Which OT Laws are carried over to the NT?

[Obsidian]

All the moral laws are still in effect. All the civil punishments for said moral laws SHOULD still be in effect, but unfortunately our cowardly godless leaders do not enforce them.

To the people asking whether homosexuality and incest with your mother are permissible: In numerous places the New Testament explicitly condemns fornication, which (from the Old Testament) was understood to include both of those acts. So the New Testament explicitly condemns both of those acts, on numerous occasions.

[KingsGambit]

I'd like to use Genesis 2:24 as a test case as I see it invoked elsewhere. I don't think verses like this by themselves are sufficient to prohibit homosexuality. After all, if somebody was taking care of their elderly parents, they would not be able to fulfill that verse as written because they might not be "leaving" their parents by moving out, but I hope no Christian would argue that they could not still get married. Considering we have six other verses that directly prohibit homosexuality, why not just stick to those?

[KingsGambit]

All the moral laws are still in effect. All the civil punishments for said moral laws SHOULD still be in effect, but unfortunately our cowardly godless leaders do not enforce them.

To the people asking whether homosexuality and incest with your mother are permissible: In numerous places the New Testament explicitly condemns fornication, which (from the Old Testament) was understood to include both of those acts. So the New Testament explicitly condemns both of those acts, on numerous occasions.

So why did Paul welcome ex-homosexuals into his church (1 Cor 6:11) instead of whining about why Caesar didn't stone them?

[Obsidian]

I don't know. I guess because he was too busy, in Romans 13, praising Caesar for killing a sufficient number of people.

[NorrinRadd]

Disagree totally. With both parts.

1. Gen. 4 is not biography.

Whether or not all the details, especially in terms of length of time, are correct, I find it theologically important if not indispensable that there be a literal "original couple." I realize this is impossible according to biology, genetics, etc., and so I reject the current conclusions of the natural sciences on this point.

I take the proscription of incest to be pragmatic rather than moral.

God actively commanded genocide on at least one occasion, so in that case at least, He was apparently "Ok" with it.

[NorrinRadd]

Goalpost move.

Fine.

Sex with one's birth mother is creepy and "ew" -- and genetically stupid -- but not inherently immoral.

[NorrinRadd]

Problem is, this argument is big among the pro homosexuality crowd, who dont see it as a violation of the two great commandments. We have more work to do.

I have to agree with them.

I believe their behavior is at least aberrant in terms of Scripture, and subjectively gross. But I find Scripture inconsistent on the issue, and cannot in good conscience claim it to be "sin" in all cases.

[NorrinRadd]

Ephesians 2:14-15 states, "For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace."

Jesus is our peace who has broken down the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances. What are these ordinances?

Or "commandments and regulations." Or "commandments in ordinances." Or "commandments in regulations." But I don't see why the detailed wording matters here. Whether the "commandments" were "expressed in" ordinances, "contained in" ordinances, or existed alongside ("and") ordinances, it was the Law that was abolished. Why does it matter what the "ordinances" were?

What did Jesus mean when He said that He did not come to abolish the Law and the Prophets, but to fulfill them?

Whatever He meant at the time, He meant while speaking to people under a Covenant no longer in effect. Hebrews makes clear that that Covenant is now Obsolete, and when it was replaced by the New Covenant, the Law changed also.

Whatever He meant at the time, we know He did not mean the Law would remain intact, because He Himself directly overturned at least the food laws in Mark 7.

[NorrinRadd]

All the moral laws are still in effect. All the civil punishments for said moral laws SHOULD still be in effect, but unfortunately our cowardly godless leaders do not enforce them.

This kind of foolishness is one reason I'm delighted we don't live in a de jure "Christian" nation.

[One Bad Pig]

Fine.

Sex with one's birth mother is creepy and "ew" -- and genetically stupid -- but not inherently immoral.

You still haven't put it back.

[KingsGambit]

Fine.

Sex with one's birth mother is creepy and "ew" -- and genetically stupid -- but not inherently immoral.

Sure it is. Divine command theory FTW

[Faber]

Sex with one's birth mother is creepy and "ew" -- and genetically stupid -- but not inherently immoral.

Sure it is. Divine command theory FTW

This is actually one act considered so immoral that even the gentiles thought it evil.

1 Corinthians 5:1, Ironically, the City of Corinth plays a prominent part in the story of Oedipus the King.

[KingsGambit]

This is actually one act considered so immoral that even the gentiles thought it evil.

1 Corinthians 5:1,

Ironically, the City of Corinth plays a prominent part in the story of Oedipus the King.

To nitpick a little, it appears that the incident in 1 Corinthians was the guy's stepmother, not his mother. But if anything that just points to how much worse it would have been if it had been his mother.

I find it interesting how Paul rebukes the church for being "proud". I see a parallel today with some churches that have people unrepentantly involved in homosexual sin and being proud of how inclusive they are.

[Cow Poke]

To nitpick a little, it appears that the incident in 1 Corinthians was the guy's stepmother, not his mother. But if anything that just points to how much worse it would have been if it had been his mother.

I find it interesting how Paul rebukes the church for being "proud". I see a parallel today with some churches that have people unrepentantly involved in homosexual sin and being proud of how inclusive they are.

Years ago, a Church in Austin was getting notoriety for ministering to homosexuals, which, if that were true, would be a GOOD thing. But the fact was that their website was actually boasting about how many of their STAFF members were gay or lesbian or trans.


ETA: I see they have revammped their website and no longer are as "in your face" about their gay leadership.
EATA: Wow, just looking at some of the churches in Austin....

bathroom-sign-stars_1_orig.jpg

[KingsGambit]

Years ago, a Church in Austin was getting notoriety for ministering to homosexuals, which, if that were true, would be a GOOD thing. But the fact was that their website was actually boasting about how many of their STAFF members were gay or lesbian or trans.


ETA: I see they have revammped their website and no longer are as "in your face" about their gay leadership.

What did they mean by "gay"? Did they mean attracted or active?

I don't think either would be a great look for a church, of course. You don't see churches advertising that they have alcoholic pastors on their website, even if it's true.