(January 13, 2015 at 1:51 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: On the other hand:

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

Interesting. It is tough enough to disprove a non-existent deity and now it's dead? hock:

(January 14, 2015 at 12:01 am)Drich Wrote: indeed! They still apply to everyone!

Except you, apparently.

Quote:holy crap yes again!

Don't know about heaven, but last I looked, there was an earth beneath my feet.

Quote: one could even say revelation is a record of history yet to come.

One could say that a) that's daffy and b) it still hasn't happened yet, at the point in time we occupy.

Quote:What full fillment means, is that righteousness comes through attonement, and not following the law. Remember the law does not go away, it's still their looming over all who do not have Christ's attonement covering over them. This means they will be judged and condemned by the law and the consenquences provided by it. The completion of the law means that all who seek redemption will have it and be free from the law as a means to righteousness, because again the righteousness of Christ was offered and given to us on the cross.

You know, we've had this conversation a dozen times at least, and I still don't get why you would think that "righteousness doesn't come through following the law" means "welp, guess I don't have to bother even trying to follow any of the laws unless they are pleasant or convenient".

Or, why you think the definition of 'fulfill' makes any difference when this fulfillment is a future event? A work-in-progress, at best.

Or, why you think that all of this prevaricating is going to save your soul.

Or why I bother asking, because you always refuse to answer. You're no more a 'canonical Christian' than my cat is.

It seems that atheists are better christians than christians, because we read the words that are actually there in the book. We don't presume to know better than "God", putting ourselves in their shoes, by deciding what God actually meant to say. Which is often the opposite of what he actually said. Even when God is quoting himself, apparently.

(January 14, 2015 at 12:01 am)Drich Wrote:

(January 13, 2015 at 2:23 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: I can definitely tell, from the rest of the Sermon, what it doesnt mean. It doesn't mean "you don't have to worry about these laws anymore. They don't apply to you."

indeed! They still apply to everyone!

Yep.

All 613 of them.

(January 14, 2015 at 11:31 am)Davka Wrote:

(January 14, 2015 at 12:01 am)Drich Wrote: indeed! They still apply to everyone!

Yep.

All 613 of them.

Where exactly does the idea that the OT doesn't apply to us anymore come from? And, is this just another issue of "this sect interprets it this way, and this sect interprets it another way"?

(January 14, 2015 at 11:33 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote:

(January 14, 2015 at 11:31 am)Davka Wrote: Yep.

All 613 of them.

Where exactly does the idea that the OT doesn't apply to us anymore come from? And, is this just another issue of "this sect interprets it this way, and this sect interprets it another way"?

There is disagreement between Jesus and Paul on this point in the NT writings. But the real break comes early in the Book of Acts, where Peter has a vision of a big-assed picnic-blanked covered with "unclean" (non-Kosher) food coming down from Heaven, and a Voice telling him to eat it. I think he was channeling Weird Al.

(January 14, 2015 at 2:48 am)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote:

(January 14, 2015 at 12:01 am)Drich Wrote: indeed! They still apply to everyone!

Except you, apparently.

Quote:holy crap yes again!

Don't know about heaven, but last I looked, there was an earth beneath my feet.

Quote: one could even say revelation is a record of history yet to come.

One could say that a) that's daffy and b) it still hasn't happened yet, at the point in time we occupy.

Quote:What full fillment means, is that righteousness comes through attonement, and not following the law. Remember the law does not go away, it's still their looming over all who do not have Christ's attonement covering over them. This means they will be judged and condemned by the law and the consenquences provided by it. The completion of the law means that all who seek redemption will have it and be free from the law as a means to righteousness, because again the righteousness of Christ was offered and given to us on the cross.

You know, we've had this conversation a dozen times at least, and I still don't get why you would think that "righteousness doesn't come through following the law" means "welp, guess I don't have to bother even trying to follow any of the laws unless they are pleasant or convenient".

Or, why you think the definition of 'fulfill' makes any difference when this fulfillment is a future event? A work-in-progress, at best.

Or, why you think that all of this prevaricating is going to save your soul.

Or why I bother asking, because you always refuse to answer. You're no more a 'canonical Christian' than my cat is.

The whole of the book of Romans, More over Romans 7, More specifically:

7 You might think I am saying that sin and the law are the same. That is not true. But the law was the only way I could learn what sin means. I would never have known it is wrong to want something that is not mine. But the law said, “You must not want what belongs to someone else.”[a] 8 And sin found a way to use that command and make me want all kinds of things that weren’t mine. So sin came to me because of the command. But without the law, sin has no power. 9 Before I knew the law, I was alive. But when I heard the law’s command, sin began to live, 10 and I died spiritually. The command was meant to bring life, but for me it brought death. 11 Sin found a way to fool me by using the command to make me die.

12 Now the law is holy, and the command is holy and right and good. 13 Does this mean that something that is good brought death to me? No, it was sin that used the good command to bring me death. This shows how terrible sin really is. It can use a good command to produce a result that shows sin at its very worst.
14 We know that the law is spiritual, but I am not. I am so human. Sin rules me as if I were its slave. 15 I don’t understand why I act the way I do. I don’t do the good I want to do, and I do the evil I hate. 16 And if I don’t want to do what I do, that means I agree that the law is good. 17 But I am not really the one doing the evil. It is sin living in me that does it. 18 Yes, I know that nothing good lives in me—I mean nothing good lives in the part of me that is not spiritual. I want to do what is good, but I don’t do it. 19 I don’t do the good that I want to do. I do the evil that I don’t want to do. 20 So if I do what I don’t want to do, then I am not really the one doing it. It is the sin living in me that does it.

21 So I have learned this rule: When I want to do good, evil is there with me. 22 In my mind I am happy with God’s law. 23 But I see another law working in my body. That law makes war against the law that my mind accepts. That other law working in my body is the law of sin, and that law makes me its prisoner. 24 What a miserable person I am! Who will save me from this body that brings me death? 25 I thank God for his salvation through Jesus Christ our Lord!

So in my mind I am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful self I am a slave to the law of sin.

---

(January 14, 2015 at 3:04 am)robvalue Wrote: It seems that atheists are better christians than christians, because we read the words that are actually there in the book. We don't presume to know better than "God", putting ourselves in their shoes, by deciding what God actually meant to say. Which is often the opposite of what he actually said. Even when God is quoting himself, apparently.

what are you talkikng about

(January 14, 2015 at 11:43 am)Davka Wrote:

(January 14, 2015 at 11:33 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Where exactly does the idea that the OT doesn't apply to us anymore come from? And, is this just another issue of "this sect interprets it this way, and this sect interprets it another way"?

There is disagreement between Jesus and Paul on this point in the NT writings. But the real break comes early in the Book of Acts, where Peter has a vision of a big-assed picnic-blanked covered with "unclean" (non-Kosher) food coming down from Heaven, and a Voice telling him to eat it. I think he was channeling Weird Al.

Wait, so some Christians think Paul seeing some tasty bacon = the entire OT is not required now?

Oh, wonderful, now we get a paraphrased interpretation that calls itself 'teh wholly babble'!

It just keeps getting better.

(January 14, 2015 at 11:33 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote:

(January 14, 2015 at 11:31 am)Davka Wrote: Yep.

All 613 of them.

Where exactly does the idea that the OT doesn't apply to us anymore come from? And, is this just another issue of "this sect interprets it this way, and this sect interprets it another way"?

it applies to the 'unsaved' as a way to show you the short commings in your bid for following the law as a means to righteousness.

(Romans 7 the whole chapter sums up your question)