# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  Homosexuality

## Christian Liberty

P4P asks Theocrat this:




> By the way, do you still believe in executing homosexuals that don't repent or are you still of that belief?


Leviticus 20:13 seems to think that homosexual actions are so repulsive that they deserve such.  Why shouldn't homosexuality be a capital crime?

For consideration:

http://bojidarmarinov.com/blog/its-t...-about-sodomy/

----------


## heavenlyboy34

This thread is destined for a horrible fate...

----------


## Natural Citizen

Yeah, see, this is why I worship the sun. It doesn't punish. It doesn't reward. It doesn't judge at all. It just is. You know?

----------


## Origanalist

> Yeah, see, this is why I worship the sun. It doesn't punish. It doesn't reward. It doesn't judge at all. It just is. You know?


Try to land on it and see what happens.

----------


## Origanalist

////

----------


## Origanalist

> P4P asks Theocrat this:
> 
> 
> 
> Leviticus 20:13 seems to think that homosexual actions are so repulsive that they deserve such.  Why shouldn't homosexuality be a capital crime?
> 
> For consideration:
> 
> http://bojidarmarinov.com/blog/its-t...-about-sodomy/


You can change the name but your still trying to be someone you aren't, and I didn't go to the link.

----------


## otherone

> Yeah, see, this is why I worship the sun. It doesn't punish. It doesn't reward. It doesn't judge at all. It just is. You know?


MELANOMA, bitches.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Yeah, see, this is why I worship the sun. It doesn't punish. It doesn't reward. It doesn't judge at all. It just is. You know?


You're thinking of The Great Electron.  The sun is a Red Giant.  Like all Red Giants, it doesn't just "exist"-it continues expanding until it eventually burns out.  If you're around in a a bunch of billions of years, you will get mighty toasty.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> You're thinking of The Great Electron.


The _Big_ Electron. Sheesh. But I'm serious, though, dammit.

----------


## TER

> Yeah, see, this is why I worship the sun. It doesn't punish. It doesn't reward. It doesn't judge at all. It just is. You know?


The sun gives life to the planet earth.  And God gives life to all the suns of heaven and all the sons of earth.

----------


## TER

> Try to land on it and see what happens.


This!  The sun is a molten ball of energy.  And it is God Who is the source of this energy.  

The sun is created.  God is uncreated, and eternal.  

This sun will die away, and God will reign forever.

----------


## Theocrat

> P4P asks Theocrat this:
> 
> 
> 
> Leviticus 20:13 seems to think that homosexual actions are so repulsive that they deserve such.  Why shouldn't homosexuality be a capital crime?
> 
> For consideration:
> 
> http://bojidarmarinov.com/blog/its-t...-about-sodomy/


Yeah, phill4paul just wanted to start another controversy in a thread that it didn't need to occur in. Besides, he has no objective, ethical basis to judge my answer as immoral or evil, given his atheist worldview (assuming that he is still an atheist).

----------


## Origanalist

> This!  The sun is a molten ball of energy.  And it is God Who is the source of this energy.  
> 
> The sun is created.  God is uncreated, and eternal.  
> 
> This sun will die away, and God will reign forever.

----------


## Ender

> P4P asks Theocrat this:
> 
> 
> 
> Leviticus 20:13 seems to think that homosexual actions are so repulsive that they deserve such.  Why shouldn't homosexuality be a capital crime?
> 
> For consideration:
> 
> http://bojidarmarinov.com/blog/its-t...-about-sodomy/


Matthew 7:1-3King James Version (KJV)

7 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

----------


## ctiger2

Consenting actions between 2 humans is never anyone's business to judge and is certainly not criminal behavior when there's no victim or harm.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Consenting actions between 2 humans is never anyone's business to judge and is certainly not criminal behavior when there's no victim or harm.


That's right, it's between them and their creator when they meet Him.  Some folks do try to warn them about what is written though.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yeah, phill4paul just wanted to start another controversy in a thread that it didn't need to occur in. Besides, he has no objective, ethical basis to judge my answer as immoral or evil, given his atheist worldview (assuming that he is still an atheist).


I'm just curious where the "unless they repent" part comes from

Also, I'm not trying to hide who I am.  I used to post under a different name.  So what?

----------


## TER

> I'm just curious where the "unless they repent" part comes from


It comes from the teachings of Jesus Christ.

----------


## phill4paul

> Yeah, phill4paul just wanted to start another controversy in a thread that it didn't need to occur in. Besides, he has no objective, ethical basis to judge my answer as immoral or evil, given his atheist worldview (assuming that he is still an atheist).


  Just reminding others and newcomers that your objective, ethical basis includes putting consenting adults to death unless they repent and quit sinning. Others can judge it immoral or evil as they may.

----------


## acptulsa

> Originally Posted by Theocrat
> 
> 
> Yeah, phill4paul just wanted to start another controversy in a thread that it didn't need to occur in. Besides, he has no objective, ethical basis to judge my answer as immoral or evil, given his atheist worldview (assuming that he is still an atheist).
> 
> 
> I'm just curious where the "unless they repent" part comes from
> 
> Also, I'm not trying to hide who I am.  I used to post under a different name.  So what?


Was there some kind of code in Theo's post that I'm missing?  Because if that was actually a response to that post, I'm completely lost.

----------


## TheTexan

Not to sound like a ***** or nothin, but if the bible says not to do it, it's probably pretty fun

----------


## TER

> Was there some kind of code in Theo's post that I'm missing?  Because if that was actually a response to that post, I'm completely lost.


No, FF is starting up with Theo because Sola got banned and now another has to take up the witness as forum jerk.

----------


## acptulsa

> No, FF is starting up with Theo because Sola got banned and now another has to take up the witness as forum jerk.


Well tell the protege psychotic Protestant that there's a less confusing way to get his attention than quoting a completely unrelated post, to wit:

HEY THEO!

Or better still, tell him this...

----------


## tod evans

> Or better still, tell him this...


Repless for Thumper...

Need a lil' help please.

----------


## jmdrake

> That's right, it's between them and their creator when they meet Him.  Some folks do try to warn them about what is written though.


Best answer.

_You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Dr.3D again._

Implementing OT capital punishment for moral crimes is insane.  And those who seek to do this are provably inconsistent seeking to punish what was not mentioned in the OT (statutory rape and child porn) while trying to circumvent what was explicitly mentioned (stoning for Sabbath breaking and women wearing men's clothes).  And all of this based on a system were two people could easily conspire to lie about a third.

----------


## jmdrake

> No, FF is starting up with Theo because Sola got banned and now another has to take up the witness as forum jerk.


Sola got banned again?  I wasn't on yesterday.  It seems whenever I'm not around he gets banned.  

Edit: Just checked the profile.  He's not banned.  Did he get banned and unbanned in a day?  Glad I missed the drama.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> It comes from the teachings of Jesus Christ.


Don't misunderstand me, I don't deny the importance of repentance.  Any man can be repent and be saved.  And its a glorious thing when that happens, regardless of whether his sin is homosexual contact or even murder.

That said, I don't see anywhere in the Bible that says repentance should mitigate civil penalties.  Maybe that is somewhere, but I'm not familiar with it.  So, if you repent of a capital crime, whether homosexual contact or murder, you should pay the price in this life, according to the Bible.

----------


## jmdrake

> Don't misunderstand me, I don't deny the importance of repentance.  Any man can be repent and be saved.  And its a glorious thing when that happens, regardless of whether his sin is homosexual contact or even murder.
> 
> That said, I don't see anywhere in the Bible that says repentance should mitigate civil penalties.  Maybe that is somewhere, but I'm not familiar with it.  So, if you repent of a capital crime, whether homosexual contact or murder, you should pay the price in this life, according to the Bible.


And the reason Jesus didn't stone the woman caught in adultery was....?  And don't give me that crap that they didn't bring the man.  Jesus knew who the man was and could have called him out and demanded he be stoned too.  "The law of liberty has made me free from the law of sin and death."

