Why men won't marry you

[elohiym]

1. It's a single verse taken out of context. As I so often insist, I'm simply not interested in playing this "let's trade cherry picked Bible verses game."

The verses on mercy abound, Trad. :sigh:

2. Even given the verse, it simply doesn't say what you want to. It doesn't say: "From now on, no sovereign State may punish adulteresses and prostitutes, whether they belong to the nation of Israel and Judea or whether they belong to a gentile nation." It says: "I will not punish your daughters," etc., whatever that means.

It gives context to the Lord forgiving the adulteress and shows God's will regarding capital punishment for adulteresses.

Furthermore, you think prostitution should be legal?

No.

 

[Traditio]

The verses on mercy abound, Trad. :sigh:

I fully grant this. Nonetheless, those verses do not constitute exhortations to sovereign nation states to change their laws, at least, not insofar as I am aware.

It gives context to the Lord forgiving the adulteress and shows God's will regarding capital punishment for adulteresses.

That's your interpretation of it. Strictly speaking, the text doesn't say one way or the other. Jesus at no point said, nor did St. Paul say, "the State may not punish adulteresses."

No.

Well the verse you cited mentioned not only adulteresses, but prostitutes. The verse even mentions prostitutes first, before adulteresses...and need I remind you of the way that Jesus treated prostitutes? You're being inconsistent.

 

[Traditio]

Furthermore, Elo., for all of your talk of mercy, forgiveness and all of that jazz, why rest content with making these claims only about adultery? Why not other crimes?

 

[elohiym]

I fully grant this. Nonetheless, those verses do not constitute exhortations to sovereign nation states to change their laws, at least, not insofar as I am aware.

You have to connect the dots, philosopher king. His will regarding mercy must be practiced by governments, if they are His agents for punishment. Clearly it's God's will that adulterers should not be put to death. It can be argued that God's will is to let them go scot-free, like he did for you.

Well the verse you cited mentioned not only adulteresses, but prostitutes. The verse even mentions prostitutes first, before adulteresses...and need I remind you of the way that Jesus treated prostitutes? You're being inconsistent.

The Lord said, "Truly I say to you that the tax collectors and prostitutes will get into the kingdom of God before you."

The verse in Hosea is about not punishing prostitutes, not about making prostitution legal. You can have it be illegal and not punish the same as with the adultery example. I am being consistent.

 

[Traditio]

No! Never ignore their guilt. I'm definitely not endorsing that idea.

I believe you've missed the main "thrust" of what I've said. Let us take the woman who moves her lover into her husband's household.

Let us compare her offense to other criminal acts.

Is her act more or less unjust than petty theft? Grand theft auto? Vandalism? I could go on.

What degree of injustice are we talking about?

 

[elohiym]

Furthermore, Elo., for all of your talk of mercy, forgiveness and all of that jazz, why rest content with making these claims only about adultery? Why not other crimes?

My goal was to show you that punishment for adultery has been abrogated even though adultery is still immoral.

 

[Traditio]

My goal was to show you that punishment for adultery has been abrogated even though adultery is still immoral.

Yeah, but you think that about every crime. Therefore, modern nation states shouldn't have codes of criminal law. lain:

 

[elohiym]

Let us compare her offense to other criminal acts.

Is her act more or less unjust than petty theft? Grand theft auto? Vandalism? I could go on.

What degree of injustice are we talking about?

Do agree that God forgave murderers?

 

[Traditio]

You have to connect the dots, philosopher king. His will regarding mercy must be practiced by governments, if they are His agents for punishment. Clearly it's God's will that adulterers should not be put to death. It can be argued that God's will is to let them go scot-free, like he did for you.

He never says this. You are reading that into the text.

The Lord said, "Truly I say to you that the tax collectors and prostitutes will get into the kingdom of God before you."

The verse in Hosea is about not punishing prostitutes, not about making prostitution legal. You can have it be illegal and not punish the same as with the adultery example. I am being consistent.

If x isn't punished, then, for all intents and purposes, x is legal. One of the acts of the law is to punish those who disobey it. The law effectively says: "You must do these things; you may not do these things; you may do these things...or else. "

It simply doesn't make sense to speak of x being illegal but not punishable.

Furthermore, you must understand if I find it utterly amazing that, somehow, we are back to the subject of scriptural interpretation and theology. How on earth did we get back here?

 

[Traditio]

Do agree that God forgave murderers?

I certainly hope so.

So what: do you assert that there should be no civic punishment for murder?

I'll ask you plainly: how do you square all of this with Romans 13? Does the State wield a sword that it's never supposed to use?

 

[elohiym]

Yeah, but you think that about every crime. Therefore, modern nation states shouldn't have codes of criminal law. lain:

What? No. Murderers need a law that states do not murder, and it's merciful to incarcerate someone who will murder again. The punishment of death is abrogated, but mercy may necessitate incarceration. In King David's case, he was repentant and wasn't going to murder and commit adultery again. The value of not executing them is that they have the opportunity to be converted, God willing.

 

[Traditio]

What? No. Murderers need a law that states do not murder, and it's merciful to incarcerate someone who will murder again. The punishment of death is abrogated, but mercy may necessitate incarceration. In King David's case, he was repentant and wasn't going to murder and commit adultery again. The value of not executing them is that they have the opportunity to be converted, God willing.

Elo, as I've implied before, I find these theological arguments dubious. For one thing, there are no verses which explicitly assert any of this. This is all your interpretation.

Do you have a non-theological argument?

Edit: Further, what you are saying contradicts what you've said previously. You earlier said that for any crime, there is one and only one just punishment. Now you are asserting that God abrogated at least some forms of punishment, replacing them either with something else, or nothing at all.

You cannot assert both of these things.

 

[elohiym]

So what: do you assert that there should be no civic punishment for murder?

No. I assert the appropriate punishment for murder is death but we should show mercy as God showed mercy because that is His will in this age.

Would you rather be executed for murder or spend your life in prison? I'd choose the latter.

I'll ask you plainly: how do you square all of this with Romans 13? Does the State wield a sword that it's never supposed to use?

Christianity is about transformational pacifism. Over the course of history, God has been refining us. We are supposed to move from swords to plowshares. The rules aren't static until some day when suddenly everyone thinks, "Gee! Let's all get rid of these swords today." Governments can show mercy, and they must if they are agents of God per Romans 13:1-7.

 

[Town Heretic]

Have you read the Law, TH? Moses prescribes striking people in contexts other than self-defense or defense of another all the time. Flogging comes to mind.

And that should concern me why? I'm not living under his law.

Say what you want: I'm just saying; if we look at pre-modern thought, I'm on pretty decent ground. Simply dismissing me as biased just won't cut it. I gave arguments.

Everyone has arguments. And your bias is hard to miss. I'll come back to this if or as time allows. A lot of work coming up this week.

 

[elohiym]

Further, what you are saying contradicts what you've said previously. You earlier said that for any crime, there is one and only one just punishment.

The wages of and sin is spiritual death. That is the just punishment for all sin. I'm not claiming the wages of sin have been abrogated, but the corporeal punishments you were trying to justify with the Law of Moses without deference to the Law of Christ.

Now you are asserting that God abrogated at least some forms of punishment, replacing them either with something else, or nothing at all.

I gave you example of God doing that, so it's not just an assertion.

 

[Traditio]

And that should concern me why? I'm not living under his law.

Was it unjust for Moses to prescribe flogging?

If you say "no," then we simply can't assume that there are no cases in which it is wrong to strike someone other than in self defense. It is, at least in principle, permissible to strike someone as punishment for a crime.

 

[elohiym]

He never says this. You are reading that into the text.

God in flesh showing mercy to adulteresses and prostitutes doesn't reflect His will clearly? He's got to spell it out for you? Do note that He spoke in parables so you would have to have spiritual discernment to understand them.

It simply doesn't make sense to speak of x being illegal but not punishable.

What was the punishment for coveting your neighbor's tent? lain:

Furthermore, you must understand if I find it utterly amazing that, somehow, we are back to the subject of scriptural interpretation and theology. How on earth did we get back here?

You kept bringing up Moses, so I keep bringing up Jesus who you need to understand Moses. We can end it here.

 

[elohiym]

Do you have a non-theological argument?

It's against U.S. law.

:e4e:

 

[Traditio]

It's against U.S. law.

:e4e:

I've admitted that. That's not an argument against my position. :mmph:

 

[elohiym]

I've admitted that. That's not an argument against my position. :mmph:

We've reached an impasse.

:e4e: