Australian Politics Forum - Questions for FD re: Torah

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49841
At my desk.

Re: Questions for FD Torah
Reply #45 - Jun 24^th, 2017 at 9:10pm

Auggie wrote on Jun 24^th, 2017 at 8:51pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 24^th, 2017 at 8:31pm:

It is an answer.

Ok, so why is it 'no' or do you not have a reason?

The first one I just had to read the verse itself. The second one I checked the context. Jesus is telling a story. The quote you attribute to Jesus as some kind of ruling is actually attributed by Jesus to one of the characters in his story. I'm surprised this has not been pointed out in this thread already.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Karnal Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 97617	Re: Questions for FD Torah Reply #46 - Jun 24^th, 2017 at 9:14pm freediver wrote on Jun 24^th, 2017 at 8:31pm: It is an answer. That is a first.
Back to top	IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Questions for FD Torah
Reply #47 - Jun 24^th, 2017 at 9:19pm

freediver wrote on Jun 24^th, 2017 at 9:10pm:

The first one I just had to read the verse itself.

So, you think that the payment of a fine and then marrying the woman is an acceptable punishment for a rapist?

freediver wrote on Jun 24^th, 2017 at 9:10pm:

The second one I checked the context. Jesus is telling a story. The quote you attribute to Jesus as some kind of ruling is actually attributed by Jesus to one of the characters in his story. I'm surprised this has not been pointed out in this thread already.

Jesus' doesn't make rulings; he conveys messages through his parables. In the parable concerned, he is stating 'to kill his enemies'. Again, why does he use the word 'kill', why doesn't he use another word?

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49841
At my desk.

Re: Questions for FD Torah
Reply #48 - Jun 24^th, 2017 at 9:22pm

Quote:

So, you think that the payment of a fine and then marrying the woman is an acceptable punishment for a rapist?

No Augie. That is a different question.

Quote:

Jesus' doesn't make rulings; he conveys messages through his parables. In the parable concerned, he is stating 'to kill his enemies'.

No Augie. One of the characters in the story is. I didn't read so far as to get to the point of the parable, but I can still tell you that is not it. Did you deliberately present it so as to misrepresent it as Jesus' opinion?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 38981
Gender: male

Re: Questions for FD Torah
Reply #49 - Jun 24^th, 2017 at 9:27pm

Quote:

No Augie. One of the characters in the story is. I didn't read so far as to get to the point of the parable, but I can still tell you that is not it. Did you deliberately present it so as to misrepresent it as Jesus' opinion?

Many questions arise out of that, but I'll stick to my point. That is supposed to be Jesus telling a story......how long after he actually is supposed to have told said story was it written down and then made part of the Bible?

Back to top

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Questions for FD Torah
Reply #50 - Jun 24^th, 2017 at 9:34pm

freediver wrote on Jun 24^th, 2017 at 9:22pm:

No Augie. That is a different question.

So, if you believe that the punishment is not suitable because the person only pays a fine and marries the woman, then don't you think that 'lax' punishment doesn't serves as an effective deterrent against rape? Ergo, doesn't that passage effectively encourage rape because the of the laxity of the punishment? So, the two points are interrelated. Punishment = deterrence; if the punishment is lax, then the deterrence is less, therefore, the behaviour is more likely to occur.

freediver wrote on Jun 24^th, 2017 at 9:22pm:

I didn't read so far as to get to the point of the parable, but I can still tell you that is not it. Did you deliberately present it so as to misrepresent it as Jesus' opinion?

No, I didn't deliberately present it that way. Jesus wasn't talking about any character in the parable. He was talking about himself. The other point is: why did he have to use murder as an example? Why not 'bring him before me and smite him...' The use of language here is very important.

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49841
At my desk.

Re: Questions for FD Torah
Reply #51 - Jun 24^th, 2017 at 9:39pm

Quote:

So, if you believe that the punishment is not suitable because the person only pays a fine and marries the woman, then don't you think that 'lax' punishment doesn't serves as an effective deterrent against rape? Ergo, doesn't that passage effectively encourage rape because the of the laxity of the punishment? So, the two points are interrelated. Punishment = deterrence; if the punishment is lax, then the deterrence is less, therefore, the behaviour is more likely to occur.

Sure, if you think anything short of castration encourages rape, then it is so. You have spoken.

Quote:

No, I didn't deliberately present it that way.

So it was an accident?

Quote:

Jesus wasn't talking about any character in the parable.

Correct. He was attributing words to the character. He was telling a story. This is what one of the characters in the story said. Do I really have to explain this?

Quote:

He was talking about himself.

No.

Quote:

The other point is: why did he have to use murder as an example? Why not 'bring him before me and smite him...' The use of language here is very important.

