Catholic Voxpop in Dublin.

Pygmalion

Newsite wrote: »

See my post below, but you can't 'rely on yourself' to know right from wrong - this is always going to be based on your standard, not the standard laid out by the One who made you.

Which is odd, because those who follow the guidance of this "creator" tend to harbor a lot of irrational hatred towards homosexuals, women and those who don't share their views on the creator.

I guess that maybe we're meant to be a hate-filled species and I just shouldn't rely on my mortal compass when it tells me that hating people who aren't harming others is bad.

Newsite

Pygmalion wrote: »

Ignoring the fact that Jesus didn't say that, which is what you were asked, which part of that actually refers to gay sex?

I knew that was coming All Scripture is the Word of God.

Pygmalion wrote: »

Edit: Googled it and apparently some translations specifically mention homosexuality instead of the more vague "abusers of themselves with mankind", which I didn't interpret that way.
So fair enough on that point, I guess I should change my argument from "Where in your iron age scribblings does it prohibit this?" to "Why have you not progressed past iron age scribblings as a source of morality?"

Because this is a book which has lasted for thousands of years and God's Word and His morality never changes.

Newsite

Pygmalion wrote: »

Which is odd, because those who follow the guidance of this "creator" tend to harbor a lot of irrational hatred towards homosexuals, women and those who don't share their views on the creator.

Well ignore such people because any true Christian doesn't hate anyone, least of all gay people. Don't confuse preaching the message with rednecks and bigots who hate gay people etc because they are different or because they are full of hate themselves.

The problem is in mistaking the meaning - the 'hate' of God is NOT the sinful, selfish human emotion, it's a holiness and a desire to exercise judgment on those who would rebel against Him.

Pygmalion

Newsite wrote: »

Because this is a book which has lasted for thousands of years and God's Word and His morality never changes.

Well then you should probably renounce Christ and consider worshipping Shuppura, because this book has the bible beaten by far.

If by "lasted for thousands of years" you meant it's still widely followed then consider Hinduism, the Rig Veda has far outlasted the bible too (though by centuries less than many Sumerian texts)

Pygmalion

Newsite wrote: »

Well ignore such people because any true Christian doesn't hate anyone, least of all gay people. Don't confuse preaching the message with rednecks and bigots who hate gay people etc because they are different or because they are full of hate themselves.

The problem is in mistaking the meaning - the 'hate' of God is NOT the sinful, selfish human emotion, it's a holiness and a desire to exercise judgment on those who would rebel against Him.

You've compared gay sex (well, sodomy, in the context of a discussion on why you feel gay marriage should not be encouraged) to murder, theft and rape.
I think it's fairly safe to say that you hate gay people, even if you like to pretend that you're somehow full of love and compassion for everyone.

I can't say that someone is comparable to a rapist and shouldn't be allowed to marry the person they love, and then turn around and say I don't hate them, it just doesn't work like that.

Delirium

Newsite wrote: »

Ok I've edited my post, as this is not what is conveyed - it's not that you are 'evil', it's that the default setting of mankind is disobedience and rebellion towards God - which means you must be born again 'ye must be born again'. There are two births referred to here - that of your actual birth, and that of being born in the Holy Spirit. 'Ye must be born again' in practice means that at some point during your life, you must receive the Grace of God in order to repent and be saved. The evidence of someone saved is when you see someone 'bearing fruit', i.e. displaying a change of mind and a change of behaviour, obedient to God's will.

That's only from a Christian POV. Obviously if you don't accept the existence of God, then you can't disobey or rebel against him.

As for the "evidence" that someone is saved, that will only be proved after the person has died.

