I'm not trying to make anything personal.

You make it personal by trying to push your FAITH onto me as FACT.

Where does it eventually lead?

Prayer in public schools.

Rejection of same-gender relationships and marriage.

Rejection of evolution and most of what science knows about human evolution and genetics.

Where does this superstitious FAITH of yours stop?

The superstitious elements of these fables have never been proven to be fact, nor have they been shown to be factual in any way.

On the contrary we have many very sound and rational reasons for dismissing the whole thing.

Cowboy wrote:

Oh but you can not prove 32 F is freezing cold any more then I can prove God is real.

Cowboy wrote:

It is 100% fact that water freezes at 32 degrees F. That would not be different from person to person, it is a bottom line fact.

Well now you're contradicting yourself. You just previously posted:



And now your claiming that this cannot be proven to be a fact?

You're talking in circles now.

Cowboy wrote:

I'm pushing nothing on anyone.

What negative thing comes of prayer in school?

And no we don't reject evolution and most of what science KNOWS about human evolution and genetics.

It is a theory my friend, tis why it's call the THEORY of evolution. A theory is nothing more then an educated guess. So therefore evolution is not a sound fact. So yeah I guess we reject the guessing game scientists use.

Cowboy wrote:

In science terms it is 100% fact that water freezes at 32 degrees F. But nevertheless is not a fact. For you can not prove that waster freezes at 32 any more then I can prove you God.

Sure you are. You're trying to push the idea that it is a FACT that the Bible is the "Word of God".

But it doesn't fly.



Why should spirituality be lead by a government run institution?

Also why should atheists be made to pray to a God they don't even believe in?

Who's going to lead the prayer, and what are they going to say or ask of God? Maybe I won't be in agreement with the person who is leading the prayer.



Who's we? The Bible says that God created Adam from the dust of the Earth and he created Eve from Adam's rib. That is NOT in agreement with evolution. Many Christians renounce evolution entirely. And rightfully so if they are going to take the Bible literally.



Yes, my friend, there is a theory of evolution.

However, there is also much evidence for evolution. And the evidence is overwhelming. Not only is there tons of evidence for evolution of life on Earth, but we can even see how it works via the genetics of DNA.

In other words, the "theory" has actually been explained via the sciences of biology, chemistry, physics, and genetics.

And it all fits and works seamlessly.

On the other hand the claims of the Bible do not fit observations.

Scientific observations show that thorns existed prior to mankind.

Scientific observations show that death, disease, and all manner of imperfections and animals eating animals occurred prior to the evolution of mankind.

Scientific observations show that no major catastrophic flood depicted in the Bible could have possibly occurred during the time that humans roamed the Earth.

So the idea that science is wrong and the Bible is true seems pretty far-fetched.

Why should spirituality be lead by a government run institution?

Also why should atheists be made to pray to a God they don't even believe in?

Who's going to lead the prayer, and what are they going to say or ask of God? Maybe I won't be in agreement with the person who is leading the prayer.

Maybe I won't be in agreement with the person who is leading the prayer

Well, if it's your stance that you can't even prove God, then why would you even bother trying to claim that the Bible is bottom line fact?

That's just silly.

This conversation is truly getting absurd Cowboy.

You confess that you cannot prove your God.

Fine.

I accept.

Cowboy wrote:

Doesn't have to be lead by the school itself, can just be casually lead by a student at the school. They wouldn't be "made" to pray, if they did not wish to pray they could just simply not while the others did.

Cowboy wrote:

Conversations with people such as you is always absurd Abra.

And same question for you on EVERYTHING. NOTHING about science can be proven except but using hearsay rumours my friend.

Religious fanaticism at it's peak.

All of that is beside the real point anyway.

The real point is that schools are supposed to teach children things that we know. As you say, we can't can't if a God exists. Therefore to teach children to pray in schools is silly. There's simply no reason to teach children to pray to imaginary beings.

This should be something that their parents can do on their own time if they wish.

There's just no point to this type of thing even taking place in a school at all. It's just not the right place for it.

Cowboy wrote:

Everything taught in history is from hearsay rumours just as you claim is in the bible. If the bible is held at hearsay rumours, why then do eye witnesses of crimes hold so much power of persuasion? for that is nothing but hearsay rumours as well.

Well, first off, we do know that many people have been wrongly convicted due to poor eye witness testimony. So eye witness testimony cannot always be trusted. Do you believe in all the eye-witness UFO sitings? Do you believe in the eye-witness sightings of Big Foot, etc.?

We know that it's human nature to often exaggerate and even tell outright lies to support stories.

I don't discount all of the rumors of the New Testament. I believe that some guy named Jesus probably did live, reject the moral values of the Torah, Preach the moral values of Buddhism, and was wrongfully crucified for his view.

That much probably did spark these rumors. However all the claims of being born of a virgin, voices coming from the sky, zombie saints raising from graves and so forth, I feel are most likely just over-zealous rumors.

