The Left has become dangerously unhinged.

[Town Heretic]

The Law given by God is for wisdom, understanding, and righteousness, the aim was not justice.

Wisdom in what? Understanding of what? Righteousness in what regard? When you start unpacking that you'll find it isn't at odds with anything I've written.

I've noted that the Mosaic law demonstrated our insufficiency, willful insufficiency and the need for grace. It also served to administer justice relative to the actions of men in contravention of God's expressed will. That's literally the operation of the law in regard to transgression.

Now, either the law is just or it is unjust. The law is God's therefore it is just. If it is just it must serve justice. It's a logical, rational necessity.

 

[eider]

You have no clue how wrong you are.

I follow the words of Paul the Apostle:

Acts 24:14-15 14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets: 15 And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.​

Most Christians will tell you that Jesus is God.
Since God gave the Law in the Torah.
Jesus has no qualms with the Law written in the Torah.

When Jesus returns to earth, He will rule the nations with a rod of iron.
Jesus will be enforcing the Law of God from the Torah.

Most Christians do tell me that Jesus is God, and therefore what God said and did in Galilee, the Northern Provinces and Judea in the Early first century has much more meaning for most Christians than what God did or said before that time.

Surely, to ignore God's words and actions is just not right?

But you tell me that you will stand by the Law of God from the Torah....... very well, in which case you will be obeying not ten or twenty laws, but 507 of them, and be adapting laws such as the poor laws to fit in to modern day life? But I don't think that you will be living by all God's laws from the Torah at all...... you've dismissed too many I think? Certainly your supporters on this thread have.

But if you hold to God's criminal laws in the Torah, then you'll be doing what Islam does with its Sharia.
Good Luck with that.....

 

[Kit the Coyote]

Correlation does not equal causation. Poisoning the well much?

Having a low crime rate due to swift punishment for crimes is not a cause of wicked governments.

Neither does wicked governments having a death penalty and/or swift punishments mean that such punishments are wrong.

It is the other correlations that are more relevant, the teacher drew the two examples specifically as part of a discussion on the importance of civil and criminal rights in legal systems. They both did not or only paid lip service to protecting the rights of minorities and providing safeguards to protect the innocent wrongly accused. Thus almost all criminals were punished but many innocents suffered as well at the hands of the state.

On the other paw, if you require absolute proof of guilt you will almost never convict anyone.

Justice in any legal system run by Humans, as was seen in contrasting these examples with systems that do provide such protections, is finding the right balance.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Most Christians do tell me that Jesus is God, and therefore what God said and did in Galilee, the Northern Provinces and Judea in the Early first century has much more meaning for most Christians than what God did or said before that time.

Surely, to ignore God's words and actions is just not right?

Do you think God received anger management therapy between the Old and New Testaments?

But you tell me that you will stand by the Law of God from the Torah....... very well, in which case you will be obeying not ten or twenty laws, but 507 of them, and be adapting laws such as the poor laws to fit in to modern day life? But I don't think that you will be living by all God's laws from the Torah at all...... you've dismissed too many I think?

You have been completely mistaken about everything else you have stated about the Bible so far, so I will state that you don't know what you are talking about here as well.

But if you hold to God's criminal laws in the Torah, then you'll be doing what Islam does with its Sharia.
Good Luck with that.....

The Torah lists sins that God states are worthy of death.
We live in a society that thinks most of these sins are not even crimes.

The left is so unhinged that they think people should be celebrated for committing these mortal sins.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Wisdom in what? Understanding of what? Righteousness in what regard? When you start unpacking that you'll find it isn't at odds with anything I've written.

I've noted that the Mosaic law demonstrated our insufficiency, willful insufficiency and the need for grace. It also served to administer justice relative to the actions of men in contravention of God's expressed will. That's literally the operation of the law in regard to transgression.

Now, either the law is just or it is unjust. The law is God's therefore it is just. If it is just it must serve justice. It's a logical, rational necessity.

There is a difference between righteousness and merited punishment.
The Law that God gave is for instruction in righteousness.
You are trying to make it about merited punishment.

 

[Town Heretic]

There is a difference between righteousness and merited punishment.

Interesting isolation. I didn't do that though. You did. What you said was:

"The Law given by God is for wisdom, understanding, and righteousness, the aim was not justice."

Now I'd say that justice involves all of those, but I wouldn't say it IS any one of them.

The Law that God gave is for instruction in righteousness.

