"You, atheists take Bible quotes out of context"

[ED scissor hands]

Because Jesus said one of the reasons he came was to fulfill Mosaic law.  Matthew 5:17-20.

Boru

The purpose of the law is to condemn, if there is no law then there is no condemnation.

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. - John 3:17-18

For those that have accepted Christ there is no condemnation, if there is no condemnation, there is no law.

Galatians 3
21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

Hello huggy74, I am confused you have as your profile, you believe in God but not religion, following the words and scripture of the bible makes you a follower of that religion,  simple,!
so how do you believe in God, not religion,but quote the bible verses ? then you believe the God of the bible and the religion of the bible being stated, sorry, maybe, I am not understanding your view, ? please correct me, if I am wrong, thank you , just trying to see where you are coming from,

[The Grand Nudger]

"Religion" has become a dirty word in apologia.  They've come up with all sorts of fun euphemisms to avoid using the word.  They've been secularized, and they don't even realize it. Yes, ofc, he believes in that religion and is a follower of it...have fun bickering with him about it though.

[Arkilogue]

Meanwhile I'm working on taking back "religion" to it's fundamentals.

[The Grand Nudger]

I know you believe that, but so does every new age pagan reconstructionist...and hopefully, neither of us believes that they're -actually- practicing the ancient faith. You're every bit the revisionist as the people you think you have an opposed ideology to.

[vorlon13]

Kinda tough to fuck up the context when you have verses prohibiting menstruating women from churchy time.

And when's the last time a christer church showed a female pew warmer on the rag the door ??

LOL, I'd love to know how they would check that.  Like...is there just one designated, unlucky choir boy with a red pointer finger standing at the entrance?

Pretty clear this was taken seriously at the time.  Someone would have had a look see.  I'm thinking the head priest (equivalent).  I'd suppose at some point women with their menstrual rags in place would quit trying to attend at those times, unless they needed to demonstrate a valid reason for not attending.  Best not to PO the twits running their local franchise, the implied threat of a stoning, disembowelment, garroting, etc. would be evident.

[Arkilogue]

I know you believe that, but so does every new age pagan reconstructionist...and hopefully, neither of us believes that they're -actually- practicing the ancient faith.  You're every bit the revisionist as the people you think you have an opposed ideology to.

Back to the fundamental of a personal technical practice toward harmony/unity/fluency with God's will.

Also back to a universal fundamental not based on any temporal cultural text and applicable for any sentient species any where in the universe.

My logistic requires no revising of any text.

[The Grand Nudger]

Hahaha, you think that Uncle Ogg wasn't just trying to get something out of the rivergod...like a fish? The business of religion has -never- been about the will of any god, there's no such thing, lol. Now, about your revisionist interpretations of, i guess..every religious text in existence.., it seems to be failing on at least one (if not all) of those metrics. It;s not going -back- to anything (rather the opposite, you're a syncretic). It's not applicable to me. I'm sentient...I don't even live in another universe. Your logistic..well, I won't even -touch- your "logistic".

[Minimalist]

Yep... still not commanding slavery... but I find your additions interesting as well.

"Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear," sounds like a command to me.... but perhaps you have more of a tolerance for servitude than I?

[Cecelia]

Apparently God is really bad at selecting writers who know how to put things so they aren't taken out of context.

I notice that they don't give the same consideration though to other religions. They somehow know the *CORRECT* context for the Quran too. (I wonder how many of them have actually read the Quran)

[RoadRunner79]

I see.... are you against context and/or  correctly presenting the content accurately?

Are you trying to lure me into exactly what the OP is warning people against? Please do try to prove his point even more, though.

So can I assume, that we are in agreement, that context and accurately representing a original speaker/writer is important.  I would also agree that shouting "context" isn't a magic get out of free card and that the one should need to explain the context which reconciles the issue.

Would you agree?