:maxi:
If the men had brought the woman to the correct authorities, and had been following the law [bringing the man as well], and Rome was not disallowing them to perform their laws, the proper authorities still would not have been able to condemn her if there were no witnesses. And yet, even if they had not left, if they had not brought the man, the woman still could not have been condemned. Not to mention, even if both the man and woman were there, and alt least two credible witnesses, Rome would not have allowed them to condemn her, let alone execute her. Many factors played into it.
I have not once said that anyones salvation was dependent on following the law. However, it was at the time, but only if they followed it in faith. But that's neither here nor there. Believing that the law should have been followed does not make one a legalist, you moron. The definition of legalist has nothing to do with believing the laws of the land should be followed. Nor does it have anything to do with believing that someone's conscience convicted them because they were not following the law. You're an idiot.
The silence speaks very loudly.
What I can't believe is that you think the Law only serves one purpose. You have correctly stated that the Law is to lead men to Christ. God is for the Law to lead men to Christ. God is against the Law for righteousness. No one will ever be justified by the works of the Law. Believers have no relationship to the Law in any way. We have been released from the Law.I have posted this in several threads to date with no adequate response. Many here have fallen into the deception of the Pharisees in verses 1 & 5, stating that Gentiles are under at least some of the law of Moses. It just isn't so. If read in context, one will note that verse 29 does say that they are to "abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.", but it is immediately followed by, "You will do well to avoid these things." There is no mention of punishment, execution or otherwise. These things were just the stated requirements to be a part of the body of believers. Legalism has no place here any longer. The law has served its purpose of teaching us that we are unable to follow it and that we need a savior.
Where exactly are we in this thread? Still talking about homosexuals and the death penalty, or are we now talking about something else?
Where exactly are we in this thread? Still talking about homosexuals and the death penalty, or are we now talking about something else?
A quick synopsis. Yes we are still talking about homosexuals and the death penalty. The discussion is now that the Mosaic law has no authority over Gentiles (no longer for Jews either for that matter), and that without that authority then the argument for executing homosexuals collapses.Something else.
Oh, no, maybe the same thing.
Well, hm...
Hard to say.
Actually I believe that its other purpose, as a guide to what is right and wrong in God's eyes, remains. I have only stated that it never had any authority over Gentiles, and that it no longer has any authority over even the Jews. True faith in Christ is the measure, and the Jews will be similarly measured by that standard.What I can't believe is that you think the Law only serves one purpose.
There are plenty of NT examples of parental authority and governmental authority. Those are not derived from Mosaic law.You have correctly stated that the Law is to lead men to Christ. God is for the Law to lead men to Christ. God is against the Law for righteousness. No one will ever be justified by the works of the Law. Believers have no relationship to the Law in any way. We have been released from the Law.
So then, what authority do you have to discipline your children? What authority do governments have to instill fear in those who do evil?
I'm not disputing you here, but really want to know. What are they derived from?There are plenty of NT examples of parental authority and governmental authority. Those are not derived from Mosaic law.
You know it looks like most of the people on here are homo-phobs. I am not homosexual but honestly it doesn't really matter! One of my best friends is a lesbian but I just accept her for who she is not which gender she likes.
If we executed people for being a homosexual, then it would be the same as executing people for having hair, because no matter where you go, there's going to be someone who is a homosexual.
I do realize that there is a stigma around homosexuals and that our society is very homophobic but really is that a reason to kill someone?
What are they derived from?There are plenty of NT examples of parental authority and governmental authority. Those are not derived from Mosaic law.
You know it looks like most of the people on here are homo-phobs. I am not homosexual but honestly it doesn't really matter! One of my best friends is a lesbian but I just accept her for who she is not which gender she likes.
If we executed people for being a homosexual, then it would be the same as executing people for having hair, because no matter where you go, there's going to be someone who is a homosexual.
I do realize that there is a stigma around homosexuals and that our society is very homophobic but really is that a reason to kill someone?
I'm not disputing you here, but really want to know. What are they derived from?
I'm not ignoring you or avoiding the question. I believe that it is sincere. I have just been covered up lately and had little time to do anything but short interjections into threads. Since I'm disabled and retired this is not my norm, but I do plan on getting back to you as soon as I have time to dig out a few references.What are they derived from?
Thank you.I'm not ignoring you or avoiding the question. I believe that it is sincere. I have just been covered up lately and had little time to do anything but short interjections into threads. Since I'm disabled and retired this is not my norm, but I do plan on getting back to you as soon as I have time to dig out a few references.
This is freaky. I just spent the last 1.5-2 hours looking up scripture and writing a response to you. I was nearly done the first time and Internet Explorer froze up. I restarted IE and when I reached about the same point in preparing the post it froze up again. I tried to start up Mozilla Firefox and found that the entire PC was strangled. It took another 15 minutes to get it restarted and now I don't have time to reassemble it before I have to leave. I will get back to it though; trust me.Thank you.
I accept that there are evangelicals and fundamentalists who exhibit symptoms of fear of sexual differences and sex period. Their ways of coping are varied. Some deny what is deep inside themselves, project it onto others and then safely condemn it within a context of literalism and obedience to authority. This makes them blind to nuance, paradox, metaphor and parable. But this doesn't mean we marginalize and condemn our brothers and sisters in Christ. One way to break through the fear is through the saving grace of Christ. I accept their search for meaning in Christianity, but I will not accept turning away from (or shaming) other human beings. The world of the homophobic Christian is shaped by a desire to legitimize his/her fear of sexuality. And it is nurtured much like in a adolescent "peer group" situation. Actually looking within and taking a serious internal moral inventory is made impossible.Is being a homophobe bad you seem to act as though it is?
Every where you go you will find homophobes so why don't you all just accept that we are here and quit trying to change us..?
You accept your friend for the symptom of her developmental disorder, her coping mechanism, to compensate for her emotional/psychological wounds. You tell her that you don't accept homosexuality and that you know it is not natural and see how she acts. Her whole world is shaped by her desire to legitimize her coping mechanism so she doesn't have to face herself.
I accept that there are evangelicals and fundamentalists who exhibit symptoms of fear of sexual differences and sex period. Their ways of coping are varied. Some deny what is deep inside themselves, project it onto others and then safely condemn it within a context of literalism and obedience to authority. This makes them blind to nuance, paradox, metaphor and parable. But this doesn't mean we marginalize and condemn our brothers and sisters in Christ. One way to break through the fear is through the saving grace of Christ. I accept their search for meaning in Christianity, but I will not accept turning away from (or shaming) other human beings. The world of the homophobic Christian is shaped by a desire to legitimize his/her fear of sexuality. And it is nurtured much like in a adolescent "peer group" situation. Actually looking within and taking a serious internal moral inventory is made impossible.
You characterize someone who doesn't accept sexual perversion as someone who has a problem with sex. The reality is that homosexuals are the sexually insecure individuals and it is them who are nurtured in their fear by adolescent peer groups. This is evidenced by the homosexuals second adolescence that they have when they come out of the closet. They are then trapped in their emotionally retarded psychological state with all of the others who are sexually insecure and want society to recognize them by their coping mechanism.
You don't shame people for their sinful behavior well you are nicer than God then..
The desire of homophobic Christianity is not to legitimize their own fear of sexuality since it is the homosexual who is sexually insecure. It is to fight the spiritual state that a person who engages in homosexual behavior is in and wants to spread to others. It is a gospel of sorts that the homos spread. One of evil and lies which lead to death both physical as well as spiritual.
You are twisted and most likely completely ignorant about all aspects of homosexuality...
Morpheus?What are they derived from?