What the Law and the Bible say about Homosexuality.

[Jacob]

It is not the simple "yes" or "no" question that you seem to want to think it is. In fact, there is no definitive way to answer without rightly dividing the Word of Truth. Otherwise, any answer is mere opinion, released from the moorings of sound hermeneutical principles.

View attachment 26776
(Click on image for larger version.)

The Dispensation of Human Government (yellow in the above graph) is the key one to focus on for the purposes of this discussion. Notice how it is running concurrently with the current dispensation of Grace.

The nutshell version is simply that while the Law has been abolished for righteousness sake (i.e. for salvation's sake), it has not been abolished in terms of criminal justice.

We must, therefore, be careful to discern which laws are religious in nature, which only applied to Israel vs. those that are moral (i.e. criminal) in nature and apply to the entire human race.

Clete

P.S. I happen to believe that the Dispensation of Human government was stopped one dispensation too early in the graph posted above. The just laws in the Bible with be enforced during the Mellenial Kingdom and it will be a human government with a Human King, His name is Jesus.

Do you believe that any sin can be forgiven?

The link did not work for me.

If judges render decisions for God, and I have been forgiven, would I ever be sentenced?

 

[Lon]

There's plenty who would tell you that if you'd listen. On the flip side there have been cases where parents have been mortified at their kids being gay that they've forced them into quack therapy centres to "cure" them so do you have sympathy for that sort of abuse?

As I said, I know of none to date. You? Simply friends. You've no idea what happened to them at early ages. For me? Without exception.

 

[Lon]

The only "inherent problems" with interracial marriages are ignorant and prejudicial attitudes towards them, something which thankfully is lessening and there's more stigma attached to mindless ignorance and prejudice nowadays which is a good thing. Not to be funny Lon, but a child often gives a warm smile back when smiled at and you were likely reading a lot more into that situation than was actually there. Homosexuality has not been "thrust" onto society, it's always been there, it's nothing new. It's nothing unobservable in nature in general either. Problems occur with unprotected sexual activity that goes across the board and it's obvious that not all homosexuals or bisexuals have been the victims of some sort of abuse. There's plenty who would tell you that if you'd listen. On the flip side there have been cases where parents have been mortified at their kids being gay that they've forced them into quack therapy centres to "cure" them so do you have sympathy for that sort of abuse?

Btw, a good bit of this can be seen as condescending. Of course I know exactly what happened when seeing the one. A secondary commentary, doubt? Probably best kept in your head. I know what I saw. Next, 'inherent' are more than one problem. I'm not at all a bigot, but there are other things on the table. Talk to an interracial couple. There are a few health concerns.

 

[Idolater]

Anything you want to point out? You know that I am talking about the state or the government or states or our nation's laws?

I am not Catholic. I do not accept Catholic doctrine for the law of the United States of America. However, I have grown up in the church, and I recognize issues with law between church and state.

The nation of Israel has the Torah, and I believe the United States of America should too.

Well, you're wrong. You're wrong that the Torah, or any of the Catholic Church's authentic teachings also for that matter, ought to inform the law /laws of our land. What we the Church need is freedom of religion. We believe in our faith, and if we are free: then we can do what we need to do. We do not need 'the sword' to spread the Gospel, nor the Torah. If it is God's will that the Torah will spread like how the Church has spread and continues to spread the Gospel, then it will happen.

Catholicism's teaching wrt political opinion is that religious freedom is the most important thing. Catholicism does not teach that at any time laws should be made that inequitably favors Catholicism over any other philosophy or theology. People are inalienably free to decide for ourselves our theology /philosophy, where what is denoted is matters of faith /doctrine and morals /morality.

The Torah certainly prescribes certain laws for civil power /government. I don't think the Torah should dictate anything wrt us making laws of our lands.

And I think that you, as a Christian, need to view the Torah through the lens of how the whole world changed in the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. We don't view Him through the lens of the Torah, we view the Torah through the lens of Him. It is right and just.

 

[Idolater]

Shalom.

We pray for peace. And we can also work for peace. And the right to the pursuit of happiness /religious liberty is where peace dwells. We don't need everybody to be Catholic. We just need everybody to acknowledge, recognize, affirm, protect, defend, etc. the inalienable human freedom of religion. There was a time when Moses was the Lord's will for His people, and today it's Catholicism; I know and appreciate that you're not Catholic and satisfiedly so, I'm only informing you---I just present what I believe to be the actual Christian Church's authorized view; freedom of religion.

Catholicism = freedom of religion. This is the truth.

You cannot have peace, where religious liberty is not protected with the same vigor as the very right to life, because the right to life itself is torn to pieces and ground into powder when the right to religious freedom is not defended. And Mencken: "The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." It's true, he's right. You need to defend the rights of Catholics, and LGBTQI+ people, and satanists, and Reform Jews. Whomever you think is a scoundrel, that's whose rights you need to protect. You need to honor them, and value them, and love your neighbor as yourself Jacob.

