The Democrat Party Hates America

[mickthinks]

"Force"? No. One can choose. That's quite a different proposition.

True. Jesus didn’t just teach in parables — he also preached a doctrine rooted in the Hebrew prophets, not in the older tribal theology of Yahweh.

Not true. In fact, he said that not one iota of the Law would ever pass away. (Mt. 5:18) That's the whole enchilada, not just the parts you like or find "loving."

LOL Manny is pretending to understand what Jesus Christ was talking about Matthew 5:18

[Alexiev]

"Consequences" can be used as euphemism for "punishment," it's true. But if you are told that stepping off a cliff is bad, and yet you do it, then it's not "punishment" when gravity takes over and you hit the ground. It's just consequences. Some chosen actions set off a sequence of necessities that cannot be avoided.

Most consequences are just like that: you choose badly, you get the results that naturally follow. That's life. And I can't imagine a more natural result of rejecting God, who is the Giver of All Good Gifts (which is actually one of his formal titles), except a whole lot of the opposite. God could not be more fair than to caution you in advance, and then provide an open route to the right consequences, and even sacrifice Himself to obtain you your route...if you are a free individual, though, He cannot force you to do the right thing. He can provide the way; He can't make you choose it.

Don't complain about the consequences if you ask for them. And don't expect stepping off a cliff to be free of consequences, even if you decide not to believe in gravity.

If (as "The Great Divorce" suggests) Hell is merely a separation from God, then it is no worse than my current existence on earth. So quit threatening people. If, on the other hand, it is a "punishment" it might involve hell fire, etc. Anyone who believes in something for fear of punishment is a coward. Didn't the Communists you despise bully people with threats of punishment just like you do?

[phyllo]

"Force"? No. One can choose. That's quite a different proposition.

True. Jesus didn’t just teach in parables — he also preached a doctrine rooted in the Hebrew prophets, not in the older tribal theology of Yahweh.

Not true. In fact, he said that not one iota of the Law would ever pass away. (Mt. 5:18) That's the whole enchilada, not just the parts you like or find "loving."

You keep to the Jewish Law?

Then you're a Jew, not a Christian.

[Immanuel Can]

"Consequences" can be used as euphemism for "punishment," it's true. But if you are told that stepping off a cliff is bad, and yet you do it, then it's not "punishment" when gravity takes over and you hit the ground. It's just consequences. Some chosen actions set off a sequence of necessities that cannot be avoided.

Most consequences are just like that: you choose badly, you get the results that naturally follow. That's life. And I can't imagine a more natural result of rejecting God, who is the Giver of All Good Gifts (which is actually one of his formal titles), except a whole lot of the opposite. God could not be more fair than to caution you in advance, and then provide an open route to the right consequences, and even sacrifice Himself to obtain you your route...if you are a free individual, though, He cannot force you to do the right thing. He can provide the way; He can't make you choose it.

Don't complain about the consequences if you ask for them. And don't expect stepping off a cliff to be free of consequences, even if you decide not to believe in gravity.

If (as "The Great Divorce" suggests) Hell is merely a separation from God, then it is no worse than my current existence on earth.

The only question you need to ask about that is, is what Lewis described a fictional scenario or a theologically-precise account? And if the Bible does not say what Lewis said, on which account do I wish to stake my eternal future?

So quit threatening people.

This, I have never done. Nor could I. Do you imagine I'm God?

All I do is tell people what God says about all that. Would you rather I lied?

[Immanuel Can]

True. Jesus didn’t just teach in parables — he also preached a doctrine rooted in the Hebrew prophets, not in the older tribal theology of Yahweh.

Not true. In fact, he said that not one iota of the Law would ever pass away. (Mt. 5:18) That's the whole enchilada, not just the parts you like or find "loving."

You keep to the Jewish Law?

You didn't read what He said. He said it would "all be fulfilled." He didn't say it would all be fulfilled by Gentiles, or by me.

But as for the Law, it's escaped B's notice that it was given just before the time she calls "older tribal." So unless B doesn't think the Ten Commandments and the rest of the OT articulate anything relevant, she's in a bit of a pickle. She wants to pick up the story half way through, and ignore the first half that makes up the context for the second half.

I could also point out to her that Jesus Christ Himself talked extensively about the very sorts of things she wants to think He didn't. And I could provide many such references. But I think that, like so many liberal quasi-religious folks, B's more interested in imaginatively creating her own "god" than in dealing with the real one. Were it otherwise, she'd know much more about what He actually said.

[phyllo]

Then the interpretation of Matthew 5:18 is that Jews living according to the Law, will be around up until the end.

[Immanuel Can]

Then the interpretation of Matthew 5:18 is that Jews living according to the Law, will be around up until the end.

Really? Maybe you should point that out from the passage. Somehow, we seem to have missed it...

“Do not presume that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter shall pass from the Law, until all is accomplished! Therefore, whoever nullifies one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

So...help me find the mention of Jews there, if you would.

[phyllo]

“Do not presume that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter shall pass from the Law, until all is accomplished! Therefore, whoever nullifies one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

So...help me find the mention of Jews there, if you would.

Paul abolished circumcision and the dietary laws.

There are changes to the sabbath.

The Jewish festivals are not celebrated.

Etc.

So Jesus must be referring strictly to the Jews, because Christians do not follow the Law.

[Alexiev]

This, I have never done. Nor could I. Do you imagine I'm God?

All I do is tell people what God says about all that. Would you rather I lied?

What nonsense. God has never told you anything. You read a book -- written by humans -- and for some strange reason think it represents God talking. Even the Gospels (which quote Jesus repeatedly) can hardly represent God talking in any exact fashion. They were written long after Jesus died, and in a language Jesus didn't use. How is that "God talking"?

