"And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads."

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

It's clear it is your duty to kill people who don't believe. You are disregarding god's will.

I'm Catholic and I gave up smoting infidels for Lent.

These days the true zealots much prefer too eke people towards the cliff with what they hope will unbearably annoying displays of closemindedness and stupidity.

1. I'm not Jewish & I don't live in Israel

2. Old covenant

3. you've taken this out of context

Rize -

We as Christians are told to do two things:

1.) Love God with all of our heart, mind, body, and soul

and

2.) Love our neighbors as ourselves.

A lot of Jewish people didn't like Jesus during His time because he changed the rules to these two simple ones.

Now that you're caught up with the news of 2000 years ago, I trust there won't be anymore confusion. If there is more, just ask. Save the condescending tone for places that don't want civil conversations.

Josh

+1

It was a two way street.

Matthew 8
8:12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

And Jesus had more then two simple rules.

1. None of those verses tell Christians to kill non-believers.

2. One of the ten commandments is 'Thou shalt not kill.'

that would be a ...*gasp*...contradiction!

i love this line of defense. you do realize the 'old covenant' isn't old to jews right?

secondly, i thought morality was objective.

The "OT is no longer needed, we follow Jesus now" argument seems contradictory to me.

Christians are very quick to trot it out when verses such as the OP's are presented as evidence of biblical contradictions, or contradictions in the behaviour of Christians.

But at the same time they seem to hold views which clearly come directly from the OT, like "God created the earth" and "homosexuality is wrong". Splendour in particular has claimed that the NT fulfills prophecies predicted by the OT.

If the OT can apparently be safely ignored when challenged with arguments like that of the OP, why can in not also be ignored in matters such as the creation of the earth?

Well then go talk to some jews about that. The OP is directed as Christians.

And as far as "this line of defense", well the truth is usually fairly effective so why not use it.

First off, no Christian has ever said that the OT was a bunch of lies or did not happen. So why would be reject the creation?

You are talking about two completely different things.

Secondly homosexuality is talked about in the NT as well. But besides that, homosexuality is a sin, not just part of the law.

The OT lays out laws for that time as well as sins. Those are two completely different things.

You couldn't possibly pull of weekly sermons based on the NT alone. People would leave in a week. You need some pazazz. Sulphur. X factor. OT + NT's revelations. Killer combo.

Unless I'm mistakenly jumping to conclusions, we can put this OT vs. NT debate to a halt RIGHT HERE:

The same Jesus who said this:

²⁷But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.

??

lol. Did you read the whole thing before you posted it? Jesus did not say this at all. This is part of a parable that he was telling.

Sure I read it, and couldn't discern whether or not it was him or some random king-guy talking. But the very next line reads this...

"28After Jesus had said this, he went on ahead, going up to Jerusalem...."

you are confusing historical narrative with direct command. the christian can have complete belief in the OT as being the inerrant word of God AND simultaneously recognize that they are not subject to the commands given in it. there is no necessary contradiction here.

when the OT states a historical fact, such as the creation story, it is immutable. it is a brute fact and not malleable or retractable. however, when a command is given to a specific people at a specific time, that is very malleable and retractable. the "Law" has changed. we are no longer under the OT law. this is an easy concept to grasp. let me know if you still have trouble though, and i will try to help you out.

as to your claim that certain views come directly from the OT, such as "God created the earth" and "homosexuality is wrong"... i can assure you that both of these truths are taught explicitly in the NT as well. so, if someone was forced to never accept the OT as God's word (which is wholly unnecessary), it would still be very clear from a study of the NT that "God created the earth" and "homosexuality is wrong".

summary:

there is no contradiction in believing the creation story of genesis to be true while simultaneously claiming to not be subject to the commands of the OT

rize,

may i ask your understanding of the context of the passage you quoted? who was speaking? who was being addressed? why? what is the situation? when did this take place? have circumstances changed since then? if so, how?

if you can answer those questions, you will understand why christians are not necessarily disregarding God's will by not following this command.

uh huh...

and your objective morality that somehow changed? what of that?

hahahahahaha...

score one for Stu.

What?

ugh

the differing moralities in the OT and NT???

You have not brought up a single moral that has changed. Just different laws.

I made a thread about this you can find here,

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/13...ianity-400606/

Basically, no one has a good answer