----------


## jmdrake

> Don't misunderstand me, I don't deny the importance of repentance.  Any man can be repent and be saved.  And its a glorious thing when that happens, regardless of whether his sin is homosexual contact or even murder.
> 
> That said, I don't see anywhere in the Bible that says repentance should mitigate civil penalties.  Maybe that is somewhere, but I'm not familiar with it.  So, if you repent of a capital crime, whether homosexual contact or murder, you should pay the price in this life, according to the Bible.


And the reason Jesus didn't stone the woman caught in adultery was....?  And don't give me that crap that they didn't bring the man.  Jesus knew who the man was and could have called him out and demanded he be stoned too.  "The law of liberty has made me free from the law of sin and death."

----------


## jmdrake

> No, FF is starting up with Theo because Sola got banned and now another has to take up the witness as forum jerk.


Actually I expect when SF gets back on and reads this thread he will take on both Theo and CL because he (rightly IMO) finds theonomy to be unbiblical.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

The Catholic and Missouri Synod Lutheran Churches, along with other Christian congregations, consider homosexuality as a sinful failure and that correction is called for.   Please google the teachings of these Churches to read the full statement of faith on this issue.

The Church desires full restoration of anyone seeking help.

The Church does not stand in condemnation of any sinner.  God condemns humankind in the garden, through Original Sin.

Those who desire faith and repentance will never be turned away by Christ.

----------


## William Tell

> ... (stoning for Sabbath breaking and *women wearing men's clothes*).


Where in the bible is stoning prescribed for women wearing men's clothes? Although the Bible speaks against cross dressing, I am not aware of that punishment for it. I don't know where you found that, please share the verse with me.

----------


## jmdrake

> Where in the bible is stoning prescribed for women wearing men's clothes? Although the Bible speaks against cross dressing, I am not aware of that punishment for it. I don't know where you found that, please share the verse with me.


Okay.  You're right.  It just says it's an abomination.  So I'll take that one away and add stoning for rape victims in cities who don't scream loud enough.

----------


## donnay

"Let him who is without sin cast the first stone."  

Love the sinner, hate the sin.  

We are not here to judge, God is the ultimate judge.  Each and every individual will stand before him and have to answer to him for their sins they have not asked for forgiveness of.  It is written in his letter to us, that this behavior (*Leviticus 18:22* KJV) is an sin.  You teach this, and whomsoever wants to listen let them have ears to hear and eyes to see.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

"It must be emphasized that, according to the New Testament, we are no longer under the harsh Old Testament Law (John 1:16-17, Romans 8:1-3, 1 Corinthians 9:20-21). The concern with punishment is now secondary to Jesus' message of repentance and redemption. Both reward and punishment are seen as properly taking place in eternity, rather than in this life."     (Christian Bible Reference Site)

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> Don't misunderstand me, I don't deny the importance of repentance.  Any man can be repent and be saved.  And its a glorious thing when that happens, regardless of whether his sin is homosexual contact or even murder.
> 
> That said, I don't see anywhere in the Bible that says repentance should mitigate civil penalties.  Maybe that is somewhere, but I'm not familiar with it.  So, if you repent of a capital crime, whether homosexual contact or murder, you should pay the price in this life, according to the Bible.


Should Paul have been executed?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> P4P asks Theocrat this:
> 
> 
> 
> Leviticus 20:13 seems to think that homosexual actions are so repulsive that they *DID* deserve such.  Why shouldn't homosexuality be a capital crime?
> 
> For consideration:
> 
> http://bojidarmarinov.com/blog/its-t...-about-sodomy/


I fixed it for you.  It DID require death in the nation of Israel only because God's presence was there and sin could not exist in God's presence.  But, as the London Baptist Confession says, only the _moral equity_ of that civil law remains.  We know homosexuality is a sin that leads to eternal separation from God's presence because of how it was dealt with in Israel.  

In the New Covenant, excommunication has replaced execution as the way to "purge the evil one from among you."

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I fixed it for you.  It DID require death in the nation of Israel only because God's presence was there and sin could not exist in God's presence.  But, as the London Baptist Confession says, only the _moral equity_ of that civil law remains.  We know homosexuality is a sin that leads to eternal separation from God's presence because of how it was dealt with in Israel.  
> 
> In the New Covenant, excommunication has replaced execution as the way to "purge the evil one from among you."


Even if you are correct here, are you concerned at all about the downright mockery with which some Christians are treating God's law?  I don't believe the Sabbath is supposed to be enforced today because of Romans 14:5 and Colossians 2:16, but I don't make fun of that law or basically act like God was overly harsh.

That said, if your argument is correct, why not just exile the people in question?  Why did there have to be execution?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Should Paul have been executed?


What Paul did was legal when he did it.  While he is still morally guilty of murder, ex post facto legislation is wrong (and yes, God did predestine this entire situation for his good.  God used Paul in a great way even though he was the "chief of sinners.")

----------


## Christian Liberty

Sola_Fide has said that murder should be punished by death under the moral equity, but that homosexuality and adultery aren't (he would also say that blasphemy is not.)  I don't see how this fits with a covenental hermaneutic.

I get the argument Kevin Craig (a Calvinistic anarchist who ran for congress in Missouri) makes that capital punishment as such is ceremonial (though I can't reconcile it with a reasonable reading of Romans 13 or with Genesis 9:6) but even then this doesn't explain why homosexuality and murder shouldn't be dealt with the same way in society.

----------


## jmdrake

> Actually I expect when SF gets back on and reads this thread he will take on both Theo and CL because he (rightly IMO) finds theonomy to be unbiblical.





> I fixed it for you.  It DID require death in the nation of Israel only because God's presence was there and sin could not exist in God's presence.  But, as the London Baptist Confession says, only the _moral equity_ of that civil law remains.  We know homosexuality is a sin that leads to eternal separation from God's presence because of how it was dealt with in Israel.  
> 
> In the New Covenant, excommunication has replaced execution as the way to "purge the evil one from among you."


Called it!

----------


## jmdrake

> Sola_Fide has said that murder should be punished by death under the moral equity, but that homosexuality and adultery aren't (he would also say that blasphemy is not.)  I don't see how this fits with a covenental hermaneutic.
> 
> I get the argument Kevin Craig (a Calvinistic anarchist who ran for congress in Missouri) makes that capital punishment as such is ceremonial (though I can't reconcile it with a reasonable reading of Romans 13 or with Genesis 9:6) but even then this doesn't explain why homosexuality and murder shouldn't be dealt with the same way in society.


So are you ready to start stoning rape victims who don't resist enough?

----------


## acptulsa

> Even if you are correct here, are you concerned at all about the downright mockery with which some Christians are treating God's law?  I don't believe the Sabbath is supposed to be enforced today because of Romans 14:5 and Colossians 2:16...


Not until Paul said so?

What about Mark 2?  Wouldn't that be the prior precedent?  Which is the definitive source to you?




> ...but even then this doesn't explain why homosexuality and murder shouldn't be dealt with the same way in society.


Please explain to this forum full of libertarians how both have victims, and the victims in each case are deprived of just as much by the crime.  If execution is not a preventive measure designed to protect people from the future violent acts of known deadly criminals, what principle keeps it from being used as, say, a political weapon useful for culling the opposition?  What keeps it from becoming nothing but a way for humans to arrogantly play God?

I wasn't aware that the story of Jesus saving the adultress from stoning was in the Bible to teach us that Jesus wants us to kill His children before they have a chance to repent their sins and turn to Him.

----------


## jmdrake

> What Paul did was legal when he did it.


Sorry, but where in the Torah did it say that you could kill followers of the Messiah?  In fact where does it say you could kill followers of a false Messiah (since that's what Paul thought Jesus was)?

----------


## jmdrake

> Even if you are correct here, are you concerned at all about the downright mockery with which some Christians are treating God's law?  I don't believe the Sabbath is supposed to be enforced today because of Romans 14:5 and Colossians 2:16, but I don't make fun of that law or basically act like God was overly harsh.
> 
> That said, if your argument is correct, why not just exile the people in question?  Why did there have to be execution?


