[Krysty]

Originally Posted by Qingu

The Bible, Travis.

Dt. 21:10
When you go out to war against your enemies, and the LORD your God hands them over to you and you take them captive, suppose you see among the captives a beautiful woman whom you desire and want to marry, and so you bring her home to your house: she shall shave her head, pare her nails, discard her captive's garb, and shall remain in your house a full month, mourning for her father and mother; after that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. But if you are not satisfied with her, you shall let her go free and not sell her for money. You must not treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.

Dt. 22:28
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Neither rapist is punished by death, in fact the first rapist is not punished with anything.

By the way, I'm aware that you take issue with the translation of "rape" in Dt. 22:28. 12 out of 12 Biblical translations, however, do not.
http://www.christianguitar.org/forum...8&postcount=38

Of course, you're a "Biblicist," so you must have known about these passages ... was your question some stupid attempt at PA apologetics again? Save it for our debate, Travis.


You believe that your belief is defensible? That's a start, Travis, though without any objective proof your argument that "in (God's) word He has made it clear to us who deserves to die at the hands of men by their civil governments and who does not" is not true in the slightest, so thanks for playing.


I actually prefer to start at the actual laws that call for death on working on the Sabbath:

Ex 20:8-11
Observe the Sabbath, because it is holy to you. Anyone who desecrates it must be put to death; whoever does any work on that day must be cut off from his people. For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death. The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant. It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he abstained from work and rested.

Ex. 35:1
Moses assembled the whole Israelite community and said to them, "These are the things the LORD has commanded you to do: For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death. Do not light a fire in any of your dwellings on the Sabbath day.

Although, against all reason I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Let's look at what your verse says:

Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

Let's remember what God said in Ex. 8:10
"It (the Sabbath) will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever."


Then your argument contradicts the Bible as God clearly says in Ex 8:10 that the Sabbath's nature is eternal.

Your argument is also internally inconsistent altogether. Paul is telling you "not to judge" something. Jesus himself says not to judge:

Matthew 7:1
Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

You clearly do not interpret Jesus' exhortation not to judge to mean "do not enact Old Testament laws" as you are a theonomist.

You do interpret Paul's exhortation not to judge to mean "do not enact OT laws."

Thus your entire argument that Sabbath laws have changed not only contradicts what the Bible says, it contradicts your entire theonomy stance and proves you to be a hypocrite.


The usual cop-out.

And in your ideal society where all the OT laws are followed and the death penalty is enacted I am sure you would have a wonderful time trying to convince people to not kill you for working on the Sabbath by waving your hands and appealing to R.J. Rushdoony's book.

I thought Scripture interprets itself, Travis?

Um... you seem to have left this passage of scripture ou completely.
"But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. Do nothing to the girl; she has committed no sin deserving death...for the man found the girl out in the country and though the girl screamed, there was no one to rescue her."
Y'd you leave it out? It seems relevant. Anyway, my take on capital punishment is basically that I would feel safer knowing that certain criminals no longer graced the face of the earth. I would hate to know that they were parolled or had escaped and that there's the possibility of me bouncing into them in Subway. On the topic of rapists...I think death is to easy an escape for them. Those are my sentiments

[Travis]

Originally Posted by Krysty

On the topic of rapists...I think death is to easy an escape for them. Those are my sentiments

I can sometimes feel that way too, but we have to remember that God knows what is best. Also, do not forget what execution is: It is an immediate deliverance of the executed individual into God's high court, wherein they will be judged by their works, lest they be found in Christ, and their sentence will last for all eternity.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by Krysty

Um... you seem to have left this passage of scripture ou completely.
"But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. Do nothing to the girl; she has committed no sin deserving death...for the man found the girl out in the country and though the girl screamed, there was no one to rescue her."

You left out the difference. In this case rape is bad because she is betrothed -- she's another man's property.

The passage I quoted dealt with raping unbetrothed virgins.

Anyway, my take on capital punishment is basically that I would feel safer knowing that certain criminals no longer graced the face of the earth. I would hate to know that they were parolled or had escaped and that there's the possibility of me bouncing into them in Subway. On the topic of rapists...I think death is to easy an escape for them. Those are my sentiments

I think we've made too many mistakes with the death penalty to enforce it ever. Even if you're a Biblicist you at least have to admit your interpretation of scripture is not perfect ... knowing this, calling for the death penalty is, as far as I'm concerned, on the same level as "killing them all and let God sort them out."

I do think inmates with life-sentences should be able to choose to die if they want to. I would rather die than live the rest of my life in prison.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by Qingu

You left out the difference. In this case rape is bad because she is betrothed -- she's another man's property.

It's clearly a logical fallacy to assume that because the rapists of betrothed virgins are said to deserve execution that the rapists of non-betrothed virgins are not. Biblically a non-betrothed and unmarried girl is the "property" (if you want to put it in those terms—I would say "under the authority of") of her father, so saying non-betrothed girls are not "property" in the biblical sense is incorrect anyhow.

Originally Posted by Qingu

The passage I quoted dealt with raping unbetrothed virgins.

Not according to the original Hebrew.

Originally Posted by Qingu

I think we've made too many mistakes with the death penalty to enforce it ever. Even if you're a Biblicist you at least have to admit your interpretation of scripture is not perfect ... knowing this, calling for the death penalty is, as far as I'm concerned, on the same level as "killing them all and let God sort them out."

The teachings of Scripture are rather clear on such matters, being in the form of direct statements such as "whoever does such and such must die."

Originally Posted by Qingu

I do think inmates with life-sentences should be able to choose to die if they want to. I would rather die than live the rest of my life in prison.

Well since you have elsewhere admitted to having no theory of ethics whatsoever, and since social ethics and penal systems have no weight without one, I would question your ability to say that anything "should" be the case in the civil sphere. Whence do you derive such obligation?

[JerryLove]

It's clearly a logical fallacy to assume that because the rapists of betrothed virgins are said to deserve execution that the rapists of non-betrothed virgins are not.

No. It's not "clearly a logical falacy". In point of fact, the Bible addresses raping non-betrothed virgins. There is a monetary fine and you are required to marry victim.

Biblically a non-betrothed and unmarried girl is the "property" (if you want to put it in those terms—I would say "under the authority of") of her father, so saying non-betrothed girls are not "property" in the biblical sense is incorrect anyhow.

A duaghter has different value than a wife. A daughter's value to her father is in her value as a bride. If you break it, you baught it.

Not according to the original Hebrew.

Yes, according to the origin hebrew, and according to the thousands of Biblical scholars and professional hebrew linguists who translated the hebrew and greek into english.

The teachings of Scripture are rather clear on such matters, being in the form of direct statements such as "whoever does such and such must die."

Which avoids qingu's argument that we don't know who.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

No. It's not "clearly a logical falacy".

So, if I were to say: A -> B, this would lead to the conclusion that ~A -> ~B? That is exactly what we have here. We have a statement in Scripture that the raping of a betrothed woman (A) entails capital punishment for her rapist (B). And it has been said that because of this it can be known that ~A, the raping of a non-betrothed woman, entails the lack of an execution for the rapist (~B). But anyone who's had even an introductory course in logic knows very well that A -> B does not lead to the conclusion that ~A -> ~B. Therefore, saying that the fact that Scripture said that a betrothed woman's rapist should be executed shows that the rapist of a non-betrothed woman is without question a logical fallacy.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

In point of fact, the Bible addresses raping non-betrothed virgins. There is a monetary fine and you are required to marry victim.

Again, the original Hebrew states otherwise. Are you going to continue to make ad verecundiam and ad populum fallacies, forcing me to waste my time looking it up to prove you wrong, or are you going to be wise and let it go due to the fact that you don't know anything about the original Hebrew?

[JerryLove]

So, if I were to say: A -> B, this would lead to the conclusion that ~A -> ~B? That is exactly what we have here. We have a statement in Scripture that the raping of a betrothed woman (A) entails capital punishment for her rapist (B). And it has been said that because of this it can be known that ~A, the raping of a non-betrothed woman, entails the lack of an execution for the rapist (~B).

That's not what's been said at all. It's been said that the law fails to require execution of someone who rapes a virgin, therefore the law fails to require execution of someone who rapes a virgin.

The crime in question is adultry, not rape. If the woman was forced, than she is not guilty as she had no choice.

But anyone who's had even an introductory course in logic knows very well that A -> B does not lead to the conclusion that ~A -> ~B. Therefore, saying that the fact that Scripture said that a betrothed woman's rapist should be executed shows that the rapist of a non-betrothed woman is without question a logical fallacy.

The Bible says that a man who rapes a virgin is to marry her and pay her dad therefore a man who rapes a virgin is to marry her and pay her dad. A=A.

A man who has sex with a married or betrothed woman is executed for adultry. If the woman was consenting, she is executed as well; if she was not, she is not. You know the scripture for all three of these.

Again, the original Hebrew states otherwise. Are you going to continue to make ad verecundiam and ad populum fallacies, forcing me to waste my time looking it up to prove you wrong, or are you going to be wise and let it go due to the fact that you don't know anything about the original Hebrew?

