Was God unloving for commanding homosexuals be put to death?
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
shilohproject
New member
Turbo, do you support the death penalty?...for children who curse their parents?
shilohproject
New member
Easy to say, of course, since it is not going to happen.
But in any event, if true, then you are consistent in this particular issue. The vast majority of Christians would not support the death penalty for a gluttonous, drunken kid who doesn't mind his parents, I'd wager. That is the inconsistancy I believe the post was addressing.
shilohproject
New member
I don't think blind application today of rules that made sense 3000 years ago, give or take, makes sense. The judicial law was for that place and time. So no, I would not support the killing of unruly, gluttenous, drunken children.
Yes.
Okay, I'm confused about the "Enyart" theology again. Yall believe that we are under the dispensation of grace, correct? So why does it seem like we have a lot of Old Testament quoting going on. Isn't that under a different dispensation? I realize OT laws have their purpose and should not be ignored, but do yall follow and enforce every single law in Leviticus or what?
shilohproject
New member
Which law are you refering to? In general, though, I'd say that their problem was one of the heart, not of legalistic flaw.
I'll have to address this in depth later. But basically: Treason which results in the death of another, even tangentially, and Capital murder (as defined in Texas) come to mind.
Some laws are civil/moral. (Do not murder. Do not steal. Do not commit adultery.)
Some laws are symbolic/amoral. (Do not work on the sabbath. Do not eat unclean animals. Observe the feasts.)
The symbolic ceremonial laws were given to Israel as a shadow of things to come, and to separate them from other people. There is nothing inherently immoral about eating pork, but for them it was a sin (disobedience) because God told them not to eat it.
The Body of Christ is not under the Law.* However, God has not abolished earthly governments. He calls them his servants to punish criminals (Romans 13:1-4). When dealing with government matters, it's a good idea to see what sins God thinks should be crimes, and what forms of punishment He says are appropriate.
*Unbelievers will be judged according to the Law. Also, the Law is a teacher that leads men to Christ (Gal 3:25). It points out sin, and a person's need for salvation.
Some laws are symbolic/amoral. (Do not work on the sabbath. Do not eat unclean animals. Observe the feasts.)
The symbolic ceremonial laws were given to Israel as a shadow of things to come, and to separate them from other people. There is nothing inherently immoral about eating pork, but for them it was a sin (disobedience) because God told them not to eat it.
The Body of Christ is not under the Law.* However, God has not abolished earthly governments. He calls them his servants to punish criminals (Romans 13:1-4). When dealing with government matters, it's a good idea to see what sins God thinks should be crimes, and what forms of punishment He says are appropriate.
*Unbelievers will be judged according to the Law. Also, the Law is a teacher that leads men to Christ (Gal 3:25). It points out sin, and a person's need for salvation.
Originally posted by Lucky8
Okay, I'm confused about the "Enyart" theology again. Yall believe that we are under the dispensation of grace, correct? So why does it seem like we have a lot of Old Testament quoting going on. Isn't that under a different dispensation? I realize OT laws have their purpose and should not be ignored, but do yall follow and enforce every single law in Leviticus or what?
We are in the Dispensation of Grace.
We are also in the continuing Dispensation of Human Government.
The later of which is almost complete ignored (if not completely unheard of) by most Christians.
The beginning of one dispensation doesn't necessarily close out another, they can, and do run concurrent with one another.
The "Enyart" theology, as you so creatively call it, teaches that God gave man the authority to execute criminals after The Flood, and that authority/responsibility will continue until God Himself takes control of the government during the Millennium.
As to the question; "...do yall follow and enforce every single law in Leviticus or what?"...
Bob teaches that the criminal justice system should be set up the way God lays out in the Bible. However, there are several laws that were of a symbolic nature that pertained only to Israel (circumcision for example, or the prohibition against wearing clothing made from mixed fibers.) These laws would no longer apply because God is no longer dealing with a single nation, but with the whole world therefore the symbol no longer holds any meaning. This point is interesting when discussing dispensations because we have the closing of one dispensation and the beginning of another effecting and modifying a third, already active dispensation. It seems confusing, but when you have a grasp of the big picture, the changes aren't confusing at all, in fact, they're quite intuitive.
Does this answer your question?
Resting in Him,
Clete
Last edited:
Well said. I agree.
But where does the Bible tell us some laws are civil/moral and some are symbolic/amoral? Better yet, where does the Bible divide up the laws and say these are good for government purposes and these are not. Is there any scriptural evidence to support that, or is it just based on what we think?
Oh, and I'm gonna send you a P.M. about something...
This isn't Biblical evidence per se but if I may offer something off the top of my head...
One way to tell that a law is symbolic is if it can be in conflict with another law.
Circumcision was required on the eighth day.
No work was allowed on a Sabbath.
Circumcision is a work.
What happens if the eighth day falls on a Sabbath?
This kind of conflict cannot occur with laws that pertain to criminal justice.
You would never find yourself in a situation where you would have to murder someone in order to keep from raping them, for example.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Many posts ago I cited the following verse:
Lev 20:9 If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death.
I did so in response to another verse in Leviticus that got this thread going:
Lev 20:13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death
The point I was trying to make is that if we are going to cite a verse in Leviticus to condemn homosexuals, then shouldn't we be consistent and obey all the prohibitions in Leviticus.
Lev 20:9 If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death.
I did so in response to another verse in Leviticus that got this thread going:
Lev 20:13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death
The point I was trying to make is that if we are going to cite a verse in Leviticus to condemn homosexuals, then shouldn't we be consistent and obey all the prohibitions in Leviticus.