Leviticus 20:14 is not the Word of God

[shunyadragon]

Zak

I am going to back off and come at this from a different perspective. With this clarification on your part, I will ask you to clarify more and possibly better define the terminology your using.

Your reference to 'God talks to me,' and personal revelation' is very different from how these terms are traditionally used. Traditional these refer to very specific, even verbal, communications of Revelation. Actually what your sort of describing is much closer to what I described in terms of 'knowledge' that becomes available through revelation to all after the personal Revelation from God, anoints the 'Messiah' or Enlightened One.' This of course is open to all in the world, and there is evidence in other cultures of the world of this less specific type of personal Revelation that occurs at the time of Christ, Muhammad and the Bab/Baha'u'llah.

[ZackMartin]

Your reference to 'God talks to me,' and personal revelation' is very different from how these terms are traditionally used. Traditional these refer to very specific, even verbal, communications of Revelation. Actually what your sort of describing is much closer to what I described in terms of 'knowledge' that becomes available through revelation to all after the personal Revelation from God, anoints the 'Messiah' or Enlightened One.' This of course is open to all in the world, and there is evidence in other cultures of the world of this less specific type of personal Revelation that occurs at the time of Christ, Muhammad and the Bab/Baha'u'llah.

Many Christians believe that God talks to them, in the sense that they receive insights from God during prayer. I've heard this concept linked to the "still small voice" of 1 Kings 19:12 - I'm not sure how well that concept matches up with the text itself, but definitely some people have interpreted it in that way. Or consider the "Inner Light" of the Quakers. Now this seems to me to be a form of revelation - although as I said, it is what Catholics call "private revelation" rather than "public revelation". Many Catholic instances of "private revelation" are actually rather public - but the concept doesn't exclude the truly private from it - the "particular or private revelations which are constantly occurring among Christians", as the Catholic Encyclopaedia says.

I think it is useful to talk about the distinction between law-bearing (or scripture-bearing) prophets and non-scripture bearing Prophets. In Islamic thought, this is frequently understood as the distinction between a prophet (nabi) and a messenger (rasul). (Although that is a matter of controversy, and not all Muslims see the distinction between nabi and rasul in this way.) Rasul is a subcategory of nabi - every rasul is a nabi, but not every nabi is a rasul. Muhammad, though often called a nabi, is a rasul; Yahya (John the Baptist) is an example of someone called a nabi but not a rasul. In Islam, the number of prophets is vast, but the number of scriptures much smaller. A commonly quoted hadith (Musnad Ahmed 21257) has Muhammad say "From Adam to me, Allah sent a hundred and twenty-four thousand Prophets, of whom three hundred and fifteen were messengers" (some consider this hadith to be weak.) How does this line up with the public-private revelation in Catholicism? Not exactly; even a nabi is still public (although many "private" Catholic revelations are still public); but just as Catholics believe that a private revelation cannot add to the body of scripture, in a similar way a nabi who is not also a rasul does not add to any body of scripture - such as e.g. Yahya (John the Baptist). While some claimed scriptures (e.g. Gospels, Quran, Mandaean texts) recount the teaching of Yahya, I'm not aware of anyone (Christian, Islamic, Baha'i - even Mandaeans) claiming that he personally wrote or promulgated any scriptural writing. From my reading I note even Baha'is have a similar distinction, between major prophets ("Manifestations of God") and lesser/minor prophets.

So in my view, there are two types of prophets, minor (non-scripture-bearing) and major (scripture-bearing). Anyone can potentially be a minor prophet; if I see myself as being to some extent one, I don't see that as excluding you or anyone else from the same position. To me a minor prophet is just someone who listens to the voice of God in their heart, and hears - and I think they still hear even if they hear badly, and produce a somewhat garbled message as a result. I don't claim to be a major (scripture-bearing) prophet.

[Whag]

Or consider the "Inner Light" of the Quakers.

