Fester wrote:
"Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:40F21255.68B9527B@worldnet.att.net...
Fester wrote:
"Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:40F14CB1.46049224@worldnet.att.net...
Fester wrote:
"Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:40EBDD37.4432E6BD@worldnet.att.net...
Fester wrote:
<snip>
Your holy book says the following:
"In the Hebrew Bible a girl's virginity is often treated as
a
valued
possession of either the father or the husband (Robinson).
For
example,
in
the law dealing with accusations of infidelity before
marriage,
it
is
the
father of the bride who must provide proof of virginity, and
it
is
the
father of the bride who is paid if the proof is adequate.
Ironically, if
the
proof is missing, it is the girl who suffers. She is stoned
to
death."
If you were living in your "promised land," would this be a
part
of
your
'Absolute Morality?"
If you expect an answer, the way to get it is to provide
chapter
and
verse for scrutiny. Otherwise you're just blowing hot air.
Your antagonistic approach to the Jewish religion is noted.
There is no more virulent Jew hater than a self hating Jew.
That's a rather defensive answerr to a straightforward question.
Let me
give you chapter and verse for a several laws from your books:
<snip we'll go with the version you provided>
Please note, that I have provided chapter and verse, without
comment.
Now
tell me, is all of this part of your Absolute Morality?
Absolutely.
If you find immorality in any of the prescriptions in the
[correct]
cites
from the English translation of "The Masoretic Text" (below),
point
it out. Otherwise you're merely blowing hot air.
LMAO, this is too easy!
Ex 21:2 If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve;
and
in
the
seventh he shall go out free for nothing.
So slavery is OK with you, provided males only be in bondage for 6
years?
Servants are not slaves.
I can't see the difference, aside from the time restriction on men.
ser·vant
P
Pronunciation Key (sūrvnt)
n.
1.One who is privately employed to perform domestic services.
2.One who is publicly employed to perform services, as for a
government.
3.One who expresses submission, recognizance, or debt to another:
your
obedient
servant.
[Middle English, from Old French, from present participle of servir, to
serve.
See
serve.]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language
Slavery as it existed under the Mosaic law has no modern parallel. That
law
did not originate but only regulated the already existing custom of
slavery
(Ex. 21:20, 21, 26, 27; Lev. 25:44-46). The Five Books of Moses in its
spirit and genius is hostile to slavery in every form.
Except that the verse refers to selling people into servitude. We are not
talking about voluntary employment here. The fact that your book merely
"regulates" slavery rather than condemns it is hideously immoral.
Again: servitude is not slavery. The former is [conditioned] on release, the
latter, not. Slavery is a constant in human affairs. It cannot be ended, only
mitigated, which is precisely what the Five Books of Moses does... for the
first time in the existence of man. It is the only moral approach to softening
one of the harsh behaviors inherent in the nature of man. There is no such
thing as a "free" man. If there where, man as the species we know him
wouldn't exist.
Ex 21:7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maid-servant, she
shall
not
go out as the men-servants do.
A man can sell his daughter into slavery for ever, and you think
that
this
is moral, huh?
It is immoral to send a maid-servant into the world on her own as you
would a man-servant.
Why?
The world is ill prepared to accommodate directionless women. Neither can
the world afford adequate protection for them, nor deal with the potential
for damage unattached women are certain to bring to it.
You've proven my point beyond doubt.
Your touchy feely delusions are what stand in the way of moral existence.
Whatever challenges your basest desires is a threat but not to worry, you
are in the company of multitudes.
Deuteronomy 22:
20 But if this thing be true, that the tokens of virginity were
not
found
in
the
damsel;
21 then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her
father's
house, and
the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die;
because
she
hath
wrought a wanton deed in Israel, to play the harlot in her
father's
house;
so
shalt thou put away the evil from the midst of thee.
And you think that all girls who can't prove their virginity should
be
killed. And not even in some humane way, no, they should be beaten
with
rocks until they're dead.
It is immoral to place the individual above the community.
And losing her virginity is doing so, in your mind.
There is the moral way for a woman to lose her virginity and the immoral
way.
And the only "moral" penalty is a gruesome death. After all, the only value
a woman has is below her waist.
Any person threatening the community by way of immoral behavior ends
by providing the community with an Absolute Moral lesson: immorality
is not to be tolerated... period.
And a woman is not
allowed to do with her own body what she wants, while men of course are
free.
Both men and women face restrictions as to what they may do to their
bodies.
I don't see a penalty for a man who has consensual sex with a woman,
provided they are unmarried.
There is moral consent and immoral consent.
And you think that such death is a "moral" punishment for doing so.
Punishment for crimes against society are severe in every culture since
the
beginning of mankind. It is no different today.
Kill, kill, kill the unclean. I get it.
Immorality breeds fear and loathing of justice... Why do you fear justice?
It is immoral for executions to be carried out without the active
participation of the community.
So therefore a particularly slow an painful death is required.
There is no reason to believe stoning to be slower or more painful than
most
other methods. The difference is that stoning involves the whole
community
as active responsible participants, not just as degenerate voyeurs.
Good clean fun for the whole family. I get it.
I know, you like to watch... eh?
Deuteronomy 22:
22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to a husband,
then
they
shall
both of them die, the man that lay with the woman, and the woman;
so
shalt
thou put away the evil from Israel.
And if the lady is married, so should he.
Why?
Whay what?
Why can't you make sense?
The verse says that if the lady is married, "both of them die."
