pop, question ...

[BSmack]

Because everything is fulfilled in Christ.

In God's sight a man is fully justified and righteous when he believes and receives the Christ, who happens to be Jesus.

So, we can completely ignore the laws of the OT. Men can lie with men and bestiality is morally OK.

[poptart]

Bri, man apart from God is living in the curse that God declared on mankind in Genesis 3:16-20.
Man with God, through Christ, if free, at the critical spiritual level, from that curse.

'The law' is 'good' and it is 'beneficial' to the person who responds to it.
But the law does not free a person from the curse.
And that curse takes a person to failure, and death eternally.


What you are doing by stating your two questions there in the manner that you did is being highly irrational and confrontational.

You're trying to goad the Christian into taking a legalistic stance on things, when it is simply not necessary to do so.

Through the law you can see the 'mind' of God.

As Christ said, He did not come to tear down the law.

And like I said to Mike, good luck having a righteousness exceeding that of the scribes and pharisees, as Jesus said was necessary, in order to enter into the Kingdom of God.

Of course all righteousness in God's sight (and freedom from the curse) comes from simply believing and receiving the Christ.

There is no need for legalism.

[Goober McTuber]

Geez, good freaking luck, man.

You do realize that “geez” is a shortened form of Jesus? You’ve just taken the name of your lord in vain, sinner.

[BSmack]

What you are doing by stating your two questions there in the manner that you did is being highly irrational and confrontational.

It's a logical question. One would hope that you could answer it.

You're trying to goad the Christian into taking a legalistic stance on things, when it is simply not necessary to do so.

No, just trying to get a straight answer.

Through the law you can see the 'mind' of God.

So why not follow ALL of the law? Why do Christians ignore parts of the law? Are there parts of the "mind of God" that are restricted to only Jews?

[Nacho]

God gave his chosen people the Law and it was good and just. It still is. He did so that His people would stand out in the world He created.

They did.

Christ said that the law could be summed up by Loving God and loving others as you love yourself. This could be called the spirit of the law.

Christ then enabled those who would follow "the way" by sacrificing himself so that they could receive His promise of the Holy Spirit.

The Law has been fulfilled by Jesus. The law still stands today.

By Christ's sacrifice and the baptism of the Holy Spirit a follower of "the way" (Jesus) has gained forgiveness and redemption in God's plan for His creation.

It is still good for that follower to uphold the spirit of the Law. To love God and to love others.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

The Law has been fulfilled by Jesus.

Meaning WHAT?!?!

The law still stands today.

Soooo...we're still not supposed to eat pork? We're still supposed to get our menfolk circumcised? We're supposed to kill disobedient kids? Stone witches and adulterers?

If the law "still stnads," what the HELL does that mean? Does it have to be obeyed or not?

None of you thumpers have clearly answered the question.

I'll ask it again:

Do Christians have to obey the Law as set down in the OT?

A simple freaking "yes" or "no" will do.

If you say "well, some parts yes and some parts no", clearly explain how you go about choosing which rules to ignore (e.g. dietary restrictions, not cooking a baby goat in its mother's milk) and which ones to obey.

It is still good for that follower to uphold the spirit of the Law. To love God and to love others.

Umm...I'm absolutely positive that none of the dietary restrictions have a danged thing to do with loving God and loving others. Same goes for the cloth restrictions.

The way you thumpers spin, a visitor from another planet would assume you were Dervishes, not Christians.

Yeah, it's all laid out so clearly in the Bible...that we have dozens of Christian denominations arguing over this kind of stuff.

[battery chucka' one]

Do Christians have to obey the Law as set down in the OT?

We don't have to do that. No. If we wish to please God, we will do so. It does please Him. However, it won't get anybody salvation. Christ did away with the dietary restrictions. Many no doubt had societal reasons behind them. If we have Christ, that is sufficient for salvation. The only way to salvation, actually.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

If we have Christ, that is sufficient for salvation. The only way to salvation, actually.

Then why would God give a Holy Rat's Ass if we obeyed the OT rules?

Why would it "please Him" for us to not eat pork?

I agree with Dio that a lot of the dieetary restrictions made perfect sense at the time they were set down - pork was rife with trichinosis, shellfish tends to not travel well in desert environments, etc. But why in the hell would God be "pleased" if we chose to abstain from it NOW?

I remember a question one of my philosophy professors (Dennis Bradford) posed, quoting some ancient dude - are things good because God loves them, or does God love things because they are good? The problem with the former is that it makes morality pretty arbitrary, and the problem with the latter is that it seems to be imposing rules on an ostensibly omnipotent being. Some students tried arguing a form of the latter - that it is in God's nature to love the good, but it still winds up sounding like a constraint on omniscience. No satisfactory answer was determined. The prof just put it out there to screw with us. He was like that.

[battery chucka' one]

What part of Christ doing away with the dietary restrictions did you miss?? It was probably getting like Catholics on Fridays during Lent is right now. It's not unlike the rule about the fence on the rooftops. Doesn't apply nowadays. Did then.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

What part of Christ doing away with the dietary restrictions did you miss??

How 'bout THIS quote:

No. If we wish to please God, we will do so. It does please Him.

So...you're starting to cherry-pick which parts of the OT Law to obey.

Dietary restrictions. Buh-bye.

Other OT Laws?

Stoning witches? Did Jesus do away with that one?

Never planting two kinds of crops in the field?

Not wearing clothes made from two kinds of material?

And prithee, be specific on your criteria on which OT Laws to discard and which to keep.

I'd love to see the logic in how the whole segregated planting bit and clothing rule "pleases" God.

[poptart]

Mike and Bri could quit dancing around and just cut to their absurd chase.

Admit that you want Christians to declare ... ALL OR NOTHING ... about 'the law' so that if Christians say ALL you mock them for not following 'silly' things like hair length, etc ....

And, if they say NOTHING in 'the law' must be you followed, you then tell them that they've just made homosexuality acceptable.

[Diogenes]

If we have Christ, that is sufficient for salvation. The only way to salvation, actually.

Then why would God give a Holy Rat's Ass if we obeyed the OT rules?

Why would it "please Him" for us to not eat pork?

I agree with Dio that a lot of the dieetary restrictions made perfect sense at the time they were set down - pork was rife with trichinosis, shellfish tends to not travel well in desert environments, etc. But why in the hell would God be "pleased" if we chose to abstain from it NOW?

I remember a question one of my philosophy professors (Dennis Bradford) posed, quoting some ancient dude - are things good because God loves them, or does God love things because they are good? The problem with the former is that it makes morality pretty arbitrary, and the problem with the latter is that it seems to be imposing rules on an ostensibly omnipotent being. Some students tried arguing a form of the latter - that it is in God's nature to love the good, but it still winds up sounding like a constraint on omniscience. No satisfactory answer was determined. The prof just put it out there to screw with us. He was like that.

His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to His power. If you choose to say 'God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it,' you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words 'God can.'... It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.

-C.S. Lewis The problem of pain

The answer I would tend to support is that things are good if they are compatible with God's will, and sinful if the are contrary. Murder isn't evil because God says so, he says so because it (aside from the fact that someone ends up dead) is spiritually harmful to the perpertrator. God doesn't tell you certain things are sins because they annoy him, but because they damage you. The same things that were sinful before the Resurection still are, their spiritual effects are still damaging. It is the eternal consequences that are different. Because the price has already been paid.

[poptart]

I'll ask it again:

Do Christians have to obey the Law as set down in the OT?

A simple freaking "yes" or "no" will do.

Hysterical much?

A person's 'righteousness' in the eyes of God is assumed by believing in HIM, Who fulfilled the law and the prophets -- or ..... all Scripture.

What do you think?
Do you follow 'the 'law' somehow?

Go for it, if you think you need to.

It's not necessary.
Much/most of 'the law' is good and beneficial, but we are not bound by it.

We ought to be bound to Christ, for He is the vine and we are the branches.
Apart from HIM, we can do nothing.

:|



The reason you're flailing around with this, Mike, is because the meaning that you are trying to assign to the words 'the law' that Jesus used in Matthew 5:18 differs from the meaning that Jesus has for those words.

As I demonstrated in my first post on this page, 'the law' refers to THE ENTIRETY OF O.T. SCRIPTURE.

THAT is what Christ Jesus has fulfilled and not destroyed.

He spoke there of the law .... AND the prophets.
He came to fulfill the law and the prophets -- which spoke of .... HIM.

And again, look at the MEANING Jesus assigned to the words 'the law' in other places.

John 10:34, John 12:34 and John 15:25.

Look up the verses yourself.

It's speaking of the entirety of O.T. Scripture in all cases.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Hysterical much?

