Old Testament Blood Lust Vs. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"

There's a Christian in Arizona advocating that homosexuals be "executed." Observe:

"It was right there in the Bible all along ... if you executed the homos like God recommends, you wouldn't have all this AIDS running rampant." ~ Pastor Steven Anderson, Faithful Word Baptist Church, Tempe, AZ

Here's another source for the story. Pretty much the same verbiage (although they're citing different verses in Leviticus).

Apparently, Anderson is referring to the following scripture:

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." ~ Leviticus 20:13

So the good pastor is openly calling for the death of homosexuals? That's probably a solid Christian viewpoint, seeing as how it's supported by scripture. But who's he going to get to carry out the task?

There's a different bit of scripture that appears to leave him with exactly zero manpower:

John 8:3-11 said:

And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them," He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? "No one, sir," she said. "Then neither do I condemn you,"Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

Click to expand...

So my basic question here is: which one is it? The Arizona sociopath with his Old Testament blood lust? Or Jesus granting the green light on execution contingent on finding a sinless executioner and then refusing to condemn the sinner? They cannot both be correct, can they?

Your thoughts on this scriptural conundrum are welcome.
...

And some related observations:

1.) If AIDS reflects God's judgement on homosexuals (and this certainly isn't explicitly supported by scripture), why did he design a virus that heterosexuals could also acquire?

2.) Let us concede for a moment that AIDS does in fact reflect God's judgement on homosexuals*. What then shall we conclude about God's Judgement concerning ... sick little children? Does pediatric cancer reflect God's judgement on little children?

Do you suppose that if you're willing to accept the former, you must also accept the latter?

* and perhaps also venture that any unfortunate heterosexuals who acquire the virus might be best viewed as "unavoidable collateral damage" in God's war against abomination?

...

I've noticed that things get a little murky when Christians attempt to explain away the Old Testament and its abject thirst for blood. They'll sometime waffle about a "new covenant" ... or insist that they're free to cherry-pick from the Bible as they see fit (in this case, because "everyone" is doing it).

Meanwhile, Jesus does seem to have indicated that disobeying the old laws carried a certain penalty in the afterlife:

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." ~ Matthew 5:18-19

So apparently you don't have to observe every last letter of the old law ... as long as you're willing to spend an eternity in heaven as a second-class citizen? I suppose that most Christians who aren't observing Jewish dietary laws and keeping slaves are already well aware of what's in store for them once they pass though the Pearly Gates? They can't say that they weren't warned.

NulliuSINverba said:

There's a Christian in Arizona advocating that homosexuals be "executed." Observe:

"It was right there in the Bible all along ... if you executed the homos like God recommends, you wouldn't have all this AIDS running rampant." ~ Pastor Steven Anderson, Faithful Word Baptist Church, Tempe, AZ

Click to expand...

Stuff like this is what enforces my belief that religion is akin to a mental disease.

JustWondering said:

Stuff like this is what enforces my belief that religion is akin to a mental disease.

Click to expand...

Stuff like this is what enforces my belief that anti-theists want us to focus on the very bottom of the barrel.

Christians don't follow the law and they view the Old Testament through a cultural lense and with a dash of common sense. The Law was fulfilled by Jesus Christ, End of story. That some still feel the need to condemn others when Jesus says forgive, Well that's on them.

I'm always curious why these questions about the OT are posed to Christians instead of Jews since they're the ones who actually follow it and practice it's laws, not us.

^Not to mention Jews are generally better equipped to answer questions about Mosaic laws than fundie Christians.

NulliuSINverba said:

There's a Christian in Arizona advocating that homosexuals be "executed." Observe:

"It was right there in the Bible all along ... if you executed the homos like God recommends, you wouldn't have all this AIDS running rampant." ~ Pastor Steven Anderson, Faithful Word Baptist Church, Tempe, AZ

Here's another source for the story. Pretty much the same verbiage (although they're citing different verses in Leviticus).

