HOME   People do good because they are human, not because they are religious! 

Do not give God any credit for the good they do, they did it!

 

BIBLE COMMANDS CHRISTIANS TO MURDER
 

Murder is not a sin if there is a God. The only sin is taking things into your own hands.  God kills so the problem when you kill is that you are not letting God do it himself.  That is what logic says but religion in its honesty says different.  Death is the greatest loss we can suffer so our moral codes should work hard to protect human life.  That is why even if God belief does not get anybody to diminish human life though it should be able to it has to go.  It is the principle and who knows what believers will do tomorrow?

 

People die.  If God exists and is all-powerful and nothing exists without him then he takes their lives.  God can take our lives at any time or in any way he wants.  He can kill children and babies and it is fine.

 

This implies that if God is very good or all good then death is not the worst evil.

 

Believers list things such as sin or terrible sickness or Hellfire as a worse evil. 

 

The atheist if he got a magic wand would banish death.  The atheist at her core is better than the believer in God.

 

The doctrine of God is a key to the door to death and killing and many religious leaders such as Moses and Joseph Smith and Muhammad turn the key.  Many religions turn the key and the result is permission to murder and even commands to murder that are supposedly authorised by God.

 

Death is such a terrible evil that it is intolerable.  Even if it is good for somebody to die say if they are in unspeakable suffering

 

No man who condones or ignores or even blesses evil commandments in the name of God is fit to be honoured.  Jesus Christ was one of those kind of men and the world worships at his feet.

 

The Jewish Law claims to have come from God and Jesus worshipped God as expressed by it and used it as his foundation of life and of his ministry.  He continually invoked its authority and ruled out any body saying that anything in it was bad or wrong. Even Paul the apostle said there was nothing in it but goodness.

 

Both men banned personal vengeance and even that came from the Old Testament Law of God.  At Leviticus 19 it's God says taking revenge is wrong and the person must love his neighbour as himself and not be bearing grudges.  The commandments forbid murder.  But the bulk of the Law is commanding a cruel form of capital punishment by stoning to death for religious offences such as adultery or heresy. 

 

Incredibly after all that stupid people especially political liberals keep saying the Bible bans the death penalty for we are to love our neighbor and not to kill.  Bible teaching is that those principles do not negate the death penalty.  They are not meant to therefore to use the commands is to say, "If God allows it I must execute."  The idea is that you force others to kill you if you break the law badly enough and so love of neighbour and not murdering cannot apply. No law can ask for the impossible so if you force somebody to kill you that is your fault not theirs.

 

In regard to the savage Jewish Law which purports to have come from God, Jesus said that he had not come to abolish it but to fulfil it.  Thus even if the law is changed nobody is allowed to say it was wrong before.  It can be updated but never questioned,

It is wrong to think Jesus ever meant to contradict the law. He could have done accidently for the law contradicts itself so why would he be guaranteed to be consistent? Some think he did contradict the law but many disagree. Even if he did, he never once said that the law was wrong. On the contrary he said his intention was to promote it without watering it down. Any contradictions were unintended.

There is nothing in the New Testament that says the law is ever wrong.

 

Read Luke 19, “Jesus said, ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what they have will be taken away. But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me."
 
Context - he says this and makes no effort to explain it away or soften it but immediately puts his plan in motion to go to Jerusalem as king...
 
He meant what he said - he hoped he would be made king and murder all who opposed him. And why be surprised? The book he worshipped as the Word of God and free from doctrinal or moral error, the Old Testament thirsts for innocent blood. It even asks for some "sinners" to be cut off - thrown out of the community and left to fend for themselves - a near-certain and slow death sentence in a nomadic culture. If you say the Bible is infallible you claim responsibility for its contents and the consequences. You have blood on your hands - it might be the blood of homosexuals and adulterers and heretics who God demanded must be put to death. But it is innocent blood for their deaths were unwarranted. You will feel distant from all that evil but that changes nothing. Your feeling is lying to you. You do the evil by proxy.

THE MORAL LAW

The book, Jesus The Only Saviour, teaches that the moral law of the Old Testament is still as true and valid as ever for Christ paid the penalty for those who broke the moral law and only abolished the ceremonial for us by keeping it for us (page 54). This is correct except that Jesus did not do away with the ceremonial. Jesus did not come to change the Law but to make it tougher which is changing it in a sense but the Law as it is in the Torah is still intact and interference with its precepts is against the will of the Christian God. The book has surmised that because Jesus paid the death penalty for us that it would be wrong to execute capital punishment because that would be making a sin paid for twice over which would flout justice. This is the chief argument used by Christians and it sounds as hollow as it is which is why it cannot safeguard against Christianity managing to restore the death penalty in the future for it is wrong and error is only of short-term value regarding preventing evil. Truth is the only way. And what is hollow in the argument is this. Jesus may have paid for us but we still die and death is punishment if God sends it for it is not a good thing. Even it is takes us to a good place it is still not good. The Bible says that death is punishment and if we still die after Jesus saved us it is still punishment for death is death. So when the bad thing of death still happens after Jesus saves you it follows that God thinks that you are so hateful that even when Jesus pays in full for you, you still have got to pay. The Catholic Church is no position to deny that death is punishment for that cult insists that though Jesus paid for the sins of those who die in hell-deserving sin that will not stop them going to Hell to pay themselves. So since death happens naturally and by the power of God nobody can say that God forbids capital punishment. If the death of Jesus implied it did it would also imply that it was wrong to send a repentant Christian rapist to jail! When Jesus did not intend to do away with punitive law by his death that is a strong endorsement of punitive law.
 
A Christian book called War and Pacifism tell us that there are five different approaches to the Old Testament on account of its seeming harshness compared with the New (page 21). They are firstly, to abandon it – which cannot be done for the New Testament depends on it and appeals to it and Jesus treated it as a certificate that he was the Son of God. Secondly, to spiritualise it – this cannot be done either for Jesus used the book literally and looking for spiritual meanings is silly for that makes you able to twist it any way you want and the book never said it was meant for such treatment but does expect to be taken as it stands. Thirdly, to see the Old Testament as true but to hold that Jesus has changed its rules so they no longer stand. Fourthly, to believe that the Old Testament is still in force but no longer relevant for God gave it for a different time and place. This is not plausible either for Israel’s history changed so much and the law was still binding on them and what is the difference between two men lying together in Old Testament times and getting stoned to death and between two men doing it in our day? Fifth, to see the Old Testament as valid and true for today in all that it says except that Jesus made it tougher – for example, the law that lying was wrong was stretched to the degree that Jesus wanted us to be so truthful that we would not need oaths though they were permitted by the law. This approach makes the law liberal compared to the teaching of Christ. The book states that only options four and five are feasible (page 22). Incidentally, the book boasts that in the Old Testament wars the wars were very clearly sanctioned and commanded by God (page 31) which is an attempt to say that we should not kill when the Law tells us to unless we become prophets and God tells us to obey the Law. It tells us to look up Judges 7 as an example. But when it was a prophet or a leader of the army who got the command what use is that? Anybody could say God told him we should fight. The Bible is bigoted and reckless. Christians who know what God is supposed to have said believe that there is no conflict between the Old and New Testaments (page 23, War and the Gospel) because they were given by the God who never changes. 

