Why Theonomy?

[Clete]

Your kidding right. The point granite made was civilized advancement is hardly isolated to Christianity - and is and quite often associated with extreme facist or communist ideals. Completely vaild point historically. Kudos Granite.

This is an outright lie! The Soviets are hardly associated with anything except starving their people to death or otherwise killing millions of them and figuring out clever ways to spy on the west and take credit for our advancements. You're delusional if you think anything else happened of any significance.
And Hitler was in power for less than 20 years, he can hardly be credited for anything other than advancements in genocide.
And Granite is a troll and he knows it. He wouldn't know a substantive argument if it bit him is the butt.

Resting in Him,
:Clete:

 

[justchristian]

Egypt, Rome, Greece, China, Germany - all made significant advancements in civilization outside Christianity. Just becasue the Church had a habit of crushing or distancing themselves from any other civilization and takes up a majority of recetn recorded history doesnt mean they're the only ones to make a dent in the advancement of civilization.

 

[Gerald]

The Soviets stole their space technology from the west (namely the United States)...

I trust you have a source you can cite to back that up?

 

[Granite]

The Soviets stole their space technology from the west (namely the United States) and Hitler built a road! I'm so impressed! (I'd be even more impressed if this post was even on point.)

Resting in Him,
Clete

Others have said it for me but the point remains: civilization can advance and accomplish plenty with or without religion.

 

[Gerald]

Others have said it for me but the point remains: civilization can advance and accomplish plenty with or without religion.

I think the point that Clete misses is that, even though Christians have contributed to technological advancement, the fact that they were Christians is irrelevant; it isn't like this or that technological advance couldn't be initiated by a non-Christian.

Cases in point: the heathen Arabs invented algebra; the pagan Greeks developed trigonometry; the heathen Chinese were printing with movable type long before the printing press appeared in Europe.

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

So we're still waiting on a few loose ends.

TurboPost 198) disagrees with my translation of the Hebrew, and asserts that Deut 22:28-29 does not speak of the rape of an unbetrothed virgin. Turbo, have you had a chance to follow up on this?

Jefferson asserts (Post 172) that the use of the present tense in I Tim 1:8-9 means that the law is for today. Jefferson, have you had a chance to review my Greek, and do you have any response to the fact that while it is present tense, it is singular in person?


Justin

 

[Granite]

I think the point that Clete misses is that, even though Christians have contributed to technological advancement, the fact that they were Christians is irrelevant; it isn't like this or that technological advance couldn't be initiated by a non-Christian.

Cases in point: the heathen Arabs invented algebra; the pagan Greeks developed trigonometry; the heathen Chinese were printing with movable type long before the printing press appeared in Europe.

We don't talk about that.:noid:

 

[beefalobilly]

hitler helped set in motion the invention of one of my favorite cars, the classic VW bug

 

[Jefferson]

Justin:

Regarding First Timothy 1:8-11…”But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust.” – you wrote:

The author of this epistle says absolutely nothing about imposing this law from without--indeed, this passage indicates quite strongly that it must be the decision of the individual to "lawfully make use of it.

You got it exactly backwards. The “one” who uses the law in verse 8 is a believer. But verse 9 says he is not supposed to use the law for himself (“the law is not made for a righteous person”). So who is the Christian commanded to use the law for? The rest of the verse answers the question.

According to your doctrine, this is the kind of behavioral change that comes over a person regenerated by the blood of Jesus Christ, not constrained by outside enforcement.

Christians follow the morality of the Bible out of love for their neighbors and their love for God. This does not negate the fact that the behavior of unbelievers is indeed constrained by law. If there were no laws (or punishments) against robbing banks, bank robbers would be having a field day. But the incidence of bank robbing is lower because of laws against that behavior. So behavior change is constrained by outside enforcement.

At no time did I make such a claim [that moral truth changes from one culture to another]. I do claim that your Bible is a man-made understanding of absolute moral truth, but that is irrelevant to this thread.