If you have a point, perhaps you should make it.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Questions for FD Torah
Reply #52 - Jun 24^th, 2017 at 10:57pm

freediver wrote on Jun 24^th, 2017 at 9:39pm:

Correct. He was attributing words to the character. He was telling a story. This is what one of the characters in the story said. Do I really have to explain this?

Ok, so look at the passage below:

Yadda wrote on Jun 24^th, 2017 at 6:51pm:

Luke 19:11
And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear.
12 He said therefore, A certain nobleman (he is the subject of the story) went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.
13 And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come.
14 But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us.
15 And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.
16 Then came the first, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds.
17 And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities.
18 And the second came, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained five pounds.
19 And he said likewise to him, Be thou also over five cities.
20 And another came, saying, Lord, behold, here is thy pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin:
21 For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow.
22 And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow:
23 Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury?
24 And he said unto them that stood by, Take from him the pound, and give it to him that hath ten pounds.
25 (And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.)
26 For I say unto you - the voice has changed - this is now Jesus speaking directly to his discipes, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him.
27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me - i.e. before Jesus.

freediver wrote on Jun 24^th, 2017 at 9:39pm:

Sure, if you think anything short of castration encourages rape, then it is so. You have spoken.

So, why wasn't the punishment of castration given by God?

freediver wrote on Jun 24^th, 2017 at 9:39pm:

If you have a point, perhaps you should make it.

My point is: why did he use the word 'kill'?

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 22062
A cat with a view

Re: Questions for FD Torah
Reply #53 - Jun 24^th, 2017 at 11:27pm

Auggie wrote on Jun 24^th, 2017 at 8:56pm:

Yadda wrote on Jun 24^th, 2017 at 8:49pm:

Auggie wrote on Jun 24^th, 2017 at 7:09pm:

A cautionary tale about what? The word 'slay' is used. Are you saying that slay doesn't mean slay - i.e. 'taking a person life'. In that case, I could make that argument about the Quran - slay doesn't really mean 'take a life'/

It was a cautionary tale, criticising mankind's recklessness, mankind's rebellion, and mankind's cruel lawlessness.

Criticising mankind's rebellion against God's authority, to order his creation.

Deuteronomy 8:2
And thou shalt remember all the way which the LORD thy God led thee these forty years in the wilderness, to humble thee, and to prove thee, to know what was in thine heart, whether thou wouldest keep his commandments, or no.

Deuteronomy 11:26
Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse;
27 A blessing, if ye obey the commandments of the LORD your God, which I command you this day:
28 And a curse, if ye will not obey the commandments of the LORD your God, but turn aside out of the way which I command you this day, to go after other gods, which ye have not known.

Jeremiah 9:23
Thus saith the LORD, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches:
24 But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the LORD.

Atheists cannot 'believe', that anyone should have authority [for good] over them.

They reject God's authority.

They reject that 'authority' which is alive, within their own conscience.

They see it as an 'inconvenient' authority, which they choose to 'brush aside'.

But, God is going to judge us, all of us.

So, why doesn't the same principal apply to God in Islam?

Because, the God in ISLAM, 'Allah', is not the God of Israel.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498122136/41#41

Back to top

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49841
At my desk.

Re: Questions for FD Torah
Reply #54 - Jun 25^th, 2017 at 6:45am

Auggie wrote on Jun 24^th, 2017 at 10:57pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 24^th, 2017 at 9:39pm:

Correct. He was attributing words to the character. He was telling a story. This is what one of the characters in the story said. Do I really have to explain this?

Ok, so look at the passage below:

Yadda wrote on Jun 24^th, 2017 at 6:51pm:

Luke 19:11
And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear.
12 He said therefore, A certain nobleman (he is the subject of the story) went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.
13 And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come.
14 But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us.
15 And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.
16 Then came the first, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds.
17 And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities.
18 And the second came, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained five pounds.
19 And he said likewise to him, Be thou also over five cities.
20 And another came, saying, Lord, behold, here is thy pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin:
21 For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow.
22 And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow:
23 Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury?
24 And he said unto them that stood by, Take from him the pound, and give it to him that hath ten pounds.
25 (And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.)
26 For I say unto you - the voice has changed - this is now Jesus speaking directly to his discipes, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him.
27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me - i.e. before Jesus.

freediver wrote on Jun 24^th, 2017 at 9:39pm:

Sure, if you think anything short of castration encourages rape, then it is so. You have spoken.

So, why wasn't the punishment of castration given by God?

freediver wrote on Jun 24^th, 2017 at 9:39pm:

If you have a point, perhaps you should make it.

My point is: why did he use the word 'kill'?

No Augie. Why would he suddenly break from the parable to say something completely out of character for him? Are you going to insist he said this, only to turn around and insist it is not something he would say? Why did the voice not change when they said onto him, only when he said unto them?

This is from the first google result for Luke 19:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+19

24 “Then he said to those standing by, ‘Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.’

25 “‘Sir,’ they said, ‘he already has ten!’

