Post by default Post by Bob Post by default
Amazing how they call themselves Christian, yet can believe only what
they want to believe,
No, that's not true.
It is painfully true.
No it's not. You're wrong.
Post by default
When's the last time you stoned an adulterer or
sorcerer? It's in your book... God commands it.... You mean to tell
me you aren't doing what god commands? and you call yourself a
Well, see? That's where your ignorance of the New Covenant, and all that
it stands for, is on full display for everyone to see.
"In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete.
And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away."
"In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old - That is,
the use of the word "new" implies that the one which it was to supersede
was "old." New and old stand in contradistinction from each other. Thus,
we speak of a new and old house, a new and old garment, etc. The object
of the apostle is to show that by the very fact of the arrangement for a
new dispensation differing so much from the old, it was implied of
necessity that that was to be superseded, and would vanish away. This
was one of the leading points at which he arrived."
"Now that which decays and waxes old is ready to vanish away - This is
a general truth which would be undisputed, and which Paul applies to the
case under consideration. An old house, or garment; an ancient tree; an
aged man, all have indications that they are soon to disappear. They
cannot be expected to remain long. The very fact of their growing old is
an indication that they will soon be gone. So Paul says it was with the
dispensation that was represented as old. It had symptoms of decay. It
had lost the vigor which it had when it was fresh and new; it had every
mark of an antiquated and a declining system; and it had been expressly
declared that a new and more perfect dispensation was to be given to the
world. Paul concluded, therefore, that the Jewish system must soon
(From Barnes' Notes on the Bible)
Post by default Post by Bob
You can call it whatever you want to. That doesn't really matter.
When you're wrong, you're wrong.
Thankfully, I'm seldom wrong.
Not this time.
Post by default Post by Bob
So, do you defend Christian morality, or not?
Morality doesn't have a brand name. There's just moral and immoral.
Christians are among the most immoral people, but that's not too
surprising since they don't begin to understand morality, they have to
look it up in their rule book so they can: look for loopholes, ignore
it, or call it a sin and get forgiven, - or if they were going to do
it anyway, bask in sanctimonious hubris.
So then you admit you believe that "morality", in whatever costume you
dressing it up in, actually exists. You openly admit that something you
see, or touch, or smell, or hear, or taste, or scientifically test,
actually exists in
the here and now.
Well, so much for the Materialistic worldview of atheism. You just shredded
that up and tossed it out like old garbage. You not an atheist. You only
pretending to be an atheist. You contradict what being an atheist means
every day here in a.a.
I just wanted you to publicly confess what you have done, so I can watch as
you wiggle your way out of that corner you've backed yourself into.
Just give me a few minutes to fix up some popcorn first, okay?
Oh, this is going to be fun. Almost like Saturday Night at the Movies,
is Real Life.