UK religious hate laws

[Lothian]

There is talk of new religious hate laws (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3871867.stm) in the UK.

I am sure there are other examples but does anyone else think this quote from a well know book could fall foul of laws intended to stop the incitement of racial hatred.


Deuteronomy

17:2
If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant,
17:3
And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded;
17:4
And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel:
17:5
Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.


I dare say it will no longer be able to be sold. I certainly intend informing my local police force if I note anyone selling it when the new laws come in. I will also be pressing for house to house searches for anyone storing such offensive material, particularly if children live there and could get their hands on it.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Lothian
There is talk of new religious hate laws (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3871867.stm) in the UK.

I am sure there are other examples but does anyone else think this quote from a well know book could fall foul of laws intended to stop the incitement of racial hatred.


I dare say it will no longer be able to be sold. I certainly intend informing my local police force if I note anyone selling it when the new laws come in. I will also be pressing for house to house searches for anyone storing such offensive material, particularly if children live there and could get their hands on it.

I assume that if you lived under such a government you would simply pack up and leave since no one would attempt to prevent you from doing so as is the case in Communuist governments where you can't leave even if you want to--right?

BTW
It wouldn't run foul of racial hatred laws because there is no mention of race involved.

[Benguin]

I suspect another one that talks about "Forcibly subdueing" the infidels might need to think about a subtley reworded 2nd edition.

[richardm]

Originally posted by Radrook


I assume that if you lived under such a government you would simply pack up and leave since no one would attempt to prevent you from doing so as is the case in Communuist governments where you can't leave even if you want to--right?


Do you want to have another go at that sentence, Radrook? ;) BTW, the new laws are to do with religious hatred, in which case those passages Lothian quoted would be right on the mark.

I wonder if old books - the Classics, if you like - would be exempt from the new law, though.

I mean, you can buy Mein Kampf through
Amazon (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1593640048/qid=1089189654/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/202-6971453-0303023) these days. Would that stop under the new law? If not, that would be a significant loophole to be exploited, I'd have thought. "We're just talking about existing literature, not inciting religious hatred".

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Radrook
I assume that if you lived under such a government you would simply pack up and leave since no one would attempt to prevent you from doing so as is the case in Communuist governments where you can't leave even if you want to--right?

You mis-understand me. I am fully supporting the laws. It is just the only ones I see inciting religious hatred are other religions. I am not religious but see no reason why those that are should be able to practice their beliefs as long as it doesn't interfere with my life. I see the Bible as calling on people to discriminate and persecute me and I want the book banned. or the offending passages removed. Same for the Koran. If the laws are aimed at religious extremists it can't just be at the people it must also be against writings that promote religious extremism.

BTW
It wouldn't run foul of racial hatred laws because there is no mention of race involved. [/B]Indeed the whole point of the new laws is that the race laws don't work at people discriminating against peoples beliefs. I can't currently incite hatred of Jews but can incite hatred of Islam or Christianity. This law is to bring the two in line.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Lothian

You mis-understand me. I am fully supporting the laws. It is just the only ones I see inciting religious hatred are other religions. I am not religious but see no reason why those that are should be able to practice their beliefs as long as it doesn't interfere with my life. I see the Bible as calling on people to discriminate and persecute me and I want the book banned. or the offending passages removed. Same for the Koran. If the laws are aimed at religious extremists it can't just be at the people it must also be against writings that promote religious extremism.
Indeed the whole point of the new laws is that the race laws don't work at people discriminating against peoples beliefs. I can't currently incite hatred of Jews but can incite hatred of Islam or Christianity. This law is to bring the two in line.

I understand your concerns and it is correct that you be concerned about such issues. However, please keep well in mind that the Bible cannot be understood by reading fragments and not relating those fragments to the context.

The OT and the NT must be seen as one book which shed light on each other. Otherwise erroneous interpretations will arise.
For example, you conclude that God wants us to go out and kill other because they believe differently?

That is absolutely not the case.
The part of the Bible you are citing is directed solely at Israel--a people who were in a Law Covenant Relation with God. The Law's function was to focus on the inability of man in gaining righteousness through adherence to law. For this reason it was severe in its punishments.

We as Gentiles were never under a Law Covenant with the creator. So, if we say that God was expecting all mankind to adhere to those stipulations then we are misrepresenting the whole situation.

Saying also that anyone can pick up the Bible and find reason to kill based on religious bigotry is to say that anyone can go to a courthouse, pick up any lawbook at random, find a fragment, take it out of context and proceed to justify any crime he wants.

