ARCHIVE: Z Man asks... "what about grace?"

[Morpheus]

Large portions of the Mosaic law would not be applicable and it would be unjust to punish crimes retroactively but other than those two caviots, yes, of course! Did you expect for me (or Knight) to say otherwise? The law given by God in the Bible is THE law. There is no other law that is just. Any law that man makes that is contrary to God's law is unjust, by definition.

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. Here's the part where you get to make an attempt to make God's law sound rediculous and unjust to save you butt in the debate. Good luck with that.

You are saying nothing different than the Pharisees did in Jesus time. They were legalists who juggled the law to meet their desires. It is strange that in the written record of the life of Christ the only people he attacked were those same legalists. You would have been there attacking him and his disciples for picking the grain heads and eating them on the Sabbath. You would have had him punished for healing on the Sabbath. He did not come to abolish the law, he came to take the consequences of that law upon himself. This is what you seem to have failed to grasp. This is the hope that you are supposed to be passing on to the murderer, the rapist, the thief, the adulterer, the satanist, and yes, even the homosexual. Since it appears that you do not even understand that hope for yourself then it is not surprising that you have failed to pass it on to others. This is what I have been addressing in this thread.

Matthew 7
Judging Others
1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

You wish to pick and choose which sin should be enacted into law. You fail to remember that Christ died not only for your sin, but for the homosexual's sin as well. And you fail to fulfill the Great Commission, which is your primary responsibility, and have instead chosen to exclude those who do not fit your description of worthy (a false assumption since none of us are worthy). Pride has blinded you.

Matthew 23
Seven Woes
1Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. 3So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.

5"Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries[a] wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them 'Rabbi.'

8"But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. 9And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ. 11The greatest among you will be your servant. 12For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

13"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.[c]

15"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.

16"Woe to you, blind guides! You say, 'If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.' 17You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred? 18You also say, 'If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gift on it, he is bound by his oath.' 19You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred? 20Therefore, he who swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. 21And he who swears by the temple swears by it and by the one who dwells in it. 22And he who swears by heaven swears by God's throne and by the one who sits on it.

23"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. 24You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.

25"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. 26Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.

27"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean. 28In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.

29"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. 30And you say, 'If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.' 31So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. 32Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers!

33"You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?

 

[Morpheus]

Slavery was once legal. This is no different. When the laws are wrong you fight to get them changed.
We can be quite sure that we are doing what God wants because we have His Word and His desires are written therein.
Have you read The Plot?

Nobody fights any harder to change unjust laws than I do. It is obvious that even though God gave authority to governments to maintain justice, the governments have abrogated that responsibility and chosen instead to fulfill individual self-interests. I have argued also here that Mosaic law, even though not anulled, has been changed. Mosaic law is our reference for what is sin. Mosaic law gave human consequences to sin. The role of that law was to teach us that we can never fulfill it and that we need a savior. The consequences of our sin have already been paid if we choose to accept the Lordship of Christ. You nor I know what eternity holds for anyone except ourselves (even then there is often doubt). But the consequences for sin, if we choose to keep them on ourselves, is now separation from God for eternity in Hell. There is no other price or punishment that will change that course.

Governmental law is to maintain order. The only time we are called to struggle to change those laws is when the violate God's law. None of us could stand the governmental law mirroring Mosaic law since none of us could fulfill it. We would all be guilty. Not executing homosexuals does not violate God's law, it just shortens the scope of it. Laws such as abortion violate God's law and we are called to stand against such acts.

BTW, I really didn't need another one of Bob Enyart's self-aggrandizing web pages.

 

[Morpheus]

The way I see it, I show grace by continuing to interact with the heathens out there. I'd rather just end my frustration, stop dealing with them and let them go to hell. It's by the grace of God that they have a shot at living with Him even in their current hatred, they have time to turn around. I follow this grace by refusing to fall into apathy.

Homo's should be executed because it will act as a deterrent and help to end the suffering that they create and spread amongst themselves and the rest of the population.

It isn't your job to 'show grace", it's your job to love sinners. You are good at pointing out where others fail, but it appears that you refuse to acknowledge your own failures. Kinda like Jonah and the Ninevites.

 

[Clete]

You are saying nothing different than the Pharisees did in Jesus time. They were legalists who juggled the law to meet their desires. It is strange that in the written record of the life of Christ the only people he attacked were those same legalists. You would have been there attacking him and his disciples for picking the grain heads and eating them on the Sabbath. You would have had him punished for healing on the Sabbath.

This is so ridiculous as to hardly be worthy of a response but here goes nothin’.

The Pharisees of Jesus day (and the legalists of today) believed that their relationship with God was based on a strict adherence to the law, especially the symbolic/religious aspects of the law. Their problem wasn't that they obeyed the law but that they failed to mix faith with it.

Today, there is no law that I should follow in order to have or maintain a relationship with God WHATSOEVER!!!! And in fact, if I allow myself to be placed under the law (any law) for righteousness sake I am cursed and Christ profits me nothing (i.e. the power of His resurrection becomes unavailable to me in my daily walk). Prior to the Gospel of Grace it was "Believe and obey the law.", now it is "Believe and do not place yourself under the law because you are dead to the law and to resurrect yourself to the law is to crucify Christ all over again."

No, I don't think it would be possible to call me a legalist. I recommend that you sit back and cool your jets and think through this before you make a bigger fool of yourself than you already have. There is simply no way that you had even half the information you would have needed to make such a silly accusation against me. Stop reacting with your fleshly foolish emotions and THINK! Take things a step at a time. Ask pertinent questions and when you get answers ask follow up questions if necessary and then think about the answers you get and what they mean. You might just learn something.

He did not come to abolish the law, he came to take the consequences of that law upon himself. This is what you seem to have failed to grasp. This is the hope that you are supposed to be passing on to the murderer, the rapist, the thief, the adulterer, the satanist, and yes, even the homosexual.

The silver lining here is that you at least included the phrase "seem to have" into your ludicrous accusation. But ignoring that silliness for now, I have never denied and in fact have openly stated that murders and rapist and adulterers and homos and the like can all get saved just exactly like everyone one else. What you have failed to understand is that the law is the most effective means in existence to bring people to Christ. Indeed, Paul himself, the very bearer of the Gospel of Grace, said that this is the very purpose of the law. You pretend to be concerned about getting criminals saved and in the same breath advocate weakening the most effective means by which one is able to achieve that very goal! Ironic to say the least!

