Hi, Dr. Sing.
Dr. Sin writes:
After me explaining so much, you still want to come back to square one?
We never left square one! You haven't
explained anything: you've simply restated your position numerous times.
I'm drawing a parallel between the change in the status of the Mosaic Law at some point in time, and the change in the status of Adam's perfection at some point in time.
The only difference here is that you are unwilling to recognize the parallel. The Fall was every bit a world-changing event as was the Atonement. So, if things change across the "Atonement line," then it seems logical that they also changed across the "Fall line."
You can't support a point with scriptures that occur across the line from the event that is being discussed.
The new teachings of Jesus are on the opposite side of the "Atonement line" from the Old Covenant. Therefore, when Jesus said, "Whosoever looketh upon a women to lust after her hath commited adultery with her already in his heart" (from memory), this statement does not apply to the people of the Old Testament, because it is part of the New Covenant, not the Old Covenant.
Hannah's psalm is on the opposite side of the "Fall line" from Adam's perfection. Therefore, it does not apply to the people before the Fall unless the same sentiment is repeated on the opposite side of the "Fall line."
-----
Dr. Sing writes:
God's communicable attributes aren't His defining attributes. And perfection is certainly a defining attribute of God.
No true Scotsmen! I've actually witnessed it!
You said, "All of God's attributes," not "God's defining attributes." Once I pointed out an attribute of God that is not unique to Him, you redefined your stance such that the attribute I listed "doesn't count." This is the "No true Scotsmen" fallacy.
There's no reason to be this dogmatic about words, Dr. Sing! Loosen up a little bit! It's okay to think that words are just words.
-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.
™ Version 4.2
