False Witness

Show Outline with Links

Introduction:

For Christians who want to be biblically grounded, the sin and crime of bearing false witness is a very big deal. It is serious for two great reasons. The first is that it is a violation of God’s holy law, which reflects His character. It was by means of this particular evil; technique that the Lord Jesus was railroaded, and so all Christians who love Jesus should hate the kind of lies that took Him to the cross. The first reason is therefore love of God.

The second reason is that the tables of the law are connected, and we cannot love God whom we have not seen without loving our neighbor, whom we have seen (1 John 4:20). But who is my neighbor? as the fellow once asked. Your neighbor is of course the one who might be falsely convicted on the basis of a lie—and this really is a grievous evil.

But our neighbor is also the person who really has been violated, but who has difficulty getting people to believe her story. Genuine victims are abused by the one who abused them directly, but they are also abused by those liars who make every genuine accusation more difficult. And the problem here is not the responsible officials who suspend judgment until the investigation of a reported crime is complete. That is what Scripture requires of them. The problem is made worse by the liars who have corrupted the system. Victims who effectively cannot come forward are the victims of the perpetrators who violated them in the first instance, and in the second they are also victims of those who traffic in deceit.

Witnesses of What?

In order to function as biblical witnesses, the witnesses must be testifying to their knowledge of the same event. If a man says he saw me robbing a bank in Des Moines, and another man says he saw me robbing a bank in Portland, this is not sufficient to convict. Going back to what I argued yesterday, that is certainly sufficient to open an investigation, and to ask me questions about where I was on those days, but it is not sufficient to convict.

“One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established” (Deut. 19:15).

Jesus appeals to this standard when He teaches us how to deal with disputes within the church.

“But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established” (Matt. 18:16).

Because He is arguing from the law, it should be obvious that the person obeying this is taking witnesses who can testify to the original offense. He is not taking them along merely to testify to the confrontation. If you accuse a man of slandering you, and he denies it, and so you round up a couple of buddies to go with you to watch him deny it a second time, you are establishing nothing. Well, you have established that you have a couple of buddies, but they are adding nothing to our knowledge of what originally happened.

When a person is confronted, depending on the responses, you might be able to establish the need for further questions, or more investigation, but gathering two or three witnesses to watch an innocent man deny any wrongdoing is not honoring this principle. “False witnesses did rise up; they laid to my charge things that I knew not” (Ps. 35:11).

The principle is independent corroboration, distinct lines of evidence, regarding the same event. Those distinct lines need not be eyewitnesses—the principle can be served through the use of surveillance cameras, DNA evidence, fingerprints, and so on. But the principle is never served when you convict on the basis of one person’s word for it alone.

Now let us say that a guy has worked at ten different places, and at each place there have been at least three complaints of sexual harassment filed against him. Does that count for nothing? No and yes. It counts for nothing if you are looking for a conviction on that basis, but it counts for a lot if you are looking for an indictment. Let us just say that the chances are outstanding that if you picked any one of those places, and did a real investigation there, the whole story would come tumbling out. But you have to drill down in pursuit of the truth. If truth is what you care about, and if you really care about it, you will likely have your two and three witnesses.

The Importance of this Issue:

Statistics in this area are notoriously slippery, but a standard estimate is that false accusations of sexual harassment/rape runs about 3-5%. How you reckon the boundaries of these things is difficult—is it complete innocence, wrong guy, or a consensual relationship gone sour, or total guilt—but let’s take that figure and run with it for a minute. Out of a thousand convictions, we could be talking about 50 men in jail for something they didn’t do. Fifty men in Pharaoh’s jail alongside Joseph. You good with that?

Now someone might counter that he would prefer that to the travesty of 100 guilty men walking scot-free. But we acknowledge that the world is a fallen place, and that screwed up things happen. Given that reality, which we acknowledge and lament, it is still God who established a mandatory legal bias in favor of the accused. This is His law. Humanistic law (being diabolical) loves to favor the accuser. The devil is a born prosecutor (Rev. 12:10). The Lord Jesus is the defense attorney (1 John 2:1).

Those Christians who have adopted the judicial theories of identity politics are those who are willing to pronounce publicly on a person’s guilt or innocence without knowing the first thing about the case in question. To challenge this way of proceeding is NOT to side with the perpetrator over the victim. It is to side with Western civilization over the barbarians. This contemporary Alinskyite contempt for due process is cultural Marxism, pure and simple, and it is frankly sub-pagan. The ancient Romans did not live up to their standard of justice, that is true, but at least they knew what it was. We can see this in how Festus explained the problem of Paul that he had inherited to King Agrippa.

“It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man to die, before that he which is accused have the accusers face to face, and have licence to answer for himself concerning the crime laid against him” (Acts 25:16).

It is one thing just to type I believe you on Twitter when a woman tells her story. Having done that, would you allow yourself to be selected for the jury in that case? Are you qualified for jury duty? Would you change your default settings if you found out it was a white woman making an accusation against a black man?

How the Lord Was Murdered:

Given the fact that Jesus was murdered this way, you would think that more Christians would be wary of the possibility of false witness.

“Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death. But found none: yea, though many false witnesses came, yet found they none. At the last came two false witnesses” (Matt. 26:59-60).

We can see that the witnesses required by biblical law had to be talking about the same event, seeking to back up the same charge, because Mark records that the witnesses against Christ were contradictory. If two people testify that a man did the same thing in two separate instances—different dates, different towns, different times—it would be difficult to get their stories to conflict.

“For many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together. And there arose certain, and bare false witness against him, saying, We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands. But neither so did their witness agree together” (Mark 14:56–59).

Again, separate witnesses to two instances of the same kind of crime may certainly help to establish an indictment, and give encouragement to the investigation.

The same ungodly tactic was used on Stephen.

“And set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law” (Acts 6:13).

The Law of God:

What does the law of God warn us about repeatedly? How are we cautioned to think?

This is a big sin. It is one of the Ten Commandments. And it is not included in the Decalogue because it might happen every 25 years or so.

“Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour” (Ex. 20:16; Dt. 5:20).

False witness, being an assault on the integrity of the whole society, is the one crime where a person could be executed for attempted murder.

“And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you” (Deut. 19:18–19).

God hates it. It is one of the things He abominates.

