Obligation to God

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Kolbe
 
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2009 11:40 am
@click here,
click here;46598 wrote:
You are not questioning outside the OP which is fine just thought you should know. As to your example of circumcision: It is not needed anymore:

1 Corinthians 7:19 "Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God's commands is what counts."

Galations 5:6 "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love."

It was once required in the Old Testament though in the New Testament it is not a requirement anymore.


Exactly! And yet most of these commands from god, these laws that we are meant to follow come from that same testament. A set of laws is meant to be followed as an absolute, as one testament itself. You can't just take away the bits you don't like if you're to live by these tenants as a life style, surely. If morality truly is a way of following god's commands, or pleasing said god, then surely all commands should be followed and not just the ones you like.

click here;46598 wrote:
Right the rules and laws of China are meant only for those living in China. The Chinese lawmakers aren't intending for the 1 child rule to be in stated in the US. It is only to keep the Chinese population from increasing drastically more. But laws in the Bible, if accepted are meant to be kept by every human on earth.


And that's precisely what the supposed messenger from China would say, in this mad hypothetical world. Wanting to spread the word, he would say that chinese law applies even to those who are not chinese, perhaps hoping some people would change nationality to increase their power. I don't know, the analogy is poor. Yet surely you get my point? Just because something or someone says that their laws are universal doesn't make it so.
 
click here
 
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2009 12:13 pm
@Kolbe,
Kolbe wrote:
Exactly! And yet most of these commands from god, these laws that we are meant to follow come from that same testament. A set of laws is meant to be followed as an absolute, as one testament itself. You can't just take away the bits you don't like if you're to live by these tenants as a life style, surely. If morality truly is a way of following god's commands, or pleasing said god, then surely all commands should be followed and not just the ones you like.


Where am I taking away the bits I don't like? The law was made in the Old Testament and then changed in the New Testament. Or are you talking to the OP saying that he should follow the commands?


Kolbe wrote:

And that's precisely what the supposed messenger from China would say, in this mad hypothetical world. Wanting to spread the word, he would say that chinese law applies even to those who are not chinese, perhaps hoping some people would change nationality to increase their power. I don't know, the analogy is poor. Yet surely you get my point? Just because something or someone says that their laws are universal doesn't make it so.


Yeah not the best example because China doesn't wish to have those intentions. You could maybe instead use an example of women mistreatment in Islamic countries.
 
Kolbe
 
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2009 05:44 pm
@click here,
click here;46679 wrote:
Where am I taking away the bits I don't like? The law was made in the Old Testament and then changed in the New Testament. Or are you talking to the OP saying that he should follow the commands?


It occurs to me that I can't actually remember the OP's post. Hmm.

I suppose you didn't say specifically that you took away the bits you didn't like, but I meant it as a generalisation, as nearly no-one follows the Old Testament to a 't' these days, and yet preach about ideas that come from there. Everyone digs the Decalogue, but the First of July is no longer kept as a day off work (Numbers:29) and there's a whole lot less smiting these days than in Deutronomy. I see your point about the New Testament refuting what the Old Testament says, but why does it only refute some? And who is the one to choose what is refuted?

And looking at the OP's ideas, it seems kind clear as to the solution. Assuming there is a god, which is a step in itself, then actions should be taken to please him as otherwise you are, for want of a better word, screwed. The idea of hell is a constant in teachings, and if going against the supposed god means hell, then life should be adapted to fit the god's will. After all, what's one lifetime of simple natured living compared to eternal bliss, or one lifetime of fun compared to eternal torment. But unless we could rack the Pope's mind or if god himself spoke to us, then we wouldn't really know what we should follow.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2009 05:56 pm
@Kolbe,
The New Testament does so much refute the Old Testament as the New Testament represents an important evolutionary point.
Religion adapts to changing conditions in the human experience, and the teachings of Jesus are an example of such adaptation. Thus, the New Testament contains changes in religious practice, which include suggestions for the ending of other practices which, at the time, were waning in practicality.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/21/2024 at 12:43:46