Page 71 of 79 FirstFirst ... 21616970717273 ... LastLast
Results 701 to 710 of 781

Thread: Mayor Pete Attacks Trump's Faith...

  1. #701
    Must...have...caffeine One Bad Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Inside the beltway
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    19,879
    Amen (Given)
    5718
    Amen (Received)
    11018
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    His problem is that he never has actually read the bible. He gets all of his talking points from skeptic websites. JimL never does any original research, whether in politics or religion. He just parrots what other people say indiscriminately.
    Yeah, but he are smarter then us!1!1!!!1!1!!!1!
    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. St. John Chrysostom

    Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio

    I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

  2. #702
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    49,873
    Amen (Given)
    10692
    Amen (Received)
    23349
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    His problem is that he never has actually read the bible. He gets all of his talking points from skeptic websites. JimL never does any original research, whether in politics or religion. He just parrots what other people say indiscriminately.
    He wants so very badly to be relevant. If I thought he'd read it, I'd send him McGee's book "The Search for Significance".
    --- this space intentionally left blank ---

  3. #703
    tWebber Adrift's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    7,673
    Amen (Given)
    6224
    Amen (Received)
    6016
    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    Do you honestly believe that your god commanded people be stoned and burnt to death for things like cursing their parents, or homosexual behavior etc etc.

    Source: The Book of Leviticus by Gordon J. Wenham

    If a man curses his father and mother, he must be put to death (v.9). In the Decalog the command to honor one's parents come after religious duties and before responsibilities to neighbors. Here the penal law follows the same order: cursing father and mother is sandwiched between necromancy (v. 6) and adultery (v. 10). All these sins are regarded as meriting the death penalty.

    "To curse" means more than uttering the occasional angry word. 2 Sam. 16:5ff.; Job 3:1ff. give some idea of the venom and bitter feelings that cursing could entail. It is the very antithesis of "honoring." To honor in Hebrew literally means "to make light of, despicable." That such cursing deserves the death penalty is reiterated elsewhere in Scripture (Exod. 21:17; Prov. 20:20; Matt. 15:4; Mark 7:10; cf. Deut. 21:18ff.). This point is underlined here by the phrase his guilt is his own, literally "his blood is in him." This phrase occurs only in Ezek. 18:33; 33:5 and in this chapter as a coda to several of the laws (vv. 11, 12, 13, 16, 27), apparently in justification of the death penalty in these cases. It seems to be equivalent to the commoner phrase "his blood shall be on his head" (e.g., Josh. 2:19; 2 Sam. 1:16). If a man breaks such a law, he does so knowing the consequences, and therefore cannot object to the penalty imposed.

    The sanctity of parental authority implied by this law is striking. Whereas in certain respects OT penal law was much more lenient than that of neighboring contemporary cultures, it was more strict with regard to offenses against religion and family life. Cursing father or mother is singled out for special censure, partly out of a determination to maintain the structure of the family, and partly because the parents represent God's authority to the child: to curse them is almost tantamount to blasphemy. Nevertheless, rarely if ever can the death penalty have been invoked for this offense. Like other punishments laid down in in the law, it represents a maximum not a minimum.

    Other capital crimes listed in vv. 10-16 cover adultery (v. 10; cf. 18:20; Deut. 22:22), incest with close relatives (vv. 11,12, 14; cf. 18:7-8, 15, 17), homosexuality (v. 13; cf. 18:22), and bestiality (vv. 15-16; cf. 18:23; Exod. 22:18 [Eng. 19]). Then follow crimes for which no human penalty is laid down, but instead divine punishment is promised. Cohabitation with a sister (v. 17; cf. 18:9, 11) and intercourse with a woman during her menstrual period (v. 18; cf. 18:19) are punished by "cutting off" (cf. vv. 3, 5, 6 and 17:4). Childlessness will result from cohabitation with an aunt by marriage (v.. 20) or sister-in-law (v. 21; cf. 18:16). An alternative penalty, apparently intermediate between cutting-off and childlessness, is prescribed for intercoures with a blood aunt: they will bear their guilt (v. 19; cf. 18:12-13).

