The PRINCIPLES of the OT Law were not wrong.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Witnesses to what?
I dunno, you tell me.

You said 'multiple witnesses were required for a sentence'. It is not clear whether you meant witnesses were required to be present for the sentencing, or witnesses that witnessed the girl prostituting herself or what.

How could I make it any more clear than that?
How could you be more deliberately evasive than that? You can't answer a straight question. Why is that?

• You made a claim that the OT law allowed for a woman to be judged as a non-virgin--- and subsequently exposed to the sentence thereof--- on the basis of nothing more than her betrothed's say so.
As I already pointed out, I made no such claim. You imagined I did by reading between the lines. At least try and get your facts straight before you try to prove me false.

• Your claim was exposed as false.
And I readily admitted that I got it wrong, but what I got wrong, is not what you keep saying I wrote.

So, exactly as I said.
No!
Not even close to what you said.
You claimed the judgment was on the basis of his say so, which the text clearly doesn't support.
Not what I was talking about in that comment. Go back and check what I was actually replying to.

Because you don't even think about the logical conclusions of your bone-headed perspective of the situation.
No normal parent raises their child with hope of their future destruction.
A parent from ancient times is not fundamentally different than a parent today, with respect to wanting their child to be as happy as they can be in life.
A parent of a girl had a duty to present that young woman to her husband pure and untouched sexually.
No normal parent would knowingly put their own flesh and blood into harm's way by offering her to a suitor as pure if they know she isn't: the reward of dowry couldn't possibly outweigh the very real potential loss of her life... at their own doorstep, nonetheless.
How does any of that translate into me wanting to eat my own offspring?

And, apparently, the parents of ancient Jewish women not only took their responsibilities seriously, they presumably did so without failure: there isn't a single recording of any incident of such a stoning taking place in any of the records which survive those times.
Ha ha. You forgot to mention that there aren't any records. What we do know is that such stonings have taken place since all the way up to the present day.

The two witnesses were required for the judgment; the sentence of punishment was required of the judgment.
It really doesn't matter if you wish to make a full stop where I placed a semi-colon, you cannot avoid the sentence after finding the judgment.
I said nothing of the sentence, full stop semi-colon or otherwise. You got it wrong, learn to live with it.

1. In your value system, virginity means little to nothing.
2. In ancient times, virginity was highly prized and valued.
3. An aside? Aside of what? Now you wish to say you weren't further qualifying and emphasizing the topic???
Regardless of value systems, a girl that has lost her virginity is not necessarily a whore or prostitute.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I find your values and standards reprehensible, actually.

A young woman who engages in promiscuous sexual activity is a whore and to call her anything else is an affront to moral valuation.
If a person knowingly and willingly kills another person outside of sanctioned activity, we call that person a murderer--- a facile watering down of their ac ...[text shortened]...
That push to remove the stigma of evil associated with evil actions is repulsive, dehumanizing.

if a young woman(13-16) engages in sex, we call that a hormonal teen. we call that a stupid child lacking sound judgement and with total disregard for the consequences. we call that a child abused by an adult (if the other participant is an adult)


so i ask again: do you fukin now what a whore is and do you fukin know how abominable it is to label a little girl as such?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
if a young woman(13-16) engages in sex, we call that a hormonal teen. we call that a stupid child lacking sound judgement and with total disregard for the consequences. we call that a child abused by an adult (if the other participant is an adult)


so i ask again: do you fukin now what a whore is and do you fukin know how abominable it is to label a little girl as such?

so i ask again: do you fukin now what a whore is and do you fukin know how abominable it is to label a little girl as such?
Do you have a point to make, or are you just enjoying the ride up there on that high horse?

"Oh, she's just a normal, horny teen."
"Oh, she's just stupid."
"Oh, she was mind raped and led down the wrong path."

What do any of these have to do with China's current pricing on tea, exactly?

