Kevin's Watch

In all the discussions that we've had regarding religion, and the various merits of different faiths, I've noticed that there has been a lot of disagreement regarding the various "brands" of christianity.

Now, from a non-christain view-point, I find all of this quite interesting, not to mention confusing. I was of the opinion that, essentially, anybody who believed that Jesus was the son of god, that he was crucified, died, and rose again to ascend into heaven, was a christian.

Now it turns out that people spend more time arguing amongst themselves over what he really meant in his fairly simple and unequivocal message, and how to follow his teachings, than they do following them.

I wonder if we could get a little clarification. I mean, I realise that there are differences in the way that things are interpreted, or carried out, but why does it make such a difference?

Surely you're almost literally arguing the semantics of the issue. What real difference does it make if brand "A" wears something different, or says a different prayer than brand "B"?

Does god care if "A" thinks "B" are not christians becuase they burn incense (or whatever)?

Interested.

--Avatar

Churches tend to splinter. For whatever reason, some people in a congregation will decide this or that part is more valuable & should be of highest priority.

Then suddenly you have the Catholics who believe that you have to be a good person and be absolved of your sin by a priest. You have grace Christians who concentrate on the grace of God and His mercy and for these Christians there is no need of a priest or even to be a good person, if you truly believe that Jesus died for your sins the works will automatically fall in line by your love of God. You have the hellfire & brimstone baptists who preach fear of hell as their method of saving folks. The mormons believe that Joseph Smith dug up some stone tablets which is basically just a rewritten Bible, and they're nice enough at first...

Even among these large divisions there are smaller divisions. A church can believe in more evangelistic views than another of the same type just across town.

So who's right? Well, I'm of the mind that the closer you get to the original early church ideals of the apostles, the closer you are to the truth. But that gets tricky in itself because the early church believed in some miracluous things such as speaking in tongues, casting out demons, and healing just to name a few. And I don't believe that humanity has the capability for this anymore. We've lost something along the way during the 2000 since Christ died and I don't believe that these things have been done in more than 1200 years. Perhaps much longer than that.

But, I'm pretty sure you can throw out the Catholics and Jehovah's Witnesses. They concentrate on the Old Testament too much, works & just the name of Jehovah's Witness says it all; they're focused on the Old Testament and that was the Old Promise, the Old way, the Old Covenant. The New Covenant & Testament is that of Jesus Christ as Savior & Messiah. Mormons reduce the power of Christ's sacrifice in suggesting that once we accept the gift of eternal life we can give it back. First of all, who would ever do that? Maybe the anti-Christ, but that's all I can think of. Or perhaps someone without concern for their own pain making some statement in protest for something, just as people appear to be unafraid of prison in their protests. Inotherwords, almost no one would even want to do it, let alone be able to do so. Additionally, doesn't it remove the focus from Jesus Christ, who died on the cross 2000 years ago for the people then & the people of the future, and somehow we limit how much he can save us???? as if to make it more about us than His sacrifice???

So you can toss out quite a few religions, and then ultimately, you're left with just a few, and even these few are designed to cover a collective whole belief system. If you have a church of a thousand people, you can't expect them to cover every single verse and minor alternative belief. I know a pastor that just finished preaching Ephesians, this is a very tiny book, just several pages long, he preached Ephesians for 22 years.

And I'm not saying that I've got the best handle on the truth either. I'm very willing to admit that the mainstream religions I care for the most have gaping holes in their belief systems as well. Eventually, you have to test it out. Is it scriptually sound that a person could truly heal another person? Yes. Okay. Is it logically sound? No. Why? If it were true, it would be just like when Jesus healed people & the desperation was so great that some people would just try to touch his robe, or they might lower someone right through a hole in the roof or some other elaborate means, they might send runners to Jesus if their child got sick. Jesus was incredibly busy with the constant needs of the people. He was worn out from them at times and had to escape. If someone could heal people for real today, then a million people would show up with their aches and pains, it would be covered as a huge media event. So you can cut out all the healing churches. Faith does heal, but it's so random as to not be a sure thing. None of the forehead pushers are real.

