So Comedy Central blinked...

hellblazer said:
This seems to be a common talking point among people who don't know much about Christianity. Orthodox Jews still live by the Old Testament, so maybe you want to try that gimmick out on them.

Christianity states that the coming of Jesus and the New Testament(aka the new covenant) replaced the Old Testament(aka the old covenant) given to Moses by God. It replaced the Mosaic Law with the Law of Grace.

That's why Paul wrote this:

"...who made us adequate to be servants of a new covenant not based on the letter but on the Spirit, for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life..."

"For indeed, what had been glorious now has no glory because of the tremendously greater glory of what replaced it..."

And also here, where Paul explains that the Mosaic Law was meant to be a temporary guardian until the coming of the Messiah:

"Thus the law had become our guardian until Christ, so that we could be declared righteous by faith...

But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian. For in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God through faith..."

I'd suggest reading a little of the New Testament and studying up on the basic tenets of Christianity before bashing it and embarrassingly displaying your ignorance.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Jesus only did away with the Ceremonial Laws (ie sacrificial laws, since he was the final sacrifice). He even said himself that none of the other law shall change ("not one jot, nor tittle..." or some shit like that) from the rest of the laws. Dietary, Criminal and Civil laws remain.
 


hellblazer said:
This seems to be a common talking point among people who don't know much about Christianity. Orthodox Jews still live by the Old Testament, so maybe you want to try that gimmick out on them.

Christianity states that the coming of Jesus and the New Testament(aka the new covenant) replaced the Old Testament(aka the old covenant) given to Moses by God. It replaced the Mosaic Law with the Law of Grace.

That's why Paul wrote this:

"...who made us adequate to be servants of a new covenant not based on the letter but on the Spirit, for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life..."

"For indeed, what had been glorious now has no glory because of the tremendously greater glory of what replaced it..."

And also here, where Paul explains that the Mosaic Law was meant to be a temporary guardian until the coming of the Messiah:

"Thus the law had become our guardian until Christ, so that we could be declared righteous by faith...

But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian. For in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God through faith..."

I'd suggest reading a little of the New Testament and studying up on the basic tenets of Christianity before bashing it and embarrassingly displaying your ignorance.
Click to expand...
When people stop bringing up Leviticus as a support for God giving a flying fuck if someone is gay, I will stop bringing up the rest of Leviticus.
Lots of Christians cite Leviticus when it benefits their views
 
hellblazer said:
This seems to be a common talking point among people who don't know much about Christianity. Orthodox Jews still live by the Old Testament, so maybe you want to try that gimmick out on them.
Click to expand...

Are those two different thoughts or are you trying to contradict yourself?

Set aside the ridiculousness of religion for a moment and give them all the benefit of the doubt that they are a force of good in the world (which I disagree with). Surely you have to admit that there's always certain groups of people, regardless of the religion, that utilize it for their own purposes whether it be for money or power.

To blindly state that one is all that much better than the other is foolish.
 
Also, sticking to the actual argument at hand

Matthew 5:17-18

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished"

If you are going to argue the bible you should really know what you are talking about.
 
conv3rsion said:
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.."
Click to expand...

That's the whole point. He fulfilled the law and by doing so completed it. That marked the beginning of God's new covenant with man.

xmcp123 said:
When people stop bringing up Leviticus as a support for God giving a flying fuck if someone is gay, I will stop bringing up the rest of Leviticus.
Click to expand...

Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."
 
hellblazer said:
That's the whole point. He fulfilled the law and by doing so completed it. That marked the beginning of God's new covenant with man.
Click to expand...

wrong, revelations hasn't yet happened. So apparently part of the bible isn't included in "until everything is accomplished".
 
hellblazer said:
That's the whole point. He fulfilled the law and by doing so completed it. That marked the beginning of God's new covenant with man.



Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."
Click to expand...
I was indicating that yes, in the real world Christians still use/cite Leviticus. Your point is pointless.
 
Whenever people starting talking about religion in a serious matter I stop taking them seriously... Heck, whenever a Jehovah's witness attempts to hand me a Watchtower I just stare blankly at them with my hands at my sides until they leave.
 
hellblazer said:
I'd suggest reading a little of the New Testament and studying up on the basic tenets of Christianity before bashing it and embarrassingly displaying your ignorance.
Click to expand...
This calls for a reposting of the famous Dr. Laura letter. Sometimes I wonder if Hellblazer isn't playing devil's advocate with his excitable, reactionary posts, but haven't the time to take the bait.

Don't forget Hellblazer: "It's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."~Matthew

So you had better turn your Acai monies over to charity and live a poor simple life, or you'll spend eternity hell blazin'.

GLB
 
I wonder if Hellblazer is actually a brillant example of Poe's Law and if so my hat is off to someone.
 
xmcp123 said:
in the real world Christians still use/cite Leviticus...
Click to expand...

Right, except they're not Christians if they're citing Mosaic Law. So you're citing non-Christians in order to support your weak point. The New Testament is the new law, and as I clearly demonstrated, they could still make their position on homosexuality (if they wanted to) by citing scripture from Romans.

