That hardly seems the most straight forward reading though as it seems at odds with later advocating love your enemy and all, no?

One of the things that both protestants and catholics have almost always agreed upon was that the line about "will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished" is that everything WAS accomplished, at the latest, with Jesus death. That's the wiki that came up first quickly summarized:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Covenant

I'll not object to vehemently disagreeing with the interpretation, but can you at least acknowledge that centuries of 'christians' under a multitude of different sects have held pretty consistently on the notion that the old testament kill all unbelievers was CONTRARY to Jesus teachings and direction for his would be followers. That doesn't negate plenty of people right up until today(westboro) who still do want to take your more bloody interpretation instead.

If not for the passage, recently pointed out to me, where Jesus said clearly that he was not there to replace the laws of the old testament, and any transgressions were still damnable, (is that the right word?) I would, and did agree with that. Sadly, that excuse has been shown to be in error.

17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. 18 For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 So then, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do likewise will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.…

Edit: Also, that ignores that many contradictions are in the old testament....like thou shalt not kill....except when it says thou must kill. No Jesus to confuse things yet, just pure contradiction.

I'm not about to become any manner of expert either, but the mental gymnastics you suggest aren't nearly as exotic as you describe.

The very basic explanation usually given is old testament versus new testament. That of course is an oversimplification though and leads to your obvious come back about what gets kept/rejected and the irreconcilable contradictions.

The more specific response given next is that Jesus teachings a couple centuries after your passages was basically tell all the scholars of the day they had missed the entire point. Hating your neighbour and wanting to kill him but refraining just because you feared hell was zero degrees better than just killing him. all the intent and evil is already there. Thus, the new message that everybody is guilty under the unchanged law and the punishment is nasty. This message was wildly unpopular and ended with him being killed. Theologies differ, but the widely agreed next step was that his death was accept as payment for everybody's wrongs and thus he was the path to saving everyone from the death the letter of the law demanded.

You don't need to believe a word of that, but to say it's trivially obvious it's the wrong interpretation just isn't true. It is not a bunch of mental gymnastics at all, it is the pretty clear explanation and teaching Jesus gave in the Bible. Rejected with all the enthusiasm you want, but your grossly misrepresenting the beliefs of millions of people today by insisting that murder the unbelievers is the only rational way to read the Bible.

Yes, it could be (but I'm not willing to spend time becoming an expert), because I can read and don't have the need to interpret what's clearly contradictory in a way that makes sense. Thou shall not kill is directly opposed to thou shalt kill infidels. Most instructions on how to act are in direct opposition to the golden rule - treat others as you would have them treat you. (For instance, proselytizing is expected, but if someone tries to proselytize to them, the entire community they come from should be erased....see above) Because I can admit that it's often contradictory and advocates things that are clearly evil, like slavery and murder, I don't have to do mental gymnastics to interpret it in some non-contradictory, always loving way.
Edit:read the passages I quoted and interpret them for me in a way not directing Christians to murder all non Christians (or Jews to kill non Jews perhaps, being old testament) please....because I cannot.

And as I've repeated, I have little respect for beliefs, but tolerance and understanding I have in abundance. Tolerance is not acceptance, understanding is not agreement.

Edit: I absolutely admit I hold a different interpretation than many people do of the bible, and other holy books (comparative religion was an enlightening class) for the reasons stated above....I read the texts as written, not through a filter of someone else's interpretation, not with a belief they are infallible or even rational.
Religious texts are like rule books for religions....you don't get to change their meanings or ignore some parts for convenience...religion isn't monopoly. If you do it that way, as most do, you're just playing religion, not practicing it....imo.

Is not the "immorality" of homosexuality derived from Leviticus, in the Old Testament? (and as I read it, it only speaks about bi-sexuality, laying with a man as you lay with a woman is not the same thing as homosexuality, homosexuality is a man laying with a man as a different, straight man lays with a woman)

If, as research suggests, that's the case, are not those who advocate against homosexuality non-Christians? Didn't Jesus teach that love and acceptance for others supplants all the Old Testament rules?
If not, why do Christians not picket Red Lobster for serving shellfish and Banana Republic for selling blended fabrics, and hold re-education seminars for shrimp and spandex lovers?

