Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

70 (27.6%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

113 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (24%)

Total Members Voted: 249

[TempAcc]

TempAcc believes that butt stuff makes you mentally ill, confirmed.

You haven't seen bananas
You could never know
Such butt ravaged madness
Illness of mind and body

Or the advent of the boiling oil, or the comments about lowering the age of consent to 13, or the everything :v

[Bohandas]

Do you have any specific citations to support this idea that the law isn't received (from the perspective of a believer of course, I don't think any of it was received)?  To me this sounds like you're making it say what you want to say.  You're taking a preconceived, non-Biblical notion (Only the ten commandments are divine and the rest is made up) and then using that notion to interpret scripture to fit your notion.

If I assume ahead of time that Mosaic law wasn't received then I guess if I'm pedantic about word choice Jesus didn't refer to it, but that's circular.  Mosaic law isn't divine, therefore Jesus didn't mention it, therefore it isn't divine. 

In any case, none of that actually says anything about what I said.  Mosaic law is still a system of exclusion and separation designed to create a clear boundary between the chosen people and the pagans.

"2. Some Pharisees came to test Him. “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” they inquired.
3 “What did Moses command you?” He replied.
4 They answered, “Moses permitted a man to write his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away.”
5 But Jesus told them, “Moses wrote this commandment for you because your hearts were hard.""
-Mark 10:2-5 (BSB)

[origamiscienceguy]

Jesus fulfilled the law for us. He made it clear that it was impossible for anyone to keep the law.

[Graknorke]

So why do people try at all? Doesn't matter what you do really, because Jesus took that burden away.

[origamiscienceguy]

Because it would insult what Jesus did. It would be like someone offering to buy you dinner, then you buying the most expensive thing on the menu.

[MonkeyHead]

Because it would insult what Jesus did. It would be like someone offering to buy you dinner, then you buying the most expensive thing on the menu.

There are those that would argue that not doing that would make you a moron.

[TempAcc]

Jesus did not exempt anyone from being a good person, just from old laws/customs that made no sense anymore and the old sins of humanity. You can still screw yourself over :v

Its like assuming someone who paid for your bail once will do so everytime you get arrested.

[Shadowlord]

Because it would insult what Jesus did. It would be like someone offering to buy you dinner, then you buying the most expensive thing on the menu.

Clearly you haven't been to one of those churches where they tell you that the only thing you need to do to be saved is to ask Jesus to be your personal savior. (I attended one one time, on an invitation)

Methinks there are quite a few people who fail into this segment of Christianity, since it is literally effortless and their Jesus apparently forgives everything.

[Graknorke]

Jesus did not exempt anyone from being a good person, just from old laws/customs that made no sense anymore and the old sins of humanity. You can still screw yourself over :v

Its like assuming someone who paid for your bail once will do so everytime you get arrested.

Did he ever explicitly say which ones you're exempt from though? I don't know of there being an exhaustive list of specifics but maybe there is.

[TempAcc]

Likely things such as old mosaic law, like "DON'T TRY TO TALK TO THE DEAD" or "IF SOMEONE'S OX KILLS SOMEONE, THEN YOU HAVE TO KILL THE OWNER" and maybe "DON'T EAT SHELLFISH", and not things like murder, theft and etc.

[penguinofhonor]

Generally people believe Jesus negated the laws they personally don't like or don't care about.

[Orange Wizard]

Did he ever explicitly say which ones you're exempt from though? I don't know of there being an exhaustive list of specifics but maybe there is.

For the churches that actually care about that sort of thing, there's normally a distinction made between moral, civil, and ceremonial Mosaic law.
The moral law is stuff like the Ten Commandments. Broad, nonspecific, "don't do this stuff, it's bad". These laws are a general expression of how God wants us to act.
Civil law is the ridiculously specific stuff that you get in Leviticus, that sets rules for slave ownership and property rights and all that. These were relevant to ye olde nation of Israel, basically God's divinely ordained legal system. You can argue that we should use these as a basis for modern law, but there's not really any point. I mean, who has slaves any more, geez.
Similarly, ceremonial laws are for the priesthood, sacrifices, and other religious... ceremonies. These were specifically relevant to Judaism, and were absolutely made redundant by Christ. When these laws are cited in a modern context it's usually to defend the idea that we should be building big, fancy churches, and generally putting a lot of money and effort into worship. Which has some merit IMO, but if it gets in the way of, say, providing for the poor, then you're flagrantly missing the point.

So basically, moral law is always relevant. Do not murder, do not lie, provide for those in need, hold God in the highest esteem.
Civil law is arguably relevant (but not really). Sell your land after seven years, don't keep your slaves forever (unless they want to stay), killing someone by accident is forgiveable if you go to this city afterwards.
Ceremonial law is redundant and only vaguely relevant for modern worship. Sacrifice X animal on Y day, sprinkle blood here, there, and everywhere, an aroma pleasing to the Lord, etcetera.

[TheDarkStar]

Basically ninja'd by OW.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Ninja'd before by POH, since the "law type" distinction is a bunch of arbitrary made up bullshit to justify cramming most of modern Western morality into the Old Testament.

By what metric is honoring the Sabbath a moral issue and slavery not? How does a prohibition against unclean meats not tickle god's fancy anymore, but man who lies with man an abomination? And since that is considered a "moral law" by most Christians, how can they then go on to ignore the attached qualifier of stoning homosexuals? What, the statement is moral but then it redshifts into civil when describing the penalty?

Spare me. It's nearly as invalid as the ontological argument.

[Orange Wizard]

Well, the unclean meat thing falls under ceremonial law (I think?) and was specifically done away with by Jesus himself, so that's probably not a good example.
The homosexuality thing was reiterated in the New Testament (or not, depending on how you think the Greek should be translated) but also ties in to the purpose of marriage. Personally I don't think it's terribly major, but it's contentious because... reasons, probably.

The distinction isn't arbitrary, but it is quite debatable. The important bits are clear enough.