Originally posted by twhitehead
You said 'multiple witnesses were required for a sentence'. It is not clear whether you meant witnesses were required to be present for the sentencing, or witnesses that witnessed the girl prostituting herself or what.

[b]How could I make it any more clear than that?
How could you be more deliberately evasive than that? You can't answer a straight ...[text shortened]... s of value systems, a girl that has lost her virginity is not necessarily a whore or prostitute.[/b]

It is not clear whether you meant witnesses were required to be present for the sentencing, or witnesses that witnessed the girl prostituting herself or what.
Going strictly by the account in this passage, the witness for the deception was the man's testimony, whereas the witness for the woman's (and ultimately, her father's) veracity was the bed sheet.
The man's word and the lack of the required bed sheet (barring mitigating circumstances) would be tantamount to enough testimony to produce a judgment.
The man's word against the witness of the bed sheet (itself a physical proof of the father's word) would not be enough to produce a judgment against the woman, but instead against the man.

How could you be more deliberately evasive than that? You can't answer a straight question. Why is that?
Not very fun dealing with an evasive person, is it?

As I already pointed out, I made no such claim. You imagined I did by reading between the lines. At least try and get your facts straight before you try to prove me false.
As I already pointed out, you did make the claim when, on page five of this thread dated 21 Mar '14 10:52 you said:
A woman who may or may not have lost her virginity (and purely on her husbands say so)...
The fact that you didn't quote the entire process is of little consequence, since the sentence of punishment follows the sentence of judgment as is made very clear in the text from which you are getting half of your information!

How does any of that translate into me wanting to eat my own offspring?
Because you act as though people back then were just so casual about these matters, when the truth is, they lived them out as though their lives depended upon them... because they did.

What we do know is that such stonings have taken place since all the way up to the present day.
It might be true and you might know that.
Perhaps you can enlighten everyone on the topic, because I haven't heard of anyone who lives strictly under the Mosaic laws without concessions of any kind.

I said nothing of the sentence, full stop semi-colon or otherwise. You got it wrong, learn to live with it.
And this is precisely what caused you all this trouble in the first place: taking things out of context.

Regardless of value systems, a girl that has lost her virginity is not necessarily a whore or prostitute.
In this situation--- wherein a man has paid the bride price for a virgin and either the woman or her father or both are deceiving him--- she is necessarily a whore.
If she had already lost her virginity, her father should not have tried to pass her off as a virgin; instead he should have collected the non-virgin price.

This was more about contract than about moral behavior... but then again, you probably already knew that, right?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]so i ask again: do you fukin now what a whore is and do you fukin know how abominable it is to label a little girl as such?
Do you have a point to make, or are you just enjoying the ride up there on that high horse?

"Oh, she's just a normal, horny teen."
"Oh, she's just stupid."
"Oh, she was mind raped and led down the wrong path."

What do any of these have to do with China's current pricing on tea, exactly?[/b]

oooooh, i remember now: you're insane.

sorry, i will stop bothering you. you keep twhitehead entertained.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]so i ask again: do you fukin now what a whore is and do you fukin know how abominable it is to label a little girl as such?
Do you have a point to make, or are you just enjoying the ride up there on that high horse?

"Oh, she's just a normal, horny teen."
"Oh, she's just stupid."
"Oh, she was mind raped and led down the wrong path."

What do any of these have to do with China's current pricing on tea, exactly?[/b]

So a teenage guy who has sex with several girls is just a guy? Don't you see a problem there?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The man's word and the lack of the required bed sheet (barring mitigating circumstances) would be tantamount to enough testimony to produce a judgment.

So basically contradicting your original claim regarding witnesses where you said:

Multiple witnesses were required for a sentence.

Not it turns out that a sentence is possible only in the absence of witnesses.

Not very fun dealing with an evasive person, is it?
Its hilarious actually. I am only continuing this ridiculous discussion to get a good laugh out of how long you carry on talking utter nonsense rather than admit you got something wrong. Its nearly as funny as the sunlight thread.

