Wow, where to start on that reply . . . .

this is precisely the problem with "christianity lite", there is no end to the Errors.

I can't speak for True Christians regarding the true definition of apostasy, but the Wiki definition I quoted (and again, I'm not the source) seems adequate to convey the meaning intended.

If you want to redefine apostasy, feel free, but I'd suspect your new definition will remain a curiosity for everyone else outside of your schism.

And theists wonder why we blaspheme religion.

LOL, hard not too.

Hell, it seems impossible for the 'believers' to string 2 sentences together without offending God somehow.

(June 28, 2016 at 8:13 am)Disciple Wrote: I respectfully disagree.  I don't claim to speak for ALL Christians, just me.

Thanks or clearing that up.

(June 28, 2016 at 8:13 am)Disciple Wrote: And I will need you to clarify how I'm cherry picking if you wouldn't mind.

Sure, I'm glad you asked. You are cherry-picking the New Testament in preference to the Old. Even Jesus whom you worship says quite explicitly that he came to fulfill the old laws, not eliminate them, and that not one word will change until "everything is accomplished".

(June 28, 2016 at 8:13 am)Disciple Wrote: I'm afraid I'm not clear on the moral relativity comment you made either.

Apparently it was okay to murder gays for a long, long time, according to your god, and then one day your god shows up, in the flesh, and says "hey guys, that's not okay any more." Has the morality of the act changed? Your god has -- according to you, though I don't agree -- changed the moral status of an act, but we're supposed to believe that morality is objective because there is a god who imposes it upon us?

(June 28, 2016 at 10:04 am)vorlon13 Wrote: LOL, hard not too.

Hell, it seems impossible for the 'believers' to string 2 sentences together without offending God somehow.

He is a rather touchy cunt ... he doomed all humanity for one woman's applebite, ya dig?

Quote:

Quote:You must blame the individuals.

I agree.  Anyone who thinks a dead jew came back to life to atone for their sins deserves all the scorn that can be heaped on them.

The problem with jesusism is not the chrome on the bumper.... it is the whole car.

(June 28, 2016 at 12:07 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(June 28, 2016 at 8:13 am)Disciple Wrote: I respectfully disagree.  I don't claim to speak for ALL Christians, just me.

Thanks or clearing that up.

(June 28, 2016 at 8:13 am)Disciple Wrote: And I will need you to clarify how I'm cherry picking if you wouldn't mind.

Sure, I'm glad you asked. You are cherry-picking the New Testament in preference to the Old. Even Jesus whom you worship says quite explicitly that he came to fulfill the old laws, not eliminate them, and that not one word will change until "everything is accomplished".

(June 28, 2016 at 8:13 am)Disciple Wrote: I'm afraid I'm not clear on the moral relativity comment you made either.

Apparently it was okay to murder gays for a long, long time, according to your god, and then one day your god shows up, in the flesh, and says "hey guys, that's not okay any more." Has the morality of the act changed? Your god has -- according to you, though I don't agree -- changed the moral status of an act, but we're supposed to believe that morality is objective because there is a god who imposes it upon us?

Ok thanks, Im not cherry-picking one over the other at all. The Old Testament isn't even a Christian book. Its a Jewish book. The bit where Jesus says he came to fulfill the law does not mean what your implying it means either. He didn't mean he came to fortify or reaffirm the law. He meant he came to satisfy the law. As in, if you fulfill your rental contract you no longer are under contract. You didn't destroy it but it still isn't there anymore. The last thing Christ said before he died on the cross was "it is finished" meaning, during his life he met all requirements to carry out what was written in the OT as concerning the law. Meaning he did not do away with the law, yet, believers are no longer under the law, but grace. That kind of also answers your last question. In add to it however, that commandment in the OT was written as inter-tribal guidelines at that point in time. It wasn't written to humanity at large much less Christians who didn't even exist at the time. Which with the combination of those two points is why those laws aren't followed by Christians.

(June 28, 2016 at 12:22 pm)Minimalist Wrote: I agree.  Anyone who thinks a dead jew came back to life to atone for their sins deserves all the scorn that can be heaped on them.

The problem with jesusism is not the chrome on the bumper.... it is the whole car.

Not as much scorn as somebody who believes that their government actually loves them you friggin dunce lol. You wanna talk about some far fetched shit. There ya go.

The OT, NT and law fulfillment theory in post 88 is interesting, but it is instantly disproven every time a christer invokes the kill the homos shit in Leviticus.

And I've never encountered a christer yet who invokes that shit who follows personally and faithfully the other 600+ rules, strictures, and laws in Leviticus.

Fucking goddamn scripture cherry pickers all of them.