This would mean they're basing their position off of New Law, they're not quoting Leviticus, they're doctrinally sound, and your entire assertion trying to compare Christianity to violent Islam crumbles like the weak argument it was all along.

Unarmed Gunman said:

Then I guess we don't need the Ten Commandments in public places anymore...
Click to expand...

There's a cultural or historical argument to make as to why it could be in public places. It doesn't really offend anyone but the rabid atheists. As for it being part of the New Law, I'd say you could make an argument for it based on the fact that it was written by God on Mt. Sinai versus being written by Moses, thus being divinely inspired. But even common sense agrees with most of them, i.e. not stealing, murdering, etc..

conv3rsion said:
wrong, revelations hasn't yet happened. So apparently part of the bible isn't included in "until everything is accomplished".
Click to expand...

Revelations wasn't written until after Jesus had died. It was part of the New Law. He fulfilled and completed the Old Law and Revelations is part of the New Law, i.e. yet to be fulfilled. It's pretty clear man, I think you're just letting your personal animus get in the way of your reasoning capabilities. That's fine, I understand you're desperate to insult me, just try and pick a spot where you'll actually be successful.
 
2045598216_04f90368aa.jpg


That is all. You can go back to being jesusfags.
 
  • Like
Reactions: babylonian
hellblazer said:
There's a cultural or historical argument to make as to why it could be in public places. It doesn't really offend anyone but the rabid atheists. As for it being part of the New Law, I'd say you could make an argument for it based on the fact that it was written by God on Mt. Sinai versus being written by Moses, thus being divinely inspired. But even common sense agrees with most of them, i.e. not stealing, murdering, etc.
Click to expand...

So you're saying a good Christian can safely ignore some of the Ten Commandments, ie honor thy father/mother, no adultery etc? In fact, since you're schooling us on The Bible, why don't you explain to us what exactly adultery is, since I've always been a little unclear. For instance, did Tiger Woods commit adultery when he was banging that porn star, or that waffle house waitress?
 
Unarmed Gunman said:
since you're schooling us on The Bible, why don't you explain to us what exactly adultery is, since I've always been a little unclear...
Click to expand...

Not "schooling" anyone, people are erroneously claiming Leviticus and Mosaic Laws are still held by Christians when that's clearly not the case. So forgive me if I won't let their unfounded moral equivalencies between violent Islam and Christianity pass unchallenged.

And adultery was originally sex outside of marriage, Jesus clarified it to mean lusting after a woman. I'd say Tiger qualified, whether it was the waffle house waitress or the porn star. But I'm hardly in a position to cast stones.
 
hellblazer said:
Not "schooling" anyone, people are erroneously claiming Leviticus and Mosaic Laws are still held by Christians when that's clearly not the case. So forgive me if I won't let their unfounded moral equivalencies between violent Islam and Christianity pass unchallenged.

And adultery was originally sex outside of marriage, Jesus clarified it to mean lusting after a woman. I'd say Tiger qualified, whether it was the waffle house waitress or the porn star. But I'm hardly in a position to cast stones.
Click to expand...

I was just testing your scriptural knowledge. Adultery was never classified as sex outside of marriage. Adultery can only be committed by a man (according to the Bible) if he has sex with a married woman outside of his marriage. A married man is allowed to have sex with a woman outside of his marriage provided she is not already married. It's only adultery because it violates the property rights of that woman's husband. Put simply - Adultery is committed only if a married woman has sex with someone other than her husband, and the victim is always (and only) the husband.

I only bring this up to point out the fallacy of saying someone isn't a true (fill in the blank) if they don't follow a certain tenet of a religion. The holy books are left up for interpretation often times, and even more often, people don't truly understand what the books actually say. The adultery example is just one of many.
 
Unarmed Gunman said:
I was just testing your scriptural knowledge. Adultery was never classified as sex outside of marriage. Adultery can only be committed by a man (according to the Bible) if he has sex with a married woman outside of his marriage. A married man is allowed to have sex with a woman outside of his marriage provided she is not already married. It's only adultery because it violates the property rights of that woman's husband. Put simply - Adultery is committed only if a married woman has sex with someone other than her husband, and the victim is always (and only) the husband.

I only bring this up to point out the fallacy of saying someone isn't a true (fill in the blank) if they don't follow a certain tenet of a religion. The holy books are left up for interpretation often times, and even more often, people don't truly understand what the books actually say. The adultery example is just one of many.
Click to expand...

You're actually correct about that being the Old Testament definition. Like I said, Jesus broadened the definition to include both sexes and that's the one I was more familiar with. But that's not a matter of interpretation, it's just wrong knowledge. I wasn't aware that the older definition was strictly limited to married women and am glad to learn something new. But that just means I had a slightly inaccurate understanding of the Old Testament definition, not that I was misinterpreting it. It does make you wonder why they were trying to stone Mary Magdalene for adultery though, since I'm pretty sure she wasn't married.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom