Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
This was a great response :) My friend, it seems like we won't agree with each other on this, so I'll just finish by saying that as God, He can do whatever the you-know-what He wants to, and we have to accept that. Like I said earlier, I don't like Hell. But you know what I love more than I hate Hell? Jesus, who decided to save me when He didn't have to.
So you may mock God because He doesn't run the universe exactly like you would... but in the end, I'm afraid our opinions of Him change absolutely nothing about how He works. I wish I could rant against God like Job did (who suffered Hell on earth, just read his story in the Bible)... but in the end, God would respond to me like He responded to Job:
"Who are you to question me?" And I would realize, just like the main character in C.S. Lewis' "Till We Have Faces" did, that my grievances against God don't matter a single bit. He does what He does, and I won't always understand why He does certain things. Just like a pet may not always understand why he has to go the vet and undergo painful things, we won't always understand God and what He puts us through.
This is my last post on this particular rabbit-trail :) I've had a lot of fun :) You all have been great
"This was a great response :) My friend, it seems like we won't agree with each other on this, so I'll just finish by saying that as God, He can do whatever the you-know-what He wants to, and we have to accept that."
Which, if I actually believed your theology, would be a form of divine stockholm syndrome. "He beats us because he loves us, and you better accept it or he will do worse!" It is sad, ridiculous, and dumb as all hell.
"Like I said earlier, I don't like Hell. But you know what I love more than I hate Hell? Jesus, who decided to save me when He didn't have to."
The only thing you supposed Jesus saves you from, if your theology is correct, is himself.
"So you may mock God because He doesn't run the universe exactly like you would... but in the end, I'm afraid our opinions of Him change absolutely nothing about how He works."
I am not "mocking" him because "he doesn't run the universe like I would", I logically criticize his supposed actions and system as any rational and moral person would, and found the god of your particular theology to be rather malicious and vindictive. He is a divine two year-old, throwing tantrums and breaking things when you don't do what he wants, it is actually pretty pathetic.
"I wish I could rant against God like Job did (who suffered Hell on earth, just read his story in the Bible)... but in the end, God would respond to me like He responded to Job:"
What? I think you should read that story again, Job loved god and NEVER abandoned him, even though god purposely fucked up his life for a bet.
""Who are you to question me?""
The minute anyone asks this question, they have officially lost any right to consider themselves rational or honest.
"And I would realize, just like the main character in C.S. Lewis' "Till We Have Faces" did, that my grievances against God don't matter a single bit."
I would tend to agree, but for different reason. Your grievances don't matter, in my estimation, because the object of them does not exist.
"He does what He does, and I won't always understand why He does certain things. Just like a pet may not always understand why he has to go the vet and undergo painful things, we won't always understand God and what He puts us through."
A rather lame excuse, considering eternal suffering.
"This is my last post on this particular rabbit-trail :) I've had a lot of fun :) You all have been great"
Well, you have my best wishes, no matter what you decide to peruse.
:) Good response, as always :)
ilovequestions : this the weakness of your god : he is able to overcome me but not to convince me.
Are you sure you want to wait until you are dead to explore the universe? There is an awful lot of interesting stuff going on right now.
You're falsely equating atheism with nihilism. They are not necessarily concomitant.
I agree that there are Christians who embraces their religion because they believe that their god is merciful enough to forgive them in anyway. It's really sad to know that they're wasting their live believing that they'll always have a chance to fix it.
What you have described is the outward morality problem. There is also the inward problem and how they treat their brethren. As an old preacher once said, the Christian army is the only army that shots its wounded. There are ‘good’ people within the church, but I found that they tended to be more on the outside of the inner workings. They probably were not corrupted by ‘power’ of position and authority.
I could never get my head around how lying and self-centeredness was acceptable. It came down to whatever the cause, small or great, the means justified the ends. Rules could change instantly. Something acceptable one day would become unbiblical the next. A disagreement in business could cause you to be targeted for rumors. To disagree meant that you had sin in your life or demon influence – how dare you not like the carpet color or not want to spend millions on a building.
