About
Contact
Advertise

Facebook
Twitter

September 29, 2011 8:00am by Kokila Patel

General Debate 29 September 2011

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment184

Uncategorized
General Debate

Comments (184)

Login to comment or vote

Johnboy

You Catholics are starting to give Christians everywhere a bad name?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 7:50pm
nasska

Pauleastbay

You’re too late with the message. They drop kick him out of the library at 7.0pm & he goes home to get a head start on his bedtime prayers.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 7:53pm
Pauleastbay

Answer what Andrei?, beautiful setting, beautiful singing.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 7:53pm
wat dabney

FES,

On the contrary, it is you who are misleading. You are simply omitting the verse where the rape victim has to be killed.

23 “If there is a girl who is a virgin engaged to a man, and another man finds her in the city and lies with her, 24 then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and you shall stone them [n]to death; the girl, because she did not cry out in the city, and the man, because he has violated his neighbor’s wife. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you.

25 “But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die. 26 But you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl worthy of death, for just as a man rises against his neighbor and murders him, so is this case. 27 When he found her in the field, the engaged girl cried out, but there was no one to save her.

28 “If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2022&version=NASB

The rule is that rapes in a built up area mean the victims must be be stoned to death. You see ladies, if you don’t cry out when you are raped in town it implies that you are a willing participant. And you have therefore to be killed in the cruelest way possible – by stoning you.

My advice? Rape alarm.

It might not stop you getting raped but if you can at least show that you used it it will go well for you when you are on trial for your life afterwards (on the other hand if you don’t get a chance to use it before being hit over the head then that undeployed alarm means you’ve signed your own death warrant.) Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 7:55pm
Johnboy

Don’t encourage him Wat. Tell him to get shagged on the beach sometime! 🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 7:57pm
F E Smith

Wat,

Which verse did I leave out? I can’t see where what I posted is misleading at all- could you please point it out?

You see ladies, if you don’t cry out when you are raped in town it implies that you are a willing participant.

That is how it reads to me. Which means it is not rape but fornication. Something that was, it seems, punishable by death in ancient Israel.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 7:59pm
nasska

Four Star Hangover (Part 4 of 6)

You have lost the will to live. Your head is throbbing and you can’t speak too quickly or else you might spew.

Your boss has already lambasted you for being late and has given you a lecture for reeking of booze.

You wore nice clothes, but you smell of socks, and you can’t hide the fact that you (depending on your gender) either missed an oh-so crucial spot shaving, or, it looks like you put your make-up on while riding the dodgems.

Your teeth have their own individual sweaters. Your eyes look like one big vein and your hairstyle makes you look like a reject from a Year 2 class circa 1976.

You would give a weeks pay for one of the following – home time, a doughnut and somewhere to be alone, or a Time Machine so you could go back and NOT have gone out the night before.

You scare small children in the street just by walking past them.

To be continued………
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 8:00pm
Pauleastbay

Wat,

23 is about the “shelia” have a stray, nothing about raping, “
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 8:00pm
Pauleastbay

Nasska

are we steppping here? serious question.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 8:02pm
Andrei

Where does the inspiration come from – Paul?

Where?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 8:02pm
nasska

Pauleastbay

…”are we steppping here? serious question.”…..

Don’t quite get you…can you rephrase?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 8:07pm
Pauleastbay

An idea Andrei, just an idea, not a fact.

As I said belief systems are wonderful but I truly believe they are like your sexual relationship with your wife, they are your business and frankly I am not interested, and GD has been ordinary lately, thanks to God Botherers and the climate yawn

Its wonderful that people have been inspired to create beautiful music and paint great beauty but that is all
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 8:09pm
Steve

For those still reading, there is nothing wrong with a stray on the beach. Sand in the grommet not good but it dont hurt when you’re pissed
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 8:09pm
Pauleastbay

Nasska

Just sounds like stuff I have said in drafty basements , that is all
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 8:10pm
Pete George

“Imagine” is widely regarded as inspired.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 8:11pm
Scott Chris

“Atheism is a non-prophet organization.”

Anon

“What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of “humility.” This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism.”

Albert Einstein

“We could call order by the name of God, but it would be an impersonal God. There’s not much personal about the laws of physics.”

Stephen Hawking

“I like Christ, I do not like Christians. Christians are so unlike Christ.”

Mahatma Ghandi

Religion isn’t the cause of war. It’s just the excuse.

Jasper Fforde
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 8:16pm
Shunda barunda

And John Lennon is widely regarded as dead.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 8:20pm
wat dabney

Pauleastbay,

Verses 23/24 talk the scenario in the town – where there are people around to hear – and 25/26 talk about the same situation out in the field, where there’s no one to hear. That’s the difference that’s being explained. It’s the same girl in both pairs of verses and the same thing is happening to her. The only difference is that, out in the field, “there is no one to save her.” That’s the only difference, and that’s why the girl gets treated differently.

When she is raped in town, in verses 23/24, if she doesn’t cry out enough then she’s considered culpable, and must be stoned to death.

The same situation out in the field, where there’s no one to cry out to, means she’s not considered culpable.

But it’s still rape in both pairs of verses. That’s why the man is killed, for the “violation.”

FES,

“That is how it reads to me. Which means it is not rape but fornication.”

The implication is that any rape victim who doesn’t cry is actually a willing participant.

All a defense lawyer has to do is ask a victim if she cried out, and if she says no then the defendent walks free? (oh wait, no: both of them are stoned to death aren’t they.)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 8:23pm
Johnboy

True Steve. Lord Birkenhead won’t talk to me anymore cause he knows the only thing he has ever fucked is the welfare for lawyers system.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 8:25pm
Pete George

Shunda – so is Tchaikovsky.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 8:25pm
Pauleastbay

Wat

23. “lies”

25. “forces”

28. Seizes

No force in 23, thats why they both cop it and she was engaged. She wasn’t raped in 23 Wat, she wanted sex with somebody who could comprehend.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 8:27pm
reid

Goodness there’s been a great of religious debate this last week on KB. It’s all rather exciting to we Christians.

Keep it up lads, the more you talk about it the more you think about it and that’s a very good thing.

After all, if we Christians are in fact right and you others are, in fact, wrong, would it not be a pity to have only spent a teeny part of one’s thought-time on that most important issue which to your great regret since you’re now dead and have discovered that yes, you were wrong, you can’t now do anything about?

D’oh doesn’t really begin to cover it, does it.

Excellent.

It’s all coming together.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 8:28pm
Chthoniid

You mean if I’m an atheist, I won’t spend eternity kissing Jesus’s arse, thanking him for not sending me to hell to be tortured.

AWESOME!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 8:40pm
Scott Chris

Andrei was on holiday in Queensland, but alas, it pissed down with rain for days on end, and the waters began to rise. Everyone except Andrei fled for higher ground.
Stubbornly staying put he proclaimed,”God will save me, so I’m not going anywhere!”

The flood got higher. Luckily a boat came by and a rescuer said “Come on mate, get in!”
“No” replied Andrei. “God will save me!”

The flood got very high now and Andrei was forced to stand on the roof of his chalet.
Fortunately, a helicopter spotted him and lowered a harness for Andrei to grab hold of.
“No, God will save me!” he said

Sadly, the floodwaters didn’t abate, and Andrei was swept to his doom.
So when he got to heaven, Andrei was rather miffed. He marched up to God, and demanded, “I had faith in you Lord. Why didn’t you save me?”
Testily, God replied, “For fuck’s sake! First I sent a boat, and then a helicopter. What more do you want!”
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 8:41pm
F E Smith

Wat,

I agree with Pauleastbay’s point at 8.27pm. There is a difference in the language there, and quite a significant one. My opinion, from reading what you quoted and the subsequent verses, is that your quote does not talk about rape but about fornication. The next two examples are indeed rape, as Pauleastbay points out in the wording differences.

The implication is that any rape victim who doesn’t cry is actually a willing participant.

And I agree with you, apart from the word ‘rape’. I don’t think that fits in your quote. There is nothing in that quote to indicate a lack of consent. It appears to imply that if she was being raped then she would have cried out, which , given the way towns were set out in the Middle East of the day appears a reasonable assumption.

All a defense lawyer has to do is ask a victim if she cried out, and
if she says no then the defendent walks free? (oh wait, no: both of them are stoned to death aren’t they.)

I don’t get that. Where does a defence lawyer come into it? The question you are positing would be asked by a prosecution lawyer.

EDIT: Actually, from my recall of ancient family customs from my history books, the engaged virgin would possibly be guilty of adultery, not fornication. Which, I think, is counted as being worse in many societies.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 8:41pm
wat dabney

Pauleastbay,

You are ignoring the fact that the two pairs of verses are talking about the same event, in town and in a field respectively. i.e. one situation where there is (supposedly) help around and the other where there isn’t. That’s the only difference. You are just playing word games when you say that one has the word “lies” and other “seizes” or “forces.” Some translations use the word “sleeps.” Do you suppose it is really talking about going to sleep?

In town, a rape victim who is able to scream and get help won’t be killed. But if she doesn’t scream she must be stoned to death.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 8:42pm
Johnboy

Hello Mi Lord can you give us a breakdown of how much you have ripped off the WWL (Working for Welfare for Lawyers) this year? 🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 8:45pm
Scott Chris

Shunda barunda – “John Lennon is widely regarded as dead.”

Depends how you look at it. Long after you or I have died, the *idea* of John Lennon will be alive and well, along with all his recordings.

