Dake Bible Discussion Board ⇒ Was William Bradford and the brethren of Plymouth righteous OR sinful for executing a 17 year old boy for beastiality?

[Hill Top]

In today's New Testament Christian age... Was William Bradford and the brethren of Plymouth righteous OR sinful for executing a 17 year old boy for beastiality?

William Bradford, Of Plymouth Plantation, Norton Anthology of American Literature, Third Edition, From Book II, Chapter XXXII, Anno Dom: 1642

[A HORRIBLE CASE OF BEASTIALITY]

And after the time of the writing of these things befell a very sad accident of the like foul nature in this government, this very year, which I shall now relate.

There was a youth whose name was Thomas Granger. He was servant to an honest man of Duxbury, being about 16 or 17 years of age. (His father and mother lived at the same time at Scituate.) He was this year detected of *, and indicted for the same, with a mare, a cow, two goats, five sheep, two calves and a turkey. Horrible it is to mention, but the truth of the history requires it.

He was first discovered by one that accidentally saw his lewd practice towards the mare. (I forbear particulars.) Being upon it examined and committed, in the end he not only confessed the fact with that beast at that time, but sundry times before and at several times with all the rest of the forenamed in his indictment. And this his free confession was not only in private to the magistrates (though at first he strived to deny it) but to sundry, both ministers and others; and afterwards, upon his indictment, to the whole Court and jury; and confirmed it at his execution. And whereas some of the sheep could not so well be known by his description of them, others with them were brought before him and he declared which were they and which were not.

And accordingly he was cast by the jury and condemned, and after executed about the 8th of September, 1642.

A very sad spectacle it was. For first the mare and then the cow and the rest of the lesser cattle were killed before his face, according to the law, Leviticus xx. 15 and then he himself was executed. The cattle were all cast into a great and large pit that was digged of purpose for them, and no use made of any part of them.

Sinful.
Where was the love we are to have for our brothers?
Where was an offer to let him repent of his sins?
Where was the forgiveness?

It was love to the remaining brothers to get rid of the influencer of sin (the young man).

He had 17 years to repent.

we must confess and forsake sins... not just confess them.

He was “about 16 or 17 years of age” - so how did he have 17 years to repent?
And while you consider it loving to the remaining brothers to get rid of the influencer, would you extend that same “loving” reasoning to all those whom you consider improper influencers? Perhaps the woman caught in adultery, she was definitely a poor influence. The law required her to be stoned.

It appear you are not consistent in your judgements.

You said: "He was “about 16 or 17 years of age” - so how did he have 17 years to repent?"
OK make it 16 or 17 years to repent.
You said: "And while you consider it loving to the remaining brothers to get rid of the influencer, would you extend that same “loving” reasoning to all those whom you consider improper influencers?"
Yes I would.
You said: "Perhaps the woman caught in adultery, she was definitely a poor influence. The law required her to be stoned."

We are no longer under the Law.

Neither were the "murderers" under the Law.

[Hill Top]

Nope, since William lived AFTER the ministry of John the Baptist... he was NOT under the Law.

Oh, so he had no legal right to do what he did…. Then that should answer your question.

Yes he had the legal right.

"In 1636, Plymouth Colony adopted a set of laws that included a sentence of death for sodomy and *, although the law made no mention of gender, unlike the male-only English law."

But you said he wasn’t under the law. Which is it?

Old Testament law not civil law

So by your reasoning there was no civil law when Jesus was alive. Interesting

Where is the post that I said that?

It does not exist, you are just being wacko!

Stoning adulterers wasn't "civil" law.
It was religious law. (Lev 20:10)

[Grandfather]

Stoning adulterers wasn't "civil" law.
It was religious law. (Lev 20:10)

The nation of Israel was under religious law, for them the Torah was both religious and civil.

[Grandfather]

So by your reasoning there was no civil law when Jesus was alive. Interesting

Where is the post that I said that?

It does not exist, you are just being wacko!

Oh, but it does. When I asked about the woman caught in adultery. The civil law at the time was that she be stoned. And by your earlier statements, this judgment would have been merciful to society by removing this influence of evil.

Your “defense” was that Jesus was not under the law. Not only was Jesus not under the law, but your words were “we are not under the law”

…Perhaps the woman caught in adultery, she was definitely a poor influence. The law required her to be stoned.

…We are no longer under the Law.

The only reason you believe I am “wacko” is I am trying to make sense out of nonsense with your random reasoning. Obeying the law, not obeying that, under the law, not under the law. You want to keep changing the conditions to support your irrational reasoning. That is WACKO

No and we are still not under the law. It is these wild goose chases that kills the board.

The question was and still is:

"Was William Bradford and the brethren of Plymouth righteous OR sinful for executing a 17 year old boy for beastiality?"

