1. DonationPawnokeyhole
    Krackpot Kibitzer
    Right behind you...
    Joined
    27 Apr '02
    Moves
    16879
    16 Jan '06 18:05
    Exodus 22:18

    "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 witch were on artificial life-support, and had a chance of recovering, would one be doing God's work if one removed her from artificial life-support, thereby not suffering her to live? If not, why not?
  2. Standard memberHalitose
    I stink, ergo I am
    On the rebound
    Joined
    14 Jul '05
    Moves
    4464
    16 Jan '06 18:441 edit
    Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
    Exodus 22:18

    "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 removed her from artificial life-support, thereby not suffering her to live? If not, why not?
    Your question is not that simple, but here is my two cents:

    The New Testament states that Jesus established a new covenent between God and his people and this makes the Mosaic covenant (and the mosaic law) obsolete (Hebrews 8). The writer of Hebrews states that the sacrifices of the Levitical priesthood foreshadowed Jesus Christ's offering of himself as the sacrifice for sin on the Cross, ergo once the reality of Christ has come, the shadows of the ritual laws cease to be obligatory (see Heb 9:23-26; 10:1).

    You may notice that most of this is based on the book of Hebrews - well, duh. 😉
  3. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52612
    16 Jan '06 19:23
    Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
    Exodus 22:18

    "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?
    So your question is predicated on the concept that witches are
    real or their craft is capable of doing what witches say they do?
    So you believe in witchcraft because the bible says there is a devil and
    witchcraft is a form of devil worship?
  4. Belfast
    Joined
    12 Nov '05
    Moves
    1780
    16 Jan '06 19:35
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    So your question is predicated on the concept that witches are
    real or their craft is capable of doing what witches say they do?
    So you believe in witchcraft because the bible says there is a devil and
    witchcraft is a form of devil worship?
    What the Bible says and what is true are not the one and the same.
  5. Standard memberHalitose
    I stink, ergo I am
    On the rebound
    Joined
    14 Jul '05
    Moves
    4464
    16 Jan '06 20:032 edits
    Originally posted by lukemcmullan
    What the Bible says and what is true are not the one and the same.
    Oh really now? All I need is one instance to the contrary and your petty statement falls through... Okayyyy... try the Sennacherib Prism* for size. Pay special attention to Column 3 where it mentions the siege of Jerusalem. Now read 2 Kings 18-19. Does this not match the archeological evidence? So how can you claim that the Bible never mentions the truth? I demand a retraction!! 😛😠

    * http://www.kchanson.com/ANCDOCS/meso/sennprism1.html
  6. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    16 Jan '06 20:23
    Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
    Exodus 22:18

    "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.
  7. DonationPawnokeyhole
    Krackpot Kibitzer
    Right behind you...
    Joined
    27 Apr '02
    Moves
    16879
    17 Jan '06 11:311 edit
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    So your question is predicated on the concept that witches are
    real or their craft is capable of doing what witches say they do?
    So you believe in witchcraft because the bible says there is a devil and
    witchcraft is a form of devil worship?
    I don't believe anything just because the Bible says it. Why should I?

    I believe that witches exist insofar as they and others currently regard, and have historically regarded, witches as constituting a meaningful social category. I don't believe anyone has magical powers, however, so I don't believe in witches in that sense. However, other people do, including the authors of the Bible, and Christians who killed witches through the ages, and current Wiccans.

    I think that witches existence as an agreed social category is the only assumption on which my question is predicated.

    Note that, if the Bible makes a claim about witches, and witches do not exist, then the Bible is making a factual error, which doesn't bode well for its inerrancy.
  8. DonationPawnokeyhole
    Krackpot Kibitzer
    Right behind you...
    Joined
    27 Apr '02
    Moves
    16879
    17 Jan '06 11:35
    Originally posted by Halitose
    Your question is not that simple, but here is my two cents:

    The New Testament states that Jesus established a new covenent between God and his people and this makes the Mosaic covenant (and the mosaic law) obsolete (Hebrews 8). The writer of Hebrews states that the sacrifices of the Levitical priesthood foreshadowed Jesus Christ's offering of himself as ...[text shortened]... -26; 10:1).

