Where's the Justice?

[Cato]

Jesus has some good ideas, but tells everyone that not a law will change until the Earth disappears (his words, not mine).

Ahh finally I see your problem Christ did not say the Law would not Change for He himself Changed or added to the exist ing Law (Read the Whole of Mat 5, not just the parts you've been harping on) Christ said:For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one title will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.
This does not mean it would not be completed or added on to. As witnessed by verse 21

Fulfill doesn't mean complete or satisfy,

Actually it does the word in question is: γίνομαι/ginomai It Means:
to be made, finished

particularly in light of Isaiah,

Now please explain what you think Isaiah says.

nor what Christ is purported to have claimed.

Could you recap what Christ has now 'purported to have claimed?"

It's not until Paul that ignoring the rules is acceptable in the growing Church.

Whew! In short, you have the option of following Christ or Paul. The contradiction is plain, choose one.

You are jumping to conclusion based on red herring theology. So I ask again please explain what you mean (with book Chapter and Verse) rather than simply alluding to what you think, or what you think you can safely argue.

Red Herring? Was this the single fish (along with a loaf) that Christ fed the masses on? That is impressive. He could have at least saved himself some labor and picked a fish that was big enough to swallow Johah, but no.

I gave you chapter and verse before. You chose to ignore them and give me a context lecture instead; now you want chapter and verse. Or is the self proclaimed scriptual guider having trouble finding the chapter in Isaiah that refers to the Messiah as magnifying the law (somewher in the 40s as I recall).

Why would Christ 'finish' the OT law of adultery, yet expound to the point where thinking about it makes one guilty, not just the act itself? Sounds more like magnifying rather than finishing.

[Drich]

Ahh finally I see your problem Christ did not say the Law would not Change for He himself Changed or added to the exist ing Law (Read the Whole of Mat 5, not just the parts you've been harping on) Christ said:For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one title will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.
This does not mean it would not be completed or added on to. As witnessed by verse 21

Actually it does the word in question is: γίνομαι/ginomai It Means:
to be made, finished

Now please explain what you think Isaiah says.

Could you recap what Christ has now 'purported to have claimed?"

You are jumping to conclusion based on red herring theology. So I ask again please explain what you mean (with book Chapter and Verse) rather than simply alluding to what you think, or what you think you can safely argue.

Red Herring? Was this the single fish (along with a loaf) that Christ fed the masses on? That is impressive. He could have at least saved himself some labor and picked a fish that was big enough to swallow Johah, but no.

I gave you chapter and verse before. You chose to ignore them and give me a context lecture instead; now you want chapter and verse. Or is the self proclaimed scriptual guider having trouble finding the chapter in Isaiah that refers to the Messiah as magnifying the law (somewher in the 40s as I recall).

Why would Christ 'finish' the OT law of adultery, yet expound to the point where thinking about it makes one guilty, not just the act itself? Sounds more like magnifying rather than finishing.

Either you can provide book chapter and verse to have a responsiable conversation or you can't. which is it?

[Cato]

Red Herring? Was this the single fish (along with a loaf) that Christ fed the masses on? That is impressive. He could have at least saved himself some labor and picked a fish that was big enough to swallow Johah, but no.

I gave you chapter and verse before. You chose to ignore them and give me a context lecture instead; now you want chapter and verse. Or is the self proclaimed scriptual guider having trouble finding the chapter in Isaiah that refers to the Messiah as magnifying the law (somewher in the 40s as I recall).

Why would Christ 'finish' the OT law of adultery, yet expound to the point where thinking about it makes one guilty, not just the act itself? Sounds more like magnifying rather than finishing.

Either you can provide book chapter and verse to have a responsiable conversation or you can't. which is it?

Matthew 5: 17-18 vs. Acts 15.

[FallentoReason]

Because Jesus himself said faith in him was needed for salvation.

Which is my point. Just because you have a very specific Brand of Faith, Does not mean other Brands of faith will be refused.

Ok, but how does this solve anything for those people that never even got the chance to surrender to Christ?

In your allegance to the purity of philosphy, you have over looked the reality of the "Divine command" Given. God did not command us to Kill (Had He I would be hunting all of you down right now) He commanded us to Love God, then Love each other. So with the same effort and zeal I would expend on hunting unbelievers down, I put into my current ministry (if not more)

I know it doesn't say to kill, but my point is that right and wrong can't be called 'good' and 'bad' anymore because what is right and wrong has become arbitrary. It's simply what God says to do. Can it be said that God is good? No, because the commands we have been given are arbitrary. In other words, my feelings of what is right and wrong are completely off. I might think that lying to save someone's life is the right thing to do, but my feelings can't be trusted. Right and wrong are arbitrary. I think this isn't so.

