Most religions protect their status quo jealously, and particularly so the Abrahamic religions. They consider apostasy and blasphemy so vile as to be punishable by death. The bible and the quran have injunctions calling for the killing of their apostates.

Should religious apostates be killed? If not, under what grounds should they be spared?

kill the unbeliever. . . . .  i was almost attacked in nigeria about a month ago when i told people that i am no longer a christain and no longer believed in any imaginary god. . . . people felt i had now become their imaginary enemy (satan). . . . an uncle stopped talking to me while my aunt would have harmed me if she had the chance. . . . so much for god and love. . . . . nonsense. . . . . .All religious people are driven by fear. . . kill god's enemies. . . kill the unbeliever. . . . . .

I guess your blood is even a source of poison to you now. I am thinking you will not leave for Nigeria, ever again! You are in troubleee, man. Your lovely aunt is now your enemy. I doubt if you can sleep with two eyes closed, if you ever to be in the same house with her. You can even turn your back to her. She what you have called on yourself. And they say Christianity is a peaceful religion. And from it, in your own family, you managed to make a few and close emenies.

Spammer alert.


Calling Mods. . .

mazaje:

All religious people are driven by fear.

People who talk like this show just how hypocritic they can be. You should be able to have travelled the whole world to know that "all" religious people are driven by fear. Don't make us laugh with this garboil.

huxley:

Should religious apostates be killed? If not, under what grounds should they be spared?

@huxley, you should know where to post this interesting thread - Christians are not called to kill apostates; and it does not help to confuse identities of people. To do so, will invite an exposure to the same reaction that you cannot hold for atheism. Cheers.

pilgrim.1:

@huxley, you should know where to post this interesting thread - Christians are not called to kill apostates; and it does not help to confuse identities of people. To do so, will invite an exposure to the same reaction that you cannot hold for atheism. Cheers.

Christains have killed apostates before the fact that times and civilization has changed doesnt mean that christains never did that before. . . . .

The following verses from the Old Testament should give anyone reason to pause:

2 Chronicles 15

10 They assembled at Jerusalem in the third month of the fifteenth year of Asa's reign. 11 At that time they sacrificed to the LORD seven hundred head of cattle and seven thousand sheep and goats from the plunder they had brought back. 12 They entered into a covenant to seek the LORD, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul. 13 All who would not seek the LORD, the God of Israel, were to be put to death, whether small or great, man or woman. 14 They took an oath to the LORD with loud acclamation, with shouting and with trumpets and horns. 15 All Judah rejoiced about the oath because they had sworn it wholeheartedly. They sought God eagerly, and he was found by them. So the LORD gave them rest on every side.

Deuteronomy 13

6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. 9 You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 11 Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.

Deuteronomy 17

2 If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the LORD gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the LORD your God in violation of his covenant, 3 and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars of the sky, 4 and this has been brought to your attention, then you must investigate it thoroughly. If it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, 5 take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death. 6 On the testimony of two or three witnesses a man shall be put to death, but no one shall be put to death on the testimony of only one witness. 7 The hands of the witnesses must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. You must purge the evil from among you.


Before I proceed, I would like to say Christianity does NOT advocate any actions based on these verses and has moved away from this form of barbarism


Now, be that as it may,  what is the Christian basis to ignoring these injunctions from the Old Testament, while selecting other OT laws and customs.  It is not clear what the rationale for picking and chose parts of the bible is.  In fact, it does not seem to me that Jesus would have sanctioned the picking and chosing of scriptures on societal whimps

mazaje:

Christains have killed apostates before the fact that times and civilization has changed doesnt mean that christains never did that before. . . . .

And how does that prove your hubris for "all" religious people being driven by fear? This is the silly games that narrow minded carps like you make - I'm sorry, mazaje: but when you feel at liberty to be driven with this misanthrope every single time without putting on your thinking cap, it just simply means that a time would come when people have to ask you guys to smart up and look at the devastation of atheistc murders as well. What is driving those fellows to kill religious people as well without the help of religion?

huxley:



Before I proceed, I would like to say Christianity does NOT advocate any actions based on these verses and has moved away from this form of barbarism


Now, be that as it may,  what is the Christian basis to ignoring these injunctions from the Old Testament, while selecting other OT laws and customs.  It is not clear what the rationale for picking and chose parts of the bible is.  In fact, it does not seem to me that Jesus would have sanctioned the picking and chosing of scriptures on societal whimps

Jesus wouldn't have sanctioned the killing of anyone who doesn't believe in Christianity. He wasn't even a big fan of the OT,come to think of it. I'm a Christian,but I won't stone anyone to death cos some old testament dude said his people should.

That's my basis. Some people will have the same view as me,some won't. Complex world.

huxley:

The following verses from the Old Testament should give anyone reason to pause:

Thank you, dear huxley - like I said: confusing people make me really sad for people who claim to be so rational and yet cannot distinguish issues, as long as it helps their agenda. Sir, find me where CHRISTIANS are called to kill apostates. At least, not every atheist plays  this cheap games - and I know a few atheists who do not go this extreme to confuse Christians for Jews or Muslims.

So, can you just please find me that verse where CHRISTIANS are called to kill apostates?

pilgrim.1:

Thank you, dear huxley - like I said: confusing people make me really sad for people who claim to be so rational and yet cannot distinguish issues, as long as it helps their agenda. Sir, find me where CHRISTIANS are called to kill apostates. At least, not every atheist plays  this cheap games - and I know a few atheists who do not go this extreme to confuse Christians for Jews or Muslims.

So, can you just please find me that verse where CHRISTIANS are called to kill apostates?

Did you read all the post?   Did you see the bits highlighted in red?  Here is it again.

Before I proceed, I would like to say Christianity does NOT advocate any actions based on these verses and has moved away from this form of barbarism

Did I say anywhere that the vast majority Christians are required to act on this?  C'mon, before you accuse me of anything,  read my post carefully.

huxley:

Most religions protect their status quo jealously, and particularly so the Abrahamic religions. They consider apostasy and blasphemy so vile as to be punishable by death. The bible and the quran have injunctions calling for the killing of their apostates.

Should religious apostates be killed? If not, under what grounds should they be spared?

Then you should have made your point clearer when you posted the above,instead of generally making it seem like you were referring to Christianity.

@huxley,

huxley:

Did you read all the post?   Did you see the bits highlighted in red?  Here is it again.

I did read all through - and that was why I ignored the part you had wanted me to look at, because you are ignoring the fact that this thread does not address your concerns or fears about Christians. To misrepresent this issue on the idea that Christianity has "moved away from this form of barbarism" is to fail to see that Biblical Christianity did not start from such a premise before inferring that it "moved away" from such. This would be just as much to say that atheism has "moved away" from the denial of the supernatural to belief in the paranormal - would that be a correct analysis of your worldview? If not, why this deliberate misrepresentation?

The place for your to bear out this concern is not here - you know those whom you had in mind when looking at the killing of apostates - you should have gone there to ask them that question and not sit here starting out with this sort of misrepresentation and hoping to quote the "Old Testament" to force this issue and then turn back to ask if we never read through all your post. I wonder how you missed the fact that I called your attention initially to that point.

huxley:

Did I say anywhere that the vast majority Christians are required to act on this? C'mon, before you accuse me of anything, read my post carefully.

Did you pay any close attention to what I said earlier?

Cristalz:

Then you should have made your point clearer when you posted the above,instead of generally making it seem like you were referring to Christianity.