But you take a blind leap of faith that the Bible is man-made. Why should I be forced to live under laws created from a foundation of your blind leap of faith?

Paul does not say that Christ abolished the ceremonial law--he abolished the law of commandments.

He abolished the law of commandments for Christians. Nonchristians, however, will be judged by the law. According to the Bible, what other standard of judging them could there possibly be?

So the phrase "contained in ordinances" is a descriptive claws that modifies "laws." As we can see, verse 15a clearly means "The law of the commandments contained in ordinances he rendered idle."

If Paul meant what you claim, he would have simply written that Christ “abolished…the law of commandments” and Paul would have simply left out the words “contained in ordinances.”

That's complete and total nonsense, not to mention a grotesque charicature of my position. One does not need to follow the Mosaic Law to agree that murder is wrong.

Oh? Ever hear of Terri Schaivo?

Tell me how "peaceful" society was, according to your scriptures, between the time of Moses and the Babylonian Captivity.

Explain how it wasn’t peaceful.

Ah, but there's a problem here, Jeffereson: if you agree with Bob Enyart's views, you don't want a democracy: you want a monarchy. With the way our government is set up now, you would have to do one of three things:
1: Get enough popular support to get a majority of voters in the US to agree to void the Constitution;
2: Rebel and overthrow the government by force; or
3: Secede.

Options 2 and 3 are not available options to Christians, unless they wish to violate Rom 13:2. Option 1 is available, but I somehow doubt you'll ever have that kind of support.

You didn’t list the most likely scenario. Option # 4: The nation collapses under its own massive, socialistic, bureaucratic dead weight like the former Soviet Union. We are fast approaching that day.

Jefferson, do you know anything about Greek?

I don’t see how the definition of Orthotomounta, which you provided, contradicts my point.

Yet this is one of the most popular support texts for the continuance of Mosaic Law against homosexuals. You can't have it both ways, Jefferson.

The fact that this verse points out that all sins result in physical death does not negate the fact that some of those sins are so vile that they require a public execution. By analogy, if you made the statement that all alcoholics die younger than they otherwise would if they lived a healthy lifestyle, does that give me the right to accuse you of believing that no alcoholics are ever jailed for public drunkenness or arrested for drunk driving? Of course not. You simply were not discussing public policy. You were discussing health. Same thing with this passage. Paul was simply not discussing man’s theonomic application of the law in Romans 1. In fact, verse 32 says exactly what he was talking about: “Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death.” You see? It’s God’s judgment of natural death which is being discussed here. Paul doesn’t get to man’s judgment of extreme sin until chapter 13 with God’s ministers bearing not the sword in vain.

Nor does it negate the fact that our current government is, according to your scriptures, God's ministers today.

True, but that fact does not mean God approves of every godless law they make and enforce. They will all have to stand before Him to give an account of their lives. I can’t wait for that event. I’m going to be one of the Event Staff.

Jefferson, I don't think any of your Bible is an accurate depiction of God. If I were arguing based on my opinions or knowledge, I would be arguing from the point of view of the Bible's inauthenticity. What I'm doing in this thread is arguing that your Bible does not say the things you're trying to make it say.

Then let me rephrase the question: What standard does the Bible say God will use to judge the difference between a good governing official and a bad one according to Revelation 20:12,13? – “And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books. The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works.”

 

[Lighthouse]

hitler helped set in motion the invention of one of my favorite cars, the classic VW bug

Neo-Nazi!:sozo2:










j/k

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

Hi, Jefferson,

I'm going to be running some errands today, but I'll get back to this later this evening.

Be well.

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

Justin:

Regarding First Timothy 1:8-11…”But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust.” – you wrote:

You got it exactly backwards. The “one” who uses the law in verse 8 is a believer. But verse 9 says he is not supposed to use the law for himself (“the law is not made for a righteous person”). So who is the Christian commanded to use the law for? The rest of the verse answers the question.

So, in other words, you're saying that as a believer, you are no longer a sinner?

Christians follow the morality of the Bible out of love for their neighbors and their love for God. This does not negate the fact that the behavior of unbelievers is indeed constrained by law. If there were no laws (or punishments) against robbing banks, bank robbers would be having a field day. But the incidence of bank robbing is lower because of laws against that behavior. So behavior change is constrained by outside enforcement.

I never claimed that behavior change cannot be constrained--my claim is that this passage does not justify the claim that it is "Christian duty" to impose such law.

But you take a blind leap of faith that the Bible is man-made. Why should I be forced to live under laws created from a foundation of your blind leap of faith?

Incorrect on two counts.
1: My assertion that the Bible is man-made is not a blind leap of faith, but the results of yeas of study--study that I began as a Christian. One of my last acts as a Christian was the realization that I could no longer claim that the Bible was God's handiwork.
2: I am not stating that you should be forced to live under laws that are based in the claim that the Bible is man-made--I am asserting that all of us live under laws that do not take one religion as more valuable or "correct" than another. If this board were dedicated to the promulgation of Wiccan Craft Law as the "law of the land," I would protest every bit as vigorously as I do now. Theonomy--whether Wiccan or Christian--is not an acceptable or workable basis for US laws.

He abolished the law of commandments for Christians. Nonchristians, however, will be judged by the law. According to the Bible, what other standard of judging them could there possibly be?

According to your scriptures, such "judging" will occur after death.

If Paul meant what you claim, he would have simply written that Christ “abolished…the law of commandments” and Paul would have simply left out the words “contained in ordinances.”

Incorrect. Paul could have done so, but did not.

Oh? Ever hear of Terri Schaivo?

Do you suppose it is only certain Christians who feel that the Schiavo case was wrong?

Explain how it wasn’t peaceful.

Based on the archaeology, the late Bronze Age was one of frequent war.

You didn’t list the most likely scenario. Option # 4: The nation collapses under its own massive, socialistic, bureaucratic dead weight like the former Soviet Union. We are fast approaching that day.

:shrug: That is certainly your opinion ... if that occurs, you still will not be able to impose your will without military force.

I don’t see how the definition of Orthotomounta, which you provided, contradicts my point.

Because you're using the ambiguity of the English to obscure the Greek. Orthotomounta means to "cut straight"--as in a road through the mountains. Orthotomounta does not mean "cut straight" as in dividing a parcel of land. The reference is to proper handling and understanding of the law, not in "dividing" it into ceremonial and moral codes.

Paul was simply not discussing man’s theonomic application of the law in Romans 1.

Oddly enough, (despite the distorted interpretation of some theonomists) Paul never speaks of theonomy at all. :think:

True, but that fact does not mean God approves of every godless law they make and enforce. They will all have to stand before Him to give an account of their lives.

I never asserted that your scripture says He does. However, your scripture does say
"The current governments set the law for you. Obey them." Now, if we were already in a Theonomic government that had been established peacefully (i.e. not in a rebellion), your case would certainly be made. As it currently stands--we do not.

I can’t wait for that event. I’m going to be one of the Event Staff.

Quite an ego boost for you, no doubt.

Then let me rephrase the question: What standard does the Bible say God will use to judge the difference between a good governing official and a bad one according to Revelation 20:12,13? – “And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books. The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works.”

As it answers your own question, I will let your statement stand. However, again you will notice--this judgement occurrs on judgement day, not while we live on earth.

