-my Ideologies Final...something about 'liberty, free speech, some other BS. HA!---
These two quotes DO appear at first glance to be contradictory;
however, upon introspection, I shall take the stance that their ultimate
point is an outgrowth of the same sort of thought. To say that
democracy must be maintained in a ‘system where people are willing and
able to limit themselves…,’etc., while reminding
us that, despite the First Amendment protections of free speech, there
are in fact limits and restrictions on speech is to remind us that we
are a nation of laws, and that under these laws all citizens are equal.
All citizens have rights, not just the ones flapping their gums.
To be free to speak ‘where-ever, whenever, or however we want’ would in
fact put the liberty and freedoms of others at risk. I cannot go around
pretending to be an airline pilot; I can go around pretending to have
served as one in Iraq, though. The first example is one where with my
speech I have the ability to outright harm someone, while the second
shows only that I would be a liar to tell such a lie.
Too,
imagine America with free speech but no laws against slander, or
‘fighting words.’ Imagine if I did pay my $20, sit down at the latest
Disney flick, wait until the lights have dimmed and the crowd had
quieted…and shouted, “HE’S GOT A GUN!’ Clearly, this cannot be and never
should be protected speech.
On the other hand, it may seem
awful that the Westboro Baptist Church (to use an infamous example) has
the RIGHT to protest funerals of American soldiers…in my view, it would
be worse that our Supreme Court should ever restrict this practice.
After all, merely being offended it not something we have Constitutional
protections from; unless someone should move from opinionated speech to
outright hateful rhetoric backed by physical action intended to provoke
confrontation, I expect Westboro to continue their agenda.
Bush the second was the President (regardless of your opinion re Florida
2000) post-9/11, and he was accepted as legitimate by the American
people. We quite rightly got what we deserved when he consolidated and
expanded (another apparent but not real contradiction) the military
industrial complex following 9/11. Was he right to do so? I thought no
then, I think no now.
The Patriot Act, on the other hand, has
led to quite real intrusions on the perceived-if-not-quite-real right to
privacy (see: NSA, Snowden); however, imagine the headlines if the
President canceled a spy program that could have prevented (thought
exercise here) all those nukes from going off over Miami, Boston and St.
Louis. There is a trade-off between security and liberty that goes
hand-in-hand with the right to protected speech and the right to not be
lied about (in print or otherwise).
While a simple tendency to
‘tend toward insurrection against the established order’ is
embarrassing, it is not treason; therefore, sedition is and should
remain non-criminal. The Sedition Act of 1918 remains one of the
greatest affronts by the American government to the liberty of its
people. I have every right to think that the President is the
Anti-Christ; this may make me an insane person, but it is my right in
America to be so insane. Now, slander about public officials is actually
a little harder to prove, but that is going off into the weeds a bit.
To conclude, the right of free speech goes hand in hand with the right
to be religious or irreligious. I have the right to accept Jesus or to
tell him to go to hell. America is wonderful like that, freedoms all
around.
Friday, December 13, 2013
Wednesday, December 4, 2013
Soup Doing What Soup Does
Want to see more from LifeSiteNews.com?
Like · · Share · Unfollow Post
- Donna Bristol likes this.
Don Button I'm sure that could be said for both sides. It is sad when people feel so oppressed that they have to resort to such behavior, but it does not diminish their actual oppression.
I don't excuse their actions; but you can always argue about "the means to and end" and there's no point in you and I doing that I'm sure.
Also, it's rather revealing that the article refers to women's rights as "women's rights". I can just see the condescending air quotes.
Darrell Sandoval For this they WILLINGLY are IGNORANT of, that by the Word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same Word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.- Darrell Sandoval Peter used the Flood as a type and warning of the coming great worldwide destruction of all life and warned that as the ungodly scoffed at God's warning by Noah the last generation will live in a day when `the promise of His parousia' is no longer treated seriously but become the object of crude scoffing and intellectual ridicule.
- Don Button Regurgitating 2000-year-old scripture is a pretty easy way to form an argument Darrell. I challenge you to use your own intellect to form an original perspective that's relevant I this century -- that takes work.
Duncan Berseth That scripture is alive and active today and works in the hearts of people like these women every day. And who is going to stick up for the rights of these babies. There are plenty of people who would be willing to adopt unwanted children.- Don Button Show me the scriptural basis for believing a fetus has rights? Clearly there is plenty of scripture to support the idea that women don't.
- Don Button And how do you KNOW that "plenty of people" would adopt those children. Do you have data to back that statement up Duncan? Or do you just "believe" it to be true. I looked it up and found this. Looks like your theory has a hole in it.
http://argentina.adoption.com/.../argentina-adoption... - Don Button And the real point here is not about contraception or adoption or a violent protest. It's about how religion and faith claims are used to control people's natural sexuality — something we are all born with, like all other animals. We have natural drives. Christianity is built on the fear of sex and the vilification and shame of women through the Eve myth. You are perpetuating a fear-based control system with no evidence for it's validity but your own wishful thinking.
- Don Button Donna, I'd say that days (and centuries) are getting better and better because of our increase in scientific knowledge and realistic secularism. Western religion, the hope of an afterlife and magical thinking is what has divided us for centuries and marginalized women, minorities and those without power. I am hopeful for humanity because we see a movement toward peace and equality world-wide historically. We are moving forward, not backward. If you think things are getting worse, you should go back 150 years — before you could vote, before black people were free, before there was access for all to education — then you might see things differently.
Mike Mason Really Don? Christianity is built on "fear of sex and and the vilification and shame of women?" I thought it had more to do with accepting that Jesus died for our sins.- Mike Mason I think the oppression that you list would and does exist without the influence of Christianity. Many people in power will use religion as a tool to oppress weather they truly believe in that religeon or not. For someone who once told me he is the most open minded person he knows of, your arguments are very narrow minded.
- Don Button Re-read Genesis Mike — you gotta go back to the Garden of Eden, and the snake tempting Eve to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. She ate it, brought evil onto mankind, and god punished her by taking away eternal life and promising pain for all women through childbirth. He also gave them shame of their bodies and nakedness, which is iinexurably linked to sex.
The bible is full of claims that women are inferior and must be subservient to their men. The whole focus on virginity, punishment of death for not being one when married, the fact the Mary had to be a virgin so that her and Jesus could not be seen as sexual beings. I'm not making an original claim here dude. These are classic core theological arguments that have been discussed for centuries. - Don Button And it's to just about Christianity. Note that I said western religion. Islam is even worse. They take it even farther, by hiding their women and keeping them at home so that they can not tempt men. This comes from the old testament that both religions share.
- Mike Mason Seriously Don. You paraphrsed some religious texts, but you haven't explained how these religions are built on these ideals. There are plenty of other parts about loving thy neighbor and turning the other cheek, etc.. I guess if your goal is to denigrate, you will only see the negatives
- Don Button OK, fine, I will agree that "built" was a poor word choice. Let me replace it: "Christianity RELIES on the fear of sex and the vilification and shame of women through the Eve myth." And for the record, so does Judaism and Islam. Yes, there are other aspects of the religions, but when it comes to sex, the most basic of natural instincts, and women, religious dogma and scripture is barbaric, ignorant and repugnant.
One exception: The Song of Solomon. The only book of the bible that does NOT mention god and reads like an psychedelic erotic fantasy. - Don Button Also, you can love thy neighbor and turn the other cheek WITHOUT any religion. That's pretty basic stuff and even a degenerate atheist like myself manages to do that daily without even trying. But a whole lot of people find it very difficult to have a positive, nonjudgmental, guilt-free, fun and mind-blowing sex life WITH religious dogma and upbringing. Religion messes up a whole lot of minds and natural desires.
A book I highly recommend:
http://www.amazon.com/Sex-God-Religion.../dp/0970950543 
Chris Hopkins I have to say Don, I know your point, and I realize what you're saying, but I disagree with things you are mentioning here. You know I don't believe in the Bible or Quran or any of that stuff, but the specific things you're attacking here are about maybe 2% of the message, and the horrible things that have been done in their name were also pushed forward by probably less than .1% of the believers over time. I think it's disrespectful to peoples beliefs to narrow it down to the horrible things. It's kind of like people attacking you for being an atheist because of the Holocaust.- Don Button What does atheism have to do with the holocaust. Hitler was raised catholic and had the cross put on Nazi uniform belts. He was not pushing atheism.
- Chris Hopkins "Adolf Hitler was raised by an anticlerical, sceptic father and a devout Catholic mother. Baptized and confirmed as a child in Austria, he ceased to participate in the sacraments after childhood. In adulthood, Hitler became disdainful of Christianity, but in seeking out and in trying to retain power in Germany, he was prepared to set aside his views on religion out of political considerations. He repeatedly stated that Nazism was a secular ideology founded on science.[1] It is generally accepted by historians that Hitler's post war and long term goal was the eradication of Christianity in Germany.[2][3] The adult Hitler did not believe in the Judeo-Christian notion of God, though various scholars consider his final religious position may have been a form of deism. Others consider him "atheist". The question of atheism is debated, however reputable Hitler biographers Ian Kershaw, Joachim Fest and Alan Bullock agree Hitler was anti-Christian. This view is evidenced in sources such as the Goebbels Diaries, the memoirs of Albert Speer, and the transcripts edited by Martin Bormann which are contained within Hitler's Table Talk, an influential translation of which was completed by historian Hugh Trevor-Roper."
- Don Button Anti-women, anti-sex, and anti-gay attitudes and policies are nearly entirely driven in our society by the influence of the bible and religion. Even people who don't believe it are effected by those messages the church pushes. I strongly disagree with your percentage estimates.
- Chris Hopkins Now let me ask you another question. Do you really think the people that were in power 1500 years ago and started to use Christianity to their advantage to control the population were really Christian?
- Don Button Did they really belief the old testament and that Jesus was the savior, son of god? Yes, I think it's very likely they did. Did they use that belief to control the masses? Yes to that too. They are not mutually exclusive.
- Chris Hopkins How many Christians that you personally know hate gay people? I can't think of any that I know.
- Chris Hopkins I don't believe that they actually believed it, just like I don't think political leaders actually believe in democracy, I think in both cases they believed in the best way to try to work the system.
- Don Button I've met a few on campus. But we have the advantage of living in NorCal, where the culture strongly effects the influence of the religious right. In other parts of the country and the world, evangelical Christianity has been extremely vocal in it's hatred of homosexuality. Many powerful evangelical leaders have been lending their support and money to "death penalty for gays" laws in African nations. It's been well covered.
- Don Button What historical evidence do you have to support your "belief" that early church leaders were not believers? And what's the point with this line of thought anyway?
- Chris Hopkins I know, leaders in these communities can definitely be responsible for pushing some horrible things, just like politicians. I don't have "evidence" just critical thinking. My critical thinking tells me that people that actually take in the teachings and message of just about any religious philosophy wouldn't be capable of pulling some of the atrocities that they did. I think they thought "hey, wait a minute, if we could get millions of people believing this then we could really push our agenda." Kinda like Manifest Destiny. I don't think I've ever met a christian that would have said "yeah, it's cool, we have the right to just go take over that land over there and kill everyone on it, it's ours, it's gods right." Now, I'm not saying that millions of religious followers haven't been manipulated by these religous leaders, obviously they have. But to just focus on horrible events that have been recorded through time, based on the catalyst of bad men peddling the ideas is disrespectful of the actual message, and the feeling that people get from having this faith in their lives.
Kris 'Morris' Ryan My apologies if this is offensive, but I find it very offensive to suggest that these women are oppressed. They are not oppressed in the slightest. The picture represents the truly oppressed class in this country. As a woman, I'm always disgusted when I am told what "women's rights" supposedly are. I'm constantly preached at by the left wing women in this country about what they are doing on "my" behalf & it sickens me. These women do not speak for millions of American women who can see the truth clearly. This isn't about religion. It has nothing to do with religion. If you know the first thing about fetal development and the first thing about how abortion works than common sense & plain decency will tell you how disgusting and evil this practice is. I personally think the left absolutely loves to make the debate about religion so they can keep the debate off plain common sense & humanity.
- Don Button OK, Chris, let's address some other actual messages: 1) If you do not accept Jesus as the divine son of god and a virgin as your lord and savior, you will spend eternity in hellfire. That's a core belief. That's the dogma recited in church every Sunday. 2) We are all born in sin and must redeem ourselves through the blood of Christ. Again, core dogma. These are delusional mind games that warp people's minds and rack them with self-doubt and guilt.
Again, if you lived in the bible belt, you'd be surrounded by people who DO believe the things you have not been exposed to living in Sac. - Kris 'Morris' Ryan I'm sorry Steve if this is too much or offensive to you than please remove my comments.
Steve Herrick Kris 'Morris' Ryan it is the sad truth of the depravity of mankind and the horrific acts that people try to rationalize as being a personal right or choice rather than seeing it as the horrific selfish act that it is. Even worse than the actions displayed in the video I posted.- Don Button Those images appear to be late term abortions Kris. I agree they are horrific, but the fact is that there are comparatively few abortions performed in the U.S. at that late stage. The courts and state laws have been adjusting for the change in medical viability to address this. And I would support that.
From Wikipedia:
"The 1992 case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey overturned Roe's strict trimester formula, but reemphasized the right to abortion as grounded in the general sense of liberty and privacy protected under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution: "If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child." Advancements in medical technology meant that a fetus might be considered viable, and thus have some basis of a right to life, at 22 or 23 weeks rather than at the 28 that was more common at the time Roe was decided. For this reason, the old trimester formula was ruled obsolete, with a new focus on viability of the fetus." - Don Button To continue, the vast majority of abortions are performed far earlier than your photos, to very non-viable fetuses that can not survive, making your photos a straw man argument and propaganda.
- Kris 'Morris' Ryan One is late term & one is at 8 weeks Don. And does it really matter? Do you think it's any better when the baby is a bit smaller? Nervous system, heartbeat & brain waves are all functioning fully earlier than the 8 or 9 week point where the majority of abortions occur. The second picture is an 8 week abortion. Please get some education on fetal development & also on the different abortion procedures carried out at each stage.
- Kris 'Morris' Ryan I'm cracking up laughing at your Wikipedia quote. I suppose you are against any laws regarding murder because it might infringe on the rights of the murderer?
- Chris Hopkins 49 days in is when fetus' develop the pineal gland, which produces DMT. DMT causes dreaming, near death experiences, and out of body experiences, or basically forms of reality. So after seven weeks fetus' have the ability to dream, it seems. That could be 3 weeks after a missed period, how many abortions are before that?
- Chris Hopkins At the same time should a 14 year old girl that was raped have to keep the baby? I'm not so sure. I think abortion is the single most complicated issue there is personally. Don't know whether to be for or against.
- Kris 'Morris' Ryan Well, lets stop all other abortions first and then talk about victims of rape because that is the hardest circumstance, but it is also the most rare reason for abortion. At the same time should a child have to die because of what their father did? I personally know a beautiful woman who was conceived due to rape & she honors her mother for her choice to have her & give her up for adoption. Also, we like to assume that is best for the woman who is a victim, but many victims say they feel violated all over again with the abortion....they just didn't realize going in that they would feel that way. It is a very heart wrenching situation & one that I would never want one of my daughters to go through, but we have to stop using those horrible situations as an excuse for the millions of abortions that have nothing to do with rape.
- Steve Herrick "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations" Jer 1:5. "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb" Psalm 139:13. But then these word keen nothing if one doesn't believe God exists.
- Soup McGee -- if rights come from god, why do you not go to your pastor when your car is damaged by your neighbors kids?-
- Kris 'Morris' Ryan We now have so called scholars & many others advocating for being about to do away with your child up to 2 years of age because supposedly until then they haven't reached certain stages of development so according to them aren't fully "persons" yet. The human haters & death lovers never stop.
- Kris 'Morris' Ryan soup - I really am not sure I understand your question. But I'll give it a shot anyhow.....first of all I would guess because your pastor is not God. Now I have a question for you. If your rights come from government or other people, what's to stop them from taking them away & declaring you no longer have any rights if they are the number one authority with no one else to answer to?
- Chris Hopkins Another side of this. If its so terrible to be intolerate of others beliefs, like the right to be Gay, or Abortion or whatever, which I think its kinda shitty to be intolerate of Gay people, but not so sure about the abortion thing, why is it okay to then be intolerate of their beliefs? Since when did 2 wrongs make a right Don?
- Soup McGee With the ancient definition, the overtone is clear: family is something owned (an object), or someone possessed by the House – these would be the women and their children, seized in conquest and forced into familial relationships for the sake of a nobler lineage or a wealthier family’s profit. Where family was once an identity given to someone when they were purchased by nobility or born into a specific bloodline, family in today’s more inclusive society is as much about association as it is about blood. This hidden history of the word is not often brought up or discussed, and of course not. It would decimate the moral judgment of those who hold the literal biblical belief described next.
Many believe America is a Christian Nation, but the Bible can be a confusing mess when defining family for those who attempt to literally follow the book. If family is the producer of morals and values, and marriage is the foundation of family, honest accounting means admitting that the definition of marriage has changed numerous times throughout the Bible. From polygamy as the standard in Deuteronomy 21:15 to God sanctioned-rape in Judges 21:10-24---. Expansion of family is the way of accounting for the history of man. Family is hard to characterize with consistency when using the biblical framework. The definition as according to civil law must, to be consistent with history, continue to expand.
Another incongruous example, relating more to my literal experience, is where the Bible, in Romans 8:15, tells me to “Be not afraid, for it is a spirit of adoption [I] have received.” In my life this bell rang more like a warning than an invitation – in hindsight – because a verse from Deuteronomy 23:2 which I also read, says “A bastard shall not be entered into heaven even until the tenth generation.” I am confused. How can I or my children and their children ever receive salvation? If America is a Christian Nation, and if the Constitution is truly Biblically based and therefore written and maintained in accordance with the accepted Christian familial structure, then there can be no true belief -- just a coerced ‘faith’ – and no real place within society for me and every other bastard-child. http://soupsauntieoxymoron.blogspot.com/.../expanded... - Soup McGee --now, does man has the authority to govern man or is that God's legitimate sphere of authority?
- Soup McGee Am I not banished from society if it is ever to become based on Deuteronomy. or Leviticus, as many if not most Christians believe it IS or should be? Given my atheist bastard status...beyond redemption, even with a new covenant...think hard, I grew up with apostles and prophet, I know you.
- Soup McGee -- Does this org. have a stance on Rushdoony and the Institutes of Biblical Law? http://www.frame-poythress.org/the-institutes-of.../
www.frame-poythress.orgby John M. Frame [This article originally appeared in Westminster Theological ...See More - Soup McGee -- ps-- turning the 'other cheek' is about wiping your butt with your left hand AS PER Roman Law..someone strikes you..it WILL be with their right hand--turn your cheek, force them to lose their citizenship when they touch someone with their left hand...9 minutes, former pastor..y'all dig bible study, dontcha? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErjQ0BwWdZU
Thom Hartmann debates Jonathan Moseley, Attorney / Tea Party Activist / Co-host,...See More - Kris 'Morris' Ryan A lot of people who don't truly understand the Bible confuse the way things were to interpret that's the way God wanted things. The Bible....especially the old testament is in large part a history book. Just because things were a certain way doesn't mean it was condoned by God himself just because the Bible describes the way it was. Polygamy & rape was NEVER sanctioned by God. It was just the way things were. Women could not take care of themselves in those days....that was due to many factors both in and out of human control. If a woman couldn't find a husband she ended up a beggar in the streets or a prostitute. That's how a lot of polygamy came about. It wasn't God's idea, but if you understand the heart of God you understand he also wanted women cared for and not destitute. The Bible is not confusing at all. It's only confusing to people who read it with no understanding of the heart. It's not unlike reading a text....if you read a text (say for example) my husband sent to me you could easily misinterpret some of his very literal words. You don't know him. But I know my husband & I know his heart, so I would have a much deeper understanding of his words and wouldn't misunderstand his words. People read the Bible that way & then find it contradictory & confusing because they don't have a spiritual knowledge & understanding of the nature of God.
- Kris 'Morris' Ryan The Old & New testaments have to be understood for what they are before you can understand. There is a reason God condemns certain behaviors & if you look at them all with eyes open you see they are all dangerous for us. While he condemns in the Old testament, in the new testament after the coming of Christ, he forgives, restores & renews. God never condemned you as a child......it used to be very dangerous for a child born out of wedlock. It still is in some places in the world. It is also a determent to the child & their best interest. I know this all too well as my husband was raised with no father & I know how it has affected him. God condemns what is detrimental to us with one hand & then forgives & sets us free from it with the other. You obviously love your children.....so I bet at one time or another you threatened the day lights out of them & even tried to scare the tar out of them about doing dangerous things like running in the street.....but would you have gotten rid of them or left them if they didn't listen to you & ran in the street? Of course not. Most of the people I see posting about religion spend far more time quoting the Old testament as some kind of "proof" about how oppressive religion is but they have very few things to say about the new testament. Also, Old testament is much more literal while the new testament is more spiritual. So they don't contradict at all. You are adopted into the family of God in a spiritual sense regardless of your station or background in life.
