Death bed conversions

Originally posted by twhitehead
So can you explain how a justice system in which adultery is a capital offense is superior to our modern day justice system in South Africa where adultery is not a capital offense(its not even a criminal offense).

let me ask you first before i attempt an explanation, are there crimes in South Africa, which today may be judged to be such that they merit the death penalty and thus come under the realm of a capital offense? i say this not in guile, it may just be helpful - regards Robbie.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
let me ask you first before i attempt an explanation, are there crimes in South Africa, which today may be judged to be such that they merit the death penalty and thus come under the realm of a capital offense? i say this not in guile, it may just be helpful - regards Robbie.

I am not certain, but I think that SA does not have capital punishment.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am not certain, but I think that SA does not have capital punishment.

Actually after much deliberation the question that you pose is unanswerable, for Christ himself established a new mode of conduct and the Law therefore became obsolete, i must therefore publicly admit that i can find no reason, why in the instance of marital infidelity under the Law with its insistence on severe punishment that it should be viewed in any way superior in respect to giving a certificate of divorce!

please note that this does not in anyway condone nor diminish the actual act, nor exonerate the perpetrators, for adultery was viewed not as it is in the modern sense, but as a crime against God, the instituter of the marital arrangement.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Actually after much deliberation the question that you pose is unanswerable, for Christ himself established a new mode of conduct and the Law therefore became obsolete, i must therefore publicly admit that i can find no reason, why in the instance of marital infidelity under the Law with its insistence on severe punishment that it should be viewed in ...[text shortened]... t is in the modern sense, but as a crime against God, the instituter of the marital arrangement.

But in such a case we have an at least strong indication that the so called "Law of God" is man-made and that therefore there is indeed...

Nothing Holy😵

Originally posted by black beetle
But in such a case we have an at least strong indication that the so called "Law of God" is man-made and that therefore there is indeed...

Nothing Holy😵

ah if only it were so simple beetle my friend, for one divine code is established by another, the latter being infinitely superior. The law code had served its function, in that it proved in every sense that man was incapable of keeping Gods laws and statutes perfectly, the standards were unreachable, why is this important? for it created an environment in which the individual was conscious of their imperfect nature and thus the need for reconciliation to God was ever more manifest, and God spared no effort trying to reconcile firstly the Hebrews and any proselytes by means of messengers or prophets and when the appointed time had come, the entire world through the offices of the Christ. The latter code, established by Christ was in every sense superior, why? for it allowed for the exercise of conscience, thus an individual could get even closer to the Divine by cultivating such qualities within themselves in reflection of the Father. is it not amazing?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Not for nothing, but you're starting to sound like a Quaker. This type of thinking is what led to the modern-day cluster known as the prison system. Had they learned their Bible a tad more, the concerned would have discovered that rehabilitation typically doesn't work as desired. For proof, look no further than Satan's furlough after the 1,000 year reign of Christ.

Rehabilitation doesn't work because there is no social commitment to it. The vast majority of humankind is only interested in 'saving' those who are like them. Even then it's so much easier to kill or lock someone away and forget them than do the hard work of helping that person - any person - become a better, happier person.

That doesn't mean everyone can be rehabilitated. But we don't even try with anyone.

Originally posted by Badwater
Rehabilitation doesn't work because there is no social commitment to it. The vast majority of humankind is only interested in 'saving' those who are like them. Even then it's so much easier to kill or lock someone away and forget them than do the hard work of helping that person - any person - become a better, happier person.

That doesn't mean everyone can be rehabilitated. But we don't even try with [b]anyone.[/b]

It's the hang em high mentailty that makes me sick. I understand outrage with crimal acts, and I sure don't feel they should be over looked. I'm for justice, but I'm also for humanity. It makes the situation worse when you throw someone into a nightmare invironment and let them fend for themself with the other sicko's that rule the place. It seems no one wants to even try to rehabilitate the crimal minded. It might be a lost cause at times, but no doubt some would respond in a positive manner.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ah if only it were so simple beetle my friend, for one divine code is established by another, the latter being infinitely superior. The law code had served its function, in that it proved in every sense that man was incapable of keeping Gods laws and statutes perfectly, the standards were unreachable, why is this important? for it created an environ ...[text shortened]... by cultivating such qualities within themselves in reflection of the Father. is it not amazing?

