Pick and Choose Fundamentalism

greentwiga writes:

quote:

---

Paul opposed them and it was decided that only 4 minimal laws needed to be obeyed.

---

And this, of course, is in direct conflict to what Jesus said: Not one jot, not one tittle of the law shall be changed till all be fulfilled.Therefore, what we tend to call "Christianity" is actually "Paulinism."

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

ochaye responds to me:

quote:

---

Maybe all has been fulfilled.

---

That would certainly explain the crankiness of certain people. The world ended, this is hell, and they are upset that they didn't actually get to go to heaven like they thought they would.You do realize that by "all be fulfilled," Jesus meant the end of the world, right?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

greentwiga responds to me:

quote:

---

The Jews were given a set of laws.

---

And Jesus was a Jew. And Jesus was telling all who would follow him that they would need to follow the Jewish law: Not one jot, not one tittle of the law shall be changed till all be fulfulled. He exhorted those who listed to follow the law and teach others so.Jesus did not do away with the need to follow Jewish law. Christians who think they can get away with wearing cotton-polyester blends, eating shellfish, working on the Sabbath, etc. are certainly not following Jesus.They're following Paul.Why do you place the commands of Paul above the commands of Jesus?

quote:

---

The argument in acts was over whether gentiles would be required to follow the laws.

---

But according to Jesus, that answer is yes, you must. It's a direct commandment from him: Not one jot, not one tittle of the law shall be changed till all be fulfilled.Paul said something different.Are you a follower of Jesus or a follower of Paul?

quote:

---

All, not just Paul, agreed that the gentiles did not have to follow the Jewish laws.

---

Incorrect. There's a reason that there was such a schism in the early times of Christianity. It was precisely over this: James was preaching the teachings of Jesus and living up to the commandment that the law must still be followed. He wasn't having much success ("You want me to cut off my what?!")Paul, on the other hand, was playing fast and loose with the edicts of Jesus. He happened to be better at convincing people who weren't Jews to follow his new-fangled religion by telling them they didn't actually have to practice the law that Jesus commanded them to.Are you a follower of Jesus or a follower of Paul?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

ochaye responds to me:

quote:

---

His parameter may have been moral, not temporal.

---

Incorrect. He was talking temporal. You didn't actually bother to look up the verse, did you? I realize that I didn't give out the specific chapter and verse, but surely you know the verse and can look it up, right? Because I left a bit out: Clearly, Jesus means that the law has not changed ("Think not that i am come to destroy the law.")Too, Jesus is clearly talking about the physical end of the world and that it will happen Real Soon Now . Have heaven and earth passed?No?Then all has not been fulfilled and you must still keep the law.Do you follow Jesus or do you follow Paul?You want more proof that Jesus was talking about the physical end of the world and that it was going to happen very soon? Are you implying that there are some 2000-year-old people wandering around?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

ochaye responds to me:

quote:

---

"'Til heaven and earth pass, we will not leave here without getting our money."

​

They got their money.

---

Huh? Was there an actual point there? I handily admit I don't see it.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Hill Billy writes:

quote:

---

Certainly, however foreknowledge and predestination are not the same thing. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

---

Because you are equivocating. Specifically, you are conflating "foreknowledge" of a conditional with "foreknowledge" of an actual.That is, I know that "if" one applies great heat to one's body, it will burn. This is extrapolation based upon past experience and might conceivably be considered "foreknowledge."But that is very different from the "foreknowledge" involved in knowing that you, personally, are going to do it at precisely 6:47 pm local time on January 12th, 2010.With regard to this topic, the common meaning of "foreknowledge" is of the latter type, not the former. It is akin to the magician asking you to "pick a card, any card." While it certainly seems a random choice for you, the magician is actually "forcing" you (that is the term used) to choose a specific card.If I know that a particular action is definitively going to take place without possibility for error, how can that action not take place?No, this is not "foreknowledge" that "if" you apply great heat to your body that you'll get burned. I mean the "foreknowlege" that you, personally, are going to do it at precisely 6:47 pm local time on January 12th, 2010, no possibility for error.How do you avoid such an action if there is no way my knowledge can be wrong? This type of "foreknowledge" is precisely "predestination."Please let us not be disingenuous and equivocate over what is meant by "foreknowledge."

quote:

---

You expend a great deal of effort attempting to establish that the observer is responsible for the actions of the observed.

---

Huh? If I create an object that I know (due to my "foreknowledge" as described above) is going to fail catastrophically, how am I not responsible for that failure? I created it. Indeed, if I had nothing to do with the scenario by which the catastrophic failure is going to happen, then I have no responsibility no matter how much foreknowledge I have. But if I created the entire scenario by which the failure is going to take place, then how am I not completely responsible?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.