Was God unloving for commanding homosexuals be put to death?

[Jefferson]

Leviticus 20:13 says, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."

Was God unloving for commanding that homosexuals be put to death?

[philosophizer]

No.

[Elaine]

Originally posted by Jefferson
Was God unloving for commanding that homosexuals be put to death?
No. Sodomites choose of their own free will to partake of their homosexual behavior and suffer the consequences. It would have been unloving of God to allow homosexuality and the diseases it cultivates to harm those who are innocent.

[Goose]

Originally posted by Elaine
No. Sodomites choose of their own free will to partake of their homosexual behavior and suffer the consequences. It would have been unloving of God to allow homosexuality and the diseases it cultivates to harm those who are innocent. Wow. Nice answer.

[Elaine]

Thanks, Goose. But I'm sure that you could have said it better yourself. :up:

[Ross]

Lev 20:9 If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother, and his blood will be on his own head.

I'm sure my son will understand tonight when I kill him for his smartmouth last night.

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Ross
Lev 20:9 If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother, and his blood will be on his own head.

I'm sure my son will understand tonight when I kill him for his smartmouth last night.

Your son curses you? That must be an awful thing to have to deal with :( Did you ever spank him before it got that far?

[shilohproject]

Originally posted by Nineveh
Your son curses you? That must be an awful thing to have to deal with :( Did you ever spank him before it got that far? I believe the post to have been sarcastic...:cool:

[Turbo]

Originally posted by Ross
Lev 20:9 If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother, and his blood will be on his own head.

I'm sure my son will understand tonight when I kill him for his smartmouth last night. Originally stated by Christ
He answered and said to them, "Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? For God commanded, saying, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and, 'He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.' But you say, 'Whoever says to his father or mother, "Whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to God"-- then he need not honor his father or mother.' Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition. Hypocrites!" Matthew 15:3-7Jesus was not ashamed of this commandment, Ross. Why are you? Why do you mock God's commandments?

[shilohproject]

Originally posted by Turbo
Jesus was not ashamed of this commandment, Ross. Why are you? Why do you conclude Ross is "ashamed" of it?

[Turbo]

Originally posted by shilohproject
Why do you conclude Ross is "ashamed" of it? It seems to me he thinks that commandment was a bad idea on God's part.

[philosophizer]

Just what does "cursing" mean anyway?

[philosophizer]

Originally posted by Turbo
It seems to me he thinks that commandment was a bad idea on God's part.

Or he really is going to kill his son. :shocked:

[shilohproject]

Originally posted by Turbo
It seems to me he thinks that commandment was a bad idea on God's part. Maybe so. I took his comments as a statement about how people often pick and choose which ones they think are important to support.

[philosophizer]

Originally posted by shilohproject
Maybe so. I took his comments as a statement about how people often pick and choose which ones they think are important to support.

...meaning that he either disagrees with God, or he is on his way to kill his son.

[Turbo]

Originally posted by philosophizer
Just what does "cursing" mean anyway? This passage might give you some idea.

"If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and who, when they have chastened him, will not heed them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city, to the gate of his city. And they shall say to the elders of his city, 'This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.' Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death with stones; so you shall put away the evil from among you, and all Israel shall hear and fear." Deuteronomy 21:18-21

[philosophizer]

Originally posted by Turbo
This passage might give you some idea.

"If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and who, when they have chastened him, will not heed them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city, to the gate of his city. And they shall say to the elders of his city, 'This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.' Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death with stones; so you shall put away the evil from among you, and all Israel shall hear and fear." Deuteronomy 21:18-21

Right. I think a lot of people confuse "cursing" with "using profanity". "Cursing" includes much more than just that.

[Turbo]

Originally posted by shilohproject
Maybe so. I took his comments as a statement about how people often pick and choose which ones they think are important to support. But he didn't even properly apply the verse he was using to show that some of God's commandments are silly. The Bible, particularly the Proverbs, tells parents to spank their children to discipline them. If "smartmouthing" were an example of cursing worthy of execution, what in the world is left for spanking?

