Another law thread

[Drich]

It does not necessarily work that way. I find it impossible to think that it would be absolutely impossible for people to love God as thoroughly as you think they should if they knew for sure that everything about him is true. There would certainly be many, most even, who do it for perceived rewards, but if there are people who submit entirely on the basis of faith, there would have to be people who would submit entirely on the basis of reason. If there was a verified God, it would make sense to do exactly as he wants, and for the reasons he wants it done. Indeed, it would make more sense to do it then, because you would have no reason to ever doubt it was the right thing to do.

How does what you said differ from what I did?

The question is, why would he bother using such an unreliable and vague method? If people can sent accurate communications through a hundred different methods, why can't God do better than dreams?

To leave room for doubt. We have been told many times in scripture God prizes faith. If He removes all doubt before one has an oppertunity to show faith, then we will never be in a position to show our faith.

Christ said once we can show the faith of a mustard seed God will move the mountains (of doubt) before you. If you simply ask He do so in the name of knowing Christ.

---

First, and this may be nitpicking, but I'm not compliant to any death penalty crimes, because I come from, and am living in, a country that has no death penalty. And even if I were living in one that does have it, I wouldn't agree with it. I would, in fact, protest against it. See, that's the thing you don't seem to have gotten here: it's possible to disagree with a law without having to break it in order to demonstrate such. Maybe the fact that I haven't committed a capital offense has less to do with the fact that I secretly agree with the death penalty, and more to do with the fact that I'm not a psychopath and don't want to hurt someone.

Disagreeing with the law of God does not inturn mean one has sinned against God. I specifically chose the illustration of breaking the laws concerning capital crimes, and openly, rebelliously flaunting the fact that you have as the example. Because according to scripture this is what it is to sin against God. (Any sin, for all are capital crimes.) God has no law against pouting, mean you are allowed to protest till you get your fill and go home.

So again, If our laws reflected His, AS History as recorded twice in the course of man (Something you seem to not understand) The people (which would include you) fall in. unless they are they type to openly rebell which as we have established you are not.

But more than that, and forgive me if I'm wrong here, but weren't you the one earlier arguing that the new testament alters the laws of the old?

Noope. I have siad over and over nothing changes.

Weren't you, in fact, arguing that Christ's new laws supersede the old testament completely?

Nooope You must be turning to your own understanding of how christianity works.

So... why would Christ's appearance change the world so much if he opened a channel to heaven in doing so?

Again as history records when the people have absolute evidence of God As in the desert with the Jews they adopt and follow their understanding of God. Meaning God's law.

I mean, if the new testament reflects god's will now then wouldn't that still be the case if he were verifiable, and not encourage a dark ages style church?

Their is no division, If we are talking the legitmacy of the law. The whole law applies which means OT law applies. One more time; History has shown man's attempt to incorperate everything he can of God's laws into the law of the lands, in the two period where knoweledge of God was absolute..

The problem with that model? Man can not attone for sin as per the law of God. We only look at the thou shalts and the thou shalt nots. Man can only bind himself to works, as the law is by design impossiable to follow and meant to force one to seek attonement. Man can not attone for sin. This inturn forces man to "try harder" to live righteously when he can't, he turns to self righteousness if his pride will not allow him to admit his failure (which is coensidently what happens now in this culture) thus altering God's law allowing man to put an artifical grade on sin making the sins he likes the most less sinful as apposed to one most can abstain from making them more sinful thus calling for greater punishment (sound familiar yet?)
The turn to self righteousness rather than admiting one's own failure to keep the law and seek attonement, is what makes one a luke warm Christian. Meaning he is not saved according to Christ.

Despite the next arguement you are brewing up, understand and accept this has already happened twice in the history of man. NOTHING you can say will change this, And because we have already established you are a sheep of soceity, you need to admit to yourself that you would have just followed the heard like everyone else. That is not to say if someone lead a group off of the main flock you would not follow, but Jesus Christs and Martin Luthers (the two men that ended the two periods theocratic rule I am speaking of) don't come around every generation. that means for you, a life of grazing amonst your brothers understanding of 'morality.'

The difference between me and a guy living 1500 years ago is that we now live in a free society (some might argue that's because it's a secular one) that has not only a right to a free discourse, but an expectation of a civil one. That's where your argument falls down: I don't just roll over and take whatever social standards there are. I protest, I sign petitions, I go to rallies and marches. I participate in awareness programs. And I refuse to participate in events, or involve myself with organizations or peoples that act in ways I consider harmful or offensive.

aww kinda like the occupy wall street guys...

There are ways to disagree that aren't violent, no matter what the bible tells you.

Seriously? "Turn the other cheek.."