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

  • "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."

    This defense is touching but pointless.




    Comment


    • I like 1Way. He talks funny.

      Do the words “virgin” or “young woman” mean anything to anyone?

      The young woman in passage cited is not the adult, non-virgin, emancipated woman of our scenario. The woman of our scenario did not fraudulently claim to be a virgin; was not rightly or wrongly accused of not being a virgin; was not raped; and did not commit adultery. The law is very specific, especially when punishment is involved. If God had intended to criminalize fornication between consenting, emancipated adults, he would have said so. He didn’t. The law provided by 1Way is repeatedly qualified by the words “virgin” and “young woman.” Technically, these laws don’t even apply to young virgin “men.” Under biblical law, it’s perfectly legal for a wandering female seducer to boink a young virgin man with impunity. Don’t blame me, folks. That’s the law.

      1Way is saying that if a non-existent law is not produced by the accused, then the argument is an argument from negation, and no defense. He is saying that if the accused cannot “prove” that a law hasn’t been broken, then the accused is guilty. And 1Way and his fellow Enyart ditto-heads want to run the country? The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the prosecution to prove 1) that a law has actually been broken (penal code and case law), and 2) that the accused is “guilty” of committing a specific crime. As the prosecution, 1Way is responsible for citing the law, and for proving the guilt of the accused. The passage cited is, indeed, a law. Unfortunately, the law criminalizing fornication only exists in steamy depths of 1Way’s lurid imagination.

      Taking 1Way’s approach, in theory, there is literally no end to the “social purity" laws that could be legislated into existence based on the passage cited. If the “intent” of the law, as he seems to think, is to punish unlicensed “sex” (it’s not), or to protect the virtue of emancipated older women (it’s not), then “hand-holding” laws, or “necking” laws, or “petting” laws, or “after dark” laws, or any law thought favorable to the goal of ensuring the nation’s “sexual security” could be enforced. Enyart has already conceded that just because something’s a “sin” or “immoral,” it doesn’t make it “illegal.” I’ve never argued that fornication is not a “sin” or not “immoral.” I’ve argued that fornication is not a “crime.” This critical distinction has been lost on 1Way, et al.

      The cop he mentioned does NOT have the authority to write you a ticket if in fact no law had been broken. He may say, “I thought you were driving too fast,” or “in my opinion you were driving too fast,” but if in a court of law he is unable to produce “evidence” that you were breaking the law, the case would be dismissed. Nor can he pull you over for driving with sunglasses on, or sneaking under a yellow light (assuming it hadn’t turned red yet). Nor, as an adult, can you be charged with a crime for engaging in behavior forbidden to minors (buying tobacco). You cannot be charged with a non-existent crime, or a crime that doesn’t apply in your specific case. 1Way is attempting to do both.

      I will concede that the passage cited MIGHT apply in order to justify statutory rape laws. Biblical law in that case is very clear. Boinking virgin young women, with or without their permission, is a criminal offense, therefore, statutory rape laws are arguably “biblical” (even though adultery and “virgin bride price” laws are not technically “sex” crimes). Statutory rape laws, however, do NOT apply to consenting, unmarried, “boinking” adults any more than tobacco laws apply to consenting, unmarried “smoking” adults. The law doesn’t FIT.

      But, 1Way is no longer interested in the law. He’s interested stopping all the unlicensed, extra-marital “boinking” going on. The hills are alive with the sound of boinking, and it makes him nuts.

      Tough. That’s the law.

      Let’s assume he’s right, though. If sex between unmarried, non-virgin adults is a criminal offense under biblical law, then surely 1Way can provide ONE example from Scripture of this “law” being enforced. The Bible’s full of boinking of one sort or another; shouldn’t be too difficult.

      If 1Way cannot provide biblical law specifically criminalizing sex between consenting, non-virgin adults, and cannot provide one scrap of evidence that this imaginary law has actually been applied, the only conclusion we can come to is that 1Way, in spite of his zeal, or because of his zeal, has exceeded the limits of the law and is, therefore, mistaken.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by granite1010
        No. And your assumption that I would just because I dislike biblical law is incorrect and knee-jerk.
        What biblical laws do you think should be applied in the 21st century? How do you decide which one's apply and which one's do not?

        Question: if you favor indentured servitude would you apply it beyond garnishing wages?
        Yes.

