Jesus stated unequivocally and emphatically (at least according to the scriptures) that the Law of Moses is eternal and will remain in force until the earth passes away.

And he cited a law that directs people to stone kids that talk back as a gotcha in a legal beef with the Pharisees- who were like “maybe stoning children to death doesn’t fit the crime of sassing your parents, so we should not do that”

That same legal code that Jesus explicitly endorsed expressly states that slavery is cool, and goes so far as to say that beating your slave to within an inch that slave’s life is acceptable.

That legal code also says roughly half of all women should be stoned because whoever wrote the damn thing didn’t understand female anatomy.

That legal code says it’s totally cool to sell your daughters as sex slaves.

It says you should stone kids that talk back.

That is “biblical morality”. They might be a decent person but they worship an awful scum bag that makes Epstein and Trump look positively benign.

And that is all just reading the damn book with some honesty.

Suffice it to say you’re analogy is stupid and doesn’t follow. Christians worship a dude who had more to say about paying taxes to your oppressors than he had to say about slavery.

The morality of Jesus isn’t a political spectrum. He’s a raging asshole and his morals should be left to rot in whatever unmarked grave his disciples hid his corpse in.

TaKe yOuR time sweetie, you know what the right answer is. We can't let those hooligan communists take control of our lives

/s

Seems like a lot of Christians likes to ignore/forget the 10 commandments.

Spoken like someone who hasn't checked.

Hard to argue against that. If I continued defending the tiny minority at this point it would be merely pedantry.

Perhaps. Although you may have mistaken me for someone who assumes the best of a Republican when I meet them. It's the opposite.

Susan Collins explains her vote to acquit Trump

Republican Senator Susan Collins said she believes President Trump has learned a "pretty big lesson" by being impeached and plans to vote to acquit him.

I don't think Susan Collins was a great example there. She famously doesn't actually oppose Trump.

Communist hooligan, here, arriving at the scene!

It's amazing what you can live with as soon as you start getting laid.

What your describing is fundamentalism, not Christianity

No, they were just describing events from the Old Testament.

🔥

Your god condones slavery. You can pontificate all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that your religion is vile.

MAGA chuds: take note. This is how you pretend not to care that nobody wants to date you.

Jesus also said, “The law was made for the man, not the man for the law.” He disobeys the law more than once and asks his disciples to do the same. Then, after Jesus’s death, Peter is instructed to disobey the law even more. So no, the Bible is quite clear that when Jesus says, “Until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished,” he doesn’t mean that all the horrific commandments we find in the Bible must be obeyed. Just a few verses later, Jesus even changes the law!

You can always take verses out of context (both literary and historical) and make anything look horrible. Here, Matthew is actually doing the opposite of what you think. When he writes, “Whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven,” he isn’t addressing u/FuglyDuck, an American from the 21^st^ century, but people of his own time. He’s saying that those who “relax one of the least of these commandments and teach others to do the same” will still enter the kingdom, while many Jews of his time believed they wouldn’t enter it at all.

And right after that, he says, “Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” Yet the scribes and Pharisees were well known for their meticulous observance of the letter of the law. So he’s saying that people who observe the letter of the law won’t enter the kingdom of heaven, while those who “relax” the “commandments” will! You see, if you read the text thoughtfully and take its context into account, it says something quite different. It's convoluted indeed, but that's the literary style of the time. You can't make strong assertions like that without studying the subject a minimum. You can't read 2000 years old texts like they were written yesterday. Even in translation, they have to be decoded.

I have no idea what you mean when you say that Jesus explicitly “cited a law that directs people to stone kids who talk back.” There’s no law in the Old Testament that says that. There’s Deuteronomy 21:18–21, which is a pretty bad law, and as far as I know, Jesus doesn’t cite it. But this law doesn’t speak about children: the “kid” in question is described, among other things, as someone who drinks alcohol. He isn’t a little child. But yes, Deuteronomy 21:18–21 is a shitty text, even without your exaggerations. There are other bad texts in the Bible, and not only in the Old Testament. But they have to be read in context.

For example, you say the Bible “says it’s totally cool to sell your daughters as sex slaves.” I assume you’re talking about Exodus 21:7–11. It’s another shitty law by our standards, but at the time it was a step forward: it protects women who were sold. Yes, selling a daughter is a horrible practice, but it was the norm for much of human history. The Bible wasn’t written in a cultural vacuum. It takes people’s practices as they are and tries to push things in the right direction. And it worked! We moved in the right direction, so those laws now seem backward. They seem backward because they succeeded. Jesus says as much in Matthew 19: the law was imperfect because it was given to an imperfect people. And when Jesus gives a commandment himself, it’s still the same principle.

But what you don’t understand is that only a small part of Christianity considers the Bible to be the “inerrant Word of God.” Jesus didn’t, and neither do “progressive Christians.” So no, my analogy still holds. You’re applying something that’s true of only one part of Christianity to all Christians, and that’s intellectually dishonest. Your criticism is completely justified when directed at people who believe God actually approves of killing people or selling slaves. But that doesn’t describe most of us. We objectively do not worship the God you’re describing.

