User Tag List

Page 21 of 32 FirstFirst ... 111819202122232431 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 315 of 480

Thread: Why Stop At Birth?

  1. #301
    Toxic Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    18,799
    Thanks
    499
    Thanked 12,521 Times in 8,888 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147848
    Quote Originally Posted by glorydaz View Post
    You've taken up the position that righteousness can be enforced by the law.
    Not sure what you mean by "enforced," but the gospel before Paul was "obey the commandments."
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (March 15th, 2019)

  3. #302
    TOL Subscriber glorydaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    25,588
    Thanks
    16,942
    Thanked 40,135 Times in 20,063 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    114 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147831
    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    Actually, it in fact does.

    And I pointed out why.

    Allow me to show you:



    The word we translate as "uncleanness" means sexual immorality.


    Strong's h6172

    - Lexical: עֶרְוָה
    - Transliteration: ervah
    - Part of Speech: Noun Feminine
    - Phonetic Spelling: er-vaw'
    - Definition: nakedness.
    - Origin: From arah; nudity, literally (especially the pudenda) or figuratively (disgrace, blemish).
    - Usage: nakedness, shame, unclean(-ness).
    - Translated as (count): the nakedness (22), nakedness (13), your nakedness (6), and the nakedness (2), their nakedness (2), bare (1), her nakedness (1), his nakedness (1), nakedness her (1), or the nakedness (1), to the shame (1), unclean (1), uncleanness (1), your own nakedness (1).



    Spoiler
    Don't know if you're aware of this, but "nakedness" is used several times in the Bible in reference to sexuality.

    For example:

    The exact same word is used in Genesis 9:22 to describe Ham's seduction of Noah's wife.

    And Noah began to be a farmer, and he planted a vineyard.Then he drank of the wine and was drunk, and became uncovered in his tent.And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside.But Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and went backward and covered the nakedness of their father. Their faces were turned away, and they did not see their fatherís nakedness.So Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done to him. - Genesis 9:20-24 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...4&version=NKJV

    In this case (and in the Mosaic law), Noah's nakedness is not referring to Noah being naked, but rather his wife being seduced/raped.


    So yes, in fact, Deuteronomy 24:1 IS talking about sexual immorality.



    Let's just address this one verse (it was one you cited yourself).

    From what I gather, you're claiming "uncleaness" in this text is referring to sexual immorality, is that correct? Then I would ask why the woman wasn't stoned for her sexual immorality?

    Deuteronomy 24:1
    24 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.

    Uncleanness does NOT just refer to sexual immorality....a woman was unclean when she was having her period and so many days after. Perhaps this woman had a "woman problem". Bet you didn't think of that, did ya?

  4. #303
    TOL Subscriber glorydaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    25,588
    Thanks
    16,942
    Thanked 40,135 Times in 20,063 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    114 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147831
    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    Fornication => forced marriage with no possibility of divorce

    Adultery => death penalty
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    Not sure what you mean by "enforced," but the gospel before Paul was "obey the commandments."
    I was referring to this "forced marriage" JR was talking about.

    Yes, the gospel before Paul's was "obey the commandments", AND obey the laws set down by Moses for the nation of ISRAEL.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to glorydaz For Your Post:

    Stripe (March 15th, 2019)

  6. #304
    Super Moderator JudgeRightly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On the road
    Posts
    9,780
    Thanks
    33,289
    Thanked 8,401 Times in 5,378 Posts

    Mentioned
    76 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147634
    Quote Originally Posted by glorydaz View Post
    Let's just address this one verse (it was one you cited yourself).

    From what I gather, you're claiming "uncleaness" in this text is referring to sexual immorality, is that correct? Then I would ask why the woman wasn't stoned for her sexual immorality?

    Deuteronomy 24:1
    24 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
    Because, again, the death penalty is NOT the punishment for fornication.

    Fornication DOES NOT deserve the death penalty.

    Did you notice that the woman was to be given a certificate of divorce?

    Her uncleanness, her sexual immorality, was grounds for her husband to divorce her, as the law stated, and as Jesus reaffirmed in Matthew 5.

    Uncleanness does NOT just refer to sexual immorality....a woman was unclean when she was having her period and so many days after. Perhaps this woman had a "woman problem". Bet you didn't think of that, did ya?
    If it were the same Hebrew word, you would have a very strong point.

    However...

