The Christian Bible does not promote evil

You understanding of the scripture in Matthew which you being by quoting flies in the face of almost the entirety of Christian theology. John Piper is a very well known and respected scholar who argues that we are no longer required to keep the Law of Moses; rather, we are to love other people the way we love ourselves [1]. In my reference to him, he lists multiple New Testament sources that explain what it means to fulfill the Law. I like Romans 13:8-10 myself Romans 13:8-10 Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. For this, "YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, YOU SHALL NOT MURDER, YOU SHALL NOT STEAL, YOU SHALL NOT COVET," and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF." Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. Even if we were to look at the Messianic Jewish movement, who do not call themselves Christians but adhere to the New Testament, we will find the same sentiment [2]. Being a Messianic Jew, I was actually present in the room at the time of the recording I have referenced, and I had the chance to personally speak to Rabbi Jeff Forman at length on this very topic. Rabbi Forman argues from the New Testament (in Hebrew, B'rit HaDasha) that the Law was given for a purpose. Now that Messiah has come, it's purpose has been fulfilled. My personal example borrows from the book of Galatians where Rabbi Sha'ul (aka Paul) argues that the Law was given as a teacher, but now that Messiah has come, we've graduated. After graduation, we are not obligated to our teacher, yet we keep the lessons we learned while we were under our teacher, and we carry them forward. As I previously argued, keeping all of the Laws of Moses would not be compatible with the New Testament. Let me give another example: Joshua 20: 1 Then the Lord said to Joshua: 2 "Tell the Israelites to designate the cities of refuge, as I instructed you through Moses, 3 so that anyone who kills a person accidentally and unintentionally may flee there and find protection from the avenger of blood. According to your argument, Christians are bound by the Law of Moses to construct cities for people who commit manslaughter. I could also get into priestly law with skin diseases and mold growing in your house, but I think I've made my point. You stated that the Bible was wrong about how evil Sodom and Gomorrah were. Last time I checked, we were dating whether or not the Bible promotes evil. I already pointed out the Bible's claim that there weren't ANY righteous people to be found by Abraham in the city. You cannot both say the Bible was wrong about how sinful they were and that the Bible promotes evil by acting on things it did not say. Nor can I falsely accuse you of saying evil things and then declare you an evil person for it. As for G-d killing the first born in Egypt, that is not condoning that humans do the same, thus it is not supporting the killing of innocent children. From the perspective of the Bible, G-d is the author of life and has every right to take it away to advance a greater good. The Bible also teaches that life is not the end. It also begs the question, should a virus that kills an infant be considered as morally wrong? On the one hand, you say that being gay doesn't hurt anyone (I showed that it would hurt themselves and others in that time period), on the other hand you point out that heterosexuals get STDs too. However, you forget that the Law of Moses condemns any action that would promote the spread of STDs by either homo- or heterosexuals. You may believe that inflicting someone with a lifetime of pain and suffering via STD isn't worthy of death, but there are things worse than death after all. The goal of the Law was to keep people healthy, which is one of the promises given in the Law of Moses if they keep the Law. One of my best friends growing up was/is a witch. She and her family would definitely disagree with your statement that they are all fakes. I've known former Satanists who claim to have channeled spirits. Exorcisms are still practiced today [3]. Some friends of mine have personally performed one while in Africa. It wasn't done by ritual, as typically seen, but simply by prayer and verbal command (the Biblical model in the New Testament). It is sad that people are on a "demon-hunt" as they were in the Salem Witch Trials. Many bad things have happened due to superstition, but even when performed by those calling themselves Christians, we are talking about what the Bible says, not the mistakes made by Christians. Although there is much skepticism, even livescience admits such things occur and claims it is a physiological thing due to the power of suggestion over those who are demon possessed. New Oxford Review claims to have a well documented case of demonic possession where a woman showed super natural powers [4]. Obviously not every demons possession is real. The existence of false ones cannot be used as evidence that all are fake. It still remains within the scope of possibility that demons do exist. I'm not trying to prove their existence beyond the shadow of doubt, but rather that it is a possibility you would have a hard time proving conclusively false. If demons do exist, as the Bible teaches, and there were people living in a Theocracy that were consorting with the devil, than it is reasonable to say that they would be worthy of death. I should bring up that you agree killing in self defense is okay, but you also brought up, in your first argument, the Amalekits who were constantly killing Israelites. Not only were they attacking Israel, but they were specifically targeting the weak people who were lagging behind as Israel was traveling from one place to another [5]. This was before Israel ever went to war against them. I have already shown that the command to kill off this specific people group does not stand today. It was specific to the time and place the command was given. In your argument, you assume that slavery is evil. That is a value judgement. Slavery is not inherently evil. A master can take good care of their slaves, leading to mutual benefit. The Bible also put forth rules regarding when slaves should be set free. In fact, during the recurring Year of Jubilee, all slaves would be allowed to go free [6]. Slaves were considered to be members of the household [7]. There were protections for slaves too. Slaves must be released for grievous bodily injury caused to them: the master must let the slave go free "for his eye's sake" or "for his tooth's sake" (Ex. 21:26"27). The Bible condoned specific genocides (some inflicted by G-d directly), but not genocide in general. There was always a given reason for the genocide which involved wickedness. I have addressed them directly in my previous argument. You have two contentions: you interpret the Bible in a way that only a Christian extremist would by ignoring everything that doesn't fit your bias, and you fundamentally disagree on ethics and morality. For example, you believe it is wrong to kill people who burn their children to death as part of their religion. Obviously, the Bible says that burning your children to death to Molech is evil, and punishable by death. Do you contend that it is wrong? 1) http://www.desiringgod.org... 2) http://seedofabraham.podbean.com... 3) http://www.livescience.com... 4) http://www.newoxfordreview.org... 5) http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com... 6) http://en.wikipedia.org... 7) https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...