Trump sez: Transgenders B gone!

[Arthur Brain]

What is the basic disagreement here? (I know, "NOW he asks...")

Is it Dozer's half-serious claim that adulterers should be put to death today? (I think it's deliberate absurdity just to prove a point but he can tell me if I'm wrong)

Or is it where personal responsibility starts and ends?

Both?

Yeah I've chimed in lots of times but I've never been sure what the main disagreement is, and since this topic is now measured in YEARS and gets nowhere...someone tell me?

Oh, in his own trollish way he's "serious" enough about it and JR most certainly is. In "zealot world", OT laws should still apply today and that means stoning adulterers to death, no shades of grey or anything, just take the "guilty party" out, have a quick trial with two to three witnesses and if found guilty, lob rocks at them until they're dead. Doesn't matter whether the couple can work things out etc...

 

[musterion]

He'll tell me if I've read him wrong. But if one is serious about adultery needed the death penalty, if one quotes the Law for that then so does every other sin. At some point in our lives, every single one of us would be on death row.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I know what you mean. I was letting it slide for some time thinking it was some pretend reality. Then I realized they might be serious when I saw they were advocating executing a 10 year old boy. Now that I see execution being promoted for adultery, I can hardly force myself to take them seriously. I guess it's what they'd like to see the government enforce, thinking it would help stop adultery and other such "crimes" from being committed. :idunno:

Oh, JR is absolutely serious about it, doser's probably more interested in the stirring the pot aspect but JR is totally sincere with having a society that enacts ancient laws, even to the point of killing six year old's with stabbing if that was the "appropriate penalty". Sure, it's bat crazy but there's folk who advocate this stuff...

 

[Arthur Brain]

You keep wanting to suggest specific scenarios as if that will settle the issue of the results of consequences being earned and deserved.
It doesn't, nor can it.
Because we can find situations in scripture where the spouse of an adulterer can choose to react in a loving, supportive, and forgiving nature or just stone them to death.
The case of Hosea and Gomer would be an example of a spouse choosing the mercy route instead of the condemnation route.
That's why scripture hopping to present only one side of the coin is rarely productive, because one can nearly always find an exception.
When one sees another exhibiting bad behavior, they have a choice of how they respond ---- mercy or condemnation.
Be glad of it, otherwise you could receive no mercy for any of your bad behavior.
And if you are given mercy for bad behavior, then why restrict other's bad behavior from receiving mercy?
Not so black and white is it?

To level headed people it certainly isn't black and white. The likes of JR would deprive an estranged couple of the opportunity to reconcile regardless of circumstances. Making adultery a black and white capital crime would simply reduce the amount of people getting married. JR seems to prescribe flogging for fornicating couples so let's face it. Society would just be one nightmare, "religious state" which wouldn't be far removed from extremist states we see elsewhere in the world if legalists had their way.

 

[Arthur Brain]

But you refuse to quote the words that matter here. :think:

Matt. 5:27-28 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: 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.​

How is it you are so quick to stone the woman for what you have done yourself?

Which, of course, is something you guys just refuse to admit....as if you were somehow worthy of casting the first stone.

Romans 2:1
Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.​

Eh, I've done it and I certainly ain't in a position to cast that stone. Not that I'd want to anyway.

 

[glorydaz]

To level headed people it certainly isn't black and white. The likes of JR would deprive an estranged couple of the opportunity to reconcile regardless of circumstances. Making adultery a black and white capital crime would simply reduce the amount of people getting married. JR seems to prescribe flogging for fornicating couples so let's face it. Society would just be one nightmare, "religious state" which wouldn't be far removed from extremist states we see elsewhere in the world if legalists had their way.

Prohibition didn't cut down on the drinking, did it?

The passing of laws does not make anyone righteous. Never has and never will.

Galatians 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.​

 

[glorydaz]

Oh, JR is absolutely serious about it, doser's probably more interested in the stirring the pot aspect but JR is totally sincere with having a society that enacts ancient laws, even to the point of killing six year old's with stabbing if that was the "appropriate penalty". Sure, it's bat crazy but there's folk who advocate this stuff...

JR is in the valley on this issue. I've been there, as I'm sure others have as well. After all, it's where the growth takes place.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Prohibition didn't cut down on the drinking, did it?

The passing of laws does not make anyone righteous. Never has and never will.

Galatians 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.​

No, it just increased bootlegging until sanity prevailed and it was abolished.

 

[Arthur Brain]

JR is in the valley on this issue. I've been there, as I'm sure others have as well. After all, it's where the growth takes place.

He's adamant on it. Fair enough, he can change his legalism in time and hopefully will but no guarantee.

 

[Tambora]

Oh, in his own trollish way he's "serious" enough about it and JR most certainly is. In "zealot world", OT laws should still apply today and that means stoning adulterers to death, no shades of grey or anything, just take the "guilty party" out, have a quick trial with two to three witnesses and if found guilty, lob rocks at them until they're dead. Doesn't matter whether the couple can work things out etc...

