Sin of yesterday or not...

[antitox]

Of course, because there's no moral absolute among atheists.

I tend to notice that is the same among religious people. Some simple examples:
1. Is it moral to kill a nonvirgin bride?
2. Is it moral to own a person as property and be allowed to beat them?
3. Is it moral to kill a person for God?
4. Is it moral to kill your enemy's children?
5. Is it moral to kill homosexuals?

Your above comment is limited only to man's social values and relative ethics; not eternal absolutes involved with the Old Testament situation as I stated earlier. God's ways are quite different than man's sense of right and wrong based upon his own existence. Holiness is something man does not understand with God.

What took place among Israel was based on law. God had the laws put in force because... for God to dwell among men where there has been no sacrifice that actually takes sins away, it leaves only law requiring adherence by those who have a corrupt nature. It is, in that scenario, checks and balances, that must be satisfied by those that are corrupt, to enter the presence of the perfect Deity.

You seem to be arguing against omnipresence.

Quath

That's all you can see isn't it? Omnipresence? Once again, everything that I said has gone COMPLETELY over your head.

 

[peace4all]

why are we even bringing up the OT. According to BB, the OT is useless now because it onyl applied to the people of israel. so why do we use it for anything?

why do some christians (BB) say that it is now irrelivant, yet other christians (brutus) use leveticus?

This subject always ends up ridiculous every time it is brought up because the same arguments ensue due to the inability of the non-believers to perceive anything Christians say, because if they do, they'll see they don't have a valid argument if they honestly consider the content of what is presented to them. Hence, a valid statement made earlier in this thread:

from antitox.

What bothers be about this, is some of you christians, cant even agree on which parts of the bible, are still valid enough, to argue with quath and i or anyone else. lol.

 

[Soma-Sight]

Nonbelievers do not support murder, theft, or lies any more than Christians do. It is just sins based on dogma that nonbelievers disagree with, such as the sin of a woman wearing makeup or wearing jeans. (Not all Christians agree on what is a sin either.)

Good point Quath!

A Christians can call it detestable and still think people should have the freewill to sin. A Christian can think that this law no longer applies just like the OT law against eating shrimp no longer apply. A Christian can think that Leviticus 20:13 applies and want them killed.

All you can say is what your belief is, not what all Christians beliefs are since I know many people claiming to be Christians that do not agree with you.

Excellent point Quath!

Many believe the ordinances of Moses in the OT to be nailed to the Cross!

It seems you are holding to a grey area. Why say Leviticus 18:22 is more special than Leviticus 20:13? If killing homosexuals was good in God's eyes once, why not now?

Another excellent point Quath! If we are to follw the Law in its completness, they SHOULD be put to death!

I tend to notice that is the same among religious people. Some simple examples:
1. Is it moral to kill a nonvirgin bride?
2. Is it moral to own a person as property and be allowed to beat them?
3. Is it moral to kill a person for God?
4. Is it moral to kill your enemy's children?
5. Is it moral to kill homosexuals?

Excellent point Quath!

Why pick ONLY on homosexuals when the Word says that we should target slaves and enemy's children!

Quath, for an atheist you make more sense than many Christians on these boards!

 

[Blazin Bones]

why are we even bringing up the OT. According to BB, the OT is useless now because it onyl applied to the people of israel. so why do we use it for anything?

why do some christians (BB) say that it is now irrelivant, yet other christians (brutus) use leveticus?

Galatians 3:7. I think you're misunderstanding what Robert said. I'll provide this verse, but I would rather let Robert defend himself.

 

[Soma-Sight]

Its amazing how you can use scripture for alomst ANY means to an end!

Just look at all the denominations!

When will we learn that the "Word" is written on the heart and not in books!?

 

[Vic C.]

Did everyone forget what Paul had to say about this? Pleas read from Romans 1:18-32 . While Paul is outlining for us what is and isnt acceptable behavour, he clearly states that it is God's wrath and not ours that will be brought upon them. We have an obligation to preach the Gospel and point out Man's perversions; we are not given the right to persecute them.

Nowhere did BB say the OT is not applicable to us or for us; he is showing right division of what applies and doesn't apply to followers of Christ. How did Jesus deal with the adultress? Did He command the scribes and Pharisees
to stone the woman to death. Oh no; He dealt with their conscience, they fled, then He turned to the woman and said:

"Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?"
She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, "Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more."

 

[Soma-Sight]

Enlightening post vic!

 

[antitox]

This subject always ends up ridiculous every time it is brought up because the same arguments ensue due to the inability of the non-believers to perceive anything Christians say, because if they do, they'll see they don't have a valid argument if they honestly consider the content of what is presented to them. Hence, a valid statement made earlier in this thread:

from antitox.

