The Godless left showing their tolerance!

kudzu said:
Nope.

Socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another.

Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members.

continued

https://www.britannica.com/topic/socialism
Click to expand...

So if we work in cooperation with one another then we can do away with government cool!
 
Wolverine said:
One of the most helpful ways to think about this is to look at the types of laws there are in the Old Testament. The 16th-century Reformer John Calvin saw that the NT seemed to treat the OT laws in three ways. There were Civil Laws, which governed the nation of Israel, encompassing not only behaviors, but also punishments for crimes. There were Ceremonial Laws about “clean” and “unclean” things, about various kinds of sacrifices, and other temple practices. And then there were the Moral Laws, which declared what God deemed right and wrong—the 10 Commandments, for instance.

For OT Israel, all three types of laws blended together. Breaking a civil or a ceremonial law was a moral problem; conversely, breaking a moral law had a civil (and often ceremonial) consequence. But they only went hand-in-hand because Israel was in a unique place historically, as both a nation and a worshiping community. “Separation of church and state” wasn’t one of their core tenets. That’s not the case for the Church today, so the way we view the Law would have to look different.

All of this helps explain what often seems contradictory about the NT view of the Law. On one hand, Jesus said the Law was perfect, that heaven and earth would pass away before the Law would fail (Matt 5:18). On the other hand, the Apostle Paul points out that those who are born again are actually released from the Law (Rom 7:1-6; Gal 3:25). As Jesus himself put it, he came to fulfill the Law (Matt 5:17).

What does it mean that Jesus fulfilled the Law? It means that every law pointed to him, and he completed everything they pointed to. Thinking of Jesus as the fulfillment of the Law helps us see why we keep some of the OT commands and “ignore” others.

The Civil Laws, for instance, were set up so the nation of Israel could thrive. Jesus actually emerged from this nation, but he started a new Israel—a spiritual Israel, the Church. We’re no longer bound by the civil codes of Leviticus because God doesn’t have a nation-state on earth anymore. Of course, we may wisely look at some of the principles in Israel’s civil laws as we think of our own societal politics (principles about public health, caring for the poor, etc.), but the specific rules were all fulfilled in Jesus.

The Ceremonial Laws illustrate for us God’s holiness, our unholiness, and what God would do about it. The entire sacrificial system should have ingrained into Israel’s minds just how large the gap was between sinful humanity and a perfect God—and just how costly it would be to bridge that gap. And as the book of Hebrews shows us, the sacrifices were all fulfilled in Jesus’ perfect life and death. If we accept Jesus, the ultimate sacrifice, we don’t need the lesser sacrifices anymore. In fact, it would actually be offensive to go back to them, because that would communicate that Jesus’ sacrifice wasn’t sufficient.

The Moral Laws are fulfilled in Jesus as well, in that he kept all of them perfectly, every day, always, for his entire life. But unlike the civil and ceremonial laws, which were more time-bound, these laws reflected God’s assessment of good and evil, right and wrong. They reflect God’s character, and since his character doesn’t change, his views on morality don’t either. In fact, whenever Jesus mentioned the moral laws, he either reaffirmed them or intensified them! To follow Jesus is to love what he loved, including the moral law.

Now, even though we still defend the moral laws of the Old Testament, we have to keep in mind that Jesus fulfilled it all. The Christian is not under obligation to keep the moral law as a way of earning their way to God. Instead, they are changed by the presence of God’s Spirit to desire to keep God’s laws. Because God isn’t just after obedience; he’s after a whole new kind of obedience, an obedience that comes from love and delight in God. Christians keep the moral commands, not because “it’s the law,” but because they love God and want to be like him.
Click to expand...
What is your source for this?
 
Frank Apisa said:
Yeah. Conveniently, he answers them either "yes" or "no."

So does Zeus...and Santa Claus.

Childish bullshit.

YOU should not be preaching religion...especially not Christianity. You do it much more harm than good.
Click to expand...

Actually because Gods timing is perfect sometimes it is wait and be patient!
 
