# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  Eric Peters is an idiot

## Christian Liberty

Yeah, I'm going to tick off some good people with this one.  But, I'm losing more and more respect for secular libertarians in general.  Here's a quote from Eric Peters in one of his comments to me:




> What creeps me out is the seething violence burbling under the Holy Talk. The textbook example being the murderous violence directed toward gays.
> Anyone who feels that way  who thinks that way  is no ally of mine.
> *The Old Testament is perhaps one of the most loathsome things ever shat out by human brains.*
> *Its worse than Mein Kampf, actually.*







And this in a response to some comment I made about Gary North and the other theonomists (who I don't agree with, for the record)




> Anyone who advocates putting people to death for being gay is an uber Clover; in the same category as a Hitler or Stalin. A monster. Insane. Despicable.



So, if you merely _believe_ that people should be put to death for certain morally perverted and ungodly *behavior* than you are in the same moral category as people who actually did murder MILLIONS of people and essentially totally enslaved millions more...

I've always respected Eric, even though I didn't agree with him on epistemological issues.  But these couple posts were just terrible, and I don't respect him as much after that. The logic is just as fail as that of the people he rightly condemns as idiots (so-called "clovers".)  This is the kind of stuff that makes me shake my head and wonder what hope we have.  Apparently libertarians can do it to.  

Eric's thread is here:

http://ericpetersautos.com/2014/10/0...comment-475644

----------


## phill4paul

OMG! FF is incensed by something. Get the $#@! over it and please gain ten years to join in these debates again so you can be less of a drama queen....

 EP  


> I certainly don’t demand that people relinquish their belief in anything. Whether Jesus is Lord – or The Flying Spaghetti Monster or shape-shifting reptiles.
> 
> I am not interested in such things myself. And there are many other things I don’t like and would not personally have anything to do with.
> 
> But so long as people aren’t violent and don’t cause harm to others – then go in peace.
> 
> That’s my message.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> OMG! FF is incensed by something. Get the $#@! over it and please gain ten years to join in these debates again so you can be less of a drama queen....
> 
>  EP


I read the entire thing.

My issue with Eric wasn't his comments on "religion", it was his ridiculous comparisons of the OT to Mein Kamf and of theonomists to Hitler and Stalin.

Reminds me of something Kevin Craig said recently (which I am paraphrasing here): if someone actually thinks that completely changing US foreign policy to non-interventionism, ending the drug war, and stripping the US government to almost nothing, but every ten or twenty years one homosexual would be executed on the testimony of two or three witnesses... if someone actually think that's worse than what we have now, that's not someone you can reason with.

----------


## fr33

> So, if you merely _believe_ that people should be put to death for certain morally perverted and ungodly *behavior* than you are in the same moral category as people who actually did murder MILLIONS of people and essentially totally enslaved millions more...


IMO no, but you're not far behind them. People like you are the type that I don't turn my back on and always keep my eye on. If enough of you live near me (and that could be the case now), and the state as we know it didn't exist, I could very well be burned at the stake. I'm willing to risk losing the state though. People like you tend to be kinda weak.

----------


## RJB

You'd think that this forum would supply you enough people to get mad at, but it looks like you need to go elsewhere for that need.  We at RPFs*** feel cheated  


***some of us.  I can't speak for the admin and staff.

----------


## phill4paul

> I read the entire thing.
> 
> My issue with Eric wasn't his comments on "religion", it was his ridiculous comparisons of the OT to Mein Kamf and of theonomists to Hitler and Stalin.
> 
> Reminds me of something Kevin Craig said recently (which I am paraphrasing here): if someone actually thinks that completely changing US foreign policy to non-interventionism, ending the drug war, and stripping the US government to almost nothing, but every ten or twenty years one homosexual would be executed on the testimony of two or three witnesses... if someone actually think that's worse than what we have now, that's not someone you can reason with.



Kevin Craig is the idiot...




> "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer",


Blackstone had it right. You and Craig have it wrong. Come back to these forums when you have become an adult.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> IMO no, but you're not far behind them. People like you are the type that I don't turn my back on and always keep my eye on. If enough of you live near me (and that could be the case now), and the state as we know it didn't exist, I could very well be burned at the stake. I'm willing to risk losing the state though. People like you tend to be kinda weak.