    © Copyright Original Source




    Keep in mind that in the rest of the ancient near east, punishment for breaking laws was often far more severe, often involving torture and mutilation of the offender. The reason for the relative harshness for breaking these particular laws was to keep Israel sanctified and purified from the rest of the nations so that Israel could usher in the promised Messiah and bring all of the world, both Jew and Gentile, both you and I, back into communion with the creator of the universe. These laws were created in a heavily collectivist agrarian state that lacked prisons, policing, and the social nets that we take for granted. These laws were created in a pre-Pentecost, pre-Incarnation period when the Holy Spirit was only accessible at limited times to the prophets of Yahweh. They were issued under the shadow of a true theocracy that was hampered by the inaccessibility of the Holy Spirit. A theocracy that, while in power, rarely, if ever, carried out these extreme punishments, and whose power would eventually be usurped under occupation and exile. Under the Christian worldview, humanity now lives under a drastically different set of rules. One where moral failings are still sinful, and to be avoided, but where punishment is doled out by secular authorities, not a theocracy. Christians believe that through Jesus' death and resurrection, we are now under a new administration of grace where rather than punishment, God would rather us all turn from our sin, be filled with the Holy Spirit, and live more than abundant lives today and forever.

    So, yes, Christian do believe that God proscribed certain max punishments for breaking his laws at a very particular place, period and context within history, and that he was justified for doing so within that place, period and context. And it does not apply to all places, periods and contexts. I'm not sure why no one else answered this question, but if I had to guess it wasn't because they were chicken, but because previous experience has taught them that anything that would take time to explain to you would likely be waved away, or further a sideline discussion that no one in this threads is interesting in engaging. Especially seeing as a lot of this sort of thing has been explained to you before.
    Last edited by Adrift; 05-16-2019 at 12:12 PM.

  4. #704
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    46,434
    Amen (Given)
    4485
    Amen (Received)
    20695
    Quote Originally Posted by Adrift View Post
    Source: The Book of Leviticus by Gordon J. Wenham

    If a man curses his father and mother, he must be put to death (v.9). In the Decalog the command to honor one's parents come after religious duties and before responsibilities to neighbors. Here the penal law follows the same order: cursing father and mother is sandwiched between necromancy (v. 6) and adultery (v. 10). All these sins are regarded as meriting the death penalty.

    "To curse" means more than uttering the occasional angry word. 2 Sam. 16:5ff.; Job 3:1ff. give some idea of the venom and bitter feelings that cursing could entail. It is the very antithesis of "honoring." To honor in Hebrew literally means "to make light of, despicable." That such cursing deserves the death penalty is reiterated elsewhere in Scripture (Exod. 21:17; Prov. 20:20; Matt. 15:4; Mark 7:10; cf. Deut. 21:18ff.). This point is underlined here by the phrase his guilt is his own, literally "his blood is in him." This phrase occurs only in Ezek. 18:33; 33:5 and in this chapter as a coda to several of the laws (vv. 11, 12, 13, 16, 27), apparently in justification of the death penalty in these cases. It seems to be equivalent to the commoner phrase "his blood shall be on his head" (e.g., Josh. 2:19; 2 Sam. 1:16). If a man breaks such a law, he does so knowing the consequences, and therefore cannot object to the penalty imposed.

    The sanctity of parental authority implied by this law is striking. Whereas in certain respects OT penal law was much more lenient than that of neighboring contemporary cultures, it was more strict with regard to offenses against religion and family life. Cursing father or mother is singled out for special censure, partly out of a determination to maintain the structure of the family, and partly because the parents represent God's authority to the child: to curse them is almost tantamount to blasphemy. Nevertheless, rarely if ever can the death penalty have been invoked for this offense. Like other punishments laid down in in the law, it represents a maximum not a minimum.