What bothers be about this, is some of you christians, cant even agree on which parts of the bible, are still valid enough, to argue with quath and i or anyone else. lol.

Those are issues that Paul and other apostles said were not the defining criteria with regards to salvation. OT is beyond atheists anyway. It is a futile attempt for any atheist to even think that he knows anything with regards to biblical issues because it is all spiritually discerned. Lol.

Believers are going to differ on things regarding text, scriptural application, interpretation and the like. Read the bible and you'll find out what Paul said regarding that. Lol.

 

[peace4all]

The laws for Israel do not apply to the church. The death penalty for those types of sin were for Israel and those in it's boundaries.

No matter how many times this is explained to people they fall back on an argument that has no application for the church.

Israel is distinct from all other peoples...

Leviticus 20:26 And ye shall be holy unto me: for I the LORD am holy, and have severed you from other people, that ye should be mine.

We do not dwell in the land of Israel and we are not Jews. The church has no authority to take the lives of sinners.

that is what made me think that BB thought the OT should basically be thrown out. If it does not apply to anyone outside of israel (although we are all children of israel.

Reading this has broguth me to a question. IF anyone can help out.

leveticus 20:22 sorta confuses me..
Leviticus 20:22 Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: that the land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, spue you not out.

so does that mean that it is gods will that his people should not leave israel? or should not leave "the land" reffering to "the world" as a whole?

 

[Quath]

Christians are to live as Christ lived, correct? if that is so, then We are not to kill homosexuals because Jesus did not stone the adultress. Jesus said in John 8:7 "...He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone. at her."[NASB]

No one in that room threw a stone at her. However, Christians believe that Jesus never sinned. He said that the one who was without sin may cast the first stone, and yet he, sinless, forgave her and did not stone her. That is why we who claim to be Christians (little Christ ones) are to do like wise. He Forgave, therefore we must also forgive.

Jesus set a new standard. Not only that, He took this adultress's penalty and Died in her place. He bore the death penalty so many of us are guilty of.

Carried to its logical conclusion, we must get rid of judges and jails since everyone has sinned and noone can cast judgement.

This story is a troublesome spot for Christianity. The Old Laws were still in effect. For Jesus to go against the word of God and say that an adultrous woman should not be killed was a sin then.

Show me exactly where the Bible users the words Make up or jeans. If you can show me the passages, I'll respond to the rest of this point

My ex-girlfriend's sister became a Pentecostal. She would constantly remind her of how sinflu it was for my girlfriend to wear makeup and jeans. I thought it was a silly rule myself.

II Kings 9:30 has Jezebel painting her eyes for seduction. So they see makeup as something done by loose women and God doesn't need to cover the beauty He already did to women's faces.

Deuteronomy 22:5 is why they won't wear pants because they see it as men's clothing.

You may disagree and find it as silly as I do, but these people see it as sinful.

1. Yes someone does have the choice to sin, but again scripture clearly teaches that if you allow you brother to sin, you are in error.

2. Eating or Shrimp is made able through Peter's vision. Acts 10

1. So do you think that ever sin should be outlawed by our legal system?

2. This was for 4 footed animals, reptiles and birds. This did not include shrimp.

My response to Drew counters, and explains this point.

So you think that Jesus died to pay for the penality of sin. So any command to punish sinners has been paid. Therefore outlawing sinning is to undo what Jesus aleady paid for.

basically, God said to deal with homosexuals by killing them. Since that rule is gone by what you believe, there is no rule to deal with homosexuals anymore.

That's all you can see isn't it? Omnipresence? Once again, everything that I said has gone COMPLETELY over your head.

You stanted no absolutes and just said there are some without demonstration. You then try to show that the laws were limited because God is not omnipresent. You did not address it. Is it because you lack argument for your case?

Quath, for an atheist you make more sense than many Christians on these boards!

Careful, you may get a bad rep for agreeing with me.

Quath

 

[antitox]

That's all you can see isn't it? Omnipresence? Once again, everything that I said has gone COMPLETELY over your head.

You stanted no absolutes and just said there are some without demonstration. You then try to show that the laws were limited because God is not omnipresent. You did not address it. Is it because you lack argument for your case?

I wasn't making any point about about absolutes The problem is you can't understand what I pointed out. Because you have NO BIBLICAL PERCEPTION whatsoever. We go through this every time.

The whole reply was about why law was used versus the covenant of grace that Jesus put into place because of the immediate retribution that occurred in the OT. AND YOU MISSED EVERY BIT OF IT. You are out in the ozone when it comes to a bible discussion of any kind.

Quath, for an atheist you make more sense than many Christians on these boards!

