The Bible is an immoral book

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hi so I’m a Christian and here is my response. So you have to remember that in much of Israel’s history they were a theocracy, meaning God was their leader instead of an human ruler like a king. So anything that was offensive to God could be punished. That is why you have verses like “don’t allow a sorceress to live” because witchcraft is directly offensive to God. Since he’s in charge, it is justified for Him to punish things that offend him.

And the big other thing you mentioned was various verses about God’s commandment to wipe out or drive out various people groups. Now on the surface it seems like God takes sides. I’d recommend you read about the post-Flood Nephilim, they really explain why there was so much killing and violence toward other nations.

So you don't disagree those things are immoral, then? Good, thanks for being honest. It is genuinely appreciated.

Different poster (although you said you don’t want either of us here). The quote is from the Old Testament. PP is a bible literalist, and they’re in the minority. Most Christians believe, as Jesus told us, that the New Testament supplants the Old, that violence is always wrong, that we should turn the other cheek, etc.

Why would Christians believe that when Jesus said the opposite?:

“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” — Matthew 5:18-19

“It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17)

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17)

“Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law” (John 7:19)

The passage from Matthew, above, is the law according to Jesus.

Can you cite that for us please?

It’s already at 7:02. Ignoring all responses is exactly the bad faith on your part that stops people from engaging with you.

Please accept the possibility that I simply don't understand how the 7:02 post cites a misinterpretation of the Matthew quote and explain it to me.

It’s obvious on its face of you read carefully—or if you read it at all, which apparently you haven’t. Nobody is going to let you troll them like this.

DP - 7:02 is a list of quotes from Matthew. Some Christians think citing chapter and verse of the Bible is sufficient explanation, with no need to explain their relevance. It could also mean that they don't really understand themselves, so fall back on the "authority" of the Bible to avoid further discussion

It’s not a “list of quotes,” it’s a single speech. And yes, the point it makes is extremely obvious and needs no explanation—unless you’re deliberately trying to miss the point.

IOW, pp continues to insult, while refusing to explain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Context matters, I'm sure. Do you know much about the bible? A list of random quotes doesn't tell anyone much, one way or the other.

Also, about that bee in your bonnet. Some threads, like this one are inviting conversation on a topic to explore various sides of it. The thread that appears to have triggered you was the equivalent of someone saying "Happy Birthday" and you arguing about whether or not it was really happy, and why should it be, and how do we even know you were really born on this day no matter what the birth certificate says, and so on. Some things aren't asking for discussion and debate, like common holiday exclamations and traditional phrases like "happy birthday," "allelujah, he is risen," "merry christmas," "mazel tov," etc. They aren't arguments.

I suspect OP is reacting to the many times when Christians told non-believers not to participate their discussions. OP clearly stated "this thread is for people who believe the bible to be an immoral book." Yet it seems CHristians feel a need to defend their book, knowing their opinion is not wanted.

How does it feel to have your point of view discounted in a public discussion group?

Where are the Christians defending their book?

Most, not all, of the quotes are from the Old Testament. Which means your audience is Jews as well as Christians, who think the New Testament supersedes the Old.

But I suspect most people think a bunch of quotes taken out of context do not prove it’s an immoral book. So they don’t think this thread applies to them and, as you requested, they’re ignoring you.

Yet Christians quote the OT whenever it suits them and don't address how Jesus's Dad -- the God of the old testament - can be discounted. I mean, he's the father in the holy trinity.

You are creating a straw man by say "Christians" say or do this or that. Its a very broad group of people with a pretty wide variety of views on how to view the biblical texts. So your complaints actually don't make sense to a lot of people who understand this and make you sound like you are an average 5th grader arguing in a PhD astrophysics class about something you read about in the kid's edition of National Geographic. I think these debates are great, but you are starting from a point of view that just doesn't exist (i.e., that all Christian's believe this or that and never debate or question anything.)

+100

So how do you know who's right, espeially on the big questions. There's another thread in which a seminary president doesn't support the resurrection. Is she right?

You don't. It is philosophy. Which philosopher that you have studied would you say is 'right' about metaphysics?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t feed the troll.

+1000

+2000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Context matters, I'm sure. Do you know much about the bible? A list of random quotes doesn't tell anyone much, one way or the other.