Further, you understand that the logical conclusion of what you've just said here is that we shouldn't punish any criminal at all, right? I'm here defending the just act of executing homos but you've just set the whole lot of capital criminal loose to roam the streets! Do you support executing murderers or rapists or child molester? If so, then how is your support of such punishment not rebutted by your own comments above? And if your comments above do not refute your own support of the death penalty (or any punishment at all for that matter) for murderers then how does it refute mine for the execution of homos?

Further still, your having included thieves and Satanists in your list of criminals suggests that you include them in the list of things that the Bible proclaims to be capital crimes. If so, you are mistaken. It is, however, very common for people who don't know anything about Biblical law to spout off such things in an almost unconscious effort to make God’s law seem cruel and unjust. I doubt that was your intent but it was the result nonetheless.

Since it appears that you do not even understand that hope for yourself then it is not surprising that you have failed to pass it on to others. This is what I have been addressing in this thread.

If homoism were a capital crime FEWER people (homos included) would go to Hell, not more.

You wish to pick and choose which sin should be enacted into law.

You have either not been paying attention or else this is an outright lie. As I have already said, I DO NOT wish to pick and choose! What is and is not just has nothing to do with my opinion or what I've picked out by some arbitrary means. Justice is clearly defined in Scripture not by Clete's, or anyone else’s opinion.

You fail to remember that Christ died not only for your sin, but for the homosexual's sin as well.

I have forgotten no such thing. That is a primary reason why I want the law to be that homo's are executed upon conviction.

And you fail to fulfill the Great Commission, which is your primary responsibility,

You won't understand this but I no longer care.
The "Great Commission" does not apply to the Body of Christ.

...and have instead chosen to exclude those who do not fit your description of worthy (a false assumption since none of us are worthy). Pride has blinded you.

This is funny. You don't know me from Adam! You don't understand what I believe, you don't understand why I believe, you don't care enough to ask and you contradict your own beliefs! Your calling me blind has got to be some sort of joke.

It isn't your job to 'show grace", it's your job to love sinners.

The most loving thing (by far) that one could do for the homosexual community is to recriminalize the behavior and execute anyone convicted thereafter in a public and painful manner. I don't expect for you to understand that but it is nevertheless the truth. In fact, that's why God commanded it be done in the first place.

Nobody fights any harder to change unjust laws than I do. It is obvious that even though God gave authority to governments to maintain justice, the governments have abrogated that responsibility and chosen instead to fulfill individual self-interests. I have argued also here that Mosaic law, even though not anulled, has been changed. Mosaic law is our reference for what is sin. Mosaic law gave human consequences to sin. The role of that law was to teach us that we can never fulfill it and that we need a savior.

You acknowledge that the governments authority to enforce law comes from God but then accuse me of picking and choosing which laws should be on the books! What planet are you on sir?
You are of course right that governments all over the planet have abrogated their responsibility to uphold justice but how do you decide which laws are unjust and which aren't if not by comparing them to the laws found in the pages of Scripture? What is the difference between the Biblical law calling for murderers to be executed and the Biblical law commanding the same for the homo? What is the difference? Your opinion? Is that it? Majority vote maybe? What? By what means do you determine which of God's laws you are going to advocate and which you are going to ignore? I have a Biblical answer to that question, do you?

The consequences of our sin have already been paid if we choose to accept the Lordship of Christ. You nor I know what eternity holds for anyone except ourselves (even then there is often doubt). But the consequences for sin, if we choose to keep them on ourselves, is now separation from God for eternity in Hell. There is no other price or punishment that will change that course.

While I agree that Christ paid the price for our sin that has nothing to do with why we should execute homos and murderers. When a murderer is executed you don't believe that they have paid the due penalty for their sin by virtue of having been executed by the government, do you? If so, you couldn't be more wrong. Executing criminals has to do with preventing the crime and producing a safe society as well as teaching that society right from wrong and leading people to Christ. You position seeks to weaken the law and thus weaken its effectiveness to do any of those things.

Governmental law is to maintain order. The only time we are called to struggle to change those laws is when the violate God's law.

In that case you should advocate the recriminalization of homoism.

None of us could stand the governmental law mirroring Mosaic law since none of us could fulfill it.

Not sufficiently so as to be worthy of a relationship with God we couldn't no but that is no excuse to abolish it! And make no mistake about it, that is precisely what you are suggesting.

Not executing homosexuals does not violate God's law, it just shortens the scope of it.

Of course it violates God's law! What in the world are you talking about? "Shortens the scope of it"? That doesn't even make any sense! If God's law says to execute homos and you don't have a Biblical reason why we shouldn't still have that law on the books then it should still be on the books, period.

Laws such as abortion violate God's law and we are called to stand against such acts.

Quite right! I would love it if you could explain to me how the law against homosexuality is somehow in a different category than the one against murder.

BTW, I really didn't need another one of Bob Enyart's self-aggrandizing web pages.

Hypocrite!


Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Z Man]

So in determining what is and isn't a crime, your standard is whether or not it violates your security?

On a human level, yes.

You don't think the Bible has any bearing on the subject or what should or shouldn't be a crime?

It should be a foundation, but it shouldn't be used as men's strict code of laws. Everything that the Bible says is wrong should not be turned into a crime. And, we shouldn't just pick and choose which sins we would like to see as crimes. Thus, to distinguish the difference, we should make it a crime if it violates another person's security and rights. Killing someone against their will violates their security. Raping people violates their security and rights. Stealing from someone violates their security and rights. A man willingly agreeing to have sex with another man who is also in agreement does not violate my security and my rights. It should not be a crime. It's wrong, of course, but it should not be a crime.

If one of the old testament laws should be a crime, even if it doesn't violate other peoples rights or security, then they all should be crimes. I don't understand how you people can promote the execution of homosexuals because the Bible supports it, then turn right around and say executing disobediant children is no longer valid. What do you base your judgement upon in deciding which old laws should still be crimes (homosexuality) and which ones should no longer be valid (disobediant children)?

 

[Z Man]

God sure thought [homosexuality] was a crime worthy of death when He had Moses write this...

Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.​

God sure thought disobeying your parents was a crime worthy of death when He had Moses write this...

