(March 31, 2017 at 8:28 am)Drich Wrote: You STILL Don't understand... How is it you can be so smug and self righteous and not take time to understand the subject you are on about?

THERE ARE NO RULES IN CHRISTIANITY. Christ died to free us/His followers from the law of sin. The Law only now serves one purpose. to point to sin in the unbelievers life, and therefore push that person to repent of their sin. Once we do we become righteous, because Christ is righteous.

Again that is what the primary subject matter is in the book of Romans.

---

It appears understanding entails agreeing that you have the definitive interpretation of the bible.  Makes me wonder how many actually "understand"...

---

(March 31, 2017 at 9:27 am)Drich Wrote:

(March 31, 2017 at 9:13 am)Brian37 Wrote: You getting offended does not make me "smug", the feeling you are having is called cognitive dissonance.

Laws in the modern west are consented to. The laws of the bible reflect the real kingdoms of antiquity, and back then, even in polytheism, humans lived under ruling families who did not need their subject's permission to rule over them. Not my baggage you don't want to accept that. That book does not reflect modern society, it was written for the societies of that time.

When I say "THERE ARE NO RULES IN CHRISTIANTY" What does that mean?

As with most of your posts, I haven't the faintest.

Huggy74 Wrote:Where is the immorality If the person chooses to be "strung up" of their own free will for the sake of everyone else? I thought you were of the opinion that a person could choose to do what ever they want with their body...

There's a difference between letting someone end their prolonged, pointless, and nearly hopeless suffering and letting someone take a rash action on the worst day of their life.

But the immorality would be on my part, if I helped justify their suicide by playing along with their delusion that my vicarious redemption is at stake if they don't.

(March 31, 2017 at 9:27 am)Drich Wrote:

(March 31, 2017 at 9:13 am)Brian37 Wrote: You getting offended does not make me "smug", the feeling you are having is called cognitive dissonance.

Laws in the modern west are consented to. The laws of the bible reflect the real kingdoms of antiquity, and back then, even in polytheism, humans lived under ruling families who did not need their subject's permission to rule over them. Not my baggage you don't want to accept that. That book does not reflect modern society, it was written for the societies of that time.

When I say "THERE ARE NO RULES IN CHRISTIANTY" What does that mean?

Then you need to argue with other Christians, you are about the only Christian I have ever heard make this argument. But that scares the shit out of me buddy, I like having laws against things like child rape and murder and robbery. I like having seat belt laws and speed limits. But if you like a no rules society great, try Somalia, it is run completely by mostly warlords with a very corrupt government.

This is simply new word salad and the same attempt with different word arrangements I have seen before where Christians try to separate the NT from the OT, and we still have to continually point out the NT contradictions where the Jesus character DOES say he came to fill the OT laws. 

Still does not matter to me anyway because he/daddy/skitzo at the end of the book goes right back to being a vindictive bully who throws everyone who didn't kiss his ass into eternal torture. The only thing I give you credit here for doing is creating new word salad, new lipstick on a pig argument to justify the same arguments.

That book was written in a very tribal time when city states ruled by kings competed for resources and back then the mortality rate was really high so back then it was far more important to be loyal to the state king you lived under, but that was also the case in polytheism too. 

That book is not the good book you want it to be. You want to paint me as mean or bigoted because the thought of being wrong frightens you. No, I am giving you the psychology in time frame for that time because humans didn't know any better and that is what they thought at the time as being right. That is why you see words like "lord" and "master" and "kingdom" in that book, because that is the way humans lived back then. It has no reflection of modern science nor does it reflect our far more humane western concept of pluralism. It is a tribal book written to draw the reader in to defend the tribe.

(March 31, 2017 at 9:27 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Where is the immorality If the person chooses to be "strung up" of their own free will for the sake of everyone else?

The immorality of vicarious redemption does not lie with the person who..in moral ignorance, offers themselves up as a sacrifice..but in those who allow it, accept it, benefit from it, or worst of all, seek it out.   I can understand, for example..why a mother would offer her own life in her sons stead....but we still won't execute her for his crimes, nor will we contend that her death would redeem him.  I'm not interested in making some special exemption for your imaginary bestie.  Freely given or not, the fruit of the poisoned tree is still poisoned.  

Quote:I thought you were of the opinion that a person could choose to do what ever they want with their body...

Sure.  Doesn't have anything to do with the immorality of vicarious redemption, though...so....?

(March 31, 2017 at 9:41 am)Harry Nevis Wrote:

(March 31, 2017 at 8:28 am)Drich Wrote: You STILL Don't understand... How is it you can be so smug and self righteous and not take time to understand the subject you are on about?

THERE ARE NO RULES IN CHRISTIANITY. Christ died to free us/His followers from the law of sin. The Law only now serves one purpose. to point to sin in the unbelievers life, and therefore push that person to repent of their sin. Once we do we become righteous, because Christ is righteous.

Again that is what the primary subject matter is in the book of Romans.

---

It appears understanding entails agreeing that you have the definitive interpretation of the bible.  Makes me wonder how many actually "understand"...

---

(March 31, 2017 at 9:27 am)Drich Wrote: When I say "THERE ARE NO RULES IN CHRISTIANTY" What does that mean?

As with most of your posts, I haven't the faintest.

1, Not definitive I simply try to put fourth a complete interpretation of the bible that see to and incorporates all known texts considering a subject. The subject contain divorce I was able to produce a teaching of Jesus directly dealing with the subject matter than the church doctrine being discuss did not incorporate into its doctrine.

2, there isn't a Levitical code, there isn't a Christian list of rules/laws. No where in the NT do we get a definitive list of what it means to be 'Christian.' We got the gospel, and if we respond to it we have To commands. Love God with all of our being, Love our neighbor as our self.

(March 31, 2017 at 9:44 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

Huggy74 Wrote:Where is the immorality If the person chooses to be "strung up" of their own free will for the sake of everyone else? I thought you were of the opinion that a person could choose to do what ever they want with their body...

There's a difference between letting someone end their prolonged, pointless, and nearly hopeless suffering and letting someone take a rash action on the worst day of their life.

But the immorality would be on my part, if I helped justify their suicide by playing along with their delusion that my vicarious redemption is at stake if they don't.

Response to you and Rhythm below

---

(March 31, 2017 at 10:33 am)Khemikal Wrote:

(March 31, 2017 at 9:27 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Where is the immorality If the person chooses to be "strung up" of their own free will for the sake of everyone else?

The immorality of vicarious redemption does not lie with the person who..in moral ignorance, offers themselves up as a sacrifice..but in those who allow it, accept it, benefit from it, or worst of all, seek it out.   I can understand, for example..why a mother would offer her own life in her sons stead....but we still won't execute her for his crimes, nor will we contend that her death would redeem him.  I'm not interested in making some special exemption for your imaginary bestie.  Freely given or not, the fruit of the poisoned tree is still poisoned.  

Quote:I thought you were of the opinion that a person could choose to do what ever they want with their body...

Sure.  Doesn't have anything to do with the immorality of vicarious redemption, though...so....?

You essentially practice "vicarious redemption" on a day to day basis. Do you not consume food? If so, then does that not by your standards make killing something and eating it in order for you to live immoral? Something must die in order for you to live.

It's the same concept, just as we need food naturally, we also need food spiritually, which is why Jesus said you must eat of his flesh and drink of his blood (spiritually speaking), or you had no life in you.

So you can't sit here and claim that vicarious redemption is immoral without being a hypocrite...

(March 31, 2017 at 11:22 am)Huggy74 Wrote: You essentially practice "vicarious redemption" on a day to day basis. Do you not consume food? If so, then does that not by your standards make killing something and eating it in order for you to live immoral? Something must die in order for you to live.

It's the same concept, just as we need food naturally, we also need food spiritually, which is why Jesus said you must eat of his flesh and drink of his blood (spiritually speaking), or you had no life in you.

So you can't sit here and claim that vicarious redemption is immoral without being a hypocrite...

-and I could only be a hypocrite if I was doing one immoral thing and not the other immoral thing.  In any comparison of hypocrisy both things are contended to be immoral.......do you really want to go that route?    

I'm probably hypocritical in a number of areas in my life, even though this has to be about the silliest claim ever made to that effect....so?  Are you asking about my hypocrisies or the immorality of vicarious redemption? I suppose, if it's important to you to level that one.. and you absolutely insist that your food stuff wasn;t a jokepost......stringing a motherfucker up for my parking tickets is one hypocrisy I "somehow" managed to avoid? / shrugs

Look, I don't expect you to agree with me, but you seem completely bewildered by my position. The reasons you offered for it are so far out in left field I thought that...since you asked, you might want to know, lol.

(March 31, 2017 at 11:37 am)Khemikal Wrote:

(March 31, 2017 at 11:22 am)Huggy74 Wrote: You essentially practice "vicarious redemption" on a day to day basis. Do you not consume food? If so, then does that not by your standards make killing something and eating it in order for you to live immoral? Something must die in order for you to live.

It's the same concept, just as we need food naturally, we also need food spiritually, which is why Jesus said you must eat of his flesh and drink of his blood (spiritually speaking), or you had no life in you.

So you can't sit here and claim that vicarious redemption is immoral without being a hypocrite...

-and I could only be a hypocrite if I was doing one immoral thing and not the other immoral thing.  In any comparison of hypocrisy both things are contended to be immoral.......do you really want to go that route?    

I'm probably hypocritical in a number of areas in my life, even though this has to be about the silliest claim ever made to that effect....so?  Are you asking about my hypocrisies or the immorality of vicarious redemption?

*emphasis mine*

I do not contend that vicarious redemption is immoral, you do, thereby making yourself an immoral hypocrite, since you clearly have no problems sanctioning the taking of a life to sustain your own life and that of your family's..

(March 31, 2017 at 11:47 am)Huggy74 Wrote: *emphasis mine*

I do not contend that vicarious redemption is immoral, you do, thereby making yourself an immoral hypocrite, since you clearly have no problems sanctioning the taking of a life to sustain your own life and that of your family's..

Okay, I'm an immoral hypocrite.  I also kick dogs...and?

I'm kind of amused, btw, that eating is the thing you thought might be a useful comparison in my case.....I'll do more than sanction the death of a chicken to sustain my own life and that of my families....I'll also -do- things I wouldn;t sanction, for the same reasons....and yet, there are -some- things I won't do. The step too far. This can't be all that difficult to understand...I'm sure as soon as you're done bitching about me it'll click for you. It doesn't take a paragon of moral virtue to pass on stringing the other motherfucker up, or benefiting from him having been strung up.

There are too rules from Jesus in the NT.  Among others, He endorsed some (not ALL Christians, pay attention!), SOME, SOME of the 10 Commandments.

And despite the apparent bacchanalia of sin being advocated by the religiosities, that sure wasn't mainstream protestant theology when I was growing up.  What the fuck, and how the fuck did things CHANGE ??

And who decided, and why ??

Some might think God/Jesus had it right in the first place, and these neo-pseudo-INO-Christian revisionists are fronting for the other team now.