Also, about that bee in your bonnet. Some threads, like this one are inviting conversation on a topic to explore various sides of it. The thread that appears to have triggered you was the equivalent of someone saying "Happy Birthday" and you arguing about whether or not it was really happy, and why should it be, and how do we even know you were really born on this day no matter what the birth certificate says, and so on. Some things aren't asking for discussion and debate, like common holiday exclamations and traditional phrases like "happy birthday," "allelujah, he is risen," "merry christmas," "mazel tov," etc. They aren't arguments.

I suspect OP is reacting to the many times when Christians told non-believers not to participate their discussions. OP clearly stated "this thread is for people who believe the bible to be an immoral book." Yet it seems CHristians feel a need to defend their book, knowing their opinion is not wanted.

How does it feel to have your point of view discounted in a public discussion group?

Where are the Christians defending their book?

Most, not all, of the quotes are from the Old Testament. Which means your audience is Jews as well as Christians, who think the New Testament supersedes the Old.

But I suspect most people think a bunch of quotes taken out of context do not prove it’s an immoral book. So they don’t think this thread applies to them and, as you requested, they’re ignoring you.

Yet Christians quote the OT whenever it suits them and don't address how Jesus's Dad -- the God of the old testament - can be discounted. I mean, he's the father in the holy trinity.

You are creating a straw man by say "Christians" say or do this or that. Its a very broad group of people with a pretty wide variety of views on how to view the biblical texts. So your complaints actually don't make sense to a lot of people who understand this and make you sound like you are an average 5th grader arguing in a PhD astrophysics class about something you read about in the kid's edition of National Geographic. I think these debates are great, but you are starting from a point of view that just doesn't exist (i.e., that all Christian's believe this or that and never debate or question anything.)

+100

So how do you know who's right, espeially on the big questions. There's another thread in which a seminary president doesn't support the resurrection. Is she right?

You don't. It is philosophy. Which philosopher that you have studied would you say is 'right' about metaphysics?

Pp, while your intentions are good, you’re feeding a troll who has no intention of giving actual attention to anything you say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hi so I’m a Christian and here is my response. So you have to remember that in much of Israel’s history they were a theocracy, meaning God was their leader instead of an human ruler like a king. So anything that was offensive to God could be punished. That is why you have verses like “don’t allow a sorceress to live” because witchcraft is directly offensive to God. Since he’s in charge, it is justified for Him to punish things that offend him.

And the big other thing you mentioned was various verses about God’s commandment to wipe out or drive out various people groups. Now on the surface it seems like God takes sides. I’d recommend you read about the post-Flood Nephilim, they really explain why there was so much killing and violence toward other nations.

So you don't disagree those things are immoral, then? Good, thanks for being honest. It is genuinely appreciated.

Different poster (although you said you don’t want either of us here). The quote is from the Old Testament. PP is a bible literalist, and they’re in the minority. Most Christians believe, as Jesus told us, that the New Testament supplants the Old, that violence is always wrong, that we should turn the other cheek, etc.

Why would Christians believe that when Jesus said the opposite?:

“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” — Matthew 5:18-19

“It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17)

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17)

“Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law” (John 7:19)

The passage from Matthew, above, is the law according to Jesus.

Can you cite that for us please?

It’s already at 7:02. Ignoring all responses is exactly the bad faith on your part that stops people from engaging with you.

Please accept the possibility that I simply don't understand how the 7:02 post cites a misinterpretation of the Matthew quote and explain it to me.

It’s obvious on its face of you read carefully—or if you read it at all, which apparently you haven’t. Nobody is going to let you troll them like this.

DP - 7:02 is a list of quotes from Matthew. Some Christians think citing chapter and verse of the Bible is sufficient explanation, with no need to explain their relevance. It could also mean that they don't really understand themselves, so fall back on the "authority" of the Bible to avoid further discussion

It’s not a “list of quotes,” it’s a single speech. And yes, the point it makes is extremely obvious and needs no explanation—unless you’re deliberately trying to miss the point.

I understand the speech. What I don't understand is the the claim that the speech means Jesus was not talking about the OT in the Matthew quote. Also, none of the other statements in that post were refuted either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Context matters, I'm sure. Do you know much about the bible? A list of random quotes doesn't tell anyone much, one way or the other.

