RND wrote:
FYI Steve, "Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I [am] the LORD your God." - Lev 24:22
The mosaic law governed only Israel. As Suzana pointed out, Gentiles were only required to keep the laws of Moses when they were encompassed within Israel's jurisdiction. The foreign slaves purchased by the Jews thereafter became a part of Israel by circumcision (Gen.17:13), thus assuming the obligation to keep all of Israel's laws (see Gal.5:3). The verses you cited indicate that a certain theocratic authority governed the whole land of Israel, and the society that resided within it. A stranger who came to settle in the land had to abide by the laws of the land, keeping the sabbath, the annual feasts, and avoiding blasphemy. This is just as I would have to abide by Mexican national laws, if I were to go and live there. However, the Mexicans do not require that all people everywhere live by the same laws as those in their country must observe. So also, God never expected the Philistines to be circumcised, nor the Babylonians to observe the sabbath. The mosaic law governed all of Israel, which included all within Israel's boundaries.
Homer wrote:
While the evangelical church is opposed to the secular society on the homosexual agenda, the church seems to not be any different than those outside of it regarding divorce.
I share your frustration completely.
Paidion wrote:
"Rather they indicate punishment and/or revenge, sometimes for no offence at all --- merely SUSPECTED offence."
This is not true. The law forbade that anyone be killed on mere suspicion. Except in the case where God Himself exposes the sinner—e.g., Achan (Josh.7) and the hypothetical woman who undergoes the ordeal of jealousy (Num.5:11-31), to which Paidion so often refers—the law required that none be punished upon anything less than the witness of two or more witnesses. Thus no one could ever be punished merely on suspicion.
I really wish, Paidion, that you would stop raising the red herring of drinking water with dust in it somehow naturally causing the symptoms of a swollen belly and a rotten thigh. There is absolutely no argument on your side of this particular issue. The ordeal of jealousy is clearly indicated to be a supernatural demonstration of guilt, when that cannot be verified by witnesses. Numbers 5:21 specifically says it is the Lord who causes the symptoms—though only if the party is guilty. In contrast to the scripture, you have claimed that God had nothing to do with this, that Moses made up this legislation (even though it begins with "the Lord spoke to Moses..."), and have claimed that there was some naturally-occurring substance in the dirt on the tabernacle floor, which, when added to water and ingested, will cause the outbreak of such the symptoms as are guaranteed in the ordeal.
I asked you in another post if you were aware of any virus or bacterium commonly occurring in Sinaitic desert soil, which causes these particular symptoms (swollen belly and rotting thigh). You have neglected to answer this matter though it is absolutely crucial to your point. Even if such a contaminant does exist (which I seriously doubt), how could Moses guarantee that this unusual factor would regularly be found on the floor of the tabernacle—the cleanest ground in the encampment, since no one could walk on it unless they first washed their feet at the laver? Since normal children are careless about eating with dirty hands, and even are known, not infrequently, to eat dirt, I wonder that swollen bellies and rotting thighs are not commonly seen among them. If there was something in the dirt that caused these symptoms, you have avoided identifying this in response to my challenges to you, on a previous thread, and you have not explained why it would only happen when the woman was guilty. A woman who had not committed adultery would be unaffected by the concoction. I really want you to provide some rational answers to these reasonable questions. If you continue to repeat this libel against God's law, beyond this point, without providing evidence and answers to these challenges, your honesty and submission to the truth of scripture will be greatly compromised in the eyes of those at this forum.
Paidion wrote:
"If she has committed adultery and if she repents, I must forgive her."
Of course you must! And you must forgive every other person their offenses against you, as well. That is clearly what Jesus taught. But that is irrelevant to the question raised in this thread. We are here talking about just and unjust civil penalties. If a man's wife commits adultery, he is very much at liberty to forgive her. However, forgiveness itself acknowledges there is guilt. We do not forgive innocent people. Forgiveness is an acknowledgment that guilt has been incurred and that the injured party is willing to forego the deserved retribution and penalties. What we are discussing here is what those penalties are—the ones from which the man is absolving his adulterous wife. When the crime is also a civil crime, however, though the injured party may forgive, the state has the duty to impose the just penalty. Exactly what penalties should justly be applied to which crimes is the specific question at issue here—not whether Christians should forgive those who injure them.
Paidion wrote:
I am quite certain that Paul had none of these practices in mind when he wrote that the commandments of the law are "holy, righteous, and good."
We all know that being quite certain of a thing does not guarantee that it is correct. In fact, Paul's statement was quite in keeping with his general belief that the law's listing of certain crimes as being "deserving of death" was a demonstration of the "righteous judgment of God" (Rom.1:32). These "righteous judgments" are found nowhere other than in the very laws that you wish to criticize. Paul and you simply disagree. I will continue to side with the principal spokesman that Christ authorized to teach the Gentile churches. I am not sure who you may be siding with in this rejection of the justice of God's laws.