I don't want to burn you at the stake.  I don't even agree with the theonomists.  Just trying to put things into perspective for the radical secularists




> Kevin Craig is the idiot...
> 
> 
> 
> Blackstone had it right. You and Craig have it wrong. Come back to these forums when you have become an adult.


You think I or Craig would disagree with Blackstone?  I absolutely, totally agree with what he just said here.  What I don't get is that in the minds of most secular libertarians, sexual libertinism is some kind of exceptional freedom that is far more important than any other kind of freedom...

----------


## Spikender

He's not an idiot, he just has some positions that either you don't agree with him on or that he possibly hasn't thought out as well as his other positions.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> OMG! FF is incensed by something. Get the $#@! over it and please gain ten years to join in these debates again so you can be less of a drama queen....
> 
>  EP


You probably come off as mean to some people here, but you're really right.  I remember being 19.  Teh teenage drama of high school is still there and lasts till ~21, depending on the individual.

----------


## jmdrake

> Yeah, I'm going to tick off some good people with this one.  But, I'm losing more and more respect for secular libertarians in general.  Here's a quote from Eric Peters in one of his comments to me:
> 
> And this in a response to some comment I made about Gary North and the other theonomists (who I don't agree with, for the record)
> 
> So, if you merely _believe_ that people should be put to death for certain morally perverted and ungodly *behavior* than you are in the same moral category as people who actually did murder MILLIONS of people and essentially totally enslaved millions more...
> 
> I used to respect Eric, even though I didn't agree with him on epistemological issues.  But these couple posts were just terrible, and I don't even really respect him now.  The logic is just as fail as that of the people he rightly condemns as idiots (so-called "clovers".)  This is the kind of stuff that makes me shake my head and wonder what hope we have.  Apparently libertarians can do it to.  
> 
> Eric's thread is here:
> ...


I seem to recall somewhere that the founder of Christianity said hating someone is the same as killing him.  Does Karl Marx get a pass on the results of his teachings just because he didn't kill millions of people himself?  (Actually I don't know if Marx advocated the kind of ruthlessness that was Joseph Stalin.)

Here is what I don't get about people like Gary North.  How can the same people who supposedly believe that all of the Old Testament laws are still in force to the point that stoning people for being gay or adultery or blasphemy is okay, yet at the same time be convinced that the Sabbath was done away with in the New Testament?  There are examples of Christians worshiping on Sabbath in the New Testament.  There are no examples of Christians stoning anyone in the New Testament.  There are examples of Christians *themselves* being stoned, but the executioners are generally regarded as evil.  That said, I hope Gary continues to keep Sunday.  I'd hate to think of what he would do to the reputation of Sabbatarians if he discovered the Sabbath and then began advocating stoning for Sabbath breakers.    After all....it's in the Old Testament.

Edit: I wonder if Gary North advocates stoning of people who don't keep Sunday?

----------


## Todd

> So, if you merely _believe_ that people should be put to death for certain morally perverted and ungodly *behavior* than you are in the same moral category as people who actually did murder MILLIONS of people and essentially totally enslaved millions more...


Beliefs we have usually translate into how we go about our lives.  So although I wouldn't put someone in the catagory of an actual murderer, I would steer clear of those who advocate it.   They usually are very willing to do so by proxy.

Not to mention that Jesus actually condemned alot that was taught in the OT.  Maybe Eric is just ignorant of that as many Christians who advocate murder are.

----------


## fisharmor

> Reminds me of something Kevin Craig said recently (which I am paraphrasing here): if someone actually thinks that completely changing US foreign policy to non-interventionism, ending the drug war, and stripping the US government to almost nothing, but every ten or twenty years one homosexual would be executed on the testimony of two or three witnesses... if someone actually think that's worse than what we have now, that's not someone you can reason with.


If your choice was completely changing US foreign policy to non-interventionism, ending the drug war, and stripping the US government to almost nothing, but every ten or twenty years one Christian - not a generic "Christian" but one of your particular stripe - was executed on the testimony of two or three witnesses, would you go for it?

Yeah, Eric is intentionally a douche toward Christians.  So is Stephbot.  So is Adam Kokesh.

They do have a point.