So?
23 If there be a damsel that is a virgin betrothed unto a man,
and a
man
find
her
in the city, and lie with her;
24 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 neighbour's wife; so thou
shalt
put
away
the evil from the midst of thee.
And if a betrothed girl is raped, but doesn't scream loud enough to
be
rescued she should be killed along with her assailant.
It is immoral for a woman to submit to rape in an environment
where she can be heard without an outcry.
Submit? There is no submission involved. The relationship is criminal
and
victim.
Sure. Bet you think marital sex is rape.
Are you saying that if she was raped in a bad part of town, its her
fault for going there?
No. Its her fault for not resisting loudly enough to be heard in a
populated part of town.
See immediately below for rape of a woman where she can not be heard.
25 But if the man find the damsel that is betrothed in the field,
and
the
man
take
hold of her, and lie with her; then the man only that lay with her
shall
die.
26 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 neighbour, and
slayeth
him,
even
so is
this matter.
27 For he found her in the field; the betrothed damsel cried, and
there
was
none to
save her.
28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, that is not
betrothed,
and
lay hold
on her,
and lie with her, and they be found;
29 then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's
father
fifty
shekels of
silver, and she shall be his wife, because he hath humbled her; he
may
not
put
her
away all his days.
Of course, if she's not betrothed then the penalty is marriage for
life!
Oh
yeah, I'll go rape an unpromised virgin so that she'll have to be my
bride.
Very moral.
Absolutely moral. A compromised virgin would not get a suitable
husband otherwise.
So your morality rewards men for raping woman.
It is no reward for a man to be forced marry a woman without
possibility of divorce for whom he has no love or respect..
And you think that men value
a woman's sexual purity more than whatever else the woman may have to
offer.
As a premarital condition, yes. So it has been since the beginning of
humankind.
And you think that you're doing the woman a favor by requiring to spend
the
rest of her life with the criminal that forced himself on her.
Its not a question of favors but of propriety.
Deuteronomy 25:
11 When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the
one
draweth
near
to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him,
and
putteth
forth her
hand, and taketh him by the secrets;
12 then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall have no
pity.
And we can all agree that the lopping of a girl's hands is the right
thing
to do when she grabs her hubbies assailant by the twig and berries.
There are no restrictions on how a wife may come to her husband's
aid in such circumstances, save one... they're not called "secrets"
for nothing.
So the prudishness of this gawd of yours must be appeased by barbaric
mutilation.
Prudishness does not enter the picture. The woman has committed a
crime against society. She has soiled herself by contact and has
potentially violated a man's ability to be fruitful and multiply..
I'm just sitting here, trying to calculate the number of people who
would be
stoned to death, if your "Absolute Morailty" were to be enforced.
It is
truly horrifying to contemplate.
If Absolute Morality were enforced, crime would virtually disappear.
The "crimes" that would virtuall disappear are not crimes at all, except
in
your mind.
I see, murder, theft, arson, etc. are not crimes.
Oh they're crimes all right. And of course, you would penalize each and
every one by killing. Kill, kill, kill. It's the moral thing to do.
Execution is not mandated for every crime but you already know this. Thus
your need to invent straw men rather than sound argument. You do fear
and loath justice... don't you!
And life would be miserable for all.
Miserable is the man whose base desires are morally challenged... eh?
Even if one were to consider these
acts to be crimes, people have a sense of proportionality regarding the
nature of punishment and the crime committed. Death for the sake of
fallen
honor lacks any measure of proportion.
Without Absolute Morality it all depends on which side of the crime you
sit.
Rational people will come to different conclusions many times, but will
converge on most and especially the more important decisions.
Nonsense.
You see, the reason that you're in
exile in a world where noone wants any part of you morality, is that
people
will not stand to live like that.
Correct. Without realizing it, you've hit upon the true reason for Jew
hatred.
People do not want to kill their
daughters (or others' daughters) for having consensual sex.
Nowhere in the five Books of Moses is there prohibition against
"consensual"
sex. The only differences are in the parameters of consent.
They don't want
to mutilate their daughters for the crime of protecting their husbands.
No, they just want to give their daughters in sacrifice to Dionysus... eh?
Of the 6 billion of people who now walk
the earth (http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/popclockw), I would
(very)
conservatively estimate that your would have 1 in 100 put to death
for
just
this set of crimes (there are many other capital crimes in your
books),
for
a butcher's bill of approxiamtely 600,000,000 people! And this is
what
you
call morality.
Above.
Yes, crime would disappear if all criminal were killed. How moral.
It is immoral to perpetually cycle criminals in and out of the community.
Of course it is. People do not deserve to die for every crime.
Another of your straw men. There is no prescription of death for every
crime in the Five Books of Moses.
Thank you, but I'll have none of it. Rational thinking is not
always
possible, and is not always the best way to make life's choices, but
it
is a
whole lot better than the brutal, disgusting, depraved laws handed
down
by
the authors of the books you subscribe to.
There is no more virulent Jew hater than a self hating Jew.
Yawn. You should know full well how silly that accusation is, but then
you
think that killing all criminals is the moral to end crime.
I know a self hating Jew when I run across one... you fit the bill to a
tee.
Yawn.
Yep.
Feel free to reply, but I have need to gon in this thread. I've learned all
I need to, to conclude that your AM is the most immoral, cruel and unjust
code of laws ever devised by man.
Not surprising coming from a self hating Jew.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.