Nope. It's just that the "thumper collective" refuses, time and again, to give a simple, short, straightforward answer to whether OT Law (including, but not exclusive to the Mosaic Laws) is binding to Christians.

You guys keep evading the issue by chanting "Jesus FULFILLED the Law..." as if that phrase alone is clear and unambiguous enough to answer the question. It isn't, and you darned well know it.

Dio and bco both stated that the dietary rules are null and void now. That was clearly stated.

However, bco then muddied things up by stating that it "pleases" God for us to follow OT rules.

Really? So God would be more pleased with Christians if we wore garments of only one type of fabric? God would be more pleased if Christian farmers and backyard gardeners used monoculture in their fields/gardens? If we kept holy the Sabbath day (which, as some Christians still argue is supposed to be SATURDAY).

You guys have made a point of not only using deliberately evasive and ambiguous answers, but also completely avoiding the repeated question of whether OT Laws on farming, clothing, or the stoning of witches are still in effect or not.

Like I said - you guys try to make it sound like it's as plain as the noses on our faces, which is horsecrap, because some Christian denominations argue strongly and devoutly that some (or even most) OT Laws are still binding on Christians. You can argue that they're screwed in the head and misinterpreting Scripture, but get this - they say the exact same thing about YOUR interpretations. Crazy, huh? Each side claims that it has a clear, unambiguous grasp on what God wants, and yet they disagree.

[poptart]

You guys keep evading the issue by chanting "Jesus FULFILLED the Law..." as if that phrase alone is clear and unambiguous enough to answer the question. It isn't, and you darned well know it.

I've evaded nothing, Mike.
You don't like my answer.
There is nothing ambiguous about my answer.

You are giving 'the law' a different meaning than Jesus gave it, as I've shown twice already in this thread.

Look up the verses I've cited, and see for yourself how Jesus defined the law.
He defined it as the entirety of O.T. writings.

THIS is what he fulfilled.


Mike, how are you going to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven?
In these verses from Matthew, Jesus says that your righteousness must be greater than that of the scribes and pharisees in order to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.
Are you managing that, or are you S.O.L.?

And now, since you're S.O.L., why in the world do you even care about Jesus?
What's He to you?
He's of no significance at all.

It is the height of lunacy to imagine that Jesus would come and die horrifically as a substitute for us, only to say that we must strive to keep some virtually I M P O S S I B L E level of righteousness on our own.

If you've got a couple of functioning brain cells you know that that is utterly preposterous.

[BSmack]

Look up the verses I've cited, and see for yourself how Jesus defined the law.
He defined it as the entirety of O.T. writings.

THIS is what he fulfilled.

So why don't we keep kosher?

[poptart]

If you want to keep kosher ..... do it.

No problem.

[BSmack]

If you want to keep kosher ..... do it.

No problem.

So what you're saying is that you can offer no logical explanation why we keep some OT laws and not others.

[poptart]

Who is the 'we' you are speaking of?

I will only speak for myself.

God gave the 'law' so that his people could navigate in their world on a course toward what would ultimately bring forth ...... the Messiah.
He gave the 'law' at that time to fulfill HIS purpose.

Myself, I have no reason to have to think often about the 'laws' of the O.T.
I'm aware of them, and aware of WHY God gave them.
I respect it.


Give me three 'laws' that interest you, and I'll tell you if I 'keep' them or not, and if I do 'keep' them, why I do, and if not, why I don't.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Leviticus 19:19
 Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.

Note: Every one of those rules allegedly came from "On High"...and every frigging one of them is stupid.

Leviticus 20:9 
For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

Note: Curse Mom and Dad and be put to death? Brilliant.

Leviticus 20:10
And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Note: I think adulterers are pond scum, but THE DEATH PENALTY?

Leviticus 20:18
And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people.

Note: Sex during a woman's period is gross, but to cut the offending folks off from theior people?

Leviticus 20:27 
A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.

Note: So much for good old American freedom of worship if this "Old Tahm Bible Rules" were enacted into civil law.

Leviticus 21:9
And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.

Note: I've known plenty of minister's/priest's daughters who were, during their college years, at least fairly promiscuous -maybe even slutty. Somehow I don't think that even dear old Dad would seriously advocate burning them (the guys they slept with, OTOH...)

Leviticus 24:16
And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.

Note: There's that crazy religious intolerance again.

