From the Law to Grace

Originally posted by @divegeester
Is the stoning of homosexuals universally morally acceptable?

😉

I would answer this repeated argument this way:

The case of a Mosaic legal public stoning in John 8 is suitable to apply to ANY other case of a stoning. Forcing the discussion to be about homosexuality may only serve an emotionally sensitive purpose for our modern times.

The principle of Israelite capital punishment for a sin is informed by this instance.

In John 8 Jesus invited the people to obediently act upon the divine instruction to stone the adulterous woman. But He did so with a condition that more deeply educated them and touched their conscience.

" Now in the law, Moses commanded us to stone such a woman, What then do You say?" (v.8)

If you wish substitute "such a woman" with such two men physically having sex with each other, IMO, it only adds contemporary emotional tension to the discussion.

The issue is whether stoning of the offender of God's law was no longer universally morally acceptable ?

It is difficult for this poster to answer with a simply YES.
It is also difficult for me to answer with a simple NO.

I am being as honest as I can and trying to be fair.
Why does it appear to be good and right to obey Leviticus 20:10 in the OT but not not good and right to obey it in this instance?

And does a difference argue that there is NO universal right and wrong moral action?
Con't below.

Originally posted by @sonship
I would answer this repeated argument this way:

The case of a Mosaic legal public stoning in [b]John 8 is suitable to apply to ANY other case of a stoning. Forcing the discussion to be about homosexuality may only serve an emotionally sensitive purpose for our modern times.

The principle of Israelite capital punishment for a sin is info ...[text shortened]... does a difference argue that there is NO universal right and wrong moral action?
Con't below.[/b]

"Why does it appear to be good and right to obey Leviticus 20:10 in the OT but not not good and right to obey it in this instance?"



I wish you luck sir answering that.

It is difficult to answer only with an unqualified YES or and unqualfied NO.

" ... He stood up and said to them, He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." (v.7)

.

The unbeliever in Christ does not believe that the "He" in this sentence is God.
The believer such as myself believes the "He" is God incarnate.

What I think we see is that further wisdom from God was applied to the situation.
Details hitherto not included by God in the Levitical instruction of verse 10 of Leviticus 20 was added on the spot by God in Christ.

The further wisdom has to do with the executioners being compelled to self realization as to whether they were qualified to judge the offender. The further wisdom applied on the spot caused them to deem it was not morally acceptable for THEM to take the lead to obey the execution command.

Under the self conviction of this further wisdom applied the all were educated about morality in a deeper sense. The deeper sense to which they were lead by God was that they were all co-guilty of something. If they condemned the woman they would have instantly also condemned themselves.

Does that really indicate that there is no universal moral good and evil?
Ie.

"In the past it was good for us to stone such a sinner.
Now today it is not good for us to stone such a sinner.

Since it was good to stone then and not good for us to stone today, no universal moral good or evil exists. It is shifting and not absolute morality."

Does deeper education constitute a non-universal moral standard?

"Then we were good to execute the stoning. Today this Person shows up and exposes us that we are not good to execute the stoning. What has changed?"

One thing I see has changed. And it is predicated on the belief that Jesus Christ is God incarnate. God had FORGIVEN the woman. So judgment was not going to take place from God. He educated the people from WITHIN their own consciences that it was not going to happen.

But how did God educate the people that there was not going to be an execution?
He seems to have done so by causing them to realize that they qualified to judge. They were NOT forgiven yet and still guilty of their own sins.

it had not been revealed in Leviticus 20:10 executing someone while realizing acutely one's own guilt before God would cause hesitation within even IF the execution was the right procedure, the good procedure to carry out.

"And Jesus stood up and said to her, Woman where are they? Has no one condemned you?

And she said, No one, Lord, And Jesus said, Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more." (vs.10,11)

The "I" in the sentence, we believe as Christians, is God incarnate.
God had forgiven the woman.

God in the Person of Jesus did not say "You have not sinned because morality has changed." He said "Go and sin no more.". There is no change in the wrongness of what she did. But she was forgiven by God in Christ.

"Neither do I condemn you; ..."

Ie.

" I as God do not condemn you because I have forgiven your sin. They, your fellow sinners, do not condemn you because I have educated them that they are not themselves forgiven yet and not are qualified to do what really I as the ultimate moral Governor alone have the authority to do - condemn or forgive sinners."

Originally posted by @dj2becker
‘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.

In the conversation we were having, why would "the past" of course refer to 'the past of your lifetime'? You could scarcely try to wriggle out of the inconvenient thing you conceded in a more facile and dishonest way.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
For me [executing gays] would be wrong now and in the past since I’m not a Jew.

Would it be morally sound now and in the past [of your lifetime] for you to execute gays if you were a Jew?

Originally posted by @fmf
In the conversation we were having, why would "the past" [b]of course refer to 'the past of your lifetime'? You could scarcely try to wriggle out of the inconvenient thing you conceded in a more facile and dishonest way.[/b]

I'm glad you also picked up on that.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
I'm glad you also picked up on that.

His behaviour is a result of his bad upbringing, I think.

Originally posted by @fmf
In the conversation we were having, why would "the past" [b]of course refer to 'the past of your lifetime'? You could scarcely try to wriggle out of the inconvenient thing you conceded in a more facile and dishonest way.[/b]

You asked me whether it would be morally acceptable for me to stone gays in the past. Obviously the past for me would be during my lifetime. I said no since I am not a Jew. I could have clarified that by saying "No since I am not a Jew (living during the time of Leviticus)."

Originally posted by @fmf
His behaviour is a result of his bad upbringing, I think.

Whatever you say Dr Phil.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
You asked me whether it would be morally acceptable for me to stone gays in the past. Obviously the past for me would be during my lifetime. I said no since I am not a Jew. I could have clarified that by saying "No since I am not a Jew (living during the time of Leviticus)."

You have no integrity.

Originally posted by @fmf
You have no integrity.

Keep the insults coming. That's really all you and your lapdog apprentice have.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Keep the insults coming. That's really all you and your lapdog apprentice have.

And there's the punchline you've no doubt been itching to dish out.

So, your utter silliness about 'the past in your life' aside, your god figure once deemed it morally sound for his followers to kill gays in certain situations, but now your god figure has deemed it morally unsound for his followers to kill gays.

There has been a change in the morality of killing gays, right?

Originally posted by @fmf
And there's the punchline you've no doubt been itching to dish out.

So, your utter silliness about 'the past in your life' aside, your god figure once deemed it morally sound for his followers to kill gays in certain situations, but now your god figure has deemed it morally unsound for his followers to kill gays.

There has been a change in the morality of killing gays, right?

It boils down to this. On what authority do I question God's actions? How can the creation tell the creator what to do? Either God stipulates what is good and what is evil or we do. If we do we can obviously disagree with each other and it wouldn't matter.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
It boils down to this. On what authority do I question God's actions? How can the creation tell the creator what to do? Either God stipulates what is good and what is evil or we do. If we do we can obviously disagree with each other and it wouldn't matter.

No, it doesn't boil down to that at all. I am not asking you to "question God's actions". Meanwhile, what I am talking about simply boils down to, is you answering this question: Has there has been a change in the morality of killing gays? The obvious answer seems to be yes; but you can't bring yourself to say that you agree.

Originally posted by @fmf
No, it doesn't boil down to that at all. I am not asking you to "question God's actions". Meanwhile, what I am talking about simply boils down to, is you answering this question: Has there has been a change in the morality of killing gays? The obvious answer seems to be yes; but you can't bring yourself to say that you agree.

The major change I see is this: "He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone."