(December 1, 2017 at 1:55 pm)SteveII Wrote:(December 1, 2017 at 12:21 am)Cecelia Wrote: An ever evolving set of morals is much preferable to a rigid set standard. After all, we gain new information every day. Now some people will say "Well, god has all the information!" In which case... you can still point out that God didn't outlaw slavery. He's got all the information, and couldn't even do that. He couldn't give women equal rights either. Or really much of anything.
...
When we allow our morals to evolve, we accept new information. And it allows us to treat our fellow human beings better.
First, Christians get their morality from the NT. OT laws were meant for Jews in the OT in their time and their culture (please don't quote anything from Matthew 5. In 2000 years, ONLY atheist with an internet connection think this applies).
Second, what "new information" pertaining to morality do we have now that was not available in the first century? In other words, what instructions were given then that can be called into question by some "new information"? This is the entire crux of your argument--so please be thorough.
No, cant have it both ways. If Christianity were so "original" why include the OT?
I know why. Because the founders were looking to compete with the old Jews. Not because magic exists. Christianity exists for the same reason Buddhism does. Because a splinter sect didn't like the old ways, incorporated old motifs, and added a new character, and vilified the old stuff while keeping the old stuff they thought would sell.
No different than Coke and Pepsi.
