Saw this post and just wanted to clear some things up. The Old Testament laws are strict and not all of them make sense. If you've read through it I'm sure you've seen the laundry list of commandments the Israelites had to obey to live according to God, which with all the laws, it was pretty much impossible. It was a burden. However with the death and resurrection of Jesus, those laws were done with and salvation was given through faith. The old testament laws were meant to send a message as it illustrated it was pretty much impossible to live up to God's holy standards. The new testament shows then that salvation is then given as a result of God's grace through belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus, not through our own works and deeds. In essence the teaching is no matter what we do we, can't achieve God's expected level of holiness as a result of the first sin, but that's okay because God has shown us grace. I respect whatever beliefs you have. I don't think its right though when people take a passage out of context and use that to support a misguided claim, for the bible or any material for that matter. For example, in most statistical analysis studies, you wouldn't look at only a single data point and make a claim about the data. You have to look at the trend of the dataset as a whole. Similarly here, you have to look at the message as a whole and see what the overall point of the material is.

The problem is, he isn't taking a single scripture out of context. If that was an insular incident mentioned in the old testament, then you would be right. But since the entire foundation is based on rules, restrictions, and punishments like that, he has a very valid statement. Would list a scripture or two here to normally back up my point of view, but since there are literally hundreds of examples of this in the old testament, I don't think it is necessary. I'm not saying he is right or wrong in his religious perspective, or that you are right or wrong either. Only that your argument about the context is inaccurate. The point of 'salvation' in the new testament is not a trump card that lets you ignore or justify the atrocities of the old testament. The facts are that the Old Testament has a much different tone and message than the New Testament, and there are even conflicting statements in the New Testament depending on how you interpret it (Jesus's own words: "Matthew 5:17 - Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.") Most christians want to gloss over these facts and basically tell you to ignore them, because it doesn't appear to align with the messages of salvation and forgiveness. Personally I think everyone should find their own way, (2 Timothy 2:15 / Philippians 2:12) but there is no reason people can't share their different views on how they see things even if we disagree because we might be able to learn something from one another (1 Corinthians 12:14-27) if we can look past our own pride and accept that there are things each of us don't know and can still yet learn.

I was giving a general overview so maybe I wasn't clear enough. The point is not to ignore the Old Testament. You still take it into account but realize you are not bound to it. That's a difference. You are right in that the books are two different tones definitely. My view is that the first book is harsh and judgemental to reflect God's judgement on mankind after its disobedience. The new testament has an optimistic tone to convey the message of attainable forgiveness. However in relation to the passage you bring up in Mathew, Jesus is saying his obedience to the law has fulfilled it and thus by belief in him we have also followed the law. "The Law was good and proper. Its purpose was to define sin and delineate holiness. Jesus was not in any way negating the Law; He was showing us the reason for the Law. Jesus fulfilled the Law in that He was the only person to ever keep the whole Law, even in His heart, without sin (Hebrews 4:15)." From http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-and-the-Law.html Also http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3783/what-does-it-mean-that-jesus-fulfilled-the-law-but-did-not-abolish-it Says it better than I can. Give the articles a quick read if you have time. The law is still there to follow but in spirit as a guide not as a definitive life or death deal. The thing that matters is what's in our heart and motives. Not whether we can follow every rule. You are very right though in that yes there are different interpretations and for a lot of cases, someone may not be wrong or right per say. There are a lot of grey areas when applying the bible to modern life. And I wholeheartedly agree that we can continue to learn from one another.

Yeah, I think just the way you worded or phased some things might be interpreted a different way, but language has a way of doing that in general; especially written word. Most people don't realize how much context you get out of expressions and gestures from people when you are talking to them verbally/visibly, and how much you lose of that when it is only written. In comment to your second paragraph, I figured that would be your perspective and 'interpretation' of the scripture I mentioned from Jesus' perspective. I still thing your view there glosses over things and makes it easy to acknowledge, but not really think about the Old Testament. That is cool though, because the fact is we aren't going to agree on everything and I don't even think there is anything wrong with that. Also, I reviewed the viewpoints you sent me with the links, and they are the standard justifications I often hear by people that are at least knowledgeable biblically, rather than the ignorant people that don't know why they believe what they do. (Faith is a powerful thing and can be wonderful when used in conjunction with intelligent motivation. However, blind faith is one of the worst things to ever plague religion, corrupting it into something that is used to manipulate ignorant people who base their views solely on emotion; completely ignoring all logical understanding. Just one horrific massive example of that is the Crusades, but the fact is it still happens all of the time even today, just generally on a smaller scale.) I can respect that at least those scholars in the links you provided took time to convey a perspective with connecting things, but I still think so much is liberally interpreted that to the average outsider (a person looking into their religion, and not part of it) it just looks like loose conjecture to justify the harshness of the Old Testament, and connect two separate beliefs (Judaism/Christianity) and tie them together though the foundations are so drastically different. (Note: I'm not saying this is my view, I'm just pointing out both viewpoints rather than negating one just because I don't agree with it.) Lastly I'd like to say I appreciate your intelligent, and thought out response. It is rare nowadays to get someone that doesn't bash, ignore, and/or demean you for a different point of view (which ironically is hypocritical for a christian to do, but I sadly think many people are christian only in name, like the pharisees and sadducees of old) I appreciate your candor and respect, especially when it comes to something as touchy as religion and/or your personal beliefs. I wish you the best on your own journey of faith.

It is simply not out of context as people are told all teachings of each bible are correct, I understand that somethings are simple as when Jesus gave birth to himself because he is god. Like I said most things in their as up to what we would call a "perfect" version for some people in this world but the fact remains that all teachings of the bible are correct.

You are very intelligent. I like you! Keep it up :)

You've never read it have you?

Here is a good example for you about animals being offered to "lord" or god in better terms. Edit: Fond a better passage. And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even. And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean. And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. And if it be on her bed, or on any thing whereon she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean until the even. And if any man lie with her at all, and her flowers be upon him, he shall be unclean seven days; and all the bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean. And if a woman have an issue of her blood many days out of the time of her separation, or if it run beyond the time of her separation; all the days of the issue of her uncleanness shall be as the days of her separation: she shall be unclean. Every bed whereon she lieth all the days of her issue shall be unto her as the bed of her separation: and whatsoever she sitteth upon shall be unclean, as the uncleanness of her separation. And whosoever toucheth those things shall be unclean, and shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. But if she be cleansed of her issue, then she shall number to herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean. And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And the priest shall offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for her before the LORD for the issue of her uncleanness. Leviticus 15:19-30

Just an fyi I'm not a expert but I do try to read at least once a week. The new testament says to basically disregard the old testament and take the stories told in the old testament as a sort of advice on how to be a good person (again very rough translation here). The rules and guide on how to get to heaven are all told in the new testament and you dont need to follow the rules of the old testament unless they are reinforced in the new testament. Just and fyi have a good day

That's old testament. Lots of stuff happened since then. People also lived hundreds of years. Abraham was over 900 years old. Does that mean time was the same then as it is now? How do you explain Dinosaurs? If you have these questions go to church not the destiny forums.

If you're going to debate about a topic, whether you like it or not, at least try to be more accurate with your statements. Abraham did [b]not[/b] live anywhere near 900 years. You may have been using hyperbole to make a point, but it only detracts from it when you make that inaccurate a statement. He was born far later in generations when people no longer lived that long. He actually lived to be 175. (Genesis 25:7) Only a handful mentioned in Genesis even lived to reach 900. Adam was one and most note worthy, Methuselah, who was the oldest person mentioned in the Bible and reached 969 years of age.(Genesis 5:27) [spoiler]Btw, the dinosaurs thing isn't that hard to explain. First off if you disregard the stupid idea that some have that the Earth is only a few thousand years old (which is based loosely off a single scripture 'Psalm 90:4' and taken out of context and assumed as literal), then you know the world is much older. When God creates mankind he tells them to [b]replenish[/b] the Earth(Genesis 1:28), he is telling them to do something again, which means the Earth had life on it before mankind. When Lucifer is kicked out of heaven, it says he fell as lightning from the heavens and he weakened the nations. (Isaiah 14:12 / Luke 10:18) This states there were not only people, but civilizations when he was cast from heaven and the fall of Lucifer happened before humans were even placed here.) [/spoiler] [spoiler]But hey, you probably didn't read any of this anyway... have a great day :)[/spoiler]

I probably meant Noah. It's been a while. And Noah did live that long.

Yeah, all testaments are to be worship under "his" grace. Go ask your pastier about the old testaments.

Oh I have, this is yet why I don't have the faith of Christians in their god. I can give you exact markers from each bible version that either contradicted itself on one passage to another and many more animal sacrifices that took place. Remember that all versions of the bible are to respected and taught. Not one version shall ever be neglacted and thrown away, the most common one found today is easy on the eyes and ears, let it be known.

It's just about living your life based on a set of principals that can be deemed morally good with the reward of eternal life and happiness, not a bad thing to stride for when the alternative is a boring blackness.

I never said it was a bad thing to live your life with good principles and having good morals, although you don't need to have a faith in some "higher power" to remain a good person. I don't believe in such things and yet I give homeless money all the time, offer people help when they need it and give when I can. Am I of faith of your god? No, although I respect my good decisions in life and expect those people to pay it forward. If they don't that is of their own desire but it is what makes me, me.