@transmorpher
so when i point out the historical implications,i am somehow automatically disregarding the inherent problems within islam itself?

and your counter is to not only NOT counter,but refuse to acknowledge the historical ramifications,because that is some political,agenda driven-drivel.

that the ONLY acceptable argument is to focus on the religion itself,and ignore all other considerations,because,again..just tools to be used and abused by the left to fuel the far right.

am i getting this right so far?

that to include history is actually the path that stops that path to move forward?

and here i was still hanging on to that tired old adage "those who refuse to recognize history,are doomed to repeat it".

i am glad that you found those authors so respectful and admired their analysis and dedication to research,but you didn't even bother to use one of THEIR arguments.you simply made claims and then told us you read some books.

dude..now i am just kinda...sad for you.

i am sorry that you are oblivious to your own myopia,and that you are coming across as condescending.yet really haven't posted anything of value that you have to contribute.

you are just pointing the finger and accusing people of their arguments being dishonest,when it appears to me that everyone here has taken the time to try to talk to you,and your replies have been fairly static.

hitchens tried to make the case,and failed in my opinion(i am not the only one),but a case i suspect you are referencing.that even if we took the history of neoliberalism,colonialism and empire building OFF the table.islam would STILL be a gaggle of extremist radicals seeking a one world caliphate.

which is why i referenced dearborn michigan.
it is why i mentioned kabul afghanistan.

we are talking about the radicalization of muslims.
why are they growing?
where do they come from?
why do they seem to be getting more and more extreme?

which many here have attempted to answer,including myself.

but YOU are addressing and entirely different question:
'what is wrong with islam as a religion"

well,a LOT in fact and i already mentioned islams dire need for a reformation,but it goes further than that.you see the epistemology of both judiaism and christianity have been thoroughly argued over and over....and over..that what you find today is a pretty succinct refinement of their respective theologies.

agree/disagree..maybe you are atheist or agnostic,that is not the point.the point is that the so-called "finished' product has pretty clear philosophies,that adherents can easily follow.

for judaism this is in large part to the talmud,which is a living document,where even to this day rabbis debate and argue the finer details.not to be confused with holy scripture the torah.

christianity was forced to acknowledge its failings and flaws,because the theology was weak,and was becoming more and more an amalgamation of other religious beliefs,but most of all,and i think most importantly,the in-fighting with the vatican and the church of england had exposed this weakness,and christianity was on the brink of collapse due to its own hubris and arrogance.

they had no central authority.no leadership that the people could come to in order to clarify scripture.

so thanks to the bravery of martin luther,who risked being labeled a heretic,challenged the political power,which in those days was religious,and so began the process of reformation.

and also ended the dark ages,and western civilization stepped into the "age of enlightenment".

islam has had no such reformation,though is in desperate need of one.they had no council of nicea to decide what was holy canon and what was not,which is why you have more gospels of jesus in the quran than you do in the actual bible.

the king james bible has over 38,000 mis-translations in the old testament alone,whereas the quran has....well...we don't know,because nobody challenges the veracity of the quran.

am i winning you over to my side yet?
still think i am leftist "stooge' and "useful idiot"?

look man,
words are inert.
they are simply symbols.
they are meaningless until we lay eyes on them and GIVE them meaning.

so if you are a violent,war-loving person-------your religion will be violent,and warmongering.

if you are a peaceful and loving person----then your religion will be peaceful and loving.

the problem is NOT religion itself,and i know my atheists really don't want to hear that,but it's true.religion is going nowhere.

the problem is fundamentalist thinking.
the problem is viewing holy scripture as the unerring word of god.
which is why you see creationists attempt,in vain,to convince the rest of us that the earth is only 6,000 yrs old,and their only proof or evidence is a book.

so we all point and laugh.....how silly..6,000yrs old.crazy talk.

but WHY is the creationist so adamant in his attempts to defend his holy text?
because to accept the reality that the earth is not 6,000 yrs old but 14 billion yrs old,is to go against the word of god,and god is unerring,and if the bible is the word of god....and god is unerring.........

now lets go back to dearborn michigan.
if hitchens and harris are RIGHT,then that relatively stable community of muslims are really just extremists waiting for the angels to blow their horn and announce the time for JIHAD!!!

and,to be fair,that is a possibility,but a small one.

why?
because of something the majority of christians experience here in the states,canada,europe,australia...they experience pushback.

does this mean that america does not have radical christians in our midst?

oh lawdy do we ever.

ok ok..i am doing it again.
me and my pedantic self.

suffice to say:
islam IS a problem,even taken as a singular dynamic,that religion has serious issues.
but they are not the ONLY problem,which is what many of here have been trying to talk about.

