Love the second half especially. We would be wise to take note. *promote

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Monday, March 6th, 2017 1:34pm PST - promote requested by original submitter eric3579.

Cool. Coming out of a baptist family I get it, even if i was never that extreme -- westboro... i knew some families sort of like them though... home schooled on the belief that the Bible is the ultimate framework for governing. Not too far off from the us versus them. Same family that taught an anti-evolution class for our youth group. *shudder*

I became an indignant atheist not long after leaving religion. Now, I embrace Took me many a long night hating on religious people.

Until I had a long conversation with a friend who was a microbiologist, observing evolution on a daily basis, and maintaining a healthy Christian perspective. (Well, at the time it was... now he is sort of Phelping me. It's really hard for me still, to accept religious people, even when almost everyone I know is -- many of whom will always judge me for who I am.)

I mostly enjoy the diversity among my Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Atheist, Buddhist, and Hindu brothers and sisters. They just need to respect my beliefs and recognize that I am not recruiting them and they are not recruiting me. Atheists are the worst at this.

As long as there is seperation of church and state. That is an important concept in maintaining a diverse nation open to dialog like she suggests.

Also, opening dialog with people only works if they reply back hahaha -- most of the angry internet people i know post across a wide array of websites and don't really return for replies that often.

*quality shift in perspective

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by PlayhousePals.

Atheists are the worst? Seriously??

I don't think you can honestly say that with a straight face.

Is it possible that he may have run into many atheists who are not as patient and understanding as those you know?

I remember Megan being interviewed by Louis Theroux in The Most Hated Family in America. I'm glad to see her and her sister managed to get out.

I grew up in a Christian home (Methodist) but never really bought in and considered myself an atheist from about ~12 years old or so.

@poolcleaner said that atheists might be the worst at "respect(ing) my beliefs and recogniz(ing) that I am not recruiting them and they are not recruiting me".

There's two parts of that. Respecting other beliefs, and not proselytizing.

Just speaking for myself, I would say that I am an atheist specifically because I don't respect the Christian beliefs that I grew up with, and feel much the same way about the dogmatic elements of any religion. Most religions share the basic tenet of the "Golden Rule" (or claim that they do), and as far as I am concerned that is the only thing of value to be found in any religion -- although it can exist perfectly fine outside of any religious context.

That's where proselytizing comes in though. For a while when I was younger, I wanted to "spread the good news" of atheism -- to show others what was so obvious and important to me, that idea that the Golden Rule works just as well outside of any religious context. I was "indignant" (as poolcleaner put it) and quick to tell people that I am atheist and to sort of "pick a fight" about it. I wanted to show people just how stupid and wrong they were.

I think LOTS of atheists are like that, especially early on after they part ways with religion. To be fair, a lot of that is defensiveness since atheists tend to get proselytized to a LOT by Christians that learn/discover that they are an atheist -- especially in the US.

Now I'm 20 years older and I live in a country that is 95% Buddhist, 4% Islamic, and 1% Christian/Other. Thailand isn't even really close to the most diverse Asian country in religious terms (Singapore has 5 religions with 10%+ of the population, with Buddhist being the most at 34%) but there is an air of practiced religious acceptance / tolerance here that is WAY different from back home in the US.

I'd wager that amongst the major religions, Christianity might contain the highest percentage of the "proselytizing type" -- those that really strongly believe in the message enough to want to spread it to those who don't, or those that have never really questioned their beliefs but who nonetheless buy in enough to think that it is important to get it out there. On the other hand, there are many more Christians who may be very strong believers but who are comfortable keeping that all internal and not proselytizing.

With atheists, I'd say that there is a high correlation between being very "out" / open about their atheism and being the "proselytizing type" of atheist. So, if you know that someone is an atheist, it is fairly likely that they will be a bit "indignant" about it. If someone is an atheist but doesn't feel the need to inform others about it, most people would never know/assume they were an atheist. I'm not talking about "closeted" atheists; just the difference between those who are going to tell you within 10 minutes of meeting you that they are an atheist without the subject ever coming up, and those that will only mention it if you directly ask them about it.

Keeping that it mind, I can actually believe that from an outside perspective, known atheists might be more aggressive than known Christians just due to that sort of selection bias. Maybe.

Think you sorta cherry picked that paragraph. I agree with pool that atheists are completely shit at treating any theist's beliefs with respect.

Atheists give theists much more respect than theists give us. About 75%+ say being atheist makes a person untrustworthy and ineligible for public office, but an IQ of <80 doesn't.
Theists beliefs deserve no respect, neither do beliefs in Santa, Krampus, fairies, Lord Zenu, Ookie (my brother's imaginary friend), or any other belief in fantasy. You don't respect an inability to recognize reality.

EDIT: Also, theists are FAR MORE disrespectful of any other theists beliefs than atheists are. Atheists have never once started a religious war because 'they worship wrong'.

Seems she had quite a bit to say about the us and them thing. Just saying.

@Sniper007, @MilkmanDan and @Payback, sorry I typed it on my phone so it wasn't a very clear argument. What I was arguing against was the contention that atheists are the worst for "recruiting" people.

Have any of you ever had an atheist knock on your door? Ever had an atheist stop you in the street? Ever seen an atheist protest a funeral? Not only have I never had any of these experiences, I've never even heard of anyone having these experiences.

Are there "strident" atheists out there? Of course. But let's be real, they tend to restrict themselves to things like books, debates, youtube videos and in an extreme sense... bus adverts!

Apart from the bus adverts, those are all things that other people choose to be involved in, unlike religious people who go out and interrupt other people's lives (even if they are perfectly polite about it) to "recruit" them.

Yeah, I didn't really agree with that part of the video.

Felt like a false equivalency to me. There really is an "us" and "them". This isn't some "two sides to every story" kind of thing. The WBC are simply wrong. Their position is objectively awful, and I feel no need whatsoever to try to understand their point of view other than to utterly debunk it.

I'm not saying that they should be burned at the stake or anything. Her experience shows that compassion and reasoned argument are better tools.

See also racists, creationists, homeopaths and climate deniers.

I never understand why people think that when someone finds fault in someone else's mindset/religion/politics it's assumed they are "writing the other person off".
I find fault in nearly every person in some way or other, including myself, no person is perfect. That doesn't mean I automatically write any of them off. I actually find the accusation somewhat insulting. Just because that's how many people operate is no excuse for assuming everyone does. That mindset is antithetical to learning and understanding and only reinforces fanatical 'us VS them' thinking while denying the possibility of 'we'.

Tsu said “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”
If you write off your 'enemy' as underserving of being understood, you hurt yourself more than you hurt them.

Don't most of you know, especially those who grew up in Christian homes, that Christians are commanded by the Lord Jesus Christ to proselytize?

Mark 16:15

And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation

Christians who don't proselytize are actually in disobedience to the Lord.

Second, what kind of people would Christians be if they didn't proselytize? Knowing that people all around them are headed towards eternal death, and keeping the only way to escape it to themselves? Penn Jillette understands this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6md638smQd8

I understand why people are uncomfortable being proselytized to, especially when people yell at them or try to make them feel bad. That isn't the way you're supposed to do it. The bible says to speak the truth in *love*. If you don't fundamentally care about the person you are talking to and have a genuine concern for their soul, it isn't going to be fruitful.

Invocations (love) cannot be called by shinyblurry because shinyblurry is not privileged - sorry.

If you are going to approach someone with no sincere intent to understand them with love and reason your way to the correct thinking, you just may end up crystallizing their existing errors and making them even more bold to spread the philosophies you despise. It would be better in that regard to simply ignore them. Unless your sole purpose in the engagement is to make yourself feel better about them being wrong and staying wrong. In which case, knock yourself out. Though I would argue that's not helping you, them, or anyone else progress.

Does that make sense?

My only real take-away from this is if you're attractive, intelligent, well spoken and engaging, you can still be as wrong as the ugliest, stupid, base and repulsive person.

Don't most of you know that Christians are required to murder you if you don't worship properly, or try to leave Christianity?

How about Deuteronomy 17:
Deuteronomy 17
If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.
Or 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 ancestors 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 them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. 9 You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone them to death, because they 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.
12 If you hear it said about one of the towns the Lord your God is giving you to live in 13 that troublemakers have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods you have not known), 14 then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, 15 you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. You must destroy it completely, both its people and its livestock. 16 You are to gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the Lord your God. That town is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt.
Or Numbers 31, where God commands the Israelites to attack Midian and kill all the men, all the married women and all the male children but to keep the virgin females as the spoils of war and distribute them among the soldiers. The reason offered for that barbarism? Two Midianite women had allegedly “tempted” two Israelite men to worship other gods.

Christians consistently ignore the inconvenient parts unless they work to further their current prejudices. I've never heard of a Red Lobster or Gap being firebombed for selling shellfish or mixed fabrics, but gays..stone em, burn em, bomb em, and stone them some more over the same instructions they otherwise ignore. Mowing your lawn on Sunday is actually worse than homosexuality by my reading, but no one gets harassed for that.

Spoiler Alert - there is no escaping eternal death, no matter what your redeemer of choice might say third hand. Everything has to end. No green pastures, no eternal smell of grandma's cookies you remember as a child, no eternal torture for child molesters, no eternal bliss or eternal suffering, nothing.

I have accepted that truth into my heart and will have everlasting death.

@newtboy,

Hate to single you out, but your missing most of poolcleaner's points by focusing exclusively on one. And your even doubling down on 'proving' the sentence you object to.

You first object by saying:
Atheists give theists much more respect than theists give us.

But then one sentence later:
Theists beliefs deserve no respect, neither do beliefs in Santa, Krampus, fairies, Lord Zenu, Ookie (my brother's imaginary friend), or any other belief in fantasy. You don't respect an inability to recognize reality.

And then your next post leads with:
Don't most of you know that Christians are required to murder you if you don't worship properly, or try to leave Christianity?


It is EXACTLY your extremely vitriolic responses that poolcleaner was no doubt referencing in saying Atheists are often the worst for disrespecting the beliefs of others.

Read over the balance of comments above, particularly including Shinyblurry's unapologeticly evangelical one, and tell me which group's representative in this thread is showing the most contempt and disrespect for the beliefs of the 'other'?

I guess adding or building on my above post. If you justify contempt and vitriol against beliefs in a deity, likening it to Krampus, because in essence your view is the correct one that's dangerous. It is in point of fact EXACTLY what the Westboro Baptists tell themselves, most of ISIS too for that matter.

I can respect a person while not respecting their beliefs, unlike most religious people. It's pretty sad that you seem to not understand that possibility.

The next post was a juxtaposition with 'Christians are required to proselytize', pointing out that even Christians don't respect their own beliefs. This is not vitriolic, it's factual. Christianity requires Jihad, but Christians don't follow those parts today. If you can ignore one part, why not ignore it all, since it's clear you're picking and choosing, so can't believe the bible is the undeniable word of God or every word would be followed, not just the parts they like today.

Again, reminding him what his beliefs actually are is in no way being the worst at respecting others beliefs...Christians are required to murder those with different beliefs. You are claiming that pointing that out is worse than the murders themselves.

Atheists don't murder infidels, therefore can't possibly be the worst at disrespecting beliefs.

Again,

If you want to take a book of rules and ignore it take American law and only read a portion of it like:
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death

I suppose that in isolation suggests that American law justifies citizen's pulling out a gun and shooting people providing comfort to Americas enemies. Of course, if you read the WHOLE of American law you find there are things about due process and courts and other checks and balances in place. In fact, that the naive original reading is completely the anti-thesis of what American law advocates.

The point of course being that is EXACTLY the same thing you've done with the bible by entirely ignoring the existence of other parts in that address alter, or provide context on the pieces you picked out. You know, like some guy named Jesus that came along later and some folks have made a big deal about following the teachings of.