@huxley, I hope you can see now that I'm not the only one seeing what I tried to call your attention to? See how your post comes across to other readers - which simply demonstrates how very misrepresentative it is. Cheers.

pilgrim.1:

@huxley,

I did read all through - and that was why I ignored the part you had wanted me to look at, because you are ignoring the fact that this thread does not address your concerns or fears about Christians. To misrepresent this issue on the idea that Christianity has "moved away from this form of barbarism" is to fail to see that Biblical Christianity did not start from such a premise before inferring that it "moved away" from such. This would be just as much to say that atheism has "moved away" from the denial of the supernatural to belief in the paranormal - would that be a correct analysis of your worldview? If not, why this deliberate misrepresentation?

The place for your to bear out this concern is not here - you know those whom you had in mind when looking at the killing of apostates - you should have gone there to ask them that question and not sit here starting out with this sort of misrepresentation and hoping to quote the "Old Testament" to force this issue and then turn back to ask if we never read through all your post. I wonder how you missed the fact that I called your attention initially to that point.

is the god of the old testament different from the god of the new testament? why did he encourage the jews to kill apostates before?

Pilgrim,

You are right in one sense.  "Move away"  was not the correct word to use in this context, as I don't think Christianity ever practiced these injunction, much as Jesus would have like his followers to, if his pronouncements in the NT are to be read literally,

In fact, the main blank of this post was not even the issue of killing apostate.  The main issue is the basis for picking and chosing parts of the bible as befits one's doctrine/agenda.

huxley:

Most religions protect their status quo jealously, and particularly so the Abrahamic religions. They consider apostasy and blasphemy so vile as to be punishable by death. The bible and the quran have injunctions calling for the killing of their apostates.

Should religious apostates be killed? If not, under what grounds should they be spared?

I used the question of apostasy as an oblique way of getting to this subject.

mazaje:

is the god of the old testament different from the god of the new testament? why did he encourage the jews to kill apostates before?

I am not a Jew, mazaje. You have your reasons to not believe in Him and have said so - I don't see any reason why this matter should disturb you since you walked away from believing in Him. You have not stopped being an atheist even though no one can deny that history testifies to atheistc murders, not so? You can't ave that excuse in my face, because you would have to provide a rational answer that satisfies your conscience for atheists who have murdered others without the help of God - and what does that make you? To keep harping on this matter when it is of no problem to you is to demonstrate some hypocrisy that is uncurable - sorry, but I have to be firm sometimes with people who shlepp up this hubris.

Atheism is not my problem - and I don't go about trying to slur atheists or decree for them how to live their lives. The same with other world views: I don't go about calling them barbaric. And to be disturbed about what is not a problem to you and then use that as a bold lie to infer that ALL religious people are driven by fear, is the same hypocrisy that has become second nature with fellows who are at liberty to just vomit their ignorance in public. My fingers are crossed for the day when we shall all learn to think honestly within ourselves, instead of going about trying ever so hard to legislate how others live their lives when their religion is not a problem to your atheism.

Cheers.

huxley:


In fact, the main blank of this post was not even the issue of killing apostate.  The main issue is the basis for picking and chosing parts of the bible as befits one's doctrine/agenda.

I used the question of apostasy as an oblique way of getting to this subject.

In other words,you're gon' abandon the quran part of apostate killing now and take up ''picking and choosing parts of the bible'' instead.

Try to be true to yourself huxley. You accuse people of being the opposite

Cristalz:

In other words,you're gon' abandon the quaran part of apostate killing now and take up ''picking and choosing parts of the bible'' instead.

Try to be true to yourself huxley. You accuse people of being the opposite

Actually, contributions from Christians an Muslims would be useful. Christians as well as Muslims have parts of their holy book which their ignore, pick&chose, etc. I would like to know the basis for such selective use of their books.

@huxley,

huxley:

You are right in one sense.  "Move away"  was not the correct word to use in this context, as I don't think Christianity ever practiced these injunction, much as Jesus would have like his followers to, if his pronouncements in the NT are to be read literally,

You haven't made any case here - on the one hand trying to temper the issue under an acquiescence, and then forcing the same issue, that says a lot about your intension to stay put on your misgivings.