If the above sounds dismaying, outrageous and all 'fire and brimstone', it's because you've been lied to your whole life - by people who should know better, mainly. You'll rarely (never) hear about Hell or the danger of the judgment at mass - but if you open a Bible at any page I guarantee you will land on a verse about God's wrath or his warnings about disobedience. Try it now just to see. This is because that for every mention of love and kindness (which obviously are so important to know about too, since these are the rewards of obedience, and a beautiful thing!), you will get many, many, many more verses on His hate and wrath for those 'workers of iniquity'. That is, those who would rather please themselves - sleeping around, getting divorces, lying, stealing, preaching a false Gospel, etc.

nah, it isn't that dismaying/outrageous to me as I grew up listening to plenty of fire and brimstone in school and church. They really liked to develop a mindset of fear and guilt (with a sprinkling of God loves you to make sure despair didn't overwhelm people).

It's really weird that God can't show a level of love and kindness that most parents can show to their offspring (especially true when you consider the teenage years!). Kids don't always obey their parents, but their parents still show love and kindness to them.

The message is one of the amazing gift of salvation and not having to spend eternity cut-off from God. It's not depressing, it is amazing. And the beauty of it is in its simplicity - there are no complex rules once you can see the light.

It actually is depressing, it's the cosmic equivalent of a parent saying to a kid, "tell me you love me and I won't put my cigarette out in your arm."

swampgas

Newsite wrote: »

I knew that was coming All Scripture is the Word of God.

Because this is a book which has lasted for thousands of years and God's Word and His morality never changes.

And you know this because ... the very same book tells you so?

You may choose to believe in the bible, but there is no rational reason why you should, and you should not expect arguments derived from the bible to hold any weight when arguing with a bunch of people who, for the most part, don't believe the bible to be the "Word of God" at all.

Newsite

Pygmalion wrote: »

You've compared gay sex (well, sodomy, in the context of a discussion on why you feel gay marriage should not be encouraged) to murder, theft and rape.
I think it's fairly safe to say that you hate gay people, even if you like to pretend that you're somehow full of love and compassion for everyone.

It seems that you support sodomy Pygmalion. I'd say it's fairly safe to say that you are a homosexual. That's a safe bet, no?

See what I did there?

The thing that does bemuse me (and of which those who protest and accuse are blissfully unaware) is that those who are the first ones to say 'judge not lest ye be judged' in indignation at people who believe, are the very same ones who will jump to cast judgment!

So I would say take your judgment elsewhere. You are completely wrong, just in case I needed to point that out.

Pygmalion wrote: »

I can't say that someone is comparable to a rapist and shouldn't be allowed to marry the person they love, and then turn around and say I don't hate them, it just doesn't work like that.

Be careful not to distort words here. Because you're not understanding. It's not that a rapist is comparable to someone who is gay. That would be clearly ridiculous. It's that sodomy/gay sex is a sin. And rape is a sin.

Newsite

swampgas wrote: »

And you know this because ... the very same book tells you so?

You may choose to believe in the bible, but there is no rational reason why you should, and you should not expect arguments derived from the bible to hold any weight when arguing with a bunch of people who, for the most part, don't believe the bible to be the "Word of God" at all.

I know this only by the Grace of God. This is why 'rational' arguments are ultimately futile in this respect. I don't choose to believe in the Bible. Again, it is solely by the Grace of God that I believe in it and understand the words therein. Up until a few months ago, incidentally, it would have meant as much to you as it did to me, perhaps. Perhaps.

It's nothing that I did that has landed me on this forum. It's not that I choose to believe.

'Many are called, few are chosen'.

swampgas

Newsite wrote: »

I know this only by the Grace of God. This is why 'rational' arguments are ultimately futile in this respect. I don't choose to believe in the Bible. Again, it is solely by the Grace of God that I believe in it and understand the words therein.

I've bolded the bit that intrigues me.

I don't know why you bother trying to debate or argue at all, when you state yourself that your starting point is irrational. If the basis for your argument is irrational, it doesn't matter how logical you are afterwards.

I find constant references to biblical quotes in debates such as this highly annoying, as it assumes that others accept the bible has any authority.

marienbad

Newsite wrote: »

It seems that you support sodomy Pygmalion. I'd say it's fairly safe to say that you are a homosexual. That's a safe bet, no?

See what I did there?