In the end it is a self-centered country club with a very mass consumer mindset.
"However, I do wonder why atheists care about preserving the earth."
Seriously? Unbelievably hypocritical.
The right question would be:
I do wonder why THEISTS care about preserving the earth.
Atheist do not believe in a heaven or in an other life beyond this one(at least not in the christian sens)
If you had just 1 life you would make the best of it, and taking care of your planet is one of the things that helps to achieve that.
A theist on the other hand has a very good reason why not to care about the planet, because they think that this life is a test of suffering before you go in the next life.
That is why you hear Christians taking about a rapture and the end of days.
Did you ever hear an atheist talking about the end of days with enjoyment like those theists?
So do me a favor and get your facts strait.
The only people which have a reason for not preserving this planet are the theists, not the atheists.
Well, God told me to take care of the earth :) So to answer your wonderings, that's why I care about preserving the earth :)
And I do agree! We only have one life on this earth. Gotta make the best of it! But I would think, for the atheist (please correct me if I'm wrong), y'all would weigh individual situations. With each environmental situation (to harm or help), you would weigh whether it was advantageous to you (easy enough, simple enough, etc.) to help, or harm. If it's better (easier, simpler, etc.) for you individually to harm the environment... why wouldn't you? There's no one there to hold you accountable. There's no one to tell you are wrong or shouldn't do that.
Why take the time to walk 500 feet away to a trash can, when you can leave that bottle or bag right wherever you are? If no one is there to nail you, you can get away with it. It's easier for you. Who cares about the next generation? You won't be alive. They'll probably make things worse anyways haha. I hope not :/
If it's easier for you individually, I don't see what is holding the atheist back from not taking care of the planet in an individual situation. For me, I know God is holding me accountable. You all don't have that... so if you are by yourself and you can get away with it, why don't you?
"Well, God told me to take care of the earth :) So to answer your wonderings, that's why I care about preserving the earth :)"
Two points to make here: 1. unless you claim to hear the audible voice of your God, it was a person who told you this; 2. is that the only reason you why you care about preserving the Earth; would you not care if not for that reason?
Hmm, by "God" I mean "the Bible". I know you don't believe it is written by God, but I do :)
And as for #2, that did give me pause. I don't know if I would. If I was an atheist, it would probably depend on the situation and whether or not I deemed taking care of the earth worth it. If I was a part of another religion... I don't know. That's a good thought.
Excellent answer, I see much integrity in you. I really don't have a problem at all with your beliefs and world view. I just think you are wrong about a personal creator-god. However, your beliefs don't seem to make you want to control everyone else's life. Thanks for that.
I think you just made a strong breakthrough into understanding something about atheists: "If I was an atheist, it would probably depend on the situation and whether or not I deemed taking care of the earth worth it." That's because we come from all walks of life, all regions of the Earth, and have as many different lenses for viewing the universe as any other non-cohesive group.
The one caveat to that is: we don't believe there is a higher power who can come and clean up all our mistakes and wipe the slate clean after we royally screw it up. Not having that safety net is a common theme among atheists and probably informs our disparate outlooks.
Thanks again for your honest and thoughtful answers.
"If it's better (easier, simpler, etc.) for you individually to harm the environment... why wouldn't you? There's no one there to hold you accountable. There's no one to tell you are wrong or shouldn't do that."
Unlike you I do not need someone to tell me what is wrong or right, I have built my own moral code that works better then you masters orders.
When you do something not for yourself, you feel better because you understand that the higher goal is more important.
If a guy has a million on the table, why you do not steal it?
Simple, I understand that if that money was mine, I wouldn't want someone to steal it from me.
I understand the morality behind it, you don't steal it because your book told you so, thus you understand nothing but obey orders.
"For me, I know God is holding me accountable. You all don't have that... so if you are by yourself and you can get away with it, why don't you?"
Not only you MUST follow orders but if you do not, you will be punished.
How are you different from a slave?
Only a slave need not understand why something is right or wrong but has to obey orders else he gets punished.
"But I would think, for the atheist (please correct me if I'm wrong), y'all would weigh individual situations."
I am correcting you.
We atheists are capable of seeing the connection between each individual needs with the global needs and learn to co-exist without being ordered to do so.
The "weigh individual situations" extends on the global situations as a community.
It is in each persons interest to help each other, you are completely missing the very simple basic of what a community is about.
"Why take the time to walk 500 feet away to a trash can, when you can leave that bottle or bag right wherever you are?"
Again, missing a very basic concept.
We agreed to live in the same community, we pay taxes, etc.., it is in our own interest that everybody follows the laws we agreed upon.
I do not like to see trash all around me and thus i give the example and walk the 500 feet to keep the street clean.
It is a matter of how good of a person you are, you are assuming that just because we are atheists we do not care about the community, which is absurd.
I am pretty sure that atheists are more concerned for the community then any theist would ever be.
We are always fighting for the freedom of speech and separation from church and state.
For standards and neutralizing any kind of bias inserted in laws for everyone.
Fighting for gay rights, etc...
As if all atheists are gays according to your very stupid and insulting claim since why would we care about others.
So get your facts strait, the only neutral position is an atheist position, which you yourself hold when it comes to other religions.
"Unlike you I do not need someone to tell me what is wrong or right, I have built my own moral code that works better then you masters orders."
Good! I'm glad you are moral :) I'm not saying you aren't. However, if that's how morality works... can you ever say anyone is wrong? Everyone just acts off their own self-built morality (whether they used a religious text or not to build it does not change the fact they voluntarily and individually adopted it), therefore no one can truly "be wrong".
Hitler just acted off his own built-in morality, right? Pol Pot, Stalin, the Crusaders, everyone else simply acted on moral codes they adopted individually. They couldn't have been wrong, right? Because if you say they are wrong, you have to appeal to a moral code that supposedly doesn't exist (to you) but nevertheless should bind you and me (not to steal, not to murder, etc) and them, too.
Now note, there is a difference between being corrected and being wrong. A community can decide a rule and punish those who don't follow it. This is correction, and I am not talking about this. I'm talking about a wrong (murder, theft, etc.), to where even those outside of the community where the wrong occurred can still look at what happened and call it "wrong". This type of wrong shouldn't exist for the atheist, and yet you all (with your self-built morality that apparently only pertains to you and/or your community) will still call Hitler and Pol Pot "wrong". How can they be wrong if they were acting off their own or their community's self-built morality?
I would've loved to respond to the rest of your well-thought out post... but I don't want my response to be even more long and boring than it is now haha. I hope what I said makes sense :/
However, if that's how morality works... can you ever say anyone is wrong?
Yes morality works by comparing things.
Minimum 2 things.
Your question actually means that I cannot say if something is morally good or bad based on my current knowledge.
The answer is simple in reality.
MORALITY IS SUBJECTIVE TO THE PARSON AND KNOWLEDGE AT THAT TIME.
Your question is assuming that something as absurd as objective morality exists, thus it is a close minded approach of only good or bad with no way in between or otherwise.
Hitler was a self proclaimed Christian and yes he built his own moral code just like we all did.(yes even you)
It is not a matter of wrong or right, it is a matter of what is compared to and on which of his actions are you talking about.
You cannot generalize like you just did. "They couldn't have been wrong, right?"
"Now note, there is a difference between being corrected and being wrong. A community can decide a rule and punish those who don't follow it. This is correction, and I am not talking about this."
If you payed attention, I was talking about you helping so the moral rules that are agreed upon are enforced from your own accord. That is related to morality, so again you missed the point entirely.