        Why or why not?
        Indentured servitude is more beneficial to society. It is also a moral and merciful form of punishment compared to our current prison system. The prison separates father's from their children resulting in broken homes. Not very beneficial to the maturation of the children. Indentured servants pay their debts to the victims unlike the prison system where they (supposedly) pay their debts to "society" (whatever that means). Additionally the victims have to support the person who victimized them with their tax dollars while they are in prison. Yeah, that's fair.

        I'll get to the rest later. My computer crashed last night. I'm typing this at my local library. I even had 3 icons on my desk top I didn't download! How did that happen? Just got back from my tech repair guy's office. He told me that (so far) he found 96 viruses and/or bugs or whatever. Don't know how long this is going to take to fix. Fun and games. Plus I'm leaving for Los Angeles in a few days. I'll be gone for about a week. I don't know if my hotel room will have an internet connection or not or how much time I'm going to have even if it does have a connection. So it might be a while before I'm back in circulation here on TOL. Hopefully sooner than later.

        Peace.
        WARNING: Graphic video here.

        Comment


        • Maybe I went too far...

          This is mostly in response to a quick scan of granite’s post, but also some of Apollo’s too. I just scanned the responses and I will stand corrected a bit in terms of my presented convictions of the teaching. So to extent that I levied excessive judgment and condemnation beyond my biblical understanding, I am sorry for doing that. Read on to consider my admission of some specific lacking of understanding, and note that these questions remain despite my oppositions case as stated so far, so they may have similar limitations as well.

          I still think I am basically right, but I am less sure about some things than I thought I was. In particular, the virgin stipulation seems a bit narrow or restrictive as compared to simply being unmarried. And because they are both used in the same teaching, and I assume it is not a simple redundancy, they refer to two somewhat different things, so I will give that issue further consideration as I find time. But right now I am hard pressed for domestic and financial issues so I will have to take a break for a while.

          Some questions
          What happens if they do not want to get married? Is that better or worse if they want to, or try to, refuse to get married? I’d say worse since God created the marriage bed to be kept holy and pure and never condones sex outside of that arrangement. Was that even an option, or was the marriage absolutely compulsory? One might assume that if people are found having sex outside of marriage, then harlotry or prostitution may be applicable, and surely these are criminal acts as well. And I suspect that punishment for prostitution is far more severe than for our current example.

          What seems certain is that there are no “emancipation” exceptions provided in scripture. Also, it is notable that the virgin status does not seem to apply to the male for some reason (could that aspect of the law be consider symbolic and not moral, may donate sexual purity suited for marriage like for the bride of Christ, even though she did play the harlot...), so that (=why only women have a virginity clause and not men) plus the dowry issue needs further clarification, i.e. was it law or criminal not to give a dowry, or was it just customary/tradition.

          Sorry for not having better answers at the moment, and I appreciate your patience and understanding as I humbly admit my need to find more answers. I except answers should be available with some diligent study.

          To clarify, are you promoting fornication beyond it should not be illegal? Or would you agree that it is a sin and represents sexual immorality, or what is your position on that?

          Apollo, you said
          Taking 1Way’s approach, in theory, there is literally no end to the “social purity" laws that could be legislated into existence based on the passage cited. If the “intent” of the law, as he seems to think, is to punish unlicensed “sex” (it’s not), or to protect the virtue of emancipated older women (it’s not), then “hand-holding” laws, or “necking” laws, or “petting” laws, or “after dark” laws, or any law thought favorable to the goal of ensuring the nation’s “sexual security” could be enforced. Enyart has already conceded that just because something’s a “sin” or “immoral,” it doesn’t make it “illegal.” I’ve never argued that fornication is not a “sin” or not “immoral.” I’ve argued that fornication is not a “crime.” This critical distinction has been lost on 1Way, et al.
          That distinction has been kept clear in my mind this entire debate, in part demonstrated by the fact that I never challenged you or anyone else on that issue. Please do not overstep reasonable assumption. Your comment was completely wrong and uncalled for.

          There is nothing in God’s word about “licensing”, emancipation, etc., I wish you would refrain from using such arbitrary off topic terms. The issue is if fornication is criminal or not, and those terms are not only clear, they are simple and sufficient. I do not support going beyond what scripture teaches in terms of criminal or moral law/commandments. For example, I believe that the symbolic aspect of the law has been fulfilled in Christ and would not be in force unless God dictated that it should be. I am thinking in particular of the sacrificial system, and perhaps other symbolic laws like not wearing clothing made of mixed fabrics like wool or linen. It seems to me that the dietary laws were symbolic, yet Jesus condemns eating unclean things (meats sacrificed to idols) in Revelation for example. So how much of the symbolic laws will become re-introduced in the end times I do not know. To the point, I do not support criminalizing any non-criminal laws.

