Is the Law of Moses good or bad?

[JudgeRightly]

Good answer.

Yet.....I guess I'm the only one who notices the problem with this. In the OT "God" said kill the homosexuals.

That never changed.

Now, we all understand that killing a person because of their sexual orientation

God doesn't say "kill someone because of their sexual orientation."

He says, "kill someone if they commit a capital crime.

Homosexual acts are capital crimes.

Therefore, homosexuals (read, those committing homosexual acts) should be executed.

or skin color would be an evil.

No one has said to do this.

That's quite a turn around. It's the same thing with women. We now know that women are not inferior to men,

Women are inferior to men in certain areas, and men are inferior than women in the rest.

Woman was created second, so in that respect, she is inferior to Man, who was created first.

Women are typically inferior to men when it comes to leadership roles, but are better homemakers than men are.

Saying "women are not inferior to men" is wrong, but not completely incorrect.

nor should they be subservient.

In what way?

They shouldn't be property or considered less.

If you're referring to how women were treated in Bible times, your statement becomes an association fallacy.

Today, women are treated like dirt.

Back then, women were held in high esteem, even though they were considered property.

They are equal to men,

In every way? No, they are not.

They are quite different than men are, and are FAR from equal.

They ARE, however, to be treated equally with respect to the law (in other words, no favoritism in judgment because of gender).

and they should be treated equally

No, women should be treated like they're women, and men like they're men.

with respect.

Agreed.

This shows a change in morality over time....

No, it shows a change in culture over time.

Moral truth has remained the same since creation.

another word for things changing over time is.... evolution.

Equivocation is a logical fallacy.

 

[JudgeRightly]

And by "We" - I meant modern humans who appreciate the wisdom, knowledge, experience and understanding of the world as it pertains to respecting the planet and all within it. In other words, people who believe in real morals... the kind that last forever because they don't get out of date or need to be changed with the times.

I take it you don't mean the law written by God on man's hearts, do you?

“I have lived in the pursuit of a vision, both personal and social. Personal: to care for what is noble, for what is beautiful, for what is gentle; to allow moments of insight to give wisdom at more mundane times. Social: to see in imagination the society that is to be created, where individuals grow freely, and where hate and greed and envy die because there is nothing to nourish them. These things I believe, and the world, for all its horrors, has left me unshaken.”

Bertrand Russell

And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ ” - Matthew 15:9 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew15:9&version=NKJV

 

[Guyver]

Equivocation is a logical fallacy.

pot meet kettle

It is quite apparent that you and I have very different world views. I respect your right to believe as you wish, even though we obviously disagree. I would have much more to say about your post but.....eh....what’s the point?

Besides that, you never answered my question, even though I answered yours. So, that’s not equivocation, but neither is it equivalent.

 

[JudgeRightly]

pot meet kettle

It is quite apparent that you and I have very different world views. I respect your right to believe as you wish, even though we obviously disagree. I would have much more to say about your post but.....eh....what’s the point?

Besides that, you never answered my question, even though I answered yours. So, that’s not equivocation, but neither is it equivalent.

The one about which part of the Bible I believe and if I reject any of it?

Answered here:

And?

Not only did that NOT contradict nor repeal what the law said, He was also speaking of how to behave during the millennial kingdom, where He would rule with an iron rod, which, had things progressed as He had planned, would have began about 10 years from when He said that (He gave the sermon on the mount in the first year of His earthly ministry of three years, plus the seven year Time of Jacob's Trouble). He wasn't speaking of how one should live in day to day life, but rather life in the millennial kingdom, where justice would be almost immediate, because He would be watching.



Christians aren't.

But the rest of the world needs the law. That includes the laws against and punishments for homosexuality, the death penalty.



Hypocrite.



:blabla:



I believe the whole Bible, and I don't reject any of it.

I let it say what it says within the context that it says it.



I never said you did.



Because the way you used "peacemaker" is the way one typically uses "pacifist."



See my post above.



Post number, please.



Considering you're going against what Jesus said, and since Jesus is God, I'm gonna stick with what Romans 3:4 says, "Let God be true and every man a liar..."



Responding to this point needs to be in it's own thread, as it gets into when the Exodus happened.



Post numbers, please



I'm familiar with it.



Sorry, that's not what a gish gallop is.



Not at all.

I'm not interested in confusing anyone. That would be counterproductive. I'm interested in bringing a conversation to fruition by navigating to what is true.

If you truly feel that you can't answer everything in one go, just say so when you respond, and I'll wait patiently for the rest of your response.



See my previous post. Jesus upheld the law. I will provide the relevant law in a moment.



So, you'd go up and strike up a conversation with the man burglaring your house?

Ok, let's follow that line of thought for a moment (warning, graphic, though nothing explicit):

The burglar, pulls out his gun and shoots you, waking up your wife and children, who start crying. As you lay there, bleeding out, because you decided to "resist not an evil person," you're too weak to move, the burglar goes to your children's rooms and kill them, and then proceeds to drag your wife in front of you, then rapes and murders her with you watching, and then shoots you in the head, killing you.

