You also appear not to be much of a Christian.

dakine on January 13, 2009 at 6:07 PM

you are not much of an intellect.

You’re not helping the cause with statements like that. Might wanna step away from your keyboard next time you feel something like that coming on.

Ryan Gandy on January 13, 2009 at 7:54 PM

why don’t you take a flying leap?

Dakine,

It is the sinful actions people commit that a Christian opposes not the person. The Bible instructs us that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of the lord. The sin; weather it be homosexual sex, adultery, stealing or any other type lead to eternal death and only the Grace provided by Christs sacrifice will allow us to be spared from that punishment.

It is sin that is the Truck heading toward us I spoke of earlier. Christ came to jump in front of the Truck for us and all we have to do is stand behind him.

Now you might ask would an unrepentant gay male who lives an otherwise unblemished life be eligible for this Grace.

I think the answer would be no. It is the unrepentant part that is disqualifying. This person is not standing behind Christ, he is running out into traffic. However that choice does not give me license to sit in judgement of his soul that is God’s role. My role is to warn him about the Truck.

Ryan, I never once equivocated modern fundamentalist Christians with Islamic terrorists

Oh yes, you did. Wanna see where?

I think you probably understand that religious fundamentalism has been responsible for some pretty disgusting behavior over the course of history.

Don’t play around with me. That was a reply to my statement @ 12:45. In it, you said “religious fundamentalism” – of all types, which doesn’t differ between Christian, Muslim, etc. So, in effect, you did compare the two.

Finally . . . definition.

I really wish you’d get this part, if nothing else in my reply . . . Individual =/= individual’s actions.

However, all of these acts can be done (and in fact are done) by secular organizations…religion is not a necessary component.

And from whom have those organizations taken their example? What is responsible for the modern sense of right and wrong in America? Hint: not secular organizations, nor Jewish organizations, nor Muslim organizations.

I think you must know that there are many more of these types of organizations than there are religious ones.

Care to back that up?

Google “The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation”. I believe they’ve provided more humanitarian aid than any private group in history.

Put the word “combined” in though, and I guarantee you it won’t come close. Even after you factor in those sources of aid which aren’t specifically groups, foundations or churches (i.e. private citizens.)

by definition you’re an idiot, but then thats rather obvious.

You’re not helping the cause with statements like that. Might wanna step away from your keyboard next time you feel something like that coming on.

One more time: you do not like gay people simply because they are in fact gay. That, by definition, makes you a bigot

that makes you a liar. no surprise there again. you really are predictable.

by definition you’re an idiot, but then thats rather obvious.

TheMightyQuinn on January 13, 2009 at 3:24 PM

I was using “spirit of the law” in an informal manner–not with reference to a Bible verse. Certainly much of the law in the OT was never followed by Christian churches. Paul was the most influential proponent of this.

In Galatians he says: “the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.”

In faith there are moral laws we should naturally follow, but Paul is putting faith above the Jewish laws as he endeavored to bring Christ to non-Jews.

The Pharisees were keeping the letter of the law instead of the spirit of the law.

This is false. You are mangling something that Paul said in 2 Corinthians 3 which Abraham Lincoln originally mangled and others have mangled since then.

The letter IS the law. The Spirit is the Lord. That is what 2 Corinthians 3:6 says. There is no “spirit of the law” that you can get from anywhere in the bible.

2 Corinthians 3:5-9 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think of anything as [being] from ourselves, but our sufficiency [is] from God, 6 who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. 7 But if the ministry of death, written [and] engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which [glory] was passing away, 8 how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious? 9 For if the ministry of condemnation [had] glory, the ministry of righteousness exceeds much more in glory.

See that? The “letter” is the law. The letter kills. The ministry of death written and engraved on stones [THE TEN COMMANDMENTS] is the law. Its the ministry of condemnation.

The letter is the law and the Spirit is the Lord. They even capitalized Spirit in the NKJV to help show that Paul is talking about the Holy Spirit here.

There is no “spirit of the law” mentioned in the bible.

“Mark 7:18-19 ″Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him ‘unclean’? For it doesn’t go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods “clean.”)”

This ia a HORRIBLE MISTRANSLATION of the text at the end. Here is what an accurate translation of Mark 7:19 says. Jesus Christ did not “declare all foods clean” as this horrific Catholic translation claims.

(NKJV) Mark 7:19 “because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, [thus] purifying all foods?”

See the difference? That is what the text ACTUALLY says when translated from Greek. The heretical Catholics and their translation INSERT THE WORDS “in saying this, Jesus decalred” at the end of it.

Catholics cannot ever be trusted when translating the bible in my experience and this is one good example why.

ALSO, Jesus Christ never ever said that it was OK to eat unclean foods during His earthly ministry. He consistently said during His earthly ministry that all Jews who follow Him must obey even the least commands of the law (Matthew 5:17-20; Matthew 23:23) and this includes the dietary laws.

AND when Jesus Christ was telling Peter that He had cut off Israel and was now starting something new with the Body of Christ in Acts 10 where Gentiles could be saved without keeping the law Jesus used the unclean animals and commanded Peter to eat them as a way of communicating this truth that keeping the Mosaic law had been dropped as a requirement for salvation (Paul mentioned it later in Eph 2).

dakine on January 13, 2009 at 2:00 PM

looks like the truth hurts!!

Do you really want me to name a heterosexual organization with perverted sexual purposes?

gee another liberal twisting what I said, because you can’t answer the point about NAMBLA. what a surprise!!

base my opinions on people based on whether they are decent or not. Race, gender, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, not so much.

I’m glad to know you’re not bigoted against pedophiles, just christians!

I wouldn’t want your respect…its rather obvious who the ass is…

and whats funny is that people like you dakine, are bigots against christians, especially the dreaded fundamentalist christians.

so when you throw words like that around, check the mirror…

charitable organizations which exist solely to perform humanitarian functions without any religious (or other) agenda.

oh like the ford or rockefeller foundation? how naive are you?? oh yeah you’re a lib, nevermind…

Oh, one more thing 4life, playing the “pedophilla” card is extremely lame and a very predictable fundamentalist tactic. You can do better than that.

dakine on January 13, 2009 at 12:42 PM

uh yeah right…its very true. NAMBLA anyone? since you can’t name a secular abolitionist society, name the straight equivalent of NAMBLA. you can’t.

However, all of these acts can be done (and in fact are done) by secular organizations…religion is not a necessary component.

where was the atheist wilberforce? and atheist abolitionist societies? werne’t there

Finally, if you make value judgments on individuals based solely on their sexual orientation (for religious reasons or otherwise), you are a bigot…by definition. Sorry, it’s just that simple. No amount of pounding your chest is going to change that

isn’t pedophilia just a sexual orientation? a ‘lifstyle choice’ and who are we to judge??

Finally, if you make value judgments on individuals based solely on their sexual orientation (for religious reasons or otherwise), you are a bigot…by definition. Sorry, it’s just that simple. No amount of pounding your chest is going to change that.

Danger, thanks for the rational and courteous post. I disagree with you, but respect where you’re coming from.

So again, this proves nothing.

Ryan Gandy on January 13, 2009 at 11:25 AM

In the case of the Mishnah are you contending that there was no law until it was written down? The writing of the Mishnah didn’t create the law, it preserved it after the destruction of the Temple.

Christians don’t follow much of the Torah. That has been my contention. The proof is in the NT and in the way Christians live their lives.

The Pharisees were keeping the letter of the law instead of the spirit of the law. They focused on their phylacteries and altar gifts rather devotion to God.

Which proves what? Neither the law nor devotion to God have anything to do with wanting to get the best seat in the house, best rags, or recognition/popularity.

They enforced the law of the Torah and expanded on it from oral tradition, which was eventual written down in the Mishnah (a very detailed legalistic collection). Much of the written and oral Jewish law was not brought into Christianity.

The New Testament was already fully written by the time the Mishnah had been completed (which was 20x AD.) Judaism and Christianity had already split from each other.

So again, this proves nothing.

You tell me, is Jesus saying that the Pharisees must keep the whole of the law an admonishment against their being overly legalistic?

I don’t think so. Looks more like a warning to practice what they preach, which again goes back to hypocrisy.

And we can find verses to support Jesus’ dislike of hypocrisy, not to mention His focus on that more so than actually having the gall to correct someone, all over the NT.

Ryan Gandy on January 13, 2009 at 12:27 AM

The Pharisees were keeping the letter of the law instead of the spirit of the law. They focused on their phylacteries and altar gifts rather devotion to God. They enforced the law of the Torah and expanded on it from oral tradition, which was eventual written down in the Mishnah (a very detailed legalistic collection). Much of the written and oral Jewish law was not brought into Christianity.

right4life on January 13, 2009 at 10:01 AM

Thanks. That’s clear.