Justin

 

[Clete]

Oddly enough, (despite the distorted interpretation of some theonomists) Paul never speaks of theonomy at all. :think:

Well this isn't entirely true. He does speak of those in authority not bearing the sword in vain and he endorses the death penalty while he himself is on trial and so on. But be that as it may, this statement of yours misses the point, and it is just this sort of argument that causes me to avoid arguing for something so vaguely defined as "theonomy".
He's the point. There are laws which are just and there are laws that are not. You agree, I assume, that a country should be governed by the rule of law, do you not? And so the question simply becomes, "What laws should be enforced and why?"; or "Which laws are just and why"?
The best you can do to answer this question is one derivation or another of "Whatever the majority of the people say." The problem with that is that the majority of people are evil and so no matter how good things start off, they will always denigrate the law until it is completely corrupt and unjust.
I, on the other hand say that God is smarter than we are and that His law works and should be followed. Every time His law has been tried, to whatever extent it was applied, the nation was blessed and flourished. When they turned from His law, they suffered and eventually perished. This country is no exception, nor will it be.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[elected4ever]

I think this whole discussion is unproductive. Every child of God is a member of a theonomy and it seems not to make much difference. As lone as we are here on this planet and in the country we are in, we are in all essence foreigners and have no right to dictate the law of any country. When we do, as has been pointed out before, that government turns tyrannical. Why? Because earthly governments of what ever description are run by mortal men. The best we can hope for is to have influence on the governments that do exist. While we may not like the laws that do exist we are not obligated to honor such laws in violation of the conduct expected of us in out native country. Even in this foreign land we are to honor our King. Influence in governance and actual governance are two separate issues We are to be wise as serpents and harmless as doves that the name of the Lord shell be well spoken of in the land.

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

Well this isn't entirely true. He does speak of those in authority not bearing the sword in vain and he endorses the death penalty while he himself is on trial and so on.

Eh ... not Theonomy by the modern definition per se, but the point is well taken.

But be that as it may, this statement of yours misses the point, and it is just this sort of argument that causes me to avoid arguing for something so vaguely defined as "theonomy".
He's the point. There are laws which are just and there are laws that are not. You agree, I assume, that a country should be governed by the rule of law, do you not? And so the question simply becomes, "What laws should be enforced and why?"; or "Which laws are just and why"?
The best you can do to answer this question is one derivation or another of "Whatever the majority of the people say." The problem with that is that the majority of people are evil and so no matter how good things start off, they will always denigrate the law until it is completely corrupt and unjust.
I, on the other hand say that God is smarter than we are and that His law works and should be followed. Every time His law has been tried, to whatever extent it was applied, the nation was blessed and flourished. When they turned from His law, they suffered and eventually perished. This country is no exception, nor will it be.

Clete, this is probably the first time you've made a response to me that was not a sarcastic put-down. First and foremost, I wanted to thank you for that.

Secondly I wish to list my disagreements with the above post.

.....

Thus concludes my list.

You have the belief that laws based on the Mosaic criminal code are the best for the country--actually, I do disagree somewhat, but I have complete and total respect for your beliefs in that regard. I will not attempt to disuade you of that belief at this time.

On the other hand, there are those theonomists (however one defines the term) who state that it is "Christian duty" to institute "God's Laws" as part of a program to hasten the Second Coming--this belief is frequently called Dominion Theology.

I've learned much--though I will admit that I've not always acknowledged what I've learned at the time of the post. However, I could not let this post go without acknowledging the new understanding.

Thank you, Clete.

 

[billwald]

Regarding First Timothy 1:8-11…”But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust.”

The theonomists I have read such as Gary North teach that they will impose the Mosiac Covenant upon non-believers but that it doesn't apply to themselves because they - and no one else "has" the Holy Spirit.

The Gnostics would say that the Mosiac Covenant only applies to physical people, not spitirual people. Theonomists = Gnostics. <G>

 

[Jefferson]

So, in other words, you're saying that as a believer, you are no longer a sinner?

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Notice I am not saying I never commit immoral acts as defined by the Bible.

Did I just contradict myself? Nope. Here's why: Paul said in Romans 7:15-20 - "For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me."

Notice Paul purposely avoids labeling his immoral acts as "sin." He said he committed "what I hate" and "the evil." Sin is the transgressing of the law according to First John 3:4, but Paul taught that Christians are no longer under the law. It's like driving 100 miles per hour through a residential neighborhood where there are no speed limit signs. It's immoral but it's not illegal.

I never claimed that behavior change cannot be constrained--my claim is that this passage does not justify the claim that it is "Christian duty" to impose such law.

Do you actually believe that no Christian should be allowed to vote? Every time I enter a voting booth I vote for whatever congressman I believe will attempt to legislate Biblical morality more than any other candidate. Do you think I should be prevented from doing that? Who should I vote for, someone else's views other than my own? Since congressmen make laws, do you think all Christian congressmen should be forced to resign? What standard should Christian congressmen use when deciding what laws are moral and what laws are immoral, someone else's standard other than their own Bible-based standard?

My assertion that the Bible is man-made is not a blind leap of faith, but the results of years of study--study that I began as a Christian. One of my last acts as a Christian was the realization that I could no longer claim that the Bible was God's handiwork.

First, in post # 173 you said, " I do claim that your Bible is a man-made understanding of absolute moral truth," The word "claim" is a faith-based word. People don't "claim" that 2+2=4.

Secondly, I could also just as easily say my assertion that the Bible is inspired is not a blind leap of faith, but the results of years of study--study that I began as a nonchristian. One of my last acts as a nonchristian was the realization that I could no longer claim that the Bible was not God's handiwork.

I am not stating that you should be forced to live under laws that are based in the claim that the Bible is man-made--I am asserting that all of us live under laws that do not take one religion as more valuable or "correct" than another.

We do but we shouldn't. The puritans used to have Bible verses listed after the laws in the books. We theonomists are advocating nothing new.

If this board were dedicated to the promulgation of Wiccan Craft Law as the "law of the land," I would protest every bit as vigorously as I do now.

I would join you.

According to your scriptures, such "judging" will occur after death.

Jesus repeatedly taught men to judge rightly, insisting they “judge with righteous judgment” (John 7:24) and He praised a man who “rightly judged” (Luke 7:43). Paul shamed the Corinthian Christians because no one among them was willing to “judge the smallest matters” (1 Cor. 6:2). As the Apostle wrote, “He who is spiritual judges all things” for “we have the mind of Christ” (1 Cor. 2:15‑16).

Incorrect. Paul could have done so, but did not.

Incorrect. Paul could not have done so because it would have altered his intended meaning.

Do you suppose it is only certain Christians who feel that the Schiavo case was wrong?

What about perjury? What do you believe the proper punishment for that should be? Does "everyone" inherently know what the punishment should be?

Based on the archaeology, the late Bronze Age was one of frequent war.

Israel's death penalty laws for homosexuality (for example) did not cause war. Israel had a very peaceful, crime free society because of her enforcement of Biblical Law. The wars she got into had absolutely nothing to do with her enforcement of Biblical Law on her own citizens.

:shrug: That is certainly your opinion ... if that occurs, you still will not be able to impose your will without military force.

Not true. We have Biblical law inforced today. Death penalty laws against murder, for example, agree with the Bible. So where's the revolution? Adultery and homosexuality used to be criminal in the United States. I don't remember reading about any violent overthrow of the government because of those laws in my history books. Laws change back and forth all the time. Cocaine used to be legal, now it's not. Some day in the future it may become legal again, all without a revolution from the masses each time there is a change in the law.

Because you're using the ambiguity of the English to obscure the Greek. Orthotomounta means to "cut straight"--as in a road through the mountains. Orthotomounta does not mean "cut straight" as in dividing a parcel of land. The reference is to proper handling and understanding of the law, not in "dividing" it into ceremonial and moral codes.

I agree. And a "proper handling and understanding of the law" results in refusing to apply ceremonial law during this present age of grace while recognizing that moral law applies to all cultures in every century.

