Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Bob Enyart Live forum

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • There should be some kind of restitution paid, if said unmarried daughter living under my roof is defiled in this fashion.
    This is for Granite, but for everyone’s “benefit.”

    Virgin bride price laws make an assumption we no longer make. The ownership of human property, in this case, ownership of the daughter by the father. The “defilement” of one’s daughter was treated under biblical law as a form of theft. Under biblical law, the boinked virgin daughter represented “damaged goods.” Thus, as has already been mentioned, restitution was made to the father.

    This law only applies, however, if the father has been economically injured by the loss of his daughter’s virginity. If there’s no economic injury, the father has no case, and there’s nothing to be “restituted” other than the father’s “good name” (assuming he had a good name to begin with). In order for the virgin bride price laws to apply then, now, or in the future, the father has to show evidence of financial injury directly related to the loss of his daughter’s virginity. No financial loss, no “crime.”

    In ancient Israel, the loss of a daughter’s virginity represented real financial loss. It would be harder to argue today (not impossible) that the loss of a daughter’s virginity represented real financial loss. The Christian father may suffer spiritual or “emotional” loss (the loss of his daughter’s innocence and “sexual purity”), but this has nothing to do with virgin bride price laws.

    The economic impact of a daughter’s loss of virginity turns on the cultural and market value of the daughter’s virginity. It there’s no “demand” or “market” for virgins, the “bride price” of a virgin daughter would be low, or nonexistent. We cannot transpose the cultural and economic value of a virgin Hebrew daughter growing up in ancient Palestine with the cultural and economic value of a virgin Methodist daughter growing up in modern day Cleveland. Good or bad, virgin daughters were “worth” more in Old Testament Israel than they’re worth today.

    Maybe not to the Christian father who insists his daughter’s virginity is “priceless,” but their daughter’s virginity is only “worth” what the market is willing to “pay.” What’s the going price for virgins in 21st century America? What “price” do we put on our daughter’s virginity? I have no idea, but it makes as much sense to put a price tag of “50 shekels” on a virgin daughter today as it does to enforce price caps on a loaf of bread based on the market value of flour in 2,000 BCE.

    Complicating matters, women, in case no one’s noticed, are no longer considered marketable commodities. Wives and daughters are no longer viewed as “private property.” If the Christian would argue for the reinstitution of the dowry and bride price laws, then he must, in principle, argue for the reinstitution of ALL Old Testament property laws, including the ownership of human property, in spite of prevailing cultural norms and mores toward slavery.

    The purpose of biblical law is not to force world culture into the cultural and economic image of Old Testament Israel. Bob and Jefferson and 1Way have made two mistakes. One, they would criminalize unlicensed sex between non-virgin, unmarried adults (behavior “permitted” under biblical law in the sense that no criminal penalty is prescribed), and two, they would enforce virgin bride price property laws in an era when the notion of owning and controlling human property has become “morally” reprehensible.

    Slavery is the product of Old World values and Old World economics, when slavery was a fact of life. Bride price laws, as property crimes, like slave laws, do not apply where the ownership of human property has been abolished.

    For all their posturing, Enyartites are not really interested in biblical law. They are interested in manipulating biblical law in order to create their own personal visions of a morally pure “biblical society.” They are not, however, much interested in the limitations and “boundaries” of biblical law. The “wandering seducer” could, in fact, be construed as a menace to society. But not as menacing as a legal authority empowered to ignore and exceed the limits of the law.

    I hope we can at least agree that there are “limits” to God’s law. If not, whoever is “speaking” for God has “become” the law. In which case the wandering seducer is the least of our worries.

    [This was composed prior to 1Way’s last post. Specific response to 1Way to follow.]

    Comment


    • "We have Apollo here effectively stating that he knows better than God and primarily argues from the negative that there are no laws/commandments against fornication per say."

      What I took from it is that Apollo is saying he knows better than Enyart, but I may be splitting hairs.