    The word translated as "unclean" in Leviticus 15:19 (see below) and and the next several verses is a completely different word than the word used in Deuteronomy 24:1 for "uncleanness":




    Strong's h2930

    - Lexical: טָמֵא
    - Transliteration: tame
    - Part of Speech: Verb
    - Phonetic Spelling: taw-may'
    - Definition: unclean.
    - Origin: A primitive root; to be foul, especially in a ceremial or moral sense (contaminated).
    - Usage: defile (self), pollute (self), be (make, make self, pronounce) unclean, X utterly.
    - Translated as (count):
    Spoiler
    shall be unclean (23), and be unclean (18), and is defiled (4), and shall be unclean (4), defile (4), is defiled (4), to defile (4), he shall be unclean (3), it shall be unclean (3), to be defiled (3), and polluted (2), and shall pronounce him unclean (2), and they defiled (2), be defiled (2), defiled (2), do defiled (2), he had defiled (2), then shall pronounce him unclean (2), then shall pronounce unclean (2), then she shall be unclean (2), - (1), a man shall be defiled (1), and defiled (1), And he defiled (1), and he has defiled (1), And I polluted (1), and it shall be unclean (1), and pronounce him to be unclean (1), and pronounce unclean (1), and shall pronounce unclean (1), and she was polluted (1), and Thus were they defiled (1), and you defiled (1), and you shall defile (1), are defiled (1), as unclean (1), be polluted (1), become unclean (1), by their defiling (1), defile yourselves (1), defiles (1), do be defiled (1), do been polluted (1), do Defile (1), do polluted (1), for defilement (1), has been defiled (1), has defiled (1), have defiled (1), have they defiled (1), he has defiled (1), he may be made unclean (1), he may take uncleanness (1), he shall be defiled (1), is unclean (1), it is polluted (1), made unclean (1), may he be defiled (1), must he defile himself (1), pollute yourselves (1), polluted (1), shall he defile himself (1), shall he make himself unclean (1), shall it be unclean (1), shall pronounce him utterly (1), shall she be unclean (1), shall that they defile (1), shall they defile (1), shall you defile (1), shall you make yourselves unclean (1), she be defiled (1), she defiled (1), she is defiled (1), she was defiled (1), thereof shall be polluted (1), thereof shall be unclean (1), they had defiled (1), they had polluted (1), they have defiled (1), they have even defiled (1), they may defile (1), to pronounce it unclean (1), unclean (1), was defiled (1), when you defile (1), you are polluted (1), you be defiled (1), you have been defiled (1), you have defiled (1), you shall be defiled (1), you shall be unclean (1).


  7. #305
    Super Moderator JudgeRightly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On the road
    Posts
    9,780
    Thanks
    33,289
    Thanked 8,401 Times in 5,378 Posts

    Mentioned
    76 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147634
    Quote Originally Posted by glorydaz View Post
    I was referring to this "forced marriage" JR was talking about.

    Yes, the gospel before Paul's was "obey the commandments", AND obey the laws set down by Moses for the nation of ISRAEL.
    What is the systematic method you use to rightly divide the laws for Israel from the laws for the rest of the world?

    Do you have one? Or do you make any division at all between laws for Israel and laws for the world?

    Because if you don't, or if you don't have a method to divide them, then how is it that you can say that murder should be against the law but laws against adultery should not be on the books?

  8. #306
    TOL Subscriber glorydaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    25,588
    Thanks
    16,942
    Thanked 40,135 Times in 20,063 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    114 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147831
    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    Because, again, the death penalty is NOT the punishment for fornication.

    Fornication DOES NOT deserve the death penalty.

    Did you notice that the woman was to be given a certificate of divorce?

    Her uncleanness, her sexual immorality, was grounds for her husband to divorce her, as the law stated, and as Jesus reaffirmed in Matthew 5.
    Was the woman a fornicator while married?

    I thought you said fornicators were not married.

    If she was married, sure seems to me like she'd be committing adultery, and should be stoned.

  9. #307
    Super Moderator JudgeRightly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On the road
    Posts
    9,780
    Thanks
    33,289
    Thanked 8,401 Times in 5,378 Posts

    Mentioned
    76 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147634
    Quote Originally Posted by glorydaz View Post
    Was the woman a fornicator while married?
    Since the passage isn't talking about adultery, but rather about sexual immorality, "uncleanness," I would think not.

    I thought you said fornicators were not married.
    Could you quote me on that?

    If she was married, sure seems to me like she'd be committing adultery, and should be stoned.
    I would agree.

    If she were committing adultery.

    But adultery (and fornication, for that matter) is only one form of sexual immorality.

    Just like all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares, so too all adultery is sexual immorality, but not all sexual immorality is adultery.

  10. #308
    TOL Subscriber glorydaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    25,588
    Thanks
    16,942
    Thanked 40,135 Times in 20,063 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    114 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147831
    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    What is the systematic method you use to rightly divide the laws for Israel from the laws for the rest of the world?