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 Suppose a man has a stubborn, rebellious son who will not obey his father or mother, even though they discipline him. 19 In such cases, the father and mother must take the son before the leaders of the town. 20 They must declare: 'This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious and refuses to obey. He is a worthless drunkard.' 21 Then all the men of the town must stone him to death. In this way, you will cleanse this evil from among you, and all Israel will hear about it and be afraid.​

So why do you say homosexuality is a crime, but disobeying your parents isn't? You can't just pick and choose what suits your interest best.

Do you stand in disagreement with God and say that being a homo has never been a crime, or do you think that something has changed concerning the impact of their behavior on society such that it is no longer a crime?

Of course I don't disagree with God. Homosexuality may have been a crime before, but I believe Christ's sacrifice is what changed it all.

If it is the latter, then why do you suppose it was ever a crime in the first place...

Because God had a standard and He wanted to make a point. Men fall short of the glory of God. The law shows us our need for a Savior.

...and what about the impact of the behavior on society do believe has changed in the past 100 or so years (that's about how long it's not been considered a capital crime in the whole history of mankind)?

I don't believe homosexuality ever had an 'impact' on the behavior of society. I believe it was/is an abomination - a vile sin - and God's punishment, before the sacrifice of Christ, was death. But now that Christ has came, He has taken that punishment upon Himself. So now we must extend grace to homosexuals, not the death penalty.

Clete, I can ask you the same exact questions regarding the execution of disobediant children.

Do you stand in disagreement with God and say that being disobediant to your parents has never been a crime, or do you think that something has changed concerning the impact of stubborn childrens' behavior on society such that it is no longer a crime? If it is the latter, then why do you suppose it was ever a crime in the first place and what about the impact of the behavior on society do you believe has changed in history past?​

Why should homosexuality still be a crime, but not disobeying your parents, or failing to observe the Sabbath?

 

[Clete]

God sure thought disobeying your parents was a crime worthy of death when He had Moses write this...

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 Suppose a man has a stubborn, rebellious son who will not obey his father or mother, even though they discipline him. 19 In such cases, the father and mother must take the son before the leaders of the town. 20 They must declare: 'This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious and refuses to obey. He is a worthless drunkard.' 21 Then all the men of the town must stone him to death. In this way, you will cleanse this evil from among you, and all Israel will hear about it and be afraid.​

So why do you say homosexuality is a crime, but disobeying your parents isn't? You can't just pick and choose what suits your interest best.

The simple answer to your question is that part of the Mosaic Law had to do with morality and part of it was symbolic and/or religious. The latter having to do primarily with two things. Symbolizing Christ and separating Israel from the whole rest of the world.
Now that's an extremely simplified answer but that is essentially why some laws would apply and others wouldn't.
The law concerning children being put to death for dishonoring their parents is a difficult one but I believe that it was one of those that did in fact apply only to the nation of Israel. I admit that such a position is debatable and if you insist that it should be the law then so be it, I won't argue the point. But the law against homosexuality cannot possibly be one of those laws which God intended only for the nation of Israel because He destroyed whole city/states of gentiles for having committed the crime. The law against being a homo is moral in nature not symbolic or religious.
One important test to determine which laws are symbolic and which are not is to determine whether or not the law in question can conflict with another law. For example, you were to circumcise your male children on the eighth day but were not permitted to perform any work of the flesh on any Sabbath. If the eighth day of a child's life fell on Saturday then there would be a conflict; you would have to break one law in order to follow the other. Generally speaking such conflicts cannot happen with moral laws. One will never have to rape someone in order to keep from murdering them, for example.

Of course I don't disagree with God. Homosexuality may have been a crime before, but I believe Christ's sacrifice is what changed it all.

How so? Why didn't Christ's sacrifice change the law against murder in the same manner?

Because God had a standard and He wanted to make a point. Men fall short of the glory of God. The law shows us our need for a Savior.

And you think that this is no longer the case, is that it? If so, why not support the legalization of adultery and consensual sex with eight year old children?

I don't believe homosexuality ever had an 'impact' on the behavior of society.

Would you concede that you just might be wrong about this?

I believe it was/is an abomination - a vile sin - and God's punishment, before the sacrifice of Christ, was death. But now that Christ has came, He has taken that punishment upon Himself. So now we must extend grace to homosexuals, not the death penalty.

Again, why doesn't this exact same line of thinking apply to the rapist, murderer, and child molester?

Clete, I can ask you the same exact questions regarding the execution of disobedient children.

Yes, you could. I am convinced that the law had to do with God's special dealings with the nation of Israel but I could be wrong on that. If you like, I will concede the point for now and join with you in advocating the recriminalization of the intentional dishonoring of one's parents. Deal?

Do you stand in disagreement with God and say that being disobedient to your parents has never been a crime, or do you think that something has changed concerning the impact of stubborn children’s' behavior on society such that it is no longer a crime? If it is the latter, then why do you suppose it was ever a crime in the first place and what about the impact of the behavior on society do you believe has changed in history past?​

Why should homosexuality still be a crime, but not disobeying your parents, or failing to observe the Sabbath?

The Sabbath was definitely a symbolic as demonstrated above and would no longer apply and I have conceded for the sake of argument the disobeying of your parents issue. What else you got?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Morpheus]

This is so ridiculous as to hardly be worthy of a response but here goes nothin’....

...Resting in Him,
Clete

I will not answer line for line your angry ramblings. I will leave you with these:

1) I don't need to know you to contrast what beliefs you espouse with scripture. Your legalism is evident.

2) You have a job to do, but you are too busy hating to reach out to those who you are commanded to love.

3) Mosaic law was not written to the nations, it was written to the children of Israel even before they were a nation. It was not ever intended to be binding for all nations; it was intended to give the Hebrew nation, and later Christians, a basis to understand God's nature. It was never even intended to give anyone a route to salvation; it was intended to teach Israel that they could never achieve salvation by their own efforts, so that they, and us, would realize that we needed Christ to intervene on our behalf. But you, and others, have decided to make it universal, thereby invalidating grace.

4) As for your comment, "Unsubstantiated insults toward Bob Enyart will win you all sorts of negative rep from me", the statement was not unsubstantiated; the posted webpage is overwhelming substantiation on its own. Have you actually looked at it? As far as rep goes, I have never been swayed by what mere men think. The religious leaders of the time, the Pharisees, hated Jesus and had him executed. Most of the prophets and apostles met with similar fates. There is only one who I need be concerned with pleasing, so your empty threats don't phase me.

And as far as your confusion over my familiarity with, and understanding of, scripture goes, if you are in fact the one who is blind, then you will not see the truth and have no way of rightly judging the understanding of another.

Galatians 1
6I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!
10Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ.

In Christ's love,
Morpheus

 

[Z Man]

Homosexuality may have been a crime before, but I believe Christ's sacrifice is what changed it all.

How so? Why didn't Christ's sacrifice change the law against murder in the same manner?

It did! If a person believes in Christ, they will face no condemnation from God on judgement day, whether they were rapists, murderers, theives, or homosexuals. Because of Christ's sacrifice, they will no longer be judged for their 'crimes' (if they believe, of course).

However, our laws on earth still apply. Even though God will not judge the rapist/murderer/thief if they believe, they will be judged by men here on earth for their crimes because they violated another person's security/rights and must pay the penalty. But in God's eyes, their penalty for their sins are already paid for.

Do you see the distinction? In God's eyes, all of the old testament laws will not condemn those who believe. He's already paid the price. But here on earth, there must be a law that protects us from each other - a law that grants us security and our rights. If they are violated by another person, that person will pay the consequences. Being a homosexual does not violate another person's rights - raping someone does.

If God can forgive a homosexual, why can't you? Whether you like it or not, you will be in heaven with a bunch of murderers, rapists, theives, and homos.

I believe it was/is an abomination - a vile sin - and God's punishment, before the sacrifice of Christ, was death. But now that Christ has came, He has taken that punishment upon Himself. So now we must extend grace to homosexuals, not the death penalty.

Again, why doesn't this exact same line of thinking apply to the rapist, murderer, and child molester?

It does! Rapists, murderers and theives are forgiven too, if they believe! However, the distinction between murder being a crime and homosexuality being a crime is defining which ones violates a person's security and rights. People willingly being gay does not violate my security/rights - someone forcefully taking another's life does. That's why murder, rape and thievery should be crimes while homosexuality should not.

The law concerning children being put to death for dishonoring their parents is a difficult one but I believe that it was one of those that did in fact apply only to the nation of Israel. I admit that such a position is debatable and if you insist that it should be the law then so be it, I won't argue the point.

If you like, I will concede the point for now and join with you in advocating the recriminalization of the intentional dishonoring of one's parents. Deal?

I'm not advocating the 'recriminalization of the intentional dishonoring of one's parents'. I'm not insisting that it should be a crime today. I merely was making the point that if you believe homosexuality should be a crime because the Bible says so, then you MUST also believe and promote that disobeying your parents is a crime as well, punishable by death. Picking and choosing from the Bible which laws should be crimes and which ones shouldn't allows any Joe Schmo to come along and create a world that suits his interest, which may or may not be in the interest of the majority, or even God.

What I really dislike about Bob Enyart advocating that homosexuals be terminated and outlawed is the fact that he is choosing a sin he finds most detestable so that those who do not do it are given the 'illusion' that they are better people and worthy of God's salvation. In other words, he's nothing more than a bully and he has a self-esteem issue. Picking on those whom he deems more 'sinful' gives him the impression that he is 'holier'. It's sickening.

 

[Lighthouse]

Z Man-
Just to clarify, the law about the child was not in reference to a child who was merely disobedient. Nor was it in reference to a small child. It is in reference to an adult child. That is made obvious by the list of things they were to be executred for. No small child could do such a thing. Of course, if a small child were to murder their parents, with a gun, then it could be argued that a small child is capable of some of the aspects of that law. However, the point remains, it is not about a child who is merely disobedient.

 

[GuySmiley]

Everything that the Bible says is wrong should not be turned into a crime.

I cant even count high enough to point out how many times it has been said in this thread that all crimes are sin, but not all sins are crimes. We agree on this.

And, we shouldn't just pick and choose which sins we would like to see as crimes.

Again, we agree!

Thus, to distinguish the difference, we should make it a crime if it violates another person's security and rights.

Is this supported Biblically? What verse? Or did you just make this up as your standard?

If one of the old testament laws should be a crime, even if it doesn't violate other peoples rights or security, then they all should be crimes. I don't understand how you people can promote the execution of homosexuals because the Bible supports it, then turn right around and say executing disobediant children is no longer valid.

Actually I wish you would have an open and honest conversation with Clete because I want to see how he goes through this. But before you jump to the disobediant children argument, why not see if you can agree on easier issues. For instance, can you not see a difference between the law concerning working on the sabbath and the law concerning executing murderers? According to you, if you base executing murderers on the Bible, then you also have to make working on the sabbath a crime, right? Or can you see a difference, and what might the difference be?

What do you base your judgement upon in deciding which old laws should still be crimes (homosexuality) and which ones should no longer be valid (disobediant children)?

I don't base it on my own wisdom such as what violates my rights and security.

 

[Z Man]

Z Man-
Just to clarify, the law about the child was not in reference to a child who was merely disobedient. Nor was it in reference to a small child. It is in reference to an adult child. That is made obvious by the list of things they were to be executred for. No small child could do such a thing. Of course, if a small child were to murder their parents, with a gun, then it could be argued that a small child is capable of some of the aspects of that law. However, the point remains, it is not about a child who is merely disobedient.

Regardless how you interpret the 'disobediant child law', the fact still remains that if you promote one of God's law as a crime today, you must promote them all. I don't understand why a person can just pick and choose which ones they would like to see enforced as a crime in todays law.

Did you work at all last Sabbath? Have you ever worked on the Sabbath? If you believe homos should be executed because the law of God says so, then you should also believe that you and everyone else who has violated the Sabbath should be executed as well.

Exodus 35:2
Work shall be done for six days, but the seventh day shall be a holy day for you, a Sabbath of rest to the Lord. Whoever does any work on it shall be put to death.

 

[Lighthouse]

Here's how it is Z Man. I do believe that a child who is a drunkard and beats on his parents should be executed, especially if the abuse causes one, or both, of them to die. However, since God made it clear that the Sabbath was only for Israel, any laws regarding the Sabbath have no bearing on anyone, for any purpose, religious or criminal. Same goes for the laws on food. And the laws on clothes. And the laws on haircuts, or beard trimming. Or the laws on tattoos. However, the laws on sexual immorality are good laws for any society to have in their criminal code. As are the laws on murder, theft, kidnapping, and many other things. You agree that murder, theft and kidnapping should be illegal, correct? Do you agree that murderers should be executed? How about kidnappers? Or, along the lines of sexual crimes, rapists? Child molesters? Adulterers? Those who commit bestiality? Feel free to answer these one by one...

