Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged

[Luchito]

Hahaha I thought that would get you equivocating.

You tricky tricky, I'm watching you, ha ha ha ha

 

[gmilam]

In ancient Israel a dude rapes a woman, the penalty for him is to marry the woman and have her as her wife.

Does the woman have a say in this? Why punish her?

 

[Pinball1970]

If Muslims are doing "wrong" for you, such doesn't mean that they really are doing bad things,

My point was that where religion is bad for society is when it IS society, over society.
Being religious, believing in a god is fine as long as it does not encroach on my life.
That is my view and why I am a humanist although a lazy one.

 

[billvon]

You see? You took it wrong; I said "tolerance" not support.

That's part of DEI - specifically the "diversity" part. Tolerance is a big part of that.

Welcome to the ranks of DEI.

 

[Luchito]

Does the woman have a say in this? Why punish her?

That is a good point.

It happens that in those times women "used" to obey their god as well. Women were taught that in the book of Genesis says that the woman must obey the husband. The husband was to take leadership.

This part is kind of confused for many. Let's see.

I will say it this way to be better understood. The Bible means to say: a "married woman is to obey her husband".

Now we have something very different. When you put the word "marriage", the meaning of that biblical part changes a lot. The meaning of the biblical verse was to relate who will take leadership in a marriage. And Adam and his descendants understood it very well. You can notice that in the Old Testament some women took leadership over men, women were judges, leaders in war times, etc. As you can see, women took positions in society in same duties men used to take.

In simple words, a woman can be the president of the United States of America, but at home, her husband is to take the leadership.

I have watched how recent this custom has been followed in different societies. It is a hard task to do when you search books or newspapers. But watching old movies in black and white, from cultures where Catholicism was the "oficial religion", in the movies one can observe that if the son or daughter wants to go to a party or have a relationship, if the father says "no", then that was the rule. The mother doesn't even try to talk about it or challenge the husband "authority" and just showed consolation towards the affected son or daughter.

A completely different culture from today's family environment. Our current lifestyle is not better or evolved, it's different, that's all.

 

[foghorn]

That is a good point.

It happens that in those times women "used" to obey their god as well. Women were taught that in the book of Genesis says that the woman must obey the husband. The husband was to take leadership.

This part is kind of confused for many. Let's see.

I will say it this way to be better understood. The Bible means to say: a "married woman is to obey her husband".

Now we have something very different. When you put the word "marriage", the meaning of that biblical part changes a lot. The meaning of the biblical verse was to relate who will take leadership in a marriage. And Adam and his descendants understood it very well. You can notice that in the Old Testament some women took leadership over men, women were judges, leaders in war times, etc. As you can see, women took positions in society in same duties men used to take.

In simple words, a woman can be the president of the United States of America, but at home, her husband is to take the leadership.

I have watched how recent this custom has been followed in different societies. It is a hard task to do when you search books or newspapers. But watching old movies in black and white, from cultures where Catholicism was the "oficial religion", in the movies one can observe that if the son or daughter wants to go to a party or have a relationship, if the father says "no", then that was the rule. The mother doesn't even try to talk about it or challenge the husband "authority" and just showed consolation towards the affected son or daughter.

A completely different culture from today's family environment. Our current lifestyle is not better or evolved, it's different, that's all.

Oh look, another person giving their interpretation of the various patchworks of materials stitched together to form ‘a book.’

 

[exchemist]

Oh look, another person giving their interpretation of the various patchworks of materials stitched together to form ‘a book.’

Not just another person, a very special kind of idiot.

 

[foghorn]

I guess Luchito hasn’t got to the part about ‘do unto others, as you would have others to do unto you.’ I say that after reading L's posts elsewhere on this site.

 

[foghorn]

double posted

 

[exchemist]

I guess Luchito hasn’t got to the part about ‘do unto others, as you would have others to do unto you.’ I say that after reading L's posts elsewhere on this site.

He doesn't make much sense at all, really. Just comes here to annoy people a bit and disparage science in a half-hearted way. Sort of milquetroll.

 

[Luchito]

Oh look, another person giving their interpretation of the various patchworks of materials stitched together to form ‘a book.’

Sure?

I am a master's in science, a master's in religion, a master's in history.

In those tropics what I say is what it is.

I'm not just "another person" interpreting the Bible, but I am the master.

ha ha ha ha ha

 

[gmilam]

That is a good point.

It happens that in those times women "used" to obey their god as well. Women were taught that in the book of Genesis says that the woman must obey the husband. The husband was to take leadership.

This part is kind of confused for many. Let's see.

I will say it this way to be better understood. The Bible means to say: a "married woman is to obey her husband".

Now we have something very different. When you put the word "marriage", the meaning of that biblical part changes a lot. The meaning of the biblical verse was to relate who will take leadership in a marriage. And Adam and his descendants understood it very well. You can notice that in the Old Testament some women took leadership over men, women were judges, leaders in war times, etc. As you can see, women took positions in society in same duties men used to take.

In simple words, a woman can be the president of the United States of America, but at home, her husband is to take the leadership.

I have watched how recent this custom has been followed in different societies. It is a hard task to do when you search books or newspapers. But watching old movies in black and white, from cultures where Catholicism was the "oficial religion", in the movies one can observe that if the son or daughter wants to go to a party or have a relationship, if the father says "no", then that was the rule. The mother doesn't even try to talk about it or challenge the husband "authority" and just showed consolation towards the affected son or daughter.

A completely different culture from today's family environment. Our current lifestyle is not better or evolved, it's different, that's all.

Yada yada...

Making a woman marry her rapist is fucked up.

 

[James R]

Luchito:

In ancient Israel a dude rapes a woman, the penalty for him is to marry the woman and have her as her wife.

Today, when a dude rapes a woman, he is sent to jail.

Which of these two responses do you think is superior, and why?

In ancient Israel people learned the laws of their god.

How did they know the laws came from God? How do you know the laws came from God?

This dude made a mistake, he left his sexual desire overcoming his behavior and he took the woman. According to the custom, when a man takes a woman with mutual consent, both became one flesh. This custom was "extended" in cases of rape, when the dude took the woman without her consent, they were one flesh anyway.

Do you believe that rape is equivalent to marriage, because the most important thing in each case is that there has been sexual intercourse?

Do you approve of the "extension" of the "custom" you mentioned, or do you condemn that "extension"?

For you, under our culture such sounds weird, but such was what it was in former eras. Until the 50's or 60's such was a rule in many countries, when the boyfriend was found to have sex with his girl and she got pregnant, the parents demanded restitution, and the dude was to get married even by force. It was a different era.

Are you saying that God's laws don't apply in the modern era?

Remember that, at the top of your post, you said the ancient laws about rape and marriage came from God.

Were you wrong about that?

You can see that living religion is different that just being a religious person, and many criticize religion without knowing what really means to follow a religious doctrine.

If the bible says that rape victims must marry their rapists, then if you are advocating against that then you are explicitly not following the religious doctrine, as written. You're making up your own doctrine, or following a different doctrine.

Which is it, for you, Luchito?

If Muslims are doing "wrong" for you, such doesn't mean that they really are doing bad things, because they live their religion while you... you just talk trash all the time... ha ha ha ha (joking, you know that)

That's a very extreme moral relativism you've got there, Luchito.

It follows from what you said that if somebody is part of a demon-worshipping cult that demands human sacrifice, then when they murder people to sacrifice to their demon overlord they are not really doing a bad thing, because they are living their religion while you are living yours.

Can you see any problems with your position on this, yet?

 

[James R]

Sure?

I am a master's in science...

Not physics, obviously (based on your posts in a different thread). Which discipline, then?

... a master's in religion

But not in ethics, obviously, based on your arguments above. What was your master's thesis about, then?

... a master's in history.

Not the history of physics or religion, obviously. What history, then?

You didn't buy your Masters degrees from an online pay-for-credentials site, by chance, did you?

Clearly, you wouldn't just lie about having multiple Master's degrees. Or would you? Does your religion approve of lying, Luchito? Does it direct you to lie? Surely not (?)

I'm not just "another person" interpreting the Bible, but I am the master.

There's no evidence of that in your posts, so far. When are you going to start to demonstrate your mastery?

 

[Luchito]

Not just another person, a very special kind of idiot.

There is a movie, The King Rat. In this movie, in a Japanese concentration camp, a Sargeant (I think this was his military range) was the dude moving pieces everywhere, even with the Japanese soldiers. He was "the king", connecting everybody who needs his services, and somehow many depended on him. But finally, the war is over, and the US troops came to that concentration camp to liberate the prisoners. Amazingly, the when the prisoners looked at the coming troops, instead of cheering of happiness, they started to hide in fear. They practically didn't accept their new reality, it was obvious, they became used to their slavery. It took time when the prisoners finally woke up to their new reality. At the moment when they liberated prisoners jump into the trucks to freedom, the rescuers treated the King as another liberated prisoner, the King's privileges were over.

I see fear in many replies attacking my postings, even when those replies show aggressive responds or questions.

Afraid of what is new, afraid of the new reality.

Living in the slavery of good for nothing theories and now having the chance to be free and look at the universe as it is and no thru pieces of papers full of formulas based on abstract mathematics telling them what the universe is, such is too much for many here.

The King of Physics, the King of Biology, the King of History, they manipulated dudes, dudes who now will fight based on faith rather than knowledge.

Like in the movie, I'm showing you that when freedom comes at last, that "King" is just another prisoner and have no privileges at all, on the contrary, that King manipulated you, deceived you.

Some decades ago some stone constructions were found under Japan's waters. One of the discoveries said that this discover might change the orthodox chronology in today's textbooks. Historias fought hard against those stone constructions by dictating that are just natural formations. It happens that today, tens if not hundreds of those stone constructions have been found all around the word and no one a single idea who are their builders. Een YouTube is full of videos showing cavers going meters down, some of them ending close to underground running water, and one can see stone pillars of great size lying around. To reach that deep the dude with video camera had to use replacements for batteries, and so forth.

These fields of physics, biology, history, do not belong to the orthodox scientific institutions anymore, while today every new discovery challenge the traditional dictamen recited in universities and centers of science, and surely a revision is called.

Same applies with religion. Today's orthodox religious denominations also suck, they really suck. Their leaders lack of wisdom. I listen their preaching and they go around and around and have nothing new to tell.

I'm not judged them; I just feel pity for them. While historians, physicists and biologists only damage the brains of the students with stupid and good for nothing theories, unfortunately on the other hand priest and pastors are destroying souls.

Ther is no cure, today's people don't need to be judged but receive compassion.

 

[Luchito]

Luchito:

Which of these two responses do you think is superior, and why?


How did they know the laws came from God? How do you know the laws came from God?

Do you believe that rape is equivalent to marriage, because the most important thing in each case is that there has been sexual intercourse?

Do you approve of the "extension" of the "custom" you mentioned, or do you condemn that "extension"?

Are you saying that God's laws don't apply in the modern era?

Remember that, at the top of your post, you said the ancient laws about rape and marriage came from God.

Were you wrong about that?

If the bible says that rape victims must marry their rapists, then if you are advocating against that then you are explicitly not following the religious doctrine, as written. You're making up your own doctrine, or following a different doctrine.

Which is it, for you, Luchito?


That's a very extreme moral relativism you've got there, Luchito.

It follows from what you said that if somebody is part of a demon-worshipping cult that demands human sacrifice, then when they murder people to sacrifice to their demon overlord they are not really doing a bad thing, because they are living their religion while you are living yours.

Can you see any problems with your position on this, yet?

Between marrying the rapist with the daughter or sending him to jail, in my opinion both are right in accord to the culture. The rapist in ancient Israel knew the Law of God, it was part of that culture under a government based on those laws. Today, the rapist perhaps is a religious dude going to the same church the girls also assist. However, the rule of the government is the rule of men, not God.

The rapist had two choices in today's times. or getting marry, changing his life and take responsibility or just go to jail. In my neighborhood when I was a school student, a friend at his seventeen years of age caused his fifteen years old girlfriend to get pregnant. Parents of both teenagers made an arrangement. The girl will have the baby and the young fellow as soon as he finishes high school to star working and feed his new family. Both parents helped them a lot anyway, it was not the end of the world. I can't go against that decision. Those parents evade the government intervention. Then, there is no duality in this topic or issue, there are other ways to solve the situation.

The laws you find in the bible, if you notice, applied to the people of God. In other words, they accepted to obey those laws. I'm not inventing this, Moses asked them if they are to obey those laws, and the people said yes.

Like here, if people are not happy with a certain law, they must write to their congressman for change it, the congressman might start the proposition to other congressmen and if the petition as a motion goes forth, then will be discussion and a vote. In those times, one of the tribes had no men, only women. Then, the women knew that if they get marry men from another tribe, then these women will lose the inheritance in their father's name. These women wanted their lands to continue having their father tribe's name. Moses asked God and God conceded their petition.