You may answer it any way you like, but your choice seems to be: "I am not going to answer but try to make the conversation about something else.

Actually I gave you my answer.

If that is the case, I will say he followed the law. Now, can one abide by the law and still be sinful?

It was you that moved the conversation to something else when, instead of simply letting my reply stand you made the comment

Yes if the law is un-biblical. (But not saying that it was)

And knowing you love to be scriptural, I sought a little more clarification by quoting a scripture.

Indeed...Mic 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?

From what you presented, I would have to ask, was mercy shown?

From there you present that indeed mercy was shown, not to the young man, but to the community

Yes mercy was shown to those that they young man was influencing to sin by his horrible actions.

Now, using your reasoning of mercy being shown to the community by removing a bad influence, I made reference to the woman caught in adultery.

From there your reason devolved into being under the law, not under the law, to back under the law.

[bibleman]

So by your reasoning there was no civil law when Jesus was alive. Interesting

Where is the post that I said that?

It does not exist, you are just being wacko!

Oh, but it does. When I asked about the woman caught in adultery. The civil law at the time was that she be stoned. And by your earlier statements, this judgment would have been merciful to society by removing this influence of evil.

Your “defense” was that Jesus was not under the law. Not only was Jesus not under the law, but your words were “we are not under the law”

…Perhaps the woman caught in adultery, she was definitely a poor influence. The law required her to be stoned.

…We are no longer under the Law.

The only reason you believe I am “wacko” is I am trying to make sense out of nonsense with your random reasoning. Obeying the law, not obeying that, under the law, not under the law. You want to keep changing the conditions to support your irrational reasoning. That is WACKO

No and we are still not under the law. It is these wild goose chases that kills the board.

The question was and still is:

"Was William Bradford and the brethren of Plymouth righteous OR sinful for executing a 17 year old boy for beastiality?"

You may answer it any way you like, but your choice seems to be: "I am not going to answer but try to make the conversation about something else.

Actually I gave you my answer.

If that is the case, I will say he followed the law. Now, can one abide by the law and still be sinful?

It was you that moved the conversation to something else when, instead of simply letting my reply stand you made the comment

Yes if the law is un-biblical. (But not saying that it was)

And knowing you love to be scriptural, I sought a little more clarification by quoting a scripture.

Indeed...Mic 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?

From what you presented, I would have to ask, was mercy shown?

From there you present that indeed mercy was shown, not to the young man, but to the community

Yes mercy was shown to those that they young man was influencing to sin by his horrible actions.

Now, using your reasoning of mercy being shown to the community by removing a bad influence, I made reference to the woman caught in adultery.

From there your reason devolved into being under the law, not under the law, to back under the law.

Concerning this law discussion... I think the problem is it has not been clearly defined in the conversation whether you are me have been speaking of the Law of Moses or the Law of civil governments.

What I presented above was the fact that Bradford did have a CIVIL law to do what he and the other brothers did.

[bibleman]

My answer is yes!

Sadly, bestiality is much, much more common than you think

Did you know that right now it’s entirely legal for a man, or woman, in Texas to walk into a pet store, buy a dog, take that dog home and then have sex with it?

The facts will make you sick

Provided he doesn’t cause the animal any pain, in the eyes of the law, that man has done nothing wrong. You can also do it in chilly Finland or on the beaches of Hawaii as well as in Japan and certain parts of Australia, which also do not prohibit sexual activities between humans and animals.

Thanks for an honest answer.
You answered yes.
And that is a fine answer without someone trying to nit-pick it to death.

I tend to agree with you. If we take Romans 1:32 literally... but of course some do argue that it is spiritual death and not physical death meant in this passage.

Romans 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Thank you.

[Hill Top]

Are we in agreement then?
That they had no right to kill the teenager?

[Grandfather]

What I presented above was the fact that Bradford did have a CIVIL law to do what he and the other brothers did.

Yes, indeed you pointed that out. I have not denied they were within the law to do what they did.

However, acting within the perimeters of the law does not necessarily make an action righteous. And equally, acting outside of the law does not necessarily make an action unrighteous, or sinful.

[Grandfather]

Are we in agreement then?
That they had no right to kill the teenager?

Having a legal “right” to does not make an action righteous.

[bibleman]

What I presented above was the fact that Bradford did have a CIVIL law to do what he and the other brothers did.

Yes, indeed you pointed that out. I have not denied they were within the law to do what they did.

However, acting within the perimeters of the law does not necessarily make an action righteous. And equally, acting outside of the law does not necessarily make an action unrighteous, or sinful.

Agreed!

So then according to the topic question.... "Was William Bradford and the brethren of Plymouth righteous OR sinful for executing a 17 year old boy for beastiality?"

Ironman says yes, and I tend to agree...

What say ye?