26 “He replied, ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what they have will be taken away. 27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.’”

It is quite clearly the words of the character in the story.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Grendel

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male

Re: Questions for FD Torah
Reply #55 - Jun 25^th, 2017 at 2:34pm

freediver wrote on Jun 24^th, 2017 at 9:10pm:

Auggie wrote on Jun 24^th, 2017 at 8:51pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 24^th, 2017 at 8:31pm:

It is an answer.

Ok, so why is it 'no' or do you not have a reason?

The first one I just had to read the verse itself. The second one I checked the context. Jesus is telling a story. The quote you attribute to Jesus as some kind of ruling is actually attributed by Jesus to one of the characters in his story. I'm surprised this has not been pointed out in this thread already.

oh it has.... it certainly has... Roll Eyes

Back to top

IP Logged

Grendel

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male

Re: Questions for FD Torah
Reply #56 - Jun 25^th, 2017 at 2:37pm

Auggie wrote on Jun 24^th, 2017 at 8:07pm:

Grendel wrote on Jun 24^th, 2017 at 7:30pm:

good grief...
don't waste your time Yadda, they are too thick to understand.
I've been over it, now YOU have and still they don't get it.

See, again. No effort to explain or define your position. Don't quote me scripture; use reasoning and argument to make your point.

This happens again and again with, G. Prove me wrong.

I already have, you are apparently too stupid to understand. Cheesy

Back to top

IP Logged

Grendel Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 28080 Gender:	Re: Questions for FD Torah Reply #57 - Jun 25^th, 2017 at 2:38pm Auggie wrote on Jun 24^th, 2017 at 8:07pm: freediver wrote on Jun 24^th, 2017 at 4:50pm: No. No is not an argument, FD. But it succinctly answers your questions. Don't tell me you don't get NO?
Back to top	IP Logged

moses

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6353

Re: Questions for FD Torah
Reply #58 - Jun 25^th, 2017 at 2:59pm

AugCaesarustus wrote; Reply #35 - Yesterday at 7:07pm

Quote:

So, you know what you're doing now? You're actually making my point: you think that the Bible is a collection of texts written by different people reflecting the communities of the time, etc. But, that is because we have developed a tradition of hermaneutics in Christianity and Judaism. Before the enlightenment, many Christians believed that the Bible was the Word of God; in fact, I've spoken with Christians who believe that the Bible was dictated by Jesus' apostles as he spoke.

Likewise, many Muslims contend that yes God did speak through Muhammad BUT that some verses were written were revealed in a specific context with limited application. This is hermameutics; exactly the same type of logic you are talking about with the Bible.

The proof is in the pudding.

The Bible is a collection of various texts etc. etc. which as time went by were able to mutually progress with mankind and maintain relevance.

The Bible is written in the past tense except for the commandments.

The Jews and Christians are able to progress unhindered by their holy books because their scriptures are conducive to it.

conversely

The quran is written in the present and future tense, it contains a core message:allah causes men to disbelieve, allah hates disbelievers / non muslims, muslims have the right to torture and kill disbelievers and muslim hypocrites, muhammad is the best of all examples (he was a thief liar pedophile rapist torturer and mass murderer), the muslim killer who dies in his sacred duties of mass slaughter is assured a place in allahs paradise overflowing with houris with big tits and little boys with eyes like pearls, rape is o.k.,etc. etc.

Now the bullshit will flow from the muslim and the apologist about some occasional cherry picked line of non violence, but look at the world today when enlightenment is freely available through almost instantaneous communication / media, what are muslims?

They are a blight on humankind.

They can never progress beyond what they are now, because regression is mandatory in the qur'an.

muslims can never challenge the cause of their world problems as this would show their claim to infallibility and unchangeable doctrine as being totally false.

So we have a situation where muslims and apologists make up all sorts of pathetic excuses, to stop a review of what induces islamic atrocities (islamic doctrine), instead they prefer the status quo of bloodshed death and destruction rather than admit they were wrong.

However the world is slowly getting sick and tired of what is happening, I believe in time islam will destroy itself because of a totally flawed book of evil (qur'an), which engenders all the problems they face today and into the future.

Back to top

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Questions for FD Torah
Reply #59 - Jun 25^th, 2017 at 3:00pm

Grendel wrote on Jun 25^th, 2017 at 2:37pm:

Auggie wrote on Jun 24^th, 2017 at 8:07pm:

Grendel wrote on Jun 24^th, 2017 at 7:30pm:

good grief...
don't waste your time Yadda, they are too thick to understand.
I've been over it, now YOU have and still they don't get it.

See, again. No effort to explain or define your position. Don't quote me scripture; use reasoning and argument to make your point.

This happens again and again with, G. Prove me wrong.

I already have, you are apparently too stupid to understand. Cheesy

Please highlight and refer to the post where you 'already have'.

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged