The Democrat Party Hates America

[Immanuel Can]

True, I seek a reasonable religion, one that speaks reason to me and others.

You can only mean, "one I like." If you think it has to do with "reason," instead, then please explain how "reason" compels your view. If it compels you, and it's "reason," it should compel all "reasonable" others, as well.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

Again, ad hom. Nothing to do with anything.

[Belinda]

True, I seek a reasonable religion, one that speaks reason to me and others.

You can only mean, "one I like." If you think it has to do with "reason," instead, then please explain how "reason" compels your view. If it compels you, and it's "reason," it should compel all "reasonable" others, as well.

I cannot do that because not everyone can follow arguments, and still fewer have imagination or curiosity.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

Problem with the objection: Paul didn't "nullify" anything. The Gentiles never received the OT Law. See, for example, Eph. 2:12.

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.

Problem with the objection: Two fold: firstly, it's not true that "Jesus statements only apply to Jews." Many do, and many apply to all people. It's really not very hard to tell to whom He's speaking in any given context. It's usually made explicit in the text. And as for circumcision, the dietary laws, etc., these were all dealt with at the very first Church council, as recorded in Acts 15. And again, the decision was that these particulars of the Law were never directed to Gentiles, just as the text itself makes clear.

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.

Yeah, I've heard this one before. Every skeptic -- usually those who have no idea what's actually in the Bible -- says it. But you won't find it justified by the text. It's more a gratuitous dismissal than a real objection.

[Immanuel Can]

True, I seek a reasonable religion, one that speaks reason to me and others.

You can only mean, "one I like." If you think it has to do with "reason," instead, then please explain how "reason" compels your view. If it compels you, and it's "reason," it should compel all "reasonable" others, as well.

I cannot do that because not everyone can follow arguments, and still fewer have imagination or curiosity.

You're on a philosophy site. If you can't make rational arguments, why are you even here?

[phyllo]

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.

Problem with the objection: Paul didn't "nullify" anything. The Gentiles never received the OT Law. See, for example, Eph. 2:12.

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.

Problem with the objection: Two fold: firstly, it's not true that "Jesus statements only apply to Jews." Many do, and many apply to all people. It's really not very hard to tell to whom He's speaking in any given context. It's usually made explicit in the text. And as for circumcision, the dietary laws, etc., these were all dealt with at the very first Church council, as recorded in Acts 15. And again, the decision was that these particulars of the Law were never directed to Gentiles, just as the text itself makes clear.

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.

Yeah, I've heard this one before. Every skeptic -- usually those who have no idea what's actually in the Bible -- says it. But you won't find it justified by the text. It's more a gratuitous dismissal than a real objection.

You just admitted that interpretation 2 is correct.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

Problem with the objection: Paul didn't "nullify" anything. The Gentiles never received the OT Law. See, for example, Eph. 2:12.

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.

Problem with the objection: Two fold: firstly, it's not true that "Jesus statements only apply to Jews." Many do, and many apply to all people. It's really not very hard to tell to whom He's speaking in any given context. It's usually made explicit in the text. And as for circumcision, the dietary laws, etc., these were all dealt with at the very first Church council, as recorded in Acts 15. And again, the decision was that these particulars of the Law were never directed to Gentiles, just as the text itself makes clear.

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.

Yeah, I've heard this one before. Every skeptic -- usually those who have no idea what's actually in the Bible -- says it. But you won't find it justified by the text. It's more a gratuitous dismissal than a real objection.

You just admitted that interpretation 2 is correct.

Not quite. I've acknowledged that you're onto something, and credit to you for noticing...the OT isn't primarily directed to Gentiles. But the NT, and much of Christ's teaching, and a great deal of the apostolic teaching, is directed to Gentiles...and some, still, to Israel. Knowing which applies to which requires us to look carefully at the context. It's not an all-or-nothing thing. And in general, it's not hard to make the distinction.

The Law insofar as it applies to Jews, had to be fulfilled. The aspects of the Law and prophets that apply to the Gentiles had also to be fulfilled. But when Christ was speaking, the NT did not yet exist. So He cannot have been saying anything but that the OT Law must be fulfilled, contrary to B's beliefs that we can simply dispense with the OT now.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Again, ad hom. Nothing to do with anything.

No my dear one. It very much has to do with you the man.

You are not an idea. You are a man who made choices.

[Belinda]

You can only mean, "one I like." If you think it has to do with "reason," instead, then please explain how "reason" compels your view. If it compels you, and it's "reason," it should compel all "reasonable" others, as well.

I cannot do that because not everyone can follow arguments, and still fewer have imagination or curiosity.

You're on a philosophy site. If you can't make rational arguments, why are you even here?

I suppose we all do our best.I guess you need to have 'reasonable' explained to you.
'Reasonable' in the context of Christianity means differentiating between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith. Can you do that?

[Immanuel Can]

Again, ad hom. Nothing to do with anything.

No my dear one. It very much has to do with you the man.

You are not an idea. You are a man who made choices.

Nothing worth a reply.

[Immanuel Can]

I cannot do that because not everyone can follow arguments, and still fewer have imagination or curiosity.

You're on a philosophy site. If you can't make rational arguments, why are you even here?

I suppose we all do our best.I guess you need to have 'reasonable' explained to you.

No, but it would be nice to know why somebody who thinks she can't offer reasonable arguments would persist here.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Nothing worth a reply.

I expect no reply, for the reasons I explained. You cannot respond because to do so would mean that you have entertained and understood the premise. And that is beyond your capability.

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!)

[Immanuel Can]

Nothing worth a reply.

I expect no reply,

Happy to oblige.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Nothing worth a reply.

I expect no reply,

Happy to oblige.

Thank you brother. I am realizing how much beautiful sacred poetry you have in you! I have barely touched the surface. Your kindness to Gentle Acellaphine touches me as well. So much gorgeousness in her!

If you follow the program God through me has devised for you, I see you in a wondrous place. Be well. Pray. Love!

[Belinda]

You're on a philosophy site. If you can't make rational arguments, why are you even here?

I suppose we all do our best.I guess you need to have 'reasonable' explained to you.

No, but it would be nice to know why somebody who thinks she can't offer reasonable arguments would persist here.

I persist in replying to you because evangelicalism is a menace to democracy.