Michelle as always the paternal mother and keeper of the peace.

You're right we have gotten side track.

Lee I am going to take your last post and start a new topic about interpretations of the new testament .


Here is the original core of the question asked about how a priest has interpreted that the death penalty was wrong. The discussion is about how Christianity either accepts or doesn't. 

So far, we have taken the quote from Anxiety, reflected on by Lee and have confirmed that that verse was about a society moral at the time it was written. Which agrees with what the priest has told SoulRebel.  We are at this time in discussion  about how to assert this agreement in interpretation to the rest of the laws in the bible. 

We have Anxiety and Paul on the side that if we can find fault or discord in the writing as not being relevant to today's society morals, then is there room for Christians to believe in some of the laws and not others. Is it ok to say that the ten commandments are valid in today's society, yet the status of the family "face" is no longer a valid argument. As societal morals change, do the laws then become historical, guidelines or possibly no longer apply.

Lee has come out on both sides of the issue, first agreeing logically, that the law is invalid for today, but then jumping over to the other side when asked how does one justify the discord with the doctrine of infallibility in the bible.

Relevant issue, probably may be at the heart of why the church is losing so many members across the nation. We seem to be an impasse
but we may reach a middle ground that will help shape the future of the church and gather more members.  It seems at this time that members of a congregation will show up for service, leave and have nothing else to do with the church in either their own life or how they interact with others. Could it be as people have become more literate, more knowledgeable about others in the world, that they question doctrine and the bible as they see conflicts which the church hasn't or doesn't want to discuss? 

Lee, how would you suggest that Christians handle these conflicts. You have already noted that while the word may be infallible in describing the law of the land at the time it was written, that it doesn't apply to today's morals.

As a matter of fact Anxiety I have a very good friend who is homosexual and I treat him with the same amount of respect as I treat my heterosexual friends. You have no right to tell me I hate a particular group of people. You don't even know me. I am simply stating that the Bible says homosexuality is a sin. I am simply stating the truth to them because I want to help people come to a faith in Jesus Christ so If you think that is hateful that is your problem. Your problem is not with me it is with God. Don't try to tell me that I think I'm better than anybody else either because I'm a sinner just like anybody else who has ever walked the face of this earth.

Ok lee- let me see if I have your thoughts correct. 

1. God made the laws in the bible, but set them too hard for humans to be able to attain as they are perfect.
2. Humans are not capable of being able to  abide by the law so we need the holiness of God
3. The law was created to lead humans to Christ
4. Only belief in Jesus allows us to get pardoned by God.

Then I would assume you agree that it would make sense that people like drug dealers, rapists, robbers, murderers could get into heaven if at the last few moments of life they repented and took Jesus as their lord and savior. 

I understand where you are in your analysis of the law and it's application. But looking at it from a viewpoint of someone who was trying to figure out what Christianity stands for, I see some contradiction that makes me confused as to living a Christian life. For as you have outlined, it is only the belief in Jesus that gets someone into Heaven.  Not being good.  So, in that case why would we need a death penalty in the first place?  The priest in the beginning stated that it was no longer a valid law as times changed. You seem to be on the same page with the summary of how the law and entry into heaven works.

But you said earlier that
Actually, I have to disagree with you on the sabbath day.  It was changed by A. Paul as an act of convenience so he could get access to the synagogues.  He still celebrated the sabbath as do most Christians, we just have a difference with Judaism as to which day of the week we feel is the sabbath.

Back to point.  After your summary and acceptance by me that this is the correct path for a Christian, I find that you are also said that we had to obey the Ten Commandments and other law especially dealing with morality. Now I am confused. 

This is a common stumbling block for people considering Christianity.  You clearly state a position that sounds reasonable based on your belief, then confuse them with an opposite requirement and say both are valid.  People then state that Christianity is not coherent and based on outdated verbiage. They are confused and the church does not minister to this confusion, so they try another religion that may be coherent in the rules, even if it may not be their first choice.

This is the area that I think needs to be addressed.  What do you say to bring these potential people back?  The standard answer, "I told them about being saved, but they didn't listen so they will be lost with false gods?"  "I told them about converting away from the path of danger and being saved by Jesus, but the devil was too strong in them." 

These lines don't work anymore, as Bruce said in the last sermon, "we are no longer a Christian country, the times have changed." How do you bring about an interest in Christianity when the "threat" of going to Hell, no longer holds any power over someone?

Thanks for your candid and truthful answers, Lee.


You are correct, it is indeed a difficult question.  It is probably one of the key questions that needs to be worked on for the Christian church to stay around.