> As to the question of which is worse, I believe that going to church without believing is worse than not going to church at all. Of course, it is all the same to God, since He looks at what is in our hearts. However, Christians are charged to not be a stumbling block to non-believers. Just because you've stopped believing doesn't mean that other people aren't looking to you as an example of what a Christian life is.

Point taken.

> Sam's statement that "there is very little in the Bible about ritual" is something that I think misrepresents the facts. It is true that there isn't a lot in comparison to the amount of non-ritualistic matter in the Bible. (This among other things shows that God does indeed value the relationship is more than the ritual.) However, check out Leviticus and Deuteronomy for a major enumeration of ritual.

Again, point taken. I should have been more specific, but the way in which I would have been more specific is evidently in direct opposition to what you later state:

> And this is still relevant to us today, for when we keep God's laws we are showing our devotion to Him.

Here we are in quite a good deal of disagreement. As I explained in the "God's Word" thread, we can take principles, prophecies, facts about the physical and spiritual worlds, facts about the nature of God, history, and a number of other things from the Old Testament. But we can't rely on doctrine from the Old Testament. True, nine of the Ten Commandments are upheld by Paul in the books of Romans through Philemon, whose epistles are directed for us, in post-crucifixion times, but the success rate for the rest of the Old Testament law is actually substantially lower. You have read Leviticus, right? The law in it is so complex, that not even modern day Jews follow it all. All the commandments about how altars should be built and what sacrifices should be made when and who should be stoned for what offenses -- none of that applies to today. The book of Romans explains why. Originally, those animal sacrifices were intended essentially to "tide them over" until Christ could make the ultimate sacrifice. If Christ hadn't come, none of those Old Testament folks would have been able to remain eternally saved. But since Christ hadn't yet been crucified, one couldn't then accept what he did to be saved and leave it at that. The animal sacrifices provided a temporary masking of sin.

True, even then God valued the personal relationship people had with him, but the Law was mandatory, not optional. If you screwed it up by breaking a part of the Law for which there was no provision to make amends, that was it. (Of course, God did make exceptions; he deemed David a good man, even though he was guilty of adultery, which was normally cause for immediate stoning.)

What you say *sounds* right. It seems like "Christ's sacrifice nullified the need for our strictest adherence to ritual" but "all of God's laws of the past still apply to today" is simply common sense theology. Well, until you study the Word. It can't be a sound principle, because there is out and out *conflict* between the doctrine in some Old Testament laws and the doctrine given in Paul's epistles. Some of these things include doctrine on marriage and divorce, animal sacrifices, tithing, observation of Sabbath and other holy times, capital punishment, rules concerning what types of food are permissible to consume (God's rules on this even change over the course of separate ages in the Old Testament -- look at pre- and post-flood for an example), the construction of tabernacles, altars, etc, and the difference in treatment between Jews and Gentiles, just to name a few.

> I'm simply trying to make the point that although we are saved by grace, not by works, our works can demonstrate our relationship and are even necessary to make it worthwhile.

Of course. But WHAT works apply to today? All Old Testament Law, or just the parts left alone or explicitly upheld by the portions of the New Testament for our times? Baptism for the remission of sins, or baptism as a public statement of faith?

I fully understand that the philosophy of Bible study I've been trying to express in this and the "God's Plan" thread may sound uncomfortably unconventional. If the WHOLE Bible is the Word of God, why shouldn't we follow ALL of it? If anything, I am more devoted to believing and following the whole Bible than those who, rather than acknowledging doctrinal differences in the Bible and seeking to follow the ones meant for our times, instead seek to make a blanket statement that there AREN'T doctrinal differences and re-interpret verses that don't agree to make them in accord. It just doesn't work.

I do, however, agree with the *spirit* of what you're trying to say. We are saved by faith, not works, but yes, God wants us to follow his will for our lives. Romans 6:1-2 talks about taking advantage of God by taking advantage of salvation by faith by abandoning works: "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?" Other verses that indicate the desire and importance of good works: Col. 1:10, I Tim. 2:10, 6:18, II Tim. 3:16-17, and II Cor 9:8.