Any guys out there?

Forums Fiction General Writing Discussions Any guys out there?

Viewing 15 posts - 271 through 285 (of 1,075 total)
  • Author
  • #54982
    The Fledgling Artist

    @skye I don’t really agree with some of the thoughts you shared, but I appreciate that you shared them nonetheless. ūüôā I think it’s so wonderful how, no matter our differences, we can all stand united in Jesus Christ and his sacrifice for us.
    Thank you for your time skye. <3

    "Though I'm not yet who I will be, I'm no longer who I was."

    I, David

    *Peeks head in through window* Hello. I am boy.




    @everyone: *opens the door and a mass of words come tumbling down on him*

    man I go away for two days and this thread explodes! XD Ok, first, I’m sorry I haven’t responded lately. I have school and that gives me limated time to even get on a computer and recently that limited time was spent emailing a classmate of mine about, well, other theological stuff XD (this isnt all I do in life guys, I promise). So ya, I just read all your guy’s coments¬†for the first time just now so I’ll try and reply to everyone when I get time. Unfortunately, that time may not be really soon as tonight I have youth group until like 9:00 and all day tomorrow¬†I have chess nationals (if anyone wants to pitch a prayer my way for that that would be awesome! Not that I would win necessarily¬†but just that I would do my best and not get so nervous I die. XD) however, I should have some free time Sunday (well, NZ Sunday) and¬†hopefuly¬†(keyword hopefully) will respond to you all then. That being said I am slightly daunted by the meny¬†good arguments that lay before me… *slowly looks up at the giant¬†mountain¬†ahead* But I’ll do my best to defend what I believe!

    : “Either way I don‚Äôt think it‚Äôs the best use of our time, honestly. This is a writing forum, not a philosophy one ‚Äď so in my personal opinion, I don‚Äôt think we should be trying to convert each other on nonessential doctrine.”

    just so you know, I, personly, dont think this is a waste of time. For me its very helpful to debate my beliefs¬†(that way I better know what I believe, why I believe it, and why I’m wrong (if I am wrong XD)) but, obviously, thats¬†just me… I mean, ya, it is a writing¬†forum… but it is a¬†christian¬†writing form so I feel like talking about our beliefs¬†considering our faith should be fine. Its not like were discussing politics or something XD. However if theirs a majority consensus¬†for me to stop I will. It will make me sad, but I’ll do it if you guys think its unhelpful and disruptive.

    : hi! alright are you ready for 3Q (I would do 20Q but that takes too long XD) 1.what level writer are you? 2. how old are you 3.¬†whats your favorite artist and why? (I mean like music artist… just to clarify¬†XD)

    INTJ- trying to grow into real wisdom; James 3:17


    @nuetrobolt: actually, I’m not homeschooled belive it or not though I have gone to privet Christian schools most of my life (and no, I’m not rich its my parents think Christian¬†schooling is important and they’re uh… underqualified to be homeschoolers XD) I did do homeschooling fo one year of my life (grade ten actually) but it was meh… I would rather have a teacher then a book (most times) you know whats sad, your three years younger then me and I’m only one grade above you DX. Becase¬†NZ seasons are ofset¬†from Americas¬†I had to fall back a year when I moved here so I’m still only a Junior¬†(although I’m like one month away from finishing my junior¬†year) whats it like being only 14 but still being a sophomore? are you the “build the set and keep in on my shelf forever” kind of lego guy or the “jsut¬†dump all the lego in a pile and build crazy stuff kinda guy?” also do you want to see some my latest (and greatest) lego achievements?

    This is an NXT. It can drive around, shoot, sense stuff (with the ulrasonic sensor in its eyes) and those two sword things light up and spin when I run the power function in his arm. His only major flaw is I accidentally covered the port for the data cable so I uh, have to take his whole arm off just to re-program him XD it took me three trys to get him looking this good.

    this is my lego tecnic¬†puzzle box! (I could only bring technical over cuz I didnt have enough space in the suit case). This is virtually impossible to take apart¬†without solving the puzzle. Seriously, I’ve had people pull really hard and, without breaking the lego or using like a pocket knife or something no one¬†has opened it (except for this one time where two kids worked on it together and used the axel as a lever… they actually did get it apart without solving the puzzle but, if I had the right pieces¬†and didn’t have to just work with what I brought over, the method they used wouldn’t work.) so ya, that the kind of stuff I build now days but not becase I dont like normal lego but just cuz I dont have access to it. Cair to show me some of your builds?

