1. Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    34587
    24 Nov '17 21:45
    Originally posted by @sonship
    FMF, i wrote and stand by still ...

    Your Creator condemns a man lying with a man for sex in [b]Leviticus 18:22 then and also today.


    The procedure of dealing with the act is different in the new testament church. But if God's condemnation of the act has changed then God would no longer deem it worthy of death.

    Romans 1:2 ...[text shortened]...
    Many other representative sins were included in this list of sins still worthy of death.
    On one hand, it would not be morally sound anymore to execute gays and your god figure no longer commands his believers to do that.

    On the other hand, it used to be morally sound, indeed your god figure used to command it so.

    That's a change in what is and isn't deemed morally sound.
  2. R
    Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    13080
    25 Nov '17 09:378 edits
    Since the matter of capital punishment in the Old Testament and still being worthy of death in the New Testament appears only negative, it is important to also see positively God did not change in His love for the sinners either. In both the OT and the NT, positively, God showed the same eagerness to justify the offender.

    In the time of the Levitical instructions, the sacrifices of bulls and goats acted as precursors to Christ's dying for the transgressor to justify him. When those sacrifices were done and believed in, God "covered" the sins. In the new covenant He took away the sins.

    Paul explains that when the real deal came, Christ's death was the fulfillment of all the symbolic sacrifices in the Old Testament time.

    " Being justified freely by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;

    Whom God set forth as a propitiation place through faith in His blood, for the demonstrating of His righteousness; in that in His forbearance God passed over the sins that had previously occurred, with a view to the demonstrating of His righteousness in the present time, so that He might be righteous and the One who justifies him who is of the faith of jesus." (Rom. 3:24-26)


    Now this is a very dense and difficult passage in Romans. But briefly I think it says something like this:

    " There is the past time and there is the present time.
    There is the old testament time of the law of Moses.
    And there is the new covenant time when Christ came.

    In the ark of the covenant there was a lid called the propitiation place (KJV says mercy seat). In that place the blood of animal sacrifices was sprinkled. The high priest, one a year came to meet with an otherwise unapproachable holy and righteous God.

    God would meet with that representative of the congregation only because that sins of the people had been covered by the animal sacrifices, That includes the sins of those who might have been executed to death but had their sins atoned for by a sacrifice.

    Christ had not come. But God overlooked those old testament sins because the believing Israelites laid hold of God's way for their justification. In forbearance and anticipation God overlooked their sins. The redeeming blood of Christ is the anti-type of those offerings.

    Now Jesus Christ has come to be the reality, the fulfillment of that symbolism. Christ is a place of redemption. Christ is the real universal propitiation place where God and man may meet and God receives man though man has sinned. "

    Why do I write this? I write it to show that it was not only the worthiness of death that had not changed in God's moral judgment of the sinner. It was also no change in His way to justify, forgive, reconcile, and deal with the offending sins of that person.

    Both negatively and positively God remained one one mind about the sinner.
    He was worthy of death. But he also could be worthy of justification, redemption, forgiveness, having the sins dealt with that he might be reconciled to God.
  3. R
    Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    13080
    25 Nov '17 09:562 edits
    So the two men sleeping together worthy of death.
    The two men were also candidates of having their sins covered by offering perhaps a lamb or other blood shedding animal.

    In the New Testament, Jesus Christ, "the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" is available to the transgressing heterosexual or transgressing homosexual.

    From the age of Leviticus when it was commanded to execute the two men lying together for sex to the new testament age when all sinners may have their sins taken way by '"the lamb of God" in John, God showed Himself consistent in His kindness and severity alike.
  4. R
    Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    13080
    25 Nov '17 10:178 edits
    Grace could be defined as the enjoyment of God Himself as everything a person needs.

    The law of Moses was a moral code from God.
    But to bring man into the experience of grace as opposed to living under a moral code, even the best, Paul uses very strong language.

    1.) The law of commandments in ordinances has been abolished in Christ's flesh when He was crucified , to bring man into grace.
    "For He Himself is our peace, ... abolishing in His flesh the law of the commandments in ordinances, ..." (See Ephesians 2:14,15)

    2.) In His crucifixion Christ nailed the law of ordinances which was against us to His cross, taking it out of the way that we could enjoy grace.
    " ... having forgiven us all our offenses; wiping out the handwriting in ordinances, which was against us, which was contrary to us; and He has taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross." (See Col. 2:13,14)
  5. R
    Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    13080
    25 Nov '17 13:29
    So is there now a contradiction between what Jesus taught and what the Apostle Paul taught?

