Deuteronomy 23:2

[rightcoaster]

Chad -- this is exactly where the Christians run off the rails. It is the difference between OT literalists, who were the Sadducees and are the Karaites; and the OT interpreters, who were and are the Pharisees, today's rabbinic Judaism. The Pharisees devote their energies to working around the things that were OK "then", whenever "then" was, but are not OK "now", whenever "now" is. And because rabbinic interpretation is so....well, so human...and because there is no formal hierarchy of authority, that is why there are so many sectarian interpretations, even within the most strictly Orthodox.
...

... The Pharisees were called hypocrites for cherry picking, .... Jesus also called them out once about shouting in public squares about their religion, .... and supposed to kill people who don't convert, and all that. Love your enemies, but drown professed atheists and people of other religions in rivers.

You are parroting the incorrect view of the Pharisees as portrayed by the increasingly anti-Jewish evolution of Christianity, which was and is a religion about Jesus and not at all the religion of Jesus. In fact, the rabbis had and have carveouts for the "God-Fearers". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Laws_of_Noah
Atheists seem OK, but idolaters are SOL.

[Chad32]

... The Pharisees were called hypocrites for cherry picking, .... Jesus also called them out once about shouting in public squares about their religion, .... and supposed to kill people who don't convert, and all that. Love your enemies, but drown professed atheists and people of other religions in rivers.

You are parroting the incorrect view of the Pharisees as portrayed by the increasingly anti-Jewish evolution of Christianity, which was and is a religion about Jesus and not at all the religion of Jesus. In fact, the rabbis had and have carveouts for the "God-Fearers". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Laws_of_Noah
Atheists seem OK, but idolaters are SOL.

Maybe so. I won't deny it.

[Godscreated]

You've been given much testimony on the subject. What church did you attend and why did you not ask these questions when you were going to church.

I did a lot more listening at church than questioning and critical thinking.

Church is the place where questions should be asked, I do all the time, I want to get to the correct answers.

GC

[Minimalist]

These lines reflect the evolving schism between the followers of Jesus, all of whom were Torah-observant, Pharisaic Jews, including Jesus; and Paul and his acolytes and successors who created a wholly new religion out of the mystery cults of the region, but grafted it onto Judaism. Thus the Jerusalem group, which included Jesus' brother James, was strongly opposed to the groups such as those in Antioch. It was strictly business, thus has it always been.

Political pissing contests between fanatical groups of religious nuts between 15-18 centuries ago are of amazingly little interest to me. My only issue here is when clowns like G-C try to pour his silly superstitions into our laws.

[rightcoaster]

These lines reflect the evolving schism between the followers of Jesus, all of whom were Torah-observant, Pharisaic Jews, including Jesus; and Paul and his acolytes and successors who created a wholly new religion out of the mystery cults of the region, but grafted it onto Judaism. Thus the Jerusalem group, which included Jesus' brother James, was strongly opposed to the groups such as those in Antioch. It was strictly business, thus has it always been.

Political pissing contests between fanatical groups of religious nuts between 15-18 centuries ago are of amazingly little interest to me. My only issue here is when clowns like G-C try to pour his silly superstitions into our laws.

OK, you have come to a correct conclusion. A gazillion or so others have not, so I think it is worthwhile to hash some of this over (and over and over). Since you have a huge amount to contribute, it is not terribly contributory simply to reiterate your conclusion, which even I, as a newcomer, have already had unambiguously communicated to me by you (your sentence #1). It's very helpful, though, for you to point out (over and over again) that since there is and was and can be no certainty about the veracity of these beliefs (and a great deal of certainty about their unveracity being the rational choice), that while the holders are free to hold them, they need to hold them out of our laws.