Page 2 of 4 [ 50 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

BazzaMcKenzie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,495
Location: the Antipodes

29 Jan 2008, 7:00 pm

Mark Ch12 wrote:
28One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?"

29"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.[e] 30Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'[f] 31The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[g]There is no commandment greater than these."


Martin Luther wrote:
The [Fourth] Commandment.

Thou shalt sanctify the holy day. [Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.]

... As regards this external observance, this commandment was given to the Jews alone, that they should abstain from toilsome work, and rest, so that both man and beast might recuperate, and not be weakened by unremitting labor. Although they afterwards restricted this too closely, and grossly abused it, ...

This commandment, therefore, according to its gross sense, does not concern us Christians; for it is altogether an external matter, like other ordinances of the Old Testament, which were attached to particular customs, persons, times, and places, and now have been made free through Christ.

But to grasp a Christian meaning for the simple as to what God requires in this commandment, note that we keep holy days not for the sake of intelligent and learned Christians (for they have no need of it [holy days]), but first of all for bodily causes and necessities, which nature teaches and requires; for the common people, man-servants and maid-servants, who have been attending to their work and trade the whole week, that for a day they may retire in order to rest and be refreshed...


_________________
I just dropped in to see what condition my condition was in.
Strewth!


NeantHumain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2004
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,837
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

30 Jan 2008, 12:04 am

Sunday, easily the holiest day of the typical week, generally should not have people working, especially if it's for Sunday brunch at Cracker Barrel (these churchgoers who have brunch afterwards are coercing the employees into sin by creating a market demand for more employees on that day than on, say, Monday).

In several cases throughout the year, Sunday is not the holiest day of the week. For example in anno domini 2007, December 25, Christmas Day, fell on a Tuesday. This made Tuesday the holy of holies, and that's why a ton of people had to work that Sunday but not that Tuesday. You see, the sabbath is a magnetic property.



BazzaMcKenzie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,495
Location: the Antipodes

30 Jan 2008, 1:41 am

NeantHumain wrote:
Sunday, easily the holiest day of the typical week, ....


:? I wonder why some one in the old testament didn't call the sabbath "God's Day" or something like that rather than let it be named after a pagan god. Its called Sunday after Sunne, a germanic Sun god. Similarly Saturday is named for Saturn, a roman god, Friday named for the Norse god, Freyr (sp?) Thursday for Thor, Wendesday for Woden or Odin, Tuesday for Tyr, Monday for mani a moon god.

Sun worshipers would consider Sunday holy.

Isn't sacrilege to consider an inanimate and artificial construct holy?

IMHO there is nothing holy about Sunday, its just the traditional day of rest and church.


_________________
I just dropped in to see what condition my condition was in.
Strewth!


Helek_Aphel
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 1 Nov 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 353

30 Jan 2008, 4:29 pm

NeantHumain wrote:
Sunday, easily the holiest day of the typical week, generally should not have people working, especially if it's for Sunday brunch at Cracker Barrel (these churchgoers who have brunch afterwards are coercing the employees into sin by creating a market demand for more employees on that day than on, say, Monday).

In several cases throughout the year, Sunday is not the holiest day of the week. For example in anno domini 2007, December 25, Christmas Day, fell on a Tuesday. This made Tuesday the holy of holies, and that's why a ton of people had to work that Sunday but not that Tuesday. You see, the sabbath is a magnetic property.

If the day is holy in and of itself, I doubt we would be required to "keep it holy". It would remain holy regardless of what we do.



DevilInPgh
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 23 Aug 2005
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 186
Location: Washington, DC

30 Jan 2008, 4:55 pm

BazzaMcKenzie wrote:
NeantHumain wrote:
Sunday, easily the holiest day of the typical week, ....


:? I wonder why some one in the old testament didn't call the sabbath "God's Day" or something like that rather than let it be named after a pagan god. Its called Sunday after Sunne, a germanic Sun god. Similarly Saturday is named for Saturn, a roman god, Friday named for the Norse god, Freyr (sp?) Thursday for Thor, Wendesday for Woden or Odin, Tuesday for Tyr, Monday for mani a moon god.

Sun worshipers would consider Sunday holy.

Isn't sacrilege to consider an inanimate and artificial construct holy?

IMHO there is nothing holy about Sunday, its just the traditional day of rest and church.


