kinda mystifying... y its always CATHOLIC pastors condemned for molesting, no one els
ReligionDiscuss General Theology, Religions and Denominations, God's Attributes, Predestination and Free Will, Dispensationalism, Eschatology, Philosophy, Origins, Archaeology, Science, World History and other such topics.
I wish I wasn't under an infraction for implied profanity.
Look at my sig, the money raised at that event went to a Christian Shelter for abused and homeless women. I worked with these people and the victims of abuse for almost a year, mostly with the victims and with many women making donations who were victims of abuse. Talking to these women, I know many of them feel like their life is over. Many have attempted suicide, and there are many who succeeded.
You might be too young to know exactly how much evil is in the world. You should go to a shelter for abused children and volunteer for a while. Your eyes WILL be open and I’m sure you will change your attitude. The molesters deserve to die, period.
I spend my time among the outcasts of our society, men who are homeless for various reasons, some of whom are there because they have committed crimes (including a sex offender or two from time to time). I know at least some of the homeless are there because of their own poor decisions in life, others because they never had the opportunities you or I have, still others because of continual social injustices (including continued racism and the divide between the rich and the poor). I am fully aware of what kind of evils there are in this world, and I have faced men that I would not trust for an instant with my life or anything else (because I know they have become so distorted that they have little hope of redemption). I work among these men, however, because that is what Christ has called me to do.
Sin is much more complicated than any of us wants to admit. It would be easy if we could just say, "These people are the reason society is so bad," and be done with them, wouldn't it? The problem is that sin in our humanity runs far deeper than any of us wants to admit (which is why we justify murder in our hearts and minds to feel as though we can free ourselves from it). I can tell you from first hand experience the tangled web of sin is pretty much impossible to unwind. As much as you want someone to blame for the evils of this world you will find there is evil in places you never expected to find it. Innocence is a pipe dream held by those who truly have no idea what kinds of sins they themselves have unleashed on the world. I've been to Mumbai and seen first hand the slums filled with millions of men, women and children whose only crime was to be born in the wrong place at the wrong time. I met a young girl who was doomed to die because she had contracted tuberculosis and had no means to pay treatments. Children starve to death all around the world while we sit here in the US and stuff the faces of our own children so full of food that they are dying from eating too much. One child lives the other dies, and there is no justice to it; there is no reason why your deserves to live and another to die.
There is far too much death in this world brought down on our own heads that we should be reluctant to wish more of it on others. But don't sit here and accuse me of being ignorant of the evils of our world. I know all too well how bad it gets.
How many children does a molester have to abuse before he deserves death?
According to what you have been saying, a molester can abuse as many children as he/she wants. Where do you draw the line? Or do you even care?
You are, in effect, saying "Let the cancer eat my body, God will heal me."
One does not need to kill the molester to keep them from harming again. Sex offenders are required to register under the law to make their presence known wherever they go. That record is fully available to any community and they are able to protect their children in that way. In fact, such a reality, I believe, has the power to be very beneficial in teaching children how to react to the predators who have not yet committed a crime and thus are invisibly present among us (quite free to prey on everyone, sight unseen). The visible presence of the molester in the community is a lesson for us all. Sin is not something we can eradicate so easily from our lives (our utopias are nothing but our delusions). We have to live with sin and learn to be faithful in the midst of it, and hope for redemption, even when that redemption seems so impossible. This is the way of life of the people formed by the Mosaic law. They are not out for utopias; they don't idealize ignorance and call innocence. They hold onto life and thank God for it, and even when sin tries to mar it, they learn give thanks to God even despite of it.
One does not need to kill the molester to keep them from harming again. Sex offenders are required to register under the law to make their presence known wherever they go. That record is fully available to any community and they are able to protect their children in that way. In fact, such a reality, I believe, has the power to be very beneficial in teaching children how to react to the predators who have not yet committed a crime and thus are invisibly present among us (quite free to prey on everyone, sight unseen). The visible presence of the molester in the community is a lesson for us all. Sin is not something we can eradicate so easily from our lives (our utopias are nothing but our delusions). We have to live with sin and learn to be faithful in the midst of it, and hope for redemption, even when that redemption seems so impossible. This is the way of life of the people formed by the Mosaic law. They are not out for utopias; they don't idealize ignorance and call innocence. They hold onto life and thank God for it, and even when sin tries to mar it, they learn give thanks to God even despite of it.
