Kill them

[Youkilledkenny]

Kill a specific person - God has commanded killing before

Not treat your sick child - people do it all the time

Ignore a person in need or Give money to a stranger said to be in need - both obvious encounters many of us have on occasion

Prepare for a cataclysm (natural or man made) - God has commanded this prior

Do X that violates your local law obviously

The list could continue.

As a true Christian, would you do anything God tells you to do?

Why or why not?

[sawthelight]

That's an important point to make. While there are some that try, no doubt in my mind about that living in the southern USA, it's not as much as one would expect assuming Christian law is right and just.
On that note, should they be upholding modern or more original (ancient?) Christian law?
As we all know, Christianity isn't known for originally being peaceful and docile.

Well we know the Crusades before preached in the name of Christ (the Christian Crusades) to use war to proselytize unbelievers. That wasn't so peaceful and docile. It is estimated that 1.7 million people died during that campaign. About 1/20 Crusaders died during that war. So 1/20 Crusaders is 85,000 Christians dead. Which means 16,150,000 unbelievers dead. You tell me if Christians were always peaceful.

How about the Cajamarca in Peru, South America? Hernando Pizzaro and his crewmen came under the Catholic Empire to slay savages:

"The prudence, fortitude, military discipline, labors, perilous navigations, and battles of the Spaniards - vassals of the most invincible Emperor of the Roman Catholic Empire, our natural King and Lord - will cause joy to the faithful and terror to the infidels...
...Governor Pizarro now sent Friar Vicente de Valverde to go speak to Atahuallpa (captured Peru king), and to require Atahuallpa in the name of God and the Kind of Spain that Atahuallpa subject himself to the law of our Lord Jesus Christ..."
" Source: Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond; Reports on the Discovery of Peru, Hakluyt Society, 1st ser., vol. 47 (New York, 1872)]

Pizarro and his brothers slayed 80,000 South American Indians in the name of Jesus Christ that day. That would be in most recent times.

Take Pizarro, the Crusades, and go way back to the OT. You see nothing but war in the name of a hypocritical, contradictory, charlatan god.

Why waste your life for such an inconsistent hypocritical god?

The Christians claim that their god is true, just, and all about peace but do you think that is the case?

Would a just God give out contradictory commandments and opposing prophecies so he could just see people bleed to death? That is a just god?

Contradiction is synonymous to truth?

Now they claim that their god is all about peace only.

You've got a major problem right there.

You decide.

[Youkilledkenny]

[Replying to post 11 by sawthelight]

The Christians claim that their god is true, just, all about peace as the Bible might say, but do you think that is the case?

I guess that depends on which "god" to which you refer.
The OT God was grumpy and blood thirsty and vengeful.
The NT God (which I'll call NT 1.0) was about peace and happiness and puppies etc
Read further into the NT and you'll see NT 1.1 which seems to be OK with peace and happiness and puppies but slightly annoyed - speaking to people about end times and wars and such.
Either one you pick, they all see rather 'man-made' to me at least

[sawthelight]

[Replying to post 12 by Youkilledkenny]

To answer your previous question, modern law should be upheld rather than Christian law.

It's more progressive rather than stagnant and rigid. And it's the best we got so far. Far better than Christian law that Christians don't even follow.

So stick with secular.

[Youkilledkenny]

[Replying to post 13 by sawthelight]

Far better than Christian law that Christians don't even follow

That, my friend, is an excellent point!
I bet if you asked 100 Christians they would all say they follow Christian law fully and totally. And out of those 100, I bet you'd find 4-5 different views of the same law(s).
It makes me wonder if this ambiguousness is the problem or if it's the individual's.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 1 by Youkilledkenny]

I can ask a thousand people what it means to be a "true Christian" and get a thousand different answers, so I really don't know what that means to begin with. If I look at it from the perspective that it is simply a religion, then I'm still in a quandary because I don't think Jesus came to start a new religion.

There's another problem. How does God communicate his will? If we look at the bible, then context is key. The example of God's command to kill is illustrative. If we look at the context of an almighty God dwelling with his people then his orders are either observed or your toast. If that God splits then his orders are pretty much going to be ignored by most.

With respect to Christianity in particular this isn't the case though, at least with respect to killing as this is part of what Paul refers to as "the curse of the law". This is a reference to the penalty phase of the law, and is done away with along with the sacrificial system. This is not to say that Paul is suggesting that Christians may transgress God's laws with impunity, but to point out that if they have come under the grace of God then they aren't "walking after the lusts of the flesh" anymore, and therefore aren't sinning in the first place because those who "walk after the Spirit do not fulfill the lusts of the flesh".

This presents a problem for mainstream Christianity in that while they all profess to be Christians, they also admit that they still sin, so I guess to answer your question, if I was one of this type of Christians then the answer would have to be no.

Regardless, as it stands, since God isn't breathing down my neck to do his will, I would assume that I'm not likely to do his will, at least in all aspects of my life. For example. The Christian God commands that beards not be trimmed; I don't even have a beard to trim so I'm practically committing an abomination. Then again, it may be a matter of context again. Joseph was definitely someone that God watched over and had a plan for his life, but he shaved because he was living in Egypt; he was observing convention. The bible is silent on whether this behavior was acceptable or not.

On the other hand, if God's commands make sense to me, and I see that they are beneficial then I'm going to observe them. This happens to be the case, even though I'm not certain that this god even exists. With my last example, I just read an article showing that shaving is a great way to spread infection so it makes me think that this is yet another instruction that may be better to obey than worry about how it makes me look.

[JehovahsWitness]

Joseph was definitely someone that God watched over and had a plan for his life, but he shaved because he was living in Egypt; he was observing convention. The bible is silent on whether this behavior was acceptable or not.

The Mosaic law did not exist when Joseph was alive, so there was no prohibition on removal facial hair. The Mosaic law did include laws regarding dress and grooming.

The Christian God commands that beards not be trimmed; I don't even have a beard to trim so I'm practically committing an abomination.

No, the specific laws about dress and grooming and shaving were part of a law code given specifically to the Jewish people. Those laws no longer apply to Christians who are simply told to be clean and modest in dress and grooming.



JW

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 12 by Youkilledkenny]

To answer your previous question, modern law should be upheld rather than Christian law.

It's more progressive rather than stagnant and rigid. And it's the best we got so far. Far better than Christian law that Christians don't even follow.

So stick with secular.

A long time ago before people used to carry credit cards around in their wallets, they used to use gold and silver as a medium of exchange. They would give their gold to the blacksmiths to hold. The blacksmiths were the go-to people because they could melt the recently mined metal into bars that could more easily be measured for weight and purity. So people would just naturally have the blacksmiths hold their gold as well and they would get a receipt, which eventually they began to use instead of the gold. The blacksmiths began to see that they could lend out receipts and collect interest on these loans which enabled them to make money on gold they didn't even have. When people figured this out they would run to the blacksmith to collect their gold and those who got their last got nothing but an itchy trigger finger.

The secular law outlawed this deception as it was outright theft. Theft is also outlawed in the bible, but sometimes people come up with new ways to steal so secular law has to come up with laws that address each example that those with imagination come up with. The biblical law doesn't need to do this because theft is theft.

More to the point. in our lust for progress, secular law has now legalized this theft all over the world. This is very close to what we have with fractional reserve Central banking system. The only big difference is that we aren't dealing with blacksmiths anymore, and legally the money isn't even the property of those who deposit it. The bank owns it and can do whatever it wants with it including gamble with it. If they win, they collect the profit. If they lose, the tax payers pay them back. Gotta love progress, especially if you're a banker.

[sawthelight]

A long time ago before people used to carry credit cards around in their wallets, they used to use gold and silver as a medium of exchange. They would give their gold to the blacksmiths to hold. The blacksmiths were the go-to people because they could melt the recently mined metal into bars that could more easily be measured for weight and purity. So people would just naturally have the blacksmiths hold their gold as well and they would get a receipt, which eventually they began to use instead of the gold. The blacksmiths began to see that they could lend out receipts and collect interest on these loans which enabled them to make money on gold they didn't even have. When people figured this out they would run to the blacksmith to collect their gold and those who got their last got nothing but an itchy trigger finger.

The secular law outlawed this deception as it was outright theft. Theft is also outlawed in the bible, but sometimes people come up with new ways to steal so secular law has to come up with laws that address each example that those with imagination come up with. The biblical law doesn't need to do this because theft is theft.

More to the point. in our lust for progress, secular law has now legalized this theft all over the world. This is very close to what we have with fractional reserve Central banking system. The only big difference is that we aren't dealing with blacksmiths anymore, and legally the money isn't even the property of those who deposit it. The bank owns it and can do whatever it wants with it including gamble with it. If they win, they collect the profit. If they lose, the tax payers pay them back. Gotta love progress, especially if you're a banker.

That is a good point. Bankers pretty much own the system now but you got to pick your poison, which will it be?

GMO in probably everything. Who knows how clean our water is. How about the chemical governments spray in the air? Everywhere you go is potential to die of poison or cancer.

Yet we progressed. Nothing is perfect in life but would you rather take a chance to make it independent co-existing with carnivorous bankers, or waste your money, time, and energy for a false religion?

[shnarkle]

Joseph was definitely someone that God watched over and had a plan for his life, but he shaved because he was living in Egypt; he was observing convention. The bible is silent on whether this behavior was acceptable or not.

The Mosaic law did not exist when Joseph was alive, so there was no prohibition on removal facial hair. The Mosaic law did include laws regarding dress and grooming.

Did Adam and Eve, Cain, etc. not know what they had done was against God's law? Did Noah, not know the difference between clean and unclean animals? The Sabbath was created on the seventh day, and Israel had barely crossed the Red Sea before God in disgust asked them "How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws"? This was before Moses received the law as well. Do you see a pattern here yet?

The Christian God commands that beards not be trimmed; I don't even have a beard to trim so I'm practically committing an abomination.

No, the specific laws about dress and grooming and shaving were part of a law code given specifically to the Jewish people. Those laws no longer apply to Christians who are simply told to be clean and modest in dress and grooming.

"One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that soruorneth among you." exodus 12:49

"11 So I ask, did they stumble in order that they might fall? By no means! Rather, through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous. 12 Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion[a] mean!
13 Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry 14 in order somehow to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them. 15 For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead? 16 If the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, so is the whole lump, and if the root is holy, so are the branches.
17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, 18 do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. 19 Then you will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.� 20 That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. 22 Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off. 23 And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again. 24 For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree." Romans 11:11-31

Paul is also very clear that the law is "established".

Christians aren't grafted into a separate covenant. Jesus preached the gospel exclusively to Jews. It is the same Christ preached to gentiles that was preached to Israel; granted a resurrected one, but nonetheless the same gospel.

[JehovahsWitness]

The Mosaic law did not exist when Joseph was alive, so there was no prohibition on removal facial hair. The Mosaic law did include laws regarding dress and grooming.

Did Adam and Eve, Cain, etc. not know what they had done was against God's law? Did Noah, not know the difference between clean and unclean animals? This was before Moses received the law as well.

As I said, the grooming laws (and the Sabbath) were all part of the Mosaic law which was transmitted to Moses. Adam, Eve Cain lived long before this event.

Did Noah, not know the difference between clean and unclean animals?

Noah was given some laws regarding animals and blood. Nothing was mentioned regarding his beard.

The Sabbath was created on the seventh day God rested on the seventh day, he made no mention of a law in this regard and there is no biblical record of any of the Patriarchs observing a Sabbath.

Israel had barely crossed the Red Sea before God in disgust asked them "How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws"?

What scripture are you referring to? The law was adopted not too long after the nation crossed the red sea. In any case if you give me a reference I can be more precise.

Do you see a pattern here yet? Do you? If you would like to make a point, then I will be more than happy to say if I agree with it or not.

"One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that soruorneth among you." exodus 12:49

This was part of the Mosaic law referring to those living within the borders of their nation (during the time when those laws were in force).