          I’ve relaxed my condemnation and judgments for the time being. And thanks for holding me accountable for a matter that I admit I have not given enough consideration. Thanks in advance for patience as this matter is more thoroughly examined.
          Last edited by 1Way; April 30th, 2004, 08:34 PM.
          Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good.

          Comment


          • Jefferson - I hope you have a good trip, and I hope you get a chance to read and evaluate my last post, because there does seem to be some credence to the issue of the stipulation about being a virgin. Although I am mostly saying that I do not have a very solid response against the idea that my passage as quoted is strictly for those who have never had sex before. I simply need a better understanding of the text involved, or I need a better understanding of other applicable teachings. Thoughts, comments, suggestions are welcome.
            Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good.

            Comment


            • "What seems certain is that there are no 'emancipation' exceptions provided in scripture."

              Perhaps. Gary North, in Tools of Dominion (p. 643) observes that scripture is silent as to when a woman formally leaves the authority of her father.

              "I still think I am basically right, but I am less sure about some things than I thought I was."

              This is a good thing. Not many at TOL ever admit this.




              Comment


              • Thank you, 1Way, for your gracious reply.

                What happens if they do not want to get married? Is that better or worse if they want to, or try to, refuse to get married? I’d say worse since God created the marriage bed to be kept holy and pure and never condones sex outside of that arrangement. Was that even an option, or was the marriage absolutely compulsory?
                If “they” are the unmarried, consenting adults first suggested in Gary Nolan and Bob Enyart’s scenario, nothing happens “legally.” Socially, and personally, and even “spiritually,” I’d say they’re not going to have an easy time of it, especially the woman. I’m fairly liberated, but as a not entirely reformed macho sexist pig I still believe in the institution of marriage which, ideally, protects the woman (and her children) from being socially ostracized, as well as from the specter of financial destitution should the “boyfriend” tire of his responsibilities as a pseudo-husband and father. Just because a behavior is “legal” it doesn’t mean there won’t be any negative consequences. “Big Macs” are “legal,” but have some of these people looked in a mirror lately? Marriage is good (although there are many bad marriages). Fornication is bad (although many unmarried couples live happily ever after). Other than the virgin bride price scenario, I’m unaware of “compulsory” marriage laws.

                One might assume that if people are found having sex outside of marriage, then harlotry or prostitution may be applicable, and surely these are criminal acts as well. And I suspect that punishment for prostitution is far more severe than for our current example.
                Hopefully this won’t make you angry with me again, but prostitution, which is simply another form of boinking between unmarried, consenting adults, is not a crime under biblical law. Like fornication, there is no law “criminalizing” prostitution, which is not to be misunderstood as a “promotion” of prostitution. What are “concubines,” if not sanctified “prostitutes”? That remark would get me a slap in the face from any self-respecting concubine, but the point is, concubines are someone’s “unmarried daughter.” The only difference between a concubine and a harlot is that the concubine is VERY well paid! Technically, concubines are boinking a married man. Are concubines guilty of “adultery”? Strangely, no. At least one prophet married a prostitute. Prostitutes plied their trade at the city gates (under the noses of the ruling elders) and openly wooed young men into their perfumed bed chambers. Like fornication, there is no law criminalizing prostitution, and no anecdotal evidence suggesting prostitutes were ever charged with a crime. Again, what is “immoral” or “socially undesirable” under biblical law is not always “illegal.”

                What seems certain is that there are no “emancipation” exceptions provided in scripture.
                Not as certain as we might like. To my knowledge, the Bible is silent on “when” a child has reached the age of accountability, or emancipation, under biblical law. Traditionally, in Jewish culture, it’s my understanding that a child is emancipated and treated as an adult when he or she leaves the protection of the family home. If a young man steals, and cannot make restitution, and is living under his father’s roof, the father is liable. The father is not financially liable for children who are not under his authority, which appears to end when the child walks out the front door.

                Implementing biblical law into the penal code doesn’t mean that in order for a society to be “biblical” it must also import or mimic Jewish “culture.” Since the Bible doesn’t speak specifically to “when” a child becomes an adult, the culture or traditions in place when biblical law is applied --from Western culture to Zulu culture -- have the “freedom” to draw that line anywhere they want. I’m making this up, but if a Zulu boy becomes a man after his first successful hunt, or when he marries and establishes his own home, and becomes “emancipate” in the eyes of “tribal” law, that’s as good a place as any to hold him accountable under “biblical” law. It’s perfectly feasible that emancipation and accountability “codes of conduct” already in place could vary from culture to culture, with no harm done to the meaning or intent of biblical law. At SOME point, however, the father is no longer legally liable for the criminal behavior and stupid decisions of his adult children. Thank goodness.

