Search results

Based on what you've said in this thread, I don't believe you do. Honestly? I don't really care if you're convinced that our religion is true or not. I'm just curious as to why you think you have the authority to lecture us on what it teaches when you've shown that you don't even know the...

While I agree that the self esteem movement is both harmful and Unbiblical, I don't agree with Prager, either. What he's talking about is nothing but moralism.

In other words, you, who do not even know the difference between the Old and New Covenants, want to lecture us on what our own religion teeaches. The answer is still the same "no" as it was the last dozen times you asked me this. So then, you don't believe that the Bible teaches that there...

Nope. Not at all. Look, you're obviously not a Christian and so I'm not really sure why I should have to justify my religion to you and, second, you don't seem to know enough about Christianity to be able to hold a conversation about the two covenants or, God forbid, dispensationalism, so I'm...

Actually, according to 2 Tim 3, all of scripture is Jesus' Word. Of course Jesus is pro-law. He is, after all, the One who instituted the law in the first place. However, He is also the same One who fulfilled the law and set us free from the law.

Jesus doesn't say here that we are to stop following the law because He was talking to people who were still under the law. But that doesn't mean that the Bible doesn't say elsewhere that we are no longer under the law. Nope. And that's why the law is still in effect for those who are under...

So in other words, you ignore the other tithes that you claim God has commanded you to pay.

Actually, they do. And would you like to quote the second half of what He said now? The math? The math is easy: Text - Context = Prooftext

What I mean is, if you're going to put yourself in bondage to the law, then are you following the law? Out of the OT/OC verses you listed, none of them say that we're only obligated to pay one of the tithes, so I'm asking if you're consistent in your beliefs and pay all of the tithes, or...

No, there is a difference between ignoring something and acknowledging that the terms and conditions that mandate it no longer exist. Exactly. Jesus did come to fulfil the law. And as a result, He has ushered in a New Covenant.

Hey! And to think, I only had to explain it to you five or six times before you got it! Good for you! And like I said, who is ignoring them?

Nope, I read it. In fact, I even acknowledged that it did include the quote you posted. How do you know? How do you reconcile that belief with His teachings, which paint capitalism in such a positive light?

Maybe you read a different article. Jesus never said anything about his political views or views on economic policy. Yes, God's standards are very high, particularly when it comes to how people talk about His name and character.

Sounds like CAFs understanding of biology is about as awful as their understanding of Christian theology.

Out of curiousity, do you pay all of the tithes, or just one tithe?

Yep, it was a quote alright. However, that doesn't make it the issue. The issue was the content of the book and its offensive nature.

You cited one verse. You even go on in your most recent post to quote only two verses out of the entire passage. I suppose that, to you, two are better than one, but two verses out of context are no better than one verse out of context. I know you did. I even quoted you as saying so twice...

On a related note, I could never figure out why the urban campers in the parks in New York are always complaining about being hungry when there are thousands of pigeons in the parks. They have access to an unlimited supply of free range squab.

OK. Then you probably should make your questions clearer in the future, rather than talking about one thing in one thread and another in another thread and assuming that we will all know what you're talking about. In that context, it was not murder. If it were done today, it would be murder...

The issue wasn't that it was age inappropriate. The issue was that it was inappropriate for the school to require students to read a book that contains profanity and endorses blasphemy and mockery of their religion.