All because you decided to "resist not an evil person."

So let's reset the scene here, and see what would have happened had you chosen differently:

So, it's the middle of the night, your wife and three kids are asleep, and you wake up and hear noises coming from your kitchen. Someone has broken in and is in the process of foraging through your house for valuables. Do you get out your gun? Or do you go and have a conversation with the burglar?

You choose to get out your gun that you have locked in your bedstand, wake up your wife, and have her first dial 911, then she goes to secure your children, after which you sneak downstairs, and catch the burglar by surprise, and, since he doesn't have his gun out, and you have one pointed at him, you are able to keep him where he is until the police arrive.

Turns out he's a wanted criminal with a rap sheet a mile long, guilty of crimes ranging from petty theft to rape and murder. An "evil person" whom you've just resisted.

So, I don't know about you, but I'd rather catch the criminal off guard with my gun out and pointing at him, than catch him on guard with my hands up.



Now you're saying you'd resist an evil person?

James 1:8 comes to mind...

Here's what the Law says about a criminal breaking into someone's house:

If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed.If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed. He should make full restitution; if he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. - Exodus 22:2-3 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus22:2-3&version=NKJV



I typically copy/paste questions that I need answered, even if no other questions in the post are answered, at the end of my posts.

 

[Arthur Brain]

And?

Not only did that NOT contradict nor repeal what the law said, He was also speaking of how to behave during the millennial kingdom, where He would rule with an iron rod, which, had things progressed as He had planned, would have began about 10 years from when He said that (He gave the sermon on the mount in the first year of His earthly ministry of three years, plus the seven year Time of Jacob's Trouble). He wasn't speaking of how one should live in day to day life, but rather life in the millennial kingdom, where justice would be almost immediate, because He would be watching.

"And"?!

This is all just supposition on your part and I wasn't arguing that Jesus was contradicting an earlier law but rather bringing a new standard to bear. The words are there in black and white. Another thing that Jesus didn't seem to have much time for was legalism, the 'teachers of the law' etc and had some pretty scathing words for those who were puffed up and full of their own self importance. The case of the woman accused of adultery showed that to a tee and it certainly wasn't just a case of Jesus avoiding a legal trap or there being lack of evidence to convict her.

 

[Guyver]

I take it you don't mean the law written by God on man's hearts, do you?



And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ ” - Matthew 15:9 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew15:9&version=NKJV

That’s right, reject something beautiful because it’s not your brand. Shame. Guyver out for now.

 

[k0de]

Okay. But this is not just those who commit an homosexual act. However, homosexuality is a sin worthy of death. Calling it what it is. At what point can a person say, "I was a homosexual?" or would they even need to do so?

So there is no repenting for homosexuals even if they don't want to live that life style anymore?

 

[JudgeRightly]

"And"?!

This is all just supposition on your part

It's actually not.

and I wasn't arguing that Jesus was contradicting an earlier law but rather bringing a new standard to bear.

An even stricter one which builds on the old.

The "eye for eye" law was never repealed, revoked, undone, etc.

It was still in effect even after Jesus said what you quoted.

The words are there in black and white.

They're red for me... :idunno:

Another thing that Jesus didn't seem to have much time for was legalism, the 'teachers of the law' etc and had some pretty scathing words for those who were puffed up and full of their own self importance.

I agree.

Then Jesus went into the temple of God and drove out all those who bought and sold in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves.And He said to them, [JESUS]“It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer,’ but you have made it a ‘den of thieves.’ ”[/JESUS] - Matthew 21:12-13 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew21:12-13&version=NKJV

Seems pretty clear upholding the law isn't legalism, even the Mosaic law.

The case of the woman accused of adultery

This again?

No one bore witness against her. Therefore, there couldn't be a trial.

:idunno:

showed that to a tee and it certainly wasn't just a case of Jesus avoiding a legal trap or there being lack of evidence to convict her.

:blabla:

 

[JudgeRightly]

That’s right, reject something beautiful because it’s not your brand. Shame. Guyver out for now.

Beautiful?

But we are all like an unclean thing, And all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags; We all fade as a leaf, And our iniquities, like the wind, Have taken us away. - Isaiah 64:6 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah64:6&version=NKJV

 

[JudgeRightly]

So there is no repenting for homosexuals even if they don't want to live that life style anymore?

Why do you presume he cannot repent?

 

[k0de]

Why do you presume he cannot repent?

Was asking Jacob because I didn't understand his post.

Okay. But this is not just those who commit an homosexual act. However, homosexuality is a sin worthy of death. Calling it what it is. At what point can a person say, "I was a homosexual?" or would they even need to do so?


I don't know what he means with this.

 

[Arthur Brain]

It's actually not.

Sure it is.

An even stricter one which builds on the old.

The "eye for eye" law was never repealed, revoked, undone, etc.

It was still in effect even after Jesus said what you quoted.

No it doesn't. Why do you even suppose there is a New Testament in the Bible? Why did Jesus even bother to come to Earth and minister if everything was supposed to remain the same? He expressly referred to the law of "eye for eye and tooth for tooth" and gave a new teaching.

They're red for me... :idunno:

lain:

I agree.

Then Jesus went into the temple of God and drove out all those who bought and sold in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves.And He said to them, [JESUS]“It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer,’ but you have made it a ‘den of thieves.’ ”[/JESUS] - Matthew 21:12-13 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew21:12-13&version=NKJV

Seems pretty clear upholding the law isn't legalism, even the Mosaic law.

Considering what the people were doing in there it's hardly surprising that Jesus wasn't too happy about it, just as He wasn't happy with the legalists of the time abusing their authority and full of their own bluster.

This again?

No one bore witness against her. Therefore, there couldn't be a trial.

If there had been, do you honestly think that Jesus would have condoned the woman being bludgeoned to death with stones?

:blabla:

Brilliant response.

 

[Jacob]

So there is no repenting for homosexuals even if they don't want to live that life style anymore?

There is. But sin is sin. Repentance is from dead works and sin.

 

[Jacob]

Was asking Jacob because I didn't understand his post.

Okay. But this is not just those who commit an homosexual act. However, homosexuality is a sin worthy of death. Calling it what it is. At what point can a person say, "I was a homosexual?" or would they even need to do so?


I don't know what he means with this.

I mean a homosexual dies in his sin unless he repents and is no longer a homosexual.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Have you ever seen a person stoned to death? I have. It’s been on you tube. Did you know that there are still people who engage in this practice?

Yep. There are.

The one I saw was so brutal, I could hardly watch it. There was a Muslim woman, who had fallen in love with the wrong kind of a Muslim man, so they decided to kill her, and someone in the crowd captured it on their iPhone.

Aside from how barbaric and ridiculously wrong that was....you know what really struck me?

The woman, as she was dying, being pelted by rocks in the face that took a real long time to kill her...

happened to fall down and her midriff appeared. So, while she was dying, because of her modesty, continued to try to pull her clothing back down so that her body would not be uncovered.

Selah.

That is horrific, I wouldn't have been able to watch it. It's atrocious that there's some places in the world that still practice such barbarism and sickening that some would wish to implement it in the West.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Sure it is.

Sorry, but you're wrong.

Almost everything Jesus taught about was so that His people (Israel) would know how to live in the Millennial Kingdom. Sure, we can learn from it even today, but it was primarily for Israel.

No it doesn't.

Supra.

Why do you even suppose there is a New Testament in the Bible?

What does this have to do with anything?

Why did Jesus even bother to come to Earth and minister if everything was supposed to remain the same?

Question begging.

It wasn't.

Things were about to change in a drastic way.

Or, they would have had Israel not rejected her Messiah.

He expressly referred to the law of "eye for eye and tooth for tooth" and gave a new teaching.

Which in no way, shape, or form, means that He repealed it.

lain:

Considering what the people were doing in there it's hardly surprising that Jesus wasn't too happy about it, just as He wasn't happy with the legalists of the time abusing their authority and full of their own bluster.

Your point?

If there had been, do you honestly think that Jesus would have condoned the woman being bludgeoned to death with stones?

The fact of the matter is that Jesus forgave her, because He, as God, has the right to do so, and had done so previously without repealing the law against adultery

Brilliant response.

You too! :thumb:

 

[Jacob]

Almost everything Jesus taught about was so that His people (Israel) would know how to live in the Millennial Kingdom. Sure, we can learn from it even today, but it was primarily for Israel.

I do not know where you get this from.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Sorry, but you're wrong.

Almost everything Jesus taught about was so that His people (Israel) would know how to live in the Millennial Kingdom. Sure, we can learn from it even today, but it was primarily for Israel.

So, "almost everything" that Jesus taught was aimed solely at the people of Israel at that time? Not for people in general and through the ages until the here and now?

That's a new one.

What does this have to do with anything?

Quite a lot.

Question begging.

It wasn't.

Things were about to change in a drastic way.

Or, they would have had Israel not rejected her Messiah.

The pointers for change were made anyway. Was the entire New Testament primarily for the people of Israel as well?

Which in no way, shape, or form, means that He repealed it.

Sure He did, else why talk about how "you have heard it said" and then went on say Himself how people should act instead?

Your point?

I would have thought it was obvious. Legalists aren't renowned for common understanding and empathy towards other people and those of the time were no exception and were put in their place.

The fact of the matter is that Jesus forgave her, because He, as God, has the right to do so, and had done so previously without repealing the law against adultery

That's not answering my question. Had there been sufficient evidence to convict the woman of adultery under the law then do you think He would have condoned the woman being bludgeoned to death with stones?

 

[Right Divider]

I do not know where you get this from.

The entire Bible.

 

[ok doser]

Had there been sufficient evidence to convict the woman of adultery under the law then do you think He would have condoned the woman being bludgeoned to death with stones?

Did He condone or condemn the killing of the thieves on the crosses?