And wisdom and understanding. The application of the law is both righteous and wise. Understanding of the law is wisdom.

You are trying to make it about merited punishment.

No, only noting how it relates.

And, again: either the law is just or it is unjust. The law is God's therefore it is just. If it is just it must serve justice. It's a logical, rational necessity.

That's a tough nut to crack. Try to. :e4e:

 

[Stripe]

Either the law is just or it is unjust. The law is God's therefore it is just. If it is just it must serve justice.

Then let it. :idunno:

The law did not convict the woman brought before Jesus.

Logical necessity.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[glorydaz]

I didn't forget it. I also understand the failures of the trap. Just as I understand Christ could have set that out and rebuked the effort and instructed them in justice. Because the woman was guilty and her death would have served the spirit of the law, which was justice.

So much for the presumption of innocence? :shocked:

 

[glorydaz]

You seem to be very ignorant of the Law and of God who gave the Law if you think God is all about justice without mercy.

Micah 6:8 8 He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?​

Would it have been just to execute the adulteress without any witnesses to testify against her?
No.
Would it have been just to execute the adulteress without executing the adulterer?
Again no.

Why would you think that Jesus would do something so unjust?


Jesus did not do it the way you expected Him to do it?
That is your excuse?

You are too steeped in the corruption that lawyers are accused of to understand that Jesus used the actual words of the Law to confound a trap set by legalists.


The requirement is that the witnesses are not false witnesses.
The scribes and Pharisees failed that criteria, which is the only real explanation for why Jesus said "let he who is without sin".


Yes, the scribes and Pharisees did not have as good of an understanding of the Law of Moses as they thought.
They spent most of their time learning about the Oral Tradition and parsing the Torah to find gematria and midrashim instead of learning what the Law actually stated.
If you read the Gospel of Matthew, you will find that a significant part of it is devoted to Jesus correcting the errors of the scribes and Pharisees.


We also don't have to concoct hypotheticals about what justice is when those hypotheticals involve getting justice by violating the Law.


You seem to be very ignorant of the Law and of God who gave the Law if you think God is all about justice without mercy.

:first:

 

[Town Heretic]

So much for the presumption of innocence? :shocked:

I don't know how that follows, but presumption is a thing for men. God is certainty.

He's the only singular ruler or judge worth trusting.

 

[glorydaz]

I don't know how that follows, but presumption is a thing for men. God is certainty.

He's the only singular ruler or judge worth trusting.

I was talking to a man. YOU. Didn't you notice?

 

[glorydaz]

Now Jesus, knowing her guilt, could have provided them with the route by which the law would be satisfied, but he didn't.

Why do you keep saying that Jesus knew her guilt?

Because those who wished to trap him had made the claim?

 

[Town Heretic]

I was talking to a man. YOU. Didn't you notice?

I was speaking of Christ and what he knew. Presumption didn't enter into it.

 

[glorydaz]

I was speaking of Christ and what he knew. Presumption didn't enter into it.

You don't know what He knew.

 

[Town Heretic]

You don't know what He knew.

Yes, I do. He told us when he told her to go and sin no more.

 

[glorydaz]

Yes, I do. He told us when he told her to go and sin no more.

No, you don't know that.

She could have sinned by lusting alone, and then was falsely accused of being caught in the act. She could have lusted, and then was raped by these men who wished to trap Jesus. She could have committed any number of sins having nothing to do with adultery.

Matt. 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.​

 

[Town Heretic]

No, you don't know that.

I do. Christ asked who was left to speak against her on the charge. She said no one. His command follows that. It remains about the charge. And then he tells her to sin no more. Any other reading must suppose something else. I'm not.

 

[Stripe]

EDIT: looking back, I've reported the "liar" post and suggested we have the don't speak to and don't speak of restriction invoked by the mods.

Nah, they're never going to do that for you.

And you are lying. Your words previously did not match your words subsequently and all you have by way of explanation is waffle.

And should I report you for calling me a liar?

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Nah, they're never going to do that for you.

And you are lying. Your words previously did not match your words subsequently and all you have by way of explanation is waffle.

And should I report you for calling me a liar?

He's POMPOUS enough to believe that they will.

 

[Stripe]

He's POMPOUS enough to believe that they will.

Actually, I think something has been put in place regarding his difficulties with another poster.

My view is that he should just learn to actually use the ignore function. That's what it's there for. :idunno:

Heck, he's vowed to never respond to me again like four times already in this thread alone. :chuckle: