Coreeece

Ya well no shit, because he's not a Christian. . . Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

If I had to place a label on it, I suppose I'd call it mere christianity. I would say that the expository style of preaching has given me more insight into scripture than my apathetic Catholic upbringing - and I haven't looked back since. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Lame. . . Don't you think it's about time for some new material? I mean, why do you even bother? Irony score 10/10. You just trot out the same mumbo-jumbo time after time to justify selectively following the "laws" you like and ignoring the ones you don't like. It's a bit peculiar that you seem to be upset because I don't stone people. If I did however, I'd suppose that you would then preoccupy your mind with how I'm a hypocrite. . . I will agree that the Law is in full effect, continually condemning people day after day till the end. It could never bring forth righteousness and spiritual life, so for that we put our faith in Christ who preached repentance and forgiveness - to judge not, lest ye be judged. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Lame. . . Don't you think it's about time for some new material? I mean, why do you even bother? Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

So the unconverted Jews, God's chosen people, are now condemned unless they convert. Correct? Convert? All they have to do is believe on the Messiah that they've been waiting for - and many already have. So, the answer to my question, that you are evading, is yes then? God's chosen people are condemned to hell unless they convert? I can't tell you who's going to hell or not, because I don't know how God is - or will be - working in people's lives. However, IIRC I do believe that Jews in the end will see God for who He is and will mourn for rejecting the prophets and the Messiah, and essentially getting a "second chance" if you will - but I haven't really studied that in depth since in not really applicable to me. ...but to your point, ultimately we're already condemned to death for violating the Law, unless of course you're perfect and never violated it - to which I would say, keep up the good work! (as per the Law) But this brings up an interesting point that I haven't really thought about until now - let's say that you are perfect, but suddenly you violate the law and your winning streak comes to an end - you would then be condemned just as everyone else, so in that sense I can see how the power of the Law is still in effect even today and till the end. It would still have it's power to condemn - and that's the only power it ever really had. It never had the power to bring forth righteousness - for that, we seek Christ. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

So the unconverted Jews, God's chosen people, are now condemned unless they convert. Correct? Convert? All they have to do is believe on the Messiah that they've been waiting for - and many already have. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

What's the point in seeking justification through a Law that has already condemned one to death? Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

...or unless the law has been fulfilled and everything had been accomplished - which Christ Did. All that's left then is to place your faith in Him - no renouncement needed. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

I don't have to follow it because Scripture itself explains in great detail how the Law has been fulfilled and why it's no longer applicable to stone people - no renouncement needed. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

I understand why you and others want to believe that. But where is it written that is so? Well I already gave you John 19:30, but perhaps Luke 24:44-47 might help make the point: "He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. He told them, “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." Now if you're out preaching repentance, you're not out stoning people to death are you? Here are some other relevant verses, but there are much more pertaining to Grace and the abolition of the Law: Romans 4:14, 7:2-6, 10:4 - Galatians 3:24-25 - Colossians 2:14 Ephesians 2:14-15 "For Christ himself has brought peace to us. He united Jews and Gentiles into one people when, in his own body on the cross, he broke down the wall of hostility that separated us. He did this by ending the system of law with its commandments and regulations. He made peace between Jews and Gentiles by creating in himself one new people from the two groups." Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

No, the "Old Testament" speaks of the idea of a Messiah - some Jews believe Christ is that Messiah and they refer to themselves as Christians, while others prefer to be distinguished as Messianic Jews. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

This has been a topic of much discussion over the years - none of it's really new. Even Paul was dealing with Judaizers that were saying the same thing - they wanted to mix grace with the Law, but Paul explained that the two ideas are mutually exclusive. If you believe you're justified through the Law, then there is no reason for Christ, right? What's the point? The religious leaders of the time viewed Christ's actions as a violation of their law and accused him of wanting to destroy it, so he clarified that he was in fact not here to destroy the Law, but to fulfill the Law - that nothing will pass from it UNTIL all was accomplished - and fulfill it is what he did, and accomplished it through his death. Now if you don't understand that, then perhaps you're the one who's glossing over the text and ignoring the entire basis for Christianity. I'd question if you even finished the story. . . Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

