[Nathanael]

I don't know if this is the right place for this, but anyway...

Tonight, I think I decided that as a Christian I can't believe that human beings, as inferior judges of others faults, are perfect enough beings to decide who lives and dies.

Does a man who brutally rapes then stabs and murders a woman deserve to die? Probably. Are we the ones to decide that his life should end? I don't think so.

Are some people unrepentant? Yes. Will they ever change? Maybe not. Does that impart to us the right to put them to death? I wouldn't do it.

The death sentence is an honorable notion, that we remove dangerous elements of our society by democratic process, but I don't think human beings are honorable enough to make that decision for the most part.

I think I'm just going through some re-examination of my values right now, so I wanted to see what CGR thought about it.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by Nathanael

Tonight, I think I decided that as a Christian I can't believe that human beings, as inferior judges of others faults, are perfect enough beings to decide who lives and dies.

I agree; we do not have the right to judge this. God, however, does. And in His 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.

Originally Posted by Nathanael

Does a man who brutally rapes then stabs and murders a woman deserve to die? Probably. Are we the ones to decide that his life should end? I don't think so.

Again, no we do not have the right to decide. But God does. And God has decided that rapists and murderers should be executed by the civil government (Deut. 22:25; Gen. 9:6; cf. Psalm 2; Romans 13:1-5). To say otherwise is to deny that God has the ultimate authority and is, rather, to assume ultimate authority for yourself (the very thing you wish to avoid by saying you cannot decide whether people ought to die).

[Nathanael]

But how are we to know that the civil government is of God? The government is just more men - and the scripture says to put our faith in God and not man who has a sinful heart. If God has raised up the government and put rulers in power by his ordination, why have kings in the bible turned from him? Why are presidents and world leaders incongruent? Was the bible talking about leaders specifically chosen by God, such as Daniel?

[Travis]

The Bible does not say that all government do what God told them to do. Psalm 2 commands them to do so. And if they did so they would execute those whom God said deserve to be executed. It seems as though you are missing the point: I am arguing that governments ought to obey God and punish whom He said they should punish in the manner in which He said they ought to punish them, not that they actually do so all the time.

[JerryLove]

I agree; we do not have the right to judge this. God, however, does. And in His 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.

God also says that atiests, idoloters, people who speak of false Gods, people who work on the sabbath, and mediums must be put to death.

Certainly you are not a proponent of *some* of the laws in deut on the grounds that "God said so in deut", while not wanting to adhere to others. Should I be put to death as an avowed atheist?

[Nathanael]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

God also says that atiests, idoloters, people who speak of false Gods, people who work on the sabbath, and mediums must be put to death.

Certainly you are not a proponent of *some* of the laws in deut on the grounds that "God said so in deut", while not wanting to adhere to others. Should I be put to death as an avowed atheist?

On that point, the New Testament fufillment of the law teaches repentance and mercy. Who are we to take God's judgement into his hands?

[Travis]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

God also says that atiests, idoloters, people who speak of false Gods, people who work on the sabbath, and mediums must be put to death.

You are incorrect on the point of atheists. The Scriptures command punishment of behavior, not thoughts.

As for the sabbath, we'll not go over that again.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Certainly you are not a proponent of *some* of the laws in deut on the grounds that "God said so in deut", while not wanting to adhere to others.

Good call. If biblical warrant cannot be produced it would be hypocritical and disobedient to God to merely pick and choose from His law.

Originally Posted by Nathanael

Should I be put to death as an avowed atheist?

Yes. Our government should pass laws prohibiting blasphemy and seduction to apostasy and making such a capital crime. Of course, if they did this you would have the freedom to stop blaspheming and arguing against Christianity, and thus your fate would be in your own hands.

__________________

Originally Posted by Nathanael

On that point, the New Testament fufillment of the law teaches repentance and mercy.

The New Testament, while it changed much, and while it a few things with respect to civil punishment, did not change much having to do with the punishments God has given for certain crimes. This is a fairly lengthy argument and debate, but suffice it to say I think it's just too easy to say "the New Testament changed that." It needs to be shown how the New Testament did change it. Personally I think this "reason" is far too often given as a mere pretense for picking and choosing from God's law.

Originally Posted by Nathanael

Who are we to take God's judgement into his hands?

