Again....that's the problem.
YOU initiated the responsibility of shouldering the burden of proof.
YOU have already claimed that the Biblical God does NOT exist.
I asked for proof, but you won't give us any.
Therefore, it is YOU who have made an unjustified assertion.
YOU have given us no...
Hi psychoslice...
That's the problem...
You misunderstand philosophy (thinking it is characteristic of someone who is "playing with words").
You don't realize that good philosophy helps us think clearly, with detail and precision, leading us to discover additional truth.
That's not playing...
Ok....we've got a LOGICAL problem here (forget about God or religion or sin for now)....
There's a purely PHILOSOPHICAL and LOGICAL problem here. A philosophy 101 class is in order!
I asked: "How do you know that there has never been any proof that the Biblical God exists?"
You responded...
Hi again psychoslice...
You wrote: "Because there has never been any proof what so ever..."
My response: How do you know that there has never been any proof that the Biblical God exists?
Hello psychoslice,
I think I see where you are coming from...
But...
If the Biblical God exists, then you are only "free" if God forgives your sin.
So, you have assumed the Biblical God does not exist.
Why do you assume the Biblical God does not exist?
Oh ok.....You can ignore my question....
But I am not listening?
Hmmm.....
YOU are not answering.
YOU are not even bothering to tell me what I am allegedly not listening to.
YOU are not explaining.
YOU are not adequately engaging the evidence I've brought forth.
Sigh.....I'd say this chat...
Hello,
Matthew 5:19 explicitly states that your position in the forthcoming kingdom is dependent upon your obedience to (and teaching of) the law.
It does not merely say "practice what you preach".
You wrote: "So only if you yourself keep the law perfectly are you qualified to teach others...
Sure....thanks for asking.
When Paul says we are not "under the law", he does NOT mean we should not obey the law.
Here's the proof:
1. Even though we are not "under" the law, Paul says (in the same breath) that we should NOT sin (Rom. 6:15).
2. Paul believes sin is violation of the law (Rom...
Sure, sin could be bigger than "violation of Mosaic Law". For example, you could propose that sin = violation of God's laws.
And yes, we are not justified by faithless obedience to law.
Nevertheless, Christians ARE expected to obey God's law:
1. Jesus said our Torah-obedience and...
Granted...but we DO have the Law of Moses.
Thus, we may now define sin as follows: "sin = violation of law of Moses" (as confirmed by Rom. 3:20; 7:7; 1 Jn. 3:4).
And, since we should not sin (Rom. 6:1-2,15), it follows we should NOT violate the law of Moses.
Agreed?
Sin is violation of the law of Moses (Romans 3:20; Romans 7:7; 1 John 3:4).
We should not sin (Rom. 6:1-2,15).
Therefore, we should NOT violate the law of Moses.
Agreed?
Not entirely sure what (precisely) you have in mind by the term "sin law".
But regarding Paul and sin, this argument is clearly supported by Paul's writings in Biblical Scripture:
1. Paul taught that sin is violation of law (Rom. 3:20;7:7).
2. Paul taught that we should not sin (Rom...
Jesus clearly expects us to CONTINUE to obey the Torah of Moses, lest we be called LEAST in the forthcoming kingdom (Mt. 5:19).
Those who desire eternal life (Lk. 10:25) are expected to obey LAW (Lk. 10:26-28).
John expects us to OBEY law (1 Jn. 5:3).
Paul expects us to OBEY law (1 Cor...