So I'm wondering, why is this exactly? One might call that hypocritical no? I'd just like someone to tell me why the bible cannot be followed word for word and what the criteria is for choosing what to obey and not.

Don't be ridiculous, we can't follow the bible word for word. Otherwise we would have stoned each other half to death. We pick an choose bits that resonate with us and rely on his good grace to sort out the bits where we fall short.

Um there shouldn't be picking and choosing what to follow and what not to follow. The Bible cannot be followed word for word because it is a history book and it shows us where we have been and where we should be. It's a set of guidelines, rules on how to live life pleasantly in the sight of God. God speaks to us through it. He lets us know how merciful he is. He shows us what the consequences of sin are. He shows us how much wrath he can have towards us.
The OT is a set of books that tell us how it was, not that we should necessarily follow in the footsteps of our ancestors. The NT is a set of books that show us God's mercy. It is the new covenant.

If u truly want to know, then I suggest u sit down and study and meditate on the Bible, but don't do so without asking God for his grace of understanding, wisdom, and knowledge. The Bible isn't like any book out there. It is the word of God and it can't be understood with just human reasoning alone.

Pastor AIO:

Don't be ridiculous, we can't follow the bible word for word. Otherwise we would have stoned each other half to death. We pick an choose bits that resonate with us and rely on his good grace to sort out the bits where we fall short.

I thought the bible was supposedly "the word of god", surely if it is "the word of god" then it must have been specifically tailored to mankind? and there would have been no mistakes? This is just proof that people do not need the bible for their morals, if the bible was indeed fully moral and "the fully complete word of god" there would be no need to pick and choose now, will there?

@lady
the bible is not a valid history book.

JayFK says:I thought the bible was supposedly "the word of god", surely if it is "the word of god" then it must have been specifically tailored to mankind? and there would have been no mistakes? This is just proof that people do not need the bible for their morals, if the bible was indeed fully moral and "the fully complete word of god" there would be no need to pick and choose now, will there?

before I go on can someone tell me how to quote from specific posts I want to respond to.

OOOOuch!!! I cringe everytime I see the bible being referred to as the word of God. The word of God, ie the Logos is he by whom and through whom all things were created and have their being. The Bible is NOT the Logos. When I refer to the Word of God I refer, not to a text but, to a person. A person in whom I put all hope, with whom I find all truth, and from whom I get all guidance.

Second point. There are two paths to redemption. The path of Works and the path of Grace. If you take the path of Works you ain't gonna make it. No one will, no matter how morally upright their aspirations or their determination. We depend on Grace. However that does not mean that we don't try our best when it comes to works. We try to do good works but we don't depend on our 'goodness' for salvation.

I'll put it another way. I don't do good in order to win God's favour. I do good because I've had God's favour (however undeservedly).

If you want to quote, when you click on reply scroll down to topic summary, by the person's post you'll see "insert quote"

and we're arguing semantics here. Christians refer to the bible as the "word of god" as written down by men inspired by god. Also, what might be the "word of god" that you're referring to? Me I do not believe in god, and I do good because I'm a moral person, apathetic at times but moral. I do good because well, its the right thing to do and I expect it to be reciprocated, it's like altruism. Even among animals, the mother bison defenders her young from the lion, she's not doing it for a higher power its more like she's bound to it.

lol and what might be this "path to grace" of which you speak? I dont think I understand you.

JayFK:

If you want to quote, when you click on reply scroll down to topic summary, by the person's post you'll see "insert quote"

Thank you

JayFK:

Me I do not believe in god, and I do good because I'm a moral person, apathetic at times but moral. I do good because well, its the right thing to do and I expect it to be reciprocated, it's like altruism. Even among animals, the mother bison defenders her young from the lion, she's not doing it for a higher power its more like she's bound to it.

We are all moral people, it is ingrained in us. And you are right we are BOUND to it. This is a complex subject and I fear that I might do it injustice if I don't tread carefully and take things step by step. Being Moral means that we will always pursue what we believe to be the highest value. or as some like to put it, The Greatest Good. This highest value is different from individual to individual (and from society to society) but each one pursues his/her own highest value.
A lot of the time what you call the 'good' is merely what you have been taught by society as good. A word of warning though. If you really expect the good you do to be reciprocated you will get mightily disappointed. I just think you ought to know that, it might help buffer the shock.
I don't think the mother Bison is a good example though. Her actions may be explained as instinctive rather than moral. With morality I see a subject having a choice between two actions and choosing the superior one. A mother's fierce protection of her young is not a choice but rather an instinct.

The thing about our morality is that it determines our behaviour.

JayFK:


lol and what might be this "path to grace" of which you speak? I don't think I understand you.

Did I say path to grace. I'm sorry, I meant path of Grace. Remember above we said that we are bound by a system which determines our behaviour. This system is our moral code. It describes our nature. For want of a better term let us call this aspect of our being our FLESHLY nature. So we are bound to the Flesh. The Flesh proceeds according to certain laws by which it is bound. What is implied here? A law is something that connects two separate events. One event (sticking your hand in the fire) is connected to and swiftly followed by another event (you are nursing a burnt hand). Everything in the universe is connected in one way or the other according to the laws of the universe. There are also social laws whereby certain activities are rewarded or punished. In this case one event (eg fiddling your taxes) is connected and followed by another event (you're sitting in a prison cell rueing your greed). Or there is another law that says the wages of sin is death. So you see, we are bound by laws.
The good news is that it is possible to transcend these laws. There is more to the universe than these bonds that bind us. We don't have to be bound to the innumerable neuroses that control our minds and determine our behaviours. It is possible for a bush to be set ablaze and yet not burn. To fiddle your taxes and be let off. To escape the clutches of death in spite of all manner of sins. To transcend the Law. All the laws that bind us. These are achieved through the agency of GRACE. Grace is the good fortune enjoyed by the undeserving, who haven't earned it, and who know that without it they don't have a chance in hell (I'm talking literally this time. everything else was a metaphor).

I think I'm misreading you here AIO, what's your religion? Also, I think "morality" as we know it is an innate behaviour, something that we do not need a "holy book" to guide us for, do you understand my point? That's why most Christians do not follow the bible word for word, even though most of them claim that it is "the word of god" which is supposedly perfect. According to you how is this path of grace achieved?

JayFK:

Also, I think "morality" as we know it is an innate behaviour, something that we do not need a "holy book" to guide us for, do you understand my point?

Having a moral/value system is innate, but just what is contained in that system is arbitrary. Everybody values some things higher than others, some actions higher than others, but just which things lie at the top of the morality scale differs from person to person, and from culture to culture. For instance, in some societies bravery in battle/hunting is highly esteemed as is speaking and acting directly face to face. In other societies Cunning might be higher esteemed than Upfrontery (my word that i've just made up. nice uh?). In yet another society diplomacy may be higher esteemed than the sword while for their neighbours diplomats and people who talk are regarded with derision while the sword is respected.
These various value systems are what give each culture it's characteristics. And to the extent that individuals differ in their values, our various value systems give us our individual characteristics.

Morality is a value system that shapes our character and behaviour. That is all I was trying to say.
This value system that we carry around with us is informed by our environment and yes, accepting the bible as a guide in your life will influence your morals. I'm that Bush feels no qualms about dropping bombs on Iraqi babies, his moral codes supply him with plenty of precedents that say it is okay.

I suspect that you are coming from the school of 'Deep down in Everyone's conscience we know what is Good'. I disagree. If you were raised as an aborigine in Papua New Guinea you would have no qualms about having another human being for dinner. I don't mean as a guest for dinner, but actually having him on the table, salted and peppered. I don't believe in an Absolute Morality that lies within all of us. Morality is relative. Your so called innate moral behaviour is a product of your upbringing and your environment.

JayFK:
how is this path of grace achieved?

By it's very definition it is not something that is achieved. Nor Earned. Nor Won. It's a gratuity.

