Ummmmm...gtfo? I put it in italics and that's good enough for a damn internet forum.

1) The length of the copied text is extremely long, and probably would have been better served as a link instead
2) The material is copyrighted (http://www.religioustolerance.org/ofe_bibl.htm)
3) Give credit where credit is due

As an atheist without morals, he's allowed to plagiarize. Just forgive him (cause he knows not what he did) and move on.

So the moment we are able to scientifically demonstrate (we're very close to it atm) that other animals can act morally, everything you said in that paragraph, and afterwards, is nullified? (or will you just come up with more excuses like "animals have the ability to accept Jesus" or some **** like that?)

I will, and have a fun 60 to 70 years serving a figment of your imagination.

Are you telling me my puppy may not be going to heaven?

OK, there seems to be some confusion on what Christians believe. The Old Covenant was laid out in the Old Testament. From a Christian perspective, this was the instruction for how God wanted the chosen people (the Jews) to live. When Jesus died on the cross, the Old Covenant became secondary to the New Covenant, the teachings of Jesus. So Christians don't eat kosher, even though it says to do so in Leviticus.

But the things that occurred in the Old Testament still happened. Genesis doesn't explain the Old Covenant, it explains how the earth was created.

So, that's why Christians believe in the truth of the Old Testament but don't follow some of its teachings. The New Covenant superseded the Old Covenant.

Who decides which teachings of the Old Testament to follow? Can someone still be a christian if they follow everything in the Old Testament? Can someone treat women in ways like the scriptures I posted and still be a christian?

I'm not trying to be a dick here. You seem smart and I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.

Why would god need to come up with a new set of rules?
Did he mess them up the first time?

Jesus outlined some of it. Some things that were unclear were decided by the Council of Jerusalem, and other church councils later on.

I think they would be Jewish, I'm not sure though.

It depends on who you ask. The Roman Catholic Church rejects polygamy on moral grounds. The RCC doesn't have authority over all Christians. Most Protestant sects do not condone polygamy, but I believe that a few do. A man could consider himself a Christian, but have other Christians not consider him a Christian.

Other things are just open to interpretation. One of the big points of the Synoptic Gospels in the New Testament is that the Law may be different, but the spirit of the Law is the same. The Ten Commandments became two rules: love God, and treat others as you want to be treated. This was acceptable because those two rules were the underlying message of the Ten Commandments.

So a man could probably treat women immorally and consider himself a Christian. But other Christians would not agree.

From a Christian perspective, the Old Covenant was necessary to keep the Chosen People alive, to prevent Judaism from mixing with pagan religions, and to prepare Jews for the coming of Christ. I don't know how or why the Old Law was any better than the New Law in this regard. Maybe the Jews weren't ready for the New Law until ~34 C.E.?

Christianity started off as a sect of Judaism. Jesus was a rabbi preaching to Jews about a new and better way of understanding Judaism. He clarified the true meaning of the Old Covenant and introduced new rules based on this true meaning.

Initially, only Jews could become Christians. Over time, this changed. In Paul's Letter to the Romans, Paul outlines how one doesn't have to be Jewish to understand God or the New Covenant. The Council of Jerusalem decided that men didn't need to be circumcised to be Christians. The Jews didn't need to obey the prohibitions of the Old Testament anymore. And the Old Covenant was no longer necessary to interact with God.

very good sir,

the Jews broke God's 1st covenant. the prophecies in Jeremiah indicate that because they broke that covenant, a covenant would be offered to the entire world of people, which is where Jesus comes in. Jesus and the apostles made it possible for the world to obtain salvation, per the new covenant.

So all those years (4,000-250,000?) before Jesus came and died for our sins, all humans went to hell and God just watched with his hands on hips or something? You tell me if that's a fair & merciful god, or if he's just plain MEAN.

what was before Jesus is different than what was after Jesus. what happens with those people before the messiah came can only be answered by God.

Worst. Answer. Ever.

who can possibly answer that question? i can't speak for God.

The Bible CLEARLY states that people didn't get to go to heaven until Jesus rose from the dead and allowed our sins to be forgiven. Now you decide to ignore that part and say you can't answer it and can't speak for God.

Tell me this: Do you believe that humans who lived for the first 4,000-250,000 years were less deserving of heaven than humans who lived the last 2000 years? If yes, why?

So what's the method of deciding which parts of the Old and New Testaments to follow and which ones to ignore?

According to the Bible, Jesus said that he came not to abolish the law of the prophets, but to fulfill them. So it seems particularly important that Jesus be loved and revered, and that his words be ignored.

Christians would contend that Jesus died for our sins and because of this, we no longer have to follow those Old Testament laws except for those Old Testament laws that we still have to follow. And no one seems to agree on which ones those are.

We have to follow the Ten Commandments, apparently (except that "keep holy the sabbath" one, that's just stupid) but we don't have to stone non-believers anymore, right?

So you see, it's all just a tad confusing.

i never read a verse that stated those that existed before Jesus don't get to go to Heaven. and again, i cannot speak for God. God chooses to do what he wants. having an existence before the new covenant doesn't mean they don't go to Heaven.
dont forget the possibility that God can change his mind anytime he likes. nothing is set in stone when it comes to God.

Jesus did come to fulfill the old laws. he corrected every iniquity that was in the law. he made it simple. Love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as you love yourself. Does this not fulfill the law. the Golden rule is the law. do unto others as you would have them do unto youdoes this not fulfill the law.

so how do you account for all the other "laws" Catholics must live by, concerning birth control, stem-cell-research, etc.?

Also, according to most, if not, all Christian sects, homosexuality is a sin. How do you reconcile that with Jesus' simple message?

And if the Golden Rule is all Jesus wants us to know and follow (something I have no touble getting behind, btw), why do we need all these different churches and sects of Christianity? Seems that if the message were that simple there wouldn't be any confusion over it.

Or, could you be interpreting the bible the way you want to?

Obviously he is. Take a look at these two LOLtastic statements:

unless of course, the church/pope says it. then it's set in stone. at least, until they change their mind

no, im not interpreting the way i want. the question was asked of Jesus "what is most important?", and that was his answer. who made those rules about birth control and stem-cell research? im not catholic. the different denominations are not needed, but people feel the need to belong to a group. i personally think the catholic way and all these denominations are wrong the way they group themselves. and yes, the message is that simple, and there shouldn't be any confusion over it. but, people want to pick and choose verses and scripture that suit their needs and that is wrong. why would God have anything against stem-cell research and birth control. God is more concerned about your faith, at least, that was the message i received when i read the bible.