So that's I go about it. Does God answer prayers? Yes, and most often the answer is no. I used to pray for winning lotto tickets. Yeah, like I needed that kind of money at 22. Like a bullet in the head. But does God answer petitioning prayers? Prayers from many people over long periods of time or just from yourself for a long time. Sometimes, yes. Is there any proof of this? No, not really, but there is an amazing amount of coincidence that builds up over time. My brother used to have to eat popcorn for dinner on Sundays. They were very poor. Just when things were at the bottom of the barrel and they had only some powdered milk and some condiments left, a check would arrive. This happened so often that it became uncanny. They would go through all the groceries until the day that there was nothing left, and another sponsorship check would arrive. They lived like this for years. Most of the time, it was like that. A lot of Christians have stories like this or more varied, but it's always the same, at first it seems coincidental, but it just keeps happening. It isn't the same checks, sometimes one will come from someone they hadn't had contact with for years. Then another check. Right on time. Right on God's time.

If a Church believes in speaking in tongues, I turn around and walk out. I have no patience for what I've found to be a lost art. If it were true, we could test it in some way. I think mostly these are people who are attention addicts. I've never been a part of a church that did this and found a benefit from it.

If a Church pounds you with the horrors of hell, I leave. The God of the Old Testament could be harsh, but He could also be forgiving.

Finally, I find something that makes sense. Even then there are things I disagree with. But sometimes, the pastor really appears to be talking directly to me. I've had sensations of the Holy Spirit and I'm not one of those that believe in the sensationalized versions of Christianity. I kept it to myself and my family. I always feel really good after & during church. It's like a happy drug with no side effects. And what's wrong with that?

So it takes awhile. It takes research. It takes common sense. It takes faith.

ZefaLefeLaH wrote: I always feel really good after & during church. It's like a happy drug with no side effects. And what's wrong with that?

So it takes awhile. It takes research. It takes common sense. It takes faith.

Thanks for the info Zef.
There's nothing wrong with that at all. If people take comfort from, or are uplifted by, their faith, then good for them.

You seem to be saying that these schisms only arise from people though, from their various interpretations of what Jesus, or the bible, really meant.

I suppose that, as with so much else, it's mostly a matter of opinion.

Later
--Avatar

Well, yes and no.

Let's say for the sake of the argument that there is a specific church somewhere that has it very close to right.

That means everyone else is wrong... or at least more wrong. 'Cause I don't believe that anyone has it right anymore.


That's where I'm coming from. I'm choosing the greater of goods so that I have the lesser of evils (hypocrisy, idoltry, and such). Also, I think that if someone takes the Bible at face value a lot of these things become rather apparent. The Old Testament was an Old Way of doing things. No one sacrifices animals for forgiveness any more. So there's no reason to refer to God as Jehovah. Now the Old Testament is useful for study, but it doesn't directly apply to us as the New Testament does. At any rate, I automatically exclude churches that do not view Jesus Christ as the center of the Bible, the ultimate sacrifice so there doesn't have to be sacrifices any more. So anything that puts that aside in anyway, shape, or form, automatically gets cut from the types of places I want to worship. Is that opinion? Well, not if the Bible's right. It might be an opinion to reason out why Thomas Covenant rapes Lena. It isn't an opinion that he did.

Then do you take the bible as the literal word of god? (Leaving aside for a moment whether its right or not.)

In other words, not open to interpretation, but the actual and literal truth?

You seem to imply that you choose the "version" which is least "wrong" (in your opinion) becuase no version can be completely "right" these days.

Fair enough, considering the various alterations that the bible has gone through. And how about the gospels that have, over the centuries, been excised from the bible (the so-called Gnostic Gospels) because they didn't support the message of more "modern" churches? Should those also be considered?

--A

Zeph said:

So who's right? Well, I'm of the mind that the closer you get to the original early church ideals of the apostles, the closer you are to the truth. But that gets tricky in itself because the early church believed in some miracluous things such as speaking in tongues, casting out demons, and healing just to name a few. And I don't believe that humanity has the capability for this anymore.

and

But, I'm pretty sure you can throw out the Catholics and Jehovah's Witnesses. They concentrate on the Old Testament too much, works & just the name of Jehovah's Witness says it all; they're focused on the Old Testament and that was the Old Promise, the Old way, the Old Covenant.

Well, Zeph, I agree on the first quote, but not the second. You can't possibly focus too much on the Old Testament. As Jesus replied to a young man who asked how he might have life everlasting, "Follow the Ten Commandments". The Old Covenant was never done away with, it was only truly fulfilled about two hundred years ago, (Jacob's Promise) Jesus never intended for us to do away with the Commandments, or the Laws. In Revelations, the mass throng before the throne sang songs "both old and new". This is warning that the laws of the Old Testament and the New would become one and the same, neither less important than the other... Still, this is my belief, not neccesarily anyone else's.

Just as you and I don't agree on the "Kingdom of Heaven" thing. It states clearly in Revelation that God's Kingdom will be on earth....


Avatar, the term christian, is simply a generalization these days, and the differences are more than symbolic...

But yes, the further we go back to the original church, the closer to the truth we get.

-B

Baradakas wrote:Just as you and I don't agree on the "Kingdom of Heaven" thing. It states clearly in Revelation that God's Kingdom will be on earth....

It does say that there will be a Kingdom on earth. A whole new earth. In fact, it talks about this twice.

The first time is the millenium of peace.

The second time is the cube city; which isn't necessarily on earth. Also, the dimensions appear to suggest that this is where the Borg's creators got their idea for their cube-ship. Will it then be machinery and metal? Nope. But it's still neat to see that someone once again seized upon something in the Bible, the most copied of all books throughout history.

Anyway, the Bible talks about streets of gold, gates of gems, and mansions in heaven. I believe this is where we would spend eternity. And of course that isn't the end of the story. We will still have new races to rule over. Perhaps even now, one of them is in the early stages of evolution waiting for the time we will be ready to guide them (this is a joke against myself as the universe is remade again).

Aah, Baradakas, I was hoping you'd get involved in this one.

By saying that the term "christian" is merely a generalisation, do you mean that it still applies to any faith that places Jesus as a central tenent of it's belief system?

In other words, regardless of the differences, smybolic or otherwise, "christian" essentially means that the faith believes that Jesus was the son of god, that he died for their sins, and that through him, christians can attain heaven?

Or are you saying that it should only be applied to certain interpretations?

I certainly agree that, for christians, both old and new testaments should be considered. After all, as you point out youself, Jesus constantly referred people to what had already been written.

My favourite verse is an example of this: "I tell you, and it is written in your own law (referring to the Mosaic Law) that you are gods." (John 10:34)
He continues by saying that the scriptures cannot be altered.

Which brings me neatly to my next question. The scriptures have been altered. Often and significantly. Do you disregard the gospels and books which were excised from the bible by various controlling bodies at the time?

And finally, you say that the differences are more than symbolic. By that, do you imply that certain faiths, who consider themselves "christians" are wrong? That they no longer "qualify"?

I once read a wonderful quote, which I sometimes hope is true. It said:

"There is no room for the technicalities of religion in the minds of god."

As an aside, and related to Zef's comment about the millenium of peace: I've never quite understood what the point would be of chaining up satan for a thousand years, and then letting him loose to do it all again, before finally "destroying" him.

To be honest, it sounds like a set-up to me. Satan is the ultimate fall-guy, destined to lose no matter what. If we're honest about it, he should have at least a 50-50 chance of winning, and if we're realistic, probably even more than that.

Peace
--Avatar

Talk about opening a can of worms!!! Yes, I believe it is a generalization, symbolic or otherwise, that through Christ's teachings, and his death and ressurrection, that our souls may become immortal. Not attaining heaven, another point to nitpick at, but its my belief, not the geneeral consensus.

Yes the scriptures have been altered. What Jesus meant, in a literal sense, was that the core of the Scriptures would never be changed. And as God himself said in the Old Testament; "I do not change, I am the Lord."

Christians are christians. I am a True Apostolic Christian, meaning that I do not go to a standardized church, I only study the Bible, to constantly prove to myself it's Truths.

I definitely wanted to address this last part, as it pertains to the message most often missed in the Bible.