You made the mistake of transposing the weekdays from English into the Hebrew language. In modern Hebrew, the weekdays are Yom Rishon/First Day, Yom Sheni/Second Day, etc., until the last day of the week, which is Shabbat. This one I know comes from Biblical Hebrew, more specifically from the verb "shavah" (ש.ב.ה), meaning "to rest". I'm not sure if the other weekdays were the same in Ancient Hebrew (as there's really no record of that), but the word "Shabbat" most definitely does not come from pagan sources.



BazzaMcKenzie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,495
Location: the Antipodes

30 Jan 2008, 6:22 pm

DevilInPgh wrote:
You made the mistake of transposing the weekdays from English into the Hebrew language. ....

Thanks. I stand corrected.

All the same, the protestant tradition (as I know it) does not regard Sundays a "holy". To me, that's about as crazy an idea as selling indulgences or fasting for lent.


_________________
I just dropped in to see what condition my condition was in.
Strewth!


BazzaMcKenzie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,495
Location: the Antipodes

30 Jan 2008, 6:44 pm

mikebw wrote:

That's written by David J Smith, of whom it is said:
http://www.isitso.org/guide/smith.html
The Church of God Evangelistic Association was formed in 1980 to support the independent ministry of David J. Smith, a former member of the Worldwide Church of God (WCG) under founder Herbert W. Armstrong (HWA). Smith is editor of Newswatch Magazine and the featured speaker on a related radio program heard across the U.S.. Smith's broadcasting style is very reminiscent of Armstrong's World Tomorrow program, to the point that one might reasonably conclude he has modeled his program after Armstrong's. Smith is bombastic, glib and dogmatic in his radio commentary, with a strong emphasis on connecting current world conditions and events with Bible Prophecy.

Smith's doctrinal base conforms closely to the teachings of Armstrong, including a version of the British Israel theory. However, he has a strong emphasis, which Armstrong's teachings never included, on various conspiracy theories. (See: definitions in the Lexicon for British Israelism and Conspiracy Theories, and articles on the Worldwide Church of God, elsewhere on this site.)

Smith was at one point deeply involved in development and support of the secessionist "Republic of Texas" movement. The North Texas Skeptics Society reported in their December 1999 issue of their Newsletter:

...

Unless David J. Smith is exactly what he claims to be—a primary spokesman for God on earth, directly divinely inspired—then those who follow him and support him in his ministry are promoting a dangerous man.

Sabbatarian Christians in particular should think long and hard before casting in their lot with such a man. They may be willing to be persecuted for the Name of Jesus Christ, for the truth of the Bible, for standing up for their convictions regarding the value to Christians of Sabbath observance. But are they willing to accept persecution for promoting the teachings of a false prophet?


_________________
I just dropped in to see what condition my condition was in.
Strewth!


Helek_Aphel
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 1 Nov 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 353

30 Jan 2008, 7:01 pm

Concerning the "Truth About Colossians 2:16" article-
Yes, Shabbat foreshadows Heaven or the Millenial Reign or Eternity as well as remembers G-d's rest after creating the world.
However, there's still no reason to require observance since the real Shabbat isn't here yet.



mikebw
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Sep 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,283
Location: Florida

31 Jan 2008, 2:12 am

Quote:
But are they willing to accept persecution for promoting the teachings of a false prophet?


:twisted: :idea:

How was Elijah, Elisha, John the Baptist, etc., etc., treated? Persecution = the devil is trying to stop God's will, to these insane people.

No one... no one, knows that the bible is the truth the infallible(LOL) word of "God", they believe the bible to be the word of God, they believe it is infallible, they believe they have the truth, they believe Jesus existed. Their beliefs are built on something worse than sand, their beliefs are built on empty space, on ideas. You can't prove ideas aren't true. It's noble of you to try to warn people I suppose, but they're already drowning(If they're willing to die for an idea), may as well tell a drowning man not to breath in water.

Quote:
However, there's still no reason to require observance since the real Shabbat isn't here yet.


"Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven"

Do you believe Jesus' above sentence was only speaking to Israelites, or do you believe it includes all mankind?

Which other commandments by God are we not required to observe, besides of course those commandments directed at the Priests?



Helek_Aphel
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 1 Nov 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 353

31 Jan 2008, 10:03 am

mikebw wrote:
Quote:
However, there's still no reason to require observance since the real Shabbat isn't here yet.


"Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven"

Do you believe Jesus' above sentence was only speaking to Israelites, or do you believe it includes all mankind?

Which other commandments by God are we not required to observe, besides of course those commandments directed at the Priests?

