Thou Shalts and Thou Shalnts

Religion is always of man alright. Religion, as I'm sure you agree, means 'concerning the law'. But the gospel isn't religion as it concerns salvation apart from the law (the bibles version of it whether that be a corrupted or otherwise)That you would read the bible and test it against what you see around you would only lead you to conclude, perhaps, that God exists, that he is logical, rational, ordered etc. What test of the reality around you, do you apply, in order to form the more specific views you hold regarding the way of salvation.Assuming you cannot derive such specifics from what you see around you, does this not mean your view can only come from edited highlights from the bible account. Yet you say the bible (nigh on all I gather) is inaccurate. So which snippets of an inaccurate documnent do you hold to inform you accurately and how do you ascertain this?

Another good question.First a quick summary just to make sure that we are communicating and not just typing stuff. It looks like we agree that religion is just a product of man and that you can read the Bible and also look at the Universe around you and from that determine that GOD is reasonable, logical, rational. I would also add that the evidence of the world around us implies that GOD is also consistant and honest.Salvation, like the existence or non-existence of GOD, is something that cannot be determined or verified. It is one of those items which must be taken on faith. If GOD exists, She exists, regardless of whether or not one believes in it. Likewise, there either is Salvation or there isn't salvation, our beliefs on that do not effect the reality of the situation.So what we are discussing is not the existence of either GOD or Salvation but only what we believe about them, and not even their existence but only the terms and conditions for salvation should it exist.Now to your question relating to how I arrive at my beliefs regarding those terms and conditions.I believe that man is charged with a knowledge of right and wrong. That belief is based on the Bible and the Genesis Eden Tale. It doesn't matter whether the tale itself is a true depiction of historical events (I am absolutely sure that it is not) or whether it is a folktale, a morality play. The message is that we know right from wrong. In addition, the moral, which is that you are expected to do right and that doing wrong gets you sanctioned, is repeated time and again throughout the books of the Bible.Second, again and again throughout the Bible, there is another story. Even though man is not capable of always choosing right over wrong, GOD forgives man. Whether or not the stories are true, the message remains the same. GOD forgives man.So we can add another characteristic to the list, GOD is mercyful.One that has not been mentioned is that GOD is not stupid. I look at the Universe around me and the wonder of it all, and I cannot comprend the conception that all this awsome universe was created by someone that was dumber than a red brick. That may be a personal failing, but I just can't imagine a stupid GOD.I look at the two different versions of salvation criteria. In one, there are conditions. You must believe in the GOD. You must worship him. Or, as an alternative you must behave perfectly, be Christ and not Christ-like.The question is WHY? What kind of a GOD would require someone to worship Her as a precondition? The only answer I can imagine is that that God is vainglorious, insecure. Or if option two is attempted, to fail. A God that would set a bar so high that its own creation cannot possible succeed is both stupid and vainglorious.Speaking only for myself, as always, that seems very improbable.The other option is the one I suspect is true. That is that GOD forgives all mankind. Done deal. Forgiven. Complete. Without condition.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You hold that the universality of Pauls writings is irrelevant to your point. ie: You've already decided that Pauls writing are none-permissable in argument on the basis of a decision that they don't hold equal weight as Jesus' words. (although you have agreed all the bible is the word of God). But if the biblical argument about law's purpose it to be made, I naturally must have access to the bible. Or you can show why only certain sections of the bible are open to be included Before we can address this we must first get over the problem of the acceptability of Pauls writings. However...If salvation is the symphony, then condemnation is but one movement in the symphony. Knowledge of sin (brought about by law) is just a note in the condemning movement. In having the law result in your (and everybody elses) condemnation it is Gods intention that YOU become aware of that fact. He wants you to know you are condemned. He wants you to hear the note, hear the note in the movement. He also wants you to hear the symphony.The law is summed up by Love God /Love your neighbour (it's remarkable how often people only quote the second greatest commandment). These are still commandments. The purpose is not the commandment. It never is. "Keep of the grass" is a commandment. For the reason why someone made the commandment one must look (biblically) elsewhere...not at the commandment itselfCommandment Ringo. "Do this...."

I'd agree except for the 'expected' bit. The repeated picture seems to me to be one where man does wrong and is punished for doing wrong (given that as you say, he is in a position to know the difference). 'Expected' appears to be inserted as a 'rational conclusion' to be drawn out but doesn't appear in the message itself. There is a difference between falling short of the standard God sets and being punished for it and God expecting that we meet his standard and punishing us when we don't. Our own law works the same way. It doesn't expect anything from us, it just punishes for transgression. 'Expect' is only a possible implication - not a given He does and is displaying merciful attributes in doing so. God is ultimately the one offended by any of our sins and it is only mercy that results in him forgiving (the same as when/if we forgive). But there is no case of forgiveness in the bible which excludes the person realising a) they have sinned b) their need of God to forgive them. (except in certain cases where God is fulfilling a covenant he has made himself with certain people- in which case it is not his mercy acting at that point but his justness).Forgiveness in non-covenental cases appears to hinge on a person realising their need of it. Pick any case and go look. Somewhere in there you'll see that picture: self realistation in the individual or a corporate realisation of having turned away from God. It may not necessarily be described as a condition but in both OT and NT, realistion of sin is evident throughout. I would contend that the biblical 'condition' for forgiveness is realisation of being in need of forgiveness. I don't understand why you appear to exclude so many sections where this is evident as you say you are looking globally at it. The NT is literally littered with people seeing their need of a saviour from sin. It is littered too with direct explaination (as opposed to pictures) as to this being the case. Worship is not a precondition of forgiveness/salvation it is a logical consequence of the above having occurred. An expression of gratitude willingly entered into perhaps. But not a necessity.As to the 'high bar' problem. It is there in the bible if we limit ourselves to what it says and don't leap in to (natural) errors ascribing conclusions that don't exist in it. (like purpose of Law extracted from existance of Law above). How high-bar works is there, if we take the full story and don't arbitarily amputate bits in our rush to design a self-defined view.Is not the OT picture one of Gods people ever turning away, God ever desiring and working on their return? And a picture of people only turning back when they realise (yet again) that they need God? When Jesus arrives we get a clear picture of man turned from God and focussed on his own ability to jump the bar (Phariseeism). But Jesus derails that idea completely. He only says "do" never "try" "Try" is a man-made (thus religious, thus "concerning the law") conclusion drawn not out of the bible but out of himself.But salvation is of God not man. God has the plan and mans thinking is irrelevant to that. Too-high-a-bar is only irrational if it were left at that. "Who then can be saved" indeed. Except it isn't left at that.Try it yourself Jar. For the hell of it.Stand before the biblically evidenced too-high bar ("do this" not "try to do this..."). Look at it. Gods standard for behavioura) what is the only conclusion that can be drawn on examining it (hint: "who then can be saved..")b) Do you see the parallel between yourself and the biblical message of 'recognising own need of forgiveness' (hint: do you think you have need of forgivenessc) What do you do then?

Paul's words do not hold equal weight to Jesus' words. I'm sorry, but that's a given. If you think it's up for discussion, then you need to take it to an appropriate topic. And I have not agreed that all of God's words (transmitted by man) are of equal importance. You can stop pretending that I have. Take it to another thread. Been there. Done that. A more detailed discussion of that belongs in a different topic.In any case, even Paul's writings do not confirm that the "sole purpose" of the law is condemnation. Exactly what I've been saying. Have you switched sides? The law is for our salvation. If salvation is a symphony, then so is the law. It is not a solo. It does not have a "sole purpose".(Maybe this is what's confusing you: I have not said that condemnation is not one purpose of the law. I have said that it is not the only purpose.) The law is "love God/love thy neighbour". Nothing remarkable about it. The second commandment is a symptom of the first. If you love God you will love your neighbour. If you don't demonstrate a love for your neighbour, then you don't really love God. Simple.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Okay, looking at it from your perspective. The only possible conclusion is that God is a fool. No I don't think I have need of forgiveness because such a God is impossible. I realize that what is being taught as Christianity is buta sham and farce and turn to Atheism.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

A given? Ringo, I'm surprised at you. You've been around here long enough to know better than that "As if dictated by God..." were the words you used, if I remember correctly. 'Transmitted by man' makes no difference unless you are suggesting that this may include the authors typos during God dictating it and successive attempts at transmission resulted in further corruption. In this case then ALL of it is suspect and NONE of it can be referred to in discussion as having any basis in fact (for the purposes of discussion).If your suggesting that we are reading Gods word (for the sake of discussion) then Gods word it is. If God 'dictated' each and every word then talk of the weight and import of one over the other is futile. He put them there. They are all relevant and all important. That remains to be seen. However entry into that area has been barred by your holding views (including the above) that prevent investigationI think the time has come to end this discussion Ringo. We've hit barriers which prevent the topic under discussion (sole purpose of law) to be tackled head on. The issues causing this probably are suitable for another thread as you say. I imagine they are the ones that need addressing first.

Fair enough. Have you anything to comment on re: the main body of the post?

No, not really.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I said:

quote:

---

Paul's words do not hold equal weight to Jesus' words... that's a given.

---

to which you replied: But you ignored my next sentence, even though you quoted it:

quote:

---

If you think it's up for discussion, then you need to take it to an appropriate topic.

---

For this topic, we have agreed that the words spoken by Jesus and Paul have been conveyed accurately. We have not agreed that they are of equal value. Arachnophilia has also told you in another topic that Jesus > Paul. For any Christian, that certainly ought to be a given. Nonsense. Surely you can't suggest that every word spoken by God is of equal "weight or import".A simple example:

quote:

---

Exo 20:1 And God spoke all these words, saying...
Exo 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Exo 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image...
Exo 20:7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain...
Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Exo 20:12 Honor thy father and thy mother...
Exo 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.
Exo 20:14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Exo 20:15 Thou shalt not steal.
Exo 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
Exo 20:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's.

---

quote:

---

Exo 25:1 And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying...
Exo 25:10 And they shall make an ark of shittim wood: two cubits and a half shall be the length thereof, and a cubit and a half the breadth thereof, and a cubit and a half the height thereof.

---

Are you seriously suggesting that the Ten Commandments and the dimensions of the ark are of equal "weight and import"? If you are, take it to an appropriate topic.Now, if we can actually get to the topic, I said:

quote:

---

In any case, even Paul's writings do not confirm that the "sole purpose" of the law is condemnation.

---

to which you replied: But I showed it - in your own quote from Paul:

quote:

---

Rom 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

---

Isn't Paul saying that the law is also for knowledge of sin? Knowledge is not condemnation.
(Afterthought: to a creationist, I suppose knowledge is a bad thing. ) On the contrary. Your own investigation - Romans 3:19-20 - doesn't back up your idea of condemnation being the "sole purpose" of the law. I don't think we have. I think you're going in directions which have barriers, but you're ignoring the other directions which I have suggested:1. The universality and/or relative value of Paul's words would be moot if you could show where Jesus said that the sole purpose of the law was condemnation.2. The universality and/or relative value of Paul's words would be moot if you could show where Paul said that the sole purpose of the law was condemnation.Don't give up until you've examined those two issues. If you do, it looks like you're deliberately looking for barriers.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

I reiterate the point. We haven't agreed sufficient boundaries in which discussion can take place. So I can't see how discussion can take place.But thanks all the same for the discussion thus far Ringo: "knowledge and understanding through discussion". You go in looking at one thing and come out having learnt another

Not to be pushy , but allow me to reiterate:

quote:

---

1. The universality and/or relative value of Paul's words would be moot if you could show where Jesus said that the sole purpose of the law was condemnation.

​

2. The universality and/or relative value of Paul's words would be moot if you could show where Paul said that the sole purpose of the law was condemnation.

---

I don't see why discussion can't take place on those points.We can't have "knowledge and understanding through discussion" if you back out every time the discussion doesn't go your way.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Moot indeed and we wouldn't be having this discussion. But the bible omitting the word 'sole' no more means sole-it-isn't than the omission of the word Trinity debunks the case for a trinitarian God.But like I say, our difficulty lies elsewhere. I agree that not every item of the bible has the same significance: talk of salvation and how one attains it is ultimately more important than the condition underwhich God describes his design for marraige. But all talk of marraige has a relevancy to the discussion about marriage. As does all talk of law to purpose of lawBesides. I would suggest that there is no conflict between anything Paul or Jesus (or anyone else for that matter) says. So there would be no need to worry about Jesus > Paul. They are both singing from the same hymn sheet... different musicians in the same (Gods) symphony.

Nice tapdance, but you're avoiding the issue.You don't have to find the word "sole" in Paul's writings. All I want you to do is show that Paul thought the only purpose of the law was condemnation.And you're still ignoring Jesus. Show us where Jesus said the purpose of the law was condemnation.Those are very simple points. Stop the meta-debate and address the issue.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

I wouldn't ignore any of the bible if the discussion was about purpose of law. But the discussion hasn't been about that very much thus far. The reason for concentrating on Paul was that you wouldn't accept than what he says has the same legitimacy (ie: Gods stamp of legitimisation) as what Jesus says (ie: Gods stamp of legitimisation). IOW, what Jesus, Paul or anybody else says can be weighed on what it can be argued to mean as it stands and in relation to what others in the bible say in support of the argument - with a view to seeing what the 'whole' says. The originator is God in all cases.If you are now saying that that is the basis on which we can proceed then fine. You've shifted position... and to the good in my opinion.A test of whether your position has indeed changed would be the following. If Jesus didn't say (as clearly) as Paul that laws purpose=condemnation does not mean that this isn't the case. The case for laws purpose does not rely on Jesus being the one making the clearest or prime case. If Paul was the only one to make the case (he isn't) then that would be sufficient - if you had changed your postion in fact. If you say no then you still have an issue with legitimacy of authors. (I pre-supposing here that the would be no argument as to conflict between Jesus and Paul - although were conflict shown then of course Jesus would have last say - but it is a moot point - there is no conflict)In the case that you won't accept this, my original basis for ending discussion stands: we have different terms of reference so discussion would be meaningless.