Afghanistan "Kill The Christians"...
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=185980
Printed Date: 20 February 2026 at 11:46pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Afghanistan "Kill The Christians"...
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Subject: Afghanistan "Kill The Christians"...
Date Posted: 18 June 2010 at 9:59am
|
http://www.worldmag.com/webextra/16862 - http://www.worldmag.com/webextra/16862
more examples of muslim "tolerance"...
discuss
Funded by the US tax dollars... And supported by the UN.
 ------------- They tremble at my name... 
|
Replies:
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 18 June 2010 at 3:17pm
| So how is this any different than the redneck idiots yelling kill all muslims? |
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 18 June 2010 at 3:19pm
|
Religion causing intolerance to other religions? No way! -------------  irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 18 June 2010 at 3:23pm
That would never happen here, christians are the most tolerant of other religions ever! |
Benjichang wrote:Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 18 June 2010 at 4:45pm
|
This. - to the above 3 comments. ------------- "I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl Forum Vice President RIP T&O Forum |
Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 18 June 2010 at 4:51pm
Yeah! Just look at the WBC... ------------- Innocence proves nothing FUAC!!!!! |
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 18 June 2010 at 6:54pm
While you make a valid point, it should be noted that Christianity is not (yet) the world religion currently in danger of slipping/being sucked completely into its radical minority.* *For lack of a better way to put it. ------------- 
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 18 June 2010 at 7:22pm
| That matters in what way? |
Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 19 June 2010 at 2:28am
As if a sizeable percentage of Christians don't feel the same way about Muslims. ------------- 
|
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 19 June 2010 at 3:55am
------------- "I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl Forum Vice President RIP T&O Forum |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 19 June 2010 at 5:16am
|
"Christian" and "Muslim".
My only thoughts on the subject, really. |
Posted By: Pariel
Date Posted: 19 June 2010 at 7:08am
|
You're not quite right there, strato. I've spent some time talking to missionaries who serve in Muslim countries, mainly Indonesia and Egypt, who study the Qur'an pretty extensively. The reality is that the Qur'an essentially says to kill any non-Muslim who won't convert.
Now, I realize the vast majority of Muslims are not going around waging jihad, but there's a pretty clear difference between the positions of Christ and Mohammed on killing people. I don't know where this "sizable portion" of Christians who want to kill all the Muslims is hiding, but I don't know of them, and I've spent almost 21 years in various churches around the country. If you really think that Christian extremists are doing a better job destabilizing the world right now than Muslim ones, I'm pretty sure you've got another thing coming. |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 19 June 2010 at 9:11am
:dodgy: ------------- Que pasa? 
|
Posted By: Tical3.0
Date Posted: 19 June 2010 at 9:41am
lol you heard from "Missionaries" that Muslims want to kill all non believers. That reminds me I head the Starbucks guy say that Tim Hortans coffee is poison... Back in the winter when I was working at a Carwash and I had a muslim boss.... Hard to the core muslim. Like super Muslim. I Can't even begin to explain how muslim the dude was, if you looked at him you would have sharted on yourself and thought OH MY HE IS GOING TO BLOW SOMETHING UP (Im not bashing on him here. He is still a good friend and we talk often and he even busts out Bombing jokes himself). Either way he got a kick out of me being a Athiest which led to many discussions about his Religeon. I remember this one Conversation we had where he said "Dan you know if we where back in my land and you would not convert, the Quran says that I could hold you prisoner or even make you my slave" But he didn't say kill... Now I know what your saying "He probibly left that part out as you happend to be his employee at the time". This is not the case as he would tell me on a regular basis that he would kill me if I messed something up while playing with his big ass knife. Either way later that night I went home and googled up some Quran nonsense and I found this website that said pretty much what my Boss said slave me hold me prisoner and It even said KILL ME along with the sura that it was from. I then looked it up and suprise!!! It was an Islam hating website. So then I did some more google fu but this time I knew what I was looking for ( 9:29-35 ) and nowhere in those 6 verses did I see them call for an outright killing of non-believers... Now Im not dumb (lol shut up) I relize that the Quran is a big book with lots of words and verses and It could very well say Kill on non believers however I have not found that part yet. So here is my challange to you. Find me where it says in the Quran to kill people like me, you and half the rest of the world... don't worry Ill wait for however long it takes  In the meantime I can point out in the Bible where it speaks of Killing non Believers Chronicals 15:12-13- It goes a little something like this blah blah blah ooo here we are " But that whoever would not seek the lord, the god of Israel SHOULD BE PUT TO DEATH! whether young old man or woman" Thats Pretty gangster right there, what with promoting killing of non believers. Either way you slice it though both books promote Hate towards people not there kind and in my eyes Religeon is the biggest brainwashing joke known to man and an end should be put to it. (not to you people but to Religeon. I do not condem those who believe in God or Allah or who els, because I know there was a time when I though Santa was real even though we all know he is fake... right.?) At any rate I am hella tired and need some sleep. 3rd shift sucks and causes me to ramble on about stuff that makes no sesne. Wait... what where we talking about again. Goodnight. ------------- I ♣ hippies. |
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 19 June 2010 at 11:21am
Perspective. (Something a lot of people on here need to work on.) Related note: Read an interesting article a while back (that I will have to see if I can find again) on the war between radicals an moderates within Islam. The main premise of the author was that the Muslim faith was "in a battle for it's very soul" and the consequences for those both of the faith and others would be very serious if the "wrong" side triumphed. -------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 19 June 2010 at 11:30am
|
I'm glad someone brought up 2 Chronicles 15:13. The Christian Bible is very clear. Those who do not seek God must be executed.
|
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 19 June 2010 at 11:31am
|
Odd that in current times there is much less executing of opposing faiths going on in the group whose bible is more clear on the subject than in the group whose bible is less clear on the subject.
-------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 19 June 2010 at 11:34am
That's what you get when people who believe in a mystical sky wizard get involved.
|
Posted By: adrenalinejunky
Date Posted: 19 June 2010 at 11:58am
First off, citation fail, there are 2 chronicles. Second off, paraphrasing is fine, but at least try to capture the whole essence of what is being said if you are going to do so. Second Chronicles 15:12-13 12 They entered into a covenant to seek the LORD, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul. 13 All who would not seek the LORD, the God of Israel, were to be put to death, whether small or great, man or woman. This is quite literally a historical account of people being put to death, rather then an ongoing commandment to do so. Basically, this is dealing with the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, who fell into moral decay under the rule of Jeroboam. Jeroboam was overthrown, most of the people turned back to god, and they killed the unbelievers in thier tribes. Yeah, not exactly one of religions finest moments, but at the same time, trying to use this as evidence that the bible is telling Christians to go around murduring people in present day is beyond stretching. as far as your quran verse for killing people, Surah 9:5 But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. i would note that citations from the quran work a little differently then citations from the bible. where as in the bible, you have "book chapter:verse" the quran is more like "Surah book:verse" that is to say, Surah 9 is its own complete "entity" within the quran, so to speak. ( you can read the full text http://www.muslimaccess.com/quraan/arabic/009.asp - here if you wish ) basically, Surah 9 seems to be entirely about foreign relations, and the bottom line is, respect any alliances for as long as they were defined, so long as you aren't betrayed, and once your alliance has reached its conclusion, THEN kill them. Well, unless they repent that is. this quite literally is, as far as i can tell, an ongoing commandment. |
Posted By: adrenalinejunky
Date Posted: 19 June 2010 at 12:25pm
Interesting, i would expect better from a journalist, then to dismiss something without reading any context or even noting the fact that certain key words were past tense. You are doing the exact same thing in that sentence that you regularly accuse various "sky wizard" followers of doing. Acting on your bias, rather than your intelligence. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 19 June 2010 at 12:35pm
Well aware of the context. I have just a little bit of experience studying the Christian Bible. It's just funny to hear biblical apologists explain how each instance in the Christian Bible where God commands his followers to slaughter people - or he just does it himself - is an isolated historical instance. The Christian Bible is supposed to be a guidebook for how to live a Christian life through example, teaching and instruction. Are followers supposed to simply shrug off something God told his people, even if it was in context to a specific tribe? If not, why would God allow this story to be in his final product of scripture? Why, pray tell, does that verse and story exist in the Christian Bible? |
Posted By: adrenalinejunky
Date Posted: 19 June 2010 at 1:17pm
You have a very interesting way of posing these questions, cleverly disguised as a complete misunderstanding of the actual passage you are referencing. Why would you knowingly misrepresent a passage to convey your beliefs about the intent of the bible instead of actually explaining what fostered those beliefs in the first place? The Christian bible is supposed to be many things, in addition to a moral guidebook it is also a history. I would assume this was included because at some point, it probably happened. What this says about the intentions of the people writing the book or any God, invented or otherwise, that may be behind it, is certainly a valid question. There are several instances of such events, and each is accompanied by its own respective historical significance. I can certainly understand why you take issue with this fact. I cannot understand what would lead you to the conclusion that the bible characterizes the act of killing people who don't believe as a normal behavior expected of every Christian. I for one, don't see that corrolation in there. |
Posted By: Tical3.0
Date Posted: 19 June 2010 at 1:44pm
|
There are 3 things in my post that are true. 1. I had a crazy muslim boss 2. My name is Dan 3. That I worked 3rd shift The rest is just bs'd my way through,,, thanks for the entertainment. ------------- I ♣ hippies. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 19 June 2010 at 2:13pm
Pardon? I don't recall saying that the verses from 2 Chronicles were word-for-word matching with the Koran. Although I certainly apologize if it was read that way. I can see now how it could have seemed like that. My connection to the two was in my argument. How is the follower of the Christian Bible supposed to know that the Lord's one-time instruction to a tribe was not to be followed?