    Jesus said He did not come to abolish the law or the prophets (Matt.5:17).
    Paul said Jesus abolished in His flesh the law of commandments in ordinances (Eph. 2:14,15) .

    Muse on it awhile.
    Be back latter.
  6. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    116790
    26 Nov '17 07:50
    Originally posted by @dj2becker
    It's amusing how the God haters will challenge the morality of the Bible at every turn but can't seem to offer a better alternative moral code.
    What’s even more amusing is how the stoning of gays has gone from being morally acceptable to morally acceptable and you think that that is an example of universal morality.
  7. Joined
    01 Oct '04
    Moves
    12095
    26 Nov '17 08:44
    Originally posted by @divegeester
    What’s even more amusing is how the stoning of gays has gone from being morally acceptable to morally acceptable and you think that that is an example of universal morality.
    What is exactly is amusing about the old covenant being replaced with the new?

    What’s even more amusing is the fact that you as a Christian can’t even tell me whether or not the new covenant applies to all people or only a select few.
  8. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    116790
    26 Nov '17 09:20
    Originally posted by @dj2becker
    What is exactly is amusing about the old covenant being replaced with the new?

    What’s even more amusing is the fact that you as a Christian can’t even tell me whether or not the new covenant applies to all people or only a select few.
    Please explain how the changing morality of the stoning of homosexuals represents “universal truth”, “universal objective morality”.

    Come on Becker, you can do it.
  9. Joined
    01 Oct '04
    Moves
    12095
    26 Nov '17 09:52
    Originally posted by @divegeester
    Please explain how the changing morality of the stoning of homosexuals represents “universal truth”, “universal objective morality”.

    Come on Becker, you can do it.
    It’s actually quite simple. If God says something, e.g. love your neighbor as you love yourself, that become a universal objective moral ideal. The question is did God author the entire Bible or only the parts of it that we like? If we reject the parts we don’t like we may as well reject all of it.
  10. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    116790
    26 Nov '17 10:04
    Originally posted by @dj2becker
    It’s actually quite simple. If God says something, e.g. love your neighbor as you love yourself, that become a universal objective moral ideal. The question is did God author the entire Bible or only the parts of it that we like? If we reject the parts we don’t like we may as well reject all of it.
    Neither me nor seemingly anyone else is answering your questions Becker.

    Stoning homosexuals is morally acceptable in the OT but not by you now. So please explain how the stoning of homosexuals is universally morally sound.

    Don’t bother asking questions as a deflection, the onus is on YOU to either back down from you claim or explain the dilemma you are in.
  11. Joined
    01 Oct '04
    Moves
    12095
    26 Nov '17 10:16
    Originally posted by @divegeester
    Neither me nor seemingly anyone else is answering your questions Becker.

    Stoning homosexuals is morally acceptable in the OT but not by you now. So please explain how the stoning of homosexuals is universally morally sound.

    Don’t bother asking questions as a deflection, the onus is on YOU to either back down from you claim or explain the dilemma you are in.
    Since you own part of this site you get to ask questions and don’t have to answer any. Seems legit.
  12. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    116790
    26 Nov '17 10:47
    Originally posted by @dj2becker
    Since you own part of this site you get to ask questions and don’t have to answer any. Seems legit.
    Is the stoning of homosexuals universally morally acceptable?

    😉
  13. Joined
    01 Oct '04
    Moves
    12095
    26 Nov '17 12:14
    Originally posted by @divegeester
    Is the stoning of homosexuals universally morally acceptable?

    😉
    I refer you to my answer the last time I was asked this. 😉
  14. Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    34587
    26 Nov '17 12:21
    Is the stoning of homosexuals universally morally acceptable?

    Originally posted by @dj2becker
    I refer you to my answer the last time I was asked this. 😉
    Your answer was this:

    "For me it would be wrong now and in the past since I’m not a Jew."
  15. Joined
    01 Oct '04
    Moves
    12095
    26 Nov '17 12:321 edit
    Originally posted by @fmf
    Your answer was this:

    [b]"For me it would be wrong now and in the past since I’m not a Jew."
    [/b]
    ‘The past’ of course referring to the past of my lifetime which still falls in the time of the new covenant, in case there is some confusion.

    God has obviously not commanded me to stone gays so it would be wrong if I did.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree