Dennis from Colorado Doesn't Want a Theocracy

[Jefferson]

Dennis from Colorado Doesn't Want a Theocracy

Thursday March 2nd, 2006. This is show # 44.

Summary:
* A listener fears that BEL advocates that the government largely adopt the Bible's Mosaic Law, and so Bob talks him through the principles by which we "rightly divide the Word of Truth" (2 Tim. 2:15), distinguishing between specific laws for Israel, and general laws for all governments, including the difference between symbolic and moral laws.

* Iowa Caller: David tried to refute the talk show host as Bob argued that God does NOT want governments to enforce Israel's symbolic Sabbath law, and that God required the death penalty for those under Israel's covenant who worked on Saturday. "...Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Therefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath... It is a sign...' -God Exodus 31:15-17
Today's Resource: The Plot The Overview of the Bible is the Key to its Details!

BEST QUOTE OF THE SHOW:

Bob Enyart: In the Bible, God gives a criminal code that is applicable to all nations including others but including do not murder, do not steal, do not commit adultery, do not commit perjury.

Caller Dennis: You're getting these from the 10 commandments, right?

Bob: 4 of the 10 commandments form a foundation for every criminal justice system.

Dennis: Are you saying that the adultery one forms part of the criminal justice system?

Bob: Yes. For 3500 years adultery was not only a sin in Judeo-Christian history but it was also a crime. And when America was founded as a nation and even before, adultery was not only a sin, it was a crime. It was against the law. And it was a crime until just recently. It was only decriminalized in the past few decades. Yet almost all Christians forget that adultery was a crime. They don't know our American history. They don't know the Bible, old and new testaments. They don't know Judeo-Christian history. And so they've sided with Hollywood, the humanists, the homosexuals and Hillary and they've said adultery should be legal.

PERTINENT QUOTE OF THE SHOW:

Let me give you another way to know how a law might be symbolic. Remember that Jesus said that the priests violate the Sabbath, they profane the Sabbath because they have to work on the Sabbath at the temple offering sacrifices? Well, symbolic commands are not absolute moral statements. They're symbolic so therefore they could conflict. ...Now, on the other hand, you never have to rape a woman in order to avoid committing murder or some other crime. The moral commands do not conflict the way the symbolic ordinances do.

 

[Granite]

It'll still illegal on many state books. Enforcement is the issue.

 

[paulpeterson83]

What about fornication? Two unmarried people doing the bone dance. Is that illegal or would it be under this "Theocracy". And, why do men get to decide whats what? Arent all men twisted and sinful and cant trust their own heart? How would you know that the laws being put into place by a seemingly "godly" man, arent the works of Satan who is using this man to his own devices.

Sorry, just wondering.

 

[Sozo]

Post deleted by BE

Post deleted by BE

Msg from BEL forum moderator Bob Enyart to Sozo,

Sozo, I almost never delete posts in the BEL forum, but this one of yours was out of bounds.

-Bob Enyart

 

[docrob57]

What about fornication? Two unmarried people doing the bone dance. Is that illegal or would it be under this "Theocracy". And, why do men get to decide whats what? Arent all men twisted and sinful and cant trust their own heart? How would you know that the laws being put into place by a seemingly "godly" man, arent the works of Satan who is using this man to his own devices.

Sorry, just wondering.

For 50 points, rethink your question and figure out why it doesn't make any sense.

 

[Jefferson]

What about fornication? Two unmarried people doing the bone dance. Is that illegal or would it be under this "Theocracy".

The Bible says they should get married. They are not required to but it's recommended.

And, why do men get to decide whats what?

You mean like the way laws are made in America today?

Under Biblical law, men do not get to decide what's what. They have to (rather they get to) go by the Bible's laws, not their own foolish, ignorant, selfish, sinful laws.

Arent all men twisted and sinful and cant trust their own heart?

Yes. And that's exactly why we should simply follow the Bible instead of trusting our own hearts to make law.

How would you know that the laws being put into place by a seemingly "godly" man, arent the works of Satan who is using this man to his own devices.

It would be very easy to know. The laws would conflict with scripture.

 

[docrob57]

Under Biblical law, men do not get to decide what's what. They have to (rather they get to) go by the Bible's laws, not their own foolish, ignorant, selfish, sinful laws.

.

Ah man, you gave away why the question didn't make sense. :doh:

 

[snowy]

I don't listen to these shows, but based on the "materials" present here, I was hoping to be allowed to throw in a pertinent comment/inquiry. I found this rather poor distinction between symbolic and real commandments given in the "PERTINENT QUOTE OF THE SHOW":

They're symbolic so therefore they could conflict. ...Now, on the other hand, you never have to rape a woman in order to avoid committing murder or some other crime. The moral commands do not conflict the way the symbolic ordinances do.

This sounds rather silly, or ignorant of the usual caveats of such an ethical system. The main problem with aloof deontology (rather a pleonasm, but that would be what a theocracy would impose, right?) is the fact that real moral commands/duties actually do conflict sometimes. For example sometimes one may have to lie or steal in order to prevent a murder, an adultery or avoid the violation of other moral commands. Hence such commands (do not lie, do not steal) cannot be absolute. Moreover, one may have to even commit murder in order to prevent other murder(s) (the self-defense scenario, war situations, etc.). So even "do not commit murder" is not quite "absolute" (death punishment is OK?).

On the other hand, consequentialist/utilitarian ethics has much clearer solutions to such situations.


---
Amicus Christus, sed magis amica veritas

 

[Lighthouse]

I don't listen to these shows, but based on the "materials" present here, I was hoping to be allowed to throw in a pertinent comment/inquiry. I found this rather poor distinction between symbolic and real commandments given in the "PERTINENT QUOTE OF THE SHOW":


This sounds rather silly, or ignorant of the usual caveats of such an ethical system. The main problem with aloof deontology (rather a pleonasm, but that would be what a theocracy would impose, right?) is the fact that real moral commands/duties actually do conflict sometimes. For example sometimes one may have to lie or steal in order to prevent a murder, an adultery or avoid the violation of other moral commands. Hence such commands (do not lie, do not steal) cannot be absolute. Moreover, one may have to even commit murder in order to prevent other murder(s) (the self-defense scenario, war situations, etc.). So even "do not commit murder" is not quite "absolute" (death punishment is OK?).

How does someone need to lie or steal to prevent something immoral from happening? Can you give an example? And, fyi, killing someone in order to prevent them from committing murder is not murder.:duh: And neither is execution.:doh: You're really reaching here. And, just in case you don't understand, the laws against lying would only be for situations involving legal testimony. False informing, and perjury would be illegal, and punishable by law, whereas a child lying to their parents would not be illegal, and only punishable by the parents.:idea:

 

[Johnny]

How does someone need to lie or steal to prevent something immoral from happening?

You don't have to get that imaginitive. Rahab lied to save lives in Joshua (iirc).

 

[Granite]

How does someone need to lie or steal to prevent something immoral from happening? Can you give an example? And, fyi, killing someone in order to prevent them from committing murder is not murder.:duh: And neither is execution.:doh: You're really reaching here. And, just in case you don't understand, the laws against lying would only be for situations involving legal testimony. False informing, and perjury would be illegal, and punishable by law, whereas a child lying to their parents would not be illegal, and only punishable by the parents.:idea:

Isn't this the way things are now? Since when do you need a theocracy for any of the above?