In the old testament if you weren't a Jew you couldn't get into heaven AT ALL. Regardless of how you lived. After Christ all people were welcome.
The argument here is that God supposedly does not change. I actually did point out that getting into heaven changed after the crucifixion, so I don't know why you're yelling about this as though it proves me wrong somehow. My point is still perfectly valid and backed up by scripture: God never changes. Do you want me to list all the Bible verses that repeat that?
Please pretend you've picked up a bible if you're gonna call yourself a "former christian"...starting to doubt that honestly.
Personal attacks? IDGAF. Not rising to the bait here. Go ahead and doubt whatever you want, because my knowledge of the Bible (or lack thereof) doesn't make you any less ignorant. And besides, you claim you're not religious, so why do you care whether I really was a Christian or not?
The rest of your comment is verbal diarrhea about the law. Again I never said the law doesn't change, I said the Bible says God never changes. It's not that hard a concept to grasp.
Some laws and protocols DID change after Christ and the message was most certainly more about "love and peace" rather than "obey or burn in hell"
The New Testament does, however, keep talking about people burning in hell for not obeying, not too different from the Old Testament. The lovey-dovey God-wants-to-give-everyone-a-hug is mostly a creation of modern Christianity. The actual Bible? Not that much. But again, this is actually what I agreed with earlier. I said the Bible says that God never changes, not that the law never changes. Did you actually read my comment? Or do you assume I used to read my Bible as carefully as you read internet comments before launching verbal diarrhea? I'm suspecting the latter.
I can just apply context like an objective human being
Which brings us back to my original point. What IS context? As far as I can figure, it's still picking and choosing what parts of the Bible to believe or not. The same verses that say gays should be stoned to death also say shaving and polyester are abominations (literally in the same chapter). Fine, I get that it's freaking Old Testament, it was a long time ago, things were different then. But who decided that two of those things are "not relevant" anymore, but the other still is relevant today? If the Bible is the foundation and moral authority and instruction manual for all life, then it's supposed to be obeyed completely or not at all. Christians themselves love to say that you're not supposed to pick and choose. So why don't modern Christians stone a woman to death if she doesn't bleed all over her sheets on her wedding night? Is that not picking and choosing? The way I was taught was, the Bible says it, you obey it, end of story. The Bible being the literal direct word of God.
And by the way...the contradictories you find, the shifts in language and attitude clearly correlates with the idea that this book was written by men and not manifested by spiritual deities.
Fair enough, no argument here. If you believe this, then why are you defending it so angrily? Are you not essentially screaming over a book of fairytales on the internet then?