[shilohproject]

Originally posted by philosophizer
...meaning that he either disagrees with God, or he is on his way to kill his son. ...or he is pointing out the inconsistant way people apply scripture?:cool:

[Turbo]

Who's being inconsistant? I suppose he didn't expect to find support for the verse he quoted. He was hoping we would apply scripture inconsistantly.

Oh well. Better luck next time.

[Turbo]

By the way,

Great response, Elaine. :thumb:

[shilohproject]

Originally posted by Turbo
Who's being inconsistant? I suppose he didn't expect to find support for the verse he quoted. He was hoping we would apply scripture inconsistantly.

Oh well. Better luck next time. Turbo, do you support the death penalty?...for children who curse their parents?

[Turbo]

If by "children who curse their parents" you mean something along the lines of what is described in Deuteronomy 21:18-21 , then yes. That is a good law.

[shilohproject]

Originally posted by Turbo
If by "children who curse their parents" you mean something along the lines of what is described in Deuteronomy 21:18-21 , then yes. That is a good law. Easy to say, of course, since it is not going to happen.

But in any event, if true, then you are consistent in this particular issue. The vast majority of Christians would not support the death penalty for a gluttonous, drunken kid who doesn't mind his parents, I'd wager. That is the inconsistancy I believe the post was addressing.

[Turbo]

Originally posted by shilohproject
The vast majority of Christians would not support the death penalty for a gluttonous, drunken kid who doesn't mind his parents, I'd wager. I take it you are one of them.

I don't recall: Are there any offenses for which you support capital punishment?

[shilohproject]

Originally posted by Turbo
I take it you are one of them.I don't think blind application today of rules that made sense 3000 years ago, give or take, makes sense. The judicial law was for that place and time. So no, I would not support the killing of unruly, gluttenous, drunken children.

I don't recall: Are there any offenses for which you support capital punishment? Yes.

[Elaine]

Go :turbo:!! :D

[Turbo]

Originally posted by shilohproject
I don't think blind application today of rules that made sense 3000 years ago, give or take, makes sense. The judicial law was for that place and time. So no, I would not support the killing of unruly, gluttenous, drunken children.Were the Pharisees right to disregard a law that was 1500 years old?

Yes. Which ones, and why?

[Poly]

Originally posted by Elaine
No. Sodomites choose of their own free will to partake of their homosexual behavior and suffer the consequences. It would have been unloving of God to allow homosexuality and the diseases it cultivates to harm those who are innocent.
:thumb: POTD (http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10454[/url)

[Lucky]

Okay, I'm confused about the "Enyart" theology again. Yall believe that we are under the dispensation of grace, correct? So why does it seem like we have a lot of Old Testament quoting going on. Isn't that under a different dispensation? I realize OT laws have their purpose and should not be ignored, but do yall follow and enforce every single law in Leviticus or what?

:confused:

[shilohproject]

Originally posted by Turbo
Were the Pharisees right to disregard a law that was 1500 years old?Which law are you refering to? In general, though, I'd say that their problem was one of the heart, not of legalistic flaw.

Which ones, and why? I'll have to address this in depth later. But basically: Treason which results in the death of another, even tangentially, and Capital murder (as defined in Texas) come to mind.

[Turbo]

Some laws are civil/moral. (Do not murder. Do not steal. Do not commit adultery.)
Some laws are symbolic/amoral. (Do not work on the sabbath. Do not eat unclean animals. Observe the feasts.)

The symbolic ceremonial laws were given to Israel as a shadow of things to come, and to separate them from other people. There is nothing inherently immoral about eating pork, but for them it was a sin (disobedience) because God told them not to eat it.

The Body of Christ is not under the Law.* However, God has not abolished earthly governments. He calls them his servants to punish criminals (Romans 13:1-4). When dealing with government matters, it's a good idea to see what sins God thinks should be crimes, and what forms of punishment He says are appropriate.

