Originally posted by @philokalia
I do not think this is a good thread because instead of having meaningful discussion on these topics we are just trying to get out some kind of show of force and it promotes division.

And not just that... but like, the bulk of Christians would hit "disagree" not because they disagree with all points but because they disagree with one specific point...

... It's just... so sloppy.

Perhaps if you slowed down on the vodka and read the OP carfullly you wouldn’t be so sloppy yourself.

Originally posted by @philokalia
I do not think this is a good thread because instead of having meaningful discussion on these topics we are just trying to get out some kind of show of force and it promotes division.

And not just that... but like, the bulk of Christians would hit "disagree" not because they disagree with all points but because they disagree with one specific point...

... It's just... so sloppy.

Obfuscation #3

Originally posted by @divegeester
Well done.
Sonship may be along shortly to start a thread about why you think you are more righteous than Jesus.

I say “may” as he seems to be “strangely quiet” since some histionics yesterday morning after which he apparently went back to bed.

I didn't say I am "more righteous than Jesus".

I don't see how that follows.

Originally posted by @philokalia
I do not think this is a good thread because instead of having meaningful discussion on these topics we are just trying to get out some kind of show of force and it promotes division.

And not just that... but like, the bulk of Christians would hit "disagree" not because they disagree with all points but because they disagree with one specific point...

... It's just... so sloppy.

So, like, out with it.

With which point do you disagree?

Originally posted by @divegeester
Sign up here if you are a Christian and think the following are morally [b]unjustifiable:

- Eternal suffering in hell

- Slavery

- Executing homosexuals

Just post and say “agree”

Easy peasy[/b]

1. Agree
2. Slavery in my opinion was necessary/beneficial in those times
3. Disobedient children were executed in those days. I have far greater aversion to that command than the one executing gays.

Originally posted by @rajk999
1. Agree
2. Slavery in my opinion was necessary/beneficial in those times
3. Disobedient children were executed in those days. I have far greater aversion to that command than the one executing gays.

For a lot of these, you have to listen to in-depth talk about the rules involved.

There was always the option to withhold punishment, for instance, which totally changes the nature of the game. It wa snot necessary.

Likewise, men and women could choose whether or not to have their spouse stoned.

I believe literally the only provision that always necessitated capital punishment was murder.

Originally posted by @suzianne
So, like, out with it.

With which point do you disagree?

They are all justifiable. God has never commanded anything that wasn't justifiable.

Originally posted by @philokalia
For a lot of these, you have to listen to in-depth talk about the rules involved.

There was always the option to withhold punishment, for instance, which totally changes the nature of the game. It wa snot necessary.

Likewise, men and women could choose whether or not to have their spouse stoned.

I believe literally the only provision that always necessitated capital punishment was murder.

You can believe what you want and what you often believe is contrary to what is in the Bible. Show me where this man committed murder and where there was any option to withhold punishment .. an indepth talk .. from who? one of your priests?

And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation. And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him. And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses. (Numbers 15:32-36 KJV)

Im waiting.

Originally posted by @suzianne
I didn't say I am "more righteous than Jesus".

I don't see how that follows.

Nor did anyone else who said that slavery was morally wrong; but sonship saw fit to start a whole thread on it calling out posters just like you...who don’t believe what he believes.

Thread 176399

You should try reading his stuff occasionally you might find yourself interestingly enlightened, but perhaps not in the way you would have imagined.

Originally posted by @philokalia
For a lot of these, you have to listen to in-depth talk about the rules involved.

There was always the option to withhold punishment, for instance, which totally changes the nature of the game. It wa snot necessary.

Likewise, men and women could choose whether or not to have their spouse stoned.

I believe literally the only provision that always necessitated capital punishment was murder.

Obfuscation #4

Originally posted by @philokalia
They are all justifiable. God has never commanded anything that wasn't justifiable.

Slavery, execution of homosexuals and eternal torture are all mostly justafiable are they....

Can you explain then how this is?

Originally posted by @rajk999
You can believe what you want and what you often believe is contrary to what is in the Bible. Show me where this man committed murder and where there was any option to withhold punishment .. an indepth talk .. from who? one of your priests?

And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath ...[text shortened]... with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses. (Numbers 15:32-36 KJV)

Im waiting.

You didn't read it thoroughly enough, Rajk. I said that for every punishment except murder they could withhold the most severe punishment. There was the option to not press it.

I base this off of the book Victim's Rights by Dr. Gary North.

A free PDF is available her: https://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/docs/pdf/victims_rights.pdf

He notes that murder is the one exception due to the following passage:

"Moreover ye shall
take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of
death: but he shall be surely put to death" (Num. 35:31).

Here are some more relevant excerpts. The page numbers given are in reference to the portion of the PDF and not the literal page number in the book:

The first question then is this: If the victim does decide to
prosecute, and the person is convicted, can the victim then specify
a lesser penalty? I think the answer is yes. I offer this explanation:
the principle of victim's rights still applies, but in the case of
murder, the victim cannot volunteer to accept a reduced penalty;
thus, the State must impose the maximum penalty. This leads
me to a general principle: When the State becomes the prosecuting agent
of case laws where this pleonasm occurs, it must enforce the death penalty
on conviction. There are no exceptions.
The second question is this: If the victim decides not to
prosecute, can any other court intervene and prosecute in God's
name? The case ofjoseph and Mary indicates that joseph's decision
would have been authoritative and final. Her pregnancy
would have been visible to all, yet if he had chosen not to prosecute,
she could remain free of concern about any other court
bringing charges against her. Had she actually been an adulteress,
and had her consort been married, then the victimized wife could
bring charges against them, but she could gain only a divorce: the
court's declaration of a broken marriage. She could not require
civil penalties against Mary, and therefore also not against her
husband. joseph, not the victimized wife, was the primary earthly
victim and therefore the one who possessed the option of freeing
his betrothed wife from any civil penalties.

(60)

Check out this excerpt beginning on p. 46 to understand the cocnept of being able to cancel other such punishments out of the goodness of one's heart or understandign the circumstance, and likewise, being able to impose a lesser punishment instead of the harshest one:

We know that sanctions against non-capital crimes are to be
imposed by the civil government at the discretion of the victim.
He can refuse to accept any restitution payment or a reduced
restitution payment. He can lawfully cancel the debt owed to him
(Matt. 18:23-35). I argue that this principle of forgiveness alsoapplies to capital crimes in which there is an identifiable human
victim who is capable of bringing a covenant civil lawsuit against
the criminal. We see this judicial principle in action at the crucifixion.
Jesus requested that the Father not immediately destroy
His executioners. "Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they
know not what they do" (Luke 23:34a). He extended additional
time to them. This was His unmerited favor or gift to them, just
as God had extended life to Adam, Eve, and Cain. As both the
primary victim (God) and the secondary victim (perfect man),
Jesus Christ possessed the right to extend temporal mercy to His
enemies, even for this capital crime. His divinity authorized this
extension of mercy. So did His perfect hu~anity, for He was the
victim of a rigged trial. I argue that as the victim, He could
lawfully extend mercy only before He physically died.
The question is: Are victims allowed to extend mercy in cases
where the State appears to be required by the presence of the
pleonasm, "surely he shall die," to execute the convicted criminal?
We know that in his capacity as a lawful prosecutor of God's
covenant lawsuit, the earthly victim does possess the right - the
legal authorization from God - to extend mercy to a convicted
criminal for any crime other than a capital crime. He can lawfully
forgive the restitution payment owed to him. Why not also in the
case of a capital crime?

Basically, there is a total legal precedent that has always been recognized through principles such as the cancellation of debt that one can cancel any punishment (or impose a lesser one) for anything except murder, which constitutes THE capital crime which merits the death penalty.

Originally posted by @divegeester
Slavery, execution of homosexuals and eternal torture are all mostly justafiable are they....

Can you explain then how this is?

The quotation in the above post talks about how there is the allowance for lesser penalties to be imposed.

The execution of adulterers, withces, persons who commit bestiality, and I believe there are a few other crimes, can be entirely lowered or chosen to be unenforced depending on the circumstances. These were civil laws that intended to maintain the purity of the Hebrew people and to make them the cradle from which Christ would emerge.

It is foreseeable that there would be occasions where persons promoting gross deviations among the Hebrews would need to be punished.

The penalty for "homosexuality" is pretty much the same as the penalty for adultery, but more extreme for fornication committed outside of marriage because it is unnatural. It falls into the same category of a Bronze or Iron age society attempting to stay pure in a time where there is a great risk of total degeneration.

And let us also remember: total degeneration did come to them several times, and it ruined them.

It all hinges together with not just the Christian but also the classic Stoic viewpoint that societies live and die based on their moral excellence. So these penalties exist to be used at the discretion of the judges.

What do you think of that? I hope you don't think of it as an obfuscation.

Originally posted by @philokalia
What do you think of that? I hope you don't think of it as an obfuscation.

I think most of what you post when under scrutiny is obfuscation. But in fairness you have acknowledged that slavery, executing homosexuals and eternally burning people in hell are all morally acceptable.

Let’s go one more is executing female adulterers morally acceptable to you?

Originally posted by @philokalia
You didn't read it thoroughly enough, Rajk. I said that for every punishment except murder they could withhold the most severe punishment. There was the option to not press it.

I base this off of the book Victim's Rights by Dr. Gary North.

A free PDF is available her: https://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/docs/pdf/victims_rights.pdf

He no ...[text shortened]... for anything except murder, which constitutes THE capital crime which merits the death penalty.

Did you read the quote?