ARCHIVE: Z Man asks... "what about grace?"

[Clete]

FYI - This post took me longer than I expected and I have no time for editting. I did a quick spell check but I haven't proof read it for other typos. Please ignore any that you find.
Thanks.

It did! If a person believes in Christ, they will face no condemnation from God on judgement day, whether they were rapists, murderers, theives, or homosexuals. Because of Christ's sacrifice, they will no longer be judged for their 'crimes' (if they believe, of course).

So we shouldn't punish criminals then, right?

I really don't understand how you don't see the error in your position?

I do not deny that Jesus paid the price to justify us before God but that does not give us carte blanche to commit any crime we want without fear from the government. The two issues are entirely separate! Can homos go to heaven? Sure they can! All they have to do is call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and believe that God raised Him from the dead. But their eternal destiny has nothing to do with whether or not the government should practice justice and properly punish the criminal according to the guidelines of criminal justice laid out in the pages of Scripture.
When the government executes a criminal they aren't necessarily sending the person to Hell. The government does not make judgments about the destiny of someone's eternal soul, God does that. What the government does has to to do with maintaining public safety and the integrity of the society. If the laws of the land are just, the consistent enforcement of those laws has the additional effect of maintaining the condition of the moral integrity of the people in that society as well as leading people to Christ by demonstrating their need for a savior. And unless a person comes to Christ they will be judged by God on judgment day according to the law (Romans 1)! But even those who do come to Christ are judged according to the law! The only difference is that Christ has met the righteous requirement of the law for us and thus we are saved without sacrificing justice. The point being that the law (moral law) never changes; it is as steadfast as the character of God from which it is derived. And nowhere are we taught that because the law has been done away with for righteousness sake before God that we shouldn't have any criminal justice system in place. And make no mistake about it; that is precisely what your position is suggesting. You say that you support the punishment of criminals but you cannot do so and be consistent because Jesus was punished for all our sins, not just the capital crimes. His death paid the price for rape, petty theft and pulling your sister's pony tails and if what happened at the cross nullified any of the criminal code then it nullified all of it.

However, our laws on earth still apply. Even though God will not judge the rapist/murderer/thief if they believe, they will be judged by men here on earth for their crimes because they violated another person's security/rights and must pay the penalty. But in God's eyes, their penalty for their sins are already paid for.

Do you see the distinction? In God's eyes, all of the old testament laws will not condemn those who believe. He's already paid the price.

It seems you are the one who doesn't see the distinction. A saved criminal is still a criminal and should be punished according to the principles of justice laid down in the Bible, period. You seem to be acknowledging this and so the only point of contention left is whether or not homoism is a real crime or whether or not the laws against it in the Bible were simply symbolic or religious in nature.

But here on earth, there must be a law that protects us from each other - a law that grants us security and our rights. If they are violated by another person, that person will pay the consequences.

This is a primary purpose of the moral law given by God in Scripture. Man cannot improve upon that which God has revealed in the Bible. Any departure from the moral code given in the Bible is unjust, by definition.

Being a homosexual does not violate another person's rights - raping someone does.

This is simply false. God wiped out entire cities because of this one crime was going completely unchecked. I personally have started more than one thread showing the effects of the homosexual lifestyle on a society.
Nearly every male homosexual was molested as a child (usually under the age of eight) by another male (yes, contrary to popular opinion that makes the offender a homosexual). When a child is between the ages of 5-8 (or so) is when they are developing their sexual identity and forming their understanding of the differences between what it means to be masculine vs. being feminine. A sexual assault at such an age can result in massive confusion about such things and it clearly the primary cause of the homosexual disorder.
The disorder persists through a cycle of abuse similar to that of spousal abuse. A child grows up watching their mom get beat up by daddy and when they are older that's all they know. They become that which they generally hate so much and continue the cyle of abuse for yet another generation. It is true also of homoism. A child that is raped grows up to perform the same perversion himself on a new generation of victims, often times not even understanding why he's interested in such things.
The bottom line is that homos reproduce by molesting children. If you get rid of the homos you will get rid of child molestation with them (and vise versa - child molester should be swiftly executed as well whether they are homos or not).

If God can forgive a homosexual, why can't you? Whether you like it or not, you will be in heaven with a bunch of murderers, rapists, thieves, and homos.