                Also, it is notable that the virgin status does not seem to apply to the male for some reason (could that aspect of the law be consider symbolic and not moral, may donate sexual purity suited for marriage like for the bride of Christ, even though she did play the harlot...), so that (=why only women have a virginity clause and not men) plus the dowry issue needs further clarification, i.e. was it law or criminal not to give a dowry, or was it just customary/tradition.
                In order to understand this law, we must come to grips with the intent of the law. As stated, adultery and virgin bride price laws are property crimes, not sex crimes. As we’ve seen, “sexualizing” property crimes confuses the issue. Men are treated differently under biblical law because Jewish-Semitic culture considers women to be the property of the father or the property of the husband. So, two dangers, as you’ve alluded to, need to be considered when applying biblical law: What is “symbolic” and no longer “binding,” and what is “cultural” and therefore “irrelevant.” It’s a point I’ve been attempting to clarify without much support.

                Sorry for not having better answers at the moment, and I appreciate your patience and understanding as I humbly admit my need to find more answers. I except answers should be available with some diligent study.
                Not a problem. Sometimes the law is clear as day and hits like a hammer, sometimes the law is fuzzy and light as a feather. Sometimes answers come with study, sometimes not. There is no specific “answer” in Scripture, for example, on how “precisely” biblical law should be applied in Zululand. I’m from the bottom-up school. When enough Zulu families implement biblical law in their hearts and homes, as a matter of faith and conscience, society will become “biblical” without the assistance of the federal government “imposing” biblical law (or Jewish “culture”) on the masses from above.

                To clarify, are you promoting fornication beyond it should not be illegal? Or would you agree that it is a sin and represents sexual immorality, or what is your position on that?
                I am not promoting fornication as a way of life, or as a substitute for marriage. I’ve been married for 25 years and never strayed off the reservation. My children are discouraged from engaging in sex out of wedlock, but I wouldn’t condemn or disown them or turn them over to the police if they did. Scripturally, fornication may be “immoral,” but if sin is a transgression of the law, as a technical matter, fornication is not a transgression of the law, and therefore not a “sin.” If sin is anything “immoral,” then fornication IS a sin. Depends on how you define “sin.” God may not “approve” of fornication, but for whatever reason fornication is not a “crime” under biblical law. This is the only point I’ve attempted to make. Enyart said fornication is a crime under biblical law, I disagreed. It doesn’t mean fornication is “okay” or “socially acceptable,” it means that regardless of how we “feel” about it “personally,” fornication is not a crime under “biblical” law. Enyart & Co. is “free” to agitate for any laws they want. I took issue with Bob because he was justifying what amounts to “extra”-biblical law by invoking the authority of the Bible. A very slippery slope.

                There is nothing in God’s word about “licensing”, emancipation, etc., I wish you would refrain from using such arbitrary off topic terms. The issue is if formation [fornication?] is criminal or not, and those terms are not only clear, they are simple and sufficient.
                The “licensing” issue gets back to Bob’s debate with Gary Nolan. It was Bob’s opinion that the federal government should be empowered to enforce alleged “fornication” laws, and that unmarried (i.e., “unlicensed”) men and women caught “fornicating” should be arrested. Emancipation is a legal term for children formerly under the authority of their parents or guardian, but now treated in the eyes of the law as “free” or “emancipated” citizens with all the rights and responsibilities of an adult. If you have a better word to describe this condition, I won’t hold it against you if the word you choose doesn’t appear in the Bible. The issue of whether or not fornication is “legal” or “illegal” has, I believe, been settled.

                I do not support criminalizing any non-criminal laws.
                Precisely. On that issue we appear to be arguing the same point from different directions. Not unusual around here.

                I’ve relaxed my condemnation and judgments for the time being. And thanks for holding me accountable for a matter that I admit I have not given enough consideration. Thanks in advance for patience as this matter is more thoroughly examined.
                Thanks for engaging.

                Comment


                • Sorry for the typo, I meant fornication, not formation. Yes you continue to offend. It should not an issue of belittling the serious nature of the offenses of fornication and sexual immorality. I hope you will find it within yourself to stop replacing God’s word choices of fornication and sexual immorality with your more or less “hip down in the hood”, or “comical satirical” replacement term, “boinking”. “Fornication” and “sexual immorality” seem to need no replacement word improvement, you may be smart, but your not wiser than God.

                  Your word choice coupled with your treatment of your children is about as hostile towards then and God as could be.
                  • Apparently by your treatment, you do not even know what defines sin (a crime is that which violates the law, a sin is that which violates God’s character and ways) The harder question is what is the difference between “sin” and “evil” and “immorality” and such, but sin should not be confused with that which violates the law, although many crimes are also sins, but not all sins are crimes.
                  • You say that “My children are discouraged from engaging in sex out of wedlock, but I wouldn’t condemn or disown them or turn them over to the police if they did.”
                  But God says to shun (= both condemn and disown) and to not even eat with anyone who calls themselves a brother and is sexually immoral. Are you saying that you have determined that your children are not part of the brotherhood of God’s people of saving faith? Or are you saying that you are nicer and wiser than God and thus accept what God says to strictly reject?

                  Frankly, this is rather unsettling, seeing your supposed expertise in legal matters as they may or may not pertain to sexual immorality, while on the other hand, you are ignorant or even violent against some very basic bible teachings associated to sexual immorality and sin. I now hold your views in greater suspicion than before, although I admit I still have the need to garner more information before making the claims I had previously against your views.

                  Apparently for you, the following has you stumped.

                  Sin.
                  Is sexual immorality (a) socially undesirable, (b) God just disapproves of it, (c) or is it crime, (d) or is it a violation of absolute morality.

                  Your own children
                  Either they are not esteemed by you as being saved or under godly rule/lead/norms, or your nicer than God and effectively promote (through moral and personal allowance) sexual immorality.

                  Talk about an eye opener.
                  Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good.

                  Comment


                  • "I now hold your views in greater suspicion than before, although I admit I still have the need to garner more information before making the claims I had previously against your views."

                    Translation: I'll still talk like a stuffed shirt and patronize you, even though I'm still not sure where I'm coming from.

                    1Way, do everyone a favor and take it down a notch.

                    "Frankly, this is rather unsettling, seeing your supposed expertise in legal matters as they may or may not pertain to sexual immorality, while on the other hand, you are ignorant or even violent against some very basic bible teachings associated to sexual immorality and sin."

                    These "very basic" teachings you refer to apparently aren't so basic; otherwise, this thread wouldn't be happening. The "sin" you refer to isn't condemned in the Mosaic law, either. You've yet to provide a single example of Apollo's hypothetical scenario being condemned, much less punished, anywhere in scripture. Don't go too far out on a limb here, before you get yourself "unsettled."

                    I understand that the idea of unmarried adults having sex--and not having Mosaic law condemn this--may trouble you, but, no one on TOL has yet to build a biblical case for condemning this activity (certainly not deeming it, beyond a shadow of a doubt, as a capital offense, which Enyart does with relish). But the fact that it just doesn't sit right isn't good enough. Telling us how basic this all is doesn't prove a thing: obviously it's not basic enough for everyone to agree.




                    Comment


                    • granite – You posted
                      1Way originally said
                      "I now hold your views in greater suspicion than before, although I admit I still have the need to garner more information before making the claims I had previously against your views."
                      Translation: I'll still talk like a stuffed shirt and patronize you, even though I'm still not sure where I'm coming from.

                      1Way, do everyone a favor and take it down a notch.
                      Translation, you have nothing reasonable to say against my observations of Apollo’s huge lopsided range of information which serves largely to disqualify him from understanding the matter at hand, so you attack the messenger instead of the message.

                      You posted
                      1Way originally said
                      "Frankly, this is rather unsettling, seeing your supposed expertise in legal matters as they may or may not pertain to sexual immorality, while on the other hand, you are ignorant or even violent against some very basic bible teachings associated to sexual immorality and sin."
                      (1) These "very basic" teachings you refer to apparently aren't so basic; otherwise, this thread wouldn't be happening. (2) The "sin" you refer to isn't condemned in the Mosaic law, either. (3) You've yet to provide a single example of Apollo's hypothetical scenario being condemned, much less punished, anywhere in scripture. (4) Don't go too far out on a limb here, before you get yourself "unsettled."