I'm confused as to what you think I knowingly misrepresented. And my questions are not that of the intent of the Christian Bible. I know the intent of the bible, at least as expressed by every person who believes in it that I have grown up with and learned the bible from. Probably close to a few hundred people that attended the church I grew up in and the schools I went to have expressed the idea that the Christian Bible was inspired by the Lord and has been divinely led to be the instruction and inspiration to live a good life. Which brings me to this question...
So where and how exactly is a believer, a follower, supposed to know where the lessons in morality and instructions on living end and things that are simply in there to be a history book begin? If you are going to claim that god's instruction to slaughter non-believers - or really anyone who stood in the way of his chosen people throughout the Old Testament - is limited to that one context, that one singular point in history, consider: The Ten Commandments were also only limited to a historical context as well if you recall. Moses brought them down from the mountain and told his people - the ancient Jews, the chosen people - that this is their grand set of rules. Does that render them useless, as they were simply a victim of context within history?
And those are the questions I am asking.
I don't have that conclusion. I don't think that the passage was "supposed" to be an instruction to slaughter non-believers. BUT, how am I to know that? The Christian Bible gives no instruction as to NOT follow the Lord's instructions there further. There is no enumerated power there.
|
Posted By: Pariel
Date Posted: 19 June 2010 at 2:33pm
|
Old Testament =/= New Testament.
Jesus's death reverses or removes the reasoning behind a pretty significant number of laws in the Old Testament. Also, II Chronicles is talking about the Jews. Key difference, again related to the whole Jesus thing.
Funny, the guy I spent most of my time talking to about this has lived for more than three decades living with Muslims (which suggests that he doesn't think they're evil, bad people), and studies the Qur'an. Now, have you even read the Qur'an? Because perhaps you should start there before you go around defending it. As I said, most Muslims do not follow the Qur'an's requirement to kill people who don't convert, but that doesn't mean it doesn't say that.
I think the issue is that the most extreme, violent, evil members of any religion tend to be the loudest. It doesn't make them right, it just means the most people hear them. Also, you really need to look up the definition of brainwashing. The vast majority of religions are far from it. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 19 June 2010 at 2:41pm
Then I ask: Why still include the Old Testament in the current study of the Christian Bible? The protestant movement stripped off books of the Christian Bible traditionally used by Catholics and Orthodox worshipers. It's not as if books cannot be removed through time. Also, if you, as most Christians do, believe that the Christian Bible is the inspired word of the Lord and has thusly been divinely intervened, why keep it in the scripture? Why do preachers still preach from the Old Testament? Why do bible schools still study and teach from the Old Testament?
And furthermore, why would Jesus say the things he did in Matthew 5:18-19 if the Old Testament and its laws and teachings were meant to be discarded? |
Posted By: adrenalinejunky
Date Posted: 19 June 2010 at 2:59pm
Huh? And to clear up any confusion, the first two sections of my last post that you quoted, along with the final section, were all still refering to your orriginal post in this thread. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 19 June 2010 at 3:06pm
Yes. The Lord orders the slaughter of those who do not follow him. Not only just there, where we have the clear direct order, but other places throughout the Old Testament. The Book of Judges is nothing but a series of short snuff stories of people who do not follow the Lord. Where is the enumerated distinction that such actions were limited only to the sands of time, victims of historical context? Note, what I think - and what I've said I think things were supposed to be or not supposed to be - is irrelevant. We are going to by the scripture here. The written word. What does it say, and where does it limit said words? And, as I've asked before sans-answer, where are the distinctions as to what is instruction and what is simply the scapegoat of historical context. If the verse is worth nothing, why include it?
|
Posted By: adrenalinejunky
Date Posted: 19 June 2010 at 3:34pm
Are you trying to give the impression that you are switching position every post or are you trying to draw me into saying something? Schroedingers cat would be proud.
Its in the context. Taking the current example:
take a look for yourself, its all in there.
your answer in the particular example had already been provided in this thread, prior to your first asking it.
translation, i don't know, but its a good question. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 19 June 2010 at 3:39pm
So what lesson, what thing are Christians -supposed- at least in your opinion, take from this story in the Christian Bible? That thousands of years ago, the Lord called for a slaughter of non-believers within a few of his tribes, and he did that a lot, over and over. But, hey, don't do that now. |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 19 June 2010 at 3:49pm
It's a peaceful, tolerant, loving religion. |
Posted By: adrenalinejunky
Date Posted: 19 June 2010 at 4:02pm
Actually, that is a fairly accurate assessment of what the bible states. Pariel posted the answer to this, having to do with old versus new testiment, or, to be more accurate, old versus new covenant. which, to answer your question on that front, jesus is saying that we should not choose to ignore the law even though we are not strictly under it, and goes on to outline deeper moral significance underlying the law. taken as a whole, the new testament basically teaches that we should try to hold to the law, and even to a standard higher, but now there is forgiveness instead of punishment. to regurgitate a teaching i've heard before - the law was basically enacted to show gods followers that they needed a better way to hold to god's standards then doing it on thier own. i would also note, that one section of the law, the isrealite social code, was specifically noted in several verses as no longer neccessary to follow, under the new covenant. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 19 June 2010 at 4:08pm
1) So, in the time the Lord was creating a better way of doing it, he decided it would be cool to send his believers to slaughter anyone who didn't believe. Time after time. This part at least you are agreeing with, yeah? 2) Verses that explain that the covenant (The agreement between the Lord and his people for those less theologically inclined who are following along with this debate) was specifically changed?
|
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 19 June 2010 at 4:18pm
No, the wages of sin is death. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 19 June 2010 at 4:22pm
Also, while this is certainly an interesting interpretation, it's not reflective of what the words in ink on paper actually say.
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 19 June 2010 at 4:23pm
You'll have to excuse me if I'm confused as to what your statement has to do with the bolded portion of what I said.
|
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 19 June 2010 at 5:21pm
|
And Jesus said, "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned." - John 15:6 ------------- "I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl Forum Vice President RIP T&O Forum |
Posted By: ammolord
Date Posted: 19 June 2010 at 5:45pm
 ------------- PSN Tag: AmmoLord XBL: xXAmmoLordXx ~Minister of Tinkering With Things That Go "BOOM!"(AKA Minister of Munitions)~ |
Posted By: Tical3.0
Date Posted: 19 June 2010 at 6:56pm
Don't get your panties all Moist. Incase you didn't catch on I said I made all that up simply for the luls it would bring along. ------------- I ♣ hippies. |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 19 June 2010 at 10:47pm
|
I just thought I'd point out, since we're on the subject of context, the Old Testament Jewish nomad society was commanded in the form of politics more than religion. Bear in mind that most commandments from the Old Testament were guidelines that had little to do with religion, and more to do with health and politics. God wasn't just giving them random orders, they were making strategic movements in order to survive as a country. So God's commandments to go in and not spare anyone was more as a military move than a religious one. In the New Testament, after society had become more self sustaining and civilized, we see more of a turn to obeying the government and allowing the government to take care of things such as war (the Scripture refers to God giving the law of the land the sword), punishment, etc etc. Whereas in the Old Testament there were strict orders referring to the way a legal matter should be handled, bear in mind there was no official government or power structure to the Israelites. So God filled the nutritional, political, military, etc etc gaps by giving commandments to meet this role.
