Why can't Christians say that parts of the Old Testament don't apply??..

[Minimalist]

I believe it's better to have a goal or conclusion to work towards than to let facts lead one randomly along until they believe they have the correct answer.

(This is going to come in handy around here.)

[Minimalist]

It would be better for all involved if some people simply fed their brains to pigs.

What have you got against pigs?

[Anomalocaris]

It would be better for all involved if some people simply fed their brains to pigs.

What have you got against pigs?

My mistake. I forgot pigs can also get prion disease from eating these brains.

[everythingafter]

This is the argument that Christians use, when Atheists ask why people don't stone their neighbors for working on the Sabbath, and things like that. How do you counter arguments that these rules were for an earlier time? I mean, there are some old testament verses about people's animals falling into pits that certainly don't apply anymore.

I've had arguments with Christians (Folks I know in real life) about this and they usually reply with a) as you say, it was a different time with different standards for what was acceptable and not (i.e. enslaving fellow human beings) and b) since God is the source of what is right and wrong and acceptable, it's not our place to pass judgement on what he may have did or said in the Old Testament. I think both arguments are highly questionable and contemptible, but as Christians would say, that too is beside the point in the face of the prime mover, judge, jury and executioner.

[DeistPaladin]

This is the argument that Christians use, when Atheists ask why people don't stone their neighbors for working on the Sabbath, and things like that. How do you counter arguments that these rules were for an earlier time? I mean, there are some old testament verses about people's animals falling into pits that certainly don't apply anymore.

I've had arguments with Christians (Folks I know in real life) about this and they usually reply with a) as you say, it was a different time with different standards for what was acceptable and not (i.e. enslaving fellow human beings) and b) since God is the source of what is right and wrong and acceptable, it's not our place to pass judgement on what he may have did or said in the Old Testament. I think both arguments are highly questionable and contemptible, but as Christians would say, that too is beside the point in the face of the prime mover, judge, jury and executioner.

And these are the same people who say we have a questionable source of moral guidance.

[Minimalist]

I've had arguments with Christians (Folks I know in real life) about this and they usually reply with a) as you say, it was a different time with different standards for what was acceptable and not

So how come most of the dumb shits use a different line in the same book to deny gays their civil rights?

H-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e-s!

[FadingW]

Even if parts of the Old Testament don't apply now, the fact that they used to apply should be sufficiently frightening.

Such as taking a rebellious child to be stoned to death by the people. Which makes one wonder who exactly is pro-life.

[Thor]

I believe it's better to have a goal or conclusion to work towards than to let facts lead one randomly along until they believe they have the correct answer. Will get you the Bible verses as soon as I can.

Yes! Can't let facts get in the way of our preconceived notion!

[DeistPaladin]

Such as taking a rebellious child to be stoned to death by the people. Which makes one wonder who exactly is pro-life.

The Biblical god certainly wasn't. Search the Bible in vein for the words "life begins at conception" and post-birth children have absolutely no rights as the property of their father.

[Godscreated]

Such as taking a rebellious child to be stoned to death by the people. Which makes one wonder who exactly is pro-life.

The Biblical god certainly wasn't. Search the Bible in vein for the words "life begins at conception" and post-birth children have absolutely no rights as the property of their father.

@ Fading W the child is an adult, the families name was so important then, if a grown child was ruining the family name by being rebellious then stoning was his/her fate if the parents persued that action.

@DP Exodus 21:22-25 give the penalties for one who causes a unborn baby to suffer or die. You sure did not search very hard.
Lev.17:11-14 these verses are penalty for eating blood and they explain why it's not to be eaten, "the life of the flesh is in the blood". So an unborn child has it's own blood (and the type may be different from the mothers) only a few weeks after conception so according to scripture this is when life begins. Remember now that God does give a penalty for harm to an unborn child in Exodus.

---

I believe it's better to have a goal or conclusion to work towards than to let facts lead one randomly along until they believe they have the correct answer. Will get you the Bible verses as soon as I can.

Yes! Can't let facts get in the way of our preconceived notion!

Ha ha ha very funny you know that I meant that once a goal is established then one uses only facts to prove the point or reach the goal.