About Belief, Religion and God

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
221

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
[…actually, the cop-out usually is, “that’s not the one true atheism!”[/quote]

You made a series of typos. Now, because we’re best pals, I took the liberty of fixing them for you.[/quote]

…lol, you are right, just like the 1100 or so recognized strains of Christianity that all think they are right and the other ones are not, there are many shades of “i do not believe God exists” out there…[/quote]

Yeah, but we don’t pretend at relativism. So, we know where we stand with each other.[/quote]

…no, you don’t pretend: you practise it. There’s a commandment that says: “Thou shalt not kill” but inspite of that commandment there are Christians [on this board] who support capital punishment. They support their government going to war, killing thousands of innocent women and children in the process. How is that not moral relativism?
[/quote]

Because, “Thou Shou shall not kill” was not meant to apply to every instance of one man taking another’s life. Jews and Christians understood what this language meant. To kill, is to unlawfully take life. It is absolute. There is lawful, and unlawful. This is actually rather obvious simply by reading the bible. One will understand that to “to kill” is specific. If I ‘kill’ an evil man in defense of myself or another, his death is his doing. If my nation is attacked, and we must destroy the capability of the enemy to attack us again, the lives of the innocent are on my enemies head. We are not obligated to accept extinction (though that would make things easier for ya =P) because our enemies have realized we are paralyzed with inaction.[/quote]

…but that is what relative means, isn’t it? There are rules, and there are exceptions to those rules = relativism. I don’t see the difference, tbh…

222

[quote]Sloth wrote:
A holy act? No more than ‘killing non-combatant adults.’ But, it may be the reality on the ground, in order to secure my nomadic people’s very survival in an ancient, patriarchal, and tribal world. The only holiness for the child is that it has not any sins in it’s own name.[/quote]

?

So it would be a holy act? Would killing non-combatant adults be a holy act? Also, since the child would not have accepted Jesus, it would be destined for hell, would it not? Especially if it were part of a group that was an enemy of God, right?

[quote]Sloth wrote:
It is not that morality was relative. It was simply the reality before the fullfillment through Christ.[/quote]

This was the morality of the Abrahamist faiths - it was not a ‘relative’ morality, since if you believe in the God of the bible, it would have been part of God’s absolute morality.

I’m not sure how you think you are escaping from this by appealing to Christ, who said that not one tittle of the law changed.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
The absolute morality I speak of was, again, progressibely revealed. In the meantime, the world was harsh and incomplete.[/quote]

So are you arguing that, in the past, it was moral to kill children, but it’s not now.

Also, how do you know that a future revelation would not counter-act this notion you have (presumably) that killing children is morally wrong? What good is a partial moral revelation?

223

Ok…a little turnabout. China has announced it will proceed to nuke your Country off the map. Why announce it? I don’t know. We’re just aiming for a principle here. Will you nuke back (or first, hoping to deliver a knock out punch), killing every woman and child within many, many, miles of these blasts? Or will you take your country down with you and go silently into oblivion?

224

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
[…actually, the cop-out usually is, “that’s not the one true atheism!”[/quote]

You made a series of typos. Now, because we’re best pals, I took the liberty of fixing them for you.[/quote]

…lol, you are right, just like the 1100 or so recognized strains of Christianity that all think they are right and the other ones are not, there are many shades of “i do not believe God exists” out there…[/quote]

Yeah, but we don’t pretend at relativism. So, we know where we stand with each other.[/quote]

…no, you don’t pretend: you practise it. There’s a commandment that says: “Thou shalt not kill” but inspite of that commandment there are Christians [on this board] who support capital punishment. They support their government going to war, killing thousands of innocent women and children in the process. How is that not moral relativism?
[/quote]

Because, “Thou Shou shall not kill” was not meant to apply to every instance of one man taking another’s life. Jews and Christians understood what this language meant. To kill, is to unlawfully take life. It is absolute. There is lawful, and unlawful. This is actually rather obvious simply by reading the bible. One will understand that to “to kill” is specific. If I ‘kill’ an evil man in defense of myself or another, his death is his doing. If my nation is attacked, and we must destroy the capability of the enemy to attack us again, the lives of the innocent are on my enemies head. We are not obligated to accept extinction (though that would make things easier for ya =P) because our enemies have realized we are paralyzed with inaction.[/quote]

…but that is what relative means, isn’t it? There are rules, and there are exceptions to those rules = relativism. I don’t see the difference, tbh…
[/quote]

Think, murder.

