"God" says to stone rape victims to death

[Thinker]

No, not at all -- I have already done so:

I'll limit myself to commenting about just one of your points, as I have great
difficulty making any sense out of the rest of your comments.

You said:

Thank you for sharing this particular theory about the origin of "good",
but for me, the circumstantial evidence against it is overwhelming.

I asked for your evidence. You claimed you already had provided it
and quoted a belief and a reference to problems in your life. Believing
something is not evidence. You claimed there is "overwhelming" evidence
against my explanation. Once again I ask you to present evidence that
relates directly to what I said, not to events in your life. Either do so or
admit that you have no such evidence.

 

[leejosepho]

I'll limit myself to commenting about just one of your points, as I have great difficulty making any sense out of the rest of your comments ...

For clarification, insight or whatever, you only need to ask!

You said:

“Thank you for sharing [a] particular theory about the origin of ‘good’, but for me, the circumstantial evidence against it is overwhelming.”

I asked for your evidence ...
You claimed there is "overwhelming" evidence against my [theory]. Once again I ask you to present evidence that relates directly to what I said, not to events in your life.

My very own life experience so far is overwhelming and satisfying-to-me “circumstantial evidence” against the particular theory you have presented as to the origin of “good” – my own best efforts along any of the kinds of lines you have mentioned left me yet dying. Also, I had spoken of a *process* in relation to that overall “life experience” first visible in my permanent recovery from chronic alcoholism, and not of any “event”.

PS: I learned a long time ago to stand completely still no matter how many bullets might be striking the ground around my clay feet.

 

[Thinker]

My very own life experience so far is overwhelming and satisfying-to-me “circumstantial evidence” against the particular theory you have presented as to the origin of “good” – my own best efforts along any of the kinds of lines you have mentioned left me yet dying. Also, I had spoken of a *process* in relation to that overall “life experience” first visible in my permanent recovery from chronic alcoholism, and not of any “event”.

Yet again you produce flowerly language with generalities but nothing specific.

Fot the last time, please give specific examples of the evidence that you find
overwhelming and that relates directly to my suggestions.

 

[leejosepho]

Greetings, Thinker.

After sitting here reading and pondering and writing in response for the past couple of hours, I have just realized I have not been clearly and singularly focused on your specific request, at least as most-recently worded:

“... please give specific examples of the evidence that you find overwhelming and that relates directly to my suggestions.”

Hence, I apologize for a bit of “preaching” in my previous responses.

First as a point of reference on which we had first agreed, but to which I do not now presume to hold you completely:

“I say man is born ignorant of essentially everything including knowledge of either good or evil, and of the ability or ‘wisdom’ (while yet in his depraved state) to figure that out on his own.”

To expose some poor wording in the above while also explaining why I now say I do not presume to hold you to that statement completely:

Yes, man might have been “born ignorant of ... the ability ... to figure [good and evil] out on his own”, but if I have heard you correctly, it is you assertion that he will/can/does (eventually) somehow either discover such an ability or at least circumstantially develop one.

Once again, and with certain distractions aside this time, here is my overwhelming-to-me evidence against any such assertion:

“Beginning sometime likely not long after ‘day one’ for me, I had to be ‘trained’ or ‘conditioned’ for a time until I was capable of actually being ‘taught’ concerning right and wrong (good and evil) ...”

... yet even after that, and as the years went by, my ultimate failure at any kind of “moral life” or “right living” nevertheless grew closer. I wanted, needed and meant to be moral or “good” and to do both well *and* good, but I did not have the actual ability to either “figure that out” or to actually do so either “on my own” or with help from others. By the time I was thirty, and while actually believing all of this was perfectly okay – so much for my judgment, eh?! – I had forced an abortion (of my own third child), abandoned my two daughters, landed in prison for burning a factory and committed rape ...

And, that is it – thus am I convinced your theory is defective.

1) If I could ever have done any differently, I surely would have;
2) “No man or society or religion or philosophy [or theory such as yours] has ever done ... what even I [had never done and] could never have done ... myself.”

And now for the third and final time:

Do you have any anecdotal (human-behaviour) evidence to in any way substantiate your theory? If so, and in keeping with the topic of this thread, maybe you could do so in some kind of reference to rape victims.

Note: As common among at least some evolutionists when making their own claims, your only “proof” so far has been in the form of attack against mine.

 

[Thinker]

Note: As common among at least some evolutionists when making their own claims, your only “proof” so far has been in the form of attack against mine.

This is pointless.

You statement is so weak as to be true but useless; you only need one such
claimant to validate it. Yes, there are some people who attack without
putting up anything in response--on all sides. It takes us no further forward.

I have tried to put forward concrete arguments or suggestions; I constantly
receive unsupported statements or meaningless verbiage. The closest you
have got to putting up a credible counter to my suggestion turns out to be
an appeal to personal experience. That's no different to claiming that smoking
doesn't cause cancer by citing a grandfather who smoked all his life and died
aged 100.

I can not have attacked your "proof" for the simple reason that you have
not provided one. You've claimed you have one, but have failed to present it.

 

[leejosepho]

This is pointless.

For you, maybe, but not for me!

You statement is so weak as to be true but useless ...

Please explain, as that statement makes no sense to me.

... you only need one such claimant to validate it.

And, I have clearly provided one ... and with several more having the identical experience nearby ... and as shared in the common experience of "more that one hundred" when "Alcoholics Anonymous" (the book) was published in 1939:

"We could wish to be moral, we could wish to be philosophically comforted, in fact, we could will these things with all our might, but the needed power wasn't there. Our human resources, as marshalled by the will, were not sufficient; they failed utterly.
"Lack of power, that was our dilemma. We had to find a power by which we could live ..." (page 45).

I have tried to put forward concrete arguments or suggestions ...

Yes, intellectually, but where is you evidence ... even just a mere smidgen? Truly, I am quickly becoming completely convinced (as I had already highly suspected anyway) that you do not have even a single shred.

The closest you have got to putting up a credible counter to my suggestion turns out to be an appeal to personal experience.

Okay, so that is all I have to offer here ...

... and now maybe you can find some way to lower yourself just a bit -- I am no longer a criminal, by the way -- and offer a little of your own!

I can not have attacked your "proof" for the simple reason that you have not provided one. You've claimed you have one, but have failed to present it.

If so, my fellow, or even if not: So have you failed to provide any kind of litmus. You certainly do have an intriguing theory, but not a single "proof" of any kind beyond the behaviour of a few monkeys ... and of course, no "missing link" either, I safely bet.

 

[Thinker]

Please explain, as that statement makes no sense to me.

You started your point with "As common among at least some evolutionists..."
In order for your claim to be true, you only need to find ONE person who
talks about evolution who matches your criterion. Add any other
"evolutionist" and you have two people. Two people can be described as
"some". 50% of two could be considered "common". You only need one lunatic
to make your claim true. For the same reason, a statement like: "As common
amongst at least some Christians, murder is acceptable", would be validated
by a single madman.

That is why I said your claim was weak. You then go on to act as if finding
such a person actually means something.

Yes, intellectually, but where is you evidence ... even just a mere smidgen? Truly, I am quickly becoming completely convinced (as I had already highly suspected anyway) that you do not have even a single shred.

Look at your own post! In it you refer to evidence I suggest ("the behaviour
of a few monkeys"). If you look back you will see that this started by my
raising a possible explanation for "good" behaviour that did not require a god.
I have given that "shred" of objective evidence, evidence that can be
checked, examined, and possibly refuted.

You have provided no evidence that can be tested. You have mentioned your
own personal experiences which, powerful as they may have been for you,
neither constitute objective evidence nor allow for any refutation.

I am no longer a criminal, by the way

Where did that come from and what relevance does it have to the subject?
I have never suggested that you were a criminal.

... and of course, no "missing link" either, I safely bet.

Indeed. The missing link is a creation of creationists, invented purely as a
straw man they can attack when they are defeated by hard evidence and
logic.

 

[leejosepho]

Look at your own post! In it you refer to evidence I suggest ("the behaviour of a few monkeys"). If you look back you will see that this started by my raising a possible explanation for "good" behaviour that did not require a god. I have given that "shred" of objective evidence, evidence that can be checked, examined, and possibly refuted.

Understood, and even a single shred beyond any observable level, kind or amount of primate "behavioural evolution" or whatever would logically be next, would it not? If it is an actual fact that "'good' behaviour [does] not require a god", where is there any evidence of that among men? Also, it would be helpful for you to attempt to prove that no "god" has even the smallest amount of influence upon primate behaviour -- that no instinctual behaviour among *any* mammals whatsoever could have possible come from Him.

The missing link is a creation of creationists, invented purely as a straw man they can attack when they are defeated by hard evidence and logic.

I doubt the accuracy of that statement, but either way, where is yours? Can you show even the smallest bit of allegedly-evolving-for-the-better primate behaviour either having any influence upon or now being imitated by -- monkey see, monkey do -- man?

 

[Thinker]

Understood, and even a single shred beyond any observable level, kind or amount of primate "behavioural evolution" or whatever would logically be next, would it not?

I cannot parse that.

If it is an actual fact that "'good' behaviour [does] not require a
god", where is there any evidence of that among men?

The question is meaningless, as you have not demonstrated that this god
concept of yours exists.

Also, it would be helpful for you to attempt to prove that no "god" has even the smallest amount of influence upon primate behaviour -- that no instinctual behaviour among *any* mammals whatsoever could have possible come from Him.

Ditto: I have nothing to prove. You are the one claiming that a god exists.
Provide evidence that there is such a thing.

I put forwad a plausible scenario where natural forces could generate the
behaviour in question. I did not claim it to be true, simply that it was possible
and involved no magic. You claim that a magical force is needed. As nobody
has ever demonstrated magic, the burgen of proof is clearly upon you to
demonstrate that it exists.

I doubt the accuracy of that statement

You seem to be happy to accept magical beings, so why doubt a statement
that you could easily research and find to be true?

 

[leejosepho]

I put forwad a plausible scenario where natural forces could generate the behaviour in question. I did not claim it to be true ...

Cool, for it is not.

 

[Thinker]

Cool, for it is not.

I see you have resorted to the playground style of argument. "No it isn't - so
there!" (add the sound of a foot stamping).

Interesting too how you pick on one part of my reply (ignoring its meaning) and
ignore the rest.

 

[leejosepho]

I see you have resorted to the playground style of argument. "No it isn't - so there!" (add the sound of a foot stamping).

Oh no, I was just saying it is "cool" that you are not saying your theory is true, for I would not want you or anyone to believe a lie.

Interesting too how you pick on one part of my reply (ignoring its meaning) and ignore the rest.

Yes, I was sticking to the simple subject of any actual evidence you might have beyond the unlinkable-to-humans and (merely?) instinctual behaviour (of undetermined origin) of a few monkeys.

As to my alleged "ignoring the meaning" of your reply ...

Beyond my own experience-driven "belief" or whatever, I have never claimed any ability to prove the existance of any "god". Hence, I was simply ignoring your latest bullets coming from a gun you do not even believe actually works.

 

[Thinker]

Oh no, I was just saying it is "cool" that you are not saying your theory is true, for I would not want you or anyone to believe a lie.

Here you go playing your word games again.The opposite of true is false.
A lie is a false statement made with the intention of deceiving.

Let's go over this again so you don't get confused. You had asked how good
could have arisen without some creator. I put up a scenario as an example;
I did not claim that it was what actually happened, just that it was
plausible. I made it clear that it was "possible and involved no magic". Please
show me the deception that lets you call me a liar.

Yes, I was sticking to the simple subject of any actual evidence you might have beyond the unlinkable-to-humans and (merely?) instinctual behaviour (of undetermined origin) of a few monkeys.

... and I'll stick to the point that you are the one bringing up magical forces
and mythical beings. I gave an example with requires none of this. I do not
need to prove it, only to show that it's credible. Just as in a court of law I
don't have to prove I didn't do something. All I need do is show that there is
a plausible, innocent explanation for the arguments against me.

I talk about things that only involve natural, observable forces; you stick to
unnatural and undetectable forces. You are the one needing to produce
evidence.

As to my alleged "ignoring the meaning" of your reply ...

Beyond my own experience-driven "belief" or whatever, I have never claimed any ability to prove the existance of any "god". Hence, I was simply ignoring your latest bullets coming from a gun you do not even believe actually works.

Yet again you twist words to gain effect. Where did I say you claimed the
ability to prove the existence of god?

What I said was "You claim that a magical force is needed. As nobody has
ever demonstrated magic, the burgen of proof is clearly upon you to
demonstrate that it exists." By "magical force" I mean the force you
introduced as "The One who created us".

While we're talking about lack of evidence, why not justify your outrageous
final statement.

 

[leejosepho]

You had asked how good could have arisen without some creator.

Please quote that alleged question of mine.

Please show me the deception that lets you call me a liar.

Please show me where I have called *anyone* a liar.

All I need do is show that there is a plausible, innocent explanation for the arguments against me.

Please list the alleged arguments against you ... and if you like, I will then listen to your explanations for -- spin of -- those alleged arguments against you.

You are the one needing to produce evidence.

For what?! I am not the one presenting any theory here!

Where did I say you claimed the ability to prove the existence of god?

Where did I say you said that?

What I said was "You claim that a magical force is needed ..."

Where did I ever make that claim?

"... the burgen of proof is clearly upon you to demonstrate that [whatever] exists."

How so? I have presented no theory needing evidence here.

While we're talking about lack of evidence, why not justify your outrageous final statement.

I do not recall making any outrageous statements at all.

Please listen closely, Thinker:

1) You have presented a theory as to a possible origin of "good";
2) I have shared my personal experience -- I failed completely at life (harming other people along the way) *and* could not stop drinking (to escape that humiliating reality) -- that has proved to me that your theory is ... oh, I believe I said something like "defective" or whatever.

Along the way, however, I inadvertantly confused the specific question a bit by doing a little "preaching" -- other people are listening in, you know -- and you then tried to capitalize on that by trying to get me to try to prove there is a "God" or whatever ...

I knew from nearly the beginning of our discussion that I was being "baited" into something, but because I did not know what that was, I just *had* to stick around to find out ...

... and now here we are:

As proven to me by my very own devastating life-failure and near death, your theory is completely defective, I say. However, I staunchly defend your and/or anyone else's right to believe and argue otherwise ...

... just leave "God" out of that debate, okay?!

Shalom.

 

[Thinker]

Please quote that alleged question of mine.

You write: "I say man is born ignorant of essentially everything including
knowledge of either good or evil, and of the ability or “wisdom” (while yet in
his depraved state) to figure that out on his own. It is within that context,
then, that I say civility (your second ideal) and humility (your third) must
come from *some* (or whatever) source outside of man, and Scripture (or
the spirit of Scripture, and now treated by some folks as “religion”) is the
only such source known to me."

Scripture is generally taken as being the word of a creator, especially when
you give the context as "outside man" and later refer to "The One who
created us". If this is not what you mean, please rephrase your statement.

Please show me where I have called *anyone* a liar.

You wrote: "Oh no, I was just saying it is "cool" that you are not saying your
theory is true, for I would not want you or anyone to believe a lie."

I made a statement (what you call a theory). Your statement above shows
that you consider my statement to be a lie. Therefore you were calling me a
liar.

Please list the alleged arguments against you ... and if you like, I will
then listen to your explanations for -- spin of -- those alleged arguments
against you.

I think you misunderstand my point. It wasn't important...and you demean
yourself by prejudging explanations not yet made as "spin".

Where did I say you said that?

You said: "Beyond my own experience-driven "belief" or whatever, I have
never claimed any ability to prove the existance of any "god"."

By throwing that statement into your reply, you invite the conclusion that I
had been saying that you have made such a claim.

Where did I ever make that claim?

You said: "In my own mind, the words and concepts "righteous" and
"righteousness" are exclusively reserved as parts of the definition or
description of the character of The One who created us, and basic
human civility/morality falls short of that standard or character even
though derived from it"

I think it is reasonable to equate "The One who created us" and "a magical
force". As you claim the concept of "righteous" is part of the character of
your creator, you are clearly claiming that the One, "magical force", is
needed.

How so? I have presented no theory needing evidence here.

You dismissed my suggestion without providing any contrary evidence short
of your own personal feelings. I supplied some evidence backing it up, so the
onus is now on you to refute my evidence or produce conflicting evidence.

do not recall making any outrageous statements at all.

You said: "Hence, I was simply ignoring your latest bullets coming from a gun
you do not even believe actually works."

I consider this statement, which claims that I dissemble, to be outrageous.

I knew from nearly the beginning of our discussion that I was being
"baited" into something, but because I did not know what that was, I just
*had* to stick around to find out ...

Once again you presume too much. I have not been baiting, I have simply
been underlining the strong statements you continually make with nothing
whatsoever to back them up except personal belief. Your life history, while
important to you and heartwarming, is personal. Your experiences and the
way your mind views them are fine as a basis for your lifestyle, but don't try
to use them to deny the possiblity that there may be other answers and
ridicule anyone who disagrees with you.

 

[leejosepho]

You have failed to quote the question you had alleged I had asked.

You wrote: "Oh no, I was just saying it is 'cool' that you are not saying your theory is true, for I would not want you or anyone to believe a lie."

I made a statement (what you call a theory) ...

Oh, come on. You first called it a theory, I believe, then later on not even saying it (as a statement) is true!

Your statement above shows that you consider my statement to be a lie. Therefore you were calling me a liar.

Oh no, I only made a statement about your theory/statement, not about you, and while simultaneously noting (about you) that you are not even saying it *is* true.

You said: "Beyond my own experience-driven "belief" or whatever, I have never claimed any ability to prove the existance of any "god"."

By throwing that statement into your reply, you invite the conclusion that I had been saying that you have made such a claim.

No, I did not "spin" -- you had already been challenging me to prove one.

I think it is reasonable to equate "The One who created us" and "a magical force".

I do not.

You dismissed my suggestion without providing any contrary evidence short of your own personal feelings.

Experiential “evidence” and “feelings” are not synonymous, and I do not recall ever sharing any feelings at all.

... the onus is now on you to refute my evidence or produce conflicting evidence.

First, you have produced no *human* evidence to refute, and second, and if you again insist, here is my own human evidence against your theory/statement you are not even saying you believe anyway:

As proven to me by my very own devastating life-failure and near death, your theory is completely defective, I say.

If I could have done “good”, I would have, and I know many people who say precisely the same thing.

I have not been baiting ...

... and I have not said you have been.

Your experiences and the way your mind views them are fine as a basis for your lifestyle, but don't try to use them to deny the possibility that there may be other answers and ridicule anyone who disagrees with you.

For myself and many others like me, there is absolutely no other possibility, and please be quick to point out to me *any* time I might ever even *begin* to ridicule *anyone*.

Give it up, Thinker: Since neither of us says your theory/statement is true, what is this discussion actually about?

 

[Thinker]

You are unbelievable. I shall just point out two places where you deliberately
misrepresent what you wrote and then leave it to those who care to read the
actual text to reach their own conclusions.

No, I did not "spin" -- you had already been challenging me to prove one.

This is a perfect example of your technique.

You said: "Please list the alleged arguments against you ... and if you like, I
will then listen to your explanations for -- spin of -- those alleged arguments
against you."

Here you describe my future explanations as "spin".

I replied: '...and you demean yourself by prejudging explanations not yet
made as "spin".

You then try to deflect the justified criticism of your remark by changing the
subject. I did not say that you were using "spin". I objected your
prejudgement of my explanations as spin.

... and I have not said you have been [baiting].

You said: 'I knew from nearly the beginning of our discussion that I was being
"baited" into something'.

"our discussion" - that's you and I.

"I was being baited" - someone was baiting you

As you constrained the sentence by "our discussion", you were
unambiguously stating that you knew I was baiting.

Give it up, Thinker: Since neither of us says your theory/statement is true, what is this discussion actually about?

It has turned into exposing your devious and underhand style of attempting
to deny what you have written. Further discussion with you is a waste of
time, as you have shown yourself to be incapable of reason.

 

[leejosepho]

You are unbelievable. I shall ... leave it to those who care to read the actual text to reach their own conclusions.

In my own opinion, that would have been best ... unless, of course ... oh, never mind.

You said: 'I knew from nearly the beginning of our discussion that I was being "baited" into something'.

"our discussion" - that's you and I.

"I was being baited" - someone was baiting you

As you constrained the sentence by "our discussion", you were unambiguously stating that you knew I was baiting.

Look at your own words there, Thinker, as you have just given yourself away! To wit: Since I had not previously mentioned you at all concerning "baiting", how could you have written what you just have unless you actually were?! But, no big deal .... and in all honesty anyway, yes, I did at first think it was you who was "baiting" me, but then I realized a certain temptation had been set before me by ... oh, never mind.

It has turned into exposing your ...

Yes, and that is sad, but please remember that I am not the one who turned this discussion into that.

Further discussion with you is a waste of time ...

Maybe so, and maybe also still "pointless" as you had previously declared it, but if you are interested, I am nevertheless certainly willing to keep right on wasting a little more of it right here and right along with you!

 

[Nezdragon]

From the book of Deuteronomy:

"022:023
If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;

022:024
Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbor's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

022:025
But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.

022:026
But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbor, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:

022:027
For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her."

Sounds like fun.

This first law covers adultery. If a man and a betrothed woman have adultery, they are stoned to death. If it is rape, and the woman screams, she lives. In the field, there is no one to hear the scream, and therefore only the rapist dies.

 

[leejosepho]

Believing there is always an answer and without having one here, I am wondering:

How convincing would a woman have to be when alleging she had been raped in the field?

How might that situation turn out if the accused man then claimed the encounter had actually been consentual?