Into our own hands, you mean? Well, we are God's creatures who are under his authority and our civil leaders are commanded to do so (Ps. 2; Rom. 13:1-5).

[Nathanael]

I think we're getting to close to an argument about free will, which is not something I intended.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by Travis

Again, no we do not have the right to decide. But God does. And God has decided that rapists and murderers should be executed by the civil government (Deut. 22:25; Gen. 9:6; cf. Psalm 2; Romans 13:1-5).

God decided rapists should be executed? Some rapists, yes, but your statement lacked the qualification. There is nothing wrong with the act of rape in the Bible. And your failure to note this while asserting otherwise (with an aura of objective authority), as well as your continual failure to objectively show that the Sabbath death penalty law is "ceremonial" and therefore does not apply, proves Nathanael's point: "who are you to take God's judgment into your own hands?"

You can't even show you know what that judgment objectively is.

[Travis]

On what basis do you assert that not all rapists should be executed according to the Bible?

I believe I can ultimately defend my belief that the Sabbath laws are no longer binding. A nice place to start would be Colossians 2:16; thence I would make the argument, with proof, that the nature of the Sabbath between the Old and New Covenant was demonstrably changed from rest to worship as it was changed from the Sabbath to the Lord's Day. But this is another debate altogether, and one I will not enter at this point. Those interested can consult R.J. Rushdoony’s Institutes of Biblical Law, pp. 130-137.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by Travis

On what basis do you assert that not all rapists should be executed according to the Bible?

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.

I believe I can ultimately defend my belief that the Sabbath laws are no longer binding.

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.

A nice place to start would be Colossians 2:16;

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."

thence I would make the argument, with proof, that the nature of the Sabbath between the Old and New Covenant was demonstrably changed from rest to worship as it was changed from the Sabbath to the Lord's Day.

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.

But this is another debate altogether, and one I will not enter at this point. Those interested can consult R.J. Rushdoony’s Institutes of Biblical Law, pp. 130-137.

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?

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by Qingu

[indent]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.


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

In several threads in the past I have seen you say that the passage in Deut. 21:10 is rape. I still can't see how you get this. It says that if the man desires the woman he brings her to his home, allows her a month to mourn her father and mother and then marries her and "goes in to her". Nothing in this passage says he may go in to her until they are married. Are you saying this is rape because you are assuming the woman would not want to marry the man??

[JerryLove]

Are you saying this is rape because you are assuming the woman would not want to marry the man??

I would assume, given that there is no requirement for the woman to have any interest in the man at all, that in at least one instance over the course of history there would be a woman chosen who would not desire to marry the guy who killed her entire family and destroyed her city.

Do you find this assumption unreasonable? If so, how?

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

In several threads in the past I have seen you say that the passage in Deut. 21:10 is rape. I still can't see how you get this.

It's not necessarily rape, but it fully allows for rape. Where is the condition that the woman consents found in this passage?

I imagine that rape was almost always the case, as if I were a woman whose town just got destroyed by invading Israelites who killed all the men in my family I would not want to have sex with one of them.

Nothing in this passage says he may go in to her until they are married.

Where do you see marraige as the condition? I see the exact opposite: if the man is not satisfied he may set the girl free.

Are you saying this is rape because you are assuming the woman would not want to marry the man??

It's possible that some captive slaves might want to marry their captors, yes, but nothing in this passage outlaws instances where they do not. The woman's consent is not necessary, thus this passage condones rape.

Thus (to return to the topic) God does not sentence rapists to death, nor does he punish them at all in certain circumstances.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by Qingu

The Bible, Travis.

Dt. 21:10

Absolutely irrelevant to post-direct revelation times (e.g., now.).

Originally Posted by Qingu

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

Ad verecundiam. The ultimate question is what the original Hebrew says. The people I know and trust who know Hebrew well give a different translation and explain why. But since neither of us know Hebrew, we will not make much headway in this discussion.

Originally Posted by Qingu

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

Ignoring the argument from the New Testament. Fine. I’ll ignore yours from the Old.

Originally Posted by Qingu

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

No, I interpret Paul’s exhortation as “do not enact SABBATH laws,” since that is what he is talking about.

Originally Posted by Qingu

I thought Scripture interprets itself, Travis?

Not in the literal sense that the physical pages can read themselves, use hermeneutics, and make the necessary logical deductions.