Ahh, but there were shades of grey even in the OT times.
King David (a man after GOD's own heart) was not stoned to death for committing adultery.
Hosea did not stone his wife to death when she committed adultery, but took her back.
So even then there were exception to stoning an adulterer.
Makes you pause and wonder just why it is that all those folks living under the law at that time did not stone all adulterers to death as the law instructed.
Doesn't hardly seem "fair" that some adulterers got stoned to death and some didn't.
Exceptions ---- scripture is full of them.
And I would venture to say that there is a good reason for it when you stop and think that without those exceptions we would all be up a creek without a paddle.

 

[Tambora]

JR is in the valley on this issue. I've been there, as I'm sure others have as well. After all, it's where the growth takes place.

True.
And in JR's defense, it's his choice of how he responds to an adulterous wife.
I think there are many variables that come into play when making that choice, and the choice for one to choose to keep the adulterer as their spouse may not be the right choice for another to make with their adulterous spouse.

 

[Tambora]

Prohibition didn't cut down on the drinking, did it?

The passing of laws does not make anyone righteous. Never has and never will.

Galatians 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.​

That's a very eye-opening verse isn't it!!!!

I mean, think about it .................. would it have been right to follow the law and stone King David for adultery, or would it be right to let him live?
Would it have been right for Hosea to follow the law and stone his wife for adultery, or would it be right to let her live?
Would it have been right for the priest to follow the law and not feed the starving David and his men the temple shewbread, or was it right to feed them the shewbread?

Decisions decisions.

 

[glorydaz]

There is a ritual in the law for a husband that suspects his wife is unfaithful when there is no witness.

But as you have said, this was a law for Israel.

Numbers 5:11-31 KJV
(11) And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
(12) Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man's wife go aside, and commit a trespass against him,
(13) And a man lie with her carnally, and it be hid from the eyes of her husband, and be kept close, and she be defiled, and there be no witness against her, neither she be taken with the manner;
(14) And the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be defiled: or if the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be not defiled:
(15) Then shall the man bring his wife unto the priest, and he shall bring her offering for her, the tenth part of an ephah of barley meal; he shall pour no oil upon it, nor put frankincense thereon; for it is an offering of jealousy, an offering of memorial, bringing iniquity to remembrance.

Spoiler

(16) And the priest shall bring her near, and set her before the LORD:
(17) And the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is in the floor of the tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water:
(18) And the priest shall set the woman before the LORD, and uncover the woman's head, and put the offering of memorial in her hands, which is the jealousy offering: and the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that causeth the curse:
(19) And the priest shall charge her by an oath, and say unto the woman, If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness with another instead of thy husband, be thou free from this bitter water that causeth the curse:
(20) But if thou hast gone aside to another instead of thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee beside thine husband:
(21) Then the priest shall charge the woman with an oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell;
(22) And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen.
(23) And the priest shall write these curses in a book, and he shall blot them out with the bitter water:
(24) And he shall cause the woman to drink the bitter water that causeth the curse: and the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter.
(25) Then the priest shall take the jealousy offering out of the woman's hand, and shall wave the offering before the LORD, and offer it upon the altar:
(26) And the priest shall take an handful of the offering, even the memorial thereof, and burn it upon the altar, and afterward shall cause the woman to drink the water.
(27) And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people.
(28) And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed.
(29) This is the law of jealousies, when a wife goeth aside to another instead of her husband, and is defiled;
(30) Or when the spirit of jealousy cometh upon him, and he be jealous over his wife, and shall set the woman before the LORD, and the priest shall execute upon her all this law.
(31) Then shall the man be guiltless from iniquity, and this woman shall bear her iniquity.

Ahh, but there were shades of grey even in the OT times.
King David (a man after GOD's own heart) was not stoned to death for committing adultery.
Hosea did not stone his wife to death when she committed adultery, but took her back.
So even then there were exception to stoning an adulterer.
Makes you pause and wonder just why it is that all those folks living under the law at that time did not stone all adulterers to death as the law instructed.
Doesn't hardly seem "fair" that some adulterers got stoned to death and some didn't.
Exceptions ---- scripture is full of them.
And I would venture to say that there is a good reason for it when you stop and think that without those exceptions we would all be up a creek without a paddle.

I think you've provided the answer to that already.

