Quote:
Originally Posted by mfblume
The bible is obvious when it comes to moral and ceremonial laws. Sabbath day is a ceremonial law. Sabbath is done away with today, and was a foreshadow of Christ. It was a religious day of observance. So it is ceremonial.
Shellfish were an abomination, however, the New Testament is clear that forbidden and unclean meats are no longer an issue now. How can one explain why that is the case now?
But moral laws are moral laws now and forever. Morality is morality.
Homosexuality was something I never heard about as a child. When I did hear about it, an instant repulsion occurred in my heart about it. I think this betrays the unnatural and ungodly nature of the act. What we are repulsed by at the start of learning about a thing indicates what is right or wrong. I really believe this.
|
Again, we are dividing the law into two categories and then making assumptions that one was fulfilled and one was not. Imply all day long if you want, but the Scripture does not make this distinction now matter how you spin it.
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
Galatians 3:28. How can I be judged for breaking a "moral law" if being found guilty requires God to identify me male or female? If God does not see male or female then I think we can accurately assume that any of the law requiring a divine distinction of the sexes has been done away with. This is, of course, an assumption but one that is based on more scripture than your assumption that there is a division between moral and ceremonial law and that the moral law is somehow eternal.
I have been repulsed by the idea of heterosexual intimacy since I was a child. I don't understand how personal repulsion on your part indicates anything.
Threaded Mode