“These six things doth the Lord hate: Yea, seven are an abomination unto him . . . A false witness that speaketh lies, And he that soweth discord among brethren” (Prov. 6:16, 19).

Behaving this way is the domain of the wicked. Do not live with them there.

“Thou shalt not raise a false report: put not thine hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness” (Ex. 23:1).

Being willing to lie contrasts sharply with the way the righteous speak.

“He that speaketh truth sheweth forth righteousness: But a false witness deceit” (Prov. 12:17; 14:5).

God brings the false witness into judgment. God sees it all, and He will reveal it all. The liar will not escape; he will perish.

“A false witness shall not be unpunished, and he that speaketh lies shall not escape” (Prov. 19:5).

“A false witness shall not be unpunished, and he that speaketh lies shall perish” (Prov. 19:9).

“A false witness shall perish: But the man that heareth speaketh constantly” (Prov. 21:28).

“And I will come near to you to judgment; And I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and against false swearers, and against those that oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow, and the fatherless, and that turn aside the stranger from his right, and fear not me, Saith the Lord of hosts” (Mal. 3:5).

False witness is a truly destructive sin.

“A man that beareth false witness against his neighbour is a maul, and a sword, and a sharp arrow” (Prov. 25:18).

It is the native language of unregenerate man. It is the native language of an unconverted generation, such as ours is.

“For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies” (Matt. 15:19, 19:18).

False witnesses frequently parade their compassion—they boast of believing the victim—but they do this obviously not caring who the victim actually is. For all their vaunted compassion, they are characterized by cruelty.

“Deliver me not over unto the will of mine enemies: For false witnesses are risen up against me, and such as breathe out cruelty” (Ps. 27:12).

Refusal to have anything to do with false witness is what New Testament love looks like.

“For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” (Rom. 13:9).

Cash It Out:

Now please notice that I made it all the way to this point without mentioning the name of Roy Moore once. I did that for a reason. Everything cited above from Scripture will stand forever sure, whether or not every man on earth is proved a liar. God’s Word is the one place where you could not possibly find false witness. “The words of the Lord are pure words: As silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times” (Ps. 12:6).

These women have asserted that Roy Moore engaged in various kinds of sexual misbehavior with them. Either they are lying or he is. There is no middle position. If they are lying, then all the judgments written above applies to them. If he is lying, then he is the one bearing false witness, and all the judgments above apply to him.

If they are lying, and God brings that truth to light (as I suspect He will), then I will be most glad that I took this stand, and wrote the way I did. I declined to follow the stampede in a rush to judgment. “Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgment” (Ex. 23:2).

But is it the same going the other way? If he is lying, and God brings the truth to light (as I suspect He will), then I will be just as glad. We did not convict him prematurely, and did not guiltily trample God’s law in order to get at the guilty. So we need not fret at any delay. The judgment that falls on him will be entirely sufficient and most severe.

In the meantime, before we know for a fact who is lying, biblical law requires us to maintain the presumption of innocence for the accused. This is not a difficult concept.

Last comment. I say that I suspect that the truth will out. Why? Well, this seems to me to be a season in history when all such secrets are being shouted from the housetops. Who do you think will be exposed tomorrow?

149
Leave a Reply

avatar
 
18 Comment threads
131 Thread replies
2 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
37 Comment authors
FarinatajonathanlndighostmysFarinata degli Uberti Recent comment authors

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Justin Parris
Member

“Statistics in this area are notoriously slippery, but a standard estimate is that false accusations of sexual harassment/rape runs about 3-5%. ” Slippery indeed. How you could ever hope to come up with that number is beyond me. At best you could say that 3-5% were later *proven* to be false. That’s not remotely the same thing as simply being false. I’m reminded of when people try and report statistics on what portion of crimes go unreported. It is by definition not a statistic we can reliably create. If we had the ability to determine with certainty which allegations were… Read more »

JP Stewart
Member

Very true. Also, I’ve seen women pursue men in the workplace…and there’s definitely a double-standard in what’s allowed.

lndighost
Member

You’re right, there is a double standard. I wonder to what extent that is due to society’s subconscious recognition that men and women are different? There is certainly the assumption that a man’s default setting is ‘Interested’.

Jack Evans
Guest

Excellent observation. Women can bear children and men can’t. This puts a high social value on a woman’s chastity, which completely changes her standing in society and relation to men. If a man was sexually abused at work, it wouldn’t matter to anyone because society doesn’t value him as a reproductive entity. With women, a violation of the reproductive capacity is a violation of her very self, because that capacity and it’s purity to her husband is where her social value lies. And with that, every time a feminist cries “Rape,” she reminds the world that her true nature is… Read more »

lndighost
Member

Jack, I’m not quite sure I follow. I’m not familiar with the concept of ‘social value’ but I suspect I wouldn’t limit the social value of a woman to her reproductive capacity and its purity to her husband.

I wouldn’t describe sexual assault typologically as ‘a violation of the reproductive capacity’ so much as a violation of God’s good gift, a violation of the picture of the unity of Christ and the Church, and a violation of the vulnerability of woman whom man is to protect.

Micael Gustavsson
Guest
Micael Gustavsson

If you really are a christian, sexual purity is as important for men as for women. Men are more difficult to rape, but even for a man there is a great difference between a punch to the face and sexual violation..

drewnchick
Member

Yeah, I would much rather be hit in the face than…you know…
Just sayin’.

bdash
Guest
bdash

of course this is the blog where I find people justifying women assaulting men…

Kilgore T. Durden
Guest
Kilgore T. Durden

For all their vaunted compassion, they are characterized by cruelty.

When secularists speak of compassion, I usually want to laugh. I think at this point, they are being intentionally ironic when they say compassion.

Have compassion, and kill babies.

Have compassion, and destroy marriages.

Have compassion, and subside self-destructive behavior.

Have compassion, and steal from the rich.

Have compassion, and give our jobs to illegals.

Have compassion, and destroy the lives of innocent boys.

There is simply nothing compassionate about secularism.

John F. Kennedy
Guest
John F. Kennedy

“If you accuse a man of slandering you, and he denies it, […] to watch him deny it a second time, you are establishing nothing.”

But… what if he admitted it in the second or both instances? Have you established anything then?

John F Kennedy
Guest
John F Kennedy

And what about the case that came before Solomon, where the one woman said, “and we were together; no one was with us in the house, except the two of us in the house.” Solomon heard the case; and came to a decision without additional witnesses. Was he in error?