 

[Jacob]

Well, you're wrong. You're wrong that the Torah, or any of the Catholic Church's authentic teachings also for that matter, ought to inform the law /laws of our land. What we the Church need is freedom of religion. We believe in our faith, and if we are free: then we can do what we need to do. We do not need 'the sword' to spread the Gospel, nor the Torah. If it is God's will that the Torah will spread like how the Church has spread and continues to spread the Gospel, then it will happen.

You are right that I believe that we should be informed by the Torah. However, I also think that it is beneficial to study how the Torah relates or is involved already with the law of the land, not just to inform it. However, not everyone believes the same way, and you can choose to not combine the Torah and the law of the land so long as this does not prevent God's Law from having its rightful place in our land. The only option to this is to say that Torah does not belong, and some people do so by saying that it has been abolished by the shed blood of Jesus. You really do have freedom to think. But not freedom to practice as you please should anything be against what God wants for you. The sword should not be used to spread Christianity. But this sounds like saying no to an offense, which leaves people only with a defense, self-defense, whereby we may need more freedom than that though we should all be law abiding people and not put ourselves in harm's way. Catholicism with freedom of religion might be freedom of paganism, though you mentioned the gospel which means you may value the gospel more than errant traditions, teachings, or practices.

Catholicism's teaching wrt political opinion is that religious freedom is the most important thing. Catholicism does not teach that at any time laws should be made that inequitably favors Catholicism over any other philosophy or theology. People are inalienably free to decide for ourselves our theology /philosophy, where what is denoted is matters of faith /doctrine and morals /morality.

You have freedom to believe and think as you will, but not to practice beyond the exhortation to love God with all that you are and to love your neighbor as yourself.

The Torah certainly prescribes certain laws for civil power /government. I don't think the Torah should dictate anything wrt us making laws of our lands.

We have a new nation, and laws before it, for about 200+ years. Of course we needed laws. Unless laws disappear with time as people become more enlightened in the gospel. But there is evil, so laws of God either are or are useful, either in enforcement, for the mind as guides, or for actual practice if the Law has not been abolished as some say that it has.

And I think that you, as a Christian, need to view the Torah through the lens of how the whole world changed in the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. We don't view Him through the lens of the Torah, we view the Torah through the lens of Him. It is right and just.

Okay. I follow that. But it is because Jesus observed and taught the Law. Remember, He said that He did not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets.

 

[Jacob]

We pray for peace. And we can also work for peace. And the right to the pursuit of happiness /religious liberty is where peace dwells. We don't need everybody to be Catholic. We just need everybody to acknowledge, recognize, affirm, protect, defend, etc. the inalienable human freedom of religion. There was a time when Moses was the Lord's will for His people, and today it's Catholicism; I know and appreciate that you're not Catholic and satisfiedly so, I'm only informing you---I just present what I believe to be the actual Christian Church's authorized view; freedom of religion.

Catholicism = freedom of religion. This is the truth.

You cannot have peace, where religious liberty is not protected with the same vigor as the very right to life, because the right to life itself is torn to pieces and ground into powder when the right to religious freedom is not defended. And Mencken: "The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." It's true, he's right. You need to defend the rights of Catholics, and LGBTQI+ people, and satanists, and Reform Jews. Whomever you think is a scoundrel, that's whose rights you need to protect. You need to honor them, and value them, and love your neighbor as yourself Jacob.

Are you commandeering The United States of America's Constitution, Amendments, or Bill or Rights? Freedom of religion to protect Catholicism is not the design. Where truth reigns, let it. If someone would hurt you with something that is not true, do not let it rest or take a break. I do not know what LGBTQI+ is. LGBT and LGBTQ I am against, because God is against. People can come up with a better life to live. One that is in line with God's Law. That is, we must live according to God's Word. I will not support satanists. I have chanted the Torah Blessing among Reform Jews before, leading the congregation in an or for an aliyah before, but I cannot accept a Rabbi with a homosexual partner. People can change, but doctrine could have been different too. I am blessed to have been there with the Torah and our study then.

 

[Idolater]

Simply this

Lon, I'm going to answer in chunks as there's plenty here of value.

: Many 'religious' ideals are yet enforced by common law.

Coincidentally, ideally, is my hope for us. It's the Catholic view as well, as verifiable in the 'Catechism of the Catholic Church.'

You don't see it yet, but you have expressed a dichotomy yourself, that you haven't reconciled. You are thinking there is a moral sentiment, but there is none apart from Christianity.

It seems you're the one introducing a dichotomy, between those with morals, and those without, and you've also got only Christians with the morals, and everybody else without morals. But I take them, the atheists, at their word, when they say they even without believing God is real nonetheless still have morals and morality. I think Romans 2:14 KJV can support that atheists are actually largely moral even from the Christian worldview.

There is no religion that has as high of moral standards. "IF" one eradicates Christianity or tries to 'separate' then they are attacking morals in principle, on the false basis that they are 'encouraging Christianity.'

Historically speaking Christianity is encouraged through persecution.

For a long long time, our country got this.

