A misguided argument for several reasons.

First of all, "liberalism" vs "conservatism" has nothing to do with it. Such rhetoric is very typically used today, and is as silly as it gets. The implicit idea that a conservative can't be critical towards Christianity is dangerous and one that many conservative political movements are actively trying to peddle these days - the favorite method being the exact type of cleverly hidden argument that you make here.

Secondly, the method leads to strange conclusions. We could for example apply this thinking to type of government, and if we did we would have to concede that constitutional monarchy is a very peaceful and non-dangerous form of government and that we should therefore prefer to have kings and queens over dictators. This of course is not true, it is the trend towards constitutions severely limiting the power given to monarchs that have made it peaceful, and the conclusion should be the opposite - that kings and queens are dictators unless we limit them.

Thirdly, it has nothing to do with opposing the idea that Islam currently has issues that are real and should be taken seriously. It is the white-washing of Christianity that is the issue at hand, it has a long history of being involved in oppressive government and hostile foreign policy. Those days can very well come back if we start ignoring historic lessons.

As far as I am concerned no religion has any place in government or as a basis for legal systems. Very few religions impose a solid system of checks and balances, and most favor a form of judgment that is arbitrary rather than fair.

I live in a world where Roy Moore almost got elected.

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."

Christians being instructed, by god, to kill non-believers. In the bible.

I'm pretty sure that there weren't any Christians around a thousand years before Jesus was born.

In the Old Covenant, God indeed commanded the killing of the wicked.

In the New Covenant, which commenced following the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, Jews and gentiles alike are under the covenant of grace.

Also, the Deutoronomy 17 example isn't an ongoing command; it only applied to the specific time and place and circumstances that the Jews were in at the time.

Do you think a Jewish rabbi would agree that Deuteronomy and OT are no longer Gods law?

Good question, batair.

I would think that most Jewish rabbi's would agree that the laws of Dueteronomy still apply, but the text quoted from chapter 17 was a specific command from God to kill a specific group of people in a specific time and place. It wasn't a "law" from God to be kept everymore, but a command unique to that particular situation.

Alright... Mightyboosh picked the wrong verse kind of.

Though id guess there are some conservative rabbi's who would say if the gates and Temple Mount is rebuilt the Law would still apply.

I'd say you're guess is probably right.

No there weren't, by definition, but the god they worship was and that verse is from their holy scriptures. Do you simply discount anything that happened before Jesus?

This has never made sense to me. God is a perfect being, he doesn't make mistakes or ever have a need to change his mind, so why have a 'new covenant'.... what was wrong previously? I think if I were Christian I would also simply ignore the OT. The flood story is utter nonsense, for example. In the moment of creation, god knew, and planned, for all those people to be wicked, so he basically created them so he could commit genocide. He doesn't come off well, but then I've long thought that if god does exist, he's a monster.

Of course. I interpret it as a timeless instruction, applicable in all times and to all people who worship that particular god.

And hence this must be the right way to interpret things and the position one must defend if one is to disagree with you.

Then why did you say that the Scripture that you quoted was an example of God commanding "Christians" to kill? I said a time or two that it seemed like you were responding to my posts without reading them in their entirety; now I don't think you even read your own posts before defending what you wrote.

I don't discount anything that happened before Jesus.


There was nothing "wrong" with the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant was for the Jews only, while the New Covenant is for all of mankind.

Somehow that doesn't surprise me.


Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Mightyboosh. I'll have to continue my response later.

Not all forms of Christianity follow Pauline theology on the covenant though.

So now you're arguing a specific theology and its interpretation of the bible, you're not speaking for Christianity as a whole.

Well, if I'm going to engage in a theological debate, then I pretty much have argue for a "specific theology." Maybe I'm out of step with what's going on among Christians these days, but I don't think I'm arguing a theology that isn't held by a large majority of Christians. That is, I think I am arguing for Christianity "as a whole", but not necessarily for every Christian.

