- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
16 Jan 13
1 edit
Originally posted by FMF
I am asking that person. I don't really know why you've jumped in. Did you write your long posts without reading the discussion between me and galveston75 that you are interjecting in?
I am asking that person. I don't really know why you've jumped in. Did you write your long posts without reading the discussion between me and galveston75 that you are interjecting in?
I am looking to talk to some new people.
I think I jumped in because you asked a question that I thought someone should address.
Here's what I spoke to -
Does the Mosaic Law still apply?
That specific question was what I responded to for the sake of the public readership.
16 Jan 13
Originally posted by sonshipOnce again. The issue being discussed here is the claim that "God's ways do not change and neither do his laws and principles change."
Is it of some particular use to you that you be able to say God changes or the law changes ? Does a "changed God" somehow further your philosophy? What does the concept of "God changed" do for you which you need?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
16 Jan 13
Long losts -
Some questions and issues are not resolved well in very few words.
I find that Internet Discussion forms can sometimes attract people who don't really want to know too much - maybe just enough to confirm their opinion.
This is true all the way around. Sometimes people REALLY didn't want to get into a matter the way it should be examined to get to some truth.
I tend to be verbose because some of what I write anticipate possible objections. Why should I leave out something when I an preemptively cover it ? Some things if you neglect to cover the debater will only gleefully point out "But you didn't think of THIS!"
I respect posters who show that they can see things from the other guys perspective a bit and anticipate some angles of the issue being examined.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
16 Jan 13
Originally posted by FMF
Then please, address "new people" because you are ignoring the discussion I was involved in.
Then please, address "new people" because you are ignoring the discussion I was involved in.
You could have a private email back and forth too.
Why try to put your big thumb down on me and say "Behave this way!" ?
16 Jan 13
Originally posted by sonshipI find that Internet Discussion forms can sometimes attract people who really just want to lecture at length upon their own opinion and have little or no interest in the discussion that they are interjecting in.
I find that Internet Discussion forms can sometimes attract people who don't really want to know too much - maybe just enough to confirm their opinion.
16 Jan 13
Originally posted by sonshipThe issue being discussed by me and galveston75 was his claim that "God's ways do not change and neither do his laws and principles change." Were you even aware of that? It seems not. In so far as me making a request for you to "behave" in a certain way, I would only go so far as to suggest you show a modicum of respect and actually read the posts of the person you are lecturing and have some sense of the content of the discussion or the claim being discussed.
Why try to put your big thumb down on me and say "Behave this way!" ?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
16 Jan 13
Originally posted by FMFI suggest to you that I was not in the least disrespectful to you. No need for any monicum of respect.
The issue being discussed by me and galveston75 was his claim that "God's ways do not change and neither do his laws and principles change." Were you even aware of that? It seems not. In so far as me making a request for you to "behave" in a certain way, I would only go so far as to suggest you show a modicum of respect and actually read the posts of the person ...[text shortened]... ecturing and have some sense of the content of the discussion or the claim being discussed.
I think you just don't like what I write. Nothing much more than that is going on.
If its stuff ya don't like, you deem yourself on the end of a lecture.
16 Jan 13
1 edit
Originally posted by sonshipDo you concur with galveston75 when he says "God's ways do not change and neither do his laws and principles change"? You have explained how the rituals are no longer obligatory, how some parts still apply, other parts don't etc. etc. so I assume you do not concur.
If its stuff ya don't like, you deem yourself on the end of a lecture.
Earlier you asked me the following questions:
Is it of some particular use to you that you be able to say God changes or the law changes ? Does a "changed God" somehow further your philosophy? What does the concept of "God changed" do for you which you need?
And this lies at the heart of how you misunderstood me. I am tackling galveston75 on the contradiction and inconsistency of what he is claiming on behalf of HIS concept of God.
As for me, I do not believe that God has revealed Himself to you - or galveston75 - and certainly do not claim He has revealed Himself to me. I have no interest in claiming "God changes" and claiming 'He has' or 'He hasn't' is no part of my philosophy.
I am simply interested in the contradictions in what claims are made about this version of God. In fact, whether you still obey the Mosaic Law or not is irrelevant. Do what you want; believe what you want.
What I am interested in is that someone might claim that the Mosaic Law comes - it applies, people get put to death for all manner of grotesque reasons, then Mosaic Law mostly goes, no longer applies in its entirety... and then that same someone claims that this is somehow an example of "God's ways do not change and neither do his laws and principles change."
Originally posted by caissad4It can be readily demonstrated from the Bible that God deals with peoples by the
Gee golly, such a direct and easy question to answer.
Is it yes ?
Is it no ?
Or is it I don't know ?
I also await an answer.😞
use of covenants, agreements to you or I, of which there are numerous examples,
the Davidic covenant, the Abrahamic covenant, the Rainbow covenant, the Law
covenant, the New covenant etc etc etc etc. To state that because a covenant or an
agreement is now fulfilled and a new covenant or agreement supersedes or
replaces the former and to cite it as an indication that God has changed is ludicrous
and utterly betrays a lack of knowledge and basic understanding so reminiscent of
those who know next to nothing about scripture yet remain its biggest critics. Its
akin to stating that because an agreement between two parties has now come to
and end that the parties involved have as a consequence of the agreement having
been fulfilled they themselves have changed as persons. Yes i agree, its ludicrous
to assert that such is the case but that is if fact what is being asked. God does not
change. Is that clear enough?
(Malachi 3:6) 'For I am Jehovah; I have not changed.'
(James 1:17) 'Every good gift and every perfect present is from above, for it
comes down from the Father of the [celestial] lights, and with him there is not a
variation of the turning of the shadow.'
beautiful scripture, I agree.
17 Jan 13
Originally posted by sonshipFMF also likes to argue. 😏
I suggest to you that I was not in the least disrespectful to you. No need for any monicum of respect.
I think you just don't like what I write. Nothing much more than that is going on.
If its stuff ya don't like, you deem yourself on the end of a lecture.
17 Jan 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieToo bad you guys don't see that the Holy Bible does not refer to blood transfusions and that God does not forbid them. 😏
It can be readily demonstrated from the Bible that God deals with peoples by the
use of covenants, agreements to you or I, of which there are numerous examples,
the Davidic covenant, the Abrahamic covenant, the Rainbow covenant, the Law
covenant, the New covenant etc etc etc etc. To state that because a covenant or an
agreement is now fulfil ...[text shortened]... m there is not a
variation of the turning of the shadow.'
beautiful scripture, I agree.
17 Jan 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieA law no longer applying and being superseded and replaced by another is "change", no matter how one tries to package it.
To state that because a covenant or an agreement is now fulfilled and a new covenant or agreement supersedes or replaces the former and to cite it as an indication that God has changed is ludicrous and utterly betrays a lack of knowledge and basic understanding so reminiscent of those who know next to nothing about scripture yet remain its biggest critics.
Does your version of God still endorse slavery as long as the slave owners follow the laws and principles laid out in the Bible or have the laws and principles changed?
17 Jan 13
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFWho cares. A Covenant is a Covenant. It's an arrangement between a Sovereign and the Sovereign's subjects. There is an Old Covenant--which the Sovereign ended (which a Sovereign has every right to do), and a New Covenant which replaced it.
A law no longer applying and being superseded and replaced by another is "change", no matter how one tries to package it.
To leap to the conclusion that the Sovereign Himself changed in any way, is incorrect. Replacing a fulfilled contract with a new contract doesn't require that the Sovereign changed, or even require that the Sovereign changed his mind. That is an open and shut case.