JoKing: Martin,
I have never done anything to promote sexual immorality. I have led a heterosexual life, entirely within marriage. You are confused, and abusive. Making false accusations really is wickedness, according to Jesus. I do not decry the Old Testament. I apportion to it a lesser authority than you do, by submitting it to the authority of Jesus, my Lord. Honouring Jesus is not wickedness. I question the infallibility of the Old Testament, because Scripture makes no claim for it. The word "infallible" does not occur in any text. That is not wickedness; it is honouring the text, without adding to it, as you do. Your attachment to human invention above Scripture, seems close to wickedness.

Martin: Seems to me that you are promoting homosexuality here.
The authority of Jesus gives the same authority to the Old Testament as the New, you are not honouring Jesus.
Does that which comes from the mouth of God Himself have the capability of error?
So where have I added to Revelation?

JoKing: By your "Seems to me that you are promoting homosexuality" based on absolutely no evidence, shows what is quite obvious to all who read you: that you are so obsessive about attacking homosexuals, that your judgment is blinded by any disagreement. Anyone who opposes you. on any issue, you lump together with the "hateful sexual deviants", and pour your bile over all of us.
Well, I rank your rank company less bearable than some homosexuals I have had the privilege of knowing. Your addiction to what seems like a ultra-reformed system of dogma, and the way you express it, is entirely antithetical to the tender mercies of a compassionate God. That causes real concern that you have no real knowledge of Jesus, his character and purposes.
In your fleshly attempts at arguing for the "truth", you betray the cause of Jesus in all you say. You really need to beware of the real risk that your claims of faithful service will be met with "Go away, you worker of iniquity, I never knew you".
To all you people who read this, my apologies to have to speak so directly, but this man is presenting a terrible, harsh, substitute for the truth of the Gospel of Jesus.

Martin: Based on the fact that you are busily supporting those who are pushing sexual immorality here. If that isn't promoting homosexuality I don't know what is. I'd be quite happy to debate o.ther matters, and in fact do. It is preferable to having to say the same things over and over to those who will not listen. The doctrines of grace are the tender mercies of a loving God. A God who cares so much for His Creation that He will enter it and suffer abuse at the hands of His Creation in order to redeem His Creation.

JoKing: Martin, your "fact" is a fabrication of your dubious thought-processes. I do not, and have not, supported homosexuals, beyond offering them social acceptance. I oppose the rejection by some of the authority of NT authors. I would do that to anyone regardless of their sexual behaviour. I have repeatedly said this.
You seem utterly unable get your rigid thought-patterns to grasp the difference.
But I do subject the OT to the authority of Jesus. And it seems you reject that stance, but have no argument to back up your opposition to it. I wonder if your stand is as real as you make out. Do have plans to stone adulteresses?

Martin: That you have attacked me for my response to those who are making LGBT supporting claims gives the lie to your first statement.
That you imagine you are qualified to "subject the OT to the authority of Jesus" demonstrates that you do not understand that the OT is as much the words of the Lord Jesus as any words written in red in your Bible.
Clearly you do not understand the nature of the Bible, as your question "Do have plans to stone adulteresses" demonstrates.
You seem to delight in abusing me, when you are claiming to be addressing my abuse. It seems to me that you are entirely dishonest.

JoKing: Martin. It is you who first used uncivil terms to attack me, and you might notice that My responses a\re always more measured. Yet you continue to do so. You say I "attacked you", that I "imagine I am qualified", I "do not understand",(twice), I "delight in abusing" you, I am "entirely dishonest". Quite a catch! None of this is acceptable. I would encourage you to see if you can say what you want to, without such abuse.

Martin: I see nothing 'uncivil' in what I said. My interactions with David and Peter have taken place over a considerably longer period than you have been around. It has been necessary to become more forceful in that period.

JoKing: "Martin. These are the abusive personal comments in your last:
you have attacked me
you imagine you are qualified...
you do not understand (twice)
You seem to delight in abusing me,
you are entirely dishonest"
You could have made your points with phrasing such as:
"You apposed me strongly
You may not be qualified...
I suggest you may have not understood/.misunderstood
???? no suitable phrase comes to mind - perhaps the thought is too abusive
I fear I have to doubt your honesty"
Even like that the personal nature of your comments is aggressive because you are not debating the points, just accusing me of various failings. Peter has expressed a similar opinion of your mode of expression, and he has a longer experience of you, apparently.
With absolutely no interest in being provocative, and with no intention of personal attack, I have no aim beyond finding out how your reconcile - Lev 20 10: “If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife – with the wife of his neighbour – both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death."
- with your current position. What do you think? Is it a practice that would be good for our society to adopt? Would you, if you had the power. It is God's inspired word, is it not?
see more

Martin: It is very simple, Leviticus contains three strands of law, the moral, the ceremonial and the civil law. The Christian does not live in the ancient state of Israel, so the civil law has no role. Of such is those laws with a penalty attached for breaking them such as the one for adultery. Equally, the Temple and it's sacrifices are no more, so the ceremonial is done away with by the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. The only law that remains is the moral law, which the Christian seeks to keep from love of His Saviour.