"but That Was Under The Old Covenant"

[Nadooshka]

When Christians are confronted with the violence in the Bible, they typically say, "well that was under the old covenant." Then they talk about how Jesus fulfilled the law so that it no longer applies.

 

How do you respond to this?

[Nadooshka]

Haha! I just found a thread in this subforum about my topic! Mods, please merge or delete this, thanks.

[sdelsolray]

When Christians are confronted with the violence in the Bible, they typically say, "well that was under the old covenant." Then they talk about how Jesus fulfilled the law so that it no longer applies.

 

How do you respond to this?

I respond as follows:

 

1)  This is direct and relevant evidence (within the mythology) that objective morality emanating from the chosen god or gods does not exist.

 

2)  The NT is not entirely clear on the "fulfillment" issue.  Some of it says, "Yes, it was fulfillment" and some of it says, "The law remains".  This contradiction is avoided by theists claiming the former.  The resulting intellectual dishonesty is simply observed and not worthy of further rational discourse.

 

3)  Even if correct (i.e., 'well that was under the old covenant'), the claim demonstrates that the chosen god was a little shit, who would be prosecuted as a criminal under current human standards/laws.

 

4)  It ignores the threats of future and similar action by the same speaker Jesus, i.e., that those that do not believe will be punished.  Even if the "law" was replaced, it will be re-imposed on Judgment Day.

 

You are dealing with  a person steeped in cognitive dissonance, no doubt indoctrinated as a child with this particular mythology.  Address them accordingly.  Better yet, ignore them.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

"God is the same today, yesterday, and forevermore..."