Or perhaps more appropriately taking American laws that have been changed/revoked like:
If any slave resists his master... correcting such a slave, and shall happen to be killed in such correction... the master shall be free of all punishment... as if such accident never happened.

A bit closer to the mark of your snippets, and the later teachings that counter and adjust in the Bible.

You speak like you know what the beliefs of Christians must be better than ALL of their combined leadership and still try and proclaim your tolerance and understanding????

Is it so terrifically difficult to just accept that you hold a (very) different interpretation of their holy book without requiring and demanding that they are universally wrong in that too?

Hit a nerve, did I?

The bible specifically tells you to murder them with your own hands, not to have society impose laws. No way out. If you don't murder them, you should also be murdered for failing to follow the commands. It's clear. That's pretty damn disrespectful in my eyes, murdering one for believing differently.

As for that Jesus guy changing things.....
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.…

Protestants and Catholics spent a long time trying to kill each other for myriad reasons. Can you find a Catholic or Protestant leader in your area, or even your country that takes your view of things as accurate?

Poolcleaner simply observed that he appreciated being able to agree to disagree with diverse groups of people. He added a throw away comment that atheists can be the worst for disrespecting each others beliefs though. You took umbrage with that, and are still here proceeding to not only condemn theists for their beliefs, but are going beyond that and ADDING beliefs they themselves REJECT to condemn for those too.

You have to see the problem/irony in this, no?

Reading comprehension matters.

You prove my point. They murder each other over tiny details of the same belief...incredibly disrespectful....The ultimate disrespect in fact.

I don't murder, so clearly I respect their beliefs and their rights to hold different beliefs more than they do. I don't disqualify them from public office based on their differing beliefs....they do. I don't write them all off because they believe in a magic sky daddy, but most of them write me off for not believing.

The beliefs themselves deserve no respect....no belief does, only provable fact deserves respect and defense.

Adding beliefs? Explain. I quoted their clear written beliefs. If Christians ignore the bible, do they even have beliefs?

Edit: to answer your question-anyone in Westborough Baptist for one group, and anyone who takes the bible seriously as the undeniable word of God agrees with my take, but even they are too chicken shit to take up the sword for the Lord....even the fanatics don't follow the teachings of their own beliefs....that's also disrespectful....of their own beliefs.

Btw, I condemned no one, I pointed out clear facts in a rational way. Historically, and by religious decree (above), Christians don't discuss or respect others differing beliefs, they just try to eradicate them. It's part of the dogma to be disrespectful of any tiny difference in belief, disrespectful to the ultimate degree.

"They murder over tiny details".

Question, who is 'they'? The 'Christians' who ran the crusades? The protestant 'Christians' bombing the English Catholic 'Christians'? The Catholic 'Christians' cleansing the protestant heretics? The current pope of the Catholic church? The folks in your neighbourhood that attend a church sometimes? The people that check off 'christian' on the census?

Your entire exposition gives the distinct impression that you include everyone in the whole group as 'they' and liken them not only the the very worst in the group, you even insist that the worst aren't quite bad enough(Westboro), are as bad as what YOU define their beliefs to be.

Is some lengthy theological dissertation refuting your interpretation of the bible required evidence before you'll accept that calling all christian's murders is unfair? I'm sorry I won't present you that kind of evidence in thread, but I'm quite confident you are as capable as me to quickly google for the likely hundreds of hefty books already dedicated to exactly that...

-..."they" in that sentence is the Catholics and Protestants.....it's your topic. In a general sense, it applies to most religions as individual groups, and the more dogmatic the followers are, the less tolerant of any dissent they become.

I can read. It's in the bible, and never contradicted or eradicated from the religious 'law'...so it's not what I define their beliefs to be, it's what the bible defines their beliefs to be, and if they don't follow it, what in the hell are they 'believing'?

I think you won't provide evidence because you can't. Someone's misinterpretation of the clear instructions, that let you off the hook for following them, means nothing when you have the clear text to read.

Only one hefty book matters in this instance, and it's undeniably clear. If you don't murder infidels, you don't follow the bible's teachings and so must deny it's God's law....making it nothing but a terrible book of fairy tales.

Edit: I think there's a disconnect about disrespect here. Atheists may not respect your beliefs with lip service and placations, but most religions require the complete eradication of differing beliefs. Atheists absolutely respect your right to believe any nonsense you want to, even if we may try to convince you why you're wrong. Religions invariably do not exhibit that base level of respect, how can you possibly claim they are more respectful?
Could it be that atheists are more respectful, enough to engage the 'other', so SEEM more disrespectful because they're up front and honest about their disrespect for beliefs, while religious people might smile but rarely actually engage in discussion/debate for fear of actually having to defend their indefensible beliefs, so just consider them a subhuman demon to be avoided as much as possible and backstabbed at every opportunity because they, let's say, think Saturday is the Sabbath?
I grew up in Texas, I have plenty of experience with 'Christian respect' for the beliefs of others (or lack thereof)....and it's nearly non existent there. I was told more than once that if I don't believe in God or Jesus my opinion didn't matter, and I wasn't welcome there, and deserved death. A few of those respectful Christians tried to beat some Jesus into me....but never one on one, and never successfully.

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.

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.

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.

Here's a quick Google of the remainder of your quote. Somehow it's very hard to read 'kill the non believers' into it in context:
“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. 18For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Murder

21“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder,a and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sisterb c will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’d is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.

23“Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, 24leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your gift.

25“Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still together on the way, or your adversary may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. 26Truly I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.

Adultery

27“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’e 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

Divorce

31“It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’f 32But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Oaths

33“Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ 34But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.g

Eye for Eye

38“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’h 39But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Love for Enemies

43“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbori and hate your enemy.’ 44But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect

I'll just deal with murder.
As I read that, he's not saying don't murder, but saying you'll be judged if you do, in the same way you'll be judged for being angry with a brother or calling someone a fool. If the murder is in accordance with the rules set forth (ignoring that pesky commandment) then judgment holds no danger.... no harm, no foul, go directly to heaven and collect your $200.
He clearly states that all the rules as set forth still apply, and you had better follow them unless you're righteousness surpasses the Pharisees.

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.

As I've said, it's contradictory.

Jesus's death was hardly the end....there have been innumerable accomplishments since then, so in my mind it can only mean the final apocalypse.

I agree, the entire old testament seems at odds with Jesus's teachings....unless you interpret murder of infidels as somehow loving them to death. That's why his statements about the laws still being in full effect don't jibe with his teachings of love and acceptance, and no where does he, or God, or any prophet say his death erases God's laws that I find, that's pure conjecture and impious wishful thinking on the part of all those self labeled Christians, no?

If you were correct about that interpretation, ALL the old testament is moot and none of the laws/rules are still in effect, no? But no Christian worships that way that I know of....certainly not the WBC types. It's kind of all or nothing, and it's simply not practiced that way. If God hates fags, he also hates oyster eaters and poly blend wearers just the same, no?

Shinyblury might be better at weighing on some of this now .

I agree, the entire old testament seems at odds with Jesus's teachings....unless you interpret murder of infidels as somehow loving them to death.
With how many different christian churchs there are in every single town having a slightly different view it's hard to give a singular answer. I'd hazard the most common explanation though is that the old school laws basically demonstrated one thing to humanity, every last one of you by rights deserves death. Everybody is, by God's standards, inadequate and the penalty is death.
That's why his statements about the laws still being in full effect don't jibe with his teachings of love and acceptance, and no where does he, or God, or any prophet say his death erases God's laws that I find
Continuing what I think is the most common explanation, Jesus message was that the 'spirit' of the old school laws was to encourage humanity to love god and fellow man without exceptions. Strictly following the letter of the laws was to miss the point entire. Also, the punishment for failing to live up to the standard of universal love for God and fellow man was death, fire, brimstone and all the nasty old testament sentences.

So taking those as axioms you have God's law for humanity was and always had been love for him and each other. God's punishment for failing that measure, even in the least, was and always had been death and eternal damnation.

Again, I can't say all Christians are universally agreed on what to do from that, but I would say that the majority again follow Jesus teachings that the punishment for those that fall short was to be left to God and not to humans. As in, no more going around killing each other for breaking the law in letter or in spirit. Evangelicals are probably also universally agreed that ALL of humanity fails to meet the morality bar and thus was doomed to death until Jesus was killed. Jesus having met the bar of perfection required by the law, was thus payment through his death for the rest of humanity. So Evangelicals for the most part then take the entirety of the Bible as a message telling them they should go out and love God and everyone and in the humility that they are but for the grace of God equally deserving of damnation.

I know re-reading that it reads more like a sermon than anything, but it's also the most concisely I could manage to fit in how I understand most evangelicals to read the bible.

Again that doesn't jibe with the text, or his exact words "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"
That also contradicts the theory that his death ended the laws....."until heaven and earth pass away" clearly is a different thing from 'until I, Jesus, pass away'.
This is clear that the letter of the laws, not just the spirit of love, are the focus here, and anyone ignoring a single jot will be judged harshly.
In the old testament, those punishments are for failing to live by the specific, set forth rules as written, not failing to live up to some underlying, contradictory, unwritten, hidden message of love behind them.

That's not what the bible says. It's what 3rd parties have told people it says. It also clearly warns about those people....warns against listening to them, and tells you what happens to them....they are called the least, which I interpret to mean considered unworthy of heaven so are sent elsewhere.
It clearly, unambiguously, undeniably tells believers to murder infidels themselves, personally, with rocks. Any other interpretation ignores clearly written specific and detailed instructions in favor of insane mental gymnastics to think " You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God" somehow, inexplicably means 'love and tolerate them with respect and kindness' and not 'go murder them ASAP'.

Evangelicals have never once lived up to your theory of what they believe, they can't even follow the basic golden rule. The respect they demand for their beliefs is never returned to others, in my experience.
Evangelicals in practice usually take the entirety of the Bible as a message telling them they should go out and force others to love their version of God and the righteous, not all people, and without a hint of humility, and that they must accept the grace of their version of God or else are deserving of hatred and damnation.


Edit: As I read it, Jesus said follow every letter of the old laws, but instructed people that he without sin should cast the first stone (that would have been him, wouldn't it?). The old laws said he who casts no stones is committing a horrendous sin and should themselves be stoned to death. Believers somehow don't see the contradiction, while I see nothing but.

Maybe more simple would be to observe that from the evangelical interpretation, if you were to go out and kill every person that failed to live up to the law, the global population would be zero. From there it is hardly rational to believe that Jesus was teaching anyone was supposed to go around meting out judgement. I don't find it such a harsh leap of logic then to read the old testament laws stating if person X commits crime Y they must be killed as being admonitions against the crime. I think it's not that bizarre to read them as the act of stoning others as not a law itself, but a sentence, and a sentence that Jesus death rendered moot.

If you're going to bring rationality and logic into the laws of religions, we can get nowhere.
I agree, logically the laws make no sense, but neither does an invisible sky daddy who's all love, and wrath, infallible but infinitely confusing, all knowing but constantly testing us anyway with torturous tests, capable of the impossible daily but never performs in public, etc. Being irrational when thought through doesn't invalidate it, by the rules of religion. It just means you don't comprehend the mysterious plan that will, miraculously, make it work in the future. Claiming logic demands you interpret the words to mean nearly the opposite of their clear meaning is akin to claiming to know the mind of God, or to know better than God...neither is allowed.

It clearly said different:
"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"
NOT "until I die". Earth sure still exists, (not sure about heaven, but it said "and") so every letter of the law is in effect, and anyone teaching different is thought of as "the least" in heaven. I found that indisputable by reading it, it was pretty clear on that to me.

Edit: It's like you're saying they read the words of God, think them through and see they lead to disaster, so say "God didn't mean what he said, he just wants to make us think". I disagree with the contention that that interpretation makes sense....and if it did I would suggest that Aesop is a much better teacher.

Maybe.