God has not put anyone on the earth who does not have a chance to live eternally. Unfortunatly you are so foolish to think that your understanding of the salvation offered by God/Christ is the only extention of His Grace. Again With Heb 4:11 God/Christ will judge who is worth of eternal life. Not you or those so foolish to think they have a complete understanding of God's Grace. Christ also tells a parable explaining this. (The parable of the day labors)

Hebrews 4:11-13 (I'm assuming you meant the whole paragraph):
Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, so that no one may fall by the same sort of disobedience. For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account.

I'm also assuming you meant the parable of the workers in the vineyard.

1) Hebrews 4:11-13 simply says that everyone is under the Law of God basically. That's not something we didn't know already which is why I'm saying these people that are under the Law will suffer for eternity without even being given a chance to follow the Law.

2) The parable in a nutshell is about different groups of workers that do different amounts of hours on the job but they all get payed the same. I've always seen this as saying that it doesn't matter when someone gets saved in their life, they will get the same reward as lifelong Christians. It doesn't relate to what we're talking about in the least bit.

Christianity as you know it is simply a garantee. God will judge everyone who has Not Heard the Gospel with a set of parmeters not privy to any of us. Which makes eternal life it a throw of the dice, but not impossiable. God will judge who qualifies, and who does not using the same grace offered to all who have heard the gospel. Which still means no man comes to the Father but through Christ. (again Heb 4:11)

This sounds ambiguous. You mean everyone is saved through Christ, or everyone that has heard the Gospel is saved through Christ?

There's no reason to think God has separate parameters with which to judge these people, unless you have proper scripture to back it up. Like I said, Hebrews 4:11-13 isn't talking about this.

[Drich]

Ok, but how does this solve anything for those people that never even got the chance to surrender to Christ?

will readdress at the end of this post.

I know it doesn't say to kill, but my point is that right and wrong can't be called 'good' and 'bad' anymore because what is right and wrong has become arbitrary.

Agree but understand this statement is a doubled edged sword.

It's simply what God says to do. Can it be said that God is good?

Yes because God is the literal defination of Good, or rather He orginally was the defination of Good.

No, because the commands we have been given are arbitrary. In other words, my feelings of what is right and wrong are completely off. I might think that lying to save someone's life is the right thing to do, but my feelings can't be trusted. Right and wrong are arbitrary.

True. This is why we need absolute standards. Without absolute standards you become lost.
It seems you have fallen for the idea that right and wrong are standards that some how exist without God. The oppsite is true. right and wrong only exist to describe your actions in relation to God's will. What soceity has done is try and take this standard from God (Re named it morality) and use it to judge God by. Its simple. Right is anything in God's expressed will. Wrong any thing or reason not in the expressed will of God. Understand that actions like killing and taking things that do not belong to you are not inhearently or intrinsically wrong. It is the pretext in which we do these things that makes them wrong. (Outside the expressed will of god) That is why god commands may sometimes seem arbertary. Because you look to define right and wrong by your actions rather than where your heart lies.

1) Hebrews 4:11-13 simply says that everyone is under the Law of God basically. That's not something we didn't know already which is why I'm saying these people that are under the Law will suffer for eternity without even being given a chance to follow the Law.

Actually no it does not. Are you familiar with john 1:1? Who is "The Word" That John 1:1 describes?1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The Word was with God and the Word was God. Later John says and the Word was made Flesh. Meaning "The Word" is Jesus the Son of God.

Now with that revelation in mind lets look at Heb 4 again:Hebrews 4:11-13:
Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, so that no one may fall by the same sort of disobedience.

For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

Allow me the liberity to substitute "The Word" with Christ:

For Christ is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account.
This mean our lives, or thoughts and our deeds will be divided into deli thin slices and review and judged by Christ Himself. Nothing will be hidden. Meaning their won't be any excuses no denying the presentation of the gospel in our lives, nor will their be any judgement day defense strageities that will carry any merrit. On the otherside of that sword lies the judgement of those who do not know Christ, because they truly never heard the gospel. 'We' (Christianity) are not privy to the method or what s being weighed in Chist's judgement against these people, but never the less they will most rightfully be judged. Not to some arbertary standard either. Christ takes the time and righfully divides our lives into our truest intentions and then levies an accurate and just judgement based on the condition of our hearts.

This sounds ambiguous. You mean everyone is saved through Christ, or everyone that has heard the Gospel is saved through Christ?

Everyone is potentially saved through Christ. Christ has eliminated all sin. Only leaving the desire or rather the choice one has made in their heart.

There's no reason to think God has separate parameters with which to judge these people, unless you have proper scripture to back it up. Like I said, Hebrews 4:11-13 isn't talking about this.

Hebrews 4 tells us that it is Christ who judges who is worthy and who is not to enter the kingdom of Heaven. It also tells us that it is not to the standard of man or his various expressions of religious effort that determines anything. This means it is not for you to say "Who has surrendered to Christ" let alone what a "chance to surrender even looks like."

All we can say is that the Christian Faith is the perscribed Path for an active informed believer to take. (One who is faithful to what he has been given) This does not mean that people found outside of organized Christianity are any less 'christian.' That is for Christ alone to decide.

---

[quote='Drich' pid='308252' dateline='1341900784']

Either you can provide book chapter and verse to have a responsiable conversation or you can't. which is it?

Matthew 5: 17-18 vs. Acts 15.

You sighted "Isaha 40 something." Am I to understand you no longer wish to persue this challenge sighting Isaha?

If you wish to further discuss the above mentioned passages please out line any descrepency you have with the stated verses. for i have already said I do not see any contradictions when viewed in completed context.

[Thor]

Yes because God is the literal defination of Good, or rather He orginally was the defination of Good.

So when this deity is drowning babies, turning people into pillars of salt, killing firstborn sons or telling us that we can keep slaves, this is all "Good"?

It seems you have fallen for the idea that right and wrong are standards that some how exist without God.

Unless you can demonstrate your god exists, then right and wrong are standards that exist without "God".

The oppsite is true. right and wrong only exist to describe your actions in relation to God's will.

By this standard, if this deity told you to kill your children, wouldn't refusing to do so be "wrong"?

Its simple. Right is anything in God's expressed will. Wrong any thing or reason not in the expressed will of God.

And how the hell are we supposed to know what is in the "expressed will" of this deity? By referencing a confusing, unclear, contradictory mish mash of a book? Because believers can't even agree among themselves what is and isn't moral.

Is stem cell research right or wrong? What about using birth control? How about polygamy? Premarital sex? Gambling? Some believers will say yes, some will say no. In which case, why should we pay any attention to you at all?

[Undeceived]

If you read on through verse 44, you would find Jesus talking about the spirit of the law, as opposed to the letter of the law. The spirit of the law is summed up in Matthew 22:37-40 (as well as Mark 12:30 and Luke 10:27):

The spirit of the law has never changed. In Matthew 5:17 Jesus says, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." In Acts 15, the Christians were realizing that circumcision was part of the letter of the law used by God as a means of showing allegiance. They found that the real lesson to follow was a "circumcision of the heart". The Mosaic laws weren't just a set of hoops to jump through. They were meant to point humans to a higher good.

You are helping to prove my point. The rest of Mark 5 has Jesus talking about specific laws and giving new meaning. At no time does Jesus indicate that the laws that will last until the end of the earth are not to be obeyed. In fact in 27 and 28 he now tries to make adultery a thought crime as well.

The loving god first and neighbors as yourself bit was in reply to the question 'which are the greatest of commandments' and in no way indicated that the rest are to be disobeyed.

The Mosaic Law, or "letter of the law" does not need to be followed. This includes traditions such as Sabbath keeping and sacrifices at the temple. It seems the law you mean is the Ten Commandments. Yes, adultery has always been wrong and will continue to be wrong until the end of time. Moral codes don't change or they wouldn't be codes. What is 'good' and what is 'bad' was inherently declared before human existence. In Acts 15, the disciples are discovering they no longer have to follow Jewish customs. But they should follow the ten commandments, or the condensed two (love God and love neighbor) which automatically cover the ten. The two came first. The ten are more specific guidelines, given to the Israelites so they might understand and so we would have a two-part Bible today to fully show Christians the Law, and fully show Christians the Grace to overcome that Law. By your own concession, the only 'change' Jesus made was in adding thought to the crime. Well, this is nothing new. If you consider a crime in your head, your mind is not on God. Deuteronomy 6:5 says to "Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength." It's the thought that counts. God doesn't want us simply to obey. Our obedience should be out of love. Action without the mind is meaningless! We are like children to Father God, or the wife to Husband Christ. If we only paid lip service and refrained from doing anything nasty, what kind of relationship would it be? Jesus explains the positive response the Israelites were too blind to see: love in place of hate. Do good because we want to do good. There's not just "thou shalt not"s but "thou shall"s. God wants our mind and soul, not our bodies.

Obviously we cannot follow this law. We do our best, out of love. Christ shows love for us first, by paying our debt--being righteous where we could not. Taking the punishment of death for us. No law is required for salvation, though full observance of the law (impossible) would still obtain salvation. Both are still in existence. If the law were not, we would have no need of Christ's sacrifice. The OT shows the presence of the law that never leaves. The NT shows God's planned response. We are unable to follow the law, but Jesus will follow it for us.

