What say you

[freeatlast]

Read Deut 23:1-2, a person who has been wounded in his privates could not enter the congregation. Would you deny a war vet that had been wounded into church? In vs. 2 it says a bastard cannot enter the congregation for 10 generations. Would you not allow someone born illegitimate or their descendants for 10 generations into church?

You are trying to separate between religion and government, when ancient Israel was a Theocracy. It can't be done. To the Jews, this was the government.

Again, this is not about salvation or religion. Read the OP

 

[Don]

No one's playing your silly game. If you've got a point to make, make it.

 

[Robert Snow]

I've answered you.

You call Gods law barbaric. Enough said right there.

Let what the world thinks be your standard.

You won't answer because it might show my meaning in a light you cannot abide. I despise Calvinism, you are a died-in-the-wool Calvinist and that takes precedence over everything else.

In my book this makes you a hypocrite, at least hypocritical in this instance.

I never said God was wrong, although you attempted to make it look that way. I never said what God required in the Old Testament is not just, you attempted to make it look that way.

I said that by today's standards the Old Testament law would be viewed as barbaric, and it would. Maybe this is one of the reasons that although our laws are based on God's law this type of punishment was not incorporated into our system.

Perhaps this is why even the Lord himself did not give these statutes to the church.

Let me repeat myself so you don't misunderstand. You are being hypocritically dishonest, and you know it!

 

[Robert Snow]

That is an interesting view you hold about God. So let me be clear. You are saying that thou shalt not kill is barbaric, thou shalt not commit adultery, is barbaric, thou shalt not steal is barbaric, and so on, along with the consequesnces for doing those things is all barbaric, correct?

I never said what you are accusing me of. And you are calling Ann a liar. Seems like you lie quiet well all by yourself.

 

[freeatlast]

I never said what you are accusing me of. And you are calling Ann a liar. Seems like you lie quiet well all by yourself.

Robert I apologize for the way I worded that. If you look at it there is a question mark at the end. It was suppose to be a question instead of a statement. It should have read "Are you saying" instead of "You are saying." I apologize for the miss print. By the way Ann did ,lie again. So with the correction what is your answer to the question I was intending?

 

[preacher4truth]

You won't answer because it might show my meaning in a light you cannot abide. I despise Calvinism, you are a died-in-the-wool Calvinist and that takes precedence over everything else.

In my book this makes you a hypocrite, at least hypocritical in this instance.

I never said God was wrong, although you attempted to make it look that way. I never said what God required in the Old Testament is not just, you attempted to make it look that way.

I said that by today's standards the Old Testament law would be viewed as barbaric, and it would. Maybe this is one of the reasons that although our laws are based on God's law this type of punishment was not incorporated into our system.

Perhaps this is why even the Lord himself did not give these statutes to the church.

Let me repeat myself so you don't misunderstand. You are being hypocritically dishonest, and you know it!

Leave your lame attack on Calvinism out of this with the rest of your drivel, OK?

I never said you said God was wrong, perhaps I asked you that instead.

You've called Gods Law barbaric. That's what you've done. Deal with it, or perhaps He will with you.

Keep up the name-calling, no matter to me. All of us know that the name-calling is a defensive mechanism employed by losers. But this is your typical way of handling these things here, a slander here, a name there, a denial here, malicious intent, a mix of cynicism here and there, hatred, enmity, deceit; all works of the flesh.

This is your character on display and this is consistent with you here. I sincerely hope God changes your life, because you certainly are in need of this.

You've called Gods Law barbaric.

Anyone and everyone who is honest can take a look and see it.

It looks to me that it is obviously you that is being barbaric here, in your accusations of Gods Law as such, your attitude toward me, and in your name-calling. Hardly Christian behavior at all.

 

[Robert Snow]

Leave your lame attack on Calvinism out of this with the rest of your drivel, OK?

I never said you said God was wrong, perhaps I asked you that instead.

You've called Gods Law barbaric. That's what you've done. Deal with it, or perhaps He will with you.

Keep up the name-calling, no matter to me. All of us know that the name-calling is a defensive mechanism employed by losers. But this is your typical way of handling these things here, a slander here, a name there, a denial here, malicious intent, a mix of cynicism here and there, hatred, enmity, deceit; all works of the flesh.

This is your character on display and this is consistent with you here. I sincerely hope God changes your life, because you certainly are in need of this.

You've called Gods Law barbaric.

Anyone and everyone who is honest can take a look and see it.

It looks to me that it is obviously you that is being barbaric here, in your accusations of Gods Law as such, your attitude toward me, and in your name-calling. Hardly Christian behavior at all.

If your child became a drunkard would you support public stoning for him?

 

[Robert Snow]

Robert I apologize for the way I worded that. If you look at it there is a question mark at the end. It was suppose to be a question instead of a statement. It should have read "Are you saying" instead of "You are saying." I apologize for the miss print. By the way Ann did ,lie again. So with the correction what is your answer to the question I was intending?

No problem brother. I did not read your posting correctly, I was busy dealing with a liar myself and was busy formulating a posting myself. :love2:

 

[freeatlast]

If your child became a drunkard would you support public stoning for him?

Robert can you give a scripture reference for what you mentioned?

 

[Robert Snow]

Robert can you give a scripture reference for what you mentioned?

Deu 21:18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
Deu 21:19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
Deu 21:20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
Deu 21:21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

 

[freeatlast]

Deu 21:18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
Deu 21:19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
Deu 21:20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
Deu 21:21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

OK that is better as you sort of left some things out in your original post. It is not because he is a drunk but because he is a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his parents and the evidence is that he is a drunkard and a glutton.

That would put an end to stubborn and rebellious sons. So what is your disagreement?

 

[Robert Snow]

OK that is better as you sort of left some things out in your original post. It is not because he is a drunk but because he is a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his parents and the evidence is that he is a drunkard and a glutton.

That would put an end to stubborn and rebellious sons. So what is your disagreement?

I don't disagree. This is what God said at the time, so it is what is correct. My only point is that by today's standards this would appear to be barbaric. P4t knows this, he is just looking for any opportunity to argue. He like nothing better than to argue with someone, especially those who are anti-Calvinist.

I believe God has dealt with mankind differently through different dispensations. I'm not saying that salvation is any different, it is always based on Jesus dying on the cross and the resurrection. There are times that God has dealt differently with other things. For instance, in the law of Moses a man was forbidden from marrying sisters. Yet, before the law Jacob married Rachael and Leah, who were sisters. In fact it is these sisters, along with their handmaidens that produced the twelve tribes of Israel.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I P4t knows this, he is just looking for any opportunity to argue. He like nothing better than to argue with someone, especially those who are anti-Calvinist.

Maybe Im speaking out of turn Robert but I believe that P4T was up to a yr ago a IFB Preacher (Preach, please correct me if Im wrong) but if thats true, Id say he has grown in faith since then! :smilewinkgrin:

 

[preacher4truth]

I believe the only reason freeatlast would want to return to these barbaric laws is so he can beat his children and possibly get the opportunity to stone someone to death. Perhaps he should move to Saudi Arabia, he would fit in nicely. :tongue3:

And Bob wonders where I got the idea that he calls Gods Law barbaric?

Um? Maybe because he said it? Yes, that would be it!

The thing is, I presented Robert with some good rebuttal here to his perfunctory retort:

preacher4truth;1749573]So God was barbaric (as you've stated His commands and their nature to be)? His commands are barbaric?

Or, you don't understand justice or think justice fair?

Was God wrong here Robert?

Not I never told him he said God was wrong, as he later accused me of falsely, I merely asked the question. He then he tucked tail, became cynical, and started the name-calling drivel here and hereafter:

You just love asking questions and assuming things. I guess when someone is unsure of what they believe they employ such tactics.

By today's standards this would be considered barbaric.

No, obviously I don't think God was wrong; He can never be wrong.

Now, let me ask you two questions.

Why didn't God put the church under these types of standards?

Do you think we should live under these laws today?

**take note I never assumed a thing. He called Gods Law "barbaric."

I answered him here:

First of all, no one "assumed" anything, specifically me. You're the person who called Gods laws barbaric, so there was no assuming whatsoever. You'll have to face your own conscience and words as to stating this law as barbaric, not me.

Who made anyone of today culpable of making and deciding what standards are correct and incorrect concerning justice and punishment for sins? Is "today" and what persons "think" our standard? Not at all. Thus todays "standards" don't matter at all, neither is God placing anyone under todays standards, but under His. You do greatly err here.

The world is under such standards to fulfill them, which "it" cannot fulfill nor can "it" keep them. To the church, they are not under such, since Christ paid the penalty and fulfilled these standards for her, redeeming her, forgiving the elect therein for all sins and failures.

But he continues his drivel and turnsd it into name-calling and a tirade here which signifies said person as losing:

You won't answer because it might show my meaning in a light you cannot abide. I despise Calvinism, you are a died-in-the-wool Calvinist and that takes precedence over everything else.

In my book this makes you a hypocrite, at least hypocritical in this instance.

I never said God was wrong, although you attempted to make it look that way. I never said what God required in the Old Testament is not just, you attempted to make it look that way.

I said that by today's standards the Old Testament law would be viewed as barbaric, and it would. Maybe this is one of the reasons that although our laws are based on God's law this type of punishment was not incorporated into our system.

Perhaps this is why even the Lord himself did not give these statutes to the church.

