Atheists DO Go to Heaven

If you really believed that horseshit, your moral compass wouldn't allow you to be passive and blase about it.

So then there's no need for you to lecture people out of your own self-righteousness, but you do it anyway.

Which assumes you're empowered to judge whether anyone else is saved or not.

Someone needs to reread Proverbs 3:7.

But enough about global warming.

You may want to re-acquaint yourself with the definition of "self-righteousness". I have none. I am not righteous in the least. If I were, I would have no need of Christ. But as it stands, I need Christ entirely.

You may want to read John 14:6.

If you really believed that, you'd know he was aware of everything you post here, much less everything you do in life. But you're counting on your Get Out of Jail Free card to gloss over all that.

Which in no way says "Do whatever the fuck you want, 'cause Buddy Jesus has your back."

Given that the Apostles believed that Jesus came here not to throw out the laws of the OT, but to encourage folks to adhere closer to them, and that most folks today accept things like divorce, wearing clothes of mixed fiber, eating shellfish, and gnoshing on tasty, tasty pork products (not to mention any number of things in both the OT and NT that were considered verboten back when the books were written), I'm going to have to call bullshit on this.

And don't hand me this horseshit about things being confused, so God tapped Paul on the shoulder to set things to rights. We have, if you believe that the Bible contains the inerrant word of God, Jesus himself saying that divorce is bad and that if you looked at someone with the desire in your eye, you were going to Hell. We've tossed those prohibitions aside in the Western world, and laugh at the Moslems and their burqas and strict adherence to religious law.

Hell, man, just look at what the Bible says about rape! No mention of it in the Ten Commandments, which are supposed to be the basic laws of Judeo-Christian society, and elsewhere, it commands a rapist to marry his victim! Not exactly compassionate there (and leads one to wonder what happens if its a case of same sex rape).

If you want to claim that there's a supreme being, fine, but don't claim for a moment that the Bible is in any way an accurate representation of a compassionate God, or that most Christians adhere to its teachings, because they clearly (and quite wisely, I might add) do not.

That depends on how you define "compassion".

As for the rest.

Why is it so hard for people to understand that the Old Testament laws do not apply after the death and resurrection of Christ.

So what's with all those Christians demanding that the 10 Commandments be hung in courtrooms, then?

Appeals to tradition more or less. Most of the Ten Commandments were effectively "reissued" in the New Testament anyway or expanded upon.

For all the histrionics of people here and elsewhere, virtually no Christians want the equivalent of a "Christian theocratic state" in the U.S. (if such a thing is even remotely possible in the modern world).

They just do not want American society to continually insult, demonize, and diminish what they believe in.

I did.

Dayton says that IF good works could get one into heaven then a strong argument could be made that entry to heaven is biased towards the rich as they can do more good. Since nearly everyone agrees that such a setup would be bullshit, then according to Dayton that means that good works can't get one into heaven.

I then pointed out that according to the bible that argument COULD NOT be made b/c in fact Jesus explicitly states the exact opposite.

Yes, but he explicitly said that the position he was describing was NOT in accordance with the Bible. He believes that the Bible directly says that works can't save you. That a consequence from a claim that contradicts the Bible goes on to contradict the Bible isn't surprising.

Of course, the real problem is that nothing about deeds bringing salvation implies that the amont of salvation corresponds to the amount of $$$ spent.

Which was exactly the problem with the indulgence-selling that Luther rebelled against.

Irrelevant.

Seriously, go reread Dayton's statement. One of the reasons he believes that the Bible DOES NOT support salvation by works is that he claims IF salvation comes from good works, then he says "one could make a strong argument that only selected rich people will go to heaven."

NO! I am saying ONE COULD NOT MAKE THAT ARGUMENT. I then go on to show why one could not make that claim.

Jesus on the Old Testament:

Right fucking there, Christ says, "Hey! Idiots! Don't think for a moment that I'm saying the old stuff doesn't apply! It does! And it will apply until there's nothing left in the universe!"

It doesn't say, "The laws and the sayings of the prophets shall continue only until I rejoin my father in Heaven. At which time, feel free to pick and choose which ones you want to obey." or "After I have joined my father in Heaven, there will come another who'll tell you what ones to obey, and maybe that you should obey different laws than those now given."

Nope. The Big J is unequivocal on the point that the OT is valid and will always be so. You can argue that perhaps the Apostles got things wrong or misspoke when they made similar statements (or contradicted this), but you cannot argue that Jesus fucked up. Because to do so, means that God is, in fact, fallible. Nor does saying that God "changed His mind" work in this instance, either. God, being all knowing and all powerful, would, in fact, know if he was going to change his mind in the future or not.

Saying that Jesus claimed this only because he knew that people wouldn't accept radical change at this point in time and didn't want to unnecessarily damn people to Hell doesn't work either. God had no trouble wiping out the whole of humanity, save for a handful of people (who then had incest in order to repopulate the Earth), with the Flood. And he also had no trouble hardening the heart of the Pharaoh to keep the Jews in captivity longer, in order to further torture the Egyptians, so if he wanted to say something that most humans living at the time wouldn't agree with, he'd have no problem with that leading to the deaths and damnation of lots of people, or changing their hearts to better to conform to his plan.

When you "fulfill" a contract, then the contract is at an end.

The OT law is not a contract; it's a diktat. The Book of Matthew is very clearly written from the perspective that Jesus is a Jew, upholding all of the Jewish laws, and advocating the same of his followers. Other books, not so much.

wow... you're trying to lawyerball Jesus?

The Bible considers the relationship between God and the children of Abraham (Israel) to be based on a covenant.

Whose terms were dictated to the Israelis. God showed up and said, "So long as you keep my laws, I will protect you." The Jews were in a "take it or leave it" position. It was hardly a negotiated agreement between two equal (or nearly equal) parties. The Jews could accept it, or they could be wiped out. Not much room for haggling during negotiations with terms like that.

Since when are most contracts between two equal parties?

Only in theory.

At any rate, you are in error. At the time of the Abrahamic covenant, the people who became the Jews were hardly in any immediate natural or manmade danger.

And then there is this-

Catholics are so funny to me.

Most of the Catholics I know are pretty damn good at living their faith, and also exhibit a high level of intellectual honesty and rigor. What's funny about that?

When I see things like the graphic in Post #142, I just have to chuckle.

Because even the ignorant sinner goes to hell.

Which is ha-ha funny for some fundies.

Correct.

Fixed that for you.

No true Scotsman.