What the Law and the Bible say about Homosexuality.

[Clete]

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

It is not my mistake but yours.

It is not my problem that you cannot see the direct implication of your words. Of course, I understand that you would never directly accuse God of being unjust but you did ascribe to Him laws that are unjust, which is the same thing, whether that's your intention or not.

Which has been my argument all along.

Then why bring it up as an example of an unjust law?

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.

Capital punishment was first instituted by God with Noah, not Moses. WAY WAY WAY before even Abraham, nevermind Israel.

That single point alone destroys your argument here.

Which is the point I have been making all along.

I don't think you understood my point. It doesn't matter. Maybe we'll come back to it later.

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.

God is in control and that isn't the point at all anyway.

The point is that God's criminal justice system is better than the one we currently live under and is better than any other we could contrive.

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.​

The point is that we, as Christians, are to practice justice, so far as it is up to us to do so. As such, we ought to advocate just laws. It would benefit that effort to understand what justice looks like and to know right from wrong when it comes to criminal justice.

Clete

 

[Idolater]

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.

Oh. I don't feel that.

But operating for Catholicism in support of freedom of religion for Catholicism, may be bad if Catholicism is not true.

Well Catholicism is true, so that's not a concern, and as for the first part of your sentence, I don't understand what you mean by "operating for Catholicism in support of freedom of religion for Catholicism," can you explain or elaborate or clarify? Because I am theologically, if not bodily Catholic, but I don't argue for freedom of religion "for Catholicism;" i.e., I don't favor Catholicism. I only favor the freedom of religion.

It is your argument. I don't want to be unfair.

Me either.

But you justify Catholicism with freedom of religion

No I don't, I point out that Catholicism is a religion /theology (both in this case), and that Catholicism believes in the inalienable right to religious liberty.

, rather than supporting the truth whatever the cost

I am supporting the truth whatever the cost.

, because of freedom of religion (different Christian Religions).

I don't understand what you mean by this.

What is freedom of religion?

That it is evil for police /government to harass, coerce, force, imprison, etc. anybody from practicing religion freely.

What religion?

Whichever one. The freedom of religion means that the law and law enforcement are unbiased wrt which religious practices and beliefs We the People choose to do and to hold.

All world religions or Christian or Bible religions?

All, both existing, and yet to exist. "Freedom," in short.

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

Examine Wikipedia's entry "LGBT." It's a variant of 'LGBT.'

Do you defend or protect a sinner?

You protect the inalienable rights of everybody, including those of all sinners.

If so, at what cost?

At whatever cost, so long as everybody's inalienable right is protected and defended, including, most importantly, the right to life, the right to not be murdered or raped, the right not be wrongly imprisoned or enslaved, the right to free speech and to free peaceful assembly and press.

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.

Why "apart from" my Catholicism? Do you just mean that you don't believe Catholicism, or do you mean something else?

What is meant by conjugal?

I'm not being mysterious, I think it's pretty unambiguous.

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.

We disagree theologically here I think. I don't believe that objective sin is ever not sin, but I do think that people perhaps even oftentimes do have good reason for sinning. It doesn't make sin not sin, but it does speak to sin not being imputed.

And no one escapes the judgment of God.

Of course.

Okay.

Thanks.

You got it.

 

[Idolater]

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

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

View the Law through the lens of Christ, and not the other way round. :thumb:

 

[Lon]

Lon, I'm going to answer in chunks as there's plenty here of value.
Coincidentally, ideally, is my hope for us. It's the Catholic view as well, as verifiable in the 'Catechism of the Catholic Church.'
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.
Historically speaking Christianity is encouraged through persecution.
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.'
Of course not. Communists do not recognize, affirm, and protect the inalienable right to religious liberty.
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.
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.

This is all sentiment of duality. I don't believe in duality. Sure, even Romans, attending the Colosseum had some morals. How dare I 'impose' my Christian values? I'm convinced in your efforts to save an atheists rights, you've forgotten that they are "endowed by their Creator."

Again, I don't believe in duality. It doesn't mean forcing Christianity but it DOES mean pushing that high standard of morality. You are not alone, but it is incorrect. There is absolutely no morality apart from God and cannot be. Do this: Compare statistics from pre 1963 and post. It was the year they began removing the 10 commandments from the walls of school AS-IF such was advocating Judaism or Christianity. :nono: It was advocating morality. Some have said "what about 'do not take the Lord's name...' etc. Answer: Makes no difference, you don't have to censor Christianity or Judaism FROM the values we share. That is where the law has gone absurdly off the deep end. There is NO offense to an atheist because of it. It is NOT shoving it down the atheist's throat and the Judicial system was wicked and immoral for removing morality from the classroom. It advocates atheism. Some have said,"no" but they are wrong. "A-" "-Theism!" :doh: Our nation is being run by doofs and dupes who buy such nonsense.

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

No, again I see 'duping' here. You've been duped. The highest court is God AND appealed to in our 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.

I don't disagree with it, I disagree with those who are reinterpreting it wrongly. The Judicial is creating an a-theist state. Government cannot be secular if God is the one who institutes and tears down governments (and He is). You say just two lines down that Government is purposefully eroding Christian freedom, so I believe we are both agreeing on this.

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?

Not when both the US and Canadian government reports are the ones issuing these concerns. Political correctness is emoting policy rather than basing policy on .gov and .ca reports.

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.

"IF" we are ever dwindling down to the lowest common denominator, by legislation, then we are not lifting people up to moral standards, but lowering all of ourselves to the lowest common denominator. No Constitution can protect against that. We will go the path of the dodo and Roman empire easily enough. It didn't even take us a thousand years

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.

Good, you see it too.

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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It reads "Separation of church and State is not atheism." That's correct. I agree.
I don't think that our politics should be informed by our eschatology.
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.

A few disagreements, but quite a bit of shared concerns. As a conservative, I advocate for what the Constitution originally supports: Our rights based on Theism (Endowed by our Creator).

 

[Right Divider]

A few disagreements, but quite a bit of shared concerns. As a conservative, I advocate for what the Constitution originally supports: Our rights based on Theism (Endowed by our Creator).

Not to nitpick, but that's in the Declaration of Independence.

 

[Jacob]

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

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

Does it simply reveal sin, or instruct us in how we are to live? What is its purpose? It can't make men righteous, but by it a person can know if they are righteous, and all fail the test. Except Jesus. Which is how we know who Jesus is. Else Jesus didn't observe the Law. But He said that He did not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets but to fulfill. Not to abolish. And then with but to fulfill is this obedience or prophetic fulfillment in His person?

Shalom.

 

[Jacob]

No. Why would you say that?




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.



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.

Unless the Law has been abolished this is taking place today. It doesn't have to do with the reestablishment of Israel. It has to do with His people Israel being obedient.

Deuteronomy 1:17 NASB - 17 'You shall not show partiality in judgment; you shall hear the small and the great alike. You shall not fear man, for the judgment is God's. The case that is too hard for you, you shall bring to me, and I will hear it.'

2 Chronicles 19:6 NASB - 6 He said to the judges, "Consider what you are doing, for you do not judge for man but for the LORD who is with you when you render judgment.​

 

[Jacob]

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



Which has been my argument all along.



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.





Which is the point I have been making all along.




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.​

We are all under sin.

Romans 3:9 NASB - 9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin;

Galatians 3:22 NASB - 22 But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.​

The question is if this is about sinners or about Israel, those under the Law. That is, are sinners under the Law or only Israelites?

Romans 3:19 NASB - 19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God;​

The verse above can't be in isolation, but it is in context.

Romans is not talking about how only Israel needs to keep the Law. From Romans 1.

And the Law is established.

Romans 3:31 NASB - 31 Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.​

Then the Law should be used lawfully.

1 Timothy 1:8-11 NASB - 8 But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9 realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers 10 and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, 11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.
​

 

[Jacob]

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.


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.)


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.


Totally unresponsive and changes the subject.

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

(Again do not answer - it is rhetorical)


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.


I explained why immediately after saying it!


WHO CARES?

Do you formulate your doctrine based on popular personal opinion?


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.


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

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


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.


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


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.


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.



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

Thank you for your post. I appreciate your response. I can see how a crime is a sin but a sin is not a crime. The reason I disagree with you is as follows.

One. You do not believe that the Law can be observed any longer. Or that it doesn't have anything to do with being righteous any longer. I don't believe that it ever did. However, God wants us to be obedient to Him, Jew or Gentile. The question is yes we are forgiven in Jesus Christ but is the Law abolished. Ephesians 2 seems to indicate that it may be. But Jesus says that was not His purpose in coming. Many believe that His purpose in coming was the cross. That is where we have forgiveness.
Two. You say that the government only prosecutes crimes but not sins. I believe your context was criminal justice, which involves how things are done. But I believe that the government, if it is enforcing the Law completely, God's Law, punishes transgressors. Sin is transgression of the Law. Sin is lawlessness. Crime is transgression of the Law. The reason I am willing to let this go is I am not stuck on the word crime, though it does appear in the scriptures. However, drop the word crime and it seems to drop criminal justice which may be dropping a good thing, though there is not prosecution in regard to all of God's Law in that context yet or ever, if there has not been.

I have been reading your posts before responding.

Shalom.

 

[Jacob]

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

Do you have any scriptural evidence that we or Jesus will judge in a Millennium?

 

[Jacob]

The point is that we, as Christians, are to practice justice, so far as it is up to us to do so. As such, we ought to advocate just laws. It would benefit that effort to understand what justice looks like and to know right from wrong when it comes to criminal justice.

So long as the Law has not been abolished.

 

[Jacob]

Oh. I don't feel that.
Well Catholicism is true, so that's not a concern, and as for the first part of your sentence, I don't understand what you mean by "operating for Catholicism in support of freedom of religion for Catholicism," can you explain or elaborate or clarify? Because I am theologically, if not bodily Catholic, but I don't argue for freedom of religion "for Catholicism;" i.e., I don't favor Catholicism. I only favor the freedom of religion.
Me either.
No I don't, I point out that Catholicism is a religion /theology (both in this case), and that Catholicism believes in the inalienable right to religious liberty.
I am supporting the truth whatever the cost.
I don't understand what you mean by this.
That it is evil for police /government to harass, coerce, force, imprison, etc. anybody from practicing religion freely.
Whichever one. The freedom of religion means that the law and law enforcement are unbiased wrt which religious practices and beliefs We the People choose to do and to hold.
All, both existing, and yet to exist. "Freedom," in short.
Examine Wikipedia's entry "LGBT." It's a variant of 'LGBT.'
You protect the inalienable rights of everybody, including those of all sinners.
At whatever cost, so long as everybody's inalienable right is protected and defended, including, most importantly, the right to life, the right to not be murdered or raped, the right not be wrongly imprisoned or enslaved, the right to free speech and to free peaceful assembly and press.
Why "apart from" my Catholicism? Do you just mean that you don't believe Catholicism, or do you mean something else?
I'm not being mysterious, I think it's pretty unambiguous.
We disagree theologically here I think. I don't believe that objective sin is ever not sin, but I do think that people perhaps even oftentimes do have good reason for sinning. It doesn't make sin not sin, but it does speak to sin not being imputed.
Of course.
You got it.

Sin is sin and no reason justifies it.

I do not agree with Catholicism.

Catholicism is like a government, and it is not the United States of America.

Freedom of Religion or Catholicism. You say that your love for freedom of religion comes from Catholicism. But I thought that your Catholicism was being supported by freedom of religion, since you don't only support Catholicism with it.

 

[Jacob]

A few disagreements, but quite a bit of shared concerns. As a conservative, I advocate for what the Constitution originally supports: Our rights based on Theism (Endowed by our Creator).

I searched on Google "Endowed by our Creator" and found the following.

Thomas Jefferson was the principal author of the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration states, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….”

Terms to Know - Center for Civic Education
www.civiced.org/resources/curriculum/911-and-the-constitution/terms-to-know

 

[Clete]

Thank you for your post. I appreciate your response. I can see how a crime is a sin but a sin is not a crime. The reason I disagree with you is as follows.

One. You do not believe that the Law can be observed any longer. Or that it doesn't have anything to do with being righteous any longer. I don't believe that it ever did.

Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.​

It is not relevant what you believe unless you can substantiate the belief with what the bible teaches. Paul says explicitly that Christ is "the end of the law for righteousness". For something to end it must have a beginning.

Further, I never said that it cannot be observed. On the contrary, that portion of it that has to do with criminal justice should be observed and the extent that it is not, justice is not served.

However, God wants us to be obedient to Him, Jew or Gentile.

Precisely! Therefore, you should avoid placing yourself under the law for righteousness sake at all costs. To do so is to take that which was crucified off the cross, to reimpliment the curse and to negate Christ's death.

The question is yes we are forgiven in Jesus Christ but is the Law abolished. Ephesians 2 seems to indicate that it may be. But Jesus says that was not His purpose in coming. Many believe that His purpose in coming was the cross. That is where we have forgiveness.

As I've told you already, you will never reconcile Paul's doctrine with Christ's until you rightly divide the word of truth. (2 Timothy 2:15)

Two. You say that the government only prosecutes crimes but not sins.

Although the one does have an impact on the other, the government has no jurisdiction over sins unless those sins happen to be crimes and even then it is there to deal with the criminal aspects of the deed, not the spiritual/sinfulness aspects of it.

I believe your context was criminal justice, which involves how things are done. But I believe that the government, if it is enforcing the Law completely, God's Law, punishes transgressors. Sin is transgression of the Law. Sin is lawlessness. Crime is transgression of the Law.

How many times do you want me to say that all crimes are sins?

To illustrate the point further, let me make it again by asking you a question....

When an unsaved murderer is executed, does he go Hell? (The answer is, YES!)

Here's a similar question that makes the same point...

Is it just to execute a repentant murderer? (Again, the answer is, YES!)

The reason why is because criminal justice has nothing to do with atoning for a person's sins. In fact, justly punishing the criminal has far less to do with the criminal than it has to do with the society in which the crime was committed. The law is the great teacher. If you don't want crime in your society, then the law must stand as a deterrent to it. God's criminal justice system makes it where the maximum number of people will choose not to commit crime, which is not only less expensive but far more effective than a system that tries to make it so that people cannot commit crime.

The reason I am willing to let this go is I am not stuck on the word crime, though it does appear in the scriptures. However, drop the word crime and it seems to drop criminal justice which may be dropping a good thing, though there is not prosecution in regard to all of God's Law in that context yet or ever, if there has not been.

Sorry. I didn't follow the point here.

I have been reading your posts before responding.

Shalom.

Then why ask questions that were already answered in the next sentence?

It doesn't matter. This post was far better and more responsive.

Clete

 

[Clete]

Do you have any scriptural evidence that we or Jesus will judge in a Millennium?

The Millennial Kingdom is when Jesus reigns as the King of Israel.

Israel's Kingdom gospel (i.e. the previous dispensation, which Christ lived and taught under.) was not ended with the stoning of Stephen but merely put in abeyance. God is not finished with Israel and will return to her after the fullness of the gentiles has come in. (Romans 11:25-27)

In other words, the law, which you are so obsessed with, will be fully restored and in force (minus the sacrificial laws which have been fulfilled in Christ) during the Millennium. Thus, Israel's system of judges will be in place.

We, that is you and I and those who are in Christ, will not be doing any judging of anyone during the Millennium. The Millennium has to do with Israel, not the Body of Christ. The judging we will be doing (i.e. of angels and of the whole world (1 Corinthians 6:2-3) will be on judgment day which doesn't happen until after the Millennium.

Clete

 

[Nang]

The "millennium" is now.

Jesus Christ reigns now.

There is only one body of Christ, and it consists of regenerated Jews and Gentiles.

Judgment Day will occur after the general and final resurrection. John 6:26-29

 

[Clete]

So long as the Law has not been abolished.

Justice is not defined by the law (i.e. the law of Moses) but rather the other way around. It was just to execute murders before Moses ever existed and has been commanded by God since Noah landed the arc.

It is not immoral to commit purjery because the Law says, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against your neighbor." That's not why its wrong.
Homosexuality is not immoral because the law says not to be a pervert. That just is not why it's wrong!

Such things are wrong because they leed to death. All things immoral are immoral because they lead to death. God's moral standard is life. That which is proper to life is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil. Really simple and easy to understand.

Deuteronomy 30:15 “See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil,

Deuteronomy 30:19 I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live;

Proverbs 11:19 As righteousness leads to life, So he who pursues evil pursues it to his own death.

Proverbs 12:28 In the way of righteousness is life, And in its pathway there is no death.​

Clete

 

[Clete]

The "millennium" is now.

Jesus Christ reigns now.

There is only one body of Christ, and it consists of regenerated Jews and Gentiles.

Judgment Day will occur after the general and final resurrection. John 6:26-29

:rotfl:

 

[Right Divider]

The "millennium" is now.

Jesus Christ reigns now.

There is only one body of Christ, and it consists of regenerated Jews and Gentiles.

Judgment Day will occur after the general and final resurrection. John 6:26-29

You remain wrong.

 

[Jacob]

Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.​

Correct.

It is not relevant what you believe unless you can substantiate the belief with what the bible teaches. Paul says explicitly that Christ is "the end of the law for righteousness". For something to end it must have a beginning.

I don't know why you say for something to end it must have a beginning here. Sure the law had a beginning, but that is irrelevant to whether or not it should be enforced after God gave it, or if it has been abolished (rather saying that it has not been). I do see that Romans says that we establish the Law (faith). However, I must accept what you are saying here, though you may be misguided somehow (responding to a point like what is crime or a criminal justice system is admittedly difficult but maybe because we use these words but don't find them in scripture so much (crime is there)(transgression is there)). The reason I say that I must accept it is it is scripture. I can explain my reasoning, but your argument still wins out. End of the law. Period. No. It says end of the law for righteousness. Or, end of the LAW FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS. So, yes, it is the end of the law for righteousness, and a law for righteousness has an end or the end of the law is for righteousness. So maybe the law has another purpose. But no one should try to find righteousness in it for their own self. I admit the Law reveals my sin and need for a Savior, Jesus. But I do still want to obey God and therefore I want to obey His Law, His commandments, His commands. There may have been a time in my life where I started by wanting to observe His commands and did not enunciate that I want to observe His Law. Sure there are New Testament commands or commandments, and there is Jesus, without using the word Law. But to accept all of God's commands or commandments I am basically accepting His Law, or Torah. 613 commandments or mitzvot and so forth. But not for my righteousness. For my obedience maybe?

Luke 17:10 NKJV - 10 "So likewise you, when you have done all those things which you are commanded, say, 'We are unprofitable servants. We have done what was our duty to do.' "​

Right?!?

Because salvation is by grace through faith and not of works. There is no boasting in the Law. But is there obedience to it? That is my question here now. I hope you don't give up on me or think that I am trying to squirm out of what you are saying. But I believe that I memorized your verse as a child.

Further, I never said that it cannot be observed. On the contrary, that portion of it that has to do with criminal justice should be observed and the extent that it is not, justice is not served.

If a person is not transgressing the Law they may not need to know about it. Unless we are to obey all of it. Obey requires doing something, even if it requires not doing something.

Precisely! Therefore, you should avoid placing yourself under the law for righteousness sake at all costs. To do so is to take that which was crucified off the cross, to reimpliment the curse and to negate Christ's death.

I think I get your point.

As I've told you already, you will never reconcile Paul's doctrine with Christ's until you rightly divide the word of truth. (2 Timothy 2:15)

Good verse and exhortation, thank you. Do you support the criminal justice system until someone gets this point and then you can drop it? Or, do you stand by God's criminal justice system forever at all costs?

Although the one does have an impact on the other, the government has no jurisdiction over sins unless those sins happen to be crimes and even then it is there to deal with the criminal aspects of the deed, not the spiritual/sinfulness aspects of it.

Do you say this because someone ruled not to take care of a person's sins just criminal behavior or what has been deemed criminal?

How many times do you want me to say that all crimes are sins?

Good point. They are. I guess you already said so. I was equating them.

To illustrate the point further, let me make it again by asking you a question....

When an unsaved murderer is executed, does he go Hell? (The answer is, YES!)

YES. So long as we understand correctly that sinners go to hell when they die.

Here's a similar question that makes the same point...

Is it just to execute a repentant murderer? (Again, the answer is, YES!)

YES. I don't know if there is anything that we need to know from the murderer, but he shouldn't get off by knowing a lot of things that he needs to reveal. However, you do not specify if the person is a believer.

The reason why is because criminal justice has nothing to do with atoning for a person's sins. In fact, justly punishing the criminal has far less to do with the criminal than it has to do with the society in which the crime was committed. The law is the great teacher. If you don't want crime in your society, then the law must stand as a deterrent to it. God's criminal justice system makes it where the maximum number of people will choose not to commit crime, which is not only less expensive but far more effective than a system that tries to make it so that people cannot commit crime.

We could talk about the differences. One is from God and allows people to make decisions. The other guides man's decisions or makes it impossible to do anything called sin based on preventing anything they can do from being called sin using words or eliminating the things that a person can do that would be considered sin. Does it take care of the root problem, human nature or sinful behavior in the flesh, man's sin nature?

Sorry. I didn't follow the point here.

Just now you didn't? Or before? Because I don't know how to clarify or bring more clarity.

Then why ask questions that were already answered in the next sentence?

I believe they were talked about in the next sentence, maybe answered, twice. But I had read your post and then when I was responding I was reading what I was but was answering one ahead just because of how I was reading it. Sorry.

It doesn't matter. This post was far better and more responsive.

Thanks. That means a lot. I am sorry. I don't know what unresponsive means. But you are measuring something and have seen improvement. It may have had to do with my effort in response or maybe it doesn't or didn't.

Clete

Jacob