not made up by humans? Or does it mean that different gods give humans different laws?

[atheist buddy]

[Replying to post 4 by atheist buddy]

Well, if they follow the Bible's edicts to the letter they CANNOT be rational and caring.

I disagree with your statement. In all the Christians around the world who have children, how many kill them?

Very few. That's because most Christians don't follow the edicts of the Bible.

I mean, most Christians have never even READ the bible!

I wonder how you would know whether or not most Christians read the Bible or not? And, are you saying for those that have read the Bible, they would be killing their children? Surely, this would make media somewhere don't you think?

I know that most Christians haven't read the Bible because polling on Biblical literacy shows that all christians other than evangelicals rank lower in Biblical literacy than even atheists.

I'm not saying that those that have read the Bible would be killing their children. Of course. you can read the whole Bible but choose not to obey it. That's what you do.

Can somebody please explain to me how the New Covenant invalidates the Ten Commandments and all other Law?

It doesn't invalidate the Ten Commandments, but it does invalidate other laws. The animals that were required for sacrifice for the atonement of sins is not needed since Jesus atoned for our sins. Killing of tribes who would not give up the land or were sacrificing their children in fire for their Gods, isn't a long standing commandment or a law.

Right, God sacrificing himself to himself abated God's desire for the smell of burning blood which he stated he enjoyed in previous instances, and so the SACRIFICIAL laws were abolished.

That doesn't mean that the MORAL laws were abolished. Stuff like "thou shalt not steal" and "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live among you", and stuff about passing slaves down to your children as inheritance have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the sacrificial laws that were abolished. They still stand.

What logical argument can you possibly mount for the notion that Jesus making a blood sacrifice to himself, doens't invalidate the commandment not to steal, but it invlaidates the commandment not to be gay. Both these things have nothing to do with sacrificial law.

Why would you claim that the Law has become invalid, when Jesus clearly said that it's easier for the heavens and earth to pass away than for the smallest tittle or detail of the Law to become invalid?

It also says that He has come to fulfill the law, of which His death has done.

Right, so Jesus fulfilled sacrificial law by sacrificing himself to himself. I get that. But the moral law still applies. It's still wrong to steal and to let witches live, right?

Jesus tells us to not set aside the Commandments, of which were 10.

Regarding people who've never read the Bible, once you've read exodus 20 here's a suggestion: CONTINUE READING. You'll find that there are lots of commandments after the first 10.

The New Covenant, as clearly spelled out in Hebrews 8 and Jeremiah 31, is simply an upgrade in the system whereby God's law, instead of being written on paper, is written in people's hearts directly.

The New Covenant is Jesus's blood poured out for us (Luke 22:20).

Right, God sacrificed himself to himself, to forgive us for being the way he made us. I got that part. The commandments are still valid despite this perverted blood sacrifice.

It is also His Spirit given to us, in which the veil is removed, and we can talk to Him freely.

Right, in the New Covenant, God puts the law directly in our heart instead of communicating with us through the proxy of prophets like Moses. The law is still valid.

In Hebrews 8, Jesus is superior to the Old Covenant. For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another.

Right. So there was something wrong with the Old Covenant. God messed up and he had to fix his mistake. Hey, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. And if there was nothing wrong with the old, what need for the new, right? So, God got something wrong. Well, whatever, nobody's perfect.... wait isn't God supposed to be perfect?

By calling this covenant new, he has made the first one obsolete., and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.

Yes, bv sacrificing himself to himself to satiate his thirst for blood, God made the sacrificial law obsolete.

But the moral law still stands. God just changed the method of delivery.

If you upgrade from cassetes to CDs, it makes cassettes obsolete, it doesn't make the MUSIC ITSELF (previously on tapes, now on CDs) obsolete.

Similarly, upgrading the system from the old covenant in which God spoke to us through prophets, to the New in which God spoke to us directly, God made prophets obsolete, not the content itself. The law is still valid, as clearly spelled out by Jesus.

Nowhere in the Bible does Jesus or anybody else say that "Thou shalt not murder" or "kill gay people" or "don't beat your slaves too heavily" is no longer valid.

He does say that we are to love Him, love others, and pray for our enemies. How can we love others if we kill them? He doesn't say love people who only love you, and actually he talks against that.

So God was anti-love before 1AD?

The universe has been around for 13.8 billion years. God has had almost 14 billion years to think things through, and it's only 2000 years ago that he realized that all his anti-love laws about killing gay people and owning slaves were wrong, and he decided to become pro-love, and to do so by sacrificing himself to himself after etting a 14 year old virgin pregnant with himself?

Really?

This is clearly established by scripture. Please find me a passage that says otherwise.