What do you know about the original Hebrew? In the end, the best you will manage is an appeal to texts on what the words mean that were written by the same scholars who translated the Bibles in the first place.

Most of the Biblical scolars seem to have been certain enough to translate it as "rape". Those who did not, go for phrases like "seized".

Of course, we don't have to stick on a single word:

"If there is a young woman who is a virgin engaged to a man, and [another] man encounters her in the city and has sex with her, 24 you must take the two of them out to the gate of that city and stone them to death-the young woman because she did not cry out in the city and the man because he has violated his neighbor's fiancée."

OK. Here we have two people caught in what is presumed consentual sex. They are both killed (her because she consented)

But if the man encounters the engaged woman in the open country, and he seizes and rapes her, only the man who raped her must die. Do nothing to the young woman, because she is not guilty of an offense deserving death. This case is just like one in which a man attacks his neighbor and murders him. When he found her in the field, the engaged woman cried out, but there was no one to rescue her.

There is your rape with death. How do we know if the death is for the rape or the sex? Check the next part of the same passage.

If a man encounters a young woman, a virgin who is not engaged, takes hold of her and rapes her, and they are discovered, the man who raped her must give the young woman's father 50 silver [shekels], and she must become his wife because he violated her.

The Bible clearly gives three examples here. Consentual married, non-consentual married, non-consentual virgin. Rape is not punished... sex is.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by Travis

So, if I were to say: A -> B, this would lead to the conclusion that ~A -> ~B? That is exactly what we have here. We have a statement in Scripture that the raping of a betrothed woman (A) entails capital punishment for her rapist (B). And it has been said that because of this it can be known that ~A, the raping of a non-betrothed woman, entails the lack of an execution for the rapist (~B). But anyone who's had even an introductory course in logic knows very well that A -> B does not lead to the conclusion that ~A -> ~B. Therefore, saying that the fact that Scripture said that a betrothed woman's rapist should be executed shows that the rapist of a non-betrothed woman is without question a logical fallacy.

A: Man rapes betrothed girl, man dies.
B: Man rapes unbetrothed girl, man marries her.

I'm failing to see how you are getting C, rape is punishable by death in all circumstances. A lays out specific circumstances for death (if the girl is betrothed). B explicitly says that the rapist will not die.

You are violating the logical law of non-contradiction.

Again, the original Hebrew states otherwise. Are you going to continue to make ad verecundiam and ad populum fallacies, forcing me to waste my time looking it up to prove you wrong, or are you going to be wise and let it go due to the fact that you don't know anything about the original Hebrew?

Don't worry, I wasted my time and looked it up.

Taphas
1) to catch, handle, lay hold, take hold of, seize, wield

a) (Qal)

1) to lay hold of, seize, arrest, catch

2) to grasp (in order to) wield, wield, use skilfully

b) (Niphal) to be seized, be arrested, be caught, be taken, captured

c) (Piel) to catch, grasp (with the hands)
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_d...4894-9509.html

In some cases this word is used to denote seizing someone personally, as in Dt 21:19, where a disobedient son's parents are commanded to "take" him and drag him to the gates of the city and stone him. In other cases it refers to cities being "taken" under seige.

Tell us, Travis -- how on earth do you interpret this verse to mean consentual sex? "Raping" someone means having sex with them without their consent. "Seizing a girl and having sex with her" is rape. Is there a philological distinction you are attempting to make with the original Hebrew? I'm missing it.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by Travis

Well since you have elsewhere admitted to having no theory of ethics whatsoever, and since social ethics and penal systems have no weight without one, I would question your ability to say that anything "should" be the case in the civil sphere. Whence do you derive such obligation?

The same place you derive your belief in Yahweh -- oneself.

It's also the same place where you have apparently derived your non-Biblical stance that rape is bad in and of itself.

Of course, I realize that you put as much weight on my personal moral values as I put weight on your interpretations of what you think the Bible's moral values are. What exactly is your point? That you don't have to listen to me when I say "I think rape is bad and euthanasia is good"? Did I ever claim you did?

Nobody has to agree with or obey any moral exhortation. The real question is what kind of person you are if you do think rape is okay, Travis, like the Bible says.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by Qingu

Of course, I realize that you put as much weight on my personal moral values as I put weight on your interpretations of what you think the Bible's moral values are. What exactly is your point? That you don't have to listen to me when I say "I think rape is bad and euthanasia is good"? Did I ever claim you did?