Jane
Member

Solomon’s case wasn’t a matter of condemning anyone for a crime. It was a matter that had to be decided one way or the other, regardless of who was guilty or innocent. He used a method that avoided the fact that the matter *couldn’t* be established by, in effect, letting the women decide it themselves, but intervening to preserve life in the end.

adad0
Member

Jane goes Solomonic again! ; – )

OKRickety
Member

adad0,

I presume “Solomonic” would be better than “solo manic”. :)

Katecho
Member

Well said. Lack of sufficient witnesses may prevent a criminal conviction, but it doesn’t prevent wisdom, or shrewdly getting a witness to actually testify on behalf of the opposing party.

Micael Gustavsson
Guest
Micael Gustavsson

Also, Solomons decision was actually rather based on who would be the best mother for the baby. There was still no real proof of motherhood, but it was clear which mother really cared about the baby.

Katecho
Member

No, I think Solomon actually exposed the root of human nature and envy, and reached the correct verdict about who the true mother was. The false mother witnessed against her own envy, and confirmed the witness of the true mother.

John F Kennedy
Guest
John F Kennedy

I don’t think one can be too dogmatic about this since the text doesn’t say it, but I don’t think envy was the issue. Since switching the babies didn’t work as a means of covering her negligence, the woman was faced with one of two options; admitting the negligence, and that she switched babies to cover it; or raising a child that she and others knew was not her own. She was a tortured soul. I think that is what Solomon perceived, and so he proposed a third option that would get her out of her predicament. But the reason… Read more »

Katecho
Member

John F Kennedy wrote: I don’t think one can be too dogmatic about this since the text doesn’t say it, but I don’t think envy was the issue. One of the tell-tale signs of envy is not that one simply wants what the other has, but rather that one seeks to destroy that difference. In this case, the false mother was perfectly willing to see the destruction of the difference between her and the true mother (the baby itself). So I don’t think that Solomon was trying to spare her from being exposed as a deceiver. John F Kennedy wrote:… Read more »

Micael Gustavsson
Guest
Micael Gustavsson

Interesting point about Elvy wanting to destroy the difference. I hadnt thought about that.

John F Kennedy
Guest
John F Kennedy

I obviously need to learn to write more clearly, as you were not following my argument in either of your comments. In the first instance, my point was that (in my opinion) Solomon perceived the woman was in a dilemma; she had two dreadful options, neither of which she could bear to suffer; admit the truth that she had suffocated her own child and switched babies to cover her negligence, or raise a child that others knew she had stolen. Solomon proposed the third option because he perceived that (in her mind) it would resolve her dilemma, and he did… Read more »

Justin Parris
Member

“In the second instance, using Wilson’s reasoning, the case never would have been heard; period; end of sentence. The women would have been left to themselves to resolve the issue.” Why? Wilson was setting the criteria for conviction, not for a case being heard and has been quite explicit about that. Further, this wasn’t a criminal trial at all. It was a civil trial over the proper ownership of the baby which included an accusation of kidnapping which wasn’t currently being tried. Through the civil suit, Solomon was able to expose the truth of the criminal case, negating the need… Read more »

Jane
Member

Which reasoning of Wilson’s leads to the idea that the case would never have been heard. Can you cite specifically what you’re referring to?

John F Kennedy
Guest
John F Kennedy

Sure. Under the second heading, first sentence after the citation from Matthew 18.

Jack Evans
Guest

Civil cases don’t have a “Reasonable Doubt” standard. The standard in civil cases is “Preponderance of the Evidence.” With reasonable doubt, you don’t convict if you can find a single way to get around it. With preponderance, you have to choose one way or the other based on whatever seems most likely.

john k
Guest
john k

Solomon got one witness to change her claim before he issued a decision. With divine wisdom he was a god-like revealer of hearts. The tactic he used would not be tolerated in court today. Even in that day, perhaps only the king had power to threaten death with no legal basis beyond absolute power–the child had committed no crime. The women appear to have believed that the king would carry out such an order.

adad0
Member

Luke 12

1 Meanwhile, when the crowd gathered by the thousands, so that they trampled on one another, he began to speak first to his disciples,

“Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees, that is, their hypocrisy.
2 Nothing is covered up that will not be uncovered, and nothing secret that will not become known.
3 Therefore whatever you have said in the dark will be heard in the light, and what you have whispered behind closed doors will be proclaimed from the housetops.”

Yay! Yay! Yaaaaay! Whoops.

I mean.

Amen. ; – )

drewnchick
Member

Who will be exposed tomorrow?

Matt Lauer

A J Metcalf Jr
Guest

Those who previously exposed themselves?

Jill Smith
Member

This post (which I agree with) has me pondering guiltily. What if you are one of the masses, far from the action, and your opinion expressed to your friends can do no harm? As a devoted court TV watcher, I confidently told any number of people that OJ did it, long before the jury returned its verdict. Was that sinful?

adad0
Member

Jill, are opinions and accusations the same thing? Are suspicions and judgments the same thing? Even if they are, OJ was being tried on a formal, legal prosecution, not your opinion of current events. ; – ) There is also a difference between statements of suspicion, fact, condemnation and making a judgement. statement of suspicion: Jill appears to be a blonde. statement of fact: Jill is a female. condemnation: Jill appears to be a blonde with dark roots. judgement: Jill appears to have a sunny countenance. (especially for some sort of Canadian!) All four at the same time, (different topic):… Read more »

Trey Mays
Member

In fairness, I thought gender was fluid now, so do we really know that Jill is female? :-)

Jill Smith
Member

Or even human? I have often thought of myself as a cat with opposable thumbs.

Trey Mays
Member

Good point. I’ve considered identifying as an aardvark.

Justin Parris
Member

Today I feel like the physical embodiment of the vowel sound long E. Where’s my bathroom?

bethyada
Member

I am a simile. I am not actually me, I can only be compared to me.

Micael Gustavsson
Guest
Micael Gustavsson

And I cannot even be compared to myself.

Justin Parris
Member

bethyada, this is rather ingenius. Grade on a curve as a living simile and failure is virtually impossible.

Kilgore T. Durden
Guest
Kilgore T. Durden

Uh, you mean, “(with which I agree)”?

Larry Geiger
Guest
Larry Geiger

OJ is not the same thing. Moore is in an election. People will have to make a decision about which person to vote for. They will make a judgement. If they believe that he is guilty they may vote for the other guy. They may think that he is guilty as charged and still vote for him. It’s up to them to decide. There was no such case with OJ.

demosthenes1d
Member

If he was running for office at the time you certainly shouldn’t let your opinion have any bearing on your decision at the voting booth… or something.

jonathan
Guest
jonathan

Jill, any place I can send you a private message before you disappear from my life forever?

Bro. Steve
Guest
Bro. Steve

And let’s not forget about how government found false accusers to help deprive Naboth of his vineyard and his life.

And were multiple false witnesses all that hard to find?

Barnie
Guest
Barnie

Remember when you called a bunch of people white supremacists without defining what that means or providing any evidence? Tell me again about false witness.

Justin Parris
Member

Link please?

mys
Guest
mys

I’m not Barnie, but he could be referring to this:

https://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/alt-righty-then.html

Jane
Member

Which article does nothing of the kind Barnie said. But perhaps he has something else in mind, wherein Doug actually accused specific people of something, as opposed to describing a phenomenon. “Some people steal” is not false witness against people you *think* the speaker *might* have in mind. “Joe stole something” is.

Jane
Member

That’s not to say that someone can’t be shifty in describing people in a “we all know who we’re talking about” sort of way, that ultimately does add up to something in the realm of a false witness. But oddly enough, it’s possible to be a false witness against someone in accusing them of false witness — “I think we all know who you probably meant” doesn’t hit the target. If you want to accuse someone of being suspiciously weaselly in referring to some amorphous group of people who may or may not have sinned, have at it. But to… Read more »

Barnie
Guest
Barnie
lndighost
Member

Are your concerns the same as Ben Garner’s in the comments section there? Those were pretty well answered at the time.

Barnie
Guest
Barnie

I don’t see that Wilson clarified anything on his use of that term in the comments.

lndighost
Member

Perhaps you’d have liked him to make a distinction between those who say ‘White people are better than other people’ and those who say ‘I want society to be divided along racial lines because skin colour is central to one’s identity.’

What I think was established in the comments is that there is no meaningful difference between these two positions.

Katecho
Member

Indighost wrote: What I think was established in the comments is that there is no meaningful difference between these two positions. I can grant that there is a theoretical difference between an agenda of racially segregated purity, and a claim of racial superiority. But, in practice, the racial hubris and vainglory usually goes together and spills out, even with someone like Richard Spencer, who doesn’t want to be associated with an explicit claim of white supremacy. I don’t grant that white supremacy requires that a white person thinks the entire white race is superior in every capacity, and in every… Read more »

Jill Smith
Member

So, theoretically (and without any clear Scripture texts that I’m aware of), someone could say, “All races are of equal talent and worth, but race-mixing is disgusting so we are going to keep everyone in separate territories and allow no connection between them.” Or, someone could say that Asians and Jews have an IQ advantage over us white gentiles, and should therefore not be allowed to compete with us for schools, jobs, and money.” But in most of the posts I have read written by people who argue for white nationalism, it is a combination of the latter as well… Read more »

Justin Parris
Member

Predicated on a deeply flawed understanding of IQ statistics, as though they’re immutable and unchanging.

Farinata
Guest
Farinata

The key question, I would say, is whether we are talking about white supremacy as a matter of fact – e.g. compared to other sorts of people, group X (however defined) is better at a, b, and c – or whether we are talking about it as a matter of aspiration and divine right. Either white folks are better than Asians or Africans at building and maintaining the culture of Western Civilization, or they are worse, or the matter is racially indifferent. One of those is true, and having an opinion which one and arguing for it doesn’t seem like… Read more »

lndighost
Member

Hi Farinata. I have trouble imagining how such a conversation could make sense. In the first place, as you’ve alluded to, defining ‘group x’ can be a challenge. The three categories you gave — White, Asian and African — are too broad and too simplistic to be useful. There is so much cultural and physical variation that I don’t see what could be gained by lumping in, say, Tongans with the Chinese, or Finns and Afrikaners, based on similarities in skin pigmentation and skull shape. The culture of Western Civilisation can only, by definition, be created and maintained by Westerners.… Read more »

Farinata degli Uberti
Guest
Farinata degli Uberti

Sure, I agree that definitions in such cases are likely to be fraught. But to say a thing is complicated is not to say that it does not exist. I tend to agree, in any case, that “white” is far too broad to be useful. I prefer the term “Romans and our hangers-on”. :-) It makes much more sense to talk about nations than races. But if you are willing to look at historic, established people-groups at the medium level – you are likely to find some consistent patterns of behavior. I don’t think your last point is necessarily true,… Read more »

lndighost
Member

It can also be difficult to talk about nations in our melting-pot world, but I agree that it’s better. What deters me from the conversation is not only its difficulty but also that I don’t presently see how it could be edifying. But if you are willing to look at historic, established people-groups at the medium level – you are likely to find some consistent patterns of behavior. I regret that I don’t have a very thorough knowledge of historic people-groups. What patterns have you identified? Yes, my last point was fuzzy. By civilisation I mean a society with systems… Read more »

Farinata degli Uberti
Guest
Farinata degli Uberti

My initial frame of reference is Italy. Italians have been a distinct, well-defined (if not uncomplicated) group at least since the time of Christ, there are many, many things they share in common, from general appearance to culture to height to intelligence (taken as a whole – obviously one finds exceptions). If I tell you “Francesco is Italian” that conveys a great deal of meaningful data that is only incidentally geographical. Basically, my point is that if Italians are a thing, and they are, then to think about their strengths and weaknesses in the aggregate is a worthwhile pursuit. Sure,… Read more »

lndighost
Member

Italians are indeed a thing, and I’m grateful to them for cannelloni, Suetonius, and the Sistine Chapel. I grant that it’s likely that some people-groups score higher by certain measures than do others. But the fact that Westerners like to measure the things that Western civilisation values might indicate that our scales are not as dispassionately informative as we think they are. Our scales are not built to obtain a favourable reading of a society with a different (even a better) set of priorities. Another concern I have is the motive for taking these sorts of measurements. Suppose it were… Read more »

