I believe Mr. Finkelstein's mindset is typical in this 'politically correct' society. Enormities are tolerated; those who call them what they are, are not.
If I read this article correctly, thumbs up for Judge Karen Schreier. Beautiful. What a great challenge to Planned Parenthood (such a benign label).
It is lamentable that these people only fear the law of the land.
Their continued course can only proceed in admitted wickedness and duplicity.
Basically; 'We will invent, hitherto unnecessary, newer, more surreptitious methods of murdering your children.' To be unable to see the horror of what you espouse...
It would seem that only homosexual 'adulterers' are excluded from leadership positions (so far).
After knowing the Word of God on this issue, to continue this intractable insinuation into the church, is very much like the child who asks for the cookie; when he is told 'no', he asks again. He then takes the ensuing silence as a 'yes'.
Perhaps his 'own guardian angel' stuck his foot out. I wonder how long the 'pope' will try to cram this incident into salvation history somewhere.
Toss in a little 'rain on the evil and the good', some 'God is no respecter of persons' and such like, and I'm sure he could occupy himself for quite a while.
Would Joseph, 'being a just man' before the law, be transgressing that law, by not adhering to Deut 22?, or would he be 'permitted' to marry her?
The woman 'taken in adultery' was referred to Lev 20. Both of these offenses are punishable by death. It would seem that in the Jewish economy, the terms 'adultery' and 'fornication' could be virtually interchangeable.
By the way, John UK; forgive me for making you do all the work.
Isn't the Matthean passage, in its context, referring to Deuteronomy 24?
Fornication is not specifically mentioned in the latter passage, where the woman who is put away is 'caused to commit adultery' as well as 'he who marries her'
In the 22nd of Deuteronomy, the death penalty is enforced (which, I guess could be considered a divorce), where fornication is spoken of. Perhaps the reason for the distinction between commandment and permission.
And again, (I'm not trying to be obstinate) I only see Jesus pronouncing on the woman put away for any cause 'other' than fornication, more directly answering the question of the Pharisees.
For those of you who do not know what that is, here is a well known example: A man is out on a lake, fishing; his boat springs a leak. As water begins to fill it, he reasons that to drain the water out, he should poke another hole in the boat.
I can only hope for you that you're right, Jim Lincoln, but how many times have we seen, particularly in recent years, perverse and vitiate laws instituted to counter, not only what is in place as righteous laws, but even what is natural and seemingly known to be so by anyone.
It's too big for them to see. Having no fear of God and His judgment, they cannot understand why we (or anyone else) would not support two people in 'love'. Unthinking sentiment holds sway.
You wouldn't want to associate with this mindset, even if homosexuality was not the issue.
9/7/09 7:56 PM