I did...Romans 8

I don't get it. Romans 8 simply says to live acoridng to the spirit, not according to the flesh. Does this mean that if you live according to the spirit then it's ok to kill people, or it's ok to be gay, or it's ok steal, or it's ok to let women speak in church, or do any of the things the Bible forbids? What are you talking about?

And besides, you don't just disobey the Old Testament edicts. You also disobey the NEW Testament edicts, as clearly spelled out by Saint Paul, the Apostle of Christ. Saint Paul clearly says that women are not allowed to speak in church or hold positions of authority.

Women were used in the Bible.

I know. It's very very evil how women were used and subjugated in the Bible. I'm glad you agree..

We are not in church

Right if we were, I wouldn't be allowed to speak, according to Saint Paul the Apostle of Jesus Christ. Was St Paul wrong?

and I am not saying that I have authority over you

Well, then you're in disagreement with Saint Paul. I guess you don't care about what the Apostles of your Savior have to say.

More importantly, it also says to Love God..so, how can I be disobeying, and you are not?

If you love God, then you're obeying the commandment to love God. If you are not stealing, then you're obeying the commandment not to steal. But if you're letting a witch live, you're disobeying the commandment to kill witchies, and if you're letting a woman speak in church you're disobeying the commandment to prevent women from speaking in church.

What have you done today to follow the Inspired Word of God, written by the hand of the Apostle of Christ? Have you prevented any woman from teaching? Have you written any letter to congress demanding that all female senators and representatives resign immediately? Have you silenced any woman who attempted to speak in church?

No, but I am loving you...right now...

Well, you could have phrased that better, but I appreciate the sentiment. I am in favor of love too. Have always been, unlike God who only came round to my way of thinking recently after millenia of genocide and atrocities.

You know what the difference between you and me is? I don't need Pontious Pilate to torture a jewish carpenter to death, and I don't need to believe fairy tales invented about the guy (very similar to fairy tales invented about other guys before him) in order to be a loving person.

I am a loving person just because. You're a loving person because God was anti-love and pro-murer for millenia, but realized he was wrong, created a new covenant and now wants you to be loving.

If God changes his mind tomorrow and gives us a New New Covenant whereby he wants us to go back to killing gay people, you will go back to that. Whereas I will remain true to my loving nature.

You haven't have you? Why not, because you realize that St Paul was a monster of immorality and bigotry for commanding such things, you realize you're a better human being than he is, and you feel in no way obligated to follow his hideous commandments.

Not at all. I believe that God instructed him to say such things.

Ok, so if God instructed Paul to say that women are intrinsically inferior to men, then God is a despicable monster.

I believe that if God gives me a voice to speak His truth, then I must. I believe that Jesus commanded us to love Him, and by doing so, my love for others cannot be silent. I believe that I am supposed to be on this forum, for what good is it to love only those who believe as you do?

I agree that we should be tollerant and loving towards those different from us.

It was utterly wrong for God to command that member sof other religions should be killed. I'm glad we agree that God was wrong.

Jesus calls US to love our enemies, which is not meaningless at all...

Loving your enemies is pretty weird, if you ask me.

Not being unnecessarily ruel towards your enemies? Sure. Be compassionate towards your enemies? Sure. Try to see where your enemies are coming from? Sure. Try to reason with your enemies? Sure. Try to make peace with your enemies and transform them into friends? Sure.

I'm sorry, but if some guy is trying to rape my daughter he is my enemy, and if the only way to prevent him from doing that is by huring them or even killing them, I will.

If you're saying I shouldn't kill him, but love him instead, then you're crazy (I don't think you're saying that).

If you're saying that I should kill him, but in a loving way, then you're making the entire concept of love meaningless.

The fact that Jesus, just like everybody else (especially catholic priests), liked children, doesn't mean that he invalidated the law whereby they should be punished if they misbehave.

Jesus specifically said that if anybody tries to change even the slightest detail of the letter of the law, he will be the last in the kingdom of heaven.

I don't know how clearly your Lord and Savior can spell out that you must follow the Law, before you'll start paying attention and start killing gay people as the Lord commands.

So, in a nutshell, you are promoting for Christians to kill children and gay people? And you call Christianity messed up thinking....WOW!!!!

No, I'm arguing that the Bible irrefutably requires people to gill gay men. This is an irrefutable doctrinal fact.

Therefore there are only two ways to live a life that doesn't involve killing gay people, owning slaves, etc.

First way: Don't follow the teachings of the Bible, and be open about it. i.e. Be an atheist

Second way: Don't follow the teachings of the Bible, but say that you do follow the Bible. i.e. be a hypocrit