Wolverine said:
One of the most helpful ways to think about this is to look at the types of laws there are in the Old Testament. The 16th-century Reformer John Calvin saw that the NT seemed to treat the OT laws in three ways. There were Civil Laws, which governed the nation of Israel, encompassing not only behaviors, but also punishments for crimes. There were Ceremonial Laws about “clean” and “unclean” things, about various kinds of sacrifices, and other temple practices. And then there were the Moral Laws, which declared what God deemed right and wrong—the 10 Commandments, for instance.

For OT Israel, all three types of laws blended together. Breaking a civil or a ceremonial law was a moral problem; conversely, breaking a moral law had a civil (and often ceremonial) consequence. But they only went hand-in-hand because Israel was in a unique place historically, as both a nation and a worshiping community. “Separation of church and state” wasn’t one of their core tenets. That’s not the case for the Church today, so the way we view the Law would have to look different.

All of this helps explain what often seems contradictory about the NT view of the Law. On one hand, Jesus said the Law was perfect, that heaven and earth would pass away before the Law would fail (Matt 5:18). On the other hand, the Apostle Paul points out that those who are born again are actually released from the Law (Rom 7:1-6; Gal 3:25). As Jesus himself put it, he came to fulfill the Law (Matt 5:17).

What does it mean that Jesus fulfilled the Law? It means that every law pointed to him, and he completed everything they pointed to. Thinking of Jesus as the fulfillment of the Law helps us see why we keep some of the OT commands and “ignore” others.

The Civil Laws, for instance, were set up so the nation of Israel could thrive. Jesus actually emerged from this nation, but he started a new Israel—a spiritual Israel, the Church. We’re no longer bound by the civil codes of Leviticus because God doesn’t have a nation-state on earth anymore. Of course, we may wisely look at some of the principles in Israel’s civil laws as we think of our own societal politics (principles about public health, caring for the poor, etc.), but the specific rules were all fulfilled in Jesus.

The Ceremonial Laws illustrate for us God’s holiness, our unholiness, and what God would do about it. The entire sacrificial system should have ingrained into Israel’s minds just how large the gap was between sinful humanity and a perfect God—and just how costly it would be to bridge that gap. And as the book of Hebrews shows us, the sacrifices were all fulfilled in Jesus’ perfect life and death. If we accept Jesus, the ultimate sacrifice, we don’t need the lesser sacrifices anymore. In fact, it would actually be offensive to go back to them, because that would communicate that Jesus’ sacrifice wasn’t sufficient.

The Moral Laws are fulfilled in Jesus as well, in that he kept all of them perfectly, every day, always, for his entire life. But unlike the civil and ceremonial laws, which were more time-bound, these laws reflected God’s assessment of good and evil, right and wrong. They reflect God’s character, and since his character doesn’t change, his views on morality don’t either. In fact, whenever Jesus mentioned the moral laws, he either reaffirmed them or intensified them! To follow Jesus is to love what he loved, including the moral law.

Now, even though we still defend the moral laws of the Old Testament, we have to keep in mind that Jesus fulfilled it all. The Christian is not under obligation to keep the moral law as a way of earning their way to God. Instead, they are changed by the presence of God’s Spirit to desire to keep God’s laws. Because God isn’t just after obedience; he’s after a whole new kind of obedience, an obedience that comes from love and delight in God. Christians keep the moral commands, not because “it’s the law,” but because they love God and want to be like him.
Click to expand...
You need to source this, please
 
domer76 said:
The universe is governed by nothing? Obviously, you are ignorant of the laws of phyics.

No surprises there.
Click to expand...

The laws of physics? bwa ha ha they are on my side as in if there was a big bang, it took an action, and equal or greater reaction, where did the reactionaries come from genius?
 
Wolverine said:
Any ultimate claim about reality begins with a faith commitment.
Click to expand...

Horse shit!

The true nature of the REALITY of existence...is not now KNOWN to humans.

That is an ultimate claim...and there is no faith commitment about it.

It is an agnostic position.