Pastor AIO:

Having a moral/value system is innate, but just what is contained in that system is arbitrary. Everybody values some things higher than others, some actions higher than others, but just which things lie at the top of the morality scale differs from person to person, and from culture to culture. For instance, in some societies bravery in battle/hunting is highly esteemed as is speaking and acting directly face to face. In other societies Cunning might be higher esteemed than Upfrontery (my word that i've just made up. nice uh?). In yet another society diplomacy may be higher esteemed than the sword while for their neighbours diplomats and people who talk are regarded with derision while the sword is respected.
These various value systems are what give each culture it's characteristics. And to the extent that individuals differ in their values, our various value systems give us our individual characteristics.

Morality is a value system that shapes our character and behaviour. That is all I was trying to say.
This value system that we carry around with us is informed by our environment and yes, accepting the bible as a guide in your life will influence your morals. I'm that Bush feels no qualms about dropping bombs on Iraqi babies, his moral codes supply him with plenty of precedents that say it is okay.

I suspect that you are coming from the school of 'Deep down in Everyone's conscience we know what is Good'. I disagree. If you were raised as an aborigine in Papua New Guinea you would have no qualms about having another human being for dinner. I don't mean as a guest for dinner, but actually having him on the table, salted and peppered. I don't believe in an Absolute Morality that lies within all of us. Morality is relative. Your so called innate moral behaviour is a product of your upbringing and your environment.

By it's very definition it is not something that is achieved. Nor Earned. Nor Won. It's a gratuity.

lol about the aborigines. I believe that "morality" is innate and is constantly molded by the society we live in, for example it might have been considered moral to stone gays in older times but now we simply cannot tolerate such bigotry. Definition of "morality" is constantly changing I guess, but my position remains that the bible is not needed for morality contrary to what many Christians may think.

Anyways, I'm curious about "the grace" you refer to. I dont think I understand what you mean by "grace", What's the purpose? I'm under the impression that you believe in some sort of higher power and grace is needed to come into fellowship with this higher being? am I wrong?

first and foremost being a non-Christians fundamental implies that you do not have the requisite understanding of the scriptures, because if you did you would not be sayin that a Christian is pick and choosing which scriptures to obey.

For example an atheist and evolutionist might say that why do Christians no longer stone people to death like in the old testament. The answer is very simple: because A Christian is someone who is not saved by obeying the laws in the old testament , but a Christian is someone who is saved by Grace through Faith in Jesus Christ alone , considering that Jesus Christ was the only man who was actually able to obey the Old Testament laws (hence Christians do not need to re-obey the law so as to prove that they are not picking and choosing; by virtue of the fact that they are already in Christ who has already fufilled and obeyed the law). So as far as God is concerned, God considers a Christian to be righteous not because he was the one who did the obedience to the law , but because such a Christ is considered to have been covered by the victory of Jesus Christ over sin and death and the law. The law is merely there and considered by those who are still condemned, and not for the redeemed.

You might now ask that does that mean Christians can steal and commit adultery contrary to the Old Testament laws, certainly not!.

It simply means that a Christian who bears the fruits of the Spirit, unconsciously exhibits characteristics which ultimately makes him not to commit Adultery or anything prohibited by the Old Testament Law. His behavior as a Christian is unfortunately and errroneously seen to look like he's trying to obey the law (even though he's not).

Now to your discussions about morality

Definition of "morality" is constantly changing I guess, but my position remains that the bible is not needed for morality contrary to what many Christians may think.

Your statement itself provides the answer to your own world view,

1. You say societal norms or moral values keep changing
2. You say the bible is not needed
3. You did not say why the bible is not needed
4. You just say the bible is not needed because you think so
5. Yet you don't realise that Bible is not changing, hence the "life moral values" is not changing.
6. You have no moral absolute standard by which you can know right from wrong,
7. It means anyone who decides to kill you based on his own societies' changing moral values , is justified in doing so , (since you yourself makes it clear that societal moral values are changing), hence the ability to kill people without reason might has well be a norm in other societies different from yours.
8. How are you able to determine and decided what is right from what is wrong , considering that Atheism or Evolution does not have a "non-changing" standard through which it can make such a reference or comparison.

Jesus Christ has already set a standard by which Christians are expected to live whether on moon or in the stars. The same biblical values ignored or used today is the bible biblical value being ignored or used during the time of Jesus.

The bible has not changed, from thou shall not kill to[b] thou shall kill[/b].

As such a biblical society which believes that Murder is wrong and a sin, since the creation of man (Cain and Abel), has not changed , rather we still believe that murder is a sin.

Yet according to evolution or atheism , how can you justifies whether what Hitler did is wrong or right or whether what he did is just merely a typical living example of the attempt of a more evolved race to wipe out the less evolved race (as being the survival of the fittest (whether in the physical sense or biological sense), ),


So you see in answer to the topic itself and contrary to your opinion about , A Christian does not

So you see in answer to the topic itself and contrary to your opinion about , A Christian does not consider moral values to be things that change based on individual or societal opinion.

A christian moral value is completely based on the bible which does not and cannot change.Hence we have and independent Moral standard to use regardless of personal prejudices and preferences.

So in reality a True Christian actually does not pick and choose which bible passages to believe , a Christian belives the whole bible, hence there is a standard unchanging manual for Christian living.

[/quote][quote author=Witness link=topic=124453.msg2121305#msg2121305 date=1207304069]
So you see in answer to the topic itself and contrary to your opinion about , A Christian does not consider moral values to be things that change based on individual or societal opinion.

A christian moral value is completely based on the bible which does not and cannot change.Hence we have and independent Moral standard to use regardless of personal prejudices and preferences.

So in reality a True Christian actually does not pick and choose which bible passages to believe , a Christian belives the whole bible, hence there is a standard unchanging manual for Christian living.

Ive already stated my position above and
Ive been a christian believe me I know what I'm talking about.
I infer from what you've stated, that the Bible is an absolute and I agree with you. That is why I say it is not needed

Why? Morality is innate and constantly evolving. I use the example of homosexuality.
Why do Christians not stone gays anymore even though there are explicit orders concerning this?
I repeat why do Christians not stone gays even though there are explicit instructions in the bible concerning these? I'll leave you to ponder that. If you say that the old testament is "the old covenant" why oh why is it still part of your bible then? But before you answer what does Matthew 5 17-20 say? Where in the bible does it call for the abolishment of stoning? This is stuff that is contained in your bible, I did not define this. Christ never said anything about the fruits of the spirit Paul did.

Other than the obvious contradictions concerning the "Thou shalt not kill" commandment, the subjugation of women, stoning of adulterers, killing of children pregnant women, cattle, stealing of land and the numerous, numerous, numerous atrocities committed in the old testament and endorsed by god.
since the "word of god" is indeed absolute . Why did were these laws twisted for the Israelites?

Hitler was not an atheist. He was Roman Catholic, and I think you might be confusing Eugenics with Evolution.

There is no moral absolute standard, like the bible claims to be. Society over time shapes the definition of what is moral based on our innate sense of morality.

Why do Christians not stone gays anymore even though there are explicit orders concerning this?
I repeat why do Christians not stone gays even though there are explicit instructions in the bible concerning these?

go through my post and you would see that I have already answered this your same question of why people are no longer stoned (in this case using ).

Hitler was not an atheist. He was Roman Catholic, and I think you might be confusing Eugenics with Evolution.

Whether or not you claim he was not an atheist or not is irrelevant, what he decided to do shows what he believed in (which is evolution and survival of the fittest), hence why i decided to use him as an example for you!

There is no moral absolute standard, like the bible claims to be. Society over time shapes the definition of what is moral based on our innate sense of morality.

Now you are contradicting yourself about whether or not you believe the bible is an absolute moral standard, (by the way, are you sure you are not Seun in disguise, cus your arguments seem to be similar to Seun's arguments).

