"God" says to stone rape victims to death

[Thinker]

...As I said before if you don't like the Rules don't join.

That would be a reasonable point of view if you also have restraints that
prevent those rules being imposed on others. In particular, there should be no
laws (in any country) that take religious works as their raison d'etre.

 

[Windy]

That would be a reasonable point of view if you also have restraints that prevent those rules being imposed on others. In particular, there should be no laws (in any country) that take religious works as their raison d'etre.

That is a very good point too Teacher , I have been wracking my brain to think of a country /countries that have such impositions ; I honestly cant think of one .

 

[Thinker]

That is a very good point too Teacher , I have been wracking my brain to think of a country /countries that have such impositions ; I honestly cant think of one .

Try any Islamic country (for almost everything), USA (gay marriage, "in God we
trust" ousting "e pluribus unum" as the motto, adding "under God" as part of the
Pledge of Allegiance, etc), UK (bans on selling alcohol on Sunday mornings), ...

 

[Windy]

Try any Islamic country (for almost everything), USA (gay marriage, "in God we
trust" ousting "e pluribus unum" as the motto, adding "under God" as part of the
Pledge of Allegiance, etc), UK (bans on selling alcohol on Sunday mornings), ...

I didnt know you were forced into not being gay in America !!!!!!!
Wow... Do the churches over there stop you buying liquor on Sundays ?
THATS TERRIBLE .
I wouldnt go to church over there .
Did you have to pledge Allegance ?
I would pledge Allegiance to Mickey Mouse if I were you .
:doh

 

[Thinker]

I didnt know you were forced into not being gay in America !!!!!!!
Wow... Do the churches over there stop you buying liquor on Sundays ?
THATS TERRIBLE .
I wouldnt go to church over there .
Did you have to pledge Allegance ?
I would pledge Allegiance to Mickey Mouse if I were you .
:doh

Thanks for making clear the level at which you debate.

 

[leejosepho]

... if you don't like the rules, don't join.
If you do join, you have to follow the rules or else what’s the point?

That would be a reasonable point of view if you also have restraints that prevent those rules being imposed on others. In particular, there should be no laws (in any country) that take religious works as their raison d'etre.

You got me to thinking there, Thinker, and even though I cannot imagine how any society could maintain an endurable level of civility apart from *some* kind of “religious works”, so to speak, the decision to “join” and participate (or not) should always, only and entirely be the individual’s.

 

[Windy]

Thanks for making clear the level at which you debate.

My Apologies to you teacher I must admit I got up on the wrong side of the bed ..You were debating fairly and I apologize sincerely :3oops:

 

[Windy]

You got me to thinking there, Thinker, and even though I cannot imagine how any society could maintain an endurable level of civility apart from *some* kind of “religious works”, so to speak, the decision to “join” and participate (or not) should always, only and entirely be the individual’s.

I agree leejosepho but as teacher says it is not always the choice of the
individual .
Where I differ from teacher is ; I see nations banning religion , I dont see them forcing folks into it ...

 

[Thinker]

My Apologies to you teacher I must admit I got up on the wrong side of the bed ..You were debating fairly and I apologize sincerely :3oops:

Apology accepted.

 

[Windy]

Apology accepted.

I have another apology I called you Teacher ....sorry
Thanks for accepting my apology:3oops:

 

[Thinker]

...I cannot imagine how any society could maintain an endurable level of civility apart from *some* kind of “religious works”

That suggests to me that you believe people only behave well under threat
(hell etc). I do not believe this. Much of the unpleasantness I have
witnessed has come from failure to accept difference (I'm Protestant, you're
Catholic; I support Celtic, you support Rangers; you're black, I'm white; and
so on).

I try to run my life on three ideas:

* Different is OK;
* Treat others as you would like them to treat you;
* I might be wrong.

None of these needs any form of religious backing or threat. To me, religion is
simply the result of a fear of and an inability to live with the unknown.

 

[Thinker]

I agree leejosepho but as teacher says it is not always the
choice of the individual . Where I differ from teacher is ; I see nations
banning religion , I dont see them forcing folks into it ...

It would help if you gave some examples. I have the opposite experience to
you: I see no places that ban religion but several where religion is forced on
people in various ways. To be clear, I don't see forcing religion X instead of
any other as banning religion. Similarly, I don't see something like the French
ban on religious symbolism in schools as banning religion; everyone is free to
do whatever their religion demands at home.

I have no problems with people holding whatever personal beliefs they wish,
but I have strong objections to those beliefs being used to justify impositions
on everyone else. I take offense at being told anything of the form "the bible
says X, so you can't do X", but I could accept "you can't do X because of
these practical reasons..."

So, I don't murder people, not because it says I mustn't in some religious
work, but because I do not want anyone else to murder me or people I know.

