He's right. What you've been saying sounds psychopathic.

...and your apologetics verges on the psycoceramic.

I suggest you read the Scripture. Matthew 5:17-18. "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For assuredly I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass away from the law till all is fulfilled."
So please tell me where he broke the Law... The gleaning incident, as found in Mark 2:23-28, he addresses why it was not breaking the law, but rather that the Pharisees were legalistic.

Mark 12:28-34 answers your questions about the "two commandments".

At least they aren't really absurd when one actually examines them. :halo:
As C. S. Lewis declared, Christ of the actual Christian Scripture was either a liar, lunatic or Lord.

Are you following the Mosaic Law?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Lunatic would seem a reasonable assessment. But given that we only have a few highly edited texts from the next generation of his followers, there is not much to go on.

No, it has been fulfilled, but the law is still important. As previously demonstrated in the case of adultery, the Law brings death, and it is impossible to fulfill on our own. (Romans 1:19-20). It emphasizes the need for the mercy of God, brought to us by Christ.

Again, more research is needed.

frank No, it has been fulfilled, but the law is still important. As previously demonstrated in the case of adultery, the Law brings death, and it is impossible to fulfill on our own. (Romans 1:19-20). It emphasizes the need for the mercy of God, brought to us by Christ. — Waya

So why are you filling poor Agu's head with Matt 5:17 if it isn't even binding anymore? Drop that scripture, drop the crap about it being natural to stone adulterers, and focus on love.

Let Agu speak for himself. All people have a right to state their mind here, after all, this is a philosophy forum.

Those who refuse Christ are under the law, and the law brings death.

↪Banno Again, more research is needed. — Waya

Indeed; on your part, if you are going to convince folk that your ethics is of any value.

Those who refuse Christ are under the law, and the law brings death. — Waya

Especially if your method involves threats of violence:

Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: 'cause I'm the nastiest son of a bitch in the valley.

All people have a right to state their mind here, after all, this is a philosophy forum.

Those who refuse Christ are under the law, and the law brings death. — Waya

Yeah, but it's not a Christian fundamentalist preaching forum.
You've been called out.
Echo'ing @Banno's comments above:
Deferral to someone else (that cannot be asked in particular) is to forfeit being considered a moral agent.
Refusal to take responsibility for one's actions is moral cowardice.
Anyone doing this stuff ↑ are likely inconsistent or pathological.
Does that describe you?

Contrary, you shall have to prove to me that you have the authority to determine what is right and wrong. Humanity remains one of the most fickle creatures upon the face of planet earth.

True, I guess that's why in the Christian Scripture there is offered grace and mercy. :chin:

There's a name for people who can't tell right from wrong: sociopath.

Yeah, but it's not a Christian fundamentalist preaching forum.
You've been called out.
Echo'ing Banno's comments above:
Deferral to someone else (that cannot be asked in particular) is to forfeit being considered a moral agent.
Refusal to take responsibility for one's actions is moral cowardice.
Anyone doing this stuff ↑ are likely inconsistent or pathological.
Does that describe you? — jorndoe

Nope, but this thread's title is "Human Rights are Anti-Christian"; it seems logical to use the religion in the discussion.

Exactly, I agree the refusing to take responsibility is cowardly, hence the "wages of sin is death" according to Christianity.

wages of sin is death" — Waya

Which was supposed to be fixed by the propitiatory sacrifice: one of the more obscene aspects of that religion.

Settle down Captain Happy.

Perhaps, which is why sociopaths are rare. Some call it the "moral compass" that is ingrained in most people from birth to tell right from wrong. However, in the branch of ethics, are we not supposed to question what is right and wrong? Reasoning out why some things are right, and why some things are wrong? No sociopathic tendencies there, just inquisitive minds.

So you know right from wrong?

I define theocracy as rule by a god. Humans are far too corrupted to act in place of God, so they are not really accurate in demonstrating what God wants.

True capitalism has never existed except in theory, being that it is the complete absence of governmental restrictions on trade. — Waya

Well... That is a peculiar way to define it in my opinion. Theocracy is meant to refer to the forms of government that existed like the definition I gave because those have actually existed. A god run government never has and likely never will so I don't know why you would be referencing that. More importantly, the types of governments that I described have existed and still do, whether or not you call them theocracies or not.

I don't think it mentions the absence of governmental restrictions on trade in the definition. But you are right that the form you are describing hasn't existed.

Which was supposed to be fixed by the propitiatory sacrifice: one of the more obscene aspects of that religion. — frank

Yes, death is the result of sin, and sin is ugly and dark and black. Not disagreeing there, I hate death, but what kind of judge would let someone go who has done wrong? Would it not be legally acceptable to demand a payment? BTW, I started a new thread for this kind of discussion so that it doesn't get off topic, as I am uncertain how far this is allowed to venture.

To some extent, yes. But as truth cannot be known in the most complete sense, then my knowledge is limited.

John 3:16? It's about forgiveness, Waya. What does that word mean to you: forgive.

Yeah, but it's not a Christian fundamentalist preaching forum. — jorndoe

It need not be. Philosophy of Religion is what this is and I think it belongs here, if people can be civil enough to discuss the topic with their o so great critical minds™.

Well... That is a peculiar way to define it in my opinion. Theocracy is meant to refer to the forms of government that existed like the definition I gave because those have actually existed. A god run government never has and likely never will so I don't know why you would be referencing that. More importantly, the types of governments that I described have existed and still do, whether or not you call them theocracies or not. — yatagarasu

Yeah, I think I see your point now. I was referencing extreme versions.

When only justice exists, and no mercy, why do we perceive as unfair? — Waya

Mercy is an element of justice as is proportionality. That's why stoning a mother at the town's gate is draconian. In fact, I find your argument disingenuous to the extent you are suggesting you would advocate throwing rocks at a child's mother until she died because she cheated on his dad. Say it all you want, but your conscience wouldn't allow it, so why pretend to believe it?

Is it draconian when a person is struck by lightning? Rather, we see that as the result of nature. Justice is natural, but the problem is in defining justice. — Waya

This is just a nonsensical analogy.

Mercy. Seneca knew more about mercy than did Jesus' folk. See De Clementia.

Not only does Christianity not have the moral monopoly it claims, it is itself morally wanting; it is stagnant.

Mercy is an element of justice as is proportionality. That's why stoning a mother at the town's gate is draconian. In fact, I find your argument disingenuous to the extent you are suggesting you would advocate throwing rocks at a child's mother until she died because she cheated on his dad. Say it all you want, but your conscience wouldn't allow it, so why pretend to believe it? — Hanover

Does it matter in a court of law if she was a mother, a prostitute, or a barbarian? Does it matter if an elderly grandmother who makes cookies for the grandkids and knits cute hats crashes into a van full of a family of a minority group, killing them all because she hates those from that nationality? I would say no.

I advocate for justice, and mercy when the person pleads for it.

In your example, justice would be served, but not mercy. It would be a bad judge to let a criminal go, UNLESS someone offered to pay the price AND the person accepted it.