Bob debates a Libertarian

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by Apollo
It’s a simple question: Under biblical law, what “crime” has an unmarried man and an unmarried non-virgin, emancipated woman committed by physically consummating their relationship?

It would be considered to be the crime of prostitution for the following reason. If a seducer had not been required to pay the girl's father the bride price, the reason would be that the father recognized his daughter was a whore, and also that he had been implicitly or even explicitly consenting to this. If her father knew that she was no longer a virgin, and still consented to her repeated contacts, he was thereby indentifying his own household as a house of prostitution. In Biblical societies, a prostitute was not simply a woman who charged money for sexual favors but rather anyone who experienced sex outside of marriage.

What was the specific penalty for prostitution? The Bible doesn't say. We know that it was not the death penalty because if it was the death penalty, there would have been no need for a law prohibiting the high priest from marrying a prostitute (Leviticus 21:14). The Bible does not provide every single law for every possible violation people could commit. If it did, it would take a library. Instead, the Bible gives us laws for several different crimes in various catagories and then God expects us to use the brain He gave us to apply those Biblical principles to similar offenses.

To conclude that since the Bible says nothing about shooting heroin or snorting cocaine that therefore it should be legal is a juvenile delinquent's hermaneutic. So-called "victimless crimes" (like prostitution or fornication between 2 unmarried adults) are not victimless. If a society does not at least fine such behavior and stigmatize it, then such behavior will become rampant (as we have seen in the U.S.) and such rampant behavior causes epidemics of sexually transmitted diseases, rising health care costs, lost wages, broken families, etc., etc., etc., which society as a whole is victimized by and whose children have to grow up in such a society. Therefore, these so-called "victimless crimes" should at least have fines attached to them.

 

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by elected4ever

Bob Enyart is an idiot!

Then call him on his show and debate him.

 

[Turbo]

Jefferson,

Who should receive the fines?

 

[Granite]

"In Biblical societies, a prostitute was not simply a woman who charged money for sexual favors but rather anyone who experienced sex outside of marriage."

Where is this written?

"If a seducer had not been required to pay the girl's father the bride price, the reason would be that the father recognized his daughter was a whore, and also that he had been implicitly or even explicitly consenting to this. If her father knew that she was no longer a virgin, and still consented to her repeated contacts, he was thereby indentifying his own household as a house of prostitution."

This argument only works, if at all, assuming an act of seduction had taken place. Apollo's talking about consensual sex between grown adults.

 

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by Turbo

Jefferson,

Who should receive the fines?

Good point. Conflict of interest and all that. Certainly the government should not receive the fines.

 

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by granite1010

"In Biblical societies, a prostitute was not simply a woman who charged money for sexual favors but rather anyone who experienced sex outside of marriage."

Where is this written?

In Biblical history textbooks all over the place. I thought it was common knowledge. Apparently not.

"If a seducer had not been required to pay the girl's father the bride price, the reason would be that the father recognized his daughter was a whore, and also that he had been implicitly or even explicitly consenting to this. If her father knew that she was no longer a virgin, and still consented to her repeated contacts, he was thereby indentifying his own household as a house of prostitution."

This argument only works, if at all, assuming an act of seduction had taken place. Apollo's talking about consensual sex between grown adults.

The "seducer" does not have a gun pointed at the woman's head. Therefore it's consentual on her part.

 

[Granite]

"In Biblical history textbooks all over the place. I thought it was common knowledge. Apparently not."

Then put your money where your mouth is and cite one, defining a prostitute as anyone who has sex outside of marriage, not just for money. And the fact that you turn to textbooks as opposed to the Bible itself is very interesting.

"The 'seducer' does not have a gun pointed at the woman's head. Therefore it's consentual on her part."

This is my point exactly. This is consensual sex and the scriptures you cite do not do anything but penalize the seducer of a virgin. Also you seem to be implying that men are the only ones capable of seduction out there.

So far the only scripture you've chosen to use condemns sex with an umarried virgin. Nothing in the Bible, that I can think of--nothing Levitical--condemns two grown adults, outside the authority of their parents, having sex. Maybe I'm
missing something, but the choices you've made don't hold water for very long. They apply in situations where the couple are still under the authority of
their folks (the woman, anyway). Outside that situation, in Apollo's scenario, where is scripture condemning an umarried adult couple having sex?

 

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by granite1010

"In Biblical history textbooks all over the place. I thought it was common knowledge. Apparently not."

Then put your money where your mouth is and cite one, defining a prostitute as anyone who has sex outside of marriage, not just for money.

Look it up for yourself. I'm not going to do your leg work for you.

And the fact that you turn to textbooks as opposed to the Bible itself is very interesting.

Point being? Part of Biblical interpretation is understanding the culture in which the words were spoken. 1,000 years from now someone is going to come across a letter some teenager wrote to her friend in which she describes a new song as "bad." They're going to think she didn't like the song when in fact she did. You have to understand the culture to properly understand the words, hence history books on the culture of Biblical societies are very beneficial.

"The 'seducer' does not have a gun pointed at the woman's head. Therefore it's consentual on her part."

This is my point exactly. This is consensual sex and the scriptures you cite do not do anything but penalize the seducer of a virgin. Also you seem to be implying that men are the only ones capable of seduction out there.

No, that's why I put the word "seducer" in quotes. Since she's complicitous, there is really no so-called "seduction" going on. She's an adult, so is he, therefore they are both responsible for the consequences of their actions.

So far the only scripture you've chosen to use condemns sex with an umarried virgin. Nothing in the Bible, that I can think of--nothing Levitical--condemns two grown adults, outside the authority of their parents, having sex. Maybe I'm
missing something, but the choices you've made don't hold water for very long. They apply in situations where the couple are still under the authority of their folks (the woman, anyway). Outside that situation, in Apollo's scenario, where is scripture condemning an umarried adult couple having sex?

As I've previously stated: The Bible does not provide every single law for every possible violation people could commit. If it did, it would take a library. Instead, the Bible gives us laws for several different crimes in various catagories and then God expects us to use the brain He gave us to apply those Biblical principles to similar offenses.

To conclude that since the Bible says nothing about shooting heroin or snorting cocaine that therefore it should be legal is a juvenile delinquent's hermaneutic. So-called "victimless crimes" (like prostitution or fornication between 2 unmarried adults) are not victimless. If a society does not at least fine such behavior and stigmatize it, then such behavior will become rampant (as we have seen in the U.S.) and such rampant behavior causes epidemics of sexually transmitted diseases, rising health care costs, lost wages, broken families, etc., etc., etc., which society as a whole is victimized by and whose children have to grow up in such a society. Therefore, these so-called "victimless crimes" should at least have fines attached to them.

 

[Granite]

"Look it up for yourself. I'm not going to do your leg work for you."

Jefferson, this is either laziness on your part or an admission that you may be wrong on this point; either way, this doesn't seem to be common knowledge, and you should be willing to back up your claims.

"To conclude that since the Bible says nothing about shooting heroin or snorting cocaine that therefore it should be legal is a juvenile delinquent's hermaneutic."

But scripture does warn us against drunkenness, carousing, and causing physical harm to ourselves and others. So this is really a straw man. My point is this: the scriptures you've chosen to cite do not specifically condemn the hypothetical scenario Apollo's outlined. You're using your brain and so am I--so's Apollo--and we're coming to different conclusions. It just so happens that Enyart and others would legislate one particular kind of morality if they were in power, and others look at the very same text you're citing and see something completely different. Theonomists like to think a theocracy is cut and dry, but it's really not.

 

[Apollo]

Let’s stick to Gary Nolan’s scenario. Bob and Gary were not talking about the seduction of a minor dependent virgin, they were talking about sex between consenting adults. This may come as a surprise, but speaking as a father, you don’t have to be a Jew or a Christian to know that daughters have fathers, and sisters have brothers, and that “the law” is the least of the seducer’s worries.

You are mixing spheres of law and government. Bride-price laws are “family” matters, not “civil” violations. Civil courts cannot “force” the father to receive a bride-price, nor force the daughter to marry (or not marry) her seducer. The courts can “support” the father’s demand for a bride price (in small claims court, or family court), but the courts cannot intrude and dictate terms without the father’s permission. No “civil” law has been broken. There is no law, for example, forbidding marriage without a dowry. Requiring a dowry is the father’s choice, not the local sheriff, or the bishop’s.

You can broaden the discussion and extrapolate upon the virgin bride laws, but, as you say, the Bible provides no criminal penalty for fornication, OR prostitution, at least in cases not involving uncle Schlomo’s minor dependent virgin daughter. Bob didn’t qualify his argument by saying the seduction of under-aged “virgins” was criminal; he said anyone having sex without a license should be arrested.

You say seducers should be “fined.” Less severe, but still without justification under biblical law. Biblical law is excruciatingly specific. Maladministration of justice is a serious offense. For good reason, biblical law is weighted in favor of the accused. Evidence must be presented. Testimony given. Witnesses cross-examined. Eventually, the judge will ask, what law has been broken?