Farinata degli Uberti
Guest
Farinata degli Uberti

I would say that the pursuit of truth is inherently glorifying to God. It is the glory of kings to search out a matter; ignorance does not contribute to holiness. If a particular fact can be used by some for wicked purposes, then those people ought to knock it off, and God will judge them if they don’t. But it does no good to oppose wickedness by opposing wisdom and knowledge. I would say let’s have the knowledge, and also let’s oppose wickedness. It’s like partiality: we are commanded not to favor the rich. But it would be absurd for… Read more »

Farinata degli Uberti
Guest
Farinata degli Uberti

By way of post-script, I could not object more strongly to your portrayal of Medieval Islam . They are the ones who burned the library of Alexandria. They are the ones who overran and decimated great centers of Christan theological research in Egypt, Africa, and the Levant. Muslim aggression was the overwhelming reason that what were called the Dark Ages happened at all – by cutting off paper supplies (Egyptian papyrus), they restricted literacy, and by constant military pressure (the conquest of Spain and Sicily, constant raids into France and Italy) transformed European society into a warrior aristocracy. It’s a… Read more »

lndighost
Member

It’s just us and the crickets now, so I’ll try to make this brief and look forward to engaging in the future. Ignorance does not contribute to holiness — agreed. But I don’t think this is true in quite the same way for every type of ignorance. Perhaps you might be persuaded that, for example, facts discovered in the fields of sociology or economics are qualitatively different from those of chemistry or mathematics. The study of human behaviour strikes me as less noble than the study of the fundamental truths of the universe, in part because it is more self-absorbed… Read more »

Farinata
Guest
Farinata

I grant your point that there are levels to nobility to knowledge.

Very kind of you to say. The same to you, and best wishes going forward.
Farinata

Barnie
Guest
Barnie

In terms of Doug Wilson, what comes around goes around. I can imagine that there are many who would misrepresent his positions for a bit of social capital just as he has done.

Justin Parris
Member

” just as he has done.”

The argument you’re being faced with is the claim that he didn’t do this in any significant way. Would you like to explain why you think this point is inadequately made, as was summed up by Indighost?

Barnie
Guest
Barnie

He’s capable of building his own strawmen but didn’t bother in this case. He took the shortcut of borrowing a simple rhetorical/linguistic weapon from the left. An interesting move from a guy that posts hat-in-hand every six or eight weeks, asking his critics for nuance and good faith discussion.

demosthenes1d
Member

Barnie,

If you are still monitoring this thread, I have a site recommendation for you. I ran across this guy in an awesome Amazon review of a James Scott book. It’s mostly book reviews (which are really essays) and some dialogues.

http://theworthyhouse.com/

I think it would be up your alley.

Katecho
Member

I can grant a distinction between a white nationalist and a white supremacist, but with reference to the Charlottsville “Unite the Right” rally, it’s rather difficult to argue that white supremacy wasn’t represented there. One of the main organizers was Richard Spencer, and while he also prefers to be associated with separatism rather than supremacy, he still lets his ideology of supremacy slip out. He said in a Mother Jones interview in October of 2016: “I think there is something within the European soul that we haven’t been able to measure yet and maybe we never will” … “and that… Read more »

NewChristendom
Guest
NewChristendom

“I think there is something within the European soul that we haven’t been able to measure yet and maybe we never will” … “and that is a Faustian drive or spirit — a drive to explore, a drive to dominate, a drive to live one’s life dangerously … a drive to explore outer space and the universe. I think there is something within us that we possess and that only we possess.” Whether true or not, this quote argues for specific difference, not general supremacy. I don’t know if Spencer is really a crypto-white supremacist, but I do know that… Read more »

mys
Guest
mys

People are missing the point so much that I think it’s deliberate. Wilson has taken shots at the Alt-right, and deliberately confused the Charlottesville rally with white supremacism. Wilson should have done his due diligence. There were white supremacists, at least some, in Charlottesville. So? Some white supremacists also support Roy Moore, I am sure. Uh oh. There will be an increasing need to have real talk on this issue. Not shaming, but real. Read the gospel coalition’s brief article this week on Lecrae’s new album and get back to me. This conversation makes people uncomfortable, but they need to… Read more »

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

I read the Lacrae article you seem to be referring to….how does it relate?

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/lecraes-things-work-together-challenge-racial-unity/

mys
Guest
mys

Jonathan- Because on the one hand, you have white Christians tripping to say that Charlottesville was evil, even a Christian like Pastor Wilson, who the Left hates. Whenever race comes up, whites are all, “nothing to see here.” On the other hand, Lecrae: Complaining about disunity in the church, blaming white people, saying there will be no unity until white people do something, etc. Aren’t most of his fans white? What an ingrate. The white church loves and buys his music, and he lives a much more lavish life than most white Christians, and all he can do is whine.… Read more »

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

I’m not seeing where you connect the dots. I don’t believe that Lacrae should keep his mouth shut about racial issues just because White people happen to buy his muslc. I don’t think it’s disrespectful for him to talk about race issues just because he has White fans. That doesn’t make any sense to me. Pastor Wilson has blamed Black people and liberal White people for racial disunity on multiple occasions – are you saying that that would be inappropriate for him to say if he has any Black or liberal fans? It’s even more ridiculous to suggest that Lacrae… Read more »

mys
Guest
mys

Amidst it all, Jonathan, you came close:
White pride. Whenever white pride is expressed, it is conflated (disingenuously) into white superiority. White Christians are not allowed white pride in polite society.

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

What kind of “white pride” are you looking for, which you feel like you not allowed. In an ideal society, what would you like to express that you don’t feel you’re able to express?

mys
Guest
mys

Jonathan-
Name a group expressing white pride in a way you find acceptable.

jonathan
Guest
jonathan

The SoCal chapter of InterVarsity Christian Fellowship which I was a part of did it very well. When we had our annual race conference we were split into different venue sites by race, with a coming-together time on the final day. The split times that I took part in as a White person were quite a strong appreciation of our shared experiences as White people and blessings of White culture while also dealing with the sin issues and responsibilities that seem to show up more within our group.

Micael Gustavsson
Guest
Micael Gustavsson

Belief in the superiority of western civilisation is white suprematism only if you believe the white race as race caused it.

bethyada
Member

There are several points worth emphasising. Victims who effectively cannot come forward are the victims of the perpetrators who violated them in the first instance, and in the second they are also victims of those who traffic in deceit. False victims claim to stand in solidarity with true victims but they in fact hate them. frankly sub-pagan The Corinthians had there sexual practices that made them worse than unbelievers, we have our lovers of false accusers. Fifty men in Pharaoh’s jail alongside Joseph. You good with that? Now someone might counter that he would prefer that to the travesty of… Read more »

adad0
Member

This: Luke 18 1 Then Jesus told his disciples a parable to show them that they should always pray and not give up. 2 He said: “In a certain town there was a judge who neither feared God nor cared what people thought. 3 And there was a widow in that town who kept coming to him with the plea, ‘Grant me justice against my adversary.’ 4 “For some time he refused. But finally he said to himself, ‘Even though I don’t fear God or care what people think, 5 yet because this widow keeps bothering me, I will see… Read more »

bethyada
Member

I find it interesting that the command is not: You shall not lie, but is: You shall not bear false witness.

Trey Mays
Member

I agree. God was much more specific in outlawing false witness, instead of broadly calling it lying.

Bro. Steve
Guest
Bro. Steve

And all liars shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone…..

Rev 21:8

Trey Mays
Member

I didn’t say He didn’t ever condemn lying or liars in His Scriptures, but there is a specificity to “false witness” in the tables of the Law that does more than using the more broad term of lying.

asdf
Guest
asdf

You shall not steal; you shall not deal falsely; you shall not lie to one another. (Leviticus 19:11)

Remember that the commandments implicitly contain much more application than what is written (the sixth commandment also prohibiting assault and unjust anger, for instance).

I assume you know this, though, so I’m curious what you’re intending by pointing it out.

bethyada
Member

Because it is a specific type of lie; and a particularly gratuitous one.

I think that the command not to kill is true, but lacks specificity. There are times that killing is not morally wrong. Murder is always wrong.

The command not to lie is similar. It is generally true, but there are times where lying is the morally right thing (Rahab). But false witness (like murder) is (I suspect) always wrong.

OKRickety
Member

bethyada,

If I recall correctly, at one time MeMe claimed that all killing is sin, and may even have claimed that all death is sin. If Malik is interested, I’ll try to find the link.

drewnchick
Member

I think her comment was akin to “all not believing a woman’s side of the story automatically and to the detriment of any man involved is son” is probably a closer quote. Something along those lines…

OKRickety
Member

Not sure if drewnchick  was responding to me or not. Nonetheless, here are quotes from MeMe  as found at this post (The Apostle Peter and Open Carry) about 18 months ago (emphases mine):

Killing in any manner is “sin,” even if we had no choice.’

Killing is a sin, it is morally wrong.”

“This is why all killing is a sin, because people are too bloody stupid to even interpret scripture properly.”

“The wages of sin are death. Death is sin. So taking a life becomes sin, too.”

Irish lass
Guest
Irish lass

Slightly to the left of topic, but apropos nevertheless. This is Patriarchy run amok. These men who are accused of sexual assault and harassment, it is not about sex at all, but about power. In the church, in government and in hollywood, men think they have a god given right to rule. Well men have really screwed up any moral authority .I am not against men. Most of the men I know are great leaders, husbands and fathers. Unfortunately there seems to be a boys club that is willing to protect those who are abusers . Until the good men… Read more »

Justin Parris
Member

“These men who are accused of sexual assault and harassment, it is not about sex at all, but about power.” ” In the church, in government and in hollywood, men think they have a god given right to rule. ” ” Unfortunately there seems to be a boys club that is willing to protect those who are abusers .” What objective criteria did you use to come to any of these conclusions? Your paragraph appears to require that you’re a mind reader. “We are certainly seeing what happens when that balance is skewed.” Women are, for the first time in… Read more »

Irish lass
Guest
Irish lass

Obviously women are NOT dominant in government, in Hollywood or in the church. Obviously these institutions that have been ruled by men forever, have struck a new low , on the other hand it is not new, it just has not been called out like is happening now. God meant fir men and women to rule together , to form a balance. This is not happening.

Justin Parris
Member

“Obviously women are NOT dominant in government”

Women are the majority of the electorate. Our government is a direct reflection of the choices of women. You can run an entire campaign on the sole basis that you’re a woman and this makes you qualified. If you did that on the basis of being a man, you’d be laughed out of public life.

Why didn’t you answer my question though? I asked what objective criteria you used for these conclusions.

Jane
Member

Women are also pretty dominant in many corners of the church. Since the church is so diverse and varies so widely in its beliefs and practice, you can’t look at all churches, aggregate them, and decide that men are dominant in some fragmented entity known as “the church.” In some of the most culturally influential churches, women are pretty dominant these days.

Micael Gustavsson
Guest
Micael Gustavsson

To be exact, I dont think anyone can run on it as the sole qualification. But they often add it as one of many.

Irish lass
Guest
Irish lass

In 2017 only 21% of women serve in the Senate, and 19.3% in The House of Representatives.VC7rZ

Jane
Member

Then I guess the majority electorate of women aren’t choosing to elect them. We’re not choosing to use our power that way.

Jane
Member

Oh, and your use is statistics is rather confused there. I think you mean only 19.3% of the House is women, and only 21% of senators are women. If 21% of women serve in the Senate, there would need to be ~33 million women senators.

Irish lass
Guest
Irish lass

Nitpicking

Jill Smith
Member

So what would be your preferred solution? That political parties have to run an equal number of male and female candidates during the primaries? If it is simply that you would like to see more women voting for female candidates, there are plenty of organizations dedicated to finding and financing good female candidates. You could work with one, or donate to women candidate’s campaigns, or persuade your friends to vote for women when they go to the polls.

adad0
Member

So. How many cats do you suppose we need in the senate? ????????

Jill Smith
Member

Just two Maine coons.

Trey Mays
Member

It’s kinda worth nitpicking over, considering how you communicated the stats versus how Jane communicated the stats says entirely different things altogether.

Justin Parris
Member

Does the womanhood of the voters get invalidated if they choose to vote for a male representative? That doesn’t strike you as a rather mysogynistic thing to suggest that a woman is only a woman if they make the decisions you want them to make?

Irish lass
Guest
Irish lass

Whose objective criteria is in question now?