    INTJ- trying to grow into real wisdom; James 3:17

    I, David


    Oh no, I’m being interrogated! Don’t tell them about the broken watermelons…

    Answer 1: I got intermediate, but I don’t believe that for a second. XD

    Answer 2: I am 2 x 4 – 10 x 7 + 3 + 19 x 2 years old. A very common age, I think.

    Answer 3: I’ll give you a hint. It involves Pilots and the number Twenty One.


    I, David

    Also, can I just say, I love the dynamic discussion(s) going on here. It’s a great thing for us to be talking about and constantly trying to understand God’s Word.



    @the-fledgling-artist:¬†“I feel that I‚Äôm being a little confusing…” not at all! I think you’ve made your points quite clear so good job! “But a sinful attitude will almost always lead to sinful action.” I think ya, that, I agree (as long as almost alwase¬†are the¬†key words). I do think there are times where people can do an action we would consider¬†good (like ananias and sapphira¬†when they gave money to the church) yet it will still be a sin based on the attitude behind it. thus to say “You don‚Äôt really get one without the other.” would be taking it too far in my opinion.

    “Yeah, I think since Jesus took the punishment for our (all of humanity‚Äôs) sin, there is no longer a need for us to punish or inflict any form of violence on anyone.” This is interesting. I heard this theory for the first time about a year ago and initially got really excited because it made sense of those “jesus¬†is the savior of all men” verses but I had a problem with it… hum what was it… (give me a sec) *jeopardy music plays in the background*¬† oh ya! there are multiple verses where its clear people are sent to hell¬†becase of their sin.¬†(this verse is alright. maybe not the best verse to prove my point : D)

    2 Peter 2:4-6″For if God did not spare angels when they sinned,¬†but sent them to hell,[a]¬†putting them in chains of darkness¬†to be held for judgment;¬†5¬†if he did not spare the ancient world¬†when he brought the flood on its ungodly people,¬†but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others;¬†6¬†if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes,¬†and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly”

    so if Jesus took the punishment for everyones sins it doesn’t make sense they would still be punished for it. Do you see what I mean? Honestly I haven’t¬†considered this¬†too¬†deeply so if i’m¬†missing something please tell me (I would really like for this to be true! : D)

    however, we must not get too of topic least we leave “is sin an attitude” unresolved! So the next bit of my response is kinda to you but kinda to wordsmith as well (you know, cuz he wrote it)

    : “A sin is anything that falls short. That is the definition of the word sin.” yep, to miss the goal. however your saying that¬†goal¬†is “the glory of God” which I would disagree with. Humans, even before the fall, never had and never could obtain Gods glory. Thus I dont think sin can be “to fall short of Gods glory” but rather “to fall short of perfection (or maybe righteousness.)” eather¬†way I think we need to clarify¬†what¬†were falling short of.

    “And when we break those standards we sin whether we intend to or not.” Now this is a very valid, and very annoying point but I think I found an answer.¬† Ignorant sin is mentioned and condemned in the bible but I would argue only under two conditions:

    1. the ignorant sin is in in violation of the mosaic law (a ‘temporary’ (well I mean, as you can see with my discussion with Noah this is debatable but I think you already agree with me here) law actually about the actions put in place for Israel specifically and including things like ceremonial washings and tassles XD.)