Obviously I don't expect you to argue that executing those worshipping (or even prosyletizing) in the name of gods other than "The One True God." However, according to bco, following OT rules "pleases God." One would have to be certifiably fucking insane to entertain, even for a second, enacting ANY of the above rules into American civil law.

American ideals of freedom of religion and expression trump any Bible-thumper's desire to make OT (or even NT) purely religious rules into secular law. Period.

[Diogenes]

American ideals of freedom of religion and expression trump any Bible-thumper's desire to make OT (or even NT) purely religious rules into secular law. Period.

And who exactly is trying to do that?

[Mike the Lab Rat]

American ideals of freedom of religion and expression trump any Bible-thumper's desire to make OT (or even NT) purely religious rules into secular law. Period.

And who exactly is trying to do that?

Idiots who enact or try to defend Blue Laws. Using the law to enforce "the Lord's Day" is frigging horseshit.

Idiots who enact or try to defend laws outlawing consensual "sodomy" or homosexual acts by adults. What two adults do to/with each other in the privacy of their own homes is no one's business, including the government's.

Idiots who enact or try to defend laws against polygamy. If consenting adults know that they're entering into a polygamous marriage, then it is not the place of myself or anyone else into monogamy to outlaw their union.

Idiots who don't realize that when they falsely and disingenuously claim that displaying Ten Commandments is non-denominational/religiously neutral and shouldn't offend anyone, they conveniently gloss over the "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" bit.

I'm not saying that YOU are one of those idiots, Dio, but there sure as hell HAVE been morons who have done what I have described. And I'm guessing that there's more than a few inbred morons who'd like to see some of the old laws brought back.

[Diogenes]

Aside from the 'Blue Laws' there are valid secular reasons for the rest of those.

And for the record, I am opposed to 1&3, don't give a shit about 2&4 (as long as they are state or local decisions). But nobody is trying to make the U.S. into a Kosher Theocracy. It is the anti-Christian left trying to impose their dogma on the rest of us.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Aside from the 'Blue Laws' there are valid secular reasons for the rest of those.

And for the record, I am opposed to 1&3, don't give a shit about 2&4 (as long as they are state or local decisions). But nobody is trying to make the U.S. into a Kosher Theocracy. It is the anti-Christian left trying to impose their dogma on the rest of us.

You contradicted yourself right there. DOMA and proposed Constitutional Marriage Amendment out front should have told you so.

[Diogenes]

Aside from the 'Blue Laws' there are valid secular reasons for the rest of those.

And for the record, I am opposed to 1&3, don't give a shit about 2&4 (as long as they are state or local decisions). But nobody is trying to make the U.S. into a Kosher Theocracy. It is the anti-Christian left trying to impose their dogma on the rest of us.

You contradicted yourself right there. DOMA and proposed Constitutional Marriage Amendment out front should have told you so.

No, it is non-elected political hacks in robes trying to overrule legislatures driving that shit. And refusing to recognize the 'marriage' of a couple of sexual deviants isn't the same as putting them to death, or even prohibiting their deviancy.

I had a guy at church a couple weeks ago pass around a referendum petition to 'protect marriage', BTW. I told him I wouldn't sign because the singular phrase 'a man and a woman' would tend to discrimate against orthodox Mormons.

Of course as long as adultery is considered a hobby rather than a crime and 'irreconcilable differences' is a valid reason for divorce (till death-or one of you calls a time out-may you part) marriage is legaly meaningless.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Of course as long as adultery is considered a hobby rather than a crime and 'irreconcilable differences' is a valid reason for divorce (till death-or one of you calls a time out-may you part) marriage is legaly meaningless.

Of course, you know this part requires the lawyer to speak out.

Adultery is a crime (where I live, anyway, and perhaps speaking technically only), albeit one which is rarely, if ever, prosecuted. And practicing in (I believe) the only state that does not recognize pure no-fault grounds for divorce, I can tell you that no-fault grounds probably are for the best. If a person wants a divorce, he/she, as a general rule, is not about to let the government stop him/her from getting said divorce. Should the government choose to require fault-based grounds, all the government will succeed in accompllishing is ratcheting up the acrimony in an already bitter situation. OTOH, most people will travel the path of least resistance, which means no-fault grounds if they're available.

[Diogenes]

Of course as long as adultery is considered a hobby rather than a crime and 'irreconcilable differences' is a valid reason for divorce (till death-or one of you calls a time out-may you part) marriage is legaly meaningless.

Of course, you know this part requires the lawyer to speak out.