                      (5) I understand that the idea of unmarried adults having sex--and not having Mosaic law condemn this--may trouble you, (6) but, no one on TOL has yet to build a biblical case for condemning this activity (certainly not deeming it, beyond a shadow of a doubt, (7) as a capital offense, which Enyart does with relish). (8) But the fact that it just doesn't sit right isn't good enough. Telling us how basic this all is doesn't prove a thing: obviously it's not basic enough for everyone to agree.
                      (1) I was referring to sexual immorality and fornication, not just the issue of “emancipated virgin price laws”. I was responding to a general reference to his children having sex outside the bounds of wedlock to use his own words, so try to stay with the discussion prior to becoming so judgmental.

                      (2) Sexual immorality and fornication do not enjoy the ambiguity you suggest. “Emancipated virgin price laws” may be different but is besides the point.

                      (3) I’ve yet to reverse my need to understand that particular issue better so I have no compulsion to provide examples of anything. But as to emancipated non-virgins having sex outside of marriage, surely you jest about that not being condemned anywhere in scripture. Holy matrimony is the only approved institution for sexual relationship between a man and a woman.

                      (4) Practice what you preach and maybe your words will become less hollow.

                      (5) No, what troubles me is my own personal error of presuming that I know something that I really did not know. I would hope that my frank and humble admission would become sufficient for you. And that when I change the subject to being about general fornication and sexual immorality, I would hope you can differentiate such a destinction.

                      (6) Maybe no one has come close to building a capitol offense case on virgin price sex offenses because no one is saying it’s a capitol offense. I know I have never heard anyone who agrees with Bob Enyart (BEL = Bob Enyart Live) even suggest that any form of fornication should be a capitol offense.

                      (7) This is false. Bob Enyart does not teach that any form of fornication should be a capitol offense, in fact, he says that often, if two unmarried people are found having sex, they should get married. That is a far cry from saying that Bob promotes the death penalty for any sort of fornication. So take your misapplied relish and eat crow.

                      (8) Making an observation of non-conformity does not need to prove anything, nor need it try to. Observations and claims and arguments and evidence and counter arguments and convictions and conclusions and judgments etc. all have their place in a discussion. I'd rather hear the response to the initial observations and claims prior to moving on. But then again, I'm just being reaonable.

                      Overall I find your remarks to be both unnecessarily hostile and incongruent to the discussion at hand.
                      Last edited by 1Way; May 1st, 2004, 12:15 AM.
                      Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good.

                      Comment


                      • "But as to emancipated non-virgins having sex outside of marriage, surely you jest about that not being condemned anywhere in scripture. Holy matrimony is the only approved institution for sexual relationship between a man and a woman."

                        Is it condemned? If so, demonstrate. Marriage may be the BEST place for physical intimacy, surely the IDEAL place, and on this I think we agree.

                        "Sexual immorality and fornication do not enjoy the ambiguity you suggest. 'Emancipated virgin price laws' may be different but is besides the point."

                        Wrong, this is exactly the point. Emancipated non-virgins having sex IS sexually immoral, according to you, Enyart, and others. While you may consider it to be, you've yet to provide even one instance in scripture of this activity being condemned. So, there's clearly some ambiguity somewhere.

                        "Overall I find your remarks to be both unnecessarily hostile and incongruent to the discussion at hand."

                        Then deal. I'm not the most diplomatic thing on two legs; that's my problem, I suppose. It seems that Enyart manufacturers law and condemnation out of whole cloth. And that's where I have my biggest problem with the man. I think that's entirely relevant to this discussion.




                        Comment


                        • Listen carefully to 1Way. This is what a psychological cripple sounds like speaking pig-Latin:

                          It should not an issue of belittling the serious nature of the offenses of fornication and sexual immorality. I hope you will find it within yourself to stop replacing God’s word choices of fornication and sexual immorality with your more or less “hip down in the hood”, or “comical satirical” replacement term, “boinking”. “Fornication” and “sexual immorality” seem to need no replacement word improvement, you may be smart, but your not wiser than God.
                          Grumpy said the “b” word. Grumpy said the “b” word.

                          So now you find a harmless little euphemism for sex offensive? My mistake. Thought I was talking to a grown man. Didn’t realize you were an old woman. Tell you what. Do what you people do all the time. PASS A LAW. Have me arrested by the federal government for some contrived “profanity” crime based on virgin bride price laws.

                          Are you saying that you have determined that your children are not part of the brotherhood of God’s people of saving faith? Or are you saying that you are nicer and wiser than God and thus accept what God says to strictly reject?
                          How I raise my children is none of your fornicating business, how’s that? How about wiser and nicer than you? If you are God’s spokesperson, God’s a demented prude.