However, as the New Testament was written, times had changed. Things that would be unhealthy or even lethal to eat while wandering the desert were fine in a balanced diet, and there was a power structure set up so that the Church no longer would needed to fill that role.
Think of it less as "OMG KILL ALL UNBELIEVERS" and more as "TAKE THEM OUT BEFORE THEY WIPE YOU OUT".
|
Posted By: Tolgak
Date Posted: 20 June 2010 at 1:11am
|
We want to kill them because they want to kill us! See how circular it can get? ------------- 
|
Posted By: JohnnyHopper
Date Posted: 20 June 2010 at 2:58am
Death to you yin yang boy! We kill hindus too, time to triangulate ;) ------------- My shoes of peace have steel toes. |
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 20 June 2010 at 7:48am
That's just how it's been working in the Middle East since, what, 1000 AD? It's not like it's confined to religious struggles, either. A little communication and global political unification would go a long way, IMO. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: adrenalinejunky
Date Posted: 20 June 2010 at 8:55am
as has been brought up, there are historical, political, and military reasons beyond just "go kill them for the fun of it" but the simple one word answer would be yes.
Romans 3 contains one good example, though there are certainly more. 9What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. 10As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one; 11there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. 12All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one."[j] 13"Their throats are open graves; their tongues practice deceit."[k] "The poison of vipers is on their lips." 
14"Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness."[m] 15"Their feet are swift to shed blood; 16ruin and misery mark their ways, 17and the way of peace they do not know."[n] 18"There is no fear of God before their eyes."[o] 19Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. Righteousness Through Faith 21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
the above passage is quite applicable here as well, though if you keep reading in matthew, you can also find more to back this "interpretation" up. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 20 June 2010 at 9:53am
This is saying, along with the verses before it, that the law made us aware of the boundaries we break. Before the law, humans wouldn't have ever known if their actions displeased the Lord, but with the law they know. It doesn't state that there has been a new covenant made with the Lord.
I'm surprised you left this bit in here. Most people trying to claim that the law is now outdated and replaced don't include it. It seems an awfully lot to me like like Paul is saying that just because they were now saying gentiles could be included in Christianity and following Jesus, it didn't mean that the previous law was null and void, it just meant 1) Gentiles had to follow them too, 2) If you broke them you could ask for forgiveness instead of being one of the millions the Lord had slaughtered. Also there is that pesky problem of Jesus saying earlier, in Matthew, that the law still stands, and Paul later on in his books saying things like what you posted, which can be seen by some to say the law no longer stands. Who holds more sway? Jesus or Paul?
|
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 20 June 2010 at 10:15am
------------- "I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl Forum Vice President RIP T&O Forum |
Posted By: adrenalinejunky
Date Posted: 20 June 2010 at 10:26am
is there an echoe in here?
i could see how this would seem to present a "difficulty" if you just read a few verses at time, out of context, try reading a book at a time, its all much more consistent at that point. |
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 20 June 2010 at 10:39am
And it seems like the bible classes I attended (5 days a week, not including actually going to church itself for 10 of the 12 years of my school career) we normally did it book by book. I imagine it was the same for you as well?
Just checkin' ------------- "I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl Forum Vice President RIP T&O Forum |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 20 June 2010 at 12:09pm
A few things here.
|
Posted By: adrenalinejunky
Date Posted: 20 June 2010 at 12:49pm
umm, actually, they both say pretty much the same thing, follow the law, but Jesus is the way to salvation.... from non "pauline" sources. 16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[v] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.[w] 19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."[x] 24"I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life. 25I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live. 26For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself. 27And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man. 32"Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. 33But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven. 1My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. 2He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for[c] the sins of the whole world.
funny, i was getting the very same feeling about you. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 20 June 2010 at 12:54pm
| Yeah, no mentions of a new covenant nor the abandonment of laws in any of those verses. |
Posted By: adrenalinejunky
Date Posted: 20 June 2010 at 1:11pm
i'm really not sure where you are getting this "abandonment" thought from, was it something i said? or something from paul? i find it interesting as you were the one to make a note of pointing out this.
i'm pretty sure i have said, multiple times now, that christians are still called to uphold the law, and as i meantioned already, even to a higher standard, but there is forgiveness instead of punishment. that *is* the new covenant. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 20 June 2010 at 1:25pm
Perhaps our disconnect here is because a lack of definition of the law. What, exactly, are you considering "The Law" to be?
|