      "But what do you expect when the protagonist is pro-fornication as not being legal and his sidekick is pro homo."

      And who's the "sidekick" you're referring to?

      "God gave clear and sufficient instructions for how to deal with such a situation as fornication."

      No, he did not. Apollo has said repeatedly, and accurately, that there is no prohibition against two unmarried adults having sex. Since other sexual crimes were specifically listed, this was either an oversight, or quite deliberate ommission. Enyart and his disciples have invented a prohibition.




      Comment


      • GO TOL!!!

        Originally posted by Knight

        Make sure to vote for TOL .

        Our goal is to pass Florida by next year.
        I voted TOL, BEL, American Family Association, and Braveheart... TOL and BEL twice in two days...
        GO TOL!!!
        "I maintain my pride in the face of men, but I abandon it before God, who drew me out of nothingness to make me what I am." - The Count of Monte Cristo

        Comment


        • Originally posted by granite1010

          I was using the amount as an example and should have clarified that. Either way, my point remains: it strikes me as dirty and cheap to have someone pay their way out of seduction. I suppose, though, to some justice might equal dollars...
          Let me make sure I'm not misunderstanding you. Are you saying God's morality in Deuteronomy 22 is "dirty and cheap?"
          WARNING: Graphic video here.

          Comment


          • God plainly commanded restitution and marriage and forfeiture of standard divorce rights.
            This law applies to “virgins” under the authority and as the “property” of their fathers. Nothing is said here (or anywhere else) about emancipated, non-virgin, unmarried daughters boinking their boyfriends. Bride price laws are not “sex” crimes. If you disagree, prove it or concede the point.

            We have Apollo here effectively stating that he knows better than God and primarily argues from the negative that there are no laws/commandments against fornication per say.
            There is no such thing as a “per se” law. Either fornication, defined for the purposes of the scenario in question as unlicensed sex between non-virgin, unmarried adults, is a crime, or it isn’t. If fornication is a crime under biblical law, settle the issue by citing the case law. But stop with the virgin bride price laws. As “property” crimes, virgin bride price laws do not apply. If you disagree, prove it or concede the point.

            I just knew if I founded by position on God’s word it would fly like a lead balloon. But what do you expect when the protagonist is pro-fornication as not being legal and his sidekick is pro homo.
            Nothing I’ve said can be construed as a “promotion” of fornication. I’ve never said that fornication is “good,” or “desirable,” or even “moral.” I’ve simply made the case that under biblical law fornication is not a “crime.” My position is based on God’s word. If I could produce an explicit verse or passage that criminalizes sex between unmarried, emancipated adults, I would. I can’t, and neither can you. Character assassination is not an argument.

            God’s word on this issue via His commandments to the nation of Israel affords you none of the loopholes you tried to register. God gave clear and sufficient instructions for how to deal with such a situation as fornication.
            What loophole? I don’t need a loophole. I have the law. You are depending on a property crime law to prosecute what you consider to be a “sex” crime. If I was arrested for committing sex with a non-virgin without a license, and you were the prosecutor, under biblical law, what “crime” have I committed? You are inferring a law where no law exists. You may not “approve” of fornication, but your opinion (fortunately) doesn’t make it a “crime.”

            So if you have nothing better than to ignore what God said and to present logically negative arguments which amount to nothing because of the positive commandment of God about fornication, then you owe it to yourself to gain a better understanding of what God said on this issue instead of contradicting God.
            Asking for case law defending the proposition that fornication is a criminal offense under biblical law is not a “logically negative argument,” whatever the hell that is. You are building a “sex crime” case on laws governing “property” crimes. Talk about a “loophole”! More like the Grand Canyon! You cannot produce a stitch of explicit evidence criminalizing fornication under biblical law. You can only resort to speech-making and moralizing.

            The only “evidence” you’ve offered are “virgin bride price” laws. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate how “property” crimes can be used to prosecute a non-existent “sex” crime. I’m not interested in your “opinion” on what the law “should” be, or in personal attacks, or guilt by association tactics (my pro-homo “side-kick”?).

            You can pontificate and bluster and editorialize all you want. The one thing you can’t do is produce a law criminalizing fornication. God IS wise. And in his wisdom he chose not to make fornication a “sex” crime. It doesn’t mean fornication is “right,” or “healthy, or “moral,” but it does mean fornication is not a crime.

            I am not in “favor” of fornication, but rather “against” those who would make fornication a crime under the guise of biblical law. Fornication may be "immoral," but under the law, fornication is not a "crime."

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Jefferson

              Let me make sure I'm not misunderstanding you. Are you saying God's morality in Deuteronomy 22 is "dirty and cheap?"
              I'm saying your application, or mis-application of it, is what rubs me the wrong way. I should have clarified.




              Comment


              • Originally posted by granite1010

                I'm saying your application, or mis-application of it, is what rubs me the wrong way. I should have clarified.
                How is this a mis-application? Apolo asked . . .

                If it was your virgin daughter that got boinked by a wandering seducer, other than "vigilante" justice, should there be a law making the seducer responsible for his actions? Has not the virgin daugher been defrauded of her dowry? How is the father's name and fortune to be restored? If not by enforcing virgin bride price laws, what then?
                And I responded with . . .

                50 shekels of silver 4,000 years ago was the equivalent to what a modern dowry would be today, probably a payment equivalent to a college education plus the cost of a wedding. A seducer would be looking at a payment of many years of net income with only minimal support for himself.
                How is that a misapplication of Deuteronomy 22 applied to the 21st century in direct response to Apolo's question?
                WARNING: Graphic video here.

                Comment


                • Because women are no longer regarded as private property and/or chattel. If you want to turn the clock back, that's your problem. As Apollo already pointed out, the concept of human property goes hand in hand with slavery, too, so for consistency's sake I wonder if you'd want to re-introduce that charming practice while you're at it.




                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by granite1010

                    Because women are no longer regarded as private property and/or chattel. If you want to turn the clock back, that's your problem.
                    Parents own their children. Their children belong to them. Once again you are calling God's view of morality "dirty and cheap."

                    As Apollo already pointed out, the concept of human property goes hand in hand with slavery, too, so for consistency's sake I wonder if you'd want to re-introduce that charming practice while you're at it.
                    If you gave a rip about God's opinion on these matters you would know that the Bible speaks of 2 kinds of slavery. One is the kind of slavery that you are referring to. The other is called "indentured servitude." There's a difference. We have indentured servitude today. When a man refuses to pay child support, his wages are garnished. He works for another, not for himself. Do you think we should get rid of laws requiring dead beat dad's wages being garnished just because those laws conform to Old Testament Biblical law?
                    WARNING: Graphic video here.

                    Comment


                    • "If you gave a rip about God's opinion on these matters..."

                      I do. We happen to disagree: that you take this as some kind of attack on you and your faith is not my problem. Chill.

                      "...you would know that the Bible speaks of 2 kinds of slavery. One is the kind of slavery that you are referring to. The other is called 'indentured servitude.'"

                      I'm well aware of the two forms of slavery in scripture and their distinction. Jeff, trust me on this: you don't need to hold my hand and walk me through Theonomy 101.

                      "We have indentured servitude today. When a man refuses to pay child support, his wages are garnished. He works for another, not for himself."

                      No, technically speaking he still works for himself, he just gets his wages nicked; same thing applies for alimony. Indentured servitude was big in colonial America and I assure you it wasn't just a matter of garnishing one's wages.

                      "Do you think we should get rid of laws requiring dead beat dad's wages being garnished just because those laws conform to Old Testament Biblical law?"

                      No. And your assumption that I would just because I dislike biblical law is incorrect and knee-jerk. Question: if you favor indentured servitude would you apply it beyond garnishing wages? Why or why not?

                      "Parents own their children. Their children belong to them."

                      Children are certainly under the authority of their parents, but if you want to call kids property, child abuse would become a property law, correct? Kidnapping is a capital offense, under Levitical law. So would kidnapping a child be a property crime, or a capital offense? Why or why not?

                      Also, you keep operating under the assumption that Apollo and I are talking about children still living in the home. Apollo's said repeatedly he's talking about grown adults outside their parents's home.
                      Last edited by Granite; April 28th, 2004, 11:47 AM.




                      Comment


                      • Jefferson, sorry you didn’t see fit to continue our previous discussion.

                        Parents own their children. Their children belong to them.
                        Under biblical law, parents have many responsibilities, but limited authority. At best we are “stewards,” the temporary “custodians,” of our children. I am aware of no law or principle or precept teaching that parents “own” their children as “property,” like the family cow.

                        In the case of virgin bride price laws, spoilt virgin daughters are treated as “damaged goods,” but her humanity has not been denied. No provision is made for the wandering seducer to replace or find an equally valuable “substitute” for his once virgin daughter. The father is compensated for the “cost” of supporting an unmarriageable daughter, but the daughter’s “virtue” has not been restored, or restituted. The father is paid, but is also “stuck” with damaged goods. If the virgin daughter were “only” property, the father could dispose of her as he pleases. He can’t.

                        Parents, for example (though the thought might occasionally cross their minds), do not have the authority to sell their children into slavery. Nor do parents have legal authority over emancipated children.

                        Once again, thwarted by the limits of the law.

                        Comment


                        • Granite 1010 – Maybe I got it wrong, but see posts 139, and the posts immediately following my exposure that fornication is illegal via God’s commandments to Israel, starting with Apollo’s off the wall pro fornication as legal post, including the continued incredulous use of the belittling disgusting phraseology he uses (“and got boinked”, “boinking a virgin”) in place of godly condemnation for such sexual immorality, i.e. see posts 147 and 148 and the poster’s handle for more clues.

                          Cur d of homo – BTW, you posted
                          Originally 1Way
                          Talk about promoting discrimination and hatred and slandering a person because they disagree with their lifestyle choices. These people are hypocrites.
                          Originally heterosexual then pro homo
                          Well, what can you say? I guess they let "their" people post what they deem acceptable, and TOL lets "their" people post what they deem acceptable. It is ironic, to say the least, though, isn't it?
                          I can repeat what you ignored. It is wrong to be a hypocrite. We do not teach that it is wrong to judge against sin and evil, but you seem to be defending those who teach that hatred and intolerance is shameful, while at the same time treating us with ill will and unashamed personal rejection and intolerance. It’s the old classic say one thing and do another “sin”-drome, no one cares what a hypocrite has to say because they invalidate their own message.
                          Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good.

                          Comment


                          • Apollo - I am answering you with clear and positive truth claims, however, I give no guarantees that you
                            • understand
                            • care
                            • or exercise any personal integrity
                            over a righteous understanding of what I am saying. Two main things. An argument from negation in the light of a corresponding commensurate rebutting argument, is no argument at all. I gave you God’s word which is sufficient for the issue of fornication, but you try to infer some no where stated exceptions to this governmental rule. Since you have no positive claims for your view, you just somehow came by some non-existent exceptions to the rule, so your view is simply void in part because (1) God demonstrated His awareness for the need of exceptions to His rules as demonstrated by his rulings all around this rule but He clearly did not stipulate exceptions as you feel He should have. And furthermore, (2) your view is void because it is based upon nothing while my refutation of your view is a clear positive meaningful and logical truth claim. The absence of an “exception to the rule” does not necessarily invalidate the rule, it may simply mean that no exceptions to the rule apply.

                            Secondly, not only is your argument meaningfully invalid, your argument is hypocritical. You suggest that unless I provide positive biblical example for answering your fabricated exceptions, I have no grounds for my view. But at the same time, your view is precisely based upon no positive examples from scripture. So, by your own reasoning, since your teaching of implied exceptions to this rule is no where found in scripture, your view is invalid.