You cite the virgin bride-price laws. The judge asks the female accused to state her age and marital status. Thirty, single. Does she live with her father? No. Pardon the court for having to ask, but were you a virgin prior to having sex with Mr. Jones? No. Is your father demanding a bride-price? No. The judge gives the prosecution a puzzled look. No crime, no penalty.

You may disapprove personally, on principle, of “legal” sex taking place between consenting unmarried adults, but the point is that God did not legislate against fornication. Broadening the scope of the “virgin bride” laws to include fornication is not “using our brains,” it is a humanistic attempt to justify vigilante justice. The intent of biblical law is not only to punish the law breaker, but to protect the law keeper from false accusations and an overzealous prosecution. When we keep the law, we are literally “above” the law. The vaguer the law, the less secure we become. If a law protecting virgins can be used to prosecute consensual sex between non-virgin adults, the law is not a law, but a “guideline” inviting the kinds of abuse Bob is promoting. Should there be a law against “virgins” holding hands with would-be suitors after dark? In Bob’s America, maybe it should be.

Granite’s point stands: If you cannot cite the law, you have no case.

 

[Jefferson]

Apollo and granite:

We agree on one thing. Christians don't all come to the same conclusions regarding how the Bible should be applied in society. For example, I've debated Enyart on his show regarding the method the state should use with the death penalty (See the 12/3/02 show in the archives. The show is entitled, "Jo Scott's not in jail"). Bob thinks the government is free to use a variety of methods. For example, using the "eye for an eye" approach, if a man murdered someone by throwing them off a cliff then Bob thinks it would be okay for the government to execute that murderer by throwing him off a cliff. I disagree. I think the only method of execution the Bible allows is public stoning based on Leviticus.

But the important thing is that both of us are using the Bible as our starting point. We will not always come to the same conclusions because, as I've previously pointed out, the Bible is not a law library of hundreds of thousands of case laws. Therefore you are agreeing with me when you say theocracy is not cut and dry. I don't know of any theonomist who thinks it is. There is plenty of disagreement among theonomists on various details of how the Law would be applied in the 21st century. A potential law against consenting adults who fornicate is just one of many. But just because there will be disagreements because the Bible is not "cut and dried" on every single possible scenario of crime, that does not mean we are going to abandon the Bible and just let all the God haters be the only one's who make the laws which will govern our lives. That's not going to happen.

 

[Granite]

"But just because there will be disagreements because the Bible is not 'cut and dried' on every single possible scenario of crime, that does not mean we are going to abandon the Bible and just let all the God haters be the only one's who make the laws which will govern our lives. That's not going to happen."

This isn't what I'm suggesting. But before we advocate fining an umarried couple for sleeping together, maybe we should have our ducks in a row, that's all.

The burden is on theonomists to lay out the case laws, work out their application in the 21st century, and hammer out what to do in Scenario A and Scenario B. Theonomists stick their necks out when they advocate application of Levitical law. They better be prepared to step up, explain themselves, and have scenarios like Apollo's thrown their way: if theonomists squirm and use the Not Every Single Case Is Going To Be in There defense, they're giving their opponents ammunition. In a theocracy a defense attorney could dissect Levitical case laws, as Apollo did, and get a hung jury or a mis-trial. Why? Because the law is too vague and the application and interpretation rests on the judge or interpreter.

That's exactly the problem we're faced with today, only it's caused by secularist judges. Judges wrapped in the Bible, making it up as they go, are even worse.

 

[Apollo]

We agree on one thing. Christians don't all come to the same conclusions regarding how the Bible should be applied in society.

Yet, Christians like Bob cannot resist the temptation to lobby government and agitate to pass laws criminalizing “immoral” behavior. Would YOU sign a petition calling for the arrest of unmarried adults committing sex without a license?

This is America, not ancient Israel, not Jerusalem in the days of Jesus, or a Bible Land theme park. Jesus and Christianity are nowhere mentioned in the Constitution. Religious test oaths are specifically forbidden. Why. Because experience and history taught the Founders to fear two things: Political tyranny, and organized religion. When the two are combined, the end is near. The genius of the Constitution is its anticipation of the two great tyrannies of history: Politics and religion. By federalizing the “crime” of fornication, Bob represents the worst of both worlds.

For example, I've debated Enyart on his show regarding the method the state should use with the death penalty…

There you have it. Two allegedly sane, spirit-filled followers of Jesus, representing not one, but two of the world’s great religions (Christianity and Judaism, duh!), arguing over whether to stone a man to death or throw him off a cliff.

Is this a great country, or what?

But the important thing is that both of us are using the Bible as our starting point.

True. You are prosecuting the law; I am defending the accused. The accusation is fornication. If there is no “virgin” involved, how can you cite the bride-price law? Own up to losing that point, or come up with something better. Wouldn’t hurt to admit Bob’s a nut.

We will not always come to the same conclusions because, as I've previously pointed out, the Bible is not a law library of hundreds of thousands of case laws.

Whatta ya need, Jeff, ANOTHER 2,000 years to figure it out? What conclusions? TOL is a monkey-house of theology. THIS is “Christianity.” You couldn’t get everyone who professes to be a Christian in here to sit down to a communion meal together, no less agree with “theonomy.” Theonomists can’t even agree on what and how and when Old Testament sanctions apply.

No. The Bible is not a law library with hundreds of thousands of case laws. But it will be if Bob has anything to say about it.

Therefore you are agreeing with me when you say theocracy is not cut and dry.

Not exactly. I’m saying Bob is a menace to society.

But just because there will be disagreements because the Bible is not "cut and dried" on every single possible scenario of crime, that does not mean we are going to abandon the Bible and just let all the God haters be the only one's who make the laws which will govern our lives. That's not going to happen.

If you’re saying that it’s the job of the federal government’ to enforce ancient Hebrew social purity laws, I’d say you’re living in the wrong country.

Thanks for engaging.

 

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by granite1010
This isn't what I'm suggesting. But before we advocate fining an umarried couple for sleeping together, maybe we should have our ducks in a row, that's all.

If by "having all our ducks in a row" you mean no dissagreements then you are in favor of throwing out the U.S. Constitution and the bill of rights because there is a ton of disagreement in this country over how to interpret those documents.

The burden is on theonomists to lay out the case laws, work out their application in the 21st century, and hammer out what to do in Scenario A and Scenario B. Theonomists stick their necks out when they advocate application of Levitical law. They better be prepared to step up, explain themselves, and have scenarios like Apollo's thrown their way: if theonomists squirm and use the Not Every Single Case Is Going To Be in There defense, they're giving their opponents ammunition. In a theocracy a defense attorney could dissect Levitical case laws, as Apollo did, and get a hung jury or a mis-trial. Why? Because the law is too vague and the application and interpretation rests on the judge or interpreter.

Theonomists have volumes of material on how Biblical Law would be applied in the 20th century. See http://www.freebooks.com/sidefrm2.htm

That's exactly the problem we're faced with today, only it's caused by secularist judges. Judges wrapped in the Bible, making it up as they go, are even worse.

Hardly. What we have today is judges who view the constitution as a "living document" which is code for "it means whatever I want it to mean."

 

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by Apollo

Yet, Christians like Bob cannot resist the temptation to lobby government and agitate to pass laws criminalizing “immoral” behavior. Would YOU sign a petition calling for the arrest of unmarried adults committing sex without a license?

Yes. Do you think it's a good idea to teach our children that fornication is acceptable behavior? By making it legal, the government IS teaching them exactly that.

This is America, not ancient Israel, not Jerusalem in the days of Jesus, or a Bible Land theme park.

This can be changed.

Jesus and Christianity are nowhere mentioned in the Constitution.

I don't worship the U.S. constitution.

Religious test oaths are specifically forbidden.

That's one of the constitution's flaws.

Why. Because experience and history taught the Founders to fear two things: Political tyranny, and organized religion. When the two are combined, the end is near.

We have tyranny of the masses who practice the religions of humanism and polytheism.

The genius of the Constitution is its anticipation of the two great tyrannies of history: Politics and religion.

That so-called "genius" document failed in this regard.

By federalizing the “crime” of fornication, Bob represents the worst of both worlds.

Only if you're a fornicator.

There you have it. Two allegedly sane, spirit-filled followers of Jesus, representing not one, but two of the world’s great religions (Christianity and Judaism, duh!), arguing over whether to stone a man to death or throw him off a cliff.

So what? I guarantee you I will not agree with everything any theonomist proposes. But I would still love to live in his country because it's laws would be closer to God's view of law than what we currently have.

Is this a great country, or what?

It has many good qualities but it can be vastly improved.

Whatta ya need, Jeff, ANOTHER 2,000 years to figure it out? What conclusions? TOL is a monkey-house of theology. THIS is “Christianity.” You couldn’t get everyone who professes to be a Christian in here to sit down to a communion meal together, no less agree with “theonomy.” Theonomists can’t even agree on what and how and when Old Testament sanctions apply.

