jesus did not abolish the old covenant (mosiac law) - Page 9

Glock36shooter · 11-05-2012, 14:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunhaver

Oh god! The irony! It burns!

I know, it's bad right?

scccdoc · 11-05-2012, 14:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glock36shooter

That's your department... ya liar.

I didn't call anyone. You just beg to be hammered into the dirt with your dumb comments.

LOL, it was a question, not a comment

scccdoc · 11-05-2012, 14:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glock36shooter

I know, it's bad right?

Did you ever answer the question, "where is 'your' post listing the atheists organizations which help mankind"? No? Why not? I can't find it ................... You realize that IS the origin of this,uh, debate?

***Geko45*** · 11-05-2012, 15:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by scccdoc

LOL, it was a question, not a comment

Yeah, and he answered it. Why the silly emoticon? Do you not want us to answer your questions anymore?

Sarge1400 · 11-05-2012, 15:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunhaver

The real question that you're avoiding, as your are so adept at, is how does that behavior in others adversly affect you, or anyone else, other than your inability to deal with it?

Five posts from him since you asked this, and he STILL hasn't answered.

Gunhaver · 11-05-2012, 15:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by scccdoc

Did you ever answer the question, "where is 'your' post listing the atheists organizations which help mankind"? No? Why not? I can't find it ................... You realize that IS the origin of this,uh, debate?

Atheists don't really organize for much of anything. There's no need. We don't have to shuffle into a building every Sunday with like minded people to pat each other on the back and reassure that we're on the right track. There's also no written doctrine that needs to be loosely translated just the way we want it by some priest, preacher or pastor. We kind of enjoy thinking for ourselves.

And we also don't have so much BS and insanity going on in the name of our organization that we have to pool all our donations together and keep track of the amount so we can say, "See how much we give and how much we care? We're not so bad." so you won't find many atheists charities. That doesn't mean we don't give.

You seem to think it's some kind of a contest. Wonder how Jesus would feel about that.

Luke 20:45-21:4
[45] While all the people were listening, Jesus said to his disciples, [46] "Beware of the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and love to be greeted in the marketplaces and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. [47] They devour widows' houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. Such men will be punished most severely."
[21:1] As he looked up, Jesus saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury. [2] He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins. [3] "I tell you the truth," he said, "this poor widow has put in more than all the others. [4] All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on."

So just how much of a show are you intent on making of your donations vs another's?

scccdoc · 11-05-2012, 15:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sarge1400

Five posts from him since you asked this, and he STILL hasn't answered.

Does it have to affect me to be wrong? Is it OK to murder as long as I do not know the victim? Are innocent people being affected? Like say a middle school girl whose mother has multiple sexual partners including homosexual ones? I'd say she is..............

You boys are really defending poor little 36. It's OK, I understand he can't fend for himself................

Gunhaver · 11-05-2012, 15:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by scccdoc

Callin' in the "gang" 36 ? LOL

Don't act like 36 wasn't ***** slapping you around pretty hard before anybody else showed up. The unanswered damn good questions are piling up. You have your work cut out for you.

Sarge1400 · 11-05-2012, 15:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sarge1400

Five posts from him since you asked this, and he STILL hasn't answered.

Six...

***Geko45*** · 11-05-2012, 15:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by FCoulter

The law reads that both the man and woman had to be present to be accused. In this case only the woman was. This is the reason no one could cast a stone. Also did you notice Jesus told her to sin no more, He admitted it was a sin ( breaking of the law) but the man was not present.

That just means he was even more derelict in enforcing god's law as he should have insisted that the accused man be brought forth too.

***Geko45*** · 11-05-2012, 15:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schabesbert

This was apocryphical language, and in that sense, they have, with the destruction of Jersulem and specifically the Temple. The Temple is considered a microcosm in the truest sense, and its destruction represented the end of an age.

More equivoacating, "this is what he really meant."

Quote:

There weren't the requisite two or three witnesses against her anymore.

Another example of dereliction of duty. He had the witnesses and they were eager to proceed. He didn't insist the man be brought forth while they were still available. He just kinda waited for the problem to go away on it's own. His actions scream the equivalent of political correctness for his day.

Gunhaver · 11-05-2012, 15:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by scccdoc

Does it have to affect me to be wrong? Is it OK to murder as long as I do not know the victim? Are innocent people being affected? Like say a middle school girl whose mother has multiple sexual partners including homosexual ones? I'd say she is..............

You boys are really defending poor little 36. It's OK, I understand he can't fend for himself................

What kind of screwy analogy is that? Murder involves a victim obviously (although not to you) so try again. What does the mother's homosexual sex partners have to do with a monogamous gay couple that wants to get married? For that matter, how do multiple partners even reflect badly on her? I guess you feel superior to people that get laid more than you too so you must really feel like a big shot.

What innocent people are being affected when 2 gay people get married?

Glock36shooter · 11-05-2012, 15:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by scccdoc

Did you ever answer the question, "where is 'your' post listing the atheists organizations which help mankind"? No? Why not? I can't find it ................... You realize that IS the origin of this,uh, debate?

You really do have trouble reading or something, don't you? I've answered you twice regarding this. Your innability to follow along is not my problem.

