Missing Mosaic Laws...

[golgotha61]

If you cut and paste someone else's words, out of respect for the author, you should at least name them. If you want to scold me for not respecting people who are more qualified, you should name them as well.

I did not cut and paste. You are responding to an older response which I corrected. Read the more recent post. My misstep does not excuse your arrogance.

 

[Moral Orel]

My misstep does not excuse your arrogance.

Actually, it does. If you don't cite an authority, then I am only claiming to have a better argument than you: a random, anonymous forum poster. You hold the exact same position against me, believing you have a better argument than me: a random, anonymous forum poster. So your name calling is uncalled for.

 

[golgotha61]

Actually, it does. If you don't cite an authority, then I am only claiming to have a better argument than you: a random, anonymous forum poster. You hold the exact same position against me, believing you have a better argument than me: a random, anonymous forum poster. So your name calling is uncalled for.

My sin is not against you, it is against the author that I did not give credit to. Regardless of the source of the point in the argument, the argument still remains in force and needs to addressed on its own merits. I have confessed the offense. I didn't call you any name, I simply pointed out your character, which is arrogant. Now if your done with the Pee Wee Herman defense ("I know you are but what am I?") we can continue ... or not, whatever you decide.

 

[golgotha61]

No he is not. He states the crimes in the Deuteronomy verses. When he says "adultery with another man's wife" and "fornication with another man's virgin daughter" he is clearly referencing those other verses in light of the Exodus verse. The Exodus verse does not mention "fornication with another man's virgin daughter" does it?

He mentions nothing about the Deuteronomy verses and he does not mention Exod 22. Unless, he parallels the same verses in comparison, your “clearly” is bias driven. Brouer makes her case free from interference from Kowashima’s opinion and nothing he says disproves Brouer’s conclusion.

Was that even rape? She was the Levite's concubine, and he gave her to the group to be raped. He gave permission to the group to do as they pleased to save his own skin, and a concubine is more akin to a slave than a wife. What was the Levite's punishment for throwing that poor girl to the wolves, as it were? Nothing. Even though his story that he told the Israelite's didn't match up to what occurred. First it is just the men of the city, but he says it was the leaders. The men came and said they wanted to "know" him, but he claims they wanted to kill him. He, of course, doesn't mention that he sent the girl out to them, just that they abused her and she died. And it ends with a genocidal act against the people of Benjamin.

Judges 19:25:“But the men would not listen to him, so the man seized his concubine and took her outside to them. They raped her and abused her all night until morning. At daybreak they let her go (HCSB).

The issue is the act of rape, which it was as per verse above. The rest of your argument’s details and accusations are more rabbit trails and are irrelevant to the argument.

If they could charge the men with murder, then they would have enacted the written law, right?
It was murder. Maybe it was rape too, but it was definitely murder. They killed her. So why didn't they enact the law?

Secondly, this is supposed to be the argument that they would enact the written law in Deuteronomy for all rape cases. This story shows that they didn't.

Honestly, it seems to me, that in this case, since it was the Levite that handed her over, if she hadn't died, he wouldn't have chopped her up and made a fuss. The war happened because they wouldn't follow the Law and hand over the guilty party, not because they had sex with a concubine that her Master gave them permission to have sex with, but because they killed her in the process.

The judgment happened because of the rape of the woman and it did not need a specific law to make the judgment. When you read the two chapters in Judges, the tenor and focus is on the rape and not the death of the woman. As I have always maintained, the overall laws can and do address particular sins that crop up. You have no way of knowing what the Levite would have done under different circumstances, we have enough trouble extracting an understanding of the mind of the author as presented in existing texts, let alone determine what his mind would tell us under other circumstances from non-existing texts.

If they didn't see a problem with it, then they wouldn't write about it. But I'll just note that your defense of the lack of this law is your denial that child molestors existed anywhere in the lands of ancient Israel.

Where did the OT authors write about child molestation?

Where is your evidence that this sin did exist in ancient Israel? If it’s there in Scripture, I will look at it, but I don’t see it.

 

[Moral Orel]

He mentions nothing about the Deuteronomy verses and he does not mention Exod 22. Unless, he parallels the same verses in comparison, your “clearly” is bias driven. Brouer makes her case free from interference from Kowashima’s opinion and nothing he says disproves Brouer’s conclusion.

So he mentions two crimes, in the same order they are found in the same book in the same chapter of the Bible, but it is clearly my "bias" that makes me think he is talking about those two verses because he doesn't cite exactly which verses he is talking about. Sure, let's go with that.

Judges 19:25:“But the men would not listen to him, so the man seized his concubine and took her outside to them. They raped her and abused her all night until morning. At daybreak they let her go (HCSB).

The issue is the act of rape, which it was as per verse above. The rest of your argument’s details and accusations are more rabbit trails and are irrelevant to the argument.

There is no word for "rape" in ancient Hebrew. Your translation is an interpretation of the events, and not an accurate one. I use the ESV because it attempts to be as literal as possible in its translation and it uses the word "knew". I haven't bothered looking into exactly which Hebrew word they used, because "rape" doesn't exist in ancient Hebrew, so it can't matter.

The judgment happened because of the rape of the woman and it did not need a specific law to make the judgment. When you read the two chapters in Judges, the tenor and focus is on the rape and not the death of the woman. As I have always maintained, the overall laws can and do address particular sins that crop up. You have no way of knowing what the Levite would have done under different circumstances, we have enough trouble extracting an understanding of the mind of the author as presented in existing texts, let alone determine what his mind would tell us under other circumstances from non-existing texts.

Let's say you're right that it was a rape. A murder happened too. She died at their hands. It is your bias on the subject that says their actions were motivated by the rape and not the murder. It seems reasonable to me to assume that if they had only done what the Levite told them it was okay to do that he wouldn't have been as upset to start a war over it. But I admit I can't be sure of that. But what do you think is more likely? That he was upset that they did what he told them to do, or that he was upset that they did something he didn't tell them to do? With all the talk in the Bible about women as property, it seems more likely that he was upset he lost his property than that it was damaged.

Perhaps we should talk about how the OT viewed women in order to get a reference as to who the damaged party is in all of these accounts. For instance, it is illegal to sell an Israelite man into permanent slavery, but it is legal to sell an Israelite girl into permanent slavery. I brought up the verses before about referring to female captives as spoils of war. Then the bit in Exodus where it lists all the things people covet and lists women right along with nothing but property. Girls were stoned to death because they didn't bleed on their wedding night. Not everyone does. If God had really written that law, I'm sure He would have been aware that a lack of a blood spot on a sheet doesn't prove infidelity.

You want to paint this picture that women were valued and respected in their ancient society, but that simply isn't true. I'm not saying the ancient Israelites were evil in comparison to other cultures of the time, but they definitely weren't distinct.

Also, I think it is very pertinent to ask, "What is God's judgement for the Levite?". He sent her out there, why is he not condemned or punished in any way? That is definitely a message we can take away from this story. If you're in danger, feel free to sacrifice your wife/concubine to be gang-raped. NihilistVirus brought this up too with the story of Lot. Even after Lot was willing to sacrifice his virgin daughters to be gang-raped, the angels still found his character worthy of saving from the destruction of Sodom.

Where did the OT authors write about child molestation?

Where is your evidence that this sin did exist in ancient Israel? If it’s there in Scripture, I will look at it, but I don’t see it.

I can't show you verses in the Bible condemning molestation, and that's the point. We have plenty of evidence of it occurring way back into ancient times, so why you think we should assume it didn't happen amongst the ancient Israelites is beyond me.

I didn't call you any name, I simply pointed out your character, which is arrogant. Now if your done with the Pee Wee Herman defense ("I know you are but what am I?")

I didn't call you arrogant. I pointed out that you and I are in the same position. I'm saying it's hypocritical to call me arrogant for holding the same exact view as you.

 

[golgotha61]

So he mentions two crimes, in the same order they are found in the same book in the same chapter of the Bible, but it is clearly my "bias" that makes me think he is talking about those two verses because he doesn't cite exactly which verses he is talking about. Sure, let's go with that.

What are you talking about? The only Exodus account that Kowashima refers to in Scripture is Exod 20:17. Brouer’s verses are in Deut. and Exod 22. I am looking at the link that you provided, is there another article that I am not seeing?

There is no word for "rape" in ancient Hebrew. Your translation is an interpretation of the events, and not an accurate one. I use the ESV because it attempts to be as literal as possible in its translation and it uses the word "knew". I haven't bothered looking into exactly which Hebrew word they used, because "rape" doesn't exist in ancient Hebrew, so it can't matter.

I don’t think that you have the qualifications to determine what biblical interpretations are accurate or not. The Net1 Bible translates the text with the same result (rape). The authors of the HCSB interpretation are employing the latest and most accurate techniques for biblical interpretation and textual criticisms. It was compiled by 100 scholars from 17 different denominations and I think that they know more than you or me. The act that was revealed in Judges 19-20 to be sin, was rape. Interestingly enough, I just looked up the same verse in question in the NIV version that I have and it also calls the offence rape.

Let's say you're right that it was a rape. A murder happened too. She died at their hands. It is your bias on the subject that says their actions were motivated by the rape and not the murder. It seems reasonable to me to assume that if they had only done what the Levite told them it was okay to do that he wouldn't have been as upset to start a war over it. But I admit I can't be sure of that. But what do you think is more likely? That he was upset that they did what he told them to do, or that he was upset that they did something he didn't tell them to do? With all the talk in the Bible about women as property, it seems more likely that he was upset he lost his property than that it was damaged.

I already demonstrated that the tenor and emotions of the text show that the offence of rape is what is being punished. You’re making a familiar error in hermeneutics: don’t make the text say what you impose upon it. Let the author have authority over what the text says. Again, it is a matter of standing under the text and not in front of it. Brouer’s purpose was to demonstrate that the idea that women had no voice or were not considered valuable as persons is not completely accurate in the culture of ancient Israel.

Perhaps we should talk about how the OT viewed women in order to get a reference as to who the damaged party is in all of these accounts. For instance, it is illegal to sell an Israelite man into permanent slavery, but it is legal to sell an Israelite girl into permanent slavery. I brought up the verses before about referring to female captives as spoils of war. Then the bit in Exodus where it lists all the things people covet and lists women right along with nothing but property. Girls were stoned to death because they didn't bleed on their wedding night. Not everyone does. If God had really written that law, I'm sure He would have been aware that a lack of a blood spot on a sheet doesn't prove infidelity.

God entered human existence the second time through the covenant and He did it gradually and not in one sudden complete burst. This is why His revelation in the Bible is referred to as progressive. He entered in covenant with an ANE culture that engaged in standards and morals that were not in keeping with God’s holy character and there is no denying that some of the things that God allowed are offensive to us today. However, to judge an ancient culture using the standards of the present culture is chronological snobbery (C. S. Lewis) and it does allow for God’s progressive methods of adjusting cultures in order that they do more closely align themselves with His character. If God had appeared and demanded that Israel must conform to His holy character in totality, they would not have survived a day. God is patient and long suffering and in time all cultures will be in compliance with His holy character.

He demonstrates that same longsuffering with you and I and the evidence for this is our present continued existence. If God were to say that when we become His child, we must conform completely and without deference to His holy character, we would be destroyed in moments. Becoming like Christ, sanctification, is a process and is progressive, just like His revelation.

You want to paint this picture that women were valued and respected in their ancient society, but that simply isn't true. I'm not saying the ancient Israelites were evil in comparison to other cultures of the time, but they definitely weren't distinct.

I haven’t even addressed this issue so I don’t know why you would post this.

Also, I think it is very pertinent to ask, "What is God's judgement for the Levite?". He sent her out there, why is he not condemned or punished in any way? That is definitely a message we can take away from this story. If you're in danger, feel free to sacrifice your wife/concubine to be gang-raped. NihilistVirus brought this up too with the story of Lot. Even after Lot was willing to sacrifice his virgin daughters to be gang-raped, the angels still found his character worthy of saving from the destruction of Sodom.

Thank the Lord that even in my sin, God still thinks that I am worth His sacrifice and love. No one is claiming the Lot was without faults but you are not seeing the overarching point of God’s grace and patience. His character was not worthy and in fact nothing was worthy, just like you and me. But in that unworthiness is God’s grace and that is power that deems worthiness as worthless.

 

[Moral Orel]

What are you talking about? The only Exodus account that Kowashima refers to in Scripture is Exod 20:17. Brouer’s verses are in Deut. and Exod 22. I am looking at the link that you provided, is there another article that I am not seeing?

I'm talking about the words I quoted. No need to go back to the article, just look at the words I put in quotes. He describes two crimes. He describes them in the same order that they appear in Deuteronomy. Coincidence? I think not.

Now when I said this:

You want to paint this picture that women were valued and respected in their ancient society

You replied with this:

I haven’t even addressed this issue so I don’t know why you would post this.

But then you just said this in the same post about your source that you've been defending for pages now:

Brouer’s purpose was to demonstrate that the idea that women had no voice or were not considered valuable as persons is not completely accurate in the culture of ancient Israel.

So.... wuuut?!

Here's another article about rape in the OT. Jonathan Burnside. He actually defends the Bible for it's lack of actual rape laws. Consent belongs to the men, not the women. Dinah and Shechem is another account people like to bring up in defense of the Bible's stance on rape, which he explains wasn't rape in a previous section of the article. He sums it up in this excerpt:

Unlike modern law, then, biblical law looks beyond individual consent to include the consent of the father and, by extension, other family members who may have an interest in negotiating terms of marriage.​

You see, consent doesn't mean the same thing to them as it does to us. The father consents to his daughter becoming married, not the other way around. In the case of the Levite, he had already purchased rights of consent from her father for himself. So what does it mean when a husband consents to his wife having sex with another man?

No one is claiming the Lot was without faults but you are not seeing the overarching point of God’s grace and patience. His character was not worthy and in fact nothing was worthy, just like you and me. But in that unworthiness is God’s grace and that is power that deems worthiness as worthless.

Why do you ignore the question about the Levite? That seems like a much more pertinent question to answer. The Levite was directly responsible for what happened to the concubine, and yet no one wants to punish him.

I already demonstrated that the tenor and emotions of the text show that the offence of rape is what is being punished.

You say "demonstrate", but I call this an "assertion":

The judgment happened because of the rape of the woman and it did not need a specific law to make the judgment. When you read the two chapters in Judges, the tenor and focus is on the rape and not the death of the woman.

There is a world of difference between "demonstrating" and "asserting". And neither you nor your source links this story to the idea that the laws in Deuteronomy would be used in cases of women other than the the women it explicitly states are protected. If this case of the Levite and his concubine is truly a case of vengeance being wrought for the sake of rape, it amounts to a scary warning of God's wrath for wrongdoing, and not any sort of legal deterrent.

And you keep saying this:

If God had appeared and demanded that Israel must conform to His holy character in totality, they would not have survived a day.

But you won't answer the question of what makes a moral important enough to make the list of laws? Why was stealing more important to make an explicit law about than rape?

 

[golgotha61]

I'm talking about the words I quoted. No need to go back to the article, just look at the words I put in quotes. He describes two crimes. He describes them in the same order that they appear in Deuteronomy. Coincidence? I think not.

This is ridiculous. It is useless to imagine comparison by inference without verification of which verses are being discussed. You have already lost any credibility for an honest approach to this argument with your foolish NIV version argument. And in light of that, this post will be the last discussion with you on this OP.

Now when I said this:

You replied with this:

But then you just said this in the same post about your source that you've been defending for pages now:

So.... wuuut?!

Seriously? I posted the denial before I followed it with the actual topic that you brought up.

Here's another article about rape in the OT. Jonathan Burnside. He actually defends the Bible for it's lack of actual rape laws. Consent belongs to the men, not the women. Dinah and Shechem is another account people like to bring up in defense of the Bible's stance on rape, which he explains wasn't rape in a previous section of the article. He sums it up in this excerpt:

Unlike modern law, then, biblical law looks beyond individual consent to include the consent of the father and, by extension, other family members who may have an interest in negotiating terms of marriage.​

I disagree with him based on the superior credentials of Brouer in the Hebrew language. Not all scholars are equal in expertise in particular areas of biblical studies. Burnside may want to study under Brouer and become better informed. I also take exception to his opinion concerning rape based on Judges 19-20.
​

Why do you ignore the question about the Levite? That seems like a much more pertinent question to answer. The Levite was directly responsible for what happened to the concubine, and yet no one wants to punish him.

Because it is irrelevant to the argument and is another rabbit trail.

There is a world of difference between "demonstrating" and "asserting".

OK, I demonstrated it through the assertion.

And neither you nor your source links this story to the idea that the laws in Deuteronomy would be used in cases of women other than the the women it explicitly states are protected. If this case of the Levite and his concubine is truly a case of vengeance being wrought for the sake of rape, it amounts to a scary warning of God's wrath for wrongdoing, and not any sort of legal deterrent.

