What say you

[revmwc]

Read the OP.

Read it? I posted a part of it for you to clarify, you evidently have no point or can't make it clearly enough. If not that then you are trying to accuse those who disagree with whatever laws you are refering to as being ungodly or not christian enough, while i think the former rather than the latter I have asked you to clarify since I clearly don't understand your question, since you think the OP is clear than thanks for the post I hope someone can answer what you are asking as for me I said other until I understandthe post with more clarity.

 

[freeatlast]

I reiterate: Your opening post cannot be answered to your satisfaction.

No OP can if you do not answer the question posed. Read the OP.

 

[freeatlast]

Read it? I posted a part of it for you to clarify, you evidently have no point or can't make it clearly enough. If not that then you are trying to accuse those who disagree with whatever laws you are refering to as being ungodly or not christian enough, while i think the former rather than the latter I have asked you to clarify since I clearly don't understand your question, since you think the OP is clear than thanks for the post I hope someone can answer what you are asking as for me I said other until I understandthe post with more clarity.

Yes you posted it and then responded with something other then it asked. Read the OP.

 

[revmwc]

Yes you posted it and then responded with something other then it asked. Read the OP.

I have read it and read it and read it and still see my answer being what you are talking about, so either you think everyone is stupid on here that continues to ask for clarification or you just like to feel superior by people not getting it. Sorry neither is true, Clarify or make clear what you mean with the OP. It is not clear what you refer to as laws or rules which do you mean as we have asked over and over and get the same answer read the OP, we have.

 

[freeatlast]

I have read it and read it and read it and still see my answer being what you are talking about, so either you think everyone is stupid on here that continues to ask for clarification or you just like to feel superior by people not getting it. Sorry neither is true, Clarify or make clear what you mean with the OP. It is not clear what you refer to as laws or rules which do you mean as we have asked over and over and get the same answer read the OP, we have.

Read the OP and stop reading into it.

 

[revmwc]

I think FAL is missing something, when the woman was caught in the act of adultery, the law demanded that she be stoned. Did Jesus demand that she be stoned? NO, he had mercy on her. So, the law was a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, to convict and convince that we are sinners worthy of death. But Jesus taught there was a greater law, a law of mercy and forgiveness.

I am not saying we should let criminals run free, but the law should be tempered with mercy, which I think we do have today, well, maybe we have gone overboard on mercy, but still, that is how our government should operate, justice tempered with mercy to those who turn from sin.

Remember the whole part of that law, those caught in adultry, that would be the parties involved malle and female were to be stoned. The accusers came and said this woman was caught in the very act of adultry yet where was the person or persons she was caught in the act with? Why wasn't that person brought to Jesus also?
Once Jesus made that point then the accusers walked away.
I have often wondered and had a pastor who felt Jesus wrote just that in the sand. Then He said those without the same sin through the first stone.

 

[freeatlast]

Remember the whole part of that law, those caught in adultry, that would be the parties involved malle and female were to be stoned. The accusers came and said this woman was caught in the very act of adultry yet where was the person or persons she was caught in the act with? Why wasn't that person brought to Jesus also?
Once Jesus made that point then the accusers walked away.
I have often wondered and had a pastor who felt Jesus wrote just that in the sand. Then He said those without the same sin through the first stone.

This is why you are having trouble with the OP. You have the same problem with the bible. Here is what you refered to.

Originally Posted by Winman
I think FAL is missing something, when the woman was caught in the act of adultery, the law demanded that she be stoned. Did Jesus demand that she be stoned? NO, he had mercy on her. So, the law was a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, to convict and convince that we are sinners worthy of death. But Jesus taught there was a greater law, a law of mercy and forgiveness.

I am not saying we should let criminals run free, but the law should be tempered with mercy, which I think we do have today, well, maybe we have gone overboard on mercy, but still, that is how our government should operate, justice tempered with mercy to those who turn from sin.

The problem is the the Lord DID call for to be stoned they just refused to do it and walked away. READ THE OP!

 

[freeatlast]

I reiterate: Your opening post cannot be answered to your satisfaction.

I reiterate not if another question is answered. Read the OP.

 

[revmwc]

Read the OP and stop reading into it.

Here it is let's break it down shall we.
"If all the OT ceremonies, feasts, and rituals (religious aspects) were left out how many here who claim to know and love the Lord would be comfortable, even desire, to live in a country that holds to the rest of OT laws (the judicial laws) of God in regards to lawlessness?"

First define OT ceremonies which ones, ceremonial laws such as added by the Jewish leaders not commanded by God.
Feast well God instituted the feast so those would be a little hard not to put in if we followed the Law as they are part of the Law and commanded by God.
Rituals the added ritualistic things added by man.
So now the rest of the Law as God commanded, first stoning for murder, stoning for theft, stoning for adultry, stoning for violation of those. But God made it clear too that the Jews were to keep every part of the Sabbath the days, years and the year of Jubile, that is part of the OT Laws. To violate that was to violate all the law Paul made it clear. The Jews were sent into captivity for violating those laws of the Sabbath, judicially God judged them. So that is a part of the OT Law you refer too, if you speak of the punishment for an unrully child as the stoning of tha child, that was laid out by God.
But that was not so in the beginning with God, he put a mark on Cain for killing Abel but commanded that Cain be not put to death, then God changed the punishment as Israel came into being as a nation.
God's very first Law which btw is an OT law was not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil to do so would bring death. Is that the Law you refer too? Another OT law was given to Cain to offer a proper blood sacrifice to which he refused unless you count Abel and God rejected that one too. Is that what you refer too?
We also see God telling Adam in Genesis 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
Man was to eat only vegtables do you mean we need to stop eating vegtables? But God changed that command when Naoh came along God said to Noah Genesis 9:
3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.

We acan eat meant but cook the blood out of it, there goes the medium rare steak we like, but this is OT Law, and God made it clear to Peter everythign was good for meat. Acts 11: 6 Upon the which when I had fastened mine eyes, I considered, and saw fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
7 And I heard a voice saying unto me, Arise, Peter; slay and eat.
8 But I said, Not so, Lord: for nothing common or unclean hath at any time entered into my mouth.
9 But the voice answered me again from heaven, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.
10And this was done three times: and all were drawn up again into heaven.

God cleansed it all and all is now edible, the Law of what we eat has changed many times, but you ask about that too. None is cerominal if God commanded it, so we live as God has written, we follow His word and His command.
If this is about disciplining children Solomon said Proverbs 23:13 Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die

Discipling our children is also commanded in the word. But the word means to smite thus the spanking not the beating as to inflict great physical harm. To strike in discipline or chastening is a lot different from beating one over and over. Not Solomons meaning at all.

 

[freeatlast]

Here it is let's break it down shall we.
"If all the OT ceremonies, feasts, and rituals (religious aspects) were left out how many here who claim to know and love the Lord would be comfortable, even desire, to live in a country that holds to the rest of OT laws (the judicial laws) of God in regards to lawlessness?"

First define OT ceremonies which ones, ceremonial laws such as added by the Jewish leaders not commanded by God.
Feast well God instituted the feast so those would be a little hard not to put in if we followed the Law as they are part of the Law and commanded by God.
Rituals the added ritualistic things added by man.
So now the rest of the Law as God commanded, first stoning for murder, stoning for theft, stoning for adultry, stoning for violation of those. But God made it clear too that the Jews were to keep every part of the Sabbath the days, years and the year of Jubile, that is part of the OT Laws. To violate that was to violate all the law Paul made it clear. The Jews were sent into captivity for violating those laws of the Sabbath, judicially God judged them. So that is a part of the OT Law you refer too, if you speak of the punishment for an unrully child as the stoning of tha child, that was laid out by God.
But that was not so in the beginning with God, he put a mark on Cain for killing Abel but commanded that Cain be not put to death, then God changed the punishment as Israel came into being as a nation.
God's very first Law which btw is an OT law was not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil to do so would bring death. Is that the Law you refer too? Another OT law was given to Cain to offer a proper blood sacrifice to which he refused unless you count Abel and God rejected that one too. Is that what you refer too?
We also see God telling Adam in Genesis 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
Man was to eat only vegtables do you mean we need to stop eating vegtables? But God changed that command when Naoh came along God said to Noah Genesis 9:
3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.

We acan eat meant but cook the blood out of it, there goes the medium rare steak we like, but this is OT Law, and God made it clear to Peter everythign was good for meat. Acts 11: 6 Upon the which when I had fastened mine eyes, I considered, and saw fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
7 And I heard a voice saying unto me, Arise, Peter; slay and eat.
8 But I said, Not so, Lord: for nothing common or unclean hath at any time entered into my mouth.
9 But the voice answered me again from heaven, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.
10And this was done three times: and all were drawn up again into heaven.

God cleansed it all and all is now edible, the Law of what we eat has changed many times, but you ask about that too. None is cerominal if God commanded it, so we live as God has written, we follow His word and His command.
If this is about disciplining children Solomon said Proverbs 23:13 Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die

Discipling our children is also commanded in the word. But the word means to smite thus the spanking not the beating as to inflict great physical harm. To strike in discipline or chastening is a lot different from beating one over and over. Not Solomons meaning at all.

Read the OP.