I get it. It's just overtly violating the inalienable right to be an atheist, or an agnostic, or whatever. The pursuit of happiness. You can't violate the right to the pursuit of happiness, it's right in the 'Declaration.'

So you are okay when the majority want communism

Of course not. Communists do not recognize, affirm, and protect the inalienable right to religious liberty.

:doh: I guess it 'was' democratic....right up until the end. lain:

It's about rights, and rights against power. Defense of the minority against the majority. Fighting for rights is how we fight against communism and gun control and censorship and Shariah.

No, they are intricately tied together or one or the other cannot stand. We 'were' apologetically Christian.' There can be no denying that. What MADE this country so free and so great, was that Christians didn't demand that others fall in line or convert. The problem is this: As the Christians lose representation, either by legislation or by lack of population, no other group holds to our same freedom of values nor do they insist on unharmful behavior by common law. In Muslim countries? Still legal to rape, to persecute, and indeed, sanctioned by EVERY Muslim controlled country: criminalize any religion but theirs.

You're arguing for the same privilege for whatever you think 'Christianity' means. And there are 'Christians' who disagree with you on this and /or other matters of morality. Which immoral things should we outlaw, 'Christianity?' We'd get ambiguous answers from all the 'Christians' as a whole, with a few exceptions like murder and rape with no disagreements /diversity of views.

It is true that it is Christian to acknowledge, recognize, affirm, protect, defend, etc., the inalienable right to religious freedom. And it is American too. Peace depends upon religious liberty.

At present, yes. It used to be the Constitution and not reinterpretation of it, kept such from happening.

Isn't it right in the Constitution, that the highest court is given power to decide whether laws are in accord with the Constitution?

If we disagree with the Constitution, we can amend it. That requires a super majority all throughout and among our federal and various state governments. I disagree with the practice of making Unconstitutional laws due to probably disagreement with the Constitution, but not having the requisite super majority support to successful campaign to amend it. We should just make legal laws, and let the chips fall where they may, and then democratically /'republicly' figure out what to do about it. Making illegal laws makes difficult things last longer, and making only legal laws is more like tearing off the 'band-aid' as fast as possible.

It depends whether we believe God, whether the behavior is always damaging to self and others. I believe it is, from scripture. Such MUST be demonstrable to the rest of society (and I'm convinced it will all come to light, Luke 8:17

But then you have to argue for laws based on statistical arguments from medical studies, and epidemiological studies only, because you can't study this topic in and of itself. It's a very weak argument, and it'd be easier to argue for the outlawing of smoking cigarettes than what your opinion is, and I wonder if that would be acceptable to you, that we outlaw cigarettes over medical studies and statistical conclusions from those studies? Cigarettes aren't even fatal for more than half of all smokers, but smoking is far more dangerous than LGBTQI+ conjugal relations, statistically. Or do you have some reference that indicates otherwise?

I do agree with you, we have liberty with common law. Mostly, we need laws that protect 'from' rather imposing laws 'against,' but if it is shown our choices wound up hurting any particular group in the process of more freedom, we have to own collectively any harm done.

Rights are basically common law interventions. It's another way that the minority is protected against the tyranny of the majority, which does frequently begin in common law /case law. Rights can instantly nullify common law that is centuries old, when such common law is found to be in clear violation of the Bill of Rights.

And individually, and we have the right to file lawsuits. If legally valid consent and LGBTQI+ conjugal relations occur, who will sue whom? And seeking restitution for what?

I don't believe it did that. First of all, the crime was not death and very little jail time, but it did carry consequences. On top of that, had a spouse held self-control, there was no penalty for divorce or separation. It allowed, rather, someone to carry a suit against the cheating spouse.

It makes a married person a bit of a slave to their spouse, is all I'm saying, and if you get fidelity from someone in part due to seeking to avoid legal penalty, then there's something less than ideal about the conditions that that fidelity is achieved in.

It's an extreme extrapolation, but I think there's a kernel of similarity with the difference between Christians during say Diocletian's reign, and Christians in the US today. Christians, both, but when you're tested, passing the test means something more, than when really not tested.

When adultery is illegal, and the wronged spouse can sue for restitution, this is not a test of fidelity. The test of fidelity is when adultery is completely legal, and it's illegal that you'd retain under 50% of your marriage's pile of stuff in a divorce---same as if you're the one cheated on. Because then the faithful spouses are really faithful of their own accord, and not due to duress, coercion, persuasion, or threat of force /imprisonment.

I believe current laws 'still' punish and adulterer, as deference is given to the grieving spouse in courts.

I'm not aware of that, not around here anyway.

Very much agree here. All government officials, without exception, are servants of the people. The problem? Judges started this by going against the democracy of the people, that is, we just didn't count any more when it came to policy. They literally took a bunch of things doing good for our country, and outlawed them WHILE making poor things no longer against the laws. This is incredibly hard on society and begins tearing down the moral fiber of a nation and literally giving nothing to put back in its place.