God is the author of moral law and is the rightful judge and, if He sees fit, the authoritative executioner of the judgment. This act in Judges is wrought by and through God’s direction and vengeance belongs to Him. Instead of complaining about this act of punishment because of rape, which you have been petitioning for throughout this entire thread, you should be satisfied. I let this charade continue for too long. You are now arguing for its own sake.

But you won't answer the question of what makes a moral important enough to make the list of laws? Why was stealing more important to make an explicit law about than rape?

I have gone through this reasoning ad nauseam. See you around.

 

[Moral Orel]

This is ridiculous. It is useless to imagine comparison by inference without verification of which verses are being discussed.

If there were explicit verification of which verses were being discussed, then it wouldn't be an inference would it?

You have already lost any credibility for an honest approach to this argument with your foolish NIV version argument.

NIV argument? You bolded the word "rape" as though that were the important part of a passage, and I pointed out that the original Hebrew said no such thing. That's the trouble with inferring and translating what you think a passage means. I take the passage for it's words, not what some people think it means. It's great that you have some scholars that think it means one thing, there are plenty of other scholars who will say it means something else. I prefer to look at what it actually says.

Personally, I think you lost all credibility when you stated that rape victims are married to their rapists in the eyes of God and are committing adultery if they ever wed a different man after the event. You'll have to excuse me if I find your interpretation of the Bible hazy at best after such a twisted interpretation.

And in light of that, this post will be the last discussion with you on this OP.

Good, then I shall have the last word.

Seriously? I posted the denial before I followed it with the actual topic that you brought up.

No, you posted information from your source pages ago. You asserted that was the claim she was making this whole time. Yet you deny the relevance in me bringing up the fact that women were property in the eyes of the ancient Israelites.

I disagree with him based on the superior credentials of Brouer in the Hebrew language. Not all scholars are equal in expertise in particular areas of biblical studies. Burnside may want to study under Brouer and become better informed. I also take exception to his opinion concerning rape based on Judges 19-20.

I disagree with her based on his superior credentials in interpreting the law. See how easy that is to make a statement without any valid reasoning?

Because it is irrelevant to the argument and is another rabbit trail.

I thought the whole point was holding people accountable for rape? He was directly responsible, therefore he should have been accountable. You ignore a lot of the things I say, and call other things "rabbit trails" and "irrelevant" without building any case that your assertions to the matter of their relevance are correct. I can only assume that these things I mention have no legitimate defense since you fail to present one.

OK, I demonstrated it through the assertion.

What you have demonstrated with this statement is that you do not know the difference between demonstrating and asserting. Demonstrating through assertion is nonsense that is no better than, "It's true because I said it was true". This has been the entirety of your argument thus far.

God is the author of moral law and is the rightful judge and, if He sees fit, the authoritative executioner of the judgment. This act in Judges is wrought by and through God’s direction and vengeance belongs to Him. Instead of complaining about this act of punishment because of rape, which you have been petitioning for throughout this entire thread, you should be satisfied. I let this charade continue for too long. You are now arguing for its own sake.

Because they weren't punished for rape. They were punished for destroying a man's property. If rape were the integral concern, the Levite would have been held accountable for his actions that caused her abuse.

I have gone through this reasoning ad nauseam. See you around.

Perhaps, but only by demonstrating by asserting.

 

[Moral Orel]

I'm posting blind here (surely you have talked about Deuteronomy 22 already, yes?). DEATH was the prescribed judgment for the rape of a woman already betrothed to another (which is a 'far' harsher punishment than we have today for rape, at least here in the West), but that was not the punishment for someone who raped a virgin. Why Because that would, in essence, be a heavy judgment against the young girl as well.

Men sought out virgins to marry in that culture (just look at the extent father's went to in that society to prove their daughters were still virgins on their wedding night ). If you were a virgin and you were raped, your hope of ever becoming a wife back then was over, so the law forced the man to do the right thing If the law prescribed death as punishment for this type of rape, unfortunately, it would have also punished the innocent party as well (as she would, at the very least, face a life of great hardship, with no hope of marriage or children .. which is what women did back then, they got married and had children, they didn't have any of the opportunities that women do today).

It was a very different time and a very different culture, but they sought to be as fair and as just as they could be within that culture.

Hope that helps a bit.

--David

Oh yes, those verses were of course mentioned. Trouble is, where is the protection for all the other non-virginal women? Plus, there is a lot of contention amongst Christians about the second one and whether it actually means rape. You're right, that girl is ruined for having a chance of getting married, so just killing the guy would do more harm than good. But if it pertains to rape, then that means she has to be married to her abuser, which is probably worse.

Another way to look at it is to determine who the person is in those verses that is actually harmed. Of course the girl would be the one we would want to protect, but the fact that only when a man is harmed is there actually a law against it because of who the laws say the victim can be. In the case of the first law, a man has already paid for his wife, and she becomes ruined. This means a loss for the man. In the second case, the father hasn't been able to sell off his daughter yet, and so it is a loss for him. Not to mention the fact that he will probably have to support his daughter for the rest of his life instead of selling her off. True, the girl is harmed, but they only write a law when a man is harmed.

Notice there's no law for when a divorced or widowed woman who is living alone is raped.

 

[Moral Orel]

" And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."

As you treat your fellow man... So you treat God. If you do evil to man, you do evil to God. The wicked asked... When? They had no awareness of their wickedness... But they will! Oh! They will!

31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. - Matthew 25

I'm sure God, if He exists, hates rape and molestation. The question is whether a perfect loving God would write a legal code that doesn't make rape illegal. The NT is great and all, and it demands that people are a lot nicer to each other, but it isn't information the OT Israelites were privy to. If they were still savage people that thought women were to be seen as sexual objects to be used, God didn't tell them not to.

 

[Moral Orel]

Are you aware about the laws about fornication?

Where'd you go? Were you leaving it up to Golgath to make the argument?

 

[rockytopva]

I'm sure God, if He exists, hates rape and molestation. The question is whether a perfect loving God would write a legal code that doesn't make rape illegal. The NT is great and all, and it demands that people are a lot nicer to each other, but it isn't information the OT Israelites were privy to. If they were still savage people that thought women were to be seen as sexual objects to be used, God didn't tell them not to.

If E = mc2 then we can divide and conclude that...

Mass (m) = Energy (E/c2)

And there are three varieties...

Natural E/c2 - All mass is basically cooled plasma
Mental E/c2 - Mentally, A mathematical formula, but this has chemical and spiritual properties as well.
Spiritual E/c2 - E (motivation, warmth, love) / c2 (faith, hope, charity, joy)

If you have the correct spiritual light within yourself you will rise above the law, as the scripture has said...

Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. - Romans 13:8
Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. - Romans 13:10
For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. - Galatians 5:14
If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: -James 2:8

The correct spiritual E/c2 causes you to do well unto all men. If you have not the correct spiritual E/c2 you will do evil as it is in your character to do so.

 

[Moral Orel]

If E = mc2 then we can divide and conclude that...

Mass (m) = Energy (E/c2)

And there are three varieties...

Natural E/c2 - All mass is basically cooled plasma
Mental E/c2 - Mentally, A mathematical formula, but this has chemical and spiritual properties as well.
Spiritual E/c2 - E (motivation, warmth, love) / c2 (faith, hope, charity, joy)

If you have the correct spiritual light within yourself you will rise above the law, as the scripture has said...

Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. - Romans 13:8
Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. - Romans 13:10
For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. - Galatians 5:14
If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: -James 2:8

The correct spiritual E/c2 causes you to do well unto all men. If you have not the correct spiritual E/c2 you will do evil as it is in your character to do so.

Well then the people back then who really took to heart the "love your neighbor" parts wouldn't be rapists or child molestors. But Mosaic Law was written to have an organized society that protected people from crime. Sure, it was written with religious specific rules to distinguish them from other cultures too, but an organized, civilized society was part of it as well. If there was someone who didn't love their neighbor decided to steal from you, there were rules in place to stop them or convict them and possibly get your stuff back. There aren't any rules to make that society work in a way that protects the most vulnerable citizens from the worst possible crimes.

 

[rockytopva]

Well then the people back then who really took to heart the "love your neighbor" parts wouldn't be rapists or child molestors. But Mosaic Law was written to have an organized society that protected people from crime. Sure, it was written with religious specific rules to distinguish them from other cultures too, but an organized, civilized society was part of it as well. If there was someone who didn't love their neighbor decided to steal from you, there were rules in place to stop them or convict them and possibly get your stuff back. There aren't any rules to make that society work in a way that protects the most vulnerable citizens from the worst possible crimes.

