+Robinson on biblical opposition to homosexuality

I am genuinely interested to hear an explanation from some Christians here. For those Christians whose moral compass is purely informed by biblical mandate, isn't Robinson correct here in claiming an inconsistency when same Christians do not endorse the death penalty for homosexual activity? Do these same Christians also endorse the misogyny of purity laws which claim a woman is unclean a week after her menstruation? Obviously not all Christian opposition is exclusively biblical. Catholic moral theology opposes homosexuality not on biblical grounds primarily but because of its grounding in natural law theory and belief that procreation is the proper end of sexual activity. Robinson's criticism does not apply to those who subscribe to this moral theology. No Christian on this forum however has ever articulated any notion like this, so I am interested to hear how they respond to Robinson's piece. Here is the link to Robinson's piece:

http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2010/12/homosexuality_in_leviticus.html

Originally posted by Conrau K
I am genuinely interested to hear an explanation from some Christians here. For those Christians whose moral compass is purely informed by biblical mandate, isn't Robinson correct here in claiming an inconsistency when same Christians do not endorse the death penalty for homosexual activity? Do these same Christians also endorse the misogyny of purity laws ...[text shortened]... ttp://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2010/12/homosexuality_in_leviticus.html

i have not read the report ( i will tomorrow for its real late), but i have heard this idea cited by a clergy man when i was on the house to house ministry, its erroneous because the law which condemned homosexuals to death, the Mosaic law, is in practice, obsolete, we are under a new covenant agreement and a new law, the Law of the Christ. I see it as an inability to see the spiritual application of the law, in that while it remains obsolete in practice, the principles themselves remain, for as Christ stated, he came to fulfil the Law and the prophets.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i have not read the report ( i will tomorrow for its real late), but i have heard this idea cited by a clergy man when i was on the house to house ministry, its erroneous because the law which condemned homosexuals to death, the Mosaic law, is in practice, obsolete, we are under a new covenant agreement and a new law, the Law of the Christ. I see it ...[text shortened]... principles themselves remain, for as Christ stated, he came to fulfil the Law and the prophets.

The issue here is not the applicability of Mosaic law. Paul gives a very clear teaching on salvation history, explaining that the old covenant and law have been superseded. The issue here is that the Mosaic law clearly teaches that homosexuality is wrong and that the execution of homosexuals is righteous. Even if Christians deny that the Mosaic law is in force, they must concede the underlying moral message -- that homosexuality is evil and their execution is morally good.

Originally posted by Conrau K
The issue here is not the applicability of Mosaic law. Paul gives a very clear teaching on salvation history, explaining that the old covenant and law have been superseded. The issue here is that the Mosaic law clearly teaches that homosexuality is wrong and that the execution of homosexuals is righteous. Even if Christians deny that the Mosaic law is in fo ...[text shortened]... the underlying moral message -- that homosexuality is evil and their execution is morally good.

This ain't' Israel 2000+ years ago.

Why should Christians feel the need to implement capital punishment for homosexuality? It's not like they murdered anyone.

Rom 1:17
..,and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Things have changed.

Originally posted by josephw
This ain't' Israel 2000+ years ago.

Why should Christians feel the need to implement capital punishment for homosexuality? It's not like they murdered anyone.

Rom 1:17
[b]..,and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Things have changed.[/b]

Of course things have changed. The question then is why some precepts are retained, i.e. prohibition of homosexual activity, whereas others are not.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Of course things have changed. The question then is why some precepts are retained, i.e. prohibition of homosexual activity, whereas others are not.

That is my question too.
Why sometimes refer to OT, and sometimes say that it's just mosaic law.

I say - express your love to another being in your way. If the other one doesn't object, why should fundamentalists object? Why are they so interested in *how* others conduct their sexual activities? I am not interested how fundamentalists do their activities.

Because this has nothing to do with christians, this has to do with the disrespect the fundamentalists show.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Catholic moral theology opposes homosexuality not on biblical grounds primarily but because of its grounding in natural law theory and belief that procreation is the proper end of sexual activity.

Of course that is all made up to support the desired conclusion.

