The god who burns people alive for eternity

@secondson said
The institution of execution for adultery and homosexuality is no longer in force.

"No longer in force".

i.e. change

It would be "evil" to execute people for adultery and homosexuality now, but it didn't used to be.

This is change.

@fmf said
If something used to be deemed NOT "evil" but now it is deemed "evil", then there has been a change.

This fact - that there has been a change - cannot be explained away with the idea of 'compartmnentalization'.

It was once not "evil" to have slaves and not "evil" to beat them. But now it is "evil" to have slaves and, if one had some, it would be "evil" to beat them.

This is a change in what is and isn't considered "evil".

There has been a "change". That's what I'm trying to tell you. But it appears you're not understanding.

What was "evil" then is still "evil" today. What has changed is how the"law" is administered. The kingdom of God, with Jesus Christ on the throne in Israel, after His return, is not yet.

Until then we live in submission to the powers that be.

God's moral standard is the same. Evil is evil, and sin is sin.

Fortunately for us we were born in an age when God's grace is being poured out on a Christ rejecting world. Forgiveness is freely made available to all no matter how vile a sinner he or she may be.

That's the gospel truth.

@fmf said
"No longer in force".

i.e. change

It would be "evil" to execute people for adultery and homosexuality now, but it didn't used to be.

This is change.

It is against the law of the land to execute homosexuals and adulterers, but the act of breaking God's moral law has not changed.

Evil is still evil.

@secondson said
There has been a "change". That's what I'm trying to tell you. But it appears you're not understanding.

What was "evil" then is still "evil" today. What has changed is how the"law" is administered. The kingdom of God, with Jesus Christ on the throne in Israel, after His return, is not yet.

Until then we live in submission to the powers that be.

God's moral standard ...[text shortened]... eely made available to all no matter how vile a sinner he or she may be.

That's the gospel truth.

It would be "evil" today to execute people for adultery and homosexuality. In the past, it wasn't considered "evil" to do so.

What I do understand is that you are trying to disguise this fact with some flannel about theology and law.

@secondson said
God's moral standard is the same. Evil is evil, and sin is sin.

If a 'Christian State' were established - similar to an Islamic State' - would you consider it "evil" if ~ on the basis of the notion that 'God's moral standard is the same' and 'evil is evil' ~ that state's government executed people for adultery and homosexuality? I think you would.

@secondson said
It is against the law of the land to execute homosexuals and adulterers, but the act of breaking God's moral law has not changed.

Would executing homosexuals and adulterers nowadays be "evil" in your God's eyes?

@fmf said
It would be "evil" today to execute people for adultery and homosexuality. In the past, it wasn't considered "evil" to do so.

What I do understand is that you are trying to disguise this fact with some flannel about theology and law.

What you seem to be refusing to understand is the immutability of God's moral standard.

Just because homosexuality and adultery was punishable under the law in Israel, but isn't today on this current world stage, doesn't mitigate sin.

@secondson said
What was "evil" then is still "evil" today. What has changed is how the"law" is administered. The kingdom of God, with Jesus Christ on the throne in Israel, after His return, is not yet.Until then we live in submission to the powers that be.

If "the powers that be" where you lived introduced the death penalty for adulterers and homosexuals, would you, as a citizen, oppose such a law as "evil"?

@secondson said
What you seem to be refusing to understand is the immutability of God's moral standard.Just because homosexuality and adultery was punishable under the law in Israel, but isn't today on this current world stage, doesn't mitigate sin.

You don't seem to understand what I am asking you. I don't care if you think adultery and homosexuality are "sins". I am asking you about how whether putting people to death for adultery and homosexuality was "evil" in the past and whether it would be "evil" now. You seem to be saying there has been no change.

@secondson said
It is against the law of the land to execute homosexuals and adulterers, but the act of breaking God's moral law has not changed.

Evil is still evil.

Evil is still evil ...
Except when committed by a Christian.
Evil Christians still get eternal life.
And good people are tormented for eternity
You sound like a damn fool
Jesus is shaking His head is disbelief that this is what His name is being used for, and Satan is laughing.

@secondson said
There has been a "change".

Something that was once considered not "evil" by those worshipping your God is now considered "evil". THAT is the change I am referring to.

@rajk999 said
Those who reject Christ was clearly defined by Christ in Matt 25. It is the goats who rejected Him by not being charitable to those in need. These goats will be cast into the lake of fire along with the devil and his angels

[i]Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand,
Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire,
prepared for the devil and his angels:
F ...[text shortened]... nal assumption is that this is also what you live by. Your doctrine is the road to the lake of fire.

Nothing about Christ or any Christian doctrine teaches us to not take care of other’s needs. Your accusing once again using your imagination with nothing in truth or reality to base that on. If you are obeying Christ you will be loving God and each other. Just as God saw our needs and sent Jesus we are to meet the needs of those around us, without judging them!

@kellyjay said
If you are obeying Christ you will be loving God and each other.

Is there an obligation to obey Christ and do good works?

@secondson said
Yes "they" will. My objection is against the notion that "Jesus is in hell overseeing" their torment.

Is that too much for you to understand? Am I being clear enough?

I'm struggling. They will be tormented in the 'presence' of the lamb,...but he won't actually be there overseeing it?!

Do we have a different understanding of 'in the presence of?'

@ghost-of-a-duke said
I'm struggling. They will be tormented in the 'presence' of the lamb,...but he won't actually be there overseeing it?!

Do we have a different understanding of 'in the presence of?'

Oh .. I got it. Jesus will have His eyes closed.
He cannot bear to witness such torment.