What bothers me now is that you’re still here, arguing for the lives of child molesters with hardly any sympathy for the victims. Why is this so important to you? Do you have a real life or just TOL? (I’m disabled so I don’t have much of a life anymore, lots of time on my hands) My personnel opinion is so important to you that you expose your ugly side to everyone on TOL for long periods of time. Are you so blind you can’t see how repulsive you are?
What I said was my opinion. I have cast my net out (my beginning rant) and caught a big fish indeed, a ritually impure fish it looks like. Do you not know what Jesus was talking about when He said “I will make you fishers of men.”? It came from Gamaliel, whom Paul claims as his teacher. That claim is false. Paul didn’t read or write Hebrew, therefore not a student of Gamaliel. It is more likely that Jesus was a student of Gamaliel or Gamaliel got this teaching from Jesus or they are the same person.
Quote:
Since the Hillel school of thought is presented collectively, there are very few other teachings which are clearly identifiable as Gamaliel’s. There is only a somewhat cryptic dictum, comparing his students to classes of fish:
A ritually impure fish: one who has memorized everything by study, but has no understanding, and is the son of poor parents
A ritually pure fish: one who has learnt and understood everything, and is the son of rich parents
A fish from the Jordan River: one who has learnt everything, but doesn't know how to respond
A fish from the Mediterranean: one who has learnt everything, and knows how to respond
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamaliel
You have some good arguments, I'll give you that. I am in no way convinced however.
If the molester turns to God and repents (confesses his sins and ceases his atrocities) and God forgives him, what would he say? I think he would say he is worthy of death. What would you say, "thank ya jesus"?
Make A Difference Day Award Winner - Outstanding National Project - 2000
What bothers me now is that you’re still here, arguing for the lives of child molesters with hardly any sympathy for the victims. Why is this so important to you? Do you have a real life or just TOL? (I’m disabled so I don’t have much of a life anymore, lots of time on my hands) My personnel opinion is so important to you that you expose your ugly side to everyone on TOL for long periods of time. Are you so blind you can’t see how repulsive you are?
It troubles me that we are so blind as a people (trust me, the opinion you share is hardly limited to this forum; there are many others within the church and without who share your views). I'm arguing it here because it is a forum in which I can have that discussion (there are not many such forums in the church itself, though I am thankful for my own church where I know my pastor would not be afraid to allow the Word of God to speak to people's hearts even against what seems so natural and good from their own perspectives). I have a life outside of this forum, I just enjoy greatly the opportunity to speak my mind and to form my thoughts well so that I can communicate these things to others in better ways. That you have taken offense to what I have to say doesn't bother me itself (that would only be a problem if it was my intention from the beginning to be an offense for the sake of offending; that has never been my intention, and I have approached others in very reasonable ways, even if what I have to say is offensive). What concerns me most is whether I have spoken faithfully the Word of God (and that I believe I have done, though you may disagree with me on that).
As I have pointed out from many examples in the scriptures, God allowed rapists to live on many occasions; he even allowed murderers grace from time to time (and instituted a means of redemption for the murderer, that there might be an opportunity for him to change his heart and repent). God never instituted these measures of redemption so as to give free reign to sin. He simply had in mind a people whose heart was with his in their desires to extend mercy to the most weak among us.
Your personal opinion is what it is. I'm not here to demand that you change. I am merely speaking what I know to be faithful to God's Word, so that your voice is not all that people hear (because I know in our culture it is your voice that carries the most weight, and if you believe otherwise than you have not been listening very well, or it is you who only know one side of the story, not I, as you like to claim). I work among the homeless, many of whom are guilty of countless crimes, some have even killed, and were heartless in their former lives. But I serve a God who I know cares for even such people as these homeless, if there is any chance they may come to him. Does my care of these men mean that I spit of the graves of their victims? That's the way you look at it. But as I see it their victims are out of my reach; they are already in the grave or they have moved on with their own lives, and don't need my pampering and pity to help them move on (the very term "victim" can be quite demeaning when we never help a person to move on with life, to always remain stuck in that moment of terror). I know that only God can be the protection for such people in this world, unless I find myself in a situation where I can directly intervene (and then I will).
Who stands before me on a day to day basis are the outcasts of our society (the ones on whom society has cast all their sins so that these men get to carry them all away from us). We are no different than ancient Israel in what we do today (except God never spoke to us as a people; he did them). We are so naive when we believe we have the power to drive the evil out from our midst in the same way that God told Israel to do it, as if that evil had not already invaded our bones. The evil is very much among us, and it is festering out of control (not just in the people we despise, but in our very souls). The cancer has already consumed the whole body and whole body is dying. We are like that cancer patient in stage 4 of the disease desperately trying to eke out just a few more days, just a few more months of life. We haven't yet accepted the truth (and so we continue to live in denial, and willing try to make others pay for that denial).
Quote:
Originally Posted by unknown
You have some good arguments, I'll give you that. I am in no way convinced however.
If the molester turns to God and repents (confesses his sins and ceases his atrocities) and God forgives him, what would he say? I think he would say he is worthy of death. What would you say, "thank ya jesus"?
I think you are very right in what you say at the end of your post. I just wish we could recognize that we stand in the same place as the molester.
Chapter 20 of Leviticus quite clearly places adultery and murder on the same level as far as the covenant is concerned. Rape, however, is not once mentioned there.
You are talking about a society where single women were as rare as hen's teeth, so they didn't specify a separate class case law. You had a daughter, you arranged for her marriage by the time she's 13, and she's married within a couple years. A widow of marriageable age was expected to be "redeemed" by a kinsman of her husband.
Quote:
1. Lot offering his unmarried daughters to the men at his door; the Bible does not frown on his offer.
2. The example from Deuteronomy where the unmarried woman was raped and the man forced to marry her and never divorce her. If rape were punishable by death, why would this man be allowed to live?
3. In Judges 20 the men of a city in the tribe of Benjamin, Gibeah, were guilty of raping the concubine of another man...
1. The offer is not taken up by the men of Sodom, and it may be argued that Lot expected that response.
2. Already covered by the scarcity of unmarried women in that society.
3. The actions in Judges 20 are generally covered by the phrase "there was no king in Israel and every man did what was right in his own eyes." God, through Samuel, reminded Israel that He was to be their king, but they didn't keep the law (e.g., there never was a jubilee year kept in ancient Israel).
Quote:
Unless you produce an example where a man is punished for simply raping a woman (not for taking the woman pledged to another man), your argument has no foundation.
Already answered above. Dt 22:26 where a woman is raped in the field, and scripture says it is "just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so is this matter."
Quote:
Irregardless, the only example of the death penalty in the case of rape that you have given here is that of a man raping another man's wife. Only that rape is punished by death.
You are talking about a society where single women were as rare as hen's teeth, so they didn't specify a separate class case law. You had a daughter, you arranged for her marriage by the time she's 13, and she's married within a couple years. A widow of marriageable age was expected to be "redeemed" by a kinsman of her husband.
1. The offer is not taken up by the men of Sodom, and it may be argued that Lot expected that response.
2. Already covered by the scarcity of unmarried women in that society.
3. The actions in Judges 20 are generally covered by the phrase "there was no king in Israel and every man did what was right in his own eyes." God, through Samuel, reminded Israel that He was to be their king, but they didn't keep the law (e.g., there never was a jubilee year kept in ancient Israel).
Already answered above. Dt 22:26 where a woman is raped in the field, and scripture says it is "just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so is this matter."
None so blind as will not see...
Deuteronomy clearly states that if an unmarried woman is raped, the man who raped her lives. It clearly states a virgin who is not pledged to be married (suggesting that the woman is, in fact, very young). That man who raped the young woman is not killed but is forced to marry her and keep her for the rest of his life. If rape is punishable by death, why does the man live?
You can come up with all sorts of reasoning to support your own position, but if you ignore the scriptures your reasoning has no foundation. The man who dies is the one who raped a pledged woman (even the one in the field). The man who does not die rapes an unpledge one. If you will not accept what the scriptures actually say, you have replaced scripture for your own tradition.
IF I were a member of a third world nation I would be working to purge the catholic church out of our nation so we could get real christianity. Fortunatly in america they dont have have any real legal influance but in other nations they are the law, like in the philipines.
The catholic church are modern day pharisies, a brood of vipers.
If rape is punishable by death, why does the man live?
Because women were chattel and the Covenant is a corporate construct, not an individual construct. The man is forced to marry and take a responsible role in the community.
Quote:
You can come up with all sorts of reasoning to support your own position, but if you ignore the scriptures your reasoning has no foundation. The man who dies is the one who raped a pledged woman (even the one in the field). The man who does not die rapes an unpledge one. If you will not accept what the scriptures actually say, you have replaced scripture for your own tradition.
It's not my reasoning, I'm just quoting the scripture. One scripture cites adultery as the model, but the other cites murder. The case law is not exhaustive, and this is the principle expressed in the text. The other principle is "so you shall put away the evil from Israel." This touches the corporate aspect of the covenant.
Because women were chattel and the Covenant is a corporate construct, not an individual construct. The man is forced to marry and take a responsible role in the community.
It's not my reasoning, I'm just quoting the scripture. One scripture cites adultery as the model, but the other cites murder. The case law is not exhaustive, and this is the principle expressed in the text. The other principle is "so you shall put away the evil from Israel." This touches the corporate aspect of the covenant.
You still don't get it. The rapist in one marries the women (because she isn't married). The rapist in the other dies because he raped a married woman. The rape isn't being punished by death (otherwise both would be dead). As the scriptures stand, it is the adulterer who dies not the rapist.
Leviticus 18 and 20 mentions all sorts of sexual crimes deserving of death. Not one mention of rape there.
The death penalty, on the other hand, is proscribed for adultery (and both of those mentioned in 22 that proscribe the death penalty place it on the adulterer, not on the rapist as such).
You still don't get it. The rapist in one marries the women (because she isn't married). The rapist in the other dies because he raped a married woman. The rape isn't being punished by death (otherwise both would be dead). As the scriptures stand, it is the adulterer who dies not the rapist.
Leviticus 18 and 20 mentions all sorts of sexual crimes deserving of death. Not one mention of rape there.
The death penalty, on the other hand, is proscribed for adultery (and both of those mentioned in 22 that proscribe the death penalty place it on the adulterer, not on the rapist as such).
Peace,
Michael
You're still here arguing technicalites. Your time would be better spent in prayer asking only for understanding.
The scriptures do mention men laying with men and says they shall both be put to death. In the case of child abuse, I do not see the child as willing and therefore not worthy of death. The molester however, I see worthy of death.
Do you agree?
Make A Difference Day Award Winner - Outstanding National Project - 2000
You still don't get it. The rapist in one marries the women (because she isn't married). The rapist in the other dies because he raped a married woman.
Your logic would be sound, except for the one explicit case where it compares the rapist to a murderer. The law isn't based entirely on the logic you wish it were, and this is the reason why the Jews had the practice of "binding and loosing" in which a rabbi decides which aspect of the law applies.
Your example of Lev 18 doesn't apply. Those practices are proscribed because they come from the religious and cultural (which is usually one step from the religious) practices of the Egyptians and Canaanites. Lev 20 seems to be the same sort of prohibitions, leading off with Molech worship.
The law had two purposes: punishing transgression and preserving community as the people of the Lord. It isn't always easy to tell which aspect is in effect for each specific case described.
You're still here arguing technicalites. Your time would be better spent in prayer asking only for understanding.
The scriptures do mention men laying with men and says they shall both be put to death. In the case of child abuse, I do not see the child as willing and therefore not worthy of death. The molester however, I see worthy of death.
Do you agree?
I am arguing about the details of the covenant, yes, because I believe DonW is reading them through a stereotypical modern lens (wherein he associates with God's law a deeper principle pointing to a universal natural law). Such natural law theology is at the heart of Replacement Theology, and was the source for the Protestant Church's anti-Semitism during WWII in Europe.
My point is that the ancient Israelites did not understand their law to be universal in this way (God spoke to Israel and them alone; he didn't speak to other peoples in the same way he did them). Torah is for God's people and the rest of the nations fall outside of it. So the United State's strong cultural stance on rape today was not something that God had implied through Torah 4,000 years previously. Rape was a terrible crime in the past, but it was not considered to be a crime against creation or the covenant (as was the sex between two men in the case of the former and adultery in the case of the latter). DonW wants to suggest that it is the rape which is being punished as murder, but it is not (especially if the man who rapes an even younger and unmarried woman is not only allowed to live but must take that same woman as his wife). Coveting another man's wife is one of the ten commandments, and is placed alongside of murder; rape is not.