Also, about that bee in your bonnet. Some threads, like this one are inviting conversation on a topic to explore various sides of it. The thread that appears to have triggered you was the equivalent of someone saying "Happy Birthday" and you arguing about whether or not it was really happy, and why should it be, and how do we even know you were really born on this day no matter what the birth certificate says, and so on. Some things aren't asking for discussion and debate, like common holiday exclamations and traditional phrases like "happy birthday," "allelujah, he is risen," "merry christmas," "mazel tov," etc. They aren't arguments.

I suspect OP is reacting to the many times when Christians told non-believers not to participate their discussions. OP clearly stated "this thread is for people who believe the bible to be an immoral book." Yet it seems CHristians feel a need to defend their book, knowing their opinion is not wanted.

How does it feel to have your point of view discounted in a public discussion group?

Where are the Christians defending their book?

Most, not all, of the quotes are from the Old Testament. Which means your audience is Jews as well as Christians, who think the New Testament supersedes the Old.

But I suspect most people think a bunch of quotes taken out of context do not prove it’s an immoral book. So they don’t think this thread applies to them and, as you requested, they’re ignoring you.

Yet Christians quote the OT whenever it suits them and don't address how Jesus's Dad -- the God of the old testament - can be discounted. I mean, he's the father in the holy trinity.

You are creating a straw man by say "Christians" say or do this or that. Its a very broad group of people with a pretty wide variety of views on how to view the biblical texts. So your complaints actually don't make sense to a lot of people who understand this and make you sound like you are an average 5th grader arguing in a PhD astrophysics class about something you read about in the kid's edition of National Geographic. I think these debates are great, but you are starting from a point of view that just doesn't exist (i.e., that all Christian's believe this or that and never debate or question anything.)

+100

So how do you know who's right, espeially on the big questions. There's another thread in which a seminary president doesn't support the resurrection. Is she right?

You don't. It is philosophy. Which philosopher that you have studied would you say is 'right' about metaphysics?

Pp, while your intentions are good, you’re feeding a troll who has no intention of giving actual attention to anything you say.

Or you could be having a conversation with someone with a different perspective. It's possible that no one will change their minds during the conversation, but they will have been exposed to other ways of thinking.

[Anonymous]

Except you are not interested in other ways of thinking. Have you read the bible cover to cover? What kind of education do you have?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I adore the Old Testament as history and literature. It's all right there: the greatest story ever told, and certainly a foundational text of western civilization. And, yes, it contains descriptions of actions that one may deem "immoral," but the book isn't immoral.

Agreed, it's only immoral if presented as a modern guide to morality. It's a book of stories from antiquity. Some stories have moral guidance (for those times) and/or factual information in them, some don't, like an other story.

+1

A pastor recently said, "The Bible is the Word of God, not the words of God." The Bible isn't a unitary document, it's a collection of different books written at different times in different styles--poetry, proverbs, prophecy, allegory, rules, history, etc. Parts of it contradict other parts--heck, there are two creation stories! I don't think it CAN be taken literally in any meaningful way. The OT is, fundamentally, the story of God's relationship with the Israelites, and the NT is, fundamentally, about the expansion of that relationship to all people through the person of Jesus Christ. But the people that wrote those books were limited--they were from a specific time and place and culture, they had their own blind spots and prejudices, and while they may have been divinely inspired, they were not divinely possessed.

People like the OP are not different from people who wield clobber verses--they are just playing a game, and it's a stupid game.

[Anonymous]

That's fine if OP is a troll or not. OP isn't the only person who will read this. Maybe someone else will learn something. There is a ton of misinformation out there. I was really shocked when I discovered that a highly educated friend thought Catholics were literal creationists. He'd just never actually read much theology and wholly misunderstood the field of study, as many people do. Up until then, I'd viewed religion as a topic of discussion to avoid, but then I realized that's probably why so many people hold such misinformed, even cartoonish, opinions about it (including people who are religious, who don't really know as much as they think they do about their own religion).

As with most fields, there is so much to learn and discuss and wonder about. And the reality is most people stop studying it around age 13 if not younger, so they never really get to the intellectual aspects because they major in something other than theology. The problem is when one continues to act as if they know all there is to know about the subject. I also think many religions do a poor job educating children about religion because they underestimate their intellectual capabilities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I adore the Old Testament as history and literature. It's all right there: the greatest story ever told, and certainly a foundational text of western civilization. And, yes, it contains descriptions of actions that one may deem "immoral," but the book isn't immoral.

Agreed, it's only immoral if presented as a modern guide to morality. It's a book of stories from antiquity. Some stories have moral guidance (for those times) and/or factual information in them, some don't, like an other story.

+1

A pastor recently said, "The Bible is the Word of God, not the words of God." The Bible isn't a unitary document, it's a collection of different books written at different times in different styles--poetry, proverbs, prophecy, allegory, rules, history, etc. Parts of it contradict other parts--heck, there are two creation stories! I don't think it CAN be taken literally in any meaningful way. The OT is, fundamentally, the story of God's relationship with the Israelites, and the NT is, fundamentally, about the expansion of that relationship to all people through the person of Jesus Christ. But the people that wrote those books were limited--they were from a specific time and place and culture, they had their own blind spots and prejudices, and while they may have been divinely inspired, they were not divinely possessed.

People like the OP are not different from people who wield clobber verses--they are just playing a game, and it's a stupid game.

But they don't feel stupid. They feel morally superior

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hi so I’m a Christian and here is my response. So you have to remember that in much of Israel’s history they were a theocracy, meaning God was their leader instead of an human ruler like a king. So anything that was offensive to God could be punished. That is why you have verses like “don’t allow a sorceress to live” because witchcraft is directly offensive to God. Since he’s in charge, it is justified for Him to punish things that offend him.

And the big other thing you mentioned was various verses about God’s commandment to wipe out or drive out various people groups. Now on the surface it seems like God takes sides. I’d recommend you read about the post-Flood Nephilim, they really explain why there was so much killing and violence toward other nations.

So you don't disagree those things are immoral, then? Good, thanks for being honest. It is genuinely appreciated.

Different poster (although you said you don’t want either of us here). The quote is from the Old Testament. PP is a bible literalist, and they’re in the minority. Most Christians believe, as Jesus told us, that the New Testament supplants the Old, that violence is always wrong, that we should turn the other cheek, etc.

Why would Christians believe that when Jesus said the opposite?:

“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” — Matthew 5:18-19

“It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17)

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17)

“Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law” (John 7:19)

The passage from Matthew, above, is the law according to Jesus.

Can you cite that for us please?

It’s already at 7:02. Ignoring all responses is exactly the bad faith on your part that stops people from engaging with you.

Please accept the possibility that I simply don't understand how the 7:02 post cites a misinterpretation of the Matthew quote and explain it to me.

It’s obvious on its face of you read carefully—or if you read it at all, which apparently you haven’t. Nobody is going to let you troll them like this.

DP - 7:02 is a list of quotes from Matthew. Some Christians think citing chapter and verse of the Bible is sufficient explanation, with no need to explain their relevance. It could also mean that they don't really understand themselves, so fall back on the "authority" of the Bible to avoid further discussion

It’s not a “list of quotes,” it’s a single speech. And yes, the point it makes is extremely obvious and needs no explanation—unless you’re deliberately trying to miss the point.

I understand the speech. What I don't understand is the the claim that the speech means Jesus was not talking about the OT in the Matthew quote. Also, none of the other statements in that post were refuted either.

You aren't making sense because your fundamental premise is all off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hi so I’m a Christian and here is my response. So you have to remember that in much of Israel’s history they were a theocracy, meaning God was their leader instead of an human ruler like a king. So anything that was offensive to God could be punished. That is why you have verses like “don’t allow a sorceress to live” because witchcraft is directly offensive to God. Since he’s in charge, it is justified for Him to punish things that offend him.

And the big other thing you mentioned was various verses about God’s commandment to wipe out or drive out various people groups. Now on the surface it seems like God takes sides. I’d recommend you read about the post-Flood Nephilim, they really explain why there was so much killing and violence toward other nations.

So you don't disagree those things are immoral, then? Good, thanks for being honest. It is genuinely appreciated.

Different poster (although you said you don’t want either of us here). The quote is from the Old Testament. PP is a bible literalist, and they’re in the minority. Most Christians believe, as Jesus told us, that the New Testament supplants the Old, that violence is always wrong, that we should turn the other cheek, etc.