*Unbelievers will be judged according to the Law. Also, the Law is a teacher that leads men to Christ (Gal 3:25). It points out sin, and a person's need for salvation.

[Turbo]

Originally posted by shilohproject
Which law are you refering to? The same one we've been discussing. (Matthew 15:3-7)

In general, though, I'd say that their problem was one of the heart, not of legalistic flaw.True. They put the traditions of men in higher authority than God's word. ...Kind of like you:

Capital murder (as defined in Texas) come to mind.

[Clete]

Originally posted by Lucky8
Okay, I'm confused about the "Enyart" theology again. Yall believe that we are under the dispensation of grace, correct? So why does it seem like we have a lot of Old Testament quoting going on. Isn't that under a different dispensation? I realize OT laws have their purpose and should not be ignored, but do yall follow and enforce every single law in Leviticus or what?

:confused:

We are in the Dispensation of Grace.
We are also in the continuing Dispensation of Human Government.
The later of which is almost complete ignored (if not completely unheard of) by most Christians.
The beginning of one dispensation doesn't necessarily close out another, they can, and do run concurrent with one another.
The "Enyart" theology, as you so creatively call it, teaches that God gave man the authority to execute criminals after The Flood, and that authority/responsibility will continue until God Himself takes control of the government during the Millennium.

As to the question; "...do yall follow and enforce every single law in Leviticus or what?"...

Bob teaches that the criminal justice system should be set up the way God lays out in the Bible. However, there are several laws that were of a symbolic nature that pertained only to Israel (circumcision for example, or the prohibition against wearing clothing made from mixed fibers.) These laws would no longer apply because God is no longer dealing with a single nation, but with the whole world therefore the symbol no longer holds any meaning. This point is interesting when discussing dispensations because we have the closing of one dispensation and the beginning of another effecting and modifying a third, already active dispensation. It seems confusing, but when you have a grasp of the big picture (http://www.kgov.com/store/detail/literature/theplot.html), the changes aren't confusing at all, in fact, they're quite intuitive.

Does this answer your question?

Resting in Him,
Clete

[Lucky]

Originally posted by Turbo
Some laws are civil/moral. (Do not murder. Do not steal. Do not commit adultery.)
Some laws are symbolic/amoral. (Do not work on the sabbath. Do not eat unclean animals. Observe the feasts.)

The symbolic ceremonial laws were given to Israel as a shadow of things to come, and to separate them from other people. There is nothing inherently immoral about eating pork, but for them it was a sin (disobedience) because God told them not to eat it.

The Body of Christ is not under the Law.* However, God has not abolished earthly governments. He calls them his servants to punish criminals (Romans 13:1-4). When dealing with government matters, it's a good idea to see what sins God thinks should be crimes, and what forms of punishment He says are appropriate.

*Unbelievers will be judged according to the Law. Also, the Law is a teacher that leads men to Christ (Gal 3:25). It points out sin, and a person's need for salvation.
Well said. I agree.

But where does the Bible tell us some laws are civil/moral and some are symbolic/amoral? Better yet, where does the Bible divide up the laws and say these are good for government purposes and these are not. Is there any scriptural evidence to support that, or is it just based on what we think?

Oh, and I'm gonna send you a P.M. about something...

[Lucky]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Does this answer your question?
Ah, we have 2 dispensations going on. :think: Yes, it helps.

[Turbo]

Great post, Clete! :thumb:

[Clete]

Originally posted by Lucky8
Well said. I agree.

But where does the Bible tell us some laws are civil/moral and some are symbolic/amoral? Better yet, where does the Bible divide up the laws and say these are good for government purposes and these are not. Is there any scriptural evidence to support that, or is it just based on what we think?

This isn't Biblical evidence per se but if I may offer something off the top of my head...

One way to tell that a law is symbolic is if it can be in conflict with another law.

Circumcision was required on the eighth day.
No work was allowed on a Sabbath.
Circumcision is a work.
What happens if the eighth day falls on a Sabbath?

