Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."
Is there any Christian fundamentalist here who believes that we are *not* morally obliged to do as this biblical passage directs, namely, not letting witches live wherever feasible?
If so, how do you reconcile this with the bible being inerrant and divinely inspired?
For example, if a wit ...[text shortened]... removed her from artificial life-support, thereby not suffering her to live? If not, why not?
Point #1. The Mosiac law has many harsh penalties such as this. The justice system of that time had no jail cells. They were wandering in the desert in search of the promised land. Justice was immediate and certain. You either lost money, a body part, or your life for certain sins or crimes. You did not spend thousands of dollars a year to house convicted felons and pay off overpriced lawyers. The same laws applied to everyone and everyone knew the laws and penalties for breaking them.
Point #2. These laws were made from the old covenant. The new convenant affords the oppurtunity to overcome sin in ones life. Before Christ came this was not so. You were then faced with releasing people back into society to continue their sinful practices and in effect spread their influence to others. As far as witchcraft goes, this was a form of idolatry in the eyes of God. People were invoking demonic influences within the society of God's chosen people. These infuences would, if left unchecked, lead the people away from God and in the end destroy them. What is worse, the destruction of a society or of a single person? This was the choice they were faced with.
Point #3. The new convenant provides a better way. When a woman was caught in the act of idolatry she was brought to Jesus. They told him that she had been caught red handed. There was no question about her guilt. The people said that by Mosaic law she should be stoned to death. Jesus said something very interesting. He did not tell the people they did not have the right to stone her. Instead he said, "Whoever is without sin, cast the first stone." Then one by one the people left as they were convicted of their own sin. He then turned to the woman and asked her where her accusers had gone to. He then said that if they no longer condemned her then neither did he condemn her and told her to go in peace. She then converted then and there and was forgiven. Here we see a new convenant. It is a convenant of mercy in which sin can be overcome through Christ.
Point #4 . The old convenant was but a glimpse into the holiness of God and the seriousness of sin. The new convenant is a glimpse into the love and mercy of God. Both are important to note and just as valid as the other. The new convenant, therefore, is not at varience with the old covenant. The new covenant is simply a better covenant. On the one hand, God must be just and therefore must judge sinners justly. On the other hand, he is a God of love and is conflicted in regards to giving us what we deserve. The cross is the only solution for such a dilemma. This is why we now have the new covenant
Point #5 In the new convenant we are told to walk in love and mercy with others. We are to show them the same love and mercy given to us for our transgressions. How can Christ show us love and mercy when we are not willing to do the same for other sinners who are just like us. After all, they are no better than from where we as Christians started before we were converted.