    2. the action has a sinful attitude behind it and thus the attitude is whats really being condemned when the so called ‘action’ is being committed. let me talk a little bit about this point. Every moral law i can think of is an action¬†with an additute. the pure action is self is never condemned, only the sinful attitude behind the action. Some examples of this are quite clear (murder: pure action, killing. action with sinful attitude, murder. or take adultry: pure action, sex. action with sinful attitude, adultery) while others are less clear (like stealing. we dont really have another word for the action of taking something that belongs to some else with good intent. even with Robin hood we still call it stealing (please note I’m not saying robin hood was necessarily in the right but let’s assume he is XD) thus, for some things, its more difficult to tell. ) so ya I guess, to rephrase it, we can find a¬†moral¬†behind every¬†moral¬†law.

    to say certain actions are wrong, regardless of their intent, doesn’t fit with the character of God.¬† God isnt a God who says “I’m going to punsh you for eating the apple (or whatever fruit it was but lets just be stereotypical¬†: D) because all apples are bad becase I say they are.” no! He says “I’m going to punish you for eating the apple because, by doing so, you showed me the attitude of disobedience and pride within your heart.” hes not concerned with our actions, Hes conserned with our heart and just to prove my point here is a bible verse you probably know. Psalm 51: 16-17¬†“You do not delight in sacrifice,¬†or I would bring it;¬†you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings. My sacrifice,¬†O God, is a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart you, God, will not despise.” Now as to why he based the Mosaic law on said actions, I have no clue. Maybe just to show us, through Israels example, that, because of our sinful attitude of disobedience, we all, at some point commit forbidden actions.

    : ya, I agree! looks like were on the same page : D “Wrong things are still wrong, no matter what the intent is.” eeeeeeecept for that. O well, were almost on the same page XD. Check out my ignorant sin argument and tell me what you think!

    “I‚Äôm just saying that the reason we should do right things shouldn‚Äôt be because we want to win points, but because we just have such a great desire to please God that we‚Äôll do all we can to behave in a certain manner so that He is pleased.¬† Which is, I think, a part of what you are saying, is it not?” yep, absolutely! although I do belive said ‘right things’ do ‘win points’ we cant do them because of that. If we miss the right attitude we dont do the ‘right things’ XD

    : No, Noah, dont join the dark side!

    @everyonewatching Hey is there any spectators out there that don’t agree with this whole “sin is an attitude and an action” argument cuz its 4 against 1 right now and that lowers my confidence… just slightly XD.

    ok Noah, as for your points

    1. “At the same time, trying to dismiss something in scripture with another part of scripture is dangerous” I dont¬†really agree because I think a clearer and more frequent position in the Bible should and does override confusing and infrequent verses. Not to say we ignore them but, speaking from experience, such verses often need a little logic to fill the gap and thus can, and often are, distorted (even is the logic is valid) for exaple a very clear and fairly repeated type of verse is like the one in Psalm 107: 1 “Give thanks to the¬†Lord,¬†for he is good; his love endures forever.”¬† it clearly says God is good and we find this message repeated throughout scripture. However if we where to take Psalm 88: 15-18 (DISCLAIMER: DEPRESSING PSALM UP AHEAD!) “From my youth¬†I have suffered¬†and been close to death; I have borne your terrors¬†and am in despair. Your wrath¬†has swept over me; your terrors¬†have destroyed me. All day long they surround me like a flood; they have completely engulfed me. You have taken from me friend¬†and neighbor‚ÄĒdarkness is my closest friend.” and say “God isnt good!” because, lets be honest, he doesnt¬†sound¬†very good in these verses, would be wrong. We need to accept the clear and untainted message scripture gives even if we find other verses that¬†seem¬†to be in contradiction (gosh wordsmith, I just admitted the bible doesn’t contradict itself! Its much easier being the one asking the questions XD)

    2. “I think it‚Äôs reasonable to assume that he obeyed Torah to the best of his ability to his dying breath” Actually, I would also disagree with you here. The verse you gave to supprot this possion actually contridicts it if you read further (at least in my opinion : D) Phillippians 3:4-8″though I myself have reasons for such confidence. If someone else thinks they have reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised¬†on the eighth day, of the people of Israel,¬†of the tribe of Benjamin,¬†a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church;¬†as for righteousness based on the law,¬†faultless. But whatever were gains to me I now consider loss¬†for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss because of the surpassing worth of knowingChrist Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them garbage, that I may gain Christ” also, remember, how Paul broke the law after that weird ‘four corners of a sheet from heaven’ vission? Acts 10: 28-19 “He said to them: ‚ÄúYou are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile.¬†But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean.¬†29¬†So when I was sent for, I came without raising any objection. May I ask why you sent for me?‚ÄĚ”¬†so ya, I disagree.

