Should certain versions of the Bible be banned?

Originally posted by ntech

Originally posted by tinfoilman

Originally posted by ntech

Originally posted by DaisyAnne

Well, tinfoilman. There is hundreds of laws in the old testament. Just because he didn't mention the other 98 percent of them doesn't mean they are to be ignored.

[edit on 10-6-2009 by ntech]

Yes, yes they are! Jesus didn't die for nothing. According to your logic he came for no reason and accomplished NOTHING? Well what was the point then if nothing changed?

Look, we don't stone cheaters anymore do we? Did Jesus cast the first stone? Well why not? That was the law right? We don't run and hide in the corner when someone opens a package of bacon do we? How does your unleavened bread taste BTW? Obviously something changed right?

Remember the Bible doesn't say don't be homosexual. It says they're supposed to kill homosexuals. According to that logic you're not a real Christian unless you're killing homosexuals in bulk? Sorry, none of the Christians I know act like that and none of them would even suggest such a thing.

That whole book is only for the Levite priests and their congregation. The people that consented to being part of the old Testament religion. If you consent to being part of something you should go by the rules right? Just because atheists and bigots READ IT WRONG and applied it to everyone isn't my fault. Trust me. It really helps to read it front to back straight through and it becomes pretty obvious. Sometimes I wonder if anybody actually read more than one verse in the whole book at a time. You need the CONTEXT.

According to your logic we should still be sacrificing animals at the alter too right? Something that's strictly forbidden in Christianity. Well, if the law hasn't changed then how is that possible that we're not supposed to make sacrifices to the Lord anymore? Something must have changed right? If not then I suggest you'd better get your cows out and we'll go down to the alter with our robes on.

Sorry, the rules have changed and the new testament gives us exactly the new set of rules. The Old Testament is for historical reference ONLY except in cases where the New Testament declares otherwise.

So far the only thing anybody has to prove that wrong is one section of Matthew quoted out of context with the most important part of the story REMOVED! Let me ask? If they're so right then why does when people post
Matthew 5:17 Why don't they go ahead and post 21 through 48 too? If you're right posting what comes next won't hurt your case a bit will it?

[edit on 11-6-2009 by tinfoilman]