Commandments 1,2,3,4 and 10 I have zero respect for. The others are generally good to follow. So since I'm an optimist and see the glass as half full, I say the Ten Commandments got it half right.
may not be the right place to put this, but the difference between "religion" (even "Christian" religion) and the beliefs of many who choose to live the Gospel, from someone who spends way more of his time thinking about this than I do.
Pretty hard to separate the good news of salvation from the small print. The latter may be motivational be the former certainly is the primary message of the Bible.
I don't claim to have much moral clarity on human relationship with animals, and even if I did I obviously don't have the authority to do much about it. On the other hand Christians trivially cite equality of human rights as a God-given objective moral principal, even though the opposite was true in the OT.
Meh I've seen you debate the morality of government actions, so this quote is pretty much bullshit. The fact you claim you aren't the authority, yet you use authority to base morality views it pretty contradicting don't you think? As a naturalist, all creatures have just the same right as others. The chance ours developed to be most advanced doesn't take away that we use this advancement to enslave other animals for food or work. And claiming the hypocrisy of the Bible in this term is claiming you are just as much a hypocrite.
You are confusing me with someone else. I don't believe morality exists and I think everyone's take on it is nothing more than opinion. All I was doing was pointing out the Supreme Court does not follow or endorse the 10 Commandments. Also you're being an asshole to me again for no reason.
I believe that you have a flawed perception of the New Testament. The writings of the apostle Paul make it very clear that those who attempt to justify themselves through the law will find themselves condemned by the same, and that the purpose of the law is not to provide us with a method by which to please God, but to point us to our need for God.
Not much if any. I tend to stay out of Denny's threads : ) I have definitely never suggested there might be such a thing as an objective moral resolution to treatment of animals. You're thinking of someone else there. Further maybe?
I was just pointing out that regardless of whatever anyone thinks should be the motivation for obedience the former statement is certainly true (according to the Bible). Ultimately there is no acceptance without obedience.
If you do it once, then you are guilty of all. If your values ever question actions of others then ridiculing another is a contradiction. Meaning, if you think you have a right to judge, then you are just as guilty of that action when you are guilty of what you judged. Example: If you think stealing is wrong and want someone arrested for taking something of yours, yet you cheated on taxes, you are just as guilty. It may not look the same in your eyes, but they are both stealing.
So you can't be in love unless you are obedient to your partner? Or do you think that a mutual love would have both partners sharing an equal obedience and sacrifice for one another?
Except that's not the case. Acceptance of Christ's sacrifice is not commanded. Faith is not instructed. It's simply explained. Basically the gospel is, "You have sinned and aren't worthy to be with God, but He has made a way for you too be with Him; it's up to you." There is no obedience to earn acceptance. The acceptance is already offered. As Romans 5:8 states, "While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."
That's some serious spin there. If the offer isn't valid unless you accept it, there is no salvation without obedience.
Last I read you think accepting Jesus isn't a requirement for salvation at all, so I'm not addressing your belief here.
Accepting Christ saves you from the burden of death. Salvation has already been made. When you see me in Heaven we can talk about it more. After your mind is free