If God can forgive murders and rapists, why can't you Z Man? The exact same line of reasoning applies to them as much as it does to the homo! And what more is that I am perfectly willing to forgive anyone who repents but I do not have the authority to forgive any sin that was not committed against me and I have no authority at all to forgive ANY crime and neither does the government! God commanded the execution of capital criminals WITHOUT mercy! I don't expect that you will understand this but that is truly the most merciful position to take! The kindness you wish to extend to the homo is not kindness at all! It is incredibly harmful! Not just to the homo, as he would likely go to Hell if everyone simply overlooked his perversion, but also to the whole of the society which has a legal system which has been dramatically weakened in its ability to keep the public safe from harm and more importantly in its ability to lead people to Christ.

It does! Rapists, murderers and theives are forgiven too, if they believe! However, the distinction between murder being a crime and homosexuality being a crime is defining which ones violates a person's security and rights. People willingly being gay does not violate my security/rights - someone forcefully taking another's life does. That's why murder, rape and thievery should be crimes while homosexuality should not.

Hopefully I've helped you see that you are just flat wrong on this point but even if you aren't your opinion about what is and isn't harmful isn't the standard by which such things are determined, the Bible is. The only laws in the Old Testament that should not still be enforced are those laws which has specifically to do with the nation of Israel. All the rest of the law is moral in nature and does not change any more than God Himself changes. That which is immoral is so because it leads to death not just because it violates someone else's personal rights. According to your standard, suicide, drug usage, prostitution, Sadomasochism and many other vices should at the very least be made legal if not considered moral!

I'm not advocating the 'recriminalization of the intentional dishonoring of one's parents'. I'm not insisting that it should be a crime today. I merely was making the point that if you believe homosexuality should be a crime because the Bible says so, then you MUST also believe and promote that disobeying your parents is a crime as well, punishable by death. Picking and choosing from the Bible which laws should be crimes and which ones shouldn't allows any Joe Schmo to come along and create a world that suits his interest, which may or may not be in the interest of the majority, or even God.

I understand the point and I believe a compelling argument can be made that this particular law had to do with God's dealing with the nation of Israel but I'm not going to attempt to make that argument because it change the topic of the debate and so I am simply conceding the point for the sake of argument and agreeing with you that if homoism should be a crime then so should be the intentional public dishonoring of one's parents.

What I really dislike about Bob Enyart advocating that homosexuals be terminated and outlawed is the fact that he is choosing a sin he finds most detestable so that those who do not do it are given the 'illusion' that they are better people and worthy of God's salvation.

This has nothing to do with why Bob advocates the execution of homos. On the contrary, it's just the opposite!
Don't you get it? Justice, if it is properly communicated leads people to Christ by making their imperfection plainly visible. The law was given that sin might abound! This is what Bob is attempting to use God's law to do. It isn't about building the non-criminal up it’s about tearing the criminal down!!! That's the purpose of the law to break the sinner! If a person never understands that they are lost, they will never go seeking a savior. And Bob knows that 99% of the time the homo isn't going to repent because of anything he says. The homo isn't his primary audience. His primary target is the mass of people out there who think they are a-okay with God. Bob doesn't just talk about executing homos in a vacuum, he also talks about the recriminalization of adultery and pornography and many other things that should be criminal, and he does so in the context of presenting what God would have the laws be, not him. He is simply presenting the law, using the law lawfully to convict the guilty in the hopes that all who hear him will repent. The fact that homos come up so often is merely because it happens to be, along with abortion the most damaging and thus the most important of such crimes which are currently legal in this nation.

In other words, he's nothing more than a bully and he has a self-esteem issue. Picking on those whom he deems more 'sinful' gives him the impression that he is 'holier'. It's sickening.

It would be sickening if it were anywhere near the truth. Isn't amazing how you are willing to tolerate homos but despise one of the few men who is trying to get them to repent by the only means that is Biblical.
You do not know Bob Enyart and you do not understand what he is doing or why he does it (except for what I just told you). I ask you to suspend your judgment of him until you do understand, otherwise you will be guilty of the same sin that Morpheus is guilty of, that being judging as the hypocrites do, by mere appearance.

John 7:24 [Jesus]"Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.”[/Jesus]

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Lighthouse]

I don't. All the things I listed and the punishment that should follow were in regards to them being crimes. I do not disagree with God that they are all sin. However, since Christ has paid the penalty for our disobediance to the law, there is no need to punish people in a court of law for sins that do not violate another man's security or rights. The sins that do violate that security, such as murder and rape, need to be dealt with in a fair manner. But I do not believe we should still have a strict interpretation of the old testament law today as it was when it was first created, thanks to God's sacrifice.

Christ died to pay the penalty for sin, not for crime.

Lighthouse, if you truly believe homosexuals should be executed, then why not also believe that those who break the Sabbath, or disobediant children should be executed as well? On what basis can you just pick and choose which old testament crimes should still be crimes today, and which ones are no longer valid?

