God's Ten Commandments? Still valid?

[BavarianWheels]

If it is against forum rules to ask for someone ( or a moderator ) to provide evidence for their claim(s)...biblical or otherwise, I'd really like to be made aware of this.
.
.

[RickD]

BavarianWheels,

No more discussing this here. You have been issued a warning by Philip. Per board rules, if you have any further issues, please contact a moderator via pm.

[BavarianWheels]

warren631,

Do you believe Jesus Christ is God?

And no, I'm not asking if you if you believe Jesus Christ is the Father.

RickD,

Do you believe Jesus is the God of Genesis, the Creator, YHWH, the owner of the finger that wrote on tablets of stone...?

And no, I'm no asking if you if you believe Jesus Christ is the Father.

For Ref: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=41367&p=236878#p236831

And as I've said multiple times, and am getting tired of repeating, whether God wrote the 10 commandments with His literal or figurative finger, is irrelevant to your argument, because the 10 commandments were not given to gentile believers.

You're right...these were given to God's people.

So you don't believe as the bible says, "There is no Jew or Gentile..." ( Galatians 3:28 Colossians 3:11 Romans 1:16 Romans 2:9 Romans 3:9 etc. ) You believe there's a gospel for Jews and a different gospel for Gentiles...prove it!

You have all kinds of time to make accusations/assertions, yet conveniently no time to back up your words.

You'd also have to prove that there were no Gentiles among those that left in the Exodus...please, continue.

More texts to back up the position I'm promoting: Romans 4:11,12 1 Corinthians 12:13 Acts 20:21
.
.

That still leaves the above for you to reply to, RickD. ( in a "non-huffy voice and in a cool manner" )
.
.

[RickD]

Bav,

It's clear to me that we are just not going to agree on this subject, so I'm going to respectfully cease all discussion with you regarding this.

So, please don't take it personally when I don't respond.

[BavarianWheels]

Bav,

It's clear to me that we are just not going to agree on this subject, so I'm going to respectfully cease all discussion with you regarding this.

So, please don't take it personally when I don't respond.

Just to be clear, we don’t see eye to eye because you just will not provide proof for what you claim.

It is in that context that I accept you bowing out of this discussion and respectfully ask that the next time you decide to interject into such a discussion that you do so without your trademark sarcasm.

Know that I don’t take it personally, but I do take these discussions seriously...and so should you ( especially with the position you hold on G&S Forums ), if you choose to engage in a discussion I am active in ( since your wording made clear that you wouldn’t be discussing with a specific “you” ). I’m not all that ignorant to the importance of exact meanings in words as I am quite good at reading and interpreting legal contracts as it is an almost daily part of my job.

I take God’s Law as a very important aspect of scripture ( It is THE direct words from God written by His own finger ) and scripture says that without it ( the Law ) we wouldn’t know what sin is...that through it we become conscious of sin. The Law is holy, righteous and good. It’s requirements are righteous and that we uphold it rather than nullify it. ( see previous posts for the biblical texts that attest to this ).
.
.

[neo-x]

Bav,

It's clear to me that we are just not going to agree on this subject, so I'm going to respectfully cease all discussion with you regarding this.

So, please don't take it personally when I don't respond.

Just to be clear, we don’t see eye to eye because you just will not provide proof for what you claim.

It is in that context that I accept you bowing out of this discussion and respectfully ask that the next time you decide to interject into such a discussion that you do so without your trademark sarcasm.

Know that I don’t take it personally, but I do take these discussions seriously...and so should you ( especially with the position you hold on G&S Forums ), if you choose to engage in a discussion I am active in ( since your wording made clear that you wouldn’t be discussing with a specific “you” ). I’m not all that ignorant to the importance of exact meanings in words as I am quite good at reading and interpreting legal contracts as it is an almost daily part of my job.

I take God’s Law as a very important aspect of scripture ( It is THE direct words from God written by His own finger ) and scripture says that without it ( the Law ) we wouldn’t know what sin is...that through it we become conscious of sin. The Law is holy, righteous and good. It’s requirements are righteous and that we uphold it rather than nullify it. ( see previous posts for the biblical texts that attest to this ).
.
.

So you don't believe as the bible says, "There is no Jew or Gentile..." ( Galatians 3:28 Colossians 3:11 Romans 1:16 Romans 2:9 Romans 3:9 etc. ) You believe there's a gospel for Jews and a different gospel for Gentiles...prove it!

You'd also have to prove that there were no Gentiles among those that left in the Exodus...please, continue.

Bav I think you are missing the bigger picture here. Consider this, "There is no jew..." stop and let that sink in, please.

The 10 were given to a specific family of people. Any gentile following them out of exodus had to follow the 10 not because he was given them but because he was living among Jews. I live in a Muslim country where when there is a public prayer, I have to switch off the music because everyone does. The same way I can't eat our during their lent, the same way they can't. It is not because I am a Muslim but living among them I have to honour the law or rule. But it would be silly of me to claim that I follow the Muslim rules because they were given to me, which you are advocating for by your reasoning.

When Paul, says there is no Jew nor Gentile, any luggage those identities carry, is thrown out. There is a new law, which Christ gave. Rather the law's eye for an eye, he taught forgiveness and often broke the Sabbath.

P.S.
And what is this about God having a finger? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? You mean there is a nail, bone and flesh on God's finger? Why does God have a finger, to begin with?
It's ridiculous that you are advocating for something like this as if God's finger gives the ten, some greater speciality. Moses himself broke the first set of tablets.

Sin is sin without the law, and easily recognisable. Many religions don't have the 10 laws and still think murder is wrong. You can actually understand that the last 6 laws are common sense. The ideas are older than the Jewish texts.

[Kurieuo]

I feel a strange need to come to Rick's defense here as I feel you're rather unfairly not just letting things lie when you're not enjoying the discussion either. To be clear back, you also don’t see eye to eye because you just don't seem to listen to what anyone claims otherwise to what you already believe re: the Law and core SDA theology.

It is in that context that RickD is bowing out of the discussion as I see, and respectfully ask that the next time you decide to carry on a discussion about the 10 commandments or what-have-you, that you do so without your trademark antagonising insolence. That is, a very brutish and disrespectful manner with which you've approached the whole discussion with Rick. Everyone should examine themselves first before judging the other.

In RickD's further defense, I know he also takes these discussions seriously, despite his often jovial and short comments written out on his smartphone (i.e., his "trademark sarcasm"). Many like his sarcasm, and often below such there is much substance, which Rick sometimes honours a person (should they really care to listen) with writing out more thoughtful responses. We do not get to tell you which personality traits you should drop, and neither should you tell anyone which personality traits they should drop. If you're offended by his personality, you need to grow a thicker skin or just withdraw from the discussion like RickD appears to respectfully be trying to do.

That you take Rick's "trademark personality" as meaning he doesn't take discussions seriously is just plain wrong. It just shows your failure to understand people. This just isn't the Rick I know, I know for a fact there is much seriousness that often lays even beneath his sarcasm. Saying he doesn't take discussions seriously seems to me a poor taste in words, like you're trying to incite further response from Rick, but I must ask why? Again, clearly neither of you are enjoying your discussion together.

Fine, you're not ignorant to the words of Scripture, but does that mean Rick is? I don't think Rick is either, and neither are the many others here who would disagree with much of your theology and exposition of Scripture. Scripture also doesn't read like a modern legal contract, so the relevance to credence is...? I will say we do read in Jeremiah that Israel broke the covenant with God again and again (aka "the 10 commandments" - Exodus 34:28) and so God promises a new covenant. (Jeremiah 31:31-34)

We all take Scripture seriously here (except perhaps the Atheist-leaning contingent), and see the laws given to Israel as a very important aspect. What is different is the theologies between SDA and non-SDA denominations, and based upon my own previous experiences discussing such with you is like -- but such is just because you are so convinced you are right, just like I/many of us are convinced we're right. Not that is matters to changing opinions here, but sin was in the world even before the letter of the Law was given (Romans 5:12-14), and death also reigned over those who couldn't be held accountable by the Law (which many didn't have and haven't heard of)... nonetheless we're all without excuse, our conscience bears witness against us who when we break the "natural law" found within us. (Rom 2:14-15)

[neo-x]

That you take Rick's "trademark personality" as meaning he doesn't take discussions seriously is just plain wrong. It just shows your failure to understand people. This just isn't the Rick I know, I know for a fact there is much seriousness that often lays even beneath his sarcasm. Saying he doesn't take discussions seriously seems to me a poor taste in words, like you're trying to incite further response from Rick, but I must ask why? Again, clearly neither of you are enjoying your discussion together.

I think it's because Bav believes his wall of cherry-picked scripture is unbreakable and probably believes Rick doesn't have an answer. As he says:

It is in that context that I accept you bowing out of this discussion and respectfully ask that the next time you decide to interject into such a discussion that you do so without your trademark sarcasm.

We all know Rick always has an answer more often than not, a witty one.

Anyway, I think it's uncalled for and simply uncharitable.

[LittleHamster]

Any good reasons why Christians ignore God's clear Commandments?

The majority of Christians (and everyone else for that matter) are 'under the law' (or under the 'curse of the Law') meaning that their nature, reasoning, judgement, etc, is clouded by sin. Nobody who is 'under the law', can keep the Law perfectly nor can they understand it properly. People who are under the law, will almost always end up propagating all the stuff they inherited from your ancestry - both good and bad, including the stuff they pick up from those around them during their lifetime.

Then comes *GRACE*. Under Grace, you can begin to change your old ways and begin to express more of what God has intended for you to be - i.e. to become a better person. But you cannot keep the law perfectly. Even Jesus (God in human form) said that no one is good, not even me, only the Father in Heaven is good !

That is why God sent himself down to earth in human form, so we can be given salvation by Grace and freed from the curse of the law - but not from the law itself. This means we are given a ticket to heaven after we die. That is why God crucified himself - he paid the price so we don't have to. One needs to be given GRACE and only then is one saved and only then can one truly begin to understand 'why this? or why that?'

Grace -> viewtopic.php?f=22&t=39629

What happens when someone is saved by Grace, I here you ask ? In almost all cases, a person receives the Holy Spirit, is given a new spiritual body (whether they are aware of it or not) and sometimes lots of spiritual gifts to boot- one of them being a deeper understanding of God's works

How does one get saved ? To be saved by Grace you have to ask to be saved. In order to be given the opportunity to ask to be saved, you have to be given a little nudge here and there, ie., the prompting, the wake up call.

See the Parable of the Prodigal Son here -> viewtopic.php?f=9&t=40049&p=172513&hili ... on#p172513

Finally, once a person is saved, there's a real chance they could end up on Forums like this - posting for the rest of their life

[BavarianWheels]

Bav I think you are missing the bigger picture here. Consider this, "There is no jew..." stop and let that sink in, please.

The 10 were given to a specific family of people. Any gentile following them out of exodus had to follow the 10 not because he was given them but because he was living among Jews. I live in a Muslim country where when there is a public prayer, I have to switch off the music because everyone does. The same way I can't eat our during their lent, the same way they can't. It is not because I am a Muslim but living among them I have to honour the law or rule. But it would be silly of me to claim that I follow the Muslim rules because they were given to me, which you are advocating for by your reasoning.

Are you suggesting that God only owns a small portion of land and only a select ( by DNA ) group of people? Not hardly...let this sink in...the Sabbath was made holy prior to any "family"...but the parents of all humanity and before all of God's creative work. So that means God is God of the heavens and the....

When Paul, says there is no Jew nor Gentile, any luggage those identities carry, is thrown out. There is a new law, which Christ gave. Rather the law's eye for an eye, he taught forgiveness and often broke the Sabbath.

It's interesting to me how quickly we make God's law "luggage" and to then qualify the breaking of the Sabbath because Paul "often broke the Sabbath"?!? OF COURSE HE DID...Paul was a SINNER! There is no manner in which Paul can keep the Sabbath perfectly. It is impossible with a sin nature...and while we are in this body, we have a sin nature.

P.S.
And what is this about God having a finger? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? You mean there is a nail, bone and flesh on God's finger? Why does God have a finger, to begin with?
It's ridiculous that you are advocating for something like this as if God's finger gives the ten, some greater speciality. Moses himself broke the first set of tablets.

According to my bible, Exodus 31:18 gives the impression that God used His finger. Does God have a literal finger? That God ( Jesus ) sure does. Did He then? I don't know, however if in a figurative sense, the language is probably used to convey it was not only God's will, but so much so that He wrote it Himself instead of dictating the words to Moses.

I don't give the 10 some greater 'speciality', it is God's word that does...scripture as recorded.

Sin is sin without the law, and easily recognisable. Many religions don't have the 10 laws and still think murder is wrong. You can actually understand that the last 6 laws are common sense. The ideas are older than the Jewish texts.

So then you understand why the bible says that the people before the law was given, were not held accountable for their sins when there was no law to define sin...yet the bible says they still sinned. But there's one law that specifically includes some interesting wording that isn't in the rest...can you pick that law out?
.
.

[BavarianWheels]

I feel a strange need to come to Rick's defense here as I feel you're rather unfairly not just letting things lie when you're not enjoying the discussion either. To be clear back, you also don’t see eye to eye because you just don't seem to listen to what anyone claims otherwise to what you already believe re: the Law and core SDA theology.

It is in that context that RickD is bowing out of the discussion as I see, and respectfully ask that the next time you decide to carry on a discussion about the 10 commandments or what-have-you, that you do so without your trademark antagonising insolence. That is, a very brutish and disrespectful manner with which you've approached the whole discussion with Rick. Everyone should examine themselves first before judging the other.

If RickD doesn't like the fruit, he probably shouldn't shake the tree. That's to say that I'm only reacting to RickD in the manner in which he's reacted to me...and that was by name-calling and trolling the discussion instead of engaging.

In RickD's further defense, I know he also takes these discussions seriously, despite his often jovial and short comments written out on his smartphone (i.e., his "trademark sarcasm"). Many like his sarcasm, and often below such there is much substance, which Rick sometimes honours a person (should they really care to listen) with writing out more thoughtful responses. We do not get to tell you which personality traits you should drop, and neither should you tell anyone which personality traits they should drop. If you're offended by his personality, you need to grow a thicker skin or just withdraw from the discussion like RickD appears to respectfully be trying to do.

Good, then in the very least, you have made clear that I'm not making anything up or being disparaging towards RickD as you have plainly laid out that RickD is sarcastic and "short commented". Sarcasm is fine. I can play that game, and well. The point here is more to the fact that RickD's sarcasm is probably given a long leash because of his position, but if I become and allow my sarcastic side to show up more, I don't think that leash will be as long.

Do you?

That you take Rick's "trademark personality" as meaning he doesn't take discussions seriously is just plain wrong. It just shows your failure to understand people. This just isn't the Rick I know, I know for a fact there is much seriousness that often lays even beneath his sarcasm. Saying he doesn't take discussions seriously seems to me a poor taste in words, like you're trying to incite further response from Rick, but I must ask why? Again, clearly neither of you are enjoying your discussion together.

No, I'm not wrong. You just gave my point traction by admitting that RickD's trademark is sarcasm and short comments. But you're correct. I don't know the RickD you know because the RickD I know is one that simply makes short, sarcastic comments in serious discussion and ACTS trollish by doing so because he refuses to back up his claims.

Fine, you're not ignorant to the words of Scripture, but does that mean Rick is? I don't think Rick is either, and neither are the many others here who would disagree with much of your theology and exposition of Scripture. Scripture also doesn't read like a modern legal contract, so the relevance to credence is...?

I'm not suggesting scripture is a legal contract. I am suggesting the 10 Commandments are a legal document, if you will...given by Almighty God. ( not to mention that a covenant is a legal matter ) He's not a leader of a certain nation or piece of land. He is God of all and is Creator of the cosmos. Isn't HE? Therefore God's Law isn't simply for a select people/family/DNA...it is for ALL creation and for the salvation of ALL Man...not certain men. Who did Christ die for? Did Christ's death cover only some sins or didn't it not cover ALL sin?

I will say we do read in Jeremiah that Israel broke the covenant with God again and again (aka "the 10 commandments" - Exodus 34:28) and so God promises a new covenant. (Jeremiah 31:31-34)

Please show me where the bible says that "Israel" was declared righteous through the perfect keeping of God's Law. The covenant has NOT changed, but the manner in which it is worded does. The first covenant was based on faith in a coming Messiah. The "second" covenant is based on Jesus, His life, death and resurrection. It is on that faith. The covenant has not changed, it has always been a covenant based on faith. One looked forward to a Messiah and the other, back on Jesus. That's the extent of change.

We all take Scripture seriously here (except perhaps the Atheist-leaning contingent), and see the laws given to Israel as a very important aspect. What is different is the theologies between SDA and non-SDA denominations, and based upon my own previous experiences discussing such with you is like -- but such is just because you are so convinced you are right, just like I/many of us are convinced we're right.

If I'm wrong, then why does scripture clearly uphold the Law; why does scripture clearly say the requirements of the law are righteous that the law is holy, righteous and good, that the law POINTS at sin and makes us aware of sin, that the law cannot save a sinner, that we are under a curse by what/how the law shows our sin.

What logic is there in all the above and then to say, "Oh...but we don't need that law. We don't need the Sabbath. We don't need to keep any "righteous requirements"...etc. No, we don't need to keep those righteous requirements of the law FOR SALVATION...we have that assurance in Christ, but that doesn't mean we can simply throw the law aside and stomp on it...and we don't because I assume you still "keep" the Do Not Murder command and wouldn't THINK to have the freedom to murder because of you're in Christ. That thinking simply extends to the whole of it, not just that which you are comfortable with.

Not that is matters to changing opinions here, but sin was in the world even before the letter of the Law was given (Romans 5:12-14), and death also reigned over those who couldn't be held accountable by the Law (which many didn't have and haven't heard of)... nonetheless we're all without excuse, our conscience bears witness against us who when we break the "natural law" found within us. (Rom 2:14-15)

That has nothing to do with God's law, except to say that though the law wasn't yet given, that people still sinned! It plays more to my point than to your point. The law was/is never a method unto righteousness. The law is a MEASURE of righteousness...and if we live according to the Spirit...which is righteous, then the Spirit is not guilty of breaking any or part of God's Law. I don't see how that is so controversial. Yes, we have freedom in Christ, but we don't have the freedom to sin. We have the freedom to know that though we cannot keep the law perfectly, it is Christ's perfection that we are judged by...so shouldn't a Christian want to do what is righteous? How can a Christian throw aside a righteous command and simply say, "It doesn't apply to me" when the Christian certainly doesn't think that same thought to the other 9?

Law is logical and to suddenly shove aside one point in God's law that has not been removed as a measure of righteousness is not logical, it's not lawful.
.
.

[RickD]

BavarianWheels wrote:
No, I'm not wrong. You just gave my point traction by admitting that RickD's trademark is sarcasm and short comments. But you're correct. I don't know the RickD you know because the RickD I know is one that simply makes short, sarcastic comments in serious discussion and ACTS trollish by doing so because he refuses to back up his claims.

Per the underlined, you need to stop saying this. You keep saying this, yet there is not one single thing that I've asserted, that I have not backed up, or someone else hasn't given an answer to, in one thread or another on this forum. I can't change the fact that you either disagree with my view, have missed my replies, or choose to ignore them because they don't fit your narrative. Basically every thing I've asserted in the recent threads, was already discussed in that 28 page thread from a few years back.

I'm going to give you the benefit of doubt, and assume that you missed the replies, instead of assuming that you intentionally ignore them.

So please stop.

[BavarianWheels]

BavarianWheels wrote:
No, I'm not wrong. You just gave my point traction by admitting that RickD's trademark is sarcasm and short comments. But you're correct. I don't know the RickD you know because the RickD I know is one that simply makes short, sarcastic comments in serious discussion and ACTS trollish by doing so because he refuses to back up his claims.

Per the underlined, you need to stop saying this. You keep saying this, yet there is not one single thing that I've asserted, that I have not backed up, or someone else hasn't given an answer to, in one thread or another on this forum. I can't change the fact that you either disagree with my view, have missed my replies, or choose to ignore them because they don't fit your narrative. Basically every thing I've asserted in the recent threads, was already discussed in that 28 page thread from a few years back.

I'm going to give you the benefit of doubt, and assume that you missed the replies, instead of assuming that you intentionally ignore them.

So please stop.

That's the point! We are NOT in that other thread and that was a long time ago and with a different audience.

All I'm asking, RickD, is for you not to swoop into a conversation and make some off the wall comment and not back it up and then make the claim that it's backed up in another thread.

All my claims are backed up in scripture ( or so I claim )...and that's been written and read over a few thousand years! So that trumps your "28 page thread".

If you're going to engage in a discussion, do so in a serious manner or you can't really expect to be taken seriously...that's logical, isn't it?

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are an intelligent person...and everything that I've been told is that you ARE an intelligent person. You've simply not given ME that opportunity to see OR don't feel I deserve any respect in doing so.
.
.

[Philip]

OK, OK, ENOUGH!

This disagreement has now devolved into semantics of tone, whatever sarcasms, he said / he said - these are now considerably off subject and are now a personal disagreement between you guys - at this point, please take it private! As there is absolutely no need to play to the people in the cheap seats or otherwise continue what has become a personal argument!

[Byblos]

^ hey I was rather enjoying this (says the cultist Catholic ).