How do you feel

[Godscreated]

---

Those are commandments that were given for a certain time and for the Israelites. They were to rid the land they were to posses of all the bad influences that would lead them from the living God of creation.... You ignore all the things going on at the time and you ignore the reasoning behind these commandments.

---

A lot of Christians would contend that not a whole lot has changed--they are still subject to the horrible influences of secularism and unbelief. Are you saying that this is not the case?

It's not the case, since the advent of Christ we have the blood of Christ to cover our sins and we have the Holy Spirit to guide us to stir clear of those things that could influence our lives. We do need to live close to Jesus teachings whether they come directly from His teachings or the teachings through Paul and the others who wrote the NT. Paul through Christ taught that the Gentiles did not need to follow the laws meant for the Israelites, ie. food laws and circumcision and most of the others. Peter and the Council in Jerusalem agreed with this and said that the only requirements for the gentiles was not to eat meat sacrificed to gods, nor meat that had blood in it and one or two I can't recall at this moment. So no we are not threatened by today's world.

That's the only thing that I can think of which would make your argument valid. Otherwise, we are left with complete subjectivity as to which passages to follow and which to disregard entirely i.e. "I don't like that verse, so I don't think it applies today."

I'm assuming the verse you're referring to is about stoning sons.
The old Jewish laws were given to help the Israelites and they were there to expose sin, those laws wee in conjunction with the old covenant. The new covenant with Christ follows the laws of love, Christ addressed these laws so we could understand that much of the old law was not what we as Christians have to live by. Things such as the Ten Commandments are forever laws.

You cherry pick through the scriptures, no you look up online what others have cherry picked and try to use deceptively these verses....Why don't you read and study the scriptures, that's only proper if you are going to argue what the Bible says.

I can cite the Bible just fine without looking anything up online. I came to atheism by reading the Bible for myself. I am currently reading it in Greek (3rd language, 13th different translation),I have a degree in Biblical Studies, and I have written a book on the subject (I invite everyone, Christian, Atheist, or otherwise to check out theHeathensGuide.com for details!).

Were you a former Christian. I apologize for saying you didn't know the Bible, I wish I knew Greek so I wouldn't have to rely on others. Not read that many translation, but I do keep 4 or 5 around to help me in studying.

I don't say this to boast, but only to show you that your constant claims that atheists have not studied the Bible is very much not the case.

You sound like Paul, he was constantly saying he wasn't boasting.
But I still contend that most atheist here and elsewhere do not study the Bible. Atheist here have trouble with verses like the one calling for the stoning of a son, they use it to show how bad they think God is and they can't even see what it really says.

The advent of Christ changed these laws, and if you would study scripture you would find these laws were given only to the Israelites, no other peoples of that time were required to live by them.

First, there is nothing in the Old Testament that says these are temporary laws.

Like I said they were relevant until the advent of Christ, the OT does refer to them as part of the old covenant and the OT states that there will be a new covenant through the Messiah.

Yes, this is in a context of the Jews entering and taking the lands from the Canaanites, but all the commands are written in a way that certainly makes it sound like this should be an ongoing things as long as there are heathen nations in proximity (which is definitely still the case).

Yes without the NT they could be taken in that regard, the OT does speak about the new covenant through the Messiah. Since I believe Jesus is the Messiah I read the OT as the revealing of sin through the old law and the impossibility of living up to the standards of the old law. If I believed as the Jews did and do for the most part that Jesus wasn't the Messiah then I guess I would agree the old laws are still the only way to live. That is if I would of actually cared anything about God, being a Gentile and all.

There is, rather, a command in Deuteronomy 12:32 which specifically says that nothing should be added or removed from the Torah. You can argue that this is in reference to the text itself and not necessarily the commands, but if the commands aren't eternal, why is it so important that the record of them be eternal?

I'm not sure they were meant to be eternal, because the NT reveals they were meant to reveal sin and sin will not be a problem in heaven. That is something to think about though. This is the kind of challenging I was hoping for when I came here over 4 years ago, it's taken this long to come.

Deuteronomy 27:26 says that anyone who does not follow the commands is cursed, and Paul cited this in Galatians 3:10. It would seem that if Paul cared enough to cite it, it was valid even beyond the time of the patriarchs.

The law of Moses came after the patriarchs. Paul told the Gentiles the old law couldn't save us and he said many times that certain laws were not part of the new covenant. Paul was speaking about the Ten Commandments and the law of love. Deut. 27:26 refers to the Israelites, the old testament laws were give to them because of the old covenant.

Furthermore, Jesus actually said that he did not come to abolish the laws of God (the law being a general reference to the Torah--from which came every verse I cited) but as a fulfillment of them. (Matthew 5:17).

What Jesus was saying there, He was the completion of the law because He didn't break any of them as a man, He was sinless. I believe and this may not be what He was saying, but that He came to fill the law with love. The reason I think this is because of all his references to making some of the laws stricter and He did this by adding a point of love to them.

I understand and am very much aware of the many other verses that say that the law was rendered invalid through the blood of Christ. Acknowledging and pointing out the conflicts is not cherry-picking.

Yes Paul spoke of that several times, I do not on my part believe he meant the entire law, it was in my opinion the religious ceremonies and the laws that were discipline laws and things like the food laws.
The reason I referred to cherry picking is that most atheist here do just that and they will not try and understand an explanation of scripture verses. They ignore the explanations and use verses to try and defend a point without understanding what those verses refer to.

I would be just as quick to point out those verses to the Messianic Jew to prove that dietary laws weren't still valid. Cherry-picking is when Christians hold to one position at the expense of verses that clearly state otherwise.

That definition should apply to atheist alike, but I have yet to meet one here that will admit they were wrong about a verse. There are some Christian denominations that still abide by the food laws and even say the rest are valid, yet they want explain to me why they do not use stoning in there churches.

Also I see you didn't try to answer my question, even thought it was meant for someone else, can't you answer it, you took it upon yourself to get involved with this.

I thought the idea of a forum was to have open dialogue and involvement of all, so yes, I enter into conversations when I find them intriguing. As for your question, I answered the one about girls. If there was another question I missed, let me know. I'm happy to answer anything.

It is an open forum and I have jumped into the middle of others conversations but, I do try to explain or answer the question. I may not have made it very clear as to what I was thinking about. The verses that call for a son to be stoned to death is used here all the time to make God look bad and, the reasoning, they claim God has given permission to kill small children. No verse in scripture refers to killing small children as a punishment. Yet when I prove to them that verse is about a grown son they reject it with every kind of nonsense.
Thanks for the good conversation, I truly hope it continues. Want be back tell Monday, look forward to your comments.

GC