Jesus fulfilled the law of Moses. Even Jews don't practice much of it.
Since many of those laws were immoral or nonsensical that is a good thing. And then there is the fact that Moses was mythical. But even with that Jesus disagrees with you.
*I do not know what Jesus knew about Moses.
What did I just say?
"If the Aliens hide from the scientists they do not know about them."
And I said that aliens are more plausible than ghods existing because they are natural beings of the universe, and gods are in the category of supernatural phenomenon of which there is no known actual real things.
*agreed, but I am shooting for a higher belief personally.
That book is wonderful.
If you're going to dis on it I prefer not to talk to you.
On second thought; I can understand. You were taught by academia.
The Lord of the Rings was wonderful too. Pointing out that both are fiction is not "dising" on them.
* It is dissing it when it is supposed to be non-fiction. bookofmormoncentral.org and evidencecentral.org .
Adam and Eve deliberately disobeyed God and allowed humanity to exist in the process.
So the Creator designed beings that had inadequate discipline to obey the rules the Creator set for them. So if the Creator wanted its beings to obey the rules don't you think it would have given them adequate discipline and wisdom to be obedient?
* You missed what I said.
Show me Bible-supported slavery in the New Testament.
That wasn't required for the Southern Baptists of the Confederate South. They were very well justified in slavery due to the Bible itself as a whole.
*Too bad for them, but don't blame Jesus Christ.
Homosexuality was also frowned upon in the nt.
Really? Where is it brought up, and why do Christians always cite the OT Leviticus reference instead?
*Because they're twisting the Bible.
And fortunately I don't think it was frowned upon too much.
So you stand against the law of God?
*What law, it just describes the effects of homosexuality in the NT. It doesn't state a law. But my church says a heterosexual sin is equivalent to a homosexual sin.
Then why are you trying to grade the Bible scientifically if it's a story about God?
If God exists then it's a fact. Science relies on facts, as does reason and logic. So are you suggesting God isn't factual and is merely a concept?
*I am not explaining my reasoning that God is scientific here.
Also, I do believe I have a non-mystical way for there to be God, but since I get reviled I better not try it.
So you're admitting to low confidence in what you believe? Then why believe it?
*My confidence here is fine.
Could you elaborate?
The argument human science thesis.
Human intelligence says I theory science first about planet earth.
Products for practicing science from earth body. Reactions not controlled in nature.
Theories I want to hold control a reaction.
Machine conditions only.
Says God O is stone. Stone is a one only holy body in science. Stone.
Said stones gas spirits own it's own heavens.
One of known special body a planet. Earth as our God.
Owning no other thesis as earth is not any beginning science.
Says I quantify God as being present first as natural.
I then quantify my own person to be a satanist wanting gods non presence.
As God the seal was only stone that had sealed inside of its body Satan's fall into hell.
Reason.
Eternal always had existed owned no change. Highest place.
Change is forced.
Change is the science status.
Eternal forced change lost God into Satan. The first memory of God O the held eternal God.
Gods first memory an eternal held body.
O gods then burst burnt fell into the hell state.
Status the eternal now owns a hole in its body. The eternal never owned presence radiation.
God however now does.
Memory is the status coerced inaccurate theories about God in creation history. Just stories. Stories are memories.
God the stone is therefore not the origin God form.
God in science is only ever stone A seal. Owning fused particles held together.
Coldest place is deep state empty space only.
Remove God being gases the spirit equals gaining empty space only the deep state. Only a gas burns out into space existing just as empty.
Remove radiation from a metal leaves a Black radiating hole.
Reasoning. If you removed radiation to the deep state no form just complete empty space would exist.
Radiation cannot remove it's form to complete emptiness. As it is not a spirit.
What science says about God is to not allow stone to exist as God as it was never sun mass.
The theist says exactly by description word use the intent so humans can't lie about the intent. Words tell us their intent. Called a confession.
The theist by words proves his intent is to not allow God to exist. As he wants to find God name god convert God into not being God.
A sun was still self consuming in space. God earth was holding its body in hell. Sun was destroying hell.
Deeper colder empty space by pressure cold held the sun metal by mass so if you remove it's cold as cold space itself it reverts back to a state self consuming.
A satanist is a human who never believed in God continuance preaches for gain of the deep state as a total removal of God knowing God was only ever spirit and not a sun.
Why father taught me listen to what words are being used as it owns a confession.
*I can't understand this.
But some smart people have their own reasons which might use one of these themes.
They also might not.
Come back when you have something more then speculation, assumption and fallacious arguments from popularity or perceived authority
*I told you, the Bible says God reveals Himself to whom He will and you have to do His will, so come back when you are going to do the will of God and by the Bible's own words only then can you know.
Show me Bible-supported slavery in the New Testament.
First of all, this is shifting the burden of proof. YOU claimed that NT did away with slavery. So really, it is upto you to demonstrate that with passages of the NT saying that slavery is bad and should be done away with.
You can't do that off course, because the NT says no such thing.
The fact is that the OT clearly and unambigously allows slavery and even regulates it in terms of explain in disgusting detail who you can enslave, for how long, from whom you can buy slaves, how your children can "inherit" them, how they are your "property", how you can beat them, etc.
The NT does not repeat this, that is true. It also never recants it or overturns it.
Instead, it treats slavery as a basic fact of life. It is so indifferent to it that it barely mentions it. And in the few spots where it does mention it, it says disgusting things like this:
Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh. (1 Pet 2.18)
Nowhere does it say "masters, free your slaves" or "slaves, revolt and demand your freedom" or "slavery is bad" or anything remotely like that.
*The New Testament did away with slavery in "Love thy neighbor as thyself."
It's a very important comment:
"Science competes to bring human capability and religions compete to bring human will power. A good one of either of them allows the other effect too."
It's a comment that is completely irrelevant to the points being raised in the post you were replying to.
*disagree
Then it should come as no surprise to you that I don't believe some of your assertions.
Please mention or quote a single instance where I expect you to believe / accept an assertion with as only justification that I believe it.
You won't find such.
In fact, if asked directly, I will always say "don't believe me. don't take my word for it. look it up and verify it for yourself instead".
I don't expect ANYONE to take my word for it on ANYTHING, EVER.
*Good for you.
The ot law was fulfilled in the nt and no longer necessary. You should know that.
So bye bye 613 commandments, which includes the 10 you previously cited as still being valid.
*Right, because the 10 commandments were very important, the rest was supposed to be let go of.
I will not reveal my reasoning that there is a God.
So you must not be very confident about the validity of that reasoning then.
If your reasoning is sound, it should be able to withstand some basic scrutiny.
*Nope, because you guys want to revile it.