H
happilycatholic
Guest
[/QUOTE]
- Status
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
Of course you don’t … but empirically speaking how else could ancient people know whether or not she was being raped? God didn’t qualify his statement (with something like … hear her side of the story, question the man, seek out witnesses, question friends and neighbors to try and discern whether there was affection between the couple, etc). The god you believe exists simply said if she didn’t scream stone her to death (he didn’t even consider the possibility that the rapist might gag her so she can’t scream).
The ancient Hebrews didn’t have rape kits, they didn’t know to look for pattern signs of rape like scarring and bruising. All they knew was she didn’t scream … so to add to her horror after being raped she was then murdered in a most brutal fashion. Does this sound like a god with infinite wisdom who had more knowledge five thousand years ago then we’ll have in our most advanced stage (at some point in the distant future)? Of course it doesn’t.
H
happilycatholic
Guest
Once again, NO IT’S NOT. No where in the Mitzvot does it say that the victim of a rape is to be stoned. It also DOES NOT say HOW to determine the victim, such as no screaming = adultery.
Go to this link and read the Mitzvot dealing with punishment.
jewfaq.org/613.htm
J
josie_L
Guest
Francis, it comes down to my trusting God and I know that He loves you. There is something you need to go through, and in essence what you’re going through is a trial, a test, and we have yet to see where it goes and how it ends.This is what I mean when I say this issue isn’t amenable to a productive discourse. I say prayers are never answered because god, as you believe he exists, doesn’t exist. Leaving aside other questions like is there some sort of unknown power or being out there; I say my prayers have never been answered. Of course you’re response will be god only answers prayers in accordance with his own plan. I’ll say then he’s not really answering prayers, he’s just carrying out his plan. You’ll say god is so smart and prescient that he’s taken my prayers into account when formulating his plan. I’ll say no – because tangibly speaking whether or not something I prayed for happened was merely a matter of coincidence (since most things I’ve prayed for didn’t happen & can never happen because many of them were time definite).
If you’re playing craps and pray for a roll of lucky seven, roll the dice a hundred times, and finally roll a seven – was it god or just coincidence? Now you might say this is a bad example (because it’s gambling); but of course it’s just an analogy
H
happilycatholic
Guest
Humble, I think God hears your prayers and answers them in a way that you don’t recognize. Just us being here and having this discussion could be one of those answers. We cannot define the ways God works in our lives.
I can tell you from my own experiences, that God hears us and answers our prayers. The fact that we don’t believe in Him doesn’t stop Him from taking care of us. He’s still there with you. All you have to do is surrender. Trust that He will guide you and you’ll know when he moves in your life. First you have to be open to that.
Bless you friend. I hope you find the answers that will bring peace to your heart.
J
josie_L
Guest
Francis, how could someone not see bruises, scratches and the like. Such forced entry if she was a virgin would rip her. So no rape kit was necessary. Furthermore, if she would/could attack her perpetrator this would further imply foul play. Dam* it they were not idiots, and they had other commandments/virtues they were exhorted to live by: mercy, wisdom and astuteness. . . etc., so this tunnel vision of yours and Eleve is ridiculous.
H
happilycatholic
Guest
Of course you don’t … but empirically speaking how else could ancient people know whether or not she was being raped? God didn’t qualify his statement (with something like … hear her side of the story, question the man, seek out witnesses, question friends and neighbors to try and discern whether there was affection between the couple, etc).
Please! Read the Mitzvot. You can find it here: jewfaq.org/613.htm
The god you believe exists simply said if she didn’t scream stone her to death (he didn’t even consider the possibility that the rapist might gag her so she can’t scream).
No, God did NOT say that. That is what you want to believe God said.
God owns wisdom and knowledge. We borrow it.
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
you posted the Mitzvot, which only contains a summary of god’s laws and biblical citations (with no qualifying remarks or explanations). Why did you even post it? What’s the relevance (I was hoping for some qualifying remarks or explanations discussing things like the real meaning of this verse & others like it in ancient Hebrew; or something to that effect)? However, the site didn’t aver the words in passages like Deut. 22:23-24 are translated poorly (it’s silent on the matter).God owns wisdom and knowledge. We borrow it.
