I appreciate the Christians who are quick to point out that they don't, themselves, actually care what the Old Testament has to say because Jesus somehow made it moot.

But if you take a look at OP's #11... uh... did that *ever* make sense? Or is it fair to say that the OT God is a psychopath?

Your condescending tone does nothing to further your "argument"

The crucifixion of Jesus eliminated the laws of the old testament. If you had ever read the Bible, you would understand this.

# 11 was an old testament rule btw.  

I've read the Bible.

I wasn't making an argument, I was asking a question.  A question you didn't answer.  A question you probably can't answer.

I know that #11 was an Old Testament rule.  I said that in my post.  Did you read my post?  Are you comfortable with the English language?

If so, take a crack:  tell me how #11 *ever* made sense, even before Christ.

I sort of skimmed through the entire article, but being strict != psychopath. The penalty for adultery was stoning to death which is equally as brutal. The old testament laws more point out how sinful we as humans are and that God can not stand sin. The only way to fix the problem was to kill/remove the problem which is pretty extreme in almost every case. God new that no human could ever live up to such standards and sent Jesus to die on the cross. We were never expected to live by a impossible to live by set of rules. Even in John 8 you can read that Jesus himself did not put an adulterous woman to death by stoning.

Jesus' death on the cross offered us forgiveness for our sins so we do not have to live by strict rules and execute such extreme laws to remove the sin from God's sight. Jesus did that for us.

Also, it isn't that I "don't care what hte old testament has to say" rather than I understand that the punishment for the old laws does not apply.

I agree with you that strict and psychotic aren't the same thing, but the rule in question seems to be thus: that if a woman defends her husband from attack by grabbing the genitals of the attacker... that the woman's hand should be cut off.

That seems more than "strict" to me.  You don't agree?

Heh, well, stoning for adultery is pretty extreme too is it not?

Yes--I would call them both extreme.  But at least I can understand wanting to punish adultery in some way--I think that cheating is generally a morally reprehensible thing to do.

But this is different.  This is a woman attempting to defend her husband; not morally reprehensible at all, in my view.

ETA: What kind of God would punish a woman for trying to defend her husband?

The part highlined in orange is is where you started the argument. That statement was meant to tear down the credability of christians by making them look stupid. I'm sorry but that doesn't fly.

Now, lets go back to your point on #11. Lets remeber first of all that this is the old testament, this was before Jesus. People in the old testament had to give sacrifices in order to "cleanse" their souls on a regular basis because all men (meaning mankind) are sinners. The sacrifice was a symbol of your repentance. When Jesus was crucified, he became the human sacrifice. Thus eliminateing the need for animal sacrifices. You need to realize that things were a lot more strict before Jesus came. A wife touching another man's genitles would have been considered adultry to the Jewish people in that time period. Rather than be "killed" by God, they would want to cut off their hand. You must realize that most of the old testament laws were talored to the time period and the Jewish people.      

That doesnt change the logic of God.  Your still worshipping the same God who had all those crazy ideas, regardless if he still wants you to follow them or not.

Would you vote for a politician who who use to be a member of the Nationalist Socialist Party, thought that all non-whites should be thrown out of the country, and wanted to take away women's right to vote?  Hopefully, the answer is no.  But using your logic you would if he changed his mind, because all that past stuff doesnt matter anymore.

Wow, only 7 and 9 are completely relevant to Christianity. The old Covenant laws with Abraham are the not the same as the New Covenant.