We don't need laws for this. Christians need nothing for this. Christians spread like wild fire when persecuted by the law. Now, in the US, Christians are favored, though that favoritism has been, as you're referring to, eroded through our courts, each of which is subordinate to the Supreme Court, populated by justices nominated by presidents, and confirmed by congresses.

When Christians are persecuted, Christians thrive. Think of what we 'ought to be able to do' when we are not persecuted? Why aren't we doing it? We oughtn't need laws or 'the sword' to help us spread the Gospel. We ought to be able to do that through influence. Some, many of us are; but not most of us. We can, and religious liberty is the most that we can hope and pray for, and we already have it. But we need everybody to have it.

My point was that there are times, and will be again when what we view as murder, will be condoned and encouraged. Granted it is 'sanctioned' by somebody at that point and that is what I'm saying: It can, will, does, happen again. If all we are are the sum of our parts, then these United States can be destroyed from within. We might well become the United Socialist Americas. Democracy 'can' allow that if that is the majority vote. That's a scary thing. I believe laws under Democracy must ALWAYS protect Democracy (Republics).

You need to understand what rights are. They are the precise answer to your concern here. The right you want to be much more thoroughly engaged in is the right to bear arms, and that right at present could use all the support that it can get nowadays unfortunately, and there's nobody supporting gun rights who wouldn't be thrilled to get another ally. Rights are the reason the Constitution was amended before it was ratified. Our founders, with accurate foresight, predicted that in the future, that We the People were going to unfortunately need to protect ourselves from ourselves, and so the otherwise strong federation they approved was 'baked in' with strong anti-federalism in the Bill of Rights. It's important to note that the Second Amendment has been authoritatively incorporated against all the states; like the First has.

No, I don't think that far, but I'd think that some people are forced to be quiet because of it, that normally wouldn't be involved thus there is a complicity. It always happens when masses of people go against common law. The common law is suspended.

Do you mean something like "because the police are temporarily overwhelmed and haven't received back-up support yet" in saying this? 'Trying to get your meaning is all.

I think your slavery topic speaks to this. We had to embrace Constitutional laws for everyone, barring their unconstitution behavior of course.

Do you mean when the Constitution was ratified? When the slave states were appeased by slavery not being outlawed, and the three-fifths clause? Actually the three-fifths clause was directed against the slave states; they wouldn't be able to count all their slaves for purposes of assigning power in the House of Representatives.

Try to take assurance then in the fact that Martin Luther was condemned to the death penalty for being excommunicated by the Catholic Church. Only a friend of his stood between his murder, for exercising his inalienable right to religious liberty, and him surviving to preside over one major limb of the Protestant Reformation. The laws permitting power to murder people for practicing their religious liberty, including the laws that permitted John Calvin to authorize the murder of Michael Servetus, for practicing his own religious liberty, in denying the Trinity, were all illegal under our constitution, and all violated the inalienable right to religious liberty.

Calvin, as best as I've read and understood history, was rather the 'whistle-blower.' He (again if I read correctly) wasn't an active member in government, by choice.

Correct. I should have written instead, "...including the laws that ground our interest in John Calvin's approving the murder of Michael Servetus...." And what I mean by that is that because Servetus was actually murdered for practicing his religion /theology freely, that is why it's noteworthy that John Calvin approved the murder. He did not defend the inalienable right to Servetus's pursuit of happiness, and instead he said, Yes, kill him for exercising his right.

??? The former were laws against religious liberty, the latter concerning at-risk behaviors....I'm not following.

It's a difference of religious opinion, bottom line. There's something in the health-related arguments that smacks of similar arguments for banning liquor, cigarettes, fast driving, not wearing helmets and seatbelts, and guns. It's rights against power here. Power forcing and coercing us to obey good health laws like not overeating, physically exercising everyday, neat grooming, sounds more like Nazism than the US Constitution, if I'm being honest here.

And if this is not what you're talking about wrt "at-risk behaviors" being the grounds for outlawing LGBTQI+ conjugal relations then I do not know what it is that you're talking about. I am curious however if you only support outlawing male LGBTQI+ conjugal behaviors, and not also female LGBTQI+ conjugal behaviors? And this also sounds sexist against men, if it is your position.

So he recognizes he is defending the scoundrel, in opposition to losing a freedom. It cannot apply to murder, by instance. He would have you and I 'free to kill' by such a sentiment, instead of saying murder is against the law. I know that's an absurd extreme, but it does illustrate the problem with his sentiment. He didn't think it through far enough, because it cannot be even a 'general rule.' It just doesn't work like that, we use discretion and are alway, rather, looking for the higher good. Democracy is to be defended and uplifted, but not to the expense of its people's welfare.

That's the right to life. It's a big part of what Mencken meant by "human freedom." He certainly did not mean that "human freedom" means that we don't defend the inalienable human right to life. "Human freedom" and the right to life are almost identical in what they denote---there is a lot of overlap between Mencken's "human freedom" and the right to life.

To me, still not a good rule of thumb, but I think TownH agrees with you. I disagree with you both on this principle. It just can be shown to not work on its extreme, thus is not a profitable rule of thumb in my assessment.

It's about rights against power. Mencken's quote was about rights against power, which is why your hypothetical has no legs. Rights against power, as a pattern, rules out violating rights, as a way of triumphing against power. We defend our rights against power, and power can almost be identified according to whether or not it is interested in violating our rights.

Town and I disagree vehemently about the right to bear arms. I think the Second Amendment says operatively "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed," and he does not believe that and instead believes that gun control is Constitutional, instead of it being Unconstitutional like I do.

As I said above, 'if' Democracy enables the choice of nonDemocracy (communism, Sharia law, etc.), then Democracy allowed its own demise. Such doesn't ultimately make sense. I cannot remember who quoted it, but communism could only work, if God were in charge of it.

Again, this is what rights are all about, it's not just defending the people against our own government, it's also defending minorities from the majority. Even if there is a simple majority, in order to amend the Constitution, it requires a super majority in Congress, and a super majority among all of the 50 states, in order to do it.

Our Constitution mentions our Creator. I think the 'problem' is in the secularist mind, not by necessity any government official's mind, nor any other citizen's. We should not allow 'secularists' to secularize our government. Such is an atheistic state. Our Constitution didn't outright forbid that from taking place, but it IS taking place and against the sentiments of its wording (see sig).

It reads "Separation of church and State is not atheism." That's correct. I agree.

I'm not shocked, it is the mark of the end times, but I'm against it and will effect change if I can.

I don't think that our politics should be informed by our eschatology.

The Power of our Constitution clearly rests on what is 'endowed by our Creator' thus makes our nation deist, at least, by demand of those virtues and rights appealed to for their substantiation.

No it doesn't. When the Declaration of Independence invokes our "creator," it is grammatically prefatory, it is the existence of the rights that is operative, again grammatically. As such nothing prevents atheists from buying in 100% to the Declaration, they don't need to cringe when God is mentioned, they just need to agree that we have inalienable rights, however we have them, we all have them, they are real, and they are inalienable.

 

[Jacob]

I think Romans 2:14 KJV can support that atheists are actually largely moral even from the Christian worldview.

It may be from the context that we can conclude these people believe in God. That God exists, etc....

 

[Clete]

Do you believe that any sin can be forgiven?

The link did not work for me.

If judges render decisions for God, and I have been forgiven, would I ever be sentenced?

Sins can, of course, be forgiven but crimes are still to be punished whether the sin of it has been forgiven or not.

In other words, God can forgive an offense and so can the person against a crime was committed but the government cannot forgive the crime. It has no just authority to do so.

What happens to a criminal in the next life, after sentence has been carried out in this life, has everything to do with whether or not the criminal's sins had been forgiven. (Luke 23:43)


Clete

 

[Idolater]

Are you commandeering The United States of America's Constitution, Amendments, or Bill or Rights?

I don't even know how I would attempt to do that.

Freedom of religion to protect Catholicism is not the design.

Not particularly to protect Catholicism, but to protect religion, of which Catholicism is one.

Where truth reigns, let it. If someone would hurt you with something that is not true, do not let it rest or take a break. I do not know what LGBTQI+ is.

It's the most inclusive designation that I'm aware of of LGBTQI+ people.

LGBT and LGBTQ I am against, because God is against.

I believe what Catholicism believes; that LGBTQI+ conjugal behavior is objectively severely wrong, and that the rights of LGBTQI+ people should be defended and protected.

People can come up with a better life to live. One that is in line with God's Law.

Protecting the right to religious freedom is the best way to provide them this option.

That is, we must live according to God's Word. I will not support satanists. I have chanted the Torah Blessing among Reform Jews before, leading the congregation in an or for an aliyah before, but I cannot accept a Rabbi with a homosexual partner.

Catholicism does not have any clergy with LGBTQI+ 'partners.'

People can change, but doctrine could have been different too. I am blessed to have been there with the Torah and our study then.

OK.

 

[Jacob]

Sins can, of course, be forgiven but crimes are still to be punished whether the sin of it has been forgiven or not.

In other words, God can forgive an offense and so can the person against a crime was committed but the government cannot forgive the crime. It has no just authority to do so.

What happens to a criminal in the next life, after sentence has been carried out in this life, has everything to do with whether or not the criminal's sins had been forgiven. (Luke 23:43)


Clete

Why the distinction between crime and sin, where one is punished but the other is not?

Deuteronomy 19:15 NASB - 15 "A single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or any sin which he has committed; on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed.
​

 

[Jacob]

I don't even know how I would attempt to do that.

You may be feeling that Catholicism is not included in freedom of religion in the United States of America, and you might have reason for feeling this. But operating for Catholicism in support of freedom of religion for Catholicism, may be bad if Catholicism is not true.

Not particularly to protect Catholicism, but to protect religion, of which Catholicism is one.

It is your argument. I don't want to be unfair. But you justify Catholicism with freedom of religion, rather than supporting the truth whatever the cost, because of freedom of religion (different Christian Religions). What is freedom of religion? What religion? All world religions or Christian or Bible religions?

It's the most inclusive designation that I'm aware of of LGBTQI+ people.

I don't know what this means. You say that it is a designation, but I don't know what it means.

I believe what Catholicism believes; that LGBTQI+ conjugal behavior is objectively severely wrong, and that the rights of LGBTQI+ people should be defended and protected.

Do you defend or protect a sinner? If so, at what cost? Why? And why not? For you yourself are a sinner. But all said if you know the truth you should be able to lead people to the truth and away from their life of sin, which apart from your Catholicism makes sense to me. What is meant by conjugal?

Protecting the right to religious freedom is the best way to provide them this option.

Even if the Law has been abolished there is some truth in this, because morality and obedience to God's commands understanding His character, has/have value. It does not make sense to sin, regardless of the actual consequence. And no one escapes the judgment of God.

Catholicism does not have any clergy with LGBTQI+ 'partners.'

Okay.

OK.

Thanks.

 

[Clete]

Why the distinction between crime and sin, where one is punished but the other is not?

Deuteronomy 19:15 NASB - 15 "A single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or any sin which he has committed; on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed.
​

Well, because there is an obvious distinction, that's why.

Or is it your contention that all sins are crimes?

Of course all crimes are sins but obviously not all sins are crimes. It is not a criminal act to take the Lord's name in vain, for example. Nor is it a crime to lie in most day to day situations. It is not a crime to hate your neighbor without cause or even to hate God Himself. But all such things and many more like it are all sins.

Proverbs 6:30 People do not despise a thief If he steals to satisfy himself when he is starving.
31 Yet when he is found, he must restore sevenfold; He may have to give up all the substance of his house.​

Criminal justice has NOTHING to do with atoning for sin anyway. Criminal justice is about keeping people civilized. Without criminal justice you end up with a world where 'every intent of the thoughts of man's heart is only evil continually.' (Genesis 6:5). It was because man cannot govern himself that God started the dispensation of human government when Noah landed the ark. The very first thing God did after the flood was to put animals on the menu (ALL animals, by the way. There were no "unclean" animals) and to institute capital punishment, which up to that time had been forbidden.

Does this mean that murder was less of a sin or that it wasn't a sin at all prior to Noah? NO! Certainly not!



Clete

 

[Jacob]

Well, because there is an obvious distinction, that's why.

In how people think? Because the word crime appears four times in the Bible. Much less than the word sin. Obviously people think about the words sin and crime either the same up to two ways (both ways, sin is crime and crime is sin) or even separately where a sin is before God and a crime is before the authorities if it can be punished.

Job 31:11 NASB - 11 "For that would be a lustful crime; Moreover, it would be an iniquity [punishable by] judges.

Daniel 6:22 NASB - 22 "My God sent His angel and shut the lions' mouths and they have not harmed me, inasmuch as I was found innocent before Him; and also toward you, O king, I have committed no crime."

Hosea 6:9 NASB - 9 And as raiders wait for a man, [So] a band of priests murder on the way to Shechem; Surely they have committed crime.

Acts 18:14 NASB - 14 But when Paul was about to open his mouth, Gallio said to the Jews, "If it were a matter of wrong or of vicious crime, O Jews, it would be reasonable for me to put up with you;
​

Or is it your contention that all sins are crimes?

I can't limit it to those that are punishable by death.

Of course all crimes are sins but obviously not all sins are crimes. It is not a criminal act to take the Lord's name in vain, for example.

Why do you say this?

Nor is it a crime to lie in most day to day situations.

Some people think that it is not.

It is not a crime to hate your neighbor without cause or even to hate God Himself. But all such things and many more like it are all sins.

It sounds like you would agree that sin is before God. Are sinners punished as criminals?

Proverbs 6:30 People do not despise a thief If he steals to satisfy himself when he is starving.
31 Yet when he is found, he must restore sevenfold; He may have to give up all the substance of his house.​

Hmm... sounds like a punishment even though people can empathize.

Criminal justice has NOTHING to do with atoning for sin anyway. Criminal justice is about keeping people civilized. Without criminal justice you end up with a world where 'every intent of the thoughts of man's heart is only evil continually.' (Genesis 6:5). It was because man cannot govern himself that God started the dispensation of human government when Noah landed the ark. The very first thing God did after the flood was to put animals on the menu (ALL animals, by the way. There were no "unclean" animals) and to institute capital punishment, which up to that time had been forbidden.

Would being punished be atonement or are we asking if a person committed a sin or a crime? Wouldn't they be the same if it is a transgression of God's Law? And is not sin a transgression of the law? Criminal justice according to God's Law?

Does this mean that murder was less of a sin or that it wasn't a sin at all prior to Noah? NO! Certainly not!

And yet would a murderer ever continue to live?

Clete

Jacob

 

[glorydaz]

So your solution is to propose (or defend) a less trustworthy court system?

No. Why would you say that?

The biblical standard is not reasonable doubt but reasonable evidence. The reasonable doubt standard, along with trial by committee, is what has given us tens of thousands of murder victims every year for the last several decades (in the U.S. alone).

And no one is convicted on the testimony of a single witness. The very same chapter (one single verse prior actually) that gives the law which you are arguing against gives a direct answer to your exact argument.

Deuteronomy 19:15 “One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established.​

I'm simply not willing to trust these committees of ungodly men to make these decisions that involve life and death....especially for such moral issues as adultery and disobedience of parents, etc.

As I've said before, the biblical criminal justice system would not create a panacea but rather it is simply the best possible system.


Beyond the pale?

Do you know where that expression comes from? It is a shortened version of, "Beyond the pale of orthodoxy." and it was used to refer to heresy - doctrinal heresy.

I have proposed nothing here that doesn't come straight out of God's own mouth via the pages of His word as written down by Moses.


No business? According to who, you?

Is it your position that when God said to execute murderers, adulterers, rapists, kidnappers and sexual perverts that He was unjust for doing so?

Is that really what you are suggesting?

"Will you profane Me among My people...., killing people who should not die, and keeping people alive who should not live..." Ezekiel 13:19

Clete

I believe you're the one who said God set up this system of punishment for the Jews. He was overseeing that system of law and punishment. BUT, He is not overseeing it today. I can't understand why that's so hard to understand.

How can immoral men judge all these things you want them to judge? They can't.

 

[glorydaz]

Why do people who take this side of the debate seem gravitationally pulled toward portraying God as unjust?!

I've never once suggested God is unjust. If you're reading that into what I have said, that's your mistake.

God DID NOT say to execute disobedient children. The law there is referring to adults who are drunkards and who publicly dishonor their parents. And, not only that, but there's good reason to believe that this law applied to Israel and only to Israel due to their particular relationship with God the Father and would have no application outside that context.

Which has been my argument all along.

And there is absolutely no law whatsoever that even suggests that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for fornication! The "punishment", if you can even call it that, for fornication is that the two are to get married. Wow! How amazingly and unspeakably cruel is that?! What a horrible tyrant God is! What sort of monster would force two people who are sexually attracted to each other to get married?!

God is not unjust....he was dealing with His peculiar people. Those who advocate that in this world of sin we live in today are just plain ignorant. God didn't demand the unsaved Gentiles follow those rules....did He? If so, please show me where you see that.

There's another error you are making here. You are trying to judge a completley different paradigm from within the paradigm that you currently exist in.

Which is the point I have been making all along.

In other words, our society would not be the sess pool of sexual promesquity and perversion that it is today. You would not be assaulted by sexual images and enuendo every time you turn around in a society governed by just laws, the way you are here in America. It would most likely never occur to you to have sex outside of marriage and if it did, you'd know that it was wrong and sinful and shameful. After all, the law is the great teacher.


Clete

We live in this world of sin, though, don't we? Whining about what could be if God was in control of this world does no one any good. Yet I see people calling for these strict penalties on ungodly people AS IF it was possible to enact these strict laws and expect the reprobates to change their actions for the better. They only end up HIDING better. The law with it's penalties will NEVER make men holy or righteous. The law doesn't teach us HOW to be holy. It only shows us our sin. It takes a total change of heart....and the law does not do that. The law shows our need, but it doesn't do one darn thing to help us achieve that holiness or righteousness.

Galatians 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.​

 

[glorydaz]

Disobedient children would have to be a particular way. The Torah allows for sex outside of marriage with penalty unto marriage so long as the man and woman are not married or engaged and it is consensual. You are right that people need to be saved by grace. They should be given the opportunity before they die, should it be that the Law of Moses should be enforced. The difficulty is not strict sentencing, but if the Law of Moses has been abolished.

The question should be what was the PURPOSE of the Law?

People assume it was given to make men righteous. It wasn't.

 

[Clete]

Jacob, if you don't start being substantively responsive and stop wasting my time, I can find other things to do. Read the whole post before responding.

In how people think?

No! What do I care about what other people think? Who said anything about what other people think? Why would this idiotic question have even entered your mind? (Don't answer that! It was rhetorical and I don't want an answer.)

Because the word crime appears four times in the Bible. Much less than the word sin. Obviously people think about the words sin and crime either the same up to two ways (both ways, sin is crime and crime is sin) or even separately where a sin is before God and a crime is before the authorities if it can be punished.

Unresponsive and changes the subject and ignores the reasons I gave.

Any 10 year old child knows that there is a difference between crimes and mere sins. In fact, I won't debate the point further. If you disagree it can only be because you're being agressively (i.e. intentionally) stupid.

Job 31:11 NASB - 11 "For that would be a lustful crime; Moreover, it would be an iniquity [punishable by] judges.

Daniel 6:22 NASB - 22 "My God sent His angel and shut the lions' mouths and they have not harmed me, inasmuch as I was found innocent before Him; and also toward you, O king, I have committed no crime."

Hosea 6:9 NASB - 9 And as raiders wait for a man, [So] a band of priests murder on the way to Shechem; Surely they have committed crime.

Acts 18:14 NASB - 14 But when Paul was about to open his mouth, Gallio said to the Jews, "If it were a matter of wrong or of vicious crime, O Jews, it would be reasonable for me to put up with you;
​

Totally unresponsive and changes the subject.

Is this the pedantic way in which you "self-educated" yourself?

(Again do not answer - it is rhetorical)

I can't limit it to those that are punishable by death.

Well no kidding, idiot! Why would you do that? Who in the world suggested that you should do that? You don't execute people unless they've been found guilty of a capital crime!

Further, this does precisely NOTHING to answer the question I asked anyway.

Why do you say this?

I explained why immediately after saying it!

Some people think that it is not.

WHO CARES?

Do you formulate your doctrine based on popular personal opinion?

It sounds like you would agree that sin is before God. Are sinners punished as criminals?

Sin is not only before God and people will not only answer to God for their sins but only those whom they sinned against.

And no, God does not punish siner as criminals, he punishes sinners as sinners.

Hmm... sounds like a punishment even though people can empathize.

Exactly! Why else would someone be forgiven by their victim?

I feel like I'm talking to a twelve year old child.

Would being punished be atonement

No! Atonement has to do with sin. Sins cannot be atoned for without the shedding of blood. Paying back seven times what one has stolen DOES NOT atone for the sin, it merely justly punishes the crime of theft.

or are we asking if a person committed a sin or a crime?

See the silly confusion that results when you refuse to make obvious distinctions that even small children intuitively understand?

Wouldn't they be the same if it is a transgression of God's Law?

NO! IT IS NOT THE SAME - PERIOD!

Two things that overlap cannot be the same thing. Doesn't that just make intuitive sense?

It is not a crime to call someone a fool without cause. Meaning the governing official has no just authority to punish you for committing that sin. Crimes are the sins that the government has authority to punish.

Now, for clarity's sake, it should be pointed out that the word "crime" does have a sphere of meaning and it can be used as a synonym of "sin" but it is not, in most cases the same thing and certainly not in the context of crimnal justice.

And is not sin a transgression of the law? Criminal justice according to God's Law?

I don't understand your obsession with "God's Law" but the reason why crimes are sins is because they are transgressions of "God's Law". Once again, all crimes are sins but not all sins are crimes.

And yet would a murderer ever continue to live?

Read your Torah much?

Ever heard of Cain? He was the first murderer and his execution was expressly forbiden by God Himself.

A command which you have no possible way of understanding, much less explaining, given your sloppy doctrine which seems to focus almost exclusively on following the law that the bible explicitly tells you has nothing to do any longer with being righeous.


Clete

 

[Clete]

No. Why would you say that?

What alternative is there?

If you disagree with God's criminal justice system, what system would you defend that isn't at least as untrustworthy, not to mention less effective?

I'm simply not willing to trust these committees of ungodly men to make these decisions that involve life and death....especially for such moral issues as adultery and disobedience of parents, etc.

Well, then you need to do some serious self-examination and soul searching and prayer because it I didn't give you a mere personal opinion and the Author of Deuteronomy is not a mere man. It is God whom you are declaring a distrust of here. It is the wisdom of God Himself which you are in doubt of.

What are you afraid of exactly, anyway? That some judge is going to get his verdict wrong?

In what way do you think that a different system than God's is going to get it right more often?

Of course judges will get it wrong from time to time. There is no perfect system that is possible. God's system, however, is the wisest and best possible system. Those who are wrongly convicted or wrongly acquitted will be dealt with by God Himself on judgement day when all accounts and the scales of justice will be finally and truly balanced.

I believe you're the one who said God set up this system of punishment for the Jews.

He set it up for the nation of Israel. Some of it was religious in nature and only applied to Jews. If, you happened to have been an atheistic Israelite, you weren't required by law to make sins sacrifices but you would be executed if you committed murder whether you were a religious Jew or not.

Further, criminal justice was put in place long before the Law of Moses. It began with Noah and applied to all people, not just Jews.

He was overseeing that system of law and punishment. BUT, He is not overseeing it today. I can't understand why that's so hard to understand.

It isn't difficult to understand, its just a false premise. God was not "overseeing" Israel's criminal justice system. God put the system in place and expected plain old regular human beings to carry it out. The judges in Israel got things wrong from time to time and even far more often than they would have had they not been corrupt.

They convicted Jesus of a capital crime with no real evidence whatsoever.

How can immoral men judge all these things you want them to judge? They can't.

Of course they can! They aren't going to get it perfectly right but again, God's criminal justice system is not intended to be perfect nor to create a panacea. It is simply the wisest and best possible system short of God ending the whole thing and coming to Earth to do it Himself, which, of course, He will do eventually. But even then, the system will run with a cadre of human judges. It's not like every criminal case that comes up with be judges directly by Jesus Christ Himself during the Millennium. He will the the Highest Judge but not the only judge.

1 Corinthians 6:3 Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life?​

Clete