The Bible prescribed judicial action in response to actions, not "inclinations."
Is the Law of Moses good or bad?
- Thread starter Jacob
- Start date
eye = eye
Not equitable?
Huh?
It's not restitution at all.
It's called corporal punishment.
That would be restitution, not corporal punishment.
That you're equivocating?
:think:
:idunno:
Negligence resulting in the harm of others isn't a crime?
First of all, it's not retribution.
That would be taking it upon yourself to punish someone who hurt you.
Eye for eye is a punishment for a crime handed down by a judge, not by the victim.
:think:
I'll ignore your appeal to authority for a moment just to say that Ghandi was no authority on morality.
He was a manipulative attention seeker who said he would harm himself if people didn't do what he said.
Why you'd use him as an example is beyond me...
WRONG.
Jesus reaffirmed the Law:
“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. - Matthew 5:17-20 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew5:17-20&version=NKJV
And the Law says:
But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life,eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. - Exodus 21:23-25 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus21:23-25&version=NKJV
:think:
And?
I did not say that I follow the ten commandments but still try not to break them, which is impossible. No I am not a 7th Day Adventist. I am non-denominational.
No we are not under the Law but under grace
The Corinthian Church was the most corrupt in the ancient world. Now you tell me.
Right Divider
Body part
What does "do to the Decalogue" mean?
The Decalogue includes a weekly Saturday sabbath observance.
k0de
Active member
Alright. So what about the following v.11?
Isn't that Christ’s forgiveness and salvation?
"But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God."
No idea what you're talking about. :idunno:
How about you edit the post you just conceded was wrong?
Do you think murderers should be released?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Matthew 5:38-48 New International Version (NIV)
Eye for Eye
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
:think:
k0de
Active member
The law of retaliation Exodus 21-24 is contrasted here.
Also somebody else mentioned earlier that if it's an accident they should flee. That's is correct according Exodus21:13-14.
Exodus 21:13–14 (LEB): But if he did not lie in wait and it was an accident, I will appoint for you a place to which he may flee. But if a man schemes against his neighbor to kill him by treachery, you will take him from my altar to die.
Nope
And?
Not only did that NOT contradict nor repeal what the law said, He was also speaking of how to behave during the millennial kingdom, where He would rule with an iron rod, which, had things progressed as He had planned, would have began about 10 years from when He said that (He gave the sermon on the mount in the first year of His earthly ministry of three years, plus the seven year Time of Jacob's Trouble). He wasn't speaking of how one should live in day to day life, but rather life in the millennial kingdom, where justice would be almost immediate, because He would be watching.
Christians aren't.
But the rest of the world needs the law. That includes the laws against and punishments for homosexuality, the death penalty.
Hypocrite.
:blabla:
I believe the whole Bible, and I don't reject any of it.
I let it say what it says within the context that it says it.
I never said you did.
Because the way you used "peacemaker" is the way one typically uses "pacifist."
See my post above.
Post number, please.
Considering you're going against what Jesus said, and since Jesus is God, I'm gonna stick with what Romans 3:4 says, "Let God be true and every man a liar..."
Responding to this point needs to be in it's own thread, as it gets into when the Exodus happened.
Post numbers, please
I'm familiar with it.
Sorry, that's not what a gish gallop is.
Not at all.
I'm not interested in confusing anyone. That would be counterproductive. I'm interested in bringing a conversation to fruition by navigating to what is true.
If you truly feel that you can't answer everything in one go, just say so when you respond, and I'll wait patiently for the rest of your response.
See my previous post. Jesus upheld the law. I will provide the relevant law in a moment.
So, you'd go up and strike up a conversation with the man burglaring your house?
Ok, let's follow that line of thought for a moment (warning, graphic, though nothing explicit):
The burglar, pulls out his gun and shoots you, waking up your wife and children, who start crying. As you lay there, bleeding out, because you decided to "resist not an evil person," you're too weak to move, the burglar goes to your children's rooms and kill them, and then proceeds to drag your wife in front of you, then rapes and murders her with you watching, and then shoots you in the head, killing you.
All because you decided to "resist not an evil person."
So let's reset the scene here, and see what would have happened had you chosen differently:
| So, it's the middle of the night, your wife and three kids are asleep, and you wake up and hear noises coming from your kitchen. Someone has broken in and is in the process of foraging through your house for valuables. Do you get out your gun? Or do you go and have a conversation with the burglar? |
You choose to get out your gun that you have locked in your bedstand, wake up your wife, and have her first dial 911, then she goes to secure your children, after which you sneak downstairs, and catch the burglar by surprise, and, since he doesn't have his gun out, and you have one pointed at him, you are able to keep him where he is until the police arrive.
Turns out he's a wanted criminal with a rap sheet a mile long, guilty of crimes ranging from petty theft to rape and murder. An "evil person" whom you've just resisted.
So, I don't know about you, but I'd rather catch the criminal off guard with my gun out and pointing at him, than catch him on guard with my hands up.
Now you're saying you'd resist an evil person?
James 1:8 comes to mind...
Here's what the Law says about a criminal breaking into someone's house:
If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed.If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed. He should make full restitution; if he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. - Exodus 22:2-3 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus22:2-3&version=NKJV
I typically copy/paste questions that I need answered, even if no other questions in the post are answered, at the end of my posts.
Retaliation implies that it isn't the government punishing the criminal, but a victim taking revenge on the criminal.
The former is just, the latter is unjust.
I do.
I think they should be released from their earthly bodies that imprison them on this earth.
:execute:
So we are under the law.
:thumb:
Okay. But this is not just those who commit an homosexual act. However, homosexuality is a sin worthy of death. Calling it what it is. At what point can a person say, "I was a homosexual?" or would they even need to do so?
I'm not