H
- Status
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
I’m just point to the semantics of it all …
been there done that
nothing does!
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
it’s either that or Abraham is nothing more than old Jewish folklore? Hmmm … I’m going with that idea!
J
josie_L
Guest
But the man who committed adultery was also stated to be stoned, so no it was not a misogynistic society. And God was/is loving, pure and holy, and that is why could not endure the constant sin and evil in which people were living in, So why is it such a surprise then that he would enforce his laws in the way that He did? Don’t you understand God did everything possible to ensure that Jesus would come into the world via a good and pious people, in fact, they were the chosen people. Therefore everything that God was doing He did to ensure our salvation.
E
Eleve
Guest
It was not accidental that I alluded to Abraham. I do not hold his willingness to sacrifice his own son to be an example of moral conduct.
In every other circumstance, if somebody asked me to sacrifice my own son (especially someone with power over me) and I refused, I would be more worthy than him. I have no a priori reason to make the Christian God an exception.
What would you expect this to accomplish?
J
josie_L
Guest
No, I was implying to more than just the hymen being ripped. I’m talking about external damage.
H
happilycatholic
Guest
Okay, why do you insist on questioning God because God prescribed horrible punishments for people who sinned against Him by doing horrible things to other people?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.
And yes, I do understand that “impure” doesn’t mean that a person has never sinned, but yes, it DOES mean that the person at the time, was not impure with sin. We as catholics are “clean” from sin when we leave reconciliation. However, moments later we sin (probably). THAT’S the point, no person can be without sin for long. People are inherently sinful and that’s what Jesus was stating.
Do you not realize that in that moment in the Gospels, God himself was fortelling of a New Covenant? You do realize that there were two Covenants and stoning was part of the first, but not the second.
I don’t know how many ways to say, Christ negated the need for the death penalty at all and forever. What do you not get about that?
E
Eleve
Guest
Our contention is that the law would foreseeably be applied to rape victims as well as adulterers. That the vast majority of these innocent but condemned victims would be women makes this law misogynous.
Then return to the first sentence in what you quoted.
H
Hope3
Guest
You are entitled to your opinion, whether it is a good opinion or not.
Since our society as a whole in the past 60 years has now rejected God as you have done, how do you see society’s moral collapse as a result of this rejection of God as productive for anything except misery, and how do you plan to engage in more “productice endeavors” since this “enlightened” society is collapsing around us with its greed and self-seeking gratifications? What will these more productive endeavors, as a society and individually, be?
J
josie_L
Guest
It was a different time therefore different measures were needed. And who are you to compare yourself to God? Moreover, may I know if your so into upholding “fundamental” human rights, whether you believe abortion to be wrong?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
Hope3
Guest
So, since you are acting as your own god, do you plan to live forever, or do you have a set date for your demise? And where do you plan to reside after your death, if you decide to die, that is?
E
Eleve
Guest
Because two wrongs don’t make a right, and because neither rape victims nor adulterers* have done horrible things to other people.
*I will grant that adulterers do grave harm to their spouses. This harm is in no way comparable to stoning.
I get it, but the justification involves theological concepts specific to Christianity. From my perspective, this still result in a pretty horrid worldview, and things like this are what make the leap of faith into Christianity unappealing.
Greed and self-gratification: they were invented by atheists in the late 1940s.
J
josie_L
Guest
No I won’t. I’ve explained myself.
H
happilycatholic
Guest
…waiting with bated breath…
E
Eleve
Guest
What conditions could even hypothetically make stoning as punishment for a non-violent crime necessary?
Would you say that God is good?
No, you may not. That can of worms is not relevant to the current thread of discussion.
I am curious to know in what sense I am acting as my own God. I expect that I will die, but I don’t know when. Are you wearing shoes at the moment?
J
josie_L
Guest
According to our times, yes. But things back then are not what they are now. Read about the times (and different tribes) then and maybe you’ll get a better picture.
A leap of faith requires you to trust God and his judgements. Try to imagine yourself in God’s shoes: what would you do to ensure the maximum salvation of souls without contradicting your own nature and the free will of his creation?
H
happilycatholic
Guest
E
Eleve
Guest
I trust that, just as today with all the progress that feminists have made in the last 200 years, plenty of judges would be all too willing to make objectionable decisions when the statutes could be construed to do so. And “construed” in this case means “interpreted exactly by the letter on the page.” Even if the judiciary was appointed by NOW — heck, even if the judge were such a paragon of justice as Jesus, as in the Pericope Adulterae — the bias of the law itself is not changed.
Then you deny that there are rapes coerced other than by actual (non-threatened) physical force?
H
happilycatholic
Guest
Please, please tell me that you haven’t just spent countless hours condemning stoning only to find no moral transgression in ripping a child into pieces and sucking it out of its mother’s womb!!!
Yes, cause that’s much less barbaric and horrible than stoning!
I am curious to know in what sense I am acting as my own God. I expect that I will die, but I don’t know when. Are you wearing shoes at the moment?
I would say that if you find nothing wrong with abortion, but you find stoning barbaric and morally wrong, THAT is how you are acting as your own God.
J
josie_L
Guest
I will answer your question when you answer mine.
Yes, always.
Yes, It. Is. And you won’t answer the question because you know exactly what I intend to say on the matter. Nevertheless you cannot pick and choose what consists of “fundamental” human rights or who has a right to them?
Don’t you think if He was God he would have a better sense of judgement than you do?
- Status