This kind of conflict cannot occur with laws that pertain to criminal justice.
You would never find yourself in a situation where you would have to murder someone in order to keep from raping them, for example.

Resting in Him,
Clete

[Ross]

Many posts ago I cited the following verse:

Lev 20:9 If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death.

I did so in response to another verse in Leviticus that got this thread going:

Lev 20:13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death


The point I was trying to make is that if we are going to cite a verse in Leviticus to condemn homosexuals, then shouldn't we be consistent and obey all the prohibitions in Leviticus.

[Elaine]

Originally posted by Poly
:thumb: POTD (http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10454[/url)
:o Thank you very much, Poly. :up:

[shilohproject]

Originally posted by Turbo
They put the traditions of men in higher authority than God's word. ...Kind of like you... Well, if you mean that I should support the execution of kids who are unruly, then yes. If you mean that I should support killing active homosexuals, then yes. If you mean that I shouldn't wear blended fibers, or interbreed cattle, or many other OT legal stips, then yes: I would put reason above what you call God's word.:cool:

[elected4ever]

Hay folks, I am a gentile and never was under the law of Moses. I don't think I wont to start now.

[shilohproject]

Originally posted by elected4ever
Hay folks, I am a gentile and never was under the law of Moses. I don't think I wont to start now. Perfect Post!Is this a first-ever agreement for us? Alright!:cool:

[Crow]

Originally posted by Ross
Many posts ago I cited the following verse:

Lev 20:9 If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death.

I did so in response to another verse in Leviticus that got this thread going:

Lev 20:13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death


The point I was trying to make is that if we are going to cite a verse in Leviticus to condemn homosexuals, then shouldn't we be consistent and obey all the prohibitions in Leviticus.

Cursing one's parents involves more than saying bad words to them. It appears to be to live in such an manner that your very existance seems to be a curse to your parents.

No matter. Who on this board do you feel is advocating cursing one's parents? I haven't seen anyone.

Nor has anyone here that I am aware of gone out and slaughtered any homos. Do you know of any here who have? They'd be guilty of murder because the law of our land does not permit us to kill people for either cursing their parents or homosexuality. And we are to follow the law of the land as Christians.

It doesn't mean we can't speak out against it, and certainly I don't think children should curse their parents. But when's the last time you saw a "Children Who Curse Their Parents" Day Parade? Or when did you see the church make a Bishop out of a child who cursed his parents, and set him in authority over other Christians?

It's not that we don't think children should curse their parents. It just ain't a big in-your-face issue. And if you raise them properly, it usually isn't a problem.

[Ross]

Crow,

You're missing the point entirely. It isn't about children cursing their parents; or about homosexuality. Or killing either of them because of their actions. It's about consistency in application of the Law. If Christians are going to cite verses from the laws of Leviticus as justifiably condemning homesexuality; than they must cite ALL the laws in Leviticus and use these laws to inform their own lives as they would ahve homosexuals inform their own lives.

You can't say homesexuality is wrong because of Leviticus but still go on wearing "clothing woven of two kinds of material" (Lev 19:19). Both activities are condemned in Leviticus.

Ross

[Crow]

Originally posted by Ross
Crow,

You're missing the point entirely. It isn't about children cursing their parents; or about homosexuality. Or killing either of them because of their actions. It's about consistency in application of the Law. If Christians are going to cite verses from the laws of Leviticus as justifiably condemning homesexuality; than they must cite ALL the laws in Leviticus and use these laws to inform their own lives as they would ahve homosexuals inform their own lives.

You can't say homesexuality is wrong because of Leviticus but still go on wearing "clothing woven of two kinds of material" (Lev 19:19). Both activities are condemned in Leviticus.

Ross

Ross, the law still exists. It has not passed away--Christ said not one tittle or jot would be stricken from the law until heaven and earth pass away. All men are condemned under the law as far as salvation goes unless they have been saved by grace through faith, and the price of their sins has been paid for by the sacrifice Christ made. The saved are dead to the law. It does not condemn them. This does not mean, however, that the law is dead.