Jesus is pretty much the same. He’s arguably more alive now than when he was alive.

Doing quite well for a 2000 year old but some would say he’s lost the plot.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 8:46pm
Johnboy

Note: You may charge out legal clerks at the same rate as QC’s as it is a commonly accepted practice amongst the ‘Practice’. 🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 8:47pm
renderer

Lee01 3:20
Mathematical Evidence Against Evolution

The ramblings of an american evangelist with veiws on Music, Science, Politics, Religion and government
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 8:48pm
F E Smith

Wat,

I disagree that they are talking about the same event but in different places. I think the difference in wording has to be a point of difference. Those latter two examples indicate violence, whereas the first does not.

And we use the word ‘sleep’ for to describe consensual sexual intercourse in the modern day, so perhaps those translations are doing the same thing?

No, I think Paul has it right.

EDIT: Duh, “because he has violated his eighbor’s wife.”
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 8:48pm
F E Smith

I mean “neighbour’s!”
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 8:52pm
reid

Jesus is pretty much the same [as John Lennon]

Er.

Try again Scott. I mean I love his music but not quite the same league, for me. Ask me in several thousand years and let’s see about it then…

Thanks for your explication last night on GD, appreciate your thoughts and agree with your position in every respect but you know which…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 8:55pm
Pauleastbay

Wat

The woosh you just heard was stuff going over your head.

She didn’t cry out in the city because she was a willing participant in the rogering, ergo as she was engaged she is looked upon as an adulteress, the bloke cops it because he is tupped his neighbours wife.

She doesnt get the chop in the next scenario because she was forced ,even if she did cry out there was nobody to save her. If the forcing had taken place in the city the presumption is she would have cried out, unless her mouth was full, and she would have been rescued. See she was engaged so he dies because he’s taken another mans wife (to be)

Next hes has to marry her because she was not engaged a bit harsh this one but at least no body dies.

Simple really, not a play on words just ya basic comprehension
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 8:57pm
Andrei

Do you think your little joke will have the staying power of this, Scott Chris?

Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.

2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.

3 And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.

4 The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away.

5 Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.

6 For the LORD knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish.

Or will it be forgotten five minutes after it was uttered?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 8:57pm
wat dabney

FES,

Do you agree that verses 23/24 are talking about the same event as verses 25/26 – the only difference being whether it takes place in town or field?

The opening of verse 25 makes this very clear: “But if the field the man finds the girl who is engaged…”

That’s the same engaged girl (hence “the girl”, not “a girl”) just discussed in 23/24: “If there is a girl who is a virgin engaged to a man…”

It’s the same event, the only difference is the context. It’s rape that is being discussed in these sentences. Hence the need to “cry out” to people who can “save her.”

“It appears to imply that if she was being raped then she would have cried out, which , given the way towns were set out in the Middle East of the day appears a reasonable assumption.”

So any woman who doesn’t cry out is, by definition, not raped? Really? That is what the Bible tells us? That’s what you think?

Because that’s the very point. If she doesn’t put up enough of a fight (more specifically, find the courage to scream) then she is to be stoned to death.

“I don’t get that. Where does a defence lawyer come into it? The question you are positing would be asked by a prosecution lawyer.”

The man’s defence lawyer would ask the girl if she cried out. If she didn’t – for any reason – including a knife to the throad – then, according to the Bible, that is proof of consent.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 9:00pm
Scott Chris

One day, Johnboy and Kris K went deer hunting. A couple of days later, Johnboy returned alone, staggering under the weight of a huge buck.

“Where’s Kris K?” the Johnboy’s wife asked.

Johnboy replied rather sheepishly, “He had an accident of some kind….. He’s a couple of miles back up the trail.”

His wife gasped, “You left Kris K laying out there and carried the deer back?”

“It was a tough call,” nodded Johnboy, “but I figured that nobody would steal Kris K.”
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 9:02pm
Scott Chris

reid

I didn’t explain myself well enough. Jesus and John Lennon are mutually exclusive, but both are alive in ways other than the physical. That was the point I was trying to make, not to belittle Jesus.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 9:07pm
reid

It’s interesting to note not once in the wat-FES debate has a biblical scholar been raised.

I’m betting FES has got one waiting as a surprise witness.

That was the point I was trying to make, not to belittle Jesus.

Absolutely Scott I know you’re not like that. Christian spiritual thinking is different from spiritual emotion per se. All of us have spiritual emotion.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 9:08pm
Johnboy

Stupid joke Scott. He has already been stolen by his Lord. 🙂

However if I ever went hunting with some scrawny arsed lawyer with an overblown opinion of his importance, well that could be another story! 🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 9:08pm
Lazybum

Good to see Labour have completly removed the Election hording from the corner of Tauhinu & Greenhithe Road, Greenhithe, Auckland I kicked/pulled down on Sunday. Reason was the signs were not meant to go up until Monday.
May be a few midnight raids coming up:)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 9:09pm
Johnboy

‘I’m betting FES has got one waiting as a surprise witness.’