And the Bible is quite explicit that the Sabbath is not to be follwed today, period. Also, the Sabbath was clearly a spiritual law, and the Bible is clear that it was only for Israel. As for the disobedient child, there was no law against a child being disobedient. But the law that is there is one I do believe should be followed today, as I have already said, if you had been paying attention, you would have noticed that.

 

[Z Man]

A saved criminal is still a criminal and should be punished according to the principles of justice laid down in the Bible, period. You seem to be acknowledging this and so the only point of contention left is whether or not homoism is a real crime or whether or not the laws against it in the Bible were simply symbolic or religious in nature.

At the bottom of this debate lies one question:

What basis do you use to decide whether homoism should still be a real crime or not?​

I know you get your ideas from the Bible, but why pick only a few crimes as still valid and others as not? How can you say some were simply symbolic or religious in nature, while the others applied to everyone for all time?

I've told you my opinion. I believe all the laws in the Old Testament were valid (no eating shellfish, observe the Sabbath, obey your parents, don't be homos) because there was no sacrifice yet to cover people's sins. If a person broke one of the laws, they had to make a sacrifice - either give up some of their property (an ox, some grain, a dove, etc.) to the priest at the temple, or, in severe cases, their own life. However, I believe that with Christ's sacrifice, many of the laws no longer need to be paid for with sacrifice. I believe the standard by which what laws should still be 'criminal' or not should not be based on sin itself, but on how greatly it affects those around them. Did their crime directly take something, or damage another person's property/security/rights? If so, they should be punished.

God commanded the execution of capital criminals WITHOUT mercy!

Yes, but what makes you think homosexuality is still a capital crime?

The kindness you wish to extend to the homo is not kindness at all! It is incredibly harmful! Not just to the homo, as he would likely go to Hell if everyone simply overlooked his perversion, but also to the whole of the society which has a legal system which has been dramatically weakened in its ability to keep the public safe from harm and more importantly in its ability to lead people to Christ.

I'm not saying that a homosexual's sinful perversion should be overlooked - I simply do not agree that they should be executed! I see no basis for it.

Lying is harmful to the public. Eating shellfish can still be very harmful to the public. Are you suggesting that anything done that could be harmful to the public should be a crime and those guilty executed? How do you prove that homosexuality is harmful to the public? I see no evidence that homosexuality is the woe of societies problems. I thought sin in general is what led society to disintegrate, not homos?

The only laws in the Old Testament that should not still be enforced are those laws which has specifically to do with the nation of Israel.

How do you decide which laws were specifically for Israel?

...I am simply conceding the point for the sake of argument and agreeing with you that if homoism should be a crime then so should be the intentional public dishonoring of one's parents.

You're all for executing children that disobey their parents? Would you take your child to court to be executed if they willfully disobeyed you? If the law was to voted on through a public ballot, would you seriously vote for it to be enforced?

His primary target is the mass of people out there who think they are a-okay with God. Bob doesn't just talk about executing homos in a vacuum, he also talks about the recriminalization of adultery and pornography and many other things that should be criminal, and he does so in the context of presenting what God would have the laws be, not him. He is simply presenting the law, using the law lawfully to convict the guilty in the hopes that all who hear him will repent.

Sounds to me like Bob is a legalist. Paul preached that there is no salvation in the law. Thus, why would Bob feel compelled to present the law, using it to convict the guilty in hopes that others will repent?

Galations 2:14-16, 19, 21
Since you, a Jew by birth, have discarded the Jewish laws and are living like a Gentile, why are you trying to make these Gentiles obey the Jewish laws you abandoned? You and I are Jews by birth, not 'sinners' like the Gentiles. And yet we Jewish Christians know that we become right with God, not by doing what the law commands, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be accepted by God because of our faith in Christ – and not because we have obeyed the law. For no one will ever be saved by obeying the law. For when I tried to keep the law, I realized I could never earn God's approval. I am not one of those who treats the grace of God as meaningless. For if we could be saved by keeping the law, then there was no need for Christ to die.

The fact that homos come up so often is merely because it happens to be ... the most damaging and thus the most important of such crimes which are currently legal in this nation.

Disobeying your parents isn't 'damaging'? Eating shellfish isn't? How can you just decide which laws are more damaging than others?

My main question in this whole debate is what makes you think homosexuality should still be a crime while other sins should not?

 

[Z Man]

Christ died to pay the penalty for sin, not for crime.

Yes, but didn't you say earlier that all crimes are sins, but not all sins are crimes? How can you decide which sins are crimes and which are not? Why should homosexuality still be a crime, but other sins not?

 

[Morpheus]

Clete,
I would ask you to review your own posts and attempt a subjective review of your responses. Neither do they make sense, nor do they mirror the character of the Christ whom you follow. You are so busy trying to be right that you have forgotten humility.

I asked for specific responses in my last post. You answered them correctly, but failed to see that your answers conflict with your policy. I will restate them.

God did not give the law to all of mankind. He gave it to the Hebrews.

No kidding. Really?

It was instruction for His people as to how to conduct themselves. Please show me where God instructed Israel to impose their law on the nations.

He didn't. I never said He did. But one day Jesus will rule the world from a throne in Israel and guess which laws will be in place around the whole world.

Then show me where God instructed Israel to only apply part of that law on the nations.

He didn't. I never said He did. Do you even know how to read?

Then show me where God instructed Israel as to how to divide that law.

There was no need too. I never said there was. You aren't paying attention because you don't want to know. I will explain nothing further to you. You are on your own.

and then there was this post:

God sure thought disobeying your parents was a crime worthy of death when He had Moses write this...

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 Suppose a man has a stubborn, rebellious son who will not obey his father or mother, even though they discipline him. 19 In such cases, the father and mother must take the son before the leaders of the town. 20 They must declare: 'This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious and refuses to obey. He is a worthless drunkard.' 21 Then all the men of the town must stone him to death. In this way, you will cleanse this evil from among you, and all Israel will hear about it and be afraid.

So why do you say homosexuality is a crime, but disobeying your parents isn't? You can't just pick and choose what suits your interest best.

The simple answer to your question is that part of the Mosaic Law had to do with morality and part of it was symbolic and/or religious. The latter having to do primarily with two things. Symbolizing Christ and separating Israel from the whole rest of the world.
Now that's an extremely simplified answer but that is essentially why some laws would apply and others wouldn't.
The law concerning children being put to death for dishonoring their parents is a difficult one but I believe that it was one of those that did in fact apply only to the nation of Israel. I admit that such a position is debatable and if you insist that it should be the law then so be it, I won't argue the point. But the law against homosexuality cannot possibly be one of those laws which God intended only for the nation of Israel because He destroyed whole city/states of gentiles for having committed the crime. The law against being a homo is moral in nature not symbolic or religious.
One important test to determine which laws are symbolic and which are not is to determine whether or not the law in question can conflict with another law. For example, you were to circumcise your male children on the eighth day but were not permitted to perform any work of the flesh on any Sabbath. If the eighth day of a child's life fell on Saturday then there would be a conflict; you would have to break one law in order to follow the other. Generally speaking such conflicts cannot happen with moral laws. One will never have to rape someone in order to keep from murdering them, for example.

This post appears to give your description of how some of Mosaic law was for the nations, and gives your description of how to divide that law. Yet in response to my post you agreed that God did not give the law to all of mankind, He didn't instruct that the law, nor any part of it, should be imposed on the nations nor did God ever give instructions on dividing His law. There is an apparent conflict. Could you please clarify your position and explain how these statements are not inconsistent?

As far as your denigration of my history of working with molested children, how foolish of you to make such wild accusations. The fact is that I, and my wife, have spent the past thirty-five years working with abused and neglected children, a great many of whom were molested. I, even in my retirement, continue to assist my wife [who is a clinical social worker (which means she is licensed to do therapy)] with several children after she receives consent from family. Our work with children has been far from limited to professional practice. The majority of the children have either come to us on their own after hearing about us from friends, or been sent to us by parents who do not know what to do. My wife's specialties are molested children and antisocial personality disorder. We have foster parented over 100 children as well. A few have been for a year or longer. Three of our five children are adopted from abusive/neglective families. Now let's hear your credentials.

As far as being liberal goes, if you honestly look at the life of Jesus and consider his practices and words you will not that he would be considered quite liberal by todays standards.

Consider this. You use the term "truth smacker" as a description of yourself. Why is it that you have so much difficulty when the truth smacks you back?

Oh, I forgot to include this:

Love and hate are not mutually exclusive. The most loving thing to do to a homo is to convict him of his crime and execute him swiftly.

as compared to:

Galatians 5
19The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

So can guide me to the scripture that shows that love and hate are in any way compatible?

 

[Clete]

Morpheus,

You are either a liar or are the most inept social worker of all time. It is simply impossible for me to believe that you have worked for 10 minutes with sexually abused children and are unaware of the connection with homosexuality that exist with such abuse.