My advice to you is to stop being a douche.  It justifies their platform.  "Hey look, here's another Christian douche.  I was right."
That includes not spreading hypotheticals around about how it would be ok to execute a homosexual based on OT law, as long as we got a lot for it.  I know what you meant, you know what you meant, but what secularists hear is "I'm ok killing ***** as long as I get what I want".

The pattern for Christian behavior is all in the book.  Return kindness for enmity.
If you know other Christians who are calling you out for listening to these guys, take their arguments to them in this same manner.  Are they listening to their grievances, treating them as images of Christ, and responding with reason and love?  Or are they saying "that guy isn't one of us, so $#@! him too, he can go on top of the pyre"?

One is commanded, the other is decried.  What they have a problem with is that Christians... aren't.  And they have a point.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> If your choice was completely changing US foreign policy to non-interventionism, ending the drug war, and stripping the US government to almost nothing, but every ten or twenty years one Christian - not a generic "Christian" but one of your particular stripe - was executed on the testimony of two or three witnesses, would you go for it?


  As for me, _I_ would prefer to live in such a place, so long as my lifetime chance of being murdered was less than 1 in 10,000 (perhaps even up to 1 in 1,000). It would certainly be a massive improvement to replace massive, wholesale crime with a smaller quantity of crime.

Of course, I cannot endorse the crime or pretend that it isn't crime, no matter how few people are being attacked and murdered.  Murder is murder.  Murder is wickedness.  Let's not be wicked.  Let's not be advocates nor apologists for wickedness.

----------


## Ronin Truth

I'd hafta say that Eric has earned his honored and distinguished columnist reputation. 

http://www.lewrockwell.com/author/eric-peters/

----------


## pcosmar

> I read the entire thing.
> 
> My issue with Eric wasn't his comments on "religion", it was his ridiculous comparisons of the OT to Mein Kamf and of theonomists to Hitler and Stalin.


My issue is with "religion".. as opposed to Faith.
Religion has a bad habit of twisting and distorting the truth of the scriptures.. and getting the Old Testament completely out of perspective.

Religion does more to harm the message than promote it.

----------


## jmdrake

> As for me, _I_ would prefer to live in such a place, so long as my lifetime chance of being murdered was less than 1 in 10,000 (perhaps even up to 1 in 1,000). It would certainly be a massive improvement to replace massive, wholesale crime with a smaller quantity of crime.
> 
> Of course, I cannot endorse the crime or pretend that it isn't crime, no matter how few people are being attacked and murdered.  Murder is murder.  Murder is wickedness.  Let's not be wicked.  Let's not be advocates nor apologists for wickedness.


There was a Star Trek NG episode where they had landed on a planet that was a virtual paradise with no crime.  It was overseen by an alien with godlike powers.  Wesley Crusher knocked over a plant.  On this planet any mistake, no matter how minor, was punishable by immediate death.  The executioners came with their lethal injections and the Enterprise crew responded with phasers.  Long story short, the Enterprise made peace with the alien "god" after first revealing to the people that it wasn't a "god".  But that begs the question.  Would such a "paradise" be preferable to what we have now especially if it was you, your close family member or close friend who knocked over the plant?  Is murder by a random stranger worse than sanctioned murder by the state?  I'd rather take my chances with the random mugger on the street than with a theocratic state that had absolute power over whether or not I lived or died.  But I guess that's just me.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> My issue is with "religion".. as opposed to Faith.
> Religion has a bad habit of twisting and distorting the truth of the scriptures.. and getting the Old Testament completely out of perspective.
> *
> Religion does more to harm the message than promote it*.


A rather sweeping and inaccurate generalization.  We'll have to agree to disagree. ~hugs~

----------


## pcosmar

> A rather sweeping and inaccurate generalization.  We'll have to agree to disagree. ~hugs~


You are free to do so.
I believe that Faith in God is far more important than any religion of men.
And I believe that those distortions of man have been fundamental in every religion known,, and often divisive of those that otherwise share a similar faith.

Discussions in this sub-forum prove that.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> He's not an idiot, he just has some positions that either you don't agree with him on or that he possibly hasn't thought out as well as his other positions.


This is a fair point.  I kind of lost it when I saw that post, and you're right that I did exaggerate.  But, what Eric said was still pretty awful.  




> I seem to recall somewhere that the founder of Christianity said hating someone is the same as killing him.  Does Karl Marx get a pass on the results of his teachings just because he didn't kill millions of people himself?  (Actually I don't know if Marx advocated the kind of ruthlessness that was Joseph Stalin.)
> 
> Here is what I don't get about people like Gary North.  How can the same people who supposedly believe that all of the Old Testament laws are still in force to the point that stoning people for being gay or adultery or blasphemy is okay, yet at the same time be convinced that the Sabbath was done away with in the New Testament?  There are examples of Christians worshiping on Sabbath in the New Testament.  There are no examples of Christians stoning anyone in the New Testament.  There are examples of Christians *themselves* being stoned, but the executioners are generally regarded as evil.  That said, I hope Gary continues to keep Sunday.  I'd hate to think of what he would do to the reputation of Sabbatarians if he discovered the Sabbath and then began advocating stoning for Sabbath breakers.    After all....it's in the Old Testament.
> 
> Edit: I wonder if Gary North advocates stoning of people who don't keep Sunday?


Most theonomists would say that the Sabbath was nullified in Romans 14:5 (I think.)  I agree that I have serious issues with Gary North's positions on the issues you mention.  I don't agree that that makes him an enemy of liberty, let alone comparable to Hitler and Stalin.  I guess I'm probably somewhat biased in that I have the same presuppositional apologetic and scripturalist moral ideology as the theonomists, I just have a different interpretation of some specific scriptures (namely, I think 1 Corinthians 5 is an abbrogation of the physical execution of non-violent sexual libertinism and idolatry while the theonomists don't) so I have more in common with them in mentality than the rest of you guys do.




> If your choice was completely changing US foreign policy to non-interventionism, ending the drug war, and stripping the US government to almost nothing, but every ten or twenty years one Christian - not a generic "Christian" but one of your particular stripe - was executed on the testimony of two or three witnesses, would you go for it?


Yes.  But I also don't see a 1 to 1 comparison between enforcing a law that God did at one time endorse to punish evil (even though we both agree that that law should no longer be in effect) and a law that is made up by men to punish even morally neutral actions, let alone good ones.  I do think there's a moral distinction.  




> Yeah, Eric is intentionally a douche toward Christians.  So is Stephbot.  So is Adam Kokesh.
> 
> They do have a point.


They may have a point with regards to certain Christians, maybe even most, but not "Christians" categorically.



> My advice to you is to stop being a douche.  It justifies their platform.  "Hey look, here's another Christian douche.  I was right."
> That includes not spreading hypotheticals around about how it would be ok to execute a homosexual based on OT law, as long as we got a lot for it.  I know what you meant, you know what you meant, but what secularists hear is "I'm ok killing ***** as long as I get what I want".


I never said anything like that.  Are secularists really so stupid that they can't see where I was going?  And if they are, are they really worth my time beyond preaching the gospel to them?  I have no patience for the stupidity of "clover" or or Christian warmongers, why should I have any more patience for anti-Christian stupidity?  Once again, people need to learn to read.  Apparently this applies to libertarians to.



> The pattern for Christian behavior is all in the book.  Return kindness for enmity.
> If you know other Christians who are calling you out for listening to these guys, take their arguments to them in this same manner.  Are they listening to their grievances, treating them as images of Christ, and responding with reason and love?  Or are they saying "that guy isn't one of us, so $#@! him too, he can go on top of the pyre"?
> 
> One is commanded, the other is decried.  What they have a problem with is that Christians... aren't.  And they have a point.



Actually, I'm "meaner" than most other people I associate with...



> A rather sweeping and inaccurate generalization.  We'll have to agree to disagree. ~hugs~

----------


## helmuth_hubener

*Josef Stalin is reputed to have said that a single death is a tragedy, a million deaths only a statistic. But no matter how many people die every single one of them is a tragedy  a tragedy I will neither ignore nor forget. Im obsessed with each and every death  because, in fact, each and every death is more than a statistic or a tragedy. Its murder.*

I will never forget the people whose lives have been irrevocably destroyed  the people who have been murdered, the people who lost those they love, the people whose homes have been smashed to bits, the people who are maimed for the rest of the only lives they will ever live. And neither will I ever forget who it is that killed them. They were killed by a relatively small group in Washington who believe they were put there by God to remake the world  not remake it in Gods image, but in Their own.