This is a common response by Christians today about why these verses in the Bible no longer apply to modern Christians. Reasonable enough. How familiar are you with Muslim theology? Familiar enough to say that Muslims do not also have theological workarounds available for why commands to kill infidels in the Koran don't apply today?

I don't think that argument is consistent.

Also, there is no shortage of all of Christians who quote the old scripture laws, even mainstream ones. Cherrypicking from the mosaic laws is very common.

Because it comes from the holy scriptures that Christians claim is the word and instruction of their god and I think that instruction was ongoing, so it doesn't matter that no one who actually fit the technical description of 'christian' was around when it was allegedly made.

Do you believe that the events described in the OT actually happened?

So I don't even know where to start with this really. Firstly, the idea of a covenant is preposterous, he's god, he needs make no deals, no agreements, everything that will ever be was decided and approved of by him in the moment he created everything, it literally could not be any other way. Second, why exclude most of mankind from the first covenant then include them, and the Jews, in the second?

It has special pleading written all over it. A far more likely explanation for the inexplicable behavior of god is that there is no god.

It doesn't surprise me either when Christians do that, the OT is ridiculous and extraordinarily difficult to defend/explain. It's cherry picking and totally inconsistent to claim that the OT is allegorical where the NT is literal, but it's still better than having to stand by it.

1. I don’t know.
2. You can’t.

.
The verses cited above never applied to Christians at all, "modern" or otherwise. And they only applied to the Jews in a specific historical context.

Hey, if it keeps "infidels" from getting their heads chopped off, I'll be as pleased as punch with whatever "workaround" they come up with.

Well, since I do not advocate "cherrypicking from the mosaic laws", I have no obligation to defend those who do.

No, but you did say this...

... which I think is dubious. It's hardly any secret that conservative Christianity movements and churches are very fond of throwing in a few mosaic references to justify their stances. They're a significant portion of Christianity in pure numbers and an even bigger portion when it comes to political pull.

Why do you think that that instruction was ongoing?

God's commands in the verses you quoted were for the Jews. Do you think that there is no difference between a Jew and a Christian? Are Christians supposed to rebuild the temple and sacrifice animals?

Yes.


I agree that God doesn't need to do the things that He does, but if it pleases Him to do something, can He not choose to do it?

Good question. I have no idea why God does what He chooses to do. In the Bible, God occasionally tells us why he did something, but that it not typical.

So, your argument basically is, "Since I don't understand God's behavior, He doesn't exist?"

So say you. What's your argument?

. Much of the OT is indeed hard to explain. Nothing God says or does requires defending.

There are parts of both testaments that "literal", and parts that are "allegorical." The Bible contains many genres of literature, and a proper understanding of any passage would require one to, among other things, identify the genre.

I'd say my definition of "Christianity as a whole" would be those doctrines that are held universally by all of the Ecumenical Councils and by all of the Reformed Confessions.

It contains nothing that would make me think otherwise AND there's no reason why that proscription would become redundant.. There were non-believers then, there still are.

You actually think there was a global flood, with water 'as high as the highest mountain' that lasted for roughly a year? That one family survived it and had a boat with two of every animal species on it? I'd like to confirm some specifics here.

No. If he is a perfect being he can do no other than what is perfect. He could not do something that is less than perfect. (For the sake of transparency, that's my current position but I'm reading about Divine Freedom so may learn something that changes that)

This is what I call the 'mysterious ways' defence, it is highly unsatisfactory and says more about what you want to believe than what you can justify believing.

Nope, it's 'the simplest explanation for all the mysterious and inexplicable things that god does, or doesn't do, is that there is no god'. (Applies to every god mankind has ever believed in, not just yours)

It contains claims that are worthy of ridicule, such as the flood story.

Ah, now you have serious maneuvering room here, anything patently ridiculous is simply allegorical (garden of Eden etc) and anything you think you can defend isn't.

And often ignored by a sizable and powerful portion of Christianity, both now and throughout history.

And even if we ignore the OT, the NT isn't exactly what I would call peaceful. The revelations are essentially descriptions of a brutal genocide.