Apparently, Anderson is referring to the following scripture:

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." ~ Leviticus 20:13

So the good pastor is openly calling for the death of homosexuals? That's probably a solid Christian viewpoint, seeing as how it's supported by scripture. But who's he going to get to carry out the task?

There's a different bit of scripture that appears to leave him with exactly zero manpower:



So my basic question here is: which one is it? The Arizona sociopath with his Old Testament blood lust? Or Jesus granting the green light on execution contingent on finding a sinless executioner and then refusing to condemn the sinner? They cannot both be correct, can they?

Your thoughts on this scriptural conundrum are welcome.
...

And some related observations:

1.) If AIDS reflects God's judgement on homosexuals (and this certainly isn't explicitly supported by scripture), why did he design a virus that heterosexuals could also acquire?

2.) Let us concede for a moment that AIDS does in fact reflect God's judgement on homosexuals*. What then shall we conclude about God's Judgement concerning ... sick little children? Does pediatric cancer reflect God's judgement on little children?

Do you suppose that if you're willing to accept the former, you must also accept the latter?

* and perhaps also venture that any unfortunate heterosexuals who acquire the virus might be best viewed as "unavoidable collateral damage" in God's war against abomination?

...

I've noticed that things get a little murky when Christians attempt to explain away the Old Testament and its abject thirst for blood. They'll sometime waffle about a "new covenant" ... or insist that they're free to cherry-pick from the Bible as they see fit (in this case, because "everyone" is doing it).

Meanwhile, Jesus does seem to have indicated that disobeying the old laws carried a certain penalty in the afterlife:

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." ~ Matthew 5:18-19

So apparently you don't have to observe every last letter of the old law ... as long as you're willing to spend an eternity in heaven as a second-class citizen? I suppose that most Christians who aren't observing Jewish dietary laws and keeping slaves are already well aware of what's in store for them once they pass though the Pearly Gates? They can't say that they weren't warned.

Click to expand...

Yep, 20:13 doesn't even say that. There is no "as with a" (woman) - it actually says in the beds of woman.

It uses two different forms of male, one which also means commemorative.

So - this can be telling men not to lay down for commemorative sex in the beds of women, = Sacred Sex.

It tells us - right at the top -

Lev 20:2 Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones.

It is appalling that some Christians think they should be able to murder people because of their Christian religion.

*

Thana said:

Christians don't follow the law and they view the Old Testament through a cultural lense and with a dash of common sense. The Law was fulfilled by Jesus Christ, End of story. That some still feel the need to condemn others when Jesus says forgive, Well that's on them.

I'm always curious why these questions about the OT are posed to Christians instead of Jews since they're the ones who actually follow it and practice it's laws, not us.

Click to expand...

Then why do Christians go on and on, condemning Gay people? People think that is in Tanakh, - it isn't in the New Testament.

EDIT - I meant to say People THINK it is in Tanakh,

*

Ingledsva said:

Then why do Christians go on and on, condemning Gay people? That is in Tanakh, - it isn't in the New Testament.

*

Click to expand...

I think you mean some Christians and probably because they consider it sexual immorality which is in the new testament.

But like I said, If they want to disregard Jesus's teachings about love and forgiveness then that's on them.

Thana said:

I think you mean some Christians and probably because they consider it sexual immorality which is in the new testament.

But like I said, If they want to disregard Jesus's teachings about love and forgiveness then that's on them.

Click to expand...

It is actually NOT in Tanakh, or New Testament.

Love is the Greatest commandment.

*

Thana said:

Christians don't follow the law and they view the Old Testament through a cultural lense and with a dash of common sense. The Law was fulfilled by Jesus Christ, End of story.

Click to expand...

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." ~ Matthew 5:18-19

NulliuSINverba said:

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." ~ Matthew 5:18-19

Click to expand...

The Law is much more than just the books of the Torah. There is also the oral law, which is ever changing. One can call it a living work.

Also, when Jesus was asked, what is the greatest commandment, he responded, love G-d with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself (I'm paraphrasing). He was in good company, as teachers before him summed up the law in very similar manners.

