Julius

The practical consequences concern me a great deal. While I would like to think we live in enlightened times, sometimes I must question it. Who is more barbaric? The Jews who mostly threatened people with possible execution but seldom did it--or Americans who will convict people on evidence which is dubious at times and then execute them?

Rape used to be a capital offense in many states; and we have now in Florida a possible new law where someone who rapes a child may receive the death penalty. It is foolish to have such a severe penalty, in my opinion, although the crime is horrid--having the death penalty for rape is dangerous since the rapist may as well murder his victim to conceal his crime.

Is this not harsh, to jeopardize a rape victim even further with such an imprudent law? Why be bothered by Jewish laws when we are executing innocent people at times ourselves and enacting such imprudent laws out of vindictiveness?

RGD

Two slightly unrelated points: JP Holding is a certifiable nutcase (and a really nasty human being, to boot.); and in relation to the 'rape' issue.... in the middle ages, the problem of priestly pederasty was considered to be a bad thing... only because of it's negative effect ON THE PRIEST. The child didn't come into it.

Julian

Saying that the Jewish laws are not so bad, just because we may be worse, is not a very good excuse. American laws may be goofy at times but, at least, we do not stone people to death. It's a bit like saying that hanging is not so bad since tortured to death is worse.

Besides, we do not know to what extent they were carried out. Also note that laws that are carried out in an inconsistent manner leave the door wide open for corruption and favoratism.

Julian

starling

You can't be raped by a 300 pound psychopath named Bruno! Because Popeye always manages to eat the spinach on time. That's HEATHEN cooing infants, sympathizer!

Wallener

That wasn't what I got from his statement. What I heard was "why futz over laws from 3000 years ago instead of dealing with as bad or worse laws being passed right now?" A fair question, IMO.

Chris Weimer

NearNihil - just wanted to point out that "black" people were never considered 2/3 a person. Slaves, which could included more than just "black" people, were considered 2/3 head count, since they were technically considered property. And yes, that is horrible, but many didn't want that in the constitution, but the Bible is different because "God" authored it according to Christians.

So the arguement is entirely fair.

Anat

Reasons to discuss bad/primitive/unjust laws in the Bible:

- To show how those laws are in line with human ideas from the time of the composition, supporting human rather than divine origin.

- To raise doubts about the justice of these laws, and hence create opposition to automatic acceptance of a Bible-based law as the basis for modern behavior 'because it is in the Bible'.

- As demonstration of the way society's ideas of right and wrong have changed over time, leading to the conclusion that our own perceptions of such are likely to be viewed differently by future generations.

There are probably others.

Casper

I hate to tell you this but Holding really makes you lok bad. It may be a lack of context because you snipped for brevity, I don't know, but the whole thing comes off as if you were trying to place modern social norms into a time and place where they did not exist. Heck, they still don't exist everywhere. Thus your point seems petty (again, based only on the context presented and your comments).

NearNihil Experience

Thats right. Thanks for the clarity. :thumbs: I even remember seeing a play when I was a kid about how America had white slaves too early on, not just white endentured servitude. The point was the transition from "slavery" to "Black slavery". Black and slave have been equivocated in Americans minds....i'll refrain from going into a discussion of why this is, 'cause I don't know for sure and its probably culturally obvious.

Yeh, all those "Rights" granted to us by our so-called "Creator"....

Thanks.

Julius

What is so wrong with making the death penalty something fearful? What is the purpose of the death penalty?

My own idea on it that the death penalty should be there to deter the crime. Making it a fearsome and dreaded thing is a good thing, I think. Making it into some kind and gentle departure from life is not much of a deterrent. I am not interested in how it affects the guilty parties convicted of crimes; no, I am not in favor of the death penalty if it is meant only to punish the guilty. The true value of the death penalty, if it exists, is if it can deter crime; thus, it must be something fearful.

If punishment is too severe or too frequent, people become accustomed to it; so we have the classic example of people's pockets being picked at hangings of thieves convicted for picking pockets. But severity and horror serve their place.

You can go to Saudi Arabia and see may see unattended shops if the owners step out. I had a Lebanese friend who told me the goldsmiths can leave their shops unattended because no one would dare to steal. You see, as a child, one felon missing a hand, and your parents tell you he stole--you decide not to steal.

Likewise, I was shocked (at first) when a Chinese man told me how things used to be done in China. If convicted of adultery, they chopped a man's penis off. I was stunned. He said, "Oh, don't worry. They never have to do it. A man could be alone with a woman who is someone's else's wife; and he'd never think about doing anything."Well, there is one law that the Jews never put anyone to death for--that is the law about disobedient children. Theoretically, bad children could be put to death. None ever were. The Jews put very few people to death.

The death penalty could be carried out only by a trial in front of 23 judges--not like the American system where one is enough. It took 13 votes of guilty to convict; but 12 votes were enough to acquit.

Since the Jewish courts were expected to refrain from passing the death penalty if at all possible, anyone with any bias against a defendant had to excuse himself from sitting as a judge. If the defendant was young, perhaps committing a crime in the folly of youth, the older judges and childless judges had to excuse themselves since they might not be able to remember how young people think. If a person had been a witness to the crime, he could not sit as a judge.

The judges in Jewish courts acted as the defense. It was up to the "accuser" or "satan" to make the case against the defendant while the court itself was to look for any reason to excuse the defendant. It was considered a good deed to find a reason not to execute someone.

Thus, safeguards existed which do not exist in our system today. Most important was the two witnesses. It was not considered good enough evidence to see a man fleeing from a house with a bloody knife to execute him for murder. The two witnesses had to see the deed itself being done. People could not be executed for adultery or sodomy either unless they were observed by two witnesses. While the death penalty seems harsh to us by our standards, we should realize that most people can arrange to have adultery or homosexual relations in private. Only those people who seemed to want to flout the law publicly got the death penalty; and this seems just to me.

There seems to be a big difference to me between the person who murders someone in private and someone who goes into a MacDonald's and opens fire. One has succumbed to personal emotions he may later regret; but the other is angry and hates all people.