tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post8910030126751379906..comments2024-03-08T07:31:03.679-08:00Comments on Templestream: Homosexuality and the Regenerative New TestamentRick Wardenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-83620569820592662782013-07-05T18:28:35.573-07:002013-07-05T18:28:35.573-07:00Thanks for your concern. We're all fine. I'...Thanks for your concern. We're all fine. I've been pretty busy lately, but can do a little blogging now. Rick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-81738634448549699262013-07-01T08:29:42.811-07:002013-07-01T08:29:42.811-07:00It's been nearly a month -- just checking in t...It's been nearly a month -- just checking in to see if you're OK; hope you and yours are in good health and not o'erwhelmed by the world.<br />imnotandreihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15850536340957506236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-80768450886768354582013-06-21T20:14:54.270-07:002013-06-21T20:14:54.270-07:00Hope you're OK, Rick, since it's been more...Hope you're OK, Rick, since it's been more than a week.<br /><br />Be well.<br /><br />imnotandreihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15850536340957506236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-54695047018465511852013-06-04T03:40:49.848-07:002013-06-04T03:40:49.848-07:00>So you agree that it is still desirable to fol...>So you agree that it is still desirable to follow the laws from the OT since Peter, one of the closest disciples, was following it till the end?<br /><br />- No, that is not at all what I implied.<br /><br />I am very busy this week so I won't be able to comment much.Rick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-4998446957004962342013-06-02T06:16:45.038-07:002013-06-02T06:16:45.038-07:00R:The early church was made up of mostly Jewish pe...R:The early church was made up of mostly Jewish people, like Jesus by the way.<br /><br />So you agree that it is still desirable to follow the laws from the OT since Peter, one of the closest disciples, was following it till the end?<br /><br />R:Though the new covenant removed the legal requirements of the old law, it did not necessitate not following it, which would also be legalism. :)<br /><br />You are pushing for a straw man here. I never claimed that it is necessary to follow the law to the letter to be "saved". However, I did claim that following the law is desirable and moral. Hence, killing homosexuals is desirable and moral for christians.<br /><br />R:Paul wrote we are to be guided by our conscience - which is guided by the Spirit.<br /><br />Yes, and Hitler was guided by his conscience saying that he should kill of the Jews and homosexuals. How are you going to argue that his conscience is wrong?<br /><br />R:The Old Testament forbids eating foods offered to idols.<br /><br />What about "unclean" foods like pork? That verse has nothing to do with kosher food, it is purely about eating ceremonial food 8)<br /><br />R:There were Christian debates and arguments in the NT about circumcision, meat offered to idols, and kosher food, as you pointed out.<br /><br />Oh! So you admit that the decision to abolish circumsition and so on was a human decision and not a divine one?<br /><br />R:Peter and many others simply did not know that they were allowed to eat non-kosher foods as believers.<br /><br />How come the almighty god was so sloppy in his teachings that only Paul knew about the "abolishment" of OT laws? <br /><br />R:Revelation usually happens by degrees. The most important revelation was to know that Jesus the Christ is the Messiah.<br /><br />Revelations are not an objective way to interpret the bible, Rick. You cannot claim that Luther s or Hitler s revelation is inferior to yours objectively.<br /><br />R:I was not referring to your elaborate argument.<br /><br />So what were you refering to? I post my argument and then out of the blue you say - "Not quite. No logical connection at all". What should a sane person think of that?<br /><br />R:Interesting that you want an apology for this and you have yet to offer one to me after calling me a liar (wrongly) throughout the comments of 5 consecutive blog posts<br /><br />Nope, I was completely right to call you a liar. You could not claim that Singer did support infanticide based on the quotes you provided. Furthermore, you distorted his position, factAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-5009531764858448702013-06-02T05:09:59.256-07:002013-06-02T05:09:59.256-07:00>So I presented my argument in the form of a sy...>So I presented my argument in the form of a syllogism and asked you to point out what was illogical about it, i.e. where the logical connections were missing. You failed to do so. So are you going to apologize or not for your false statement?<br /><br />- The comment I made on the 25the was a direct reply to one of your comments:<br /><br />>Basically what Jesus is saying here that Christians should be an example to others. Agreed? So what is the best kind of example? A law-abiding and god loving way of life that includes the execution of homosexuals.<br /><br />- Not quite. No logical connection at all.<br /><br />I was not referring to your elaborate argument. <br /><br />Interesting that you want an apology for this and you have yet to offer one to me after calling me a liar (wrongly) throughout the comments of 5 consecutive blog posts:<br /><br />"This past week, however, the slander level at my blog seemed to reach a crescendo with a comment poster from Russia calling me a liar from one post to the next for the duration of five consecutive blog article posts."<br /><br />http://templestream.blogspot.com/2013/02/slander-logic-and-venn-diagrams.html<br /><br />Do post a link to your apology for this, Anonymous.Rick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-40991659038363308742013-06-02T05:00:46.226-07:002013-06-02T05:00:46.226-07:00>"Do not think that I have come to take aw...>"Do not think that I have come to take away the law and the writings of the prophets. No, I have not come to take them away. But I have come TO DO WHAT THEY SAY must be done." <br /><br />- It seems I will need to write a separate blog post to outline the many ways in which Jesus fulfilled both the prophecies and the requirements of the Law.<br /><br />>And you need to prove that it was the complete fulfillment of the law and that no laws whatsoever from the OT are no longer in effect, not just assert it. <br /><br />- Sure, no problem, when I write the next post.Rick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-16067762851371811282013-06-02T04:56:41.034-07:002013-06-02T04:56:41.034-07:00>Why did Peter eat only kosher food years after...>Why did Peter eat only kosher food years after the death of Jesus if the laws were abolished?<br /><br />- The early church was made up of mostly Jewish people, like Jesus by the way.<br /><br />- Though the new covenant removed the legal requirements of the old law, it did not necessitate not following it, which would also be legalism. :)<br /><br />A main point is that Christians are to be mainly led by relationship - not rules. (See Jeremiah 31.32)<br /><br />Paul wrote we are to be guided by our conscience - which is guided by the Spirit.<br /><br />The Old Testament forbids eating foods offered to idols. But in the NT Paul says this:<br /><br />But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.<br /><br />9 Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling block to the weak. 10 For if someone with a weak conscience sees you, with all your knowledge, eating in an idol’s temple, won’t that person be emboldened to eat what is sacrificed to idols? 11 So this weak brother or sister, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. 12 When you sin against them in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall."<br /><br />http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+8&version=NIV<br /><br />There were Christian debates and arguments in the NT about circumcision, meat offered to idols, and kosher food, as you pointed out.<br /><br />Knowledge is pointed out as an issue in I Corinthians 8.7: "But not everyone possesses this knowledge."<br /><br />Peter and many others simply did not know that they were allowed to eat non-kosher foods as believers.<br /><br />Why didn't God bring this revelation earlier? The change of lifestyle was so radical for these early believers that it may have simply been to much to handle to give all the revelation at one point in time. <br /> <br />Revelation usually happens by degrees. The most important revelation was to know that Jesus the Christ is the Messiah. Once that revelation is received, then more lighter ones may be received as well. <br /> <br />Receiving this revelation would probably help you substantially in your understanding of the Bible.Rick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-5266391725414716942013-06-02T02:01:34.546-07:002013-06-02T02:01:34.546-07:00P.S. Oh! And Paul did NOT forgive the sinner. Firs...P.S. Oh! And Paul did NOT forgive the sinner. First of all, that is an interpretation of a verse from you that does not clearly state such thing. Secondly, Paul does not have the authority in the matter, only god can forgive sins.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-42135703415430653332013-06-01T18:09:28.966-07:002013-06-01T18:09:28.966-07:00And, since you deleted it in your massive spam pur...And, since you deleted it in your massive spam purge:<br /><br />http://freethoughtblogs.com/zinniajones/2013/02/why-i-outed-ex-gay-matt-moore/<br /><br />In reference to Matt Moore's credibility and usefulness as an "example".<br /><br />imnotandreihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15850536340957506236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-37166690984982629122013-06-01T15:43:53.504-07:002013-06-01T15:43:53.504-07:00Sigh... Ok, I guess I need to start over then...
...Sigh... Ok, I guess I need to start over then...<br /><br />First of al for the second time you ignored my question. Why did Peter eat only kosher food years after the death of Jesus if the laws were abolished?<br /><br />R:It seems that you will not be able to understand the difference between "enforce" and "fulfill" in this case...<br /><br />Maybe we should check other variants of translation of that passage?<br /><br />"Do not think that I have come to take away the law and the writings of the prophets. No, I have not come to take them away. But I have come TO DO WHAT THEY SAY must be done." (Worldwide English New Testament) - And what the Mosaic law says about homosexuals?<br /><br />“Don’t think that I have come to destroy the law of Moses or the teaching of the prophets. I have not come to destroy them but TO BRING ABOUT WHAT THEY SAID".(New Century version) - and what is written about homosexuals in the bible? How should they be dealt with?<br /><br />“Do not think that I have come to do away with the Law of Moses and the teachings of the prophets. I have not come to do away with them, but to MAKE THEIR TEACHINGS COME TRUE." (Good News Translation) - And what does the bible teachs us about how we should deal with homosexuals?<br /><br />R:In offering himself as a sacrifice for sin Jesus offered a fulfillment of the law. <br /><br />And you need to prove that it was the complete fulfillment of the law and that no laws whatsoever from the OT are no longer in effect, not just assert it. You also ignore the controversial verse from Jesus for the who-knows-which time:<br /><br />"...Whoever then RELAXES one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who DOES THEM and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV) - so how do you relax a law that has been canceled, Rick? How do you follow a law that has been abolished? <br /><br />R:This is the common interpretation, as noted at the following link. If you have another interpretation by a reputable source, do present it.<br /><br />Ehhh....Rick...Are really trying to say that my opinion on scripture is wrong because some different one exists?<br /><br />And if you want to play the "Appeal to authority game"<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theonomy<br /><br />With prominent theologians like Cornelius Van Til, Paul Tilich, Greg Bahnsen, John Rushdoony and others,,,<br /><br />R:I did support my point. It's in the outline in the post with specific references<br /><br />Sorry, you fail. Those vereses only point to the fact that those laws were given to the Jews. The same way as the 10 commandmants. You need to prove those laws are no longer in effect, but the 10 commandmants are.<br /><br />R:No. I stated the conclusion was not reliable because the premises are not true<br /><br />On May 25th at 9:41 AM you said about my argument:<br /><br />"Not quite. No logical connection at all"<br /><br />So I presented my argument in the form of a syllogism and asked you to point out what was illogical about it, i.e. where the logical connections were missing. You failed to do so. So are you going to apologize or not for your false statement?<br /><br />R:As I've pointed out, they both promote love and grace, not hatred and killing.<br /><br />That is not an answer to my question. I am asking who is the bigger authority, not what they preached.<br /><br />R:According to your opinion, Christians in the NT under Roman law were supposed to do what was not in their means to do...So you point fails.<br /><br />How does my point fail? The fact that these laws are impractical, immoral or idiotic has no bearing on what god has commanded. <br /><br />Example: There is a law that claims breathing is a capital offense. The fact that everyone is breaking the law has no bearing on the fact they deserve to be killed according to the law.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-43410311463512172052013-06-01T14:08:12.754-07:002013-06-01T14:08:12.754-07:00>Rick...Why did you delete my posts from before...>Rick...Why did you delete my posts from before?<br /><br />- I'm not sure which posts you are referring to. I had a lot of spam that I deleted and perhaps one of your comments appeared to be spam. <br /><br />If there was a relevant and cogent point that had not been addressed, I apologize for accidentally deleting it. If so, do re-post the point or points you are referring to.Rick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-69097343660728440562013-06-01T13:39:03.683-07:002013-06-01T13:39:03.683-07:00Rick...Why did you delete my posts from before? Di...Rick...Why did you delete my posts from before? Did you have nothing to resond? If you are not interested in a discussion, just say so.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-58651519645785552962013-05-26T15:34:15.186-07:002013-05-26T15:34:15.186-07:00>My dear, Rick... You need to prove your point,...>My dear, Rick... You need to prove your point, not just assert it. (...many laws and codes of conduct that were written specifically for the Israelites that were intended for application only to these people at a certain time.)<br /><br />I did support my point. It's in the outline in the post with specific references:<br /><br />2. Deuteronomy 4.1 states, "Now, Israel, hear the decrees and laws I am about to teach you. Follow them so that you may live and may go in and take possession of the land the LORD, the God of your ancestors, is giving you." (NIV)<br /><br />This theme is continued in Deuteronomy 6.24<br /><br />The Lord commanded us to obey all these decrees and to fear the Lord our God, so that we might always prosper and be kept alive, as is the case today. 25 And if we are careful to obey all this law before the Lord our God, as he has commanded us, that will be our righteousness.<br /><br />>You claimed that my argument was illogical. <br /><br />- No. I stated the conclusion was not reliable because the premises are not true:<br /><br />"R:Because you premises are not true your conclusion is not a reliable deduction."<br /><br />There is a difference between an illogical argument and one with false premises. <br /><br />I'll repeat a point. Your premise 2 is not accurate because you are failing to discern laws that are timeless with those specific to a certain people for a certain time and purpose. You wrote the following:<br /><br />2. Laws from the OT are supposed to explain which actions are sinful and which are moral. (All B have C property) <br /><br />- Now, according to Deuteronomy 4.41-43 there were supposed to be "cities of refuge" where people could run to for legal amnesty. <br /><br />According to your opinion, Christians in the NT under Roman law were supposed to do what was not in their means to do. And neither is this practical today in the US, as is the case with many laws specific to Israel...<br /><br />So you point fails.<br /><br />http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+4&version=NIV<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Rick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-40724178932989480162013-05-26T15:32:01.341-07:002013-05-26T15:32:01.341-07:00- It seems that you will not be able to understand...<i>- It seems that you will not be able to understand the difference between "enforce" and "fulfill" in this case unless you are born again spiritually have receive a sense of fresh revelation from God. </i><br /><br />In other words, there is no objective distinction -- it requires some internal "knowledge" to get. Which makes it a useless distinction unless you already agree with it.<br /><br />imnotandreihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15850536340957506236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-17911036386910491032013-05-26T15:02:35.734-07:002013-05-26T15:02:35.734-07:00>I have come not to abolish but to fulfill...
...>I have come not to abolish but to fulfill...<br /><br />- It seems that you will not be able to understand the difference between "enforce" and "fulfill" in this case unless you are born again spiritually have receive a sense of fresh revelation from God. <br /><br />1. Jesus raised the bar in the Sermon on the Mount offering that even evil thoughts make one worthy of death according to the law.<br /><br />2. Therefore, no one can be justified by the law alone.<br /><br />3. In offering himself as a sacrifice for sin Jesus offered a fulfillment of the law. Jesus did not abolish the requirements of the law - perfection - but offered us his own perfection, a sinless life, as a sacrificial atonement on the cross. <br /><br />This is the basic gospel underscored by numerous verses. If you wish to pretend that this verse means Christians have to kill others to enforce the law then you are running counter to actual examples in scripture, such as when Paul forgave the person in incest in I Corinthians 5. <br /><br />>So how do we hand over the sinner to Satan, Rick? How do we get rid of the "old yest"? By executing the despicable sinner.<br /><br />- No the person who was committing incest was expelled from the church for the behavior in the hope of repentance and restoration. The destruction of the flesh, that is, the destruction of the sinful nature by the Spirit. This is the common interpretation, as noted at the following link. If you have another interpretation by a reputable source, do present it.<br /><br />https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/2008/09/implications-of-1-corinthians-55<br /><br />>So who is the bigger authority? Paul or Jesus? 8)<br /><br />- As I've pointed out, they both promote love and grace, not hatred and killing.Rick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-74480311657779738732013-05-26T14:21:17.834-07:002013-05-26T14:21:17.834-07:00I:So, are you prepared to declare either in error ...I:So, are you prepared to declare either in error or not "true Christians" anyone claiming the name of Christian who believes in the death penalty for homsexual behavior? <br /><br />Well, since Rick is arguing AGAINST capital punishment for gays, he must think those who oppose him are in error. And since even "True Cristians" can make mistakes by calling for the execution of gays and jews, they do make mistakes, but they will still achieve heaven since it is a small point anyway. I guess that Hitler should be in heaven now since he was sincere in his genocide and did accept Jesus as his savior. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-87967697987713067942013-05-26T14:14:33.347-07:002013-05-26T14:14:33.347-07:00R:Not all born-again Christians are necessarily go...R:Not all born-again Christians are necessarily good examples every day.<br /><br />We are speaking about the ideal picture here. Hence, all true christians are an example of morality 8)<br /><br />R:The 10 Commandments focus on moral truths in a universal sense, while there were many laws and codes of conduct that were written specifically for the Israelites that were intended for application only to these people at a certain time.<br /><br />My dear, Rick... You need to prove your point, not just assert it. <br /><br />R:As I just noted, this was not a universally applicable law that was intended to be true for all people at all times, but was intended for Israel at a certain period of time<br /><br />Prove it, do not just assert this. You still hold to the ten commandemants today, but for some reason you pick the killing of homosexuals as exclusive for the OT. Prove that the execution of homosexuals is not an act of love that prevent them to sin even further.<br /><br />R:Because you premises are not true your conclusion is not a reliable deduction.<br /><br />You claimed that my argument was illogical. You failed to point anything inconsistent in the structure. Are you going to apologize for your accusations?<br /> <br />R:...but an Apostle recommended a restorative approach (I Corinthians 5).<br /><br />He did no such thing. He was demanding the merciful execution of the sinner so that he could be saved later on by Jesus.<br /><br />R:As Paul demonstrated in I Corinthians 5, grace and love offer a superior approach to moral questions than the law and death.<br /><br />Again, that is your own sinful misunderstanding of the "true word" of god.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-77261410183304109952013-05-26T14:13:52.373-07:002013-05-26T14:13:52.373-07:00Great, Rick! You ran away from most of my points a...Great, Rick! You ran away from most of my points and ignored crucial questions from me. I will repeat them again:<br /><br />"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)<br /><br />“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV) <br /><br />Hmm... What do we have here? The words of Jesus himself telling that tha laws are in place unchanged and anyone who relaxes any of these laws (like the killing of homosexuals) is unwelcomed in heaven, but a gay murderer will be seen as a saint. Are you going to respond to those two vereses in context or are you just going to ignore them as usual?<br /><br />Why did Peter eat only kosher food for years after the death of Jesus if the laws from the OT were lifted?<br /><br />R:So which point exactly did you successfully challenge in the outline of common Christian precepts?...<br /><br />en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominational_positions_on_homosexuality<br /><br />All Christians have a biblical approach to sin. Christians disagree on a common biblical approach to homosexuality. Fact. That was pointed out to you before, so you were aware of that. But you still knowingly pushed disinformation. Hence - you are a liar.<br /><br />R:Outline of basic Christian supersessionism<br /><br />If you refuse to accept reality, I cannot help you, Rick. Each nomination has a very different understanding of supersessionism and what are about the mosaic laws.<br /><br />I gave you a link to different christian approaches to the OT laws. That includes a different approach from catholics and protestants. If you want to ignore this, good luck in lala land.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_the_old_covenant<br /><br />R:That must be why the Apostle Paul did not demand execution for the churchgoers caught in incest<br /><br />"So when you are assembled and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan for the DESTRUCTION OF THE FLESH, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord. Your boasting is not good. Don’t you know that a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough? GET RID OF THE OLD YEST, so that you may be a new unleavened batch—as you really are."<br /><br />So how do we hand over the sinner to Satan, Rick? How do we get rid of the "old yest"? By executing the despicable sinner.<br /><br />R:Or will you claim that the Apostle Paul was not a valid authority in the Church? What will it be?<br /><br />So who is the bigger authority? Paul or Jesus? 8)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-648540405593934612013-05-26T13:55:33.271-07:002013-05-26T13:55:33.271-07:00So, are you prepared to declare either in error or...So, are you prepared to declare either in error or not "true Christians" anyone claiming the name of Christian who believes in the death penalty for homsexual behavior? <br /><br />Since you've been arguing so strongly that the NT doesn't support it, you should have no problem with that.<br /><br />imnotandreihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15850536340957506236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-90938535446609459722013-05-26T13:25:29.036-07:002013-05-26T13:25:29.036-07:00See if you can find any fault with the following l...See if you can find any fault with the following logical argument:<br /><br />A logical argument against Christian capital punishment for homosexuals.<br /><br />1. There is a case in the New Testament where capital punishment would have been demanded according to the OT law, but an Apostle recommended a restorative approach (I Corinthians 5).<br /><br />2. There is no case in the NT where OT style capital punishment was demanded by Christians.<br /><br />3. Therefore, the Christian example set forth in the New Testament supports a new restorative approach to the law as outlined by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount.<br /><br />4. Therefore, in light of this example, the killing of homosexuals is not in accordance with NT practices.<br /><br />> (covenant definition) Theology - an agreement which brings about a relationship of commitment between God and his people. The Jewish faith is based on the biblical covenants made with Abraham, Moses, and David.<br /> <br />- Yes, and according to the "commitment" and "agreement" that Jesus brought, there is no need to enforce the killing of people for sexual sins. As Paul demonstrated in I Corinthians 5, grace and love offer a superior approach to moral questions than the law and death.Rick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-964982258853916792013-05-26T13:24:35.231-07:002013-05-26T13:24:35.231-07:00>Liar. I have shown before there is no common c...>Liar. I have shown before there is no common christian biblical approach to homosexuality. <br /><br />- Let the Slander Games begin...<br /><br />So which point exactly did you successfully challenge in the outline of common Christian precepts?...<br /><br />Outline of basic Christian supersessionism<br /><br />1. Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant traditions acknowledge New Testament supersessionism.<br />2. The New Testament is based on a new covenant.<br />3. The new covenant is supersedes the old covenant.<br />4. The new covenant emphasizes grace over the law.<br />5. The new covenant emphasizes changed relationships and attitudes with God and among fellow citizens.<br />6. These changed attitudes reflect proactive love-based ethics over vindictive law-based ethics, as outlined by Christ in the Sermon on the Mount, the introduction of the New Testament.<br /><br />Even the Catholic church, known for its more religious and legalistic approach to sin, stated in the 1990's that the law does not justify anyone before God, only spiritual re-birth does:<br /><br />"The Holy Spirit is the master of the interior life. By giving birth to the "inner man," justification entails the sanctification of his whole being." <br /><br />http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a2.htm<br /><br />>And they should follow the law to be a good example. Meaning - they should execute homosexuals.<br /><br />- That must be why the Apostle Paul did not demand execution for the churchgoers caught in incest, a crime that demands execution according to Leviticus 18:7-17, 29; 20:11-12<br /><br />What did Paul actually recommend? A little loving church discipline, that's all. See I Corinthians 5 for the account. Surely you have an example of Christians demanding execution in the New Testament to support or position. Or will you claim that the Apostle Paul was not a valid authority in the Church? What will it be?<br /><br />>1. All True Christians are an example of a moral conduct (All A have B property)<br /><br />- Perhaps a better summary would be, "All true Christians should try to live life with high moral standards." - Not all born-again Christians are necessarily good examples every day.<br /><br />2. Laws from the OT are supposed to explain which actions are sinful and which are moral. (All B have C property) <br /> <br />- You are not differentiating between universal codes and laws for specific people at specific times in a manner the Bible describes.<br /><br />The 10 Commandments focus on moral truths in a universal sense, while there were many laws and codes of conduct that were written specifically for the Israelites that were intended for application only to these people at a certain time.<br /><br />Read I Cornithians 5 and see how the Apostle Paul does NOT call for capital punishment regarding a case of incest in a church.<br /><br />>The law specifically points out that killing homosexuals is moral (All C have D property)<br /><br />- As I just noted, this was not a universally applicable law that was intended to be true for all people at all times, but was intended for Israel at a certain period of time.<br /><br />>4. Hence True Christians are supposed to kill homosexuals (All A have D property)<br /><br />- Because you premises are not true your conclusion is not a reliable deduction.<br />Rick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-32965565911617739132013-05-25T16:41:03.397-07:002013-05-25T16:41:03.397-07:00P.S. Oh! And Mosaic laws have nothing to do with t...P.S. Oh! And Mosaic laws have nothing to do with the old convenant. The Old Convenant was established under Abraham centuries before the Mosaic law. Hence, the laws are not part of the old covenant.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-26659952087202807852013-05-25T14:57:44.808-07:002013-05-25T14:57:44.808-07:00By the way... Don t you think it is strange for Pe...By the way... Don t you think it is strange for Peter, one of the closest disciples of Jesus, not be aware that dietary laws have supposedely been lifted? After all, for years after the death of Jesus he ate only kosher food. You know, it might have been a good idea for Jesus to have informed him about <br />that small detail.<br /><br />Also from wikipedia an interesting fact about Paul and the faulty translation of your moldy book:<br /><br />"Modern differences over the interpretation of this come from the understanding of the use of the word "Law" in Paul's writings (example: Gal 3:10) as referring only to Mosaic Law (Torah) but in 1st century Hebrew understanding had multiple meanings which also included Jewish and Roman civil laws. At the time, the Christian community would have considered itself a part of the wider Jewish community, with most of the leaders of the Church being Jewish or Jewish proselytes. The decision of the Council came to be called the Apostolic Decree and was that most Mosaic law, including the requirement for circumcision of males, was not obligatory for Gentile converts, possibly in order to make it easier for them to join the movement. However, the Council did retain the prohibitions against eating meat containing "blood", or meat of animals not properly slain, and against "fornication" and "idol worship". Some scholars claim that "fornication" is an incorrect translation of the Biblical Greek. Beginning with Augustine of Hippo, many have seen a connection to Noahide Law, while some modern scholars reject the connection to Noahide Law and instead see Lev 17-18 as the basis."<br /><br />So nope, some humans have gathered and did decide that some of the laws are no longer aplicable. Which is kinda contradicting Jesus. And even then, they did not dare to get rid of all the laws. Furthermore, because the bible is a translation, we still do not know exactly what Paul meant with his terms 8)<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-31666967820578275162013-05-25T14:35:41.075-07:002013-05-25T14:35:41.075-07:00From Rick:
>Nowhere it is stated that the NT i...From Rick:<br /><br /><i>>Nowhere it is stated that the NT is a new legal code. <br /><br />- The following is the accepted definition of the word covenant:<br /><br />Noun An agreement.<br />Verb Agree, esp. by lease, deed, or other legal contract.<br /><br />But, of course, in the Newspeak Bible Translation (NBT) the word "covenant" has whatever meaning you want it to have, just like the words "fulfill" and "love" Your word games are beginning to get old.</i><br /><br />"Legal agreement" and "legal code" are not the same thing, Rick. <br /><br />Indeed, it's a legal agreement when you pay for somethign with a credit card -- a covenant. Would you say that each time you are paying with a credit card, you're establishing a legal code?<br /><br />This whole argument is coming from the fact that, using the NT, one can reach very different conclusions as to what of the OT law is still in effect, and what isn't.<br /><br />Are you arguing that *none* of the OT law is valid, and only what is explicitly set down in the NT as law is law? If so, that's a) an awfully sparse code you've established there, and b) a whole lot of capitalists are in a lot of trouble. ;)<br /><br />From Anonymous:<br /><br /><i>That only concerns the laws that SEPERATE the gentils from the jews. The rest (like the execution of homosexuals)are still in effect.</i><br /><br />Which means we're back to the Noahide laws, which, in some people's view, include laws against adultery. And the violation of them? The penalty is death.<br /><br />imnotandreihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15850536340957506236noreply@blogger.com