(June 19, 2014 at 4:37 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Thirdly, I guess you've abandoned the ten commandments then, if the Old Testament is dead and buried, right? And you tell all your christian friends not to bother with the ten commandments either?

The ten commandments are not written laws for me to follow. The moral requirements of the ten commandments are summed up in the two great commandments: "love God above all things and love your neighbor as yourself."

---

(June 19, 2014 at 5:03 pm)Cato Wrote: If our standard of good and evil is extra biblical, of what use is the Bible as a moral guide?

The bible does say much about good and evil and our moral conduct, but it says a lot of other things and tells about people doing things that are evil. When it tells about those people, it's not telling us to do the same. Also, about circumcision - it was a law for the old testament Jews which was done away with along with the rest of the old testament laws. In fact, it was never required for gentiles.

(June 19, 2014 at 5:03 pm)Lek Wrote: The bible does say much about good and evil and our moral conduct, but it says a lot of other things and tells about people doing things that are evil. When it tells about those people, it's not telling us to do the same. Also, about circumcision - it was a law for the old testament Jews which was done away with along with the rest of the old testament laws. In fact, it was never required for gentiles.

Exactly! But, you conveniently omitted where the Bible does indeed instruct people to perform evil deeds.

Since lek seems to have me on ignore, let me take this chance to say: You fucking arsehole, quit now while you still hold your delusions.

(June 19, 2014 at 5:21 pm)Bad Wolf Wrote: Since lek seems to have me on ignore, let me take this chance to say: You fucking arsehole, quit now while you still hold your delusions.

Sorry, Bad Wolf. I did neglect some of your comments although I did answer the one about the Jews being his chosen people. I've missed others also because I'm overwhelmed by too many posts. If a person voluntarily agrees to make a contract to be a slave to someone and the owner treats the slave well, I don't consider that immoral. As with POWs, I see it as better than imprisoning them or executing them. You have to do something with someone who is fighting for an army that is trying to kill you. As far as slavery for other reasons, Jesus never really condoned it, but recognized it as a reality of the day. The Roman government was also corrupt and did evil things, but he told us to be good citizens and "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's." He never told Christians to go out and acquire slaves, but to treat them well. If the Christians followed his moral teachings, they wouldn't forcefully enslave an unwilling victim because they knew it was wrong to do so. Many of the slaves of the day didn't want to be freed because they had it better in well off households where they were treated well. They had volunteered to do what they were doing.

---

(June 19, 2014 at 5:14 pm)Cato Wrote: Exactly! But, you conveniently omitted where the Bible does indeed instruct people to perform evil deeds.

God created us and he has the right to end our lives or to do with us what he wants, although we don't have that same right. The fact is if anyone has followed him (anyone at all) they receive their just reward. That's the really great thing about it. We all have to die sooner or later, but in eternity it won't really matter much.

Quote: We don't stone adulterers any more or kill kids for disobeying their parents.

The muslims do and you xtian shits would if you thought you could get away with it.

(June 19, 2014 at 5:40 pm)Lek Wrote: Sorry, Bad Wolf. I did neglect some of your comments

Yes, all but one.

(June 19, 2014 at 5:40 pm)Lek Wrote: although I did answer the one about the Jews being his chosen people.

Yes, with one sentance and then promptly ignored my reply.

(June 19, 2014 at 5:40 pm)Lek Wrote: I've missed others also because I'm overwhelmed by too many posts. If a person voluntarily agrees to make a contract to be a slave to someone and the owner treats the slave well, I don't consider that immoral.

And what would this 'contract' involve? Indentured servitude or slavery? Because in your bible, its slavery. Irrelevant of whether the person is a slave voluntarily or not, it is wrong. They are treated as property, as objects to be passed down the family. They were allowed to be beaten. I don't care if the owner treated the slaves as he would his own children, the very fact that he is allowed to beat them within an inch of their lives, and not be punished, is despicable.

(June 19, 2014 at 5:40 pm)Lek Wrote: As far as slavery for other reasons, Jesus never really condoned it, but recognized it as a reality of the day.

Wasn't he the one that told the slaves to obey their masters? I'd call that condoning, wouldn't you? And he couldn't get rid of slavery if he wanted to? The king of the jews? The son of god? The guy going around changing peoples lives, performing miracles, starting a new religion, couldn't just say 'no' to slavery?
He didn't and in my opinion, that makes him just as immoral as the slave owner. Its like if you witnessed a murder or a rape, if you just stand there watching and do nothing to help, you are just as culpable as the perpetrator.

(June 19, 2014 at 5:40 pm)Lek Wrote: Many of the slaves of the day didn't want to be freed because they had it better in well off households where they were treated well. They had volunteered to do what they were doing.

Choosing between dying from starvation and working as slave, is not a choice at all. They were forced into it by their situation.

Someone remind me, what was it Jesus said about hating your family, buying a sword and not making the mistake of presuming he came to bring peace on earth?

Edit. I didn't realise this thread was 8 pages long (I'm using a mobile) so I apologize if this has already been mentioned.

Matthew 10:34. "Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword.
35 "For I have come to 'set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law';
36 "and 'a man's enemies will be those of his own household.'

(June 19, 2014 at 4:10 pm)Lek Wrote: It does reflect badly on Christianity, but it doesn't invalidate the teachings of Christ or show that Christianity is evil and detrimental to the world or a cause of atrocities.

If the actions of its followers reveal to us that it gives cover to those who carry out atrocities or allows them to dupe others into following, then I think we can rightly blame it for being evil and detrimental to the world. The Inquisition, the Salem witch trials, the forced conversion of natives wherever European conquerors went-- these were enabled and supported because many of the people involved thought they were working in the best interests of god and humanity. That does reflect badly on Christianity.

(June 19, 2014 at 5:40 pm)Lek Wrote: God created us and he has the right to end our lives or to do with us what he wants, although we don't have that same right. The fact is if anyone has followed him (anyone at all) they receive their just reward. That's the really great thing about it. We all have to die sooner or later, but in eternity it won't really matter much.

The bottom line is this: the idea that the OT law doesn't have to be followed is an invention of the church. No reasonable person can draw this conclusion by reading the Bible. Christ enforced the law and yet some want us to believe that as soon as he's tacked up, God doesn't want the law to be followed? Paul does busy himself making a few exceptions, but I think it's laughable that the people that believe in God the most are the ones more fervent about not doing what they're told. This canard was invented when people started learning what was in the OT and rightfully pushed back.