It doesn't. Parts of the Bible do, but I do not believe that the Bible is the inherent word of God. Only fundamentalists believe that.

And is himself apparently full of hatred.

Again, the Bible ≠ God, except for fundamentalists.

How convenient for you that you get to pick and choose which parts you like.

Even though your own lord and savior said that he didn't come to abolish the old law but to fulfill it, and that not a single bit of that old law will change until the end of the earth (paraphrasing Matthew 5:17).

You don't get to pick and choose what that "old law" was, it's literally the entire first part of your holy book. And it explicitly condones slavery (among a litany of other heinous shit).

How convenient for you that you get to pick and choose which parts you like.

It's not cherrypicking, it's interpretation. I do not arbitrarily choose, I study the context, and use the Love of God as an hermeneutical key, to cite Martin Luther.

Even though your own lord and savior said that he didn’t come to abolish the old law but to fulfill it, and that not a single bit of that old law will change until the end of the earth (paraphrasing Matthew 5:17).

I answered about this text here.

I have no interest in your pathetic apologetics.

I hope that one day you're able to escape the abusive relationship you've chosen to have with a non-existent entity. It's so very freeing.

I didn't say it was god. These are alleged historical events. You don't get to just say it didn't happen.

Slavery was real, and the Old Testament has explicit rules about it. And Jesus never had a single thing to say about it (besides the thing about fulfilling the old law. Which, again, explicitly includes slavery).

This has NOTHING to do with fundamentalism. You don't get to hand wave this shit away, it's at the very core of the religion you claim to believe.

the Bible is quite clear

No it isn't, or else this conversation wouldn't be happening.

The Bible is a thousands-year-old compilation of local folk tales and the musings of illiterate sheepherders, munged together by rich elites who saw its usefulness in controlling the masses, and has been translated. modified, and reinterpreted dozens of times to keep it effective at controlling the masses. It's fraught with inconsistencies, and calling anything in it "quite clear" is honestly just laughable.

I feel free, thank you. I hope than one day, you'll learn that it makes more happy to actually think that there's more than one legitimate way to see the world.

You can't change the subject of the discussion on a whim. The original argument was that Christians worshiped a God that condone slavery and child murder. I showed that, for most Christians, it isn't the case.

(And by the way, these events did not happen. The Exodus is a myth according to the historians, so yes, I'm allowed to say so)

The parts aren't, the whole is, and I showed why. You have the right to disagree of course; but then it's not a bad thing to answer to arguments by arguments.

I was a young adult in Orange County, California, in the Age of Reagan. And at least back then, Christian girls could be pretty freaky.

i get downvoted every time I mention third parties 😌

Literaly any other! Don't need people who believe jn nonsense such as free will, or the human spirit, or anything that indicates humans are more than machines

republican + weed - religion = libertarian

Just so they can say "I didn't vote for that".

In this day and age, no clue. You have to look way back to find a decent prominent Republican, possibly Eisenhower.

I didn’t heard what Francis said about atheism, so I have no opinion on the matter.

https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2013/05/29/187009384/Pope-Francis-Even-Atheists-Can-Be-Redeemed

I'll give a bit more detail there. also looks like I was way off on the year. First off I'll admit, majority of my knowledge of Christianity is based on American versions. Of which I gotta admit, American believers are a different animal than European ones. IE hence American Catholics are basically considering our current president more authoritative than the pope in spiritual matters. But even so from what I've seen of say actual bishops debating with Hitchens etc... It still seems to me that at least a fairly significant portion even at an international level. This ain't a Jubalee fact check episode so obviously we shouldn't do it as, oh if 49.9% believe belief = salvation, then you are right and if 50.1% believe it than I'm right. I'm just saying it's not an insignificant portion. My point is someone who believes belief = salvation, and also marries someone who doesn't believe. Is either not as convinced of their belief as they claim, or they are expecting their spouse to change, maybe thinking that being around them but not preaching, is it's own witnessing strategy (IE let them see the light in your life),

Mentioned in a different post on that, but I did phrase my statement badly

IE I meant to say I find the concept of a mixed marriage in the case of people who believe, salvation = belief, and those who don't believe are damned, is crazy. not to imply all religious believe salvation = belief.

If by republican you mean someone who believes that Britain should abolish its monarchy, then yes.

FPTP voting will only ever allow for 2 dominant parties. Fix the archaic and barely democratic voting system, before speaking about third parties.

eh, maybe. better than a conservative. but if they're a true liberal and not left of? no. liberals are just conservative-lite. especially with their actions in Canadian federal gov lately

^Canadian terms

https://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/l-p-d-libertarian-police-department

it's very hopeful of you to think that the party can be saved by people with real principles.

also, as soon as the candidate you voted for toes the party line when you know they shouldn't, you're basically the same as every other Republican. do you want to take that risk? I wouldn't.

That's what fraught.

Europe: Liberal means free-marketeer, low regulation, absolutely a right winger.

America Right: Liberal means loving gays and government programs, ie ""The Left".

American Center: Liberal means supporting gays and government programs. Because they're also cowards forever running in fear of conservative branding, they prefer the term progressive.