The thing that does bemuse me (and of which those who protest and accuse are blissfully unaware) is that those who are the first ones to say 'judge not lest ye be judged' in indignation at people who believe, are the very same ones who will jump to cast judgment!

So I would say take your judgment elsewhere. You are completely wrong, just in case I needed to point that out.



Be careful not to distort words here. Because you're not understanding. It's not that a rapist is comparable to someone who is gay. That would be clearly ridiculous. It's that sodomy/gay sex is a sin. And rape is a sin.

Theft, taking the lord's name in vain, False Gods, murder etc are also sins Newsite, but why does every thread have to descent to slagging off homosexuals and why is every comparision always rape paedophilia etc .

Millions are underfed, living in terrible conditions, war ravaged , yet the issue that seems to excite these threads the most is the thought of sodomy , which I would remind you a lot of straight married couple love to indulge in also ( never acknowledged though) .

What is it with christians and sex ? It is like a dog with a bone.

Newsite

marienbad wrote: »

Theft, taking the lord's name in vain, False Gods, murder etc are also sins Newsite, but why does every thread have to descent to slagging off homosexuals and why is every comparision always rape paedophilia etc .

Millions are underfed, living in terrible conditions, war ravaged , yet the issue that seems to excite these threads the most is the thought of sodomy , which I would remind you a lot of straight married couple love to indulge in also ( never acknowledged though) .

What is it with christians and sex ? It is like a dog with a bone.

It's not about sex per se - it's that if you look at the course society has taken over the past decades/centuries, the widespread acceptance of gay sex/gay marriage (and indeed fornication/casual sex/sleeping around - it's not just homosexual sex), is the last rung on the ladder. It's a sign of an utterly corrupt generation - you don't see people saying that murder is acceptable, or that rape is acceptable, etc. You don't have 'National Larceny Day', 'National Day of Lying'. These are rightly condemned and seen as destructive. But at the same time there are no issues with gay pride parades and the like. Plus the contention that 'but who are they harming' fails because it's God's standard that matters in the end, not man's. What use is doing what you feel like and following whatever rules you make up yourself when you die?

So it's not that this sin is being unfairly targeted - rather it gets highlighted because it's the last rung on that ladder as far as 'accepting' sinful things on a widespread basis is concerned.

And on the war ravaged, underfed thing - don't forget that these are a result of man's rebellion against God. A lot of poverty in Africa for example is a result of corrupt, rich dictators - plenty of sin there.

marienbad

Newsite wrote: »

It's not about sex per se - it's that if you look at the course society has taken over the past decades/centuries, the widespread acceptance of gay sex/gay marriage (and indeed fornication/casual sex/sleeping around - it's not just homosexual sex), is the last rung on the ladder. It's a sign of an utterly corrupt generation - you don't see people saying that murder is acceptable, or that rape is acceptable, etc. You don't have 'National Larceny Day', 'National Day of Lying'. These are rightly condemned and seen as destructive. But at the same time there are no issues with gay pride parades and the like. Plus the contention that 'but who are they harming' fails because it's God's standard that matters in the end, not man's. What use is doing what you feel like and following whatever rules you make up yourself when you die?

So it's not that this sin is being unfairly targeted - rather it gets highlighted because it's the last rung on that ladder as far as 'accepting' sinful things on a widespread basis is concerned.

And on the war ravaged, underfed thing - don't forget that these are a result of man's rebellion against God. A lot of poverty in Africa for example is a result of corrupt, rich dictators - plenty of sin there.

Poverty is doing a lot more damage than sodomy, extra martial sex, masturbation Newsite but every thread does not descend into a condemnation of it.

If christians really wanted to do the greatest good for the greatest number might I suggest you stop obsessing on who is fcuking who, what two guys or girls get up in the bedroom etc and declare war on greed.

Solair

Newsite wrote: »

See my post below, but you can't 'rely on yourself' to know right from wrong - this is always going to be based on your standard, not the standard laid out by the One who made you.