[The Grand Nudger]

Moral codes can and do change, which is precisely how we've managed to improve our society beyond the garbage trotted out as immutable and eternal by you and yours.

Is it so discomforting to imagine that your personal moral code might improve, or that you may not have been presented with suitable answers for the moral issues you may face -before you were even born, or those issues themselves ever became a reality-?

[Mister Agenda]

You should know better than that, I believed you knew scriptures better than that, I'm actually disappointed. If you are going down this road about God then why do you not tell those you pretend to worship with the truth. You do not because the truth is not in you, unbelievers do not and can not live as Christians of the light of truth do. Keep on waiting and these people you consider friends (why I do not know, you think they are stupid for what they believe don't you) will turn away from you in a heart beat, they we see you as a betrayer of their love for you. Mark my words it will happen. I say this to you for your friends sake, not yours.
All those children who starve to death in Africa will be in heaven, God has made provision for them. Again shame on you.

There's no prize here for 'most condescending asshole'. Just so you know. I know, maybe there should be, but I don't make the rules.

---

Godschild, we do not need to be putting shame on anybody, or be disappointed. God does not call us to judge. This is a serious question, and one way of answering it is by demonstrating God's love. Unbelievers choose to focus on negative aspects in life. We ought to present the other side in a caring way.

FallentoReason, there is so much good. Consider human relationships. A parent-child relationship is one of the most impactful and fulfilling experiences you will ever have. Husband-wife. Brother-sister. Neighbor-neighbor. Picture the best example you have ever seen of those. Then imagine if people were that loving to perfect strangers. Would there be starvation? No. Nor thievery, war or any other kind of destruction. God calls us to love our neighbor, even our enemy.

That was at least polite, thanks for that. There are billions of Christians, enough that no one would be in absolute poverty if half of them were as giving as you suggest. I'm the first one to hope for a better example from Christians, short of miracles, how you live is the best evidence you can provide.

[Cato]

The Mosaic Law, or "letter of the law" does not need to be followed. This includes traditions such as Sabbath keeping and sacrifices at the temple. It seems the law you mean is the Ten Commandments. Yes, adultery has always been wrong and will continue to be wrong until the end of time. Moral codes don't change or they wouldn't be codes. What is 'good' and what is 'bad' was inherently declared before human existence. In Acts 15, the disciples are discovering they no longer have to follow Jewish customs. But they should follow the ten commandments, or the condensed two (love God and love neighbor) which automatically cover the ten. The two came first. The ten are more specific guidelines, given to the Israelites so they might understand and so we would have a two-part Bible today to fully show Christians the Law, and fully show Christians the Grace to overcome that Law. By your own concession, the only 'change' Jesus made was in adding thought to the crime. Well, this is nothing new. If you consider a crime in your head, your mind is not on God. Deuteronomy 6:5 says to "Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength." It's the thought that counts. God doesn't want us simply to obey. Our obedience should be out of love. Action without the mind is meaningless! We are like children to Father God, or the wife to Husband Christ. If we only paid lip service and refrained from doing anything nasty, what kind of relationship would it be? Jesus explains the positive response the Israelites were too blind to see: love in place of hate. Do good because we want to do good. There's not just "thou shalt not"s but "thou shall"s. God wants our mind and soul, not our bodies.

Obviously we cannot follow this law. We do our best, out of love. Christ shows love for us first, by paying our debt--being righteous where we could not. Taking the punishment of death for us. No law is required for salvation, though full observance of the law (impossible) would still obtain salvation. Both are still in existence. If the law were not, we would have no need of Christ's sacrifice. The OT shows the presence of the law that never leaves. The NT shows God's planned response. We are unable to follow the law, but Jesus will follow it for us.

First, thanks for an honest answer and not the typical obfuscation.

The law still exists and always will, but is not required for salvation. Damnation is really only invoked for those that blaspheme the Holy Spirit and/or deny Christ as the savior. You claimed that Christians should abide the law. I understand this within the context of loving God, meaning that one could make an argument that serial murderers couldn't possibly love God, but even a serial murderer is not necessarily denied salvation.

From this I go to Matthew 5:19. According to this verse there will be a hierarchy of how those in heaven will be considered from least to greatest based on each's ability to adhere to the law. If I take the love God and neighbor maxims I can quickly run through all 613 commands and reasonably determine what the most important might be to a Christian.

Let's assume there are two people that follow 612 of the 613 commands. One man is homosexual, the other eats shrimp and lobster everyday. Will both be considered the same in heaven? Will both be considered far ahead of most based on their observance ratio?