Only if he can claim excessive expenses from WWL reid! 🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 9:11pm
F E Smith

Wat,

Do you agree that verses 23/24 are talking about the same event as verses 25/26 – the only difference being whether it takes place in town or field?

As I have already said, no, I do not. My reading is that the town one is thought to be consensual, because if she was being raped then she would have cried out. To be honest, many juries today would still think this. I don’t know if the Bible says that elsewhere, but it isn’t what I think personally, although I would suspect that if a woman was being raped in an area where people can be alerted easily, then she would be more likely to cry out. That is not to say that it should be considered compulsory. Rape is wrong, in whatever context.

The man’s defence lawyer would ask the girl if she cried out. If she didn’t – for any reason – including a knife to the throad – then, according to the Bible, that is proof of consent.

No, the defence lawyer would not ask that. Because if the defence lawyer was asking that question then the defence would already be accepting that there was a sexual encounter between the man and the woman. That would, it seems, ensure a death sentence at least for the male. The male defendant’s only option is to dispute that there was an encounter at all. So, again, the question you posit would not be asked by a defence lawyer for the man.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 9:13pm
reid

That was the point I was trying to make, not to belittle Jesus.

Absolutely Scott I know you’re not like that. Christian spiritual thinking is different from spiritual emotion per se. All of us have spiritual emotion.

Which is why all of us enjoy music. There is a definite spiritual element to the human presence on Earth. Why people don’t sense this obvious reality is beyond me but many non-religious people sense it too.

So what is it, is the question both of us try to answer.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 9:14pm
F E Smith

Reid,

It’s interesting to note not once in the wat-FES debate has a biblical scholar been raised.

Fair point. I am just indulging in a little statutory interpretation, that is all. What do the biblical scholars say?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 9:14pm
Scott Chris

Andrei – re the joke:

It be forgotten soon after it was uttered. But it wasn’t a nasty joke, and may have generated some ephemeral levity.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 9:15pm
Pauleastbay

FE Smith

Why oh why did you ask that? aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah
cue 88 pages of links to Jimbobs Bible College of Little Rock.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 9:17pm
F E Smith

Actually, a good point, Reid.

From Matthew Henry’s commentary:

IV. If a damsel were betrothed and not married, she was from under the eye of her intended husband, and therefore she and her chastity were taken under the special protection of the law. 1. If her chastity were violated by her own consent, she was to be put to death, and her adulterer with her, Deuteronomy 22:23,24. And it shall be presumed that she consented if it were done in the city, or in any place where, had she cried out, help might speedily have come in to prevent the injury offered her. Qui tacet, consentire videtur–Silence implies consent. Note, It may be presumed that those willingly yield to a temptation (whatever they pretend) who will not use the means and helps they might be furnished with to avoid and overcome it. Nay, her being found in the city, a place of company and diversion, when she should have kept under the protection of her father’s house, was an evidence against her that she had not that dread of the sin and the danger of it which became a modest woman. Note, Those that needlessly expose themselves to temptation justly suffer for the same, if, ere they are aware, they be surprised and caught by it. Dinah lost her honour to gratify her curiosity with a sight of the daughters of the land. By this law the Virgin Mary was in danger of being made a public example, that is, of being stoned to death, but that God, by an angel, cleared the matter to Joseph. 2. If she were forced, and never consented, he that committed the rape was to be put to death, but the damsel was to be acquitted, Deuteronomy 22:24-27. Now if it were done in the field, out of the hearing of neighbours, it shall be presumed that she cried out, but there was none to save her; and, besides, her going into the field, a place of solitude, did not so much expose her. Now by this law it is intimated to us, (1.) That we shall suffer only for the wickedness we do, not for that which is done to us. That is no sin which has not more or less of the will in it. (2.) That we must presume the best concerning all persons, unless the contrary do appear; not only charity, but equity teaches us to do so. Though none heard her cry, yet, because none could hear it if she did, it shall be taken for granted that she did. This rule we should go by in judging of persons and actions: believe all things, and hope all things. (3.) That our chastity should be as dear to us as our life when that is assaulted, it is not at all improper to cry murder, murder, for, as when a man riseth against his neighbour and slayeth him, even so is this matter.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 9:20pm
wat dabney

FES

“If there is a girl who is a virgin engaged to a man, and another man finds her in the city…blah blah blah…But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged…blah blah blah…

The same engaged girl. The only difference being explored and explained between the two pairs of verses is whether the act takes place in town – where there are people to hear – or field – where there are not.

It’s the same act but in two different contexts.

If it’s rape in the second pair of verses then it’s rape in the first pair.