Some skeptics are willing to admit this point (not many, mind you). Take Crispin Sartwell for example, who explains in his Atlantic article how he has taken an "atheist leap of faith." He concedes that religious folk and non-religious folk all have a faith commitment to how they understand the world (which means all folk are religious, by the way!).
Click to expand...

Forgetting for a second the descriptor "atheist"...if someone asserts that there ARE NO gods...that person is asserting a blind guess (what you call making a leap of faith) every bit as much as someone asserting there IS a god

Whether we admit it or not, we all build our view of the world on an assumption, a big picture about what's really real, that we cannot prove.
Click to expand...

No, we ALL don't. I don't.


That's okay. It's unavoidable. The main question is which starting point, which assumption, what presupposition, is the right one? Which one is true?
Click to expand...

Making a blind guess on the question "Do any gods exist?"...IS NOT UNAVOIDABLE.

It is the sensible thing to do. It is what many intelligent people do. It is the most honest and ethical thing one can do.

The Christian begins with a belief that God exists and that he has revealed himself. That is no more or less religious than Carl Sagan's famous quote, "The cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be." The question for thinking people is which one is true: either a world that began in chance, is governed by nothing, and is heading nowhere, or one that filled with purpose and meaning because there is a Creator, an intelligence, behind it all.
Click to expand...

Sagan (and Einstein) were of an agnostic mind.

Your dichotomy is a gratuitous theistic piece of nonsense.

We do not know the REALITY. There is nothing wrong with making blind guesses about it in either direction. If you choose to make a blind guess that there is a god...and call that guess a "belief"...fine. If someone else chooses to make a blind guess that no gods exist...fine.

Unless you suppose a god who would SEVERELY punish someone for stating that totally reasonable position, why not just leave it there?
 
LV426 said:
Homosexuality isn't a sin.

No one chooses to be gay or straight.

But you do choose to be a Christian.

So discriminating against Christians is OK because Christianity is a choice.
Click to expand...

You are wrong it is a sinful perverted thought acted upon therefore choice!
 
Wolverine said:
One of the most helpful ways to think about this is to look at the types of laws there are in the Old Testament. The 16th-century Reformer John Calvin saw that the NT seemed to treat the OT laws in three ways. There were Civil Laws, which governed the nation of Israel, encompassing not only behaviors, but also punishments for crimes. There were Ceremonial Laws about “clean” and “unclean” things, about various kinds of sacrifices, and other temple practices. And then there were the Moral Laws, which declared what God deemed right and wrong—the 10 Commandments, for instance.

For OT Israel, all three types of laws blended together. Breaking a civil or a ceremonial law was a moral problem; conversely, breaking a moral law had a civil (and often ceremonial) consequence. But they only went hand-in-hand because Israel was in a unique place historically, as both a nation and a worshiping community. “Separation of church and state” wasn’t one of their core tenets. That’s not the case for the Church today, so the way we view the Law would have to look different.

All of this helps explain what often seems contradictory about the NT view of the Law. On one hand, Jesus said the Law was perfect, that heaven and earth would pass away before the Law would fail (Matt 5:18). On the other hand, the Apostle Paul points out that those who are born again are actually released from the Law (Rom 7:1-6; Gal 3:25). As Jesus himself put it, he came to fulfill the Law (Matt 5:17).

What does it mean that Jesus fulfilled the Law? It means that every law pointed to him, and he completed everything they pointed to. Thinking of Jesus as the fulfillment of the Law helps us see why we keep some of the OT commands and “ignore” others.

The Civil Laws, for instance, were set up so the nation of Israel could thrive. Jesus actually emerged from this nation, but he started a new Israel—a spiritual Israel, the Church. We’re no longer bound by the civil codes of Leviticus because God doesn’t have a nation-state on earth anymore. Of course, we may wisely look at some of the principles in Israel’s civil laws as we think of our own societal politics (principles about public health, caring for the poor, etc.), but the specific rules were all fulfilled in Jesus.