THE LAW OF MOSES

In the first five books of the Old Testament we find out what the Jews and Jesus called the Law or Torah. Traditionally, written by Moses, it is the central part of the Old Testament. It is supposed that there are three kinds of laws in this series. There were the ethical laws, dealing with what was right and wrong. The civil law or the political laws. And then there were the ceremonial laws, the laws that laid down the liturgical rules, the rules about how God should be worshipped. But there are no distinctions made between the three groups of laws in the Bible in the sense that there are three separate laws. They all compose one law – they are one law. And people like Seventh-day Adventists who say there are two, moral and ceremonial, are making a division that does not exist. When Jesus said that the whole law is about loving God and others it follows that there was only one law. It was all a moral law. 2 Chronicles 31:3 calls the Torah the Law not laws. The Ten Commandments are all recognised as the moral law yet they contain the liturgical law of the Sabbath. There is no room for anybody who tries to make out that there were two laws, the law of God and the Law of Moses, either. Some tend to say that Paul’s God only did away with the ceremonial law but Romans 7 has Paul saying that we are dead to the law including its rules forbidding coveting and lust. He meant that we are dead to the law in that we don’t need it to force us to do good anymore. We are saved so that we want to do good. So it is not a law any more but a pleasure. Also the law cannot punish us even if we do sin for Jesus took the rap for us on the cross. So though the law is still right it is not a law for us any more. It reveals right and wrong but it doesn’t force us any more with the threat of punishment from God. However, though God doesn’t damn the saved any more for their sins the right of the state to punish people still stands.

 

The Law of Moses never says that the laws from God commanding that we kill homosexuals and adulterers and witches are civil laws so they are moral laws meaning we must always keep them.

 

In Galatians 4, Paul spells out the differences between the covenant of Sinai and the one Jesus brought. Paul would have said here what law he meant if there were a ceremonial law and a moral one as Adventists imagine. Paul contrasts the old covenant with its bondage with the new one of freedom in Christ. He never says that the bondage was one of rules but was one of rules that man was unable to keep but now we are free in the Holy Spirit to obey God and enjoy it.

 

The Law of Moses is the most exciting section in the Bible at least for those who like to be shocked. It is enough to make Christians and Jews curse their religion if they have humanity in them. It is every bit as blood curdling as a depiction of what is allegedly advocated by the Devil and his servants would be.

 

The Law advocates the execution by stoning of homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13), adulterers (Leviticus 20:10), insubordinate sons (Deuteronomy 21), apostates (Deuteronomy 13) and kidnappers (Exodus 21:16) as well as murderers (Exodus (21:12). A priest’s daughter who fornicates – fornication is two unmarried people having sex - is to be burned to death (Leviticus 21:9). If a man lay with his bride and found that she was not a virgin he was permitted to have her battered to death (Deuteronomy 22:13-21). All these commands are claimed to have come down from God, the great tyrant in the sky. Over and over, the Law claims to quote God as he delivered these laws. If often says God forbade anyone to interfere with the actual text inferring that it was exactly what he wanted. The Law puts a malediction on anyone who does not carry out all its precepts (Deuteronomy 28:58,59). God predicts that if Israel departs from the Law he will do all sorts of horrible things to it.

 

On a more pleasant note, the Law tells God’s people to forgive one another and be neighbourly. This is spoilt when it commands them to love God with all their energy inferring that people must only be dealt with as God wants for his sake and nobody else’s. Some would say the cruel laws should be interpreted in the light of the nice bits. They would say that if a homosexual is sorry for his sin that God wants the punishment revoked. But they would all say that to avoid the death penalty so what would be the point of making the penalty?

 

The Law promised to give people freedom from error and ignorance. Because it boasted of its infallibility it had to be a means of forcing people to be free. That is what laws are for: freedom. There is no liberty when people do exactly what they wish. Imagine what life would be like if they do.

The Law says that boys must be circumcised, animals be sacrificed, a special tabernacle for the holiest rites is to be set up, priests are to be ordained and it lays down that certain foods and people and things can make you physically dirty in the sight of God. For example, if you touched a chair that a menstruating woman sat on you were considered dirty or unclean. Lepers, meaning anybody with any kind of skin trouble, had to be shunned for God said they were not clean.
 

