what being apart from the law means.

[catfish]

Yup, context...
Apparently you guys don't pay attention to God either...

[The Grand Nudger]

Seriously guys... What the Hades makes all of you defend blood sacrifice?

Run-of-the-mill human bloodlust? Shot in the dark.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I did read your response, and i respect it. I was there for a long time myself. Matter of fact did some of my best works under the idea needing to stick to the law. (Nothing wrong with that if this is 110%of what God has given you to give.)… if you are ready the bible will grow with you.

For the sake of discussion let’s not assume that one doctrine must triumph but rather that we will both grow spiritually from this debate. As it says in Poverbs 27:17, “Iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.”

Unless I am mistaken the motivation for you original post was to address the pernicious objection that Christian selectively reference OT prohibitions against and punishments for filthy behaviors, like sodomy, while ignoring those for sundry laws or strict Sabbath observance. I think we both agree that the atheist objection comes from a failure to rightly divide the Word of God.

That said, I may not have been entirely clear, or you may have misunderstood my meaning, or you understand but still disagree. I can tell from your responses that you think my position leads to legalism. This is not the case. For explanation, I will first address the difference between compliance with OT law and obeying His commandments. Later, I will contrast the New Church meaning of “salvation” with the evangelical meaning, as it is relevant to our discussion.

The example of Jesus Christ during his ministry, the writings of the Apostles, and various OT references, support piety as the means for salvation and not substitutional sacrifice. Here piety means obedience to His commandments. You stated that the only way to be righteous before the cruxifiction was strict compliance with the law. Prior to the Passion, Jesus defended the actions of both Himself and His disciples.

It happened that when He went into the house of one of the leaders of the Pharisees on the Sabbath to eat bread, they were watching Him closely. And there in front of Him was a man suffering from dropsy. And Jesus answered and spoke to the lawyers and Pharisees, saying, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath, or not?" But they kept silent. And He took hold of him and healed him, and sent him away. (Luke 14:1-4

And…

At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath, and His disciples became hungry and began to pick the heads of grain and eat. But when the Pharisees saw this, they said to Him, "Look, Your disciples do what is not lawful to do on a Sabbath." Or have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the Sabbath and are innocent? But I say to you that something greater than the temple is here. But if you had known what this means, 'I DESIRE COMPASSION, AND NOT A SACRIFICE,' you would not have condemned the innocent. For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath. (Matthew 12:1-8)

These actions violated the letter of the Mosaic laws. Because they happened before the final sacrifice had been made. So the question is did Jesus and His disciples violate Law? The answer is yes and no. Yes, in a sense that was irrelevant, but not in the truest sense. As I stated earlier, by the time of Jesus, the laws of Moses had been stripped of all spiritual significance, not by God, but by the Jews themselves, and had become an instrument of evil as in:

Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them. “Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long; they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others. (Matthew 23:1-7)

And…

Now when He had spoken, a Pharisee asked Him to have lunch with him; and He went in, and reclined at the table. And when the Pharisee saw it, he was surprised that He had not first ceremonially washed before the meal. But the Lord said to him, “Now you Pharisees clean the outside of your cup and of the platter; but inside you are full of robbery and wickedness. You foolish ones, did not He who made the outside not make the inside also. But give that which is within as charity and then all things are clean for you.” (Luke 11:37)

The verse that makes my point is the last one. The rituals and prohibitions, performed without love have no meaning. Christians follow the internal meaning of the Mosaic law, the Commandement behind all other laws and rituals:

One of the scribes came and heard them arguing, and recognizing that He had answered them well, asked Him, “What commandment is the foremost of all?” Jesus answered, “The foremost is, ‘HEAR, O ISRAEL! THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD; AND YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH.’ “The second is this, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” The scribe said to Him, “Right, Teacher; You have truly stated that HE ISONE, AND THERE IS NO ONE ELSE BESIDES HIM; AND TO LOVE HIM WITH ALL THE HEART AND WITH ALL THE UNDERSTANDING AND WITH ALL THE STRENGTH, AND TO LOVE ONE’S NEIGHBOR AS HIMSELF, is much more than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.” (Mark 12:28-33)

This is that to which John refers:

I was very glad to find some of your children walking in truth, just as we have received commandment to do from the Father. Now I ask you, lady, not as though I were writing to you a new commandment, but the one which we have had from the beginning, that we love one another. And this is love, that we walk according to His commandments. This is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, that you should walk in it. (2 John 1:4-6)

And we are instructed to obey this commandment:

This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth; but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin. (1 John 1:5-7)

From this it is clear that an intellectual belief is Jesus is not sufficient. You must also practice love. You must do what you believe. If you do not do what your believe, then you will not be cleansed of sin. This cleaning does not mean God ignores previous evil deeds. All will be held accountable for their deeds as it says:

Therefore, being always of good courage, and knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord— for we walk by faith, not by sight— we are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord. Therefore we also have as our ambition, whether at home or absent, to be pleasing to Him. For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad. (2 Corinthiand 5: 6-10)

This supports the interpretation of James when he says, “Faith without works is dead.” Without the works that confirm your faith, you do not really have faith, only an intellectual belief. Unless the Lord’s commandment, to love Him and our neighbor as ourselves, is written on your heart and becomes part of your will and not just your mind, so that “walk the walk”, you are not saved.