Well the use of the word "should" certainly implies obligation, but I apologize if I misunderstood you or attributed to you something you did not mean.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Nobody has to agree with or obey any moral exhortation. The real question is what kind of person you are if you do think rape is okay, Travis, like the Bible says.

If it can be proved that the Bible teaches that non-betrothed women should marry their rapists, that would be my position. What kind of person would that make me? A Christian. If the Bible truly taught it and I were sure of that, I would not be embarrassed of it in the slightest. At this point however, the other interpretation seems much more likely. (And I'll get back to you on the interpretation of Deut. 22:28 later today.)

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by Travis

If it can be proved that the Bible teaches that non-betrothed women should marry their rapists, that would be my position. What kind of person would that make me? A Christian. If the Bible truly taught it and I were sure of that, I would not be embarrassed of it in the slightest. At this point however, the other interpretation seems much more likely. (And I'll get back to you on the interpretation of Deut. 22:28 later today.)

Travis, can I ask you an honest question? I have it on good authority from a mutuathat you are not, in fact, a psychopath and would never actually (for example) stone me to death for blasphemy.

Do you actually expect anyone to believe that you wouldn't be "embarassed in the slightest" if by Biblical mandate you were forced to accept the position that rape is okay?

If your actual personality were as crazy as your internet persona suggests, maybe this would be possible. From what I've heard, though, it's not--you're supposedly a really a nice guy. And I think your hesitance to embrace this issue shows that you would indeed be embarassed by accepting the Biblical stance.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by Qingu

Travis, can I ask you an honest question? I have it on good authority from a mutuathat you are not, in fact, a psychopath and would never actually (for example) stone me to death for blasphemy.

Well, she told you I would never kill anyone. Now, in most cases she is absolutely correct. I don't believe I would kill someone out of anger or vengeance. It's difficult for me to even imagine physically fighting someone for such reasons. God is against such violence. But I do believe that I would kill someone if, for instance, they broke into my house at night, or if they posed a serious threat to myself or a family member. I would think that any man would (or at least should) be able to say as much. As for capital punishment, first we have to remember that laws would need to be changed before biblical punishment would ever come into the picture. Only the government has the right to mete out vengeance, and I am not the government.

Now, I think what you are wanting to know is if these laws were enacted, would I actually stone someone to death? I would not feel like doing it, nor would I be happy about it; in fact I would probably be quite sad that such had to happen. But before God, I honestly believe that if I were a witness to a capital crime in a theonomic society, if it were the law, I would absolutely follow God's law and participate in a biblical execution. I know that sounds absolutely crazy to you, given our disagreement on such core issues, but this I truly believe.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Do you actually expect anyone to believe that you wouldn't be "embarassed in the slightest" if by Biblical mandate you were forced to accept the position that rape is okay?

Well I would hope that they would believe that I would obey the Bible no matter what it said. If there are doubts that I would do so, then perhaps I have failed to live in such a way that my dedication to God would be above question, and I would be ashamed of that.

Originally Posted by Qingu

If your actual personality were as crazy as your internet persona suggests, maybe this would be possible. From what I've heard, though, it's not--you're supposedly a really a nice guy.

Well of course I would say that being nice and submitting to God in the area of socio-political ethics are two things which are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary, they go hand in hand: the reason for doing both is because God, as Lord, requires both. God does command kindness, generosity, love, etc., and if I only paid attention to His commands of capital punishment while ignoring those I wouldn't be much of a Christian.

As a Christian I want to live according to God's directions in every area of live. Believing that certain actions merit death in the civil sphere certainly doesn't mean that Christians are no longer to be loving, kind, self-sacrificial individuals.

Originally Posted by Qingu

And I think your hesitance to embrace this issue shows that you would indeed be embarassed by accepting the Biblical stance.

I really believe there is a biblical case to be made for my interpretation. I used to believe the view for which you are arguing, and while I might not have "felt" great about it, as a Christian one must realize that God's Word takes priority over what we think and feel.

[Grasshopper359]

I've gone both ways on this debate, and eventually settled on the position that it's a question that should be settled by democratic means. In Canada, by such means, capital punishment was abolished in 1976, as most Western nations have done (Britain in 1969, France in 1981, Switzerland in 1982, etc...), and if those same means brought about its return, then the people have spoken. If I were to support it (hypothetically speaking), I would not do so based on Scripture, it would be on the grounds that the majority of Canadians (hypothetically speaking) felt that certain crimes warranted the death of those found guilty. Yes, I prefer to live under a secular government, rather than to have somebody else's interpretation of Scripture imposed on me as law, in the same measure that I'm sure others would not want me to impose mine.