The main thing in the Law, the heart of the Law, is, of course, the well-known Ten Commandments. The first commandment forbids the worship of what is not divine or putting anything in front of God – if anybody breaks any of the other commandments of the Law they are breaking this one by putting their own will in front of God’s so the Christian practice of quoting this law as valid and then denying the rest of the Law of Moses is not on because the commandment simply means that God is to be worshipped and served and nobody else and how is God to be served? By observance of the Law obviously. Worship is no good without actions to back it up. The second says that we must not take God’s name in vain, meaning we are not to swear by God that what we know to be false is true or to speak of God without respect. The third says that the Sabbath day (Saturday) must be kept holy. The fourth says we must honour our parents. The fifth says that we must not kill. The Law commands killing people and animals so this means murder rather than killing. The sixth then says we must not commit adultery – it should have said fornication which would outlaw adultery by implication better than adultery would outlaw fornication by implication and this error shows that the story of the Ten Commandments being written by the finger of God on tablets of stone is a yarn and only that. The seventh bans stealing. The eighth disallows telling lies about others. The ninth says we must not wish we could have the spouses of others and begrudge them to their partners. The tenth says that we must not covet our neighbour’s goods. Covet means wanting something that another has and hoping he will lose it so that you can have it. Protestants argue that the ninth and the tenth commandments are the one command for they ban coveting. They say that the real first commandment is what I have given and that the second is what Catholics consider a part of that command: the ban on making images to worship God with. They have Ten Commandments and they are certainly right. The Catholics must have suppressed the second commandment because they indulge in idolatry.

 

Jesus adored the Law. He spoke of Moses as being an inspired prophet of God, a man who God spoke to the people through. He claimed to be the Prophet Moses predicted in Deuteronomy 18 so he believed in its authority and divine origin and it said that God’s prophets are protected against erring when God speaks through them. Moses was totally infallible where Jesus was concerned. We are told that Jesus abolished the Law but we will learn that he did not. He was indeed another Moses as portrayed in the Gospel of Matthew.

 

Jesus came to teach people how to use the Law (page 8, Not Under Law).

 

Jesus staked all his authority on the Jewish Bible which included the Law of Moses. He said it was a preparation for him and predicted him. It was his CV. From this it follows that the Old Testament is superior to the New. For Jesus to abolish any part of it would be like burning the information necessary for a major deal just before the deal would be finalised.

 

Jesus said that he came not to abolish the law or the prophets but to fulfil them. He said not a line would pass away from them. They are scriptures invested with divine authority. Even those who contradict the verse and say Jesus did change the law, must agree that even if he did he was saying that the law is to be honoured by being fulfilled and accepted as being correct. He was still praising it despite all the murders it commanded and that were committed in its name.

 

When the Old Testament says that we must follow God and not man it is indicating that if you use your head you will see that a true prophet really is speaking for God so that when you follow that prophet you are not following just a man but a man who is in touch with God. If a prophet gives out strange or dangerous commands from God then to follow him is to follow a man and not God. The Old Testament is stating then that any reasonable person would agree that the law of the land should make provisions for adulterers and homosexuals and idolatrous apostates to be stoned to death. This is why people saying the civil law that God gave is not as unchangeable as the moral law is incomprehensible to me. It’s wishful thinking. When the Old Testament God indicates that his law is sensible and gives no reasons for his murderous laws it is clear that he feels that anybody that disagrees with them is stupid and therefore opposing morality.  If Jesus changed any of his regulations then Jesus was undoubtedly a false prophet.
 
PRO-KILLING LAW REVOKED IN JOHN?


Jesus took great care to avoid saying that the woman who was brought to him for stoning to death for adultery did not deserve to be stoned. He in fact made it clear that she should be though he let her off.

“Jesus said that his kingdom was not of this world (John 18:36) so his kingdom was not one that obeyed the bloodthirsty commands of the Law”.
But Jesus said it was not of this world BECAUSE he had no servants to fight for him. He only said that he had no army and he did not say that he had none because having an army was always wrong.

Jesus forbade anything that could be construed as to be an incitement or encouragement to sin. The Law of Moses stressed that the purpose of the capital laws was to show zero tolerance for serious sin.
 
DOES BIBLE SAY CAPITAL LAWS CAN BE WAIVED?

Some say that since James wrote that anybody that breaks one of the laws of Moses breaks the whole Law meaning they deserve death even if their sin is not one of the sins that Moses decreed execution for, that God meant the capital laws to be temporary for you cannot execute everybody. James sees all sin as deserving death but that does not mean he thought that all sin should require atonement by execution. God has selected certain sins for that penalty.

Others point out that Genesis 4 has God saying that nobody must kill Cain though Cain had murdered his brother Abel. But the chapter can be interpreted as saying that killing Cain would be murder for nobody would know what he did so nobody had the right to kill him.

Then it is argued that since David was not executed for the murder of Uriah the death-penalty could be done away. But all David did was position Uriah in the front of his army so that he would be killed by the enemy. What he did was devious but not murder in the proper sense for one has to expect deaths in a war.

Moses was a murderer and got away with it (Exodus 2). He killed an Egyptian who he found beating up a Hebrew. But it could be that the Hebrew was in danger of death from the Egyptian and that was why Moses killed him. Though it was known that Moses killed him and even the Pharaoh knew Moses did not have to pay the death penalty under Egyptian law which indicates that he was a killer but not a murderer so he was not entitled to be punished.
 
The late Pope John Paul II forbade capital punishment though Church tradition and the Bible strongly command it. Catholics say that he is not saying capital punishment is wrong full stop but only that it is not necessary today and the Bible regulations are only meant to be carried out if the Church runs the state which it does not. The capital laws of the Bible were never necessary and God could not object to Christians using the state to kill people their God wants dead like heretics, homosexuals and adulterers. For him to object now, would be the same as saying he was wrong to go so far. If killing those people was right then, then it is always right. The pope is both condoning the crime of capital punishment and saying he does not – another crime. The Catholic view that capital punishment was encouraged by God to protect the state and its members is nonsense because the Bible laws could have done that without commanding the killing of those people and also because the Bible says these killings are punishment. Now could they be punishment if you need them to protect others? That would not be punishment but self-defence. The laws of the Bible had nothing to do with protecting but about showing the people who was boss, God and about God getting his own back on those who ignored his law. The killing laws of the Bible are permanent and eternally valid. If you call yourself a Christian or a Jew you have to pick up the stones and kill the local queer.

ROMANS 13 AND 1 PETER 2

In Romans 13, the Christians are told to be subject to the rulers not just because they will be punished if they are not but because it is right for they are used by God to exact vengeance on wrongdoers.  It says that they will bring judgment on themselves if they rebel because the law is not for punishing good people but bad people. This judgment is God’s judgment because we can’t take Paul to have thought that the state cannot punish you for opposing its bad laws which punish good people. He then commanded that taxes be paid. The taxes will be used to fund executions and wars so this shows that the New Testament was not into pacifism.

 

When Paul commanded that we must be subjected to the rulers and did not make an exception of fighting for them that rules out conscientious objection.

 

Nero was the worst emperor of Rome and he ruled when Paul wrote. If he and his evil flagrantly antichrist system were to be obeyed then how much more the other emperors!

 

The Bible says we must disobey the state without armed rebellion if possible when the state is wrong for God has established this government for a purpose. For example, Christians had to break the law in becoming Christians when the religion was forbidden. For Christians, the only things they would have had to do to obey was to fight for the country and pay taxes. Since Paul mentioned taxes after he commanded obedience in all things to the state it follows he must have meant joining the army and fighting at the behest of the state.

 

1 Peter 2 commands that we must obey every legal institution. The army is the most important legal institution and it uses conscription so this forbids Christians believing that they have the right not to go to war with their country against the enemy. The army is more important than the government for there can be no government without it and it can rebel and take over too if it is not happy with the government. It is mad to think that Peter only had obeying magistrates and kings in mind especially when they were easily enough obeyed by Christians who had only the extra rules of taxation and going to war to really worry about.

 

If Judaism had a great explosion of popularity and many nations began living by Jewish Law what Peter was saying would apply too. The Law obligated people to report homosexuals and adulterers for it demanded that such evil be purged and not tolerated meaning Peter would have agreed with Christians reporting them even though it would result in the homosexuals and adulterers being put to death by stoning. With a rule like that, nobody can complain if Christian states introduce similar execution laws.
   