"I'm talking about a wrong (murder, theft, etc.), to where even those outside of the community where the wrong occurred can still look at what happened and call it "wrong"."
We have the talent to use our brain and compare our community with other communities and in some cases consider the entire human race as a community.
You seem to miss this obvious reasoning.
"How can they be wrong if they were acting off their own or their community's self-built morality?"
Just because someone acts on his own self built morality it does not mean that he is always right.
The god of the bible was created by humans and thus it contains morally wrong things like slavery.
I clearly said that your own morality works better then an outdated moral code written 2000 years ago.
I did not say it is always right.
+ you cannot view the morality of a single individual and generalize it for everyone's morality.
That is just stupid.
Hitler viewed killing a Jew is a good thing.
Most people today do not see it that way.
So when you generalize at least take the majority else you look dumb.
The majority might still be wrong though but it is far less likely.
When I say wrong I mean compared to something else.
Morality is the comparing of things/actions and see which is better/worse at that point in time with that available knowledge.
Any change of knowledge may change the moral outcome of the caparison.
EG
Raping people is worse then not raping people, under the current SAME available knowledge.
Thus Raping people is a WRONG thing to do as a result of this comparison.
I did a terrible job in my last response to responding to more of your previous response (if that makes any sense), so I'll try to be better here. Here are some of your quotes I want to respond to:
"MORALITY IS SUBJECTIVE TO THE PARSON AND KNOWLEDGE AT THAT TIME".
"We have the talent to use our brain and compare our community with other communities and in some cases consider the entire human race as a community."
"Just because someone acts on his own self built morality it does not mean that he is always right."
"So when you generalize at least take the majority else you look dumb."
Okay, so I'm gathering a few things from your position. You believe a person's majority is subjective to the individual, but it should be corrected by the majority, and the resulting morality, once adopted, can be used to judge the actions of people. So we are individuals that are corrected by the majority. We can say Hitler and the Crusaders are wrong because it goes against our own personal morality AND the morality of the majority.
You also said morality is dependent on the knowledge available at the time.
So let me ask you, if the majority of the community you reside in AND the knowledge available at the time come together and agree that action "X" is right, it must be right (I'm personifying knowledge, but you know what I'm saying). Action "Y" is wrong under the same situation if the majority and available knowledge disagree with it.
I'm no good with deductive logic (with all its letters haha), but couldn't this lead to problems? Insert ANY action for "X", and it becomes right and acceptable (rape, thoughtfulness, murder, love, etc). Insert ANY action for "Y", and it becomes wrong and unacceptable (rape, thoughtfulness, murder, love, etc.). I don't know about you... but I don't really like that thought.
For instance, we'll all agree that the genocide that occurred in WWII was wrong, but the majority of the German people didn't care enough to do something about it. Majority? Check.
Also, Hitler and his inner circle used the science (Darwinism) and philosophy (Nietzsche and his "Ubermensch") of the day and their community logically to conclude that the survival of the fittest and natural selection is leading to a master race... of which they were determined to be from. Knowledge? Check.
So according to your view of morality, Hitler was not wrong. The majority of Germany supported him enough to not oppose him, and the science and philosophy of his day allowed him the rationale to do what he did.
However, both you and I have something deep inside of us that just KNOWS that Hitler wasn't right to murder 6 million Jews. Our own self-built morality notwithstanding, we find that repulsive even though with his worldview he could justify it. This points to something deeper than just individual morality, but to an objective morality... *prepares for backlash for using the words "objective morality"* haha
"So let me ask you, if the majority of the community you reside in AND the knowledge available at the time come together and agree that action "X" is right, it must be right (I'm personifying knowledge, but you know what I'm saying). Action "Y" is wrong under the same situation if the majority and available knowledge disagree with it."
"I clearly said that your own morality works better then an outdated moral code written 2000 years ago.
I did not say it is always right."
No, just because the majority says something it does not mean it is right, it just means that it is more likely to be right then the minority.
Just like politics and democracy, everything which is built on the experiences and knowledge of people works in this manner.
It is not a static thing NOT OBJECTIVE but an EVER GROWING UNDERSTANDING OF REALITY.
"Insert ANY action for "X", and it becomes right and acceptable (rape, thoughtfulness, murder, love, etc)."
You are assuming that you can insert what you want, which is not the case.
You have to insert things which the majority agrees upon.
You will come to find that there are really few things the majority agree on.
"For instance, we'll all agree that the genocide that occurred in WWII was wrong, but the majority of the German people didn't care enough to do something about it. Majority? Check."
The majority are not the German people but the whole world that saw this and went to war with Germany because of it.
Stop these lies please, they just show how desperate you are to square this circle.
+ the majority can be wrong too, so clearly you understood nothing of my post when i said:
"The majority might still be wrong though but it is far less likely.
When I say wrong I mean compared to something else."
"Hitler and his inner circle used the science"
SO????
No one ever claimed that whoever has knowledge will always use it for good deeds
You are just being stupid.
"So according to your view of morality, Hitler was not wrong."
On which aspect?
Few are always wrong on everything, maybe theists. :P
This generalization fallacy that you keep going to, shows how shameful you can lower yourself to try and excuse the fact that you cannot show how there could even exist something like Objective Morality.
"However, both you and I have something deep inside of us that just KNOWS that Hitler wasn't right to murder 6 million Jews."
Finally you stop generalizing and stick to some point.
I know that he was wrong on that aspect because the majority of people do not like being killed, thus killing others for that particular reason is wrong according to the current available knowledge.
No the Germans are not the majority thus your entire argument falls apart.
Even if they were the majority, no one said that the majority is always right and you seem to be forced to go back to this assumption because you yourself know that you are wrong if you do not make this assumption.
"This points to something deeper than just individual morality, but to an objective morality"
How does that even point to objective morality?
It actually contradicts objective morality too.
Objective means that it does not change.
That means that if god says to love our enemy as yourself then we should love Hitler and forgive all his actions against the Jews.
Where the right moral thing to do is to stop Hitler, even by force if necessary because of his unjust actions.
No christian ever lets a Taliban rape his wife and lets him sleep in his house just like Jesus said.
Do not get me started on slavery too.
Your objective morality is BS and you know it.
My friend, in my last response, I was just going off the quotes you yourself made. You said (going off the quotes) that if the majority AND the knowledge available at the time are in agreement, then action "X" is moral, while action "Y" (that disagrees with action "X") is wrong.
I gave you an example (Hitler and his majority/scientifically/philosophically approved genocide). Your comeback was:
"No the Germans are not the majority thus your entire argument falls apart."
For Hitler, they were the majority. Believe me, he could've cared less if the Americans or Aborigines of the day disagreed with him. Everyone outside of Germany mattered 0. The majority of the community he lived in (he didn't live in a place where American or Chinese or whoever's opinion mattered) was okay with what he did. Combined with the knowledge of the day, under your self-built morality that relies on both majority and knowledge, Hitler was perfectly fine.
But another thing I want to mention is what you wrote at the end. I loved it:
"Objective means that it does not change.
That means that if god says to love our enemy as yourself then we should love Hitler and forgive all his actions against the Jews.
Where the right moral thing to do is to stop Hitler, even by force if necessary because of his unjust actions."
Yes, you are correct. That is exactly what love means (read the book "I love Idi Amin" to understand better what Christian love is). The fact that Jesus could stand after being tortured and then put on a cross and ask His Father to FORGIVE those who were killing Him... that is a love that true (not nominal) Christians are trying to show the world. Hitler HATED Christianity* because he viewed Christian virtues such as pity and compassion and forgiveness as disgusting in light of Darwinism (survival of the fittest).
Stopping Hitler while still loving him was very compatible.
