From: kees.boer@THRWHITE.remove-dii-this   
      
     To: alt.battlestar-galactica,   
      
   "jayembee"  wrote in message   
   news:lkr9k11lt8hi8hkul952fec1hci88aikln@4ax.com...   
   > "Kees Boer"  wrote:   
   >   
   >> "jayembee"  wrote:   
   >>> "Kees Boer"  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> Well, the Mosaic law was given to the Nation of Israel. It was   
   >>>> not given as a universal law for all time.   
   >>>   
   >>> So when it says in Leviticus (20.13), "If a man lies with   
   >>> a male as with a woman, both of them have committed   
   >>> an abomination..." we don't have to accept that as a   
   >>> universal law for all time?   
   >>>   
   >>> Good to know.   
   >>   
   >> Context, my friend, context. The same with "Thou shalt not steal."   
   >> There are verses that are general applications.   
   >   
   > I can accept the view that any of the Ten Commandments are universal   
   > laws that apply for all times and all places. Leviticus 20.13, however, is   
   > not one of the Commandments (unless you want to claim that "Though   
   > Shalt Not Covet Thy Neighbor's Ass" is refering to homosexuality).   
   >   
   >> The law in the Old Testament was a law given to the Nation of Israel   
   >> for that time period. Although it is specific to the Nation of Israel,   
   >> there   
   >> are general principles involved that relate to any time period and any   
   >> nation would do well to take the Old Testament law as a good example   
   >> for how to run a country, that doesn't mean that it all applies to every   
   >> country.   
   >   
   > So who gets to choose which laws apply for all time, and which laws   
   > apply to only specific places and times? And by whose authority does   
   > that person choose?   
      
   Context. and correct hermeneutical interpretation.   
      
   >   
   > What makes the laws regarding the treatment and disposition of slaves   
   > apply only to a specific place and time, and the law prohibiting   
   > homosexuality   
   > universal?   
   >   
   > God is God. As God, He's the one who *makes* the rules, not be   
   > subordinate to men's customs. He either condones slavery or He   
   > doesn't.   
   >   
   > If He doesn't condone slavery, then He should be telling the Israelites   
   > that it's forbidden -- just as He tells them that murder, theft, and   
   > homosexuality are forbidden -- not telling them how they should deal   
   > with slaves.   
   >   
   > If He does condone slavery, then we have a problem.   
   >   
      
   Well, frist of all, if you don't agree with God, that doesn't mean, He   
   doesn't exist. He doesn't have the problem, you have.   
      
   Second of all. These laws are specific laws to the nation of Israel. Which   
   are specific laws can be seen by the context.   
      
   Now, I keep repeating myself, are you hearing this?   
      
   Kees   
      
      
   >> There is a huge difference between government and individual   
   >> responsibility   
   >> though. One obvious way to see which laws are general ones is to look at   
   >> the New Testament for confirmation. The New Testament clearly teaches   
   >> that acts of  homosexuality are an abomination to God.   
   >>   
   >> This is not complicated to follow.   
   >   
   > God's Law should be God's Law. That's even less complicated to follow.   
   >   
   > -- jayembee   
      
   ---   
    * Synchronet * The Whitehouse BBS --- whitehouse.hulds.com --- check it out   
   free usenet!   
   --- Synchronet 3.15a-Win32 NewsLink 1.92   
   Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)