 

[Z Man]

Can you not see a difference between the law concerning working on the sabbath and the law concerning executing murderers?

Working on the Sabbath was a violation against God, not man. Murder, too, is a violation against God, but it's also a violation against man. When Christ died for us, all violations against God were paid for. So the laws concerning the Sabbath and even murderers no longer condemn the guilty if they believe. However, there are still 'crimes' that violate men's rights, thus must be paid for. As stated earlier, violating the Sabbath does not concern men, but murder does. Thus, murder should be a crime, while working on the Sabbath should not. The same concept applies to homosexuals. Two consenting men having sex with one another, although a sin, is not in violation against me or mankind in general. It's a violation against God, but they will answer for that when they get to the Judgement Day. Thus, it should not be a crime.

According to you, if you base executing murderers on the Bible, then you also have to make working on the sabbath a crime, right?

No. Only the crimes that violate men's rights should be enforced. Those that are in violation against God and God only (such as the Sabbath, which has no immediate effect against mankind - it does not violate my rights if someone works on the Sabbath) have been taken care of on the cross.

 

[Z Man]

However, the laws on sexual immorality are good laws for any society to have in their criminal code.

I agree, as long as the sexual activity violated another person's rights. I don't believe sex before marriage should be a crime, as long as both parties agreed to have sex and are above the age that the government has deemed necessary to be able to make such a decision.

You agree that murder, theft and kidnapping should be illegal, correct?

Absolutely.

Do you agree that murderers should be executed?

Yes. If you take someone's life, you should give up yours in payment.

How about kidnappers?

Executed? No. Punished? Of course. They forcefully took another person captive against their will and thus should pay the consequences.

Or, along the lines of sexual crimes, rapists?

Executed? No. Castrated? Yes.

Child molesters?

Again, they should be castrated.

Adulterers?

No adulterer should be executed. If a married couple agree to seperate, and have sex with another person even though they are not divorced from another, then I don't think that should be an enforced crime (although I do believe it to be a sin). Again, the question is does it violate anyone's security or rights. In this case, no. If, however, 2 people are married, and one of the spouse secretely has an affair, they have violated their vows to their married partner and must pay the penalty (jail time, or in a severe case, castration).

Those who commit bestiality?

That's a horrible sin, but I don't think it should be a crime. It bothers me that people are that stupid, but it doesn't violate my rights or security. Now if someone was having sex with my dog without my consent, then they should pay a fine or something. But if they buy their own cows/horses/dogs or whatever animals turn them on, to have sex with them, than that's their problem. I don't think it's the government's job to tear down their door and arrest them on their own property for committing bestiality in their own privacy.

 

[Lighthouse]

I agree, as long as the sexual activity violated another person's rights. I don't believe sex before marriage should be a crime, as long as both parties agreed to have sex and are above the age that the government has deemed necessary to be able to make such a decision.

Why should the government be the one to make the decision when people are old enough to consent? Did you realize that in IN the age of consent is 16. Would you want your sixteen year old daughter having sex with whomever she pleases? And do you really think it's smart to allow promiscuity to be legal?

Absolutely.

Okay.

Yes. If you take someone's life, you should give up yours in payment.

Okay.

Executed? No. Punished? Of course. They forcefully took another person captive against their will and thus should pay the consequences.

Why do you disagree with God?

Executed? No. Castrated? Yes.

Why do you disagree with God?

Again, they should be castrated.

If we were face to face I would hit you.
And, again, why do you disagree with God?

No adulterer should be executed. If a married couple agree to seperate, and have sex with another person even though they are not divorced from another, then I don't think that should be an enforced crime (although I do believe it to be a sin). Again, the question is does it violate anyone's security or rights. In this case, no. If, however, 2 people are married, and one of the spouse secretely has an affair, they have violated their vows to their married partner and must pay the penalty (jail time, or in a severe case, castration).

Why do you disagree with God?

That's a horrible sin, but I don't think it should be a crime. It bothers me that people are that stupid, but it doesn't violate my rights or security. Now if someone was having sex with my dog without my consent, then they should pay a fine or something. But if they buy their own cows/horses/dogs or whatever animals turn them on, to have sex with them, than that's their problem. I don't think it's the government's job to tear down their door and arrest them on their own property for committing bestiality in their own privacy.

Why do you disagree with God?
And another thing, do you not think that they are violating the rights of the animals?! Of course animals do not have all the same rights afforded people, however, they should definitely have the right to be protected from abuse, especially sexual abuse.

 

[Clete]

I will not answer line for line your angry ramblings.

I was not angry. Your telepathic abilities are seriously in question.

I will leave you with these:

1) I don't need to know you to contrast what beliefs you espouse with scripture. Your legalism is evident.

Anyone reading this who knows what I believe is laughing their butts off at you right now. :chuckle:

2) You have a job to do, but you are too busy hating to reach out to those who you are commanded to love.

Love and hate are not mutually exclusive. The most loving thing to do to a homo is to convict him of his crime and execute him swiftly. Chances are, if you've done things right, he'll repent before you get the job done, and if not then he'll stand as a testimony to everyone left alive that such vile and disgusting behavior will not be tolerated. The result is that virtually no one is molested as a child and even fewer people ever become homos. Pretty good result if you ask me. Actually, that's a pretty good result whether you ask me or not!

3) Mosaic law was not written to the nations, it was written to the children of Israel even before they were a nation. It was not ever intended to be binding for all nations; it was intended to give the Hebrew nation, and later Christians, a basis to understand God's nature. It was never even intended to give anyone a route to salvation; it was intended to teach Israel that they could never achieve salvation by their own efforts, so that they, and us, would realize that we needed Christ to intervene on our behalf. But you, and others, have decided to make it universal, thereby invalidating grace.

Ignoring the last sentence, everything you've said here is completely true of the symbolic aspects of the law but moral law is not exclusive to a single nation. Murder, adultery, rape, homosexuality, assault, stealing, etc are all moral in nature and the laws against them apply to the whole of mankind.

4) As for your comment, "Unsubstantiated insults toward Bob Enyart will win you all sorts of negative rep from me", the statement was not unsubstantiated; the posted webpage is overwhelming substantiation on its own.

This sentence is substantiation of the fact that it is you who are angry, not me. You are also a liar. Bob Enyart is anything but self-aggrandizing. He is perhaps the Godliest man I have ever met! And your posting insulting comments on a web site that would not exist if not for his ministry will continue to yield a bountiful harvest of negative rep from me and probably several others now that you've brought it up on the open forum.

Have you actually looked at it?

You have a talent for making all those who know me at all laugh till their sides hurt! :rotfl:
I've read nearly every word that Bob Enyart has ever written - more than once. I recommend that you do the same. You might be surprised at how much of it you are already in agreement with once you had slowed down enough to understand any of it.

As far as rep goes, I have never been swayed by what mere men think.

We'll see how long that lasts when all those nice green bars start turning into red ones.

The religious leaders of the time, the Pharisees, hated Jesus and had him executed.

That was probably because He such a nice guy like you, right?

Most of the prophets and apostles met with similar fates. There is only one who I need be concerned with pleasing, so your empty threats don't phase me.

You're likening getting bad rep point from me to the Jews killing Jesus and the prophets!
Now that's a new one!
And immediately after having accused Bob Enyart of being self-aggrandizing!!!
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

And as far as your confusion over my familiarity with, and understanding of, scripture goes, if you are in fact the one who is blind, then you will not see the truth and have no way of rightly judging the understanding of another.

Then why are you here posting on this website? Who is it that disagrees with you and isn't blind according to you? How would you know if I were blind in the first place? You don't even care enough about what I believe to ask a single question about how I came to believe it. You make blind judgments based on what I can only guess is an attempt at telepathy and when your superficial judgments (which are expressly forbidden by Christ, by the way) are challenged, you declare the person blind because they didn't join you in your hypocrisy!

In Christ's love,
Morpheus

Even you sign off is a lie for Jesus said to make right judgment and do not make judgments based on mere appearances.

John 7:24 [Jesus]"Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.”[/Jesus]


Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. Z Man, I'm going to be up past my eyeballs at work today so I may not get to respond to your post until this evening but I'll try to get to it as soon as I can.

 

[Morpheus]

I was not angry. Your telepathic abilities are seriously in question.

Yet later you tend to mirror those so-called telepathic abilities:

This sentence is substantiation of the fact that it is you who are angry, not me.

So how do explain that statement? How is it any different than what you chastised me for?

Anyone reading this who knows what I believe is laughing their butts off at you right now. :chuckle:

That would only be those who believe as you do. Others are similarly amazed at your theological contortions. You have surrounded yourself with mutual admirerers. Every sect, even cults, do the same. The truth is not dependent on the number of people who can be convinced of a belief. Truth is not democratic. The Pharisees were similarly convinced of their superiority of wisdom. This is the problem with following the teachings of a man instead of learning directly from the Spirit of God.

Love and hate are not mutually exclusive. The most loving thing to do to a homo is to convict him of his crime and execute him swiftly. Chances are, if you've done things right, he'll repent before you get the job done, and if not then he'll stand as a testimony to everyone left alive that such vile and disgusting behavior will not be tolerated. The result is that virtually no one is molested as a child and even fewer people ever become homos. Pretty good result if you ask me. Actually, that's a pretty good result whether you ask me or not!

Fortunately I don't ask you. Hate = Love is a crock. I'm killing you because I love you is similarly a crock.

Matthew 5
An Eye for an Eye
38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[g] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
Love for Enemies
43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor[h] and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

So where does hate enter into the equation? Also, does this appear like Jesus was advocating strict adherence to the law?

Beside that, homosexuality does not directly correlate with child molestation. Molestation is an act of control and violence and has no correlation with sexual orientation. Most molestors are, in fact, either heterosexual or show no sexual preference one way or the other. If you had spent the last 35 years working with molested children you would have learned that.

Ignoring the last sentence, everything you've said here is completely true of the symbolic aspects of the law but moral law is not exclusive to a single nation. Murder, adultery, rape, homosexuality, assault, stealing, etc are all moral in nature and the laws against them apply to the whole of mankind.

God did not give the law to all of mankind. He gave it to the Hebrews. It was instruction for His people as to how to conduct themselves. Please show me where God instructed Israel to impose their law on the nations. Then show me where God instructed Israel to only apply part of that law on the nations. Then show me where God instructed Israel as to how to divide that law.

Galatians 4
1What I am saying is that as long as the heir is a child, he is no different from a slave, although he owns the whole estate. 2He is subject to guardians and trustees until the time set by his father. 3So also, when we were children, we were in slavery under the basic principles of the world. 4But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, 5to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons. 6Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, "Abba,[a] Father." 7So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son, God has made you also an heir.
Paul's Concern for the Galatians
8Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods. 9But now that you know God—or rather are known by God—how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? 10You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! 11I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you.

12I plead with you, brothers, become like me, for I became like you. You have done me no wrong. 13As you know, it was because of an illness that I first preached the gospel to you. 14Even though my illness was a trial to you, you did not treat me with contempt or scorn. Instead, you welcomed me as if I were an angel of God, as if I were Christ Jesus himself. 15What has happened to all your joy? I can testify that, if you could have done so, you would have torn out your eyes and given them to me. 16Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth?

17Those people are zealous to win you over, but for no good. What they want is to alienate you from us, so that you may be zealous for them. 18It is fine to be zealous, provided the purpose is good, and to be so always and not just when I am with you. 19My dear children, for whom I am again in the pains of childbirth until Christ is formed in you, 20how I wish I could be with you now and change my tone, because I am perplexed about you!
Hagar and Sarah
21Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? 22For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. 23His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way; but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a promise.

24These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. 25Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. 27For it is written:
"Be glad, O barren woman,
who bears no children;
break forth and cry aloud,
you who have no labor pains;
because more are the children of the desolate woman
than of her who has a husband."

28Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29At that time the son born in the ordinary way persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. 30But what does the Scripture say? "Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son."[c] 31Therefore, brothers, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman.

Galatians 5
Freedom in Christ
1It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.

2Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope. 6For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

7You were running a good race. Who cut in on you and kept you from obeying the truth? 8That kind of persuasion does not come from the one who calls you. 9"A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough." 10I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view. The one who is throwing you into confusion will pay the penalty, whoever he may be. 11Brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished. 12As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!