As for you’re accusation that god did not say that, how else should we interpret these words:
"If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out to the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor’s wife. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst (Deuteronomy 22:23-24).
Boy oh boy … I bet you normally call those who want to subjectively interpret the word of god heretics (or at least tragically wrong); but when the very plain language of scripture doesn’t appeal to you – it seems like you do the same thing?
So I ask … where is this timeless objective morality? All I’m hearing really is platitudes; with no substance?
J
josie_L
Guest
The Bible also literally states we should not call anyone father, teacher or doctor? Are we to take that literally Francis? The answer is NO. So don’t use this as a way to prove something because it doesn’t. Moreover, there are a lot of things that can be interpreted literally in the Bible but it would be wrong to do so.
P.S. I already gave you a way in which it would be interpreted.
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
that’s the convenient answer isn’t it? Believe this god exists because ancient men said he does, even though he hasn’t repeated any of his alleged profound manifestations of his power (that we have no verification of anyway), and on top of that believe he’ll answer your prayers even though when he does you won’t know it?
I say … huh?
H
happilycatholic
Guest
Yeah! Kinda like the next few verses (23: 1-2) that say if a man should be without his “parts” he’s no longer among the Lord’s people.
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
basically what you’re saying is the bible is an old book with really old rules. Now we’re more enlightened than our ancient predecessors; and since many of their practices would be viewed as horrific in today’s world – we don’t do them. OK great … tell me something I don’t know
However, for some reason this really old book with antiquated rules (that are barbaric by today’s standards) should still be relevant in our daily lives; because apparently some people just can’t imagine how we’ll live without it? Hint … we already do live without it.
Religion isn’t the only myth … the idea that we live according to so called religious virtue is also a myth. We continually delete large swaths of god’s law out of the bible as we figure out they’re bizarre ancient practices with no application in our modern world.
J
josie_L
Guest
Yeah! Kinda like the next few verses (23: 1-2) that say if a man should be without his “parts” he’s no longer among the Lord’s people.
H
Hope3
Guest
I see your point, but the obvious should be undertaken first, don’t you think? Some persons are afraid to ask because they would rather not know than have to be “on the hook” forever afterwards if God answers them. They do not know if they will want to obey Him and follow Him until their deaths, no matter what the cost may be. So, they keep putting off this first step.
This is Scripture, so I hope I am not offending you, but I think people should be aware of the costs of discipleship:
Luke 9:23 “Then He said to them all, “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me.”
Matthew 10:38 “And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me.”
Matthew 10:37 “He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.”
Most persons want easy Christianity with no hardships. This is not true Christianity. But, God expects no more of us than He expected of His own Son and He sent Him to show us the way by example so that we can inherit eternal life when we die.
I am truly sorry that you have not received the answer to your prayers. And, I believe that you did ask sincerely and humbly since this is what you say you did.
Perhaps you are experiencing what is called “the dark night of the soul.” God withdraws His consoling presense. It is a test to see if His chosen ones will remain faithful when all consolation is withdrawn. Mother Teresa suffered this “test” and countless saints before her did also. But, what they did do was to continue to worship Him and to follow Him through obedience to His commands even though they felt only emptiness in return. God is right there beside them even though they cannot feel His presence because God has promised that He will never leave them nor forsake them, and even if He does not seem to be present, He is.
It is quite easy to be a Christian when everything is going splendidly for oneself. It is very difficult to be a Christian when a person is subjected to trials similar to Job’s who even had to endure people’s scorn in addition to his other troubles, or when a person experiences the dark night of the soul.
Persons trust that when they turn the key in the ignitions of their cars that they will start up. Usually their trust is warranted. But, trust is broken the first time the car fails to start.
Belief in God is by faith. We trust in Him because of our faith in Him. We cannot see Him in order to verify His existence with our own eyes. I can see what He has made. This is the tangible evidence of His existence. I know of no human power that can create the eye of a human, or the sun in the sky, or the digestive system which transforms food into a form that continues to give me life. (I have also been a witness to some of His miracles in my own family, but these miracles happened as a result of faith, not as a prerequisite for faith.)
Now, many people claim that God sent His Son to earth. His Son was seen by thousands of people. They claim that they saw Him perform miracles. They claim that they saw Him die and they claim that they saw Him and touched Him after He rose from the dead and they claim that they saw Him ascend into heaven. They are our witnesses that God exists. These persons were willing to die rather than renounce what they saw with their own eyes.
Others who came after them believed these witnesses to be reliable and so they continued teaching others, on and on throughout the ages, until we arrive here today with people still willing to die rather than renounce what they were taught by apostolic succession from these first witnesses and they even wrote part of it down in a Book which we call the Bible.
This is our evidence that God exists and every person is given a free will to decide if they want to believe these witnesses who claim that God exists.
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
I guess the Christian (or at least protestant) answer would be that Christ abolished god’s laws; and man is justified by faith. So I guess protestants have a rebuttal to my objection … however, it still doesn’t make the fact that god ever enumerated such a horrific law in the first place any better. This is not the type of law an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent deity who is pure love, holiness, and justice would promulgate.Yeah! Kinda like the next few verses (23: 1-2) that say if a man should be without his “parts” he’s no longer among the Lord’s people.
This is only a law that a patriarchal society ruled by primitive old men would promulgate.
E
Eleve
Guest
My point is that if you have a book that says “stone such and such a group of people,” and the people tasked with enforcing that book all say “Holy wow, we’d better make sure that we never take that passage literally!” then it doesn’t reflect particularly well on the book.
I don’t think that “pure,” under the Torah, means “sinless.” If this were the case, any law requiring a pure witness would be completely unworkable.
These two statements about stoning are not contradictory.
Nobody is asking me to worship Pontius Pilate.
Also, because stoning is just what happened to be mentioned as an example in a post about shifting moral standards. This entire discussion on stoning stems from a claim that stoning was once considered morally acceptable and is now condemned.
No, I am not. I understand that the Torah is trying to cast lack of screaming as evidence for adultery, rather than rape. I find this to be a reprehensible standard which allows for all sorts of false positives. As if stoning could be an acceptable punishment for adultery, anyway.
It’s horrible… and prescribed by God… but you do not see an implied contradiction in saying that God prescribed something horrible?
¹ You said you were against the death penalty; you don’t expect me to be? I don’t agree with the death penalty, and I’m not impressed that God appears to disagree with me on what I would consider to be a fundamental human rights issue.
² Unless you’re talking about technological limitations, this is more cultural relativism. Stoning was as wrong then as it is now. Back in the Stone Age, when the only tools they had were made of stone? Still wrong.
³ Capital punishment by humane means is a contradiction in terms. I don’t just object to the fact that stoning itself is the method being advocated in this passage; the particular brutality of that method is just the icing on the cake, as it were.
And it’s spinach icing on a rotten egg cake.
How does homicide atone for anything?
And, as above, this is a criterion rife with false positives and irrelevant unless we consider adultery to merit stoning.
That’s not what “willing” means.
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
I appreciate your diligence here, but I guess I should disclose that I was Christian for years. I’ve studied the bible for years, theology (both protestant and Catholic), and I’m well aware of everything you’re gonna toss my way (because I used to be in your shoes, trying to convince atheists to come over).
IMO the only cost of discipleship is wasting our time in the name of ancient fiction; when we could be engaging in more productive endeavors as a society and individually.
E
Eleve
Guest
Rape is not always forcible rape. As for ripping, that would occur in sex regardless of consent. It couldn’t be used to establish innocence of the charge of adultery.
Well, sort of. The modern misogynists tend to censure rape victims through extralegal means. They also exist across genders and ages.
H
Hope3
Guest
Then you are not worthy of Him. Abraham was asked this very thing and he was willing to give/sacrifice his son to God. God did not require it in the end when He saw Abraham’s willing obedience. To love God also means that we obey His commands. Since God our Creator gives us life, He is right and just to take our lives whenever and however He pleases.
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
I think the death penalty should be rare, but not abolished. When we capture Usama I hope he fries (and lethal injection is too darn good for him; I want to dust off the old electric chair in sing sing just for him
).- Status