 

[ok doser]

Prohibition didn't cut down on the drinking, did it?

yes, it did

i'm sorry to see you buy into the lie of the dim-witted progressive leftists that prohibition was primarily a moral crusade against evil by busy-body Christians

it was, in fact an attempt to right some incredibly significant social ills associated with drinking that were ravaging our cities, especially the poor, especially immigrants - social ills such as physical abuse of spouses and children by drunken parents and a shockingly high degree of alcohol related disease states, cirrhosis of the liver being prominent among them



and it was successful in its focus - alcohol consumption plummeted, alcohol related disease incidences fell precipitously, reported cases of spousal abuse and child abuse fell as well


here's the price we pay today for readily available alcohol:

Drinking too much can harm your health. Excessive alcohol use led to approximately 88,000 deaths and 2.5 million years of potential life lost (YPLL) each year in the United States from 2006 – 2010, shortening the lives of those who died by an average of 30 years.1,2 Further, excessive drinking was responsible for 1 in 10 deaths among working-age adults aged 20-64 years. The economic costs of excessive alcohol consumption in 2010 were estimated at $249 billion, or $2.05 a drink.3 Short-Term Health Risks Excessive alcohol use has immediate effects that increase the risk of many harmful health conditions. These are most often the result of binge drinking and include the following: Injuries, such as motor vehicle crashes, falls, drownings, and burns.6,7 Violence, including homicide, suicide, sexual assault, and intimate partner violence.6-10 Alcohol poisoning, a medical emergency that results from high blood alcohol levels.11 Risky sexual behaviors, including unprotected sex or sex with multiple partners. These behaviors can result in unintended pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV.12,13 Miscarriage and stillbirth or fetal alcohol spectrum disorders (FASDs) among pregnant women.6,12,14,15 Long-Term Health Risks Over time, excessive alcohol use can lead to the development of chronic diseases and other serious problems including: High blood pressure, heart disease, stroke, liver disease, and digestive problems.6,16 Cancer of the breast, mouth, throat, esophagus, liver, and colon.6,17 Learning and memory problems, including dementia and poor school performance.6,18 Mental health problems, including depression and anxiety.6,19 Social problems, including lost productivity, family problems, and unemployment.6,20,21 Alcohol dependence, or alcoholism.5 https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm

that's 88,000 deaths/year attributed to alcohol abuse

 

[ok doser]

No, it just increased bootlegging until sanity prevailed and it was abolished.

you sir, are an uninformed moron

educate your dumb self:

Second, alcohol consumption declined dramatically during Prohibition. Cirrhosis death rates for men were 29.5 per 100,000 in 1911 and 10.7 in 1929. Admissions to state mental hospitals for alcoholic psychosis declined from 10.1 per 100,000 in 1919 to 4.7 in 1928. https://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/16/opinion/actually-prohibition-was-a-success.html

 

[ok doser]

I don't believe it's the government's place to punish adulterers.

yes, you've made that clear

and yet you believe it is the government's place to punish those who break laws with which you agree

so you do agree that the government has a role to play in punishing those who break laws, you just don't think that adultery should be one of those laws

what other actions should not be punished by the government?

using illegal drugs?
selling illegal drugs to adults?
adults engaging in homo sex?
pornography (making and viewing) between consenting adults?
divorce?

 

[ok doser]

Are you claiming you never looked at a woman with lust when you were married?

when i was married i took my wedding vows seriously (forsaking all others) and did not look on a woman to lust after her

not once

you may believe that or not, i don't care

 

[ok doser]

I'm waiting for a response, guys. opcorn:

i would suggest that you pray for guidance from God on this one glory - there's no way you'll take anything i have to say about it seriously

i'll pray that God guides you in your confusion

 

[ok doser]

You keep wanting to suggest specific scenarios as if that will settle the issue of the results of consequences being earned and deserved.

the only issue around that lies in your inability to understand what I've said, and i'm not going to argue against a strawman

It doesn't, nor can it.
Because we can find situations in scripture where the spouse of an adulterer can choose to react in a loving, supportive, and forgiving nature or just stone them to death.
The case of Hosea and Gomer would be an example of a spouse choosing the mercy route instead of the condemnation route.
That's why scripture hopping to present only one side of the coin is rarely productive, because one can nearly always find an exception.
When one sees another exhibiting bad behavior, they have a choice of how they respond ---- mercy or condemnation.
Be glad of it, otherwise you could receive no mercy for any of your bad behavior.
And if you are given mercy for bad behavior, then why restrict other's bad behavior from receiving mercy?
Not so black and white is it?

well, i hope God corrects you gently, tam, for your deliberate misrepresentation of what Jesus states so clearly:

Matthew 19:3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? 4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Ahh, but there were shades of grey even in the OT times.
King David (a man after GOD's own heart) was not stoned to death for committing adultery.
Hosea did not stone his wife to death when she committed adultery, but took her back.
So even then there were exception to stoning an adulterer.
Makes you pause and wonder just why it is that all those folks living under the law at that time did not stone all adulterers to death as the law instructed.
Doesn't hardly seem "fair" that some adulterers got stoned to death and some didn't.
Exceptions ---- scripture is full of them.
And I would venture to say that there is a good reason for it when you stop and think that without those exceptions we would all be up a creek without a paddle.

It's only the ultra zealots, those with a grudge to bear and the heartless who would advocate this type of stuff in the present. I'm just glad that it's a minority although the type of indoctrination that leads to such mindsets still goes on and that's disheartening. Being taught not to question what a church taught led to me leaving one albeit on a different subject.