    Other capital crimes listed in vv. 10-16 cover adultery (v. 10; cf. 18:20; Deut. 22:22), incest with close relatives (vv. 11,12, 14; cf. 18:7-8, 15, 17), homosexuality (v. 13; cf. 18:22), and bestiality (vv. 15-16; cf. 18:23; Exod. 22:18 [Eng. 19]). Then follow crimes for which no human penalty is laid down, but instead divine punishment is promised. Cohabitation with a sister (v. 17; cf. 18:9, 11) and intercourse with a woman during her menstrual period (v. 18; cf. 18:19) are punished by "cutting off" (cf. vv. 3, 5, 6 and 17:4). Childlessness will result from cohabitation with an aunt by marriage (v.. 20) or sister-in-law (v. 21; cf. 18:16). An alternative penalty, apparently intermediate between cutting-off and childlessness, is prescribed for intercoures with a blood aunt: they will bear their guilt (v. 19; cf. 18:12-13).

    © Copyright Original Source




    Keep in mind that in the rest of the ancient near east, punishment for breaking laws was often far more severe, often involving torture and mutilation of the offender. The reason for the relative harshness for breaking these particular laws was to keep Israel sanctified and purified from the rest of the nations so that Israel could usher in the promised Messiah and bring all of the world, both Jew and Gentile, both you and I, back into communion with the creator of the universe. These laws were created in a heavily collectivist agrarian state that lacked prisons, policing, and the social nets that we take for granted. These laws were created in a pre-Pentecost, pre-Incarnation period when the Holy Spirit was only accessible at limited times to the prophets of Yahweh. They were issued under the shadow of a true theocracy that was hampered by the inaccessibility of the Holy Spirit. A theocracy that, while in power, rarely, if ever, carried out these extreme punishments, and whose power would eventually be usurped under occupation and exile. Under the Christian worldview, humanity now lives under a drastically different set of rules. One where moral failings are still sinful, and to be avoided, but where punishment is doled out by secular authorities, not a theocracy. Christians believe that through Jesus' death and resurrection, we are now under a new administration of grace where rather than punishment, God would rather us all turn from our sin, be filled with the Holy Spirit, and live more than abundant lives today and forever.

    So, yes, Christian do believe that God proscribed certain max punishments for breaking his laws at a very particular place, period and context within history, and that he was justified for doing so within that place, period and context. And it does not apply to all places, periods and contexts. I'm not sure why no one else answered this question, but if I had to guess it wasn't because they were chicken, but because previous experience has taught them that anything that would take time to explain to you would likely be waved away, or further a sideline discussion that no one in this threads is interesting in engaging. Especially seeing as a lot of this sort of thing has been explained to you before.
    ^^That. It is a waste of time to take JimL serious in my opinion.

    But hey! Nice to see you Adrift. You have been missed.

  5. Amen One Bad Pig, Adrift, Chrawnus amen'd this post.
  6. #705
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    49,873
    Amen (Given)
    10692
    Amen (Received)
    23349
    Quote Originally Posted by Adrift View Post
    Source: The Book of Leviticus by Gordon J. Wenham

    If a man curses his father and mother, he must be put to death (v.9). In the Decalog the command to honor one's parents come after religious duties and before responsibilities to neighbors. Here the penal law follows the same order: cursing father and mother is sandwiched between necromancy (v. 6) and adultery (v. 10). All these sins are regarded as meriting the death penalty.

    "To curse" means more than uttering the occasional angry word. 2 Sam. 16:5ff.; Job 3:1ff. give some idea of the venom and bitter feelings that cursing could entail. It is the very antithesis of "honoring." To honor in Hebrew literally means "to make light of, despicable." That such cursing deserves the death penalty is reiterated elsewhere in Scripture (Exod. 21:17; Prov. 20:20; Matt. 15:4; Mark 7:10; cf. Deut. 21:18ff.). This point is underlined here by the phrase his guilt is his own, literally "his blood is in him." This phrase occurs only in Ezek. 18:33; 33:5 and in this chapter as a coda to several of the laws (vv. 11, 12, 13, 16, 27), apparently in justification of the death penalty in these cases. It seems to be equivalent to the commoner phrase "his blood shall be on his head" (e.g., Josh. 2:19; 2 Sam. 1:16). If a man breaks such a law, he does so knowing the consequences, and therefore cannot object to the penalty imposed.

    The sanctity of parental authority implied by this law is striking. Whereas in certain respects OT penal law was much more lenient than that of neighboring contemporary cultures, it was more strict with regard to offenses against religion and family life. Cursing father or mother is singled out for special censure, partly out of a determination to maintain the structure of the family, and partly because the parents represent God's authority to the child: to curse them is almost tantamount to blasphemy. Nevertheless, rarely if ever can the death penalty have been invoked for this offense. Like other punishments laid down in in the law, it represents a maximum not a minimum.

    Other capital crimes listed in vv. 10-16 cover adultery (v. 10; cf. 18:20; Deut. 22:22), incest with close relatives (vv. 11,12, 14; cf. 18:7-8, 15, 17), homosexuality (v. 13; cf. 18:22), and bestiality (vv. 15-16; cf. 18:23; Exod. 22:18 [Eng. 19]). Then follow crimes for which no human penalty is laid down, but instead divine punishment is promised. Cohabitation with a sister (v. 17; cf. 18:9, 11) and intercourse with a woman during her menstrual period (v. 18; cf. 18:19) are punished by "cutting off" (cf. vv. 3, 5, 6 and 17:4). Childlessness will result from cohabitation with an aunt by marriage (v.. 20) or sister-in-law (v. 21; cf. 18:16). An alternative penalty, apparently intermediate between cutting-off and childlessness, is prescribed for intercoures with a blood aunt: they will bear their guilt (v. 19; cf. 18:12-13).

    © Copyright Original Source




    Keep in mind that in the rest of the ancient near east, punishment for breaking laws was often far more severe, often involving torture and mutilation of the offender. The reason for the relative harshness for breaking these particular laws was to keep Israel sanctified and purified from the rest of the nations so that Israel could usher in the promised Messiah and bring all of the world, both Jew and Gentile, both you and I, back into communion with the creator of the universe. These laws were created in a heavily collectivist agrarian state that lacked prisons, policing, and the social nets that we take for granted. These laws were created in a pre-Pentecost, pre-Incarnation period when the Holy Spirit was only accessible at limited times to the prophets of Yahweh. They were issued under the shadow of a true theocracy that was hampered by the inaccessibility of the Holy Spirit. A theocracy that, while in power, rarely, if ever, carried out these extreme punishments, and whose power would eventually be usurped under occupation and exile. Under the Christian worldview, humanity now lives under a drastically different set of rules. One where moral failings are still sinful, and to be avoided, but where punishment is doled out by secular authorities, not a theocracy. Christians believe that through Jesus' death and resurrection, we are now under a new administration of grace where rather than punishment, God would rather us all turn from our sin, be filled with the Holy Spirit, and live more than abundant lives today and forever.

    So, yes, Christian do believe that God proscribed certain max punishments for breaking his laws at a very particular place, period and context within history, and that he was justified for doing so within that place, period and context. And it does not apply to all places, periods and contexts. I'm not sure why no one else answered this question, but if I had to guess it wasn't because they were chicken, but because previous experience has taught them that anything that would take time to explain to you would likely be waved away, or further a sideline discussion that no one in this threads is interesting in engaging. Especially seeing as a lot of this sort of thing has been explained to you before.
    SO good to see you, sir!
    --- this space intentionally left blank ---

  7. Amen One Bad Pig, Zymologist, Adrift, Chrawnus, MaxVel amen'd this post.
  8. #706
    Evolution is God's ID rogue06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southeastern U.S. of A.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    47,875
    Amen (Given)
    1021
    Amen (Received)
    17422
    Quote Originally Posted by Adrift View Post
    Source: The Book of Leviticus by Gordon J. Wenham

    If a man curses his father and mother, he must be put to death (v.9). In the Decalog the command to honor one's parents come after religious duties and before responsibilities to neighbors. Here the penal law follows the same order: cursing father and mother is sandwiched between necromancy (v. 6) and adultery (v. 10). All these sins are regarded as meriting the death penalty.

    "To curse" means more than uttering the occasional angry word. 2 Sam. 16:5ff.; Job 3:1ff. give some idea of the venom and bitter feelings that cursing could entail. It is the very antithesis of "honoring." To honor in Hebrew literally means "to make light of, despicable." That such cursing deserves the death penalty is reiterated elsewhere in Scripture (Exod. 21:17; Prov. 20:20; Matt. 15:4; Mark 7:10; cf. Deut. 21:18ff.). This point is underlined here by the phrase his guilt is his own, literally "his blood is in him." This phrase occurs only in Ezek. 18:33; 33:5 and in this chapter as a coda to several of the laws (vv. 11, 12, 13, 16, 27), apparently in justification of the death penalty in these cases. It seems to be equivalent to the commoner phrase "his blood shall be on his head" (e.g., Josh. 2:19; 2 Sam. 1:16). If a man breaks such a law, he does so knowing the consequences, and therefore cannot object to the penalty imposed.

    The sanctity of parental authority implied by this law is striking. Whereas in certain respects OT penal law was much more lenient than that of neighboring contemporary cultures, it was more strict with regard to offenses against religion and family life. Cursing father or mother is singled out for special censure, partly out of a determination to maintain the structure of the family, and partly because the parents represent God's authority to the child: to curse them is almost tantamount to blasphemy. Nevertheless, rarely if ever can the death penalty have been invoked for this offense. Like other punishments laid down in in the law, it represents a maximum not a minimum.

    Other capital crimes listed in vv. 10-16 cover adultery (v. 10; cf. 18:20; Deut. 22:22), incest with close relatives (vv. 11,12, 14; cf. 18:7-8, 15, 17), homosexuality (v. 13; cf. 18:22), and bestiality (vv. 15-16; cf. 18:23; Exod. 22:18 [Eng. 19]). Then follow crimes for which no human penalty is laid down, but instead divine punishment is promised. Cohabitation with a sister (v. 17; cf. 18:9, 11) and intercourse with a woman during her menstrual period (v. 18; cf. 18:19) are punished by "cutting off" (cf. vv. 3, 5, 6 and 17:4). Childlessness will result from cohabitation with an aunt by marriage (v.. 20) or sister-in-law (v. 21; cf. 18:16). An alternative penalty, apparently intermediate between cutting-off and childlessness, is prescribed for intercoures with a blood aunt: they will bear their guilt (v. 19; cf. 18:12-13).

    © Copyright Original Source




    Keep in mind that in the rest of the ancient near east, punishment for breaking laws was often far more severe, often involving torture and mutilation of the offender. The reason for the relative harshness for breaking these particular laws was to keep Israel sanctified and purified from the rest of the nations so that Israel could usher in the promised Messiah and bring all of the world, both Jew and Gentile, both you and I, back into communion with the creator of the universe. These laws were created in a heavily collectivist agrarian state that lacked prisons, policing, and the social nets that we take for granted. These laws were created in a pre-Pentecost, pre-Incarnation period when the Holy Spirit was only accessible at limited times to the prophets of Yahweh. They were issued under the shadow of a true theocracy that was hampered by the inaccessibility of the Holy Spirit. A theocracy that, while in power, rarely, if ever, carried out these extreme punishments, and whose power would eventually be usurped under occupation and exile. Under the Christian worldview, humanity now lives under a drastically different set of rules. One where moral failings are still sinful, and to be avoided, but where punishment is doled out by secular authorities, not a theocracy. Christians believe that through Jesus' death and resurrection, we are now under a new administration of grace where rather than punishment, God would rather us all turn from our sin, be filled with the Holy Spirit, and live more than abundant lives today and forever.

