You said it D. I would like to say that I had this conversation just the other day but very few people here care or know anything about all that. Even my jewish friends(I think I know 2). I will say though that if it is sideways rain I would rather be behind a pillar. Well I'm off to eat a huge pork sandwich that I made on Sunday. Freedom (Gal. 5:1) rocks!

 

One thing I give gopchristian credit for--he takes his beliefs to their (il)logical end. Jeepers, this guy makes you look like a flaming liberal! ;-)
coach D

 

Well it is good to have you back. I think the pillar/umbrella analogy is a great word picture. I have noticed the "pillar" problem is not just one with the law and Christ fullfillment of it. It applies elsewhere; one area that has left me baffled is the willingness to apply the same kind of thinking to spiritual gifts, healing or miracles. Although not a full charismatic christian, I wonder how theologians can pick and choose which gifts they are comfortable with-pillars one through three and which they are not-pillars 4-6. Feel free to place your favorite and least favorite gifts at whatever position you theologically favor.
The same with miracles, which seems to flow from ones experience or typically lack of experience. Pillar theology is our attempt to fit the Word into our personal beliefs and expereinces. Pastor Bill

 

>this particular individual thinks that the GOP is God's party,

Not even the Sadducess would vote for the pro-homosexual, drug-legalizing, baby-killing, Terri-euthanizing Democrats. Mind you, the Republic is the waypoint, not the destination.


>that all abortionists should be killed,

If that's a quote, it's out of character. I'd rather abortionists be deported to Europe than executed. ...but would you rather be killing abortionists by action or continue killing babies by inaction?

Futhermore, I actually hate aborters (mothers) more than abortionists (doctors), the abortionists aren't the ones God is cursing so much, though they are facilitators of the curse and often qualify as "temptors" and that should be taken into account.


> and that all Old Testament Law is still, very much, still in effect.

The Law of nature is in effect and people die according to it. Did you think all those rules were made so people could look back and laugh at the prophets?


>Why? Because of the verse where Christ states that not the least stroke of the pen would be negated because of His teachings and such.

No, not because of scripture, because of God.

BTW: Matthew 5:17-19


>Therefore, we should not eat pork,

If you love pork, don't be surprised if God strikes you down with cancer.


>shave our beards,

When I became a man I put away my childish face. How much time and money have you spent trying to look like a little girl?


> wear mixed fabrics,

You might want to talk to Jordan Rubin about that. Ever wonder why so many people have skin problems?


>meet on Sundays,

You should meet in God's house EVERY day! ...except the sabbath, because on the sabbath you are not suppose to travel, walk, leave your tent, or even cook, because it was supposed to "afflict your soul". One purpose was to train the tribe for stealth during war, another was to break you of your silly habits, and the most important was probably give us priests a break from dealing with rebellious children like you. :-/


>get ear piercing,

fag with hepatitis


> tattoos,

60 year old hepatitis patient with Mickey Mouse on his butt to remind him of that time in the navy he went drinking with his buddies


>drink alcohol (he equates all drinking with drunkenness)

Maybe you should stop bashing God's laws and start figuring out how they make sense. The Nazarite vow to abstain from grapes is a boycott targeting vineyards. You are defending a drink which causes your brothers to stumble into their cars and swerve into oncoming traffic.


> and all of the rest of the 3,700 odd laws laid out by the religious elders.

God's law is "odd", you say,
His way is not your way;
I Am, the potter;
you are the clay:
I run circles run around you all day.


>Out of perverse curiosity I wrote to the author and asked if he believed that Muslims would go to heaven since they obey the law but deny Christ sacrifice and resurrection- he stated that due to their obedience of the law and fear of God they would.

WRONG! I said if God want's them there, they will be there.

...but if they get there, it will be by the grace of the LORD, not by man's works! Please also notice I did not say Jesus would not be involved, but it is totally within God's power to heal people standing next to Jesus even though they never met him or knew his name, that's what grace is all about.


>While this is all terribly interesting many of you are wondering what my point is. My point is that this author and others like him (some Christians) have missed entirely the point of legalism and of the Law.

I just got an email from Paul, he told me to tell you, "I am alive, but your faith is dead, get to work!" Salvation is by grace, through faith unto work, not by the work lest any man should boast of himself without God, but unto the work, because God is worthy of that which he foreordained the chosen to do.


>My question to my legalistic, Law-abiding friends is this: have you thrown out the roof to seek cover under the pillars?

Upon the Solid Rock I stand,
all roofs and pillars sink in sand,
but their good to have while they're at hand.

 

I checked your comments just to see if religiousright would post. Thank you for that, you truly are religious. The "right" part, eh, I'm not buying it. But I appreciate your thoughts.

Devin,

Thanks for adding me to the side, I feel privileged. I imagine once I get out of IWU I will do even more blogging to keep the mind sharp and to connect to everyone. For some odd reason, I cannot post who I read on my blog. My template is screwy, or else I would. And yes, you are right, we will probably not agree on many things (politically/theologically perhaps even), but your understanding of the Word of God is very good (not that you need my approval), and I'm sure we'll find a connection there.

 

Just a thought to the Religous Right: you use a great deal of ad hominem arguments and mud-slinging (i.e. the use of fag and other vitriol pepper your langauge). Doesn't the Word say something about using your mouth only for what is edifying?.... could've sworn it did...hmmmm.

 

Devin,

I stumbled across this guy's site as well and was stunned. I'm still not completely convinced that he's sincere. There are aspects about it that make me think it's a satire taken way too far. But there are other times where he does seem sincere and those are the times that scare me.