01 Feb 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNot binding in practice but remain in principle? What does that even mean? Should we follow OT laws or not?
I have said nothing of the sort. What I have actually said is that they are no longer binding in practice but remain in principle. I even illustrated the concept and demonstrated how that is possible, citing some tenets of the ten commandments and demonstrating how in principle they also transgress the law of Christ.
01 Feb 15
Originally posted by KazetNagorraHe means to follow the principle of doing good to others. Don't murder, don't bear false witness, do not commit adultry. But the exact punishment for not doing good is another matter that will depend on grace.
Not binding in practice but remain in principle? What does that even mean? Should we follow OT laws or not?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
01 Feb 15
Originally posted by RJHindsAtheist point of view. You might know that if you actually watched it.
This apparently is the Secular Humanists point of view and not one that any reasonable person should put any faith in as being correct. It is a corruption of truth and thus a lie. 😏
The Damn Commandments
Originally posted by RJHindsNo that's not what I meant at all. I never mentioned punishment.
He means to follow the principle of doing good to others. Don't murder, don't bear false witness, do not commit adultry. But the exact punishment for not doing good is another matter that will depend on grace.
Agreeing to something in principal means accepting the essence of the idea although there is no necessity to accept it in actual practice. You might agree that alternative energy sources are needed in principle but object when the local authority plans to build a wind turbine on your front lawn.
01 Feb 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell, then, do you agree with the punishment or not?
No that's not what I meant at all. I never mentioned punishment.
Agreeing to something in principal means accepting the essence of the idea although there is no necessity to accept it in actual practice. You might agree that alternative energy sources are needed in principle but object when the local authority plans to build a wind turbine on your front lawn.
01 Feb 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI may be wrong, but I though KazetNagorra asks his question to you in order to clarify your stance on the OT Law with its punishment. Yet, you make no attempt to clarify what punishment you agree or disagree with nor do you provide an alternate solution.
I have not mentioned punishment and have no idea why you are introducing it? I suspect its because its simply easier to think of things in moral terms of right and wrong.
Originally posted by RJHindsFirst of all he did not ask me about punishment, he asked me about Matthew chapter 5. I am not interested in proffering my opinion of what constitutes a right and a wrong nor in providing any alternative solutions, it was merely sufficient to demonstrate that its possible to hold a value in principle but object to it in practice.
I may be wrong, but I though KazetNagorra asks his question to you in order to clarify your stance on the OT Law with its punishment. Yet, you make no attempt to clarify what punishment you agree or disagree with nor do you provide an alternate solution.
Originally posted by KazetNagorrahttp://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/20-10.htm
Consider Deut 20:10-15. What's the take-home "principle" Jesus wants us to learn from this wise law?
Christians are engaged in a spiritual warfare (The Bible is quite clear on this) when we are declaring abroad the excellencies of the one who brought us out of darkness into his wonderful light, we first say to the household, have peace. If they accept the peace they may become slaves of the Christ even as we are slaves, if not, then they remain enemies of God and may see retribution at the hands of God.
This is rather interesting for Christ himself states that the good news is like a sword which divides people. I mention this because the perception among nominal Christians is that Christianity is all inclusive, which is Biblically a nonsense, in fact its entirely exclusive and only for those who are willing to become 'slaves', of the Christ.
http://biblehub.com/luke/10-5.htm
I don't understand why you cannot do your own research and suspect that you are merely trying to be contentious (although hopefully I am wrong), which is a great pity for I thought that the discussion was rather fruitful up until this point.
02 Feb 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYet another 'Christian' who doesn't do other Christians any favors with his bizarro notions.
http://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/20-10.htm
Christians are engaged in a spiritual warfare (The Bible is quite clear on this) when we are declaring abroad the excellencies of the one who brought us out of darkness into his wonderful light, we first say to the household, have peace. If they accept the peace they may become slaves of the Christ even a ...[text shortened]... which is a great pity for I thought that the discussion was rather fruitful up until this point.