ALL religions have a problem,and that problem is fundamentalism.which for christianity is a fairly new phenom (less than 100 yrs old) whereas islam has suffered from this mental malady pretty much since its inception.

ok..thats it..im done.pooped,whipped and in need of sleep.

hope i clarified some things with ya mate,but i swear to god if you respond with a reiteration of all your comments.i am going to hunt you down,and BEAT you with a bible,and not that wimpy king james either!
the hefty scofield study bible!

No. Compromise implies give and take, not a one sided one way capitulation. I think 'both side's (as if there are only two factions) need to work together for common goals, not try to force their agenda down the other's throat. Trump voters need to change, especially the far right ones, same for Clinton voters on the far left. Neither extreme is good for the nation, but centrists are a dying breed. Sanders did reach out and had Republican support.....the DNC fucked us all by fucking him.
I understand the idea that Trump is the lesser evil, if you don't believe anything bad about him and believe he's successful, like most of his supporters. I contend the only evidence they have for that is his worthless word, because he wrote a book about how to get ahead by lying and screwing people over....but they didn't read it.

The pc crowd has damaged the left as much as the Nazis have the right. They both suck, but moderate dems at least fight the pc thugs, not so much on the right.

They aren't islamaphobes for discussing that question, they are islamaphobes for saying only Islam makes violent extremists.
Transphobes for pronoun use...just dumb to me.
Homophobes for obeying a priest that said to hate them, or attack them, or deny their humanity....absolutely....especially since they must cherry pick what's ok and what's not to justify their hatred but excuse similar sins they commit (shellfish, blended fabrics, both just like homosexuality, all three from the old testament, so not for Christians anyway).

The war on Xmas is bullshit. I've never once seen a real person upset in the least over merry Xmas....unless it's displayed on public property, that's unacceptable for any religion.

I really think the outrage over pc thugs is a red herring. If you don't live on a liberal campus, you'll probably never meet one. I live in liberal hippy paradise and I haven't. What they want is nuts, but who cares, Nazis want a Nazi state, which is nuts and anti American, who cares, it won't happen.
Maybe I'm wrong and pc has taken over, but I don't see it outside of South Park.

Funny, but flawed it's own way.

Let me preface this commentary by saying I am not in any organized religion. I go back and forth in believing in God and also not being able to find proof he exists, basically an agnostic theist. So this is not in any way an attempt to 'prove' anything other than that I disagree with the way the video is portraying the biblical tale. I also know there are far more egregious examples than this story of God as an uncaring, flawed being with an uncertain temperament.

First, this story is one of the 'go to' stories that most atheists or anti-religion people look to for a clear example of the 'wrongness' of the bible or God. The reason is, if you don't take anything else into context, this story is massively damning! What god would call for a mass genocide out of the blue, right? Certainly not one people consider to be good!

But, if we look at the context of the bible in the Old Testament, we see that this is not wholly out of line for the character shown of God. If we take the statements of the bible as literal, then God has already shown he will destroy any threat to those he considers his 'chosen people'; even those who are/were part of that group.

In this case, the Amalekites were descendants of Esau. Esau was the brother of Jacob (later named Israel) and was supposed to inherit the blessing of his father, as well as command over the 'chosen people' of God. Esau was of rough nature and was a hunter. Once he was starving and went to Jacob, who tended the fields (sort of the Cain and Abel bit all over again), begging him for a bowl of lentil soup. Jacob told him that he would give him the bowl if Esau would pass his birthright (blessing and command) over to Jacob, since obviously Jacob was more able to care for his people than a solitary hunter. Esau agreed, but never really meant it, he was just hungry and was willing to say whatever he needed to so as to get that soup.

Jacob was dead serious though, so he took the birthright and became Israel, the leader of God's chosen. Esau was livid and swore to murder Jacob, who fled. Esau never got the birthright back, but he did sire the people who became the Amalekites, who in turn swore vengeance on Israel-ites.

This becomes important as time goes on, because basically every single time the groups encountered one another, the Israelites tried to be peaceful but the Amalekites always attacked.

By the time Saul was king, God chose to have him go and destroy the Amalekites, deeming them beyond saving. As he had told Moses during the first Amalekite attacks, he had Samuel tell Saul to blot their memory from history, wiping them out completely. Saul chose not to do this, sparing their king and some animals. Because of this, God replaced Saul with David.

So, now we come to the main part of the discussion. Like I said, this story is used quite often to show the capricious nature of God. However, like I said, it uses the story out of context. Now that we have the 'historical' description of the origin and ongoing nature of the conflict, we can put it into context.

If you are going to dissect the nature of 'God' as shown in the Old Testament, you have to look at the information given to show that nature. The bible says he is all-knowing, but it also says that he gave mankind free will. If you look on God as more of a creature running a simulation, he hopes that humanity will come to follow his rules of their own accord, even though he knows many will not. He chooses Israel and his descendants to be his 'messengers' to the other people that have chosen not to follow his rules, basically they are his missionaries that he hopes will lead his simulation to the proper conclusion.

Any group or race that tries to eradicate his messengers is a threat to his simulation, so he eventually will deal with them harshly. Sodom and Gomorrah, The Great Flood, and other examples of God deciding that he needs to protect his 'messengers' and clear off the playing board. In the case of the Amalekites, by this time period mentioned in the story, we are talking about generations of them trying to destroy the Israelites. So, God tells Samuel to tell Saul that they must be wiped from the playing board. Saul exercises his free will, therefore David enters the picture.

If you look at free will and God's choice of his messengers, as well as his protection of them, you get this story situation. By telling Saul to wipe them out, God is saying that he has tried to look the other way, but the Amalekites will never stop as long as they exist. Therefore they must be dealt with in a manner that will prevent them from rising as a people in the future and attempting harm to his messengers again.

It still doesn't paint God in a perfect light, but makes him more of a tinkerer. He keeps creating flawed inventions that choose to follow their own path and not his. The sad thing is, if you assume that he is all knowing, he knows this is going to be the end result. He creates angels and they turn on him. He creates humans and they turn on him. Then he creates Jesus, a combination of god and human, who doesn't turn on him. It is almost like he decides to create a Hero unit that can show the other simulations an easier path to winning.

Realistically and analytically, I know it doesn't make perfect sense. That is why I have my struggles with wanting to believe and then not being able to logically. If you choose to look at God as being a flawed creature (again, assuming that you believe he exists), the whole thing sort of makes more sense. In any case, we all have our own opinions and beliefs. I hope that my wordy post has explained how I try to work through mine.

The right of today is absolutely radicalized. The last 8 years proved it.

The debate may not be settled, but the science and facts are....there are just many who refuse to accept it, but they have neither science or fact on their side.

Eating shrimp is a sin. Wearing a cotton poly blend is a sin. No where in the bible is there a chart saying one sin is worse than another.
EDIT: It actually says- "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.", which read closely means being bisexual is the abomination, not homosexuality.....BUT that's only for Jews, because Christians generally have the view that the New Covenant supersedes (i.e., replaces) the Old Testament's ritual laws, which includes many of the rules in Leviticus. Christians therefore have usually not observed Leviticus' rules, they only use them to attack others for behavior that makes them uncomfortable.


I don't think they've said you can't spout your hate, only that they'll challenge it...you have said they should not be allowed to be gay and married.

If government policy was a living wage for any job, the poor wouldn't stay poor and wouldn't need the handouts and programs you hate.

God and his son have failed miserably to elevate man....no wonder they want to be left out of the conversation.

I don't think Republicans care about the hypocrisy. There are two things at play here. They want to setup a Christian state similar to the one the Pilgrims and Puritans tried to escape, save being far more conservative and far more based on Old Testament values than the Love of Christ, and they see the 1st Amendment applying only to their particular form of Christianity, which they see as true Christianity (no true Christian could read the Bible and vote Democrat/Demoncrat type statements). The second thing at play here, among the media and politicians is to play off the ignorance of the Fox News and right wing radio/media viewers/listeners, and encourage more separation between the faiths, to make it easier for Islam to radicalize more people in order to create a holy war... this itself is driven by a couple things, war profiteering and apocalyptic tenancies, surely if the world is closer to the state the Bible mentions, the sooner we can join God in Heaven.

The problem with JJ Abram's Star Trek is that he destroyed the core of Roddenberry's vision. Star Trek IS the optimistic, utopian future of mankind.

The popularity of themes comes and goes with the hopes and fears of the current culture. But if zombies are in and vampires are out at the moment, you don't try to make a vampire movie where vampires act like zombies. Just make a fucking zombie movie!

So maybe Roddenberry's core theme is not popular at the moment. If audiences want to see a future of betrayal, violence and individualist motivations in their plot, then pick a franchise that represents those themes and have at it. Remake "Forbidden Planet" any way you like. Shit, do "Logan's Run" in space with a shit ton of CGI.

Or get out ahead of the curve. Old testament angels in an anachronistic setting is just WAITING for a good director to come along.