Of course it can be done. But because it can be done does not mean that the one doing it is justified by the literature he or she has misunderstood and mangled.

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Radrook


I understand your concerns and it is correct that you be concerned about such issues. However, please keep well in mind that the Bible cannot be understood by reading fragments and not relating those fragments to the context.

The OT and the NT must be seen as one book which shed light on each other. Otherwise erroneous interpretations will arise.
For example, you conclude that God wants us to go out and kill other because they believe differently?

That is absolutely not the case.
The part of the Bible you are citing is directed solely at Israel--a people who were in a Law Covenant Relation with God. The Law's function was to focus on the inability of man in gaining righteousness through adherence to law. For this reason it was severe in its punishments.

We as Gentiles were never under a Law Covenant with the creator. So, if we say that God was expecting all mankind to adhere to those stipulations then we are misrepresenting the whole situation.

Saying also that anyone can pick up the Bible and find reason to kill based on religious bigotry is to say that anyone can go to a courthouse, pick up any lawbook at random, find a fragment, take it out of context and proceed to justify any crime he wants.

Of course it can be done. But because it can be done does not mean that the one doing it is justified by the literature he or she has misunderstood and mangled. And in which section does the specific disclaimer appear ? Are you saying the whole of the old testament only relates to Israel and has no relevance to anyone else. You can't pick and choose to suit your own agenda.

You are right in that it is one book as Mathew makes clear. 5:17
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

5:18
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
It is therefore still validating the old testament it says all other religions must be destroyed. Never mind who is to be doing the destroying it is still inciting hatred.
I should not be able to say in the UK all Russians should kill blacks then argue that it is Ok to say it because it is not aimed at UK citizens. The message is clear in both cases and one is as wrong as the other,.


If the book is offensive it need to be removed. It is not the intention of the author that is important but the message the reader gets. We see lots of example of books that are no longer sold or have been changed because they are considered offensive even thought that was never the intent. Take Agatha Christies book '10 little Indians' as it has been retitled. I am happy for a similar alteration to be made to the bible with the offensive passages removed or changed but the old copies should not be sold.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Lothian
And in which section does the specific disclaimer appear? Are you saying the whole of the old testament only relates to Israel and has no relevance to anyone else. You can't pick and choose to suit your own agenda.

I did not say that all the Hebrew/ Aramaic Scriptures from Genesis to Malachi had no relevance to anyone but Israel.

Obviously the Bible has Messianic prophecies concerning Jesus, end times prophecies, historical data concerning man's origin, books that are compilations of wisdom and praise --all which are valuable to Christians.

So please do not attribute things to me I never said.


I was referring to the Law Covenant as binding in its ceremonial and punishment for sins aspects.


It is very important to keep in mind that
the Law was SPECIFICALLY given to Israel not to the Gentiles.
That is why Israel is repeatedly referred to by God as his special possession from among all nations.

Deuteronomy 14:2
for you are a people holy to the LORD your God. Out of all the peoples on the face of the earth, the LORD has chosen you to be his treasured possession.


Israel had VOLUNTARILY entered the Law Covenant by AGREEING to do all the things God had or would specify that they do.


Exodus 24
7 And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient.

8 And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.

(NIV)


You see, the Gentiles never were asked nor did they ever agree on such a thing. So they were not expected to follow the letter of the Law.

Only Israel who had agreed to was.

A READING of the historical book Exodus describes the nation of Israel entering into this agreement or Covenant.

So it is not that I am choosing to say that the agreement was between only Israel and God--it is the Bible itself that tells us clearly that it was between only Israel and God.

If the clergy would teach their flocks correctly, this simple basic fact would be known from infancy as it should be to Christians who are taught properly. That is isn't is a testimony to the faulty irresponsible shepherding of the flock. Perhaps less passing of the collection plate and more instructional effort would help.



BTW


Please understand that I am not attempting to make you look bad after posting your commentary. My only purpose in replying is to hopefully clarify what I see as a misunderstanding.


But if that is the message you perceive, that is the message you perceive and who am I to try to dissuade you from perceiving it that way? So unless directly responded to I will not make any further attempts to further comment on this issue.

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Radrook

So unless directly responded to I will not make any further attempts to further comment on this issue. That is fine. You reinforce my point very well. If the clergy can't get it right we should not let these books into unsupervised hands.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Lothian
That is fine. You reinforce my point very well. If the clergy can't get it right we should not let these books into unsupervised hands.

The book cannot be blamed for the clergy's unwillinngess to teach it properly. It isn't that it is difficult to teach. You understood the point quite easily with just two scriptures you read.