American Left (and Canada, per you): Liberal is a corporate-backed Dem looking for no change to the underlying economic or power systems, with flavors of the European meaning. Sometimes neoliberal is used instead.

politics is great

The question of abolishing the monarchy is one I absolutely agree with in principle. However; getting Nigel Farage as president would be suboptimal

No⁴

Well those are a bit harder to explain away to me than tarot, in fact those explain tarot in my opinion.

Jewish people generally don't believe in hell because their scripture doesn't support it. Christians often believe in hell due to hellenization of Christian theology after the time of Jesus. Many Christians don't really believe in hell. The parts of the Bible people interpret as supporting the existence of hell are generally being misinterpreted.

I do have to question the core concept though, consider this just me trying to make sense of the logic. I'll admit I've only understood the 2 ends of the camp, I was raised a fundamentalist, and really didn't have much of a mid point from that to atheism.

To me the idea there is like saying "I'm a big fan of Darth Vader", but I'm not a fundamentalist, I know star wars isn't literally true, I don't consider him to have blown up planets or built death stars.

IE then comes the question. There's only star wars materials to even imply a vader ever existed, and if you don't believe in that... in what meaningful way does vader exist? Or more importantly how do you know ANYTHING about him. IE what does it mean to "believe in darth vader", but I don't think he did most if any of the things in star wars.

I could see "I believe in a god, but don't think there is any way to know anything about him, I just feel like the world was made", that I can understand. But the second you slap the label of an existing religion, how do you not inherit the baggage as well. Because well what else is there, why would I assume the bible has more godly information than the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy. If I'm not ascribing something in it to be believed to be true. Whether you go with the moral parable or literal truth, say a story where god tells his people to go into a city and kill all the men women and children, and they refuse and god punishes them until they do... whether it's true or not, the moral of that story is "do what god says, even if your personal morals tell you it's horrible". The message is what's awful today.

You didn't show anything, you shared your interpretation and claimed that it's the one "most" Christians believe without any evidence.

More to the point though, your interpretation isn't even clear - you yourself admitted that the Bible uses difficult prose, suffers from translation issues, and needs to be viewed through a cultural lense calibrated to the times it was written. How is that "clear" at all?

And I did give you an argument. I directly countered your claim that "the Bible is quite clear" by saying nothing in the Bible is clear and giving examples and reasoning for why I believe it isn't clear. I thought that was quite clear.

I will add some context, as a person within Christianity. It is okay if you disagree with me; I am just sharing how I view God and spousal relationships, and trying to provide context to the post I am replying to. I hope this post helps some people understand my view, but I am not trying to My goal in this comment is to inform rather than preach.

I am a Christian. I also do not understand how Christians can choose to marry a person not of their faith. I would not, but it is not out of a prejudice. I will try to explain why I hold this view.

My greatest fear is marrying someone who then apostacizes. I don't want my heart to break that way, to love someone so personally and deeply and know they will cease to be.* I hope I do not choose a man who will become an apostate. I hope not to make a hasty choice, but I have a limited pool as a gay Christian, and it is stressful.

It isn't that I would have any qualm with a difference in tradition or culture that would come with a partner from a different faith, but that I'd love them knowing they would die. That is a great and terrible grief, and is the same grief I believe God felt for every person**; the grief that compelled him to send Christ.

I will try to explain annihilationism if anyone is interested. If not, feel free to stop reading here.

I see God like the sun***; we must be with Him to live, but we are imperfect vessels. As such, His light will ablate our souls. Only through Christ's sacrifice are we made holy to stand in such light without being unmade by it. And in such a way, I believe those who refuse salvation**** burn in that light and cease to be.

That said, do not confuse me for the hellfire and brimstone sort. I believe the best way to show people God's love is to love others. My faith leads me to strive toward being a good person. I wish all Christians saw it that way.

*There are multiple beliefs about Hell/Hades/Sheol/Gehenna. Mine is annihilationism, which I have briefly surmised here. A good pastor I appreciate who shares this view is the progressive pastor Paul Drees. You may find he runs counter to the Christofascism that is so much of "evangelical" American church culture today. James Talarico also has good sermons in this more Christ-like vein of Christianity, although I do not think he is an annihilationist.

**I believe that God is Love Itself (1 John 4:20)—how can he be without grief at our suffering? No one has so much sorrow as the God who witnesses the death of his beloved children by the billions. God is Love who mourns.

***He is called Heaven's Sun and Morning Star in Scripture.

****This concept of refusal of salvation is core to Arminian Christianity.

Still single, eh?

My right to exist isn't political.

So, hear me out:

A third party will not win in the current system. Voting for them is nice in sentiment, but it amounts to apathy instead of choosing the lesser of the actually available evils (the Democratic Party in the USA).

I would love a multipartisan government, but that only happens if we either send percentages of votes to parties like some nations do, or implement ranked-choice voting.

Until RCV, we need to choose the lesser evil and hope to get it instituted through them (perhaps via the DSA Democrats/Independents or via referendum).

I'm a democratic socialist myself. E.g., Bernie Sanders, Zohran Mamdani, or AOC.