Jesus also said that he who is without blame, cast the first stone. There is also the saying, why look at the speck in your brothers eye when you have a plank in yours.

You can't cherry pick from the Bible, and assume that it will make your case. There is much more to it than ripping a saying out of context.

fallingblood said:

The Law is much more than just the books of the Torah. There is also the oral law, which is ever changing. One can call it a living work.

Click to expand...

Allowing for a moment that you're correct ... that in no way changes the fact that the Torah is still encompassed under The Law ... right?

Also, when Jesus was asked, what is the greatest commandment, he responded, love G-d with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself (I'm paraphrasing).

Click to expand...

That'd fall under your presumed Oral Law? Or was Christ quoting the Torah?

He was in good company, as teachers before him summed up the law in very similar manners.

Click to expand...

So if you were asked to sum up the totality of The (ever-changing, work-in-progress) Law, you'd offer up "love G-d with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself?"

Please reconcile that with our good pastor's declaration that homosexuals should be executed.

Jesus also said that he who is without blame, cast the first stone. There is also the saying, why look at the speck in your brothers eye when you have a plank in yours.

Click to expand...

That very verse had also occurred to me when I was drafting my OP. Do you suppose it also occurred to Pastor Steven Anderson of the Faithful Word Baptist Church of Tempe, Arizona while he was composing his faith-based screed?

You can't cherry pick from the Bible, and assume that it will make your case. There is much more to it than ripping a saying out of context.

Click to expand...

Yes. The magic bullet of The Context. It handily renders Pastor Anderson's tirade as flawed, doesn't it?

NulliuSINverba said:

Allowing for a moment that you're correct ... that in no way changes the fact that the Torah is still encompassed under The Law ... right?

Click to expand...

Not really encompassed under the Law. The Torah is the Law, or more like a basic set of guide lines. Teaching or instruction would be a better name. And it is only one part of that teaching. It goes hand in hand with the Oral Torah. So it is bit more complicated.

That'd fall under your presumed Oral Law? Or was Christ quoting the Torah?

Click to expand...

Not a presumed Oral Law. One can see this within the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament). As for what Christ was quoting, he wasn't quoting. He was summarizing what the Law is. So yes, it would be coming from the Torah.
[qoute]
So if you were asked to sum up the totality of The (ever-changing, work-in-progress) Law, you'd offer up "love G-d with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself?"

Please reconcile that with our good pastor's declaration that homosexuals should be executed.[/quote] The pastor is wrong. It is as simple as that. He's wrong. No need to reconcile anything. He's not preaching love, he is preaching a hate based on his own preconceived biases, and instead of taking ownership of his views, he's trying to hide behind something.

That very verse had also occurred to me when I was drafting my OP. Do you suppose it also occurred to Pastor Steven Anderson of the Faithful Word Baptist Church of Tempe, Arizona while he was composing his faith-based screed?

Click to expand...

Probably not. As the pastor, from what I can see, couldn't care less what the Bible said. Instead, he wants to justify his hatred, and does so by hiding.

Yes. The magic bullet of The Context. It handily renders Pastor Anderson's tirade as flawed, doesn't it?

Click to expand...

Yes. I think flawed may be a bit too soft of a term though.

I've always thought about the situation of twelve 'bachlors' hanging around in the woods, washing each others feet, and annointing themselves with oil was strange at best, and downright suspicious at the worst. I don't have a clue as to what the gender choices were then, but I wouldn't want to make Pascalian wager.
I don't care one way or the other, more power to them, but it was rather strange.
I hope I'm not making any enemies here, but it seemed like a good time say something.
Just a silly thought, I get a lot of them.
~
P.S.: That preacher, and all of those like him, are arrrrssholes
~
'mud

fallingblood said:

The pastor is wrong. It is as simple as that. He's wrong. No need to reconcile anything. He's not preaching love, he is preaching a hate based on his own preconceived biases, and instead of taking ownership of his views, he's trying to hide behind something.

Click to expand...

