Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why Stop At Birth?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    You're equivocating two different "uncleanness"-es.

    Again:



    ^^^^
    Used in Deuteronomy 24:1, et al

    IS NOT

    Used in Leviticus 15:3, et al
    vvvv



    Things that are different are not the same.
    Am I supposed to read that?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by glorydaz View Post
      Am I supposed to read that?
      There's not a lot there. I truncated both of those posts to just the screenshots and the Strong's entries.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by glorydaz View Post
        Well, I only saw the one post. Words mean lots of different things, so clarifying terms is always a good thing. Personally, I see fornication as between unmarried persons. Otherwise you'd say one was committing adultery if there was a marriage in the mix.


        Oops, you're jumping to conclusions. I never once said if the government decided to make it illegal I would oppose it. It was illegal for years.
        Fair enough.

        It's the sentence of death that I would object to....were the government ever decide to make it illegal again. I would object to that, because those harsh penalties would result in false accusations and even worse crimes for the coverup.
        So, there's a reason I also brought up perjury besides just to have an example other than adultery.

        GD, do you know what the punishment for perjury (bearing false witness) is in the Bible? How about in our current criminal code?

        (Bear with me as we go off topic for a moment, this will come back around to adultery in a moment.)

        Comment


        • Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
          There's not a lot there. I truncated both of those posts to just the screenshots and the Strong's entries.
          Here, while I study yours, you can check this out. And read what Jesus said about what Moses did.


          Adam Clarke Commentary
          Some uncleanness - Any cause of dislike, for this great latitude of meaning the fact itself authorizes us to adopt, for it is certain that a Jew might put away his wife for any cause that seemed good to himself; and so hard were their hearts, that Moses suffered this; and we find they continued this practice even to the time of our Lord, who strongly reprehended them on the account, and showed that such license was wholly inconsistent with the original design of marriage; see Matthew 5:31; (note), etc.; Matthew 19:3; (note), etc., and the notes there.


          Matt. 19:7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post




            Fair enough.



            So, there's a reason I also brought up perjury besides just to have an example other than adultery.

            GD, do you know what the punishment for perjury (bearing false witness) is in the Bible? How about in our current criminal code?

            (Bear with me as we go off topic for a moment, this will come back around to adultery in a moment.)
            I just read that in Bob's book, so, yes, I know.

            Before you go too far trying to convince me that we should adopt God's laws for ungodly people, I will say it will not work. It didn't work for the Jews, and it won't work for us. God's law was never intended to make men righteous. It was never intended to make society at large righteous. It was made to show men their sinfulness and lead them to Christ.

            It has always been the case, and will always be the case.

            Instead of convincing us we should kill homosexuals, you should be convincing us to preach the Gospel to them. The heart must change before the flesh can change. Now, I'm tired. Keep your points short and sweet, and I'll try to address them tomorrow.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by glorydaz View Post
              It's the sentence of death that I would object to.... . . . because those harsh penalties would result in false accusations and even worse crimes for the coverup.
              *I asked about the punishment for perjury*
              Originally posted by glorydaz View Post
              I just read that in Bob's book, so, yes, I know.
              Then you would understand that your above claim is incorrect, due to the simple fact that a swift death penalty for perjurers in a capital crime case would deter people from bearing false witness, same for restitution and corporal punishment, where the perjurer would pay restitution or be punished physically, respectively.

              Before you go too far trying to convince me that we should adopt God's laws for ungodly people, I will say it will not work. It didn't work for the Jews, and it won't work for us.
              Huh?

              OF COURSE IT WORKED!

              It worked so well that everyone was condemned!

              What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.”But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead.I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died.And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death.For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me.Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good. - Romans 7:7-12 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...2&version=NKJV

              God's law was never intended to make men righteous. It was never intended to make society at large righteous. It was made to show men their sinfulness and lead them to Christ.
              You can't have your cake and eat it too.