Anyway, I have already answered you about the inherent error prevalent in your , variability in morality,

1. Hence why i gave you an example of when someone decides to kill you based on his own relative more values


Eugenics, Evolution, Atheism, Humanism, .etc, call it whatever name you want, (they are still all birds of the same feather under different guises), which simply cannot answer the basic questions about life, origin and purpose. (All you are doing is just going around in circles about why you[b] believe[/b] evolution is true and why the bible is wrong)


Anyway that you claim to be former christian is not an excuse for being able to understand that bible (you can live and die with the title of a christian and still go to hell, so that is not really a big deal). In fact your questions and statements show that you actually understand less than you think you know of the bible.
Hence your dogged determination to ensure that the idea of relative morals values is accepted, despite historical evidence to show that both failed or surviving societies have at one time being shaped and based on the absolute moral values obtainable from the bible. Even a few societies that have now turn around to reject the God of the bible, still were at one time or another actually based or founded on christian on Christian/Biblical principles (Hence their source of the reference or standard from which the were even able to obtain their subjective moral relatives from)

Your so called moral relatives did not start from a vacuum , they started from a standard which people (out of sin desires and ways) decided to twik and change to suit their own sinful and ungodly ways.

By the way you still have not told me how:

1. You decide what is right or wrong
2. When , how and where Atheism , Evolution, Eugenics got his moral standards from , (or did they evolve from nothingness also )


History shows (even the present day degenerate USA) that majority of Christian societal values are in one way or another based or derived from the following absolute moral and living standard:

Witness:

go through my post and you would see that I have already answered this your same question of why people are no longer stoned (in this case using ).

like I said read Matthew 5:17-20, this is your own bible.

Witness:

Whether or not you claim he was not an atheist or not is irrelevant, what he decided to do shows what he believed in (which is evolution and survival of the fittest), hence why i decided to use him as an example for you!


Anyway, I have already answered you about the inherent error prevalent in your , variability in morality,

1. Hence why i gave you an example of when someone decides to kill you based on his own relative more values


Eugenics, Evolution, Atheism, Humanism, .etc, call it whatever name you want, (they are still all birds of the same feather under different guises), which simply cannot answer the basic questions about life, origin and purpose. (All you are doing is just going around in circles about why you[b] believe[/b] evolution is true and why the bible is wrong)


1. You decide what is right or wrong
2. When , how and where Atheism , Evolution, Eugenics got his moral standards from , (or did they evolve from nothingness also )


History shows (even the present day degenerate USA) that majority of Christian societal values are in one way or another based or derived from the following absolute moral and living standard:

I guess you have shown your ignorance no? you do not know the definition of the concepts and yet you comment on them.

Witness:

go through my post and you would see that I have already answered this your same question of why people are no longer stoned (in this case using ).

Now you are contradicting yourself about whether or not you believe the bible is an absolute moral standard, (by the way, are you sure you are not Seun in disguise, cus your arguments seem to be similar to Seun's arguments).

Anyway, I have already answered you about the inherent error prevalent in your , variability in morality,

Hence your dogged determination to ensure that the idea of relative morals values is accepted, despite historical evidence to show that both failed or surviving societies have at one time being shaped and based on the absolute moral values obtainable from the bible. Even a few societies that have now turn around to reject the God of the bible, still were at one time or another actually based or founded on christian on Christian/Biblical principles (Hence their source of the reference or standard from which the were even able to obtain their subjective moral relatives from)

I fail to see the contradiction I have made here concerning the bible's claims to being the absolute moral standard. All you have done is set up a straw man argument. What historical evidence pray tell? Which societies that turned around to reject the god of the bible? lmao, you obviously have not read the history of your religion.

Witness:


Anyway that you claim to be former christian is not an excuse for being able to understand that bible (you can live and die with the title of a christian and still go to hell, so that is not really a big deal). In fact your questions and statements show that you actually understand less than you think you know of the bible.

By the way you still have not told me how:

1. You decide what is right or wrong
2. When , how and where Atheism , Evolution, Eugenics got his moral standards from , (or did they evolve from nothingness also )

What true scotsman fallacy now? What is your definition of Christian? Tell me who's the one that does not understand, you who deliberately disregards what is written in your bible even though it clearly states that Christ is the fulfillment of the law? Its a failure of your bible to address its inconsistencies rather than my fault.

1. Like I said before,ingrained behaviour, evolving innate behavior. Man is a social animal.
2. Atheism, Evolution and Eugenics are not synonymous, I suggest you read up on them instead of making fallacious arguments.

Witness:


History shows (even the present day degenerate USA) that majority of Christian societal values are in one way or another based or derived from the following absolute moral and living standard:

The US was founded on secular values, it was not founded on Christian values and I am not Seun.

JayFK:

.  I believe that "morality" is innate and is constantly molded by the society we live in,.  Definition of "morality" is constantly changing I guess,  but my position remains that the bible is not needed for morality contrary to what many Christians may think.

I'm in total agreement with you here.  Everybody has a Moral structure, it is ingrained, innate, and hardwired into what we are.  It informs the way we think and the choices we make and the actions we commit.  There is no such thing as an A-moral human being.  And yes there have been moral codes in all societies since the dawn of time without the need of the bible.  And as immoral behaviour is shocking in christian society, so are behaviours that violate their moral codes shocking in non christian society.  And to the same degree of shock and revulsion and disgust.  

Where I think an important distinction must be emphasised is that the actual articles of any moral code are not fixed, absolute or universal.  Murder is not always despicable, not even in biblical Israel.  I've heard arguments from humanists claiming that everyone agrees that murder is wrong.  Yes every society disapproves of murder, but only within the society.  Theft, only within the society etc.  It's okay to kill the neighbouring tribe, and to steal their cattle and to take over their land flowing with milk and honey.  The injunction not to kill or steal was the code of conduct to be applied by israelites within the Israelite community.  It makes perfect sense that any society that allows it's members to kill each other is not going to last very long.  The bible has proved to be no different from the moral guides of other societies on this matter.  

The definition of Morality is a scale of Values with Good at the top and Evil at the bottom.  This is fixed and true for everyone.  The Specific articles that are contained within a morality, ie what is considered Good and what is considered Evil, is not fixed and neither is it true for everyone.  We are all moral creatures. In any situation every human being will always try to do what he thinks is best.  It's just that one man's morality is another man's immorality.  

I also do not think that if a man rapes a woman that he must then marry her.  The sheer fact that he had to resort to rape in the first place would suggest that the woman wasn't much interested in the guy in the first place.  That laws comes from a mindset that does not take the feelings of women into much consideration.  My mindset is rather different.

JayFK:

Anyways, I'm curious about "the grace" you refer to.  I don't think I understand what you mean by "grace", What's the purpose?  I'm under the impression that you believe in some sort of higher power and grace is needed to come into fellowship with this higher being? am I wrong?

Wow, what you've said above is so loaded.  That's the difficulty with words.  They are so laden with connotations and implications, and inferences that it is a wonder that we can use them to communicate anything at all.  
I fear that you are being presumptious on a number of points.  1) that there has to be a 'purpose' to the existence of Grace.  Though I believe Grace can be applied purposefully.  But the whole matter of Purpose is another kettle of fish in it's own right.  2) Our morally bound way of thinking is evident when we talk of 'Higher' power or being or whatnot.  Why Higher?  Why must it be on any scale at all?  Must everything that exists be subject to our moral evaluations.  Can't some things be beyond Good and Evil?  3) I never said or implied anything about fellowship.

Yet I hesitate to say you are wrong.

JayFK:

like I said read Matthew 5:17-20, this is your own bible.

Yes Jesus Christ was completely correct and right in saying that He had not come to destroy that law but to fufill. However for you to refer to those verses as a means of defence certainly shows a lack of knowledge and understanding of scriptures. In fact it begs the questions that:


1. Did you refer to those verses as a means to show the there is ten commandments
2 or Did you refer to those verses as a means of also showing that the law is still true and effective
3. or Did you refer to those verses as a petty means of trying to proof that the bible does not have an absolute moral standard.
4. or Did you refer to those verses as a means to try and say that there are ten commandments and Jesus commandments

Either way let me use this opportunity to explain and clarify certain things and issues to you that you obvious might not have understood, as an atheist, evolutionist, eugenist, humanist or whatever.

First and foremost, the bible verses that you refered to are given as follows:


Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.


Now let us go into a bit more detailed breakdown of what is actually happening here and why Jesus Christ came to fufil the law by being the only man that was ever able to obey all the ten commandments and why absolute moral values are based on the biblical ten commandments and why Christians unconsciously obey the ten commandments without even mentally trying to obey it.


