A Handmaids Tale

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Esaias

"(I) just don't think capital punishment for everything is a great idea. "

God's Law does not prescribe capital punishment for "everything". The following crimes, however, ARE capital crimes:

Murder
Rape
Adultery
Fornication (whether straight, gay, bestial, etc)
Kidnapping
Blasphemy
Idolatry
Inciting to idolatry
Physically assaulting one's parents
Habitual and incorrigible delinquincy
Cursing one's parents
Willful criminal anarchy (including willful Sabbath-breaking)
Not restraining your animal, if known to be dangerous, and you were warned, and it kills someone.
Witchcraft.
Witness perjury in a capital trial.

There may be one or two more, not sure.

God's Law also requires a minimum of two witnesses to the alleged crime. Further, if a witness is found commit perjury (lies) in a capital case, that witness will face the death penalty. In some cases, like a parental complaint of incorrigible delinquincy, the complainant who brings suit is required to take part in the execution of the sentence (which undoubtedly would cut down on the likelihood of bringing the complaint to begin with).

I thought I'd share my opinion on the crimes that could invoke the death penalty.

First, I'd like to ask a question. Do you see this system issuing a lesser sentence in some cases wherein the death penalty could be an option? Let's say a parent doesn't want the judge to stone their child, only to incarcerate them, could the court choose not to have their child stoned, or are they bound to it? Or, let's say that the court feels that the child was out of line, but not to the degree warranting death? What are your thoughts?

Out of the crimes listed, I do believe the death penalty might be warranted in the following:

Murder
Rape
Physically assaulting one's parents*
Habitual and incorrigible delinquency*
Not restraining your animal, if known to be dangerous, and you were warned, and it kills someone.
Witness perjury in a capital trial.

(*While I think that the death penalty might be warranted in some instances, I'm not sure what parent could live with themselves after having their child executed for assault or delinquency. In many cases neglect and abuse from the parents is a factor. However, I do think that knowing that the death penalty is possible in such cases, more children would respect and obey their parents authority for fear of their lives. My mother once said, "Son, I brought you into this world, I can take you out of it." I know she wasn't being literal, but I do favor parental authority over the fruit of the womb. If it is my child, I should have full authority over that child's life and death if I deem it necessary to use such authority.)

But the following I don't agree with:

Adultery
Fornication (whether straight, gay, bestial*, etc)
Kidnapping
Blasphemy
Idolatry
Inciting to idolatry
Cursing one's parents
Willful criminal anarchy (including willful Sabbath-breaking)
Witchcraft.

I don't agree with the death penalty for adultery because things often get complicated. Let's say a husband is verbally and physically abusive (which the Law of Moses doesn't address by the way). Let's say that this husband neglects his wife's emotional and physical needs. After years of living like this, let's say the woman befriends a man who genuinely cares about her and things progress and she commits adultery. While yes, she is responsible for allowing herself to lose control, her weakness here is due to her husband's failure to be a true husband to her. I just couldn't see executing a woman or a man who committed adultery in a moment of weakness after years of abuse and neglect.

Not to mention, even if a spouse is unfaithful, I can't see what kind of heart would demand their life over it. First, such would only traumatize the kids. Second, it's not worth killing over in my opinion. My first wife as unfaithful to me. She even approached me wanting me to agree to an open marriage. I tried to talk with her, find what I could do to help us, and even pushed for marital counseling before I finally had enough to accept divorcing her. And even today, I'd never want to see her put to death.

But in the case of adultery, it was far more serious in ancient times. First, there was a covenant between the man and woman (or their families) and inheritance was at stake. If another man impregnated a man's wife, his seed could essentially hijack the inheritance from legitimate seed. The wealth of generations in an entire family was at stake.

I don't believe the Scriptures would require the death penalty for heterosexual fornication. In the Law we read:

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 King James Version (KJV)
28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

I don't interpret the phrase "lay hold of her" as indicating rape, I see it more akin to seduction. He grabs her, embraces her, and she allows him to have his way with her. Here, they are not facing a death penalty. Instead, the man pays the father damages (in leu of a bride's price), and is required to marry her. In addition, he is not permitted to divorce her. So, I don't see a death penalty for what might be called "fornication" among heterosexual overs.

When it comes to homosexuality, I look for examples of how it was dealt with in Scripture as one might look at case law. It appears that the Scriptures only show homosexuals facing a death penalty by decree or divine judgment when it involves homosexual rape (Sodom and Gomorrah) and the Sodomites in the temple of Jehovah (homosexual temple prostitution). Paul does indicate that such are "worthy of death", but what Paul describes is a licentious homosexuality based on lust, wherein men abandoned the use of their wives, violating marriage covenant. The context also appears to include idolatry, causing some theologians to consider that perhaps this licentious homosexual lust was being fulfilled in the idolatrous temples found throughout Rome. We do not see a single instance wherein homosexual overs or companions are tried and executed. In fact, the Scriptures do not even draw our attention to how to apply the capital punishment statutes against homosexuality in the context of a private, caring, and consensual coupling between two people of the same gender. And certainly there were gays then just as there are now. So, if it were a court case, I'd say that the case law doesn't support the death penalty for merely being homosexual, or even for having homosexual sex, unless the court wished to push the letter of the law to set a precedent not found in Scripture.

*When it comes to bestiality, I'm an animal lover. We have dogs, cats, reptiles, and one bird. lol I believe animals are emotional and soulish creatures. They deserve proper care, treatment, and nurturing. No animal can give "consent" to sex. Nor can an animal speak and plea for justice should coitus be forced upon them. And so, bestiality is the rape of perhaps one of the weakest and most helpless in a society. Such heinous abuse of an animal is a harbinger of the abuse that will eventually be perpetrated upon a human being. Most rapists and serial killers have raped or killed animals before choosing to graduate to humans. So, I can see the death penalty as being warranted in such cases. Laws that protect animals from exploitation and abuse are a must in any just society.

When it comes to cursing one's parents... what child doesn't at some point? It's actually a stage of development. Children grow and begin to rebel and resent parental authority because they are growing into their own adulthood. I can't see a parent in their right mind wanting to see their child executed over merely cursing them.

The rest of the crimes listed are related to idolatry, sabbath observance, and witchcraft. I believe in religious freedom. If one doesn't come to Christ without coercion or threat of death or earthly punishment, their conversion can hardly be said to be genuine. So, squelching religious liberty isn't going to save a single soul in my opinion. If one wishes to be Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, or Wiccan, that is their choice. Of course, such shouldn't be tolerated in the church. And I've been on both sides of the Sabbath issue. LOL (Just being honest here.) I don't believe the Scripture is clear enough in light of the NT to say that the Sabbath observances of the OT is mandatory. I couldn't support executing a person over something that isn't definitive and has challenged the minds of greater theologians than you or me, leaving good men on both sides of the issue.

So, I voiced what crimes I'd support being capital offenses. I voiced my reservations on some of these crimes being capital offenses, and why I have such reservations. I'd also like to note that I believe I corrected you as it relates to fornication. To my knowledge, fornication in its most common meaning isn't a capital offence in Scripture. When it comes to fornication, if you seduce her and humble her before the community, your required to pay the price and marry her, and since your "love" was so great that you couldn't wait, you're expected to never to divorce her. (Shotgun weddin'? lol)

[Amanah]

good input Bro Aquila, thank you.