Isn't he hiding behind the Bible? Isn't he quoting directly from the Old Testament? Are you saying that the Old Testament preaches hate? Shall we conclude that it's a hate-based document? Or is it a love-based document that just happens to contain a few off-the-cuff examples of "hate-preaching?"

... the pastor, from what I can see, couldn't care less what the Bible said. Instead, he wants to justify his hatred, and does so by hiding.

Click to expand...

Again: Isn't he quoting directly from the Old Testament? And didn't Jesus say that there will be consequences for anyone who fails to uphold every jot and tittle of The Law®?

NulliuSINverba said:

Isn't he hiding behind the Bible? Isn't he quoting directly from the Old Testament? Are you saying that the Old Testament preaches hate? Shall we conclude that it's a hate-based document? Or is it a love-based document that just happens to contain a few off-the-cuff examples of "hate-preaching?"

Click to expand...

The Bible is a complicated document, that wasn't meant to be the end all. They were writing for their time, and yes, we can now look back and say that they were wrong. Times change, and that is partially why the Bible (or proto-Bible) was seen as something that could evolve.

I can guarantee that this preacher does not follow the Law the the letter. I would also wage money, if asked, he would have no problem admitting that he does not demand that his followers pay attention to all the other laws. For instance, the commandment against killing. He has advocated for the genocide of a minority, and has also advocated for the murder of the president.

There is also the issue of his church being completely independent, when the Law actually gives instructions for leaders. He also disregards other issues, such as the covering of one's head. So he is cherry picking what he wants, and ignoring the rest. He's just using the book to hide behind, instead of taking ownership of his own views.

As for what the Old Testament preaches. That is also quite complicated. The Laws really aren't something that were preached. They were a set of instructions for the Jews. They are not laws for anyone else. However, if one reads through all the instructions, one quickly finds that there are many about not killing another person. So it becomes more complicated.

Yes though, there are some things in the Old Testament that are hateful, and shouldn't be followed. However, there is also the Oral Torah, that has continued to evolve, and sees those passages, for the most part, to be outdated ideas that were not morally right.

Again: Isn't he quoting directly from the Old Testament? And didn't Jesus say that there will be consequences for anyone who fails to uphold every jot and tittle of The Law®?

Click to expand...

Jesus was a Jew, talking to Jews, about a Jewish message. What Jesus said, about keeping the Law, means nothing to this preacher, who isn't a Jew.

Also, Jesus himself disagrees with the Law at times, such as his view on divorce. Even during the time of Jesus, the Law was something that was evolving. It was something that was debated, was reinterpreted, and changed. More so, no one has ever been able to uphold every little part of the Law, and that wasn't what the Law was about. Nor was that what Jesus was saying.

Jesus would have been talking about a Law that he fully knew was changing, and could be debated (again, look at how his teachings on divorce differ from that of the Law, or even look at the preceding verses where he is expanding on what the Law says). It was the spirit of the Law that he was referring to. As in, as long as Jews (he was speaking to Jews, as it was only Jews who the Law meant something to) were here, they had to honor G-d by showing their love through "obeying" these teachings. Teachings that changed over time, and were impossible to follow all without fail. These are ideas that his audience would have known, as they were Jewish ideas, and he was speaking to Jews.

As non-Jews, much of the context is actually lost. And sometimes, such as in the case of this preacher, the context is discarded completely, because it is easier to cherry pick what suits one's own ideas instead of taking it all into consideration.

fallingblood said:

The Bible is a complicated document

Click to expand...

Complicated? That's one word for it.

that wasn't meant to be the end all.

Click to expand...

"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End." ~ Revelation 22:13

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." ~ John 1:1

They were writing for their time, and yes, we can now look back and say that they were wrong.

Click to expand...

The Divinely Inspired Word Of God ... was wrong? And it can be rendered "wrong" by the passing of time?

I'd imagine that once you've tugged at that particular string, the entire edifice is at risk of crashing down in tatters.

Times change, and that is partially why the Bible (or proto-Bible) was seen as something that could evolve.

Click to expand...