I would both agree and like that post. In Socrates doctrine of the divided line it puts Justice, the law, and virtue atop everything else.

But there are spiritual forces above justice... Which would be the spiritual E/c2...

 

[Moral Orel]

But there are spiritual forces above justice... Which would be the spiritual E/c2...

True. And I'm sure that a just and loving God would make sure unrepentant sexual abusers get what they deserve in the end. But what about during the time on Earth? How much intervention there would be from the divine would be questionable. Obviously, He wouldn't be smiting everyone who stole something the moment they stole it. And since Israel eventually declined into moral depravity so badly that He took His protection away, I don't think He was intervening on a daily basis with their lives and how they chose to lead them.

But if we're to believe He wrote the Mosaic Laws, and not some human, then we would see this perfect and just and loving God intervening, if only a little through the act of writing a law, against petty crimes like theft, and intervening not at all with crimes like sexual abuse. And if He didn't tell them not to, and their whole history of laws from every other society that came before them said such actions were okay, they could almost claim ignorance that they didn't know they weren't supposed to.

There were a lot of laws that held women to different standards when it came to sexuality than men, so why would they assume there shouldn't be a double standard in other aspects as they see fit?

I don't see the lack of laws as evidence of God having a poor character, or that He doesn't exist. I see it as evidence that there was a clear lack of divine influence that went into the writing of those laws, nothing more.

 

[rockytopva]

True. And I'm sure that a just and loving God would make sure unrepentant sexual abusers get what they deserve in the end. But what about during the time on Earth? How much intervention there would be from the divine would be questionable. Obviously, He wouldn't be smiting everyone who stole something the moment they stole it. And since Israel eventually declined into moral depravity so badly that He took His protection away, I don't think He was intervening on a daily basis with their lives and how they chose to lead them.

But if we're to believe He wrote the Mosaic Laws, and not some human, then we would see this perfect and just and loving God intervening, if only a little through the act of writing a law, against petty crimes like theft, and intervening not at all with crimes like sexual abuse. And if He didn't tell them not to, and their whole history of laws from every other society that came before them said such actions were okay, they could almost claim ignorance that they didn't know they weren't supposed to.

There were a lot of laws that held women to different standards when it came to sexuality than men, so why would they assume there shouldn't be a double standard in other aspects as they see fit?

I don't see the lack of laws as evidence of God having a poor character, or that He doesn't exist. I see it as evidence that there was a clear lack of divine influence that went into the writing of those laws, nothing more.

35 Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,
36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

And these character attributes are further defined by the Apostle Paul...

1. Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
4 Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.
8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity. - 1 Corinthians 13

If mankind gets these spiritual attributes inside his character he will have no need for laws.

 

[Moral Orel]

If mankind gets these spiritual attributes inside his character he will have no need for laws.

Of course! I whole-heartedly agree. But there's plenty of evidence that the OT Israelites didn't get these attributes that much. They were a hard bunch, and prone to doing awful things. Remember when Moses spent too much time on the mountain so they made a golden idol and threw an orgy? They needed strict rules to control them or they would go nuts!

You could think of the ancient Israelites as the children in those verses, and the followers of Jesus as the adults who put away childish things. If they weren't told not to do something, they were probably going to do it.

 

[rockytopva]

Of course! I whole-heartedly agree. But there's plenty of evidence that the OT Israelites didn't get these attributes that much. They were a hard bunch, and prone to doing awful things. Remember when Moses spent too much time on the mountain so they made a golden idol and threw an orgy? They needed strict rules to control them or they would go nuts!

You could think of the ancient Israelites as the children in those verses, and the followers of Jesus as the adults who put away childish things. If they weren't told not to do something, they were probably going to do it.

Yes... I will both agree and like that post. The law was suppose to protect people from evil. But if the people had an evil heart, even though they kept the law, they were still bad people. So with the new testament the attempt was to have the virtues born within the spirit. And if these spiritual virtues are born within then we can cry along with the Apostle Paul...

But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. - Galatians 5:18 ( as the spiritual E/c2 is above, and more excellent than the law)

 

[rockytopva]

There is also the issue of becoming too legalistic. I have knew of holiness people who would only wear long sleeve shirts and heavy pants. Which is a drag on a hot day!