The Ceremonial Laws illustrate for us God’s holiness, our unholiness, and what God would do about it. The entire sacrificial system should have ingrained into Israel’s minds just how large the gap was between sinful humanity and a perfect God—and just how costly it would be to bridge that gap. And as the book of Hebrews shows us, the sacrifices were all fulfilled in Jesus’ perfect life and death. If we accept Jesus, the ultimate sacrifice, we don’t need the lesser sacrifices anymore. In fact, it would actually be offensive to go back to them, because that would communicate that Jesus’ sacrifice wasn’t sufficient.

The Moral Laws are fulfilled in Jesus as well, in that he kept all of them perfectly, every day, always, for his entire life. But unlike the civil and ceremonial laws, which were more time-bound, these laws reflected God’s assessment of good and evil, right and wrong. They reflect God’s character, and since his character doesn’t change, his views on morality don’t either. In fact, whenever Jesus mentioned the moral laws, he either reaffirmed them or intensified them! To follow Jesus is to love what he loved, including the moral law.

Now, even though we still defend the moral laws of the Old Testament, we have to keep in mind that Jesus fulfilled it all. The Christian is not under obligation to keep the moral law as a way of earning their way to God. Instead, they are changed by the presence of God’s Spirit to desire to keep God’s laws. Because God isn’t just after obedience; he’s after a whole new kind of obedience, an obedience that comes from love and delight in God. Christians keep the moral commands, not because “it’s the law,” but because they love God and want to be like him.
Click to expand...

C'mon, Wolverine.

If you want to twist things to say that Jesus "fulfilled the law" (which obviously makes no sense except to someone trying to rationalize away the passage in Matthew 5) fine. Do it. It doesn't work...but you can attempt it.

BUT...the Earth HAS NOT PASSED AWAY.

There is no getting around that...or at least no way I can see.

Let's hear a bit about that, because unless that has happened...IT DOESN'T MAKE A BIT OF DIFFERENCE WHAT PAUL SAID...unless you are saying that what Paul says (that contradicts what Jesus said)...takes precedence.

In other words, unless you are saying what Paul says is the correct and the truth...and what Jesus said is a wrong and a lie...

...then ALL the laws of Leviticus and Deuteronomy still apply.
 
Frank Apisa said:
C'mon, Wolverine.

If you want to twist things to say that Jesus "fulfilled the law" (which obviously makes no sense except to someone trying to rationalize away the passage in Matthew 5) fine. Do it. It doesn't work...but you can attempt it.

BUT...the Earth HAS NOT PASSED AWAY.

There is no getting around that...or at least no way I can see.

Let's hear a bit about that, because unless that has happened...IT DOESN'T MAKE A BIT OF DIFFERENCE WHAT PAUL SAID...unless you are saying that what Paul says (that contradicts what Jesus said)...takes precedence.

In other words, unless you are saying what Paul says is the correct and the truth...and what Jesus said is a wrong and a lie...

...then ALL the laws of Leviticus and Deuteronomy still apply.
Click to expand...
He is not saying anything, those aren’t his words and he won’t name his source.
 
Phantasmal said:
Yes, I found the source, I was trying to get him to source it. He seems to be avoiding me, intentional? Was he trying to pass this off as his own?
Click to expand...

I don't know.

I didn't realize your were trying to get him to source it himself.

Not sure now if I outed him.

If you feel there is that chance...please pull my post. I am not trying to do that...nor would I.
 
Frank Apisa said:
I don't know.

I didn't realize your were trying to get him to source it himself.

Not sure now if I outed him.

If you feel there is that chance...please pull my post. I am not trying to do that...nor would I.
Click to expand...
I was going to source it as well. I just wanted to give him a chance to do it. I’d hate to think he was trying to pass it off as his. I don’t care for plagiarism.
 
Wolverine said:
The laws of physics? bwa ha ha they are on my side as in if there was a big bang, it took an action, and equal or greater reaction, where did the reactionaries come from genius?
Click to expand...

No, Cindy, they're not on your side.

A. They demonstrate miracles to be impossible.
B. They demonstrate the Great Flood of the bible to be impossible.
C. They indicate that a perpetual Big Bang/Cycle is very possible.

Please don't talk about things you clearly don't (and can't) understand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top