Do mistake justified mocking of your selective application and reinterpretation of God's law with mocking of God's law.

----------


## Terry1

> I fixed it for you.  It DID require death in the nation of Israel only because God's presence was there and sin could not exist in God's presence.  But, as the London Baptist Confession says, only the _moral equity_ of that civil law remains.  We know homosexuality is a sin that leads to eternal separation from God's presence because of how it was dealt with in Israel.  
> 
> In the New Covenant, excommunication has replaced execution as the way to "purge the evil one from among you."


Hi Sola--glad you're back bud.  God loves gay people and so should we.  And as sinners all of us are to love them and draw them into the body of Christ.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Sorry, but where in the Torah did it show that you could kill followers of the Messiah?  In fact where does it say you could kill followers of a false Messiah (since that's what Paul thought Jesus was)?


It was the law against blasphemy.   The punishment was death.  This was the false charge that Jesus was brought up on.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Sorry, but where in the Torah did it say that you could kill followers of the Messiah?  In fact where does it say you could kill followers of a false Messiah (since that's what Paul thought Jesus was)?


I meant Roman law.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> So are you ready to start stoning rape victims who don't resist enough?


I'm pretty sure the point is that it wasn't actually rape.

----------


## donnay

Luke 6:37  (KJV)

Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

Acts 3:19

Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;


Revelation 20:12

And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Even if you are correct here, are you concerned at all about the downright mockery with which some Christians are treating God's law?  I don't believe the Sabbath is supposed to be enforced today because of Romans 14:5 and Colossians 2:16, but I don't make fun of that law or basically act like God was overly harsh.
> 
> That said, if your argument is correct, why not just exile the people in question?  Why did there have to be execution?



I do agree with you about the mockery of God's law.  No Christian can mock God's law, civil and ceremonial in times past, or the continuing moral law.  The law shows fourth God's holy character, so a Christian loves the law because of that.

----------


## acptulsa

> Revelation 20:12
> 
> And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.


Are you taking all of God's word as the truth?  But even though that agrees completely with what Jesus Himself said in Matthew 25, the Book of Revelations is written in unbreakable code, and you're supposed to ignore it.

See, the last book of the Bible is unBiblical.  Even--maybe especially--when it reaffirms what Jesus Himself said.  Get your dogma straight.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I meant Roman law.


Oh I see what you mean there.  Yes, I agree.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Are you taking all of God's word as the truth?  But even though that agrees completely with what Jesus Himself said in Matthew 25, the Book of Revelations is written in unbreakable code, and you're supposed to ignore it.
> 
> See, the last book of the Bible is unBiblical.  Get your dogma straight.


Are you aware that in the Bible to be "judged according to your works" is a very very bad thing?

----------


## jmdrake

> I'm pretty sure the point is that it wasn't actually rape.


Right.  Because if a woman has a knife to her throat and doesn't cry out she really wasn't raped because everyone knows that being murdered is preferable to rape.

----------


## jmdrake

> I meant Roman law.


So do you think it was wrong to try and hang the Nazis who were "just following orders?"

----------


## jmdrake

> It was the law against blasphemy.   The punishment was death.  This was the false charge that Jesus was brought up on.


Except that everybody knew that eventually someone would come who was the Messiah.  Also Jesus put the Pharisees in check on the blasphemy claim.  Saul who became Paul was actually violating Jewish law the whole time.

John 10:30 - 36 _30 I and my Father are one.

31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?

33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?_

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So do you think it was wrong to try and hang the Nazis who were "just following orders?"


I think that FF was saying was Rome had an official policy of persecution to all those who didn't burn incense to Caesar.  Christians were certainly part of that.  This is why they were so ruthlessly slaughtered for hundreds of years.  Paul was part of that enforcement regime in Rome.

----------


## fisharmor

> The Catholic and Missouri Synod Lutheran Churches, along with other Christian congregations, consider homosexuality as a sinful failure and that correction is called for.   Please google the teachings of these Churches to read the full statement of faith on this issue.


What will this tell me?

The US constitution explicitly states that the federal government has no power to determine who is and is not a citizen, nor does it have power to eject noncitizens from within its borders.  Yet here we are, on a site that largely explicitly condones such behavior.

Likewise, the fact that the LCMS has adopted an official position amounts to exactly bupkiss.  They also have adopted a position of closed communion.  Yet anyone reading this can go to any LCMS communion service (where you can even find one) out of the blue and stand at least an 80% chance of receiving communion, with no questions asked.  (I am being consciously conservative in that number.)

One cannot profess to believe one thing and then do another.  Doctrine and practice are inseparable.
It's true that mankind is sinful and will fail to practice rightly.  The question to pose to your faith-based organization is this: what is your reaction to these events?
Is it to facilitate full restoration?  Is it to preach repentance and forgiveness, and to help the errant turn to Christ?

Or is your group's reaction to downplay it or pretend that it never happened?  To prevaricate on whether or not it's actually proscribed?  To avoid discussing fundamentals?

----------


## jmdrake

> I think that FF was saying was Rome had an official policy of persecution to all those who didn't burn incense to Caesar.  Christians were certainly part of that.  This is why they were so ruthlessly slaughtered for hundreds of years.  Paul was part of that enforcement regime in Rome.


Oh there is no doubt that what Paul did was legal in the eyes of Rome.  And what the Nazi butchers did was legal in the eyes of the Nazi government.  So?  FF goes further to say that what Paul did shouldn't be punished because of the "no ex post facto law" principle.  But the Nazis were tried and punished for obeying their law.  Follow my point now?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Oh there is no doubt that what Paul did was legal in the eyes of Rome.  And what the Nazi butchers did was legal in the eyes of the Nazi government.  So?  FF goes further to say that what Paul did shouldn't be punished because of the "no ex post facto law" principle.  But the Nazis were tried and punished for obeying their law.  Follow my point now?


Yeah I follow it.  I think it just goes to the point that the enforcement of the Mosaic civil laws were not important for Paul to implement.   He had something else on his mind, like spreading the gospel.   And you can do that in a tyrannical situation or in a situation of freedom.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> I do agree with you about the mockery of God's law.  No Christian can mock God's law, civil and ceremonial in times past, or the continuing moral law.  The law shows fourth God's holy character, so a Christian loves the law because of that.


Amen!  Whether the issue is homosexuality, abortion, fornication, sexual sin is serious.  Scripture tells us that.  

Having spent time with post-abortive women, once they understand the law of God, and desire repentance and faith, it is a marvel to witness what God's forgiveness brings.  This is what the doctrine of justification by faith alone means.  It is God's act of justification to the soul that has been softened to understand the law, repents and lives in faith in Christ's atonement.  The action of the Holy Spirit.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I do agree with you about the mockery of God's law.  No Christian can mock God's law, civil and ceremonial in times past, or the continuing moral law.  The law shows fourth God's holy character, so a Christian loves the law because of that.


Have you noticed how many people have done so in these threads?

What legal system could Christians come up with that would be better to apply in society than the laws God gave us in the Bible?




> Right.  Because if a woman has a knife to her throat and doesn't cry out she really wasn't raped because everyone knows that being murdered is preferable to rape.


The problem with this objection is that I'm not really sure how it could apply in 2015 anymore than it would have applied in 1300 BC.  If you had a reason why failure to scream in that situation would be considered proof of consent in that situation in 1300 BC but not in today's age, perhaps you'd have an argument.  And I don't know a single theonomist that doesn't consider cultural context when it comes to things like this.  But unless you have such an answer, all I can say right now is that I don't know and that I'd like to ask a more knowledgeable theonomist about it.  But to mock the law and yet claim that that was supposed to be applied in 1300 BC doesn't really make sense.




> So do you think it was wrong to try and hang the Nazis who were "just following orders?"


This is a good counter-point.  I don't know.




> I think that FF was saying was Rome had an official policy of persecution to all those who didn't burn incense to Caesar.  Christians were certainly part of that.  This is why they were so ruthlessly slaughtered for hundreds of years.  Paul was part of that enforcement regime in Rome.


Yeah.  You believe in the death penalty for murder.  So what's your answer to that question: "should Paul have been executed for that?"  Should we say that the answer is yes but that God sovereignly used the fact that that wasn't in place to implement his ministry through Paul?  Is this evidence that repentence and conversion is a special case in cases like this?  Would it have been wrong for a freedom-oriented emperor to have executed Paul for having done the legal but clearly murderous things he had done in the past?  How does justice deal with something like this?  I hadn't considered it.



> What will this tell me?
> 
> The US constitution explicitly states that the federal government has no power to determine who is and is not a citizen, nor does it have power to eject noncitizens from within its borders.  Yet here we are, on a site that largely explicitly condones such behavior.
> 
> Likewise, the fact that the LCMS has adopted an official position amounts to exactly bupkiss.  They also have adopted a position of closed communion.  Yet anyone reading this can go to any LCMS communion service (where you can even find one) out of the blue and stand at least an 80% chance of receiving communion, with no questions asked.  (I am being consciously conservative in that number.)
> 
> One cannot profess to believe one thing and then do another.  Doctrine and practice are inseparable.
> It's true that mankind is sinful and will fail to practice rightly.  The question to pose to your faith-based organization is this: what is your reaction to these events?
> Is it to facilitate full restoration?  Is it to preach repentance and forgiveness, and to help the errant turn to Christ?
> ...


I've taken communion in an LCMS church without being Lutheran



> Oh there is no doubt that what Paul did was legal in the eyes of Rome.  And what the Nazi butchers did was legal in the eyes of the Nazi government.  So?  FF goes further to say that what Paul did shouldn't be punished because of the "no ex post facto law" principle.  But the Nazis were tried and punished for obeying their law.  Follow my point now?


Yes, I understand this objection and its a good one.  I don't know the answer.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yeah I follow it.  I think it just goes to the point that the enforcement of the Mosaic civil laws were not important for Paul to implement.   He had something else on his mind, like spreading the gospel.   And you can do that in a tyrannical situation or in a situation of freedom.


I don't see how this is an argument against theonomy anymoreso than any other system of politics.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> What Paul did was legal when he did it.  While he is still morally guilty of murder, ex post facto legislation is wrong (and yes, God did predestine this entire situation for his good.  God used Paul in a great way even though he was the "chief of sinners.")


I see.

The reason I oppose Theonomy is because Jesus said that His kingdom is not of this world.  God has not made America the new Israel.  If God wanted us to enforce morality by the power of the state, I think he would have told us to do so.

----------


## jmdrake

> Have you noticed how many people have done so in these threads?
> 
> What legal system could Christians come up with that would be better to apply in society than the laws God gave us in the Bible?
> 
> The problem with this objection is that I'm not really sure how it could apply in 2015 anymore than it would have applied in 1300 BC.  If you had a reason why failure to scream in that situation would be considered proof of consent in that situation in 1300 BC but not in today's age, perhaps you'd have an argument.  And I don't know a single theonomist that doesn't consider cultural context when it comes to things like this.  But unless you have such an answer, all I can say right now is that I don't know and that I'd like to ask a more knowledgeable theonomist about it.  But to mock the law and yet claim that that was supposed to be applied in 1300 BC doesn't really make sense.


Where did I "mock the law?"  Again I'm mocking you.  A rule from the times of Moses that a woman couldn't be touched at all when she was on her period made sense during the days of Moses when there where no tampons.  Likewise millennia ago when there was no such thing as DNA tests, strict laws that made it very dangerous for a woman engaged to one man to have "consensual" sex with another man, even under the thread of death from a knife, at least served something of a purpose.....maybe.  But none of these particular laws even would have existed if the Hebrews had not rejected direct communication from God in favor of having Moses as a mediator.  In fact they wouldn't have even needed to fight in Canaan as God would have driven their enemies out with hornets.  It was rejection of God's spoken law through His own voice that caused the need for the written law of Moses.




> This is a good counter-point.  I don't know.


Cool.

----------