                            To clarify what I believe may be misleading your misunderstanding of the text in question, consider the following situations that under your imaginary and nonexistent “exceptions to the rule” you would have some very strange outcomes as graphically seen by simply applying your logic to the text. Here is the scripture in question.
                            De 22:10 "You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together. 11 "You shall not wear a garment of different sorts, such as wool and linen mixed together. 12 "You shall make tassels on the four corners of the clothing with which you cover yourself.
                            (1a) 13 "If any man takes a wife, and goes in to her, and detests her, 14 "and charges her with shameful conduct, and brings a bad name on her, and says, ‘I took this woman, and when I came to her I found she was not a virgin,’ 15 "then the father and mother of the young woman shall take and bring out the evidence of the young woman’s virginity to the elders of the city at the gate. 16 "And the young woman’s father shall say to the elders, ‘I gave my daughter to this man as wife, and he detests her. 17 ‘Now he has charged her with shameful conduct, saying, "I found your daughter was not a virgin," and yet these are the evidences of my daughter’s virginity.’ And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. 18 "Then the elders of that city shall take that man and punish him; 19 "and they shall fine him one hundred shekels of silver and give them to the father of the young woman, because he has brought a bad name on a virgin of Israel. And she shall be his wife; he cannot divorce her all his days. 20 (1b) "But if the thing is true, and evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman, 21 "then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has done a disgraceful thing in Israel, to play the harlot in her father’s house. So you shall put away the evil from among you. 22 (2) "If a man is found lying with a woman married to a husband, then both of them shall die—the man that lay with the woman, and the woman; so you shall put away the evil from Israel. 23 (3) "If a young woman who is a virgin is betrothed to a husband, and a man finds her in the city and lies with her, 24 "then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry out in the city, and the man because he humbled his neighbor’s wife; so you shall put away the evil from among you. 25 (4) "But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. 26 "But you shall do nothing to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death, for just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so is this matter. 27 "For he found her in the countryside, and the betrothed young woman cried out, but there was no one to save her. 28 (5) "If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, 29 "then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.
                            • So since God did not positively say what should happen in the case where the female had no parents because they died at a young age, then this command against the criminal should not apply.
                            • Or lets say that she had parents but they were not godly nor cared if she was involved in fornication or not, so this command against the criminal should not apply.
                            • Or lets say she only has one surviving parent so should her half parental unit only get half the monies or is it fair to give one parent double the money that would otherwise be given to both parents? So then this command against the criminal can not apply.
                            • What if the man became crippled and could not fulfill his role as a wage earner? So then this command against the criminal can not apply since these exceptions have not been specifically addressed by scripture.
                            • What about these and any other exceptions to this otherwise general situation? Is it remotely reasonable to assume that such exceptions somehow invalidate the rule?
                            The answer is, no, God was wise and not dumb when He commanded what He commanded, He did not forget to include every possible exception to the rule because the exceptions either do not apply (i.e. they are created in your fleshly imagination) or any applicable exceptions are covered elsewhere in scripture and I’m thinking primarily of a situation that involves more than one single offense.

                            Lets say there are 629 total laws and commandments, and I’m just guessing, but lets say that they are 300 laws of criminal justice. Those 300 laws and commandments could not possibly account for every single event that can happen so what we have is the need to understand the precedence behind these rulings and then apply that precedence accordingly. As a matter of fact, it is common for God to form His commands in that exact fashion in order for everyone to understand why it is wrong to commit such and such a crime or sin.

                            It is not only customary, it is basically mandatory that in a system that invokes a great many teachings, dictates, or truth claims, you are not required to state every exception at every time a rule is given because such a ludicrious expectation would quickly become unworkable. You need to use reason and common sense and realize that this teaching is a positively stated one that is specifically for fornication that as such no exceptions need apply, and since there are no exceptions to this rule presented anywhere by scripture, it is only reasonable to assume that this rule was thoughtfully delivered in it’s sufficient entirety.