Amazing it is ye lang leggedy beastie, however the so called "Law of God" is still man-made😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Amazing it is ye lang leggedy beastie, however the so called "Law of God" is still man-made😵

Lol, ach yer a bletherer beetle dude!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Lol, ach yer a bletherer beetle dude!

Big time😵

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Lol, ach yer a bletherer beetle dude!

BTW, if I ask you what are the Christian denominations who are based on New Testament, what would you answer to this miserable atheist as a decent Christian?

Over here I note that, as "denomination" I define the resulting religious differences regarding the Christian doctrine due to the fact that we have many different hermeneutics; also I take for granded that you are aware of the fact that the top religious personages of each Christian Church/ denomination they use quite different hermeneutics in order to clarify the so called "message of Jesus".
😵

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
The latter code, established by Christ was in every sense superior, why? for it allowed for the exercise of conscience, thus an individual could get even closer to the Divine by cultivating such qualities within themselves in reflection of the Father. is it not amazing?

Socrates was exercising his conscience a little before that.

Originally posted by black beetle
BTW, if I ask you what are the Christian denominations who are based on New Testament, what would you answer to this miserable atheist as a decent Christian?

Over here I note that, as "denomination" I define the resulting religious differences regarding the Christian doctrine due to the fact that we have many different hermeneutics; also I take for g ...[text shortened]... y use quite different hermeneutics in order to clarify the so called "message of Jesus".
😵

oh noble one! it appears to this miserable theist, based on a scriptural understanding, that denominations originally fomented because of the influence of Hellenistic culture and the Greek model of learning, with a master of a particular school influencing the learning process. Thus the influence of Hellenistic society cannot be underestimated, for the noble Greeks were masters of a huge dominion (even now our education system is based on the Greek model), Thus we find that even Judaic culture very much influenced and schools of thought arose among the Hebrews, thus we read that Paul learned at the feet of Gamaliel, and was of a particular denomination, a Pharisee.

In terms of Christianity this was initially very much resisted among early Christians because of its divisive influence, please note what Paul wrote, for it sheds a valuable insight into its beginnings.

Now I exhort you, brothers, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that you should all speak in agreement, and that there should not be divisions among you, but that you may be fitly united in the same mind and in the same line of thought. For the disclosure was made to me about you, my brothers, by those of the house of Chloe, that dissensions exist among you. What I mean is this, that each one of you says: “I belong to Paul,” “But I to Apollos,” “But I to Cephas,” “But I to Christ.” The Christ exists divided. Paul was not impaled for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I am thankful I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. As for the rest, I do not know whether I baptized anybody else.  For Christ dispatched me, not to go baptizing, but to go declaring the good news, not with wisdom of speech, that the torture stake of the Christ should not be made useless. - 1 Corinthians 1:10-17

thus even in its very inception this influence was being felt, but it is not scriptural, for the very reasons that Paul mentions. After the death of the apostles who acted like a governing body, rendering decisions and generally being a cohesive influence, prominent individuals arose and drew individuals after themselves

I know that after my going away oppressive wolves will enter in among you and will not treat the flock with tenderness, and from among you yourselves men will rise and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves. - Acts 20:29

Thus in view of these two references i do not think that there is any justification for any denomination to claim that because of hermeneutics, there is a basis for a particular denomination, quite the contrary is true, for the teachings of Christ are quite simple and any such claim leads to divisions and thus strife. The problem is that individuals are not content to let others exercise their conscience and want to impose rules where there are none, these essentially become traditions and thus we have the many denominations that we have today, but such was not the case in the beginning.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Socrates was exercising his conscience a little before that.

yes no doubt, for he was a great man!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
oh noble one! it appears to this miserable theist, based on a scriptural understanding, that denominations originally fomented because of the influence of Hellenistic culture and the Greek model of learning, with a master of a particular school influencing the learning process. Thus the influence of Hellenistic society cannot be underestimated, for ...[text shortened]... s we have the many denominations that we have today, but such was not the case in the beginning.

I accept that maybe it was not the case in the beggining, however today the different interpretations between the differ Christian Churches are so devastating that the Christians are forced to follow quite different doctrines according to their personal denomination. And all of them they claim that they act according with the "word of god" -how pathetic.

But this is another story, irrelevant to the topic of this thread; I just wanted your opinion regarding this matter -and I am thankful ye offered it to me😵