*Hitler, just like modern presidential candidates, realized how powerful the influence of Christianity was and is. He claimed to be a Christian (just like many modern presidential candidates have) for the vote and popularity. Read what he said about Christianity behind closed doors. The people who actually believe Hitler was a Christian... they didn't really do their research.
"majority AND the knowledge available at the time are in agreement"
majority = everybody
You chose to cut a small part of the majority you call Germany and called it the majority when I clearly was refering to morality in general.
I could care less if it was the majiority for hitler, my argument was the majiority from everybody.
I do not deny that there are different cultures but when you discuss morality you get a better moral result when you take the Majority of all the people.
ALSO You completely ignored the fact that even the majority can be wrong since it completely demolished your argument.
"Stopping Hitler while still loving him was very compatible."
OMG
Jesus does not say stop him, but love him as yourself and make him a member of your household.
He also says forgive every time.
Can you honestly imagine how is it even possible to fight and kill so many Germans and then when you finally get to the guy that killed so many people, you go up to him and kiss him and let him fuck your wife and live with you.
That is what it means to love someone as yourself just so you know. Share everything; food, experiences, woman etc...
Yes, Jesus is asking the impossible because he is immoral and has an agenda.
He created you sick and then demands you to be well.
"Hitler, just like modern presidential candidates, realized how powerful the influence of Christianity was and is. He claimed to be a Christian (just like many modern presidential candidates have) for the vote and popularity. Read what he said about Christianity behind closed doors. The people who actually believe Hitler was a Christian... they didn't really do their research."
The only thing we agree about is that he used Christianity as a tool and did not really believe in it.
Yea he was not a true believer in Christianity but he was a christian anyway,
JUST LIKE HITLER, ALL CHRISTIANS ARE FALSE CHRISTIANS.
I have seen no Christians that act like Christians ever.
-No Christians kill their neighbors for working on Sunday just like the OBJECTIVE god commanded.
-No Christian ever wishes to meet god sooner rather then later else they would celebrate when people die and try to find ways to die sooner.
-No Christian loves his enemies like himself, they are all hypocrites, the ones who claim that they do.
-No christian alive could give everything to the poor and not die of hunger.
-No christian ever loves everybody and hates everybody and even himself at the same time since Jesus asks both in the bible.
The only difference is that Hitler uses Christianity(tool) and most Christians are used by it.
The pope uses Christianity too and sided with Hitler in WW2 out of fear and money.
Loves is earned not demanded.
Anybody who demands that you love people is a tyrant and your god fits well under that category.
"Jesus does not say stop him, but love him as yourself and make him a member of your household.
He also says forgive every time."
My friend, there is a difference between government and individuals. Individually, I'll love Hitler. I'd give him a meal and clothe him and share the Gospel with him. As a government that has to rule a nation, I'm (the government, that is) not beholden to the responsibilities of the individual Christian. Most of what Jesus said had to pertain to individuals.
Haha, and no, I would not let him %*&$ my wife. That would be adultery :) I'd let him *&%$# his own wife (I don't think he had one... but I digress). However, I agree with the other things.
And I actually do agree with you in the following statement:
"JUST LIKE HITLER, ALL CHRISTIANS ARE FALSE CHRISTIANS."
The last verse of Matthew chapter 5 calls Christians to be perfect, just as God is perfect. Has any Christian been able to do this? Obviously, no. So in that way all Christians are false. I'm with you here.
But God knows this, so He allows us to take on (to adopt, to accept) the perfection of Jesus. When God sees us, He sees His perfect Son. No longer are we rebels, but when we take on His righteousness, we become perfect, just as God is perfect. We still do wrong, but we are forgiven. The slate has been wiped clean.
I'll quickly run through your list of stuff that Christians don't do:
1. We don't kill sabbath breakers because that only pertained to the ancient nation of Israel. Those were meant for Israel.