I think many a judge has ignored the testimony of supposed 'eye-witnesses' who have gone overboard with wild and crazy nonsensical testimonies as well.

Besides, like I say, if you're going to believe everyone's eye-witness testimony then you must also believe in faeries because many people do indeed claim to have seen them. I have a book right here entitled "Forty Years with the Faeries". The whole thing is a book written by a woman who swears on her mother's grave that she's been talking to faeries for over 40 years.

So I guess faeries must be real then.

She even claims to speak with her deceased husband through these faeries.

So there you go. An eye-witness account of the reality of faeries.

Well thanks Abra, you've helped me come to the conclusion ALL history is a bunch of hearsay rumours, thanks bro you're a great help much love to you and yours.

No just merely stating God would not have put on his conscience to do anything with a homosexual activity for God has told us not to embark in such activities. And yes that is included in the new covenant about homosexuality being immoral and sinful.

Galatians (King James Version)

3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.

4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

The sacrifice was only a part of the new covenant. The only main thing to the sacrifice itself was that we now don't have to sacrifice animals and such for forgiveness of our sins, for the blood of Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice.

…the biggest difference between the old and new covenant is when we will be judged. The old covenant allowed judgement to be done on earth by our peers.

The new covenant has the word himself judging us, Jesus. In the times the old covenant held power the word had not been made into flesh yet, thus our peers had to carry out the judgement.

And again now since the word has become flesh, Jesus. We are still judged by the word, but now the word can carry out the judgement itself.

Our obedience is to the law, therefore he listened to his conscience to obey the law.

Both equally important for if he wouldn't have listened to his conscience he would not have turned away from his sinful lifestyle, if it wasn't for the law he may not have known exactly what was wrong

He changed nothing, he fullfilled the old and gave us the new. If you are writing a paragraph on a piece of paper, you can either erase and change things eg., changing the covenant. Or you could through the piece of paper out and get a new one to write the new paragraph on eg., the new covenant.

Just because they may contain some of the same laws does not mean they are using the laws from one another. As in just because the old covenant said not to do something and so does the new does not mean the new got that instruction from the old. Just merely has the law as well and holds power for it is also in the new.

Of course Jesus' teachings weren't the same as the old testament laws. They are TWO different forms of laws

and Jesus fulfilled what we now call the OLD testament. So no he wasn't agreeing that they were unwise, just they were fulfilled, completed, finished.

The law is inside everyone of us. If people are 100% honest and sincere with themselves, they know what they are to do and what they are not to do if they truly sit and think about it. Ponder on the idea. People KNOW it's wrong to murder, without anyone telling them as such

This was NOT the works of the father, for God states plainly that homosexuality is sinful and we are not to do as such, so no he was not OBVIOUSLY doing the work of God.

Lev. 20:13:

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

This was NOT the works of the father, for God states plainly that homosexuality is sinful and we are not to do as such, so no he was not OBVIOUSLY doing the work of God. It is sinful and an abomination,

No just merely stating God would not have put on his conscience to do anything with a homosexual activity for God has told us not to embark in such activities. And yes that is included in the new covenant about homosexuality being immoral and sinful.

Rom 3:19-20
19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Romans 3:19-31 (21st Century King James Version)

19Now we know that whatsoever things the law saith, it saith to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped and all the world may become guilty before God.

20Therefore by the deeds of the law, no flesh shall be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

21But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,

22even the righteousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all and upon all those who believe. For there is no difference,

23for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God,

24being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.

25Him God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood, to declare His righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

26to declare, I say, at this time, His righteousness: that He might be just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus.

27Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? Nay, but by the law of faith.

28Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.

29Is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also,

30seeing it is one God who shall justify the Circumcision by faith, and Uncircumcision through faith.

31Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid! Yea, we establish the law.

Cowboy, Here are several quotes you have made in this thread: They seem to be as riddled with as much confusion and conflict as you attribute to others:



Which laws were to be judged by peers: The laws about civil order (like hospitality, slavery, giving alms, respecting the laws of the land) or the laws about religious rights (like circumcision, purification, marriage, food) or sacrifice, or the 10 commandments? Were all of these meant to be judged and punished by man?

Yet you say that the biggest difference between the old and new covenant is WHEN we will be judged and as an aside you mention:



You are saying that God could not judge because he had not been made flesh. What was the flood, or the mass destruction of cities, or the plagues upon Egypt?



How can we STILL be judged by the word when it was not the word that judged by the Old covenant but peers, as you have stated above?



Here you were implying that the written law of the old covenant is to be obeyed even now after the New covenant.

In addition you added:


In other words the ‘feeling’ a person gets form INSIDE is only valuable if the person has read and understands the law of the covenant. Which covenant – because the law of the Old Covenant is fulfilled – done away with and the New is 'Inside'.



What or who does it serve to repeat some of the same laws on a new paper? Why not strike out the ones that were no longer of value?