[Apostolic1ness]

{*When it comes to bestiality, I'm an animal lover. We have dogs, cats, reptiles, and one bird. lol I believe animals are emotional and soulish creatures. They deserve proper care, treatment, and nurturing. No animal can give "consent" to sex. Nor can an animal speak and plea for justice should coitus be forced upon them. And so, bestiality is the rape of perhaps one of the weakest and most helpless in a society. Such heinous abuse of an animal is a harbinger of the abuse that will eventually be perpetrated upon a human being. Most rapists and serial killers have raped or killed animals before choosing to graduate to humans. So, I can see the death penalty as being warranted in such cases. Laws that protect animals from exploitation and abuse are a must in any just society}

Realy so ist wrong because it makes the animal a victim? This is the most liberal thing Ive heard today.... Its wrong because its disgusting, horrible, perverted, nasty, gross, unnatural, sick. soulish what is that implying? that animals have a soul? do you eat beef, chicken, pork, fish? did these animals give consent to be killed for food? are they soulish.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I thought I'd share my opinion on the crimes that could invoke the death penalty.

The Law didn't care about your feelings. There were consequences for breaking the Law, and those consequences weren't reliant on feelings.

Some Christians can't say what's right and wrong anymore because of feelings.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Apostolic1ness

{*When it comes to bestiality, I'm an animal lover. We have dogs, cats, reptiles, and one bird. lol I believe animals are emotional and soulish creatures. They deserve proper care, treatment, and nurturing. No animal can give "consent" to sex. Nor can an animal speak and plea for justice should coitus be forced upon them. And so, bestiality is the rape of perhaps one of the weakest and most helpless in a society. Such heinous abuse of an animal is a harbinger of the abuse that will eventually be perpetrated upon a human being. Most rapists and serial killers have raped or killed animals before choosing to graduate to humans. So, I can see the death penalty as being warranted in such cases. Laws that protect animals from exploitation and abuse are a must in any just society}

Realy so ist wrong because it makes the animal a victim? This is the most liberal thing Ive heard today.... Its wrong because its disgusting, horrible, perverted, nasty, gross, unnatural, sick. soulish what is that implying? that animals have a soul? do you eat beef, chicken, pork, fish? did these animals give consent to be killed for food? are they soulish.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

The Law didn't care about your feelings. There were consequences for breaking the Law, and those consequences weren't reliant on feelings.

Some Christians can't say what's right and wrong anymore because of feelings.

I'm only expressing my feelings in light of living under the New Covenant of Christ and the Law of Christ as it relates to imposing Old Testament bronze age laws in modern society.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I'm only expressing my feelings in light of living under the New Covenant of Christ and the Law of Christ as it relates to imposing Old Testament bronze age laws in modern society.

I understand. Applying OT Law to modern society would never work, mostly because people are more worried about feelings and offending people than they are about the Law being broken.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Apostolic1ness

{*When it comes to bestiality, I'm an animal lover. We have dogs, cats, reptiles, and one bird. lol I believe animals are emotional and soulish creatures. They deserve proper care, treatment, and nurturing. No animal can give "consent" to sex. Nor can an animal speak and plea for justice should coitus be forced upon them. And so, bestiality is the rape of perhaps one of the weakest and most helpless in a society. Such heinous abuse of an animal is a harbinger of the abuse that will eventually be perpetrated upon a human being. Most rapists and serial killers have raped or killed animals before choosing to graduate to humans. So, I can see the death penalty as being warranted in such cases. Laws that protect animals from exploitation and abuse are a must in any just society}

Realy so ist wrong because it makes the animal a victim? This is the most liberal thing Ive heard today.... Its wrong because its disgusting, horrible, perverted, nasty, gross, unnatural, sick. soulish what is that implying? that animals have a soul? do you eat beef, chicken, pork, fish? did these animals give consent to be killed for food? are they soulish.

That did sound pretty liberal didn't it? LOL

It wasn't intentional.

First, I'd like to say that I agree with you that bestiality is "disgusting, horrible, perverted, nasty, gross, unnatural, sick." But, though we agree, this sentiment isn't elaborated upon in Scripture. Also, such opinions are more subjective than objective. To one raised in India, cheeseburgers might be "disgusting, horrible, perverted, nasty, gross, unnatural, sick." My position is my conclusion and consideration after studying the Scriptures. I'll explain it to you in more detail. You might better see where I'm coming from and that my position is indeed Scriptural, even if you don't fully agree with the nuance of interpretation.