225

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Because, “Thou Shou shall not kill” was not meant to apply to every instance of one man taking another’s life. Jews and Christians understood what this language meant. To kill, is to unlawfully take life. It is absolute. There is lawful, and unlawful. This is actually rather obvious simply by reading the bible. One will understand that to “to kill” is specific. If I ‘kill’ an evil man in defense of myself or another, his death is his doing. If my nation is attacked, and we must destroy the capability of the enemy to attack us again, the lives of the innocent are on my enemies head. We are not obligated to accept extinction (though that would make things easier for ya =P) because our enemies have realized we are paralyzed with inaction.[/quote]

…but that is what relative means, isn’t it? There are rules, and there are exceptions to those rules = relativism. I don’t see the difference, tbh…
[/quote]

Think, murder.[/quote]

…i’m thinking collateral damage…

226

[quote]Vegita wrote:
A lot has gone on since I last posted but I wanted to respond to sloths idea that the guy in the video has no basis for his morals, or that his morals should only apply to his group or whatever. Based on the aforementioned survival theory, if something helps the group prosper then it is good/moral if something is detrimental to the group it is bad/evil.

So we could look at the jihad against the russians when they invaded afgahnistan as a moral and actually good use of violence by a muslim group. However, the current jihad against non-believers, particularly westerners, is not moral because it is not enhancing the survival of the group. It is religiously motivated and thier benefit is in an afterlife that cannot be proven or experienced.

Thier violence based on this premise is no different than someone who drowns thier 6 kids because the voices told them to. This is why the atheist has a moral highground over religion. He bases his morals on tangible measurable events, whereas a religious person CAN measure thier morals on tangible things, but they can also measure their morals on an invisible, untouchable, unkowable set of events that may or may not happen after the body dies.
[/quote]

The atheist cannot measure morality on tangible measurable events, nobody can. It fair enough to say if some one walks into a store a kills everyone inside, that this person committed an act of evil. But why is it evil? What about the act makes it an act of evil? There is no empirical basis for discerning this. What are the empirical measurements? If we had a moral measuring stick these questions would be far easier to answer.

Both the theist and atheist label good and evil based on what we do not inherently know. We know something is good or evil, but what makes acts so?

That’s moral relativism. Which is more or less based on what a person or group feels about an action…
Let’s take for example child rape. Now most people would say that raping a child is an evil act, whether or not it is acceptable by a society. In the end it does not matter whether or not what someone feels about it, its purely an evil act. In fact in Saudi Arabia and other ass-backward places such actions are acceptable, but no less evil.
Is there any circumstance you can think of where raping a child would be not be evil, or even possibly good?

There are societal-relative actions that could be considered bad, like flipping someone off. But cultural norms do not define goodness or evilness.

[quote]
The problem is that christians want to say the muslim “religion” or set of beliefs on the afterlife is wrong. The Muslims want to say the christian “religion” or set of beliefs on the afterlife is wrong, but in doing so they have to deep down somewhere know that thier religion is set upon just as much make believe stuff as the others. This conundrum is WHY organized religions are more dangerous and harmful to the human race than any other group. In order to accept your own religion 100% and reject another religion 100% you actually have to abandon logic. When you abandon logic in one area, I feel like it sets people up for irrational behavior, or at least the potential for irrational behavior down the road.

If you could experience my family, you would be able to see clearly that I am the single most stable person in all of my extended family. The most religious people in my family are the least emotionally stable. They have the most problems and they cannot deal with them on thier own. Some have come to me for help, wary, knowing I’m not a believer in thier religion. Some I have helped, others have rejected my logic and have went back to thier religious teachings to help them through thier problems. Sometimes thier situations improve and sometimes they don’t. But the common theme is that once I can get someone using logic to solve thier day to day problems, even if they still hold onto the idea of jesus and his sacrifice and striving to be like him. That can work great, but they still need to apply logic on the day to day stuff, the bible cannot help you there and may actually hurt you if you follow it’s teachings in certain situations. Especially interpersonal and family relations.

