You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Are multiple witnesses always required to condemn a man accused of rape to death, in Deuteronomy 22?

in #christianity6 years ago

John Reasnor replies:

that’s exactly how the liberals interpret v28 and v29. According to your understanding of v28 and v29 as being a non-consensual sexual act with a virgin, what do you think the Theonomic punishment for a raping a virgin is?

I reply:

It would appear it is to marry her and pay a fine to her father.

I'm not sure why you're bringing up "liberals" though. You're not trying to poison the well, are you?

He replies:

No. It’s just a fact. You’re interpreting the text only how modern liberals interrupt it. It’s a fact. Not “well poisoning”. It’s exactly what RHE says. This is revealing. Thanks.

Me:

OK

Sort:  

Thankfully, John Reasnor then re-pasted a comment from before that I had not seen, which clears it up.

//A few notes on this. The Theonomic position (which, by the way, is hotly debated among theonomists) is not that there is no need for witnesses. Rather, the Theonomic position is that one witness is sufficient for a bare minimum conviction given other factors and given an actual judicial deliberation. It is not an automatic conviction based off of no witness or one witness. It is the principle that in some circumstances wherein witnesses aren’t possible apart from the one abused or assaulted, and the abused is someone under the power and authority of the accused abuser, then the sole witness of the alleged abuse victim can be taken into account. It’s not that one witness seals the deal. It’s that the one witness can be seen as legitimate testimony and if all other things are deliberated and judged, that one eye-witness is sufficient for conviction.

It is important to remember that God’s Law is not a wooden equation wherein we input a witness’s testimony and that it is automatically believed and there’s an automatic conviction. There’s an actual trial. Especially for crimes worthy of death. In certain specific situations the minimum requirement (and it’s just a minimum requirement) is lowered. This principle by no means would imply that someone could just lie and the person that is falsely accused doesn’t stand a chance. It’s not like that at all.

I don’t know if others consider themselves theonomists or not, but I certainly do. Either way, I can only speak for myself and my views.//

Even on the basis of two or three witnesses people are not to be stoned without due process, deliberations, other considerations such as physical evidence, and so on. This is about a BARE MINIMUM standard. Not about quickly killing people because one person said they were raped.

How easy would it be for two close friends collaborate and accuse someone of rape? It’s the same problem. Which is why there’s due process, whether it’s the standard two or more witnesses or the exception of one witness.

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.19
TRX 0.12
JST 0.028
BTC 64060.29
ETH 3471.63
USDT 1.00
SBD 2.52