[Seekers] Punishment (Ward)
Austin Cline Pioneer@infidels.org
Wed, 4 Mar 1998 10:41:26 -0400 (00889044086, v04003a03b12315873d4b@[209.114.145.226])
WARD
>If you understood not only American idioms, but Hebrew idioms as well,
>you would understand that "shedding blood" means killing, not dripping
>red drops from someones throat.
AUSTIN
Prove that that was the idiom in the original Hebrew. If you cannot, how
can you rationally and honestly claim that that was what was meant, and not
the literal interpretation?
<snip>
MWF
>> Not a peep bout anything else, and I assure you it's not that hard
>>to include all
>> kinds of property in a simple definition.
>>
>> So no cigar, you're reading your presuppositions in the text.
>>
>> So so far stealing = livestock rustling.
>>
>> Not much to get in the way of modern man.
WARD
>In other words you (yourself) define real stealing? Like I will believe
>your pragmatic subjectivism. Not a chance.
AUSTIN
In your rush to judge Michael, you have mysteriously forgotten the original
point of this disussion: namely, whether or not you could show if and how
your bible defines certain key moral concepts - in this case, "stealing."
As Michael correctly pointed out, all you have shown is the bible defining
"stealing" as livestock rustling. Which means that if "stealing" is
prohibited, then taking non-livestock from someone is not necessarily
prohibited by the bible.
So, Michael has two choices: follow the bible absolutely and feel free to
take non-livestock items from people, or define "stealing" himself in a
broader manner. What should he do? What do *you* do? Do *you* limit
"stealing" to livestock rustling, or do you define it yourself? Please be
honest.
WARD
>> > Deu 22:25 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:
>>
>> MWF Okay, so so long as I only pick on UNbetrothed damsels I can
>>force myself on
>> single women at will, anywhere, anytime.
<snip>
WARD
>Again, searching for ways to do what you want to do, eh? Yeah, I know,
>we all love finding ways to sin. NOthing new, let's just change the
>meaning of the Bible.
AUSTIN
Again, you "mysteriously" forget the original discussion in your effort to
judge Michael negatively. Interesting, that.
At any rate, it should be clear to anyone with two brain cells to rub
together that Michael *isn't* searching for ways to do what he wants, but
is instead simply trying to delineate clear moral statements from the
information which *you* are providing from *your* bible. If "rape" is
defined as only forcing oneself on unbetrothed damsels, then the bible
permits a man to force himself on betrothed damsels. Michael isn't
searching - based on *your* statements, he is simply explaining what your
bible permits.
So, should Michael follow your bible absolutely, or should he define "rape"
himself and more broadly? What do *you* do? Do you think that it is OK to
force yourself on a betrothed damsel, or do you have a broader definition
of "rape" then what you offered via your bible?
Or do you simply "change the meaning of the bible?"
WARD
>The Bible teaches that sin (transgression
>> > of the law [Gods law] is not imputed when there is no law.
>>
>> MWF That's what makes it so easy to murder, steal, and rape.
WARD
>Unless you believe the New Testament, which it does not appear you do.
>:o]
AUSTIN
Where in your NT are the concepts of murder, stealing, and rape more
clearly and broadly defined?
<snip>
WARD
>1 John 3:15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know
>that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
AUSTIN
So, since I don't have any brothers, am I free to hate?
Austin Cline; German Department; Princeton University
--- The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher
esteem those who think alike than those who think differently.
- Nietzsche "The Dawn" (1881)