rossum
Well-known member
It is also logically possible that Vishnu exists, or do you have a logical disproof?And logically possible that God does exist
It is also logically possible that Vishnu exists, or do you have a logical disproof?And logically possible that God does exist
You should take that up with the (small minority of, in my experience) atheists who claim objective morality exists. Most do not.
Yep, which supports the fact that the law was never meant or intended to save anyone. Rejecting a false purpose doesn't negate the actual intended purpose. No one is claiming that the law saves anyone. You are not saved by keeping the first commandment. That doesn't do away with the first commandment.Read the chapter from v1. The point of the chapter is the recognition of the apistles of inability to be saved by keeping the law (v10). The apostles assert that Jews are saved in the same way gentiles -- by grace (v11).
Strawman argument. I have never claimed the law saves anyone. FAIL AGAIN.You have failed to show anywhere in the New Testament where anyone is saved by keeping the law, dietary, or moral (cf Rom 1:20).
You conceded the debate a long time ago. You have no defense for your faith in your capricious gods.I'm done with this discussion. The last word is yours.
No they are food laws because they are about food.So, food laws are not moral laws, because food laws change.
There's no explanation for that given in scripture. However, the marriage plan is one man, which eventually restored.That leaves my point about marriage laws, which also changed. Abraham, David and Solomon had multiple wives while today God says that men can only have one wife. Is this another of God's laws that is not a 'moral law'? It is certainly not a food law.
You claim that laws on sexual behaviour have not changed, yet this is an obvious example of such a law that has changed, or do Fundamentalist LDS churches have this one right?
Read the entire book of Leviticus.Where in the Bible are the different types of laws enumerated? I do hope that these types you are talking about are not mere human interpretations of the Bible, rather than in the text of the Bible itself. I look forward to chapter and verse.
I am not 'posturing' as anything.Whilst we cant prove to you that God exists, you cant prove God doesnt exist, yet you are posturing as though God doesnt exist.
Yes, it's very sad. That atheists are more moral than Christians - who supposedly have the moral high ground - is very sad indeed.No. I took it up with the OP, who likely does what nearly all internet atheists do, argue they are "moral", just like a Christian....in fact most believe they are even more "moral" than the Christian.
Sad to watch really.
Yes, it's very sad.
That atheists are more moral than Christians - who supposedly have the moral high ground - is very sad indeed.
I might if they had one.Hey now, don't be sad. You can help your fellow atheists by laughing at them over their overly moral superiority complex!
I don't claim to be moralist. That's Christians' territory. I claim to be moral. And certainly more moral than Christians.You claiming to be the moralist is pathetic really.
What people think about atheists is irrelevant to what atheists actually are.You've seen the stats and polls about how people view atheists, right?
I claim to be moral. And certainly more moral than Christians.
So the laws about sex are not moral laws because they are laws about sex? Just because a law is in one classification does not mean that the law cannot be in a different classification as well.No they are food laws because they are about food.
If there is no explanation given, then how can you know what the marriage plan is? The marriage laws have certainly changed, which means that they are not unchanging moral laws.There's no explanation for that given in scripture. However, the marriage plan is one man, which eventually restored.
I have. The laws are listed there, but they are not classified into groups. Later, Jesus says that He is not going to change any of those Mosaic laws, yet His followers have changed some of them. Jesus put all the laws into a single unchanging classification, while others have split them into the ones that still apply and the ones that no longer apply.Read the entire book of Leviticus.
Thanks for your lengthy straw man.Yep, which supports the fact that the law was never meant or intended to save anyone. Rejecting a false purpose doesn't negate the actual intended purpose. No one is claiming that the law saves anyone. You are not saved by keeping the first commandment. That doesn't do away with the first commandment.
You're not saved by remaining faithful to your spouse. That doesn't do away with the need for fidelity to one's spouse. Cherry picking laws you don't want to keep doesn't cut it, and spotlights that you're cherry picking, or you have a capricious god.
Strawman argument. I have never claimed the law saves anyone. FAIL AGAIN.
You conceded the debate a long time ago. You have no defense for your faith in your capricious gods.
They are moral lawsSo the laws about sex are not moral laws because they are laws about sex? Just because a law is in one classification does not mean that the law cannot be in a different classification as well.
If there is no explanation given, then how can you know what the marriage plan is? The marriage laws have certainly changed, which means that they are not unchanging moral laws.
Read a Bible with pericopes.I have. The laws are listed there, but they are not classified into groups.
The law hasn't changed.Later, Jesus says that He is not going to change any of those Mosaic laws, yet His followers have changed some of them. Jesus put all the laws into a single unchanging classification, while others have split them into the ones that still apply and the ones that no longer apply.
Not a moral law.A pity that, the law against cotton-polyester shirts was a good one.![]()
You have no defense for your faith in your capricious gods.
Matthew 5:48 does no such thing. Salvation by works is a theme of Jesus's in the synoptics. Again, Jesus's position of works and following the Law is precisely how Peter defended following the Law against Paul in their dispute.Howie said:
You have failed to show anywhere in the New Testament where anyone is saved by keeping the law, dietary, or moral (cf Rom 1:20).
Mt 5:48 implicitly puts the kibosh on anyone being saved by the law, Romans 1:20 does so explicitly.
Which was what side?
Well there ya have it fella!
Thanks for the confirmation.![]()
"Is salvation by faith alone, or does it require works?"Matthew 5:48 does no such thing. Salvation by works is a theme of Jesus's in the synoptics. Again, Jesus's position of works and following the Law is precisely how Peter defended following the Law against Paul in their dispute.
Peter and Jesus say follow the Law, Paul says you don't have to.
Peter and Jesus say follow the Law, Paul says you don't have to.
And they changed, so then moral laws are not all unchanging. Some change, like the number of wives a man can have.They are moral laws
Periscopes were not invented when the Bible was written, so they are unbiblical.Read a Bible with pericopes.
Some laws have, or is it morally wrong to wear a cotton-polyester shirt today?The law hasn't changed.
And where in the Bible is the list of which laws are moral laws and which are not moral laws? Or is this merely a human interpretation added after Bible was written?Not a moral law.
Jesus did no such thing; he winked at them breaking the Pharisees' legalistic extrapolation of the Law.Nonsense. Jesus winked at his disciples breaking the Law (Matt 12:1), and Peter broke the Law (Mark 2:23).
Sure it does. As James says, break one law, and you're guilty of breaking the entire law because the standard for salvation through law keeping is keeping the law to perfection (Jas 2:10; cf Mt 5:48).Matthew 5:48 does no such thing.
Salvation has always been by grace, through faith (Eph 2:8ff; cf Gen 15:6). The purpose of the law is not to save one who keeps the law; the purpose of the law is to reveal to you that you are sinful by your inability to perfectly keep the law (Rom 3:20). No one has kept the law perfectly, but Christ who is the atonement for sin, the forgiveness of sin. God gave the Old Testament Jews the animal, sacrificial system as a way of offering atonement their sins, but as the writer tells us, the blood of bulls and goats are not sufficient for the forgiveness of sins, but only Christ is (Heb 10:4ff).Salvation by works is a theme of Jesus's in the synoptics. Again, Jesus's position of works and following the Law is precisely how Peter defended following the Law against Paul in their dispute.
Following the law is good, everyone is obligated to keep the moral law, but keeping the law saves no one, because the standard for salvation through law keeping is perfection (Jas 2:10; cf Mt 5:48). One is saved by grace, through faith, not by works (Rom 3:20; Eph 2:8ff)Peter and Jesus say follow the Law, Paul says you don't have to.