Side Gallery: LuthAMF vs Joshpantera

[disillusioned]

4 hours ago, Justus said:

 

 Since sin is transgression of the law of truth then I can't help but wonder what record you are referring to....

 

Sin is a violation of God's will. No God, no sin.

[Justus]

9 hours ago, disillusioned said:

Sin is a violation of God's will. 

That's your interpretation, which is your prerogative.   I follow a different principle.

 

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. 1 John 3:4

Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.  2 Tim 3:7

 

The law of truth was in his mouth, and iniquity was not found in his lips: he walked with me in peace and equity, and did turn many away from iniquity. Mal 2:6

And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. John 8:32

 

9 hours ago, disillusioned said:

 No God, no sin.

Tell that to those whose lives have been screwed over by a lie that someone told. 

[LogicalFallacy]

50 minutes ago, Justus said:

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. 1 John 3:4

 

What law?

 

The old testament law?

 

Many Christians hold that Jesus did away with the old law, however it was the apostle Paul that did away with the old law. Jesus himself said "I came not to abolish the law but to fulfil it."

 

So does that mean if I wear a polyester/wool fabric mix I'm transgressing the law and thereby sinning?

[disillusioned]

3 hours ago, Justus said:

That's your interpretation blah blah blah

 

Whatever Law you may be referring to is presumably, on your view, issued by God. No God, no Law. Hence, no violations of said law, and no sin. Simple enough?

[Justus]

3 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

So does that mean if I wear a polyester/wool fabric mix I'm transgressing the law and thereby sinning?

 

I heard that the hosts of Queer Eye for the Str Guy says its a sin to wear plaid and strips so I don't , not because like they say in truth it looks tacky, unless you are going for the tacky look then hey, judge not lest ye be judged.     I generally listen to people who know what they are talking about on a subject, even if I disagree with their opinion on the subject matter but seeing that polyester wasn't invented until 1941 you are making it hard here but I am going to suggest that a reason not to mix say wool and cotton is somewhat self evident don't you think?

 

3 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

What law?

 

You have international laws, federal laws, state laws, county laws, and city laws and if you own a home under a HOA you have HOA laws, so to answer your question regarding what law, take your pick.  

 

However the law of God is based upon the principle, truth.    

 

 

 

[Justus]

1 hour ago, disillusioned said:

 

Whatever Law you may be referring to is presumably, on your view, issued by God. No God, no Law. Hence, no violations of said law, and no sin. Simple enough?

 

I be referring unto the law of truth.   You know the one you said you believed in at one time as written in Isa 65:16, ".. he who blesseth himself in the earth shall bless himself in the God of truth; "
 

Whether a God exists or not, is a question a person has to answer for themself yet to claim with absolute certainty that there is no God therefore there is no law is a mindset on parallel with one that would claim with absolute certainty that a man who lived 2000+ years ago was a God and whatever rules they make up are his law, to both I would respectfully disagree.

[florduh]

Just popped in for a look. I see something about the "Law of Truth." I'd say the pigeons are winning again. 

[LogicalFallacy]

43 minutes ago, Justus said:

I heard that the hosts of Queer Eye for the Str Guy says its a sin to wear plaid and strips so I don't , not because like they say in truth it looks tacky, unless you are going for the tacky look then hey, judge not lest ye be judged.     I generally listen to people who know what they are talking about on a subject, even if I disagree with their opinion on the subject matter but seeing that polyester wasn't invented until 1941 you are making it hard here but I am going to suggest that a reason not to mix say wool and cotton is somewhat self evident don't you think?

 

You aren't really interesting in answering properly are you. I clearly wasn't concerned at the details of the answer but on the general principle of what constitutes a 'transgression of the law" per your quote. I'm sure you are aware that there are laws in the OT about not mixing fabrics, and according to John sin is a transgression of the law which is why I asked what law? If sin is a transgression of only the OT laws then many Christians are transgressing. If it's any law as you seem to imply below then you have a problem when human laws would seem to conflict with Gods law. Like the law to stone certain groups - but now if you tried that you'd be had up for murder. So not sure which law I'm transgressing.

 

43 minutes ago, Justus said:

You have international laws, federal laws, state laws, county laws, and city laws and if you own a home under a HOA you have HOA laws, so to answer your question regarding what law, take your pick. 

 

Pretty sure we were talking about biblical laws... well I was. We always held in my church that the law of god always overrode the law of men.

 

43 minutes ago, Justus said:

However the law of God is based upon the principle, truth.    

 

You mean Truth (TM)

 

 

@florduh Don't you like playing chess where the opponent makes all the rules whenever it suits them?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

7 hours ago, Justus said:

I be referring unto the law of truth

The thing about truth is that it's true for everybody, not just those who believe it.

[Justus]

10 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

You aren't really interesting in answering properly are you.

 

And what is a proper answer to a question that only you can answer?       

 

 If you believe that God said not to wear clothing made from different fabrics then wtf difference should it make what I say? 

 

As far as the general principle of what constitutes transgression of the law then principle itself should teach you that the must be a requirement that a person must follow and there must be an act contrary to the requirement.   Here's a link that might help.      LINK

 

10 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

Like the law to stone certain groups - but now if you tried that you'd be had up for murder. 

 

 

Let's break it down this way, do you believe that the people have a right to  execute someone  convicted of committing an act which is violation of their law and if so what unlawful acts would you consider that punishment would be appropriate for?   Do you think a  child molester should be executed? a rapist?  a murder?   or do you even consider that the people have a right to even make such a decision?  Or do you have any opinion on the subject matter at all?

11 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

So not sure which law I'm transgressing.

 

I would say the principal one that you should have got with all your gettings. 

[Justus]

4 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

The thing about truth is that it's true for everybody, not just those who believe it.

 

The law of truth is basically how the concept of a principle was conveyed since there were not a whole lot of words written at time that the scriptures represent that  Moses was given the covenant.    But when you say truth is true for everybody, do you mean the truth like the laws of nature?    

 

So do you believe that Helen Keller could talk?  They say she could, as well as learned how to read and write in braille, but the truth about truth is that is subjective unless it is affirmed by an underlying principle. 

[disillusioned]

12 hours ago, Justus said:

 

I be referring unto the law of truth.   You know the one you said you believed in at one time as written in Isa 65:16, ".. he who blesseth himself in the earth shall bless himself in the God of truth; "
 

Whether a God exists or not, is a question a person has to answer for themself yet to claim with absolute certainty that there is no God therefore there is no law is a mindset on parallel with one that would claim with absolute certainty that a man who lived 2000+ years ago was a God and whatever rules they make up are his law, to both I would respectfully disagree.

 

The verse you quoted makes explicit reference to God, so my point stands. Also, I didn't say anything about absolute certainty. I just said I hold that sin doesn't exist, because I hold that God doesn't exist. There are precious few things that I claim with absolute certainty. Some days, there aren't any at all.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, Justus said:

 

The law of truth is basically how the concept of a principle was conveyed since there were not a whole lot of words written at time that the scriptures represent that  Moses was given the covenant.    But when you say truth is true for everybody, do you mean the truth like the laws of nature?    

 

So do you believe that Helen Keller could talk?  They say she could, as well as learned how to read and write in braille, but the truth about truth is that is subjective unless it is affirmed by an underlying principle. 

You are attempting to conflate truism with truth.  That everyone can talk is not truth, as your example demonstrates.  That people do tend to find some means of communication is truth; because it doesn't matter if a person is in Ukraine or Vietnam, he or she will usually fine some way of communicating.  The "law of god" is not truth because there are many people for whom it does not work or apply.

 

"The earth revolves around the sun" is as true in Afghanistan as it is in Iceland.  "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" is accepted as truth in America; not so much in India.  

 

The idea that there weren't as many words in Moses' time is silly.  Certainly, there were not words associated with computers or automotive travel; but there were still plenty enough words for an omniscient god to have conveyed his meaning adequately, had such a god existed (and, had such a god not have had such difficulty saying what he meant).

[LuthAMF]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

and, had such a god not have had such difficulty saying what he meant).

Such a God has no difficulty whatsoever. But those who say he has not communicated effectively are those deaf and blind who prefer deafness and blindness. Eyes to see; ears to hear,  Prof.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

15 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

Such a God has no difficulty whatsoever. But those who say he has not communicated effectively are those deaf and blind who prefer deafness and blindness. Eyes to see; ears to hear,  Prof.

Is that why so much of the bible is "metaphorical"?

[LuthAMF]

15 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Is that why so much of the bible is "metaphorical"?

 If the bible makes use of metaphor to illustrate, that hardly includes the whole. Language is funny that way.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 minute ago, LuthAMF said:

 If the bible makes use of metaphor to illustrate, that hardly includes the whole. Language is funny that way.

And how does one determine what is meant as metaphorical and what is literal?

[LuthAMF]

47 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

And how does one determine what is meant as metaphorical and what is literal?

It's called the science of Hermeneutics and the use of the discipline Exegesis.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

4 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

It's called the science of Hermeneutics and the use of the discipline Exegesis.

Do you hate your parents or do you honor them?

[LuthAMF]

8 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Do you hate your parents or do you honor them?

Well you see, that depends on what kind of grass we're talking about.

 

You're a former Christian,  huh? That's pretty basic stuff to not know. 

 

Maybe you could take a course in Biblical Hermeneutics.

[LuthAMF]

9 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Do you hate your parents or do you honor them?

Do we answer a fool according to his folly or do we not answer a fool according to his folly?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 minute ago, LuthAMF said:

Do we answer a fool according to his folly or do we not answer a fool according to his folly?

god the father said to honor your father and mother; jesus said if any man did not hate his father and mother, he could not be a disciple.  Take your pick as to which one was the fool; but keep in mind, "I and the father are one."

[TheRedneckProfessor]

8 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

Well you see, that depends on what kind of grass we're talking about.

 

You're a former Christian,  huh? That's pretty basic stuff to not know. 

 

Maybe you could take a course in Biblical Hermeneutics.

Precisely.  When I say exactly what I mean, those around me don't need a hermeneutics course to understand me.  Nor do they need skills in advanced exegetics to discern my meaning.  The reason christians need a graduate degree in biblical studies to "properly" understand the bible is because god has a hard time saying what he means.  Thank you for demonstrating my point with such precision and clarity.

[LuthAMF]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Precisely.  When I say exactly what I mean, those around me don't need a hermeneutics course to understand me.  Nor do they need skills in advanced exegetics to discern my meaning.  The reason christians need a graduate degree in biblical studies to "properly" understand the bible is because god has a hard time saying what he means.  Thank you for demonstrating my point with such precision and clarity.

The only point demonstrated is that you have no clue what you're talking about.

Remember, if you say grass is green, an expert Horticulturalist is going to nail you. Plus, God being God can speak any language necessary to confound an arrogant fool. He's not obligated to you.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

11 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

He's not obligated to you.

Nor I to him. 

 

But what about the millions who have read his word and believed; but are still deceived because they had the wrong interpretation of the wrong translation, and god never bothered to clarify himself for them.