"The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God endures forever." ~ Isaiah 40:8

"Your word, LORD, is eternal; it stands firm in the heavens." ~ Psalm 119:89

I can guarantee that this preacher does not follow the Law the the letter.

Click to expand...

Especially if the Bible contains contradictory admonitions. If (as you've conceded) it contains errors, then I wonder how anyone can follow it anyway. Meanwhile, I don't need to consult an antiquated document to discern that this pastor is a sociopath. Advocating that whole demographics be slaughtered is simply wrong ... and it will always be wrong irrespective of the passing of time.

I would also wage money, if asked, he would have no problem admitting that he does not demand that his followers pay attention to all the other laws. For instance, the commandment against killing. He has advocated for the genocide of a minority, and has also advocated for the murder of the president.

Click to expand...

It may or may not be illegal to pray for the death of a sitting President, but it certainly doesn't dovetail with the scriptures:

“Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.” ~ Romans 13:1-7

...

Amazing. Barack Obama is the President of the United States by divine fiat? I guess Christian Birthers were totally out of line all these years?

... he is cherry picking what he wants, and ignoring the rest. He's just using the book to hide behind, instead of taking ownership of his own views.

Click to expand...

Isn't it clear that he feels his views are legitimized by the Bible?

As for what the Old Testament preaches. That is also quite complicated. The Laws really aren't something that were preached. They were a set of instructions for the Jews. They are not laws for anyone else. However, if one reads through all the instructions, one quickly finds that there are many about not killing another person. So it becomes more complicated.

Click to expand...

Doesn't it become much (much) less complicated if the offending party is a homosexual?

Yes though, there are some things in the Old Testament that are hateful, and shouldn't be followed.

Click to expand...

I'll bet winnowing out all the unpleasant, outdated chaff from God's Wholesome Goodness is a really difficult task. Glad it didn't fall to me. I'd have probably junked it all and rebooted. Perhaps that day will eventually arrive?

Jesus was a Jew, talking to Jews, about a Jewish message. What Jesus said, about keeping the Law, means nothing to this preacher, who isn't a Jew.

Click to expand...

While all that may be, his followers brought that message to a non-Jewish audience and the words are still regarded as Divinely Inspired and Unchanging by most Christians (when it suits them to do so), correct?

As non-Jews, much of the context is actually lost. And sometimes, such as in the case of this preacher, the context is discarded completely, because it is easier to cherry pick what suits one's own ideas instead of taking it all into consideration.

Click to expand...

Wait. By pointing out that some of the Bible is erroneous and ought to be ignored … haven't you already resorted to cherry-picking?

As far as I can see, the only thing consistent about the Bible is its innate incoherence. If it contains errors, then perhaps it's best ignored altogether? Isn't humanity free to err without Allegedly Divine Guidance (that has been – as you've indicated - rendered obsolete by the passing of time) clouding our collective judgment?

Thanks for your input all the same.[/quote]

NulliuSINverba said:

"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End." ~ Revelation 22:13

Click to expand...

This isn't talking about the Bible, but about G-d. Also, this doesn't say that G-d doesn't change, just that G-d is a constant.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." ~ John 1:1

Click to expand...

Doesn't say that word hasn't changed. Word also isn't a very good translation. Logos meant more, it was almost like the spirit of G-d, at least that is how it was largely understood at that time. So yes, it could still change, and thus the written word (word here is talking about more than just something written down) wasn't the end all.

The Divinely Inspired Word Of God ... was wrong? And it can be rendered "wrong" by the passing of time?

Click to expand...

Yes. Inspired doesn't mean perfect. Plus we don't have the originals, so even if they were perfect, that wouldn't mean that what we have today is perfect, as humans change things.

There is no problem to seeing the Bible as wrong. In fact, many do.

I'd imagine that once you've tugged at that particular string, the entire edifice is at risk of crashing down in tatters.

Click to expand...

Why? People have been reinterpreting the Bible for thousands of years. It only comes crashing down if one believes that it is the literal, unchanging, word of G-d. I consider that to be an immature faith.

