From the Law to Grace

Originally posted by @vivify

A common tactic from Christians to defend female subservience is by saying "it's not so bad if he's nice her". Imagine if someone defended slavery by saying it's okay if slave owners are polite. That's no different from your argument.

The oppressor gets a much more lenient outcome for known and unknown secret crimes under your godless belief. If not caught by civil court he simply will jump laughing into his grave at what he got away with. He looks forward only to melting peacefully into the dust of the earth. He'll not give an account to an infallible and holy God.

In my faith all things are laid naked before the eyes of Him to whom we all will give an account.

You lose final JUSTICE as a by-product of wanting a godless existence. These are crocodile tears your shedding about mistreatment of women.

Originally posted by @sonship
dj2becker, have you any idea how many answers from FMF to your questions, you are still awaiting ?

I always answer dj2becker's questions unless he is trolling me by asking me about my wife and children, or when he is pretending that we hadn't already discussed something.

Anyway, the question you seem to have missed is this: Did pummeling rocks at another human being - in order to kill them - for no other reason than their sexual orientation used to be a morally sound thing to do, but now it isn't anymore? Did the Christian god figure change his mind?

dj2becker sidestepped it too.

Originally posted by @fmf

Leviticus 20:12 instructs a stoning because of the actual physical action of lying with a man as with a woman. It doesn't command a stoning because of a psychological "orientation" alone.

"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."

The sense I get is that "they went too far".
What you're apparently reading into that passage is "put them to death for the orientation or temptation alone".

He has not changed in His displeasure at the act of this kind of extreme fornication, or any other fornication.

We should not think that not having the exact same kind of dealing administered by God is an indication that He changed His attitude towards a sinful act.

Isn't it easy to go along with every developing fad under an assumption that you are trail blazing new paths of liberation and equality ? Shall people go on to beastiality under the assumption that they are champions of "species orientation" or "species equality" in sexual union?

Originally posted by @sonship
He has not changed in His displeasure at the act of this kind of extreme fornication.

Was killing homosexuals a morally sound thing to do? If it was, is it still a morally sound thing to do? According to your religious beliefs, did the Christian god figure change from telling humans to kill homosexuals to telling them not to?

Originally posted by @fmf
[b]I always answer dj2becker's questions unless he is trolling me by asking me about my wife and children, or when he is pretending that we hadn't already discussed something.

That's your take. I doubt that is his take on the matter of putting up with you brushing aside the need to reply sometimes.

Originally posted by @sonship
Shall people go on to beastiality under the assumption that they are champions of "species orientation" or "species equality" in sexual union?

Regarding bestiality, how would the animals give their informed consent to enter into sexual relationships with humans? What parallel are you seeking to draw between people who engage in bestiality and homosexuals?

Originally posted by @fmf
Was killing homosexuals a morally sound thing to do? If it was, is it still a morally sound thing to do? According to your religious beliefs, did the Christian god figure change from telling humans to kill homosexuals to telling them not to?

The stoning of the man lying with the man was apparently the right thing to do.
There were offering however, to atone for sins - "peace offering, sin offering, trespass offering," etc

Even in the OT to the theocratic Israel there was in place some alternative atoning sacrifice to avert severe punishment, I feel.
There is no executing of anyone in the new testament church life.
In the theocratic nation of Israel that witnessed the miraculous exodus from Egypt such that they had no excuse about God being real, there were some capital crimes.

Romans 1 lists a number of acts which Paul says were worthy of death.
Romans does not instruct any capital punishment whatsoever in the Christian church.

Originally posted by @sonship
That's your take. I doubt that is his take on the matter of putting up with you brushing aside the need to reply sometimes.

Here are those questions again: Did pummeling rocks at another human being - in order to kill them - for no other reason than their sexual orientation used to be a morally sound thing to do, but now it isn't anymore? Did the Christian god figure change his mind?

Originally posted by @sonship
There is no executing of anyone in the new testament church life.

Do you believe that capital punishment is not morally sound, then?

You sidestepped this: According to your religious beliefs, did the Christian god figure change from telling humans to kill homosexuals to telling them not to?

Originally posted by @fmf
Here are those questions again: Did pummeling rocks at another human being - in order to kill them - for no other reason than their sexual orientation used to be a morally sound thing to do, but now it isn't anymore? Did the Christian god figure change his mind?

I answered the question. They died for the physical act of lying together in that instruction.

The reason was the physical act being carried out.

Originally posted by @sonship
I answered the question. They died for the physical act of lying together in that instruction.

The reason was the physical act being carried out.

So killing homosexuals was morally sound. But now it no longer is. Correct? Just to be clear.

Originally posted by @fmf
Do you believe that capital punishment is not morally sound, then?

You sidestepped this: According to your religious beliefs, did the Christian god figure change from telling humans to kill homosexuals to telling them not to?

Do you believe that capital punishment is not morally sound, then?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sometimes capital punishment is morally sound.
Sometimes it is not.
Man is fallible and makes mistakes.
Man is also not righteous at times.

The Christian church has NO instruction from Christ or His apostles about carrying out capital punishment.

The Christian church knows of no instructions about stoning or administering death sentences.

Originally posted by @fmf
So killing homosexuals [b]was morally sound. But now it no longer is. Correct? Just to be clear.[/b]

The Christian church knows of no directions from Jesus or His apostles on carrying out capital punishments.

That is a civil matter which can differ from society to society.

Originally posted by @sonship
Sometimes capital punishment is morally sound.
Sometimes it is not.

In the context of the beliefs you are expounding upon on this thread, can you give a couple of examples of when it is morally sound and when it is not?

Originally posted by @sonship
The Christian church knows of no directions from Jesus or His apostles on carrying out capital punishments.

That is a civil matter which can differ from society to society.

This sidesteps the question.

Killing homosexuals was once morally sound - yes or no?

Killing homosexuals is still morally sound - yes or no?