Are we still required to follow Mosaic law?

[RickD]

[Kurieuo]

Just because you can't see the heart of someone, doesn't mean God can't.

Does God need corroborating evidence to know whether or not someone loves Him?

I'm not sure K.. What do you think? If love is only found in mere words and not backed up by any action or deeds.. Would you really want to live in this kind of world? Are you insinuating that we could live in love in a virtual world? I don't know about you, but a talking animated loony charter barking the words of "I love you" to me 50 million times a day would drive me crazy.

I'm talking of a logical hierarchy of what is required in love. Consider this visual:

A seed must first exist in the ground before a plant flourishes and bears fruit. If that seed is just starting out, then the fruit will not be seen. Nothing might be seen for many days until the seedling finally penetrates the surface. It's not that the seed didn't exist, or wasn't growing. It's just that we didn't see evidence of what was happening beneath the surface.

Now let's visualise a seed that was just recently planted and begins to take root. However, almost as soon as its planted a bird swoops down and eats it. That seed didn't have an opportunity to bear any fruit.

With this in mind, picture someone just coming to Christ. The "seed of love" has just taken root in someone who sees the Truth. However, as soon as this seed takes root, their life is almost immediately snuffed out in a tragic accident. As you are basing "love" on action and deeds, can you see any logical way in your position by which you can say they truly loved God?

All I am saying here is that "love" starts out as a seed. Fruit (actions) may not be witnessed, but that doesn't mean love doesn't exist.

This says to me "love" is firstly a disposition of one's heart. Since we are "affected" in our being, naturally one would expect certain changes to accompany that demonstrated through naturally developing fruit and actions. Just like if one hates another, their spoken words or actions will likely follow. However, it all starts with a seed that may/may not yet be outwardly demonstrated.

[Gman]

This says to me "love" is firstly a disposition of one's heart. Since we are "affected" in our being, naturally one would expect certain changes to accompany that demonstrated through naturally developing fruit and actions. Just like if one hates another, their spoken words or actions will likely follow. However, it all starts with a seed that may/may not yet be outwardly demonstrated.

I don't see your point.. So you don't think someone cleaning up their words or mind is doing the Lord's work? If you are asking when a person becomes a believer, I believe that can happen at any stage of a believers life and that G-d will be the ultimate judge of him or her .. Take the robber dieing on the cross next to Christ for instance. Apparently he was saved for simply saying that he was a sinner Luke 23:41-43. He knew he was wrong for his sins and Christ acknowledged him for that. However, do you really think that this same person, if let go from his cross to live would now say he is free to sin now? Of course we all stumble following G-d from time to time, but we should still do our job not to sin anymore.. That's all I'm saying.

I would think if one DID have the Holy Spirit in them they would WANT to obey and sin not.. That is the whole point, not wanting to disrespect the creator but follow Him in love.

[Kurieuo]

I'm talking of the metaphysics of love.

It seems you cannot define love except in action. And correct actions at that, as found in the Mosaic Law. (I'm basing my understanding here on your previous words throughout this topic). So love for Christ doesn't exist, except where the required actions exist.

I guess I may just have to walk away and leave it if you're not seeing how this appears incorrect.

[Gman]

I'm talking of the metaphysics of love.

It seems you cannot define love except in action. And correct actions at that, as found in the Mosaic Law. (I'm basing my understanding here on your previous words throughout this topic). So love for Christ doesn't exist, except where the required actions exist.

I guess I may just have to walk away and leave it if you're not seeing how this appears incorrect.

I never said that love is simply an action.. I think however that love and action work in tandem..

[Gman]

[Kurieuo]

I'm talking of the metaphysics of love.

It seems you cannot define love except in action. And correct actions at that, as found in the Mosaic Law. (I'm basing my understanding here on your previous words throughout this topic). So love for Christ doesn't exist, except where the required actions exist.

I guess I may just have to walk away and leave it if you're not seeing how this appears incorrect.

I never said that love is simply an action.. I think however that love and action work in tandem..

But don't you believe we can only know how to love (and as such love) through the Law?

[Kurieuo]

Again... If you say that all a person has to do is "love" and that somehow fills all the commandments. Fine.. Next question is what type of "love" are we talking about here? How about homosexual love? Christ never taught against that... Is that now somehow ok to do? You talk about caring, what if my version of love somehow is biased? What are we basing that bias on? Our own morals? You see, loving needs direction, purpose and definition otherwise we are casting it to the wind... Therefore we can use the Torah for that direction and purpose.. It's really not that hard.

[Gman]

But don't you believe we can only know how to love (and as such love) through the Law?

I would say the "Law" is the framework that we build our foundation on. Of course there will be concepts that will bridge off his commandments.

[Gman]

Again... If you say that all a person has to do is "love" and that somehow fills all the commandments. Fine.. Next question is what type of "love" are we talking about here? How about homosexual love? Christ never taught against that... Is that now somehow ok to do? You talk about caring, what if my version of love somehow is biased? What are we basing that bias on? Our own morals? You see, loving needs direction, purpose and definition otherwise we are casting it to the wind... Therefore we can use the Torah for that direction and purpose.. It's really not that hard.

