But if your faith makes you offended by someones elses private behavious, then that is your problem, not theirs. Of course you do not live by other people’s faith, why should you?
You are still not answering the question. Yes or no will do.How many times did I tell you that JESUS CHRIST paid for our sins with inocent blood. No he took the stones. I thought you had Catholic teaching. Did you forget to get off the bus or what
I told you they are put to death. Death of the soul. Where does that scripture say we have permission to stone them?
So once and for all JESUS PAID FOR OUR SINS, HE HAD NONE. HE PAID THE PRICE FOR ALL MAN.
Now its up to us. We either have eternal life or eternal death.
I told you the OT was the law of Abraham. The OT was waiting for the Savior of the world to come. HE CAME. HE is here. He gave us the NT now. He fullfilled the old law. We now go by the teachings of Jesus Christ. GOD MADE HIMSELF KNOWN THOUGH JESUS.
So again Jesus said NO do not stone others pray for them. He took the stones, he paid the price. What is so hard for you to understand about that?
There’s a difference between being, as a desire, and committing the act, I think that’s what rinnie may have been trying to say, I could be wrong though.
I never said that, I said that other peoples sin effects others lives. Big difference.
But if this charge is true (that she wasn’t a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father’s house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)I told you they are put to death. Death of the soul. Where does that scripture say we have permission to stone them?
We can continue it later. Pool eh? Very nice. Not quite pool weather here in ireland, so enjoy.
I will be back I promise.Yes we believe that everything in the Bible is the inspired “Word of God”, but do you not understand the meaning of the words “new covenant” and “revelation”? The whole raison d’etre of the Bible was to reveal God’s purpose and plan to save the world through the one the Jews called the Messiah. The arrival of Jesus is basically the culmination of salvation history, i.e., the new covenant with Jews and Gentiles. We do not abide by the old covenant.
Ok, then you may want to answer the question. Was stoning of homosexuals in the OT moral? Was it OK in the OT but not in the NT?
Thank you for answering the question. Obviously I think that stoning anyone to death at any time is immoral, but I am sure we disagree on lots of things.
I take it then you don’t believe in moral absolutes.
But what really is the point of your question. You seem to ask one thing and then another. We have explained to you about the old law and the new law the best we could.
Why would you say that?
Do you believe that is someone kills a child that they should be put to death also? Do you believe in the death penalty?
My whole point was whether or not stoning someone to death was a moral act and it appears it is. It is very very clear the the actions of jesus in the NT are nothing like those of god in the OT. I now understand that that stoning people in the OT was a moral action because I genuinely did not know if it would be regarded as such.But what really is the point of your question. You seem to ask one thing and then another. We have explained to you about the old law and the new law the best we could.
The bottom line is the penalty for sin is death. It has not changed.
We have showed you that Jesus paid for our sin in the NT. What was fair about that. Jesus was inocent and had no sin, but was hung on the cross for our sins was that immoral.
The answer to you question is simple no sin is right. And inocent people suffer for the sins of others.
Just like someone robs a bank because they need the money. But sorry the law says no. You will pay the price for robbing the bank. You can go to jail longer for robbing a bank then murder at times. Is that immoral? But the point is they are both wrong and both sins. you should not steal, or kill.
People have showed you that the only difference between the O.T and the N.T. is God showed more mercy and compassion in the N.T. But he never changed the law now did he.
In the O.T is you got caught stealing they chopped off your hand. In the N.T. you spend time in jail. But God never changed a thing, a sin is still a sin.
But if you really think about it does it matter. You saw two different ways of punishment. So Jesus showed a more compassionate God, does it matter. No. Because the real difference here is you don’t believe anyway. Right?
The odd thing is you felt the O.T. was too hard on people for their sins, and God should have been easier on them. But ironically God agreed with you and is easier today. But you are still unhappy with God. I mean what do you want from him.
It really goes to show what makes the difference. You still deny the God of the N.T. and the Old.
Now if you said you think it is better today that God suffered for our sin and made it easier, well then we have a discussion. SOme may say they liked the Old way better. But it does not change the point that we should not sin. And if we do we will have death of the body and the soul. But Jesus gave us a remedy for that too.
BUt rather you think the O.T. ways of dealing with sin were moral or immoral or not does not change the word of God now does it.
Just because he choose to pay for our sin and suffer for it, and by doing that made it easier on us does not mean that the O.T is a lie. Just because he choose to show us more mercy today then yesterday does not make the O.T a lie. I still do not understand you whole point. I am sorry.
If your point is that God is more merciful in the N.T. then the O.T. Then yes I agree. If you are saying that he taught us to be more merciful in the N.T. then the old, then again I agree. But it seems to me no matter what he does you are going to find fault with him anyway. Do you agree?
Well if you believe that, you can’t believe not killing is a moral absolute, for there are exceptions to the rule.
I don’t get it? Why would god not just forgive? This is why i would never worship it even if it did exist. A creature that is not capable of forgiveness without some kind of horrific punishment involved is not wothy of my worhship. For the minute punishment is introduced it is no longer forgivness.
I personally do not agree with the death penalty, so no. A child killer is very different from a homosexual also by the way. We obviously have very different morals.
And someone who has lived a good life, never caused anyone any real harm, but just could not believe in something without empirical evidence is hardly a murder either.