Not sure you guys are aware of this, but theologians have actually thought about how to apply- or not apply- rules from the Bible to today. A common understanding is that the Old Testament laws (ie Exodus and Leviticus) contain both "moral laws" and "ceremonial laws". The moral laws are rules that should apply to all people at all times, such as the ten commandments (though shalt not kill, steal, commit adultery and so on). The ceremonial laws (ie mixed fibes in clothes) applied specifically to the theocratic kingdom of Isreal at that time... the New Testament explicitly states that Christians are no longer obliged to follow the ceremonial laws.

Of course there's a lot of debate about which "rules" are ceremonial and which are moral, homosexuality being a key example that is much debated in the church today. And of course there is a ton of good old fashioned hypocrisy among Christians as well... just wanted to point out that there's a bit more going on than just random picking and choosing of Bible laws.

Bonne, I also don't udnerstand how so many Christians can be so selfish and hateful and greedy... it sickens me, and it worries me because I don't want to be one of them. And I'm glad you agree that the Bible does have a lot of good things to say.

If there are Agnostic/Atheist liberals out there that when in a debate with other Agnostic/Atheist liberals use the philosophy of Christ as a point for or against an action I will exempt them from my criticism. The truth is the only time that those people use the bible is when they are talking to a conservative Christian. They look at it as a catch in a argument, because they are talking to a Christian when they use the scripture it must silence any response from the Christian.

I would never attempt to say that I am not a hypocrite nor that Christians are not hypocrites. Just the opposite is most likely true. I believe that the Christian community has demonstrated both a great ability to serve their communities and also a great ability to segregate a community. We are to strive to be as Christ was but the mark is high and we do fall short. When it comes to the health care debate, I dont think that Christians dont want to help they just dont want the government controlling the helping. There is a difference.

Ugly, you need to be careful saying that "Christians" are against Obama's plan. Conservative and Christian are not the same thing.

Also, I don't quite understand your point. Why would an agnostic cite Scripture in an argument with another agnostic? That would make no sense, it would be like using the Koran to convince a Christian of something. When debating with someone who submits to the authority of the Bible, however, using it makes sense.

Originally Posted by UGLY

If there are Agnostic/Atheist liberals out there that when in a debate with other Agnostic/Atheist liberals use the philosophy of Christ as a point for or against an action I will exempt them from my criticism. The truth is the only time that those people use the bible is when they are talking to a conservative Christian. They look at it as a catch in a argument, because they are talking to a Christian when they use the scripture it must silence any response from the Christian.

...

If an agnostic/athesist is trying to make a moral argument and trying to convince a believer of the morality of their argument why can't they use scripture? The believer should see scripture as a moral authority. the non-believer can also see that their are very lessons / parables in the Bible, per Bonnie's post.

Ebert is making a moral argument and invokes some scripture. He is not saying the Bible states that Nationalized Healthcare is a good and therefore it is an absolute truth and to get to heaven you have to support it.
The problem I have with Christians invoking scripture is that they often believes it is all that is needed to end the debate. The bible says so, therefore it must be.

Originally Posted by ODH

If an agnostic/athesist is trying to make a moral argument and trying to convince a believer of the morality of their argument why can't they use scripture? The believer should see scripture as a moral authority. the non-believer can also see that their are very lessons / parables in the Bible, per Bonnie's post.

Ebert is making a moral argument and invokes some scripture. He is not saying the Bible states that Nationalized Healthcare is a good and therefore it is an absolute truth and to get to heaven you have to support it.
The problem I have with Christians invoking scripture is that they often believes it is all that is needed to end the debate. The bible says so, therefore it must be.

My problem is that the use of religion is used selectively only when it suits there agenda. When it comes to abortion it is viewed as taboo or ignorant say that abortion is wrong because of your religious belief.