Note the "to require observance" is not "to observe".
There is reason to observe the Sabbath, but I see no reason to require observance.
I was pointing out a flaw in the article.
The passage, while it may not do away with observing the Sabbath, does not uphold doing so either.
As far as the above sentence, what about keeping kosher? That practice was overruled in Acts 10. The Law required the people to keep kosher for health reasons. By the time of the New Testament, the people were advanced enough to actually cook the food properly enough for the command to be withdrawn.
The most practical point of requiring a Sabbath rest would be to make the people rest so that they wouldn't kill themselves over working too much. Just take things easy every once in a while, and you satisfy the point of the law.
The Ten Commandments do not list punishments for breaking them. Every other law does mention a punishment. The violation of one of the Ten Commandments will cause suffering in and of itself without any added punishment.
The intrinsic punishment of not observing the Sabbath would be the same as the intrinsic punishment for always working and never resting.



mikebw
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Sep 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,283
Location: Florida

31 Jan 2008, 4:45 pm

Helek_Aphel wrote:
Note the "to require observance" is not "to observe".


What? So if your job required you to observe a calm behavior toward clients and not yell at them and hit them, you wouldn't actually have to observe calm behavior toward clients?, you could in fact yell at them and hit them? You no make sense.

Quote:
There is reason to observe the Sabbath, but I see no reason to require observance.


So God's commandment requiring you to isn't enough reason for you then?

Quote:
The passage, while it may not do away with observing the Sabbath, does not uphold doing so either.


If you don't believe in God, or don't believe that God gave the commandment, sure.

Quote:
As far as the above sentence, what about keeping kosher? That practice was overruled in Acts 10. The Law required the people to keep kosher for health reasons. By the time of the New Testament, the people were advanced enough to actually cook the food properly enough for the command to be withdrawn.
The most practical point of requiring a Sabbath rest would be to make the people rest so that they wouldn't kill themselves over working too much. Just take things easy every once in a while, and you satisfy the point of the law.
The Ten Commandments do not list punishments for breaking them. Every other law does mention a punishment. The violation of one of the Ten Commandments will cause suffering in and of itself without any added punishment.
The intrinsic punishment of not observing the Sabbath would be the same as the intrinsic punishment for always working and never resting.


I'll have to come back to this bit later, but know that you are wrong.
EDIT: Alrighty then, I'm back.

Keeping kosher was NOT overruled in Acts 10, or anywhere in the bible for that matter. None of the commandments were. You are referring to Peter's vision of course and taking it in a direction no one in Acts, even Peter, took it. "Acts 10 occurred anywhere from 20 to 30 years after the death of Christ, but in all that time Peter never ate any unclean meats. It wasn't a teaching of Christ that the food laws he created were done away with." The unanimous conclusion wasn't that you could eat pork, it was: "So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life."

The point of any of the law is to satisfy God's commandment and to glorify Him. And there are punishments ascribed for breaking the commandments.

Exodus 20:3 “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”
Exodus 20:4 "Thou shalt not bow down thyself to any graven images nor serve them for I am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the father upon the children unto the third and fourth generation."


Lookie there, a punishment already, and punishing your innocent children, grand children, great-grand children for your transgressions no less.

What other punishments can be ascribed to breaking these first two commandments. Let's see:

Exodus 22:20 “He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed”.
Deuteronomy 17:1-5 “And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heavens, which I have not commanded. Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing and shalt stone them with stones, till they die”.
Deuteronomy 13:6-10, “If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is of thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. Thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God."

I think I've made my point. But let's do one more:

Exodus 31:15, "Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death."

I'd say the God of this Bible has made His point too.



Last edited by mikebw on 01 Feb 2008, 2:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

BazzaMcKenzie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,495
Location: the Antipodes

31 Jan 2008, 6:12 pm

Martin Luther wrote:
But to grasp a Christian meaning for the simple as to what God requires in this commandment, note that we keep holy days not for the sake of intelligent and learned Christians (for they have no need of it [holy days]), but first of all for bodily causes and necessities, which nature teaches and requires; for the common people, man-servants and maid-servants, who have been attending to their work and trade the whole week, that for a day they may retire in order to rest and be refreshed.

Secondly, and most especially, that on such day of rest (since we can get no other opportunity) freedom and time be taken to attend divine service, so that we come together to hear and treat of God's and then to praise God, to sing and pray.