Why would Christians believe that when Jesus said the opposite?:

“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” — Matthew 5:18-19

“It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17)

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17)

“Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law” (John 7:19)

The passage from Matthew, above, is the law according to Jesus.

Can you cite that for us please?

It’s already at 7:02. Ignoring all responses is exactly the bad faith on your part that stops people from engaging with you.

Please accept the possibility that I simply don't understand how the 7:02 post cites a misinterpretation of the Matthew quote and explain it to me.

It’s obvious on its face of you read carefully—or if you read it at all, which apparently you haven’t. Nobody is going to let you troll them like this.

DP - 7:02 is a list of quotes from Matthew. Some Christians think citing chapter and verse of the Bible is sufficient explanation, with no need to explain their relevance. It could also mean that they don't really understand themselves, so fall back on the "authority" of the Bible to avoid further discussion

It’s not a “list of quotes,” it’s a single speech. And yes, the point it makes is extremely obvious and needs no explanation—unless you’re deliberately trying to miss the point.

I understand the speech. What I don't understand is the the claim that the speech means Jesus was not talking about the OT in the Matthew quote. Also, none of the other statements in that post were refuted either.

Nobody said that. Ever. Your refusal to make even a minimal effort to follow what people say is why you’re accused of being a troll.

Jesus WAS talking about the Old Testament when he said “you have heard that you should hate your enemy (OT) but I say love your enemy (NT). Et cetera et cetera.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hi so I’m a Christian and here is my response. So you have to remember that in much of Israel’s history they were a theocracy, meaning God was their leader instead of an human ruler like a king. So anything that was offensive to God could be punished. That is why you have verses like “don’t allow a sorceress to live” because witchcraft is directly offensive to God. Since he’s in charge, it is justified for Him to punish things that offend him.

And the big other thing you mentioned was various verses about God’s commandment to wipe out or drive out various people groups. Now on the surface it seems like God takes sides. I’d recommend you read about the post-Flood Nephilim, they really explain why there was so much killing and violence toward other nations.

So you don't disagree those things are immoral, then? Good, thanks for being honest. It is genuinely appreciated.

Different poster (although you said you don’t want either of us here). The quote is from the Old Testament. PP is a bible literalist, and they’re in the minority. Most Christians believe, as Jesus told us, that the New Testament supplants the Old, that violence is always wrong, that we should turn the other cheek, etc.

This is your chance to educate me.

Why would Christians believe that when Jesus said the opposite?:

“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” — Matthew 5:18-19

“It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17)

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17)

“Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law” (John 7:19)

The passage from Matthew, above, is the law according to Jesus.

Can you cite that for us please?

It’s already at 7:02. Ignoring all responses is exactly the bad faith on your part that stops people from engaging with you.

Please accept the possibility that I simply don't understand how the 7:02 post cites a misinterpretation of the Matthew quote and explain it to me.

It’s obvious on its face of you read carefully—or if you read it at all, which apparently you haven’t. Nobody is going to let you troll them like this.

DP - 7:02 is a list of quotes from Matthew. Some Christians think citing chapter and verse of the Bible is sufficient explanation, with no need to explain their relevance. It could also mean that they don't really understand themselves, so fall back on the "authority" of the Bible to avoid further discussion

It’s not a “list of quotes,” it’s a single speech. And yes, the point it makes is extremely obvious and needs no explanation—unless you’re deliberately trying to miss the point.

I understand the speech. What I don't understand is the the claim that the speech means Jesus was not talking about the OT in the Matthew quote. Also, none of the other statements in that post were refuted either.

You aren't making sense because your fundamental premise is all off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hi so I’m a Christian and here is my response. So you have to remember that in much of Israel’s history they were a theocracy, meaning God was their leader instead of an human ruler like a king. So anything that was offensive to God could be punished. That is why you have verses like “don’t allow a sorceress to live” because witchcraft is directly offensive to God. Since he’s in charge, it is justified for Him to punish things that offend him.

And the big other thing you mentioned was various verses about God’s commandment to wipe out or drive out various people groups. Now on the surface it seems like God takes sides. I’d recommend you read about the post-Flood Nephilim, they really explain why there was so much killing and violence toward other nations.

So you don't disagree those things are immoral, then? Good, thanks for being honest. It is genuinely appreciated.