Before we proceed, let us understand that before God , there are only two categories of people


1. Those who are in Christ (saved by Faith in the Word of God, since Christ is the Word of God) (Hence why Abraham was saved by Faith and not works).
2. Those who are not in Christ. (Atheists , Evolutionists, Humanists, Agnostics, Eugenics, etc)

Again we must understand that those who are in Christ are no longer subject to the law , because Jesus Christ (in whom they are) has already fufilled the law. However those who are not in Christ are still subject to the law , hence they are doomed because the bible makes it clear that no man can fufill the law, (thus their chances of salvation via obedience to the law is hopeless)

Now let us consider that the following ten commandments:

[size=6pt]
Exo 20:1 And God spake all these words, saying,
Exo 20:2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
Exo 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Exo 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
Exo 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
Exo 20:6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
Exo 20:7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Exo 20:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
Exo 20:10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Exo 20:12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
Exo 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.
Exo 20:14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Exo 20:15 Thou shalt not steal.
Exo 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
Exo 20:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.



First and foremost there is no such thing as Jesus's Commandments and 10 Commandments, so please let us try not to allow the Devil to trick us into believing that which is not.

Remember Jesus Christ is The Word and the Word is God and The Word is God in the Flesh. The bible also makes it clear that God honours his Word above his name.Therefore what Jesus Christ said in those verses is simply the fuffilment of the 10 commandments.Jesus Christ (God the Son) did not come to contradict a Word by God rather he came to fufill that Word. Likewise we Christians are also fufilling that Word through Jesus Christ who is our advocate before the Father.


Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Joh 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.


For example, assuming that someone (other than Jesus Christ) was even able to fufill the 10 commandments, then what that person would simply end up doing is summed up in those commandments giving by Jesus Christ. Therefore Jesus Christ is completely right when he said he came not to destroy the law, but to fufill it. Because was he did was to come and fufil the requirement of the law for salvation (which no man was able to do and would ever be able to do)


Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.


This fufillment of the law by Jesus Christ and Christians (who are in Christ) is summarized in and all boils down to the following two statements:

a. A True Christian loves The Lord God with all his/her heart, soul and mind.
b. Also True Christian loves is neighbour as himself/herself.

So one might be deceived into thinking that the fruits of a True Christian shows that he is consciously trying to obey an impossible the law, that is not true. Actually a christian is actually not consciously trying to do that, instead He is just merely bearing the fruit of the Spirit (which invariably and erronously seen as an attempt to obey the law)


Mar 12:28 And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all?
Mar 12:29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
Mar 12:30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
Mar 12:31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.


So in conclusion, the question remains that are Christians not permitted to obey the (absolute moral law) Ten Commandments (e.g. does that mean Christians can commit Adultery).

1. No, it does not mean that Christians can commit Adultery or disobey the ten commandments, rather it means that Christians being Christians end up bearing fruits of the Spirit which exhibit the nature of Christ and which the world might then erronously miscontrue to mean or look as if they are trying to obey the ten commandments which Jesus Christ as already fufilled.


- A Christian is saved not because he's able to keep the law but because Jesus Christ was able to completely obey the law
- A Christian is first and foremost a christian because He is in Christ and therefore he now has a Christ life (new nature) as far as God is concerned.
- Jesus Christ has already fufilled and obeyed the complete ten commandments
- A christian by nature unconsciously loves His/Her neighbour as himself and also a Christian by nature loves the Lord God with all his heart.
- A Christian by virtue of completely loving God and his neighbour ends up looking as if he is trying to obey the ten commandments, even though he is not actually trying to put himself under the law.

However unbelievers are still bound by the consciousness of the absolute christian law , hence why various people try to create various versions of it (what you call relative moral laws) in different society. However at the end of the day it all boils down to the fact that all those relative moral laws are just mere and disfunctional imitations of the absolute christian law of the bible.

Unfortunately , unbelievers (atheists, evolutionist, humanists, agnostics), are still doomed to eternal destruction whether or not they decide to fabricate or create their own versions of what moral values.

This is exemplified by the fact (which you yourself agree to) that human laws keep changing to accommodate new ideas, and ways, yet history shows that relative moral values are in itself a catalyst for Chaos.

