glorydaz
Well-known member
Call me dense, but I can't, for the life of me, see how you came to this conclusion.
What am I missing?
Why Stop At Birth?
- Thread starter ok doser
- Start date
Call me dense, but I can't, for the life of me, see how you came to this conclusion.
What am I missing?
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.
The law was made for man. Not just one nation.
It was made for the wicked.
Yes, SOME laws were given ONLY to Israel. That does not mean that ALL laws are only for Israel.
Yes. You have an issue with God's law?
When it's easy to have a divorce for whatever reason, divorces happen more often.
God intended marriage to last for a lifetime. He did not intend for it to be broken at the drop of a hat or because a woman burnt her husband's toast.
The rule is no divorce.
The only exception is sexual immorality.
You're calling God a legalist, then, because that's the punishment given in the Bible BY GOD.
What I believe or think about it is irrelevant.
The rule given by God is no divorce. The only exception is for sexual immorality.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
glorydaz
Well-known member
The Jews were God's chosen people...to whom the law was given....to whom God held them to account.
Not so with the nations. Different circumstances.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
so the nations had no law - God expects them to be lawless?
or does God expect them to just make up law as they go, willy-nilly?
glorydaz
Well-known member
They'd just be sneakier so as not to get caught. :chuckle:
And for what purpose? Certainly NOT to produce righteousness, as you seem to be claiming. Paul tells us righteousness does NOT come by the law.
Galatians 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
Why? Because LAW makes sin abound. Romans 5:20 Romans 7:8
glorydaz
Well-known member
They had their own conscience, didn't they?
That's what He did, isn't it?
Actually, God wanted the nations to see there was a difference between His people, and those without Him. Had Israel not been such a rebellious people, they wouldn't have fared so badly.
:AMR:
Saying it doesn't make it so.
See question 2 below.
Exodus 21:7-11
Deuteronomy 24 uncleanness = sexual immorality (24:1)
Matthew 5:31-32; 19:6, 9
Mark 10:2-12
1 Corinthians 7
When a man marries a woman, he makes a vow to care and provide for her and all her needs. By not fulfilling those needs, he is effectively abandoning her, and since those needs include sexual fulfillment, that's what makes it a form of sexual immorality.
Paul said:
Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband.The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. - 1 Corinthians 7:3-5 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Corinthians7:3-5&version=NKJV
In other words, a husband's body belongs to his wife, and a wife's body belongs to her husband.
Paul then says:
Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband.But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife. - 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Corinthians7:10-11&version=NKJV
When you teach someone to drive, you don't name the exceptions every time you give the rule.
The same for when you give moral law. You state the rule, but you don't always need to state the exceptions.
Jesus said:
“Furthermore it has been said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery. - Matthew 5:31-32 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew5:31-32&version=NKJV
And in doing so, he stated the rule, AND the exception.
Which Paul later confirmed and agreed with in 1 Corinthians 7, and in doing so, he even gave en example of the exception, which would be legitimate grounds for divorce.
GD, two questions:
"Do not commit perjury" is also part of the Mosaic law, and yet we have it on our lawbook.
1) Do you think we shouldn't have this law (against perjury) on our lawbooks because it was in the Mosaic law, even the Ten Commandments?
And...
2) What is your systematic method (if any) for rightly dividing (if you even do) between laws for Israel and laws for the whole world?
So did everyone from Cain to Noah.
God already did that.
The time between Cain and the Flood was a period of time where there was NO Law.
And we all know what happened with that...
glorydaz
Well-known member
And you should bear that in mind. :chuckle:
OKAY, when I get there I'll see it.
NONE of that is a response to your claim that beating your wife is sexual immorality.
In fact, your proof text ..has NOTHING to do with sexual immorality...or immorality of any kind.
Deuteronomy 24:1
24 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
24 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
I've never once denied that many of our laws are taken from God's Law of even the more finely tuned law that Moses gave. Wrong is wrong at any time.
Looks like my "method" is better than yours, since you don't seem to understand the purpose of LAW. {Your little digs above in yellow though remind me of a certain other poster I've butted heads with.) :think:
Just come right out point blank with your questions and we'll fare much better.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Actually all men have a conscience. From Adam to each of us.
Just as I said.
And we all know what's happening to this very day. Nothing new under the sun.
Killing people for fornication will not make this world a better place. It will only give us fewer people to preach the Gospel to.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
glorydaz
Well-known member
To keep the citizens safe.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
safe from what?
glorydaz
Well-known member
Not from those horrible fornicators, that's for sure. :chuckle:
Not from those who have to prove their virginity or be stoned.
Deut. 22:20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: 21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
I never said this.
Please do not misrepresent my position.
Fornication is defined as sexual intercourse between people not married to each other.
Which includes but is not limited to adultery.
The punishment for fornication in the Bible is different than punishment for adultery.
Fornication => forced marriage with no possibility of divorce
Adultery => death penalty
Actually, it in fact does.
And I pointed out why.
Allow me to show you:
The word we translate as "uncleanness" means sexual immorality.
| Strong's h6172 - Lexical: עֶרְוָה - Transliteration: ervah - Part of Speech: Noun Feminine - Phonetic Spelling: er-vaw' - Definition: nakedness. - Origin: From arah; nudity, literally (especially the pudenda) or figuratively (disgrace, blemish). - Usage: nakedness, shame, unclean(-ness). - Translated as (count): the nakedness (22), nakedness (13), your nakedness (6), and the nakedness (2), their nakedness (2), bare (1), her nakedness (1), his nakedness (1), nakedness her (1), or the nakedness (1), to the shame (1), unclean (1), uncleanness (1), your own nakedness (1). |
Don't know if you're aware of this, but "nakedness" is used several times in the Bible in reference to sexuality.
For example:
The exact same word is used in Genesis 9:22 to describe Ham's seduction of Noah's wife.
And Noah began to be a farmer, and he planted a vineyard.Then he drank of the wine and was drunk, and became uncovered in his tent.And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside.But Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and went backward and covered the nakedness of their father. Their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father’s nakedness.So Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done to him. - Genesis 9:20-24 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis9:20-24&version=NKJV
In this case (and in the Mosaic law), Noah's nakedness is not referring to Noah being naked, but rather his wife being seduced/raped.
So yes, in fact, Deuteronomy 24:1 IS talking about sexual immorality.
That wasn't the question, GD.
My question was aimed at determining if you think that any of the mosaic laws should be enforced in society today.
Um, I think you forgot to answer my question.
What is the system you use to rightly divide the laws for Israel from the laws for the rest of the world?
Do you have one? Or do you make any division at all between laws for Israel and laws for the world?
Huh? Those weren't digs. I was simply allowing for the possibility that you don't have a systematic method for such and for the possibility that you don't make any division between laws for Israel and laws for the whole world.
You were answering a question from Doser, but I think you lost focus between you answering him and when you answered me.
My point was that God already gave man a chance without the law. Why would he do so again?
=========================
I believe GD just answered your question.
:idunno:
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
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. 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. 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.
So, can you answer my question now. If someone is found to have had sex with multiple partners are they required to marry all of them?
Not the way you'd want to enforce it. The example of "if a man doesn't work, nor shall he eat" as a case in point. You're talking about a directive given to bronze age tribes where people would be reliant on each other to work in order to sustain themselves. If someone refused to pull their weight then food being withheld as punishment makes sense. Applying that to the present in sprawling suburbs where there's many a reason why people aren't working besides laziness simply doesn't work.
No, I have an issue with legalism.
A: People generally don't get married on a whim.
B: People generally don't get divorced on a whim.
C: Do you think that God would expect someone to remain in an abusive marriage for the rest of their life with no escape?
No, I'm not. Unlike you, I can differentiate between laws given for a time with ones that you'd enforce in the present. It's back to that not working/eating thing.
Addressed above.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
:AMR:
glorydaz
Well-known member
I don't believe I'm misrepresenting your position at all. You've taken up the position that righteousness can be enforced by the law. Here....."Forced marriage without possibility of divorce". Therefore, putting people in an untenable position. Which will, IN FACT, lead to "adultery" and DEATH. You might as well be right upfront and admit it.
Romans 5:20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
This is what Paul teaches, JR. Do you deny it?