What have you learned about WHY the Old covenant had to be replaced other than WHEN we will be judged & by whom – which seem to both be in error by the way.



Jesus was born a Jew, was raised a Jew, and clarified consistently the misinterpretation and misuse of the Old covenant laws.

To fulfill these laws he would have had to accomplish what no human ever could – follow the Old law without sin or transgression.

Does it make sense to you that this MODEL could have followed every law faithfully without trespass if he were breaking it by teaching something OTHER than the old law?



He NEVER said the old law was fulfilled, in fact he supported them rigorously and one of the MOST quoted versus is his proclamation that he did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill it – that meant it HAD TO BE IN PLACE and he had to follow it, in order to fulfill it. He was not teaching a New covenant but making the Old one clear, as it had been so corrupted by man.

Then regarding the New covenant you say:


This is in direct conflict with the quotes at the beginning of this post in which you say the written law is more important than the one inside, because without the written law we could not interpret our ‘feelings’.



So far you have said that the Old testament is no longer needed (from other posts) because its covenant was fulfilled. But a new covenant took its place and it includes the 10 commandments.

You also claim that the new covenant comes from within (where it was placed) BUT you also say that we need the written law to understand the feelings the new covenant gives us. But then you rescind that idea and say that if we are honest and sinsere we don’t need a written law.

Furthermore, there is the claim that one of the differences between the old and new law is that ONLY Jesus can judge based on the New covenant that was placed inside. But you continue judge based on laws that are not inside but written before the New covenant took place.



Not only are you using written law – when the only law currently comes from inside – but you are using obsolete law AND THEN you are doing what you said the New covenant no longer allows men to do – to judge the works of people, not based on quality or intent (of which you could not know) but by a ‘written’ law that was never meant to be a copy of the Old one because it was not to be written BY men but INSIDE of men.



I suggest that you cannot know what the New Covenant is – because it was not meant to be written by any man, the New covenant is belief – wholly and only, faith in Jesus sacrifice for the redemption of sin.

Jesus fulfilled the Old Covenant by following it as it was meant to be followed – something no man could ever do. In its place is the power of redemption which his sacrifice placed inside of EVERY human so that faith would initiate it and ONLY God will be the judge of a mans faith and deeds.



I have given you some vital information throughout much of this thread. I have attempted to explain where you have either been deceived, misdirected, or made grievous errors in interpretation.

As you would have others submit to those who bring the gospel and its words for their own good, so I have brought you this vital information.

For the bible you love plainly says that believing in the least of the written law is to fall from grace. It tells you that accepting any part of that written law BINDS you to ALL of it and in doing so you render your very salvation through Jesus a moot point.

I have not given you secrets, I have given you an opportunity to re-evaluate your beliefs. The book is there, much of the information has been pointed out here, and like many non-believers you now stand in the crossroads because I’m telling you that your very salvation is at stake.

To hear the words of Jesus and deny them, or to teach and judge others about Jesus or God wrongly puts you in the same boat as everyone you say does not believe as you do. Maybe without a lifejacket becaue you do it when you have been given the truth.

Now its up to you, do you think your faith is enough if you are unrepentant of your wrongdoing – or do you think ‘ignorance’ of the New covenant (when truth has been presented) will be enough to save you?

Which laws were to be judged by peers: The laws about civil order (like hospitality, slavery, giving alms, respecting the laws of the land) or the laws about religious rights (like circumcision, purification, marriage, food) or sacrifice, or the 10 commandments? Were all of these meant to be judged and punished by man?

You are saying that God could not judge because he had not been made flesh. What was the flood, or the mass destruction of cities, or the plagues upon Egypt?

How can we STILL be judged by the word when it was not the word that judged by the Old covenant but peers, as you have stated above?

The only laws that have any power over our soul, the laws provided by our father.
-------------



The flood was not a "judgement". It was a purifying of the planet. Everyone that was not on the ark after the flood then went before God for judgement. The world was ran by evil and corrupt people, so the easiest way to deal with that was to wipe the planet clean and start again.



We were judged by the word, but as the word was just that the word it obviously couldn't carry out the judgement on it's own. Thus we were judged by our peers through the word. As in the word tells us that it is a sin to steal, the only reward for sin is death, thus came the stoning people to death. For the word judged it as a sin to steal and the only reward for sin is death. But now that the word has become flesh, Jesus. The world "Jesus" can carry out the judgement on his own and is no longer in need for us to do it.






And no i'm not judging anyone, i'm merely informing of what the law states.

In truth, the "Designer Christians" are really the only true Protestants. Each one having a personal walk with Jesus and interpreting the hearsay rumors about HIM in their own personal way.

Perhaps the term "Designer Christian" is indeed the best title because it denotes that the 'designer' eminates from within, developing moral codes of ethics to suit the individual needs of each person.

This would make so much more sense in a world in which individual expereince finds little commonality among poeple with vast and far-reaching differences in culture, economics, and environment.

An internal moral compass 'Designed' on an individual basis - what a good concept.