That's the first function of the law--it condemns the wicked so that they need a savior and have reason to be reconciled into relationship with God.

The law serves a second purpose--it is also a criminal justice system. Do you see the penalty for wearing clothing of two kinds? No, because it was not a criminal act. It transgressed the law as pertaining to disobediance to God, but it was not a crime. Homosexuality had a penalty--it was not only a sin but also a crime. All lawbreaking is sin and can condemn the unsaved, but some sins are also crimes.

God does not expect Christians to keep those parts of the law for salvation purposes--we are dead to the law insofar as it imparts condemnation and sin. However, He does expect us to not be criminals. "I'm not under the law because I'm saved" will not excuse murder.

Furthurmore, we are told as Christians not to associate or even eat with Christians who break the crimimal law and moral law--homos, thieves, fornicators.

[Ross]

Crow,

You raise an interesting point about how some of the commandments are a accompanied by a specific punishment (you call these crimes), while others aren't.

It seems that you're saying that we as Christians should still not do those acts in Leviticus that have a punishment associated with them. But we are free to change the punishment that God commanded of us. For example, here are crimes that God demands be punishable by death:

9 " 'If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother, and his blood will be on his own head.
10 " 'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife-with the wife of his neighbor-both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.
11 " 'If a man sleeps with his father's wife, he has dishonored his father. Both the man and the woman must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
12 " 'If a man sleeps with his daughter-in-law, both of them must be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads.
13 " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

How is it that we should not obey God and put all these sinners to death?

Also, it seems that God saw adultry and homosexuality equally as bad (since He told us to use the same punishment - death - for both). But I don't see the same Christian fervency today against adultry as I do against homosexulality. Why is that?

Ross

[Crow]

Originally posted by Ross
Crow,

You raise an interesting point about how some of the commandments are a accompanied by a specific punishment (you call these crimes), while others aren't.

It seems that you're saying that we as Christians should still not do those acts in Leviticus that have a punishment associated with them. But we are free to change the punishment that God commanded of us. For example, here are crimes that God demands be punishable by death:

9 " 'If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother, and his blood will be on his own head.
10 " 'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife-with the wife of his neighbor-both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.
11 " 'If a man sleeps with his father's wife, he has dishonored his father. Both the man and the woman must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
12 " 'If a man sleeps with his daughter-in-law, both of them must be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads.
13 " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

How is it that we should not obey God and put all these sinners to death?

Also, it seems that God saw adultry and homosexuality equally as bad (since He told us to use the same punishment - death - for both). But I don't see the same Christian fervency today against adultry as I do against homosexulality. Why is that?

Ross

Ross, you're kind of getting some of what I'm saying--let me see if I can put it better.

Homosexuality and adultry are sexual crimes. Homosexuality gets more attention because it is more in our faces. If you see a man and woman walk around in the mall holding hands, do you know if they are married to each other or not?

And when is the last time you saw an "Adulterer's Day" parade? Or had a lecture at work about how you have to be tolerant and sensitive to adulterers?

God set the penalty for the listed crimes you cited all at death. But we are living in a country where the laws differ from God's laws, and we are instructed by God to obey the laws of the land.

Remember the story of the woman who was a prostitute--the old "go and sin no more" story? The Pharasees were trying to trick Christ. They asked Him if the woman, who is an adulterer, should be stoned.

Here's where the Pharasees were being sneaky. God demanded the woman be stoned, but they were governed by Rome, and under Roman law. Roman law forbade stoning. The Pharasees were trying to put Christ in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.

He got out of it brilliantly. "Let he who be without sin cast the first stone." The Pharasees were sinning by trying to get the woman stoned without trial by a judge with two or more witnesses. Plus, they were well aware of Roman law.

We are in a situation similar to the one Christ was confronted with. We cannot take the law into our own hands, even though it is in oppostion to God's law. Take abortion, for instance. We as Christians cannot take the lives of abortionists--that is murder. We are not to break the law of the land. Christians are not to be vigalantes.

