|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Darkwing Duck wrote:
In what other institution is debate on topics of the big questions (what is real, what is valuable, how should I live my life) possible on such a large scale in the United States?
Still not seeing the value of religion in this. Just religion claiming the value of free speech and discussion.
TOZ wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote:
In what other institution is debate on topics of the big questions (what is real, what is valuable, how should I live my life) possible on such a large scale in the United States?
Still not seeing the value of religion in this. Just religion claiming the value of free speech and discussion. You don't see the value in a large institution dedicated to providing a place for debates on how to live a virtuous life?
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I don't see that as what it is dedicated to, only what it claims to be.
Darkwing Duck wrote: TOZ wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote:
In what other institution is debate on topics of the big questions (what is real, what is valuable, how should I live my life) possible on such a large scale in the United States?
Still not seeing the value of religion in this. Just religion claiming the value of free speech and discussion. You don't see the value in a large institution dedicated to providing a place for debates on how to live a virtuous life? Except in most case that's not what it's doing (and you can hardly call all denominations a single institution).
In most cases, it's "follow our rules or get out." Hardly a great "institution" for debates.
As I understand it DW, your argument could be applied to Congress. After all, they have plenty of debates with differences of opinion.
However, both are merely seeking to exert control, not necessarily do what is right. Right for them, perhaps.
GentleGiant wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote: TOZ wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote:
In what other institution is debate on topics of the big questions (what is real, what is valuable, how should I live my life) possible on such a large scale in the United States?
Still not seeing the value of religion in this. Just religion claiming the value of free speech and discussion. You don't see the value in a large institution dedicated to providing a place for debates on how to live a virtuous life? Except in most case that's not what it's doing (and you can hardly call all denominations a single institution).
In most cases, it's "follow our rules or get out." Hardly a great "institution" for debates. Do you think it just magically happens that a sizablle part of the church (a whole lot of individuals) all just get up and split off at the same time? They all just happen to agree with each other, magically, enough to split off together?
Or is it possible that the reason they split off together is that they've been talking to each other, debating with each other, convincing some to a new way of thinking, not convincing others. In other words, do you think its possible that the split you see didn't just magically, spontanesly happen, but is an end result of debate?
TOZ wrote: As I understand it DW, your argument could be applied to Congress. After all, they have plenty of debates with differences of opinion.
However, both are merely seeking to exert control, not necessarily do what is right. Right for them, perhaps.
Congress excludes a lot of people, plus the issues it debates are how to run a country, not primarily issues of morality.
Darkwing Duck wrote:
That's right, Leviticus. The Levitical Code. Which is no longer used when deciding what a sin is (which is why Hamburger Helper is not a sin).
It -was- a sin many thousands of years ago to another group of people, but it isn't a sin now. The Bible says that homosexuality was a sin, it doesn't say that it is a sin.
I hopre this post will not be ignored. A couple of verses against what you are saying
Exodus 12:24
And ye shall observe this thing for an ordinance to thee and to thy sons for ever
Deuteronomy 5:29
O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!
Deuteronomy 5:29
O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!
Psalm 119:159-160
Consider how I love thy precepts: quicken me, O LORD, according to thy lovingkindness. Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever
Matthew 5:17-19
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Darkwing Duck wrote: GentleGiant wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote: TOZ wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote:
In what other institution is debate on topics of the big questions (what is real, what is valuable, how should I live my life) possible on such a large scale in the United States?
Still not seeing the value of religion in this. Just religion claiming the value of free speech and discussion. You don't see the value in a large institution dedicated to providing a place for debates on how to live a virtuous life? Except in most case that's not what it's doing (and you can hardly call all denominations a single institution).
In most cases, it's "follow our rules or get out." Hardly a great "institution" for debates. Do you think it just magically happens that a sizablle part of the church (a whole lot of individuals) all just get up and split off at the same time? They all just happen to agree with each other, magically, enough to split off together?
Or is it possible that the reason they split off together is that they've been talking to each other, debating with each other, convincing some to a new way of thinking, not convincing others. In other words, do you think its possible that the split you see didn't just magically, spontanesly happen, but is an end result of debate? I don't think it's magic; are you honestly claiming the only place it happens is in churches and other religious institutions?
Darkwing Duck wrote: The removal of special privileges is not the same as persecution.
I don't know whether to be embarrassed for Aretas or insulted that he would have the gall to compare having the Ten Commandments taken out of court rooms to obstructing the passage of the violence against women act because it ensures that funding to protect against domestic violence won't discriminate against LGBT people.
Please be honest. I did not make that comparison.
Nicos, how many Christians do you know that believe eating Hamburger Helper is a sin?
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Aretas wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote: The removal of special privileges is not the same as persecution.
I don't know whether to be embarrassed for Aretas or insulted that he would have the gall to compare having the Ten Commandments taken out of court rooms to obstructing the passage of the violence against women act because it ensures that funding to protect against domestic violence won't discriminate against LGBT people.
Please be honest. I did not make that comparison. You said that persecution of Christians is worse. That implies that the actual examples of persecution which you provided are worse than any actual example of persecution other groups experience.
Hitdice, when you say, "the only place it happens", what exactly do you mean by "it"?
Antimony wrote: ShadowcatX wrote: Antimony, isn't anything that can't be empirically disproven by definition not science? (Gods, that's a horrible sentence. Three negatives. . . I should probably be shot.) Again, I feel unqualified to answer you. I suppose I can try like this.
Suppose I have a hypothesis that...I don't know. That you could transform fish with GFP so that they glow under ultraviolet light. I design my experiment, and let's say that after five years of testing, I have developed a species of fish that does, indeed glow, and produces offspring that glow. So I have proven my hypothesis, but up until that point, for five years, it was neither proven nor disproven. Does that mean it wasn't science until then?
My understanding of science is that it is all an evolving (sorry) body of thought. Everything we hold as true today comes with the disclaimer "to the best of our knowledge" or "given what we know currently." I may be wrong about that. I'm wrong about lots of things.
I guess that's my concern about the statements which specifically call out Creationism as false. Why not just say "this is what modern science believes" and let Creationism fall under the "as far as we know" exception? My point is that it isn't "not science" because it has not yet been tested, but because it can not be tested. Your experiment could be tested, that made it scientific. The existence of the divine, by and large, can not (and thus intelligent design and a whole host of other things).
As a side note, I'm not trying to say rather or not it is false, simply that it isn't science.
Darkwing Duck wrote: Nicos, how many Christians do you know that believe eating Hamburger Helper is a sin? It seems to me that christians choose to believe what they view as convenient to them.
a)God said homosexualityis a sin
b) god said his law is eternal
ergo homosexuality is still a sin.
Nicos wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote:
That's right, Leviticus. The Levitical Code. Which is no longer used when deciding what a sin is (which is why Hamburger Helper is not a sin).
It -was- a sin many thousands of years ago to another group of people, but it isn't a sin now. The Bible says that homosexuality was a sin, it doesn't say that it is a sin.
I hopre this post will not be ignored. A couple of verses against what you are saying
Exodus 12:24
And ye shall observe this thing for an ordinance to thee and to thy sons for ever
Deuteronomy 5:29
O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!
Deuteronomy 5:29
O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!
Psalm 119:159-160
Consider how I love thy precepts: quicken me, O LORD, according to thy lovingkindness. Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever
Matthew 5:17-19
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Your last verse is the whole point. Jesus said "one jot or one title shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." However, Jesus fulfilled the old law. "I am not come to destroy but to fulfill."
ciretose wrote: Aretas wrote:
There are people who want to remove the national motto "In God We Trust" from the nation's currency.
Michael Newdow a big proponent of the separation of church and state, is against the Pledge of allegiance. He wants it banned from schools because it contains the words "under God."
He claims that because the pledge contains those words it is an unconstitutional violation of the establishment clause in the First Amendment, and atheist children are supposedly being forced to recite it.
Don’t get me wrong, I actually support a separation of church and state. Without it we would end up with someone forcing their religious beliefs on the masses and our country could become a theocratic dictatorship.
Courts are forcing the removal of displays of the Ten Commandments from public property.
War memorials displaying crosses in honor of our nation's fallen fighters are under legal attack because the cross is also a Christian religious symbol.
Catholics and other denominations are being called "hateful" and "callous" for opposing gay marriage.
Christmas trees are being turned into "holiday" trees and the words of Christmas carols are being changed to "winter" and "holiday" songs.
You can't support the things above and support a separation of Church and state.
In certain areas of Michigan where there is an Islamic majority, would you be ok with having tablets of Sharia Law in front of the courthouse?
Would you be ok if in those areas public schools, school was stopped several times a day so children could kneel and pray toward Mecca?
I personally don't think Christmas Trees (Ironically Pagan, but that is a whole other thing...) shouldn't be paid for out of my tax dollars, but I'm willing to shrug my shoulders if some polite concession is made to make it non-denominational.
You can do whatever you want and worship however you want. But when it is on public land with public taxes, the 22% of us who aren't self identified Christians aren't so keen on our tax... Yes I can. To answer the gist of your remarks I'll say that shariah rejects fundamental premises of American society and values.