Let me ask: is it too much for people to simply discuss issues without forcing themselves to be this driven? If you want to invite a discussion, nobody would have to lecture you or me on that. My style doesn't have to be anybody's. . . but then, we can all approach an issue sensibly and not try to insinuate what is not there.

huxley:

In fact, the main blank of this post was not even the issue of killing apostate.

Then for crying out loud, why even go there? Do you see the very core of the matter that we have repeatedly called out on matters like this? You know very well that you were not even looking at that subject, but it just has to be in the body of your post - to what end?

huxley:

The main issue is the basis for picking and chosing parts of the bible as befits one's doctrine/agenda.

Great - I have discussed my position about that with Chrisbenogor in another thread up until it was highjacked, and I'm still discussing matters of the Law as distinct from the new covenant in the NT. If that was what you had wanted to discuss, you knew better than to lump it all and infer this matter with "killing apostates" and yet flavouring that with the "quran". Let me ask again as to what exactly does the mention of the quran have to do with the new covenant?

huxley:

I used the question of apostasy as an oblique way of getting to this subject.

There's nothing incidental about that - it has no bearing whatsoever on what you claim to have wanted to discuss. . . and I realized that already before posting any reply on this thread. Please forgive my conviction that it is so - because you may have noticed that it is not every thread you have raised that has interested my input. But I just could not sit back and watch this one continue to make this huge gap and let people assume that you had no intention of discussing the killing of apostates when that is not a Christian concern.

Cheers.

On the subject of picking&chosing, here is Jesus calling some other Jews to rights about tradition:

Matthew 15:


1 Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked,
2 "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don't wash their hands before they eat!"
3 Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?
4 For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'
5 But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,'
6 he is not to 'honor his father' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.
7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:

huxley:

On the subject of picking&chosing, here is Jesus calling some other Jews to rights about tradition:

Matthew 15:

Thank you, huxley - and how does that relate to the killing of apostates?

pilgrim.1:

@huxley,

You haven't made any case here - on the one hand trying to temper the issue under an acquiescence, and then forcing the same issue, that says a lot about your intension to stay put on your misgivings.

Let me ask: is it too much for people to simply discuss issues without forcing themselves to be this driven? If you want to invite a discussion, nobody would have to lecture you or me on that. My style doesn't have to be anybody's. . . but then, we can all approach an issue sensibly and not try to insinuate what is not there.

Then for crying out loud, why even go there? Do you see the very core of the matter that we have repeatedly called out on matters like this? You know very well that you were not even looking at that subject, but it just has to be in the body of your post - to what end?

Great - I have discussed my position about that with Chrisbenogor in another thread up until it was highjacked, and I'm still discussing matters of the Law as distinct from the new covenant in the NT. If that was what you had wanted to discuss, you knew better than to lump it all and infer this matter with "killing apostates" and yet flavouring that with the "quran". Let me ask again as to what exactly does the mention of the quran have to do with the new covenant?

There's nothing incidental about that - it has no bearing whatsoever on what you claim to have wanted to discuss. . . and I realized that already before posting any reply on this thread. Please forgive my conviction that it is so - because you may have noticed that it is not every thread you have raised that has interested my input. But I just could not sit back and watch this one continue to make this huge gap and let people assume that you had no intention of discussing the killing of apostates when that is not a Christian concern.

Cheers.

Basically, I was looking for a principle under which the picking&chosing can be justified and whether every tradition from the Old Testament can be fairly assessed under such principle.

I know of the Christian concept of the New Covenant.  Now, what is the New Covenant and what OT traditions does it have jurisdiction over?   In fact, at what point did it kick in?

Was it at Jesus's birth?
Was it during is adulescences?
Was at the moment of his baptism?
Was it at the moment of crucifixion?
Was it at resurrection?
Was it as ascension?