Not sure where you are going with this... I didn't say that love wasn't a component here.. I'm only asking what type of love it is.. In fact I would even argue that we are not going to always know what type of love we are expounding. We simply won't know, but we act in faith anyway...

[Kurieuo]

Again... If you say that all a person has to do is "love" and that somehow fills all the commandments. Fine.. Next question is what type of "love" are we talking about here? How about homosexual love? Christ never taught against that... Is that now somehow ok to do? You talk about caring, what if my version of love somehow is biased? What are we basing that bias on? Our own morals? You see, loving needs direction, purpose and definition otherwise we are casting it to the wind... Therefore we can use the Torah for that direction and purpose.. It's really not that hard.

Not sure where you are going with this... I didn't say that love wasn't a component here.. I'm only asking what type of love it is.. In fact I would even argue that we are not going to always know what type of love we are expounding. We simply won't know, but we act in faith anyway...

Ok, I thought you were saying "love" is just casting to the wind (i.e., meaningless) unless following the Torah.

Given one must have faith in Christ -- a love for Christ -- it seemed like "works" was sneaking back into the picture in order to gain salvation.

So you believe one can love Christ without the Law, however the Law is the framework to follow for those who love Christ?

[Gman]

Ok, I thought you were saying "love" is just casting to the wind (i.e., meaningless) unless following the Torah.

No I wouldn't say that it's meaningless because many of the things we do in Torah are already written in Torah or G-d's commandments. However there are just as many things that we think are right that are not written in the Torah as well.

Given one must have faith in Christ -- a love for Christ -- it seemed like "works" was sneaking back into the picture in order to gain salvation.

Again, I wouldn't say that we do works unto salvation.. Of course works can come under the instruction of the Holy Spirit, and the instruction of the Bible which was given by the Holy Spirit. I would say we do things under the influence of the Holy Spirit because it simply is the right thing to do in faith. Not reward... How it will be judged is G-d's doing. Not mine.

So you believe one can love Christ without the Law, however the Law is the framework to follow for those who love Christ?

Let's put it this way... Let's say you have someone that hates you at work, for whatever reasons. But let's say as you are leaving work one day, you notice in the parking lot that his car battery has died and no one is there to offer him to jump start his car. What do you do? Well let's take a look at what the Torah says... In Exodus 23:5 there is a similar situation but it is not exactly the same set of circumstances. Obviously they didn't have cars back then but they did have donkeys. Torah says that if you have someone that doesn't like you as a person, but needs help with their donkey, are you just going to stand there and let them suffer or help them in their situation? Here is the passage.

Exodus 23:5 If you see the donkey of someone who hates you fallen down under its load, do not leave it there; be sure you help them with it.

According to Torah, we should help them. Why? Is it a issue of salvation? We don't know... We simply obey Torah because it's the right thing to do. But the Torah (the actual written letters) says that you help them only if it is a donkey.. So is that what the written scripture is actually saying? Help this guy only if his donkey has fallen? Well of course not... But if we understand the FRAMEWORK of Torah, then we can apply it elsewhere or in our modern era like someone with their car, or needs help with moving, etc... That is what I mean by framework. Of course G-d's commandments are not going to address every single list of scenarios in our lifetime. Can you imagine how big the Bible would be?

[Kurieuo]

I don't know Gman... cars and donkeys are quite different.

It could be God is saying if someone hates you, then don't let your retribution extend to the poor donkey. Love the donkey even if its owner hates you.

Cars on the other hand. They aren't exactly alive except in Disney movies. So if someone who hates you has a flat battery, then it's not like the car is feeling burdened or anything.

[Gman]

I don't know Gman... cars and donkeys are quite different.

It could be God is saying if someone hates you, then don't let your retribution extend to the poor donkey. Love the donkey even if its owner hates you.

Yes but it also says "be sure you help them with it" or the donkey and the owner. So it isn't exactly only the donkey either. But sure, you could also see it as helping animals. Nothing really wrong with that either.. Again, that is the framework of the Bible, helping animals too.

Cars on the other hand. They aren't exactly alive except in Disney movies. So if someone who hates you has a flat battery, then it's not like the car is feeling burdened or anything.

What do you mean? Cars don't have any feelings?

[Kurieuo]

I don't know Gman... cars and donkeys are quite different.

It could be God is saying if someone hates you, then don't let your retribution extend to the poor donkey. Love the donkey even if its owner hates you.

Yes but it also says "be sure you help them with it" or the donkey and the owner. So it isn't exactly only the donkey either. But sure, you could also see it as helping animals. Nothing really wrong with that either.. Again, that is the framework of the Bible, helping animals too.

Would have to look to the original Hebrew on that one.

In English, if I'm asked to help someone, it can be said I was told to help "them" -- but "them" here is still singular.

Maybe God's saying "help them" (the donkey) with it's owner who's obviously also hating his donkey by burdening it so much.

Cars on the other hand. They aren't exactly alive except in Disney movies. So if someone who hates you has a flat battery, then it's not like the car is feeling burdened or anything.

What do you mean? Cars don't have any feelings?

Sorry if I offended any cars here.