The Kingfish posted:

The Christian conception of God really should be 'they' for a number of reasons.

Griffen posted:

Griffen posted:

I was wondering when someone would bring up the cleanliness laws. Some of the tenets of the Old Testament involved how to become ceremonially clean, which was important for times of offering sacrifices, seeking God's guidance, and for conducting priestly duties. This was a means to impress upon the people the nature of their sins and their contrast to God's holiness. The sacrifices were done to show the cost of our sin and to make us right with God. Even some legitimately acceptable things had to be abstained from in order to be ceremonially clean for certain actions. There are accounts in the Old Testament where people are told to abstain from sexual relations with their spouses right before an important event. This was not because sex is wrong, but to impress upon the people that going before God is a big deal because of the gulf between us caused by sin. That is why only the high priest could go into the Holy of Holies only once a year on behalf of all the people, because of that separation. The good news of Christianity is that Christ bridged that gulf for us and gave us the opportunity to reach God; that is one of the themes in the book of Hebrews, that Jesus is our eternal high priest who intercedes on our behalf. In the same way, his sacrifice is the eternal sacrifice that wipes our sin away if we accept him. Thus, there is no more clean or unclean. As is recorded in Peter's vision in Acts, God tells Peter "do not call anything impure that God has made clean" (Acts 10:15). Therefore the cleanliness laws are no longer required, as the core meaning of them has been fulfilled in Christ. In the same way, Christians don't have to be circumcised, because the mark of the covenant is no longer a physical mark on our bodies, but the indelible mark of God on our souls by the Holy Spirit.

Now, if you want to relate kosher laws with laws on sexual immorality, I don't know what to tell you. To me, that is text book cherry picking of wanting to equate things without understanding what they are or their context. If you concede that we are discussing the nature of God and His relation to Man, surely you have to admit that pithy one-liners are going to fall rather short in terms of having a functional dialogue.

quote:

28 He said to them: “You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean.

McDowell posted:

The real issue is in yourself - do you want to live forever (either physically and or digitally) in this world, wielding power over others, pursuing a godhood of a sort - or will you accept that your body, spirit, and mind exist at the mercy of God?

McDowell posted:

Sure, that is your choice. But such a lesser, material god is still only as permanent as this universe. Humans have full dominion over the Earth now - this stewardship time, this test, is both the beginning and the end of an age.

McDowell posted:

^ What circumstances created Louis Pasteur? The same chain of events leading to and stemming from the crucifixion of Christ, the prophecy of Muhammad, and much more.

Dragonshirt posted:

Holy Jesus, can we just come right out and say that McDowell isn't prepared to actually post in this thread? He's just spouting spiritual platitudes that don't mean anything. It's pretty obvious he's never taken a skeptical look at his own beliefs.

Eskaton posted:

Because religion isn't really a science, maybe..? There is no rigor required. You might want to take a look at a lot postmodern stuff.

You know Christian Atheism is a thing? Zizek has a good thing on it.