The Bob Enyart Live forum

[Granite]

Originally posted by 1Way

granite 1010 - Tooth and nail I reserve for the bible, and maybe a freshly grilled T-bone steak. Find any non-condemning fornication passages yet in my list to you? Mr. ducks in a row? Not willing to taking back the falsifying relish comment just yet? You don’t have a log in your eye now do you?

Enyart advocates executing a murderer as he murdered his victim. If this isn't perverse and sadistic, I don't know what is. So, thank you kindly, but I'll stand by my original statement.

"Non-condemning fornication passages"? What does this semi-literate tidbit mean?

 

[1Way]

Granite 1010 – Bob does not teach that without other considerations. The bible teaches death by stoning and fire and other forms as well. The execution should not be painless, it should be painful, but it should not involve prolonged torture. So if someone tortured someone to death, Bob would oppose a like manner execution.

I understand his teaching to be biblical, but you don’t understand his teaching, and you don’t care if you get it wrong or not. You can believe a lie if you want, you are perfectly free to believe something that Bob does not teach.

 

[1Way]

Apollo – You said

It’s a little difficult to provide evidence for something that doesn’t exist.

I realize that I may be taking this out of context, but it fits our entire discussion pretty well. And I’m not trying to avoid your post, I just have this interjection to make. You mean, “something that you think does not exist”, there’s a difference.

Is it (should it be) a crime to commit abortion?

Granting that abortion was not even dreamt up until more recent “modern” times, it seems the fact that abortion is not specifically mentioned in the bible, so can it possibly be a crime to commit an abortion according to God’s word?

Of course by extension, we could list thousands of “crimes” or “offenses” that should be a crime but that are not specifically mentioned in the bible.

 

[Granite]

"The execution should not be painless, it should be painful, but it should not involve prolonged torture."

Why exactly, and where is this prescription written in scripture? This is another Enyart invention.

 

[Apollo]

realize that I may be taking this out of context, but it fits our entire discussion pretty well. And I’m not trying to avoid your post, I just have this interjection to make. You mean, “something that you think does not exist”, there’s a difference.

If fornication is a crime, prove it. If you can’t, it’s not a crime. Once again, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to produce the law that’s been broken, not on the accused to produce a law that doesn’t exist.

Is it (should it be) a crime to commit abortion?

Yes, because abortion is a form of murder and murder IS a crime under biblical law.

 

[1Way]

granite - There are no painless executions taught or promoted in the bible. And stoning to death is probably the most often prescribed, and is probably one of the most painful. When we think of a painless execution, we think of modern ways of doing it, like lethal injection for example. Stoning is slightly more painful I think.

Still haven't found a non-condemning uses of fornication in that list yet?

 

[1Way]

Apollo – So you admit that although abortion is not specifically condemned as a crime in the bible, abortion is “a form of” a biblically mentioned crime, murder, so it should also be a crime, even though abortion is no where specifically taught against in the bible. So by logical extension, a relationship of similarity, being of the same “kind”, is good enough grounds for something being a crime. Thanks for clarifying that much.

So what have you ruled out?
Have you any nearest or most likely examples of crimes affirmed by scripture that directly relate to fornication? If so, what are they and why did you rule them out?

 

[Apollo]

I admit that abortion is not specifically condemned because it doesn’t HAVE to be. Under biblical law, murder is ALWAYS a crime, whether committed with a rope, a spear, a blunt instrument, poison, or committed under the supervision of a doctor. Separate “laws” for every conceivable “kind” of murder (stabbing, pushed off a building, deliberately hitting someone with your car, setting someone on fire, and on and on) therefore, aren’t necessary. Murder is murder.

SEX, however, is NOT always a crime. Murder always = murder, but sex doesn’t always = “sex crime.” Unlike murder, just because one “kind” of sex is a crime (incest, statutory rape, etc.), it doesn’t mean ALL kinds of sex is a crime. Technically, “accidental” death (manslaughter) isn’t “murder.” It would be a misuse of the law to sentence to death someone guilty of manslaughter based on first-degree murder laws.

Likewise, it would be a misuse of the law to criminalize lawful sex based on laws regulating “forbidden” sex (incest, bestiality, homosexuality, rape). The law distinguishes between kinds of “homicide” (lawful, unlawful) and kinds of “sex” (lawful, unlawful). Under biblical law, killing a man in self-defense is “homicide,” but isn’t a “crime.” Similarly, fornication may be “immoral,” but isn’t a crime.