[Ross]

Crow,

Let me ask you a question. If you had it your way, would change the law of the land to conform to God's law and kill adulterers and homosexuals?

Ross

[Lucky]

Originally posted by Ross
Also, it seems that God saw adultry and homosexuality equally as bad (since He told us to use the same punishment - death - for both). But I don't see the same Christian fervency today against adultry as I do against homosexulality. Why is that?

Ross
That seems like a fair question to ask. Perhaps, if Christians were as fervently against adultery as we are against homosexuality, then we wouldn't have the above average divorce rates inside the church (if there is any truth to those statistics that is.) After all, you don't have to divorce your cheating spouse if he or she gets executed for the crime. But why we aren't as fervent... :think: Maybe it's because in the past, adultery has always been a problem, whereas homosexuality comes and goes within a society. And Christians just want to keep homosexuality from further destroying America.

[Crow]

Originally posted by Ross
Crow,

Let me ask you a question. If you had it your way, would change the law of the land to conform to God's law and kill adulterers and homosexuals?

Ross

Tough question. I don't know if I would have the guts to do so, but I think yes--I should.

One benefit would there would be a heck of a lot less of these two behaviors going on. STD's would take a nosedive, there would be fewer kids born without a father to support them financially and emotionally. Fewer kids raised in poverty and on public assistance. I could see that society would benefit in many ways. I think divorce would go down too.

It's a moot point. I don't have that power. I am here, and this is where I live. This is the set of circumstances I must deal with, and could have, would have, should have are neat to think about, but not my reality.

[Delmar]

Originally posted by Elaine
No. Sodomites choose of their own free will to partake of their homosexual behavior and suffer the consequences. It would have been unloving of God to allow homosexuality and the diseases it cultivates to harm those who are innocent.

I'm not arguing with you but I think it would fair to say that most sodomites were first damaged by the free will of others then chose out of their brokenness. God was wise enough to see that,for the most part, this cycle could not be stopped without the collateral damage of destroying the perpetrator.

[shilohproject]

Originally posted by Lucky8 But why we aren't as fervent... :think: Maybe it's because in the past, adultery has always been a problem, whereas homosexuality comes and goes within a society. Maybe it's because statistically heterosexuals are more common, by far, so it's easier to say "Look at them! Those evil homos!" rather than taking a look at ourselves and the unfaithful things we do?:think:

[shilohproject]

Originally posted by deardelmar
...I think it would fair to say that most sodomites were first damaged by the free will of others then chose out of their brokenness. deardelmar, this is very liberal of you! And Christian, too! Awesome! Welcome to the Think Tank, where thinking is encouraged, and disagreement is welcome!:cool:

[Turbo]

Originally posted by Ross
Many posts ago I cited the following verse:

Lev 20:9 If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death.

I did so in response to another verse in Leviticus that got this thread going:

Lev 20:13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death


The point I was trying to make is that if we are going to cite a verse in Leviticus to condemn homosexuals, then shouldn't we be consistent and obey all the prohibitions in Leviticus. Excluding the amoral symbolic laws, yes.

[Ross]

Ross asks: "If you had it your way, would change the law of the land to conform to God's law and kill adulterers and homosexuals?"

Crow answers: "Tough question. I don't know if I would have the guts to do so, but I think yes--I should."



May God help us.

[Turbo]

Originally posted by Ross
You can't say homesexuality is wrong because of Leviticus but still go on wearing "clothing woven of two kinds of material" (Lev 19:19). Both activities are condemned in Leviticus.Some laws given to the Jews were symbolic, a shadow of things to come and a means of separating the Jews as a people. There is nothing inherently immoral about wearing mixed fabrics. But it would have been wrong for the Jews to disobey God by wearing mixed fabrics, because he commanded them not to do it.

This symbolic laws were given under the Covenant of Circumcision, and are not applicable to the body of Christ, according to Paul. Circumcision does not gain one favor with God anymore. Yet murder, adultery, homosexuality, theft, etc. are still immoral and always will be, and governments are still God's minister to punish criminals (Romans 13:1-4).

[LightSon]

Originally posted by Ross
May God help us.

Amen. I need Him.

[Delmar]

Originally posted by shilohproject
deardelmar, this is very liberal of you! And Christian, too! Awesome! Welcome to the Think Tank, where thinking is encouraged, and disagreement is welcome!:cool:

thanks er um except for the liberal part that was a low blow

[shilohproject]

Originally posted by deardelmar
thanks er um except for the liberal part that was a low blow It just goes to show ya how none of us fits so neatly into one little box, praise God!:cool: :bannana:

[Clete]

Originally posted by Ross
Crow,

Let me ask you a question. If you had it your way, would (you) change the law of the land to conform to God's law and kill adulterers and homosexuals?

Ross

Considering the narrow scope of this question, I would answer an emphatic....

YES!

If someone says in response, "God help us!", then I say amen.
Help us LORD to be humble enough to trust that You know better how to deal with criminals that we do, that You are smarter than we are. Help us to have the faith in You that is required to carry out that which you command because You have commanded it. God help us indeed!

Resting in Him,
Clete

[Delmar]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by deardelmar
...I think it would fair to say that most sodomites were first damaged by the free will of others then chose out of their brokenness.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Originally posted by shilohproject
deardelmar, this is very liberal of you! And Christian, too! Awesome! Welcome to the Think Tank, where thinking is encouraged, and disagreement is welcome!:cool:

Depth of thought is in no way limited to liberals. I find it so funny that many liberals would assert that a consverative can not have looked at things with an open mind. My own belifes for example have changed dramaticly in the past five years. Changed as a result of coming into contact with solid biblical teaching and growing in the Lord.

[Lucky]

Originally posted by Crow
Furthurmore, we are told as Christians not to associate or even eat with Christians who break the crimimal law and moral law--homos, thieves, fornicators.
:) Hi Crow,

Just curious, how do you know if you're eating with a fornicator or not? Or does that mean if you are eating with a known fornicator? And if that fornicator is a Christian, who has already repented from that sin, then can we eat with them?

:help:

[shilohproject]

Originally posted by deardelmar

Depth of thought is in no way limited to liberals. I find it so funny that many liberals would assert that a consverative can not have looked at things with an open mind. My own belifes for example have changed dramaticly in the past five years. Changed as a result of coming into contact with solid biblical teaching and growing in the Lord. I agree that it is unfortunate when people (all of us) over generalize. It tends to make a real understanding more difficult, as we have to get through more of our own bagage ay the front end of the deal.

I would never suggest that only liberals think about things with an open mind. But the notion of criminals being a product of something horrible themselves does seem to be a more left wing notion, in my estimation.:cool:

And I believe that growing in the Lord is probably the most important thing any of us can do to foster growth of any real importance, even in the arena of intellectual honesty. After all, "honesty" is a matter of the spirit.

[Osel]

Romans 1:24-32
Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

[Crow]

Originally posted by Lucky
:) Hi Crow,

Just curious, how do you know if you're eating with a fornicator or not? Or does that mean if you are eating with a known fornicator? And if that fornicator is a Christian, who has already repented from that sin, then can we eat with them?

:help:

I would guess that he meant not to associate with those known to be currently (not as in right that minute if that is the next question) sexually immoral, and would not include those who had repented. Is Paul's instruction confusing to you? Did you think he meant take a lunchtime poll in a restaurant? Just curious.

[LightSon]

Originally posted by Crow
I would guess that he meant not to associate with those known to be currently (not as in right that minute if that is the next question) sexually immoral, and would not include those who had repented. Is Paul's instruction confusing to you? Did you think he meant take a lunchtime poll in a restaurant? Just curious.
:chuckle: Yep, that'll play well.


"Hi, I'd like to invite you to lunch. But first, I have a little questionaire I'd like you to respond to. If you wouldn't mind, that is.

Have you ever........." :shocked: