Homosexuality is a sin? Well, Xtians, what about these other 76 things?

[Creed of Heresy]

Havent you heard the goodnews, Drich? The law doesnt matter, you need not worry about it anymore. We're all saved no matter what.

Goodnews:
God will save ALL His people, yes, even the ones here on this forum who hate Him, and the ones who say they love him, yet choose to believe the evil doctrins of men, instead of these scriptures below

1 Timothy 2:4 + 2:6 + 4:10 Philippians 2:9-11 Ephesians 1:10 1 Corinthians 3:15 + 15:22 + 15: 26 & 28 11 Corinthians 5:18-19 John 3:17 + 12:32 1 John 2:2 + 4:14 etc etc there is no hell, how can there be, as we are ALL TO BE SAVED ! go figar

PM Edit Quote G

we'll see.

I have a sneaking suspicion we won't see much of anything...or even nothing, for that matter.

[Drich]

Because you asked an invalid question. You assumed one part of the law carries over and you were looking for scriptural support to undergird this assumption. When I told you none of the law carries over as a means to righteousness I thought you would see how your question then became invalid, thus not requiring an answer from me.

I assumed nothing. I see nothing in the Bible which says anything about which laws, if any, are no longer in effect. Matt 5 says that they are all in effect until all is accomplished and Heaven and Earth passes away. While Heaven doesn't exist, the earth is still very much here. All of the events predicted in Revelation have yet to occur, so all is obviously not yet accomplished. I'm just curious to know which chapter/verse in the Bible contradicts this so grandly that you believe that the law no longer has to be followed in spite of how obviously wrong that position is, considering all the requirements Jesus laid out which have not yet been met.

Read it again. Mat 5 says one must seek a righteousness that surpasses that of the pharasees. The righteousness of the Pharasees is based on the Law. If Christ came to complete the Law then it is through His completeing the Law that Righteousness must be sought.

Now ask yourself what did Christ do? He died to atone for sin. Which does not abolish the Law, as the law makes a provision for atonement. To 'Complete the Law' in His act is to Make a sin sacrifice so complete no other sacrifice is needed. In turn it offers a righteousness greater than the righteousness the pharasees boasted of. (Based on their best efforts to follow the law)

If you are going to quote the passage in Mt 5 you can not cherry pick you must account for everything stated not just the section that pertains to your specific argument.

---

Because you asked an invalid question. You assumed one part of the law carries over and you were looking for scriptural support to undergird this assumption. When I told you none of the law carries over as a means to righteousness I thought you would see how your question then became invalid, thus not requiring an answer from me.

He didn't assume anything. He was asking you to justify the assumption you made when you said this:

Take note that under the new covenant established by Christ and outlined in the NT of the bible, only the Moral law is used as a guide to determine who is a follower of Christ, and subsequently saved by Grace, and not through our works so no man can boast.

I don't see it rev.

I did not say any part of the Law carried over as a means to righteousness. I specifically said that the Moral code is use as a guide line or 'fruit' to determine who is a follower of Christ. No one is being saved by their deeds under the new covenant. (as no man can boast. We are saved by faith through Grace, apart from works.) This does not mean we can not or should not do 'works' it means our works have nothing to do with out salvation. That makes our works an effect of our salvation and not the cause. As Jesus put it in John 14 "if you love me you will keep my commands." Love is our saving grace, not our adhearance to the Law.

[Creed of Heresy]

Unfortunately, the bible also requires us to believe the exodus happened [protip: It didn't], that genesis has a basis in reality [hint: It doesn't], and that we must believe Jesus even existed [something that apparently can't be done, given that now the context of the historical Jesus is studied only in terms of "possibility" and "probability," which basically amounts to "maybes."]. If, as you are arguing, all aspects of the canonical bible must be taken into consideration, then you are right; I must do so, and the sad fact of it is that in so doing I see the foundations are made of sand and crumble quite easily.

[Drich]

No one has demonstrated that he didn't seem to know that.

Mat 15 starting at verse 21 forward

---

we'll see.

I have a sneaking suspicion we won't see much of anything...or even nothing, for that matter.

we'll see.