The clergy have more than sufficient educatrional training to teach it. Their unwillingness to use that training should not be used to condemn the book.

[richardm]

When you say "Israel", Radrook, do you include their modern-day descendents as well?

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Radrook
You understood the point quite easily with just two scriptures you read..
I understand what you say but disagree with your point.

You ignore my earlier comments that Mathew states that the laws given hold true. That all other religions must be destroyed. Saying it only applies to other peoples does not mean it is not an aim and the message is quite clear.

I am also at a loss to understand how the 10 Commandments given in a message to the people of Israel has been selected for wider application while less convenient parts about wearing clothes made of two materials is forgotten and dubious ploughing combinations do not.

Chronicles
15:13
That whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.
Is quite clear as to the intended result of the word of the lord.
Exodus, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings, Psalms, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Amos, Zephaniah all state that worshiping other gods is not acceptable and the standard punishment is death. Even if it is only inciting the ‘children of Israel’ to violence’ it still incites violence.

[Peter Jenkins]

Originally posted by Radrook The book cannot be blamed for the clergy's unwillinngess to teach it properly. It isn't that it is difficult to teach. You understood the point quite easily with just two scriptures you read.

The clergy have more than sufficient educatrional training to teach it. Their unwillingness to use that training should not be used to condemn the book.

When you say "The clergy have more than sufficient educatrional (sic) training to teach it." I would ask, 'Which clergy'?
because a roman catholic will teach a different view to a Mormon or a Lutheran.
The scriptures are like fingerprints. out of a few basic shapes, you could look at a million different opinions on scripture and not find any two the same.
Everyone has a different view of how this scripture should be interpreted.....how it fits with that scripture.... what parts to stress....what is relevant today and what is relevent in a historical context.
Who is to blame? the individual teachers? their teachers? - or, maybe a better question, who's right?
You? The book? Even the bits where it contradicts itself (or is that just 'my' interpretation?)
Feel free to address these points. As for me, I made up my mind long ago on the basis of much, much study of the bible and associated literature. The book is a work of man, and was/is used to control men.

The Pope............Joseph Smith Jnr.........Jimmy Swaggart.........Billy Graham
Who's the odd one out?
The Pope
The Pope's the only that wears a dress in public
P

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Lothian

I understand what you say but disagree with your point.

You ignore my earlier comments that Matthew states that the laws given hold true. That all other religions must be destroyed. Saying it only applies to other peoples does not mean it is not an aim and the message is quite clear.


It wasn't that I intentionally ignored. It was that when I pressed the quote button the info did not appear with the rest of your statement as it should have. So I left it for later and decided to deal with what I had at hand.

The reference that Jesus made to the Law was one that he made in relation to its prophetic role as a shadow of the realities that were to be fulfilled with his arrival and death. Nothing that the law represented would pass away without Jesus fulfilling it.

For example, the high priest entrance into the most holy of the innermost chamber of the temple or tabernacle with the blood of animal sacrifices was a prophetic copy or shadow of how Jesus would enter into heaven itself with the value of his human sacrifice for our sins.

My idea?


Not at all:

Hebrews 9
24For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence. 25Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Hebrews 10:1
The law is only [a shadow of the good things that are coming–not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship.

I am also at a loss to understand how the 10 Commandments given in a message to the people of Israel has been selected for wider application while less convenient parts about wearing clothes made of two materials is forgotten and dubious ploughing combinations do not.

That is because the Ten Commandments are in harmony with what Jesus taught his disciples. But remember that they were commandments only to Israel. To us they are principles we follow under the New Covenant which does not require the same ceremonial behaviors nor stringent punishments that the Mosaic Law did.

That Law was fulfilled when Jesus died for our sins and is no longer binding on Israel. It is not binding on us neither since it never was anyway. Yet you have people trying to place themselves under a covenant that never had anything to do with them. Comical in a way if it weren't a serious matter.



The following article explains it in more detail.

Why The Law?
http://www.varietygalore.com/page/page/1247718.htm



Is quite clear as to the intended result of the word of the lord.
Exodus, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings, Psalms, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Amos, Zephaniah all state that worshiping other gods is not acceptable and the standard punishment is death. Even if it is only inciting the ‘children of Israel’ to violence’ it still incites violence.

Is violence always unjust?
If a man forces his way into you home intent on contaminating your property with some contagious disease which endangers your children, are you wrong in using force to throw him out?

Furthermore, expecting respect for one's authoritative position is normal.