13You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature[a]; rather, serve one another in love. 14The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself." 15If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.
Life by the Spirit
16So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. 17For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. 18But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.

19The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. 25Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.

Sorry for the long quote, but it is one contiguous thought that explains how the law was for a time (childhood), and was no longer imputed as law after mankind (through Israel) matured. It also explains how legalists attempted (and still attempt) to draw man back under the law, thereby nullifying grace. It is expecially relevant where it says, "3Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace." Nowhere does it say that it is ok to put yourself under some of the law. It also never states that we should impose the law on unbelievers, but exempt ourselves.

This sentence is substantiation of the fact that it is you who are angry, not me. You are also a liar. Bob Enyart is anything but self-aggrandizing. He is perhaps the Godliest man I have ever met! And your posting insulting comments on a web site that would not exist if not for his ministry will continue to yield a bountiful harvest of negative rep from me and probably several others now that you've brought it up on the open forum.

I didn't realize that Bob Enyart had been placed on a throne. You also read instruction as anger, and judge me a liar solely because I disagree with you. So am I to understand that the verification of truth depends upon your viewpoint, or that of Bob Enyart?

You have a talent for making all those who know me at all laugh till their sides hurt! :rotfl:
I've read nearly every word that Bob Enyart has ever written - more than once. I recommend that you do the same. You might be surprised at how much of it you are already in agreement with once you had slowed down enough to understand any of it.

I must contact the publisher. He omitted the book of Bob from my Bible. I didn't realize that his writings were part of the inspired word of God.

We'll see how long that lasts when all those nice green bars start turning into red ones.

I have had those red bars before. Who cares? You are the one who is giving credence to the approval of men.

That was probably because He such a nice guy like you, right?

No. It was because he told the truth and the religious right of the time had their hearts hardened and preferred their own lies because the lies made them feel like they were better than everyone else.

You're likening getting bad rep point from me to the Jews killing Jesus and the prophets!
Now that's a new one!
And immediately after having accused Bob Enyart of being self-aggrandizing!!!
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

No. I likened the attitude of the Pharisees to your attitude. The attacks are quite different, but the motivation for those attacks is quite similar.

Then why are you here posting on this website? Who is it that disagrees with you and isn't blind according to you? How would you know if I were blind in the first place? You don't even care enough about what I believe to ask a single question about how I came to believe it. You make blind judgments based on what I can only guess is an attempt at telepathy and when your superficial judgments (which are expressly forbidden by Christ, by the way) are challenged, you declare the person blind because they didn't join you in your hypocrisy!

And how is it that you are judging me? If I can not grasp your beliefs based on your published assertions, then on what do you base your judgements about me? Do you know me? I have done nothing different than what you yourself are doing. Assessing professions and assertions and then weighing them against the Bible.

Even you sign off is a lie for Jesus said to make right judgment and do not make judgments based on mere appearances.

John 7:24 [Jesus]"Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.”[/Jesus]

Now that makes absolutely no sense at all.

 

[Z Man]

Why do you disagree with God?

I don't. All the things I listed and the punishment that should follow were in regards to them being crimes. I do not disagree with God that they are all sin. However, since Christ has paid the penalty for our disobediance to the law, there is no need to punish people in a court of law for sins that do not violate another man's security or rights. The sins that do violate that security, such as murder and rape, need to be dealt with in a fair manner. But I do not believe we should still have a strict interpretation of the old testament law today as it was when it was first created, thanks to God's sacrifice.

Lighthouse, if you truly believe homosexuals should be executed, then why not also believe that those who break the Sabbath, or disobediant children should be executed as well? On what basis can you just pick and choose which old testament crimes should still be crimes today, and which ones are no longer valid?

 

[Clete]

Yet later you tend to mirror those so-called telepathic abilities:

Only to mock your inept attempt to figure out what I believe without asking me and making judgments based on mere appearances. That simple fact is that I am not a legalist and can in no way be equated with one. You are very simply wrong and refuse to be corrected.

So how do explain that statement? How is it any different than what you chastised me for?

It's not any different - that was the point. Thank you for proving the point for me.

That would only be those who believe as you do. Others are similarly amazed at your theological contortions. You have surrounded yourself with mutual admirerers. Every sect, even cults, do the same.

This is not so. Anyone who knows what I believe whether they agree with me or not would think that anyone who makes the accusations you have is an idiot who speaks without knowing what the crap he's talking about. I am not a legalist in any sense of the word.

The truth is not dependent on the number of people who can be convinced of a belief. Truth is not democratic.

I totally agree! In fact ask anyone on this board, especially those who do not agree with a word I say whether or not I've ever been known to point out that saying something doesn't make it so and the truth is not up for a majority vote.

The Pharisees were similarly convinced of their superiority of wisdom.

All the more evidence that I share nothing in common with them.

This is the problem with following the teachings of a man instead of learning directly from the Spirit of God.

No kidding. Guess who says that more than anyone else I know (besides myself). Bob Enyart, that's who. I would bet my house that you don't have a clue what he even teaches! You judge people without having the slightest idea what they even believe! You judge them on some hypersensitive emotional reaction you have instead of making a right judgment based on the actual facts. I guarantee you that there is a whole lot more that Bob Enyart teaches that you would agree with than what you would disagree with but you're too lazy to even find out what he teaches before dismissing his teaching as cultic and self-aggrandizing.

Fortunately I don't ask you. Hate = Love is a crock. I'm killing you because I love you is similarly a crock.

Saying it doesn't make it so.
God commanded that homos be executed. Does that mean that God did not love those people? On the contrary! He does love them and thus He commands that the behavior be punished by death. You are a liberal Morpheus, that's why you cannot see the truth of this. You have to think long term (i.e. conservatively) in order to get it.

So where does hate enter into the equation?

Non sequitor. The topic here is not criminal justice.
Do you believe that Jesus was rescinding the criminal code with this teaching?
If so, should we decriminalize assault and rape and murder? If not then what should be done with people who commit such crimes? Should murderers be executed? If you think that this passage refutes my position why wouldn't it refute any position that supported the punishment of any crime?

Also, does this appear like Jesus was advocating strict adherence to the law?

This question is blasphemous. God cannot deny Himself. He gave the law and it is a description of His own character. Is God only sort of holy? Is God only mostly perfect? Jesus never, ever advocated the breaking of the law in any respect whatsoever. He certainly ignored the lawyer’s ridiculous misinterpretations of the law and the exaggerations of it but He never broke the law and He never taught anything but strict adherence to it.

Beside that, homosexuality does not directly correlate with child molestation.

Oh yes it does. If you have not been molested as a child you chances of become a homo are nearly nonexistent. There are exceptions yes but that is to be expected the more common their perversion becomes and the more it permeates the society but by and large if you wipe out homos you wipe out child molestation with it.

Molestation is an act of control and violence and has no correlation with sexual orientation.

You're delusional if you actually believe this. Nearly every child molester is a homo. He may or may not molest boys but that's primarily because there is very little anatomic difference between male and female children under eight years old and so it is easy to fantasize in either direction regardless of which you are actually victimizing.

Most molestors are, in fact, either heterosexual or show no sexual preference one way or the other. If you had spent the last 35 years working with molested children you would have learned that.

If you even begin to suggest that you have spent the last thirty five years working with molested children I will continuously call you a liar and a fool every time I remember to do so. You don’t even know how to spell the word “molesters” for crying out loud! If you knew anything about how homos become homos and had worked for one week with molested children you would not be here defending the homo. This comment makes me want to puke! You sit there and act like you give a damn about molested children and make it sound like you're some sort of expert in the field all the while standing in defense of the primary reason why molestation happens in the first place!!! :madmad:

Who the crap do you think you are anyway? You don't know who you are talking too! What makes you think you can get away with your lies here as though you were talking with someone whom you know for a fact doesn't know any better! You might be in the habit of making yourself into something your not with those in your circle of influence but you are talking to me now. I know better and don't think I'm going to be afraid to call you on it when you say such idiotic nonsense that can serve to do nothing but puff you up at the expense of the innocence of children.

God did not give the law to all of mankind. He gave it to the Hebrews.

No kidding. Really?

It was instruction for His people as to how to conduct themselves. Please show me where God instructed Israel to impose their law on the nations.

He didn't. I never said He did. But one day Jesus will rule the world from a throne in Israel and guess which laws will be in place around the whole world.

Then show me where God instructed Israel to only apply part of that law on the nations.

He didn't. I never said He did. Do you even know how to read?

Then show me where God instructed Israel as to how to divide that law.

There was no need too. I never said there was. You aren't paying attention because you don't want to know. I will explain nothing further to you. You are on your own.

Sorry for the long quote, but it is one contiguous thought that explains how the law was for a time (childhood), and was no longer imputed as law after mankind (through Israel) matured. It also explains how legalists attempted (and still attempt) to draw man back under the law, thereby nullifying grace. It is especially relevant where it says, "3Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace." Nowhere does it say that it is ok to put yourself under some of the law. It also never states that we should impose the law on unbelievers, but exempt ourselves.

You don't even know what I'm talking about. Nothing you said here has anything to do with a word I've said. NONE OF IT! You are a blithering idiot. Smug in your own conceit. You do not understand what I believe AT ALL! I have never once said and in fact have clearly denied that we should ever be placed under the law FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS SAKE!!!!

BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE SHOULD JUST LET CRIMINALS ROAM THE STREETS YOU STUPID IDIOTIC FOOL!!!!

I didn't realize that Bob Enyart had been placed on a throne.

Neither did I! Which throne is that?

You also read instruction as anger, and judge me a liar solely because I disagree with you.

No you are a liar and so I judge you as one. You do not know Bob Enyart, you do not know what he teaches, you know nothing about him whatsoever and yet you want to demean his character outside his presence without cause. You seek to mislead and deceive people concerning who Bob is and what he teaches. That makes you both a liar and a hypocrite.

So am I to understand that the verification of truth depends upon your viewpoint, or that of Bob Enyart?

I never said anything like this and you know it. Again, you prove yourself a liar and a fool.

I must contact the publisher. He omitted the book of Bob from my Bible. I didn't realize that his writings were part of the inspired word of God.

Again, I never said anything remotely like this. You are pilling up the lies with every word.

I have had those red bars before. Who cares? You are the one who is giving credence to the approval of men.

And you'll have them again and you do care or else you wouldn't keep bringing it up. :chuckle:

No. It was because he told the truth and the religious right of the time had their hearts hardened and preferred their own lies because the lies made them feel like they were better than everyone else.

He told the truth and didn't give a rip about what someone else thought about it. That is what hardened their hearts, that along with his continuous miracles which constantly shut their mouths. Jesus was just about as in your face as it is possible to be. I guarantee you that you would not have approved.

No. I likened the attitude of the Pharisees to your attitude. The attacks are quite different, but the motivation for those attacks is quite similar.

Your own words testify against you. They're all right there for everyone to read. I'll let them speak for themselves.

And how is it that you are judging me? If I can not grasp your beliefs based on your published assertions, then on what do you base your judgments about me? Do you know me? I have done nothing different than what you yourself are doing. Assessing professions and assertions and then weighing them against the Bible.

You're wrong. I am basing my judgments on what you actually believe as is evidenced by the fact that you do not deny anything that I've based by judgments on and when asked whether my assumption was wrong you acknowledged that it wasn't.

I don't mind using a touch of intuition, that can't even be avoided but when someone flat out tells you that they do not believe something and you just continue right on like nothing you've said is wrong in the slightest then it doesn't take long before its clear that you have no respect for the debate, the person you are debating with, nor the truth.

Now that makes absolutely no sense at all.

It makes perfect sense. You are guilty of doing precisely what Jesus Himself expressly said not to do. That being, making judgments on what it appears that I believe and not on the truth even after I have repeatedly denied believing anything remotely like what you are accusing me of. You also make judgments about Bob Enyart without having the slightest idea about what he says or why he says it the way he does.

Now, I don't know why but I am inclined to give you one last chance. If you would like to step back and cool your jets long enough to reset and start over, I am willing to have a respectful conversation with you about what should and should not be included in a righteous legal justice system but I will not tolerate these mindless and silly accusations about my being a legalist! It's just utter stupidity. I will entertain any question you want to ask me about how it is that I am as strong a proponent of the Gospel of Grace as is possible for anyone to be and will gladly clear up whatever contradiction you think there might be but only if you tone it down and ask in a respectful manner, otherwise I'll let you stew in the juices of your own ignorance. It's up to you.

Resting in Him,
Clete