Different poster (although you said you don’t want either of us here). The quote is from the Old Testament. PP is a bible literalist, and they’re in the minority. Most Christians believe, as Jesus told us, that the New Testament supplants the Old, that violence is always wrong, that we should turn the other cheek, etc.

Why would Christians believe that when Jesus said the opposite?:

“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” — Matthew 5:18-19

“It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17)

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17)

“Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law” (John 7:19)

The passage from Matthew, above, is the law according to Jesus.

Can you cite that for us please?

It’s already at 7:02. Ignoring all responses is exactly the bad faith on your part that stops people from engaging with you.

Please accept the possibility that I simply don't understand how the 7:02 post cites a misinterpretation of the Matthew quote and explain it to me.

It’s obvious on its face of you read carefully—or if you read it at all, which apparently you haven’t. Nobody is going to let you troll them like this.

DP - 7:02 is a list of quotes from Matthew. Some Christians think citing chapter and verse of the Bible is sufficient explanation, with no need to explain their relevance. It could also mean that they don't really understand themselves, so fall back on the "authority" of the Bible to avoid further discussion

It’s not a “list of quotes,” it’s a single speech. And yes, the point it makes is extremely obvious and needs no explanation—unless you’re deliberately trying to miss the point.

I understand the speech. What I don't understand is the the claim that the speech means Jesus was not talking about the OT in the Matthew quote. Also, none of the other statements in that post were refuted either.

Nobody said that. Ever. Your refusal to make even a minimal effort to follow what people say is why you’re accused of being a troll.

Jesus WAS talking about the Old Testament when he said “you have heard that you should hate your enemy (OT) but I say love your enemy (NT). Et cetera et cetera.

Nobody said that ever?

The passage from Matthew, above, is the law according to Jesus.


Can you cite that for us please?


It’s already at 7:02. Ignoring all responses is exactly the bad faith on your part that stops people from engaging with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hi so I’m a Christian and here is my response. So you have to remember that in much of Israel’s history they were a theocracy, meaning God was their leader instead of an human ruler like a king. So anything that was offensive to God could be punished. That is why you have verses like “don’t allow a sorceress to live” because witchcraft is directly offensive to God. Since he’s in charge, it is justified for Him to punish things that offend him.

And the big other thing you mentioned was various verses about God’s commandment to wipe out or drive out various people groups. Now on the surface it seems like God takes sides. I’d recommend you read about the post-Flood Nephilim, they really explain why there was so much killing and violence toward other nations.

So you don't disagree those things are immoral, then? Good, thanks for being honest. It is genuinely appreciated.

Different poster (although you said you don’t want either of us here). The quote is from the Old Testament. PP is a bible literalist, and they’re in the minority. Most Christians believe, as Jesus told us, that the New Testament supplants the Old, that violence is always wrong, that we should turn the other cheek, etc.

Why would Christians believe that when Jesus said the opposite?:

“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” — Matthew 5:18-19

“It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17)

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17)

“Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law” (John 7:19)

The passage from Matthew, above, is the law according to Jesus.

Can you cite that for us please?

It’s already at 7:02. Ignoring all responses is exactly the bad faith on your part that stops people from engaging with you.

Please accept the possibility that I simply don't understand how the 7:02 post cites a misinterpretation of the Matthew quote and explain it to me.

It’s obvious on its face of you read carefully—or if you read it at all, which apparently you haven’t. Nobody is going to let you troll them like this.

DP - 7:02 is a list of quotes from Matthew. Some Christians think citing chapter and verse of the Bible is sufficient explanation, with no need to explain their relevance. It could also mean that they don't really understand themselves, so fall back on the "authority" of the Bible to avoid further discussion

It’s not a “list of quotes,” it’s a single speech. And yes, the point it makes is extremely obvious and needs no explanation—unless you’re deliberately trying to miss the point.

I understand the speech. What I don't understand is the the claim that the speech means Jesus was not talking about the OT in the Matthew quote. Also, none of the other statements in that post were refuted either.

You aren't making sense because your fundamental premise is all off.

PP, basically this whole thread is being carried by two haters of Christianity who clobber verses, pretend not to understand the obvious, and ignore what doesn’t fit their hate-filled narrative.

And suckers like us. Time for us to leave.