The bedrock proposition that the governed have a right to make law for themselves.
The democratic republic governed by the Constitution and the freedom of conscience.
Individual liberty!
Freedom of expression (including the liberty to criticize shariah)
Economic liberty & private property.
Equal treatment under the law of men and women, and of Muslims and non-Muslims.
Do you see my friend?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Darkwing Duck wrote: Hitdice, when you say, "the only place it happens", what exactly do you mean by "it"? The type debate you were talking about causing a split in the population. Though, to be honest, I'd say that if it does cause that kind of split, I'm not so sure said debate was an example of open mindedness so much as people solidifying their own points of view.
Darkwing Duck wrote: Aretas wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote: The removal of special privileges is not the same as persecution.
I don't know whether to be embarrassed for Aretas or insulted that he would have the gall to compare having the Ten Commandments taken out of court rooms to obstructing the passage of the violence against women act because it ensures that funding to protect against domestic violence won't discriminate against LGBT people.
Please be honest. I did not make that comparison. You said that persecution of Christians is worse. That implies that the actual examples of persecution which you provided are worse than any actual example of persecution other groups experience. Can you please tell me where and how I said this?
I do believe I said the persecution of Christians in the United States is a sort of "Fabian" style persecution.
Christians abroad on the other hand are being persecuted, murdered, driven out by radical Muslims.
ShadowcatX wrote:
Matthew 5:17-19
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Your last verse is the whole point. Jesus said "one jot or one title shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." However, Jesus fulfilled the old law. "I am not come to destroy but to fulfill." To say that A is true and then to say that A is no longer true is not fullfillement, is complete negation. And god said he never would do that.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Aretas wrote: Freedom of expression (including liberty to criticize shariah) Or christianity, right?
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
What is "Fabian" persecution?
Fabius was a roman general who retreated, until the enemy got bored/sloppy and then attacked.
EDIT: That's a simplistic description, sorry; when faced with a superior force, the Fabian strategy is to avoid direct conflict in favor of disrupting supply lines etc.
Christians and muslims have the same right of interprete or misinterpretate their holy book.
Aretas wrote: Yes I can. To answer the gist of your remarks I'll say that shariah rejects fundamental premises of American society and values.
The bedrock proposition that the governed have a right to make law for themselves.
The democratic republic governed by the Constitution and the freedom of conscience.
Individual liberty!
Freedom of expression (including the liberty to criticize shariah)
Economic liberty & private property.
Equal treatment under the law of men and women, and of Muslims and non-Muslims.
there are Muslims and christian that are ok with those ideas
and there are muslims and christians that hate those ideas.
There is not much diference.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Hitdice wrote: Fabius was a roman general who retreated until the enemy got bored/sloppy and then attacked. Thank you.
I'm even more confused now. :(
TriOmegaZero wrote: What is "Fabian" persecution? Fabianism.
The takeaway is that apparently Aretas thinks being more observant of church-state separation is some kind of step down the road we're all planning to, I don't know, gas Christians or something. Maybe make them get gay married.
I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, but I think Aretas is of the opinion that all the secularists are hiding out in the woods trying to overthrow american christianity one court case at a time rather than in an all out end of days governmental overthrow.
No, I never did read the Left Behind series, why do you ask?
TriOmegaZero wrote: What is "Fabian" persecution? Its a take on Fabian Socialism.
It purpose is to advance the principles of democratic socialism via gradualist and reformist, rather than revolutionary.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Umm. I see.
So it's basically just cultural drift.
Tide goes in, tide goes out.
Edit: Chose a better word.
Nicos wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote: Nicos, how many Christians do you know that believe eating Hamburger Helper is a sin? It seems to me that christians choose to believe what they view as convenient to them.
a)God said homosexualityis a sin
b) god said his law is eternal
ergo homosexuality is still a sin. Its certainly true that interpretation of the Bible by churches changes with the times (for example, Hamburger Helper), but that doesn't mean that such change is done out of convenience. Many times, it has been inconvenient (for example, anti-slavery).
Samnell wrote: TriOmegaZero wrote: What is "Fabian" persecution? Fabianism.
The takeaway is that apparently Aretas thinks being more observant of church-state separation is some kind of step down the road we're all planning to, I don't know, gas Christians or something. Maybe make them get gay married. Can you please act a little bit more mature. This is very inappropriate, and to suggest I think this is irresponsible.
Darkwing Duck wrote: Nicos wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote: Nicos, how many Christians do you know that believe eating Hamburger Helper is a sin? It seems to me that christians choose to believe what they view as convenient to them.
a)God said homosexualityis a sin
b) god said his law is eternal
ergo homosexuality is still a sin. Its certainly true that interpretation of the Bible by churches changes with the times (for example, Hamburger Helper), but that doesn't mean that such change is done out of convenience. Many times, it has been inconvenient (for example, anti-slavery). I mean convenient for their moral believes, crhistians that wanted to have slaves found a couple of verses in the bible that are ok with slavery.
christian that do not lik slavery can find in the bible support for their believe.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Aretas wrote: Samnell wrote: TriOmegaZero wrote: What is "Fabian" persecution? Fabianism.
The takeaway is that apparently Aretas thinks being more observant of church-state separation is some kind of step down the road we're all planning to, I don't know, gas Christians or something. Maybe make them get gay married. Can you please act a little bit more mature. This is very inappropriate, and to suggest I think this is irresponsible. It's all good Aretas, Samnell is just one of those guys that gets a little b!tchy when confronted with absurdly bigoted opinions, nothing against you personally.
Aretas wrote: Samnell wrote: TriOmegaZero wrote: What is "Fabian" persecution? Fabianism.
The takeaway is that apparently Aretas thinks being more observant of church-state separation is some kind of step down the road we're all planning to, I don't know, gas Christians or something. Maybe make them get gay married. Can you please act a little bit more mature. This is very inappropriate, and to suggest I think this is irresponsible. Okay, maturely then: how exactly do you find the principles of Democratic Socialism incompatible with Christianity? If anything it seems to me the governmental support espoused by D.S. is much closer to Christ's views on the treatment of the poor than our current every man for himself capitalist system.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Darkwing Duck wrote: Nicos, how many Christians do you know that believe eating Hamburger Helper is a sin? YMMV, but in my experience most Christians only know the parts of Leviticus that pop up on signs at protests.
Matthew 5:17 says that Jesus has not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it.
What this means is that he is finishing one chapter of a book (not destroying it, just completing it), so that a new chapter can begin. This means that the Levitical law is behind us. This is the whole point of Peter's vision of the unclean animals being dropped down from heaven.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Darkwing Duck wrote: Matthew 5:17 says that Jesus has not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it.
What this means is that he is finishing one chapter of a book (not destroying it, just completing it), so that a new chapter can begin. This means that the Levitical law is behind us. This is the whole point of Peter's vision of the unclean animals being dropped down from heaven.
But that is against the meaning of "Forever". God clearly said this law is for ever, for every generation. it seems like a contradiction.
Nicos wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote: Nicos wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote: Nicos, how many Christians do you know that believe eating Hamburger Helper is a sin? It seems to me that christians choose to believe what they view as convenient to them.
a)God said homosexualityis a sin
b) god said his law is eternal
ergo homosexuality is still a sin. Its certainly true that interpretation of the Bible by churches changes with the times (for example, Hamburger Helper), but that doesn't mean that such change is done out of convenience. Many times, it has been inconvenient (for example, anti-slavery). I mean convenient for their moral believes, crhistians that wanted to have slaves found a couple of verses in the bible that are ok with slavery.
christian that do not lik slavery can find in the bible support for their believe. You write as if Christians independently decide. But, again, the church debates these issues.
Dogbladewarrior wrote: Aretas wrote: Samnell wrote: TriOmegaZero wrote: What is "Fabian" persecution? Fabianism.
The takeaway is that apparently Aretas thinks being more observant of church-state separation is some kind of step down the road we're all planning to, I don't know, gas Christians or something. Maybe make them get gay married. Can you please act a little bit more mature. This is very inappropriate, and to suggest I think this is irresponsible. It's all good Aretas, Samnell is just one of those guys that gets a little b!tchy when confronted with absurdly bigoted opinions, nothing against you personally. What are you attempting to accomplish by saying I'm absurdly bigoted? Is it to get me angry or to respond to you in kind?
I know your just pathetically looking for attention sweety.
Aretas wrote: Samnell wrote: TriOmegaZero wrote: What is "Fabian" persecution? Fabianism.
The takeaway is that apparently Aretas thinks being more observant of church-state separation is some kind of step down the road we're all planning to, I don't know, gas Christians or something. Maybe make them get gay married. Can you please act a little bit more mature. This is very inappropriate, and to suggest I think this is irresponsible. You're the one that used the word persecution, Aretas. If you didn't mean to imply that we're plotting some kind of gradualist road to, to pull a word completely from random: persecution, you have a really strange way of showing it.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Aretas wrote:
What are you attempting to accomplish by saying I'm absurdly bigoted? Is it to get me angry or to respond to you in kind?
I know your just pathetically looking for attention sweety.
No I just meant what I said. To see what I'm talking about look to your third sentence.
Aretas wrote: Can you please act a little bit more mature. Maturity, on the internet? Isn't that like asking Michael Bay to do a good remake of a Hitchcock movie?
Nicos wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote: Matthew 5:17 says that Jesus has not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it.
What this means is that he is finishing one chapter of a book (not destroying it, just completing it), so that a new chapter can begin. This means that the Levitical law is behind us. This is the whole point of Peter's vision of the unclean animals being dropped down from heaven.
But that is against the meaning of "Forever". God clearly said this law is for ever, for every generation. it seems like a contradiction. Verse 18 of the scripture you quote says ' till all be fulfilled". Verse 17 indicates that they were fulfilled by Christ. I do not know where you see 'forever'.
Darkwing Duck wrote: Nicos wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote: Nicos wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote: Nicos, how many Christians do you know that believe eating Hamburger Helper is a sin? It seems to me that christians choose to believe what they view as convenient to them.
a)God said homosexualityis a sin
b) god said his law is eternal
ergo homosexuality is still a sin. Its certainly true that interpretation of the Bible by churches changes with the times (for example, Hamburger Helper), but that doesn't mean that such change is done out of convenience. Many times, it has been inconvenient (for example, anti-slavery). I mean convenient for their moral believes, crhistians that wanted to have slaves found a couple of verses in the bible that are ok with slavery.
christian that do not lik slavery can find in the bible support for their believe. You write as if Christians independently decide. But, again, the church debates these issues. People with some moral beleieves tend to agglomarate in groupsthat share their believes.
Proslavery would go to prosalvery church, antislavery will go to antislavery churches.
Both would find support in the bible.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I'm trying to understand what fabian persecution is. If fabian refers to continually withdrawing until an opportunity to cut the supply lines occurs, is fabian persecution forces pain on someone by retreating against their attack?
Darkwing Duck wrote:
Verse 18 of the scripture you quote says ' till all be fulfilled". Verse 17 indicates that they were fulfilled by Christ. I do not know where you see 'forever'.
in a lot of passages of the old testament.
Nicos wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote: Nicos wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote: Nicos wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote: Nicos, how many Christians do you know that believe eating Hamburger Helper is a sin? It seems to me that christians choose to believe what they view as convenient to them.
a)God said homosexualityis a sin
b) god said his law is eternal
ergo homosexuality is still a sin. Its certainly true that interpretation of the Bible by churches changes with the times (for example, Hamburger Helper), but that doesn't mean that such change is done out of convenience. Many times, it has been inconvenient (for example, anti-slavery). I mean convenient for their moral believes, crhistians that wanted to have slaves found a couple of verses in the bible that are ok with slavery.
christian that do not lik slavery can find in the bible support for their believe. You write as if Christians independently decide. But, again, the church debates these issues. People with some moral beleieves tend to agglomarate in groupsthat share their believes.
Proslavery would go to prosalvery church, antislavery will go to antislavery churches.
Both would find support in the bible. Until quite recently historically speaking, most villages only had one church.
Nicos wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote:
Verse 18 of the scripture you quote says ' till all be fulfilled". Verse 17 indicates that they were fulfilled by Christ. I do not know where you see 'forever'.
in a lot of passages of the old testament. Example please.
Samnell wrote: Aretas wrote: Samnell wrote: TriOmegaZero wrote: What is "Fabian" persecution? Fabianism.
The takeaway is that apparently Aretas thinks being more observant of church-state separation is some kind of step down the road we're all planning to, I don't know, gas Christians or something. Maybe make them get gay married. Can you please act a little bit more mature. This is very inappropriate, and to suggest I think this is irresponsible. You're the one that used the word persecution, Aretas. If you didn't mean to imply that we're plotting some kind of gradualist road to, to pull a word completely from random: persecution, you have a really strange way of showing it. Gas Christians? Get them gay married? What are you talking about? Really don't answer it b/c I don't care.
You know how I used the word persecution and in what context. If your unclear, I doubt it, reread the posts.
Darkwing Duck wrote: Nicos wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote:
Verse 18 of the scripture you quote says ' till all be fulfilled". Verse 17 indicates that they were fulfilled by Christ. I do not know where you see 'forever'.
in a lot of passages of the old testament. Example please. Deuteronomy 5:29
O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!
Psalm 119:159-160
Consider how I love thy precepts: quicken me, O LORD, according to thy lovingkindness. Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever
|