    Do you have one? Or do you make any division at all between laws for Israel and laws for the world?

    Because if you don't, or if you don't have a method to divide them, then how is it that you can say that murder should be against the law but laws against adultery should not be on the books?
    My "systematic approach" would be to render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's. Whatever government man is under is responsible for making laws and handing out punishments.

  11. #309
    Super Moderator JudgeRightly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On the road
    Posts
    9,780
    Thanks
    33,289
    Thanked 8,401 Times in 5,378 Posts

    Mentioned
    76 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147634
    Quote Originally Posted by glorydaz View Post
    My "systematic approach" would be to render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's. Whatever government man is under is responsible for making laws and handing out punishments.
    So then why should it be wrong for a government to take some of God's laws and use them as its own? (eg, the law against perjury)

  12. #310
    TOL Subscriber glorydaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    25,588
    Thanks
    16,942
    Thanked 40,135 Times in 20,063 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    114 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147831
    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeRightly View Post

    If two unmarried people (male and female) are caught having sex outside of marriage (in other words, fornication), they should be forced to marry, and never be allowed to divorce.


    Quote Originally Posted by glorydaz View Post
    Was the woman a fornicator while married?

    I thought you said fornicators were not married.

    If she was married, sure seems to me like she'd be committing adultery, and should be stoned.
    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    Could you quote me on that?


    Sure looks like that's what you said.

  13. #311
    TOL Subscriber glorydaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    25,588
    Thanks
    16,942
    Thanked 40,135 Times in 20,063 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    114 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147831
    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    So then why should it be wrong for a government to take some of God's laws and use them as its own? (eg, the law against perjury)
    I never said it would be wrong.

    That's the government's job, not mine.

  14. #312
    Super Moderator JudgeRightly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On the road
    Posts
    9,780
    Thanks
    33,289
    Thanked 8,401 Times in 5,378 Posts

    Mentioned
    76 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147634
    Quote Originally Posted by glorydaz View Post
    Sure looks like that's what you said.
    I've also said adultery is fornication, yet I specified two unmarried persons in that post.

    Quote Originally Posted by glorydaz View Post
    I never said it would be wrong.

    That's the government's job, not mine.
    So then why are you opposed to having adultery being illegal?

    If a government decides to agree with God's law, which says that adultery is a crime, then why do you oppose it being illegal?

  15. #313
    TOL Subscriber glorydaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    25,588
    Thanks
    16,942
    Thanked 40,135 Times in 20,063 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    114 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147831
    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeRightly View Post

    Did you notice that the woman was to be given a certificate of divorce?

    Her uncleanness, her sexual immorality, was grounds for her husband to divorce her, as the law stated, and as Jesus reaffirmed in Matthew 5.
    You keep insisting her "uncleanness" was sexual immorality, but you're boxing yourself into a corner. The issue is uncleanness. Try and stick with that. The text says, "she may go and be another man's wife". What fault, then, are you charging her with that she can freely go be a wife to another Jewish man? Marrying a divorced women with the fault of sexual immorality is fine?


    Deuteronomy 24:1
    24 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.

    2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.

    Rather, it was an "uncleanness" whereby she found "no favour in his eyes". He sent her away guiltless and she was able to marry again. Have you read the rules for uncleanness? Bodily discharges, sores, or abnormal flows of blood... Diseases such as leprosy. Perhaps the woman was a leper or had some bleeding disorder, and you keep accusing her of being an ally cat.

    Leviticus 15:1-3
    1 And the Lord spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying,

    2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When any man hath a running issue out of his flesh, because of his issue he is unclean.

    3 And this shall be his uncleanness in his issue: whether his flesh run with his issue, or his flesh be stopped from his issue, it is his uncleanness.

  16. #314
    Super Moderator JudgeRightly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On the road
    Posts
    9,780
    Thanks
    33,289
    Thanked 8,401 Times in 5,378 Posts

    Mentioned
    76 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147634
    Quote Originally Posted by glorydaz View Post
    You keep insisting her "uncleanness" was sexual immorality, but you're boxing yourself into a corner. The issue is uncleanness. Try and stick with that. The text says, "she may go and be another man's wife". What fault, then, are you charging her with that she can freely go be a wife to another Jewish man? Marrying a divorced women with the fault of sexual immorality is fine?


    Deuteronomy 24:1
    24 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.

    2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.

    Rather, it was an "uncleanness" whereby she found "no favour in his eyes". He sent her away guiltless and she was able to marry again. Have you read the rules for uncleanness? Bodily discharges, sores, or abnormal flows of blood... Diseases such as leprosy. Perhaps the woman was a leper or had some bleeding disorder, and you keep accusing her of being an ally cat.

    Leviticus 15:1-3
    1 And the Lord spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying,

    2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When any man hath a running issue out of his flesh, because of his issue he is unclean.

    3 And this shall be his uncleanness in his issue: whether his flesh run with his issue, or his flesh be stopped from his issue, it is his uncleanness.
    You're equivocating two different "uncleanness"-es.

    Again:

    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeRightly View Post


    ...


    Strong's h6172

    - Lexical: עֶרְוָה
    - Transliteration: ervah
    - Part of Speech: Noun Feminine
    - Phonetic Spelling: er-vaw'
    - Definition: nakedness.
    - Origin: From arah; nudity, literally (especially the pudenda) or figuratively (disgrace, blemish).
    - Usage: nakedness, shame, unclean(-ness).
    - Translated as (count): the nakedness (22), nakedness (13), your nakedness (6), and the nakedness (2), their nakedness (2), bare (1), her nakedness (1), his nakedness (1), nakedness her (1), or the nakedness (1), to the shame (1), unclean (1), uncleanness (1), your own nakedness (1).
    ^^^^
    Used in Deuteronomy 24:1, et al

    IS NOT

    Used in Leviticus 15:3, et al
    vvvv

    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeRightly View Post



    Strong's h2930

    - Lexical: טָמֵא
    - Transliteration: tame
    - Part of Speech: Verb
    - Phonetic Spelling: taw-may'
    - Definition: unclean.
    - Origin: A primitive root; to be foul, especially in a ceremial or moral sense (contaminated).
    - Usage: defile (self), pollute (self), be (make, make self, pronounce) unclean, X utterly.
    - Translated as (count):
    Spoiler
    shall be unclean (23), and be unclean (18), and is defiled (4), and shall be unclean (4), defile (4), is defiled (4), to defile (4), he shall be unclean (3), it shall be unclean (3), to be defiled (3), and polluted (2), and shall pronounce him unclean (2), and they defiled (2), be defiled (2), defiled (2), do defiled (2), he had defiled (2), then shall pronounce him unclean (2), then shall pronounce unclean (2), then she shall be unclean (2), - (1), a man shall be defiled (1), and defiled (1), And he defiled (1), and he has defiled (1), And I polluted (1), and it shall be unclean (1), and pronounce him to be unclean (1), and pronounce unclean (1), and shall pronounce unclean (1), and she was polluted (1), and Thus were they defiled (1), and you defiled (1), and you shall defile (1), are defiled (1), as unclean (1), be polluted (1), become unclean (1), by their defiling (1), defile yourselves (1), defiles (1), do be defiled (1), do been polluted (1), do Defile (1), do polluted (1), for defilement (1), has been defiled (1), has defiled (1), have defiled (1), have they defiled (1), he has defiled (1), he may be made unclean (1), he may take uncleanness (1), he shall be defiled (1), is unclean (1), it is polluted (1), made unclean (1), may he be defiled (1), must he defile himself (1), pollute yourselves (1), polluted (1), shall he defile himself (1), shall he make himself unclean (1), shall it be unclean (1), shall pronounce him utterly (1), shall she be unclean (1), shall that they defile (1), shall they defile (1), shall you defile (1), shall you make yourselves unclean (1), she be defiled (1), she defiled (1), she is defiled (1), she was defiled (1), thereof shall be polluted (1), thereof shall be unclean (1), they had defiled (1), they had polluted (1), they have defiled (1), they have even defiled (1), they may defile (1), to pronounce it unclean (1), unclean (1), was defiled (1), when you defile (1), you are polluted (1), you be defiled (1), you have been defiled (1), you have defiled (1), you shall be defiled (1), you shall be unclean (1).
    Things that are different are not the same.

  17. #315
    TOL Subscriber glorydaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    25,588
    Thanks
    16,942
    Thanked 40,135 Times in 20,063 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    114 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147831
    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    I've also said adultery is fornication, yet I specified two unmarried persons in that post.
    Well, I only saw the one post. Words mean lots of different things, so clarifying terms is always a good thing. Personally, I see fornication as between unmarried persons. Otherwise you'd say one was committing adultery if there was a marriage in the mix.



    So then why are you opposed to having adultery being illegal?

    If a government decides to agree with God's law, which says that adultery is a crime, then why do you oppose it being illegal?
    Oops, you're jumping to conclusions. I never once said if the government decided to make it illegal I would oppose it. It was illegal for years.

    It's the sentence of death that I would object to....were the government ever decide to make it illegal again. I would object to that, because those harsh penalties would result in false accusations and even worse crimes for the coverup.

    I'm talking basic common sense, here, which I believe is much needed in this discussion

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us