[Immanuel Can]

This, I have never done. Nor could I. Do you imagine I'm God?

All I do is tell people what God says about all that. Would you rather I lied?

What nonsense. God has never told you anything. You read a book -- written by humans -- and for some strange reason think it represents God talking.

Well, we'll see.

I could get into the subject of plenary inspiration with you, but I don't think you care much about that. You seem to have your mind made up, and that's all I can ask.

So we'll see.

[Immanuel Can]

“Do not presume that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter shall pass from the Law, until all is accomplished! Therefore, whoever nullifies one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

So...help me find the mention of Jews there, if you would.

Paul abolished circumcision and the dietary laws.

Changing the subject?

Didn't you write, "Then the interpretation of Matthew 5:18 is that Jews living according to the Law, will be around up until the end"? How come you can't justify your interpretation of the text?

[Belinda]

Not true. In fact, he said that not one iota of the Law would ever pass away. (Mt. 5:18) That's the whole enchilada, not just the parts you like or find "loving."

You keep to the Jewish Law?

You didn't read what He said. He said it would "all be fulfilled." He didn't say it would all be fulfilled by Gentiles, or by me.

But as for the Law, it's escaped B's notice that it was given just before the time she calls "older tribal." So unless B doesn't think the Ten Commandments and the rest of the OT articulate anything relevant, she's in a bit of a pickle. She wants to pick up the story half way through, and ignore the first half that makes up the context for the second half.

I could also point out to her that Jesus Christ Himself talked extensively about the very sorts of things she wants to think He didn't. And I could provide many such references. But I think that, like so many liberal quasi-religious folks, B's more interested in imaginatively creating her own "god" than in dealing with the real one. Were it otherwise, she'd know much more about what He actually said.

True, I seek a reasonable religion, one that speaks reason to me and others.
I seek the Jesus of history not the Christ of faith. In that connection I accept Immanuel's Scriptural challenge, despite that I' m far from evangelical.

Immanuel has had a tendency sometimes to misrepresent me.

The OT including the Ten Commandments is the history of God which comes to its full flowering in the OT prophets such as Isaiah. So , yes in a historical sense, the earlier , Abrahamic and Mosaic , history of God is relevant ; monotheism had to be in place before Isaiah spoke.

[Alexis Jacobi]

All I do is tell people what God says about all that. Would you rather I lied?

In truth, and I think overall, you are a walking-talking lie. But I do not think it is an intentional choice. You are devious at times, but that is usually when someone makes a point with is too challenging to your position or some part of it, and you craftily refuse to respond.

But here is the fuller picture (and none of this can you even consider so you will use your typical avoidance tactics). In order to understand what human kind means when “God” is a referent word, a whole world of study and open-mindedness is needed. It really requires an experience like that in Varieties of Religious Experience (William James). Or for example the open-mindedness of someone like Christopher Dawson (Religion & Culture). These perspectives, the stances they involve, are absolutely beyond your grasp. You will never be able to achieve them in this life. And this is ruinous to your wretched apologetics. You are simply dismissed, Immanuel. You reach no one. (Except Walker!)

And the truly amazing thing is that you like it that way! It is the weirdest fucking dysfunction when examined closely.

You certainly do attempt preachment from a fanatical Protestant- Evangelical perspective, that is true, but never once have you even, even once, communicated any realization or elevated feeling that indicates “knowing God” or experiencing something internal and humanly transformative.

If I would put forth a “would rather” (“What would you rather I do?”) it would involve you in a long project of getting familiar with people far outside of your tradition who have spiritual lives and ranges of experience completely foreign to you, and outlandish to you even to the point of seeming pagan-devilish. You would, if this were carried out properly, necessarily arrive at perspectives that would, also necessarily, upset the mathematical organization of your mathematical presentation of “faith” (i.e. surrender to established tropes.)

You will do none of this, of course, nor do you understand any part of what I suggest here. It is possible to build idea-fortresses whose purpose is to be impenetrable. And that, my dear child, you have achieved beyond all doubt.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I realize that I have been assigned — by God? by Higher Beings? I am uncertain — to write for you the poems wherein you reveal genuine spiritual longing.

O my friend, my sorrow is unending.
It is the rainy season, and my house is empty.
The sky is filled with with seething clouds,
the earth with rain,
and my love is far away.
Cruel Cupid pierces me with his sharp arrows:
the lightning flashes, the peacocks dance,
the frogs and waterbirds, drunk with delight,
call constantly, and my heart is bursting.
A darkness fills the earth;
the sky lights restlessly.
Immanuel says:
“How will I pass this night
without ny Belovèd Lord?”

[phyllo]

“Do not presume that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter shall pass from the Law, until all is accomplished! Therefore, whoever nullifies one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

So...help me find the mention of Jews there, if you would.

Paul abolished circumcision and the dietary laws.

Changing the subject?

Didn't you write, "Then the interpretation of Matthew 5:18 is that Jews living according to the Law, will be around up until the end"? How come you can't justify your interpretation of the text?

There are only a few interpretations that many any sense.

1. If what Jesus said is true, then Paul is "the least" in the kingdom of heaven because he altered the Law and Christians are "the least" because they don't follow the Law.

2. Jesus' statements only apply to the Jews. In that way, what Paul said about circumcision and the dietary laws may be valid if only applied to non-Jews.

3. The Bible is filled with contradictory statements that don't make any sense when brought together. Maybe Jesus and others didn't actually say what is attributed to them. Therefore, the Bible is not literally true.