    You may notice that most of this is based on the book of Hebrews - well, duh. 😉
    I think it is clear that you haven't answered my questions directly. Please do, for the sake of clarity.

    Are you saying that, because of the alleged New Convenant between Jesus and God, the imperatives of the Old Testament in the book of Leviticus are to be disregarded? All of them? Any other imperatives in other books of the Old Testament?

    Are you also saying that the sacrificing of witches by others foreshadows the sacrificing of Jesus by God? Ugh! Please clarify.
  9. DonationPawnokeyhole
    Krackpot Kibitzer
    Right behind you...
    Joined
    27 Apr '02
    Moves
    16879
    17 Jan '06 11:46
    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.

    THAT'S INTERESTING. I'M GLAD I LIVE IN AN ADVANCED DEMOCRACY.

    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.

    ARE YOU ASSERTING THAT THERE WAS AT THIS TIME ADEQUATE JUSTIFICATION FOR PREVENTING WOMEN PRACTISING WITCHCRAFT FROM REMAINING ALIVE?

    HOW DOES THIS SQUARE WITH THE COMMANDMENT, "THOU SHALT NOT KILL"?

    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.

    I ADMIRE JESUS'S APPROACH. DO YOU THINK HE PERSONALLY WOULD HAVE APPROVED OF THE PREVIOUSLY POLICY OF NOT ALLOWING WITCHES TO LIVE?

    IF JESUS'S APPROACH IS BETTER, WHY WAS IT NOT INSTITUTED ORIGINALLY?

    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

    SO, IT IS BETTER TO FORGIVE WITCHES THAN NOT TO ALLOW THEM TO LIVE? I AGREE!

    HOWEVER, I DISAGREE THAT THESE POLICIES ARE NOT AT VARIANCE WITH ONE ANOTHER. (I AM SURE WITCHES WOULD BACK ME UP!) ONE SANCTIONS MURDER FOR PRACTISING NON-CONFORMIST RELIGIOUS BELIEFS; THE OTHER PREACHES NON-JUDGMENTAL TOLERANCE.

    YOU DON'T THINK ONE IS FUNDAMENTALLY ANY LESS MORAL THAN THE OTHER?

    ARE YOU WILLING TO GO ON RECORD STATING YOU DON'T THINK THE MURDER OF WITCHES IS FUNDAMENTALLY ANY LESS MORAL THAN FORGIVING THEM?
  10. DonationPawnokeyhole
    Krackpot Kibitzer
    Right behind you...
    Joined
    27 Apr '02
    Moves
    16879
    17 Jan '06 11:47
    Please, more Christians who believe that the bible is the WORD OF GOD have your say!
  11. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    17 Jan '06 22:56
    Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
    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 convict ...[text shortened]... ON'T THINK THE MURDER OF WITCHES IS FUNDAMENTALLY ANY LESS MORAL THAN FORGIVING THEM?
    As I said before, Christ brought a better covenent. Christ broke the power of sin in our lives. Up until this point men were slaves to the sins they commited. Jesus said that whoever commits a sin is a slave of that sin. Only through him are we afforded the oppurtunity to reverse this situation. Thus grace affords us time to repent which allows him to set us free from the chains of sin if we turn to him. As for why it did not happen sooner, I have my theories. God works through man's will. If man chooses to follow God then God is able to work through him. If man chooses not to follow God he does not work through him. When man first fell, God was at ground zero. All appeared to be lost. He at that time had every right to eradicate mankind. Thus every thing that we have after the fall is merely a gift and the grace of God. I know we don't look at it this way. Our perspective is one of entitlement. Despite the fall, however, God had a plan. He was able to work through a select few who chose to follow him after the fall. Through the faith of a few he was able to create a nation. Through that nation he was able to produce the Messiah to reach the world. It was a slow and painful process that had to be followed. Through each successive act of faith God inched closer and closer to his goal which was universal redemption for mankind. Redemption for those who died before Christ and after Christ. Stories such as Abraham being asked to sacrifice his son come to mind. I have a theory about this episode. It used to trouble me that God would ask such a thing. However, consider this. Does this not sound like the Father giving the world his son to die for us? Could it be that God needed the faith of Abraham to go through with this act in order to OK giving his son to die for us? He did not need Abraham to go through with the act, rather, he was looking for his act of faith and obedeince. He then could bless Abrahams succeeding generations through his faithfulness to produce the Messiah. This is because God only recognizes and can bless acts of faith. Remember, however, that he then stopped Abraham from going through with the act. Could it be that without the faith of those who have gone before us we would have nothing and would not even be here today? Consider Noah. Had Noah not followed God, would we all be here today? During his life time the wickedness in the earth was so great that he repented for ever having created man and he decided to destroy them with a flood. Noah was the only man left who had faith in God and was saved. Why then does God require faiht? The Bible even goes so far to say that whatever is not faith is sin. Faith is merely agreeing to the word and will of God. It is combining your will with his in a harmonious fashion. Why would God go against his own will? His will is perfect, righteeous, loving, and just. He only wants what is best for us. He therefore, cannot bless or condone any thing less that his perfect will.
    You may ask why God gave us a will. God gave us a will for one simple reason. God is love and love demands a will. Can you have a loving relationship with someone when either you or they do not have the will to love you back?

