Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LMAO apparently failure to conform with the ideals of 21st century progressivism is the new standard of "morality".

Hint: if the Bible and your ideology are at odds over morality, it is not the Bible that's immoral.

Thinking slavery is immoral is "21st century progressivism"?

Hint: The bible condones slavery. The bible is immoral.

People in the Bible engaged in slavery (as did people in many parts of the world). The fact it is reported in the Bible doesn't make the Bible immoral. I'm glad we have the Bible to see how the ancient civilizations in that part of the world conducted their lives.

It's not "reported" in the bible. It is condoned, and the biblical rules for slavery are listed, as evidenced in the OP.

Please note the rules could have simply been "don't own other people".

Fine. You're too simple-minded to understand this. The Bible doesn't "condone" anything. People in the Bible engaged in this behavior. They acted in an immoral way. The authors are telling this story. You can blame the people who did these things, but the book in which you find the stories isn't in itself immoral. Perhaps too fine a distinction for you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LMAO apparently failure to conform with the ideals of 21st century progressivism is the new standard of "morality".

Hint: if the Bible and your ideology are at odds over morality, it is not the Bible that's immoral.

Thinking slavery is immoral is "21st century progressivism"?

Hint: The bible condones slavery. The bible is immoral.

People in the Bible engaged in slavery (as did people in many parts of the world). The fact it is reported in the Bible doesn't make the Bible immoral. I'm glad we have the Bible to see how the ancient civilizations in that part of the world conducted their lives.

It's not "reported" in the bible. It is condoned, and the biblical rules for slavery are listed, as evidenced in the OP.

Please note the rules could have simply been "don't own other people".

OP used the word proof. lol

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LMAO apparently failure to conform with the ideals of 21st century progressivism is the new standard of "morality".

Hint: if the Bible and your ideology are at odds over morality, it is not the Bible that's immoral.

Thinking slavery is immoral is "21st century progressivism"?

Hint: The bible condones slavery. The bible is immoral.

People in the Bible engaged in slavery (as did people in many parts of the world). The fact it is reported in the Bible doesn't make the Bible immoral. I'm glad we have the Bible to see how the ancient civilizations in that part of the world conducted their lives.

Anonymous wrote:LMAO apparently failure to conform with the ideals of 21st century progressivism is the new standard of "morality".

Hint: if the Bible and your ideology are at odds over morality, it is not the Bible that's immoral.

Thinking slavery is immoral is "21st century progressivism"?

Hint: The bible condones slavery. The bible is immoral.

LMAO apparently failure to conform with the ideals of 21st century progressivism is the new standard of "morality".

Hint: if the Bible and your ideology are at odds over morality, it is not the Bible that's immoral.

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.

Hi so I’m the first poster in this thread. Yes I am a literalist for the most part, not always, as there are things that are clearly symbolical like most of Revelation. Anyways, I don’t believe Jesus supplanted or got rid of violence completely. Here’s what I mean.

OT laws concerning the death penalty were always LAWS, meaning that it wasn’t for citizens, individually, to carry out. It was always done through the legal system they had at the time. When Jesus said to “turn the other cheek” he’s talking to the INDIVIDUAL. He’s not talking about the legal system turning its cheek, but each of us individually. The Jews at that time had taken the “eye for eye” principle and applied it to themselves personally when it was only for the governing authorities to do.

So Jesus isn’t getting rid of justified violence, but he’s saying it’s not for me and you to cause violence to our fellow human beings. But for the legal system the laws must be upheld.

But for violence against people groups in Israel’s conquest were for a specific time and place reason, and they don’t apply today. Christians aren’t supposed to go out conquering nations today

well they probably weren't supposed to do it in the 1200s-1300s either but that didn't stop the Crusades. Still a spot of bother left over in the middle-east due to these unfortunate events. In the name of God.

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.

Hi so I’m the first poster in this thread. Yes I am a literalist for the most part, not always, as there are things that are clearly symbolical like most of Revelation. Anyways, I don’t believe Jesus supplanted or got rid of violence completely. Here’s what I mean.

OT laws concerning the death penalty were always LAWS, meaning that it wasn’t for citizens, individually, to carry out. It was always done through the legal system they had at the time. When Jesus said to “turn the other cheek” he’s talking to the INDIVIDUAL. He’s not talking about the legal system turning its cheek, but each of us individually. The Jews at that time had taken the “eye for eye” principle and applied it to themselves personally when it was only for the governing authorities to do.

So Jesus isn’t getting rid of justified violence, but he’s saying it’s not for me and you to cause violence to our fellow human beings. But for the legal system the laws must be upheld.

But for violence against people groups in Israel’s conquest were for a specific time and place reason, and they don’t apply today. Christians aren’t supposed to go out conquering nations today

Anonymous wrote:Jeff deleted your posts OP but you're still posting blaming religious people. The owner of the site did it.

+1. Plus you asked us to stay off the thread, but then you asked us question after question. Your own very mixed messages are the problem here.

Jeff deleted your posts OP but you're still posting blaming religious people. The owner of the site did it.

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:

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.

You were asked to stay out in the very first post.

You clearly are hypocrites about Atheists who post in threads started by religious people. Please remember that next time someone does and try to be more open and understanding to people who disagree with you.