"The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God endures forever." ~ Isaiah 40:8

"Your word, LORD, is eternal; it stands firm in the heavens." ~ Psalm 119:89

Click to expand...

Word also included the Oral Torah. Also, word meant more than just written word. Again, it was something like the spirit.

Especially if the Bible contains contradictory admonitions. If (as you've conceded) it contains errors, then I wonder how anyone can follow it anyway. Meanwhile, I don't need to consult an antiquated document to discern that this pastor is a sociopath. Advocating that whole demographics be slaughtered is simply wrong ... and it will always be wrong irrespective of the passing of time.

Click to expand...

All books are written by humans. Humans are flawed. Thus it isn't a stretch to assume that some of those flaws will be find in their written works, such as the Bible. That doesn't mean one has to throw away it all, just like I don't have to throw out all my other books because they are flawed. It means one has to look at them differently.

We both agree though on the pastor being a sociopath.

It may or may not be illegal to pray for the death of a sitting President, but it certainly doesn't dovetail with the scriptures:

Click to expand...

I think it does dovetail with scripture. If we look at what at the verse in Romans, this pastor is rebelling against G-d as he is praying for the murder of an authority established by G-d.

Going back to the Law, murder is against the Law. And he is advocating murder (which, if we look at Jesus, he said that if one even had murder in their heart, they were guilty of such).

Amazing. Barack Obama is the President of the United States by divine fiat? I guess Christian Birthers were totally out of line all these years?

Click to expand...

That is partially why I am convinced that stuff like this has nothing to do with their religion, but with their own preconceived ideas, and instead of owning them, they hide.

Isn't it clear that he feels his views are legitimized by the Bible?

Click to expand...

That's how hiding works though. He had his own ideas, and cherry picked whatever information that bolstered it. The legitimization came afterwards.

Doesn't it become much (much) less complicated if the offending party is a homosexual?

Click to expand...

Not at all. It is actually the reason why this is a topic so debated in the Jewish community. Also, one is also commanded not to kill, so there is a huge complication.

These death penalties really weren't enforced all that often because to do so, you had to break the law.

I'll bet winnowing out all the unpleasant, outdated chaff from God's Wholesome Goodness is a really difficult task. Glad it didn't fall to me. I'd have probably junked it all and rebooted. Perhaps that day will eventually arrive?

Click to expand...

For a Christian, you just dismiss the Old Testament (the Laws don't pertain to them) and you take the views of the New Testament that have evolved over 2000 years.

For Jews, they have the Oral Torah, and a very long tradition in regards to working out these problems.

So yes, if it fell on one person now, that would suck. But there is a good tradition to stand on.

While all that may be, his followers brought that message to a non-Jewish audience and the words are still regarded as Divinely Inspired and Unchanging by most Christians (when it suits them to do so), correct?

Click to expand...

Not really. Most Christians accept that the New Testament is for them, while the Old Testament, and the Law, is not. The Old Testament is more history for them. In just that, they generally accept some evolution.

Most now, accept that very conservative, accept that it has changed. One just has to compare the KJV to a modern version.

Wait. By pointing out that some of the Bible is erroneous and ought to be ignored … haven't you already resorted to cherry-picking?

Click to expand...

Not really. The Bible is erroneous, or contains parts that are. I don't think the means they should be ignored though.

We can look at homosexuality. The Bible says that a man who lies with a man should be killed. It also says that we should love our neighbor, we shouldn't kill, and that we shouldn't judge as we have our own problems. Those have to be weighed.

I think it more means that one has to have a better nuanced look at that Bible, and read it critically.

As far as I can see, the only thing consistent about the Bible is its innate incoherence. If it contains errors, then perhaps it's best ignored altogether? Isn't humanity free to err without Allegedly Divine Guidance (that has been – as you've indicated - rendered obsolete by the passing of time) clouding our collective judgment?

Click to expand...

I think the Bible can be read differently. There is more to it then just commands. I think it can be read for the wisdom (such as the Proverbs), or for philosophical or theological ideas.

Thanks for your input all the same.

Click to expand...

It's been a nice conversation.