CONCLUSION

The Law of Moses with its superstitions and cruelties is still in force according to the Bible. Jesus could not and did not teach that the days which we have to obey it are gone. The Law is said to be no longer obligatory for us in the sense that we want to obey it so it is no longer like a Law and in the sense that if we fail Jesus has obeyed the Law for us in our place so we are still counted as obeying the Law perfectly. The fact that we need Jesus to do some of the work for us indicates that the Law has his sanction as being fair and correct.

 

The Law of Moses is not for the Hebrews alone but for the world.

 

The Bible is an evil book that deserves to have its pages torn out and used to shine windows. Any other use is criminal. Stop calling it the good book. It should be banned for it opposes social order and commands religious murder. 

WORKS CONSULTED

Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible, John W Haley, Whitaker House, Pennsylvania, undated
Christ and Violence, Ronald J Sider, Herald Press, Scottdale, Ontario, 1979
Christ’s Literal Reign on Earth From David’s Throne at Jerusalem, John R Rice, Sword of the Lord, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, undated
Early Christian Writings, Editor Maxwell Staniforth, Penguin, London, 1988
Essentials, David L Edwards and John Stott, Hodder & Stoughton, London, 1990
Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven, Uta Ranke-Heinmann, Penguin Books, London, 1991
God’s Festivals and Holy Days, Herbert W Armstrong, Worldwide Church of God, California, 1992
Hard Sayings Derek Kidner InterVarsity Press, London, 1972
Jesus the Only Saviour, Tony and Patricia Higton, Monarch, Tunbridge Wells, Kent, 1993
Kennedy’s Murder, John R Rice, Sword of the Lord, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, 1964
Martin Luther, Richard Marius, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge Massachusetts, 1999
Moral Philosophy, Joseph Rickaby SJ, Stonyhurst Philosophy Series, Longmans, Green and Co, London, 1912
Not Under Law, Brian Edwards, Day One Publications, Bromley, Ken, 1994
Radio Replies Vol 2, Frs Rumble and Carty, Radio Replies Press, St Paul, Minnesota, 1940
Sabbath Keeping, Johnie Edwards, Guardian of Truth Publications, Kentucky
Secrets of Romanism, Joseph Zacchello, Loizeaux Brothers, New Jersey, 1984
Set My Exiles Free, John Power, Logos Books, MH Gill & Son Ltd, Dublin, 1967
Storehouse Tithing, Does the Bible Teach it? John R Rice, Sword of the Lord, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, 1954
Sunday or Sabbath? John R Rice, Sword of the Lord, Murfreesboro, 1943
The Christian and War, JB Norris, The Christadelphian, Birmingham, 1985
The Christian and War, Robert Moyer, Sword of the Lord Murfreesboro Tennessee 1946
The Encyclopaedia of Bible Difficulties, Gleason W Archer, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1982
The Enigma of Evil, John Wenham, Eagle, Guildford, Surrey, 1994
The Gospel and Strife, A. D. Norris, The Christadelphian, Birmingham, 1987
The Jesus Event, Martine Tripole SJ, Alba House, New York, 1980
The Kingdom of God on Earth, Stanley Owen, Christadelphian Publishing Office, Birmingham
The Metaphor of God Incarnate, John Hick, SCM Press, London, 1993
The Plain Truth about Easter, Herbert W Armstrong, Worldwide Church of God, California, 1957
The Sabbath, Peter Watkins, Christadelphian Bible Mission, Birmingham
The Ten Commandments, Herbert W Armstrong, Worldwide Church of God, California, 1972
The Truth that Leads to Eternal Life, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, Brooklyn, New York, 1968
The World Ahead, November December 1998, Vol 6, Issue 6
Theodore Parker’s Discourses, Theodore Parker, Longmans, Green, Reader & Dyer, London, 1876
Those Incredible Christians, Hugh Schonfield, Hutchinson, London, 1968
Vicars of Christ, Peter de Rosa, Corgi Books, London, 1995
War and Pacifism, Margaret Cooling, Scripture Union, London, 1988
War and the Gospel, Jean Lasserre, Herald Press, Ontario, 1962
When Critics Ask, Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe, Victor Books, Wheaton, Illinois, 1992
Which Day is the Christian Sabbath? Herbert W Armstrong, Worldwide Church of God, California, 1976  
 