V[/quote]

Some Christians would say this, and many muslims want to kill others who are not muslims…If we jump around to much we will get lost though. This shit is heavy duty enough with out introducing the nuances of each religion’s belief system.

227

[quote]Meatros wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
A holy act? No more than ‘killing non-combatant adults.’ But, it may be the reality on the ground, in order to secure my nomadic people’s very survival in an ancient, patriarchal, and tribal world. The only holiness for the child is that it has not any sins in it’s own name.

Meatros:
?

So it would be a holy act? Would killing non-combatant adults be a holy act? Also, since the child would not have accepted Jesus, it would be destined for hell, would it not? Especially if it were part of a group that was an enemy of God, right?[/quote]

I said no…

And your answer to the child’s fate…no. Jesus hasn’t even been on the stage yet. And it doesn’t matter if the child is of the enemy group. It probably doesn’t even have the capacity to know of God’s will. Much less, have the physical means to trangress. Sorry, but I’m juggling, what, three different inquisitors here? I can’t begin to explain how ignorance, or mental awareness, plays a part in sinfullness, or sinlessness.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
It is not that morality was relative. It was simply the reality before the fullfillment through Christ.[/quote]

This was the morality of the Abrahamist faiths - it was not a ‘relative’ morality, since if you believe in the God of the bible, it would have been part of God’s absolute morality.

I’m not sure how you think you are escaping from this by appealing to Christ, who said that not one tittle of the law changed.[/quote]

If you don’t want to use christian theology, then don’t argue against Christians. The law is fullfilled with Christ…New Covenant…Yadda, Yadda…You want to understand in more detail? Read Christian theologians. It’s becoming very difficult to answer in full, while juggling a couple of you guys, and trying to respond to every new point.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
The absolute morality I speak of was, again, progressibely revealed. In the meantime, the world was harsh and incomplete.[/quote]

So are you arguing that, in the past, it was moral to kill children, but it’s not now.

Also, how do you know that a future revelation would not counter-act this notion you have (presumably) that killing children is morally wrong? What good is a partial moral revelation?
[/quote]

Because of revelation about the future. The next ‘revelation’ is it. Beam me up Scotty type stuff. ‘This vehicle empty, in case of rapture’ deal.

228

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Ok…a little turnabout. China has announced it will proceed to nuke your Country off the map. Why announce it? I don’t know. We’re just aiming for a principle here. Will you nuke back (or first, hoping to deliver a knock out punch), killing every woman and child within many, many, miles of these blasts? Or will you take your country down with you and go silently into oblivion?[/quote]

Are you going to answer my questions?

Personally, if those are my only options, it wouldn’t matter, as the amount of nuclear bombs necessary for destroying my country would effectively kill off the planet.

Let’s suppose that, for some reason, the world would not be destroyed. Would I launch a counter-strike? No. I wouldn’t, there would be no point other then the death of innocents (as well as a few people who are responsible), their deaths would not justify countless billions as a revenge act. I might consider a first strike though, in the hopes of destroying their arsenal.

Questions I’m looking for you to answer:

  1. Have you heard of the Joshua Challenge, if yes, what is your response?
  2. Is it moral to kill a child or a non combatant because god told you to?
  3. How do you know that a future revelation would not counteract what you currently believe to be moral?
  4. What good is a partial revelation, in terms of what is moral?
229

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
[…actually, the cop-out usually is, “that’s not the one true atheism!”[/quote]

You made a series of typos. Now, because we’re best pals, I took the liberty of fixing them for you.[/quote]

…lol, you are right, just like the 1100 or so recognized strains of Christianity that all think they are right and the other ones are not, there are many shades of “i do not believe God exists” out there…[/quote]

Yeah, but we don’t pretend at relativism. So, we know where we stand with each other.[/quote]

