- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by @fmfThere was no law to kill gays in that general sense.
Well, I am not asking you if you think it is morally sound for you to kill gays. I am asking you if you think it was morally sound for the Hebrews to kill gays.
There was a law that if a man lied down with another man to have sex they should be stoned.
"You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abomination." (Lev. 18:22)
It was morally right for a man to not lie down with another man to have sex with each other.
It was morally right for them to obey God's command in that theocratic nation to execute the two men so violating the above law.
"If there is a man who lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." (Lev. 20:12)
in the New Testament church life our basic book on doctrine still indicates the unrighteousness of the homosexual act. As also with adultery, fornication, witchcraft, and other sins of the flesh.
There is no command from God pertaining to the church life to take the life of people by capital punishment.
The Salem witch executions, for example, I believe were sinful - not morally right.
This should be enough for the second or third time to answer your question.
If you repeat it again I will take it as you will only regard speaking exactly what you want me to speak as "addressing" your question.
I will regard as "not dodging" to really mean - say exactly what you want me to say.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
It is also righteous for the Hebrew sinner to come to the priest for his repented of sin, offering one or more of the prescribed sacrifices which POINTED to Christ's redemption of sinners of all kinds, to come.
There was for the two men who laid together - "the trespass offering, the sin offering, the peace offering" as repentance propitiatory sacrifices instead of execution.
That is how I understand the old testament life of the theocratic Israel.
So Paul says that the law was a child-conductor leading the people to Christ.
"So then the law has become our child-conductor unto Christ that we might be justified by faith.
But since faith has come, we are no longer under a child-conductor."
(Gal. 3:24,25)
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 116950
Originally posted by @dj2beckerYet another admission that morality is not universal and objective.
The old covenant allowed it the new covenant doesn’t.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 116950
Originally posted by @dj2beckerThis is just your typical digging tactic. FMF asked you first; either answer his questions or admit that you are wrong.
I’ll answer them once you answer all the questions you are dodging.
23 Nov 17
Originally posted by @sonshipWell, well. Finally. It took about 10 pages. Thank you. So, executing homosexuals [for "lying down" with each other] used to be morally sound. But now it no longer is. I asked you this on about page 2 or 3. So the moral soundness of killing homosexuals [for "lying down" with each other] has changed. There has been a change of mind on the part of your god figure as to what he thinks is the morally sound way to treat homosexuals [for "lying down" with each other]. That was all I was asking you.
It was morally right for them to obey God's command in that theocratic nation to execute the two men so violating the above law.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
24 Nov 17
Originally posted by @fmf“There has been a change of mind on the part of your god figure as to what he thinks is the morally sound way to treat homosexuals [for "lying down" with each other].”
Well, well. Finally. It took about 10 pages. Thank you. So, executing homosexuals [for "lying down" with each other] used to be morally sound. But now it no longer is. I asked you this on about page 2 or 3. So the moral soundness of killing homosexuals [for "lying down" with each other] has changed. There has been a change of mind on the part of your god figure ...[text shortened]... ound way to treat homosexuals [for "lying down" with each other]. That was all I was asking you.
While this may be argued, it is not necessarily a change of mind for god to have one rule for one situation and another rule for another situation, as long as he has both rules and situations aligned in his mind from the git-go.
Originally posted by @dj2beckerI can't think of any regular poster here who seems less able to understand non-believers and less able to conduct discussions with them in an honest and grown-up way. Every time you pretend that you see things from the perspective of non-believers you seem intent on using a slew of logical fallacies and other rhetorical gimmicks in order to troll the conversations that are going on.
Even though I have never been a non-believer I am able to try to see things from your perspective.
Originally posted by @js357I am debating what I see as a concocted human ideology, not the supposed deeds and decisions of a supernatural being.
FMF: "There has been a change of mind on the part of your god figure as to what he thinks is the morally sound way to treat homosexuals [for "lying down" with each other].”
While this may be argued, it is not necessarily a change of mind for god to have one rule for one situation and another rule for another situation, as long as he has both rules and situations aligned in his mind from the git-go.
Originally posted by @js357So it could just be that the god figure might require believers to turn on homosexuals again one day and kill them, deeming it morally sound for the people doing it, and deeming it to be "another situation" that had been aligned in his mind from the git-go.
While this may be argued, it is not necessarily a change of mind for god to have one rule for one situation and another rule for another situation, as long as he has both rules and situations aligned in his mind from the git-go.
Originally posted by @fmfAnd how many pages before you answer me on just one question put to you?
Well, well. Finally. It took about 10 pages. Thank you. So, executing homosexuals [for "lying down" with each other] used to be morally sound. But now it no longer is. I asked you this on about page 2 or 3. So the moral soundness of killing homosexuals [for "lying down" with each other] has changed. There has been a change of mind on the part of your god figure ...[text shortened]... ound way to treat homosexuals [for "lying down" with each other]. That was all I was asking you.
Shall people go on to beastiality under the assumption that they are champions of "species orientation" or "species equality" in sexual union?
Are you counting pages on how long before you address that ?
- sonship
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
There has been a change of mind on the part of your god
This is an old argument that the Pharisees also used against Jesus. They argued that Moses gave them instructions about providing a certificate of divorce. But first God commanded against divorce.
They reasoned that God must have changed His mind about His being against divorce.
1.) Jesus said that the addition of the certificate of divorce was because of the hardness of their hearts and not because God changed about His decreeing divorce as sinful.
2.) As for the moral standard of the law Jesus said He came not to do away with it by one minute punctuation mark. Not a jot or a tittle did He come to do away with as to its moral standard.
"Do not think that I came to abolish the law or the prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill." (Matt.. 5:17)
You can take Christ's word for it or you can put your trust in FMF's explanations that God is wishy washy - changing His moral character.
Though the church has no command about stonings of any kind to anyone for any sin at any time - the NT still speaks of things which are "worthy of death".
See Romans 1:29-32; . The Gospel message is that Christ DIED for us and not that the sins are no longer worthy of God's severe judgment, as FMF falsely argues.
And we'll see what the page count comes out to be before he answers just one of my questions put to him.
Shall people go on to beastiality under the assumption that they are champions of "species orientation" or "species equality" in sexual union?
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 116950
Originally posted by @gswilmIt’s funny how you think this is a trick question that FMF is somehow dodging 🙄
And how many pages before you answer me on just one question put to you?Shall people go on to beastiality under the assumption that they are champions of "species orientation" or "species equality" in sexual union?
Are you counting pages on how long before you address that ?
- sonship
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by @divegeesterFunny how there is such a double standard about how promptly one should reply to a question.
It’s funny how you think this is a trick question that FMF is somehow dodging 🙄
Can you also turn your feet outward like Charlie Chaplin?
Your talent for rolling your eyes is impressive.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 116950
Originally posted by @sonshipYou are past master at dodging questions sonship. I could list at least three right now that you have hemmed and hawed around. Furthermore when cornered you pout off for several days hoping that the topic gets buried; such as your challenges that you never said “such and such” then I present you with the evidence. I would go so far to say that you are one of the most intellectually dishonest people in this forum - which is the main reason why you draw flack from me anyway.
Funny how there is such a double standard about how promptly one should reply to a question.
Can you also turn your feet outward like Charlie Chaplin?
Your talent for rolling your eyes is impressive.
There is absolutely no way FMF will dodge your stupid question, it’s ridiculous of you to even claim he has. It’s a dumb question and I could probably predict how he will respond.