To Those Who Think Adulterers, Homosexuals, Fornicators etc...

[Crucifer]

60 million dead babies sez you're wrong

The American Founders were against abortion and homosexuality- and though they were Christian they built a gov't that was definitively secular.
The first Amendment basically defines that.

I'll just put it simply. I'm pro life
But
I also know that you can't beat the evil in the world either- abortion is as much a standard as your gun rights in this country. It's simply not going to go away.

 

[ok doser]

Only the family of priests were supposed to eat the shewbread.
I do not recall if it was specified how the bread was supposed to be divided among the priests (I would need to reread that part of the law) but they were the only ones per the law that could eat it.

them and their slaves

 

[Tambora]

Never mind Stripe, I see you found out that only the priest could eat the bread.

We need the recipe because that bread sat out for a week before it was eaten!

I've heard that the Twinkie manufacturer discovered the recipe.
Just kidding.

 

[ok doser]

you know - i ran across that slave reference this afternoon, but i'll be darned if i can find it now

scripture doesn't use "slaves" - it refers to men bought by the priests - pretty sure the KJV used "bought"

 

[Crucifer]

you know - i ran across that slave reference this afternoon, but i'll be darned if i can find it now

scripture doesn't use "slaves" - it refers to men bought by the priests - pretty sure the KJV used "bought"

For a lot of people, it was either that or die out in the desert somewhere.

 

[JudgeRightly]

nope

they get a couple of days to make their peace

Less than 24 hours after conviction.

No reason to wait more than that.

If they haven't made the decision to trust in God by that point, they're likely not going to.

Any longer than that, and it starts becoming less swift, even if painful, and loses its deterrent effect.

 

[JudgeRightly]

No ... though they would have plenty of time *prior* to receiving the death penalty. BTW, I only advocate the death penalty for those who actually commit crimes that harm others ... such as rapists, child molesters and murderers.

What about adulterers? They harm others too...

 

[JudgeRightly]

Not if you refuse to grant them the time for repentance.

24 hours is plenty of time for someone to repent.

 

[JudgeRightly]

and so, my answer to my question would be "no, God cannot do anything that is not just"

I wouldn't say "can't do anything unjust," but rather "WILL NOT do anything unjust."

 

[Winston Smith]

24 hours is plenty of time for someone to repent.

But how can you be faulted for not being smart enough to repent?

 

[JudgeRightly]

So it was wrong when the priest disobeyed the law and fed David and his men the temple shewbread?
Did GOD prefer that justice be served or mercy?

Violating symbolic laws to feed the hungry was never ever condemned. In, fact, it was encouraged.

And behold, there was a man who had a withered hand. And they asked Him, saying, [JESUS]“Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?”—that they might accuse Him.Then He said to them, “What man is there among you who has one sheep, and if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not lay hold of it and lift it out?Of how much more value then is a man than a sheep? Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.”[/JESUS] - Matthew 12:10-12 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew12:10-12&version=NKJV

 

[Stripe]

i don't believe a punishment was specified for Uzzah's crime either

No. There seem to be a lot of situations where either a punishment was not specifieed, or one was prescribed upon conviction.

 

[Stripe]

They were the only ones per the law that could eat it.

And yet it seems that Jesus approved of — or at least tolerated — it being given to David and his men.

 

[Stripe]

But how can you be faulted for not being smart enough to repent?

:AMR:

 

[quip]

24 hours is plenty of time for someone to repent.

24 seconds would probably do for the actual event but what...no foreplay?! :chuckle:

 

[Tambora]

Violating symbolic laws to feed the hungry was never ever condemned. In, fact, it was encouraged.

And behold, there was a man who had a withered hand. And they asked Him, saying, [JESUS]“Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?”—that they might accuse Him.Then He said to them, “What man is there among you who has one sheep, and if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not lay hold of it and lift it out?Of how much more value then is a man than a sheep? Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.”[/JESUS] - Matthew 12:10-12 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew12:10-12&version=NKJV

Of course it was good for the priest to show mercy instead of law to feed the hungry David with the temple shewbread.
The LORD delights in mercy and compassion.
But it was still unlawful to do so.
Which is what I have been saying all along ----- that disobeying the letter of the law was not always the wrong thing to do.

Matthew 12:4 KJV
(4) How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?​

Which is what I perceive that the OP was trying to ask ........ If you insist on the letter of the law being enforced, where is mercy?

I don't think the line to cross from law to mercy has an iron clad check list, but is an individual heart issue that each must decide for themselves, making the the line of balancing law and mercy different for one from another.
For scripture does tell us that a man is judged as he judges others.
Those that judge harshly will be judged harshly, and those that show mercy will be shown mercy.

Blessed are the merciful for they will be shown mercy.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Of course it was good for the priest to show mercy instead of law to feed the hungry David with the temple shewbread.

Violating a symbolic law to feed a hungry man is never wrong, because the law is symbolic, not moral.

It is never good to violate a moral law (or necessary) to keep another law, moral or otherwise.

The LORD delights in mercy and compassion.

And?

But it was still unlawful to do so.

Uh, no, it was not.

Violating a symbolic law to keep another IS lawful.

Because symbolic laws sometimes conflict with other laws.

GOD EXPECTED and even APPROVED of breaking some laws to keep others.

But He NEVER approves of nor expects someone to break a moral law to keep any other law, because there is no moral law that contradicts with any other.

Which is what I have been saying all along ----- that disobeying the letter of the law was not always the wrong thing to do.

See, here's the thing, you think that that means that because it's ok to break some laws that you get to decide which an be violated.

I'm telling you that only symbolic laws were acceptable to be violated, NEVER moral laws.

Matthew 12:4 KJV
(4) How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?​

Which is what I perceive that the OP was trying to ask ........ If you insist on the letter of the law being enforced, where is mercy?

MERCY is shown to the victim of the crime by punishing the criminal. That's where mercy is.

I don't think the line to cross from law to mercy has an iron clad check list, but is an individual heart issue that each must decide for themselves, making the the line of balancing law and mercy different for one from another.

For personal forgiveness and mercy, sure.

But the subject is societal justice, served by the government, and God explicitly stated that judges (ie, the authorities) were not to show mercy to criminals.

For scripture does tell us that a man is judged as he judges others. Those that judge harshly will be judged harshly, and those that show mercy will be shown mercy.

Again, dealing with personal matters, not crime.

Blessed are the merciful for they will be shown mercy.

God said that Judges were not to show mercy to criminals.

‘And these things shall be a statute of judgment to you throughout your generations in all your dwellings.Whoever kills a person, the murderer shall be put to death on the testimony of witnesses; but one witness is not sufficient testimony against a person for the death penalty.Moreover you shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death. - Numbers 35:29-31 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers35:29-31&version=NKJV

Your eye shall not pity him, but you shall put away the guilt of innocent blood from Israel, that it may go well with you. - Deuteronomy 19:13 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy19:13&version=NKJV

People do not despise a thief If he steals to satisfy himself when he is starving.Yet when he is found, he must restore sevenfold; He may have to give up all the substance of his house. - Proverbs 6:30-31 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs6:30-31&version=NKJV

 

[Tambora]

Uh, no, it was not.

The Lord Jesus Christ says it was unlawful.

Matthew 12:4 KJV
(4) How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?

Calling it a 'symbolic' law (which scripture does not) isn't going to change that it was not lawful.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Of course it was good for the priest to show mercy instead of law to feed the hungry David with the temple shewbread.
The LORD delights in mercy and compassion.
But it was still unlawful to do so.
Which is what I have been saying all along ----- that disobeying the letter of the law was not always the wrong thing to do.

Matthew 12:4 KJV
(4) How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?​

Which is what I perceive that the OP was trying to ask ........ If you insist on the letter of the law being enforced, where is mercy?

I don't think the line to cross from law to mercy has an iron clad check list, but is an individual heart issue that each must decide for themselves, making the the line of balancing law and mercy different for one from another.
For scripture does tell us that a man is judged as he judges others.
Those that judge harshly will be judged harshly, and those that show mercy will be shown mercy.

Blessed are the merciful for they will be shown mercy.

There's not much mercy among those who ascribe to "the letter of the law". A quick trial with two or three witnesses as "evidence", a 24 hour period to get one's "affairs" in order whether guilty or not on the former and a swift, painful boot into the afterlife. Mercy? Compassion? Look elsewhere. There's none of that in legalism.

 

[JudgeRightly]

There's not much mercy among those who ascribe to "the letter of the law". A quick trial with two or three witnesses as "evidence", a 24 hour period to get one's "affairs" in order whether guilty or not on the former and a swift, painful boot into the afterlife. Mercy? Compassion? Look elsewhere. There's none of that in legalism.

This is called special pleading.

You're ignoring the mercy and compassion shown to the victims by punishing the criminals swiftly and painfully.