Because he is the creator.
Just as the president of the USA has a right to b recognized as President and if his authority is challenged then watch out cause sparks are going to fly aren't they?

God has a right to expect to be recognized as the creator or sparks might fly!

God also has a right to expect those who enter into an agreement with him, as Israel did, to keep their word or else pay the consequences as they also agreed to do.

Nothing that befell Israel was unexpected. They had been told that such things would happen if they deviated from the true worship. Many of such things were merely the consequence of cause and effect.

For example, being surrounded by enemies, such as the remaining Cananites which they had disobediently refused to remove as instructed, if God removed his protection, then these same enemies would begin to be successful in their relentless military attempts against them.

These setbacks would be perceived as if God himself were punishing them But if you look at the cause, it was merely their own deviation that was causing the problem. God would not protect them against their own willful choices. To do so would have been to help them to sin.


The attacks on the Cananites, were ordered because
the land had been contaminated via immorality such as
child sacrifice, incest, bestiality and posed a moral contaminatory threat not only to of Israel. but if left to fester, to mankind's well being as a whole. So God ordered their removal via force in order to cleanse it.

They were viewed by God as a sickness which the land had to vomit out for its own health

Leviticus 18:25
Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants.

Leviticus 18:28
And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you.

Leviticus 20:22
" 'Keep all my decrees and laws and follow them, so that the land where I am bringing you to live may not vomit you out.

NIV

[richardm]

Originally posted by Radrook

Is violence always unjust?
If a man forces his way into you home intent on contaminating your property with some contagious disease which endangers your children, are you wrong in using force to throw him out?


Didn't Bin Laden say something similar to that with respect to Infidels in Saudi Arabia?

[Scot C. Trypal]

Radrook,
The Law's function was to focus on the inability of man in gaining righteousness through adherence to law. For this reason it was severe in its punishments.

The law had severe capital punishments, killing people for such things as working on the Sabbath, to prove a point and show that man couldn’t live by the law? I don’t see how that justifies anything.

Anyway, it's not that the laws and punishments were simply "severe"; it's that they were also immoral for any time. Can you honestly tell me you, if placed 2500 years ago in a Jewish tribe, would kill nonbelievers, adulterers, homosexuals, rebellious children, those who choose to work on the Sabbath, and so on? All in good conscience? Those were really good and just laws to live by back then?

the Law was SPECIFICALLY given to Israel not to the Gentiles.

But God told Moses the laws applied to Gentiles as well. An exception is given if the Gentile or Jew is ignorant of the law. Then they get some leniency which I can’t see specified, but, if not, they are treated the same.

God tells Moses this and immediately after “the children of Israel” find a stranger gathering sticks in the woods. They, being unsure what to do about this “crime”, take the guy back to Mosses. The Lord then has Moses kill him, by stoning, according to His law (Ex. 35:2); no leniency for this particular crime:

Numbers 15:29-36:
Ye shall have one law for him that sinneth through ignorance, both for him that is born among the children of Israel, and for the stranger that sojourneth among them. But the soul that doeth ought presumptuously, whether he be born in the land, or a stranger, the same reproacheth the LORD; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Because he hath despised the word of the LORD, and hath broken his commandment, that soul shall utterly be cut off; his iniquity shall be upon him. 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.

Whenever I read this is scripture, I always think something like: thank goodness I don't have to believe this really happened, as the thought of the man's family trying to understand why their relative had been murdered for gathering sticks on a special day is too much.

[Scot C. Trypal]

Radrook,
The reference that Jesus made to the Law was one that he made in relation to its prophetic role as a shadow of the realities that were to be fulfilled with his arrival and death. Nothing that the law represented would pass away without Jesus fulfilling it.

I don’t think that’s sufficient; He referenced both the “law” and the “prophets”. Then He goes on to specifically show He is talking about laws men are supposed to adhere to, not only prophesies meant solely for Jesus (Mat 5:17-19):

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

There is more.

I came across a reference to the following passage in a Christian web page meant to show that Jesus is anti-gun control and pro-death penalty (even for children who don’t respect their parents).

Matthew 15 (Mark 7 also):
Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.

To have your heart close to Jesus would be manifest in ignoring “tradition” and killing people who don’t respect their parents (and seemingly enforcing other OT law)?

Mark and Matthew seem to be taking a very different stand here than John’s “let he who is without sin” story here. But, even today, Christians are using such scripture to advocate capital punishment, even for rebellious children.

Do you think Jesus was right and, at least 2000 years ago, the Jews should’ve been enforcing those OT laws? Should they keep their agreement today?

---------

Regarding people who stray from the teaching of Christianity, there is Rev 2:23 (Jesus speaking):

Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not. Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.

Here it seems there was a competing (and kinky) Christian sect around the time of Revelation’s author. The author has Jesus rebuke His followers for “suffering” their leader, Jezebel, then threatens to kill her “children”. He seems to be saying He will do what His mortal followers have neglected. Whether that literally means killing her infant offspring or her followers is not clear to me (anyone know?), but it is clear that the OT crimes of fornication and heresy are to be met with death, and even the NT Jesus will do it.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Scot C. Trypal

[quote]
I don't think that's sufficient; He referenced both the “law” and the “prophets.” Then He goes on to specifically show He is talking about laws men are supposed to adhere to, not only prophesies meant solely for Jesus (Mat 5:17-19):




Of course he did.
That's because while Jesus lived the Law would continue in effect.Jesus himself being an Israelite was bound by Mosaic Law. Only his death would remove the obligation to keep the law contingent on Israel.



There is more.

I came across a reference to the following passage in a Christian web page meant to show that Jesus is anti-gun control and pro-death penalty (even for children who don’t respect their parents).

Matthew 15 (Mark 7 also):
To have your heart close to Jesus would be manifest in ignoring “tradition” and killing people who don’t respect their parents (and seemingly enforcing other OT law)?

Why any Christian would be trying to place himself under the Law Covenant made between God and the nation of Israel is far beyond me.



Romans 6:14
For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace. NIV




Especially since the Bible clearly tells us that Gentiles were never under those obligations.

Jesus was bound by Law because he was an Israelite and the law was still in effect while he lived. Once put out of the way by his death it no longer was obligatory upon ISRAEL.

You seem to insist that the law was applicable to all mankind. That is a very serious misunderstanding.




Mark and Matthew seem to be taking a very different stand here than John’s “let he who is without sin” story here. But, even today, Christians are using such scripture to advocate capital punishment, even for rebellious children.

Jesus was under law.

Galatians 4:4
But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law,

Christians are not under law. Gentile Christians of the first Century had never been under law. Many first century Israelites who converted to Christianity had once been once under the Mosaic law. That lasred until Jesus' death. Then they had ceased to be under the law as well. Jesus had died the way he did specifically to remove the curse of the law from Israel.

Galatians 3:10
All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law."[ 3:10 Deut. 27:26]
.13
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree."[ 3:13 Deut. 21:23] NIV

The clergy know this and should take time out from passing out collection plates and begging for contributions from the pulpits and teach this simple fact of which they are well-aware to their flocks. Otherwise they become useless shepherds unworthy of leading anyone.



Do you think Jesus was right and, at least 2000 years ago, the Jews should’ve been enforcing those OT laws? Should they keep their agreement today?

That's what the nation had agreed to do--follow the Law Covenant.

The Jews were under Law and were bound by the Law they had agreed to obey.

However, under Roman law they had no legal right as a provincial people to execute anyone. So capital punishment was a crime against Roman law which the Jews generally asvoided commiting during their time as a Roman colony. That is why Jesus was taken to Pontius Pilate.


Jews should not feel bound to keep the law today because the law was terminated by Jesus'



Regarding people who stray from the teaching of Christianity, there is Rev 2:23 (Jesus speaking):

[/color]

Here it seems there was a competing (and kinky) Christian sect around the time of Revelation's author. The author has Jesus rebuke His followers for “suffering” their leader, Jezebel, then threatens to kill her “children.” He seems to be saying He will do what His mortal followers have neglected. Whether that literally means killing her infant offspring or her followers is not clear to me (anyone know?), but it is clear that the OT crimes of fornication and heresy are to be met with death, and even the NT Jesus will do it.

Revelations is a highly symbolic book.
Neither Jesus who sent his angel to give John the Revelation nor John who received it could have been suggesting what you understand because both knew that literal killing of children was illegal both under Roman Law and under Jewish law which no longer was applicable because it had been made unnecessary by fulfilling its function as a prophetic shadow via Jesus' death. So the meaning must be other than what you have concluded.

BTW
Jesus is depicted as leader of heavenly armies and destroying his enemies. So the concept of Jesus as a smiling benevolent wishy-washy wilful victim of satanic forces is a misconception.



Revelation 19
13He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. 14The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. 15Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. "He will rule them with an iron scepter."[1] He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. NIV

BTW

Paul compares those insisting on being under the Mosaic Law as being slaves while those taking advantage of God's grace as being free.

Galatians 4:
21. Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? 22. For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. 23. His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way; but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a promise.

24. These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar.

25. Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. 27For it is written:
"Be glad, O barren woman,
who bears no children;
break forth and cry aloud,
you who have no labor pains;
because more are the children of the desolate woman
than of her who has a husband."[2]

28. Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29. At that time the son born in the ordinary way persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. 30But what does the Scripture say? "Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son."[3] 31Therefore, brothers, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman.

[Kopji]

Stupid laws. Seems like placing a thin facade over a deeper problem. Don't these politicians have better things to do?

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Kopji
Stupid laws. Seems like placing a thin facade over a deeper problem. Don't these politicians have better things to do?

Why is an effort to protect certain minority groups from being savaged by the majority stupid?

[Scot C. Trypal]

Radrook,

I’m not trying to be difficult, I swear. :) In a way I’m playing devil’s advocate and pointing out what other, more militant Christians use to justify their positions.

There are simply those who look at the scriptures I’ve quoted and instead of interpreting them into a more friendly light, as you do, interpret those scriptures you are using, into a more militant light, saying, for example, they only apply to those who are in their particular brand of Christianity. Their God literally hates everybody but those Christians.

Why any Christian would be trying to place himself under the Law Covenant made between God and the nation of Israel is far beyond me.

My cynical side thinks such folks cling to OT law because it simply makes them feel good. If they found a scripture saying left-handed people were immoral, for example, then they could feel proud of their God-loving right-handedness, and look down on the rest.

My non-cynical side says it’s because deciding which laws stay and which go and what Christians should try to implement in their law is tricky business. Should a Christian still have clothing restrictions, incest restrictions, murder restrictions?

Especially since the Bible clearly tells us that Gentiles were never under those obligations.

What about the Numbers portion I posted yesterday? God tells Moses the laws and their sever punishments apply to gentiles. It’s followed by an example where God has Moses stone a stranger to death for gathering sticks on the Sabbath.

You may be able to find scripture to support your take, but another Christian with opposite motives can find supporting scripture just as easily.

That's what the nation had agreed to do--follow the Law Covenant.

I get that, but my concern is that it was not a moral convenient to keep. I don’t see how, even if you promised a god you would, killing rebellious children, killing those who work on the Sabbath (even strangers), killing homosexuals, killing those who leave your religion, keeping slaves, and so on, can be said to have been just and moral.

Human history is brutal, and each of us would probably be just as brutal if born at the wrong time, but I don’t think we should try to call that right and good. Two thousand years from now folks may look back and see how we treat each other and judge us as barbarians for our morals and they’d probably be right; they shouldn’t make excuses for it, just as we shouldn’t today.

However, under Roman law they had no legal right as a provincial people to execute anyone. So capital punishment was a crime against Roman law which the Jews generally asvoided commiting during their time as a Roman colony. That is why Jesus was taken to Pontius Pilate.

I don’t remember Jesus being taken to Pilate because He wanted the Jews to kill their rebellious children. It was because Jesus was claiming to be the leader of the Jews and threatening the authority of the chief priests.

Anyway, if the only thing stopping them from such killing was Roman law that hardly makes the motivation any better. If they were in power they would be doing this killing.

But actually, Jesus states they had stopped such killing by “tradition”. Jesus rebukes them for not following God’s law here and going on their tradition instead; no mention of fearing the reaction of Roman law. Jesus seems to think they should still have been carrying out such capital punishments, else why rebuke them for not?

Jews should not feel bound to keep the law today because the law was terminated by Jesus'

I’m very glad modern Judaism can see its way past these laws today, but your local synagogue would be quite upset if you told them that Jesus was the reason. :)

Revelations is a highly symbolic book.

Not this part, as far as I can tell. Jesus is addressing His early church, specifically the church in Thyatira, here about a specific corrupting influence, Jezebel.

Neither Jesus who sent his angel to give John the Revelation nor John who received it could have been suggesting what you understand because both knew that literal killing of children was illegal both under Roman Law and under Jewish law which no longer was applicable because it had been made unnecessary by fulfilling its function as a prophetic shadow via Jesus' death. So the meaning must be other than what you have concluded.

What then, if not what it says?

And why would the resurrected Jesus be bound by Roman law to not kill Jezebel’s “children”? God killed Ananias and his wife for lying to the early Christian commune about the price for which they sold some land, yet I’m pretty sure that was against Roman law.

BTW
Jesus is depicted as leader of heavenly armies and destroying his enemies. So the concept of Jesus as a smiling benevolent wishy-washy wilful victim of satanic forces is a misconception.

Yes, this is exactly the Jesus the people trying to enforce the OT law embrace though. They can’t stand the “turn the other cheek”, “resist not evil” Jesus; they’re all about the fiery sword Jesus.

Paul compares those insisting on being under the Mosaic Law as being slaves while those taking advantage of God's grace as being free.

Fine, but free to do what? Anything? Can they marry their sisters, can they mix fabrics, can they murder, and so on, as long as they have an unswayable faith in Jesus? Eric Rudolph, for example, seems to think he can murder and be just fine with Jesus--in fact he allegedly bombed an Olympics celebration, abortion clinics, and a gay night club for Jesus--but other Christians think the line of morality is drawn elsewhere and will even tolerate lesbian ministers, for example.

------------------

I forgot one NT source on this, and it’s from Paul in Romans 1:

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

This is the same Paul you are using to excuse harsh penalties for OT law.

You may show where Paul talks about how the law doesn’t apply today, but which law in particular? Paul seems to think the things he lists are worthy of capital punishment. He seems to be talking about some pagan sect that involved homosexuality, but he doesn’t just say pagans or homosexuals are worthy of death. He says “they which commit such things are worthy of death”, and “such things” include “disobedient to parents”, “fornication”, and so on.

Can you see why many of your fellow Christians still want to kill homosexuals, rebellious children, adulterers, people of competing religions, and so on, even if they don’t care about wearing mixed fabrics? If they had the political power, they would enforce such law.

----------

I’ll give the NT authors a lot of credit for toning down the OT, getting rid of dietary restrictions and so on, but it’s not done in a clear way and it leaves a lot of room for militant Christians to interpret crimes into acts of faith.

But if you, Radrook, live by the golden rule, or something similar, and can justify not enforcing those old laws, I guess I really have no beef with you. Still, we can argue about it :D.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Scot C. Trypal
Their God literally hates everybody.

The existence of such persons and groups is a fact.
The motives can range from ignorance to purposeful attempts to use scripture to gain support for their own devious plans. But twisting of a book's meaning cannot be legitimately used to prove that the book itself is defective since any book can be used in the same way.



My non-cynical side says it's because deciding which laws stay and which go and what Christians should try to implement in their law is tricky business. Should a Christian still have clothing restrictions, incest restrictions, murder restrictions?

Not a tricky business at all.
The Bible is very clear in its message.
The Law was applicable to Israel.
Christians are under a New Covenant.
For Anyone to be unable to understand such simple concepts the person must have never read or studied the Bible and is listening to those who have and misrepresent it. Or else the person in question suffers from some mental impediment that make the comprehension of such simple concepts impossible.



What about the Numbers portion I posted yesterday? God tells Moses the laws and their sever punishments apply to gentiles. It's followed by an example where God has Moses stone a stranger to death for gathering sticks on the Sabbath.

I do not recall that scripture.
I would have to review it within its context before I comment on it.



You may be able to find scripture to support your take, but another Christian with opposite motives can find supporting scripture just as easily.


Twisting scripture is easier than explaining scripture as it should be in fact. Those who twist have no context impediments but are a law unto themselves. In short, they have written their own book.

Actually, no Christian will be able to contradict what you call my take without setting himself in contradiction to what the Bible teaches.

It is a popular misconception that the Bible can be interpreted a million or more different ways without concern to context. In fact, there are whole websites that put forth private interpretations which are really expressions of total ignorance of scripture.



I get that, but my concern is that it was not a moral convenient to keep. I don't see how, even if you promised a god you would, killing rebellious children, killing those who work on the Sabbath (even strangers), killing homosexuals, killing those who leave your religion, keeping slaves, and so on, can be said to have been just and moral.

It takes a humble acknowledgment of God as both creator and all-wise supreme judge in order to be able to accept what you are rejecting.


Human history is brutal, and each of us would probably be just as brutal if born at the wrong time, but I don't think we should try to call that right and good.

Then do not call it right nor good.
One can only do what one is capable and willing to do.


I don't remember Jesus being taken to Pilate because He wanted the Jews to kill their rebellious children. It was because Jesus was claiming to be the leader of the Jews and threatening the authority of the chief priests.

I didn't say that.


Jesus seems to think they should still have been carrying out such capital punishments, else why rebuke them for not?
Jesus was born under Law and was bound by Law just as any other Jew was. If Jesus broke the Mosaic Law then he would have sinned and ceased to be blameless. That would have disqualified him as a ransom for our sins since the ransom for our sins had to be sinless.

So just as he himself abided by the Law, Jesus expected Israel to also abide by the law until removed by his ransom sacrifice.


I'm very glad modern Judaism can see its way past these laws today, but your local synagogue would be quite upset if you told them that Jesus was the reason. :)

I am not sure that Jesus is the reason.
There are Messianic Jews who do accept Jesus as the Messiah.
However, most Jews do not.
The nation of Israel doe not adhere to the Law covenant as given to Moses and does not acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah.

The problem with keeping the Law covenant became very severe after the Temple and city of Jerusalem were destroyed and the Jews removed from the area. The Levitical priesthood was dissolved and became nonfunctional. At least in the capacity that it had been before the Temple's destruction.


Not this part, as far as I can tell. Jesus is addressing His early church, specifically the church in Thyatira, here about a specific corrupting influence, Jezebel.

The book of Revelations is a book of symbols.
Literal interpretation is out of place in reference to most of its content.



Fine, but free to do what? Anything? Can they marry their sisters, can they mix fabrics, can they murder, and so on, as long as they have an unswayable faith in Jesus?

Total freedom leads to anarchy.
We are very happy living under laws that protect us from anarchy since the strong victimize the weak when their is no law to check their predatory predisposition.



Eric Rudolph, for example, seems to think he can murder and be just fine with Jesus--in fact he allegedly bombed an Olympics celebration, abortion clinics, and a gay night club for Jesus--but other Christians think the line of morality is drawn elsewhere and will even tolerate lesbian ministers, for example.

Who do you think is understanding Jesus' message correctly--the fanatical bombers or those who try to turn the other cheek?



Romans 1:
This is the same Paul you are using to excuse harsh penalties for OT law. You may show where Paul talks about how the law doesn't apply today, but which law in particular? Paul seems to think the things he lists are worthy of capital punishment. He seems to be talking about some pagan sect that involved homosexuality, but he doesn't just say pagans or homosexuals are worthy of death. He says “they which commit such things are worthy of death”, and “such things” include “disobedient to parents”, “fornication”, and so on.

Please read carefully what Paul is saying:
Paul is talking about contemporaries who are no longer under law, are familiar with the Law, and yet continue to do the things that the law said was punishable by death.

Romans. 1:
32. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.[/quote]

Paul isn't telling us to go out and murder anyone.
Paul is simply saying that God had decreed that those doing such things deserved death under the Law Covenant. That those who were doing such things knew how God felt about them and did them anyway.



Can you see why many of your fellow Christians still want to kill homosexuals, rebellious children, adulterers, people of competing religions, and so on, even if they don't care about wearing mixed fabrics? If they had the political power, they would enforce such law.

Anything can be based on any misunderstanding of scripture.
Paul is speaking very clearly.
Perhaps it is reading in haste that causes such interpretations.

We have no basis to act as judges and executioners.
Since we cannot read the secrets of people's hearts.


Romans 2:16
This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

It takes a very severe stretch of the imagination for me to imagine myself as being referred to by Paul as the Judge God appointed.

----------

I’ll give the NT authors a lot of credit for toning down the OT, getting rid of dietary restrictions and so on, but it’s not done in a clear way and it leaves a lot of room for militant Christians to interpret crimes into acts of faith.


It leaves absolutely no room whatsoever.
Anyone hell bent on mangling any book will mangle the book to his heart;s content. Let's not place the blame on the book. Let's place it where it belongs, in the lap of those doing the mangling.

BTW
Satan is the primary mangler of scripture:

Matthew 4
5. Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6"If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down. For it is written:
" 'He will command his angels concerning you,
and they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.'[2] " [ 4:6 Psalm 91:11,12] "

7Jesus answered him, "It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'[3] "


So such persons are not really being original at all in their attempts to confound or to shed false light.

2 Corinthians 11
13. For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. 14. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. 15. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness....



But if you, Radrook, live by the golden rule, or something similar, and can justify not enforcing those old laws, I guess I really have no beef with you. Still, we can argue about it :D.

No beef here either.
God bless!

[Radrook]

Originally posted by richardm


Didn't Bin Laden say something similar to that with respect to Infidels in Saudi Arabia?

Bin Laden isn't God.

[Zamzara]

Originally posted by Radrook


Why is an effort to protect certain minority groups from being savaged by the majority stupid?

If you mean physically attacked, then that is already illegal, and the new law would be redundant.

If you mean having their beliefs criticized for being false, then I think it is up to the religious groups to defend their beliefs with reasoned arguments if those beliefs are valid. If they are not valid, they should be criticized.