"Because God asks too much."

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

Ok, so let me ask this:

If a man (or woman) gives their life to Christ and asks forgiveness for their sins, why would they continue to sin after accepting Christ? Doesn't that defeat the purpose?

Also, who decides what is and isn't sin? Logic says God does, by way of the scriptures, but if some scriptures are intended literally and others not how does a person know when they are "sinning"?

[Ladeeda]

I also like to go with the more spiritual aspects, myself. You know, love thy neighbor, don't be a fucktard... All that jazz.

But most people can and DO do that without religion. And don't need the threat of eternal damnation to do so.

[Andara Bledin]

If a man (or woman) gives their life to Christ and asks forgiveness for their sins, why would they continue to sin after accepting Christ? Doesn't that defeat the purpose?

We're human. We screw up, we make mistakes, we do stupid shit in moment's of weakness. It's part of that whole free will thing. The idea is to try your best not to do those things and to be truly remorseful over the times when your best isn't good enough.

Also, who decides what is and isn't sin?

That is a much more difficult question, and open for a lot of interpretation. However, since you're supposed to obey the laws of the land, you can usually look to them for a handy guide of things that you just shouldn't do.

Beyond that, you can mostly just avoid being a dickhead and be pretty much covered.

^-.-^

[Kheldarson]

so the 10 commandments didn't come from god then?

and the entirety of leviticus was made up?(a lot of christians are going to be denied if they ate surf n' turf if that one turns out to be real, also see revelations that lists the number admitted to heaven as 144,000 only)

Um...Leviticus was a rule book. Written for Hebrews living back in the time before Christ. And living in a particular time period that made eating certain things kind of dangerous. In fact, later in the letters of Paul, God apparently rescinds that stuff in Leviticus. I'll find the verse later. But simple fact is 10 Commandments deal a lot with how not to be a dick to other people. Leviticus deals with how the Hebrews can survive as a collective society. So, yes, as a Christian, with an understanding of context and knowing that the Old Testament is to serve as a history of how we get to the New Testament, I don't have to necessarily follow the rules in Leviticus. Not because it's not true--it was for the time--but because it's no longer applicable.

and then turns around and has his son(Jesus) tell people to break one of the major commandments(honor thy father and mother)
Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

My understanding of this one was that he's talking about the fact that not all will accept him. Particularly at that time period. So not so much "go out and disrespect your parents" but more "be prepared for the shit storm that's going to follow after accepting me as your teacher".



As for the OP, by technicality, your friend is right. For him. It's like I had an openly gay acquaintance who asked me about the Roman Catholic Church's position on homosexuality. So I told him. He then proceeded to say that that's too hard a stance. So I said, "Well, good thing you're not Catholic, right?"

But do remind your friend that the various churches (including the RCC) are just means to an end. They help provide a structure to help us with the most important commandment given to us, which is, "Love God with all you heart, all your soul, and all your might; and love thy neighbor as thyself."

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

We're human. We screw up, we make mistakes, we do stupid shit in moment's of weakness. It's part of that whole free will thing. The idea is to try your best not to do those things and to be truly remorseful over the times when your best isn't good enough.


That is a much more difficult question, and open for a lot of interpretation. However, since you're supposed to obey the laws of the land, you can usually look to them for a handy guide of things that you just shouldn't do.

Beyond that, you can mostly just avoid being a dickhead and be pretty much covered.

^-.-^

Most Christians don't consider it appropriate to watch porn because the Bible warns against sexual immorality. Pornography is legal in most industrialized nations.

How do you reconcile the two? If there is an issue where the law of the land and the scriptures contradict each other the Bible takes precedence?

[Gravekeeper]

Christianity isn't about rules.

Christianity is all about rules, it is just that Christians do not by and large agree on which of the rules to follow and how to follow them. Arguable, all religions are about rules in one sense or another. As the very purpose of them, or any philosophy, is to encourage one behaviour as superior over others.

We've had a whole thread about this. The bible is based on the word of God and then fucked up for centuries by the humans that have been handling it.

Imma have to chew on you a little again. The Bible is *not* based on the word of God, it is based on the words of people claiming to have heard the words of God. Big difference.

If you believe it's true that anyone who is not Christian will spend eternity in Hell (and you believe Hell to be an unpleasant place) then to me it seems foolish not to be one.

There are people who believe in Christian Hell and that they will go to Christian Hell if they are not Christians, but yet are not Christians? That is indeed....foolish. But is anyone actually like that?

[Hyena Dandy]

If you believe it's true that anyone who is not Christian will spend eternity in Hell (and you believe Hell to be an unpleasant place) then to me it seems foolish not to be one.

I... I think you're either quoting me out of context on that one and I was referring to something other than not being Christian, or I did honestly say it in context, and in this context, that's a really odd statement.

I can't think of many people who believe they'll go to hell who aren't trying to avoid it, but... I have no idea why I said that. I've been awful sick the last few days, and I just had a semi-lucid hallucination and professed my love to Alley, a character I play in a GURPS game.

I think I may not be mentally composed enough to debate, especially if I'm saying things like that.

Seriously, when did I say that? That sounds very silly to me...

Not doubting you! Pretty much just doubting me on that one.





Edit: I can sort of see where that statement may have come from (That is, my thought process) but there seem to have been a LOT of steps cut out of my thought process there.

I'll detaili t when I'm feeling a little better.

[HYHYBT]

You didn't say that: I did. It may sound silly by itself, but if you go back to the first page of the thread, it made sense in the context of the quote I was responding to.

Most Christians don't consider it appropriate to watch porn because the Bible warns against sexual immorality. Pornography is legal in most industrialized nations.

How do you reconcile the two? If there is an issue where the law of the land and the scriptures contradict each other the Bible takes precedence?

What's to reconcile, unless you assume that anything sinful must also be illegal? Or: why would you assume that?

[Andara Bledin]

Most Christians don't consider it appropriate to watch porn because the Bible warns against sexual immorality. Pornography is legal in most industrialized nations.

How do you reconcile the two? If there is an issue where the law of the land and the scriptures contradict each other the Bible takes precedence?

What's to reconcile. I merely stated that not breaking the laws is a good starting point for how to figure basic behavior.

And that's not a contradiction, anyway. If one required that you do something that the other prohibited, then that would be a contradiction. All this amounts to is "the law of the land" being more lenient than "scripture." Just because it's legal, doesn't require that you partake.

^-.-^

[BlaqueKatt]

And BTW, Hyena Dandy is right. It's not about the restrictions. Jesus himself blew off the restrictions.

Old Testament=Old. New Testament=New. It's not a hard concept. Of course, all the really good reasons against are in the Old Testament, so it's easier to go with that..

I can find no referance to Jesus saying the old testament doesn't apply, and from reading the bible years ago, I don't remember it.

as a matter of fact all I can find is that he DIDN'T-nothing in the bible saying that.

In other words, the NT, for example in the "fulfillment" formulas of Matthew or in the four-chapter introduction of Luke, most often uses the Old Testament to reinforce and illustrate the truths that the early church was already expressing about Jesus. That certainly does not invalidate the Old Testament, or in a any sense render the Old Testament subservient to the New Testament, nor does it imply any supercessionist view of the New Testament.

It means as pastors and leader that we have the responsibility to study Scripture diligently for the evidence that is there rather than imposing onto the biblical text what we think it needs to say, what the Church says that it must say, or what society demands that it say (or not say!). The Biblical evidence must move beyond doctrine and opinion if it is to be the living word of God for a new millennium.

good news magazine

One of the common misconceptions among readers of the Bible is that a large part of it is obsolete-irrelevant for modern life. Sadly, some professing Christians have unwittingly turned a blind eye to much of God's revelation by rejecting what is known as the Old Testament. They believe that the New Testament-the writings of the apostles-is what really matters; that the Old Testament was valid up until Christ came, but at that time became old and outdated.
The general view is that the Old Testament was old-and thus obsolete or worn out-and that it has been replaced by the New Testament. Is this view found in the Bible? No, it isn't.

The "Sermon on the Mount" is one of the first recorded examples of His teaching, and what does He say? "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets [the Old Testament]. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill" (Matthew 5:17).

Lest anybody get the wrong idea about what He was saying, Jesus clarified His teaching even more: "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:18-19).

Saying "Oh, but he did", so are you.

nope, just pointing out that those who do have not read the bible-see above-nothing passes from the law.

kind of difficult to presume to know the mind of something I don't believe exists.

[Ladeeda]

How about gender discrimination? That's illegal in most first-world countries, but the Bible positively revels in it. So by going with the law, isn't that going against the Werd of Gawd?

[Gravekeeper]

You didn't say that: I did. It may sound silly by itself, but if you go back to the first page of the thread, it made sense in the context of the quote I was responding to.

Did I get the wrong H? Crap, I did too. Sorry, Hyena. ><

And no, rereading it, it still sounds odd.

Whether the idea's pleasant or not doesn't matter so much as whether you believe it to be true or false. If you believe it's true that anyone who is not Christian will spend eternity in Hell (and you believe Hell to be an unpleasant place) then to me it seems foolish not to be one.

What does "one" refer to then in the sentence?

[Kheldarson]

I can find no referance to Jesus saying the old testament doesn't apply, and from reading the bible years ago, I don't remember it.

Some of us don't go by Bible alone. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1968 The Law of the Gospel fulfills the commandments of the Law. The Lord's Sermon on the Mount, far from abolishing or devaluing the moral prescriptions of the Old Law, releases their hidden potential and has new demands arise from them: it reveals their entire divine and human truth. It does not add new external precepts, but proceeds to reform the heart, the root of human acts, where man chooses between the pure and the impure,22 where faith, hope, and charity are formed and with them the other virtues. The Gospel thus brings the Law to its fullness through imitation of the perfection of the heavenly Father, through forgiveness of enemies and prayer for persecutors, in emulation of the divine generosity.23

Link goes to full section. Essentially, if you're Christian, OT gives you the basis, but NT gives you the true meaning. So a lot of stuff in Leviticus? Completely overridden because it violates the idea of loving one another. Yeah, the Hebrews needed it when they started out, but we don't need it now. The 10 Commandments? Finds completion in the idea of loving others.

[Boozy]

...So by going with the law, isn't that going against the Werd of Gawd?

That's the second time you've used that misspelling, and I'm not sure what point, if any, you're trying to make. Explain?

[Ghel]

It's not us non-Christians' fault that the early Christians decided to base their new religion on Judaism. Since they hooked their god-in-human-form on the Jewish notions of the Messiah, Christianity can never do away with the Old Testament and all the vindictive, spiteful, genocidal, and misogynist things the Old Testament God did.

And anyone who claims that Jesus gets rid of the Old Testament laws needs to listen to Jesus' own words, as reported by Matthew 5:18-19: "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven." There are, of course, other passages in the Bible that suggest that Christians can ignore Old Testament laws, but they are not in Jesus' own words, if that has any weight in this discussion.