              You either have the law, and use it to convict people of their guilt, and point them to God with it, or you have no law and no way to point people to Christ.

              You keep making the argument that I want the l aw to make people righteous.

              That's not the case. Never has been.

              Paul explicitly states that the law was made for the wicked.

              Not to make them righteous, but to condemn them when they do wrong. As you rightly referenced earlier, where there is law, sin abounds. However, if there is no law, there cannot be any condemnation.

              It has always been the case, and will always be the case.

              Instead of convincing us we should kill homosexuals,
              "We" shouldn't do anything of the sort. That responsibility falls to the government. Or is that what you meant by "we"?

              In which case, "we" should be putting homosexuals to death for their crime.

              you should be convincing us to preach the Gospel to them.
              Where have I ever said that we (speaking of us as individuals, not "we" the government) should not?

              I'm all for preaching to the homos!

              But I'm also for putting them to death for their crime.

              The two are not mutually exclusive.

              The heart must change before the flesh can change.
              What better motivator to change someone's mind than for them to face their own mortality?

              Now, I'm tired. Keep your points short and sweet, and I'll try to address them tomorrow.


              Nini GD!

              Comment


              • Originally posted by glorydaz View Post
                [The law] will not work.
                Depends what we're implementing it for.

                The law cannot save, but it does teach people that God is real.
                Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                E≈mc2
                "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

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

                Comment


                • Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                  That wouldn't happen, because people wouldn't even think of doing it.

                  And that's because the first time it happens, the punishment would be harsh enough to deter other people from doing it.
                  this is the strategy behind laws against murder, rape, child molestation, etc

                  Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
                  Sure they would, they might be a bit more clandestine about it but human beings would still be having sex out of wedlock no matter what the laws in place.
                  the same is true of murder, rape, child molestation, etc

                  Originally posted by artie
                  You seem to think that if society were under the religious laws you'd have in place that everybody would walk lock, step in line. They wouldn't.
                  they would when the severity of the punishment was realized

                  just like murder, rape, child molestation, etc

                  Originally posted by artie
                  There's no way such laws could be practically enforced either, the police wouldn't have the manpower to investigate every case of fornication or reports of it, just totally impractical.
                  you're overlooking the deterrent effect of the law/punishment

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by glorydaz View Post
                    Before you go too far trying to convince me that we should adopt God's laws for ungodly people, I will say it will not work.
                    If not God's laws, whose laws should we use to regulate society?


                    'cause man's laws haven't been doing very well lately

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by glorydaz View Post
                      Before you go too far trying to convince me that we should adopt God's laws for ungodly people, I will say it will not work.

                      God's Law sez "Thou Shalt Not Murder"

                      man's law used to be based on God's Law and said "and that includes babies"



                      now, man's law for ungodly people is based on selfishness and sez "but it's ok to murder if they're babies"



                      when man's law was based on God's Law, it worked

                      why believe that it wouldn't work again?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Stripe View Post

                        The law cannot save, but it does teach people that God is real.
                        I'm not sure what you mean by that. How can the law teach people that God is real?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by ok doser View Post
                          God's Law sez "Thou Shalt Not Murder"

                          man's law used to be based on God's Law and said "and that includes babies"



                          now, man's law for ungodly people is based on selfishness and sez "but it's ok to murder if they're babies"



                          when man's law was based on God's Law, it worked

                          why believe that it wouldn't work again?
                          What you're complaining about is some men changing the law to suit their own hardened heart.

                          I don't really see what you're getting at here.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                            Depends what we're implementing it for.

                            The law cannot save, but it does teach people that God is real.
                            How? Even suspending disbelief and say that somehow the laws that JR would have enacted came into being, how is that teaching people that "God is real"? If that type of militant, religious law were to come about people would be more likely to consider themselves under a zealous, fundamentalist state than anything. That doesn't equate to the same thing at all.
                            Well this is fun isn't it?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                              Then you would understand that your above claim is incorrect, due to the simple fact that a swift death penalty for perjurers in a capital crime case would deter people from bearing false witness, same for restitution and corporal punishment, where the perjurer would pay restitution or be punished physically, respectively.