2. Some Christians do want to meet God sooner rather than later. Paul, in fact, said he wanted to die... but that there was too many people on earth that needed him. Also, I would love to meet God :) God has a life planned for me, though haha
3. That's not entirely true, though it is mostly. Again, no Christian is perfect. But there have been so many examples of Christians hiding German soldiers after WWII and jailed Christians protecting prison guards who had been arrested and so on and so forth.
4/5. The one thing many don't understand is that Jesus, as any good speaker does, used hyperboles and poetical language to get a point across. When Jesus says, "give everything away", if He meant it in a literal sense, we would have to give away our clothes we are wearing at the moment. But God wants us to cover ourselves (Genesis). OBVIOUSLY Jesus wasn't being literal here.
Jesus called Himself a door/gate. Does that mean He is a literal door or gate? NO! It's figurative. Speakers can use poetry to make a point. Non-Christians want Him to speak as if he was reading a phonebook.
Ilovequestions - "When Jesus says, "give everything away", if He meant it in a literal sense"
So when the word of god tells me to do x---and I want to do x---I'll take it as literal. When it tells me to do y---and I don't want to do y---I'll take it a figurative. Got it!
Well, in this case Jesus would be a liar if He meant what he said literally. He was wearing clothes that apparently he shouldn't have had. Jesus must've been quite the idiot... unless He was speaking figuratively (which is perfectly acceptable). Which one makes more sense?
Ilovequestions - "We don't kill sabbath breakers because that only pertained to the ancient nation of Israel."
Ilovequestions - "But God wants us to cover ourselves (Genesis)"
How is this not picking and choosing?
The nation of Israel did not exist in the Garden of Eden (Genesis), but it did exist when the Sabbath law was made :)
If you are going to tell us the rules of the old testament don't apply to us, you probably shouldn't cite them for your arguments...
Forgive me, but I don't think I ever said "the rules of the Old Testament don't apply to us". Correct me if I'm wrong :) The specific laws that were designed for the ancient Israeli government (and ONLY the ancient Israeli government) don't apply to us. You'll find tons of those types of laws in the book of Leviticus. The general laws meant for all of mankind do apply to us. I wouldn't want Christians to go around murdering people and claiming they can do it because they don't have to follow the laws of the Old Testament (thou shalt not murder).
You just told us you don't have to follow the laws given to the Israel, then you cite the 10 commandments as applicable today!
And if you don't believe the 10 commandments are for Israel, consider what the bible says god said to Moses before giving him the 10 commandments:
"Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all n̲a̲t̲i̲o̲n̲s̲ you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a h̲o̲l̲y̲ ̲n̲a̲t̲i̲o̲n̲.’ These are the words you are to speak to the I̲s̲r̲a̲e̲l̲i̲t̲e̲s̲." (Exodus 19:5-6)
The picking and choosing continues unabated...
Okay, let me give you an example that hopefully clears your confusion. In Leviticus 23:4-8, Moses writes, "These are the feasts of the Lord, even holy convocations, which you shall proclaim in their seasons."
"In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the LORD's passover."
"And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the LORD: seven days you must eat unleavened bread."...
There were different feasts/holidays the nation of Israel had to observe. Now note, this ONLY pertained to ISRAEL. NO ONE ELSE had to obey these laws.
Christians these days don't have to listen to those types of laws.
However, on the OTHER side of things are laws that EVERY NATION should obey, and not just Israel. The Ten Commandments were given TO Israel (as you noted in your verse you quoted), but every nation wasn't supposed to murder or steal or covet or commit adultery. Israel and everyone else was supposed to listen to those laws.
Does this clear things up? I'm trying to say the same thing in several different ways. There were laws that were just meant for Israel, and then there were laws that everyone were supposed to follow. The laws meant for everyone is what Christians today are still supposed to obey.
ilovequestion: "There were laws that were just meant for Israel, and then there were laws that everyone were supposed to follow."
Right and you've clearly shown that when you encounter a rule in the bible, you sort it into one of those two categories, depending if you like it or not. It is like Pick-a-part religion.
Pages