Would "character witnesses" ever be heard either for or against either the man or the woman?

 

[Busta]

God says to stone rape victims to death, aye?

From the book of Deuteronomy:

"022:023
If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;

022:024
Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbor's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

022:025
But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.

022:026
But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbor, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:

022:027
For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her."

Sounds like fun.

Clearly, the opposite was said.

Even if anyone were found guilty of any crime to which stoning (or any other form of execution...ie; lethal injection, electric chair...etc..) were the legal punishment, there is no one who could administer that punishment;
See John 8:1-11

 

[leejosepho]

Even if anyone were found guilty of any crime to which stoning (or any other form of execution...ie; lethal injection, electric chair...etc..) were the legal punishment, there is no one who could administer that punishment; See John 8:1-11

Here is that Scripture you have referenced, Busta:

---
And יהושע went to the Mount of Olives ...
And the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And having set her in the midst, they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. And in the Torah Mosheh commanded us that such should be stoned. What then do You say?” And this they said, trying Him, so that they might accuse Him [of speaking against what Mosheh had said]. But יהושע, bending down, wrote on the ground with the finger, as though He did not hear.
But as they kept on questioning Him, He straightened up and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” And bending down again, He wrote on the ground. And when they heard it, being reproved by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning from the older ones until the last.
And יהושע was left alone, and the woman standing in the middle. And יהושע, straightening up and seeing no one but the woman, said to her, “Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Did no one condemn you?”
And she said, “No one, Master.”
And יהושע said to her, “Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more.”
---

It was not the purpose of those who had approached The Messiah to find out either whether the woman should be stoned or who should actually do that. They already knew those things, and they also knew it was not The Messiah's duty to determine either. Their purpose, then, was to try to get The Messiah to contradict Moshe' so they could then prosecute Him ...

... and He outwitted them, and in so doing, He did *not* establish any new law saying executioners must be sinless.

 

[leejosepho]

Oops!

In keeping with the revised forum rules ...

“יהושע” (in my above post) is Hebrew for something like “Y’Shua”, which, after being dragged through Greek comes out (according to some) as “Jesus”.

 

[Busta]

Here is that Scripture you have referenced, Busta:

---
And יהושע went to the Mount of Olives ...
And the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And having set her in the midst, they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. And in the Torah Mosheh commanded us that such should be stoned. What then do You say?” And this they said, trying Him, so that they might accuse Him [of speaking against what Mosheh had said]. But יהושע, bending down, wrote on the ground with the finger, as though He did not hear.
But as they kept on questioning Him, He straightened up and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” And bending down again, He wrote on the ground. And when they heard it, being reproved by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning from the older ones until the last.
And יהושע was left alone, and the woman standing in the middle. And יהושע, straightening up and seeing no one but the woman, said to her, “Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Did no one condemn you?”
And she said, “No one, Master.”
And יהושע said to her, “Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more.”
---

It was not the purpose of those who had approached The Messiah to find out either whether the woman should be stoned or who should actually do that. They already knew those things, and they also knew it was not The Messiah's duty to determine either. Their purpose, then, was to try to get The Messiah to contradict Moshe' so they could then prosecute Him ...

... and He outwitted them, and in so doing, He did *not* establish any new law saying executioners must be sinless.

It was not a presumed established law by which I made my observation, but by Christ's demonstration of moral superiority; to which I aspire.
If the scribes and Pharisees already knew this, and I do not contest that they did, then that only serves to resolve this misunderstanding that God would require the execution of a rape victim.

I reject the idea that such a passage would be written for the sole purpose of showing off how good Christ was at evading persecution.
The entire point was to teach moral lesson.

 

[leejosepho]

It was not a presumed established law by which I made my observation ...

I apologize for my implicating "spin" ...

... but by Christ's demonstration of moral superiority; to which I aspire.

What do you mean by "moral superiority"? The Messiah had been asked a question related to "the law", and He did not offer even an opinion on that matter. Rather, He pricked the consciences of those men -- while possibly even writing in the sand the names of adulterers among them?! -- thereby sending them on their way.

If the scribes and Pharisees already knew [of His "moral superiority"], and I do not contest that they did, then that only serves to resolve this misunderstanding that God would require the execution of a rape victim.

No, for that misunderstanding that had already been cleared was not related to morality in the first place.

I reject the idea that such a passage would be written for the sole purpose of showing off how good Christ was at evading persecution.

Agreed.

The entire point was to teach moral lesson.

Agreed, and while leaving all matters of "law" completely alone.