"God" says to stone rape victims to death

[Busta]

Originally Posted by Busta;
"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."

Almost.....
If the scribes and Pharisees already knew [that stoning a rape victim was not what the law required], 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 should have been clearer.

 

[leejosepho]

Please allow me to go back a little farther, Busta, as the things you are saying are not yet harmonizing in my mind ...

God says to stone rape victims to death, aye?

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

To me, that sounds like this:

If the scribes and Pharisees already knew [there is no one who could administer any form of execution], 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.

And when you add this:

... I made my observation ... by Christ's demonstration of moral superiority; to which I aspire.

In my mind, your mention of "moral superiority" is amounting to "no execution", and that is *not* the teaching of John 8:1-11.

 

[Busta]

Wow, I really jumbled things up on that one, didn't I?

Here is my understanding of John 8:1-11;
Clearly the scribes and Pharisees wanted to trick Jesus. If Jesus had told them too stone her, then he could have been accused of being a hypocrite; since the majority of his messages revolve around peace, love and forgiveness.
If Jesus had told them not to stone her, than he could have been accused of going agents God's law.
By saying "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her", he supports both the existing law and his message of peace, love and forgiveness. Additionally, this allowes everyone to realize "who an I, to condom this woman for her sin; for I am just as guilty of sin as she, in the eyes of God. It is for God to judge, not me".
(That's not intended to be an actual quote form anything. I put it in quotations just to represent what a person might say to them selfs)

The primary lesson that I take away from this is to not condom others for their transgressions agents me, but to forgive them.

I would not let a pedophile be allone with my kids, but I would show respect and would rely on God to take care of the rest.

It is very difficult for me to articulate all of my thoughts on this issue. I do not addopt the passive attitude of allowing a pedophile (or any other criminal) to run loose and do what ever they please....In my heart I could forgive a pedophile, by trusting in God to administer divine justice. But I would still keep that pedophile behind the business end of a gun in order to protect children. Though I am not innocent of sin (and I am no pedophile, eather), I would be hard pressed not to cast that 200-grain, 357-Magnum stone. In fact, I can remember situations in the past where I would have pulled the trigger......

I suppose that my hypocrisy is an example of the struggle Man faces.

As this relates to my original post..
"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."... this was more of a moral judgment than an interpretation of actual law.

When we conclude with our discussion about Deuteronomy 20:23-27 and John 8:1-11, I would appreciate your input about Ephesians 1:3.

 

[leejosepho]

Wow, I really jumbled things up on that one, didn't I?

Possibly so, but neither is my hearing always completely dependable!

Here is my understanding of John 8:1-11 ...

The primary lesson that I take away from this is to not condom others for their transgressions against me, but to forgive them.

Agreed. We are not to seek vengence even while justice is being served, and we must keep in mind that it is only by grace we are not already dead ourselves.

It is very difficult for me to articulate all of my thoughts on this issue. I do not addopt the passive attitude of allowing a pedophile (or any other criminal) to run loose and do what ever they please....In my heart I could forgive a pedophile, by trusting in God to administer divine justice. But I would still keep that pedophile behind the business end of a gun in order to protect children. Though I am not innocent of sin (and I am no pedophile, eather), I would be hard pressed not to cast that 200-grain, 357-Magnum stone. In fact, I can remember situations in the past where I would have pulled the trigger......

I suppose that my hypocrisy is an example of the struggle Man faces.

Personally, I would say the pulling of that trigger would be hypocrisy in the form of *not* waiting for "divine justice", but I believe the mere pondering of such is both instinct-driven and part of learning still more about what The Messiah actually did teach.

As this relates to my original post..
"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."... this was more of a moral judgment than an interpretation of actual law.

Understood, and thank you for your additional thoughts also. My initial concern was that you were headed toward saying forgiveness somehow does away with punishment.

... I would appreciate your input about Ephesians 1:3.

It is part of some preliminary comments establishing a context for the essence of what begins around 4:1.

 

[Aryan Imperium]

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.

Correction. Your "god" commands this.

 

[ScottMarian]

vergiss
One of your comments reminded me that in old Italy they use to hang the sheets of a newly married couple outside the window to prove she was a virgin. I like the old ways.

 

[theheartbreakkid13]

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.

I think you misunderstand if the woman was forced into rape then she should not be stoned and the man should but if she comitted adultery then the husband shall stone her and the man, because it has broken the commandment "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife."

 

[SKILMATIC]

Back in the old days women got raped alot more often then today. It was like a normal everyday thing for a man to rape a woman back then.

 

[Busta]

Back in the old days women got raped alot more often then today. It was like a normal everyday thing for a man to rape a woman back then.

Be ready to back that up.....

 

[SKILMATIC]

Be ready to back that up.....

Sure we can look at even recent history to prove that if there isnt a law or a enforcer of that law in place then men will do what he pleases(which having sex with a good looking woman is one of them). I will ask you to simply look back in WW2 remember the rpae of Nankang? Over 100,000women and little girls got raped by the Japanese oppressors. Do I need to provide a link for that claim? Or can you use your head and common sense to see simple pictures?

 

[Busta]

Sure we can look at even recent history to prove that if there isnt a law or a enforcer of that law in place then men will do what he pleases(which having sex with a good looking woman is one of them). I will ask you to simply look back in WW2 remember the rpae of Nankang? Over 100,000women and little girls got raped by the Japanese oppressors. Do I need to provide a link for that claim? Or can you use your head and common sense to see simple pictures?

I think you have the wrong idea. I have no doubt that more rapes per capita happened in ancient times than in today; and for the same reasoning as you.

It seems that when ever anyone says anything without including 10,000 links and sources on this forum, some blogers are all to eager too call them liers and begin the personal insults and attacks.

Just giving you a friendly "heads-up".