Well, since I wasn't cloned, 2 people made me! I refer to them as mom and dad usually lol

swampgas

Newsite wrote: »

It's not about sex per se - it's that if you look at the course society has taken over the past decades/centuries, the widespread acceptance of gay sex/gay marriage (and indeed fornication/casual sex/sleeping around - it's not just homosexual sex), is the last rung on the ladder. It's a sign of an utterly corrupt generation - you don't see people saying that murder is acceptable, or that rape is acceptable, etc. You don't have 'National Larceny Day', 'National Day of Lying'. These are rightly condemned and seen as destructive. But at the same time there are no issues with gay pride parades and the like.

Really - casual sex is the last rung of the ladder? The sign of an utterly corrupt generation? Sounds more like people who are not screwed up by religion and guilt behaving like normal adults to me.

Plus the contention that 'but who are they harming' fails because it's God's standard that matters in the end, not man's.

So, you pretty much admit that you cannot win the "but who does it harm" argument, because you have to hide behind "God says it's bad, therefore it's bad". Pretty lame.

Newsite

marienbad wrote: »

Poverty is doing a lot more damage than sodomy, extra martial sex, masturbation Newsite but every thread does not descend into a condemnation of it.

If christians really wanted to do the greatest good for the greatest number might I suggest you stop obsessing on who is fcuking who, what two guys or girls get up in the bedroom etc and declare war on greed.

The irony is that the cause of poverty, greed etc is the failure to obey God's commandments in the first place. Do you ever consider that? That obeying God's commandments would eradicate poverty in the first place?

The very thing you are railing against and rejecting is the one thing that would save us all from the ills you are asking us to rail against!

Sodomy is doing the damage, as is every other rebellious act.

Sarky

Wow. Just wow.

Delirium

Newsite wrote: »

It's not about sex per se - it's that if you look at the course society has taken over the past decades/centuries, the widespread acceptance of gay sex/gay marriage (and indeed fornication/casual sex/sleeping around - it's not just homosexual sex), is the last rung on the ladder. It's a sign of an utterly corrupt generation - you don't see people saying that murder is acceptable, or that rape is acceptable, etc. You don't have 'National Larceny Day', 'National Day of Lying'. These are rightly condemned and seen as destructive. But at the same time there are no issues with gay pride parades and the like. Plus the contention that 'but who are they harming' fails because it's God's standard that matters in the end, not man's. What use is doing what you feel like and following whatever rules you make up yourself when you die?

None, you'll be dead.

Also, it's nonsense to equate gay sex with murder and rape. How about you explain what detrimental effects a gay relationship has that is comparable to murdering/raping someone? And you'll need to do better than respond with "because the bible says so."

So it's not that this sin is being unfairly targeted - rather it gets highlighted because it's the last rung on that ladder as far as 'accepting' sinful things on a widespread basis is concerned.

Nope. Because a lot of people don't view it as sinful, as not everyone is Christian. And even within the Christian community not all view it as sinful.

And on the war ravaged, underfed thing - don't forget that these are a result of man's rebellion against God. A lot of poverty in Africa for example is a result of corrupt, rich dictators - plenty of sin there.

It's more like it's an example of mans inhumanity to his fellow man.

Mike 1972

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

Wonder does he realise that outside Trinity college must be one of the least Catholic places in in the republic... If he asked these questions in Thurles the answers would be very different.

TBH particulrly given the location and ages of most of the the people he spoke to Im suprised the number of people giving affirmitive answers was so high ? :eek:

marienbad

Newsite wrote: »

The irony is that the cause of poverty, greed etc is the failure to obey God's commandments in the first place. Do you ever consider that? That obeying God's commandments would eradicate poverty in the first place?

The very thing you are railing against and rejecting is the one thing that would save us all from the ills you are asking us to rail against!

Sodomy is doing the damage, as is every other rebellious act.

Leaving aside your first few sentences and moving swiftly on to ''Sodomy is doing the damage,as is every other rebellious act'' - now this is where I have the problem. Lets just agree to disagree on the sodomy thing , but for the sake of argument say you are correct, even then sodomy is not responsible for relatively much damage compare to those ''other rebellious acts'' .

So again I ask what is this obsession with sodomy and not greed etc

irishh_bob

Newsite wrote: »

The irony is that the cause of poverty, greed etc is the failure to obey God's commandments in the first place. Do you ever consider that? That obeying God's commandments would eradicate poverty in the first place?

The very thing you are railing against and rejecting is the one thing that would save us all from the ills you are asking us to rail against!

Sodomy is doing the damage, as is every other rebellious act.

nonesense , in america for example , public figures which bang on about god and gays the most are usually ultra capitalists who vote republican , oppose tax hikes on the rich and support the removal of leaders of foreign countrys who threaten to nationalise important energy industrys , pat robertson called for the assasination of hugo chavez a number of years ago , claiming that the ( dictator ) was a threat to americas energy security

Galvasean

Newsite wrote: »

Because this is a book which has lasted for thousands of years and God's Word and His morality never changes.

Except when Jesus came along and mooted the rules about shellfish and clothes made of more than one kind of fabric?
It's very hard to believe you when you say his morality has not changed in thousands of years when it changes in his own book!

Mark Hamill

Newsite wrote: »

Ohh sigh Your ignorance is telling - don't mean any offense. The rules on fabric, shellfish etc etc were done away with when Jesus came on earth. That's why you won't see anything on them in the New Testament. But there are plenty of references still to fornication in the New Testament

Actually they weren't done away with, and Jesus specifically says so in Matthew 5:18:

Matthew 5:17-20 wrote:

17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 5:19 even says that those, such as yourself, that try to convince others that they dont apply will be called least in heaven, should you get in at all.

robindch

Newsite wrote: »

The rules on fabric, shellfish etc etc were done away with when Jesus came on earth.

Newsite wrote: »

God's Word and His morality never changes.

Self-pwnd in less than 100 minutes -- is this a forum record?

Newsite

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Actually they weren't done away with, and Jesus specifically says so in Matthew 5:18:


Matthew 5:19 even says that those, such as yourself, that try to convince others that they dont apply will be called least in heaven, should you get in at all.

Do you know which law He is talking about?

robindch

Newsite wrote: »

Do you know which law He is talking about?

Do you?

Newsite

Galvasean wrote: »

Except when Jesus came along and mooted the rules about shellfish and clothes made of more than one kind of fabric?
It's very hard to believe you when you say his morality has not changed in thousands of years when it changes in his own book!

robindch wrote: »

Self-pwnd in less than 100 minutes -- is this a forum record?

The law was fulfilled, not broken. It was all part of His design.

As an aside, I always wonder at people who use terms like 'pwnd'.

Newsite

robindch wrote: »

Do you?

Yup.

Newaglish

Newsite wrote: »

Yup.

Please do share with the rest of the class.

robindch

Newsite wrote: »

robindch wrote:

Newsite wrote: »

The rules on fabric, shellfish etc etc were done away with when Jesus came on earth.

Newsite wrote: »

God's Word and His morality never changes.

Self-pwnd in less than 100 minutes -- is this a forum record?

The law was fulfilled, not broken. It was all part of His design.

Do you really believe that this response is adequate?

.

Galvasean

Newsite wrote: »

The law was fulfilled, not broken. It was all part of His design.

So, you've just been exposed shamelessly contradicting yourself and that's your back up plan - talking in tongues?

Newsite

Galvasean wrote: »

So, you've just been exposed shamelessly contradicting yourself and that's your back up plan - talking in tongues?

There are two 'laws' in question. One was the law of Moses of the Old Testament, given to the primitive people of the time. It's also called the Ceremonial Law, or the Mosaic code.

The second was the Moral law, which commenced with the New Covenant - the coming of Christ. This still stands today.

'For I came not to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it'.

Christ's coming was the fulfillment of the old Law - that certain parts of it ceased to apply didn't negate it - on the contrary, it fulfilled it, validated it.

Mark Hamill

Newsite wrote: »

Do you know which law He is talking about?

Old testament law.

robindch

Newsite wrote: »

certain parts of it ceased to apply

How do you know which bits were repealed and which bits were retained?

Mark Hamill

Newsite wrote: »

The law was fulfilled, not broken. It was all part of His design.

If his design includes a law (ie morality) that changes over time, then your claim that gods word and morality never change is wrong.

Mark Hamill

Newsite wrote: »

There are two 'laws' in question. One was the law of Moses of the Old Testament, given to the primitive people of the time. It's also called the Ceremonial Law, or the Mosaic code.

The second was the Moral law, which commenced with the New Covenant - the coming of Christ. This still stands today.

Just out of curiosity, where these labels given anywhere in the new testament bible itself, or are they distinctions made by modern theologians?

Newsite wrote: »

'For I came not to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it'.

Christ's coming was the fulfillment of the old Law - that certain parts of it ceased to apply didn't negate it - on the contrary, it fulfilled it, validated it.

Matthew 5:18 (you know, the bit directly after the "For I came not to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it" quote) directly contradicts you: 18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Jesus may have "fulfilled" the Mosaic law, but he specifically points out that every single bit of it still applies.

old hippy

Newsite wrote: »

There are two 'laws' in question. One was the law of Moses of the Old Testament, given to the primitive people of the time. It's also called the Ceremonial Law, or the Mosaic code.

The second was the Moral law, which commenced with the New Covenant - the coming of Christ. This still stands today.

'For I came not to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it'.

Christ's coming was the fulfillment of the old Law - that certain parts of it ceased to apply didn't negate it - on the contrary, it fulfilled it, validated it.

Christ in U turn shocker!

Newsite

robindch wrote: »

How do you know which bits were repealed and which bits were retained?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Just out of curiosity, where these labels given anywhere in the new testament bible itself, or are they distinctions made by modern theologians?


Matthew 5:18 (you know, the bit directly after the "For I came not to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it" quote) directly contradicts you: 18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Jesus may have "fulfilled" the Mosaic law, but he specifically points out that every single bit of it still applies.

Re the above, this is why I asked you if you knew which law Jesus was talking about.

I'm gonna get you to think about this in a different way.

In Ireland, over say the past ten or twenty years, can you give me a couple of examples of laws that have changed? Then, can you give me a couple of examples of laws that will never change?

Mark Hamill

Newsite wrote: »

Re the above, this is why I asked you if you knew which law Jesus was talking about.

I'm gonna get you to think about this in a different way.

In Ireland, over say the past ten or twenty years, can you give me a couple of examples of laws that have changed? Then, can you give me a couple of examples of laws that will never change?

How about you just respond to the point without bringing in non sequitors. Irish law is made by people, so it changing or not has nothing to do with a supposedly non changing god-given law which did change except where it didn't.

I will, for the last time, repeat myself: You use the "For I came not to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it" bit to justify not following Mosaic law, as you say that this fulfilling means it no longer applies (as it apparently had a use-by-date). However, the very next sentence in the bible says that that same law, every single word of it, still applies and will still apply until the end of time (it even goes on to say that those who try to convince others that the law doesn't apply may not get into heaven at all). Jesus was talking about Old Testament law when he was talking about fulfilling, and he was still talking about OT law when, in the next sentence, he said it still applies. To try to wiggle out of this is to possibly deny yourself entry to heaven (ie the next thing Jesus says, when still talking about OT law).

robindch

Newsite wrote: »

I'm gonna get you to think about this in a different way. In Ireland, over say the past ten or twenty years, can you give me a couple of examples of laws that have changed? Then, can you give me a couple of examples of laws that will never change?

You're the one who claimed that "god's law" never changes. It clearly does, even by your own multiple admission.

Why not accept what you are saying?

Newsite

Mark Hamill wrote: »

How about you just respond to the point without bringing in non sequitors. Irish law is made by people, so it changing or not has nothing to do with a supposedly non changing god-given law which did change except where it didn't.

robindch wrote: »

You're the one who claimed that "god's law" never changes. It clearly does, even by your own multiple admission.

Why not accept what you are saying?

It's disappointing - but entirely expected since you're not interested in understanding, but in trying to prove me wrong - that you wouldn't entertain my attempt to draw an analogy with Irish law. My suspicion is that you see it as a trap to expose what you're trying to claim!

Of course God's law can't be compared with man-made law - that wouldn't have made the analogy I was going to make any less valid - but you know that already.

You're fond of quoting my initial post - and if you go back and examine it yet again - you'll see that I said that 'God's Word and His morality' never changes. What you've done is taken that to mean that law=morality. Which is not the case. Law doesn't even equal morality in the definition of the word, does it? Every man on the street knows that 'laws' are one thing, and 'morality' is another.

A law is 'don't work more than 4 hours without taking a 15 minute break'. An aspect of morality, or a 'moral law' is 'don't lie'.

This I already explained above, that there were ceremonial laws that God laid down for the Israelites, before the coming of Christ. Then, there were moral laws, which stood through time and would never be repealed. These were laws that men knew in their hearts. 'Don't kill, don't lie'. The ceremonial laws (and there were hundreds of these) were often quite obscure, and the people of the time would not have known they existed as laws, let alone would have been able to follow them, had they not been given them by God.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I will, for the last time, repeat myself: You use the "For I came not to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it" bit to justify not following Mosaic law, as you say that this fulfilling means it no longer applies (as it apparently had a use-by-date). However, the very next sentence in the bible says that that same law, every single word of it, still applies and will still apply until the end of time (it even goes on to say that those who try to convince others that the law doesn't apply may not get into heaven at all). Jesus was talking about Old Testament law when he was talking about fulfilling, and he was still talking about OT law when, in the next sentence, he said it still applies.

The tenor of your quote above has all the hallmarks of someone who has latched on to something and can only see the parts which directly support his argument. Certain parts you don't even see, and are automatically filtered out because they don't support your argument.

The context of this verse is that the people to whom Jesus was speaking, only a couple of thousand years ago, were gathered before Him, and were somewhat anxious and afraid of what Jesus was about to say. They knew that He was not like the other teachers of the time, and they believed He was about to tell them that the old laws of Moses were to be abolished, done away with, that they didn't matter any more and they could ignore them. This was understandably worrying to them, as they understood these laws to be followed with question, and they feared the consequences of not following them. Of course, He understood that they would have this fear and so he reassured them by saying:

"For I came not to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it"

But, lest they think that they are 'off the hook', He said (the verse which you've latched onto)

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled

I've highlighted the part which you've either filtered out or don't understand. What is meant is that for even the smallest, most minute aspect of this law to 'pass from', i.e. become null and void, one of two things must happen:

1) Heaven and earth must pass (i.e. disappear)

or

2) 'all be fulfilled'

Given that 1) is off the table, we focus on 2). And what 2) is, is His death on the Cross. His atoning for our sins, by which means following the law is no longer required. Rather, we are saved 'by grace through faith'. We are no longer bound to the ceremonial law, we have been freed from the constraints imposed by it on us through His sacrifice. The law has been fulfilled, i.e. it is, if you look at the literal meaning of the word; 'filled to the full'. It is accomplished - the text is as follows:

Μὴ νομίσητε ὅτι ἦλθον καταλῦσαι τὸν νόμον ἢ τοὺς προφήτας· οὐκ ἦλθον καταλῦσαι ἀλλὰ πληρῶσαι

Where the bolded part above means 'accomplished' or 'come to pass'.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

To try to wiggle out of this is to possibly deny yourself entry to heaven (ie the next thing Jesus says, when still talking about OT law).

Would you be interested to find out that God knew there would be people like yourself who would claim this?

Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

robindch

Newsite wrote: »

It's disappointing - but entirely expected since you're not interested in understanding, but in trying to prove me wrong

With respect, you are wrong. You made a claim and stuck your foot into it by almost immediately disproving it. There isn't really much more to add.

