Why do Christians think they got a green light to fck before marriage and swine up?

[janklow]

It doesn't seem to say "The laws of the past are invalid.".

if the law of the past says "an eye for an eye" in cases of revenge, and Jesus says "no more eye for an eye," this is a pretty clear statement that the law of the past is invalid. now that's just an example, which is what i thought i was providing.

Seems Matthew 5 does nothing to invalidate the bans that were posted:

pretty sure i didn't claim Matthew 5 does any such thing for every case you've provided. that's why it'd be an example. but if you think that Jewish laws apply to Jews alone, and you think the NT creates a religion that's not Judaism... hmmm.

 

[fiat_money]

if the law of the past says "an eye for an eye" in cases of revenge, and Jesus says "no more eye for an eye," this is a pretty clear statement that the law of the past is invalid. now that's just an example, which is what i thought i was providing.

Not quite, because Jesus uses a specific example there, he's declaring that individual law--in this case, the "eye for an eye" one--invalid. The fact they he specified means he took issue with that specific law. Saying, "This law of the past is invalid." or "These specific laws of the past are invalid.", is not the same as saying "The laws of the past are invalid".

pretty sure i didn't claim Matthew 5 does any such thing for every case you've provided. that's why it'd be an example.

Then if Matthew 5 was the example you were referring to by stating "i am pretty sure i referenced an example a few posts ago", it would seem that the answer to my earlier question was "no", and the bans wouldn't be invalid:

...If you know of any such places, are they relevant to the verses I posted earlier?

 

[jonlakadeadmic]

They just ignore the parts of the Christian bible that they don't like or that don't make sense.

There's a lot of banned shit that's ignored:

Not to mention the people who should be killed:

- Homosexuals (Lev.30:13, Rom.1:26-32)

- Adulterers (Lev.20:10, Deut.22:22)

- Disobedient Children (Deut.21:20-21, Lev.20:9, Exod.21:15)

- Women who are not virgins on their wedding night (Deut.22:13-21)

- All non-Christians (parable told by Christ - Luke 19:27)

- Those accused of wickedness by at least two people (Deut.17:2-7)

- Anyone who works on the Sabbath (Exod.35:2-3, Num.15:32-6)

To ignore is also "bliss":

e

t

h

e

r

 

[Drgoo0285]

You mentioned Matthew 5 when answering vboy513's post. However, in this chapter Jesus only further adds to existing laws, limits divorce to sexual immorality, condemns oaths and revenge, and tells people love their enemies. Whether these invalidate or elaborate upon portions of the Old Testament is moot as none of them seem address any of the bans I posted earlier. It doesn't seem to say "The laws of the past are invalid.".

If the New Testament affects the Old Testament, and this is shown by verses which directly address statements or concepts from the Old Testament; I see no reason to assume the mere existence of the New Testament serves to invalidate the entirety or unaddressed portions of the Old Testament.

Seems Matthew 5 does nothing to invalidate the bans that were posted:

there's other things that the bible talks about like circumcision, and food laws where they basically say, it's impossible to be holy by following rules. The only way to be holy is to follow Christ.

Which basically chalks up to, if you observe the rules or not, make sure you are doing so to the glory of God

 

[janklow]

Not quite, because Jesus uses a specific example there, he's declaring that individual law--in this case, the "eye for an eye" one--invalid. The fact they he specified means he took issue with that specific law. Saying, "This law of the past is invalid." or "These specific laws of the past are invalid.", is not the same as saying "The laws of the past are invalid".

first, you did actually ask me if "portions" of the law were rendered invalid by the NT; this would be an example of a "portion." second, the impression i'm getting from your position is that you don't think the NT has anything to do with invalidating anything in the OT; the fact that it's done at all should tell you that it could be done in various cases. remember when you asked about portions? that was the "the NT never contradicts the OT" part of the debate. assuming that it has, we're now moving to "i want a specific denunciation of every instance i list" without so much as a note that yes, sometimes the NT DOES tell you to not do things in the OT.

Then if Matthew 5 was the example you were referring to by stating "i am pretty sure i referenced an example a few posts ago", it would seem that the answer to my earlier question was "no", and the bans wouldn't be invalid:

well, there's also a limit to how much i care about these debates, because they're never between Christians trying to debate what they should be doing in their day-to-day lives, but between Christians and people who are not Christians and thus are simply trying to score points against the religion. the latter honestly cannot be presented with an argument that satisfies them. so it's unlikely that i am going to waste much time specifically trying to invalidate every ban on your list.

but if you were going to ask me why i don't think a strict interpretation of Jewish law as presented in the OT applies to Christians i know currently, i would tell you:

a) the additional of the NT changes the religion they follow, whether or not it specifically denotes exact changes;

b) therefore Christians do not have to follow the tenets of Jewish law, unless otherwise directed, and;

c) why the hell are you taking the OT so literally anyway

 

[KLICHE]

Cheers 'fiat'... great thread! I like!

 

[Disciplined InSight]

just ask for forgiveness and keep it moving...

This right here.....

 

[Disciplined InSight]

this all seems very pointless. At what point do you just "know better"?

The just shall live by faith.

dusouljah is right. We're gonna mess up because we are not PERFECT.