- Soup McGee -- yeah, but-- feel free to address the part about ME and God versus me and all bastards: Another incongruous example, relating more to my literal experience, is where the Bible, in Romans 8:15, tells me to “Be not afraid, for it is a spirit of adoption [I] have received.” In my life this bell rang more like a warning than an invitation – in hindsight – because a verse from Deuteronomy 23:2 which I also read, says “A bastard shall not be entered into heaven even until the tenth generation.” I am confused. How can I or my children and their children ever receive salvation? Given my atheist bastard status...beyond redemption, even with a new covenant...unless yer suddenly cool with the gays and their marriages. BTW---
- Soup McGee -- why is there a religious rite for what is in essence a contract with the state to recogize your relationship legally but no clamor for one when BASTARD BABIES are adopted? I can answer this one: BASTARDS cannot enter heaven; neither can their children. Covenant, forgiveness, any other lie of bull methane notwithstanding...your god dooms me to permanent exile.
- Kris 'Morris' Ryan As far as the passage in Judges......where are you reading that God told them to do this? Again, this is a historical account of what happened. They are being commanded....but not by God. It actually said it was the "assembly of the men of Isreal" doing the commanding. They were coming up with this idea all on their own. And if you read the Old Testament you will find that the Israelites were CONSTANTLY doing things that God told them not to. They were constantly taking matters into their own hands that God later took them to task for. So no, this is not God sanctioned rape.
- Kris 'Morris' Ryan That's exactly what I did just address. You aren't understanding that Romans being in the new testament is the current word of God. He tells you not to be afraid, you can be spiritually adopted in the family of God as we all can be regardless of the circumstances of our birth. But also, you are misquoting the verse. No versions of the Old Testament say "a bastard shall not be entered into heaven..." ALL different versions of the Bible say "shall not be entered into the assembly of Jehovah". You are assuming that means heaven, when it doesn't. They are talking about entering the sanctuary or the "church" to practice communion with the Jews or inter-marrying Jews. And most of the versions do not say "bastard or illegitimate" but say Ammonities or Moabites. Also by "bastards" the term was known to be meant as someone born from incest, not just out of wedlock as we use the word. Again, the Old Testament is a historical account. God gave a command here because of a problem that was going on at that point in history where a lot of pegan religions were starting to mix with Judaism. It had nothing to do with condemning people born out of wedlock as you are interpreting it.
- Soup McGee -- so you disagree with Rushdoony? Hmmmmmmmmm.---
I Do understand the difference between old and new testament- that is why the word 'covenant' is so important --- he did not change one 'whit or tittle of the law':
--- Adoptions do not require the religious ceremony that marriage does, indeed it is an interaction with the state...so how can an adoptee be truly a part of a family in the eyes of 'God?'
Having been given back after having been adopted...I know that being adopted does not mean becoming a member of a family...
Maybe a better question: why is a state contract for an adopted child needed to join a family but a religious rite is not also conducted?
Further-
Am I still a member of the family that adopted me and gave me back because the consequences of the sexual abuse I endured at the hands of my mother was too much for them? The state does not recognize any such relationship, 'god' is under no obligation to honor that 'familial bond.'
In a Christian Nation, a truly theonomic state, I would fear that my status would put my progeny in danger...Not trying to be hyperbolic, I've read much of Rushdoony's 'Institutes of Biblical Law"
---------------------
Basic to family law is the inner bond of blood and faith.(pg. 360) The family was basic to Biblical society and culture; the godly family had to be perpetuated, and the ungodly family cut off. The bastard was cut of from church and state, insofar as any legal status was concerned, to the tenth generation (Deut.23:2). He might be a godly man but he was not a citizen. (pg.375)…bastards could not be recognized as legitimate…The creation and perpetuation of godly families is thus basic to the law (pg.380). Biblical law is designed to create a familistic society…[marital infidelity is] treason to the family and introduces an alien loyalty to the home, as well as alien seed (pg.395).’In the trustee period, adultery, along with one or two other crimes, is the most infamous act against the whole society-kinship group…’(by Zimmerman) (pg.396)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)