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

[Minimalist]

Um, G-C, that came across perfectly clear. Your goal is to prop up your bible fairy tales and you ignore any facts which are inconvenient.

[Godscreated]

Um, G-C, that came across perfectly clear. Your goal is to prop up your bible fairy tales and you ignore any facts which are inconvenient.

Which facts might that be.

[Minimalist]

Pretty much all of them.

[Godscreated]

Pretty much all of them.

Give me facts not one liners, you're not a comedian.

[Loki_999]

But why is the Mosaic law and the ten commandments any different? When Jesus is talking about the law, He is talking about the law of Moses.
The law has been fulfilled in love, we are now to keep a new law, the law of love.

Did I miss something? So we are now only talking about the 10 commandments or the entirety of OT law? And what do you mean the law has been fulfilled in love? So the whole of the OT law can be dismissed as we now have a law of love?

Ok, then you better get preaching to some of those fundie preachers who seem to preach intolerance and hatred to gays and others they don't agree with. I'm sure most athiests would subscribe to a policy of love and respect... but some christians seem to have problems with this.

The ancient Hebrews were polytheistic. I don't know if you noticed that Yahweh's curious habit of referring to himself by the royal we abruptly ended after Genesis.

They were not! They didnt even believe in the Devil!

---

Correct if you refer to the Christian devil. However, look at the historical evidence about the early Hebrews, for example the Canaanites.

I'll give you some text from wikipedia (yes, i know, its not perfect and lacking citations):

Canaanite religion is the name for the group of Ancient Semitic religions practiced by the Canaanites living in the ancient Levant from at least the early Bronze Age through the first centuries of the Common Era.

Canaanite religion was polytheistic or monolatristic, worshiping one god while acknowledging the existence of others.

[DeistPaladin]

@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.

Those verses would seem to support the idea that the unborn isn't alive. Let's study it closely, shall we?
Bold emphasis mine.

Ex 21:22-25 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

This first bold part is important. The verses suggest the scenario where men hit a pregnant woman causing her to miscarry. This is what "her fruit depart from her" means. A miscarriage is a natural abortion that occurs due to injury, illness or complications. So by the time we hit that comma after the phrase "fruit depart from her", we've established that the fetus is dead due to the men hitting the mother. Are you with me so far?

After the comma, and this is the important part here, we have the phrase "and yet no mischief follow". This, in more modern translations, comes out to mean "but no further harm is done".

So far, here's the scenario:

1. Men beat woman.
2. Woman miscarries. Fetus dead.
3. No further harm is done.

Under these conditions, what is the prescribed penalty? He pays a fine to the husband, presumably for his troubles and the assault on his property. Hm, pretty mild for murder, wouldn't you say? But wait, there's more. Read on.

"And if mischief follow" is another important milestone in this passage. It prescribes what is to happen IF further harm is done. Here, it suggests how her injuries are to be repaid in kind. If you burn her, you get burned. If you take her eye out in the process of beating, you get your eye taken out. If you kill her, and this is the important part, you get the death penalty.

Let me repeat that, the Bible says in this verse that murder is to be punished with the death penalty. Ergo, if the fetus were a living being, causing the miscarriage would be punished with death. No need for "eye for eye, burn for burn, stripe for stripe."

So let's review:

1. Men beat a pregnant woman who miscarries. Fetus is dead.
2. If no further harm is done, apart from the miscarriage that is, men pay fine to husband.
3. But if further harm is done, the men are punished in kind. Any death is punished by execution.
4. Evidently, contrasting 2 and 3, the fetus doesn't count as a living being, since its death warranted only a fine.
5. Ergo, the Bible does not recognize a fetus as a living being.

But wait, so many conservatives object at this point, the penalties prescribed are in reference to the damaged fetus. Eye for eye? Foot for foot? Stripe for stripe? Burn for burn? How many miscarriages result in such damage yet still produce a living baby?

There's more verses that establish the non-rights of post-birth children but let's hash out this passage for now.

[Thor]

@ 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.

Can you show me where the Bible clearly states that this is only intended for a GROWN child?

And even so, what would constitute "ruining the family name"? Having a child out of wedlock? Patronizing prostitutes? Taking a job washing dishes? And who would determine whether or not the family name had been "ruined"?

I must also point out that the family name is important today as well. How much embarrassment does a public figure suffer if one of their kids is caught using drugs, has a DWI, has a teenage pregnancy, shoplifts, etc...? Does this mean they should have the right to stone their kids to death? And please show me where the Bible says these absurd laws are no longer in effect.

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.

So life begins "a few weeks after conception". Then you must be okay with the morning after pill. Or an abortion that takes place in the first month or so of pregnancy. Right?

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.

Yes, you cherry pick "facts" that support your preconceived notion. Science goes where the facts lead. YOU pick facts that lead to your conclusion. Huge difference.

[DeistPaladin]

Hey Thor, thanks for reminding me about his reference to Lev 17. Speaking of passages in the Bible that work against him.

Lev 17 discusses blood sacrifice and atonement, rather important for establishing the legitimacy of Christianity in the OT. Bold emphasis mine.

Lev 17:10-12 And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood.

This passage would seem to forbid the consumption of sacrificial blood. How can we square this with Jesus' admonishment?:

Matthew 26:27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

How can we justify the communion, which is the drinking of the blood of the "lamb of God" when the OT strictly forbids the practice?

Other admonishments of Lev 17 are hard to square with the NT.

17:5-6 To the end that the children of Israel may bring their sacrifices, which they offer in the open field, even that they may bring them unto the LORD, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest, and offer them for peace offerings unto the LORD. And the priest shall sprinkle the blood upon the altar of the LORD at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and burn the fat for a sweet savour unto the LORD.

Can anyone point out to me in the NT where it discusses a priest being involved in the sacrifice of Jesus or where Jesus' blood was sprinkled on the altar?

[Thor]

Hey Thor, thanks for reminding me about his reference to Lev 17.

Glad to be of service!

Speaking of passages in the Bible that work against him.

Lev 17 discusses blood sacrifice and atonement, rather important for establishing the legitimacy of Christianity in the OT. Bold emphasis mine.

Lev 17:10-12 And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood.

Isn't this the passage that some religious whackos use to justify the denial of blood transfusions? Even for their kids?

Although, how you can extrapolate "eating blood" from a blood transfusion escapes me. If this is how you define "eating", then drug addicts "eat" heroin, diabetics "eat" insulin, and people "eat" ink when they get a tattoo.

[DeistPaladin]

Isn't this the passage that some religious whackos use to justify the denial of blood transfusions? Even for their kids?

Yes, but like with the story of Onan being misused to justify anti-masturbation attitudes, this passage is being misunderstood or taken out of context.

"Not eating blood" seems pretty straightforward to me as relating strictly to atonement and sacrifice rituals. Lev 17 goes into detail the proper way to sacrifice animals to atone for sins, in a way that doesn't match with the Christian idea of the blood sacrifice for atonement. Reading the entire chapter, it seems clear to me that it's a condemnation of any gruesome cult practices of consuming the blood of animals sacrificed (or pretending to do so during communion). Just goes to show you, the Bible's not always wrong, though needless to say I'd vote to get rid of blood sacrifice altogether.