I didn't know you had renounced the Bible. Yoink stated that Leviticus says Christians should stone adulterers. Levites are Jews - there where no Christians around at that time and therefore replacing "Christians" with "Jews" makes it a more accurate statement - it speaks nothing of my commitment to Scripture. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Right, and Scripture repeatedly shows how He has fulfilled the Law and accomplished what he set out to do. John 19:30 When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit. "Finished" has also been translated as "completed," "consummated," or "accomplished." If you are seeking justification from the Law then you must abide by the entire Law. If one breaks any part of the Law at anytime, it's as if they've broken entire Law and are thus already condemned - hence the need for Christ. The whole point of Christianity is to be justified by grace through faith in Christ. If you're seeking to be justified by the Law, then Christ is of no benefit to you. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

See, this is exactly the type of logic (or lack thereof) that I would expect from a person that can't tell the difference between an Islamic terrorist, Christianity, and some elderly nutcase with bad aim. You've already equated Christianity to the virulence of Islamic terrorism - that we are the ones that should lose our 2nd amendment rights - so no, apparently you're not ready to talk about guns on any level conducive to an adult conversation free of emotional flare. . . Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Leviticus 20:10 says that Christians should stone to death adulterers. If one guy went and did that? FUCK CHRISTIANITY! A more accurate statement would've been: "Leviticus 20:10 says that Jews should stone to death adulterers. If one guy went and did that? FUCK THE JEWS!" Christianity seeks to call sinners to repentance, not to kill them. Matthew 5;17 debunks that argument. Christ simply said let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone. Once everyone left realizing their hypocrisy, He called her to repentance. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Oh ok, so in other words: Islamic Terrorist Kills - Fuck Christianity! Bear shits in the woods - Fuck Christianity! As I said in the other thread, Christianity seeks to call sinners to repentance, not to kill them. . . Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Tho he was raised as a christian he stated that he never personally identified with Christianity, and in fact considered himself an Odinist - a mere Pagan. Btw, your point wasn't missed - I'm just cleaning up the misconceptions. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Leviticus 20:10 says that Christians should stone to death adulterers. If one guy went and did that? FUCK CHRISTIANITY! A more accurate statement would've been: "Leviticus 20:10 says that Jews should stone to death adulterers. If one guy went and did that? FUCK THE JEWS!" Christianity seeks to call sinners to repentance, not to kill them. Lest we forget - let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone. . . Btw, your point wasn't missed - I'm just cleaning up the misconceptions. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

I'm guessing the mindset is that it would be more unifying to rally against Hillary than it would be to rally around Trump. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

So cosmologists working on cosmology is not science? No, imposing ones view with incomplete information and passing that off as "science," is by definition mere conjecture. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

...and if you want your truth subjected to the conjecture of Hawking, then I suppose that's your prerogative - just know however that that's not science. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Once again, you conveniently miss the point. No one is claiming he proved a negative, or that proving a negative is even possible. Had Hawking had strong faith in a supreme being, he would have avoided such lines of inquiry altogether. No, you're missing the point that scientists should be able to come to the same conclusions about how the universe works without asking whether or not an entity that is beyond the physical laws of science was necessary to set the process in motion - to do so implies a bit of bias and is not very objective. Furthermore, if science has not observed or even attempted to defined such an entity, they could not then recognize whether or not such an entity was involved. For example, let's say that the Spirit of God was dark matter - an invisible, omnipresent force - science would have no way of recognizing that - it would simply overlook the fact. The same goes for the beginning of the universe. You know, it's interesting that many times in this thread you've stated that it's not even reasonable to to consider the possibility of God, but now you're saying that by doing so, it makes you a better scientist. It's a very inconsistent narrative to say the least. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

You can demonstrate how a creator wasn't necessary, but that proves nothing about his existence or lack thereof. How can science possibly recognize or speak with any specificity whatsoever about God if you don't know what you're looking for, or where to look - especially if one assumes that such an entity is beyond space, time and the laws that govern it? Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Provided it's not within the same person. Your definition of what is required of religion and that which qualifies as a "good religious person" is subjective - so I suppose there is no point in arguing with you. Suffice it to say however, that it's simply not relevant, nor does it apply to me. Again, you simply make objective observations and effectively communicate the results without conjecture - free of a personal/social agenda and let the results speak for themselves - there is no reason to bring God into the mix. Besides, how would one be able to recognize God anyway if you don't know what you're looking for? Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour