Hee! Hee!

I guess not. LOL.

Yes, I got the same values for the dimensions of the conical ends that you got.

Oh, there are more commandments now?
Okay, which one of them and I want a SPECIFIC answer, prohibits abortion?

My wife wants to have an abortion. I really love my wife and don't want to break her heart. We are both devout Christians, just like our president Obama.
Should I allow her to make an abortion?

You're basically saying it was like this:

Jesus said to himself: Okay, Pharisees and lawmakers are generally hypocrites nowadays,
but I'm gonna add a little twist, fot the sake of this story and will not mention that
this time I have the minority of Pharisees and lawmakers in mind! Yeah! Superb!
...
Matthew 5:19-20
...
See guys, this story teaches You that law doesn't matter in the end,
it's how You live that matters and You should live according to...
Wait... themuzicman, can You take over from here?

gradation
contrast
common sense

Are You serious?

"Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven"
One. Of. The. Least.

Let me clarify this: You set aside the least one and teach others accordingly, You end up being the least in heaven.

As opposed to You know a lot of them, teach others to obey them, while You yourself obey the twisted variant that fits Your needs.

Wait, wait, wait...

So, Matthew 5:19 says:"but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

And Matthew 5:20 says:"For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

And what You are saying is that, the people who try to do their best will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven, according to Matthew 5:19, but ones who, according to You (!), really, really know and practice the law, aren't even going to enter it?!?

I think Jesus wanted to say something completely different here. I think there is a huge issuee of how Pharisees and lawmakers obeyed and practiced the law.
Unless You're suggesting that the very example of hypocrisy in the whole New Testament somehow serves a completely different purpose in this example, which, also, defies reason.

Considering Matthew 5:19-20, that thing You said:

	Originally Posted by themuzicman
	So, 5:20 isn't about disobeying the law, but rather that only obeying the law is insufficient.

is a non sequitur.

Good. Now scroll to Matt 5:20. What is wrong with Pharisees, their blind obedience to the law, or their disobedience of the law? What is wrong with the lawmakers?
Because, "you (they) will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven".
Pharisees pretended to obey the law, but they were hypocrites. They knew the law and yet they disobeyed it. That's what I am addressing. Know the law, but disobey it? "you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven".

Noone mentioned beliefs considering those questions. I sad:
You say You're a liberal. Does that mean that You say homosexuality is okay? If so, You can't be a Christian. I never said he can't change his outlook and become a Christian. However, with that attitude, he isn't a Christian.

He could not know that homosexuality is a sin and with that he's making a venial sin.
However and I repeat, if he knows it is a sin and he still makes it he is making a mortal sin. He can still slip and make it half-knowingly, being drunk in example, however, if he's fully aware that he's making it and still makes it, he just said non serviam. I don't imply he can't enter the kingdom of heaven, but what he did needs to be corrected and not encouraged.

Consult Matthew 12:30 and Matthew 5:19-20 and You might come closer to what I meant.

(And You could still probably point out that I made a "No true Scotsman" and I could probably call You a Mormon, a Hindu or a Jedi with rules as loose as those.)

It's pretty important what that man believes. Otherwise there'd be heavenly kingdoms.

But God wants a church and not every man for himself.

Here, an interesting find a fellow from a different denomination pointed out:
What is the meaning of number of Job's children?
Job had 10 kids, right? Also, he had a certain number of cattle.
They all get killed.
...storyline...
In the end, Job gets double his cattle... but "only" ten new kids.
What is the meaning of this?
That fellow suggested that it means that Job didn't lose his first 10 kids. They were killed, but ultimately Job got 20 children back.

If everyone gets to interpret the Bible in his own way, then there is no objective truth.

But that's basically fatalism. People in mental institutions won't be judged at all then.
I could say that, from tomorrow, I seriously don't know a thing anymore. I could say that snake handling in Mark 16:9-20 is a Freudian remark. I could find a thousand ways to connect the dots and reinterptret them in any way I can.
What You're implying is that there is no objective truth, nothing we should aspire to, because the judgement will be the same... no matter what we do.

	Originally Posted by themuzicman
	Everyone is a sinner because they know what sin is, and they sin anyway.

I'm going to have to be mean and mention the hypothetical cannibals on Papua. Do they know they sin?
Come on, indulge me, make a thread on intjf, with a poll, about whether masturbation is a sin, without an option "I don't care." And when You get 99% results saying "Dude, You're an idiot, of course it isn't, why would be spilling something we generate a billion a day or more of be a sin?!?", please, don't tell me that deep down they know they're wrong.
No offense, I used semi-profanities to illustrate a behavior which by no means would be mine.

They will be judged justly. I don't know what You meant by that they will be judged the same. Point of the Romans 2:14-16 is that we were given conscience. I cannot fathom how did You extrapolate everyone is a sinner from that.
Jesus didn't comment directly on whether it is okay to desintegrate person with an iridium laser beam either. We have to infer that part too. Don't be silly.

And no, I never assumed Christians understand my conclusions, I said that

	Originally Posted by Ilmyrr Zaughym
	It requires a doctrine we're available to "carry".

So, You were given a burden You can carry. But what You're suggesting is that we shouldn't learn what is expected from us, that we should cross our hands and say that, hey, God, You never said we should learn...

You don't get to interpret the Bible in whatever way You wish to. If there are authorities on the Bible, You should ask them and conform to the teachings. (I'm not claiming I'm one of those authorities!)
If there is some part bothering You, You need to search what to do and not say that, hey, Benjamin does it, why shouldn't I?

It requires a doctrine we're available to "carry".

A person born in Phillipines, without access to Christianity probably won't be judged the same way You, or me will be, can we at least agree on that?

However and this is the third time I say it: If Jesus says A and You know that Jesus said A and You say B, You're making a grave mistake.

I am not talking about semantics here.

Oh come on,"I am the truth, the way and the life"... does that ring a bell?
"Nobody comes to Father but through me"... anything?

I'm not saying that we should look like Him and work as a carpenter until thirties, die crucified et cetera, I am saying that if we can ascertain what He believed and stood for, that we should stand for and believe in that.

And those questions have an immense impact on that. If You don't know how Christ would answer, then You're making a venial sin. However, if You do know how He would answer and You say that, well, sorry Christ, it doesn't work for me... You're making a much bigger mistake.

You hit it right on the money!