₦airaland Forum

About 6 months ago, I started a quest to read the entire bible. I just could not accept the barbarism in the book. I feel like I have to do mental gymnastics in order to be a Christian. Instead of giving you every single quote, I am going to give you a few.

1. God forces rape victims to marry the rapist.
(Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

2. Jeptha sacrificed his child because he made a promise to the LORD.
(Judges 11:29-39)

3. God killed a guy for NOT striking a prophet.
(1 Kings 20:35-36)

4. God stoned a guy for picking up sticks on a Sunday.
(Numbers 15:32-36)

5. God says we are blessed by smashing babies against the rocks.
(Psalms 137:9)

6. Jesus says we have to hate family members in order to be a Christian.
(Luke 14:26)

7. Jesus sends demons into pigs and drowns them.
(Matthew 8:31-34)

How do you justify this list. I got dozens more.

Takes front bench. Walahi talahi this thread go sweet die.

Their Pastors are Still washing their brains for them. They'll soon storm here.....

how would you the OP justify those quoted Bible verses after all you read them all ??I sense you just have myopic mind reading the Bible. you don't actually read to add to your spiritual growth but rather to counter and by this act you will be stroke hardly because you want to tempt God.

[color=Blue]An interesting thread indeed, I'm looking forward to reading more responses.[/color]

2kaybiel:
how would you the OP justify those quoted Bible verses after all you read them all ??I sense you just have myopic mind reading the Bible. you don't actually read to add to your spiritual growth but rather to counter and by this act you will be stroke hardly because you want to tempt God.

[color=Blue]Rather than simply making an assumption, why not put the thread starter right? Unless of course, you don't have the answers?[/color]

Siena:
[color=Blue]Rather than simply making an assumption, why not put the thread starter right? Unless of course, you don't have the answers?[/color]

have you have gone through those verses he quoted?? tell me what event were before those verses.

2kaybiel:
how would you the OP justify those quoted Bible verses after all you read them all ??I sense you just have myopic mind reading the Bible. you don't actually read to add to your spiritual growth but rather to counter and by this act you will be stroke hardly because you want to tempt God.

Typical religious wingnut conforming to type. Once you question the inconsistency, hate and cruelty propagated by God and his teachings they resort to threats and blackmail.

The OP raised interesting scriptural passages which needs critical debate and clarification (if any) but rather than brainstorm on the topical points raised you resort to pettiness and vague threats. What a dunce you are.

ronald4lif:
Typical religious wingnut conforming to type. Once you question the inconsistency, hate and cruelty propagated by God and his teachings they resort to threats and blackmail.

The OP raised interesting scriptural passages which needs critical debate and clarification (if any) but rather than brainstorm on the topical points raised you resort to pettiness and vague threats. What a dunce you are.

I can see you have a deranged mind. kindly go over those verses. there are events that were happening before the exact verses quoted. if any sane man should go over them will not have to waste his time on this trash thread.

2kaybiel:
have you have gone through those verses he quoted?? tell me what event were before those verses.

[color=Blue]Why would you respond to a question with yet another query?

In answer to your question, no, I have not gone through the verses the thread starter quoted, I don't have the answers.

Some people can read between the lines, and give a none-literal interpretation of quotations from the Bible. If you're one of such individuals, then by all means educate others who may be struggling to comprehend. Is that so difficult?[/color]

Siena:
[color=Blue]Why would you respond to a question with yet another query?

In answer to your question, no, I have not gone through the verses the thread starter quoted, I don't have the answers.

Some people can read between the lines, and give a none-literal interpretation of quotations from the Bible. If you're one of such individuals, then by all means educate others who may be struggling to comprehend. Is that so difficult?[/color]

if someone ask you questions that are out of context won't you query the questioner?? that is why I asked you to go over those verses read it and come later for a thorough debate. thank you. stay bless

2kaybiel:
I can see you have a deranged mind. kindly go over those verses. there are events that were happening before the exact verses quoted. if any sane man should go over them will not have to waste his time on this trash thread.

Your antithesis is flawed and groundless. These verses are in your holy book and the book is the bond and convenant that serves as a guideline to your faith, thus every word contain therein is solemnised. The time of occurrence is negligible.

zx870838557:
About 6 months ago, I started a quest to read the entire bible. I just could not accept the barbarism in the book. I feel like I have to do mental gymnastics in order to be a Christian.