                          Frankly, this is rather unsettling, seeing your supposed expertise in legal matters as they may or may not pertain to sexual immorality,
                          Now I’m curious. What’s an acceptable biblical word for recreational sex with our wives? How do we communicate in bed with our wives, sign language? Brail method? Morris Code? Hebrew? Are we allowed to say “quickie”? Are we “talking dirty” if we express ourselves in medical terms? Do you even HAVE a word for lawful recreational sex? Or should we just turn out the lights and close our eyes and hope we don’t accidentally see something?

                          Apparently for you, the following has you stumped…Is sexual immorality (a) socially undesirable, (b) God just disapproves of it, (c) or is it crime, (d) or is it a violation of absolute morality.
                          Boy, sweatin’ bullets here. Let’s see. Up until five minutes ago, I would have said No to (a) but after all this sex talk, now I’m not so sure. Yes to (b). Big No to (c). And…Yes to (d) if by absolute you mean absolute as in absolute pretentious jerk.

                          Here's a little quiz of my own, and anyone can play:

                          • Show us in Scripture where prostitution is a “crime.”
                          • Provide anecdotal evidence that prostitution was punished as a crime.
                          • What criminal penalty was assigned to prostitution?
                          • Was the Old Testament institution of concubinage lawful or unlawful?
                          • What is the “job description” of a concubine?
                          • Is boinking a concubine “fornication” or “sexually immoral”?
                          • What practical and lawful difference is there between a concubine, a mistress, and a prostitute?
                          • If virgin bride price laws are valid today, and indentured servitude laws are valid today, in what way is it "unlawful" or “immoral” to keep and boink concubines?
                          • Did Abraham commit a sex crime when he boinked Hagar?
                          • Did Solomon commit a sex crime when he boinked his concubines?
                          • What was the legal status of concubinage after the giving of the law?


                          1Way, you’re shooting blanks and I'm beginning to suspect you have a screw loose (can I say "screw" in a non-sexual context?). Frankly, you're just not up to it. Maybe someone else has something to say, otherwise I'm outta here.

                          Biblical society. Bah!

                          Comment


                          • granite 1010 – You said
                            Wrong, this is exactly the point. Emancipated non-virgins having sex IS sexually immoral, according to you, Enyart, and others. While you may consider it to be, you've yet to provide even one instance in scripture of this activity being condemned. So, there's clearly some ambiguity somewhere.
                            I did a search for “fornic*” in the NKJV, and this was the results.
                            Isa 23:17 And it shall be, at the end of seventy years, that the LORD will visit Tyre. She will return to her hire, and commit fornication with all the kingdoms of the world on the face of the earth.
                            Mt 15:19 "For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies.
                            Mr 7:21 "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
                            Joh 8:41 "You do the deeds of your father." Then they said to Him, "We were not born of fornication; we have one Father——God."
                            1Co 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,
                            2Co 12:21 lest, when I come again, my God will humble me among you, and I shall mourn for many who have sinned before and have not repented of the uncleanness, fornication, and lewdness which they have practiced.
                            Ga 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness,
                            Eph 5:3 But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints;
                            Eph 5:5 For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.
                            Col 3:5 Therefore put to death your members which are on the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.
                            1Ti 1:10 for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine,
                            Heb 12:16 lest there be any fornicator or profane person like Esau, who for one morsel of food sold his birthright.
                            Heb 13:4 Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.
                            Re 14:8 And another angel followed, saying, "Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she has made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication."
                            Re 17:2 "with whom the kings of the earth committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth were made drunk with the wine of her fornication."
                            Re 17:4 The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls, having in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the filthiness of her fornication.
                            Re 18:3 "For all the nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth have become rich through the abundance of her luxury."
                            Re 18:9 "The kings of the earth who committed fornication and lived luxuriously with her will weep and lament for her, when they see the smoke of her burning,
                            Re 19:2 "For true and righteous are His judgments, because He has judged the great harlot who corrupted the earth with her fornication; and He has avenged on her the blood of His servants shed by her."
                            Sorry for not presenting the fuller context or for sorting them out and then taking the time to comment on the most clear and pertinent condemning examples. I assume that they are all condemning because of the general tenor involved, even clearly and harshly so in some instances. And because I know how you have been arguing, these examples are in reference to sex between people outside of marriage and are given without exception (again, marriage is the only acceptable institution for people to have the intimacy of sex). This list does not make any exception to “Emancipated non-virgins having sex ”.

                            You said
                            Then deal. I'm not the most diplomatic thing on two legs; that's my problem, I suppose. It seems that Enyart manufacturers law and condemnation out of whole cloth. And that's where I have my biggest problem with the man. I think that's entirely relevant to this discussion.
                            I would agree that you have your fair share of “issues”. For example, I corrected you on several points, particularly on the capitol offense bit, and you have yet to stand corrected. And I mean not to overstate the case, but I know for a fact that Bob Enyart does not and has not for many years, supported nor taught that fornication should be a capitol offense. Adultery, kidnapping, murder, sodomy, yes, fornication, no, not remotely. If you would stand corrected on that issue, you could raise the respectability quotient accordingly.

                            In fact, as to “manufacturing law and condemnation” from anything other than God’s word, that has got to be one of his biggest most consistent teaching. He teaches emphatically against doing that. Practically every teaching he has recorded, he consistently maintains that it all must conform to God’s word, because it is when we go beyond it, or do not approach it close enough, is when false doctrine and legalism becomes problematic.
                            Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good.

                            Comment


                            • Apollo – Sorry, but I don’t do baby sitting of adult aged brat kids. Grow up. Just as restating any moral wrong in a neutral or amoral fashion is wrong and sinful, so is your ignorant and non-helpful crude term. Fornication, sexual immorality, virgin price laws, non-virgin sexual conduct, etc. these are all what we are dealing with, they are biblical and sufficient and clear and respectful and helpful terms, yours are offensive and they help nothing.

                              Again, I take back some of my comments about the virginity and emancipation issues for not being biblically relevant, so you are more than welcome to make cooperative adjustments to your vocabulary as well. Or is it say one thing and do another with you?

                              You said
                              How I raise my children is none of your fornicating business, how’s that? How about wiser and nicer than you? If you are God’s spokesperson, God’s a demented prude.
                              How about this, if you can not remain rational and reasonably mature about things, we can just end the so called rational and reasonably mature discussion. I did not make up any judgments, I directly referenced scripture and you should certainly realize that, so this is not about me being a prude, it’s about what God’s word says on the matter, which was what I “thought” you have been concerned with in this entire discussion!!!

                              I’ll wait for your response since you are contradicting (it is about what the bible teaches, ,,, wait, no it’s not about what the bible teaches) and flying off the handle and acting like a little 3 year old brat (see most of your post). You can’t win an argument with stupid. So which is it? Your afraid of dealing with this issue in a mature and intellectual fashion, bible conformity just to stuff shirt and prudish for you(?), or can you handle dealing with the issue at hand?
                              Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good.

                              Comment


                              • I’m trying to have a rationale conversation about the application of the Law. You would rather pick nits about my “bad language.” You continue to deflect attention away from the issue, which was Bob’s misapplication of the Law when he said fornication is a crime under biblical law. You seemed to be willing to concede this point.

                                Then you began moralizing again when the discussion turned to prostitution. Isn’t prostitution (assuming adultery isn’t involved) just a “twist” on fornication? The only difference is, money’s exchanged. Likewise with concubines. If concubines are permitted under biblical law, why not prostitution? Don’t the same “rules” apply? If fornication, concubinage, and prostitution were not crimes under Old Testament biblical law, how can they be crimes in the New Testament era?

                                If you have any intellectual integrity at all, you’ll at least attempt to defend yourself by answering the questions of my previous post. I’ll even narrow it down for you:

                                • Show us in Scripture where prostitution is a “crime.”
                                • Provide anecdotal evidence that prostitution was punished as a crime.
                                • What criminal penalty was assigned to prostitution?
                                • Was the Old Testament institution of concubinage lawful or unlawful?

                                Before you start arresting prostitutes under biblical law, you better be prepared to cite the Law. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, not on the accused.

                                Ironic, but this is precisely why so many Christians hate biblical law. Because the Law grants more freedom than they would allow under extra-biblical law, like Bob’s error with fornication. Bob doesn’t hate biblical law, but he made an honest mistake, which I’ve attempted to correct.

                                …this is not about me being a prude, it’s about what God’s word says on the matter, which was what I “thought” you have been concerned with in this entire discussion!!!
                                Then stop sided-tracking the discussion by complaining about “boinking” and defend yourself. I have repeatedly asked for Scriptural proofs defending Bob’s, and then your, position. All you could do was shake the dust off virgin bride price laws and complain about my language. If you refuse to address the questions I’ve raised, there’s nothing left to discuss.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X