LEV 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
So does this. But how does this work, if one of the parties did not consent to the adultery, e.g. if the wife was raped? The verse says "adulteress". Should a raped person be called an adulterer or an adulteress? I doubt they should.
How does it work in regards to rape? Read Deut. 22:22-27.
Ah, thanks. That is very clear then.
Nach wrote:
If you read this carefully, you see this section does not apply to ordinary people. When judges themselves have a dispute, or are dealing with a case which is too difficult for them, they are to go to the supreme court in the place appointed. Then after the supreme court's ruling, if one of the judges is unfaithful to that ruling, he is eliminated.
Though it does say "If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment", I find no evidence in the passage suggesting that the words are limited to judges that are set over people. It is not like people themselves cannot judge their own actions according to present law. Can you elaborate?
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Bisqwit wrote:
Nach wrote:
If you read this carefully, you see this section does not apply to ordinary people. When judges themselves have a dispute, or are dealing with a case which is too difficult for them, they are to go to the supreme court in the place appointed. Then after the supreme court's ruling, if one of the judges is unfaithful to that ruling, he is eliminated.
Though it does say "If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment", I find no evidence in the passage suggesting that the words are limited to judges that are set over people.
See Deut 16:18 - "Judges and officers shalt thou make thee in all thy gates, which the LORD thy God giveth thee, tribe by tribe; and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment."
Later in the books of Judges and Samuel, you consistently read about the judges sitting by the gates of the city. Hence, "gates" in the Bible is taken to mean the location of the judges within a city.
As to the current case, as you point out, it says "in judgment" which is only a reference to judges. Then it says: "even matters of controversy within thy gates", meaning arguments within a particular courthouse regarding a ruling amongst the judges.
Be careful though not to confuse "by your gates", and "within your gates". The former being a reference to judges or place of judgment, and the latter the people who live there. Unfortunately most translations don't notice the distinction and use it properly.
Bisqwit wrote:
It is not like people themselves cannot judge their own actions according to present law. Can you elaborate?
Yes they can, but why do you think you're supposed to have judges at the gates of each city? They're the ones who are supposed to judge cases.
Also here, the phrase "you shall destroy the evil from among all of Israel" is used. This phrase and the phrase "you should destroy the evil from among yourselves" is also found in a few cases.
Among you:
13:6 - In reference to a prophet who tries to lead people away from G-d.
17:7 - The idol worshiper.
19:19 - The false witness.
21:21 - The young adult who listens to no authority.
22:21 - The adulteress.
22:24 - The adulterer and adulteress.
All of Israel:
17:12 - Our case.
22:22 - The adulterer and adulteress.
The former is more confined to a particular location. The latter which can be a more widespread problem, a type of disease which spreads through the nation.
Now while two people who are not judges can have an argument and go to the supreme court for a ruling, their rejection of the supreme court's ruling won't be known by anyone. Whereas if a judge rejects that ruling, the problem will spread to his future rulings, and other courthouses will also feel free to reject the supreme court's rulings. Therefore our section here seems to be referring to judges who insubordinate, not common people.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Sorry to interrupt, but pirate's original question wasn't whether it's bad to commit adultery or having homosexual coitus, but whether it makes sense to kill people for that. Especially the latter case, which doesn't make any sense, to be honest.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Sorry to interrupt, but pirate's original question wasn't whether it's bad to commit adultery or having homosexual coitus, but whether it makes sense to kill people for that. Especially the latter case, which doesn't make any sense, to be honest.
Would you, personally, put a homosexual to death—let's say an Israeli homosexual to be closer to the context—in the name of the Lord, if you don't see a particular problem with that law? Or is it only alright when somebody else does that when you don't see it?
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Would you, personally, put a homosexual to death—let's say an Israeli homosexual to be closer to the context—in the name of the Lord, if you don't see a particular problem with that law? Or is it only alright when somebody else does that when you don't see it?
I would begin with more fundamental issues at first. When an entire nation is in insubordination against God, I think judgments belong to God rather than to any layperson. Once you have got the Biblical groundwork right, only then you can cast this kind judgements. So, no, I would not do so in any present country. Because it would be the wrong part to start from; it would be disproportionate. It becomes proportionately right, when set into the proper frame of reference, which is a society where torah-observance is the default.
Now, if such a decision was cast in e.g. a haredi community, of their own member, and I heard about it. Would I object? Probably not. If I were a member of said community and saw it happen and knew it was true (and not a false accusation)? Probably not. Though I would probably object to the breaking of laws of the surrounding community. Note that this does not mean that I idealize or support Haredi Judaism in any way. I used it as an example.
If it happened in such a catholic country where church dogma (and the Bible) is the law? That is a more difficult question. I would probably consider it an odd place to start from being torah-observant.
Hehe, modern humanism tries to divide killing a man directly by Creator, indirectly by an angel and indirectly by a man (both indirect cases are supposed to kill by a direct God's word). Does THAT make sense?
The whole Old Testament teems with situations where God commands to kill one person, or another, or many. And He finds it good. NOT killing a man that God commanded to kill is a sin. While killing anyone by your own whim is a sin as well.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Now, if such a decision was cast in e.g. a haredi community, of their own member, and I heard about it. Would I object? Probably not. If I were a member of said community and saw it happen and knew it was true (and not a false accusation)? Probably not.
If you reread my post, I specifically outlined an active position with regards to that law. Passive position is not a particular gesture of faith; anybody can be passive regardless of their religion. I won't object to Haredis killing their kin, too, because I'm not there to object. But if I were given the choice to kill a person, or forced to do so by such a law, I wouldn't.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Bisqwit wrote:
Now, if such a decision was cast in e.g. a haredi community, of their own member, and I heard about it. Would I object? Probably not. If I were a member of said community and saw it happen and knew it was true (and not a false accusation)?
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
It might help to also realize the depths of proof required before killing someone within the community you described.
I think the objection is to the idea of capital punishment for such "crimes" as homosexuality, adultery or breaking the sabbath. It doesn't really matter who judges and enacts this capital punishment or how. The very idea of capital punishment at all, much less from such "crimes" as breaking the sabbath, seem inhumane and completely out of proportion. And this even if you are an advocate of capital punishment for capital crimes (ie. murder).
While that's the core issue, another problem is the method of execution. In many cases the method of execution is specifically stated as stoning. This is a rather barbaric and inhumane method of execution where the person can suffer unimaginable torment.
I've checked those articles, and it appears that nowadays they specifically ensure the convict is drugged sufficiently to not feel said torment. This kinda defeats the purpose of such barbaric practices, but certainly lets you feel better about crushing somebody with a large rock.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Joined: 2/28/2006
Posts: 2275
Location: Milky Way -> Earth -> Brazil
As someone said, (I know this in portuguese, so I'm translating to english here)
"Justice is the revenge of men in society, as revenge is the justice of men in the wild."
Justice is a great way to retribute the 'favor' without feeling guilty.
"Genuine self-esteem, however, consists not of causeless feelings, but of certain knowledge about yourself.
It rests on the conviction that you — by your choices, effort and actions — have made yourself into the
kind of person able to deal with reality. It is the conviction — based on the evidence of your own volitional
functioning — that you are fundamentally able to succeed in life and, therefore, are deserving of that success."
- Onkar Ghate
Bisqwit wrote:
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Warp wrote:
Nach wrote:
It might help to also realize the depths of proof required before killing someone within the community you described.
I think the objection is to the idea of capital punishment for such "crimes" as homosexuality, adultery or breaking the sabbath. It doesn't really matter who judges and enacts this capital punishment or how. The very idea of capital punishment at all, much less from such "crimes" as breaking the sabbath, seem inhumane and completely out of proportion. And this even if you are an advocate of capital punishment for capital crimes (ie. murder).
While that's the core issue, another problem is the method of execution. In many cases the method of execution is specifically stated as stoning. This is a rather barbaric and inhumane method of execution where the person can suffer unimaginable torment.
Have you actually read what I linked you to? The burden of proof is so high, that the odds of someone actually being killed for one of these crimes is miniscule.
Case in point, read through the Bible and see how many people it mentions were tried and killed for one of these "crimes". There was a case in Numbers (which took place shortly after the law was given, and served as a deterrent). Other than that case, I can't recall anyone being killed for these "crimes" in the Bible.
moozooh wrote:
I've checked those articles, and it appears that nowadays they specifically ensure the convict is drugged sufficiently to not feel said torment. This kinda defeats the purpose of such barbaric practices, but certainly lets you feel better about crushing somebody with a large rock.
The purpose is to remove the person from living, his life no longer has purpose, and we don't need the person committing these crimes again.
Nowhere does the Bible state one has to feel pain when being executed. Being executed is bad enough as is.
Edit: You might also want to read this: http://www.jlaw.com/Briefs/capital2.html
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 2/28/2006
Posts: 2275
Location: Milky Way -> Earth -> Brazil
In the end it's nothing but revenge. Except more hypocrytical.
notice that Peter Parker didn't kill the guy who killed his uncle.
"Genuine self-esteem, however, consists not of causeless feelings, but of certain knowledge about yourself.
It rests on the conviction that you — by your choices, effort and actions — have made yourself into the
kind of person able to deal with reality. It is the conviction — based on the evidence of your own volitional
functioning — that you are fundamentally able to succeed in life and, therefore, are deserving of that success."
- Onkar Ghate
Bisqwit wrote:
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
pirate_sephiroth wrote:
In the end it's nothing but revenge. Except more hypocrytical.
Yes, collecting wood on the Sabbath hurts the witnesses at such a deep level that they need to take revenge on him with his life. :rolleyes:
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Case in point, read through the Bible and see how many people it mentions were tried and killed for one of these "crimes". There was a case in Numbers (which took place shortly after the law was given, and served as a deterrent). Other than that case, I can't recall anyone being killed for these "crimes" in the Bible.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
feos wrote:
Nach wrote:
Case in point, read through the Bible and see how many people it mentions were tried and killed for one of these "crimes". There was a case in Numbers (which took place shortly after the law was given, and served as a deterrent). Other than that case, I can't recall anyone being killed for these "crimes" in the Bible.
Where in those 3 last chapters do you see a single reference to a court executing someone for any of the things Warp listed?
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Now, if such a decision was cast in e.g. a haredi community, of their own member, and I heard about it. Would I object? Probably not. If I were a member of said community and saw it happen and knew it was true (and not a false accusation)?
It might help to also realize the depths of proof required before killing someone within the community you described. <links>
Interesting, thanks. I did not mean to imply that they would exercise such a punishment. It was just an example of first thing that comes to my mind where getting priorities wrong would presumably not be the problem. How true that might be, I cannot really tell.
Joined: 2/28/2006
Posts: 2275
Location: Milky Way -> Earth -> Brazil
Nach wrote:
pirate_sephiroth wrote:
In the end it's nothing but revenge. Except more hypocrytical.
Yes, collecting wood on the Sabbath hurts the witnesses at such a deep level that they need to take revenge on him with his life. :rolleyes:
That was offensive anyway. If there was IRC back in that time, they would probably cut off your hands if you used capslock.
"Genuine self-esteem, however, consists not of causeless feelings, but of certain knowledge about yourself.
It rests on the conviction that you — by your choices, effort and actions — have made yourself into the
kind of person able to deal with reality. It is the conviction — based on the evidence of your own volitional
functioning — that you are fundamentally able to succeed in life and, therefore, are deserving of that success."
- Onkar Ghate
Bisqwit wrote:
Have you actually read what I linked you to? The burden of proof is so high, that the odds of someone actually being killed for one of these crimes is miniscule.
Didn't you read what I wrote? I said that having capital punishment for something like breaking the sabbath seems inhumane and out of proportion regardless of who enacts it and how it's enacted. "It's done very rarely" is just a cop-out from the actual question.
If a close friend or family member of yours clearly and unambiguously breaks the Sabbath, would you advocate capital punishment for this person? Would you say it's morally acceptable?
(Some Christians resort to the cop-out that the law in question was only given to the Hebrews and it does not apply to gentiles. That doesn't really change anything. Just assume that your friend is Jewish. Would you advocate capital punishment?)
And note that I'm asking your personal opinion, not the opinion of a religious institution or dogma.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Warp wrote:
Didn't you read what I wrote? I said that having capital punishment for something like breaking the sabbath seems inhumane and out of proportion regardless of who enacts it and how it's enacted. "It's done very rarely" is just a cop-out from the actual question.
If a close friend or family member of yours clearly and unambiguously breaks the Sabbath, would you advocate capital punishment for this person? Would you say it's morally acceptable?
(Some Christians resort to the cop-out that the law in question was only given to the Hebrews and it does not apply to gentiles. That doesn't really change anything. Just assume that your friend is Jewish. Would you advocate capital punishment?)
And note that I'm asking your personal opinion, not the opinion of a religious institution or dogma.
According to the trial procedure I linked you to, where the person has to be warned there will be a capital punishment moments before? Yes, I would advocate it.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
According to the trial procedure I linked you to, where the person has to be warned there will be a capital punishment moments before? Yes, I would advocate it.
I assume you understand why many people have a problem with that, and why they consider it disproportionate, inhumane and barbaric.
Dare I also assume that in reality, deep inside, you find this problematic as well, from a moral perspective? Some of the laws given in the Bible are in drastic contradiction with your own sense of morality. Now, be completely and absolutely honest: Would you personally think that the punishment is not disproportionate if the Bible didn't have this law?
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Warp wrote:
Nach wrote:
According to the trial procedure I linked you to, where the person has to be warned there will be a capital punishment moments before? Yes, I would advocate it.
I assume you understand why many people have a problem with that, and why they consider it disproportionate, inhumane and barbaric.
I can understand it. But one has to realize the punishments in the Bible are to serve as deterrents, not that most of these punishments actually occurred in practice.
Warp wrote:
Dare I also assume that in reality, deep inside, you find this problematic as well, from a moral perspective?
No, I don't.
I find that what people consider moral or humane today to be morally bankrupt or near sighted.
Warp wrote:
Some of the laws given in the Bible are in drastic contradiction with your own sense of morality.
I don't trust my own sense of morality. Proverbs 16:2 "All the ways of a man are clean in his own eyes".
Warp wrote:
Now, be completely and absolutely honest: Would you personally think that the punishment is not disproportionate if the Bible didn't have this law?
I can say that of any punishment. Why punish anyone?
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 2/28/2006
Posts: 2275
Location: Milky Way -> Earth -> Brazil
In this world there are only two kinds of people: those who use and those who are used. The only question is the obvious: When will he realize?
in before tvtropes
"Genuine self-esteem, however, consists not of causeless feelings, but of certain knowledge about yourself.
It rests on the conviction that you — by your choices, effort and actions — have made yourself into the
kind of person able to deal with reality. It is the conviction — based on the evidence of your own volitional
functioning — that you are fundamentally able to succeed in life and, therefore, are deserving of that success."
- Onkar Ghate
Bisqwit wrote:
