Please see the other posts for this answer. You are duplicating yourself.

No, I recognize that there is a such thing as truth, and the truth is, you have yet to present any valid scientific peer reviewed science showing that your god exists. You keep on claiming that your god is true. You keep on claiming that you have the truth. Just like the muslims keep on claiming that they have the truth. That they know the truth. I don't see you spending much time questioning what you call truth. I don't see you spending any time asking whether or not what you think is true is actually true and whether or not the evidence is really there to objectively show that your religion is true. Evidence makes all the difference. You continually scream that you have the truth. That we need to be believe in your grand truth. That the truth that you have is so true and how people need to see your grand truth. Science doesn't work that way. Science isn't about faith. Science is about evidence. I care about truth. That's exactly why I don't believe in your religion. By your own admission your bible contains inaccuracies. That means that it isn't inerrant and it isn't the word of an all knowing god.

You are treating the concept of religion as if it's just one person's opinion against another's, not as truth vs. lies. That's what makes the difference between your evaluation that God is an immoral monster—and my evaluation that truth matters, and to allow people to continue in lies to the detriment of the world and their eternal fate is what would be monstrously immoral.

Look at it this way. In scenario #1, people are walking around town saying they believe in flying Spaghetti Monsters, and others walk around town believing in pink unicorns. Occasionally they get into spats about such things, but if people would just learn to respect each other's goofy ideas and live in peace, then who cares. Nobody has a right to tell anybody what weird things they are entitled to believe.

In scenario #2, some people say they believe that there is such a thing as gravity, but there are other people who say they believe in Flying Spaghetti Monsters, and so regularly they walk off of cliffs and fall to their deaths. Shouldn't the people who know about gravity do everything in their power to stop the people from diving to their deaths? Of course they should.

(Now, please don't make anything of the fact that I used science vs. a weird belief. That's not the point.)

The point is this: when you know the truth, and the lies are fatal, then it's not just a matter of he-said, she-said, but of truth and consequence. When it's a matter of truth vs. lies, it's not monstrously immoral to do everything possible to stop people from following fatal mistakes. That's the point. ISIS is beheading people in their quest for political power. The only entity that can morally claim this position is the one that is true.

Then that's it. Your god is a moral monster. Your god is no different than an islamic extremist in an islamic theocracy. They behead christians because not being a muslim in an islamic theocracy is treason. I'm sorry, but this isn't moral now and it wasn't moral then. Freedom of religion is a basic right that has always been right. Clearly, you believe in religious freedom conditionally if at all. This idea that at one point in time it was right to murder someone for saying hey, lets worship a different god than yours has ALWAYS been wrong. That doesn't just make my sense of morality different from yours. It makes it better. I'm sorry, but you like everyone that I have asked about this issue have finally relented to admit that my original read of this passage was right. Under a theocracy that was put forward by your god, it was decided that if someone tried to suggest worshiping in a different god or that there wasn't a god then they are to be brutally murdered simply for suggesting not following christianity. I'm sorry, but the only entity which can command this kind of crap is primitive man. No perfect deity could command this kind of crap. It's not moral. It's not good. It's not just. It's not just when someone with a turban in Iran does it. It wasn't right when someone did it in Israel in ancient times.

We all recognize it's wrong when the madman in Iran does it. Somehow many of us don't recognize how wrong it is when we see it commanded by the "god" of the bible.

Yes, that's what Deuteronomy 13 says. Remember that in a theocracy, seduction to worship other gods is an act of treason, which is still a capital crime in many countries around the world (it was in America until capital punishment was abolished by the federal govt in 1990).

And yes, it was to be done publicly as a deterrent (Dt. 13.11).

Ok, so if I understand you correctly, it is no longer law since we don't live in a theocracy but it was law that under the laws of moses that if someone said, let us serve other gods then that person was to be executed no matter who they are because they are trying to lead the people away from god and it is to be done publicly so that the people of Israel will see it and turn from the wickedness of worshipping other gods?

OK, thanks for your comments and questions. Maybe this comment will help.

We don't execute infidels or any person who would lead us away from the true God because these laws (Deuteronomy) are given in the context of theocracy. Civil law (the capital crimes) was intended for Israel as a theocratic state. When Israel/Judah fell (586 BC), the civil law became defunct with it. The civil law was not intended to be carried out by every government in history. It is no longer something secular governments are responsible to carry out. It is no longer something the Church is supposed to carry out. It is not a law or rule for us as Christians.

The NT doesn't have the job of either affirming or disaffirming the information from the OT. The NT is there to reveal Christ, and therefore it’s not a criterion for determining OT law. The more pertinent question is "What is the nature of the OT law?" First of all, it's pertinent to ancient law. Secondly, it's situated in the old covenant, and pertains to that covenant. It's telling how Israel should act based on the culture of the day. Third, it pertains to sacred space. We can't extract the law from those contexts. Just because it's in the OT doesn't mean it's a law for all time. It doesn't legislate for us.

> I don't buy your claim that son or daughter doesn't include someone as young as 10, but even if we grant that it doesn't, isn't this saying that if your son or daughter says "lets serve other gods" then you should not listen to them and not spare or shield them and instead put them to death?

Two more clarifications here. First of all, Deuteronomy 13 is casuistic law (hypothetical case law not based on actual situations, but conjectural scenarios concocted to guide judges. Secondly, the wording of the law (vv. 6-7) are a literary technique known as a merism—using extreme points in a scale to explain how far the injection reaches. It would be like saying, "This applies to everyone, whether it’s your grandma or your cat, your neighbor or a foreigner, your best friend in the world or a complete stranger, whether it’s a god in your pocket or one you’ve never heard of." The concept here is legal equality and judicial righteousness: The judge will dispense the same law without respect of persons. What is being advocated is the principle of impartiality.

I wanted to add very quickly that I'm more than happy to get into what happened with the cananites and other issues with the bible, but for right now for this thread I'm trying to stick specifically to deuteronomy 13:6-11 so that this conversation doesn't go all over the place.

In previous post you wrote: "If you are leading someone away from God and away from this life, you are the worst character EVER. You are not only condemning yourself, but someone else and maybe many others. This person is a monster. God warns in the strongest possible terms not to follow such a person, and any such person needs to be executed for the harm they can bring to others, just like a murderer, rapist, or pimp."

Are you not saying that any person who leads people away from your god should be executed? What should be done to people who lead people away from your religion? Isn't saying "Let us serve other gods" trying to lead people away from your religion? Isn't saying "there is no god" and giving arguments as to why one shouldn't believe in a god trying to lead people away from your religion? I was certainly lead away from christianity by people who said there is no good evidence for your god. On the one hand you seem to be saying that people who try to lead people away from your religion are horrible monsters worse than murderers and rapists and should be executed, then you turn around and say that there is nothing in the bible saying to kill atheists, agnostics and people from other religions.

You still have yet to show me how deuteronomy chapter 13 isn't telling me that at one point in time (if not today) that one must murder someone for saying "let us serve other gods".

I remind you again of what deuteronomy chapter 13 says :
"If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again."

I don't buy your claim that son or daughter doesn't include someone as young as 10, but even if we grant that it doesn't, isn't this saying that if your son or daughter says "lets serve other gods" then you should not listen to them and not spare or shield them and instead put them to death?

Let me try it this way (what I wrote elsewhere in response to another conversation you and I have going): There is no command in the Bible to kill all atheists and agnostics, or all idolaters or everyone from another religion. There's nothing in the Bible even close to saying or implying that. For instance, the Israelites were not commanded to slaughter all the Egyptians, who didn't recognize YHWH, before they left Egypt. Abraham was not commanded to slaughter all the Canaanites in the land when he was there. Even Joshua was not commanded to slaughter all the Canaanites during the Conquest. The first part of that plan was to ask the city to surrender and to be incorporated into Israel. The second part of the plan was to drive them from the land, not kill them. So there is no teaching that murdering people who argue YHWH doesn't exist is OK.

People have a right to publicly promote atheism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, or anything else. There is no command or suggesting in the Bible to kill all infidels.