If a society decides to obey the laws of their god, and decide to live apart somewhere, like the Amish as an example, they will handle their way the cases of rape. Perhaps they might ask the government to intervene.

You ask if the laws come from God. That is a good question. The narration says that God spoke to Moses and people were so afraid of hearing the voice of God that told Moses to dialogue alone with God. The biblical narration implies a voice from heaven talking with Moses. However, it appears that several laws are not from God but from Moses.

I say that it appears to be so, because same Jesus called it one or more times as Moses law. In other parts Jesus refers them to the Law of the Father. And this is possible that happened, because at that moment Moses was to guide the people, and he might add some rules from his own. Which ones? Ha ha ha ha, I will need a huge magnifier... ha ha ha ha

The laws of God -the biblical god- might not apply to modern parts of society. This is to say, to people who is not religious, neither for people following a different religion. In other words, if you decide to believe in the biblical god, then you must submit yourself to that god and obey him. Simple as that.

Our current government is not submitted to the biblical god, and no matter how similar some laws are found from one and the another, their application and punishment differ a lot. Then the law of the biblical god surely applies to the believer.

And about your last part.

What impedes the believer in the biblical god to fully lve in accord to the law of God is that the government is what enforce the law of the land. So, a believer in Satan making human sacrifices won't work here because the law of the land prohibits it. Simple as that.

No matter if the Feasts of God are Passover, Feast of unleavened bread, Feast of the Trumpets and so forth, and in those days people must rest one day or an entire week according to the Bible, such feasts won't be as holydays in your calendar because our government doesn't celebrate the Feasts of God, but our government celebrates Christmas, New Year, Flag Day, President's Day, etc.

With rapists and murderers, the law of the land here is what rules. In ancient Israel was different and in many other countries is also different. I just watched last night the movie Disgrace. A professor who has an affair with a young student and is kicked off the university. He went to live with her daughter, and everything was fine until one day three young black guys raped her.

You have no idea how in my mind I was making the next scene "in my way", like calling police when one of the rapists was recognized by her daughter and him. And if you watch that movie, you might turn crazy thinking that the development of the film is complete nuts. I'm telling you this because I had no idea how people's customs are way different of the government rules in some parts of South Africa. I had to stop the movie and make me a good drink and continued watching, because the way how the daughter of this professor behaves and thinks, is returning back to Abraham's era.

Watch it if you have not seen that movie yet. And in case you have already watched that movie, then you already know what I'm talking about.

 

[Luchito]

Not physics, obviously (based on your posts in a different thread). Which discipline, then?

But not in ethics, obviously, based on your arguments above. What was your master's thesis about, then?


Not the history of physics or religion, obviously. What history, then?

You didn't buy your Masters degrees from an online pay-for-credentials site, by chance, did you?

Clearly, you wouldn't just lie about having multiple Master's degrees. Or would you? Does your religion approve of lying, Luchito? Does it direct you to lie? Surely not (?)

There's no evidence of that in your posts, so far. When are you going to start to demonstrate your mastery?

Try me.

Here we are in religion, the biblical one.

Go ahead, mick my day.

 

[James R]

Luchito:

Between marrying the rapist with the daughter or sending him to jail, in my opinion both are right in accord to the culture.

So if your sister or your girlfriend was raped, you'd be happy as long as her rapist married her?

The rapist in ancient Israel knew the Law of God, it was part of that culture under a government based on those laws.

I am asking you whether you believe that this "Law of God" that forces a rape victim to marry her rapist is a good law, or a bad law.

If you could get rid of the current law of the land that sends rapists to jail tomorrow, would you like to see this Law of God about marrying the rapist implemented instead?

The rapist had two choices in today's times. or getting marry, changing his life and take responsibility or just go to jail. In my neighborhood when I was a school student, a friend at his seventeen years of age caused his fifteen years old girlfriend to get pregnant.

Did the friend rape the girlfriend?

Parents of both teenagers made an arrangement. The girl will have the baby and the young fellow as soon as he finishes high school to star working and feed his new family.

Did the girl have any say about whether she would keep the baby, or was she effectively given no choice?

Did she have any say about whether she wanted to marry the boyfriend?

Should her opinion on these things matter, in your opinion?

Both parents helped them a lot anyway, it was not the end of the world.

For whom?

I can't go against that decision. Those parents evade the government intervention.

Are you telling me that the parents did something illegal? What did they do?

The laws you find in the bible, if you notice, applied to the people of God.

What do you mean "people of God"? Just the Israelites?

Do God's laws from the bible still apply to people today? What about Christians who lack any Jewish ancestry? Do God's laws apply to them?

Who are the people of God?

In other words, they accepted to obey those laws. I'm not inventing this, Moses asked them if they are to obey those laws, and the people said yes.

Did Moses give them a choice to obey God's law or not to obey? If I recall correctly, Moses threw a bit of a hissy fit when he saw the golden calf. Didn't he?

Like here, if people are not happy with a certain law, they must write to their congressman for change it, the congressman might start the proposition to other congressmen and if the petition as a motion goes forth, then will be discussion and a vote.

Do the people of God get to vote on God's laws?

In those times, one of the tribes had no men, only women. Then, the women knew that if they get marry men from another tribe, then these women will lose the inheritance in their father's name. These women wanted their lands to continue having their father tribe's name. Moses asked God and God conceded their petition.

Did the tribe die out then, because the women had nobody to reproduce with?

What did God do, exactly?

If a society decides to obey the laws of their god, and decide to live apart somewhere, like the Amish as an example, they will handle their way the cases of rape. Perhaps they might ask the government to intervene.

Are there good ways to handle cases of rape and bad ways to handle them, or is any way just as good as any other way?

If you think God's way is best, tell me why.

You ask if the laws come from God. That is a good question. The narration says that God spoke to Moses and people were so afraid of hearing the voice of God that told Moses to dialogue alone with God. The biblical narration implies a voice from heaven talking with Moses. However, it appears that several laws are not from God but from Moses.

When the bible says the ten commandments came from God, is that correct or not? What about all the other laws in Deuteronomy, Exodus and such?

How do you decide which laws came from God and which ones came from men (of the laws in the bible, I mean)?

The laws of God -the biblical god- might not apply to modern parts of society.

Did God change his mind about his laws? When did that happen?

Where in the bible does God (or Jesus) say that the old laws will not apply in the future?

Why didn't God give us his laws for all time?

In other words, if you decide to believe in the biblical god, then you must submit yourself to that god and obey him. Simple as that.

Why must you submit yourself to God? Is it because God will punish you unless you submit?

Does God mind if somebody "decides" not to believe and not to submit to God? Are there any consequences for that?

Our current government is not submitted to the biblical god, and no matter how similar some laws are found from one and the another, their application and punishment differ a lot.

Are you in the United States, Luchito? If so, then your current government allows freedom of religion - and freedom from religion.

Theocracies all tend to start (or end up) as dictatorial regimes where the leaders have all the say and the people are oppressed. Have you noticed?

What impedes the believer in the biblical god to fully lve in accord to the law of God is that the government is what enforce the law of the land. So, a believer in Satan making human sacrifices won't work here because the law of the land prohibits it. Simple as that.

The law of the land is certainly an impediment to certain religious practices. Do you think it would be better if religious groups were all given the freedom to live by their own laws - including any demon worshipping cults, of course?

With rapists and murderers, the law of the land here is what rules. In ancient Israel was different and in many other countries is also different. I just watched last night the movie Disgrace. A professor who has an affair with a young student and is kicked off the university. He went to live with her daughter, and everything was fine until one day three young black guys raped her.

You have no idea how in my mind I was making the next scene "in my way", like calling police when one of the rapists was recognized by her daughter and him. And if you watch that movie, you might turn crazy thinking that the development of the film is complete nuts. I'm telling you this because I had no idea how people's customs are way different of the government rules in some parts of South Africa. I had to stop the movie and make me a good drink and continued watching, because the way how the daughter of this professor behaves and thinks, is returning back to Abraham's era.

Watch it if you have not seen that movie yet. And in case you have already watched that movie, then you already know what I'm talking about.

I haven't seen the movie, so I can't comment knowledgeably about it.

It's not clear to me whether you approve of the actions of the characters in the film or not, or why you approve or disapprove.

 

[Pinball1970]

it appears that several laws are not from God but from Moses.

Since there are few scholars that think there was a historical Moses (or Adam. Eve, Noah, Abraham, Lot, Jacob, Seth etc) we can dismiss those laws.
I mean they are pretty silly aren't they?

 

[gmilam]

I just watched last night the movie Disgrace. A professor who has an affair with a young student and is kicked off the university. He went to live with her daughter, and everything was fine until one day three young black guys raped her.

And in your book, she now has to marry those three guys, right... Moron.

You sure do talk a lot with out saying anything.