The reason for the different sensibilities when it comes to rape is the difference in culture. A woman is not free or given any personal rights in the culture of ancient Israel. She is the property of the men in her life (this includes girls of a very young age). The father takes charge of a woman until she is married at which point the husband pays a bride price and the woman is transferred to the husband. In no case is the woman her own (she is always in the possession of another man). This is why a man violating the wife of another man is put to death (because he has violated the rights of another free man and treated shamefully the covenant of God through his adultery, the covenant by which God had made all of his people free from the tyranny of Egypt). When the woman is violated, however, and she is still the property of her father, the man is only asked to pay the damages to her father (i.e. he must give the bride price and never ask for it back, because he has violated the rights of the father, not those of the woman).
This is not universal law; it is a law that governed God's people ages ago (and it is the law that Gentiles never came under). We govern ourselves by our own sensibilities of what is right and wrong (and Gentile nations have done quite perverse things to both their children and their women under the guise of law).
What the scriptural law does challenge is the concept of universal and personal rights. In the United States rape is a violation of those "rights" and is to be condemned with the harshest of penalties because we believe the person to be inviolable under the law (i.e. what we term in our law as "inalienable rights"). What this language has done is brought us all under the "protection" of a federal government that is now named the protectorate of those rights by proxy; thus a violation of the rights of a person are, in fact, a violation of the state. Why are a person's rights inalienable? Only because the government is the sole power reigning over those people and it says they're inalienable.
In Israel there is no such thing as "inalienable rights." The Lord gives life and he has the power to take it away (the persons in themselves are not their own; they have been bought at a price). What is more, the God of Israel is not only the God of his people; he is the God of all nations. Thus God has given life not only to his blessed people but even to the wicked and ungrateful among the Gentiles. This God extends life even to the wicked and is slow to wrath even with them. The Torah reflects this principle. Only the crimes that violate the covenant itself (i.e. the very bond that ties Israel to her God) are punishable by death (because without covenant Israel is nothing). The rest are treated with leniency, because God does not seek the destruction of the sinner (he longs for their repentance).
Thus we must differentiate between our own cultural understanding of the person as imbued with inalienable rights (which is liberalism, not Christianity) and what we find in scripture. God detests those who would take children and sacrifice them to Molech (i.e. not because the lives of children are inviolable; God himself demands the lives of many children throughout Joshua and Judges, and seems justified in asking Abraham to sacrifice his own; parents are not to use the lives of their children to appeal to Molech because the children's lives are not theirs, they are God's, and such an act would violate the covenant with God). God, however, calls for children to be killed for dishonoring their parents (because their insolence is a violation of the covenant; even children are not imbued with inalienable rights under the covenant of God).
My question would be whether the act of the molester is an intentional violation of the covenant that Christ has made with us. If that is the rationale for his or her acts, then they should be cut off from the people of God (they have violated the very thing that gives them and all of us life; they are a cancer that would threaten the whole body of Christ). Of course, in cutting them off, Christ gives us no license to kill them. Instead we hand them over to the world for the world to have its way with them (and still in the hopes that they might be saved on the day of the Lord) (see I Cor. 5:5).
My reluctance to ask for the death penalty in the case of the molester relates to this democratic liberalism that has crept into the church. The state is not that which gives us life, nor is it the protectorate of our "inalienable rights." Our lives are God's, not our own, and so we must be willing to give our lives for his purposes in this world (not for our own purposes and selfish desires). If Christians are to truly belong to Christ this kind of selflessness must shine through us. Helping those who have been victimized by crimes is admirable only if you do so knowing that the lives of those men and women are not given by the laws of the nation, but by God (who is the giver of life, not the nation). Then you can help them as true Christians and as a light to the people around you. If, however, you protect the lives of those who have been victimized by crimes because you believe their lives to be imbued with "inalienable rights" you have become a whore of this nation, and have entered into idolatry (you have violated the covenant with your God and are as wicked as those who committed the crimes in the first place). The God we serve imbued no one with a life that is inalienable; God can give life and he most certainly take it away (even from children).
By the same token, if I serve the former molesters of this world and do so with an understanding that these folks are imbued with inalienable rights just like the rest of us, I do so as one who is an idolater (I have exchanged the living God for a nation who has no power to bring about its stated ends; when a man kills another person, violating their so-called "inalienable rights," the state has no power to bring that dead person back to life). If, however, I serve the former molesters because I know the God who is one gracious even to sinners, not longing for any to perish but for all to come to the knowledge of him, I am a servant of Christ and do that with the clearest of consciences.