Otherwise what’s the point of stressing the town and field environments and whether there are other people around? It becomes irrelevant it you try to have that the first two verses are talking about consensual sex whilst the other two are talking about rape. What’s was all that stuff about fields and towns if we’re talking about two entirely different acts? The context could have been omitted entirely.

It’s the same act being committed in either case. It’s just that in the field there is no one to hear her scream, but in the town if she doesn’t scream for any reason then she is considered to have consented.

“No, the defence lawyer would not ask that…That would, it seems, ensure a death sentence at least for the male. ”

Yes, I did observe that. But for the rape charge you are suggesting that if the woman concedes that she didn’t cry out then by definition no rape took place. This is biblical law.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 9:21pm
F E Smith

Paul,

sometimes I just can’t help myself! Even as I continue the debate I am wondering why, oh why…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 9:22pm
reid

What do the biblical scholars say?

It was a joke FES. I’m not even sure what the question is. However I am available as a Judge in this case should you require such.

Fee’s a bit steep but I’m sure wat’s got plenty.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 9:24pm
Johnboy

‘I am wondering why, oh why…’

Cause you are a fucking poser with a huge ego?? 🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 9:25pm
Mick Mac

Scott Chris (1,687) Says:
September 29th, 2011 at 8:46 pm

Where are your brains, I assure you Jesus has not lost the plot.
You have a lot of pride to make a statement like that.
I look forward to the last day when you are on your knees before Him with the rest of us.
there will be no smart cracks then, nor jokes belittling others.
You (as we all will) will be being held to account for our lives.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 9:25pm
Scott Chris

Johnboy

I thought you came out of the joke rather well, all macho with a huge buck and stuff. Had your priorities right too. And no sheep shagging either. Can’t speak for Kris K though….

BTW I got my 30 demerits rescinded after I wrote to DFP and explained the context of my comment:

“[DPF: 30 demerits – rescinded]”

Didn’t even have to hire F E Smith 😛
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 9:25pm
Pauleastbay

Wat
You’ve been smoked over, we all get beaten,.. for you to continue will just seem ungracious
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 9:26pm
Mick Mac

nasska (1,761) Says:
September 29th, 2011 at 8:00 pm

no never been there.
whats 3 again?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 9:28pm
Johnboy

Fuckin lucky you didn’t Scott it would have been 90 demerits and and an inquiry from the SFO if you used that useless prat.

What the hell is wrong with shagging sheep?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 9:29pm
Scott Chris

Mick Mac – “I assure you Jesus has not lost the plot.”

It’s not what I said. Those who may have lost the plot are some of the men who have recorded and interpreted his actions and deeds.

To err is human.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 9:29pm
Mick Mac

Manolo (4,882) Says:
September 29th, 2011 at 4:23 pm

If they’ve got any sense that 95% will not vote for the messiah this time.
As for the Jews, if they haven’t worked out he is a Israel hater by now they will if they reelect him.
Jews who hate Israel – go figure, I can’t.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 9:31pm
F E Smith

Wat,

But for the rape charge you are suggesting that if the woman concedes
that she didn’t cry out then by definition no rape took place.

Well, I am not saying that personally, but it is a correct interpretation of the passage, from what I read of the it. I think that bit of the commentary that I posted above covers it:

And it shall be presumed that she consented if it were done in the city,
or in any place where, had she cried out, help might speedily have come
in to prevent the injury offered her. Qui tacet, consentire
videtur–Silence implies consent.

In town people will hear you cry out, therefore if you are being raped you will obviously cry out and people can come to your aid. However, if you are being raped and do not cry out, then it does look like you might have been complicit.

for any reason

Now, I don’t read that as being part of the deal. I would say that if the victim was gagged, for example, that would make a difference. I don’t know, I am a present day defence lawyer, not a bibilical scholar or ancient Israelite.

Therefore we are talking about two different acts, just worded in a similar fashion. Hence the difference in the words denoting the act of intercourse.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 9:32pm
reid

What the hell is wrong with shagging sheep?

Yes indeed Johnboy. Why it’s amazing there’s even a law against it, isn’t it.

What has the world come to, over these years. 🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 9:34pm
Viking2

VSM Bill not all bad

Thursday, 29, Sep, 2011 11:30AM

It might take a couple of years to rebuild the membership, but it’s not the end of the world.

Dr Matt Flannagan was the president of the Waikato University Students’ Association when voluntary membership was introduced there.

He says the move in Parliament last night to have student union membership made optional will make the organisations look at the way they do business, and that is not all bad.

Dr Flannagan says it made Waikato realise money was being spent on propping up the pet political causes of certain strident student activists.

“We had a finger in every pie, we couldn’t justify propping up businesses and things that were making massive losses and weren’t really providing the majority of students with a service,” he told Newstalk ZB’s Mike Hosking

He says most students don’t care about politics to the extent of wanting to join the student union.