---

Unfortunately, the bible also requires us to believe the exodus happened [protip: It didn't], that genesis has a basis in reality [hint: It doesn't], and that we must believe Jesus even existed [something that apparently can't be done, given that now the context of the historical Jesus is studied only in terms of "possibility" and "probability," which basically amounts to "maybes."]. If, as you are arguing, all aspects of the canonical bible must be taken into consideration, then you are right; I must do so, and the sad fact of it is that in so doing I see the foundations are made of sand and crumble quite easily.

...So, is there a question, or any supporting documentation for your assertion? or are we to simply take what you said on faith?? If Your expecting me/anyone else to exercise faith in what you believe then how does that differ from what God has asked?

Do you not see the faith needed to believe what you have claimed?

[Creed of Heresy]

Why would I ask you to have faith in what I say? I'm not religious.

So, no, there is no faith needed to believe what I've claimed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus

Namely...

The Exodus (from Greek ἔξοδος, exodos, "going out") is the story of the enslavement of the Israelites in Egypt following the death of Joseph, their departure under the leadership of Moses, the revelations at Sinai, and their wanderings in the wilderness up to the borders of Canaan. Significant portions of the story told in the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy may not have been intended to be historiographic, but the overall intent was historical according to the understanding of the ancient writers: to demonstrate God's actions in history, to recall Israel's bondage and salvation, and to demonstrate the fulfillment of Israel's covenant. No archeological evidence exists which can be directly related to Exodus, and most archaeologists have abandoned the investigation of Moses and the Exodus as "a fruitless pursuit". The consensus among biblical scholars today that the story is best seen as theology, a story illustrating how the God of Israel acted to save and strengthen his chosen people, and not as history.

And...

The consensus among biblical scholars today is that there was never any exodus of the proportions described in the Bible,[14] and that the story is best seen as theology, a story illustrating how the God of Israel acted to save and strengthen his chosen people, and not as history.[5] Nevertheless, the discussion of the historical reality of the exodus has a long history, and continues to attract attention.

So...it's meant to be a story about how god acted to save and strengthen his chosen people...but it didn't actually happen. So, god never acted then, and the entire thing is a story. So...why, then, do any of the covenants have any weight, if the story meant to give the most weight in fact never happened? Meaning the covenants in general [and allusions to sin or righteousness] are essentially based in nothingness.

And do you seriously want me to tell you why Genesis by all means of reality could not happen in either literal form or non-literal form? And why therefore the claim that god made anything is ALSO unfounded and unassertive??

I must ask you, in turn, why you give weight to something that never seems to base itself in reality, that time and again keeps coming up short in terms of evidence for its claims? If you're so unwilling to take what I say on faith [even when there are facts out there to show what I was saying was actually a matter of simple fact], then why are you so willing to take what a bunch of heebs who could barely communicate properly on faith? Do you merely live by Pascal's Wager? "Might as well believe it because someone claimed it and this is some seemingly-heavy shit, because something is better than nothing, even if that something ultimately itself turns out to be nothing?" See, you're going to end up with me having to answer even more questions as you answer...and eventually you're going to run out of answers. Or the questions are gonna start imploding your argument in on itself. Ockam's razor never fails. I can answer your questions myself in a context where I am putting myself in the shoes of a believer and seeing it through their logic [because I once stood in those very same shoes and can remember quite clearly what my logic was], and eventually you're going to end up with questions you can't answer, which is funny...because the bible is supposed to provide all the necessary answers for matters of faith and god, right? The only things that supposedly matter? But if all you end up with is questions whose answers will eventually terminate in circular logic [which is invalid logic]...is it really answering anything?

See, the real problem I have with homosexuality being claimed as a sin is the fact that sin itself seems to have no basis in anything whatsoever. It's a slur, a judgment; "I judge you to be doing wrong because I have a book that says it is." Well, you and John V and others have claimed that if you do one sin you do them all, and as I've pointed out, chances are, EVERYONE has committed a sin...and if gay christians are ALSO exempt from sin, that means the "sin" of their marriage or sexual practices is ALSO forgiven...thus, why does the slur "sin" need to be pasted to them, if EVERY RELIGIOUS PERSON IS A SINNER?

Hey, blame yourself for this post; you're the one who wanted a question. 8P

[Ryantology]

For sin apart from the law. Have you guys ever read the Bible?