Imagine,  you were born on the same day as Jesus and had lived up to the grand old age of 60 years.  In fact, imagine all people born with 10 - 20 years of Jesus's birth, form about 15 BCE to 10 CE.  There would have been millions of such people in the Near East at the time who were contemporaries or near coevals with Jesus.   What dispensation was open to such people?

If you were 30 years old at the time of Jesus death, does it mean that for most of your life you would have been subject to the old covenant.  But immediately following his death, the new covenant would have kicked in, and you would have had to live the rest of your life under the new covenant?  Which old covenant tradition would you have had to abandon?  

Would you have had to abandon the dietary law, the hygiene laws, the cleanliness laws,  the apostasy laws?

@huxley,

huxley:

Basically, I was looking for a principle under which the picking&chosing can be justified and whether every tradition from the Old Testament can be fairly assessed under such principle.

How has that made your situation any better or clearer, huxley? Upon what basis are you seeking a "justification" of what you have already inferred was "barbarism" - especially when it had nothing to do with you - and then try to use that as the flagship for discussing CHRISTIANITY? I'm just not clear about your mission in that statement above.

huxley:

I know of the Christian concept of the New Covenant. Now, what is the New Covenant and what OT traditions does it have jurisdiction over?

These terms should not be confused, huxley. The old covenant (Judaism) is not the same thing as the Old Testament (Genesis to Malachi). So also the New Testament (Matthew to Revelation) is not to be confused for the new covenant (Christianity).

Christianity is not a continuum of Judaism; and when these matters are placed in their proper perspectives, I don't see why they should present any problem to anyone who is careful and honest enough to look at them.

huxley:

In fact, at what point did it pick in?

Sorry, let me repeat: Judaism is not a continuum into Christianity.

huxley:

Was it at Jesus's birth?
Was it during is adulescences?
Was at the moment of his baptism?
Was it at the moment of crucifixion?
Was it at resurrection?
Was it as ascension?

The new covenant came into effect when Jesus was glorified after the resurrection.

huxley:

Imagine, you were born on the same day as Jesus and had lived up to the grand old age of 60 years. In fact, imagine all people born with 10 - 20 years of Jesus's birth, form about 15 BCE to 10 CE. There would have been millions of such people in the Near East at the time who were contemporaries or near coevals with Jesus. What dispensation was open to such people?

The old covenant was never given to the nations of the world - rather, it was specifically given to just one nation: ISRAEL (Deuteronomy 5:2-3). Even if the other nations all fell under the period of the Old Testament, it does not mean that they were under the old covenant that was specifically given to israel (see Romans 2:14-15). And just incase you ever wondered how they related to these matters, please see Romans 2:12.

Lol, huxley. . . you make me laugh, and that's why I have been slow to reply! If you really wanted to know these matters, all you needed to do was study the Bible and see matters for yourself - even if you had to study it with an honest heart as a student of theology. One doesn't have to be a Christian to do theology, you know - and when you do these studies in their deixis (contextual settings), they will not present any problem to you.

huxley:

If you were 30 years old at the time of Jesus death, does it mean that for most of your life you would have been subject to the old covenant.

It all depends - as a Gentile, I was not subject to the old covenant (because I was not a Jew), and the only way that the same old covenant would have affected me was if I had become a proselyte to Judaism. In as much as I was not a Jew, the old covenant was not applicable to me, although in my conscience, I could not live against the dictates of my spiritual awakening.

huxley:

But immediately following his death, the new covenant would have kicked in, and you would have had to live the rest of your life under the new covenant?

The new covenant did not "kick in" or become effective until Jesus was glorified, which means it was not immediately after His death that these matters came into fruition.

huxley:

Which old covenant tradition would you have had to abandon?

As a Gentile, was I given any covenant? How could I abandon what I had not received in the first place?

huxley:

Would you have had to abandon the dietary law, the hygiene laws, the cleanliness laws, the apostasy laws?

Since I was never given any in the first place, the idea of "abandoning" is a mute consideration, NO?

Cheers.

now it has all boiled down to the jews and gentiles argument

mazaje:

now it has all boiled down to the jews and gentiles argument

Lol, mazaje deary. . it did not boil down to what you are assuming - it has always been so. Problem was that not many people were seeing that distinction, and that was why we have all been mixing it up ("we", because I was always making that mistake). Anyway, enjoy the evening.

pilgrim.1:

Lol, mazaje deary. . it did not boil down to what you are assuming - it has always been so. Problem was that not many people were seeing that distinction, and that was why we have all been mixing it up ("we", because I was always making that mistake). Anyway, enjoy the evening.

My problem with this line of argument/reasoning is that it is the same god that gave out the same babaric laws to the jews that has now turned 360 degrees to issue out very different laws to the gentiles, how can you reconcile a god that tells jews to kill apostates and punishes them in some cases if they don't, and the same god telling the gentiles something very different while maintaing that he is the same god to day, yesterday and forever who never changes? why was the biblical god so tribal, billigerent, manovalent and down right cruel when dealing with the jews and humanity in general in the old testament but the same god changed 360 degrees in most parts of the new testament while dealing with humanity and the same god kept saying that he remains the same god forever who never changes. . . . . how can you reconcile these two very contradictory personalities. . . . . .

Me I am with mazaje all the way on this one. That is what I have been trying to reconcile for a very long time. It is the same God which they served that the christians do today I see no difference. Someone will tell me that was the old law and now this is the new one makes no sense, dude this guy is God and if I as a mere human being knows that those killings were wrong and totally barbaric I wonder why God could not see it.
*shakes his head in wonder*

@Huxley: We in Islam do not pick and chose parts of Qur'an. We accept everything as is, if there is true belief in the heart. For example, a true muslim, who is completely obedient, should not be consuming alcohol, right now. Thats the final "word," on it. But of course you will read the process of its abrogation, through the 23 years of revelation. It progressed from free consumption, to don't get impaired by alcohol when you approach prayer to finally, no consumption of it.

I see that the "Christians," are claiming that the Old Testament does not matter. Rather they pick and chose. Yet the OT is a document which Jesus said he did not come to abolish, but rather fulfilled. And he warned that who ever abolishes or encourages any to abolish it will be the "least in the Kingdom of heaven!"

I dont think "least in the Kingdom of heaven," is a noble position to aspire to, by any who believes in God and claim to worship Him. Very interesting, at least to me is the bulk of the OT versus the Gospels. Okay even the so called post Jesus earthly Books after the Gospel, even along with the Gospel! The OT trumps it, by being more than 50+% of the Bible. The Christians are claiming that they now throw away the OT, but just as a means to "fill up" their holy book? Is that what I am getting from the many pundits?

Well, Jesus was not a Christian, and we see that he did advocate the preservation of the OT, and not anything else! But I will go to a important issue that I need to address below.




@Pilgrim.1: « #24 on: Today at 07:27:41 PM »  

@huxley,
Quote from: huxley on Today at 06:44:36 PM
I know of the Christian concept of the New Covenant.  Now, what is the New Covenant and what OT traditions does it have jurisdiction over?

These terms should not be confused, huxley. The old covenant (Judaism) is not the same thing as the Old Testament (Genesis to Malachi). So also the New Testament (Matthew to Revelation) is not to be confused for the new covenant (Christianity).

Christianity is not a continuum of Judaism; and when these matters are placed in their proper perspectives, I don't see why they should present any problem to anyone who is careful and honest enough to look at them.
[/uote]

Where do we now place King David's Psalms; OT or NT? And when you say "Proper perspectives," what does that mean? What yardsticks are you using? Should it be different from the what the plainly speaking meant? It any has an opinion among the "Christians," that is different from what Jesus plainly said, in the Bible, should this person's view be taken and disregard that of the plain speech of Jesus?