In Varieties of Religious Experience, William James examines that "inner light":

If you ask for a concrete example, there can be no better one than is
furnished by the person of George Fox. The Quaker religion which he
founded is something which it is impossible to overpraise. In a day of
shams, it was a religion of veracity rooted in spiritual inwardness,
and a return to something more like the original gospel truth than men
had ever known in England. So far as our Christian sects today are
evolving into liberality, they are simply reverting in essence to the
position which Fox and the early Quakers so long ago assumed. No one
can pretend for a moment that in point of spiritual sagacity and
capacity, Fox's mind was unsound. Everyone who confronted him
personally, from Oliver Cromwell down to county magistrates and
jailers, seems to have acknowledged his superior power. Yet from the
point of view of his nervous constitution, Fox was a psychopath or
detraque of the deepest dye. His Journal abounds in entries of this
sort:--

"As I was walking with several friends, I lifted up my head and saw
three steeple-house spires, and they struck at my life. I asked them
what place that was? They said, Lichfield. Immediately the word of
the Lord came to me, that I must go thither. Being come to the house
we were going to, I wished the friends to walk into the house, saying
nothing to them of whither I was to go. As soon as they were gone I
stept away, and went by my eye over hedge and ditch till I came within
a mile of Lichfield where, in a great field, shepherds were keeping
their sheep. Then was I commanded by the Lord to pull off my shoes. I
stood still, for it was winter: but the word of the Lord was like a
fire in me. So I put off my shoes and left them with the shepherds;
and the poor shepherds trembled, and were astonished. Then I walked on
about a mile, and as soon as I was got within the city, the word of the
Lord came to me again, saying: Cry, 'Wo to the bloody city of
Lichfield!' So I went up and down the streets, crying with a loud
voice, Wo to the bloody city of Lichfield! It being market day, I went
into the market-place, and to and fro in the several parts of it, and
made stands, crying as before, Wo to the bloody city of Lichfield! And
no one laid hands on me. As I went thus crying through the streets,
there seemed to me to be a channel of blood running down the streets,
and the market-place appeared like a pool of blood. When I had declared
what was upon me, and felt myself clear, I went out of the town in
peace; and returning to the shepherds gave them some money, and took my
shoes of them again. But the fire of the Lord was so on my feet, and
all over me, that I did not matter to put on my shoes again, and was at
a stand whether I should or no, till I felt freedom from the Lord so to
do: then, after I had washed my feet, I put on my shoes again. After
this a deep consideration came upon me, for what reason I should be
sent to cry against that city, and call it The bloody city! For though
the parliament had the minister one while, and the king another, and
much blood had been shed in the town during the wars between them, yet
there was no more than had befallen many other places. But afterwards
I came to understand, that in the Emperor Diocletian's time a thousand
Christians were martyr'd in Lichfield. So I was to go, without my
shoes, through the channel of their blood, and into the pool of their
blood in the market-place, that I might raise up the memorial of the
blood of those martyrs, which had been shed above a thousand years
before, and lay cold in their streets. So the sense of this blood was
upon me, and I obeyed the word of the Lord."

Was Fox's vision an example of that "inner light"?

[ZackMartin]

Was Fox's vision an example of that "inner light"?

Many Quakers have claimed the "Inner Light" told them all sorts of things, you have just one example. I'm not claiming that everything any Quaker has ever claimed to hear by the "Inner Light" is true. My belief is, in at least some cases, they may have been hearing the Word of God, but it may from time to time been adulterated and transmuted by their own thoughts, fears, prejudices, culture, etc. I'm more interested in the commonalities between many individuals' claimed experiences, than focusing too much on the experiences of any one individual, even one as noteworthy as George Fox.

Fox's vision could have been from God, then again it might not have been. Maybe it was partly from God, but garbled and transmuted somewhat in his own mind. I don't know. Agreeing with the concept in general doesn't require me to agree with any particular instance of the concept; nor does it require me to even pass judgement on any particular instance. So I don't pass any judgement on Fox's vision. It's content doesn't call out to my own heart "This is the Word of the Lord", but, at least in what you have quoted, I don't see anything particularly objectionable either. So I say, this may or may not have been the Word of God; and if it was, it may be pure, or it may be misheard.