Ultimately, my point is that piety is important to salvation. You can find this belief not unique to Swedenborgism. You can also see it in Methodism, Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, and Roman Catholicism. The “faith alone” doctrine comes out of Luther and Calvin from whom it has spread into the Southern Baptists and other Evangelical groups. That does not mean Lutherans Calvinists and Evangelicals are not saved, only that they are mistaken about the means of salvation.

[Drich]

I have tried to post a lengthy response a few times now, and for one reason other another Techinical glitch or devine intervention I can't. So I will try and condense everything.

I agree with everything you said, but here is where we differ.

We/Christians are to be 'pieous' not as a means of earning salvation, but as an expression of our all in love we are to have for God. I know you maybe thinking 6 of one 1/2 a dozen of another, but the 'pieous' acts in of themselves hold no value to God. That is the underlining principle of the parable of the Wise and foolish builders. The "houses" both men built are the pieous/Good deeds. On the outside both where identical. Meaning a righteous man and a condemned man can do the exact same thing, and one be rewarded for his deeds and another condemned for doing the exact same thing. where we stand or fall before the Lord is on the Foundation in which we build our deeds. If we build on a foundation of Love, then we will be able to weather any storm.

Again I do not disagree on the what, it is the why that makes or breaks our efforts.

[Ben Davis]

Because in Jesus' "completion" of the Law it was expanded to include thought. Which makes one guilt of sin even if one's thoughts are not undercontrol all of the time. Also remember we are told if we are guilty of breaking the smallest part of the Law, but keep all of the rest in God's POV we are still guilty of breaking all of it James 2:10-13. Which brings us back to a 'righteousness' the surpasses the righeousness of those who dedicated their lives to up holding the law.

Sorry to divert your thread but this stood out for me. It's one of the main reasons why I fundamentally disagree with the precepts of Christianity, irrespective of the truth of the existence of god: this is the definition of thought-crime which is the foundation of the totalitarian concept. Because that concept underlies all of Jesus' teachings, it fundamentally taints all of his teachings with unethical propositions: you first need to accept/capitulate to totalitarianism before you can 'follow Jesus on his path'.

[The Grand Nudger]

I very much doubt that christians actually put their chips in with that bullshit either. Imagine how vociferously they would defend themselves if the state brought them up on charges of thought crime. Say, for the thought crime of imagining a man tortured to death. Thought-murder, if you will.



(Who wants to lay bets on whether or not they'd demand that the state produce the body?)

[Neo-Scholastic]

Because in Jesus' "completion" of the Law it was expanded to include thought. Which makes one guilt of sin even if one's thoughts are not undercontrol all of the time. Also remember we are told if we are guilty of breaking the smallest part of the Law, but keep all of the rest in God's POV we are still guilty of breaking all of it James 2:10-13. Which brings us back to a 'righteousness' the surpasses the righeousness of those who dedicated their lives to up holding the law.

Sorry to divert your thread but this stood out for me. It's one of the main reasons why I fundamentally disagree with the precepts of Christianity, irrespective of the truth of the existence of god: this is the definition of thought-crime which is the foundation of the totalitarian concept. Because that concept underlies all of Jesus' teachings, it fundamentally taints all of his teachings with unethical propositions: you first need to accept/capitulate to totalitarianism before you can 'follow Jesus on his path'.

Ignorance of the truth is its own slavery. An impure heart is its own punishment.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'll take platitudinous replies for 500 Alex.

[Drich]

Because in Jesus' "completion" of the Law it was expanded to include thought. Which makes one guilt of sin even if one's thoughts are not undercontrol all of the time. Also remember we are told if we are guilty of breaking the smallest part of the Law, but keep all of the rest in God's POV we are still guilty of breaking all of it James 2:10-13. Which brings us back to a 'righteousness' the surpasses the righeousness of those who dedicated their lives to up holding the law.

Sorry to divert your thread but this stood out for me. It's one of the main reasons why I fundamentally disagree with the precepts of Christianity, irrespective of the truth of the existence of god: this is the definition of thought-crime which is the foundation of the totalitarian concept. Because that concept underlies all of Jesus' teachings, it fundamentally taints all of his teachings with unethical propositions: you first need to accept/capitulate to totalitarianism before you can 'follow Jesus on his path'.

.....

Then why offer attonement in your view?

Attonement is to bridge the gap for those who fail to meet what you have identified as a totalitarianism. Is this how you understand Tot-ism to work?
Meaning Attonement allows us to live work and function outside the absolute standard of Righteousness God has placed on us, and still be considered righteous.

---

I'll take platitudinous replies for 500 Alex.

What are Rhythm's last two posts in this thread?

[The Grand Nudger]

One would be an expression of my doubts with regards to the depth of your faith, the next would be a commentary on your counterparts inability to offer anything other than a trite little catchphrase.

Questions?