As for your questions, there is no conflict in anything I've said. Had you posted an intellectually honest post that gave me one ounce of confidence that you were actually interested in the answers to your questions, I would have explained and clarified for you. As it is, you can figure it out for yourself. I'm sick and tired of wasting time with people who are so comfortable with lying to make themselves sound good and then hypocritically accusing me of having a lack of humility. Jesus was a liberal! That may be the most asinine thing I have ever seen anyone say on this website. Unbelievable.

:wave2:

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. Since I for some reason believe you about working with these abused kids and you clearly don't have a propper education on such matters, I reffer you to Paul Meier, Donald Ratcliff & Fredrick Rowe, any one of which have more credentials in the area of sociology and psychiatry that you or your wife could dream of.

59 WAYS TO RUIN A CHILD!

 

[Z Man]

It is simply impossible for me to believe that you have worked for 10 minutes with sexually abused children and are unaware of the connection with homosexuality that exist with such abuse.

What are your credentials Clete? What sources do you have to prove that homosexuality is connected with child molestation? And I'm not asking for second rate opinions; I want clear hard evidence from the doctors and professionals who have done intense studies on the subject. What are your primary sources?

As you always say, saying it just doesn't make it so...

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Morpheus,

You are either a liar or are the most inept social worker of all time.

:rotfl: Mr. Truth... meet Mr. Smack!

 

[Z Man]

:rotfl: Mr. Truth... meet Mr. Smack!

Knight,

You've never explained to me why it's ok in your opinion to execute homosexuals, but not disobediant children. Why say one law is still valid while others are not? What authority do you have to make such decisions? What are they based upon?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Knight,

You've never explained to me why it's ok in your opinion to execute homosexuals, but not disobediant children. Why say one law is still valid while others are not? What authority do you have to make such decisions? What are they based upon?

You don't acknowledge that ANYTHING should be a capital crime so what difference would it make if I explained to you why certain things should be capital crimes and others shouldn't?

After all... remember what you said....

If homosexuals should be executed according to the law for their sins, shouldn't we all be executed? Have you forgotten about grace?

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"

If the above statement from you is an accurate depiction of your argument against homosexuality being legal or illegal then you cannot make the argument that ANYTHING should be illegal let alone a capital crime.

 

[Morpheus]

It appears that the right is at a loss for words. Bloated indignance is a common weapon when cornered.

 

[Clete]

Z Man,

Cool your jets. I'm getting to it but I'm honestly at somewhat of a lost to know what to say that would convince you. You've completely ignored everything I've said on the subject so far so I'm a little hesitant to spend a great deal of time on answering any further until we have made further progress on what’s already been said.

Let me take a bit of a different tack on this with you since you at least seem genuinely interested in figuring this issue out.

First of all, do you believe that it was unjust for people to be executed for publicly dishonoring their parents at anytime during the period when the Mosaic Law was in force?

I assume not, and so I'm curious why you are so bent on making it into something it isn't so as to make it sound unjust? Your arguments are demeaning toward God and if you think that your attempts to make God's law sound unjust will cause me to shy away from them then you are quite wrong. The only reason I would ever not support the idea that God's law should still be in forced is if you could show me Biblically how a particular law no longer applies for some clear reason. I have attempted to do so for you on the issue of the symbolic laws such as the Sabbath and the dietary laws or circumcision but like I said a moment ago, you've just pretended like I didn't answer you and repeated the question. It could be that we are simply talking past one another though so I'm going to see if I can't get someone else to offer an explanation to your question.

As for my credentials, I've never claimed to have any. But whether I am credentialed or not, I can read books by those who are and have done so extensively on the topic of child abuse and the effects of all sorts of abuse. But even if I hadn't done that, all you have to have is access to the internet for crying out loud! The information is not hard to find. There's quite a lot available right here on this very website, even. The point being that the claim that the sexual abuse of children is the leading cause of homosexuality isn't even controversial. It's practically common knowledge! No reputably sociologist or psychiatrist would ever deny it except for political reasons perhaps. And you'll never find a reputable source ever claiming otherwise in any serious publication. Even the homos themselves know its the truth and proclaim it proudly in some circles. NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association) has as their slogan "Sex before eight, or it's too late!". Do you think they just made that up out of thin air or what? Of course they didn't. They know that the more children they molest the more child molesters there will be and the further they will get with their agenda. It’s a sadistically perverted but extremely effective strategy.

At any rate, whether or not you can see that homosexuality is harmful or not is not the test that we should be concerned with in the first place, is it? The test is whether or not God is just and whether or not the law is Biblical, right?