How can one sin apart from God's law when God's law defines what is sin?

Read it again. Mat 5 says one must seek a righteousness that surpasses that of the pharasees. The righteousness of the Pharasees is based on the Law. If Christ came to complete the Law then it is through His completeing the Law that Righteousness must be sought.

What's the point, if the only requirement which really matters is atonement?

Now ask yourself what did Christ do? He died to atone for sin. Which does not abolish the Law, as the law makes a provision for atonement. To 'Complete the Law' in His act is to Make a sin sacrifice so complete no other sacrifice is needed. In turn it offers a righteousness greater than the righteousness the pharasees boasted of. (Based on their best efforts to follow the law)

If this is true, then there is, and never was, any point to the law in the first place. You can do all sorts of terrible things, as long as you atone properly, you'll be okay. That does not make sense, especially when Jesus reminds everybody that sticking to the law is indeed taken into consideration when determining who gets into heaven.

If you are going to quote the passage in Mt 5 you can not cherry pick you must account for everything stated not just the section that pertains to your specific argument.

The passage either means what it says or it doesn't. If it's contradictory, that's the fault of the Bible's authors, not mine, and I have no interest in twisting half of the Bible around so this verse is consistent with the rest.

[Drich]

What's the point, if the only requirement which really matters is atonement?

The Chicken or the egg.

What is the only acceptable reason to accept attonement? Because one wishes to Love God with all of their being. What does Christ say about those who love Him in John 14?

"If you love me you will keep my commandments." Which commandments? The ones He re enforced in His ministry. (The Moral Law) Does following the Moral Law add to one's righteousness in any way? No. Following the law is just a symptom of a Greater love for God. In other words following the moral law is the effect of salvation not the root cause of it. It is a fruit of a spirit filled life. When you love God you want to do what God would have you do. When you love self you want to do what you want to do.

If this is true, then there is, and never was, any point to the law in the first place. You can do all sorts of terrible things, as long as you atone properly, you'll be okay.

The Galatains wrestled with this same question with Paul in Gal 3 :19 So what was the law for? The law was given to show the wrong things people do. The law would continue until the special Descendant of Abraham came. This is the Descendant mentioned in the promise, which came directly from God. But the law was given through angels, and the angels used Moses as a mediator to give the law to the people. 20 But when God gave the promise, there was no mediator, because a mediator is not needed when there is only one side, and God is one.

The Purpose of the Law of Moses

21 Does this mean that the law works against God’s promises? Of course not. The law was never God’s way of giving new life to people. If it were, then we could be made right with God by following the law. 22 But this is not possible. The Scriptures put the whole world in prison under the control of sin, so that the only way for people to get what God promised would be through faith in[j] Jesus Christ. It is given to those who believe in him.

23 Before this faith came, the law held us as prisoners. We had no freedom until God showed us the way of faith that was coming. 24 I mean the law was the guardian in charge of us until Christ came. After he came, we could be made right with God through faith. 25 Now that the way of faith has come, we no longer need the law to be our guardian.

26-27 You were all baptized into Christ, and so you were all clothed with Christ. This shows that you are all children of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 28 Now, in Christ, it doesn’t matter if you are a Jew or a Greek, a slave or free, male or female. You are all the same in Christ Jesus. 29 You belong to Christ, so you are Abraham’s descendants. You get all of God’s blessings because of the promise that God made to Abraham.

That does not make sense, especially when Jesus reminds everybody that sticking to the law is indeed taken into consideration when determining who gets into heaven.

Did you not read Mat 5 where Jesus specifically says one must seek a righteousness greater than the law base righteousness of the Pharasees?

If so then where is the passage in which you speak?

The passage either means what it says or it doesn't.

The passage Means exactly what it says as a whole.
I honestly do not know if you do not understand the whole concept or simply refuse to look at any more of the passage than what you need for your argument. The Law Jesus did not come to abolish is all still in effect this includes the do's and don'ts, but it also includes the caviots for atonement of sin. In the Law there is a way for sin to be atoned for. Christ's atonement covers all sin. This does not mean that the law is null and void. This means your sins are forgiven as long as you are loving God with all that God has given you to love and worship Him. That means salvation becomes about complete love and devotion no matter what that might look like as long as it is 100% complete effort on your part, and it ceases to be about law and loop holes, and outward showings/going through the motions of religious practices with no feeling, want or desire.

If it's contradictory, that's the fault of the Bible's authors, not mine, and I have no interest in twisting half of the Bible around so this verse is consistent with the rest.

Again not contradictory, you have taken 1 verse out of a bank of 5 expounded on the one verse's meaning and have ignored the rest of the passage for the sake of your argument. whether you do this out of ignorance or obstinance is of little concern to me, because at this point you have been exposed to the truth several times. What you do with it is up to you.
If you still do not understand what is being said then ask, don't assume.

---

Why would I ask you to have faith in what I say? I'm not religious.

So, no, there is no faith needed to believe what I've claimed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus

Namely...

The Exodus (from Greek ἔξοδος, exodos, "going out") is the story of the enslavement of the Israelites in Egypt following the death of Joseph, their departure under the leadership of Moses, the revelations at Sinai, and their wanderings in the wilderness up to the borders of Canaan. Significant portions of the story told in the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy may not have been intended to be historiographic, but the overall intent was historical according to the understanding of the ancient writers: to demonstrate God's actions in history, to recall Israel's bondage and salvation, and to demonstrate the fulfillment of Israel's covenant. No archeological evidence exists which can be directly related to Exodus, and most archaeologists have abandoned the investigation of Moses and the Exodus as "a fruitless pursuit". The consensus among biblical scholars today that the story is best seen as theology, a story illustrating how the God of Israel acted to save and strengthen his chosen people, and not as history.

And...

The consensus among biblical scholars today is that there was never any exodus of the proportions described in the Bible,[14] and that the story is best seen as theology, a story illustrating how the God of Israel acted to save and strengthen his chosen people, and not as history.[5] Nevertheless, the discussion of the historical reality of the exodus has a long history, and continues to attract attention.

So...it's meant to be a story about how god acted to save and strengthen his chosen people...but it didn't actually happen. So, god never acted then, and the entire thing is a story. So...why, then, do any of the covenants have any weight, if the story meant to give the most weight in fact [i]never happened? Meaning the covenants in general [and allusions to sin or righteousness] are essentially based in nothingness.

And do you seriously want me to tell you why Genesis by all means of reality could not happen in either literal form or non-literal form? And why therefore the claim that god made anything is ALSO unfounded and unassertive??

I must ask you, in turn, why you give weight to something that never seems to base itself in reality, that time and again keeps coming up short in terms of evidence for its claims? If you're so unwilling to take what I say on faith [even when there are facts out there to show what I was saying was actually a matter of simple fact], then why are you so willing to take what a bunch of heebs who could barely communicate properly on faith? Do you merely live by Pascal's Wager? "Might as well believe it because someone claimed it and this is some seemingly-heavy shit, because something is better than nothing, even if that something ultimately itself turns out to be nothing?" See, you're going to end up with me having to answer even more questions as you answer...and eventually you're going to run out of answers. Or the questions are gonna start imploding your argument in on itself. Ockam's razor never fails. I can answer your questions myself in a context where I am putting myself in the shoes of a believer and seeing it through their logic [because I once stood in those very same shoes and can remember quite clearly what my logic was], and eventually you're going to end up with questions you can't answer, which is funny...because the bible is supposed to provide all the necessary answers for matters of faith and god, right? The only things that supposedly matter? But if all you end up with is questions whose answers will eventually terminate in circular logic [which is invalid logic]...is it really answering anything?

See, the real problem I have with homosexuality being claimed as a sin is the fact that sin itself seems to have no basis in anything whatsoever. It's a slur, a judgment; "I judge you to be doing wrong because I have a book that says it is." Well, you and John V and others have claimed that if you do one sin you do them all, and as I've pointed out, chances are, EVERYONE has committed a sin...and if gay christians are ALSO exempt from sin, that means the "sin" of their marriage or sexual practices is ALSO forgiven...thus, why does the slur "sin" need to be pasted to them, if EVERY RELIGIOUS PERSON IS A SINNER?

Hey, blame yourself for this post; you're the one who wanted a question. 8P

Your whole argument is based on an appeal to probability. Do you seriously think I will argue your logical fallacy with you?

For sighting the lack of archeological evidence is completely meaningless unless one can say for certain he has searched for evidence in the right place. (Not to mention what does 'evidence' of a 40 year wandering camping trip look like after 3000 years in the shifting sands of 120*F desert?)

That is like me saying I have searched 30,000 square mile section of the North pole and did not find any archeological evidence of slavery, therefore slaves could not have existed. Or I could not find any evidence of dry land on the sea floor therefore dry land is a myth. It all boils down to faith and what you want to believe. Your either going to put faith in god or faith in something that allows you to ignore God.

So again, are we simply to have faith in what you say is true? If so what is the difference in the faith your asking of me, than what God asks of me?

[John V]

How can one sin apart from God's law when God's law defines what is sin?

Romans 2
14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them

Matthew 7
2 For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you.

[Ryantology]

When you love God you want to do what God would have you do. When you love self you want to do what you want to do.

So, when you do not do what God would have you do (i.e. killing bratty children or people who don't take Saturday off), you do not love God.

The Galatains wrestled with this same question with Paul in Gal 3 :19 So what was the law for? The law was given to show the wrong things people do. The law would continue until the special Descendant of Abraham came.

The law continues to this day according to Matt 5. And, the fact that the law carried so many gruesome penalties means that it was certainly not just to be demonstrative. It is a bad law because it does not explain or justify itself. I know that you don't think God has to explain or justify himself to anybody, but it's a bad law nonetheless for lacking it. It's nothing but the arbitrary whims of a capricious tyrant. The law serves only to make people do what God wants, which is obviously a lot of death and killing and misery and pointless restrictions. The character of Joffrey from Game of Thrones shows exactly the same sort of behavior as God in the Bible, only Joffrey never pretends that he's a good guy.

Did you not read Mat 5 where Jesus specifically says one must seek a righteousness greater than the law base righteousness of the Pharasees?

And you mean to say this means that Jesus really didn't mean it when he insisted that everybody follow the law to the letter and not violate a single commandment, nor instruct anyone else to do so? You never seem to address that.

The passage Means exactly what it says as a whole.
I honestly do not know if you do not understand the whole concept or simply refuse to look at any more of the passage than what you need for your argument. The Law Jesus did not come to abolish is all still in effect this includes the do's and don'ts, but it also includes the caviots for atonement of sin. In the Law there is a way for sin to be atoned for. Christ's atonement covers all sin. This does not mean that the law is null and void. This means your sins are forgiven as long as you are loving God with all that God has given you to love and worship Him. That means salvation becomes about complete love and devotion no matter what that might look like as long as it is 100% complete effort on your part, and it ceases to be about law and loop holes, and outward showings/going through the motions of religious practices with no feeling, want or desire.

So, what happens when God judges you and sees that you made absolutely no effort whatsoever to even try to hold to most of his law? You didn't kill your unruly children. You didn't stone homosexuals. Your wife went to church a week after birthing a daughter. What is your atonement even worth when you don't actually even try?

Again not contradictory, you have taken 1 verse out of a bank of 5 expounded on the one verse's meaning and have ignored the rest of the passage for the sake of your argument. whether you do this out of ignorance or obstinance is of little concern to me, because at this point you have been exposed to the truth several times. What you do with it is up to you.

It really isn't contradictory, until you attempt to interpret that particular passage as not meaning what it very clearly says in multiple translations. Even if you can be forgiven in spite of failing to live up to the law, if you're not even trying to live up to it (and no decent human being would), on what basis do you think God is going to forgive you? Do you think he's going to look at the fact that you're so sanctimonious and preachy and think that makes up for your complete contempt for his laws? That is why I keep bringing this subject up. I know that following the law is not necessary by itself to go to heaven, but Jesus does expect everyone to follow it, and it's obvious that God takes your adherence to the law into account when he decides how sincere you are about loving him. And, if that's true, you're just as fucked as I am.

Romans 2
14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them

I have to admit that this passage makes no sense to me.

[John V]

I have to admit that this passage makes no sense to me.

Basically that you can't even live up to your own conscience. So, your conscience accuses you, and from the Matthew verse (and others like it) you accuse yourself when you accuse others yet you do the same things. There's no need for the law to convict you.