Your logic would be sound, except for the one explicit case where it compares the rapist to a murderer. The law isn't based entirely on the logic you wish it were, and this is the reason why the Jews had the practice of "binding and loosing" in which a rabbi decides which aspect of the law applies.
Your example of Lev 18 doesn't apply. Those practices are proscribed because they come from the religious and cultural (which is usually one step from the religious) practices of the Egyptians and Canaanites. Lev 20 seems to be the same sort of prohibitions, leading off with Molech worship.
The law had two purposes: punishing transgression and preserving community as the people of the Lord. It isn't always easy to tell which aspect is in effect for each specific case described.
Don, it compares the rapist of another man's wife to a murderer (not a rapist in general). The violation is of the other man, not the woman (otherwise the rapist of the unpledge woman would fair the same). Your concept of "law" is formed by this culture (by this nation and its liberal democratic frame). You do not understand Torah or its purposes, because it does not apply to you. I have been looking at Torah through the eyes of the Jews (who know what Torah is about, because it is theirs, not yours or mine). They understood that no "punishment" could make up for a crime; the law was about the correction of unwitting sinners and the cutting off of the highhanded ones.
The fact that you would be arrogant enough to think that as a Gentile you have the right to interpret the law over and against Jews demonstrates the continued anti-Semitic sentiment in which you walk. Christ didn't give you Torah (as God did the Jews), and so you have no right to be a "better interpreter" of it than them. Even Christ clearly declared that the Pharisees sit on the seat of Moses (not you). You come under a different covenant (the law of Christ).
I am arguing about the details of the covenant, yes, because I believe DonW is reading them through a stereotypical modern lens (wherein he associates with God's law a deeper principle pointing to a universal natural law). Such natural law theology is at the heart of Replacement Theology, and was the source for the Protestant Church's anti-Semitism during WWII in Europe.
You make some good points, but this is not one of them. I'm not arguing natural law, replacement theology, or any such thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by seekinganswers
Don, it compares the rapist of another man's wife to a murderer (not a rapist in general). The violation is of the other man, not the woman (otherwise the rapist of the unpledge woman would fair the same). Your concept of "law" is formed by this culture (by this nation and its liberal democratic frame). You do not understand Torah or its purposes, because it does not apply to you. I have been looking at Torah through the eyes of the Jews (who know what Torah is about, because it is theirs, not yours or mine). They understood that no "punishment" could make up for a crime; the law was about the correction of unwitting sinners and the cutting off of the highhanded ones.
That's half true. The offense is against the man or the father, because the women are chattel. Nonetheless, the cases cited are by no means exhaustive, and the fact remains that some cases can be classified not as adultery (an offense against the marriage rights) but as murder (which goes to intent to harm). The lack of clarity comes because intent is not cited in the cases except tangentially (if the woman didn't cry out, she must be willing).
When a woman was raped and couldn't cry out because she was gagged, that calls for binding or loosing, since the case wasn't given. They could decide that she attempted to cry out but could not be heard, as the case given for the woman taken in the field.
If a woman who was neither married nor betrothed, nor virgin were raped (a widow, for example) then binding and loosing would have to be exercised. With no father or husband to be the offended party, the woman's harm would be the standard.
Moses had to judge an inheritance that fell to daughters because the man had no sons. It appears there were no husbands involved, for whatever reason. Moses showed how the binding and loosing should be done for women plaintiffs or victims.
Quote:
The fact that you would be arrogant enough to think that as a Gentile you have the right to interpret the law over and against Jews demonstrates the continued anti-Semitic sentiment in which you walk. Christ didn't give you Torah (as God did the Jews), and so you have no right to be a "better interpreter" of it than them. Even Christ clearly declared that the Pharisees sit on the seat of Moses (not you). You come under a different covenant (the law of Christ).
I'm not interpreting the law. The application of the law is for them to do. They bind and loose for their own community. I'm interpreting scripture. The scripture was written for us, the children of Abraham by faith.
Jesus gave us three examples of how the people who sat in Moses' seat don't understand the intent of Mosaic law because they don't know God and think the law is what God is all about. That isn't antisemitic, it's just the truth.
You are the one trying to cite Mosaic law in its stupidest form (applied like a blind man swinging a stick) as a natural law or principle for application today, in the Gentile church and justice system, in adjudicating molestation by priests and the cover-up by the RCC.
Then you whine about the "democratic liberalism that has crept into the church." You are the prime example. And you claim that I'm arrogant?
Linear Mode