Careful, you may get a bad rep for agreeing with me. Quath[/quote]

Too late.

 

[Blazin Bones]

Carried to its logical conclusion, we must get rid of judges and jails since everyone has sinned and noone can cast judgement.

You are right Quath, when the endcomes, there will be need need for a judge. God will have judge the sinners for those who accepted Christ, and those who denied him(it was fun while it lasted, right Quath?). Then there will be no more judgement. I guess you missed that part of the Bible.

This story is a troublesome spot for Christianity. The Old Laws were still in effect. For Jesus to go against the word of God and say that an adultrous woman should not be killed was a sin then.

Show me the Passage that God said an adulterous woman must be killed, and I'll respond to your point.

My ex-girlfriend's sister became a Pentecostal. She would constantly remind her of how sinflu it was for my girlfriend to wear makeup and jeans. I thought it was a silly rule myself.

II Kings 9:30 has Jezebel painting her eyes for seduction. So they see makeup as something done by loose women and God doesn't need to cover the beauty He already did to women's faces.

Deuteronomy 22:5 is why they won't wear pants because they see it as men's clothing.

You may disagree and find it as silly as I do, but these people see it as sinful.

Okay, since painting your eyes is along the same line as make up, I'll respond to that portion. I don't see anywhere in 2 Kings 9:30 that mentions anything about seduction. I've gone through Five translations that don't mention this at all.

As for jeans, no passage, no response.

1. So do you think that ever sin should be outlawed by our legal system?

2. This was for 4 footed animals, reptiles and birds. This did not include shrimp.

1. No, because Christ instructed his followers to support the laws of the Government as long as they do not violate his teachings. However, if someone were to propose a law that would outlaw a sin, that is a law a Christian could support. Such as making homosexual unions illegal. If the law we're to do the opposite, then I would not support the Law because it violates the teachings of Christ.

2. It's not just his Vision that explains the change. Acts 10:34-35

So you think that Jesus died to pay for the penality of sin. So any command to punish sinners has been paid. Therefore outlawing sinning is to undo what Jesus aleady paid for.

Incorrect. You logic is clearly flawed. A past event can not be undone by a future event. Please try to explain your point with correct logic.

basically, God said to deal with homosexuals by killing them. Since that rule is gone by what you believe, there is no rule to deal with homosexuals anymore.

Incorrect, Jewish law claimed that you must kill homosexuals. There is a rule, and it's a Golden one. Love them as myself. If I love my slef enough to do things that will stop me from sinning, then I should do the same for Homosexuals.

 

[Quath]

You are right Quath, when the endcomes, there will be need need for a judge. God will have judge the sinners for those who accepted Christ, and those who denied him(it was fun while it lasted, right Quath?). Then there will be no more judgement. I guess you missed that part of the Bible.

I was talking about judgement for crimes, not for spiritual matters. I think you knew that.

Show me the Passage that God said an adulterous woman must be killed, and I'll respond to your point.

Leviticus 20:10

Okay, since painting your eyes is along the same line as make up, I'll respond to that portion. I don't see anywhere in 2 Kings 9:30 that mentions anything about seduction. I've gone through Five translations that don't mention this at all.

As for jeans, no passage, no response.

In the 2 Kings passage, Jezebel was a whore getting ready for seduction by painting her face.

I gave a passage for the jeans: Deuteronomy 22:5. The Pentecostal determine that jeans are men's clothes.

1. No, because Christ instructed his followers to support the laws of the Government as long as they do not violate his teachings. However, if someone were to propose a law that would outlaw a sin, that is a law a Christian could support. Such as making homosexual unions illegal. If the law we're to do the opposite, then I would not support the Law because it violates the teachings of Christ.

2. It's not just his Vision that explains the change. Acts 10:34-35

1. So who can pass judgement on the people that break the law? For they are all guilty of sin. Either people can judge one another or they can't. You seem to want both.

2. The change was still not about shrimp.

Incorrect. You logic is clearly flawed. A past event can not be undone by a future event. Please try to explain your point with correct logic.

God gave a commandment: kill homosexuals. You read this as "Homosexuality is bad. Punishment is to kill them." And you think that Jesus died to remove the punishment while keeping the first part. But that is not what is in the Bible. In the Bible, God just says to kill homosexuals. If you remove "kill homosexuals", then God has no commandment about homosexuals. Therefore, you can't say what God wants.

Incorrect, Jewish law claimed that you must kill homosexuals. There is a rule, and it's a Golden one. Love them as myself. If I love my slef enough to do things that will stop me from sinning, then I should do the same for Homosexuals.

The OT had the rule: Leviticus 19:18, which was to love your neighbor as yourself. But it also had the rule that you had to kill your neighbor if they were gay, talked back to their parents or if a girl had premaritial sex. So by the OT standards, you can kill the people you love.

It is just how you want to interpret the Bible.

Quath

 

[bibleberean]

why are we even bringing up the OT. According to BB, the OT is useless now because it onyl applied to the people of israel. so why do we use it for anything?

why do some christians (BB) say that it is now irrelivant, yet other christians (brutus) use leveticus?

This subject always ends up ridiculous every time it is brought up because the same arguments ensue due to the inability of the non-believers to perceive anything Christians say, because if they do, they'll see they don't have a valid argument if they honestly consider the content of what is presented to them. Hence, a valid statement made earlier in this thread:

from antitox.

What bothers be about this, is some of you christians, cant even agree on which parts of the bible, are still valid enough, to argue with quath and i or anyone else. lol.

You did not represent my beliefs correctly.

I never said the OT was useless.

The issue here is this. Christians are not given a mandate to use the death penalty and enforce laws as the church.

The OT laws that required the death penalty were exclusively for Israel.

That does not mean that sin still isn't sin...

As far as Christians that don't understand this concept there is no excuse. This is basic doctrine 101 and the bible could not be clearer.

Psalms 147:19-20 He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation: and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD.

For the church does not stone people for not keeping the Sabbath.

The church is not Israel.

Exodus 31:14 Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.

Exodus 31:15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

Exodus 31:17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

The Sabbath was exclusively to be kept by Israel. The church is not obligated to keep the Sabbath.

Homosexuality is still a sin but the church which is not Israel has not been told to stone homosexuals but to preach the gospel to them.

Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

I think I and others have posted this answer over and over in these forums.

People simply refuse to see it...

1 Corinthians 5:9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:

1 Corinthians 5:10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.

In the Old Testament the ruling authorities in the nation of Israel were told to put Sodomites to death.

Leviticus 20:13 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.

If a person cannot understand these things it is because they are too shallow or to corrupt to want to understand.

 

[cubedbee]

1. No, because Christ instructed his followers to support the laws of the Government as long as they do not violate his teachings. However, if someone were to propose a law that would outlaw a sin, that is a law a Christian could support. Such as making homosexual unions illegal. If the law we're to do the opposite, then I would not support the Law because it violates the teachings of Christ.

The most basic Law our land is the Constitution. A very important sin, part of the 10 commandments, is that we shall not worship false Gods. Instead of making this sin illegal, the Constitution specifically protects our right to commit this sin. According to your last sentence, that means the Constitution violates the teachings of Christ. Do you really believe this? Do you think the founding fathers wern't acting as good Christian since they supported laws that made sins legal? Would you have fought against the 1st amendment of our constitution like you fight against the legal gay rights? If the answers to any of these questions are no, then how do you justify treating the sins of homosexuality and idolatry differently?

Christians can and should support laws that legalize sins, as long as those sins harm only the sinner. Idolatry and sodomy are both these types of sins. Our founding fathers were mostly great Christians who were guarding the freedoms of non-Christians, even when that freedom was exercised in a sinful manner ---and those Christians who support gay rights are trying to do the exact same thing.

 

[bibleberean]

Bull! Your post has nothing whatsoever to do with this topic anyway.

We might as well let people walk around nude or have sex in public if we use your asinine logic.

Homosexuality is a sin today just as it was then and it will always be a sin.

This thread has nothing to do with allowing degenerate perverts have the "right" to marry. :roll:

 

[Soma-Sight]

Christians can and should support laws that legalize sins, as long as those sins harm only the sinner.

Correct!

This is not a "Theocracy" as some deem it!

Your relationship with the Creator is YOUR choice and not those of the self - righteous Pharisees!

 

[SputnikBoy]

This thread has nothing to do with allowing degenerate perverts have the "right" to marry. :roll:

Sputnik: Your language aimed at fellow human beings is abominable, BB. Yes, this is off-topic too but I needed to say it. Don't try and kid us ...you are speaking from the heart of BB, NOT from a Christ-centered stance.

 

[bibleberean]

I am not trying to fool anyone. Peversion is perversion. If people don't like it tough...

Now, that is from the heart... :D

Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Jude 1:8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.

2 Peter 2:6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;

2 Peter 2:7 And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:

2 Peter 2:8 (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;)

2 Peter 2:9 The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:

Pretty strong language...

I don't have an apologetic bone to offer those who defend or promote perversion... :-D

 

[peace4all]

then BB, you are not tryign to follow in the steps of jesus.

jesus saw people that did not want him in their lives, and instead of saying "well, your a looser" he prayed for their souls.