I believe it is a crime to take the life of another person. And no murder of an innocent person can be justified by saying it was necessary to achieve some larger goal  whether or not that goal is claimed to be a worthy one. When reformers create murder and mayhem, they justify it by saying, "You cant make an omelet without breaking a few eggs." But its always someone elses eggs that get broken. And the omelet never materializes  even after millions of eggs are broken, as they were during the two World Wars.

Yes, Im obsessed with war. Im obsessed with war because Im obsessed with life. I love life. I love my wife Pamela. I love being in love with her. I love the 19 years weve been playing house together  pretending were grown-ups, just like our parents. I love music. I love food. I love reading. I love sports. I even love sleeping. I taste and love so many parts of life.

I dont ever want to die. And I dont want anyone else to die  except maybe those who treat life so trivially that they can speak of the sacrifice of other peoples lives as being a worthwhile price to pay for some idealistic goal they believe they will achieve  a goal that will give them an exalted position in the history books.

Reformers are like children playing games based on fantasies. They see no reason to discover whether others before them have harbored the same ambitions  and failed miserably to achieve their goals. Its of no concern to them that without an understanding of the history and cultures of other peoples, they have no hope either to persuade or to dominate other people. And they pay no attention to the fact that in the process of "ending tyranny in our world" they are imposing a new tyranny in their own country  our country.

Yes, Im obsessed with war. Im obsessed with war because I love life. And so I will continue to fight against Americas wars with every bit of strength, with every bit of talent, with every resource I can spare.  -- Harry Browne

----------


## amy31416

> I read the entire thing.
> 
> My issue with Eric wasn't his comments on "religion", it was his ridiculous comparisons of the OT to Mein Kamf and of theonomists to Hitler and Stalin.
> 
> Reminds me of something Kevin Craig said recently (which I am paraphrasing here): if someone actually thinks that completely changing US foreign policy to non-interventionism, ending the drug war, and stripping the US government to almost nothing, but every ten or twenty years one homosexual would be executed on the testimony of two or three witnesses... if someone actually think that's worse than what we have now, that's not someone you can reason with.


The OT claims that "God" demanded genocide, there's also instances of incest, various forms of perversion, murder and rape. Being gay seems like a pretty mild offense toward God relatively speaking. I have to agree with Eric Peters. Sorry. If the OT gives someone justification to execute a person based on choices they make that harm nobody else, the OT is crap.

----------


## Christian Liberty

BTW: After some reflection I did modify the title (although the original title is still visible, I don't know how to change that) and I did moderate the language somewhat.  Eric Peters is on our side.  I happen to think Gary North is to for the most part.  Nobody's perfect.  I think that Gary North's viewpoint that homosexuality should be a capital crime is ridiculous.  And I think Eric Peters' view that that one viewpoint is enough to make someone "an uber-clover, on the same level as Hitler and Stalin" is also ridiculous.

----------


## fisharmor

> I never said anything like that.  Are secularists really so stupid that they can't see where I was going?  And if they are, are they really worth my time beyond preaching the gospel to them?  I have no patience for the stupidity of "clover" or or Christian warmongers, why should I have any more patience for anti-Christian stupidity?  Once again, people need to learn to read.  Apparently this applies to libertarians to.


Ok, let's try something else

BEGIN FISHARMOR'S HYPOTHETICAL RESPONSE
Are you really so stupid that you can't see where I was going?  And if you are, why am I bothering to talk to you?  I have no patience for people who can't get what I was saying the first time around.  This is clearly your problem.  It's not me, it's you.
END FISHARMOR'S HYPOTHETICAL RESPONSE

Now pretend I was really saying that.  Does that sit right with you?




> Actually, I'm "meaner" than most other people I associate with...


I believe it.  I know a lot of Christian $#@!s.  I'm one of them.  So is my priest.  People who by nature don't have a lot of time for anyone, but are compelled by the Holy Spirit not to be so abrasive for quite every single second of the day, and who recognize that it's an outside force.  Christianity is popular with people who recognize they have these kinds of faults.

All I'm saying is that we're talking about people who are going into the conversation expecting that they're dealing with bloodthirsty $#@!s.  The most appropriate way to deal with them is not to give them any more ammo.  The last thing you should do is become the thing they think you are, especially if you think it's in the pursuit of proving them wrong.  They're smart enough to taste that delicious irony.

----------


## youngbuck

The OT is old, plain and simple. With Christ's sacrifice on the cross, we have the new covenant.  

Calling the OT crap is simply denying the power of the creator, and your position as part of his creation.  Not surprising, since humans are typically haughty, pretentious, and self-centered toward God.  A hardened heart will reject the word of God.    

I've enjoyed every Eric Peter's article that I've read, but I fully disagree with his position on the OT.  That's fine, to each his own.

----------


## wizardwatson

The Old Testament is loathsome because nobody likes Jesus' Father.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law



----------


## jmdrake

> This is a fair point.  I kind of lost it when I saw that post, and you're right that I did exaggerate.  But, what Eric said was still pretty awful.  
> 
> Most theonomists would say that the Sabbath was nullified in Romans 14:5 (I think.)  I agree that I have serious issues with Gary North's positions on the issues you mention.  I don't agree that that makes him an enemy of liberty, let alone comparable to Hitler and Stalin.  I guess I'm probably somewhat biased in that I have the same presuppositional apologetic and scripturalist moral ideology as the theonomists, I just have a different interpretation of some specific scriptures (namely, I think 1 Corinthians 5 is an abbrogation of the physical execution of non-violent sexual libertinism and idolatry while the theonomists don't) so I have more in common with them in mentality than the rest of you guys do.


Well they could think that about the Sabbath.  But that would show ignorance of the fact that there are a lot of "esteemed days" in the Jewish calender that are called "sabbaths" (little "s") that have nothing to do with the 7th day Sabbath.  That said, if they're going to go around "nullifying" things, what about Ephesians 2:15?

_Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;_

And add to that Romans 8:2?

_For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death._

You can't just quote Paul selectively to do away with OT stuff that you don't like while clinging onto the stuff that fits your fancy.  

I don't know enough about Gary North to consider the Hitler/Stalin comparison, but I do know that in the eyes of Jesus, advocating killing a class of people is the same as killing them.  And if Gary North believes re-instituting stoning for violations of moral law is a good idea, then at the very least he is an embarrassment to liberty if not an outright enemy of liberty.  And when did theonomy ever really work anyway?  It seemed to be an abject failure in the book of Judges.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Ok, let's try something else
> 
> BEGIN FISHARMOR'S HYPOTHETICAL RESPONSE
> Are you really so stupid that you can't see where I was going?  And if you are, why am I bothering to talk to you?  I have no patience for people who can't get what I was saying the first time around.  This is clearly your problem.  It's not me, it's you.
> END FISHARMOR'S HYPOTHETICAL RESPONSE
> 
> Now pretend I was really saying that.  Does that sit right with you?
> 
> 
> ...



Fair enough.  I just thought that Eric's point showed a level of illogic that was FAR higher than I am used to from him.  Illogic has always frustrated me.  




> Well they could think that about the Sabbath.  But that would show ignorance of the fact that there are a lot of "esteemed days" in the Jewish calender that are called "sabbaths" (little "s") that have nothing to do with the 7th day Sabbath.  That said, if they're going to go around "nullifying" things, what about Ephesians 2:15?
> 
> _Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;_
> 
> And add to that Romans 8:2?
> 
> _For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death._
> 
> You can't just quote Paul selectively to do away with OT stuff that you don't like while clinging onto the stuff that fits your fancy.  
> ...


Hold on, so is it also quoting Paul "selectively" to say that homosexuality and idolatry should no longer be crimes?  Why is Gary North wrong, based on your reasoning?

----------


## jmdrake

> Fair enough.  I just thought that Eric's point showed a level of illogic that was FAR higher than I am used to from him.  Illogic has always frustrated me.  
> 
> Hold on, so is it also quoting Paul "selectively" to say that homosexuality and idolatry should no longer be crimes?  Why is Gary North wrong, based on your reasoning?


Men meeting out punishment for moral crimes is something that only happened in the Old Testament.  When Annanias and Safira lied to the Holy Spirit they were not stoned.  They were struck dead by God.  Did you not understand Romans 8:2?  There is no longer a "law of sin and death".  Also read Hebrews 10:26-29.

_26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?_

Those who despise the law grace are not in danger of death by stoning as under the law of Moses but in danger of the "fiery indignation" if they don't repent.  Yes.  Gary North is most certainly wrong.

And Paul said "And idol is nothing".  Paul did not believe eating meat offered to idols was even a sin, let alone a crime.  That would have been a stoning crime under the OT.

_4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.

5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

7 Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled._

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Men meeting out punishment for moral crimes is something that only happened in the Old Testament.


I disagree with this.  All crimes are moral.  I would agree with the idea, however, that the New Testament removes the enforcement of laws against victimless crimes.  Which may have been what you were getting at.

----------


## fr33

> The OT is old, plain and simple. With Christ's sacrifice on the cross, we have the new covenant.  
> 
> *Calling the OT crap is simply denying the power of the creator, and your position as part of his creation.*  Not surprising, since humans are typically haughty, pretentious, and self-centered toward God.  A hardened heart will reject the word of God.    
> 
> I've enjoyed every Eric Peter's article that I've read, but I fully disagree with his position on the OT.  That's fine, to each his own.


The criticism of the old testament is relative because Christians today still cite it as holy law and use it to support government measures.

----------


## staerker

> The criticism of *[x]* is relative because *[y]* today still cite it as *[z]* and use it to support *[t]*.


Replace x, y, z, and t with any words of choice. Both statements will hold the same merit.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> The criticism of the old testament is relative because Christians today still cite it as holy law and use it to support government measures.


Some do.  They are mostly incorrect.  The New Covenant in Christ is different from the Old Covenant and takes precedence.

----------


## fr33

> Some do.  They are mostly incorrect.  The New Covenant in Christ is different from the Old Covenant and takes precedence.


It isn't just some. It's the majority that call themselves christians. They usually cite the old testament when opposing gay marriage and want the 10 commandments displayed on every level of government they get their hands on.

----------


## jmdrake

> I disagree with this.  All crimes are moral.  I would agree with the idea, however, that the New Testament removes the enforcement of laws against victimless crimes.  Which may have been what you were getting at.


Right.  Some "crimes" in the OT are only wrong for moral reasons.  I thought that went without saying since we are talking about stoning people for being gay as opposed to stoning them for committing murder.

----------


## Ronin Truth

In my opinion, the responsibility for an awful lot of human evil over time was placed on GOD in the OT. Ah, the old bogus Nuremberg defense trick.    "I was only following orders."

*PULLEEEESE!  *

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> It isn't just some. *It's the majority that call themselves christians.* They usually cite the old testament when opposing gay marriage and want the 10 commandments displayed on every level of government they get their hands on.


O rlly?  How many have you asked?

----------


## robert68

> In my opinion, the responsibility for an awful lot of human evil over time was placed on GOD in the OT. Ah, the old bogus Nuremberg defense trick.    "I was only following orders."
> 
> *PULLEEEESE!  *


Sometimes, “the devil made me do it”; others times, "God made you do it".

----------


## heavenlyboy34

n/m, dupe.

----------


## fr33

> O rlly?  How many have you asked?


It's like you live in an alternate reality where most Christians consider Jesus to be an anarchist, government approved marriage isn't a thing, and christians don't cite the old testament when talking about gays.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> It's like you live in an alternate reality where most Christians consider Jesus to be an anarchist, government approved marriage isn't a thing, and christians don't cite the old testament when talking about gays.


Well, I agree with two of those three ideas.  Jesus was an "anarchist", and government approved marriage isn't a thing in my worldview.

That said, I am fine with quoting the OT as it relates to gays.

----------


## fr33

> Well, I agree with two of those three ideas.  Jesus was an "anarchist", and government approved marriage isn't a thing in my worldview.
> 
> That said, I am fine with quoting the OT as it relates to gays.


Yeah and you totally represent a majority among christians /sarcasm

----------


## Ronin Truth

Would Eric call FF a Clover?  Probably.

----------


## acptulsa

> n/m, dupe.


It took the system five hours and five minutes to post the duplicate of your previous post?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Sometimes, the devil made me do it; others times, "God made you do it".


 Yeah, sometimes the flock is really just pathetic.

----------