Newsite wrote: »

The tenor of your quote above has all the hallmarks of someone who has latched on to something and can only see the parts which directly support his argument. Certain parts you don't even see, and are automatically filtered out because they don't support your argument.

Hmm...

Newsite

robindch wrote: »

With respect, you are wrong. You made a claim and stuck your foot into it by almost immediately disproving it. There isn't really much more to add.Hmm...

Wrong. And you haven't engaged with my post and I doubt you've any interest in seeing the truth in what I'm telling you.

Doctor DooM

Galvasean wrote: »

Oh look, another doom merchant. Come back to me when it's the apocalypse.

Actually, I am pretty sure I never gave Newsite a franchise.

robindch

Newsite wrote: »

you haven't engaged with my post

I've read it and while the details are different to other rationalizations I've seen in the past (wrt to the written law/custom distinction), the aim is the same -- to pretend there isn't a problem.

Newsite

robindch wrote: »

I've read it and while the details are different to other rationalizations I've seen in the past (wrt to the written law/custom distinction), the aim is the same -- to pretend there isn't a problem.

If there's a problem, why not state what it is?

Galvasean

Newsite wrote: »

If there's a problem, why not state what it is?

YOUR BLATANT HYPOCRISY IS THE FRIGGIN' PROBLEM!!!!!!!!!!!! :mad:

I need a glass of water

Daftendirekt

Newsite wrote: »

I've highlighted the part which you've either filtered out or don't understand. What is meant is that for even the smallest, most minute aspect of this law to 'pass from', i.e. become null and void, one of two things must happen:

1) Heaven and earth must pass (i.e. disappear)

or

2) 'all be fulfilled'

I realise I'm jumping in here out of the blue, but I have to say, I find your reading of that particular passage very strange.

I just had a look at some of the other translations just in case something was being lost, but it appears the version quoted in this thread says much the same as any of the others.

Jesus Christ wrote:

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

It's quite badly worded, but the gist of it is clear. I really don't see where you're getting the 'or' from.

He isn't saying that the law should not be changed until either heaven and earth pass away or 'all be fulfilled'. Either heaven and earth's passing is what's to be fulfilled, or he's thinking of some greater scheme that has yet to be carried out. Either way, the 'till all be fulfilled' is there for emphasis, not as an alternative get-out clause.

Here's an alternative, less clumsy, phrasing from the link above:

Jesus Christ wrote:

I can guarantee this truth: Until the earth and the heavens disappear, neither a period nor a comma will disappear from Moses' Teachings before everything has come true.

What we can take from this, is that even the supposed Son of God can suffer from the lack of a good editor.

robindch

Newsite wrote: »

If there's a problem, why not state what it is?

The problem is that you are having a surprising degree of difficulty in seeing that you have contradicted yourself.

There's nothing strange about that since religious people contradict themselves all the time. The difference here is that you're sticking around claiming you haven't, while most other religious people, when presented with a clean and simple case of self-contradiction like this, simply disappear from the forum for a while until it's blown over.

Newsite

Daftendirekt wrote: »

I realise I'm jumping in here out of the blue, but I have to say, I find your reading of that particular passage very strange.

I just had a look at some of the other translations just in case something was being lost, but it appears the version quoted in this thread says much the same as any of the others.



It's quite badly worded, but the gist of it is clear. I really don't see where you're getting the 'or' from.

He isn't saying that the law should not be changed until either heaven and earth pass away or 'all be fulfilled'. Either heaven and earth's passing is what's to be fulfilled, or he's thinking of some greater scheme that has yet to be carried out. Either way, the 'till all be fulfilled' is there for emphasis, not as an alternative get-out clause.

Here's an alternative, less clumsy, phrasing from the link above:



What we can take from this, is that even the supposed Son of God can suffer from the lack of a good editor.

That translation was from the King James Bible, which originally dates from 1611. It's idiomatic, whereas the modern versions (which some say are intended to be corrupt versions), use more straightforward, contemporary English.

The KJV verses may require one or two extra reads, but this is more than made up for by the sheer lyrical and poetic beauty of its language