Of course Coggins can't perceive the forest being blinded as he is by the trees.
Let me just ask this question for clarification. What is you ex ante decision rule for deciding which parts of the Old Testament you adhere to and which parts you reject?
That is, for example, what is the decision rule to accept the Old Testament's condemnation of homosexuality (to the extent it exists) but reject the Old Testament's advocacy of killing dissidents (as you point out in an earlier post the Old Testament advocates)?
Surely, you have some consistent, well-thought out rationale justifying how you pick and choose which scriptures you'll pay attention to and which you'll ignore. Right???
Homosexuals were stoned in Old Testament times under Mosaic law. Striking one's Father brought a similar penalty. That is not the case under the new covenant that fulfilled and ended those Mosaic principles. So I don't pick and choose. One obeys the Lord's commandments as they are given in different times and under different circumstances. If you are a Liberal, then you are a law unto yourself and none of this will make any sense.
I don't have to pay attention to really any of the Mosaic law because that was done away and fulfilled in Christ and I'm not required to live that law. Indeed, doing so, as Paul pointed out again and again, would obviate the New Testament law.
What definition of liberal are you using here? Political?
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
Of course Coggins can't perceive the forest being blinded as he is by the trees.
Let me just ask this question for clarification. What is you ex ante decision rule for deciding which parts of the Old Testament you adhere to and which parts you reject?
That is, for example, what is the decision rule to accept the Old Testament's condemnation of homosexuality (to the extent it exists) but reject the Old Testament's advocacy of killing dissidents (as you point out in an earlier post the Old Testament advocates)?
Surely, you have some consistent, well-thought out rationale justifying how you pick and choose which scriptures you'll pay attention to and which you'll ignore. Right???
Homosexuals were stoned in Old Testament times under Mosaic law. Striking one's Father brought a similar penalty. That is not the case under the new covenant that fulfilled and ended those Mosaic principles. So I don't pick and choose. One obeys the Lord's commandments as they are given in different times and under different circumstances. If you are a Liberal, then you are a law unto yourself and none of this will make any sense.
I don't have to pay attention to really any of the Mosaic law because that was done away and fulfilled in Christ and I'm not required to live that law. Indeed, doing so, as Paul pointed out again and again, would obviate the New Testament law.
So, then, you are saying that the Old Testament cannot be used to condemn or justify ANY behavior?
So, if it's in the Old Testament, but not in the New Testament, it's irrelevant?
Wow, now that's progress (the part implying that the Old Testament is irrelevant). You've come a long way Coggins. That's the smartest thing I've ever heard you say. (Not that there was a lot of competition.)
Unfortunately, many of your X-tian and Mormon friends are not as enlightened as you.
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."
Of course Coggins can't perceive the forest being blinded as he is by the trees.
Let me just ask this question for clarification. What is you ex ante decision rule for deciding which parts of the Old Testament you adhere to and which parts you reject?
That is, for example, what is the decision rule to accept the Old Testament's condemnation of homosexuality (to the extent it exists) but reject the Old Testament's advocacy of killing dissidents (as you point out in an earlier post the Old Testament advocates)?
Surely, you have some consistent, well-thought out rationale justifying how you pick and choose which scriptures you'll pay attention to and which you'll ignore. Right???
Homosexuals were stoned in Old Testament times under Mosaic law. Striking one's Father brought a similar penalty. That is not the case under the new covenant that fulfilled and ended those Mosaic principles. So I don't pick and choose. One obeys the Lord's commandments as they are given in different times and under different circumstances. If you are a Liberal, then you are a law unto yourself and none of this will make any sense.
I don't have to pay attention to really any of the Mosaic law because that was done away and fulfilled in Christ and I'm not required to live that law. Indeed, doing so, as Paul pointed out again and again, would obviate the New Testament law.
What definition of liberal are you using here? Political?
Anyone who doesn't march lock-step with conservative talk radio and punditry.
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."
So your best reply is a "duh, huhhuh, yur ghay", Asshole? Nice...
Biggoted piece of shot much?
It is the profundity of statements such as that where I am humbly reminded once more, that I stand (sit) in the presence of greatness and am left to ponder the realization that I am a mere pupil at your feet whose one and only purpose is to drink at the wellspring of knowledge that is your key board!
Not.
Jersey Girl
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
Coffee, are you a preview of coming attractions? I had a vision wherein I was shown all things. I can now reveal that Coffee is actually Pahoran, after he realized the church was not true and invented a time machine so he could come back here and give hell to the TBMs.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
Any mods around here tonight? I'd take this to Outer Darkness myself, but that's a judgment call.
No, I'll let the situation speak for itself.
Yep, that sounds about right, since you think that there is some audience following your every post. Once more: who are these "other folks" who are nodding their heads in agreement with you? You do not get a free pass on this one, Loran. I demand an answer.
I don';t give a flying f*** if this thread goes to Telestial or no...
Scooter, all you have againbst gays is your sad little religion. All you have is your sad little ideology.
The UK allowed Gays to openly serve in their military, and guess what...
Not only did they NOT have a rise in soap droppers, they had a rise in UNIT INTEGRITY.
Something a non-serving asshole like yuou will NEVER understand.
Guess what, Scooter, and the rest of you lowlife sacks of s*** that profess that homosexuality is "wrong" because the Bible says so...
The Bible says a lot of s***. I can justify raping my kids and f****** animals with the Bible. With Leviticus alone I can justify f****** YOUR duaghters. WQith the rest of the Old Testament I can justify everything from incest to Genocide.
If that is the guage of your "morality" then I say f*** your morality and f*** you.
Don't be afraid to tell us how you feel, Coffee. ;)
(Moderator Note) The thread stays in the Terestrial Forum for the time being. The language has been edited. Let's try to respect the guidelines of the forum.