Let me repeat myself so you don't misunderstand. You are being hypocritically dishonest, and you know it!

Robert is a dishonest person, and not only is he dishonest as if that is enough he goes into calling the other person such. Well, the reality is, nothing I've said is a lie nor dishonest. Obviously, Bob can't remember what was said, or; he depends upon those who come along and don't actually read what was written to see he is the one being dishonest, or; Bob's conscience just doesn't care any longer, and he can be untruthful and dishonest and it doesn't phase him or bother his conscience in the slightest to do so.

The thing Robert wants us all to forget and not see, nor will he answer, is that he in fact called Gods Law barbaric. That he won't own up to it, and subsequently goes into his prattle of name-calling, and then attacks calvinism? Well, that is just Roberts nature and who he is and what he does here. Simply put, it is the fruit he bears.

- Peace

 

[freeatlast]

I don't disagree. This is what God said at the time, so it is what is correct. My only point is that by today's standards this would appear to be barbaric. P4t knows this, he is just looking for any opportunity to argue. He like nothing better than to argue with someone, especially those who are anti-Calvinist.

I believe God has dealt with mankind differently through different dispensations. I'm not saying that salvation is any different, it is always based on Jesus dying on the cross and the resurrection. There are times that God has dealt differently with other things. For instance, in the law of Moses a man was forbidden from marrying sisters. Yet, before the law Jacob married Rachael and Leah, who were sisters. In fact it is these sisters, along with their handmaidens that produced the twelve tribes of Israel.

So this raises a question. If God never changes and he calls this justice for governing a nation how would that be a bad law for a nation to have? Is it that it is a bad law and would harm a nation or that you do not want to be held to such high and Godly standards?

 

[Robert Snow]

And Bob wonders where I got the idea that he calls Gods Law barbaric?

Um? Maybe because he said it? Yes, that would be it!

The thing is, I presented Robert with some good rebuttal here to his perfunctory retort:



Not I never told him he said God was wrong, as he later accused me of falsely, I merely asked the question. He then he tucked tail, became cynical, and started the name-calling drivel here and hereafter:



**take note I never assumed a thing. He called Gods Law "barbaric."

I answered him here:





But he continues his drivel and turnsd it into name-calling and a tirade here which signifies said person as losing:



Robert is a dishonest person, and not only is he dishonest as if that is enough he goes into calling the other person such. Well, the reality is, nothing I've said is a lie nor dishonest. Obviously, Bob can't remember what was said, or; he depends upon those who come along and don't actually read what was written to see he is the one being dishonest, or; Bob's conscience just doesn't care any longer, and he can be untruthful and dishonest and it doesn't phase him or bother his conscience in the slightest to do so.

The thing Robert wants us all to forget and not see, nor will he answer, is that he in fact called Gods Law barbaric. That he won't own up to it, and subsequently goes into his prattle of name-calling, and then attacks calvinism? Well, that is just Roberts nature and who he is and what he does here. Simply put, it is the fruit he bears.

- Peace

I would be angry if your weren't predestined to say all this.

If your son were a drunkard, would you support having him stoned to death?

 

[Amy.G]

So this raises a question. If God never changes and he calls this justice for governing a nation how would that be a bad law for a nation to have? Is it that it is a bad law and would harm a nation or that you do not want to be held to such high and Godly standards?

The problem I have with it is that God gave those laws to Israel, which was a Theocracy, governed by God who gave His words, laws and revelations to His appointed prophets. We do not live in a Theocracy. Our country is governed by wicked men who seek to please themselves, not God, men/women who have no direct revelation from God as did the OT prophets, and who couldn't care less what God says.

There is a huuuge difference in my opinion.

 

[HankD]

So this raises a question. If God never changes and he calls this justice for governing a nation how would that be a bad law for a nation to have? Is it that it is a bad law and would harm a nation or that you do not want to be held to such high and Godly standards?

God's requirements for us have changed over the ages.

He has not.

HankD

 

[quantumfaith]

The problem I have with it is that God gave those laws to Israel, which was a Theocracy, governed by God who gave His words, laws and revelations to His appointed prophets. We do not live in a Theocracy. Our country is governed by wicked men who seek to please themselves, not God, men/women who have no direct revelation from God as did the OT prophets, and who couldn't care less what God says.

There is a huuuge difference in my opinion.

Good Point Amy. :thumbs:

 

[Aaron]

The problem I have with it is that God gave those laws to Israel, which was a Theocracy, governed by God who gave His words, laws and revelations to His appointed prophets. We do not live in a Theocracy. Our country is governed by wicked men who seek to please themselves, not God, men/women who have no direct revelation from God as did the OT prophets, and who couldn't care less what God says.

There is a huuuge difference in my opinion.

Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

Those aren't universal?