However, this, I say, is not so restricted to any time, as with the Jews, that it must be just on this or that day; for in itself no one day is better than another; but this should indeed be done daily; however, since the masses cannot give such attendance, there must be at least one day in the week set apart. But since from of old Sunday [the Lord's Day] has been appointed for this purpose, we also should continue the same, in order that everything be done in harmonious order, and no one create disorder by unnecessary innovation.

..., What is meant by the commandment: Thou shalt sanctify the holy day? answer: To sanctify the holy day is the same as to keep it holy. But what is meant by keeping it holy? Nothing else than to be occupied in holy words, works, and life. For the day needs no sanctification for itself; for in itself it has been created holy [from the beginning of the creation it was sanctified by its Creator]. But God desires it to be holy to you. Therefore it becomes holy or unholy on your account, according as you are occupied on the same with things that are holy or unholy.

How, then, does such sanctification take place? Not in this manner, that [with folded hands] we sit behind the stove and do no rough [external] work, or deck ourselves with a wreath and put on our best clothes, but (as has been said) that we occupy ourselves with God's Word, and exercise ourselves therein.

And, indeed, we Christians ought always to keep such a holy day, and be occupied with nothing but holy things, i.e., daily be engaged upon God's Word, and carry it in our hearts and upon our lips. But (as has been said) since we do not at all times have leisure, we must devote several hours a week for the sake of the young, or at least a day for the sake of the entire multitude, to being concerned about this alone, and especially urge the Ten Commandments, the Creed, and the Lord's Prayer, and thus direct our whole life and being according to God's Word. At whatever time, then, this is being observed and practised, there a true holy day is being kept; otherwise it shall not be called a Christians' holy day....

For the Word of God is the sanctuary above all sanctuaries, yea, the only one which we Christians know and have. For though we had the bones of all the saints or all holy and consecrated garments upon a heap, still that would help us nothing; for all that is a dead thing which can sanctify nobody. But God's Word is the treasure which sanctifies everything, and by which even all the saints themselves were sanctified. At whatever hour then, God's Word is taught, preached, heard, read or meditated upon, there the person, day, and work are sanctified thereby, not because of the external work, but because of the Word which makes saints of us all. Therefore I constantly say that all our life and work must be ordered according to God's Word, if it is to be God-pleasing or holy. Where this is done, this commandment is in force and being fulfilled.....

see the full sermon at http://www.ondoctrine.com/2lut0907.htm
Merely going to church on sundays or refraining from work doesn't keep it holy. Its what's in your heart and how you act.


_________________
I just dropped in to see what condition my condition was in.
Strewth!


Helek_Aphel
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 1 Nov 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 353

01 Feb 2008, 3:28 pm

Quote:
What? So if your job required you to observe a calm behavior toward clients and not yell at them and hit them, you wouldn't actually have to observe calm behavior toward clients?, you could in fact yell at them and hit them? You no make sense.


I know it sounds weird, but I am drawing a line between "to require observance" and "to observe".

Quote:
So God's commandment requiring you to isn't enough reason for you then?


The commandment IS the reason for observing the Sabbath, along with the reason for the commandment.

Quote:
If you don't believe in God, or don't believe that God gave the commandment, sure.


The verse was saying "Do not let anyone judge you..." That's it! The passage has nothing to do with the Sabbath.


Quote:
Keeping kosher was NOT overruled in Acts 10, or anywhere in the bible for that matter. None of the commandments were. You are referring to Peter's vision of course and taking it in a direction no one in Acts, even Peter, took it. "Acts 10 occurred anywhere from 20 to 30 years after the death of Christ, but in all that time Peter never ate any unclean meats. It wasn't a teaching of Christ that the food laws he created were done away with." The unanimous conclusion wasn't that you could eat pork, it was: "So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life."


G-d has not made anything unclean. Yes, it was used first to say that the Gentiles were savable, but it applies to animals too. "The earth is the L-rd's and everything in it."

Quote:
The point of any of the law is to satisfy God's commandment and to glorify Him.


I disagree. I doubt that G-d is so egocentric.

Quote:
And there are punishments ascribed for breaking the commandments.


That's what I said! The punishment is an intrinsic part of the commandment. The Law does not give a specific punishment because disobeying the commandment in and of itself naturally leads to suffering.

Quote:
Exodus 20:3 “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”
Exodus 20:4 "Thou shalt not bow down thyself to any graven images nor serve them for I am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the father upon the children unto the third and fourth generation."


Lookie there, a punishment already, and punishing your innocent children, grand children, great-grand children for your transgressions no less.


It doesn't give a specific punishment, now does it? It only specifies that so many will receive punishment, and not from human hands.
You're misunderstanding what I'm trying to say.

Quote:
What other punishments can be ascribed to breaking these first two commandments. Let's see:

Exodus 22:20 “He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed”.
Deuteronomy 17:1-5 “And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heavens, which I have not commanded. Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing and shalt stone them with stones, till they die”.
Deuteronomy 13:6-10, “If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is of thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. Thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God."


These are civil laws. Betraying the G-d of Israel is equivalent to betraying Israel, so these verses deal with the political crime rather than the moral crime.
Civil laws specify punishment. Moral laws do not.

Quote:
I think I've made my point. But let's do one more:

Exodus 31:15, "Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death."

I'd say the God of this Bible has made His point too.


See above.



mikebw
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Sep 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,283
Location: Florida

02 Feb 2008, 2:22 am

Helek_Aphel wrote:
I know it sounds weird, but I am drawing a line between "to require observance" and "to observe".


There is no middle with God, there is no line. You're either His, or you are Satan's. You either obey Him and live, or disobey Him and die. If you're trying to draw a distinction between being required to do something and actually doing it, duh, there you go.

Quote:
The commandment IS the reason for observing the Sabbath, along with the reason for the commandment.


You talk funny. You just said the commandment is the reason for the commandment. Is english you first language?

Quote:
The verse was saying "Do not let anyone judge you..." That's it!


Finish that sentence. Judge you how? Judge you for what? Who is that passage speaking to exactly?

Quote:
The passage has nothing to do with the Sabbath.


Besides not letting men judge you for keeping it, I agree. :P

Quote:
G-d has not made anything unclean. Yes, it was used first to say that the Gentiles were savable, but it applies to animals too. "The earth is the L-rd's and everything in it."

Leviticus
11:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them, 11:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These [are] the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that [are] on the earth. 11:3 Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, [and] cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat. 11:4 Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: [as] the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he [is] unclean unto you. 11:5 And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he [is] unclean unto you. 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he [is] unclean unto you. 11:7 And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he [is] unclean to you. 11:8 Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they [are] unclean to you.

That's the commandment God gave. God never retracted His commandment. God never gave a new commandment. Peter did not get confused about it, Peter kept God's commandment. Peter understood that there was only one thing that has changed, God opened His arms to the Gentiles as well as the Israelites.

Quote:
I disagree. I doubt that G-d is so egocentric.


In reading the bible I can't see coming to any other conclusion BUT that God is egocentric. Obey Him or die, He is a jealous God, worship Him or else, believe in Jesus or else, serve God or else. Sounds awfully self centered to me.

Quote:
That's what I said! The punishment is an intrinsic part of the commandment. The Law does not give a specific punishment because disobeying the commandment in and of itself naturally leads to suffering.


Since when is cursing your children unto the third and fourth generations an intrinsic punishment?

And funny enough, though the punishments may not be listed immediately along with all ten commandments, punishments are mentioned in the bible, and they are... 8O ...unnatural punishments.

Quote:
It doesn't give a specific punishment, now does it? It only specifies that so many will receive punishment, and not from human hands.
You're misunderstanding what I'm trying to say.


So what? Punishment is punishment. You were proven wrong.

Quote:
These are civil laws. Betraying the G-d of Israel is equivalent to betraying Israel, so these verses deal with the political crime rather than the moral crime.
Civil laws specify punishment. Moral laws do not.


Really. So the first 2 of the 10 commandments are civil law? Who knew! Care to share with the rest of us which of the ten commandments are moral laws, and which are civil laws?

And maybe you can share which set of the ten commandments are in fact the real ten commandments, EXODUS 20:3-17 or EXODUS 34:12-26? :mrgreen:



Helek_Aphel
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 1 Nov 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 353

02 Feb 2008, 9:00 am

Yai!
I'm withdrawing.
I still believe what I believed before, but I'm withdrawing.
I can't seem to make my statements clear enough.
It was fun though! Thanks!



V001
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jul 2007
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 288
Location: New Mexico USA

02 Feb 2008, 12:25 pm

no one has evered sinned it's a bs idea. If there is something running the univesre I do not see why it would care what you do on what days. The idea of sin is a cheap trick to enslave the mind. Goes like this they say you are sick ie sinner they have a cure that you need each week that only they have. Oh and for some reason the maker of the whole world is broke. Theos are cons save your money and your mind.