Glock36shooter · 11-05-2012, 15:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by scccdoc

Is it OK to murder as long as I do not know the victim?

You are the king of bad analogies. Murder is an attack with an unwilling victim. It is not the same thing as two adults loving in the way that comes naturally to them. That you would equate the two makes you a slobbering bigoted monster.

Quote:

Are innocent people being affected? Like say a middle school girl whose mother has multiple sexual partners including homosexual ones? I'd say she is..............

It's none of your business. If we break a law we will be dealt with. But come what may... It absolutely doesn't concern you. Keep your bigoted nose out of other people's lives.

Quote:

You boys are really defending poor little 36. It's OK, I understand he can't fend for himself................

They aren't defending anyone. Just pointing out how utterly stupid you are.

Schabesbert · 11-05-2012, 15:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geko45

More equivoacating, "this is what he really meant."

I guess you don't know what "equivocating" means.

Quote:

Another example of dereliction of duty. He had the witnesses and they were eager to proceed. He didn't insist the man be brought forth while they were still available. He just kinda waited for the problem to go away on it's own. His actions scream the equivalent of political correctness for his day.

Not at all. It was the equivalent of a reversal in wrestling.

The witnesses all left of their own volition.

Glock36shooter · 11-05-2012, 16:01

Guys I think maybe we should leave poor old doc alone. I really feel he's on the verge of some kind of mental breakdown. You can tell in his posts he just simply can't keep up.

Gunhaver · 11-05-2012, 16:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schabesbert

I guess you don't know what "equivocating" means.

equivocatingpresent participle of e·quiv·o·cate

Verb:

Use ambiguous language so as to conceal the truth or avoid committing oneself.

Sounds spot on to me.

Glock36shooter · 11-05-2012, 16:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schabesbert

The witnesses all left of their own volition.

Mosaic Law does not call for a stoning of a women provided her accusers have not themselves sinned. Jesus clearly violated the spirit of the law by pulling his little reversal and blantantly ignored God's Law.

Schabesbert · 11-05-2012, 16:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glock36shooter

Mosaic Law does not call for a stoning of a women provided her accusers have not themselves sinned. Jesus clearly violated the spirit of the law by pulling his little reversal and blantantly ignored God's Law.

Nope. Jesus didn't demand such a provision. He simply let them leave.

Glock36shooter · 11-05-2012, 16:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schabesbert

Nope. Jesus didn't demand such a provision. He simply let them leave.

He interfered with the carrying out of God's Law and shamed them away. And he did demand such a provision saying let he who is without sin cast the first stone. This is not mosaic law... Jesus blantantly disregarded it and in fact haulted others from carrying it out.

Brasso · 11-05-2012, 18:52

At the time Israel was not a sovereign nation. Some of the Laws were not in effect. There was no Sanhedrin with the power to exact capital punishment. There were no witnesses. What He did was disperse a mob that was acting outside of the commandments. It's a poor example of Him breaking the Torah. Any example would be poor since He never did.

PrecisionRifleman · 11-05-2012, 19:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glock36shooter

I disagree. The unified identity of Americans is that we are Americans. America is based on the principle of the a nation containing a vast variety of of peoples, beliefs, family structures, religions, races, and ideals. It is the coexistence of such drastically different individuals that is America. That is our common identity.

Again, I disagree. Liberty and Justice for all... not just those that agree with you. America's ideal is freedom for all. And right now... that's simply not the case.

And you're entitled to your belief... but when you start trying to legislate it... with the ideal that those who do not share your view of what is good and pure in the eyes of God... that is when your belief has stepped into my back yard. And I don't want it there.

I agree as I did say live and let live. Homosexuals are free to make the choice to live as they choose. That's part of our free will, and agreed liberty. The distinction is in marriage. Marriage as I mentioned is an institution of family, and simply put 2 men cant reproduce. Bottom line our bodiea are not designed for two men or women to reproduce. So you cleary you can see this is not an institution for the same sex. So no homosexuals should not marry.

On your next point, you may do as you please. It is no difference to me whether you believe or don't believe, that again is free will, your right, and not for me to judge.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

***Geko45*** · 11-05-2012, 19:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brasso

It's a poor example of Him breaking the Torah. Any example would be poor since He never did.

Textbook example of confirmation bias.

Sarge1400 · 11-05-2012, 20:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by PrecisionRifleman

I agree as I did say live and let live. Homosexuals are free to make the choice to live as they choose. That's part of our free will, and agreed liberty. The distinction is in marriage. Marriage as I mentioned is an institution of family, and simply put 2 men cant reproduce. Bottom line our bodiea are not designed for two men or women to reproduce. So you cleary you can see this is not an institution for the same sex. So no homosexuals should not marry.

Using this logic, is it your position that couples who do not intend to, or simply cannot reproduce, should not be allowed to marry?

***Geko45*** · 11-05-2012, 20:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sarge1400

Using this logic, is it your position that couples who do not intend to, or simply cannot reproduce, should not be allowed to marry?

More importantly, there is no objective source to justify his position that marriage is an institution of family and as such that makes it a matter of subjective opinion and thusly irrelevant to the issue of legality.

PrecisionRifleman, it seems like you are already half the way there, but unless you can identify a direct victim to an instance of homosexual marriage then I don't see how you can justify your position.