Even defenders of abortion-on-demand agree that Roe v Wade is “bad law.” The Supreme Court discovered “privacy” rights in the Constitution that didn’t exist prior to Roe v. Wade, and used this “right” to make anti-abortion laws a “crime.” Attempting to criminalize fornication based on the Constitution of biblical law (the Bible) is an attempt to do the same thing: To “discover” a law, or to “create” a right (in the case of fornication, the “right”of the government to criminalize lawful behavior) in order to advance a religious or political agenda.

Have you any nearest or most likely examples of crimes affirmed by scripture that directly relate to fornication? If so, what are they and why did you rule them out?

I am aware of no laws or crimes that directly relate to sex between emancipated, non-married adults.

[Suggest we move this discussion to my Limits of the Law thread (p 2, General Theology).]

 

[jhodgeiii]

Originally posted by 1Way

granite - There are no painless executions taught or promoted in the bible. And stoning to death is probably the most often prescribed, and is probably one of the most painful. When we think of a painless execution, we think of modern ways of doing it, like lethal injection for example. Stoning is slightly more painful I think.

DUH granite. Gee wiz, this isn't rocket science. Pain for ages has proven to be the best deterrent of evil (or unwanted) behavior. And yes, as 1Way inferred, stoning is probably one of the most painful ways to die. I viewed one from an Iranian video. Brutal. I can think of no place in the Bible where God's penal system called for anything remotely close to a painless execution for capital crimes.

Bob's extrapolation is very logical being that it's based strictly on Biblical consistency. Thus we could safely make a similar conclusion about swift sentences even if Ecclesiates 8:11 didn't exist.

-J

 

[Granite]

Stoning, in this day and age, is barbaric and sadistic. And it says more about its defenders than it does about me. Moreover, there is no reason in the world to believe that Enyart's Mode of Murder Fits the Penalty is anything less than an invention. 1Way has squirmed out of this by basically saying that if the crime is TOO sick, executioners shouldn't turn it on the condemned. Another invention.

 

[jhodgeiii]

Originally posted by granite1010

Stoning, in this day and age, is barbaric and sadistic. And it says more about its defenders than it does about me.

Are you implying that the defenders of stoning are "barbaric and sadistic?" Tell us granite, how could stoning today be any less "barbaric and sadistic" 3000 or so years ago when God commanded such? Wouldn't there be the same amount of pain, blood, and brutality administered? Moreover, God predominantly commanded stoning when there were various other less painful ways of executing capital offenders!

Thus, how could you not come to the conclusion that God, Himself, is not sadistic? Perhaps deep down inside that is what you feel, but at least have the courage to say so. If not, you simply cannot judge all defenders of stoning as sadists.

Lastly, concerning barbarism. Stoning is indeed barbaric by today's humanistic standards, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. Spanking has turned into a "barbaric" act in the midst of today's overly psychoanalyzed standards, yet when done correctly and lovingly (training) is invaluable to both the child's character and overall happiness.

Trust more in God's wisdom.

-J

 

[Granite]

"If not, you simply cannot judge all defenders of stoning as sadists."

Sure I can. Not my problem if you take offense at it, but, hey. I'm not the one advocating public bludgeoning.

 

[jhodgeiii]

Originally posted by granite1010

"If not, you simply cannot judge all defenders of stoning as sadists."

Sure I can.

You can do anything you wish, but that doesn't make it righteous. Jesus told us to judge righteously.

I'm not the one advocating public bludgeoning.

No, God is. Your issue is with Him, not any of us.

Deal with it.

 

[Granite]

Okay. Since we're on the subject of stoning...question: would you re-institute punishment similar to what happened to Achan's family? Why or why not?

 

[Apollo]

Granite, you are asking Jho to answer a question you both already know the answer to. Of course, he would. He has to. That’s the Law.

Interesting, did a quick search on “stoned” to see how many actual instances of stoning there were (search caught 21, KJV; some were redundant, some were threats, relatively few actual reported “stonings.”)

More often than not, though, the person who got stoned got SCREWED:

2 Chron 24:21
1 Kings 21:35
Acts 7:58
Acts 14:19
Heb 11:37

Numbers 13:26 describes a scene where an unidentified man is stoned for collecting sticks on the Sabbath. Do Sabbath (7th day) laws still apply, since we no longer honor the Old Testament Sabbath? Does that translate in the New Testament era as no more yard work on Sundays?

 

[Apollo]

STILL suggest we take this conversation to the Limits of the Law thread (General Theology).

 

[jhodgeiii]

My only intention was to validate painful executions since it obviously has been God's way of upholding His critical statutes. Didn't mean to flank the thread!

 

[Apollo]

You make a good point, though, Jho. The Law is not for the faint of heart. In the words of Otto Scott, God is not a daisy. To my mind, stones in the Bible remind me of an altar, or memorial stones. In the story of Achan, family members complicit in the crime* were stoned, burned, and buried under a “heap” of stones, just to make sure. They named the site the Valley of Achan, as a memorial. If it was taking place today, we’d name a highway after him.

Now I’m rambling. But how far did the authority of Old Testament law apply? To the Hebrews? Or did Hebrew law apply to everyone, even those outside the nation of Israel? Was Hebrew law the “trump” law, or was Hebrew law meant only for the Hebrews? Could a Philistine be tried in a Jewish court for behavior legal in Philistia, but criminal in Israel? Could a Philistine be kidnapped and put to death under Jewish Sabbath laws? Did Jewish Sabbath laws APPLY to non-Jews? If not, how is the Law valid for Gentiles today? How, in particular, is the Law valid for “unbelievers,” who are neither Jew nor Christian?

What will happen when the Law comes to Zululand? Should the Zulus give up their culture, tribal laws, dowry laws, purity laws, their history, to become what amounts to Old Testament Jews (if only in the “spiritual” sense as “Judeo”-Christians)? The Old Testament is the story of how the Law was given to and applied by the Jews. What we see in case after case are incidents of “moral failure,” followed by rebuke, repentance, short-lived reform, followed by a more serious string of offenses. Not much to emulate there. History of the Church ain’t no picnic, neither.

Where does Jewish culture end and the Law begin? How much of what we “call” the Law is “Jewish,” and how much of the Law is universal? How does one avoid imposing Jewish cultural values (or “Christian” values, for that matter) on the nations when applying the Law? Are the dowry laws of the ancient Jews really relevant to the application of the Law in modern day industrial Japan?

So, was stoning a “cultural” thing? Is there any evidence that stoning was unique to the Jews? Maybe that’s just the way it was. Maybe they had a lot of stones. What if you live where there’s a shortage of stones? Like…the North Pole? Can Eskimos substitute blocks of ice for stones?


* Sins committed in ignorance are treated less harshly.

 

[1Way]

Apollo - I don't mind it moving, but this is the first I've heard of the suggestion.

When doing a search of a term that has multiple forms, and you want to be as inclusive as possible, you should use the least exclusive form, often cutting the word short and just ending it with a wild card catch all operator in order to get all occurrences of that word with all it's various forms. Seems like perhaps database or keyword searching is a new science to you, or you simply did not want to find all the occurances of stoning, and stone and perhaps stones as well as stoned.

Bob Enyart is Biblically consistent with how things changed from back them to current times, but the line is not drawn between the OT era and the NT era, it’s at Acts 9 via the first “saved by grace alone and not of works” Christian who everyone after him is supposed to follow as a pattern for salvation, our one apostle for the dispensation of mystery, Paul. Namely, under this current dispensation, those who are saved are under none of the circumcision laws, we are under higher orders for faith being led by the spirit of God through love for God and our fellow man, not by a fear from the consequences of breaking His laws.

I don’t mean to confuse things, but these matters are important to understand if you are to understand what Bob really teaches. Criminal law should be the same for anyone, saved or not, if you commit a capitol offense, you should be put to death in short order. The saved not being under the law has more to do with how to become saved, and also living the Christian life in this current dispensation.

Jhodgeiii – I hope you will be able to stick with this discussion as I am thinking I’m about to become way less involved for a while.

 

[Apollo]

When doing a search of a term that has multiple forms, and you want to be as inclusive as possible, you should use the least exclusive form, often cutting the word short and just ending it with a wild card catch all operator in order to get all occurrences of that word with all it's various forms. Seems like perhaps database or keyword searching is a new science to you, or you simply did not want to find all the occurances of stoning, and stone and perhaps stones as well as stoned.

Patronizing drivel. A lot of blather about nothing. I can’t believe I actually wasted my time reading it. Oughta be a law.

Bob Enyart is Biblically consistent with how things changed from back them to current times, but the line is not drawn between the OT era and the NT era, it’s at Acts 9 via the first “saved by grace alone and not of works” Christian who everyone after him is supposed to follow as a pattern for salvation, our one apostle for the dispensation of mystery, Paul. Namely, under this current dispensation, those who are saved are under none of the circumcision laws, we are under higher orders for faith being led by the spirit of God through love for God and our fellow man, not by a fear from the consequences of breaking His laws.

Uh-oh. Bible-babble. Always a bad sign.

I don’t mean to confuse things…

But you can’t help yourself, I know. It’s part of your charm. 1Way, I kinda like you, but you seem to have the attention span of a two-minute egg. Take a break.