$1M Alligator Shoes Please
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
- Status
Deu 22:23,24 - "If a girl who is a virgin is engaged to a husband, and a man finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them with stones that they die; the girl because she did not cry out in the city, and the man because he has humbled his neighbor's wife. So you shall put away evil from among you."
Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man also lies with mankind, as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be on them."
Flipper
New member
Jefferson:
If you hated your spouse that much that you'd be willing to see them dead (even if they were unfaithful), you shouldn't be married to that person anyway.
I suppose that in Jeffersontopia, divorce would be practically impossible too. So imagine a home where things have broken down to the extent that both sides would be willing to turn the other over to the authorities if either were caught in flagrante delicto.
Neither side dares take the risk (although if one does, in most cases I suspect it would be the man). However, neither side can get divorced even though they hate the sight of each other.
You would prefer this? You would prefer to yoke them together for the rest of their lives? You think that's the environment in which children should be raised?
No, that sounds like a great plan.
If you hated your spouse that much that you'd be willing to see them dead (even if they were unfaithful), you shouldn't be married to that person anyway.
I suppose that in Jeffersontopia, divorce would be practically impossible too. So imagine a home where things have broken down to the extent that both sides would be willing to turn the other over to the authorities if either were caught in flagrante delicto.
Neither side dares take the risk (although if one does, in most cases I suspect it would be the man). However, neither side can get divorced even though they hate the sight of each other.
You would prefer this? You would prefer to yoke them together for the rest of their lives? You think that's the environment in which children should be raised?
No, that sounds like a great plan.
Flipper
New member
Jefferson:
And another thing
Okay, so in Jeffersontopia, women with children should be discouraged from working, right? I mean, you're against daycares and state schools and that sort of thing. So if a woman catches her man making time with some floozie and publicly condemns him, she's effectively cut off her entire income supply potentially condemns herself and her children to a life of penury.
Even if there are daycares in Jeffersontopia, you've effectively created a single-parent family. I shouldn't like to be a single parent - it would be utterly exhausting to do even a halfway decent job at it.
So wouldn't you agree that there's actually a major disincentive for everyone - but most of all for women - to report adultery? What would you propose to do about caring for families where the major breadwinner has just been stoned to death?
I rarely get answers when I ask difficult questions about the specific mechanics of some Christian theocracy, so I'm all ears.
And another thing
Okay, so in Jeffersontopia, women with children should be discouraged from working, right? I mean, you're against daycares and state schools and that sort of thing. So if a woman catches her man making time with some floozie and publicly condemns him, she's effectively cut off her entire income supply potentially condemns herself and her children to a life of penury.
Even if there are daycares in Jeffersontopia, you've effectively created a single-parent family. I shouldn't like to be a single parent - it would be utterly exhausting to do even a halfway decent job at it.
So wouldn't you agree that there's actually a major disincentive for everyone - but most of all for women - to report adultery? What would you propose to do about caring for families where the major breadwinner has just been stoned to death?
I rarely get answers when I ask difficult questions about the specific mechanics of some Christian theocracy, so I'm all ears.
"I rarely get answers when I ask difficult questions about the specific mechanics of some Christian theocracy, so I'm all ears."
Same here.
Christian Reconstructionists, for an example, for all their advocacy of theonomy, are somewhat vague when it gets to the nitty-gritty.
Same here.
Christian Reconstructionists, for an example, for all their advocacy of theonomy, are somewhat vague when it gets to the nitty-gritty.
Flipper:
Regarding the possibility of a woman becoming destitute if her husband is put to death for adultery:
There is a strong principle in the Bible for victim's rights. The victim of a crime is the one who decides whether the allowed penalty will be enforced or not. The death penalty for adultery, for example, would not be automatic.
When the State is the prosecuting agent of Biblical laws that have been violated where a pleonasm is in the verse (eg. "dying he shall surely die"), the State is required to enforce the death penalty upon conviction with no judicial discretion in imposing sanctions. There is a reason why some penalties have pleonasms in the verse and others do not. The differences in the verses exist to point out differences in the surety of punishments for different crimes.
When the victim is the prosecuting agent, victims rights prevail. For example, the Bible commands the death penalty for adultery. However, an innocent husband in a particular case may decide that his preschool children need their mother (slut though she may be) much more than he needs justice. The father's decision to allow the slut to live would stand.
By the same token, considering the example you gave, if a woman feels she and her children need the financial support of her unfaithful spouse more than she needs justice, then she will have the right to allow him to live.
A specific example from the Bible is Joseph's refusal to prosecute Mary when he found out she was pregnant before they were married. The Bible calls Joseph a "just" man. (Matthew 1:19 - "But Joseph, her husband to be, being JUST, and not willing to make her a public example, he purposed to put her away secretly.")
How could the Bible possibly call Joseph "just" in the very same verse where he apparently sinned against a Biblical command that calls for the execution of an adulteress?
The answer is that Joseph had the Biblical freedom to forgive Mary and spare her any punishment.
Regarding the possibility of a woman becoming destitute if her husband is put to death for adultery:
There is a strong principle in the Bible for victim's rights. The victim of a crime is the one who decides whether the allowed penalty will be enforced or not. The death penalty for adultery, for example, would not be automatic.
When the State is the prosecuting agent of Biblical laws that have been violated where a pleonasm is in the verse (eg. "dying he shall surely die"), the State is required to enforce the death penalty upon conviction with no judicial discretion in imposing sanctions. There is a reason why some penalties have pleonasms in the verse and others do not. The differences in the verses exist to point out differences in the surety of punishments for different crimes.
When the victim is the prosecuting agent, victims rights prevail. For example, the Bible commands the death penalty for adultery. However, an innocent husband in a particular case may decide that his preschool children need their mother (slut though she may be) much more than he needs justice. The father's decision to allow the slut to live would stand.
By the same token, considering the example you gave, if a woman feels she and her children need the financial support of her unfaithful spouse more than she needs justice, then she will have the right to allow him to live.
A specific example from the Bible is Joseph's refusal to prosecute Mary when he found out she was pregnant before they were married. The Bible calls Joseph a "just" man. (Matthew 1:19 - "But Joseph, her husband to be, being JUST, and not willing to make her a public example, he purposed to put her away secretly.")
How could the Bible possibly call Joseph "just" in the very same verse where he apparently sinned against a Biblical command that calls for the execution of an adulteress?
The answer is that Joseph had the Biblical freedom to forgive Mary and spare her any punishment.
"By the same token, considering the example you gave, if a woman feels she and her children need the financial support of her unfaithful spouse more than she needs justice, then she will have the right to allow him to live."
So a woman living with an abusive husband is left with no recourse but to put up and shut up? The other option being having the lout bludgeoned to death in public and leaving her destitute.
Something's wrong with this picture.
So a woman living with an abusive husband is left with no recourse but to put up and shut up? The other option being having the lout bludgeoned to death in public and leaving her destitute.
Something's wrong with this picture.
- Status