While bestiality is indeed "disgusting, horrible, perverted, nasty, gross, unnatural, sick"... I believe the reasoning behind such a law against bestiality is addressing a deeper, darker, and more sinister nature in the one who would do such a thing that goes beyond the "ewww" factor.

Let's consider the BIBLICAL perspective of how God desires us to interact with animals and consider why those laws are so. And then we can move from there into the deeper waters of this heinous sin. Most of what I'm about to say comes from my own studies down through the years from various rabbinical and theological sources too numerous to name. And it's been years since I looked into this, so forgive me if I don't cite those sources. However, I fully encourage you to look deeper into it in your own studies. You'll probably stumble across various sources that I did and so better understand my perspective.

Regarding animals used for labor the Law states:

1.You are not to work animals on the Sabbath. Exod. 20:10; Exod. 23:12; Deut 5:14.
2.You are not to have two different kinds of animals work together; You shall not plow with an ox and an ass together. Deut 22:10.
3.You shall not muzzle the mouth of the ox that is being used for work. Deut 25:4; 1 Cor. 9:9; 1 Tim. 5:18.

In these three laws we see godly compassion and regard for animals.

The first law shows that domesticated animals and beasts of burden are to be allowed to rest and enter into the joy of Sabbath, just as the entire house hold, including servants. This brings animals on equal footing with man in regards to needing rest, refreshment, and time to celebrate life under God's care and direction.

The second law mentioned protects animals from the pain, strain, and extra burden that would come from being unequally yoked with a beast larger or smaller than themselves. To force a beast of burden to plow unequally yoked with another animal would cause great stress and discomfort for both beasts involved. It borders on being an act of cruelty.

The third law entitles a beast of burden to enjoy the fruits of its labor. If it is being used for work, it should be able to partake in the very bounty that its work produces. This law is used to illustrate how ministers of the NT are also worthy to benefit and partake in the material blessings that come in the form of (according to some) tithes and offerings. The logic is... if a mere beast of burden is entitled to enjoy the fruits of its labor, how much more a minister of the Gospel? Nevertheless, in context, the law is one requiring compassion and justice towards animals we use for labor.

We also read in the Law that...

1.Stray animals belonging to your brethren are be brought back to the owner. If the owner is unknown, then you are to keep the animal until the owner comes looking for it and then return it to him. Deut. 22:1-3.
2.If you encounter an animal of your enemy going astray, you shall bring it back to him. Exod. 23:4.
3.If you see an animal of one that hates you lying helpless under its load, you shall release the animal. Exod. 23:5.
4.You shall not see your brother's ass or ox fall down by the way, and hide yourself from them: you shall surely help him to lift them up again. Deut. 22:4.

Here again, we see laws of compassion, even in regards to animals belonging to others. Stray animals are to be returned to their owners, be the owner brethren or enemy. In addition, if one doesn't know who the owner is, the individual is required by law to take the animal in and care for it until the owner makes himself known and comes to claim it. Even if you see the beast of an enemy, lying helpless, struggling under its load, you are to release it to ease its painful circumstance. And should you discover a beast of burden having fallen down along the road, one isn't to hide themselves from it or pretend it isn't there. One is morally obligated to assist the beast and lift it up again. As stated before, these laws embody God's intention regarding human compassion towards animals.

Let's continue...

1.Should have regard for the life of your animals. Prov. 12:10.
2.Do not separate a newly born ox or sheep or a goat from its mother for the first seven days. Lev. 22:27.
3.The eggs or young can be taken from a bird's nest but not along with the mother. Deut. 22:6-7.
4.Do not cook a calf in its mother's milk Deuteronomy 14:21.
5.Know well the condition of your flocks, and pay attention to your herds. Prov. 27:23.

The first principle listed above is drawn from Proverbs. It reads:

Proverbs 12:10 (KJV)
10 A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.