Adultery is a crime (where I live, anyway, and perhaps speaking technically only), albeit one which is rarely, if ever, prosecuted.

If it's treated like an alternative lifestyle, it really doesn't matter what laws are on the books. At the very least they should take all the resources used to screw with prostitution and apply them to prosecuting adulterers. Or just ignore prostitution like they are adultery.

And practicing in (I believe) the only state that does not recognize pure no-fault grounds for divorce, I can tell you that no-fault grounds probably are for the best. If a person wants a divorce, he/she, as a general rule, is not about to let the government stop him/her from getting said divorce. Should the government choose to require fault-based grounds, all the government will succeed in accompllishing is ratcheting up the acrimony in an already bitter situation. OTOH, most people will travel the path of least resistance, which means no-fault grounds if they're available.

The point is that marriage isn't a sacrament any more, mearly a contract. And what the state has put together, let no man without a gavel and robe put asunder.


And the frivolity which the state treats marriage and the indifference of the public to it is much more of a threat to the institution then a few judges pretending a couple of pervs are 'married'.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

And the frivolity which the state treats marriage and the indifference of the public to it is much more of a threat to the institution then a few judges pretending a couple of pervs are 'married'.

I think hell just froze over, 'cuz I'm about to say:

Rack you, Dio.

[poptart]

Mike, read Colossians 2:13-23.

One could easily turn your argument right around and direct it at YOU.
You understand this, don't you?

You choose to ignore many of the laws ...... perhaps, say, by eating non-kosher fish.
Since you ignore the law, then how can you judge one who breaks the law by killing someone?

Oh ... yes, you use your common sense.


Some of the laws are clearly moral in nature, and some are 'ceremonial' ...... or as a foreshadow of the coming Christ.

Stop being a ninny.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Stop being a ninny.

I'm not being a ninny. I just enjoy putting thumpers in the position of having to admit that they, just like everyone else out there, cherry-pick which parts of the Bible to follow.

From here on out, whenever one of the "holy roller lobby" accuses anyone else (including me) of choosing which parts of the Bible in which to believe or follow, we can just reference this thread and toss Matthew 7:4 back at you.

"Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?"

[Diogenes]

I'll see your 7:4 and raise you 7:6

[Mike the Lab Rat]

I'll see your 7:4 and raise you 7:6

Yeah, that quote pretty much sums up how I feel when I attempt to use logic, consistancy, scientific analysis, etc. in dealing with thumpers.

Speaking of which...

There's a new book out called "Trying Leviathan" that describes a NYC trial held in 1818 in which thumpers and their ilk attempted to chuckle use the freaking BIBLE as their scientific source to "prove" that whales were fish, no matter what the scientific evidence showed. I plan on snagging the book at some point and enjoying the look back at the delightful "logic" used by thumpers 190 years ago to prop up their scientifically untenable arguments.

[Diogenes]

And refusing to recognize the 'marriage' of a couple of sexual deviants isn't the same as putting them to death, or even prohibiting their deviancy.

True enough. I'm just missing the part where it's any of your fucking business.

As well as the part where I don't give a flying fuck, appearantly.

[Diogenes]

I'll see your 7:4 and raise you 7:6

Yeah, that quote pretty much sums up how I feel when I attempt to use logic, consistancy, scientific analysis, etc. in dealing with Christians.

Is that what you're trying to do?

I hope you're better at it in bio class, you're definitely out of your element here.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

you're definitely out of your element here.

Hardly.

Fundamentalists Christians with whom I've debated (here and in other forums) seem to believe that it's a legitimate, non-hypocritical statement to tell me that I'm not allowed to "pick and choose which parts of the Bible to believe and/or follow." I get that argument when I posit that Genesis is allegorical, that there are scientific nd historical inaccuracies in the Bible, that I believe Paul to be a deluded nutjob, etc.

The problem, which I believe that our discussion has shown to anyone bothering to read the thread, is that FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIANS (like ALL Christians) do the exact same cherry-picking of Bible Scripture to legtimize their wholly personal/subjective "take" on being a "true Christian."

This thread has shown that some of the very folks on this board who object to my "cherry picking" do the exact same thing (e.g., by not following all Mosaic laws and instead picking which to follow).