It’s obvious that homoism is against God’s law. The only question is whether that law pertained only to Israel or whether it is moral in nature and thus applies to everyone in all places at all times. If it is the latter then you have no grounds, regardless of your personal views, upon which to argue that it should not be a capital crime. The proof that the law is moral and not symbolic or religious in nature having only to do with the nation of Israel is that God Himself destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of this specific sin. The Sodomites weren’t Jews; they were gentiles! And God justly executed the whole lot of them (no pun intended) because of their sexual perversions one of which was homosexuality. Now was God just in doing so or not? Shall we endeavor to have a Godly and therefore just legal system or not?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

It appears that the right is at a loss for words. Bloated indignance is a common weapon when cornered.

Thank you for confirming that going any further with you on this issue would be a waste of my time. :nono:

 

[Morpheus]

Thank you for confirming that going any further with you on this issue would be a waste of my time. :nono:

I confirmed nothing of the kind. What I stated was that you have produced no valid references to back your assertions. The credentials of the authors of the one book you referred are either extremely difficult to confirm or quite dubious. It isn't like reading a book gives you authoritary credentials. I assure you that most posters here have read far more than one book on this subject, and many of us have home libraries full of them. Each of those books has controversial data that only years of experience can either confirm or deny. My question was what are your credentials. You boldly assert wisdom, but have no experience to back up your assertions. When I stated:

It appears that the right is at a loss for words. Bloated indignance is a common weapon when cornered.

it was because you have resorted to bluster as an escape for lacking intelligent answers to the posed questions. Knight has resorted to similar tactics, but at least he tried to turn the tables instead of just blowing off the question.

If you look critically at what I have written you will note that I never said anything personally denigrating about Bob Enyart. I only pointed out that his website is very self-aggrandizing. Like many religious speakers he, or his people, spends a great deal of effort selling not only his books and cds, but himself. If you look critically at the linked webpage in question you will not that it is selling Bob Enyart, and his books for the low price of $50. He may be personally a nice guy, but I often disagree with his conclusions. You are the one who needs to "cool your jets", as you so often state.

My efforts here are only partially to challenge your beliefs. I don't expect too much of that endeavor. My greater goal is to lay out opposing arguments to your unsubstantiated assertions for others to see, so that they may realize how misguided those beliefs are. I can later dust off my feet and leave you to your biases.

 

[Clete]

I confirmed nothing of the kind. What I stated was that you have produced no valid references to back your assertions. The credentials of the authors of the one book you referred are either extremely difficult to confirm or quite dubious. It isn't like reading a book gives you authoritary credentials. I assure you that most posters here have read far more than one book on this subject, and many of us have home libraries full of them. Each of those books has controversial data that only years of experience can either confirm or deny. My question was what are your credentials. You boldly assert wisdom, but have no experience to back up your assertions. When I stated:
it was because you have resorted to bluster as an escape for lacking intelligent answers to the posed questions. Knight has resorted to similar tactics, but at least he tried to turn the tables instead of just blowing off the question.

If you look critically at what I have written you will note that I never said anything personally denigrating about Bob Enyart. I only pointed out that his website is very self-aggrandizing. Like many religious speakers he, or his people, spends a great deal of effort selling not only his books and cds, but himself. If you look critically at the linked webpage in question you will not that it is selling Bob Enyart, and his books for the low price of $50. He may be personally a nice guy, but I often disagree with his conclusions. You are the one who needs to "cool your jets", as you so often state.

My efforts here are only partially to challenge your beliefs. I don't expect too much of that endeavor. My greater goal is to lay out opposing arguments to your unsubstantiated assertions for others to see, so that they may realize how misguided those beliefs are. I can later dust off my feet and leave you to your biases.

Your efforts have nothing to do with honestly challenging my beliefs. You don't even know what my beliefs are and what's worse is that you clearly don't care. That's the whole point. No one can honestly accuse me of running from a battle on any issue. I have years worth of proof of that fact right here on this website. If you had approached this issue with an ounce of intellectual honesty I would have talked us both into the ground on the issue as I've done repeatedly with others on this same subject before. I've grown tired of wasting my time though and so you'll just have to live with your ignorance. I no longer care whether you believe me or not.

If you look critically at what I have written you will note that I never said anything personally denigrating about Bob Enyart. I only pointed out that his website is very self-aggrandizing.

See what I mean? :bang:
I think you need to get yourself checked for Alzheimer’s or something. You just spew one idiotic statement after another. Falsely accusing a man of putting up a self-aggrandizing website is personally degrading to stupid buffoon. Now go away and leave me alone.

Resting in Him,
:Clete:

 

[Z Man]

You don't acknowledge that ANYTHING should be a capital crime so what difference would it make if I explained to you why certain things should be capital crimes and others shouldn't?