Here we read that it is a righteous man who values the life and wellbeing of his beast (be they pets, beasts of burden, or otherwise). It is the wicked who are cruel, lacking compassion, care, and consideration for animals. One rabbinical writer I read stated that if a man cannot have regard for the life, wellbeing, and demonstrate kindness towards animals and beasts of burden, such a person certainly cannot claim to have any regard for the lives and wellbeing of other people. He who is faithful in the small things will be faithful in the more important things. If one has no regard for animals, they can't claim to care for their fellow man. Even their tender mercies are laced with cruelty.

The second law listed is one of compassion. To deprive a mother of any time to know, enjoy, or experience her young is again, demonstrated cruelty. We've all seen animals grieve being deprived of their young. Here God illustrates that He does indeed see such cruelty, and it shouldn't be named among His people. We must give them at least 7 days to be with and care for their young before separating them.

Thirdly, if one passes by a nest in the wild, they are free to take the eggs for food if necessary. However, they are not to take the mother and the eggs. Again, monstrous cruelty to devour a mother and her young together. In addition, the mother is to be allowed to go free so that she might perhaps nest again. This ensures the survival of the species. Compassion and ensuring the survival of even the birds is of enough importance to immortalize it in God's law.

Fourth principle, again a heinous cruelty is mentioned. It is unimaginable cruelty to cook a calf in the milk of its mother. A mother's milk is nourishing, life giving, and the act of nursing bonding. To cook a calf in what is to be so unimaginably cruel, it is irrepressible. The heathens around Israel engaged in such cruelty in their feasts. Clearly, this offended God. Many Jews to this day will not eat milk or cheese with meat to ensure that they are not partaking in such a thing.

Fifthly, one is to know their flocks and herds. It is immoral to ignore or neglect their care.

There are more laws and principles concerning animals in Scripture. However, I'll stop here because I believe I've made my point. God is indeed concerned with compassion, care, and the general welfare of animals. There is no excuse for cruelty or disregarding the welfare of animals, even animals to be used for food. In Acts 15, Christians were told to not eat strangled meats. Strangulation is a rather inhumane and traumatic manner of killing animals. To partake in such is to condone such cruelty.

So, my position is based not on any liberal logic, but rather on an understanding of what Scripture reveals and implies regarding the care and welfare of animals.

Now... with these biblical principles mind, consider the bestiality law. In my mind, it goes deeper than being a law against something extremely gross. It extends into a level of cruelty and violent exploitation for sexual gratification that is abominable before God. We aren't just seeing God prohibit something "gross". We're seeing God condemn one of the most heinous sins of cruelty and abuse towards another living thing that can be found in Scripture.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Apostolic1ness

that animals have a soul? do you eat beef, chicken, pork, fish? did these animals give consent to be killed for food? are they soulish. [/B]

Regarding the "soul" of animals. That's quite a study. Soul (psueche/psyche) in the Greek denotes consciousness. When I speak of soulish creatures, I'm talking about creatures with actual consciousness, even if on a level lower than man's. I'm reminded of Balaam's donkey....

Numbers 22:28-30 King James Version (KJV)
28 And the Lord opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?
29 And Balaam said unto the ass, Because thou hast mocked me: I would there were a sword in mine hand, for now would I kill thee.
30 And the ass said unto Balaam, Am not I thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day? was I ever wont to do so unto thee? and he said, Nay.

Here' God allows an animal to speak. And it indeed reveals the conscious thoughts and feelings of the beast. The beast pleads to know why it is being beaten when it has been so faithful. It also reveals spiritual sensitivity.

In light of this and the previous noted provisions in the Law regarding compassion and care towards animals and their well being, I believe that many animals do indeed have "soul". In fact, all of creation is groaning in travail for our glorification upon Christ's return, ending the curse of sin and death that befell them on account of our sin.

[Esaias]

"Old Testament bronze age law."

Yeah, let's ignore the fact it's GOD'S law, that according to the apostle Paul it is holy, just, good, etc, that if any law could have been given that would make people perfect it would have been that "old testament bronze age law"...

Such sheer disrespect for God is ... well, to be expected from the modern purveyors of lawlessness.