Mandatory Copy & Paste.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I'm still unclear on your position. If I remember, you claim Jesus "fulfilled the law, and didn't break it" as per one of his own quotes. But if he didn't break it it should still exist...

As I am unclear on your position c ...[text shortened]... ou keep writing the same thing over and over again to be annoying.

His position is pretty clear. Some laws were only meant for the Hebrew people of that time (i.e. the laws Darfius no longer thinks we should follow). Other laws were meant to be eternal (i.e. all the laws Darfius uses to condemn others).

The Darfius method is simple really.

1) Approach a dilemma with a strong desire for self-justification.
2) Identify the problematic empirical evidence
3) Think up an arbitrary dichotomy or definition that harmonizes the issue
4a) If some one points out that step 3 creates a new dilemma in regards to previous harmonizations of related issues, consider this a new dilemma. Return to step 1 and repeat the process.
4b) If no one says anything, then you have God-given absolute truth. Disseminate with great self-righteousness.

Originally posted by dags
We know there's no such thing as hell. But keep making the christians pay and the goddess will surely welcome you 🙂

The Goddess of a Thousand Names would surely say that there are many Hells... all of our own making if we chose the wrong path... don't you think?

Originally posted by Hand of Hecate
Your sense of humor is definitely on the blink Darfius. Some things are just meant to be funny. Surely you see why I find this hilarious? You've got to mellow out otherwise your head is sure to explode.

<edit> Your contention that you don't hold the Old Testament as binding is bollox. You've frequently used it to support your arguements.... word of God and all that remember.

You're mixing up the notions of something being binding in a theological/eschatological sense and something being binding in a legal/disciplinary sense.

Originally posted by telerion
His position is pretty clear. Some laws were only meant for the Hebrew people of that time (i.e. the laws Darfius no longer thinks we should follow). Other laws were meant to be eternal (i.e. all the laws Darfius uses to condemn others).

When considering any law/set of laws, there are a number of features to be considered:

1. Prescription - The "what" of the law. What can/must be done or cannot/must not be done. e.g. "Thou shalt not kill".

2. Penalty - The "what if" of the law. What happens if the law is broken. e.g. Murderers will be put to death.

3. Principle - The "why" of the law. What is the operating principle or "spirit" of the law. e.g. Dignity and sanctity of human life.

For each of these, we also need to look at two attributes:

a. Authority - The "who" of the law. Who created, or by whose authority was the law created. e.g. God.

b. Jurisdiction - The "whom" of the law. Who does the feature apply to? For how long? e.g. All human beings for all time.

What Darfius (and most Christians) say is that the principles of the Mosaic Law are eternal. In the case of many laws (such as the Decalogue, or laws on homosexuality), the prescription is integrally linked up to the principle and hence, cannot ever become "outdated". In other cases (such as the laws on cleanliness of foods), the principle is, in itself, of limited jurisdiction and points to other principles (such as the kerygma). The penalty was almost certainly not intended for all times and places.