This part really says a lot about you, and none of it is good..at all.

If after 6 months of reading this, and you still didn't understand the story and context behind those verses, that does not portray an intelligent person at all. It would actually be better if you haven't yet read through them in detail and you're just an atheist who ran across those verses and decided to point out what's wrong in them.

zx870838557:
1. God forces rape victims to marry the rapist.
(Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

The forceful marriage is in order to punish the rapist; if you rape someone, you must marry her. You also left out the part where the rapist has to pay 50 shekels of silver to the girl's father as compensation. Well I won't blame you cos I know your aim was just to prove the Bible wrong. Exodus 22:16-17 further states that the father of the girl can refuse but the rapist would still pay the sum of money + bride price.

zx870838557:
2. Jeptha sacrificed his child because he made a promise to the LORD.
(Judges 11:29-39)

You seemed to have left out the part where Jeptha wept wept and contemplated, but his daughter honoured his promise to God and she's the one who exhorted him to go on with it. The Bible also possibly conveyes that she wasn't even killed, the sacrifice was to bewail her virginity - Judges 11:39

zx870838557:
3. God killed a guy for NOT striking a prophet.
(1 Kings 20:35-36)

The prophet (directed) someone to smite him so he can use the injury as symbolism for God's message to King Ahab. The person refused for that reason (I.e. to prevent the message from going across). In other words, trying to stop God's message by disobeying Him...he was killed. I'm telling you all this cos I know you didn't read those parts, you just read the particular verses you posted and rushed to NL to report inconsistencies.

zx870838557:
4. God stoned a guy for picking up sticks on a Sunday.
(Numbers 15:32-36)

God carried a stone and threw at a guy...mehn, what Bible were you reading??

Again, you ignored the context and decided to pick out only one part you could make a case out of.

If you just read that part (like you did), at first glance, it looks like he was punished for just picking up sticks. However, if you read the context behind that, you'd find out that the violator's original aim for doing that was to violate the law and rub it in God's face.

God had already shown mercy many times about this issue (working on the Sabbath), at the very beginning of that period-- before this stick-gathering event happened . Some Israelites (probably very many--as implied by Ezekiel 20) violated the ban but God spared their lives, and repeated His warning. All Israel knew that subsequent infractions would be judged according to God's repeated instructions.

zx870838557:
5. God says we are blessed by smashing babies against the rocks.
(Psalms 137:9)

That phrase was mere gloating from the author of Psalm 137 (God did not write Psalms..WTF )

God is not telling Israel to smash the heads of their infants against rocks. Israel was taken captive with their children by the Babylonians in several different invasions.
God is pronouncing judgement upon Babylon for its great sin in showing no mercy when it destroyed Jerusalem and led the Jews captive. God is stating that Babylon will be dealt in the same manner that she treated Israel (according to prophecy). The day is coming when an enemy (will rejoice in its triumph over Babylon, and will be happy in the Slaughter). It was the Medes and Persians that conquered Babylon. She was completely overtaken and ruined by these empires. And just as she rejoiced in destroying Jerusalem and Israel, God says her conquerors will rejoice in destroying her, including her innocent infants.

God is not commanding such barbaric behavior but stating what the future will be for Babylon..

zx870838557:
6. Jesus says we have to hate family members in order to be a Christian.
(Luke 14:26)

In all honesty, I'd see you as an unintelligent person if you can't comprehend this. "Hate" wasn't used in the literal sense, but in the figurative. In the ancient Hebrew language, there wasn't any exact comparative/superlative words for "like", so " hate" was also used to imply "to like less than another". Bottom line: people should love family members less than they love God when necessary.

zx870838557:
7. Jesus sends demons into pigs and drowns them.
(Matthew 8:31-34)

It would have been better to leave the demons in the body of the man they possessed and tortured for 3+ years, right? And spare the pigs who were probably going to be slaughtered soon anyway..right?? Oh, and it's not wrong when humans kill pigs, goats and cows, but it's wrong now because it's Jesus who did it...haha...WOW

Anywaaaaaaaay.... there's still the New Testament, where it was clearly stated that Jesus came to correct the harshness of whatever "barbaric" laws were in the OT, so this just eliminates how many of those shitty attempts you've made in pointing out inconsistencies. Wailing over something that was put in the Bible for historical purposes is just trying too hard...please just stop

zx870838557:
How do you justify this list. I got dozens more.

Dozen more myopic points? Nigga puuuhlease

Strawman:
This part really says a lot about you, and none of it is good..at all.

If after 6 months of reading this, and you still didn't understand the story and context behind those verses, that does not portray an intelligent person at all. It would actually be better if you haven't yet read through them in detail and you're just an atheist whobran across those verses and decided to point out what's wrong in them.




The forceful marriage is in order to punish the rapist; if you rape someone, you must marry her. You also left out the part where the rapist has to pay 50 shekels of silver to the girl's father as compensation. Well I won't blame you cos I know your aim was just to prove the Bible wrong. Exodus 22:16-17 further states that [b]the father of the girl can refuse but the rapist would still pay the sum of money + bride price.[/b]




You seemed to have left out the part where Jeptha wept wept and contemplated, but his daughter honoured his promise to God and she's the one who exhorted him to go on with it. The Bible also possibly conveyes that she wasn't even killed, the sacrifice was to bewail her virginity - Judges 11:39




The prophet (directed) someone to smite him so he can use the injury as symbolism for God's message to King Ahab. The person refused for that reason (I.e. to prevent the message from going across). In other words, trying to stop God's message by disobeying Him...he was killed. I'm telling you all this cos I know you didn't read those parts, you just read the particular verses you posted and rushed to NL to report inconsiderate.



God carried a stone and threw at a guy...mehn, what Bible were you reading??

Again, you ignored the context and decided to pick out only one part you could make a case out of.

If you just read that part (like you did), at first glance, it looks like he was punished for just picking up sticks. However, if you read the context behind that, you'd find out that the violator's original aim for doing that was to violate the law and rub it in God's face.

God had already shown mercy many times about this issue (working on the Sabbath), at the very beginning of that period-- before this stick-gathering event happened . Some Israelites (probably very many--as implied by Ezekiel 20) violated the ban but God spared their lives, and repeated His warning. All Israel knew that subsequent infractions would be judged according to God's repeated instructions.



That phrase was mere gloating from the author of Psalm 137 (God did not write Psalms..WTF )

God is not telling Israel to smash the heads of their infants against rocks. Israel was taken captive with their children by the Babylonians in several different invasions.
God is pronouncing judgement upon Babylon for its great sin in showing no mercy when it destroyed Jerusalem and led the Jews captive. God is stating that Babylon will be dealt in the same manner that she treated Israel (according to prophecy). The day is coming when an enemy (will rejoice in its triumph over Babylon, and will be happy in the Slaughter). It was the Medes and Persians that conquered Babylon. She was completely overtaken and ruined by these empires. And just as she rejoiced in destroying Jerusalem and Israel, God says her conquerors will rejoice in destroying her, including her innocent infants.

God is not commanding such barbaric behavior but stating what the future will be for Babylon..


In all honesty, I'd see you as an unintelligent person if you can't comprehend this. "Hate" wasn't used in the literal sense, but in the figurative. In the ancient Hebrew language, there wasn't any exact comparative/superlative words for "like", so " hate" was also used to imply "to like less than another". Bottom line: people should love family members less than they love God when necessary.


It would have been better to leave the demons in the body of the man they possessed and tortured for 3+ years, right? And spare the pigs who were probably going to be slaughtered soon anyway..right?? Oh, and it's not wrong when humans kill pigs, goats and cows, but it's wrong now because it's Jesus who did it...haha...WOW

Anywaaaaaaaay.... there's still the New Testament, where it was clearly stated that Jesus came to correct the harshness of whatever "barbaric" laws where in the OT, so this just eliminates how many of those shitty attempts you've made in pointing out inconsistencies. Wailing over something that was put in the Bible for historical purposes is just trying too hard...please just stop



Dozen more myopic points? Nigga puuuhlease

You have just convinced me that the God Christians believe in is not the God I believe in. The Christian God is a sadistic being who created flawed beings he needs to punish by shedding blood and punishing them in the most barbaric way. The Bible is a collection of extremely disgusting stories.

@red

This is the most idiotic justification I have heard in a long time. So a woman was penetrated forcefully and God knows no better than get her to marry her rapist? I am sure it will heal her trauma.

Read only the first part of this picture and see if you'd understand what that innocent guy is trying to say...

That's what you myopic aethists do when reading the Bible.

Mindfulness:
You have just convinced me that the God Christians believe in is not the God I believe in. The Christian God is a sadistic being who created flawed beings he needs to punish by shedding blood and punishing them in the most barbaric way. The Bible is a collection of extremely disgusting stories.

@red

This is the most idiotic justification I have heard in a long time. So a woman was penetrated forcefully and God knows no better than get her to marry her rapist? I am sure it will heal her trauma.

Another soul who has been deceived by the myopic post of the guy I was responding to.

That verse wasn't specific to rape. The point was that if you have sex with a girl (rape or no rape), you must marry the girl. There are some rapists who would desist from that once they realise that they'd be forced to marry her + pay compensation. And for God's sake, stop saying "get the girl to marry her rapist", the other verse I made reference to gives the choice to the girl's family; it's the rapist who doesn't have a say in this. She can refuse joor...stop being myopic and be wise

Strawman:
Another soul who has been deceived by the myopic post of the guy I was responding to.

That verse wasn't specific to rape. The point was that if you have sex with a girl (rape or no rape), you must marry the girl. There are some rapists who would desist from that once they realise that they'd be forced to marry her + pay compensation. And for God's sake, stop saying "get the girl to marry her rapist", the other verse I made reference to gives the choice to the girl's family; it's the rapist who doesn't have a say in this. She can refuse joor...stop being myopic and be wise

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Where in this verse, the one before or the one after do you find any sentence saying that the virgin has a choice in all of this?

Mindfulness:
28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
Where in this verse, the one before or the one after do you find any sentence saying that the virgin has a choice in all of this?

Guy...learn to read. It's not in the same verse, but it's pertaining to the same law. And I clearly posted the reference in my first post.

Exodus 22:16-17 New International Version (NIV)

“16. If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. 17. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins.

Punishment for the rapist bruh....!

Strawman:
Read only the first part of this picture and see if you'd understand what that innocent guy is trying to say...

That's what you myopic aethists do when reading the Bible.

Lol EXACTLY. That guy in the picture, aethists go report am to police say him wn beat them

Strawman:
Guy...learn to read. It's not in the same verse, but it's pertaining to the same law. And I clearly posted the reference in my first post.

Exodus 22:16-17 New International Version (NIV)

“16. If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. 17. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins.

Punishment for the rapist bruh....!

So seducing a virigin and rap.ing her are the same in your understanding?

And still, where is the virgin's say in this or the other verse?

Czar01:
Lol EXACTLY. That guy in the picture, aethists go report am to police say him wn beat them

Hehe.. they want to argue with scriptures that they don't even understand

Mindfulness:
So seducing a virigin and rap.ing her are the same in your understanding?

And still, where is the virgin's say in this or the other verse?

Back then, girls who lost their virginity would have been deemed undesirable for marriage—and in their culture, a woman without a father or husband to provide for her would easily be subject to a life of abject poverty, destitution, and social ostracism. That law was to protect the girl's future, her child and for the rapist/seducer (whichever) to take social responsibility. The point was that if a man has sex with someone, he's responsible for the girl. Some translations of the first verse does not only cover rape (look at the KJV) - it's sex in general. Cos even if it's consensual, the man has left the girl prone to those problems I stated.

In the case of rape, if the girl would refuse, is it now her father that'd agree?? It's believed that they'd unanimously decide.

BTW, what's the point of whining over a law that it was stated Jesus came in the New Testament to correct if there was any harshness or barbarity involved? Did you see them enforcing that in the NT? At best, these OT laws serve historical purposes; God is not telling anybody to follow those particular laws now. Even back when they were enforced, there were cases where those laws were violated and God had mercy on them due to the context of what really happened...So what is your point??

Stop disturbing us with things that don't even matter joor

Nobody ever wins these kinds of debates.
Make una die the matter.

Strawman:
Back then, girls who lost their virginity would have been deemed undesirable for marriage—and in their culture, a woman without a father or husband to provide for her would easily be subject to a life of abject poverty, destitution, and social ostracism. That law was to protect the girl's future, her child and for the rapist/seducer (whichever) to take social responsibility. The point was that if a man has sex with someone, he's responsible for the girl. Some translations of the first verse does not only cover rape (look at the KJV) - it's sex in general. Cos even if it's consensual, the man has left the girl prone to those problems I stated.

In the case of rape, if the girl would refuse, is it now her father that'd agree?? It's believed that they'd unanimously decide.

I am glad we have found some common ground and both agree that these laws were made in a totally different historical context.

BTW, what's the point of whining over a law that it was stated Jesus came in the New Testament to correct if there was any harshness or barbarity involved? Did you see them enforcing that in the NT? At best, these OT laws serve historical purposes; God is not telling anybody to follow those particular laws now. Even back when they were enforced, there were cases where those laws were violated and God had mercy on them due to the context of what really happened...So what is your point??

Matthew 5:17
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

What now?

Stop disturbing us with things that don't even matter joor

This is a public forum. I can post whatever I like.

cococandy:
Nobody ever wins these kinds of debates.
Make una die the matter.

It isn't always about winning.

Mindfulness:
It isn't always about winning.

Okay so what is it about?

By winning though I mean the ability of the proponents of one side to convince the other to see reason with them.

I've seen this a hundred times over. It just never happens.

cococandy:
Okay so what is it about?

What is NL about? It is about cyber interaction and the fun of it. And truth be told, without opposing views, there would be much less fun, don't you agree? It would be a bit dull.

You seem to be enjoying debates too, you just end them quicker. You love harmony, don't ya?

By winning though I mean the ability of the proponents of one side to convince the other to see reason with them.

I see a lot of reason in what Strawman is saying. If I didn't, I wouldn't proceed with the discussion.

I've seen this a hundred times over. It just never happens.

It has just happened and I have seen it happen before too.

Yes I do love debates. And opposing opinions.
You're right it's the fun in all of it.

Just that those on NL tend to turn sour real quick when one party doesn't have anything tangible to offer so they turn to insults.
Kinda made me develop the habit of ending them real quick once I've said my piece so as not to give room for that.

Viva to harmony eh .

Mindfulness:
What is NL about? It is about cyber interaction and the fun of it. And truth be told, without opposing views, there would be much less fun, don't you agree? It would be a bit dull.

You seem to be enjoying debates too, you just end them quicker. You love harmony, don't ya?



I see a lot of reason in what Strawman is saying. If I didn't, I wouldn't proceed with the discussion.



It has just happened and I have seen it happen before too.

Ah, Mindfulness, always playing the hypocrite - when you have actually described yourself as a Christian of sorts on the past .

As for the scripture in question, the correct interpretation is too have an unsanctioned relationship - extra-marital affair. In essence, the guy could not just take the womans maidenhead and move on. It was too protect women - who would likely go unmarried if found not to be a virgin. It was never about forcible rape.

As for your usual blasphemies, those of us that know you appreciate it's just your conscience trying to judge God, so as to not have to judge yourself for your wicked ways. It won't ever work mind


TV

Mindfulness:
You have just convinced me that the God Christians believe in is not the God I believe in. The Christian God is a sadistic being who created flawed beings he needs to punish by shedding blood and punishing them in the most barbaric way. The Bible is a collection of extremely disgusting stories.

@red

This is the most idiotic justification I have heard in a long time. So a woman was penetrated forcefully and God knows no better than get her to marry her rapist? I am sure it will heal her trauma.

As usual you have the correct interpretation.

TV01:
[s]Ah, Mindfulness, always playing the hypocrite - when you have actually described yourself as a Christian of sorts on the past .[/s]

As for the scripture in question, the correct interpretation is too have an unsanctioned relationship - extra-marital affair. In essence, the guy could not just take the womans maidenhead and move on. It was too protect women - who would likely go unmarried if found not to be a virgin. [size=18pt]It was never about forcible rape.[/size]

As for your usual blasphemies, those of us that know you appreciate it's just your conscience trying to judge God, so as to not have to judge yourself for your wicked ways. It won't ever work mind


TV

Deuteronomy 22:28-29
28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and [size=18pt]rapes her [/size] and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Mindfulness:
I am glad we have found some common ground and both agree that these laws were made in a totally different historical context.

Whether they are in different historical context or not wasn't our argument bro (even our modern judicial precedents used in courts were made in totally different historical contexts, but wherever they're related, they coexist)...the issue is whether it is forcing a girl to marry her rapist, and my point is that it is not - fortunately, the girl has a way out. It is the rapist who's being forced and doesn't have a say in the matter. My point.

Mindfulness:
Matthew 5:17
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

What now?

lol I never said he came to abolish the law. To "fulfil a law" is to carry out that law as it is intended/expected.

Jesus did not abolish the moral and ethical laws that had been in effect from the time of Moses. He affirmed and expanded upon those principles, but He said obedience must be from the heart (Matthew 5:21-22, 27-28, 31-32, 33-34, 38-42,
43-44, etc.).

Jesus came to make sure that people obey God's laws so as to follow the intentions that those laws were made in the first place, and not just technical observance. I.e. for instance so that people would stop raping for the main reason that it is bad, and not just for the reason that if they do it, they'd have to pay 50 shekels of silver and claim responsibility for their actions.

Jesus and His disciples did not observe the strict and harsh scribal rules against doing any work on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:1-14 etc.), just as one of those verses punished someone for doing (if you look at the case earlier mentioned, the violator's intention was different from that of Jesus and the disciples who were healing people on the Sabbath). Heck, Jesus even criticised many of those laws (such as when people wanted to stone an adulterer to death).

It was also pointed out many times that Jesus himself is the fulfillment of those laws. (Matthew 26:28 ,
Mark 10:45 , Luke 16:16 , John 1:16 , Acts 10:28 ,
13:39 , Romans 10:4). Thus, the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross ended forever the need for all those barbaric aspects of the OT's ceremonial law. That's what he meant by he came to fulfill them; by sacrificing himself, he has fulfilled the purpose of those laws and there's no need to follow "an eye for an eye" etc. and all those OT laws.

Mindfulness:
This is a public forum. I can post whatever I like.

Aye, you can indeed

But the thing is you have a 1/1000000000000000 chance of getting anything out of this. Your opinion is only open to..well..me..and the few others who opened this thread (and the fewer who read all our posts..and the fewer who read your post and agree with you). My suggestion was merely a cordial advice to stop wasting your time

Strawman:
Whether they are in different historical context or not wasn't our argument bro (even our modern judicial precedents used in courts were made in totally different historical contexts, but wherever they're related, they coexist)...the issue is whether it is forcing a girl to marry her rapist, and my point is that it is not - fortunately, the girl has a way out. It is the rapist who's being forced and doesn't have a say in the matter. My point.

The laws were made because the same set of people who made these laws considered non-virgins not worth of marrying even when they lost their virginity by force. Whether the girl had a say in all of this or not is highly unlikely as it is her father who decided about her fate.

lol I never said he came to abolish the law. To "fulfil a law" is to carry out that law as it is intended/expected.

Jesus did not abolish the moral and ethical laws that had been in effect from the time of Moses. He affirmed and expanded upon those principles, but He said obedience must be from the heart (Matthew 5:21-22, 27-28, 31-32, 33-34, 38-42,
43-44, etc.).

Jesus came to make sure that people obey God's laws so as to follow the intentions that those laws were made in the first place, and not just technical observance. I.e. for instance so that people would stop raping for the main reason that it is bad, and not just for the reason that if they do it, they'd have to pay 50 shekels of silver and claim responsibility for their actions.

Jesus and His disciples did not observe the strict and harsh scribal rules against doing any work on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:1-14 etc.), just as one of those verses punished someone for doing (if you look at the case earlier mentioned, the violator's intention was different from that of Jesus and the disciples who were healing people on the Sabbath). Heck, Jesus even criticised many of those laws (such as when people wanted to stone an adulterer to death).

It was also pointed out many times that Jesus himself is the fulfillment of those laws. (Matthew 26:28 ,
Mark 10:45 , Luke 16:16 , John 1:16 , Acts 10:28 ,
13:39 , Romans 10:4). Thus, the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross ended forever the need for all those barbaric aspects of the OT's ceremonial law. That's what he meant by he came to fulfill them; by sacrificing himself, he has fulfilled the purpose of those laws and there's no need to follow "an eye for an eye" etc. and all those OT laws.

Anyway.

Aye, you can indeed

But the thing is you have a 1/1000000000000000 chance of getting anything out of this. Your opinion is only open to..well..me..and the few others who opened this thread (and the fewer who read all our posts..and the fewer who read your post and agree with you). My suggestion was merely a cordial advice to stop wasting your time

Don't worry about me. I am fine.