Johnny Skeptic

Regarding homosexuality, there is not ANY credible that the writers were speaking for God and not for themselves.

rhutchin

If they were speaking for themselves, who cares. If they were speaking for God, as they claimed, it matters greatly. Regardless, once we determine what they writers said, then a person can decide whether he wants to believe it (i.e., believe that the writer was speaking for himself or actually speaking for God).

seebs

Salvation by Works, five yard penalty.

If doing a given thing could prevent someone who would otherwise go to Heaven from going to Heaven, then "abstaining from X" is a work that produces salvation in some cases, and that's generally frowned on.

If we are Hebrews, under the rulership of the Levite Priesthood, you have a point.

If we are not, then the entire thing is very wrong, and consists entirely of people trying to usurp God's authority.

More pragmatically, when I hear that you consistently order women to leave all human settlements during their periods, I'll believe that you're serious. Until then, I'm going to guess that, like just about all other Christians, you actually mostly live by the NT, not by the Law of Moses.

Johnny Skeptic

But we do know what the writers said because we do not have the originals. In addition, if we did know what the writers said, how do you suggest that we determine whether they spoke for God or for themselves? They might actually have believed that they were were speaking for God, but been wrong in those assumptions. Innocent by inaccurate revelations are quite common in other relgious books, so why not the Bible.

rhutchin

Nope. A common mistake from those who do not understand what the Bible says about salvation. These are the basics.

1. Any sin excludes a person from entry into heaven. Abstaining for all sin would allow a person to enter heaven. In the absence of sin, there is no basis for excluding a person from heaven. Only Christ is known to have lived a sinless life.

2. Once a person sins, there is no work that a person can do that can compensate or atone for that sin. The person must admit the sin, repent of (stop doing) the sin, and ask for forgiveness. Many people refuse to repent of certain sins and erroneously believe that works can compensate for that sin.

3. Some people will admit to, and repent of, certain sins but refuse to accept the Biblical categorization of certain activities (e.g., sexual immorality) as sin and are essentially relying on their works as compensation for participation in these sins.

4. No works can compensate for sin or provide salvation from the punishment for sin.

I agree. If society does not want to follow God, then society should not impose God’s laws on society. If that society is democratic as the US is, then those who serve God can influence the judicial punishment system.

I do not know how women handled periods before tampons.

However, Christ redefined certain parts of the law and some laws were done away with by His death. You could probably find something on the internet providing info on this. One example is Peter’s vision in Acts of all kinds of food and being told to eat. This has been seen to void all the laws related to clean and unclean foods so that people can freely eat any food. I also think all the distinctions between clean and unclean were voided by Christ’s death on the cross. Now, nothing can be called unclean so there is no distinction between Jew and gentile. We still have laws that identify sin – murder, stealing, sexual immorality, etc.

rhutchin

We have what we have. Certainly, the information is not perfect. Given the enormous import of a person's decision, it would be nice to have complete, perfect information. Unfortunately we don't. Blessed are those who have not seen and believe.

Johnny Skeptic

I am not asking for complete, perfect information. I am only asking what credible evidence you have that the writers were speaking for God and not for themselves, and that the writings about homosexuality that are in our modern Bibles were in the originals. From what I know about the God of the Bible, he certainly would not choose to inspire and preserve an inerrant Bible. An inerrant Bible was most certainly of no value to the hundreds of millions of people who died without hearing the Gospel message. In addition, God killed millions of babies and young children before they ever got to hear about the Bible. You have created a God not based upon any empirical evidence at all, but a God who appeals to your emotions.

Angra Mainyu

I disagree. If God, Hell and Heaven existed, that would be far worse than a death sentence.

My questions are, I’m afraid, the same:

Should I take that as a “yes”?

These are simple questions:

Would you want homosexuality and blasphemy to be punishable by death?
Would you vote in favor of such laws, if you were given the chance?

So, would you vote in favor of such laws, given the choice?

If they were speaking for themselves – as they were -, then the people who might be executed in compliance with “God’s” law, might care.

Incidentally, God was not speaking. Humans were speaking (or writing, anyway ).

If you (or they) claim that they were speaking for God, you’d have to prove it.

Otherwise, there’s no reason to assume that the claim is true. For instance, I could say that I’m speaking for God as well. Would you accept that, without evidence?

Also, I cannot "decide" whether I "want to believe" in an unsubstanciated claim - or rather, I cannot choose to believe in such a claim, even if I wanted to believe it, for whatever reason. Can you?

If I say that I'm speaking for God, could you actually believe that?
It doesn't seem possible.

rhutchin

Disagree with what?? Death (in the Biblical sense) is separation from life. In this world, a person is declared dead when life leaves the body and the person is separated from the body and separated from life in this world. Afterwards, a person is declared dead when he is separated from God and life with God. I am not sure what a “death sentence” would or could be if it were not separation from God.

I would vote in favor for such laws. However, the judicial process that would be followed to give the death penalty would follow the pattern of Matthew 18:15-17.

The writers claimed that they were speaking for God. It’s their word. Can we believe it? It takes faith.

Decisions, decisions, decisions. Amidst all manner of uncertainty, one thing is certain. One day, Angra Mainyu will die. You will have all the proof you want at that time.

djrafikie

I am speaking for God. He is my Father as His Words will flow forth from my lips. What I say shall be the New Truth.