    So, yes, Christian do believe that God proscribed certain max punishments for breaking his laws at a very particular place, period and context within history, and that he was justified for doing so within that place, period and context. And it does not apply to all places, periods and contexts. I'm not sure why no one else answered this question, but if I had to guess it wasn't because they were chicken, but because previous experience has taught them that anything that would take time to explain to you would likely be waved away, or further a sideline discussion that no one in this threads is interesting in engaging. Especially seeing as a lot of this sort of thing has been explained to you before.
    Nice post. Great to see you around

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" -- starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)

  9. Amen Adrift, Chrawnus, Cow Poke amen'd this post.
  10. #707
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    23,274
    Amen (Given)
    1493
    Amen (Received)
    4640
    Quote Originally Posted by Adrift View Post

    So, yes, Christian do believe that God proscribed certain max punishments for breaking his laws at a very particular place, period and context within history, and that he was justified for doing so within that place, period and context. And it does not apply to all places, periods and contexts. I'm not sure why no one else answered this question, but if I had to guess it wasn't because they were chicken, but because previous experience has taught them that anything that would take time to explain to you would likely be waved away, or further a sideline discussion that no one in this threads is interesting in engaging. Especially seeing as a lot of this sort of thing has been explained to you before.

    I kind of said the same thing: Right Jim, Christ ushered in a New Covenant. Christians do not live under a Theocracy like the Hebrews did. The Theocracy will return with Christ's second coming and it will be universal. And God will judge us at that point, and those who are found wanting will be executed - that is called the "second death."


    But as usual you said it better...
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

  11. Amen Cow Poke, Adrift amen'd this post.
  12. #708
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    49,873
    Amen (Given)
    10692
    Amen (Received)
    23349
    Quote Originally Posted by Adrift View Post
    I'm not sure why no one else answered this question, but if I had to guess it wasn't because they were chicken, but because previous experience has taught them that anything that would take time to explain to you would likely be waved away, or further a sideline discussion that no one in this threads is interesting in engaging. Especially seeing as a lot of this sort of thing has been explained to you before.
    EGGzackly!!!

    (speaking of chickens)
    --- this space intentionally left blank ---

  13. Amen Adrift amen'd this post.
  14. #709
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,928
    Amen (Given)
    1482
    Amen (Received)
    1400
    Quote Originally Posted by Adrift View Post
    Source: The Book of Leviticus by Gordon J. Wenham

    If a man curses his father and mother, he must be put to death (v.9). In the Decalog the command to honor one's parents come after religious duties and before responsibilities to neighbors. Here the penal law follows the same order: cursing father and mother is sandwiched between necromancy (v. 6) and adultery (v. 10). All these sins are regarded as meriting the death penalty.

    "To curse" means more than uttering the occasional angry word. 2 Sam. 16:5ff.; Job 3:1ff. give some idea of the venom and bitter feelings that cursing could entail. It is the very antithesis of "honoring." To honor in Hebrew literally means "to make light of, despicable." That such cursing deserves the death penalty is reiterated elsewhere in Scripture (Exod. 21:17; Prov. 20:20; Matt. 15:4; Mark 7:10; cf. Deut. 21:18ff.). This point is underlined here by the phrase his guilt is his own, literally "his blood is in him." This phrase occurs only in Ezek. 18:33; 33:5 and in this chapter as a coda to several of the laws (vv. 11, 12, 13, 16, 27), apparently in justification of the death penalty in these cases. It seems to be equivalent to the commoner phrase "his blood shall be on his head" (e.g., Josh. 2:19; 2 Sam. 1:16). If a man breaks such a law, he does so knowing the consequences, and therefore cannot object to the penalty imposed.