As an aside, and related to Zef's comment about the millenium of peace: I've never quite understood what the point would be of chaining up satan for a thousand years, and then letting him loose to do it all again, before finally "destroying" him.

To be honest, it sounds like a set-up to me. Satan is the ultimate fall-guy, destined to lose no matter what. If we're honest about it, he should have at least a 50-50 chance of winning, and if we're realistic, probably even more than that.

This pertains to the White Throne Judgement, which occurs after the Millenium. Those who did not belive, or did not recieve the Holy Spirit in thier lifetime, are resurrected and given one more lifetime to try to live by God's Word. Satan is released at that time to tempt mankind one final time. He will be very successful, raising an army of the wicked, who will attack Jerusalem. God will wipe them out, and those who lived by the Word will also be given immortality, while those who were seduced a second time will be cast into the lake of fire along with Satan to be forever destroyed. (Not the eternal suffering that the Catholic Church preaches).


You probably wonder why I emphasize even the small points so much...

Well as a clever man once said: "The devil is in the details." I'm just making sure I don't forget the details.

-B

Avatar wrote:As an aside, and related to Zef's comment about the millenium of peace: I've never quite understood what the point would be of chaining up satan for a thousand years, and then letting him loose to do it all again, before finally "destroying" him.

I think it is more of a statement to all humanity that the excuse "The Devil made me do it" doesn't cut the mustard.

Satan is bound for 1,000 years. He's let loose and immediately raises the nations against God. God basically says, Boo!, and they all fall down dead. The reason isn't about Satan, it's about the nature of humanity, that they can't even be good when Satan isn't around and peace has abounded for a thousand years. They still fall, just like Adam & Eve before them. They fall fast and they fall hard. It's proof for once and for all that it wasn't just about Satan. They just needed a trigger to get past minor grumblings and hold onto real evil to propel them over the edge of sanity. Even when they KNOW Jesus Christ and His goodness, most everyone will still follow Satan. It's all about the nature of choice. When given a choice, we're much weaker than angels. But during this time, our time, we are truly blessed with grace and mercy.

Baradakas wrote:Talk about opening a can of worms!!! Yes, I believe it is a generalization, symbolic or otherwise, that through Christ's teachings, and his death and ressurrection, that our souls may become immortal. Not attaining heaven, another point to nitpick at, but its my belief, not the geneeral consensus.

Yes the scriptures have been altered. What Jesus meant, in a literal sense, was that the core of the Scriptures would never be changed. And as God himself said in the Old Testament; "I do not change, I am the Lord."

Christians are christians. I am a True Apostolic Christian, meaning that I do not go to a standardized church, I only study the Bible, to constantly prove to myself it's Truths.

I definitely wanted to address this last part, as it pertains to the message most often missed in the Bible.

As an aside, and related to Zef's comment about the millenium of peace: I've never quite understood what the point would be of chaining up satan for a thousand years, and then letting him loose to do it all again, before finally "destroying" him.

To be honest, it sounds like a set-up to me. Satan is the ultimate fall-guy, destined to lose no matter what. If we're honest about it, he should have at least a 50-50 chance of winning, and if we're realistic, probably even more than that.

This pertains to the White Throne Judgement, which occurs after the Millenium. Those who did not belive, or did not recieve the Holy Spirit in thier lifetime, are resurrected and given one more lifetime to try to live by God's Word. Satan is released at that time to tempt mankind one final time. He will be very successful, raising an army of the wicked, who will attack Jerusalem. God will wipe them out, and those who lived by the Word will also be given immortality, while those who were seduced a second time will be cast into the lake of fire along with Satan to be forever destroyed. (Not the eternal suffering that the Catholic Church preaches).


You probably wonder why I emphasize even the small points so much...

Well as a clever man once said: "The devil is in the details." I'm just making sure I don't forget the details.

-B

I like your version of Christianity. I still don't believe, but your way at least makes sense to me.

Baradakas wrote:...Yes the scriptures have been altered. What Jesus meant, in a literal sense, was that the core of the Scriptures would never be changed. And as God himself said in the Old Testament; "I do not change, I am the Lord."...Christians are christians. I am a True Apostolic Christian, meaning that I do not go to a standardized church, I only study the Bible, to constantly prove to myself it's Truths.

Right, god may not change, but the messages propagated by his multitude of churches certainly have. And in the attempt to always offer the "correct" message, i.e. the one most in line with the political and social motives of the church, many different points have been emphasised more strongly than, or at the expense of, certain other messages. If you rely solely on the message of the bible as it stands today, don't you run the risk of missing some vitally important point, simply because early churches decided that it didn't fit in with doctrine?

Baradakas wrote:...Those who did not belive, or did not recieve the Holy Spirit in thier lifetime, are resurrected and given one more lifetime to try to live by God's Word. Satan is released at that time to tempt mankind one final time. He will be very successful, raising an army of the wicked, who will attack Jerusalem. God will wipe them out, and those who lived by the Word will also be given immortality, while those who were seduced a second time will be cast into the lake of fire along with Satan to be forever destroyed. (Not the eternal suffering that the Catholic Church preaches).

Two things on this:
...Again we reach the question of "living by gods word". In essence, I live by the moral precepts supposedly laid down by god. I don't murder, steal, lie, (if I can possibly help it) and most of the rest of it. To the best of my ability, I live a "good" life (or at least, I think so. ) I live this way out of my own moral convictions, not because some supreme being told me to, but because I believe that it's the right way to live. But to god, or at least to most christians, this isn't enough. Because I don't accept god "himself" (not the sensible rules christianity suggests, but the "founder" of those rules) then I will be one of those facing oblivion (better than eternal suffering, but still...).

..."God will wipe them out"... This brings me to my second point. It's taken as a given that god will win. I understand why this is, but it scarcely seems fair to me. If this is so, then satan is nothing more than gods tool. His "proving ground" for us lesser mortals. If the victory of god is a given, the whole struggle is either simply to make our lives difficult, or an excercise for gods amusement. I tend to veer towards the latter. Afterall, we already know that god is prone to make bets (Job) and furthermore, to leave the dirty work to his "adversay".

Baradakas wrote:...You probably wonder why I emphasize even the small points so much...Well as a clever man once said: "The devil is in the details." I'm just making sure I don't forget the details.

Don't worry about it. I find the details fascinating...as well as far more important than some great "overview" in which so much can be glossed over.

Zef---
I don't think that "The devil made me do it" can ever be an excuse. In fact, I think that that is all it ever is. The only person/thing that makes us do anything is ourselves. Satan is a convenient scapegoat, for ourselves, and for god.

If it is as you say, it seems to be an awful lot of trouble to go to just to prove a point. If it isn't about satan, then it must be about god himself. Not that humanity isn't flawed, but to say that most everybody will follow satan makes me ask why? Are most people evil? I don't think so. Most people are simply self-serving. Admittedly, this can open the way to being evil, but there is a big difference between not accepting god and being evil.

I think that if they were offered the choice, most people would opt for the side of good. The problem is, "good" doesn't want them unless they are also willing to worship god.

--Avatar

Avatar wrote:If it is as you say, it seems to be an awful lot of trouble to go to just to prove a point. If it isn't about satan, then it must be about god himself. Not that humanity isn't flawed, but to say that most everybody will follow satan makes me ask why? Are most people evil? I don't think so. Most people are simply self-serving. Admittedly, this can open the way to being evil, but there is a big difference between not accepting god and being evil.

I think that if they were offered the choice, most people would opt for the side of good. The problem is, "good" doesn't want them unless they are also willing to worship god.

--Avatar

Maybe the point isn't as much that people will generally go to Satan no matter how easy God makes it on people, but maybe the point is that the easier that God makes it for people the harder time they have accepting Him. As if it would be easier to make it about animal sacrifice & the 10 commandments rather than believing in Jesus or living with Jesus as King.

Is god making it easy for people? It's easy to say "oh yes, I believe in god", but to live according to your beliefs, no matter what they are, can be difficult at times.

I'm not sure that people struggle to accept god because of how easy it is, or even because of the ways in which he would prefer people to live. It may be the fact of "authority".

Only I am responsible for how I live my life, and I am accountable only to myself. I don't live the way I do because some semi-benevolent "supreme being" tells me I should, but because of an independantly derived moral system.

But we're getting off-topic. We're talking about how and why christians can't agree on the message that god, through christ, is supposed to have passed on to man.

Afterall, on the surface it should be pretty unambiguous.

--Avatar

Avatar wrote:Is god making it easy for people? It's easy to say "oh yes, I believe in god", but to live according to your beliefs, no matter what they are, can be difficult at times.

I'm not sure that people struggle to accept god because of how easy it is, or even because of the ways in which he would prefer people to live. It may be the fact of "authority".

Only I am responsible for how I live my life, and I am accountable only to myself. I don't live the way I do because some semi-benevolent "supreme being" tells me I should, but because of an independantly derived moral system.

Definitely agree with you on that first point, Av...sometimes (okay, I admit, with me it's a lot of times--something to do with how stubbourn I've always been, I think), walking the Walk is SOOO hard...and as far as the whole "it's just a crutch" thing goes... *laugh* if I wanted a crutch, trust me, I'd find something a lot less controversial.

Hmmm...very interesting second point...I have to say I agree. Let's face it; most of us really don't like being under someone else's authority...sometimes, it feel downright humiliating.



On the whole thing about Christians disagreeing with one another, I have this to say: We are all different people. We grow up in different situations, are influenced by different things all our lives, and therefore we all have different views of the world. Because we are individuals, we will disagree with one another on occasion. It's part of life, so don't expect this to change anytime soon. This phenomenon touches every aspect of life (directly or indirectly), including religions of all kinds, and those devout to said religions. It therefore follows that some people have different interpretations of scriptures from their brothers and sisters. In the case of Christianity, I think Paul said it best in his epistle to the Romans (ch. 14, vv. 1-6):

Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.

The lesson I take away from this passage is this: I should not worry too much about denominational differences in opinion; it doesn't matter who has it exactly right, because it's not about that (really, none of us has it exactly right anyway). It's about the WHY of what you're doing, not the doing itself. Do it for the love of God, not to prove you're better than anyone else.

If I weren't getting married, I drop everything & come stalk you until you were mine.

lol!
Awww! *blushes at the compliment*

Thanks for that quote, Iryssa!! I'd never seen it before, and it's fantastic!!!!

Iryssa wrote: I think Paul said it best in his epistle to the Romans (ch. 14, vv. 1-6):

Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

The lesson I take away from this passage is this: I should not worry too much about denominational differences in opinion; it doesn't matter who has it exactly right, because it's not about that (really, none of us has it exactly right anyway). It's about the WHY of what you're doing, not the doing itself. Do it for the love of God, not to prove you're better than anyone else.

I like your take on this. It's the way that I like to think god would look at it. Essentially, it seems to me that you're suggesting here that it doesn't matter how you interpret gods word, as long as you do it in good faith, and from the sincere belief that it is what god would want.

Can you take that further and apply it to the lives of non-christians? In other words, the way I live my life is more important than the reasons I live my life that way?

--Avatar

Avatar wrote:Can you take that further and apply it to the lives of non-christians? In other words, the way I live my life is more important than the reasons I live my life that way?

Actually, I would say it's the opposite, Av; the reason you live your life the way you do is more important than the way. The "way" of it will always follow the "why?"
For example: If you live your life to get rich, and that is your driving passion and ultimate goal, you'll probably do just about anything to attain that; stepping on toes, spending too much time away from your family, etc.
If you live your life with love as your ultimate goal (I mean real love, not lust...), all your actions will be an attempt to be loving. Of course, since we're human, we're likely to stray from either of those paths from time to time, but you get the idea.

Thinking about the love example there has brought to mind something else. I believe that all God's commands can be satisfied if one truly loves God and people...
Romans 13:8-10 says:

Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “Do not commit adultery,” “Do not murder,” “Do not steal,” “Do not covet,” and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

Basically, that passage sums up everything I believe about God's law as it is to be applied between the believer and his/her neighbor ("neighbor" in the broad sense, not as in the next house over). Love and your life will show it.