Even to the point of "knowing better" you're still gonna screw up. Why? Because we don't look upon our own works to be accepted "good" by The Most High. It's called being self conscious and looking upon ourselves all the time to live a perfect life. It's impossible. That's why accepting Christ as Savior is the vital piece of faith because you're looking outside of yourself at HIS LIFE and HIS WORKS, not yours.

 

[edeeesq]

The only time religious people (name those literal Christians) take the Bible literally, is when they are judging someone else's actions by it. Otherwise for their own life, everything is done "in context".

Its the whole, "I'm holier than you because I'm not doing [enter human act of pleasure here]" defense!

 

[Disciplined InSight]

The only time religious people (name those literal Christians) take the Bible literally, is when they are judging someone else's actions by it. Otherwise for their own life, everything is done "in context".

Its the whole, "I'm holier than you because I'm not doing [enter human act of pleasure here]" defense!

Key words. RELIGIOUS PEOPLE.

 

[KTULU IS BACK]

This "Christianity's not a religion" thing has been the marketing ploy in a lot of churches for a few years now.

It's hilarious.

 

[edeeesq]

Key words. RELIGIOUS PEOPLE.

No, the key words are "people who judge someone else's actions". Don't matter what the religion, if you're judging someone else's action, then my post relates to you.

 

[Disciplined InSight]

This "Christianity's not a religion" thing has been the marketing ploy in a lot of churches for a few years now.

It's hilarious.

No it's not hilarious...Christ didn't come to start "Christianity". There no marketing ploy in that.

A spiritually discerned jackass like yourself wouldn't understand that.

 

[Disciplined InSight]

No, the key words are "people who judge someone else's actions". Don't matter what the religion, if you're judging someone else's action, then my post relates to you.

How you're gonna talk about people who judge someone else's action when you just judged my post?

Wow..

 

[edeeesq]

How you're gonna talk about people who judge someone else's action when you just judged my post?

Wow..

If that is your idea of a judgment then I don't know what to tell you....no wonder you feeling guilty....

 

[Disciplined InSight]

If that is your idea of a judgment then I don't know what to tell you....no wonder you feeling guilty....

Guilty about what? I just notice a hypocritical post you made but you didn't see.

Judgmental people don't notice the shit they do because they're so busy being...judgmental. Which is what you just did.

 

[KTULU IS BACK]

Christianity fits every defining aspect of a religion.

"Religion" isn't even an epithet. It's just a category of human behavior.

You can call it mypersonalrelationshipwithourlordandsaviorjesuschrist but it's still a religion.

 

[Disciplined InSight]

Christianity fits every defining aspect of a religion.

"Religion" isn't even an epithet. It's just a category of human behavior.

You can call it mypersonalrelationshipwithourlordandsaviorjesuschrist but it's still a religion.

LOL @ "religion being a category of human behavior". What's your view of human behavior when your opinion is atheistic?

Once again..Christ did NOT give the TITLE Christianity.

If it's "personal relationship" then it wouldn't be a religion because a personal relationship has no TITLE attached to it.

 

[edeeesq]

Guilty about what? I just notice a hypocritical post you made but you didn't see.

Judgmental people don't notice the shit they do because they're so busy being...judgmental. Which is what you just did.

And AGAIN, If that's your definition of being judgmental you must have a guilty conscience because I said....

No, the key words are "people who judge someone else's actions". Don't matter what the religion, if you're judging someone else's action, then my post relates to you.

I did not say, "you are this" and "you are that" because then you'd be right. But instead, I said "If you do this, then you're this" and you magically put yourself in that category, hence YOU saying you're that type of person - not me.

If you didn't see yourself in that post, you would have no reason to defend yourself.

Its the whole, "I'm holier than you because I'm not doing [enter human act of pleasure here]" defense!

 

[fiat_money]

first, you did actually ask me if "portions" of the law were rendered invalid by the NT; this would be an example of a "portion." second, the impression i'm getting from your position is that you don't think the NT has anything to do with invalidating anything in the OT; the fact that it's done at all should tell you that it could be done in various cases. remember when you asked about portions? that was the "the NT never contradicts the OT" part of the debate. assuming that it has, we're now moving to "i want a specific denunciation of every instance i list" without so much as a note that yes, sometimes the NT DOES tell you to not do things in the OT...

I never said that the New Testament did not contradict the Old Testament, I merely asked for examples in which it did. Upon viewing your example, it became evident to me that Jesus's guidelines for personal behavior in Matthew 5 were not something that discredited all the laws of the Old Testament. At the most, they discredited the laws he specified.

...but if you were going to ask me why i don't think a strict interpretation of Jewish law as presented in the OT applies to Christians i know currently, i would tell you:

a) the additional of the NT changes the religion they follow, whether or not it specifically denotes exact changes;
b) therefore Christians do not have to follow the tenets of Jewish law, unless otherwise directed, and;
c) why the hell are you taking the OT so literally anyway

While the New Testament greatly shapes Christianity, unless it discredits the entirety of the Old Testament, it can't be assumed that things not referred to directly/indirectly are no longer valid. Or else, any passage from the Old Testament not approved of in the New Testament wouldn't be needed in the Christian bible.

Sure, the parables and many of the stories in the Christian bible can't be taken literally, but laws seem pretty concrete. Especially if the laws remained unchallenged in the Christian bible.