…no, you don’t pretend: you practise it. There’s a commandment that says: “Thou shalt not kill” but inspite of that commandment there are Christians [on this board] who support capital punishment. They support their government going to war, killing thousands of innocent women and children in the process. How is that not moral relativism?
[/quote]

Because, “Thou Shou shall not kill” was not meant to apply to every instance of one man taking another’s life. Jews and Christians understood what this language meant. To kill, is to unlawfully take life. It is absolute. There is lawful, and unlawful. This is actually rather obvious simply by reading the bible. One will understand that to “to kill” is specific. If I ‘kill’ an evil man in defense of myself or another, his death is his doing. If my nation is attacked, and we must destroy the capability of the enemy to attack us again, the lives of the innocent are on my enemies head. We are not obligated to accept extinction (though that would make things easier for ya =P) because our enemies have realized we are paralyzed with inaction.[/quote]

…but that is what relative means, isn’t it? There are rules, and there are exceptions to those rules = relativism. I don’t see the difference, tbh…
[/quote]

Think, murder.[/quote]

Why didn’t your god just say, thou shalt not murder? Why does your god make his rules into riddles that need explaining? Why should I believe that some all powerful being made a code to live by, but I need some human to interprit it and sell it to me? Either I can read it and follow it word for word, or it’s just not holding up to the whole “created by god” aspect of the rulebook. Either it’s created by god and if it says thou shalt not kill, it fucking means what god said, word for word, you don’t kill, I don’t care what the circumstances are. Or it’s just a book and you are trying to sell it to me as the word of god, but you have to create this intricate scheme in order to get me to believe it. Otherwise god would have said, thou shalt not kill execpt in defense of yourself, your familly, your friends, your neighbors, your nation, and your planet if it’s attacked by aliens. Is god stupid or are you, because one of you is.

V

230

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Because, “Thou Shou shall not kill” was not meant to apply to every instance of one man taking another’s life. Jews and Christians understood what this language meant. To kill, is to unlawfully take life. It is absolute. There is lawful, and unlawful. This is actually rather obvious simply by reading the bible. One will understand that to “to kill” is specific. If I ‘kill’ an evil man in defense of myself or another, his death is his doing. If my nation is attacked, and we must destroy the capability of the enemy to attack us again, the lives of the innocent are on my enemies head. We are not obligated to accept extinction (though that would make things easier for ya =P) because our enemies have realized we are paralyzed with inaction.[/quote]

…but that is what relative means, isn’t it? There are rules, and there are exceptions to those rules = relativism. I don’t see the difference, tbh…
[/quote]

Think, murder.[/quote]

…i’m thinking collateral damage…[/quote]

Well, let me ask you. Are you a murderer if innocent women and children die as you fight Hitler’s regime? Or, is the wrong done to them, Hitler’s doing?

231

[quote]Sloth wrote:
If you don’t want to use christian theology, then don’t argue against Christians. [/quote]

I’m asking for a rational justification, not a reiteration of irrationality.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
The law is fullfilled with Christ…New Covenant…Yadda, Yadda…You want to understand in more detail? Read Christian theologians. It’s becoming very difficult to answer in full, while juggling a couple of you guys, and trying to respond to every new point. [/quote]

I have read Christian theologians. Their explanations are largely nonsense.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Because of revelation about the future. The next ‘revelation’ is it. Beam me up Scotty type stuff. ‘This vehicle empty, in case of rapture’ deal.[/quote]

Then you have no basis on which to rest morality, since by definition, you could never know what absolute morality is.

232

[quote]Meatros wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
We have to agree on definitions of time. Time does not exist as it’s own precept. Time is a measurement and measures movement and change.[/quote]

I doubt we will agree on the nature of time - no offense. We might, but I have found that not a lot of people hold to the B-Theory of time. More people just accept the A-Theory, even though I do not think it jives with the theory of relativity.

In short, I do not think that time exists. I do not think that it is a measurement, change, etc. I think it is useful to talk of such things in such terms, but ultimately when we get down to the ontology of the matter, I think that the past, present, and future all exist. The A Theory, which I’m assuming you hold to (just because most people do, if you don’t, my apologies) is the view that the past existed, the present is the only thing that exists, and the future will exist. Talking about time is very complicated and I’m not an expert, so if anything is confusing please point it out because I’m sure that it has to do with my explaining of the concepts as opposed to the concepts themselves.