    “I doubt that he would say that we no longer need to obey the Mosaic law.” not so dubious when Paul himself didn’t obey the mosaic law right? : D

    “Besides this, all of our definitions of Moral Law originally came from the Mosaic Law. You can‚Äôt take one, and leave the other.” I thought the same thing but then Wordsmith argued me out of it! Let me see if I can find that post… alright you ready for this! (also, i didnt re-read this so I’m not sure I agree with everything I jsut rember it being a good arument.)

    I will start out by sending you Romans six and seven… because you took both of those Romans passages out of context. Romans eight still applies here, but it’s not crucial to my point. This chunk of Romans says two things that I believe are very important here (though I’m sure it says more than that). A. There is still a law we are to follow, B. We cannot follow it perfectly which would result in our death but Christ took that off of us so we can strive for it without worrying about it crushing us.

    The first part of this scripture asks if we should sin that grace may abound. And the answer is no. And then it goes on to talk about how He freed us from the judgement of the law. This is speaking of justification. The law will not justify us, we cannot work for our salvation, we would be seen as crap when standing next to the law. But Christ died, and covered us in his sin (as we have faith in him because he called us), that we might live under grace. We are still expected to follow the law, because we are not to sin that grace may abound. But we don’t have the judgment of the law hovering over us as we try to fulfill it for justification. We can’t. Christ did.

    “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? 3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

    5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 We know that our old self[a] was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. 7 For one who has died has been set free from sin. 8 Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. 10 For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. 11 So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.

    12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions. 13 Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness. 14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.

    Slaves to Righteousness
    15 What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! 16 Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves,[c] you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, 18 and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. 19 I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification.

    20 For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. 21 But what fruit were you getting at that time from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. 22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life. 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

    Released from the Law
    7¬†Or do you not know, brothers[d]‚ÄĒfor I am speaking to those who know the law‚ÄĒthat the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives?2¬†For¬†a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage.[e]3¬†Accordingly,¬†she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.

    4 Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. 5 For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. 6 But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.[f]

    The Law and Sin
    7¬†What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law,¬†I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if¬†the law had not said, ‚ÄúYou shall not covet.‚ÄĚ8¬†But sin,¬†seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness.¬†For apart from the law, sin lies dead.¬†9¬†I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died.¬†10¬†The very commandment¬†that promised life proved to be death to me.¬†11¬†For sin,¬†seizing an opportunity through the commandment,¬†deceived me and through it killed me.¬†12¬†So¬†the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.

    13 Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure. 14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin. 15 For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. 16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. 17 So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.

    21¬†So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand.¬†22¬†For¬†I delight in the law of God,¬†in my inner being,¬†23¬†but I see in my members¬†another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members.24¬†Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from¬†this body of death?25¬†Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.‚ÄĚ

    And as for the Galatians passage I say the same thing. It has the same context as that of the Romans one and I think you should read the chapters surrounding.

    Now… we do know that some of the old law did pass away… but that was the law which was fulfilled in Christ’s death and resurrection. Nothing happened that contradicted the OT, only fulfilling part of it. The Mosaic covenant can be also referred to as The Mosaic Administration of The One Covenant of Grace. All throughout scripture, since the beginning of the fall, there has been a covenant of grace. That covenant never changed. But it did have different administrations. And those administrations were fulfilled in Christ coming, dying and rising.

    Now… in all of the covenants God made with man, before Christ came, we see types and shadows. These were the ceremonial laws, the cleanliness laws (which were ceremonial), and the laws the applied the Israel as a Theocracy (which in and of itself is a type and shadow). All of these things were administrations of the covenant of grace. They were not the final, but pointing to.

    The moral law is not a part of the covenant of grace, thus we cannot say that they were erased in the fulfilling of the other types and shadows, particularly the Mosaic administration that lasted until Christ’s fulfilling.

    Morality was formed in the garden when God gave a standard. It dates back before the covenant of grace. It was formed in the covenant of works. Man (in Adam) failed to uphold the covenant of works, and was thus put into a covenant of grace.

    Yes… man is still expected to do good things, and uphold the law. But he is no longer bound to it by justification, and never was. It never disappeared… but Christ fulfilled its judgement for those who put their faith in him, thus fulfilling also the types and shadows which pointed to him fulfilling that part of the law.

    Thus I conclude here that Jesus never changed morality. We are still to follow the law, but are not bound to it for justification which would result in our going to hell.


    Now! I say that NT doesn’t trump OT, and that’s because it doesn’t need to. The OT turns into the NT without a fight and without contradiction. If we find a contradiction we can know that it is not. Jesus will not contradict anything he said in the OT (remembering that all the epistles are Jesus words). The OT is fulfilled by what it prophesied. The law was never told would go away. But it no longer enslaves us. We are free to follow it, under the mercy of Christ.

    So we live in a different context… but it’s one that frees us from the slavery of the law, which would condemn us to Hell.

    Also… If you get to say that the sword thing doesn’t apply to us because it’s in the OT I get to say that about Jesus sermon on the mount. It’s in the OT.   Yeah… that doesn’t work.

    And yes‚Ķ he does call us to be like him‚Ķ but we are not here for the same purpose. In fact I found a self defense passage where Jesus seems to be promoting self defense:¬†‚ÄúBut no one can enter a strong man‚Äôs house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man. Then indeed he may plunder his house.‚ÄĚ Mark 3:27

    Now this passage is a bit obscure because of its context. And you might say that its context makes it not mean this. But he is using justified self defense to show a truth. If you’re gonna try to plunder a man’s house, you’re gonna have to tied him up (this implies that he’s not gonna let you, nor does he have to. And plundering is so serious, because you rely in it. May I add that if you die, your family who relies on you won’t have the strong man to protect their house. We have a certain duty to our family and loved ones, especially those that rely on us for support. Now… these words that Jesus said line up perfectly with so much of the prior OT examples.

    We see over and over again that a man is justified in fighting for himself and for others. When the men go to get water for David, they do so knowing they will fight. They don’t wait until they are attacked, they attack and fight to the water. At the point they are on their way there, they are fighting to keep themselves alive… but also fighting because if they die they are leaving their king vulnerable. And so I think we are permitted to fight so as not to leave our family vulnerable.

    When you mention turning the other cheek, that would be in contradiction to much of scripture, unless we read it as not having revenge, which really makes more sense, in both the language and consistency.

    In Philippians:¬†‚ÄúDo nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit.¬†Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others. In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus‚ÄĚ (Philippians 2: 3-5)¬†That is not only referring to our relationships with one another (brothers and sisters), but it‚Äôs also referring to selfish ambitions or vain conceit. Self defense is neither of those, and if a person is attacking us we can assume by their fruit, that they are not a brother or sister. You may argue that this never says brother or sister, but it specifically tells us¬†‚ÄúIn your relationships with one another‚Ķ‚Ä̬†and the letter is sent to believers (it says to saints at the beginning of the book). We are to treat fellow saints differently than unsaved. And if a fellow saint is trying to kill us, our family, or plunder our house, we can assume that they are not a fellow saint, by their works. That doesn‚Äôt mean that we have to kill them, but if it does come to that, I don‚Äôt think it‚Äôs prohibited.

    And again in Ephesians¬†‚ÄúTherefore be imitators of God, as beloved children; and¬†walk in love, just as Christ also¬†loved you and¬†gave Himself up for us, an¬†offering and a sacrifice to God as a¬†fragrant aroma.‚Ä̬†This is in the context of how we act in accordance with fellow saints, not acting as the gentiles, in the futility of their minds. Besides, the sins he lists off are sins that were prohibited from the beginning. And remember that earlier on in Ephesians is says:¬†‚ÄúBe angry and do not sin;‚Ä̬†There is a place for righteous anger.¬† Anger is a form of resistance, whether physical or not.

    And btw‚Ķ when you say this ‚ÄúPlus, there are things that are wrong that are not prohibited in the bible (examples: polygamy, and slavery) so just cuz I can‚Äôt find a verse prohibiting it doesn‚Äôt mean its not wrong.‚Ä̬†Polygamy is prohibited. We see this in the seventh commandment, we see this in Genesis, we see that a man is to leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife, we see the bad effects of polygamy everywhere. Yes it is VERY prohibited‚Ķ but not punished in the same way as other sins.

    And slavery is not wrong, in the right context. We see slavery as right in the OT. Kidnapping is wrong. But in the case of indentured servitude it‚Äôs right. If someone had to pay off a debt they went into righteous servitude. That‚Äôs not man stealing. And a bond servant which is not wrong.”

    man this post is getting long XD!

    also, I found this bible verse in 2 Chronicles 2:4 which says “Now I am about to build a temple¬†for the Name of the¬†Lord¬†my God and to dedicate it to him for burning fragrant incense¬†before him, for setting out the consecrated bread¬†regularly, and for making burnt offeringsevery morning and evening and on the Sabbaths,¬†at the New Moons¬†and at the appointed festivals of the¬†Lord¬†our God. This is a lasting ordinance for Israel.” these are like the exact same things that are called a mear shadow of things to come! here is the verse again: “Therefore do not let anyone judge you¬†by what you eat or drink,¬†or with regard to a religious festival,¬†a New Moon celebration¬†or a Sabbath day.¬†17¬†These are a shadow of the things that were to come;¬†the reality, however, is found in Christ.” so that was cool to find : D

    “We‚Äôre saved through faith, not from obeying the law. So the question becomes, does it matter if we obey the law or not? What do you think?” yep, in my opion obaying the (moral) law totally matters! 1 John 5: 2-4 “his is how we know¬†that we love the children of God:¬†by loving God and carrying out his commands.¬†3¬†In fact, this is love for God: to keep his commands.¬†And his commands are not burdensome,”

    ok, I’m going to end this post here cuz its already WAY!!! too long XD I repond to the rest later!


    INTJ- trying to grow into real wisdom; James 3:17


    @theinconceivable1 Oh my goodness, dude.

    That was a long post! xD

    @everyonewatching Hey is there any spectators out there that don‚Äôt agree with this whole ‚Äúsin is an attitude and an action‚ÄĚ argument cuz its 4 against 1 right now and that lowers my confidence‚Ķ just slightly XD.

    Yes, I’m still getting the emails for this thread, but at this point, I’ve stopped trying to keep up with the debate, and I’ve only been scrolling through the emails absentmindedly. xD

    Sorry! xD

    I hope you aren’t offended. ūüėõ

    • This reply was modified 2 years, 12 months ago by Evelyn.

    I guess I should have said though, that I’m proud and encouraged through all of you standing up for your beliefs but with kindness and chivalry, and truly trying to understand each other’s positions, and then also going to the Bible for your answers. ūüôā

    Not that I have anything to do with it… but still, I’m proud. xD


    The Fledgling Artist

    I’ll try to address these as clearly as I can!

    So, number one. Ananias and Sapphira’s problem wasn’t that they gave money, it was because they lied, and held back some of the money for themselves. Giving is good, their selfishness and deception were the issue.

    Number two. People who are sent to hell because of their sin, are sent because they refuse to accept Jesus Christ as their savior. When they don’t let Jesus be their savior, they aren’t allowing Jesus to take that sin, therefore they aren’t justified or saved.¬† (WE NEED JESUS!)

    Next, I think when we fall short, we are falling short of being the image of God. (We were created in his image, and should behave as such.) We fail to display Christlike love and we fail to fulfill our intended purpose.

    Not sure how wordsmith would answer this, but those are my thoughts.

    As for “ignorant sins” I haven’t actually given this very much thought in the past, but I think there are certain actions that cannot under any circumstance be justified. (I say this hesitantly.. But that’s what I think at this point.) Lying, stealing, murder, other forms of physical violence, taking drugs, etc etc.
    Actions such as these are very anti Christ and therefore, imo always wrong.

    Also, I should probably just bite my tongue and wait for Rochellaine to reply to you, but I don’t really think God has any kind of “point” system with us humans. We’ve all fallen short of God’s standards and are pretty much horrible wretches, undeserving of any kindness whatsoever.¬†¬†God sees us all equally, and loves us all despite our sinful tendencies. (That’s why his love is so miraculous. Because we are all so amazingly undeserving of it.)

    Okay i’ll stop talking now. ūüôā
    I hope you are having a nice day.

    "Though I'm not yet who I will be, I'm no longer who I was."

    Buddy J.


    “…for¬†all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”¬†That language is actually biblical. That’s Romans 3:23.

    Published author, student in writing, works with HazelGracePress.com

    Noah Litle

    Hi, @i-david. Have you read¬†I Am David, by Anne Holm? Or¬†Just David, by¬†Eleanor H. Porter? I haven’t read them recently enough to remember what they’re about, your tag just reminds me of them.

    Speaking of which, we should all share our favorite guy books.

    Some of my favorites are Redwall, by Brian Jacques, the Time Echoes series, by Bryan Davis, and Steelheart, by Brandon Sanderson.

    What are all you guys’ favorites?

    @wordsmith @daeus-lamb @parker @taylorclogston @warrenluther04 @brandon-miller @joseph_darkgrate @ryker-dawson @nuetrobolt

    p.s. I only know a little.

    Noah Litle


    Okay, I’ll try to make this as short as possible.

    1) For this point and the next point I imagine any further discussion will just end up as “yes it is” “no it isn’t” “yes it is” “no it isn’t” kind of debate. All I will say here is to just be careful of the “more frequent” scriptures you’re talking about. Most of them are in Paul’s letters, and as I stated before, Paul is incredibly easy to misunderstand and twist.

    2) All Paul is saying in these verses is that all the things he boasted of before Christ are worth nothing to him anymore, because Christ is everything. I see no reason here for why he would suddenly start disobeying the Torah. He’s Jewish. That didn’t change when he accepted Christ.

    By the way, Jesus was also Jewish. Yes, I really did open that can of worms. XD

    3) About @wordsmith’s argument. Believe it or not, I actually agree with most of what he’s saying here. If I understand him correctly, all he’s saying is that we’re not justified by the law. Jesus does that for us. Now that we’ve been saved by Jesus, the law gives us very clear guidelines to live by. But we’re not going to go to hell for disobeying the law.

    The entire book of Romans is about this. It should really be read all at once, considering it’s pretty much one continuous thought throughout the whole book.

    About the types and shadows. As I said in my last post, I believe¬†all the law has been fulfilled in Christ’s life, death and resurrection.¬†All of it is types and shadows.¬†All of it has been realized by Christ.

    So, are you saying that Jesus didn’t fulfill the ten commandments, and that’s why we still have to do them?

    4) About morality. I would like to point out that you still haven’t answered my question about where to draw the line. This wouldn’t bother me so much if you weren’t drawing lines.

    The danger with the “moral law” thing, is that morals are too subjective. For example, I think most of us here believe that abortion is morally wrong. However, there are Christians out there who are pro-choice, and can argue that from the Bible. I’m not saying we should get into that argument, my point is: morals are subjective. Some people think all lying is wrong. Others think that only lying “against your neighbor” is wrong (Exo. 20:16).

    It’s too easy to say “only the moral laws apply” without realizing that you define morals. It’s basically saying, “I agree with the laws in the Bible, as long as they agree with my definition of morals”.

    So I’ll ask again:

    How do you define morals without the Mosaic Law? And:

    Where do you draw the line between “moral law” and “non-moral law”?

    p.s. I only know a little.



    Oof why are you making me choose? XD

    I think my favorite books/series at the present time are:

    РThe Inheritance Cycle by Christopher Paolini

    –¬†Harry Potter (because why not ūüėõ )

    –¬†The Chronicles of Narnia


    House Vizsla, Clan Avis
    Member of the Alliance to Restore the Republic, Phoenix Squadron

    Taylor Clogston

    @noahlitle Redwall, The Prydain Chronicles, Westmark, Artemis Fowl, Ranger’s Apprentice, Wilderking, Sea of Trolls were all series I loved with characters I wanted to be when I was younger! Great stuff there. Never read Time Echoes but enjoy your other two listed.

    "...the one with whom he so sought to talk has already interceded for him." -The Master and Margarita

Viewing 15 posts - 271 through 285 (of 1,075 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Pin It on Pinterest