Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Metacrock · 01-20-2005, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

The passage you cited clearly states that she is not to be killed if the rape happened in the countryside, but she is to be killed if the rape happened in a city.

Where is 'the benefit of the doubt' there?

That's a ridiculous reading. No one reads texts as legalisticallyl as atheists when they are "contraidction" hunting. Try to remember that. No Rabbi would have thought that way, no one woudl say "ah, but we are in the city." That's just foolish.

01-20-2005, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metacrock

That's a ridiculous reading. No one reads texts as legalisticallyl as atheists when they are "contraidction" hunting. Try to remember that. No Rabbi would have thought that way, no one woudl say "ah, but we are in the city." That's just foolish.

That's nothing! You should see the rubbish with which Carr regularly sprays my blog. There really is no point interacting with this guy, Meta. <deleted> Even his fellow infidels find him a bit of an embarressment.

B

Metacrock · 01-20-2005, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atheos

Either there are some mighty old folks still walking around or Jesus filled the qualifications of "false prophet".

-Atheos

I've dealt with that at length a number of times. You can see the redaction process at work in the Matt version. Jesus is asked two questions, they are glossed into on by Mark, but preserved as two in Matt. Dont' ponit out to me that Mark was written first. But it can still be case that for some reason the older reading survives in matt. In this case it does.

So what we are seeing there is not Jesus asnwer to the qeustion about when he's coming back but his answer to the one about when the temple would be destroyed.

Metacrock · 01-20-2005, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bede

That's nothing! You should see the rubbish with which Carr regularly sprays my blog. There really is no point interacting with this guy, Meta. <removed for consistency> Even his fellow infidels find him a bit of an embarressment.

B

I know Steven from CARM and from Christian Froums, and I've dealth with him over here a number of times.

Diogenes the Cynic · 01-20-2005, 09:21 AM

How should it be read then?

How should "stone to death" be interpreted. The passage says that if a woman is raped in a populated area it's her own fault for not screaming for help.

Yes it's foolish but so are many of the archaic tribal laws enshrined in the HB.

Metacrock · 01-20-2005, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sven

Well, this is all right and well. But if the problem is dirt, why not simply tell them to clean them? Why not simply tell them about soap (this is, I think, originally an argument by Vinnie)?

ahahahahahahaha, and why should Shakespaire write a whole play for "Much Adue About Nothing" when he could just put on a wedding?

Steven Carr · 01-20-2005, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metacrock

That's a ridiculous reading. No one reads texts as legalisticallyl as atheists when they are "contraidction" hunting. Try to remember that.

To be honest, I think a legalistic reading of a legal code is valid one.

Steven Carr · 01-20-2005, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

How should it be read then?

How should "stone to death" be interpreted. The passage says that if a woman is raped in a populated area it's her own fault for not screaming for help.

It does say that, but Metacrock says that is a ridiculous, legalistic reading.

Steven Carr · 01-20-2005, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bede

That's nothing! You should see the rubbish with which Carr regularly sprays my blog. There really is no point interacting with this guy, Meta. <deleted> Even his fellow infidels find him a bit of an embarressment.

B

http://www.bede.org.uk/barry.html

An excerpt from Bede's blog written by Barry - ' I am not a evangelical atheist or a campaigner like Steven Carr. Naturally, as an atheist I admire his knowledge and wish I could match it.'

As Barry Foster himself is '...an intelligent and informed atheist', as Bede puts it, I found this quite flattering.

Diogenes the Cynic · 01-20-2005, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

It does say that, but Metacrock says that is a ridiculous, legalistic reading.

I know. I'm trying to find out how he thinks it should be read because I can't think of a non-legalistic or non-literal interpretation for "stone to death."

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-20-2005, 09:21 AM	#45
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	How should it be read then? How should "stone to death" be interpreted. The passage says that if a woman is raped in a populated area it's her own fault for not screaming for help. Yes it's foolish but so are many of the archaic tribal laws enshrined in the HB.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.