And Republicans and Democrats can't figure out how to interpret the constitution and the bill of rights. Therefore, you're in favor of junking those documents, right?

 

[beanieboy]

Originally posted by Jefferson

Yes. Do you think it's a good idea to teach our children that fornication is acceptable behavior? By making it legal, the government IS teaching them exactly that.

In the same vein:
It is legal to worship Shiva.
Do you propose to take out the Freedom of Religion, because it is teaching your children that Hinduism is an acceptable religion, because legality=condoning?

 

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by beanieboy

In the same vein:
It is legal to worship Shiva.
Do you propose to take out the Freedom of Religion, because it is teaching your children that Hinduism is an acceptable religion, because legality=condoning?

It is acceptable for people to have the freedom to worship any false god they want. Christianity is based on a person's free-will decision to either accept or reject Jesus Christ's free gift of pardon. Therefore a government that made it illegal to be a nonchristian would be taking away people's free-will decision and thereby destroying Christianity in the process.

 

[Granite]

"Theonomists have volumes of material on how Biblical Law would be applied in the 20th century."

And Rushdoony and North, for example, cannot agree, so what's your point? A religious tyranny is worse than a secular one. See Lewis's comments below.

"What we have today is judges who view the constitution as a '
'living document' which is code for 'it means whatever I want it to mean.'"

Substitute "Bible" for "constitution" and hopefully you'll understand my objection.

 

[Apollo]

You are not helping the cause of theonomy by ignoring:

You are prosecuting the law; I am defending the accused. The accusation is fornication. If there is no “virgin” involved, how can you cite the bride-price law? Own up to losing that point, or come up with something better.

In other words, prosecute your case, or stop pretending you’re a lawyer.

Do you think it's a good idea to teach our children that fornication is acceptable behavior?

Right or wrong, fornication is not a crime, not under the Constitution, and not under biblical law. Fornication may not be “acceptable” behavior, but here’s a flash: We don’t need Christianity, or “Bob,” or the social purity laws of the Old Testament, or a busy-body federal government, to tell us that. Any Christian who needs a “law” to tell them what is or isn’t “acceptable” is not much of a Christian.

If in a pique, one of my kids disses his mother, should I call a cop, or handle it myself? If one of my girls gets pregnant, should I call a cop, or treat it as a family matter? By criminalizing what the Bible by its silence “permits” you have destroyed the biblical distinction between self-government, family government, and civil government. And you call yourself a theonomist.

By making it legal, the government IS teaching them exactly that.

The government doesn’t “make” behavior “legal.” ALL Behavior is assumed “legal,” until or unless “the law” says otherwise. Civil government, like all forms of government, penalizes a particular behavior, or is silent. There is no such thing as a silent “law.” Legally, silence is consent. Fornication is legal because fornication is not a crime.

It’s easy to make immorality a “crime.” Fifty-percent plus one and you can vote the Constitution out of existence. You could even “vote” to create a Big Brother Jesus-land police state with video cameras in every room in America, watched by a pair of state certified “chastity” inspectors as a “double witness” prior to their public stoning. You would only fine them. What. Fifty bucks? A hundred? Seriously. Put a price tag on it. If Bob was consistent and applied the eye-for-an-eye principle to fornication, what would the penalty be? Gang-rape?

We know how theonomy would be applied in a police state. How about in a constitutional republic, like America? Would you agree that the “success” of theonomy depends on voluntary law-keeping? Theoretically, in a fully matured theonomic society, one day the law and the police and prisons would become unnecessary (no police or prisons in the OT). A biblical society is a self-governing society. So, by the time the people are ready to live under biblical law, and voluntarily amend the Constitution, the rationale for the law (to create a biblical society) has as a practical matter become obsolete. The law is for law-breakers, not law-keepers.

Forcing theonomy on a spiritually immature people will not create a biblical society. It will create a revolution. Theonomists will not be the first pretenders to power that lost the argument and their heads.

 

[Apollo]

It is acceptable for people to have the freedom to worship any false god they want.

Would it be a property crime under theonomic law to destroy pagan groves and altars? Were not the worshippers of Baal and Ashteroth prosecuted and systematically destroyed under OT law? Idolatry is expressly forbidden by the First Commandment. You would outlaw fornication, which is not a crime under OT law, and “legalize” idolatry, which is. Interesting.

Were “strangers” in the land, or worshippers of “false religion,” allowed to worship publicly under OT law? They were not. Would theonomic law grant Wiccans or witches a permit to march in a parade?