An example of the problem of your relativistic moral values is given by the situation in which it is normal and okay (without worldly consequences), in certain countries for an I.s.l.a.m.i.c Terrorist to kill, steal and destroy Christians individuals living within that country, merely because they are christians who refuse to accept those i.s.l.a.m.i.c ways, yet its is likewise normal in the same countries for Chrisitians to be jailed or persecuted for daring to speak out against such killings by I.s.l.a.m.i.c terrorist.

An even closer example of the fallacy of relative moral values is the fact that its easy for M.u.s.l.i.m.s to say and get away with anything/lies than it is for a christian to avoid being banned for daring to challenge those m.u.s.l.i.m.s lies.

Talk of a recipe of major chaos and disaster

[/size]

JayFK:

I guess you have shown your ignorance no? you do not know the definition of the concepts and yet you comment on them.

JayFK:

I fail to see the contradiction I have made here concerning the bible's claims to being the absolute moral standard. All you have done is set up a straw man argument. What historical evidence pray tell? Which societies that turned around to reject the god of the bible? lmao, you obviously have not read the history of your religion.

Please go through my previous posts and read with an open mind to see that your so called relative moralist values are just mere fallacies that:


1. Are Not sustainable
2. Would result in the complete annihilation of life
3. Are founded on the prior existence of an absolute standard which is now tweaked and changed by people to suit their whims and caprices
4. Only lead to more chaos and uneasy peace

JayFK:

What true scotsman fallacy now? What is your definition of Christian? Tell me who's the one that does not understand, you who deliberately disregards what is written in your bible even though it clearly states that Christ is the fulfillment of the law? Its a failure of your bible to address its inconsistencies rather than my fault.

1. Like I said before,ingrained behaviour, evolving innate behavior. Man is a social animal.
2. Atheism, Evolution and Eugenics are not synonymous, I suggest you read up on them instead of making fallacious arguments.

The US was founded on secular values, it was not founded on Christian values and I am not Seun.

a. Atheism is the believe in the non-existence of God
b. Evolution is[b] believe[/b] in the way that atheist try to explain how live began (it could Biological Evolution, Cosmic Evolution, Geologica Evolution, Macro Evolution, Micro-Evolution etc)
c. Eugenics is the simply the area of Evolution dealing with the believe in how Human Evolution is self-determined or self-propelled.

, blah , blah , blah,


in conclusion, its obvious that you have provided answers that are not answers, but mere deviations and distractions.

You have neither acknowledged answers give nor shown that you understand the simple verbal reasoning put forward of why the bible is the only absolute moral standard guide christian behaviour anywhere and during any time period.

You have likewise shown a streak of avoiding having to show the evidence and reasoning for Evolution, Atheism, Eugenics could have developed a means through which they can even know right from wrong independent of already established biblical principles.

As such I think i would no longer waste time engaging you, as you have shown a deep rooted lack of understanding that evolution, Atheism, Eugenics, Humanism etc are all just related and different sides of the same coin of disbelieve in God.

Engaging you would only entreat you to continue in your fooly,

Evolution, Atheism, Eugenics, Humanism have absolutely no idea how life started , what purpose it started and how its going to end, all they have only succeeded in doing to constantly change the "believes" (not proofs), so as to accommodate being able to find an excuse not to believe the bible. Yet its ironic that they are all still faith based systems.

Even once atheistic scientists or individuals were forced by mounting scientific evidences to grudgingly accept that fact that Biblical Account of Origin and Purpose of Life is the most logical and scientific explanation possible, Keep hanging on to straws if you like , that's your perogative, however sooner or later you would not have the excuse that you were not told or preached to about the hopelessness of evolutionary thinking.

I have already given you simple straight forward analysis, yet you repeat the mantra of[b] i know because i know[/b] and not i know because there is proof

Any you are lying that US was not founded on Christian values (, e.g. In God we Trust US motto), then maybe the fact that protestants, Puritans who were either fleeing persecution in europe and other places did not happen during the founding of American. Maybe the founding of Virginia by people from england is also a fallach, (Please study hard and show thyself approved, instead of repeating already discredited mantra as if its facts)