McCain's wife, daughter back gay marriage movement

[Dracil]

19 is rather kinky. I certainly don't see the problem of two married people engaging in it.

 

[BigBadWlf]

So you're saying that you can't see the difference between, for example, laws governing sacrifices designed to atone for sin, and laws governing the morals of the Israelites?

Leviticus itself makes no such partition among the laws

So do you believe that any law mentioned in the OT has no place now - regardless of the reason?

Do we not live under a new covenant?

Taking the following passage
which of these do you think should NOT apply today, and for what reason?

"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.” John 13:34

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

Leviticus itself makes no such partition among the laws

Do we not live under a new covenant?

"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.” John 13:34

So how this this supercede the law on, say, adultery?

 

[Polycarp1]

So how this this supercede the law on, say, adultery?

You want a real, straight answer? The object of the New Law of Love is to show love toward God and man in everything you do. Essentially all the time that will involve keeping the Ten Commandments, Paul's instructions, and so on.

But you can build a truily off-the-wall hypothetical situation in which the moral act under Christ's Two Great Commandments involves the breaking of one or another commandment. Even Talmudic scholarship recognizes that there are occasions when one's duty to God overrides the commandment. In this particular case, Joseph Fletcher gives an example in one of the puppet states under the Nazis in which a wife slept with a complaisant guard at the concentration camp, in order to enable her husband's release. I don't remember the full story, but certainly far from 'cheating on' her husband, she did it as an act of love for him, to save his life and gain his freedom.

I've used the example of taking and destroying the property of another in order to make a tourniquet for a third party who was bleeding to death. Yes, it's a technical violation of "Thou shalt not steal" -- but is there anyone who would seriously contend that the person should allow the other person to bleed to death in order to keep the commandment?

99.999% of the time, one's moral duty is to keep the Ten Commandments, etc., But there will be rare exceptions, when one's duty to God and man supersedes the rote keeping of the Law. And that's what Jesus meant by the things He said.

 

[Smidlee]

That just furthers my point you're picking and choosing. You're willing to quote from the OT, but not willing to follow through with it. On both adultery and homosexuality.

I hope you know the whole purpose of the Law was not to stone people to death. If that was the whole point of the Law then God would not waste His time deliver them up from Egypt.
I don't know why people thinks there has to be only the two extremes, stoning everyone on one hand or everything goes on the other.

 

[BigBadWlf]

I hope you know the whole purpose of the Law was not to stone people to death. If that was the whole point of the Law then God would not waste His time deliver them up from Egypt.
I don't know why people thinks there has to be only the two extremes, stoning everyone on one hand or everything goes on the other.

Then why did God include such a lengthy laundry list of the people that should be killed?

 

[Marek]

Taking the following passage
which of these do you think should NOT apply today, and for what reason?

Besides sacrificing one's children, it's pretty easy to think of situations where violating any one of those laws would not be an immoral thing to do. It all depends on the context.

 

[lawtonfogle]

So you're saying that you can't see the difference between, for example, laws governing sacrifices designed to atone for sin, and laws governing the morals of the Israelites?

So do you believe that any law mentioned in the OT has no place now - regardless of the reason?

Taking the following passage
which of these do you think should NOT apply today, and for what reason?

How about the verse that says is a brother dies and leaves behind a widow but no children, you are to take the widow into your house and give her a son, and he will be considered your brothers child so that his name may carry on? Of course, you being married or not does not factor into this. So, should we allow it, as normally we would call this adultery by modern standards? Or does this law, which is clearly governs sexuality and not rituals concerning redemption from sin, no longer apply?

 

[Smidlee]

How about the verse that says is a brother dies and leaves behind a widow but no children, you are to take the widow into your house and give her a son, and he will be considered your brothers child so that his name may carry on? Of course, you being married or not does not factor into this. So, should we allow it, as normally we would call this adultery by modern standards? Or does this law, which is clearly governs sexuality and not rituals concerning redemption from sin, no longer apply?

All the example of this in scripture showed the redeemer as unmarried. I think the redeemer being unmarried is a given as this is a type of Christ. One of the wonderful books of the OT is the book of Ruth where the beauty of this law (kinsmen redeemer) is shown. The nearest kin was at first willingly buy back Naomi land until Boaz pointed out this also require marrying Ruth in which he said he could not. It seemed this kinsmen was in fact married which of course made Boaz happy.

P.S Not only was a spiritual reason for this law but also a practical reason. It was a way to hinder the richer becoming richer (gaining more and more land)and the poor getting poorer.