The PRINCIPLES of the OT Law were not wrong.

Originally posted by sonship
Of course He does.

You should stop being suspicious that God does not want the very best for you.

That's right - I should become a Me-theist! Yay, God is going to hook me up.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Oh? This sort of thing is currency?

[b]This is one of the reasons why I consider your inquest so incredibly shallow and misguided.
Well I am not convinced that I am the one that is shallow and misguided.

You are judge and jury on a case which rests upon one snippet of evidence viewed sans any background or context,
Sounds rather like t ...[text shortened]... about what I didn't even know I was talking about? Talk about taking liberties in mind reading![/b]

Sounds rather like the poor woman getting stoned doesn't it? Why was it OK for judges back then, but not for me?
No surprise: you got it wrong again.
Multiple witnesses were required for a sentence.
It took both the word of the betrothed as well as the lack of substantiation of her virginity in order to produce a judgment of prostitution, which was required to produce a sentence of stoning.

Your idiocy on this literally knows no bounds.
Or maybe you're the type who would eat his young, in which case you're simply a sociopath.
Either way, knowing that man has a natural predilection to protect his young, do you really think any parent would expose their child to this type of outcome in their lives?
If the parents failed to present their young daughters pure, the stoning took place at their door--- or did that part escape you, too?

Did I? I already pointed out that that was not the case yet you repeat the claim?
On the very page in which Zahlanzi introduced the two topics from Deuteronomy, you were right there with him, questioning the principles of the sentences, concluding that Zahlanzi "has made a good argument that this [protection of the individual] is not the case."

You will see that that came later and does not say that she will be stoned merely on the husbands say so.
Doesn't matter when you said it, it refutes the claim that you didn't say it.
Here's the line again, in your own words:
Ouch. A woman who may or may not have lost her virginity (and purely on her husbands say so) prior to marriage is 'playing the whore'?
Your assertion now--- that somehow the judgment could be disassociated from the sentence--- is mere semantics... you attempting to wriggle out of what you clearly said in light of your obvious lack of understanding on even a topical level.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Multiple witnesses were required for a sentence.

Witnesses to what?

It took both the word of the betrothed as well as the lack of substantiation of her virginity in order to produce a judgment of prostitution, which was required to produce a sentence of stoning.
So, exactly as I said.

Or maybe you're the type who would eat his young, in which case you're simply a sociopath.
Where on earth do you get that?

Either way, knowing that man has a natural predilection to protect his young, do you really think any parent would expose their child to this type of outcome in their lives?
Not only do I know that parents do expose their children to this type of outcome when the culture demands it, but I fail to see how any of this translates to me eating my young.

If the parents failed to present their young daughters pure, the stoning took place at their door--- or did that part escape you, too?
And what you seem to have missed in all this is that you are the one that supports said stoning and not I.
I am guessing that you are claiming that the parents would somehow be able to provide proof that their daughter was in fact a virgin, but as we both know, this is simply not always possible.

On the very page in which Zahlanzi introduced the two topics from Deuteronomy, you were right there with him, questioning the principles of the sentences, concluding that Zahlanzi "has made a good argument that this [protection of the individual] is not the case."
Thats the best you can do? Sorry, but you have been proven wrong, just learn to live with it.


Doesn't matter when you said it, it refutes the claim that you didn't say it.
No, it doesn't. Go back and read what you claimed I said and you will find that it is not what I said.

Here's the line again, in your own words:
Ouch. A woman who may or may not have lost her virginity (and purely on her husbands say so) prior to marriage is 'playing the whore'?
Your assertion now--- that somehow the judgment could be disassociated from the sentence--- is mere semantics... you attempting to wriggle out of what you clearly said in light of your obvious lack of understanding on even a topical level.
I wasn't trying to wriggle out of what I said, I was pointing out that what you claimed I said was not what I said. I was focusing on the 'playing the whore' phrase and not the stoning. You claimed that I talked of the stoning in this context - which I did not. You just need to learn to admit when you are wrong otherwise you just make yourself look stupid.
You totally missed my point in that sentence - proving that beyond a doubt you should not have criticized it without admitting to being shallow minded. I was actually talking about the ridiculousness of labeling someone a whore for not being a virgin, the bit in brackets was nothing more than an aside.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You misunderstand this, for there is nothing said about rape here. The man violates the virginity of the young woman by having sex with her outside of marriage. Also the age of the young woman is not stated and it states she is a young woman, not a girl. This appears to be a way of trapping a husband to me.

yes, a non betrothed woman (most likely a 12-14 girl in that time) meets a man in the open field and willingly has sex with him. even though the consequences would be dire. it is totally not rape.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
yes, a non betrothed woman (most likely a 12-14 girl in that time) meets a man in the open field and willingly has sex with him. even though the consequences would be dire. it is totally not rape.

The real question is why are we still discussing this crap that happened thousands of years ago when the culture was ass backwards to what it is now in most countries?

What is to be gained by going over these biblical tales? I say nothing since it has nothing to do with our day and time.

Originally posted by sonhouse
The real question is why are we still discussing this crap that happened thousands of years ago when the culture was ass backwards to what it is now in most countries?

What is to be gained by going over these biblical tales? I say nothing since it has nothing to do with our day and time.

some insane people still support these ass backwards crap which is downright evil. even if jesus didn't want anything to do with those insane laws, even if he threw them all away, there are still some christians (the insane kind) who defend them because otherwise they would burn in hell for daring to call god on something that was and is evil.


the most simple answer would be that god didn't make those laws and simply some savages made them up. but rather than have a supreme being who simply didn't give a fuk about every single detail of those israelites lives, these insane christians would have a supreme being who plans every little tiny detail of one tribe of people, and commits genocide, mass rape, slaughtering of innocents.


but i digress. the reason we are still discussing this is to mock these retards who still believe the OT was a good idea and to feel good for being obviously superior to them.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Witnesses to what?

[b]It took both the word of the betrothed as well as the lack of substantiation of her virginity in order to produce a judgment of prostitution, which was required to produce a sentence of stoning.
So, exactly as I said.

Or maybe you're the type who would eat his young, in which case you're simply a sociopath.
Where o ...[text shortened]... ling someone a whore for not being a virgin, the bit in brackets was nothing more than an aside.[/b]

This has gone beyond tiring.

Witnesses to what?
I dunno, you tell me.
What are you asking about here, exactly?
If you're asking what witnesses were required for what thing, then the thing is the situation which has been in view and is even now being talked about as though there might be some debate relative to the actuality of the alleged situation in consideration, which is where the witnesses are then asked to testify as to their perspective on the matter at hand in as much as they might have knowledge of it.

How could I make it any more clear than that?

Let's try this tack, since I can hear you still scratching your head.

This is what has transpired thus far.
• You made a claim that the OT law allowed for a woman to be judged as a non-virgin--- and subsequently exposed to the sentence thereof--- on the basis of nothing more than her betrothed's say so.
• Your claim was exposed as false.

But you continue to compound your ignorance on both the topic as well as the very clear words you have written...
So, exactly as I said.
No!
Not even close to what you said.
You claimed the judgment was on the basis of his say so, which the text clearly doesn't support.
The woman's father had the right to challenge the betrothed's claims before the elders, armed with the tokens of her virginity.
His claim all by itself was not considered substantial enough to cross the threshold into judgment.

Where on earth do you get that?
Because you don't even think about the logical conclusions of your bone-headed perspective of the situation.
No normal parent raises their child with hope of their future destruction.
A parent from ancient times is not fundamentally different than a parent today, with respect to wanting their child to be as happy as they can be in life.
A parent of a girl had a duty to present that young woman to her husband pure and untouched sexually.
No normal parent would knowingly put their own flesh and blood into harm's way by offering her to a suitor as pure if they know she isn't: the reward of dowry couldn't possibly outweigh the very real potential loss of her life... at their own doorstep, nonetheless.