THE WEB

The Law of Moses: Is It Valid Today?
www.ark_of_salvation.orgJewish_law.htm

The Law of Moses and the Law of Christ by Arnold Fruchtenbaum
 www.ariel.org/ff00006c.html

Is Old Testament Law for New Testament Christians
www.souldevice.org/writings_law_gospel.html
This Christian site accepts that the New Testament did not run the Law of Moses out of town but accepted it. It argues that Matthew 5 has Jesus stating that he has no intention of doing away with the Law of Moses and what he does with it is he gives out a stricter interpretation of it. But strangely it argues then that Jesus did discontinue some parts of the Law. 1 Samuel 15:22,23/Isaiah 1:11-17/Jeremiah 7:21-23/Proverbs 21:3/Matthew 9:13/23:23 are said to make no sense unless the law can be given three distinctions which are Moral, Ceremonial and Civil. Not once however in these verses does God even hint that the Moral laws and the Civil laws and the Ceremonial laws are to be treated as three units. What they are is three different kinds of law in one law based on love. The first two cannot be changed because of the link with morality but the latter can if it is only temporary and states that clearly. You can’t change what love is. The law plainly commands and practices hatred so God is assuming that we need to hate in order to love properly so that is how a law of love can encourage and foster hatred.
 
Christians, assuming that they are to have any distinctions at all, are to have just Moral and Ceremonial law. The Christians make the distinctions for they hold that the moral law of God is unchangeable while the civil and ceremonial law of God is changeable. But when there is no evidence that moral and civil are not the same they can only hope for the abolition of the Ceremonial law. They simply have to hold that it is right to slay homosexuals and other sinners Moses wanted dead in the name of God.
 
A case for holding that Paul believed that the law that could not save was a legalistic interpretation of the Law and not the law itself as it actually was is dismissed. Paul never hinted that he meant only the interpretation of the law was dangerous for salvation not the Law itself. Paul’s word for the Law backs this dismissal up.
  
Then the site suggests the correctness of the shocking statement of the theologian Geisler that all God’s laws must be in accord with God’s nature but need not be necessitated by that nature and so they can be changed. In other words, God can forbid you to pay taxes to the temple so that the poor may be given the money and then he could change that law. But that does not explain how he could command the stoning of certain sinners. Any law he makes, changeable or unchangeable is designed to bring about the best. So if the Israelites were better rid of these sinners so were we. If the temple can do without money it can at other times so the law would have to be reinstated. There is a sense then in which all his laws are permanent. They are permanent but if other permanent laws become more important than them they are just put to the background and not done away until they can be put back to the foreground again. Not one of the laws in the Torah are claimed to be changeable or even look like that kind of law. They are all different from the one about paying money to charity instead of the temple. God in the Law said you could murder a burglar who breaks into your house at night with impunity. Now is that a law that isn’t necessitated by God’s nature? It does no good at all. It clearly indicates that God does not accept the view that he has any laws that his nature does not require him to make but which he makes anyway. It is unnecessary and it is against the nature of a good God. Geisler is wrong.
 
The Law claims to be right. In other words, we are meant to see that it is right even if we don’t believe in God. God told the Hebrews that other nations would consider them to be the wisest nation on earth because of their Law (Deuteronomy 4:6,8).
 
At least Geisler would admit that stoning people to death is not necessarily incompatible with God. He would say that if God doesn’t allow it now, he still wants us to have the mindset that we would do it if he asked. We want to do it but it is because he asks us not to that we don’t. The fanaticism is still there.

Is Old Testament Law for New Testament Christians
www.souldevice.org/writings_law_gospel.html
 
BIBLE QUOTATIONS FROM:
The Amplified Bible