didnt want to necropost: what completing the law means.

[Drich]

Many of you have asked or brought up mat 5 and the subject of Christ sayin he did not come to abolish the law but to full fill it. in contrast to Christians living and worshiping differently than the ot jews.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiYJ5Io59gU&t=256s

The video explains why. this is an answer you guys helped me develop over time. the short answer is the law contain the rules of atonement and when Christ full filled the law atonement requirements were perpetually being filled as well for the believers only.

Which is where the part the law never goes away comes in. it is to judge all non believers. in it's completed form the law extends to thought. so to think about breaking the law is the same as doing
 before God which pushes an honest man to say he can never live a perfect enough life therefore need atonement Christ offers.

[The Grand Nudger]

A separate set of rules for party dissidents which can proceed from thought crime charges.

Very good comrade.

[Brian37]

Many of you have asked or brought up mat 5 and the subject of Christ sayin he did not come to abolish the law but to full fill it. in contrast to Christians living and worshiping differently than the ot jews.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiYJ5Io59gU&t=256s

The video explains why. this is an answer you guys helped me develop over time. the short answer is the law contain the rules of atonement and when Christ full filled the law atonement requirements were perpetually being filled as well for the believers only.

Which is where the part the law never goes away comes in. it is to judge all non believers. in it's completed form the law extends to thought. so to think about breaking the law is the same as doing
 before God which pushes an honest man to say he can never live a perfect enough life therefore need atonement Christ offers.

If that old book constituted morality, blacks would still be slaves and women would still not be allowed to vote.

You really have never, in the time you have been here, ever been willing to open your eyes and see the contradictions in that book. OT and NT conflict, and even in the Gospels between authors, even they conflict.

But don't think I am solely picking on Christianity. Sunnis and Shiites don't agree on the interpretation of the Koran. You also cant get a Tibet Buddhist to agree with a Chinese Buddhist or Japanese Shinto Buddhist.

There are also liberal Jews and conservative Jews. There are liberal Hindus and Conservative Hindus.

I could care less what the claims of ancient mythology make, regardless of nation or religion. What matters to me is how an individual behaves, not what they claim.

[brewer]

[no one]

You say "many of you", just exactly how many voices are in your head?

[Nay_Sayer]

[Drich]

A separate set of rules for party dissidents which can proceed from thought crime charges.

Very good comrade.

same rule, forgiveness being apart of those rules, applies to one party but not the other.

---

Many of you have asked or brought up mat 5 and the subject of Christ sayin he did not come to abolish the law but to full fill it. in contrast to Christians living and worshiping differently than the ot jews.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiYJ5Io59gU&t=256s

The video explains why. this is an answer you guys helped me develop over time. the short answer is the law contain the rules of atonement and when Christ full filled the law atonement requirements were perpetually being filled as well for the believers only.

Which is where the part the law never goes away comes in. it is to judge all non believers. in it's completed form the law extends to thought. so to think about breaking the law is the same as doing
 before God which pushes an honest man to say he can never live a perfect enough life therefore need atonement Christ offers.

If that old book constituted morality, blacks would still be slaves and women would still not be allowed to vote.

actually no. that is you own racism poking it head up. The bible never identified blacks as a race to enslave. and there is no Prohibition from women voting. not only that but the trifecta of your wrongness is made complete with something i have already pointed out. in that morality only represents 1/3 of the law. Which makes sin less about morality than one would think.

You really have never, in the time you have been here, ever been willing to open your eyes and see the contradictions in that book.

you are speaking in generalities. I have no issue with the conflict in the bible.

OT and NT conflict, and even in the Gospels between authors, even they conflict.

ot and nt reperent two different religions of course they conflicted. even Jesus conflicted with his OT contemporaries. there is no dispute there yes they conflict as that is the point. The Jews Killed Christ because there was so much conflict.

Paul and peter had a conflict to the definition of what it meant to be christian. peter thought one had to be come an OT jew then NT christian and Paul taught you could simply accept Christ out of faith and not works of becoming a jew first. but as i point out here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGdO54_onsw&t=107s
we are not given a list of rules to follow as nt Christians just 2 and the both say do your best to love God and each other. we are in conflict of that because our best looks different from culture to culture even person to person.

But don't think I am solely picking on Christianity. Sunnis and Shiites don't agree on the interpretation of the Koran.

but we are not supposed to. that was the reason to have written to each church individually rather than set one set of rules to all churches.

[The Grand Nudger]

Did you say that out loud before you typed it?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

actually no. that is you own racism poking it head up. The bible never identified blacks as a race to enslave. and there is no Prohibition from women voting. not only that but the trifecta of your wrongness is made complete with something i have already pointed out. in that morality only represents 1/3 of the law. Which makes sin less about morality than one would think.

I think the point was that supporters of both slavery and the restriction of voting rights used biblical references to support their respective positions. Things like ‘God said it’s OK to enslave people’ and ‘Women are worth less than men, so we get to vote and they don’t.’

I don’t think it’s coincidental that as the influence of religion on a society grows weaker, equality and civil rights become more and more the norm.

Boru

[The Architect Of Fate]

actually no. that is you own racism poking it head up. The bible never identified blacks as a race to enslave.

And yet southern slavers used the bible as justification and you don't need racism to enslave someone and how the fuck is that racism .

 and there is no Prohibition from women voting.

And yet name one christian society before 19th century that allowed women to vote and didn't have a distinctive patriarchal   structure that tried to keep women out of politics and used religion as justification to keep them out .

not only that but the trifecta of your wrongness is made complete with something i have already pointed out. in that morality only represents 1/3 of the law. Which makes sin less about morality than one would think.

Which alone proves your book isn't worth the paper it's printed on