And, apparently, the parents of ancient Jewish women not only took their responsibilities seriously, they presumably did so without failure: there isn't a single recording of any incident of such a stoning taking place in any of the records which survive those times.

I was focusing on the 'playing the whore' phrase and not the stoning. You claimed that I talked of the stoning in this context - which I did not.
The two witnesses were required for the judgment; the sentence of punishment was required of the judgment.
It really doesn't matter if you wish to make a full stop where I placed a semi-colon, you cannot avoid the sentence after finding the judgment.

I was actually talking about the ridiculousness of labeling someone a whore for not being a virgin, the bit in brackets was nothing more than an aside.
1. In your value system, virginity means little to nothing.
2. In ancient times, virginity was highly prized and valued.
3. An aside? Aside of what? Now you wish to say you weren't further qualifying and emphasizing the topic???

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
This has gone beyond tiring.

[b]Witnesses to what?
I dunno, you tell me.
What are you asking about here, exactly?
If you're asking what witnesses were required for what thing, then the thing is the situation which has been in view and is even now being talked about as though there might be some debate relative to the actuality of the alleged situ ...[text shortened]... ? Aside of what? Now you wish to say you weren't further qualifying and emphasizing the topic???[/b]

do you understand what "whore" means?

do you understand how labeling a stupid little girl who didn't thought of consequences might be a little stupid?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
do you understand what "whore" means?

do you understand how labeling a stupid little girl who didn't thought of consequences might be a little stupid?

I find your values and standards reprehensible, actually.

A young woman who engages in promiscuous sexual activity is a whore and to call her anything else is an affront to moral valuation.
If a person knowingly and willingly kills another person outside of sanctioned activity, we call that person a murderer--- a facile watering down of their action doesn't mitigate the damage done to anyone: not the victim, not the family and friends of the victim, and certainly not to the perpetrator.

That push to remove the stigma of evil associated with evil actions is repulsive, dehumanizing.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
A young woman who engages in promiscuous sexual activity is a whore and to call her anything else is an affront to moral valuation. [...] That push to remove the stigma of evil associated with evil actions is repulsive, dehumanizing.

Do you mean to say that branding a sexually active young woman a "whore" humanizes her?

Originally posted by Nick Bourbaki
Do you mean to say that branding a sexually active young woman a "whore" humanizes her?

I mean it is an honest assessment of her activity, with the intent to alter her path.
And before you get on some sanctimonious crusade to white knight the shiite out of the 'poor downtrodden who made a few mistakes,' remember a couple of things:
• it's either wrong or it isn't--- you can't say she made mistakes without also declaring the actions themselves wrong
• it was a whore who washed the feet of the Lord Jesus Christ--- so obviously redemption is possible

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I mean it is an honest assessment of her activity, with the intent to alter her path.
And before you get on some sanctimonious crusade to white knight the shiite out of the 'poor downtrodden who made a few mistakes,' remember a couple of things:
• it's either wrong or it isn't--- you can't say she made mistakes without also declaring the actions themselv ...[text shortened]... was a whore who washed the feet of the Lord Jesus Christ--- so obviously redemption is possible

I am trying to get to the bottom of your use of the word "dehumanizing", that's all. Her "mistakes" humanize her or dehumanize her? Or me not calling her a "whore" dehumanizes me? What do you mean exactly?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
A young woman who engages in promiscuous sexual activity is a whore and to call her anything else is an affront to moral valuation.

*usually a whore does it for $$

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
And before you get on some sanctimonious crusade to white knight the shiite out of the 'poor downtrodden who made a few mistakes,' remember a couple of things: [...]

I'm not interested in discussing how sanctimonious you are or how sanctimonious I am. I'm just interested in your use of the word "dehumanizing".