[shunyadragon]

Many Christians believe that God talks to them, in the sense that they receive insights from God during prayer. I've heard this concept linked to the "still small voice" of 1 Kings 19:12 - I'm not sure how well that concept matches up with the text itself, but definitely some people have interpreted it in that way. Or consider the "Inner Light" of the Quakers. Now this seems to me to be a form of revelation - although as I said, it is what Catholics call "private revelation" rather than "public revelation". Many Catholic instances of "private revelation" are actually rather public - but the concept doesn't exclude the truly private from it - the "particular or private revelations which are constantly occurring among Christians", as the Catholic Encyclopaedia says.

I think it is useful to talk about the distinction between law-bearing (or scripture-bearing) prophets and non-scripture bearing Prophets. In Islamic thought, this is frequently understood as the distinction between a prophet (nabi) and a messenger (rasul). (Although that is a matter of controversy, and not all Muslims see the distinction between nabi and rasul in this way.) Rasul is a subcategory of nabi - every rasul is a nabi, but not every nabi is a rasul. Muhammad, though often called a nabi, is a rasul; Yahya (John the Baptist) is an example of someone called a nabi but not a rasul. In Islam, the number of prophets is vast, but the number of scriptures much smaller. A commonly quoted hadith (Musnad Ahmed 21257) has Muhammad say "From Adam to me, Allah sent a hundred and twenty-four thousand Prophets, of whom three hundred and fifteen were messengers" (some consider this hadith to be weak.) How does this line up with the public-private revelation in Catholicism? Not exactly; even a nabi is still public (although many "private" Catholic revelations are still public); but just as Catholics believe that a private revelation cannot add to the body of scripture, in a similar way a nabi who is not also a rasul does not add to any body of scripture - such as e.g. Yahya (John the Baptist). While some claimed scriptures (e.g. Gospels, Quran, Mandaean texts) recount the teaching of Yahya, I'm not aware of anyone (Christian, Islamic, Baha'i - even Mandaeans) claiming that he personally wrote or promulgated any scriptural writing. From my reading I note even Baha'is have a similar distinction, between major prophets ("Manifestations of God") and lesser/minor prophets.

I was raised in the Roman Church, and much of what you describe above as Revelation on the personal level would not be Revelation by minor Prophets. The concept of minor prophets in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and the Baha'i Faith is much more different than 'Communion with God' and his intermediaries (many in the Roman Church; Christ, Mary, Joesph and numerous saints). The minor prophets still represent a particular and specific form of 'Chosen Revelation,' and not in the context of everyone talks to God(s).

So in my view, there are two types of prophets, minor (non-scripture-bearing) and major (scripture-bearing). Anyone can potentially be a minor prophet; if I see myself as being to some extent one, I don't see that as excluding you or anyone else from the same position. To me a minor prophet is just someone who listens to the voice of God in their heart, and hears - and I think they still hear even if they hear badly, and produce a somewhat garbled message as a result. I don't claim to be a major (scripture-bearing) prophet.

Claiming to be a lesser or minor prophet to me is a big deal, as is commonly abused in the polytheistic world of LDS. I still consider minor prophets to be 'scripture or message' bearing as in the tradition of the major religions, most often in a specific 'prophecy or affirming or clarifying role of the greater Messiah, Enlightened One. I definitely do not consider this as common as God talking to every one, which I call the 'Universal Communion with God.'

At present you have been vague and more than a bit foggy as what this 'talking with God' results in, 'What specific message does this impart as in a message from a lesser prophet like Isaiah? , other than what I described as general 'Communion with God.'

[Whag]

I don't pass any judgement on Fox's vision. It's content doesn't call out to my own heart "This is the Word of the Lord",

To him it did. In his own heart, it was a clear and specific message.

but, at least in what you have quoted, I don't see anything particularly objectionable either. So I say, this may or may not have been the Word of God; and if it was, it may be pure, or it may be misheard.

How does one mishear God's voice so badly? This seems one of the best cases of showing that normal, good people are susceptible to extreme delusion. That it wasn't "objectionable" in your eyes is immaterial.

[ZackMartin]

I was raised in the Roman Church, and much of what you describe above as Revelation on the personal level would not be Revelation by minor Prophets. The concept of minor prophets in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and the Baha'i Faith is much more different than 'Communion with God' and his intermediaries (many in the Roman Church; Christ, Mary, Joesph and numerous saints). The minor prophets still represent a particular and specific form of 'Chosen Revelation,' and not in the context of everyone talks to God(s).

I think we need to be careful about the term "minor prophet". In Catholicism, "minor prophet" would primarily refer to that collection of books in the OT. The way I use the term "minor prophet" is not based on how Catholics use it. However, the concept I am referring to by that term does I believe exist in Catholicism. Catholicism does believe in the possibility of extra-biblical prophecy, post-biblical prophecy - even contemporary prophecy - although it tends to eschew the term "prophet" in practice (likely out a fear of producing confusion with the biblical prophets), but not in theory. Is there something fundamentally different, at the phenomenological level, between biblical and post-biblical prophecy in the Catholic view? I think the difference is largely due to the different requirements of different eras of salvation history.

See "Private Revelations" article in 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia which speaks of "particular or private revelations which are constantly occurring among Christians".

That article then in turn refers to "Contemplation" article in 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia which discusses extensively revelations or visions received in prayer, and refers to the one who receives revelations or visions as a "seer". Several dictionaries indicate that "seer" is at least a partial synonym for prophet: dictionary.com, merriam-webster.com, Wiktionary. I don't based on those definitions we can say that a "seer" is always a "prophet" or a "prophet" is always a "seer" - both words have too variable definitions to say that - but certainly, at the very least, some prophets are seers and some seers are prophets and the terms could well be synonymous. Also note that the "Contemplation" article mentions biblical prophets, and says our criteria for judging contemporary private revelations should be based, at least in part, on the biblical criteria for judging prophets.

See also "Prophecy" article in 1912 Catholic Encycloepdia, which says that "As the term is used in mystical theology, it applies both to the prophecies of canonical Scripture and to private prophecies" - what would a private prophecy be other than private revelation? Also see this statement:

The last prophetic work which the Church acknowledges as Divinely inspired is the Apocalypse. The prophetic spirit did not disappear with the Apostolic times, but the Church has not pronounced any work prophetic since then, though she has canonized numberless saints who were more or less endowed with the gift of prophecy. The Church allows freedom in accepting or rejecting particular or private prophecies according to the evidence for or against them.

which makes clear that the difference between biblical and post-biblical prophets, in the Catholic view, is the degree of endorsement they have been given by the Church. It seems to suggest, that in theory, a contemporary prophets words could theoretically even be added to the Bible by a decision of the Church - not that there is any reason to think that would be at all likely.

Or see what their article "Charismata" has to say about the office of prophet as mentioned in the NT: "In the course of time prophecy became less common, without, however, ever disappearing altogether."

To me it is clear that the private revelations received in contemplative prayer, as discussed by the Catholic Encyclopedia, are at least in principle accessible to all. It is presented as a practice which any believer could try, rather than one which only the chosen few could even attempt. But this I still see as "chosen revelation" - since all revelation would be the will of God, by divine providence and by grace - so distinguishing "chosen" and "unchosen" revelation does not make any sense to me.

Claiming to be a lesser or minor prophet to me is a big deal, as is commonly abused in the polytheistic world of LDS. I still consider minor prophets to be 'scripture or message' bearing as in the tradition of the major religions, most often in a specific 'prophecy or affirming or clarifying role of the greater Messiah, Enlightened One.

Well, in Catholic thought, a prophet does not need to bring a scripture. The "Prophecy" article mentions several post-biblical prophets - St. Edward the Confessor, St. Malachy, St. Paul of the Cross. None of these wrote scriptures; although they wrote writings, none of their writings were accepted as scripture. And as I've already mentioned, there is a clear argument in Islamic thought that not all prophets (nabi) bring scripture, only those who are also messengers (rasul).

I definitely do not consider this as common as God talking to every one, which I call the 'Universal Communion with God.'

You try to split the two concepts, "communion of God" and "prophecy", apart from each other. I don't. I see them as both being at the core, the same thing. That's not to say that there is no difference - one might say "prophecy" is a more concentrated form of "Communion with God" than what the latter denotes on average - but I don't believe they are fundamentally different things, just different degrees on a continuum.

At present you have been vague and more than a bit foggy as what this 'talking with God' results in, 'What specific message does this impart as in a message from a lesser prophet like Isaiah? , other than what I described as general 'Communion with God.'

I already said, I don't want to share at this time the content of the revelations I believe I have received. It isn't relevant - I'm not asking you to believe in it, so there is no need for me to share with you what they are. Remember, the only reason I brought this up was - I was asked how do I know which scriptures are correct? - and I pointed to God's personal revelation to me as one of the criteria I use. If you were to adopt the same criteria, you wouldn't be concerned with God's personal revelation to me, but rather with God's personal revelation to you.

[ZackMartin]

To him it did. In his own heart, it was a clear and specific message.

In my mind there are three types of prophecy: true prophecies one believes to be true, false prophecies one believes to be false, and neutral prophecies one has not concluded they are either true or false. While he in all likelihood, considered his prophecy a true one, I consider it a neutral prophecy. That's fine - acceptance of the concept of "prophecy" in principle doesn't preclude us from disagreeing about who is and is not a true prophet in practice, nor does it require us to reach a definitive judgement on whether every claimed instance of prophecy is true or false.

I'd also subdivide false prophecies into essentially false and partially false. An essentially false prophecy is not from God - it is purely a product of one's own mind, or of negative spiritual forces (Satan and his demons). A partially false prophecy is a prophecy from God that has been corrupted in the transmission. Since to me Fox's prophecy is a neutral prophecy, I can't say it is a false prophecy, nor can I say it is a partially false prophecy. However, given the unobjectionable nature of its content, I doubt it is a Satanic/demonic prophecy.

How does one mishear God's voice so badly? This seems one of the best cases of showing that normal, good people are susceptible to extreme delusion. That it wasn't "objectionable" in your eyes is immaterial.

Did he mishear God's voice? I'm not sure he did. I'm not saying he misheard God (partially false prophecy), but nor am I saying he did not. Maybe this is an entirely true prophecy. I'm not sure what are the grounds for saying he misheard God in this particular case, nor for calling this "extreme delusion".

[Whag]

Maybe this is an entirely true prophecy. I'm not sure what are the grounds for saying he misheard God in this particular case, nor for calling this "extreme delusion".

He took his shoes off and yelled "Woe to the bloody city of Lichfield!" How would you determine it to be a true prophecy?

[ZackMartin]

He took his shoes off and yelled "Woe to the bloody city of Lichfield!" How would you determine it to be a true prophecy?

To determine whether it was true, one would have to determine the meaning of it. Since I'm not sure exactly what it means, it's hard for me to judge if it is true or not.

For myself, one standard to determine if a claimed revelation from another is true or false, is to ask God to reveal to you whether that revelation is true or false. Agreement with conscience and reason are two other important standards.

[Whag]

To determine whether it was true, one would have to determine the meaning of it. Since I'm not sure exactly what it means, it's hard for me to judge if it is true or not.

For myself, one standard to determine if a claimed revelation from another is true or false, is to ask God to reveal to you whether that revelation is true or false. Agreement with conscience and reason are two other important standards.

Why isn't "fire of the lord" a standard? Fox was burning with the fire of the lord. It's what compelled him to continue.

Moreover, if you read it, later it was revealed to him why God told him to do this: 1,000 years previous, Christians were killed in that town.

[ZackMartin]

Why isn't "fire of the lord" a standard? Fox was burning with the fire of the lord. It's what compelled him to continue.

A lot of people may feel "the fire of the lord", even when promoting wrong ideas or doing wrong things. So I'm not going to make "the fire of the lord" by itself a standard. It could be a relevant factor, considered in conjunction with others, though; but by itself it won't be decisive for me.

Moreover, if you read it, later it was revealed to him why God told him to do this: 1,000 years previous, Christians were killed in that town.

Okay, so he runs around without his shoes on for a bit yelling at people. What harm did he do? Oh, maybe he even did them some good, who knows? Why would what happened a thousand years ago be relevant in George Fox's day? Maybe there was some similarity in mindset between the people in the town 1000 years ago and their distant descendants? Assuming, they were perplexed by Fox's exercise, and wondered why, and later found out his professed (after the fact) reason for doing it, I wonder what thoughts might have entered their minds. Sure, they might have just concluded Fox was nuts - as you seem to have. But that's not the only possible conclusion they could have drawn, and probably not the most interesting either. But to say anything more than that, I'd need to know a lot more about this topic, which I don't.

Anyway, at the end of the day, I'm not defending George Fox. I'm not condemning him either. I have never studied him in detail, so I'm not sufficiently acquainted with his life to pass judgement on a single incident without knowing the full context.

[shunyadragon]

I think we need to be careful about the term "minor prophet". In Catholicism, "minor prophet" would primarily refer to that collection of books in the OT. The way I use the term "minor prophet" is not based on how Catholics use it. However, the concept I am referring to by that term does I believe exist in Catholicism. Catholicism does believe in the possibility of extra-biblical prophecy, post-biblical prophecy - even contemporary prophecy - although it tends to eschew the term "prophet" in practice (likely out a fear of producing confusion with the biblical prophets), but not in theory. Is there something fundamentally different, at the phenomenological level, between biblical and post-biblical prophecy in the Catholic view? I think the difference is largely due to the different requirements of different eras of salvation history.

See "Private Revelations" article in 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia which speaks of "particular or private revelations which are constantly occurring among Christians".

That article then in turn refers to "Contemplation" article in 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia which discusses extensively revelations or visions received in prayer, and refers to the one who receives revelations or visions as a "seer". Several dictionaries indicate that "seer" is at least a partial synonym for prophet: dictionary.com, merriam-webster.com, Wiktionary. I don't based on those definitions we can say that a "seer" is always a "prophet" or a "prophet" is always a "seer" - both words have too variable definitions to say that - but certainly, at the very least, some prophets are seers and some seers are prophets and the terms could well be synonymous. Also note that the "Contemplation" article mentions biblical prophets, and says our criteria for judging contemporary private revelations should be based, at least in part, on the biblical criteria for judging prophets.

See also "Prophecy" article in 1912 Catholic Encycloepdia, which says that "As the term is used in mystical theology, it applies both to the prophecies of canonical Scripture and to private prophecies" - what would a private prophecy be other than private revelation? Also see this statement:

The last prophetic work which the Church acknowledges as Divinely inspired is the Apocalypse. The prophetic spirit did not disappear with the Apostolic times, but the Church has not pronounced any work prophetic since then, though she has canonized numberless saints who were more or less endowed with the gift of prophecy. The Church allows freedom in accepting or rejecting particular or private prophecies according to the evidence for or against them.

which makes clear that the difference between biblical and post-biblical prophets, in the Catholic view, is the degree of endorsement they have been given by the Church. It seems to suggest, that in theory, a contemporary prophets words could theoretically even be added to the Bible by a decision of the Church - not that there is any reason to think that would be at all likely.

Or see what their article "Charismata" has to say about the office of prophet as mentioned in the NT: "In the course of time prophecy became less common, without, however, ever disappearing altogether."

To me it is clear that the private revelations received in contemplative prayer, as discussed by the Catholic Encyclopedia, are at least in principle accessible to all. It is presented as a practice which any believer could try, rather than one which only the chosen few could even attempt. But this I still see as "chosen revelation" - since all revelation would be the will of God, by divine providence and by grace - so distinguishing "chosen" and "unchosen" revelation does not make any sense to me.

Well, in Catholic thought, a prophet does not need to bring a scripture. The "Prophecy" article mentions several post-biblical prophets - St. Edward the Confessor, St. Malachy, St. Paul of the Cross. None of these wrote scriptures; although they wrote writings, none of their writings were accepted as scripture. And as I've already mentioned, there is a clear argument in Islamic thought that not all prophets (nabi) bring scripture, only those who are also messengers (rasul).

You try to split the two concepts, "communion of God" and "prophecy", apart from each other. I don't. I see them as both being at the core, the same thing. That's not to say that there is no difference - one might say "prophecy" is a more concentrated form of "Communion with God" than what the latter denotes on average - but I don't believe they are fundamentally different things, just different degrees on a continuum.

I already said, I don't want to share at this time the content of the revelations I believe I have received. It isn't relevant - I'm not asking you to believe in it, so there is no need for me to share with you what they are. Remember, the only reason I brought this up was - I was asked how do I know which scriptures are correct? - and I pointed to God's personal revelation to me as one of the criteria I use. If you were to adopt the same criteria, you wouldn't be concerned with God's personal revelation to me, but rather with God's personal revelation to you.

Lot of extra noise here. I would like to get to more specifics. I do not buy the personal revelation to you and the personal revelation to me. It is too general and vague. I do not claim any sort of personal revelation that would be defined as such. There are many kinds of personal communications allowed, but basically they are are not personal 'Revelation.' I believe that the classification of 'Minor Prophets' is well defined in Christianity and the Roman Church as ending with the Book of Revelation. The exception being churches like LDS and possibly JW. Yes there are Saints and others that experienced communion with God and possibly some sort prophetic visions, but their acceptance in the churches is for the most part measured as how they conform to scripture, doctrine and dogma of the church in question. They did leave a distinct written record. My reference to 'Scripture' remains specific to what would be called the 'Minor Prophets.' Elsewhere your on vague grounds. According to the Roman Church, 'private revelations' must conform the scripture, doctrine, dogma of the church. For example a 'private revelation that the Trinity is a false dogma would not be accepted.

You indicate a reluctance to go to the specifics as to the nature of this 'personal revelation,' and you have nothing written to reveal. I have to back off again and reserve judgement of any such claims unless something specific presented.

So far in the threads you have started and participated in nothing here represents anything more than opinions. i do not see any evidence of 'private revelations.'

[Whag]

A lot of people may feel "the fire of the lord", even when promoting wrong ideas or doing wrong things. So I'm not going to make "the fire of the lord" by itself a standard. It could be a relevant factor, considered in conjunction with others, though; but by itself it won't be decisive for me.

Okay, so he runs around without his shoes on for a bit yelling at people. What harm did he do? Oh, maybe he even did them some good, who knows? Why would what happened a thousand years ago be relevant in George Fox's day? Maybe there was some similarity in mindset between the people in the town 1000 years ago and their distant descendants? Assuming, they were perplexed by Fox's exercise, and wondered why, and later found out his professed (after the fact) reason for doing it, I wonder what thoughts might have entered their minds. Sure, they might have just concluded Fox was nuts - as you seem to have. But that's not the only possible conclusion they could have drawn, and probably not the most interesting either. But to say anything more than that, I'd need to know a lot more about this topic, which I don't.

Anyway, at the end of the day, I'm not defending George Fox. I'm not condemning him either. I have never studied him in detail, so I'm not sufficiently acquainted with his life to pass judgement on a single incident without knowing the full context.

That's the problem with the theistic outlook: it basically "reserves judgment" on all claims of revelation. With revelation being so common (even you claim to be a "minor prophet" of sorts) and the line between imagination and religion so blurred, it becomes increasingly difficult to perceive reality rationally with such an influx of external data that can claim anything while reserving the right not to be scrutinized.

Without being vague, can you describe some insights you've received from the ether?

[kraftlos]

Hi Zack,

I think the biggest problem you're having in dealing with this passage is that you're anachronizing. You cannot judge the measures necessary for keeping law and order in the ancient near east, in an entirely different cultural, economic and political situation by what we'd think and do today. This isn't moral relativism, this is just understanding the scripture in context.

1] As I interpret it, this is essentially a prohibition on a man marrying his mother-in-law or stepdaughter, and/or sleeping with them. As a moral prohibition, it is fair enough - I'm sure both scenarios most commonly just result in people getting hurt. So I can't really object to the prohibition itself. I can see why God might want to discourage or prohibit such behaviour.

Yes I agree, though "people getting hurt" is putting it mildly.

2] The penalty is a different story though. My entire life, ever since I was a child, I have always believed that capital punishment was gravely wrong. As such, I cannot accept the idea that God would endorse it. Now, some people reading this will agree with me on capital punishment, and others will disagree with me. But if you don't agree with me, let me put it this way: Surely there is something (or probably several things) you are convinced in the bottom of your heart is wrong, and always have been. Like human sacrifice, child sacrifice, widow burning, whatever it is for you. Someone comes to you and says "God has revealed a new scripture to me". You read this new scripture, and find it endorses that thing you are convinced in the bottom of your heart to be wrong. Might you not reject the claim that this scripture was from God on that basis? Would that not be a good reason to do so?

You object to the capital punishment because "[Your] entire life, ever since [you were] a child, [you] have always believed that capital punishment was gravely wrong". I would like counter that for my whole life I've always felt that capital punishment was a just reward for those who unlawfully take life or get people killed through egregious negligence.

What I think the gist of your argument is:
1. That we all have deeply held moral beliefs
2. That presumably we'd side with our deeply held belief over a new revelation that contradicted that belief.

First, as was pointed out earlier, what we normally think of as a "conscience" is a product of our individualist guilt-oriented culture, people in the ancient near east were honor/shame oriented and likely didn't have a conscience as we know it. Universalizing based on some perceived shared value among most humans (at least in this case) is not justified - the ancients wouldn't have agreed and neither do I. I would suspect today that one's opinion on the death penalty might well correlate to whether one's country employs the death penalty - though that's just speculation.

Second, the idea of new revelation from a new prophet isn't a particularly useful hypothetical, because a Christian would reject any new revelation that doesn't square with the bible (and its questionable whether there could be any more revelation at all). But more importantly, the issue isn't the use of the death penalty today, the issue is the use of the death penalty about 3000 years ago in the Near East.

3] But even among those who support the death penalty, most would agree that capital punishment should only be reserved for the most serious crimes. Is sleeping consensually with your mother-in-law or stepdaughter wrong enough to deserve the death penalty? Very few today would say yes. So this is another reason to believe this verse is not the Word of God.

You make the mistake of assuming that because the prohibited action wouldn't have life threatening consequences in modern times, that it would be immoral to use capital punishment for the crime back when such behavior was in fact life-threatening. I don't think you're understanding the severity of this crime - this isn't just about people's feelings getting hurt.

4] Executing all three people involved also seems very questionable. The verse never says that the two woman must be aware of and consent to what is going on. So if your husband sleeps with your mother-in-law, without your knowledge and consent, you are to be executed? If a man sleeps with his step-daughter, the step-daughter is to be executed? Even if she is an adult, the ability of a stepdaughter to freely consent to sexual relations with her stepfather must be questioned; it is likely she is under his long-established influence in choosing to do so. So we should execute her? This seems utterly barbaric, and clearly not the Word of God.

Correct my if I'm wrong, but it seems like you're imagining that this was a summary execution via lynch mob. These cases were tried before an elder, judge or ruling authority and they had wide latitude on how to apply a sentence. This wasn't some automatic killing by some frenzied mob.

As was pointed out by another poster, it is unlikely that a daughter could've been coerced into a sexual relationship without the mother's knowledge and consent. In the case of the mother being the one seduced, she'd know exactly what the consequences of her actions were.

In the case of marriage, all three would be fully consenting to the crime and it would be done in public before many witnesses.

5] Finally, even those who accept the death penalty, who would endorse capital punishment by burning? A painful and gruesome death. This is clearly not the Word of God.

Does it really matter how the capital punishment is administered? Wouldn't a gruesome and painful death have more of a deterrent effect than something relatively painless like beheading?

Nevertheless, others in this thread have pointed out that this need not be burning them alive, but burning of the corpses afterward which would have brought great shame on the criminals and their family. Considering that the rest of the passage lists capital offenses, I'm disinclined to follow the branding interpretation - but that reading is certainly possible. The fact that you are unwilling to consider these other options tells me that you're looking to read this in the worst light possible (what others here have described as reading it uncharitably).

So if it is not the Word of God, what is it? I can think of only two other possibilities: the Word of Man, or the Word of Satan.

So the argument so far seems to be:

1. The death penalty is wrong.
2. God cannot do wrong.
3. Leviticus claims God ordered the death penalty
4. Therefore Leviticus is not God's word

Am I getting this right?

All Christians will agree with #2, but you haven't demonstrated #1 aside from your own subjective feelings about the subject. Anyway, I hope my perspective adds to this discussion.

Regards,

-Kraftlos