3 ms·

That is where you are wrong. They are not my rules. They are commands of God to be obeyed. They are meant to be followed and to show one thing: That we cannot o

That is where you are wrong. They are not my rules. They are commands of God to be obeyed. They are meant to be followed and to show one thing: That we cannot obey them perfectly. If we could, and history proves we can't, then we wouldn't need God. But we do need God and that is why he sent his son to redeem us from the eternal consequences, not the temporal consequences, of our failure to obey God's commandments. So by His grace the commandments are sufficient.

ben_w 4y ago
Civilization (the topic at hand) is temporal, but even if it was whatever it is you think the afterlife looks like, then both “and history proves we can't” and independently “by His grace” would be sufficient to show that particular set rules are not, in fact, sufficient. (That grace thing though, it’s not even vaguely coherent as an argument for you. It is a “get out of jail free card”: anything which could do what you’re trying to argue divine Grace could do would obviate any need for Jesus, or the thing with Moses on the mountain, or the flood, or departure from the garden of Eden, and the existence of asexuals is a demonstration that the whole spiel from Jesus about “looking at a woman with lust is adultery” could just have been avoided by design). Also, neither Jews nor Muslims regard Jesus as the son of God — the former regard Jesus as, IIRC, “that heretic”; and the latter, IIRC, as the second of the three prophets. As a side note: I was slightly amused to realise that according to the Bible, “Then he [Jesus] ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.” But hey, reading the NT is why I stopped being Christian. > They are not my rules. That’s nit picking, my use of that sentence is entirely valid regardless of who came up with the things. Which version of the ten do you follow? The first commandment as given in Exodus (as compared to the slightly different phrasing later, but Exodus says this version is literally the word of God) is vague enough to allow polytheism just so long as “I who rescued you from slavery in Egypt” is put at the head of the table. Of course, you don’t have to take the book literally — most Christians don’t (but then, parable of the sower), and some even consider literal interpretations to be blasphemous.

ben_w 4y ago

Civilization (the topic at hand) is temporal, but even if it was whatever it is you think the afterlife looks like, then both “and history proves we can't” and independently “by His grace” would be sufficient to show that particular set rules are not, in fact, sufficient. (That grace thing though, it’s not even vaguely coherent as an argument for you. It is a “get out of jail free card”: anything which could do what you’re trying to argue divine Grace could do would obviate any need for Jesus, or the thing with Moses on the mountain, or the flood, or departure from the garden of Eden, and the existence of asexuals is a demonstration that the whole spiel from Jesus about “looking at a woman with lust is adultery” could just have been avoided by design). Also, neither Jews nor Muslims regard Jesus as the son of God — the former regard Jesus as, IIRC, “that heretic”; and the latter, IIRC, as the second of the three prophets. As a side note: I was slightly amused to realise that according to the Bible, “Then he [Jesus] ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.” But hey, reading the NT is why I stopped being Christian. > They are not my rules. That’s nit picking, my use of that sentence is entirely valid regardless of who came up with the things. Which version of the ten do you follow? The first commandment as given in Exodus (as compared to the slightly different phrasing later, but Exodus says this version is literally the word of God) is vague enough to allow polytheism just so long as “I who rescued you from slavery in Egypt” is put at the head of the table. Of course, you don’t have to take the book literally — most Christians don’t (but then, parable of the sower), and some even consider literal interpretations to be blasphemous.