 

[Windy]

That suggests to me that you believe people only behave well under threat (hell etc). .

I cannot speak for the person you directed it at ; but to me it infers that
Religious people use religion as a threat...maybe some do.... but the vast majority of christians I know , never talk of Hell as they consider it to be negative.....

I do not believe this. Much of the unpleasantness I have
witnessed has come from failure to accept difference (I'm Protestant, you're
Catholic; I support Celtic, you support Rangers; you're black, I'm white; and
so on)..

I believe this to ; maybe you could add Im agnostic ; your a christian as well

I try to run my life on three ideas:
* Different is OK;
* Treat others as you would like them to treat you;
* I might be wrong.
None of these needs any form of religious backing or threat. To me, religion is
simply the result of a fear of and an inability to live with the unknown.

All three are admirable ideals and can be found in most passages of the bible
If any religion was based on threat in any of the free world countries could you see anyone embracing that ideology ?

 

[Windy]

It would help if you gave some examples. I have the opposite experience to
you: I see no places that ban religion but several where religion is forced on
people in various ways. To be clear, I don't see forcing religion X instead of
any other as banning religion. Similarly, I don't see something like the French
ban on religious symbolism in schools as banning religion; everyone is free to
do whatever their religion demands at home.

I have no problems with people holding whatever personal beliefs they wish,
but I have strong objections to those beliefs being used to justify impositions
on everyone else. I take offense at being told anything of the form "the bible
says X, so you can't do X", but I could accept "you can't do X because of
these practical reasons..."

So, I don't murder people, not because it says I mustn't in some religious
work, but because I do not want anyone else to murder me or people I know.

It would help if you could give some of your examples too Thinker...
Where are you forced to go to church ?
I don't know where you live ; but in England there are no religious Assemblies
allowed in schools .. in a democratic country should we not be allowed to
let our children say a prayer or sing a hymn together if they wish to...?
The banning of religious clothing is not just a religious thing ; it is a cultural thing . I thought you were for difference .

 

[Thinker]

I cannot speak for the person you directed it at ; but to
me it infers that Religious people use religion as a threat...maybe some do....
but the vast majority of christians I know , never talk of Hell as they consider
it to be negative.....

...but it comes across loud and clear in much of the preaching. I've heard.

I believe this to ; maybe you could add Im agnostic ; your a
christian as well

I wouldn't add that, for the simple reason that all of the people I know who
do not have any time for ideas of god, do not hate or act badly towards
believers; they simply feel they are misguided. The only time tension arises is
when one person's beliefs are used to justify bias in the treatment of others.

All three are admirable ideals and can be found in most passages of
the bible

I'm no biblical expert, but passages accepting difference and admitting the
possibility of error don't spring to mind. If they are part of biblical teaching,
someone should point this out to those tub-thumping about creationism and
demanding the adherence to their particular view of life.

If any religion was based on threat in any of the free world countries could you see anyone embracing that ideology ?

Perhaps that's why religion is in decline?

 

[vergiss]

You take me wrong . All any of us can do is to try and keep the Rules .
Some rules are hard to follow ,and we give up before we even try ,for rear of failure .
Some of them we disagree with because we don't like them anyway .
And others we try to change because we don't like them .
Which ever is the case we end up with something that can be changed by everybody , and is nothing like the original set of Rules we had in the first place . Which is pointless . So don't join .
In the Mosaic Law as you know there are hundreds of rules that were for
then ..not now .
It was a time of huge transition ; a nation of slaves who had
to follow Egyptian law , were now left in the Wilderness with no law at all .
Imagine for one moment the huge task of trying to form a cohesive society .
Look for yourself in the old testament there is a rule for everything..but it
was for then.....There is even one on how to shave your beard ..
They were there for a purpose... which it served .
As I said before if you don't like the Rules don't join .
Everytime I read the bible I find something that could hurt me ...
I have learned that there is ''No gain without Pain'' I have to be knocked
down to be built up again . It has worked for me personally although
it is not very nice learning hard lessons sometimes .

I am not "complaining about the rules". I am just pointing out that you shouldn't take the Bible literally - or, if you do, then you have to take it all literally. You can't just pick which bits to conveniently ignore, because it suits you, then get uptight over others.

What's more, I haven't the slightest idea what you're trying to say.

Ah, now I see. Thank you for the clarification.

First, the Scripture you are referencing is not exclusively addressing rape:

---
“When a girl who is a maiden is engaged to a husband, and a man finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and shall stone them to death with stones, the girl because she did not cry out [when people] in the city [could have heard her] ..."
---

At least the initial assumption there would be that the girl did not cry out because the act was consentual. However, I cannot imagine any right-ruling judge automatically having her stoned before at least asking her why she had not cried out ... for it is at least possible she had been gagged or even knocked unconscious.

---
“But if a man finds the girl who is engaged in the field, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But you shall do no matter to the girl. The girl has no sin worthy of death – for the matter is like a man who rises against his neighbour and kills him – for he found her in the field, and she cried out, the engaged girl, but without anyone to save her” (Deuteronomy 22:22-27).
---

Overall, and regardless of where the incident took place, the pertinent "point of law" concerning the girl is whether or not she had cried out *if* there were people nearby ...

... and *not* whether anyone actually heard her. If a girl was to be found guilty and stoned simply because no one had heard her cry out, then the girl in the field would automatically be stoned for not in the first place being near enough to at least someone who could have heard.

Therefore, the girl in your scenario could not be rightly stoned unless there were actual witnesses to attest to her "I consent" silence.

But it says "in a city", not specifically if there are people in earshot or not. That is why it is different to in a field - because there would be no people in the field, therefore in earshot. Also, you're theory about whether she couldn't be rightly stoned isn't mentioned, therefore we'll assume that God doesn't allow for such clauses (after all - wouldn't he have mentioned it). That's if you're taking it literally, of course.

 

[Thinker]

It would help if you could give some of your examples too
Thinker... Where are you forced to go to church ?

I don't know why you jump from "[places] where religion is forced on
people in various ways" to "you are forced to go to church".

I have given examples before of religion being forced on people: no buying
drink on Sunday morning in the UK; banning homosexual marriage, and even
banning any form of recognition (several countries); adding "under God" to
the US pledge. As a more extreme example, I could add shutting down almost
everything on Sundays (parts of Scotland and other countries)...

I don't know where you live ; but in England there are no religious
Assemblies allowed in schools .. in a democratic country should we not be
allowed to let our children say a prayer or sing a hymn together if they wish
to...?

Where do you get that idea from? I live in Scotland and have a reasonable
knowledge of England. Religious assemblies being banned in schools is news
to me. I know there have been a few loony councils that have tried to ban
Christmas and other festivals for fear of upsetting other religions, but that
to my mind is exactly the same as forcing religion on people (their religion
doesn't have this festival, so we can't celebrate it). However, my personal
view is that religion has no place in schools other than being studied as
part of a philosophy course.

The banning of religious clothing is not just a religious thing ; it is a
cultural thing . I thought you were for difference .

I don't get your point. Part of the reason for school uniform is to prevent
differences from being used to separate members of the school.

 

[Windy]

What's more, I haven't the slightest idea what you're trying to say.

Likewise Virgis.... I don't know what you are going on about ?????

I try not to do what you accuse me of ; by picking bits out of the bible that I want to believe...
I suggest you do the same...why does it matter to you so much if you don't
believe the bible???
Just get on with your life and enjoy it...
Have some tolerance as most of you pipe on about...
If I were to do as you say and tear out the pages in the bible it I didn't like... it wouldn't be very thick ...:roll:

 

[vergiss]

Likewise Virgis.... I don't know what you are going on about ?????

I try not to do what you accuse me of ; by picking bits out of the bible that I want to believe...
I suggest you do the same...why does it matter to you so much if you don't
believe the bible???
Just get on with your life and enjoy it...
Have some tolerance as most of you pipe on about...
If I were to do as you say and tear out the pages in the bible it I didn't like... it wouldn't be very thick ...:roll:

I wasn't talking only about you, but about people in general.

Do you not bother to read my posts? I'm Jewish! Of course I believe in the basic lessons in the Bible. It bothers me because people twist passages from the Bible in order to shove their agendas down my throat. They act in a hypocritical manner by picking and choosing, and it affect me in many ways.

So, I repeat, either you don't take it literally, or you take it all literally. Otherwise that's just another form of "tearing out pages you didn't like".

I mean, for goodness sakes... no one expects women to obey the rule in Deutoronomy about being forbidden to wear clothes that "pertain to a man" anymore, do they?

 

[Windy]

I don't know why you jump from "[places] where religion is forced on
people in various ways" to "you are forced to go to church".

I have given examples before of religion being forced on people: no buying
drink on Sunday morning in the UK; banning homosexual marriage, and even
banning any form of recognition (several countries); adding "under God" to
the US pledge. As a more extreme example, I could add shutting down almost
everything on Sundays (parts of Scotland and other countries)... .

You have given no examples only a few spurious arguements . Drink is allowed to be sold in the UK after 10.00 in the morning ...check it....
The uk government has given the right for civil rights for homosexual couples.
Homosexuals dont believe the bible why do they want to get married in church..the two things go together you know...
Under God is an historic pledge ..it is political .

Where do you get that idea from? I live in Scotland and have a reasonable knowledge of England. Religious assemblies being banned in schools is news to me. I know there have been a few loony councils that have tried to ban Christmas and other festivals for fear of upsetting other religions, but that to my mind is exactly the same as forcing religion on people (their religion doesn't have this festival, so we can't celebrate it). However, my personal view is that religion has no place in schools other than being studied as part of a philosophy course. .

Where do I get that idea from ?????:lol:
I live in England .....
There you go about forcing religion on people again...Answer me where do they force religion on you in the UK??????

I don't get your point. Part of the reason for school uniform is to prevent differences from being used to separate members of the school.

What a ridiculous argument couldn't you come up with something better than this???? What happened to allowing difference ???

 

[Thinker]

You have given no examples only a few spurious arguements . Drink is allowed to be sold in the UK after 10.00 in the morning

Try looking here to see a reference to religion being forced on people:
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=528402004
To quote a little of the article: "The law that bans alcohol sales before
12.30pm on the Sabbath is to be abolished as part of wide-ranging reform of
Scotland’s 25-year-old licensing laws." The change only came into effect last
month.

The uk government has given the right for civil rights for homosexual
couples. Homosexuals dont believe the bible why do they want to get married in church..the two things go together you know...

If you look you will note that I was trying to give examples from various
countries. Had you made it clear you were limiting discussion to the UK then
I would have not given that example. I would have thought closing the
example with "(several countries)" should have given the clue.

Your comment that "Homosexuals dont believe the bible" is a sweeping
generalisation. If by "believe" you mean "take every word as literal and
unambiguous truth" you are probably right, but I suspect you would have to
add the majority of Christians to the list in that case.

Under God is an historic pledge ..it is political.

Not that historic, it was only added in 1954.
See: http://slate.msn.com/?id=2067499
The fact that it is political is relevant: religion using politics to push
its agenda.

Where do I get that idea from ?????:lol:
I live in England .....

Please give a reference to the law that bans religious assemblies in schools.

There you go about forcing religion on people again...Answer me where do they force religion on you in the UK??????

I've already given a reference above to a recent example in Scotland.
Here's another:
http://www.travelpublishing.co.uk/CountryLivingscotland/WesternIsles/WesternIslesMain.htm

 

[sitegod]

One of my original points here is that it's entirely possible (and happens all to often) for a woman to cry for help during an assault, and not be heard by anyonce who could help. Therefore, according to the rules of God - you could be stoned to death for being raped and not having anyone within hearing distance to rescue you.

How very fair.

I agree, but in a city? that is incredibly unlikely- btw, this discussion has me hooked. its unbelievably interesting.

EDIT:

quote from vergiss

I'm not talking about your views on homosexuality personally, try not to be so paranoid.

Leejosepho - again, you miss my point. Hypothetically, what if a woman (who isn't mute) is raped in the city, and screams, but no one was around to hear it? Then they'd say that she hadn't (even though she had) and stone her to death just for being the victim of a crime.

if it hadnt been heard- how would anyone know it would have happened in the first place? surely the rapist wouldnt have wanted to expose himself, and the woman... if she DID say anything, the "elders of the city" would have not have punished her... so isnt this in effect a useless law?

 

[sargasm]

I believe the people who wrote the bible were human. I don't believe that any human is the voice of God.

Then obviously you havent heard of the prophet G Dubya

 

[leejosepho]

I agree leejosepho but as teacher says it is not always the choice of the individual .
Where I differ from teacher is ; I see nations banning religion , I dont see them forcing folks into it ...

What else is this but just that:

---
From: "President Declares 'Freedom at War with Fear'"
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html

THE PRESIDENT:
... Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make: Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.)
...
This is ... the world's fight ... civilization's fight ... the fight of all who believe in progress and pluralism, tolerance and freedom.
---

Pluralism and Pantheism and the like that are in fundamental conflict with Judaism, Islam and/or Christianity might not in the minds of many be traditional religions, but it is in their global-democracy-at-gunpoint impositions that other beliefs and practices are essentially banned by way of eradicating their non-compliant practitioners.

.

 

[leejosepho]

That suggests to me that you believe people only behave well under threat (hell etc).

Because there are so many people who seem to think that way, I can understand your initial assumption there. However, I am one who believes people "only behave well" while in the right fellowship and worship made possible by reconciliation and transformation. And in my own case, it was the pain of my then-very-present "hell" -- I was dying of chronic alcoholism -- and not the fear of any future one that I gave myself to that process.

Much of the unpleasantness I have witnessed has come from failure to accept difference (I'm Protestant, you're Catholic; I support Celtic, you support Rangers; you're black, I'm white; and so on).

Agreed, and same here, and that is at least one reason the thought of "only by choice" sounds best to me.

I try to run my life on three ideas:

* Different is OK;
* Treat others as you would like them to treat you;
* I might be wrong.

None of these needs any form of religious backing or threat.

Possibly not, but at least two of them first came from what is now called "religion".