Poor uneducated unintelligent aheists

[Doubting Thomas]

As far as the handout, see my PM

I admit that I was surprised that any Christian would even entertain the idea of going through with it, and you should be commended. However, the bible is clear that no strings be attached. Jesus didn't say give to all who ask of you only if they're poorer than you, he said give to all. Why does it say this? I have no idea, but it does. Perhaps Jesus was a communist. That would certainly explain the "if someone takes your coat, offer him your shirt as well."

The point is that many Christians claim to not know that this passage exists, or if they do know about it they tend to ignore it or explain it away. Hence, cherry picking. I've known many Christian bank loan managers who don't work by this principle. But you're lucky I'm an honest person and won't hold you to actually sending me money, because to be honest I'd feel bad taking it even if you believed your bible commands you to give it to me.

And the fact remains that there are many, many other passages in the bible which command believers to do bizarre things (like offering up burnt sacrifices of animals, for instance) which Christians conveniently ignore.

[tackattack]

@DT - I did nothing that would warrant commendation. It also says to give privately, hence the brevity of my post. There are many other passages that a lot of Christians deny exist. I agree that's a problem.
Burnt offerings commonly seen in Leviticus, originating in Genesis, was a common thing and very symbolic for the typical Jew of the era. There was a serious connection with shedding of Blood for atonement. The offering of Isaac, and many other example just lead into Jesus (the lamb) being offered as the ultimate sacrifice as an atonement for our sins. The Bible also stipulates that offerings must be done in the Holy Temple, which has been destroyed. A word of caution to everyone about end timers, if you hear about someone rebuilding the temple, expect People to start giving sacrifices there. But the Bible says we can pray without ritual sacrifice.

My opinion, rituals eventually detract from their intended purpose by focusing spiritual truth in physical terms. I won't be sacrificing any animals on any alter, regardless of the temple being built. I think Christians are further divorced from ritual worship than the typical Jew, generally. Probably why it's not even bohered as a topic of discussion in most Christian circles.

[Doubting Thomas]

But the trouble is that Jesus himself said in the bible that not the tiniest part of any of the old law would pass with his resurrection, that is, nothing was "nailed to the cross" except Jesus himself and there was no "new covenant." The only reason we don't offer burnt sacrifices these days is probably because people realized that it was a nasty thing to do and they got tired of rounding up all those animals. And, I hope, we're just a tiny bit less superstitious than people were back in biblical times.

Again, though, if Christians are going to claim that Levitical laws against eating shellfish or meat & dairy products together, wearing clothes of mixed fibers, working on the Sabbath, or other such silly laws are part of the "old covenant" that we don't have to follow any more, then so is the prohibition against homosexuality as laid out in Leviticus 18:22, as well as all the ten commandments as described in Exodus. After all, they're also in the OT, and came even before Levitical laws. But for some reason they think that the ten commandments need to be posted on all public buildings.

[tackattack]

[Doubting Thomas]

It wasn't that they went away, it's that we weren't beholden to the written laws

WTF is the difference? If you're not required to follow certain laws, then isn't that the same as rendering them null and void? Why would Jesus even mention that nothing in the old law changes with him if nobody had to follow them any more?

Our salvation isn't won by following a checklist of laws

That's not what I was taught in Catholic religion classes, which took ten of those laws very seriously.

[tackattack]

Which is why there is a distinction between protestantism, anglicansim, and catholicism. As far as what's the difference, he wasn't saying there were no rules anymore, or that God's rules were wrong and needed correct, just that the medium is changed because of abuse and condemnation caused by them.

[popeyespappy]

How exactly is it cherry picking to look at all of the passages as a whole rather than taking one or two verses out of context. I think my example is still valid and has yet to be addressed. I'll enumerate it clearly here. Example of cherry picking, literal interpretation with no reading comprehansion (What I feel you both are doing):

First of all, I never claimed I wasn’t cherry picking. You’re the one who did that. Right after you expressed your contempt for cherry picking Christians. I’m simply pointing out that that you are looking at the Bible through rose colored glasses. You have cherry picked a goody two shoes version of your holy books that is at odds with the original intent of their authors.

“Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias. Cherry picking may be committed unintentionally.”

You are guilty of the bolded part.

1)Did you say "you should kill your rebellious children" in your previous post?
2)Was it your intent to ask me to kill my children?

If this is directed at me, as opposed to the Bible, yes I wrote those words in my previous post. However I was merely repeating the words of your god as recorded in your holy book. According to your book, it was his intent that you kill your rebellious children if they behaved in a proscribed manner.

The reality is that I don’t believe anything in the Bible has anything to do with god. I believe the reason those words are there is because it was the intent of the authors to give parents the ability to kill their children without fear of reprisal from civil authority.

BTW, where did you learn to spell comprehension?

[tackattack]

[djrams80]

Would you accept someones hard earned money which you did nothing to earn but put out a hand? Is this the morality which should look forward to from atheists?

Maybe I would accept the money, maybe I wouldn't. It's not like that matters. Me accepting the money or not is step two of this process. Since we were never going to get past step one of this process, my actions in this mythical situation was never relevant in any way, shape or form.

[Whirling Moat]

Peace...

Maybe I would accept the money, maybe I wouldn't. It's not like that matters. Me accepting the money or not is step two of this process. Since we were never going to get past step one of this process, my actions in this mythical situation was never relevant in any way, shape or form.

Maybe you would accept the money..Lets go with that. I understand why you would suggest that a Christian should comply...Good point..Now, why would you accept money for doing nothing from someone who may not be in a position to afford giving it to you?


Whirling Moat