Oddly enough, (despite the distorted interpretation of some theonomists) Paul never speaks of theonomy at all. :think:

Second Corinthians 19:4-5 - "For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ, and being ready to punish all disobedience when your obedience is fulfilled." If the Christians Paul is speaking to have "fulfilled their obedience," Paul then is "ready to punish all disobedience" upon whom? It can't be upon the believers to whom Paul is speaking because by this time they have "fulfilled their obedience."

 

[Yorzhik]

Eh ... not Theonomy by the modern definition per se, but the point is well taken.
...
On the other hand, there are those theonomists (however one defines the term) who state that it is "Christian duty" to institute "God's Laws" as part of a program to hasten the Second Coming--this belief is frequently called Dominion Theology.
...

Methinks I may have learned a thing from Clete and should avoid the label "Theonomy", too.

BTW, what is the "modern definition" of 'theonomy'?

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Notice I am not saying I never commit immoral acts as defined by the Bible.

Hmmm. It's a bit of an iffy argument, but as this is a specific argument of Christian doctrine (one that not all Christians agree on), I'm going to take a pass on this.

Do you actually believe that no Christian should be allowed to vote?

Not at all, nor is that my claim. If you choose to vote for candidates who agree with your views on morality, that's your preference. My only claim is that the 1 Tim passage is not a Biblical injunction to impose Law on the culture.

First, in post # 173 you said, " I do claim that your Bible is a man-made understanding of absolute moral truth," The word "claim" is a faith-based word. People don't "claim" that 2+2=4.

Fallacy of ambiguity--if I were in an argument on the topic, I would indeed say "I claim that 2+2=4."

Secondly, I could also just as easily say my assertion that the Bible is inspired is not a blind leap of faith, but the results of years of study--study that I began as a nonchristian. One of my last acts as a nonchristian was the realization that I could no longer claim that the Bible was not God's handiwork.

Splendid, but completely off-topic. I never argued that your claim was a priori--I was refuting your claim that my rejection of the Bible was "a blind leap of faith."

We do but we shouldn't. The puritans used to have Bible verses listed after the laws in the books. We theonomists are advocating nothing new.

Remember, Jefferson--the Puritans, and other similar "Theonomic" attempts (Cromwell's Commonweath, Calvin's Geneva, and the Massachusets Colonial law) all ended badly for a lot of innocent people. Look back at the history.

Jesus repeatedly taught men to judge rightly, insisting they “judge with righteous judgment” (John 7:24)

Grossly out of context--Jesus was condemning those who perverted judgement to try to do away with Him.

He praised a man who “rightly judged” (Luke 7:43).

Grossly out of context--Jesus praised Simon for making a correct decision, not for the judgeship of the Final Judgement.

Paul shamed the Corinthian Christians because no one among them was willing to “judge the smallest matters” (1 Cor. 6:2). As the Apostle wrote, “He who is spiritual judges all things” for “we have the mind of Christ” (1 Cor. 2:15‑16).

Grossly out of context--Paul is speaking about judging things within the church.

Jefferson, if all of your Biblical "proof texts" for enforcing the Law on the world are this far out of context, I must wonder if any of it is accurate.

Incorrect. Paul could not have done so because it would have altered his intended meaning.

So you assert--yet offer no proof. I have offered proof that the phrase is not central to the meaning of the passage.

What about perjury? What do you believe the proper punishment for that should be? Does "everyone" inherently know what the punishment should be?

What, since you can't prove your point with Schiavo, you switch the basis of your argument? Jefferson, this is getting quite lame.

But in answer to your question, I am aware both of the Biblical law regarding perjury, and the Secular law. Despite the protestations of so many, the Schiavo case was handled legally. Greer's decision was within the laws of Florida. Yes, I happen to feel that the decison was immoral, but it was not illegal.

Israel's death penalty laws for homosexuality (for example) did not cause war. Israel had a very peaceful, crime free society because of her enforcement of Biblical Law. The wars she got into had absolutely nothing to do with her enforcement of Biblical Law on her own citizens.

Jefferson, look at some real history. The final form of the Mosaic Law was codified during the Babylonian Exile. There was never a historical period where the Mosaic Law was enforced--well, possibly during the reign of Josiah: it's my theory that while the final forms were reached during the Exile, some of the earlier basis was written during this time.

Not true. We have Biblical law inforced today. Death penalty laws against murder, for example, agree with the Bible.

They may agree with the Bible--so did the laws of Hammurabi and pagan Rome. Now, unless you'd like to argue that these laws were "Biblical," you can see that your argument falls on it's face.

Laws can agree with the Bible and not be "Biblical." Heck, Wiccan Craft Law stands four-square against lying, murder, and adultery, yet I doubt you would consider them "Biblical."

I agree. And a "proper handling and understanding of the law" results in refusing to apply ceremonial law during this present age of grace while recognizing that moral law applies to all cultures in every century.

Jefferson, one who "rightly divides the word of God" will clearly see that the Law is one piece, and annot be separated into ceremonial and legal compartments. If this were not so, then homosexuality would not be classified with the same word--"abomination"--as eating shellfish.

Second Corinthians 19:4-5 - "For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ, and being ready to punish all disobedience when your obedience is fulfilled." If the Christians Paul is speaking to have "fulfilled their obedience," Paul then is "ready to punish all disobedience" upon whom? It can't be upon the believers to whom Paul is speaking because by this time they have "fulfilled their obedience."

Hogwash! Paul is speaking of how he will treat those who are disobedient in the Church of Corinth.

Jefferson, throughout your argument you have twisted scripture until it is almost unrecognizable. You have used fallacious and downright false arguments to support your claim.

Your claim that God commands Christians to impose the Law on their non-Christian neighbors is a false claim.

 

[Turbo]

Turbo, if you honestly believe that you can correct the Hebrew with the English...

I suggested nothing of the sort.

The meaning of taphas is not "swept off her feet," but to seize by force

I was giving an example of how sometimes the definitions of each individual word in a sentence are insufficient to understand the meaning of the idea being expressed. It's called a figure of speech.

Why is it that God didn't write the passage in English?

Is that what you think I was asking?

I'm not at all concerned with whether or not you agree with it, Turbo. The Mosaic Law was not made for our twenty-first century sensibilities.

Nor was it made to punish the innocent and reward the guilty.

That was the Law. If you disagree with that conclusion, then you are left with no Law whatsoever against the rape of an unbetrothed virgin.

Not so. Deuteronomy 22:25-27 can be applied to unbetrothed virgins as well.

If one were to reason as you have here, then one might say that there is no law against raping a betrothed virgin in the city.

And what about a married woman who is raped? Should she should killed along with her attacker according to Deuteronomy 22:22? How about if a man is raped by a homosexual? Should the victim be put to death according to Leviticus 20:13?

Of course not! God is not laying out every scenerio for every crime. He is (rather efficiently) laying out principles.

In Deuteronomy 22:22 we read that if a man sleeps with another man's wife, both are guilty and should be put to death.

In verses 23-24 God establishes that the same punishment applies even if the woman isn't married yet but is betrothed to another man.

But in verses 25-27 God makes it very clear that a person is not to be blamed for being raped, but that rapists should be executed. The specific example is given as a contrast to the previous example (the betrothed virgin who willingly slept with another man), but the principle can be applied to married women, unbetrothed women, men, and children, and anyone else I might have missed.

And in verses 28-29 God reiterates that unmarried (and unbetrothed) couples who sleep together should generally get married, and that the man has to pay the restitution for the bride price to her father.

It is said that an honest man who is in error, when introduced to his error, may remain only one of the two.

That applies to you as well.

Turbo... asserts that Deut 22:28-29 does not speak of the rape of an unbetrothed virgin.

I've done more that assert. I've provided several lines of evidence that support my conclusion.