Justin Parris
Member

I’m afraid I don’t follow the question. You (still) have never answered my original, it seems clear now that it wasn’t an oversight. Now you’re suggesting I need objective criteria? Well first I’d point out that I didn’t make a statement of fact as you did, I asked you a question. Though let’s suppose for the sake of conversation I did. Women, objectively, have all the governing power in the United States, should they organize properly. They at the very least objectively have more governing power than men. That is pretty indisputable fact. They form a majority, and can elect… Read more »

Irish lass
Guest
Irish lass

I am sorry that I cannot continue responding to this thread right now. A 21 year old nephew was killed in a random drive by shooting, all my emotional and spiritual energy is going to helping family members at this time.

Jill Smith
Member

According to a Rutgers study, between 4 to 7 million more women than men have voted in the last four presidential elections. Studies show that women are more likely than men to get to the polls and vote. So your issue is with how women are choosing to vote. You may dislike the results, but it would be undemocratic to subvert the process by which candidates are selected (open primaries in my state) simply to achieve your preferred result. When you say that God meant men and women to rule together, is this a personal belief or is it something… Read more »

drewnchick
Member

BUT…and this is an important exception…women don’t play baseball or football. For now, men still dominate those sports to the complete exclusion of women. That’s GOT to mean something!

The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
Guest
The Commenter Formerly Known As fp

Irish lass (who sounds strangely like MeMe) said: Unfortunately there seems to be a boys club that is willing to protect those [men] who are abusers. Boys club, huh? You’ve never heard of Nina Burleigh, Hillary Clinton, Frau Merkel, the dozens of women who’ve worked on Saturday Night Live? Shall we talk about the “boys club” that is the public school system? What about all the abusers there, many of whom are women? And then there this from WebMD, in an article entitled, “Help for Battered Men”: And perhaps the most important difference is that women who batter may have… Read more »

Jane
Member

Just happened to catch a bit of NPR’s Fresh Air in the car this afternoon. The guests were a couple of women (didn’t catch who they were) who earnestly and soberly suggested that the effect of this new crackdown on sexual behavior might have to entail taking another look at Juanita Broaddrick’s claims. Well, isn’t that just lovely. Twenty years later when the perp and his enabling wife have reached the evident end of their political careers, moral uprightness requires that we give a fair hearing to someone whose accusation has been public for nearly two decades, but was earnestly… Read more »

demosthenes1d
Member

One may have been Caitlyn Flanagan. She has written several pieces lately about the legacy of the Clintons. Some good stuff, but she can’t help herself and heaps on praise and hand wrings because just look how great their policies were for women.

adad0
Member

Lassy, men and women are not good. Bill Clinton, Weiner, Weinstein et. all did totally “man up”.

Men and women need to “humble down”, “God’s Word Up”, then Trust and Obey God.

Trusting and Obeying God is what this post and this site are all about. ; – )

Jane
Member

Anything run amok, including patriarchy, is bad. Real (biblical) patriarchy would make this situation close to impossible.

Jane
Member

Oh, and anticipating a possible response: this is not because biblical patriarchy requires that men and women will never rub shoulders in any way, though a biblically patriarchal society would probably reduce it to some degree from what we see now. Nor is it because the women would all be locked up scrubbing floors and “safe” from such men.

It is primarily because biblical patriarchy, unlike pagan or worldly patriarchy, sees patriarchy as a responsibility, not an entitlement. And part of that responsibility is to care for and protect women, not to use them.

bdash
Guest
bdash

and women supporting their men not usurping them
women always forget their responsibility…
and love piling responsibility on others

bdash
Guest
bdash

the more power women have the more immoral a society becomes…
Patriarchy?

all those men are ruled by women

Cheryl
Guest
Cheryl

The more power anyone has, the more immoral a society becomes. Women aren’t uniquely perverse.

David
Guest
David

This post brings to mind Susanna and the lecherous elders in Daniel. The virtuous Susanna accused by 2 supposed (collaborative) false witnesses whose own depravity was first rebuffed by the virtuous Susanna and then brought to light by Daniel. Separated they could not corroborate their stories. We need jurists and a population graced with the wisdom and perspicacity of Daniel and the virtue of Susanna

lndighost
Member

David, I hadn’t heard that story before. The apocrypha does have some good ones.

For the other protestants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susanna_(Book_of_Daniel)

jigawatt
Guest
jigawatt

‘Let the jury consider their verdict,’ the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.
‘No, no!’ said the Queen. ‘Sentence first—verdict afterwards.’
‘Stuff and nonsense!’ said Alice loudly. ‘The idea of having the sentence first!’
‘Hold your tongue!’ said the Queen, turning purple.
‘I won’t!’ said Alice.
‘Off with her head!’ the Queen shouted at the top of her voice.

Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, Lewis Caroll, 1865
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/11/11-h/11-h.htm

Leslie Sneddon
Member

Amen, and well spoken. Hebrews 4:13

demosthenes1d
Member

Doug, The extra teaching on bearing false witness is well taken. I hope all Christians in this discussion realize that bearing false witness is something that God hates and it is something that his people should have no tolerance for. However, I can’t help but feel that you are completely misapplying the teaching in this case. We are not being called upon to condemn a man, but rather we are being called upon to consider his elevation. Conflating an election with a trial is not helpful, indeed it obscures more than it enlightens. We are kings through our rebirth in… Read more »

Dave
Guest
Dave

DemoD, welcome to life in America. In our political, business and church arenas how many times have you heard accusations that were thrown out and later deemed to be false? How many were deemed to be true after investigation? Propaganda is used frequently today to distract those without wisdom and a firm foundation in scripture. We don’t call it propaganda because that was what we called information from Pravda, or Goebbels, or Tokyo Rose. Instead we call it news or fact checkers. CNN runs a story on Palestinian dead and a blogger runs the video from the same location, at… Read more »

demosthenes1d
Member

As a brief follow-up, I should state that i don’t believe Christians should feel compelled to vote for or against Moore. They should weigh the evidence, Moore’s positions, Moore’s temperment, etc. and make a decision in accordance with their conscience and the application of wisdom.

However, the weight they give to the various allegations and counter allegations is a matter of prudence, not orthopraxy.

OKRickety
Member

demo,

“However, the weight they give to the various allegations and counter allegations is a matter of prudence, not orthopraxy.