By Alexia Russell
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 9:34pm
F E Smith

Actually, there is an interesting commentary here:

First, it is important to recognize the preceding context. Deuteronomy 22:22 commands the death penalty for adultery; both the man and the woman are to be put to death. Deuteronomy 22:23-24
commands the death penalty for both the man and the woman in an
instance of a man having sex with a woman who is betrothed (engaged). It
seems to be speaking of consensual sex, since the woman does not cry
out for help. Deuteronomy 22:25-27 seemingly commands the death penalty for a man who “rapes” a woman who is betrothed.
Second, it is important to understand that the Hebrew words used in
Deuteronomy 22, verses 25 and 28 do not necessarily indicate rape. In
verse 25, the Hebrew word chazaq is used, and it essentially means “seize,” or “take hold of.” In verse 28, a different Hebrew word taphas is used, and while it has a very similar meaning to chazaq, it is not the same word. In both verses 25 and 28, the Hebrew word shakab
is used, and while it literally means “lie down,” it is used throughout
the Old Testament to refer to sexual intercourse. So, both verses 25
and 28 describe a man seizing and having sex with a woman. While this is
a possible description of rape, it does not explicitly refer to rape.
Also, the differences in the Hebrew words between Deuteronomy 22, verses
25 and 28, could be interpreted as verse 25 referring to rape, with
verse 28 referring to consensual sex. Further, in other Old Testament
passages that refer to rape, different Hebrew words are used (Judges 19:25, 20:5; 2 Samuel 13:14, 32; Zechariah 14:2).
Third, we should not read the modern image of a violent rape into Deuteronomy 22:28-29.
The passage gives very few details in regards to what is being
described. All it describes is a man seizing a woman and having sex with
her. To automatically assume that it was a violent encounter with the
man brutally attacking the woman is not biblically supportable. It could
just as easily be describing a man forcing a woman, with whom he was
romantically involved but not betrothed, to have sex with him before she
was willing/ready. While that would still be rape, there are definitely
different degrees of rape and different amounts of violence that occur
in connection with rape.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 9:36pm
Mick Mac

Yeah got for it Matt, stick it to the Labour apprentices.

Someone who talks sense with experience obviously.
Wonder what he’d say about God?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 9:36pm
Johnboy

‘I am a present day defence lawyer, not a bibilical scholar or ancient Israelite. ‘

Just as well. I’m fuckin sure Jesus would have cast a turd like you straight out of the temple if he had spotted your hourly rate! 🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 9:36pm
Johnboy

I blame it all on opportunists like FESmith reid. Hoping to make money out of inappropriate laws! 🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 9:39pm
F E Smith

Why is one of my comments in moderation?

Oh, I see there are a lot of links in the quote- would that be it?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 9:40pm
Johnboy

Arrogance is always moderated here.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 9:42pm
F E Smith

First, it is important to recognize the preceding context. Deuteronomy 22:22 commands the death penalty for adultery; both the man and the woman are to be put to death. Deuteronomy 22:23-24 commands the death penalty for both the man and the woman in an instance of a man having sex with a woman who is betrothed (engaged). It seems to be speaking of consensual sex, since the woman does not cry out for help. Deuteronomy 22:25-27 seemingly commands the death penalty for a man who “rapes” a woman who is betrothed.
Second, it is important to understand that the Hebrew words used in Deuteronomy 22, verses 25 and 28 do not necessarily indicate rape. In verse 25, the Hebrew word chazaq is used, and it essentially means “seize,” or “take hold of.” In verse 28, a different Hebrew word taphas is used, and while it has a very similar meaning to chazaq, it is not the same word. In both verses 25 and 28, the Hebrew word shakab
is used, and while it literally means “lie down,” it is used throughout the Old Testament to refer to sexual intercourse. So, both verses 25 and 28 describe a man seizing and having sex with a woman. While this is
a possible description of rape, it does not explicitly refer to rape. Also, the differences in the Hebrew words between Deuteronomy 22, verses 25 and 28, could be interpreted as verse 25 referring to rape, with
verse 28 referring to consensual sex. Further, in other Old Testament passages that refer to rape, different Hebrew words are used (Judges 19:25, 20:5; 2 Samuel 13:14, 32; Zechariah 14:2).
Third, we should not read the modern image of a violent rape into Deuteronomy 22:28-29. The passage gives very few details in regards to what is being described. All it describes is a man seizing a woman and having sex with her. To automatically assume that it was a violent encounter with the man brutally attacking the woman is not biblically supportable. It could just as easily be describing a man forcing a woman, with whom he was romantically involved but not betrothed, to have sex with him before she
was willing/ready. While that would still be rape, there are definitely different degrees of rape and different amounts of violence that occur in connection with rape.

Wat, taking note of the comments of the others, this may be an opportune time to agree to disagree and move on? I don’t want to prolong an unpopular debate.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 9:47pm
wat dabney

FES,

“But for the rape charge you are suggesting that if the woman concedes that she didn’t cry out then by definition no rape took place.”

‘Well, I am not saying that personally, but it is a correct interpretation of the passage, from what I read of the it.’

But this is the very essence of the problem. According to the Bible, it’s not rape if she doesn’t scream.

This is our guide to morality?

Christians here, imagine your sister or daughter was “raped” (sic). Would you think she consented if she hadn’t screamed? Would you hold the slattern’s coat as she was led away to be stoned to death?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 10:05pm
Griff

He was known as the saint and the sage who in his private life and in his dealings with people practiced the high virtues of morality and resignation, just as he taught them in his maxims with unexcelled brevity and earnestness

The golden rule “What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole book; the rest is the explanation; go and learn”

“If I am not for myself, who will be? And when I am for myself, what am ‘I’? And if not now, when?”

“Don’t trust yourself until the day you die.”

he who increases not [his knowledge] decreases; whoever learns not is worthy of death;

“Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you”, is a standard of behaviour found in his writings It is related to the ethical principle of the Golden Rule.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 10:06pm
Johnboy

If she was raped in the forest and Lord Birkenhead was pruning his expenses at the time, would he still be able to claim top dollar off the WWL fund.

That is the question we must ask, ladies and gentlemen of the jury! 🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 10:10pm
bereal

Oh dear,
Mallory Manning murder case.

Why cant they see. (Nz P)
No matter how much DNA they have, revealed or otherwise,
It’s of no consequence, how far up the wrong tree you go.
If its the wrong tree.
SEX has nothing to do with it.

This is a drug ripoff matter.
We spent the first 48 hrs and longer looking for a sex maniac.
“she was a prostitute, must be a sex maniac case”
If such a specimen existed he would have struck again by now.

Please focus your efforts away from prurient sex.
Wake up NZ police.

Bring in a whole new crew to investigate this very solvable crime.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 10:14pm
wat dabney

I fear we are neglecting so many other laws which Christians, for some reason, feel they can simply ignore:

“A woman shall not wear man’s clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman’s clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the lord your God. ”

“You shall not wear a material mixed of wool and linen together.”

“You shall make yourself tassels on the four corners of your garment with which you cover yourself. ”

So, it’s okay to ignore any laws we like? (or don’t like, to be more accurate.)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 10:14pm
wat dabney

Johnboy,

I thought you were going to say ‘if she was raped in the forest and there was no one to hear her…”
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 10:15pm
wat dabney

…would she still be stoned to death?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 10:16pm
Johnboy

Too predictable Wat. 🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 10:17pm
F E Smith

Wat,

I think that you are forgetting that most Christians base seem to base their faith on the New Testament commands rather than those of the Old Testament.

For example, I don’t think Christians consider themselves bound by Old Testament dietary laws.

I think that your argument is in fact like trying to argue against hanging for theft, when that was abolished 150 odd years ago.

All that said, if you are a woman and you know that you are under an obligation to cry out if you are being raped in the town, you would do your very best to cry out, wouldn’t you? It comes back to the ‘silence is consent’ thing.

I do note a couple of interesting things, in looking at this online, firstly,

Standards of evidence:

Though the Old Testament authorizes executions in principle, in practice “there were such extensive procedural requirements for the imposition of the death penalty that, by design, it was nearly impossible to secure a death verdict.”…In the Talmudic courts (called Sanhedrins) two witnesses judged to be competent had to testify that they saw the accused commit the crime after being forewarned that the act was illegal and punishable by death. Confessions were inadmissible. So was testimony against the defendant by family members of the victim or persons with a preexisting grievance against the defendant. If any aspect of the evidence or testimony was found to be unreliable, the defendant could not be killed. Such restrictions served to make capital punishment extremely rare under Talmudic law.

—Mark Costanzo, Just Revenge: Costs and Consequences of the Death Penalty (New York: St. Martin’s, 1997)

Moreover, you are not allowing for the ancient setting.

And

On the testimony of two or three witnesses a person is to be put to
death, but no one is to be put to death on the testimony of only one
witness. Deuteronomy 17:6

So it does not appear to be the same situation as with the Islamic requirement of four male witnesses for a man to be found guilty of rape, but where a woman can be convicted on the evidence of her complaint of rape. In the Jewish law, it seems that there would be two or more witnesses who saw the act, so if the person was actually being raped then one would presume that might be obvious to the witnesses who must have discovered them.

I don’t think this is as clear cut as you are trying to make out.

EDIT: Wat, those further examples are Talmudic laws. I don’t think they are considered to apply within Christianity. For example, Christians do not seem to require animal sacrifices.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 10:22pm
bereal

If someone is beaten with a piece of re inforcing steel rod,
then manually strangled, then stabbed to death, if that was a sex crime then the perp
is a sex maniac. When did we last see such a case in NZ ?
This was not a sex crime.
Greatest respect to NZ Police but,
get real.
New minds are required on this case.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 10:23pm
Griff

The Quotes above were included in the teaching of the pharisees just before the time of Jesus. It is not a great leap from the teaching of hillel to those attributed to Jesus His great advance in morality looses its impact when you learn the history of the time. Add the Trinity from gnostic teachings and snippets from a few other sects and hay presto Christianity.

Hillel (הלל) (born Babylon traditionally c.110 BCE, died 10 CE in Jerusalem) was a famous Jewish religious leader, one of the most important figures in Jewish history .Hillel was recognized as the highest authority among the Pharisees (predecessors to Rabbinic Judaism).
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 10:54pm
wat dabney

FES,

“I think that you are forgetting that most Christians base seem to base their faith on the New Testament commands rather than those of the Old Testament.”

I’m not forgetting. But the point is that when they do that they are simply making up their own ethics and morality the same as atheists, and just using the Bible highly selectively to justify their prejudices.

Imagine! A book of instructions written by an omniscient, omnipotent deity. And Christians think they can choose which bits they’ll take notice of and which bits they’ll ignore! The sheer egotism to think they know better than the creator of the Universe and all things in it!

Nor does it make any sense whatsover to claim that Jesus “abolished” the old law (and noting that he specifically said he came not to abolish it but to fulfill it.) By definition, morality cannot turn on a sixpence like that, so that one day we have to kill everyone in the neighbouring city and the next day we don’t. That might be law but it is not morality.

So Christian morality has no more authority that atheist morality, because they ignore all the stuff they find inconvenient or which is palpably evil (i.e. most.)

Have you noticed how the Bible has more column inches about the necessity of living in absolute poverty than it does about homosexuality?

Yet how many of the “Christians” pay any attention to the former, whilst working themselves into suspiciously enthusiastic lathers over the latter?

“All that said, if you are a woman and you know that you are under an obligation to cry out if you are being raped in the town, you would do your very best to cry out, wouldn’t you? It comes back to the ‘silence is consent’ thing”

A believe a very large proportion of women are far too scared to react.

Just one example:

“Why didn’t I scream when I was raped?”
http://www.salon.com/life/excerpt/2010/07/19/remembering_my_rape_denial

I maintain that that girl was raped, even though she didn’t scream.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 10:55pm
F E Smith

Wat,

I am mostly a legal realist- I don’t see a need to have natural morality shape laws.

But I was arguing your interpretation of your quote, which I thought, and still think, you have wrong. The justification behind it you will have to argue with Lee or some of those others more theologically inclined than myself.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 29, 2011 11:03pm
Manolo

Pelosi’s nefarious political influence at work: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/crony-capitalism-737-million-green-jobs-loan-given-nancy-pelosis-brother-law_594593.html
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 30, 2011 6:39am
Manolo

You can choose your friends but not your family: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1369735
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 30, 2011 7:11am

More comments:

‹
1
2

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« VSM at last

Ririnui on Goff »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Never miss a post

Email Address

Join 37.4K other subscribers

Highlights

Health Target 5 – elective treatments
Health Target 4 – Specialist appointments
Health Target 3 – Emergency Dept Waiting Times
Health Target 2 – Immunisations

Links

Obsession With Unreliable Wind & Solar Drives Punishing Cost of Net-Zero CO2 Delusion
Utopia
Treaty Principles Debate
NZCPR
€ 500 Billion for Coal and Gas Seems Expensive
No Minister
Word of the day
Hompaddock
Much ado about cussing…
Point of Order
A guide to making a submission on the Treaty Principles Bill
The Standard
You all understand these gang patch bans will get challenged in Court right?
The Daily Blog
Justice in Brazil
No Right Turn
"Seymour is only doing openly what M?ori nationalists and their Pakeha allies have been doing, quietly for the past 50 years."
Not PC
The transgender agenda sunk Kamala
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
What does “reciprocity” mean in New Zealand laws?
Croaking Cassandra
Media Link: “A View from Afar” on the US elections.
Kiwipolitico
This will not end well
Offsetting Behaviour
Top 14 Predictions for Round 10
Stats Chat
Tory Whanau may have to sell Wellington mayoralty to make ends meet
The Civilian
The Accidental Engagement
Imperator Fish
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker
Angie Warren-Clark: Meet the Newbies
Dan Moskovitz

editor@kiwiblog.co.nz

PO Box 12270, Thorndon, Wellington 6144

Facebook
Twitter
FourSquare
Instagram
LinkedIn
Google+

Archives
Disclosure Statement
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Complaints Policy
Comments Policy

Design by cre8d