                            So there simply are no exceptions that you presume should apply. And the more you insist that they must apply yet do so without any biblical example, then you invalidate your own argument that we are wrong for saying that the teaching stands without exception in part because there are no stated exceptions to be found.

                            When the police officer hands you a ticket for speeding and you “try” to complain by saying that you should be exempted from the speed limit law because ... you were going down hill, or some other non-legal exception, then of course you will be rejected for having an unrealistic and frankly dumb objection to the rule. Such is the case with you and wanting to de-criminalize fornication.

                            Now, if you can not understand or accept this, then I understand your frustrations, but we can not condone such behavior which is not much more than willful ignorance mixed in with a healthy dose of willful ignorance.
                            Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good.

                            Comment


                            • C D homo – You said
                              I do not pussyfoot around when I see someone espousing hate and condemning people to hell for totally inocuous reasons like being a member of the "wrong" church.

                              We are called to judge rightly, and that is very difficult to do because we are all sinners. Thus we should be very measured and not overblown in our judgments of others. Most of the time people end up judging themselves by their actions and therefore there is little need to judge them harshly.
                              Hu? Just earlier you said
                              Originally posted by 1Way

                              Apollo - I don't know if you missed it or not, but Bob's teaching is not based upon government, it's based from the bible (theology).
                              And from what I know about Bob there is little, if no, grace in his tirade-tainment, hate-filled theology.
                              Originally posted by Turbo
                              Which isn't much, is it?
                              May not be much in your estimation, but what I do know is more than enough to be a judge of his character.
                              Bob teaches as much hatred as God teaches, actually Bob might be softer on hatred than God is. You evidently know next to nothing about what Bob Enyart actually teaches, nor his approach to dealing with unrighteousness. His message is huge on the amazing grace that is taught in scripture, and he caringly stands against unrighteousness hoping to spare people from so much pain and agony and destruction. Your superficial and false claims, are all wrong.

                              He could have remained self centered and enjoyed a very successful career as a computer professional. If I have all my facts straight, he used to work for;
                              • Microsoft software,
                              • writer for PC Week,
                              • worked on a simulator/trainer for an advance military project for McDonnald Douglass,
                              so Bob has the skills to earn a decent wage but instead of doing all that, he decided he’d rather help people get to know God better and became a rescue worker saving unborn babies from being murdered. All that because he cares more about others, even risking persecution from the law and public ridicule if it means that others might become closer to God. Sounds pretty gracious and caring to me.

                              Your not a (pro) sodomite dog or a swine or a poisonous serpent sort of blind guide, are you? Are you pro homo, or did you just happen to make a general defense of the United Methodists who are aggressively pro homo for no other particular reason, and you just happened to make a general reference to the word “homo” in your handle for yet another strange reason? Just curious.
                              Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good.

                              Comment


                              • "It is not only customary, it is basically mandatory that in a system that invokes a great many teachings, dictates, or truth claims, you are not required to state every exception at every time a rule is given because such a ludicrious expectation would quickly become unworkable."

                                This may be true. However: sex offenses are listed, at some length, in the Levitical law. Crimes against virgins are included. One specific sex offense--at least an offense in Enyart's eyes--is overlooked. And to condemn sex between unmarried adults as a crime that should have fines or flogging associated with it is an invention. Granted, there will be exceptions, but the verses you cite specifically mention virgins: torturing the text doesn't change that.

                                "You need to use reason and common sense and realize that this teaching is a positively stated one that is specifically for fornication that as such no exceptions need apply..."

                                Well, we're both looking at the same text, reasoning, and using our individual common sense. And we're both coming to different conclusions. Reason and common sense don't get anyone too far these days.

                                "...and since there are no exceptions to this rule presented anywhere by scripture, it is only reasonable to assume that this rule was thoughtfully delivered in it’s sufficient entirety."

                                Exceptions to crimes against VIRGINS? Yes, I'd agree with you there. But sex between unmarried adults who are no longer virgins is apples and oranges.




                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X