After all... remember what you said....If the above statement from you is an accurate depiction of your argument against homosexuality being legal or illegal then you cannot make the argument that ANYTHING should be illegal let alone a capital crime.

Maybe you should read the rest of my posts in this thread before coming to any sort of conclusion about my opinions based on your ignorance. Where have I ever said that I don't acknowledge that ANYTHING should be a capital crime? My argument has been presented - take it or leave it.

Ignoring it so you don't have to debate with me is what someone would do if they don't have a rebuttal. So, I'll just assume that's your position, since the best you can do is say it's pointless to talk with me.

I bet you have no idea why disobeying your children should not be a crime and I'm willing to bet you also have no idea why homosexuality should be a crime. You heard Bob Dumbyart say 'homos should die' and you immediately believed it was true. Pathetic...

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Where have I ever said that I don't acknowledge that ANYTHING should be a capital crime?

Right here...

If homosexuals should be executed according to the law for their sins, shouldn't we all be executed? Have you forgotten about grace?

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"

Using that logic how on earth could you argue ANY crime to be illegal, let alone a capital crime???

You are saying because of grace homosexuals shouldn't be executed. But grace applies to everyting right? Not just homosexuality. Murderers, rapists, kidnappers all have grace at their disposal the same as do homosexuals. So what about grace Z Man?

Would you like to retract that assertion so maybe we could move on? Do you see how your assertion renders your opinion on what is legal and illegal meaningless?

 

[Z Man]

First of all, do you believe that it was unjust for people to be executed for publicly dishonoring their parents at anytime during the period when the Mosaic Law was in force?

No.

I assume not, and so I'm curious why you are so bent on making it into something it isn't so as to make it sound unjust? Your arguments are demeaning toward God and if you think that your attempts to make God's law sound unjust will cause me to shy away from them then you are quite wrong.

The only reason I brought up the law about executing disobediant children is because if you believe homosexuality should be a crime because it was made one by God in His law, then why not believe that all the laws should be crimes today? I wanted to know why you guys were so bent on enforcing the criminalization of homosexuality, but not disobediant children. Why draw the line between the two? That's all I wanted to know, and so far, I really haven't gotten a good answer...

So I'm still left to wonder why you beleive some laws should still be enforced strictly, why others are no longer valid? But as I continued to read your post, I think I found your answer.

I'll get to that later in this post, but first:

The only reason I would ever not support the idea that God's law should still be in forced is if you could show me Biblically how a particular law no longer applies for some clear reason.

Did not Paul write several letters on the issue of the law and it's relevance to Christians? He was an apostle to the Gentiles, and one of the main problems with the early church was the question of should Christians still obey the law or not? You must remember that the first Christians were Jews, and never saw themselves as seperate from their fellow Jews. They just saw themselves as a continuation of Judaism. But it became apparant to them early on that the gospel was to be spread around the world, including the Gentiles. And as many Gentiles became saved, the Christian Jews immediately told them to become circumcised and obey the law. Paul spent a great deal of his life arguing against the idea of continuing to observe the law as Jews did, because it was fruitless. Christ's sacrifice saved us from the condemnation we received through the law.

Now, I'm not suggesting that we have no law today. But I am suggesting that we no longer define crimes as that which was so severely punished in the Mosaic law. Today we should define a crime as anything that takes away from someone else's rights or securities. I do not believe homosexuality is a crime - a sin, yes, but not a crime. It does not violate my rights if two men want to have sex with each other. I think's its perverted and a disgusting sin, but they'll pay for their penalty when they get to heaven for their immorality.

You brought up suicide earlier. I believe that should be a crime because it's a selfish way to take yourself away from others. If someone 'murders' themselves, they've taken away the security and rights from those who loved them. It's a selfish act against other people, even though you may have taken your own life, and therefore no different from murdering someone else.

As for my credentials, I've never claimed to have any. But whether I am credentialed or not, I can read books by those who are and have done so extensively on the topic of child abuse and the effects of all sorts of abuse. But even if I hadn't done that, all you have to have is access to the internet for crying out loud! The information is not hard to find. There's quite a lot available right here on this very website, even. The point being that the claim that the sexual abuse of children is the leading cause of homosexuality isn't even controversial. It's practically common knowledge! No reputably sociologist or psychiatrist would ever deny it except for political reasons perhaps. And you'll never find a reputable source ever claiming otherwise in any serious publication. Even the homos themselves know its the truth and proclaim it proudly in some circles. NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association) has as their slogan "Sex before eight, or it's too late!". Do you think they just made that up out of thin air or what? Of course they didn't. They know that the more children they molest the more child molesters there will be and the further they will get with their agenda. It’s a sadistically perverted but extremely effective strategy.

I'm not suggesting that there are no cases where child molestation did lead to a homosexual lifestyle. I just simply refuse to believe that ALL, or even the majority of people who are homosexuals were molested or abused as children.

If you believe that and promote it as truth, you need evidence. Just telling us that it's out there on the internet isn't good enough. I want to know where YOU got this garbage from. Can you point me directly to the findings that you have researched, and in which have lead you to conclude that child molestation is the MAJOR cause of homosexuality?

It’s obvious that homoism is against God’s law. The only question is whether that law pertained only to Israel or whether it is moral in nature and thus applies to everyone in all places at all times.

Are you suggesting that there were laws that only Israel were to follow?

I don't understand this. If God is the true God of all humanity, why would He only expect the Jews to follow His rules?

The proof that the law is moral and not symbolic or religious in nature having only to do with the nation of Israel is that God Himself destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of this specific sin. The Sodomites weren’t Jews; they were gentiles! And God justly executed the whole lot of them (no pun intended) because of their sexual perversions one of which was homosexuality. Now was God just in doing so or not? Shall we endeavor to have a Godly and therefore just legal system or not?

This makes your argument much clearer. Now I understand your point of view. However, I disagree. For several reasons.

1) Where do you get the idea that some laws were religious and symbolic in nature, while others were for everyone because it was moral? What basis do you just pick which laws are which?

2) If you believe homosexuality should be a crime today simply because God destroyed Sodoma and Gomorrah, then you should believe that murder is not a crime. Why? Well, David was a murderer (and an adulterer), but God never destroyed him or his kingdom. On the contrary, God blessed David. Solomon was an adulterer, but never recieved judgement based upon God's strict Mosaic law. Jesus forgave a prostitute on the spot. He also allowed his disciples to 'work' on the Sabbath.

We know the Mosaic law says homosexuality is a sin and punishable by death, but there were several other laws that had severe consequences as well. The main question in this debate is whether homosexuality should still be a crime or not. You say yes because it was a moral law for everyone, proved by the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. But to that I ask, if murder too was a sin punishable by death in God's law, why weren't many Jews, such as David, destroyed by God's judgement in the same manner as Sodom? Why did Jesus not execute God's wrath on those who disobeyed His laws in His own presence?

I believe it is in grave error to base your opinion on why homosexuality should be a crime on the events that took place in Sodom. You have to present a better argument, or be able to explain why other laws were not enforced by God in the same manner upon others, even the Jews to whom He gave the law!

 

[Z Man]

Using that logic how on earth could you argue ANY crime to be illegal, let alone a capital crime???

You are in error in believing homosexuality to be a crime. Noticed that I said:

If homosexuals should be executed according to the law for their SINS...​

Their sins, Knight, not their 'crime'. You guys said it yourselves, every crime is a sin, but not every sin is a crime. Since I do not believe homosexuality is a crime, I can argue which crimes should be legal or not.

You are saying because of grace homosexuals shouldn't be executed.

Right, because it's not a crime. You don't immediately execute anyone who sins - if so, we'd all be dead. That was my point. You misquoted and misunderstood me because in your mind - although however misguided it may be - you believe homosexuality is a crime. To that I ask, where is your proof?

But grace applies to everything right? Not just homosexuality. Murderers, rapists, kidnappers all have grace at their disposal the same as do homosexuals. So what about grace Z Man?

Of course it applies to all. But I've never suggested that just because we have grace does not mean that we no longer need to punish 'crimes'. You've only wrongly assumed I have because that's what you believe. And for some reason, you are arrogant enough to think that everything in your head is right.

Would you like to retract that assertion so maybe we could move on? Do you see how your assertion renders your opinion on what is legal and illegal meaningless?

Do you see the strawman you've built? I don't believe homosexuality is a crime. Thus, for someone to cry 'Kill Homos' is, in my mind, like saying 'Kill Sinners'.

Can you prove that homosexuality is a crime? What basis do you have to support your opinion? I heard earlier that homosexuality should be a crime because the Mosaic law says so, and thus the reason I brought up the 'disobediant child law'. If you believe homosexuality should be outlawed based upon the Mosaic law, then you should also support the outlawing of disobediance towards parents. If you don't, I wanna know why.

Why should homos be executed? Is it so you can feel better living with your sins?

 

[Lighthouse]

Yes, but didn't you say earlier that all crimes are sins, but not all sins are crimes? How can you decide which sins are crimes and which are not? Why should homosexuality still be a crime, but other sins not?

I can't decide. I don't have the right to decide. Only God does. And He has told us, in His word.