Originally posted by Conrau K
The issue here is not the applicability of Mosaic law. Paul gives a very clear teaching on salvation history, explaining that the old covenant and law have been superseded. The issue here is that the Mosaic law clearly teaches that homosexuality is wrong and that the execution of homosexuals is righteous. Even if Christians deny that the Mosaic law is in fo ...[text shortened]... the underlying moral message -- that homosexuality is evil and their execution is morally good.

no, for how can you state with one breath that the ordinances of the Mosaic law are no longer binding upon Christians, and then with the same breath state that they should support that which has been nullified. We are Christians, we are under a completely new morality, not one of ordinances, but one of conscience. That the principle contained therein is binding, that the act of homosexuality stands condemned is not in question, however the emphasis is not now on a purely punitive basis, but one of repentance and a reconciliation, anyone who reads the Gospels cannot help but take note of that fact.

(1 Corinthians 6:9-11) . . .Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men,  nor thieves, nor greedy persons, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit God’s kingdom.  And yet that is what some of you were. But you have been washed clean, but you have been sanctified, but you have been declared righteous in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and with the spirit of our God.

you are correct in the assumtion that the law was superseded [as you state] but if you know the law it states adultery and stoneing. since we all sin in some form its not to sin is the aim of all.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Of course things have changed. The question then is why some precepts are retained, i.e. prohibition of homosexual activity, whereas others are not.

Some precepts and law principles are trans dispensational while others are not.

God was working through Israel at one time, but now He is doing something in a different way in and through the church the Body of Christ.

The church does not have a national mandate.

An example of a trans dispensational truth is the reap and sow principle. God will not be mocked at any time.

2 Timothy 2:15 is the key to understanding the what, when, where, how, who, and why of scripture.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no, for how can you state with one breath that the ordinances of the Mosaic law are no longer binding upon Christians, and then with the same breath state that they should support that which has been nullified. We are Christians, we are under a completely new morality, not one of ordinances, but one of conscience. That the principle contained there ...[text shortened]... been declared righteous in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and with the spirit of our God.[/b]

No. I appreciate that the law is obsolete. No Christian is required to stone homosexuals. The point is that it was once morally right to do so. Granted that God never changes nor arbitrarily determines what is right, then you must concede that it is morally right, even if not morally required, to stone homosexuals. Is that the case?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Of course that is all made up to support the desired conclusion.

Well, if you say so.

Originally posted by Conrau K
No. I appreciate that the law is obsolete. No Christian is required to stone homosexuals. The point is that it was once morally right to do so. Granted that God never changes nor arbitrarily determines what is right, then you must concede that it is morally right, even if not morally required, to stone homosexuals. Is that the case?

yes i think it must be the case, for there are not a few passages which refer to the practice and not only its condemnation, but its punishment and the basis for such punishment.

(Jude 7) . . .So too Sodom and Gmorrah and the cities about them, after they in the same manner as the foregoing ones had committed fornication excessively and gone out after flesh for unnatural use, are placed before us as a warning example by undergoing the judicial punishment of everlasting fire.

thus Jude reiterates to Christians that punishment was righteous on the basis that the practice was unnatural and that those guilty of it, were judicially executed by God.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes i think it must be the case, for there are not a few passages which refer to the practice and not only its condemnation, but its punishment and the basis for such punishment.

(Jude 7) . . .So too Sodom and Gmorrah and the cities about them, after they in the same manner as the foregoing ones had committed fornication excessively and gone out a ...[text shortened]... is that the practice was unnatural and that those guilty of it, were judicially executed by God.

i bump this in the hope that Conrau shall see it and explain what is natural law theory, simple and plain language please.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes i think it must be the case, for there are not a few passages which refer to the practice and not only its condemnation, but its punishment and the basis for such punishment.

(Jude 7) . . .So too Sodom and Gmorrah and the cities about them, after they in the same manner as the foregoing ones had committed fornication excessively and gone out a ...[text shortened]... is that the practice was unnatural and that those guilty of it, were judicially executed by God.

I had meant to reply to this earlier. I think there is an issue here in comparing the actions of God with those of man. I suspect many Christians would concede God certain moral entitlements over mankind. God as creator may have a just claim to the life of a human being and therefore can morally terminate a life. So simply because it is right for God to kill a homosexual (I'll just take that for granted for now), this does not mean that a man can execute homosexuals. The question remains whether you believe it is morally right (and remember, this does not entail whether it is morally required) for another man to execute another because of his homosexual activities.

Natural law theory is quite a broad area of moral philosophy. I won't even try to give a survey of the many disparate factions among natural law theorists. I only mentioned natural law theory because a Christian who objects to homosexuality on non-biblical grounds would not be guilty of the inconsistencies that bishop Robinson described.