It appears to me that some commenters consider orthopraxy to be important in their voting decisions. It is unclear to me why one would hold two candidates to different standards because of differences in their religious faith.

demosthenes1d
Member

I havent seen anyone recommend voting for Jones, but I don’t monitor threads closely. Besides, I believe Jones claims Christ – he should be completely unacceptable to Christians.

bethyada
Member

Even if Moore is guilty, this is still politically motivated. Both can be true.

Calling various media outlets Fake News is a rhetorical device. It is not bearing false witness.

Further, the false witnesses (if they are) are potentially the accusers or Moore. Commenters here weighing the evidence for or against are not false witnesses. Though they may be foolish, naive, or otherwise dishonest; or astute, wiley, or wise.

demosthenes1d
Member

“Even if Moore is guilty, this is still politically motivated. Both can be true”

Completely agree, but his statement was a serious allegation of collusion, and conspiracy with a defined motive. it is an accusation (and likely a false one).

“Calling various media outlets Fake News is a rhetorical device. It is not bearing false witness.”

I agree that it is rhetoric, I disagree that you can’t bear false witness while employing rhetoric. The way Moore and especially his campaign have been using the charge is calumnious. The fact that it is rhetoric is no excuse.

Barnie
Guest
Barnie

Have you ever read Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent?

demosthenes1d
Member

Barnie, I assume this question is for me. Nesting is weird here. I haven’t read it, I read SSC’s review and was intrigued. I skimmed back over the review this morning, when I saw this comment. from a brief reading it looks like it has some helpful paradigms for viewing the way the press operates, but it is probably far too grand in its pronouncements. It would take a lot of quality evidence for me to believe the fourth estate is unified, or that “Fake News” is a reasonable epithet. But I do believe all of the five filters presented,… Read more »

Barnie
Guest
Barnie

I believe in fake news and Gell-Mann Amnesia. Chomsky gives evidence in tedious detail and he was writing before the new Maoism really curtailed free speech.
Honestly, I’d vote for Moore either way. I could absolutely believe that the same man who would throw away a judgeship defending the Ten Commandments might have the romantic history of Jerry Lee Lewis. If you want a staid New England Puritan you’ll find him down at the Planned Parenthood fundraiser.

Barnie
Guest
Barnie

How many Christians taking shots at Roy Moore are going to be attending the MLK50 conference?

demosthenes1d
Member

They should have lively discussion of his theology:

http://www.tikkun.org/article.php/nov_dec_09_scofield

demosthenes1d
Member

I’d never heard of Gell-Mann Amnesia (that I can remember) I’ve had the exact same experience ln a number of issues…. but, the media ecosytem is a big place, and there are a lot of outlets that do better or worse at specific topics. I am a semi-specialist in a number of areas, and there are good reporters in all of those areas, you just have to be discerning. Of course there are a number of other areas in which have pretty pedestrian acumen (or I am clueless) which makes weighing sources very difficult. The best outlets have the best… Read more »

Jack Evans
Guest

Two questions to ask people on this issue:

1. “Are you okay with an innocent person being convicted for the sake of ensuring that these kinds of sexual injustices are thoroughly stamped out?”

And when they say “Yes.”

2. “Are you okay with that innocent person being you?”

We have laws for a reason. They give us a level playing field. Good laws are the vehicle by which we do unto others as we would have done unto ourselves.

Bro. Steve
Guest
Bro. Steve

Jack Evans, Curiously, society has already accepted the unjust punishment of the innocent in cases involving illegal drugs and alcohol. Many occupations are subjected to mandatory drug/alcohol tests even though it’s known that a certain number of false positives will occur and result in people getting fired. Similarly, making simple possession a crime has resulted in people being sent to prison because, for example, something was hidden in a used car that they bought, and in a routine traffic stop, a police dog sniffed it out. These things are massively unjust, yet society accepts them, and people trundle on, unmoved… Read more »

Charles Anthony
Member

1st World Christian Problems

I would expect Christians who live under the boot of Sharialandistan do not share the same obsessive idolatry of the American(tm) “common” law system.

Justin Parris
Member

The entire series on the topic is about how it’s not an American standard, but a Biblical one. One would presume God himself is immune to being the subject of idolatry.

Charles Anthony
Member

How many words does it take to say Thou Shalt Not Lie?

There is nothing more “biblical” to say. The entire “premise” does no good but confuse honorable Christians who do not watch television.

Justin Parris
Member

“There is nothing more “biblical” to say. ”

The Bible disagrees, having said more on the topic itself.

What confusion is it exactly that you think is taking place? This seems more an objection to thinking than it does any of Doug’s actual content.

bethyada
Member

Or maybe the lack of this in the third world contributes to their problems.

#3rdWorldProblems

Farinata
Guest
Farinata

bethyada – well played!

Valerie Jacobsen
Member

“But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die… For he found her in the countryside, and the betrothed young woman cried out, but there was no one to save her..” — Deuteronomy 22:25-27

Presumption of innocence to the victim, and it’s the same if it’s 10 victims, each in a different place, who were restrained by threat or circumstance from obtaining help (e.g., because they were little children, and afraid).

adad0
Member

Val,
Per verse 26, in the average murder case, the dead person is typically presumed innocent:

26 But you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl worthy of death, for just as a man rises against his neighbor and murders him, so is this case.

“Careful examination” is required, and Deut. Lays out standards of evidence for serious and capital cases.

Rape is a crime to be punished by death in the OT.
I’d be on board with the same here and now.

Are you?

Valerie Jacobsen
Member

Indeed I am, but point being, the death penalty is appropriate justice for a victim who is sexually assaulted in circumstances where there are no corroborating human witnesses or advanced technological forensic evidences, if only he/she was in circumstances without effective help. Circumstantial evidence is repeatedly used as a witness or evidence in the Law; another example is day vs. night, with a thief breaking in. The circumstantial evidence is a witness or evidence; it *is* her corroboration. Doug Wilson obviously writes the laws of unwitnessed sexual assault differently than the Bible does. If one victim in one place can… Read more »

adad0
Member

Val, do keep in mind, that in the two cases Wilson is frequently associated with, (Sitler and Wight) Wilson required confessions by the perpetrators, which the perpetrators provided.

The perpetrators were then convicted, on the basis of their own witness, and the witness of the victims.

When the Word is obeyed with regard to crime, as it was in the above cases, we should not be surprised when Just convictions are the result.