    To sum up, are we to judge God? You may if you like. God knows that many have tried. The sobering fact is that we are merely his creation. The fact that we are here is due to his mercy and grace. He even allows those who mock him and berate him to continue on with their lives. Granted, short lives. The fact remains that he runs the show. He is holy and just and sees and knows all. We do not. We only have a skewed view of reality. We often think we know best and choose to run our own lives as we see fit. There is a better way, however. We can let our creator have the helm in our lives. This is what we were designed for and what he was meant to do. We can see the results of his creation choosing to go their own way, however. As for me, I made a big enough mess of my own life before turning to him. He has turned me around for the better.
  12. SubscriberBigDoggProblem
    The Advanced Mind
    bigdogghouse.com/RHP
    Joined
    26 Nov '04
    Moves
    110392
    17 Jan '06 23:07
    Originally posted by whodey
    As I said before, Christ brought a better covenent. Christ broke the power of sin in our lives. Up until this point men were slaves to the sins they commited. Jesus said that whoever commits a sin is a slave of that sin. Only through him are we afforded the oppurtunity to reverse this situation. Thus grace affords us time to repent which allows him to se ...[text shortened]... big enough mess of my own life before turning to him. He has turned me around for the better.
    I could get this much from a tract.
  13. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    18 Jan '06 00:13
    Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
    I could get this much from a tract.
    Maybe I should start writing them?
  14. DonationPawnokeyhole
    Krackpot Kibitzer
    Right behind you...
    Joined
    27 Apr '02
    Moves
    16879
    18 Jan '06 08:49
    Originally posted by whodey
    As I said before, Christ brought a better covenent. Christ broke the power of sin in our lives. Up until this point men were slaves to the sins they commited. Jesus said that whoever commits a sin is a slave of that sin. Only through him are we afforded the oppurtunity to reverse this situation. Thus grace affords us time to repent which allows him to se ...[text shortened]... big enough mess of my own life before turning to him. He has turned me around for the better.
    I'm glad I didn't ask for bus directions. Can't you answer my questions directly?
  15. Standard memberNemesio
    Ursulakantor
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Joined
    05 Mar '02
    Moves
    32455
    18 Jan '06 09:25
    Originally posted by Halitose
    The New Testament states that Jesus established a new covenent between God and his people and this makes the Mosaic covenant (and the mosaic law) obsolete (Hebrews 8). The writer of Hebrews states that the sacrifices of the Levitical priesthood foreshadowed Jesus Christ's offering of himself as the sacrifice for sin on the Cross, ergo once the reality of Ch ...[text shortened]... -26; 10:1).

    You may notice that most of this is based on the book of Hebrews - well, duh. 😉
    How do you reconcile the statement by Jesus that the smallest part of the Law shall
    not pass away?

    Do you frown upon fundamentalists who use Leviticus to justify their stances on homosexuality?

    Nemesio
Back to Top