                              Huh?

                              OF COURSE IT WORKED!

                              It worked so well that everyone was condemned!

                              What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.”But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead.I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died.And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death.For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me.Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good. - Romans 7:7-12 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...2&version=NKJV



                              You can't have your cake and eat it too.

                              You either have the law, and use it to convict people of their guilt, and point them to God with it, or you have no law and no way to point people to Christ.

                              You keep making the argument that I want the l aw to make people righteous.

                              That's not the case. Never has been.

                              Paul explicitly states that the law was made for the wicked.

                              Not to make them righteous, but to condemn them when they do wrong. As you rightly referenced earlier, where there is law, sin abounds. However, if there is no law, there cannot be any condemnation.



                              "We" shouldn't do anything of the sort. That responsibility falls to the government. Or is that what you meant by "we"?

                              In which case, "we" should be putting homosexuals to death for their crime.



                              Where have I ever said that we (speaking of us as individuals, not "we" the government) should not?

                              I'm all for preaching to the homos!

                              But I'm also for putting them to death for their crime.

                              The two are not mutually exclusive.



                              What better motivator to change someone's mind than for them to face their own mortality?





                              Nini GD!
                              There's really not much point in having a cake if you can't eat it. It's not your fault but that phrase was silly when it first came about.

                              Fear of death or punishment is hardly a motivator for sincere change either else it wouldn't come from the heart.
                              Well this is fun isn't it?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                                Then you would understand that your above claim is incorrect, due to the simple fact that a swift death penalty for perjurers in a capital crime case would deter people from bearing false witness, same for restitution and corporal punishment, where the perjurer would pay restitution or be punished physically, respectively.
                                On the contrary, I understand that Bob is not perfect. He's good, but not perfect, and on this issue, I believe he is wrong.


                                Huh?

                                OF COURSE IT WORKED!

                                It worked so well that everyone was condemned!
                                Oh, that sounds like it works really well.



                                The Government isn't interested in our spiritual standing...only our temporal behaviour...the carnal man.
                                Romans 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.

                                You can't have your cake and eat it too.

                                You either have the law, and use it to convict people of their guilt, and point them to God with it, or you have no law and no way to point people to Christ.
                                You're conflating temporal truths with eternal truths, and that won't work. A swift and efficient electric chair is not the Gospel of Salvation.

                                You keep making the argument that I want the l aw to make people righteous.

                                That's not the case. Never has been.

                                Paul explicitly states that the law was made for the wicked.

                                Not to make them righteous, but to condemn them when they do wrong. As you rightly referenced earlier, where there is law, sin abounds. However, if there is no law, there cannot be any condemnation.
                                And you keep making the argument I don't want any law. Of course we need the government to protect us. We don't need them to convert us.

                                "We" shouldn't do anything of the sort. That responsibility falls to the government. Or is that what you meant by "we"?

                                In which case, "we" should be putting homosexuals to death for their crime.
                                Well, woe to those sinners who are put to death by the state, before we can preach the Gospel.


                                Where have I ever said that we (speaking of us as individuals, not "we" the government) should not?

                                I'm all for preaching to the homos!

                                But I'm also for putting them to death for their crime.

                                The two are not mutually exclusive.
                                Except the CRIME is against God, and no one else. They are not a danger to anyone but themselves. Make it a civil law, and they'll just hide in the closet. We've tried that one.



                                What better motivator to change someone's mind than for them to face their own mortality?
                                We all face our own mortality, and in God's good time, we are each brought to where we must choose. I believe what you're promoting is nothing more than amateur providence.....

                                The government's job is not to lead people to Christ. They are not equipped with the proper means to do so.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X