As I already pointed out, you did make the claim when, on page five of this thread dated 21 Mar '14 10:52 you said:
No, I did not. Your reading comprehension skills leave much to be desired.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Because you act as though people back then were just so casual about these matters, when the truth is, they lived them out as though their lives depended upon them... because they did.

Nope, sorry, its still not making any sense. How does any of this translate into me wanting to eat my own young?

Perhaps you can enlighten everyone on the topic, because I haven't heard of anyone who lives strictly under the Mosaic laws without concessions of any kind.
Well, since I never made such a claim, I don't see why I should be enlightening anyone.

In this situation--- wherein a man has paid the bride price for a virgin and either the woman or her father or both are deceiving him--- she is necessarily a whore.
I see we do not speak the same version of English.

This was more about contract than about moral behavior... but then again, you probably already knew that, right?
So she only gets stoned to death because she cheated on the contract? This gets more and more ridiculous.

Originally posted by sonhouse
So a teenage guy who has sex with several girls is just a guy? Don't you see a problem there?

I obviously never said anything remotely close to that statement.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So basically contradicting your original claim regarding witnesses where you said:

Multiple witnesses were required for a sentence.

Not it turns out that a sentence is possible only in the absence of witnesses.

[b]Not very fun dealing with an evasive person, is it?
Its hilarious actually. I am only continuing this ridiculous disc ...[text shortened]... 10:52 you said:[/b]
No, I did not. Your reading comprehension skills leave much to be desired.[/b]

Not it turns out that a sentence is possible only in the absence of witnesses.
The absence of the bed sheet is tantamount to another witness for the accusation.

I am only continuing this ridiculous discussion to get a good laugh out of how long you carry on talking utter nonsense rather than admit you got something wrong.
For those keeping track at home (I'm guessing it's just you and me at this point), thus far, the only errors--- demonstrably proven--- is mine for lumping both of the complaints with one reference and yours for claiming a woman could be judged as a whore strictly on the basis of her husband's say so.

As far as the evasive nonsense I typed out, you were just getting a taste of your own medicine.
Comical, ain't it?

No, I did not. Your reading comprehension skills leave much to be desired.
Even more comedy.
How is my reading comprehension deficient here, exactly?
I quoted you exactly:
A woman who may or may not have lost her virginity (and purely on her husbands say so) prior to marriage is 'playing the whore'?
You then retracted your statement:
And I readily admitted that I got it wrong...
(although there was nothing "readily" about your admittance, let's be clear on that point)
But somehow my reading comprehension is lacking?
Rich.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The absence of the bed sheet is tantamount to another witness for the accusation.

You are simply incapable of admitting when you are wrong aren't you?

Even more comedy.
How is my reading comprehension deficient here, exactly?
I quoted you exactly:
A woman who may or may not have lost her virginity (and purely on her husbands say so) prior to marriage is 'playing the whore'?
And then you claimed that what I said, was that purely on her husbands say so, the girl is stoned. Clearly that is not what I wrote, and if it isn't clear to you, I'll tell you now: its not what I meant. I meant what I wrote, not what you think I meant, but didn't write.
You also quoted a later post of mine which says something altogether different - and again, you failed to actually read what it said.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You are simply incapable of admitting when you are wrong aren't you?

[b]Even more comedy.
How is my reading comprehension deficient here, exactly?
I quoted you exactly:
A woman who may or may not have lost her virginity (and purely on her husbands say so) prior to marriage is 'playing the whore'?
And then you claimed that what I said, ...[text shortened]... which says something altogether different - and again, you failed to actually read what it said.[/b]

You're protesting a point that has no weight.

In this situation, a woman is given to a man who pays the virgin bride price for her.
He claims she no longer possesses her virginity.

There is now a remedy process.
Either her father provides proof that she was a virgin on the night of their wedding, or he fails to do so.

In the case of the former, the man must pay the father for the slander and if the father chooses to allow it, the woman stays married and the man is completely without any future provision for divorce no matter what.
The father could also simply take the repayment and then offer his daughter to another suitor.

In the case of the latter, and there is no corroborating witness to her virginity, the woman is stoned on the basis of the judgment.

It doesn't matter at all if you include the outcomes: it is part and parcel included in the deal.
You erred by claiming it only took the man's say so for a woman to be judged a whore.
You also err by acting as though the pronouncement by judgment of her 'whoredom' doesn't carry with it the sentence thereof.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Nope, sorry, its still not making any sense. How does any of this translate into me wanting to eat my own young?

[b]Perhaps you can enlighten everyone on the topic, because I haven't heard of anyone who lives strictly under the Mosaic laws without concessions of any kind.
Well, since I never made such a claim, I don't see why I should be enlighten ...[text shortened]... ly gets stoned to death because she cheated on the contract? This gets more and more ridiculous.[/b]

Well, since I never made such a claim, I don't see why I should be enlightening anyone.
You said:
What we do know is that such stonings have taken place since all the way up to the present day.
So... where's the beef?
Where's your proof of this?

So she only gets stoned to death because she cheated on the contract? This gets more and more ridiculous.
Property is sacred.
I know that's hard for you to get your mind around, but it's an underlying principle to many of the Mosaic laws.
This is EXACTLY why trying to explain one isolated passage in the Bible is so problematic: the feeble mind of a non-believer gets so bogged down by all the information required to understand even the basics, they usually give up.

Poor little guys.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You're protesting a point that has no weight.

You apparently haven't yet understood what points I am protesting.
The first point is you claim that criticizing something you don't understand is shallow minded. It is clear that you should by now be declaring yourself shallow minded.
The second point is that you got a number of things wrong, but can't admit it.
The third point is that calling a woman (in this situation) a whore is unfounded .

You erred by claiming it only took the man's say so for a woman to be judged a whore.
And I admitted having erred.

You also err by acting as though the pronouncement by judgment of her 'whoredom' doesn't carry with it the sentence thereof.
I did not act in this way. It was you that erred in claiming that I made a statement that included the judgement - when I made no such statement. You only persist in claiming I erred because you can't handle the fact that you got it wrong. Possibly because admitting you got it wrong, would lead you to admit that you are shallow minded - or to admit you got that wrong, but doing so would open up the Bible to criticism which you simply can't allow because that might destroy your whole belief system. See what happens when I make sure the judgement is included with the sentence?

Originally posted by twhitehead
You apparently haven't yet understood what points I am protesting.
The first point is you claim that criticizing something you don't understand is shallow minded. It is clear that you should by now be declaring yourself shallow minded.
The second point is that you got a number of things wrong, but can't admit it.
The third point is that calling a woman ...[text shortened]... le belief system. See what happens when I make sure the judgement is included with the sentence?

Not sure why this is so hard for you.
Quite frankly, I really don't care, either.

I've admitted my errors on this forum multiple times--- and not simply as a result of being badgered into it.
If I'm wrong, I'm wrong; it doesn't take too long for me to realize my errors, even if it might take someone else pointing it out.
You?
Well, that's another story.

Here, I am not.
I have clearly understood your intention from the beginning, as expressed by your own words throughout.
No error there.
I have exactly quoted your words multiple times and you've offered nothing which would challenge the straight forward meaning of the same.

The third point is that calling a woman (in this situation) a whore is unfounded .
Oh, by all means: do tell.

It was you that erred in claiming that I made a statement that included the judgement - when I made no such statement.
Are you really that daft?
Can't you get it through your preconceived mindset that it doesn't matter if you included the sentence of punishment or not since the sentence of punishment cannot be separated from the sentence of judgment?

If the woman is judged a whore, she receives the punishment of a whore.

...but doing so would open up the Bible to criticism which you simply can't allow because that might destroy your whole belief system.
Your ignorance knows no bounds, does it?
You don't even know the questions to ask!