- Mar 4, 2007
- 3,788
- 3,683
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
False.
What was the law at the time for sex outside of marriage and/or adultery?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
False.
That’s the question I think I should be asking you. You don’t seem too familiar with the Bible, only semi familiar.What was the law at the time for sex outside of marriage and/or adultery?
That’s the question I think I should be asking you. You don’t seem too familiar with the Bible, only semi familiar.
It specifically says if they are caught in the act, and there are two witnesses. There were no witnesses since Mary never committed adultery.Joseph obviously had the power to set her aside or an angel wouldn't have to have appeared to tell him not to. It's doubtful people would have checked her virginity if she was obviously pregnant.
Deuteronomy 22 tells us what to do if a man or woman is found guilty of adultery,
Wrong again, the Jews did not have the authority to execute the woman, only the Romans did.and we know this was still in effect during Jesus' day otherwise we wouldn't have the situation of Him and the adulterous woman who was about to be stoned. Which was another situation where he prevented the LAW from being carried out.
It specifically says if they are caught in the act, and there are two witnesses. There were no witnesses since Mary never committed adultery.
Wrong again, the Jews did not have the authority to execute the woman, only the Romans did.
Minor quibble:The country will never fix itself but maybe new blood would. Plus remember immigration was not an issue until people of color began to immigrate. The Irish, Italians, Germans, English, French, and Scandinavians were allowed free and clear access, why is the same not appropriate for people with brown skin?
According to the Bible, witnesses are needed. If they were to follow the law, divorce, but not stoning. Furthermore, exposing her isn’t actually a moral obligation. He didn’t break the law by not telling on her. There is nothing in the Bible that says he is morally obligated to expose her. Thus, God never made someone break the law.Not every instance required witnesses, but the passage mentions proof of virginity, which is why I worded it as I did. Immaculate conception has happened once and never again. So for her to be found with child when Joseph hasn't touched her, most are going to see the pregnancy as itself proof of adultery. God intervened which is why she was not put away by Joseph and Joseph was a good man which is why he wasn't going to follow the LAW and expose her in the first place.
What would happen to any other unmarried woman who is with child but not caught in the act?
I’m fairly certain that the Immaculate Conception, was when God allowed Mary to be born “sinless”, (knowing that she’d be willing (when the time came), to be a “clean vessel” so that Jesus would have a perfect start, which allowed Him to remit Mary’s sin-backward-in-time, because God is not bounded by time).…Immaculate conception has happened once and never again.
So for her to be found with child when Joseph hasn't touched her, most are going to see the pregnancy as itself proof of adultery. God intervened which is why she was not put away by Joseph and Joseph was a good man which is why he wasn't going to follow the LAW and expose her in the first place.
What would happen to any other unmarried woman who is with child but not caught in the act?
The volume seems unbelievable, What do we do when so many show up? I think they are Mexico's responsibility. Of course we can assist them there. It is probably best to assist other countries people flee to make them safer so people can stay. Of course that is probably simplistic uniformed thinking.In my thinking about immigration law, I do still think there are situations where the law of love supersedes the laws of immigration. So many claim refugee status that bona fide refugees suffer.
While quite a few undocumented and illegals are Mexican, Mexico serves as the middle man for all other nations. But i do not think they are responsible entirely. They are sovereign and can do what they feel is best with their immigration, though the USA could offer help them and offer incentives to try and get things more under control. Still, If the USA has too easy of a border to cross then it is on the USA, not Mexico. The biggest problem is the legalities of those arriving. Many receive court dates that are a year away to see if they can remain in the USA. Often they never show up for court and now those immigrants are well established in the USA. That decision should take days. Even better would be to handle those requests when possible outside the USA. Probably the USA is gong to have to redefine the laws about who can take refugee status in the USA and when. Make it tougher but somehow still allow those who are at high risk of death to enter in as asylum seekers.The volume seems unbelievable, What do we do when so many show up? I think they are Mexico's responsibility. Of course we can assist them there. It is probably best to assist other countries people flee to make them safer so people can stay. Of course that is probably simplistic uniformed thinking.
Yeah, just let the poor countries take care of the poor people, that’s been working great.The volume seems unbelievable, What do we do when so many show up? I think they are Mexico's responsibility. Of course we can assist them there. It is probably best to assist other countries people flee to make them safer so people can stay. Of course that is probably simplistic uniformed thinking.
We donate food to Africans all the time. What happens if we stop? I’d like to see.Yeah, just let the poor countries take care of the poor people, that’s been working great.
According to the Bible, witnesses are needed. If they were to follow the law, divorce, but not stoning. Furthermore, exposing her isn’t actually a moral obligation. He didn’t break the law by not telling on her. There is nothing in the Bible that says he is morally obligated to expose her. Thus, God never made someone break the law.
So has just letting them in U.S.Yeah, just let the poor countries take care of the poor people, that’s been working great.
Incorrect, as you are assisting them in living a sinful lifestyle.Then the premise of the OP is wrong. If exposing someone is not a moral obligation then sanctuary cities etc are not helping someone sin by not telling on them.
Breaking the law is not always sinful as there are unjust laws. The immigration situation is more a desperate response to inadequate policy.Incorrect, as you are assisting them in living a sinful lifestyle.
The STATUS of a person yes. But not the person him/herself.Wrong humans can be illegal. The word illegal denotes the status of the person is currently in. The word undocumented is being use to downplay the seriousness of the issue. It is a political move. At best you can say undocumented immigrant is a synonym of illegal immigrant.
Ever country uses the word illegal to explain law breaking immigrants.
Facilitation of Illegal Immigration | Europol
European Union’s law enforcement agencywww.europol.europa.eu
Just because you wouldn’t call them sinners doesn’t mean they aren’t sinners. The USA has no obligation to take them in, and are 100% justified in setting up borders.Breaking the law is not always sinful as there are unjust laws. The immigration situation is more a desperate response to inadequate policy.
I would not call illegal immigrants sinners nor the sanctuaries.
The Bible is about personal morality, not public policy. The US government is meant to help US citizens, not to take resources from US citizens and give it to the poor.If the Bible says we should be helping the widows, the downtrodden and children, how would that impact helping migrants of ANY status?
Are there there times we should NOT be helping those people?
Oh I see!Just because you wouldn’t call them sinners doesn’t mean they aren’t sinners. The USA has no obligation to take them in, and are 100% justified in setting up borders.
The Bible is about personal morality, not public policy. The US government is meant to help US citizens, not to take resources from US citizens and give it to the poor.