    The sanctity of parental authority implied by this law is striking. Whereas in certain respects OT penal law was much more lenient than that of neighboring contemporary cultures, it was more strict with regard to offenses against religion and family life. Cursing father or mother is singled out for special censure, partly out of a determination to maintain the structure of the family, and partly because the parents represent God's authority to the child: to curse them is almost tantamount to blasphemy. Nevertheless, rarely if ever can the death penalty have been invoked for this offense. Like other punishments laid down in in the law, it represents a maximum not a minimum.

    Other capital crimes listed in vv. 10-16 cover adultery (v. 10; cf. 18:20; Deut. 22:22), incest with close relatives (vv. 11,12, 14; cf. 18:7-8, 15, 17), homosexuality (v. 13; cf. 18:22), and bestiality (vv. 15-16; cf. 18:23; Exod. 22:18 [Eng. 19]). Then follow crimes for which no human penalty is laid down, but instead divine punishment is promised. Cohabitation with a sister (v. 17; cf. 18:9, 11) and intercourse with a woman during her menstrual period (v. 18; cf. 18:19) are punished by "cutting off" (cf. vv. 3, 5, 6 and 17:4). Childlessness will result from cohabitation with an aunt by marriage (v.. 20) or sister-in-law (v. 21; cf. 18:16). An alternative penalty, apparently intermediate between cutting-off and childlessness, is prescribed for intercoures with a blood aunt: they will bear their guilt (v. 19; cf. 18:12-13).

    © Copyright Original Source




    Keep in mind that in the rest of the ancient near east, punishment for breaking laws was often far more severe, often involving torture and mutilation of the offender. The reason for the relative harshness for breaking these particular laws was to keep Israel sanctified and purified from the rest of the nations so that Israel could usher in the promised Messiah and bring all of the world, both Jew and Gentile, both you and I, back into communion with the creator of the universe. These laws were created in a heavily collectivist agrarian state that lacked prisons, policing, and the social nets that we take for granted. These laws were created in a pre-Pentecost, pre-Incarnation period when the Holy Spirit was only accessible at limited times to the prophets of Yahweh. They were issued under the shadow of a true theocracy that was hampered by the inaccessibility of the Holy Spirit. A theocracy that, while in power, rarely, if ever, carried out these extreme punishments, and whose power would eventually be usurped under occupation and exile. Under the Christian worldview, humanity now lives under a drastically different set of rules. One where moral failings are still sinful, and to be avoided, but where punishment is doled out by secular authorities, not a theocracy. Christians believe that through Jesus' death and resurrection, we are now under a new administration of grace where rather than punishment, God would rather us all turn from our sin, be filled with the Holy Spirit, and live more than abundant lives today and forever.

    So, yes, Christian do believe that God proscribed certain max punishments for breaking his laws at a very particular place, period and context within history, and that he was justified for doing so within that place, period and context. And it does not apply to all places, periods and contexts. I'm not sure why no one else answered this question, but if I had to guess it wasn't because they were chicken, but because previous experience has taught them that anything that would take time to explain to you would likely be waved away, or further a sideline discussion that no one in this threads is interesting in engaging. Especially seeing as a lot of this sort of thing has been explained to you before.
    Hi Adrift. Thank you for setting the record straight and informing the Christians here that their god did indeed command that human beings be executed, and they were ordered executed by means of stoning to death and burning to death which today we would argue to be immoral and abhorent. Forget all the spin, it's immoral and abhorant, period! What's interesting to me is that those replying here, other than yourself, either didn't know, or couldn't admit that to be the case.

  15. #710
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    23,274
    Amen (Given)
    1493
    Amen (Received)
    4640
    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    Hi Adrift. Thank you for setting the record straight and informing the Christians here that their god did indeed command that human beings be executed, and they were ordered executed by means of stoning to death and burning to death which today we would argue to be immoral and abhorent. Forget all the spin, it's immoral and abhorant, period! What's interesting to me is that those replying here, other than yourself, either didn't know, or couldn't admit that to be the case.
    Jim, I said pages ago that God executed people. What is your point? And abhorrent to whom? You? Remember in your atheistic world all ethics are relative anyway, so no big deal...
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •