# conservative Christians are going to Hell (with the rest of us) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 5, 2009, 11:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-christians-are-going-to-hell-with-the-rest-of-us/488375 "2009-03-05T11:05:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-christians-are-going-to-hell-with-the-rest-of-us/488375/61 "2009-03-06T17:27:28Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Well, like how I asked mswas to show me the expiration date, I’m going to have to ask you where God or Moses said that Deuteronomy 13 is only limited to false prophets _who advocate human sacrifice_. I don’t see where Zoroastrianism is put on the okay list. But maybe you do. I can certainly show that people claiming to be a false prophet were executed by the Jewish people a thousand years later, so it seems that they missed the child-sacrificers-only part as well. Can you provide a cite that demonstrates that Zoroastrians lived in close proximity to the Jews during the time in which Deuteronomy 13 was set down? ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-christians-are-going-to-hell-with-the-rest-of-us/488375/62 "2009-03-06T17:33:49Z")
> [@Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](#): > > No, what I am saying is that no matter what the context is, killing your children is wrong. You are making, as was just pointed out, an argument based on moral relativity. Killing children is immoral today, but killing children was moral in some other culture. A per **JThunder** ’s post. Would it be immoral to stone someone proselytizing worship of Molech which would lead to a common practice of child sacrifice? > [@](#): > > The problem is that it then becomes impossible to have any kind of discussion about morality at all, because you can declare anything you want “moral,” and make up a justification for it. This technique can even be used to moralize the most heinous acts imaginable, like killing your own children. As you have just shown, if you twist your mind around enough, you can come up with a reason why killing children is moral. No, it’s not impossible if you pay attention to the context and stop trying to impose your modern view on it. Your talk about killing children is a straw man anyway. They aren’t talking about little children obviously because how would a small child come into contact with a neighboring tribes religion and seek to convert their fellows? It’s not like people of the time lived in a multicultural pluralistic cosmopolus like New York City with a single tenement having a Catholic, a Jew, a Bahai and Muslim in the same building. When they talk about neighboring towns, they are still talking about Jews. > [@](#): > > So how are we ever supposed to have a conversation about morality? You are willing to declare horrible unfathomable acts “moral” to avoid the life-altering admission that your god is immoral. I am not Jewish. Why do you have to make this an ad hominem? Why do you have to assume that I am trying to justify anything? I’m just trying to get you to let go of your own opinion for a minute in order to examine the context. Do you not believe there are cases for necessary evil? Like are soldiers all murderers or is it sometimes justified for soldiers to go to war with competing nations. After all, war is about belief too. The idea that we are even separate tribes or separate states is entirely a belief. So anyone going to war is killing over belief. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-christians-are-going-to-hell-with-the-rest-of-us/488375/63 "2009-03-06T17:34:53Z")
[QUOTE=JThunder] The execution of James was ordered by the High Priest Ananus because James refused to denounce his brother Jesus as the “gate unto salvation.” [/quote] Josephus says that a James who he calls, “the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ” was executed by Ananus, but doesn’t say why. There is no Biblical account Of James’ death and no evidence, historical or Biblical, that he was killed for anything having to do with Jesus. Those traditions don’t arise until maybe the late 2nd Century. Even the authenticity of the Josephus account is somewhat questionable (not so much that Ananus executed somebody named James, but that the identification of him as the brother of someone who was called “Christ,” may have been an interpolation). ---
**Author:** ![tr0psn4j](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/958977/32.png) [@tr0psn4j](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tr0psn4j)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-christians-are-going-to-hell-with-the-rest-of-us/488375/64 "2009-03-06T17:38:22Z")
> [@MichaelJohnBertrand](#): > > I wrote this article a long time back and, well, I haven’t been part of a rip-roaring religious debate in a while, so I thought I’d post this and stir the embers a bit. > Think you’ll make it to the Pearly Gates? Better read up on the Bible, sinner. > For example : in Deuteronomy 13:6-10, it states : > \*'If your brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife tries to secretly entice you, telling you to go and worship other gods, gods of people living near you, or far from you, or anywhere on earth, do not listen to him. You must kill them. Show them no pity. And your hand must strike the first blow.Then the hands of all the people. You shall stone them to death. " \* > So unless you think the Bible is just a big load of horse-crap, you really should be stoning your family members to death if they do anything that might lead you to other gods. > But that’s just that wacky Old Testament, you say. Nobody pays any attention to that any more! > OK then, you’re off the hook for your holy reluctance to kill your horrible, unclean family members with thrown stones. But the New Testament says, in 1 Corinthians 11:4-5, > _" For any man to pray or to prophesy with his head covered shows disrespect for his head. And for a woman to pray or prophecy with her head uncovered shows disrespect for her head." \* > So men, if you’ve ever worn a hat in Church (or any other time you are praying), you’re a sinner. And ladies, if you’ve ever NOT worn a hat in Church (or any other time you are praying), you too are a sinner, even if you thought showing off your great new hairdo in Church was to the greater glory of God. > Indeed, in 1 Corinthians 11:6 it clearly says " Indeed, if a woman does go without a veil, she should have her hair cut off too.". The lineup for shaving forms on the left, you brazen hussies! > Of course, not wearing a hat in Church is not the worst thing a woman can do… not compared to the infamous and flagrant sin of talking. > For is it not written in 1 Corinthians 14:34, > "_ As in all the churches of God’s holy people, women are to remain quiet in the assemblies, since they have no permission to speak: theirs is a subordinate part. If there is anything they want to know, they should ask their husbands at home: it is shameful for a woman to speak in the assembly. During instruction, a woman should be quiet and respectful. I give no permission for a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. A woman ought to be quiet." \* > So hush up those chatterbox mouths of yours, ladies. Yours is the subordinate role, it says it right there in the Bible. And seeing as you can’t ever have authority over men, any of you who have men working for you, or God forbid, seek public office, are Jezebels of the foulest degree. > But that’s just the Epistles, right? Those aren’t the literal words of Jesus. > Right you are! So let’s see what Jesus has to say about things. > Well, for starters, there’s Matthew 5:41-42 > “\*Give to the one who asks you, and do not reject the one who wants to borrow from you. If you lend to those from whom you hope to be repaid, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners. \*” > And in Luke 6:30-31" > \*"Give to everyone who asks you. And do not ask for your possessions back from the person who takes them away.. " \* > So if you’ve ever lent something to someone with the hope of being repaid, you’re a sinner, a demon, and a wretch. I mean, Jesus must have been quite adamant about this, two Apostles say this is His opinion. So you must give to anyone who asks you and never expect repayment, or it’s Hell for you. Obviously, there are a lot of bankers and owners of finance companies who are sin-soaked horrors, worse than any homosexual, and who are going to find Hell especially toasty. > Or how about Mark 11:10, wherein it is written : \*"Whoever divorces someone and marries another commits adultery. Whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. _" > Now I seem to recall that there’s quite a number of prominent Republicans and others of the Religious Right who have been divorced and remarried at least once. How dare you Christians let yourself be lead by such obvious abominations of sin? You might as well just join Michael Moore in hating America. > And of course, for all you rich Republicans, there’s Matthew 6:19, Luke 12:15 : > “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth. A man’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.” \* > And further in Matthew 6:24, " No one can serve two masters. He will hate the one and love the other. You cannot serve both God and money.'" \* > And moreso in Mark 6:21-22,_ “Sell everything you have. And give to the poor.”. \* > Clearly, if you have many possessions and much wealth, you must sell them all and give it to the poor, lest you roast in the fires of Hell. Christ Himself, the one who is so central to your religion that you named it after Him, says to do so, and unless you think the Bible is anythign less than the literal Word of God, you have to do it. > Even if you plead ignorance of the Word of God until this moment, you have now received Testament and from this point on, you must sell all your possessions, kill those who try to entice you away from the Lord, forsake all love of money (unless you hate God), ban all forms of divorce, and follow many, many other rules, too numerous to list here. But unless you wipe your ass with the Bible and the Word of God, you have a lot of reading to do. > On the other hand, you could just admit that you pick and choose the parts of the Bible that you like, and ignore what you don’t like, and thus it is a meaningless book to reference in any argument. > But hey… you’re going to Hell anyway. I don’t know. I’m saying this as an atheist but the bible has a lot of good in it. It seems kind of lame to point out these little things. Two things: Why bother trying to have them change their religion? Why even acknowledge the bible as a non-fictional work? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-christians-are-going-to-hell-with-the-rest-of-us/488375/65 "2009-03-06T17:45:09Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Except, of course the Gospel of John, which was apparently dictated by that Apostle in his later years. The Gospel was also edited by John’s disciples. You’re citing 2nd Century tradition, not known fact, and it’s not a tradition that’s widely accepted as authentic anymore, but even so, the Gospel of John makes no claim to being a first hand account. There is an appendix in which someone claims that “we know” these were the words of an apostle, but the body of the Gospel does not make any first hand claims. It’s not implausible that some of the content of John could wend its way back to an apostolic account, but it’s not possible to prove or to discern exactly what. The same is actually true of all the other Gospels as well – especially the Q material. > [@](#): > > Mark also was a contempory of Jesus. There is some doubt whether or not Mark was the sole or even the author of the Gospel attributed to him. More tradition (and a demonstrably spurious one), but again, the author of Mark not only never claims to have witnessed anything personally, he never even claims to have met anybody who did. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-christians-are-going-to-hell-with-the-rest-of-us/488375/66 "2009-03-06T17:50:03Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Josephus says that a James who he calls, “the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ” was executed by Ananus, but doesn’t say why.There is no Biblical account Of James’ death and no evidence, historical or Biblical, that he was killed for anything having to do with Jesus. Those traditions don’t arise until maybe the late 2nd Century. > > Even the authenticity of the Josephus account is somewhat questionable (not so much that Ananus executed somebody named James, but that the identification of him as the brother of someone who was called “Christ,” may have been an interpolation). wiki: > **[Josephus on Jesus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus)** > > Flavius Josephus was a first-century Jewish historian who provided external information on some people and events found in the New Testament. Josephus was a general in Galilee, which is where Jesus ministered and people who knew him still lived; he dwelled near Jesus's hometown of Nazareth for a time, and kept contact with groups such as the Sanhedrin and Ananus II who were involved in the trials of Jesus and his brother James. His knowledge of Galilee was notable since he wrote much about The... "_But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest"_ Pretty clear here that Ananus has James stoned, and there’s a pretty strong indication of why. Nor is this passage in dispute (“_The above quotation from the Antiquities is considered authentic in its entirety by almost all scholars_”) , you are mixing it up with the other passage in Josephus, which indeed very likely has a pious insertion/edit added to whatever Josephus originally wrote. Of course, much like the Moon Landing, there are crackpots who dispute anything about Jesus. There is also other evidence that James was stoned and why: > **[James, brother of Jesus | Death](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_the_Just#Death)** > > According to a passage found in Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews (20.9.1), "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" met his death after the death of the procurator Porcius Festus but before Lucceius Albinus had assumed office – which has been dated to 62. The High Priest Hanan ben Hanan (Ananus ben Ananus) took advantage of this lack of imperial oversight to assemble a Sanhedrin (literally a synhedrion kriton in Greek, a "Sanhedrin of judges"), which condemned Jam Clem... "Eusebius, while quoting Josephus’ account, also records otherwise lost passages from Hegesippus (see links below), and Clement of Alexandria (Historia Ecclesiae, 2.23). … ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-christians-are-going-to-hell-with-the-rest-of-us/488375/67 "2009-03-06T18:04:14Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Your talk about killing children is a straw man anyway. They aren’t talking about little children obviously because how would a small child come into contact with a neighboring tribes religion and seek to convert their fellows? How about 1 Samuel 15:3? 3Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, **infant and suckling** , ox and sheep, camel and ass. No wiggle room there. God said to kill babies. Right or wrong? ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-christians-are-going-to-hell-with-the-rest-of-us/488375/68 "2009-03-06T18:15:35Z")
> [@MichaelJohnBertrand](#): > > Oh, no, that’s not the point of the article. The article is aimed squarely (if somewhat sloppily, I now see) at people who claim to live their life by the Bible, every word of it. Obviously, they do not. I bet a lot of them eat pork and wear mixed fabrics and have even been know to see their sister’s child naked too, like when you have to give them a BATH. > > Honestly, the title should be “So you think you follow the Bible, do you?”. Oh, good, now that we’ve got that cleared up, let me ask you this. When you say “people who claim to live their life by the Bible, every word of it”, who exactly are you referring to? Please note that I’m not looking for a vague, categorical answer such as “fundies” or “evangelicals”. I’m asking you to name specific people who make this claim, and to provide direct quotes proving that they make this claim. To put it directly, I think that this class of people doesn’t actually exist. (And even if they do, you probably won’t find them on the Straight Dope Message Board.) ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-christians-are-going-to-hell-with-the-rest-of-us/488375/69 "2009-03-06T18:15:39Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > wiki: > > [Josephus on Jesus - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus) > "_But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest"_ > > Pretty clear here that Ananus has James stoned, and there’s a pretty strong indication of why. I never said it didn’t say Ananus has someone named James stoned, but it gives no indicaton at all as to why, it just says he was a “breaker of the law.” It’s also questionable whether the words “who was called [or so-called] Christ” are original to Josephus, but even if they are, Josephus does not say that James was killed for anything having to do with Christianity. > [@](#): > > Nor is this passage in dispute (“_The above quotation from the Antiquities is considered authentic in its entirety by almost all scholars_”) , you are mixing it up with the other passage in Josephus, which indeed very likely has a pious insertion/edit added to whatever Josephus originally wrote. Of course, much like the Moon Landing, there are crackpots who dispute anything about Jesus. I’m not mixing up anything. I know exactly waht the passages are and what the arguments are. It’s true that most accept the James passage as wholly authentic, but not ALL of them do, and the “called Christ” part is what MAY be interpolated. > [@](#): > > There is also other evidence that James was stoned and why: > [James, brother of Jesus - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_the_Just#Death) > "Eusebius, while quoting Josephus’ account, also records otherwise lost passages from Hegesippus (see links below), and Clement of Alexandria (Historia Ecclesiae, 2.23). … This is not evidence, this is Eusebius, and this is what I was referring to when I madecreference to “late 2nd Century tradition” (and even THAT much is assuming that Eusebius wasn’t inventing his quotes from Clement and Hegissippus. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-christians-are-going-to-hell-with-the-rest-of-us/488375/70 "2009-03-06T18:17:31Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Oh, good, now that we’ve got that cleared up, let me ask you this. When you say “people who claim to live their life by the Bible, every word of it”, who exactly are you referring to? Please note that I’m not looking for a vague, categorical answer such as “fundies” or “evangelicals”. I’m asking you to name specific people who make this claim, and to provide direct quotes proving that they make this claim. > > To put it directly, I think that this class of people doesn’t actually exist. (And even if they do, you probably won’t find them on the Straight Dope Message Board.) So basically you’re saying that Christians are free to ignore the rules in the Bible. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-christians-are-going-to-hell-with-the-rest-of-us/488375/71 "2009-03-06T18:22:44Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Besides close relatives, it also mentions friends (13:6), doing diligent inquiry to track _anyone_ down (13:14), and nearby villages that have fallen prey (13:15-16). Was James a friend of Ananus? If not, then you can’t use that exception either. As for verse 14, it does NOT say that one should track down just _anyone_ who is promoting the worship of false gods. Rather, Deuteronomy 13:12-15 is specifically talking about situations wherein a neighboring town is promoting the worship of these false deities. We could argue the ethics of this command all day long, but the point remains – this was NOT the basis for the execution of James the Just, as you now claim. If it were, then his entire town would have been put to the sword. > [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Admittedly in the last case you’re supposed to use sword and fire to do the killing, but I’d generally mark that up as being just as much murdering someone as stoning them to death. With all due respec,t do you know what this tells me? It tells me that the passage does not really support your assertion – namely, that James was killed in accordance with Mosaic Law – but you’re trying to force-fit that interpretation anyway. Heck, you’ve implicitly acknowledged a key point that distinguishes his killing from the capital punishment commanded in Deuteronomy 13, yet you still insist that this is the law that was being applied. Again, that’s simply force-fitting an interpretation. In fact, Flavius Josephus – who was by no means a Christian apologist – records that the martyrdom of James was widely viewed as a political act of judicial murder, and that it offended a number of “those who were considered the most fair-minded people in the City, and strict in their observance of the Law.” (_Antiquities_, Book XX). So you have internal contextual evidence which rules out the application of Deuteronomy 13, and you have testimony from a non-Christian source which attributes his execution to political fiat. To say that James was executed in accordance with Mosaic Law is simply bizarre. But even if he were, I’d like to remind you (once again), that **Ananus was not a worshipper of Jesus**. Ergo, you cannot take his actions and conclude that Jesus did not dispense with any of the commands for capital punishment in the Old Testament. That would be like citing the posts of **Der Trihs** and saying, “See? This is how you Christians behave on the Internet!” ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-christians-are-going-to-hell-with-the-rest-of-us/488375/72 "2009-03-06T18:23:51Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Can you provide a cite that demonstrates that Zoroastrians lived in close proximity to the Jews during the time in which Deuteronomy 13 was set down? I could just as easily have said Shintoism as Zoroastrianism. Proximity wasn’t my point. We’re talking about the law **according to God**. If you want to take the atheist position that the rules are _not_ divine or even well thought out then fine, but that seems rather counterproductive if you’re defending their value as the epitome of Godliness–which seemed to be what you were trying for. As an atheist I’d fully agree that the rules were a product of their time and place, totally separate from anything like omniscient knowledge or a supreme morality. But that’s the atheist stance, not the Christian one. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-christians-are-going-to-hell-with-the-rest-of-us/488375/73 "2009-03-06T18:29:50Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > As for verse 14, it does NOT say that one should track down just _anyone_ who is promoting the worship of false gods. Rather, Deuteronomy 13:12-15 is specifically talking about situations wherein a neighboring town is promoting the worship of these false deities. Right so, you agree that: 1. Close relatives 2. Friends 3. Neighbouring towns Were on the kill list but non-friend inhabitants were not on the list? That seems like rather a blind spot. Forget that the whole point seems to be stopping the spread of the word of false prophets and that the examples given cover the full range from very emotionally-close to physically and emotionally distant peoples. None of that matters: If God didn’t specifically mention in undeniable words that you had to kill non-friend inhabitants of your town, then you don’t kill them. Ya? And where the hell did Ananus come from in this discussion? ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-christians-are-going-to-hell-with-the-rest-of-us/488375/74 "2009-03-06T18:54:54Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > I could just as easily have said Shintoism as Zoroastrianism. Proximity wasn’t my point. Well yes, Shintoism wouldn’t even be plausible. So you could have just as easily come up with an even more ridiculous comparison. > [@](#): > > We’re talking about the law **according to God**. If you want to take the atheist position that the rules are _not_ divine or even well thought out then fine, but that seems rather counterproductive if you’re defending their value as the epitome of Godliness–which seemed to be what you were trying for. We’re not talking about our personal moral codes, which are irrelevant to the discussion. > [@](#): > > As an atheist I’d fully agree that the rules were a product of their time and place, totally separate from anything like omniscient knowledge or a supreme morality. But that’s the atheist stance, not the Christian one. I don’t care what you believe as an atheist, it’s irrelevant to the topic. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-christians-are-going-to-hell-with-the-rest-of-us/488375/75 "2009-03-06T18:56:59Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > How about 1 Samuel 15:3? > > 3Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, **infant and suckling** , ox and sheep, camel and ass. > > No wiggle room there. God said to kill babies. Right or wrong? Oh yes, there are commandments for genocide in the Old Testament. That’s inarguable. But abusing the context doesn’t really help us here. We’re not trying to come to what is right, but whether or not people acted rightly according to the laws they themselves set down. I have heard the argument laid down that the Jews disobeyed the commandments and showed mercy, thus they suffered for it. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-christians-are-going-to-hell-with-the-rest-of-us/488375/76 "2009-03-06T18:58:02Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Right so, you agree that: > > 1. Close relatives > 2. Friends > 3. Neighbouring towns > > Were on the kill list but non-friend inhabitants were not on the list? That seems like rather a blind spot. Forget that the whole point seems to be stopping the spread of the word of false prophets and that the examples given cover the full range from very emotionally-close to physically and emotionally distant peoples. None of that matters: If God didn’t specifically mention in undeniable words that you had to kill non-friend inhabitants of your town, then you don’t kill them. This is a straw man. In prior times people didn’t live in the same towns as non-friend inhabitants. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-christians-are-going-to-hell-with-the-rest-of-us/488375/77 "2009-03-06T19:02:14Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > I don’t care what you believe as an atheist, it’s irrelevant to the topic. As is saying that the laws were a product of their time and place. The question was why did **God** change his mind? When did **God** say it was limited to a time and place? When did **God** say that it was limited to cases of human-sacrificers? I don’t see the parts where God gave you the choice in the question. I don’t see the part where he qualified his command. You can’t say it’s God’s law at the same time as saying that it’s not a law, just a suggestion, and one which is only applicable to a particular time and place that you are fully free to interpret the applicability of. Or at least, you can’t unless God’s law says you can. If it does say that, tell me where in the Old Testament it says that: God’s Law not applicable in… ---
**Author:** ![Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Don_t_Call_Me_Shirley)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-christians-are-going-to-hell-with-the-rest-of-us/488375/78 "2009-03-06T19:13:11Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > A per **JThunder** ’s post. Would it be immoral to stone someone proselytizing worship of Molech which would lead to a common practice of child sacrifice? Holy shit Christ YES! I am blown away that this question even needs to be asked. _Please_ tell me you don’t think the answer to this question is no. > [@](#): > > Do you not believe there are cases for necessary evil? Like are soldiers all murderers or is it sometimes justified for soldiers to go to war with competing nations. After all, war is about belief too. The idea that we are even separate tribes or separate states is entirely a belief. So anyone going to war is killing over belief. What a ridiculous smokescreen. A soldier going to war is not the same as a father stoning his son to death for being stubborn (and yes we are talking about little children here, there is no age limit given in Deuteronomy 21:18-21) ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-christians-are-going-to-hell-with-the-rest-of-us/488375/79 "2009-03-06T19:18:29Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > As is saying that the laws were a product of their time and place. The question was why did **God** change his mind? When did **God** say it was limited to a time and place? When did **God** say that it was limited to cases of human-sacrificers? I don’t see the parts where God gave you the choice in the question. I don’t see the part where he qualified his command. Well you and I are sort of at cross purposes. I talk to atheists about religion as if God doesn’t exist. There is no point in talking about it as though God exists. As I understand it Jews don’t treat the Torah as the unalterable word of God, but as a historical book of law. There are some things that they claim God set down like the Decalogue, but not the book in it’s entirety. You’re approaching it in the opposite way, trying to talk to me as though God exists. I’m not trying to be offensive, I just have seen way too many of these arguments turn into personal validation pissing contests. I by the way am not even talking about my personal beliefs. Personally I agree with Diogenes 100%, there is an absolute morality and it is knowable by everyone. What’s up for dispute here is how that morality is interacted with. > [@](#): > > You can’t say it’s God’s law at the same time as saying that it’s not a law, just a suggestion, and one which is only applicable to a particular time and place that you are fully free to interpret the applicability of. Or at least, you can’t unless God’s law says you can. If it does say that, tell me where in the Old Testament it says that: God’s Law not applicable in… I am not saying it is God’s law. In its own context, ‘Thou shalt not worship another God before me’, is God’s law. “Stone your relatives for blasphemy”, isn’t. So Blasphemy never stopped being against God’s law, but the consequences for blasphemy have changed. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-christians-are-going-to-hell-with-the-rest-of-us/488375/80 "2009-03-06T19:35:45Z")
> [@MichaelJohnBertrand](#): > > (yup… started off to try to clarify things and ended up writing a whole other article… told you I’m not good at that… 😛 ) More over, almost everything you say in your article is false. First, you claim that Paul’s letters were written 400 years after the death of Jesus. Other posters have already shown that you’re off by about 390 years, so I won’t belabor that point here. Second you equate “the Old Law” to “the entire Old Testament”, which is obviously wrong. The laws established under the original Covenant, which very clearly apply only to Jews and only before the establishment of the New Covenant, make up only a tiny portion of the Old Testament. You would know this if you had ever read the Bible. Third you say of the Bible was “it’s clearly an anthology of largely unrelated texts that some council decided was ‘the good bits’ 400 years after Christ died?” The Books of the Bible are not unrelated, but instead are related. If you had read the Bible you would know this as well. As for your claim that the books were selected for inclusion by a council 400 years after Christ died, I assume that you’re speaking about the Council of Nicaea, even though it was actually held less than 300 years after Christ died. But the Council of Nicaea did not select the books for inclusion in the New Testament (or the Old Testament), but merely confirmed what had already been a standard list for a long time. As Dr. Bruce Metzger has said, “Even as early as the first century, we see a high degree of uniformity among Christians about which books to accept.” Saying that the Council of Nicaea decided which books to include is like saying that modern editors of Shakespeare decided which plays to put in the original folio. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-christians-are-going-to-hell-with-the-rest-of-us/488375.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-christians-are-going-to-hell-with-the-rest-of-us/488375.md?page=5)