Franklin, to state the obvious, you and I are poles apart in our thinking regarding the things we’ve been discussing. I must say that there are several instances in your posts where I dislike the tone of your statements, but I am not going to dwell on them. I have taken your most recent post and rearranged it in almost the reverse order of how you presented it. I may have omitted some things, but the words in italics are yours.

I’m not trying to persuade you to adopt my point of view. That’s clearly not going to happen. But, you have made several assertions regarding passages from the Bible that are simply incorrect. Should you choose to do that in subsequent posts, I may not respond if it’s clear to me that there is no point in doing so. We shall see. I suspect that you’re not really interested in explanations of Christianity from Christians, but I’m offering some below. If I’m correct about that, just say so, and we can agree to move on to other topics.

If you read Matthew 5:18, you will see that the Old Testament rules and commandments are not undone by Jesus; they are still in force.

I have read Mt. 5:18 as well as v.17 and 19... and ch. 4 and 6... ok, I’ve read the whole New Testament. It’s more than a list of rules and regulations. It’s also a story. I suppose you know that, but I’m stating it here because there is no sense of that in your posts. Anyway, Mt. 5:18 does not say what you assert. You could quote part of it to make it seem to say that, as long as you stop before you get to “until...”. The concept of the New replacing the Old is not fully explained in this passage. That’s not the subject. However, the Book of Hebrews addresses that subject throughout. If you just want the Cliff’s Notes version, take a look at 7:18,19 and 8:7-13 and 9:9,10. Also, one of your previous posts indicated your belief that people of faith do not know their own “scriptures”. You’re wrong about that too.

However, you cannot believe these things and also still be a functioning member of society, so you have constructed rationalizations--or perhaps accepted rationalizations constructed by others--about why you are exempt from Old Testament law, even while still accepting the divine providence of the Bible.

Which is exactly what Sam Harris is talking about.

(By the way, that’s not a sentence, or a paragraph.) wink
Sorry, both you and Mr. Harris are wrong. I hold that position because of the concepts in the passages I cited above, and in many others. I don’t want to open “Pandora’s box” on the subject of why I believe the Scriptures to be the inspired Word of God, but of course, that comes into play.

Jesus not only condones slavery, and specifically instructs slaves not to try to gain their freedom (Ephesians 6:5, 1 Timothy 6:1-2), he even specifically condones beating a slave for wrongdoing even if that slave does not know he has done something wrong (Luke 12:47-48).

Nothing that you assert is stated in those passages. Those are your conclusions, and they are incorrect. (As an aside, Jesus is not being quoted in Eph. or 1 Ti.) You didn’t heed my prescription for rendering what is in the text, rather than what is in your mind. I thought you might be correct about the instruction to slaves not to seek their freedom, but, it’s not there.

Not only does the Old Testament explicitly condone slavery, it even sets out laws and rules by which slavery is permissible, specifies who may own slaves and under what circumstances, and even goes so far as to specify, in detail, when a man is permitted to sell his daughter as a sex slave, who he is and is not permitted to sell her to, and what the terms of the contract of the sale are to be.

I’ve already dealt with that. I know that some of that is true. I can’t explain it to you (or to myself!) without really getting into the Old Testament again, which I haven’t done for a long time. But I will say this: The OT also describes God providing for the Israelites in the wilderness, delivering them from Pharaoh, and doing many other things that are kind, caring, etc. There seems to be a disconnect there. I suspect Bible scholars have sought to understand that apparent disconnect. I also suspect that you might not be interested in what those studies have concluded.

You yourself say that you don't know what the Old Testament has to say on the subject of slavery...

That’s not what I said. You didn’t even read and repeat what I wrote correctly in its context.

...and you believe that the New Testament supersedes the old. You have to believe these things in order to be a functioning member of a pluralistic, post-industrial society; these are the things that you have accepted as reasons not to obey the 613 commandments in the Bible, many of which (like executing any family member who turns away from god) would put you at odds with the values of the society in which you live.

No, that’s not why. But, I’ve already addressed that.

If you read the Old Testament, you will see that it endorses slavery, and many other reprehensible things. It also describes people doing these things, but that's not what I'm talking about--I'm talking about the rules and commandments specifically instructing people to do these things.

Again, I’ve read it. I’ve also given my response to this before. It’s still up there.