How do you feel

[JonDarbyXIII]

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.... So no we are not threatened by today's world.

I'm not sure that I get how Christians would not be threatened by today's world. The New Testament makes references to the 'yoke' of Christianity and the persecution (often violent) that can ensue. The NT has commands not to pair with unbelievers and it makes several references to Satan being the Prince of this world. I would think that Christians would see the modern world and secularism as a threat even if you feel that Jesus provides protection from that threat. However, at this point, the same could be said about OT theology: the unbelieving nations were a threat, but so long as the Israelites believed and obeyed, God would protect them.

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 wasn't ever a Christian, but I suppose I believed in God just because I don't know that I knew there was an alternative. About 10 years ago, I decided to actually sit down and read the Bible to see what it said. I've never understood why some Christians say that there is only one valid translation if they are all, in fact translations.

You sound like Paul, he was constantly saying he wasn't boasting.

Wow, good irony, huh?... I missed that.

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.

From what I have seen, atheists in general seem to be more likely to have actually read the Bible and to know what's in it. I know many atheists who have read the whole thing, but they stop studying it once they come to a conclusion. (I'm probably a bit of an anomoly in that sense) Christians may read it more frequently and 'study' it more, but it seems like most are very limited in their knowledge of the book as a whole. Bible studies usually focus on people's favorite parts, and large portions of the Bible are never read.

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.

There are actually more than just the two covenants-the covenant of circumcision, the law given to Moses, a covenant made with the animals (Hosea 2:18), etc. In Galatians 3:17, Paul gives the example that just because the laws of Moses came after Abraham's covenant, it didn't negate them. Thus, even if Jesus did bring a new covenant, it would seem that the old covenant wouldn't have been rendered obsolete (due to what is indicated to be the inviolability of God's word.)

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.

Although Jesus claimed that the law could be boiled down to "love God" and "love your neighbor," it is a stretch to say that his purpose was to "fill the law with love." He said he came to turn families against each other; he said he came to bring, not peace, but a sword (and instructed his disciples to arm themselves at one point); he ransacked the temple armed with whips and scourges. Yes, there are many accounts of healing and compassion in his ministry, but it was certainly not all so benign.

That definition should apply to atheist alike, but I have yet to meet one here that will admit they were wrong about a verse.

I have no problem admitting that I have been wrong in several cases. For me though, the problem is there are many, many more verses for which I can't find a rational justification.

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.

This is a lot of what I was talking about as far as the subjectivity of the Bible. Every denomination seems, to a greater or leser extent, to select certain doctrines which are still applicable and others which are not. You have even reverted to vague phrases such as "most of the others" (referring to the OT laws) You said at one point, "I do not on my part believe he meant the entire law." Yes, you are fully entitled to beliefs, but what we atheists are generally looking for as an explanation is some sort of objective formula for 'If x, then it still applies else...

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.

What you have to realize (and I realize that this may seem like splitting hairs to a Christian) is that atheists are not trying to make God look bad. We don't believe in him, so realistically, he can't be proven to be bad or good. Yes, we cite these verses frequently, but the purpose is usually to point them out as contradictions: you can't claim get a supreme sense of morals from a book that condones such numerous atrocities, and you can't say that your God is all-loving and omnibenevolent when he has so much blood on his hands.
As for the verse about stoning your son to death, I don't see that there is any evidence that this is talking about a grown, adult son. I agree that it doesn't say child, but it also certainly doesn't specify an adult. Furthemore, there are a number of verses that talk about killing children--those that were to be slaughtered in conquering Canaan, the 42 children that God sends the she-bear to kill, and even in Psalm 137:9 where it extols smashing a child's head into a rock.