Why the death penalty for some sexual sins.

[billwald]

"The Biblical standard for invoking the death penalty is to be convicted by the testimony of two or more witnesses. "

And for prosecuting any criminal offense. In other words, circumstantial evidence is not allowed. In other words, 90% of modern criminal convictions should be tossed. For example, there are no witnesses to testify against Teb Bundy, "Green River Killer," The Mad Bomber" . . . .

 

[Turbo]

"The Biblical standard for invoking the death penalty is to be convicted by the testimony of two or more witnesses. "

And for prosecuting any criminal offense. In other words, circumstantial evidence is not allowed. In other words, 90% of modern criminal convictions should be tossed. For example, there are no witnesses to testify against Teb Bundy, "Green River Killer," The Mad Bomber" . . . .

Not again! :bang:

billwald, we've been through this again and again.

A "witness" is not necessarily an eye-witness. Why do you cling to this inane idea that is so obviously not true?

 

[billwald]

It is the conclusion of 2000 years of Jewish study - by the people who gave us the OT.

 

[Turbo]

It is the conclusion of 2000 years of Jewish study - by the people who gave us the OT.

No, the people who gave us the OT died long ago. If Jewish scholars automatically interpret scripture properly, why did Jesus spend so much time setting them straight? Do the Jewish scholars you are referring to even recognize that Jesus is the Messiah? Upon what evidence is their conclusion based? Your appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

I've shown you where the Bible refers to "witnesses" that are not eye-witnesses. And I've shown you the example of the rapist who God says should be put to death even though the only eye-witness is the victim. I've even shown you dictionary entries that confirm that the definition of a "witness" is not limited to an eye-witness. One could say that I've presented two or three witnesses that testify against your ridiculous assertion.

Didn't you used to be a police officer? Surely you know that criminals generally don't have the courtesy to perform their crimes before an audience. Do you like to let criminals go unpunished or something? Why would God want to make it so easy for criminals and so hopeless for their victims?

 

[Agape4Robin]

No, the people who gave us the OT died long ago. If Jewish scholars automatically interpret scripture properly, why did Jesus spend so much time setting them straight? Do the Jewish scholars you are referring to even recognize that Jesus is the Messiah? Upon what evidence is their conclusion based? Your appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

I've shown you where the Bible refers to "witnesses" that are not eye-witnesses. And I've shown you the example of the rapist who God says should be put to death even though the only eye-witness is the victim. I've even showed you dictionary entries that confirm that the definition of a "witness" is not limited to an eye-witness. One could say that I've presented two or three witnesses that testify against your ridiculous assertion.

Didn't you used to be a polic officer? atrol: Surely you know that criminals generally don't have the courtesy to perform their crimes before an audience. Do you like to let criminals go unpunished or something? Why would God want to make it so easy for criminals and so hopeless for their victims?

Well said!!!!! :BRAVO:

 

[billwald]

"If Jewish scholars automatically interpret scripture properly, why did Jesus spend so much time setting them straight?"

Jesus never criticized their theology, only their personal practice.

"Do the Jewish scholars you are referring to even recognize that Jesus is the Messiah?"

No, but they can read historical documents.

"Upon what evidence is their conclusion based?"

Historical evidence indicating that the "eye for eye" was not physically enforced but converted to a monetary penalty. The Sanhedron went out of they way to give legal protectionc to the accused as does American Jurisprudence.

"Do you like to let criminals go unpunished or something?"

No one goes unpunished. "What goes around, comes around." Trust God. Don't seek revenge in this life.

Why would God want to make it so easy for criminals and so hopeless for their victims? "

Like the NAZIs gassing the Jews?

 

[Delmar]

Would there be any non-believers?
Elijah killed the worshippers of Baal.
Where is the line drawn?
Would there be an execution of all non-believers as well?

In that case you would never know the answer to your own question

 

[Agape4Robin]

In that case you would never know the answer to your own question

:chuckle:

 

[Turbo]

"If Jewish scholars automatically interpret scripture properly, why did Jesus spend so much time setting them straight?"

Jesus never criticized their theology, only their personal practice.

No, Jesus said things like this:

[jesus]
He said to [the Pharisees], "All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition."[/jesus] Mark 7:9​

And this:

Jesus answered and said to [the Sadducees], [jesus]"You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven. 31But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, saying, 32'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living."[/jesus] Matthew 22:29-32​

And this:

And He answered and said to [the Pharisees], [jesus]"Have you not read that He who made[a] them at the beginning "made them male and female,' 5and said, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."[/jesus] Matthew 19:4-6​

Do the Jewish scholars you are referring to even recognize that Jesus is the Messiah?

No,...

Then they do not believe Moses either.

[jesus] Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you—Moses, in whom you trust. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me.”[/jesus] John 5:45-46​

...but they can read historical documents.

Historical evidence indicating that the "eye for eye" was not physically enforced but converted to a monetary penalty.

All that proves is that the Israelites rejected God's commandments in favor of their own ideas and traditions. No surprise there. That's a recurrent theme throughout Scripture.

I've read in Deuteronomy 22 God said that a rapist who commits his crime with no one around to see or hear should be put to death. How do you (or your favorite gurus) explain that?

And I've also have read other passages where God refers to "witnesses" that are not eye-witnesses and are not necessarily even people. How do you (or your favorite gurus) explain that?

The Sanhedron went out of they way to give legal protectionc to the accused...

You mean like when they went to Pilate to beg him to execute a totally innocent Man? The Sanhedron hated God.

He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the just, Both of them alike are an abomination to the LORD. Proverbs 17:15​

...as does American Jurisprudence.

And we have a crime epidemic because of that. American Jurisprudence is not based on God's ideas about criminal justice. Why do you reject God's commandments for your own traditions, billwald?

Do you like to let criminals go unpunished or something?

No one goes unpunished. "What goes around, comes around." Trust God. Don't seek revenge in this life.

Are you therefore against punishing criminals altogether? Why in the world did you become a police officer?

I don't seek to avenge myself, but I do give place to wrath.

God has given governments the responsibility to punish criminals and He has told us which punishments are appropriate for which crimes, and how much evidence is necessary to convict. And I do trust God that His ideas are best.

But instead of trusting what God says you trust what those who reject Him say, even though those ideas would lead to a crime rate that would rival the days leading up to the Flood.

Why would God want to make it so easy for criminals and so hopeless for their victims?

Like the NAZIs gassing the Jews?

Unresponsive. Is there a point you're trying to make here?

 

[Delmar]

Forensic patholigists are great wittnesses but the rarley see the crime happen!

 

[Turbo]

Forensic patholigists are great wittnesses but the rarley see the crime happen!

Unless they saw the crime actually take place, their testimony is to be dismissed. Thus saith billwald.

 

[billwald]

We now know that circumstantial evidence is generally more reliable and impartial than eye witnesses.

 

[Turbo]

We now know that circumstantial evidence is generally more reliable and impartial than eye witnesses.

Yet you (erroneously) say that God wants us to disallow all evidence that is not eye-witness testimony.

You're all over the map.

 

[Irenaeus]

Unfaithfulness and the moral standard of care

Unfaithfulness and the moral standard of care

Why do you suppose the biblically prescribed consequences for some sexual sin seems so much harsher than for others? The people caught in adultery or homosexuality are to be put to death while the consequences for two single people having sex is to get married.

Seems to me that the institution of marriage, as God defines it, is pretty important to him!

My take on this question is that God's Law doesn't extend much beyond the 10 Commandments, but the Law of Moses did because it had to be tailored to the Israelites, who were a notoriously stiff-necked, chaotic and unfaithful people. Remember that God gave Moses the Law to teach the Israelites how to live and to put a name on the transgressions that lead to death (see Romans 5:18-21). The fact that the Law of Moses called for the death penalty to be meted out for sex crimes shows that Israelites were not up to regulating the moral standards of their communities peacefully by accord. (See Luke 12:57-59: "Why don't you judge for yourselves what is right?").

If you take the 10 Commandments together with the provisions of the Law of Moses mentioned in the New Testament (prohibitions against sexual immorality and divorce except in response to infidelity), exclude the provisions regarding uncleanliness (see Peter's vision in Acts) and ritual worship ("I demand mercy, not sacrifice"), then you get a divine law that Christians of any culture and of adequate faith can easily live and prosper under. This law does not require sinners to be put to death, but rather characterizes sin as a crisis of faith requiring repentance and redoubled efforts to acquire the amount of faith necessary to render the law less burdensome to live under (see Romans 7-8).

Remember that Christ is the narrow door (see Luke 13:23-25), and it is only through faith in Christ that we are saved. This narrow door extends into the past before Jesus when the Law of Moses applied, and into the future after Christ's ascension (see Romans Romans 5:12-21). Because Christians are on the other side of the narrow door, the law that we're under is the revised code taught by Jesus and the apostles.

 

[billwald]

"My take on this question is that God's Law doesn't extend much beyond the 10 Commandments, "

Then please list which of the remaining 603 statements it extends to.

 

[Irenaeus]

"My take on this question is that God's Law doesn't extend much beyond the 10 Commandments, "

Then please list which of the remaining 603 statements it extends to.

If you know something of law, then you'll know what I mean when I say "in rem" and "in personam". "In rem" refers to legal rights and obligations that attach to physical property. The Law of Moses gave rights and assigned obligations to property owners, but only to those who owned property located within the Promised Land. Such provisions are in rem and inapplicable to Christians.

In addition, the Law of Moses assigned ritual and social duties to individual Israelites as well as to Israelite communities. "In personam" refers to legal rights and obligations that attach to relevant individuals and communities. Given that God's covenant with the Israelites was a social contract (look up Thomas Hobbes and John Locke if you're not conversant with this term), I propose that Christians, whose faith in God is not guaranteed an earthly reward, are under none of the provisions of the Law of Moses that govern Israeli society and Hebrew ritual worship.

If you're still in doubt, then consider Matthew 9:16-18. Are Christians not the patch of unshrunk cloth and the new wine?

 

[billwald]

That's my theory. The Mosiac Covenant was a social contract for people living in Israel, not Gentiles in Milwaukee. Not one verse refers to gentiles outside the land or to the next life.

 

[aikido7]

These harsh proscriptions are part of the Levitical Holiness Code. Weren't they devised during the Jewish diaspora, or some social historical catasrophe that threatened to further break up and/or assimilate normative Judaism into another tribal empire?

You cannot strive for empire if your people are having unprocreative sex.

Real estate: location, location, location
History: context, context, context

 

[Lighthouse]

You cannot strive for empire if your people are having unprocreative sex.

Your parents should have had unprocreative sex.

 

[aikido7]

Your parents should have had unprocreative sex.

You have God's word, and you know how to use it.