Quote from: huxley on Today at 06:44:36 PM
Was it at Jesus's birth?
Was it during is adulescences?
Was at the moment of his baptism?
Was it at the moment of crucifixion?
Was it at resurrection?
Was it as ascension?

The new covenant came into effect when Jesus was glorified after the resurrection.

If this is the case, then all that Jesus said, in the New Testament, prior to this "glorification state that occurred after 'resurrection,' must be discarded and rendered IRRELEVANT, along with the OT! I ask you here and now; what then do you have left?

And why are you still keeping all of the pre-resurrection materials in the Bible and acting upon them?

Quote from: huxley on Today at 06:44:36 PM
Imagine,  you were born on the same day as Jesus and had lived up to the grand old age of 60 years.  In fact, imagine all people born with 10 - 20 years of Jesus's birth, form about 15 BCE to 10 CE.  There would have been millions of such people in the Near East at the time who were contemporaries or near coevals with Jesus.   What dispensation was open to such people?

The old covenant was never given to the nations of the world - rather, it was specifically given to just one nation: ISRAEL (Deuteronomy 5:2-3). Even if the other nations all fell under the period of the Old Testament, it does not mean that they were under the old covenant that was specifically given to israel (see Romans 2:14-15). And just incase you ever wondered how they related to these matters, please see Romans 2:12.

How true to form and can anyone rely on the words of Jesus, if the ordinary men after him, as indicated above, from Biblical verses can dismiss his core statement about "OT," and its preservation and its unabrogatable? Who is correct here, Jesus or the others?

Lol, huxley. . . you make me laugh, and that's why I have been slow to reply!  If you really wanted to know these matters, all you needed to do was study the Bible and see matters for yourself - even if you had to study it with an honest heart as a student of theology. One doesn't have to be a Christian to do theology, you know - and when you do these studies in their deixis (contextual settings), they will not present any problem to you.

How then is a need for interpretation to the point that the plain speech developed a completely different meaning? Is there any where in the Bible where Jesus is as affirmative about "abrogating the OT, and their prophets," as he was when he spoke about his "fulfillment of the very same OT and its Prophets?" And I am a gentleman today. There is no harshness in my speech.

Quote from: huxley on Today at 06:44:36 PM
If you were 30 years old at the time of Jesus death, does it mean that for most of your life you would have been subject to the old covenant.

It all depends - as a Gentile, I was not subject to the old covenant (because I was not a Jew), and the only way that the same old covenant would have affected me was if I had become a proselyte to Judaism. In as much as I was not a Jew, the old covenant was not applicable to me, although in my conscience, I could not live against the dictates of my spiritual awakening.

Is there anywhere Jesus restricted his speech about the validity of the Old Testament ad its Prophets, only to the jews, but to all who "believed in him?"

Quote from: huxley on Today at 06:44:36 PM
But immediately following his death, the new covenant would have kicked in, and you would have had to live the rest of your life under the new covenant?

The new covenant did not "kick in" or become effective until Jesus was glorified, which means it was not immediately after His death that these matters came into fruition.

Then I will take it that all the materials known before the "kick in," must be all "kicked out," from that time on? Yes? I truly fail to see the continum of any pre "Kick in" things! Its just like if a person says he does not consume alcohol any longer, you will not expect find an open bottle of champagne in his bedroom, with part of it poured in a flute, and a smell of it in his breathe. Why do we see the pre kick in books in the bible of the christians? Its for what purpose exactly, since the "Kick in?"

Quote from: huxley on Today at 06:44:36 PM
Which old covenant tradition would you have had to abandon?

As a Gentile, was I given any covenant? How could I abandon what I had not received in the first place?

I guess that whatever is in the OT covenant, is fair games for the post covenant, NT people? Like whatever flows the roll?

Quote from: huxley on Today at 06:44:36 PM
Would you have had to abandon the dietary law, the hygiene laws, the cleanliness laws,  the apostasy laws?

Since I was never given any in the first place, the idea of "abandoning" is a mute consideration, NO?

Cheers.

Oil wells that end well! I said it before. I am in your support camp. Do what you will, since there is no "Covenant" to bind any Christian, against pre glorification after resurrection. NO? I have enjoyed myself. I learnt something today, about Christianity's post resurrection lack of covenant platform. Unless somebody thinks that I am way off mark in any or all of my responses. I need a true "teacher," without "interpretation," where the meaning is obvious and plain.

@mazaje,

mazaje:

My problem with this line of argument/reasoning is that it is the same god that gave out the same babaric laws to the jews that has now turned 360 degrees to issue out very different laws to the gentiles,

My problem with this weathered argument in yours is because you're comfortably sitting to call the laws of other people "barbaric" while you fail to provide any better history for your atheism. I wasn't a Jew (even though I am guilty of once deriding them); but as one who had to face the reality of my conscience, it was not the warfare that drew me to the love of God - that same God that has always been ridiculed by people who themselves are not at peace with their own consciences.

There are so many philosophies and worldviews in the world today - including atheism. I have remarked once in another thread that it is not in my place to try and define the life of other people whose worldviews are not any concern of mine, as long as I am not one of their adherents. Why is it that this same Hebrew God has been a problem to you guys if you have decided to walk away from Him? That attitude shows me just one thing: to be constantly disturbed about issues that are no longer your worry is to show a restless conscience - which is a paradox in itself, because one would have wondered that your rejection of that same God would give you peace. But has it?

Indeed, the problem I have with the sort of reasoning you present is that you make so much issue out of warfare that you have not stopped for a minute to think about the proportion of murders committed by atheists who did not need the help of religion to cause such shock in history. Nor have I made it my career to always go around with atheist murders as a recurrent decimal in every thread visited.

I have never stopped believing in that same God - yes, the Hebrew God - and it doesn't matter how bitterly anyone ridicules Him. Constantly harping on those warfares does not tell me that your own conscience is at peace - nor is that state of restlessness any worry of mine for me to start referring to you as a barbarian.

mazaje:

how can you reconcile a god that tells jews to kill apostates and punishes them in some cases if they don't, and the same god telling the gentiles something very different while maintaing that he is the same god to day, yesterday and forever who never changes?

It is not in my place to reconcile these issues, if your reference point is to start out with a fib as you did earlier.

mazaje:

why was the biblical god so tribal, billigerent, manovalent and down right cruel when dealing with the jews and humanity in general in the old testament but the same god changed 360 degrees in most parts of the new testament while dealing with humanity and the same god kept saying that he remains the same god forever who never changes. . . . . how can you reconcile these two very contradictory personalities. . . . . .

Sorry, you just failed your own test. He is not contradictory in His holiness, and evil will be severely judged at the proper time and scale. Your post again does not nullify the fact that atheists have been as contradictory in themselves as well as have been billigerent, manivolent, and down right cruel when dealing with Jews and humanity in general - we're still experiencing these things today in several countries. the moment I make reference to Communism etc, you guys are quick to protest: but such protests do not erase the blithe disregard of atheism in history. Does that make you feel any better now?

Regards.

Chrisbenogor:

Me I am with mazaje all the way on this one. That is what I have been trying to reconcile for a very long time. It is the same God which they served that the christians do today I see no difference. Someone will tell me that was the old law and now this is the new one makes no sense, dude this guy is God and if I as a mere human being knows that those killings were wrong and totally barbaric I wonder why God could not see it.
*shakes his head in wonder*

You don't need to reconcile anything - we are waiting to see how atheism (the same atheism) has been any better than this glib joke you guys pretend not to notice. "Killings" - is not a strange word in atheistic history as well: and why have you guys not ceased being human beings on that note?