30 Apr 06
Originally posted by LemonJelloLook, they just haven't read as far as the NT yet... Slow readers, that's all.
One would think that if the OT were divinely authored/inspired by an omnipotent, omniscient God, then the OT could stand on its own accord.
Doesn't the NT 'perspective' say as much?
Matthew 5:17-19
[i]"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven ...[text shortened]... the literal interpretation of God's words is so thoroughly deranged, demented, and wacky.
30 Apr 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzWell I don't see at the Christians going to funrals Nation wide doing what they are doing.
Now all you have to do is justify why you are right and they are wrong.
But who now maybe they could have a personal relationship with the Lord, but they do not do what Romans 12:1-2 says.
30 Apr 06
2 edits
Originally posted by RBHILLRB, what do you think about Matthew 5:17-19? Those are Jesus' words; so how is the Westboro stance necessarily un-Christian*?
you are a little to late look at the second post on this tread.
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=42034
I agree with chancremechanic.
Also, I'm always one step ahead of ye (see my post on page 2).
----------------
*EDIT: I understand that the hatred espoused by Westboro clashes with the ideals of many Christians. I am talking about the 'stance' of Westboro in which they take the OT 'law' to heart.
30 Apr 06
Originally posted by RBHILLSo, in terms of Christianity, majority rules then? There must be alot of Catholics, protestants etc that are mighty cheesed about that. Come to think of it, if might is right, then surely the Romans, who were in excess around Christ's time, must be right, and Jesus wrong?
Well I don't see at the Christians going to funrals Nation wide doing what they are doing.
But who now maybe they could have a personal relationship with the Lord, but they do not do what Romans 12:1-2 says.
30 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJello[/i]I wouldn't want to accuse you of selective quotation, but did you intentionally leave out the following text from Matthew? Here is what is IMO the fulfillment of the law (excuse the archaic English):
One would think that if the OT were divinely authored/inspired by an omnipotent, omniscient God, then the OT could stand on its own accord.
Doesn't the NT 'perspective' say as much?
Matthew 5:17-19
[i]"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven the literal interpretation of God's words is so thoroughly deranged, demented, and wacky.
Mat 22:35 Then one of them, [which was] a lawyer, asked [him a question], tempting him, and saying,
Mat 22:36 Master, which [is] the great commandment in the law?
Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Mat 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
Mat 22:39 And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. (KJV)
The variation of the second law He reiterates in:
Mat 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. (KJV)
01 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseFirst: ok, so the 'greatest commandment' is to love God. What do you think the Westboro Baptists think they are doing? They thoroughly love the megalomaniacal God depicted in the OT. And that is, after all, what the OT largely depicts -- a blood-lusting, hateful God.
[/i]I wouldn't want to accuse you of selective quotation, but did you intentionally leave out the following text from Matthew? Here is what is IMO the fulfillment of the law (excuse the archaic English):
Mat 22:35 Then one of them, [which was] a lawyer, asked [him a question], tempting him, and saying,
Mat 22:36 Master, which [is] the great commandm ...[text shortened]... d that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. (KJV)
Second: the verses you cited from Mat 22:40 and Mat 7:12 are clearly wrong about the OT. Let's look at an example that is relevant to the Westboro ideology:
Leviticus 20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them."
Here, the 'law' is that homosexuals shall be put to death for engaging in the 'sin' of homosexual activity. Now, that clearly does not 'hang' on either the golden rule or love for one's neighbor as thyself. It may 'hang' on one's love for God, but only insofar as God is a homo-hater who discriminates based on sexual orientation.
So, Halitose, why don't you explain how this verse from Leviticus is 1. properly interpreted through the use of your nifty NT filtering goggles and 2. consistent with the verses you cited from Matthew (and keep in mind that Jesus states that not even one tittle of OT law shall pass).
01 May 06
I think, perhaps, the underlying lesson here could be to judge a person by their individual spirituality and not by their assumed generic label.
What is a Christian these days? Answers will vary. In use, however, the only common denominator is that the individuals who claim the label utilize the bible as the basis of their beliefs to some extent. That is all. Show me 12 "christian" churches, and I'll probably be able to show you 9 kinds of christainity (or more. Possibly even 13).
Not that this is singular to Christianity. You'll find it to be true with every major belief system. The bigger, the more diversified. Thusly, does it not make more sense to say that person X or Group Y have an unhealthy belief system (or at the very least a disturbing one due to a contrast with social norms)? Indeed. Let us call the nuts for what they are, and let the mass majority of people (who just want to believe what they want and be left alone to do it) be in peace.
Just my two copper. 😉
01 May 06
Originally posted by LemonJelloHave you ever heard of the story of the woman caught in adultry in the four gospels? You seem well enough acquainted with scripture so I am sure you do. They came to Jesus saying that they had caught her in the act and asked him what they should do knowing full well that Mosaic law said to stone such a person. What did Jesus say? He said whoever among you is without sin cast the first stone. He issued in a new eara of grace. He did not negate the seriousness of the sin or their right to stone her. He ushered in a new eara in which sin is not immediatly judged as in the Mosaic law.
So, Halitose, why don't you explain how this verse from Leviticus is 1. properly interpreted through the use of your nifty NT filtering goggles and 2. consistent with the verses you cited from Matthew (and keep in mind that Jesus states that not even one tittle of OT law shall pass).[/b]
01 May 06
Originally posted by whodeyHe did not negate...their right to stone her.
Have you ever heard of the story of the woman caught in adultry in the four gospels? You seem well enough acquainted with scripture so I am sure you do. They came to Jesus saying that they had caught her in the act and asked him what they should do knowing full well that Mosaic law said to stone such a person. What did Jesus say? He said whoever among you ...[text shortened]... stone her. He ushered in a new eara in which sin is not immediatly judged as in the Mosaic law.
That's exactly the problem, whodey! Only in some warped mind would you think this story demonstrates exemplary behavior on the part of Jesus.
If we apply this thought to the line from Leviticus, it follows that gays really do deserve death for their actions; but this death should not be administered at the hands of those who also rightly deserve death for other completely petty, innocuous 'sins'. No sirey, administering unjustified death and punishment is the sole work of He who is 'sinless' -- God. That is some amazing grace there, whodey! It's really no wonder at all why I wouldn't worship your hateful God even if He did exist.
So, the next time one of your acquaintances commits adultery (hell, even lusting after another's wife/husband is sufficient here, right?), just know that he/she really deserves a good whack in the face with a stone. But remember: it's not your place to administer such 'justice' -- God will take care of it later.
01 May 06
Originally posted by LemonJelloDo you picket prisons for the grave injustices they do in punishing convicted felons?
[b]He did not negate...their right to stone her.
That's exactly the problem, whodey! Only in some warped mind would you think this story demonstrates exemplary behavior on the part of Jesus.
If we apply this thought to the line from Leviticus, it follows that gays really do deserve death for their actions; but this death should not be administe ...[text shortened]... : it's not your place to administer such 'justice' -- God will take care of it later.[/b]
01 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloYou can twist virtually anything to suit your agenda; you're not too bad at it.
First: ok, so the 'greatest commandment' is to love God. What do you think the Westboro Baptists think they are doing? They thoroughly love the megalomaniacal God depicted in the OT. And that is, after all, what the OT largely depicts -- a blood-lusting, hateful God.
Second: the verses you cited from Mat 22:40 and Mat 7:12 are clearly wrong a d keep in mind that Jesus states that not even one tittle of OT law shall pass).