Where does the criticism of the religion end and its followers begin? Most Christians I know think the Crusades were a horrible idea, and don't inform their faith today. The pastor in the church I grew up in wrote off the entire old testament as a highly colored history, whose barbaric morality was replaced by the teachings of Jesus.

There are plenty of muslims where I live now. I see them at picnics, or walking around the neighborhood. The women hear scarves in their hair, but I never hear their husbands mistreat them, and they seem to enjoy all the freedoms of the western world just fine. Are we being fair to these people if we label them as following a hateful oppressive religion? I imagine a day i their mosque wouldn't sound that different than a day in a church in this part of the world.

My point was that all religions, when read honestly and fully, tell their followers to kill infidels/non-believers/improper worshipers. The bible is quite clear about it. I'm less certain about the Tora, but since it's allegedly the basis for the old testament, it certainly seems so.
That's where my fundamentalist argument comes in, there are more fundamentalists in power, or feeling powerful, in the Muslim culture today than other religions, but that's just today. Given enough time and influence, any other religion could or has been as bad or worse when taken completely literally, like fundamentalists do.

If God doesn't give you any revelation of His existence then the scripture is broken and you would have an excuse when you stand before Him. I would be the first to say that this is unfair. However, we're all human beings and I know that people willfully reject God. Not only from my own personal experience, but the bible itself is littered with accounts of people who know better and fall into rebellion against God.

God has made the truth of these things so clear to me, and I believe He is faithful to do the same for you. If God sent Jesus to die on the cross for you and me, He is faithful to let us how we should respond to that.

I think it's clear that an infinite being suffering an infinite punishment is infinitely worse than a finite being suffering an infinite punishment. The finite being has a finite experience, eternally or not. Adding up everyone who ever lived, it is still only a finite experience of suffering, whereas the infinite being has an infinite experience of suffering. Qualitatively, an eternity of suffering of a number of finite beings does not equal even a moment of suffering of an infinite being. Whether you think that is debatable or or not, God the Father considered the sacrifice greater than the punishment, and that is what counts.

Jesus was doing what His Father wanted Him to do, which was to reconcile the human race to Himself, who are alienated from God and spiritually dead because of sin. As far as whether the sayings of Jesus are authentic, we have the manuscripts to prove that they were not made up over a period of centuries or even decades. We have around twenty five thousand manuscripts of the NT alone, which is about 24 thousand more manuscripts than any other ancient text. We have manuscript evidence even going back to the first century, and using all of the manuscripts there is a science called textual criticism that can reconstruct what was in the original manuscripts from that pool of evidence. The idea that the bible is patched together from centuries of retranslations and additions is demonstratably false.

Even if we didn't have any manuscripts, from the writings of the early church fathers alone we could reconstruct the entire bible except for 7 verses in the first 250 years. Even before that, we have the prophetic writings from the Old Testament which show that Jesus did exactly what He was prophesied to do. He did not speak anything different than what had been written thousands of years in advance. If you understand the bible as you a whole, you will see it is one story and it is all saying the same thing. The fact of its internal consistency, considering it was authored by 40 people over a period of 3000 years is another proof of its authenticity.

There are many reasons to believe Jesus is the Christ, but the biggest one is Gods personal revelation, which He is faithful to give to you. If you want to know whether Jesus is the Messiah, simply pray and ask. If He isn't, you've wasted a couple of minutes. If He is, you are avoiding an eternal consequence. God bless!

Hey Newtboy,

God commanded Abraham to sacrifice Issac; later, when it was clear that Abraham would obey Him, He rescinded the command. I don't know if you've ever read about this, but God was revealing a deeper truth here as to what He would do when He sent Jesus to the cross to die for our sins. Often in the Old Testament you can find what are called "types". There is a whole study of the scripture called "typeology", where certain events happened in the Old Testament which were foreshadowing events in the New Testament.

Issac then, in this context, is a type of Jesus. Issac, like Jesus, voluntarily submitted himself to be sacrificed. He was a young man whereas Abraham was close to 100 years old; he could have easily overpowered Abraham. This is a picture of Jesus voluntarily going to the cross by His own volition. There is also a similarity in that Issac, like Jesus, carried the wood for his own sacrifice. The biggest difference is, God the Father didn't ask Abraham to do what He ultimately would do, which is to give His only begotten Son as a sacrifice for sins. Here is some more information about typeology:

https://www.blueletterbible.org/study/larkin/dt/28.cfm