In Case You Need A Reason To Despise Baptist Scum-suckers

[Thumpalumpacus]

Thanks or clearing that up.


Sure, I'm glad you asked. You are cherry-picking the New Testament in preference to the Old. Even Jesus whom you worship says quite explicitly that he came to fulfill the old laws, not eliminate them, and that not one word will change until "everything is accomplished".


Apparently it was okay to murder gays for a long, long time, according to your god, and then one day your god shows up, in the flesh, and says "hey guys, that's not okay any more." Has the morality of the act changed? Your god has -- according to you, though I don't agree -- changed the moral status of an act, but we're supposed to believe that morality is objective because there is a god who imposes it upon us?

Ok thanks, Im not cherry-picking one over the other at all. The Old Testament isn't even a Christian book. Its a Jewish book. The bit where Jesus says he came to fulfill the law does not mean what your implying it means either. He didn't mean he came to fortify or reaffirm the law. He meant he came to satisfy the law. As in, if you fulfill your rental contract you no longer are under contract. You didn't destroy it but it still isn't there anymore. The last thing Christ said before he died on the cross was "it is finished" meaning, during his life he met all requirements to carry out what was written in the OT as concerning the law. Meaning he did not do away with the law, yet, believers are no longer under the law, but grace. That kind of also answers your last question. In add to it however, that commandment in the OT was written as inter-tribal guidelines at that point in time. It wasn't written to humanity at large much less Christians who didn't even exist at the time. Which with the combination of those two points is why those laws aren't followed by Christians.

Unfortunately for your point, there are plenty of Christians who have the OT in their Bibles, who abide by the strictures laid out therein, and they are just as convinced of their interpretation of their faith as you are of yours.

Me, I think y'all are all a little too engaged in superstition for your own good. So long as you keep it to yourself, though, I really don't care.

[Minimalist]

I agree.  Anyone who thinks a dead jew came back to life to atone for their sins deserves all the scorn that can be heaped on them.

The problem with jesusism is not the chrome on the bumper.... it is the whole car.

Not as much scorn as somebody who believes that their government actually loves them you friggin dunce lol. You wanna talk about some far fetched shit. There ya go.

More than the upper 1% assholes who are stealing everything that isn't nailed down, asswipe.

[SteelCurtain]

Ok thanks, Im not cherry-picking one over the other at all. The Old Testament isn't even a Christian book. Its a Jewish book. The bit where Jesus says he came to fulfill the law does not mean what your implying it means either. He didn't mean he came to fortify or reaffirm the law. He meant he came to satisfy the law. As in, if you fulfill your rental contract you no longer are under contract. You didn't destroy it but it still isn't there anymore. The last thing Christ said before he died on the cross was "it is finished" meaning, during his life he met all requirements to carry out what was written in the OT as concerning the law. Meaning he did not do away with the law, yet, believers are no longer under the law, but grace. That kind of also answers your last question. In add to it however, that commandment in the OT was written as inter-tribal guidelines at that point in time. It wasn't written to humanity at large much less Christians who didn't even exist at the time. Which with the combination of those two points is why those laws aren't followed by Christians.

But you are cherry picking. The prohibitions against homosexuality come in the same chapters/passages that prohibit masturbation and divorce and promote misogyny and slave holding---in the New Testament.

Do you support denying rights to people who masturbate? How about divorced people? Should women who speak up in church or earn more money than their husbands be punished? How about if a man wants to have a bonded servant in his house?

You still haven't shown how the morality of stoning gays in the OT somehow changed due to the passage of time. Was it only moral for that specific people to beat their slaves and force the women they raped to marry them?

And JFC, 'you're' is the contraction of 'you are.' I wish Jesus outlawed that shit, but noooooooooo.

[vorlon13]

(still on the rag about post #88)

And then a confusing conflicting contrasting corollary conundrum from the NT; we have clear scriptural guidance on topics like remarriage following divorce (straight from Jesus!) ignored almost universally, and astonishingly even in the course of 1 election cycle that stricture was further neutered by actual evangelical leaders themselves (Bob Vander Plaatz, etal) !!!

Yep, that NT eternal and unchanging biblical truth sure is a flexible and pliable thing, ain't it ??

And we see concordance between OT and NT scriptures relegating women to silence on matters of faith, and low and behold, we have protestant women preechurs, women on TV hollering about Jesus and abortion, and women spokesmen for even the most intransigent conservative schism imaginable: Westboro Baptist!!!

So we also see an example of agreement on something between OT and NT, and that gets skipped over too when the scripture cherry pickers are cafetering their bible buffet.

We don't need atheists exerting themselves pointing out the impracticality and manifest falsity of christian doctrines when the self described followers of christ are doing all the heavy lifting.