That isn't meant to be a knock on the personal devotion, sincerity, or deeply-held spiritual beliefs of you (Dio), pop, Nach, bco, et al. - it's not my goal to cast aspersions on your personal relationship with God. No, my goal is to have folks, including yourselves, realize that despite your objection to alleged "Biblical cherry-picking" on the part of other folks and the various claims that YOUR interpretations of Scripture are obvious/clear/plain and legitimize your denominational/personal views as the only right ones, you a) do your own cherry-picking (amply demonstrated in this thread) and b) the fact remains that folks equally as devout, Scripturally-educated, and sincere as you guys COMPLETELY DISAGREE with many of your fundamental interpretations of Scripture. That latter point disproves the contention that a reading of Scripture gives "obvious" answers to the nature of sin, God, Christ, etc. If it WAS truly obvious and clear, you wouldn't have dozens (if not scores or even hundreds) of various denominations of Christianity, ALL claiming to be the "right" interpretation.

I set out to not to prove that your own Scriptural interpretations were stupid or flat-out wrong, but that your own deeply-held and sincere religious views are themselves based on undeniably subjective interpretations ...which is what you guys have often argued is the basis of the "weaknesses" of others' equally sincere religious views.

[Diogenes]

First of all, as far as 'logic, consistancy, scientific analysis etc.'...

Props on going a whole post without using the term 'holy roller' or 'thumper' to castigate anyone you disagree with. I'll try not to refer to you as a heretic, deist, or Laodecian in the future.

You're welcome.

And I don't believe I have accused you of 'cherry-picking' as much as pointed out that you are being inconsistant when you try to omit Paul from the Bible. Especially when the only source you have used to back it up was the freaking Uratania book. Like I said before, Peter agreed with Paul being on the same level as the apostles. There is no inconsistancy with his writings and the teachings of Christ. And as far as him not knowing anything about Christ, You'd have to say the same thing about Luke, who was his constant companion. So the Pauline epistles-out. Luke/Acts (which was originaly one book)-out. Revelations-in or out? If out, John's gospel and epistles...

I'm not calling you an apostate, a hypocrite, or a non-Christian here. Just stating that IMNSHO, your logic and analysis is extremly flawed.

For what it's worth. And have a happy Sabbath.

[poptart]

Mike, the 'fundamentalist Christians' do NOT do the same thing you do, because you flat out deny that LARGE parts of the Bible are even God's Word.
They do no such thing.

What they do is 'understand' Scripture a given way, while holding the understanding that it is ALL God's Holy Word.

You, on the other hand, dismiss out of hand entirely, large portions which you, in your remarkable genius, have declard to be bogus.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Cherry-picking is cherry-picking.

That group over there cherry-picks and interprets Scripture one way...and voila, they're devout Roman Catholics.

This group over here cherry-picks and interprets Scripture another way...and voila, they're devout Baptists.

A third set cherry-picks and interprets Scripture yet another way...and voila, they're devout anti-Trinitarians.

And so on, and so on, until you get Seventh-Day Adventists, Anglicans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Church-of-Christers, Mormons, Anabaptists, Pentecostalists, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc....ALL claiming that THEY'RE the only ones with the 100% Scripturally-backed, authentic line on God.

But, hey, you say I'M the one with the hubris around here.

Never mind the fact that many of the devout denominations listed above have taken their own religious arrogance so far as to not only declare that everyone but them are going to hell, but decided to use military means to send everyone else there if they couldn't forcibly convert them. Those religious wars, Crusades, Inquisitions, witch trials, and all-around religious persecutions/punishments for refusing to toe the current/local denomination of the day pretty much sucked, didn't they?

"They'll know we are Christians by our love, by our love..."

Yeah, right.

I'M the arrogant one....

My doubting the historical and scientific veracity of portions of the Bible isn't arrogance. It's common sense, backed by scholarship. On the other hand, declaring that each and every letter and punctuation mark of the Bible is in all ways indisputably true and the unquestionable Word of God, refusing to entertain the very real limitations of the humans doing the actual writing...THAT is arrogant.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Especially when the only source you have used to back it up was the freaking Uratania book.

I miss toughlove.

:(

[poptart]

The 'fundamentalists' don't deny that any of the Bible is God's Word.
You do .... and LARGE portions of it.

Stop trying to act like you're doing the very same thing that they do.
Nobody's buying it.

You're in the same boat as mormons, Mike, except that they've added to the Word, and you've subtracted from it.

'Fundamentalists' haven't subtracted ANYTHING.

They might say you do/don't have to follow some of the law, but they don't deny that what is written about the law is God's Word.