Anyway, the B Theory states that all events are present (basically) and that time is simply another dimension. I don’t know how to post a picture, but if you take a look at this link, I think the picture is clearer then I am being: http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/file.php?2,file=5219,filename=Time_5.png

[quote]pat wrote:
For instance, a day is measured by the movement of a point on the earth relative to the axis of the earth. A month/ year is the distance the earth has moved relative to it’s orbit around the sun.[/quote]

Fair enough.

[quote]pat wrote:
Quantum anything requires understanding of space-time. [/quote]

That’s true, but I’m not sure how that relates to what I was putting forth. It seems to me that if we accept the A series and we suppose that something can come from nothing, then the only way that this can make sense is if it were uncaused. To cause something is to act upon space/time/material/energy. One cannot cause ‘nothing’ to do something, since there is nothing upon which to act. This is one of the reasons I think that the Kalam cosmological argument (as well as other cosmological arguments) do not work. The other, more important reason is because all cosmological arguments posit the A theory of time - which I do not think actually makes sense. I would say this latter reason takes precedence over the former.

[quote]pat wrote:
I don’t think we are in danger of committing the fallacy of composition, but point it out if it does occur. [/quote]

I do, but I think we are more endanger of getting the issue muddled, primarily because I am jumping back and forth between assuming the A theory and the B theory of time. I think you are intelligent and can keep up, however I am not so sure that I am able to communicate these issues properly (in otherwords, if there is a jumble, it’s most likely because I’m not articulating things properly).

Incidentally, my main problem with morality arguments is that while I think cultural relativism makes sense, I’m not entirely convinced that morality is coherent. I find a lot of sympathy with the non cognitive view of morality (which is different and not dependent on the non cognitive argument against god’s existence). [/quote]

It’s actually quite linear and very squeaky clean. If you do mention time let me know how you mean so I understand what you are saying. As for me, when I mention time, I am speaking strictly in terms of measuring movement/ change.

233

[quote]Meatros wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Ok…a little turnabout. China has announced it will proceed to nuke your Country off the map. Why announce it? I don’t know. We’re just aiming for a principle here. Will you nuke back (or first, hoping to deliver a knock out punch), killing every woman and child within many, many, miles of these blasts? Or will you take your country down with you and go silently into oblivion?[/quote]

Are you going to answer my questions?

[/quote]

Uh, in case you haven’t noticed, I’ve largely juggled three of you guys. I’ve been providing answers to rather general questions. And, even specific one’s, such as lying, the fate of children, etc., etc. If you want every point addressed in a timely manner, then please feel free to take a number, place one question per turn, and wait for my response before the next person places their question. Otherwise, you’ll have to be satisfied with the nature of forums and the restraints of one man’s time.

And despite all this, I believe I’ve answered far more questions than what have been answered of mine. Let’s not get demanding.

234

[quote]Meatros wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
If you don’t want to use christian theology, then don’t argue against Christians.

I’m asking for a rational justification, not a reiteration of irrationality.
[/quote]

No, you attempted to make a theological argument by careful selection of Christ’s words. I’m beginning to lose my patience…

235

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…conscience…[/quote]

You can do better…You brought this all up after all.[/quote]

…you asked for the basis of my morality. The only basis for my morality is my conscience, which may be tempered by the consequences the law of my country attaches to certain actions, but that’s it really. I have no need for another source of morality…[/quote]

What is your conscience? I am seeking definitions not sources. Definitions will reveal the sources, so I am not worried about where you get it.
You think you get it from your conscience what drives the morality of your conscience? Collective experience, duty, feeling, sex?

236

[quote]pat wrote:
It’s actually quite linear and very squeaky clean. If you do mention time let me know how you mean so I understand what you are saying. As for me, when I mention time, I am speaking strictly in terms of measuring movement/ change.[/quote]

Fair enough - am I correct in my understanding that you favor a version of the A-Theory?

