Pat Robertson says it's ok to ignore parts of the Bible.

[Drich]

D-reck. Your new testament bases its presumed authority on the supposed prophesies of the OT. And the claimed "resurrection" is entirely dependent on the notion of original sin from the OT. Without it your hero's mythical sacrifice becomes pointless. You cannot separate the two.

I don't have to seperate anything. Christ's sacerfice does that. something He points to in His ministry,and the minstries of all of the Apstoles. If there wasn't a seperation then we would not be Christian we would be OT Jews.

Your description of the "improvements" of the OT basically is that your hero's purpose was to undermine your idol. Good job.

I do not know what you are calling an 'improvement' of mine.

Again you are equivocating slaves and indentured servants, if those even exist.

Because the bible identifies "indentured servants" as Slaves! The biblical defination lumps all servants into this catagory. That is why I can say not ALL Slavery Is Always Bad All Of the Time!

And your claim that our society would fall without low-wage workers is pure bullshit. We were just fine before greedy corporations moved manufacturing overseas and now its actually coming back, but that is still an irrelevant red herring.

I am not even going to argue this ignorant/eletist response. I will say, take off the blinders and do you own research.

How is it that you do not understand your own hypocrisy in claiming an "immutable, inescapable" law out of one side of your mouth and cherry-picking it out of the other?

It's basic Christianity 101. The Law (According to Christ) in it's complete form is not an avenue in which righteousness can be obtained. Paul in Romans 7 (the whole chapter) explains the new way Righteousness is to be found by the Christian.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...ersion=ERV


Which BTW seperates OT Judasim and NT Christianity.