In the interest of being thorough:
(John McTaggart - Wikipedia)

More info:

[quote]According to McTaggart, there are two distinct modes in which all events can be ordered in time. In the first mode, events are ordered by way of the non-relational singular predicates “is past”, “is present” and “is future.” When we speak of time in this way, we are speaking in terms of a series of positions which run from the remote past through the recent past to the present, and from the present through the near future all the way to the remote future. The essential characteristic of this descriptive modality is that one must think of the series of temporal positions as being in continual transformation, in the sense that an event is first part of the future, then part of the present, and then past. Moreover, the assertions made according to this modality imply the temporal perspective of the person who utters them. This is the A-series of temporal events.

From a second point of view, one can order events according to a different series of temporal positions by way of two-term relations which are asymmetric, irreflexive and transitive: “comes before” (or precedes) and “comes after” (or follows). This is the B-series, and the philosophy which says all truths about time can be reduced to B-series statements is the B-Theory of time.

The logic and the linguistic expression of the two series are radically different. The first is tensed and the second is tenseless. For example, the assertion “today it is raining” is a tensional assertion because it depends on the temporal perspective – the present – of the person who utters it, while the assertion “It rains on the 15th of June, 1996” is non-tensional because it does not so depend. From the point of view of their truth-values, the two propositions are identical (both true or both false) if the first assertion is made on June 15th, 1996. The non-temporal relation of precedence between two events, say “E precedes F”, does not change over time (excluding from this discussion the issue of the relativity of temporal order of causally disconnected events in the theory of relativity). On the other hand, the character of being “past, present or future” of the events “E” or “F” does change with time. In the image of McTaggart: "the passage of time consists in the fact that terms ever further in the future pass into the present…or that the present advances toward terms ever farther in the future. If we assume the first point of view, we speak as if the B-series slides along a fixed A-series. If we assume the second point of view, we speak as if the A-series slides along a fixed B-series.[/quote]

237

[quote]Meatros wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Damn, much to do and not a lot of time to do it…I kinda didn’t want to jump in to the frey because of long and involved this stuff gets, but hey it’s Christmas, the timing sucked me in. I’ll try to get to this later.[/quote]

Yeah, I hear you - plus we are all arguing about three things, each are HUGE topics… So that doesn’t help.

  1. Does God exist
  2. Morals
  3. The nature of time (which gets back to one, theoretically)

It’s been 3,000 years and people haven’t come up with anything definitive…So this thread is probably going to get rather long… ;-)[/quote]
It ususally does…I’ll get back to it, I am out of time…Crap.

238

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Uh, in case you haven’t noticed, I’ve largely juggled three of you guys.[/quote]

I have noticed and I appreciate it. I can understand how it would be difficult to juggle as such.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’ve been providing answers to rather general questions. And, even specific one’s, such as lying, the fate of children, etc., etc. If you want every point addressed in a timely manner, then please feel free to take a number,[/quote]

5, :wink:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
place one question per turn, and wait for my response before the next person places their question. Otherwise, you’ll have to satisfied with the nature of forums.

And despite all this, I believe I’ve answered far more questions than what have been answered of mine. Let’s not get demanding.[/quote]

I would say that we’ve asked more questions then you have, so yes, you have answered more. I’m primarily curious about whether you’ve heard about the Joshua Challenge or not. It’s a philosophical/moral dilemma meant to expose certain things about the Christian religion (or the Abrahamist religions). If you say no, then I am prepared to put it forth. If you say yes, then I am interested in your solution to it.

239

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Meatros wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
If you don’t want to use christian theology, then don’t argue against Christians.

I’m asking for a rational justification, not a reiteration of irrationality.
[/quote]

No, you attempted to make a theological argument by careful selection of Christ’s words. I’m beginning to lose my patience…
[/quote]

I could make the same claim to you, in regards to the fulfillment of the law. The fact is, the law was the law, whether or not it is able to be stepped over now. This is a problem with trying to say that the law is absolute.

240

[quote]pat wrote:
It ususally does…I’ll get back to it, I am out of time…Crap.
[/quote]

I would argue that you never had it to begin with… ;-p