[Seekers] Punishment (Ward)
Michael W. Fisher mwfisher@cts.com
Sun, 01 Mar 1998 22:54:47 -0800 (00888843287, 34FA57B7.42CFD9E9@cts.com)
Ward Fenley wrote:
> Michael W. Fisher wrote:
> >
> > Ward Fenley wrote:
> <snip>
>
> Sorry, I am on 3 emailing lists, each of which concerns me far more than
> this list that suddenly appeared in my reply to all section, unbeknownst
> to me. But, through sovereign providence, here I am!! :o\
>
> > Okay Ward, maybe you can solve the following quiz. I've given it to almost a
> > dozen different professing Christians on assorted different lists. So fat none
> > have succeeded. Maybe, since you're so sure of yourself, you can succeed where
> > they have failed to so much as make an attempt:
> >
> > 1.) Define, via the bible, "murder".
>
> Unless God commanded otherwise, these are what appear to be His orders
> for OC Israel:
>
> Gen 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for
> in the image of God made he man.
>
> Pretty succinct.
MWF So I can drown, strangle, poison, or burn someone to death and I haven't
committed murder.
Neat.
>
>
> > 2.) Define, via the bible, "stealing".
>
> Exo 22:1 If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell
> it; he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep.
>
> Apparently taking something that is not yours.
MWF Um, that's not what the verse says. It says if someone (in modern language)
rustles your livestock and then either kills it or sells it before you find it, then he
must make reparations.
Not a peep bout anything else, and I assure you it's not that hard to include all
kinds of property in a simple definition.
So no cigar, you're reading your presuppositions in the text.
So so far stealing = livestock rustling.
Not much to get in the way of modern man.
>
>
> >
> > 3.) Define, via the bible, "rape".
>
> Deu 22:25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the
> man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her
> shall die:
MWF Okay, so so long as I only pick on UNbetrothed damsels I can force myself on
single women at will, anywhere, anytime.
This is so much fun.
> MWF
> > What you should be able to do is find the applicable passages and demonstrate
> > that it is unnecessary to already know what "murder" "stealing" or "rape" are in
> > order to infer that each is prohibited. Another way to put it is that you should
> > be able to go through the Bible, replace any instance of any of the above words
> > or their cognates, and demonstrate that the Bible defines such terms contextually
> > such that it is possible to know exactly what it is that is prohibited, even if
> > that particular word was otherwise unknown for some reason.
> >
> > Bonus question: Is it wrong, as in immoral (a sin?) for you to lose property
> > which someone else has entrusted to your care, and which you have voluntarily
> > agreed to safe guard? In legal speak, you agree to act as the bailor of the
> > bailees property, thus creating a bailment. At law, the bailor is liable for any
> > loss or damage to the bailees property once the bailment is created. That's the
> > law. Thus the question in effect asks: Is the law moral?
>
> WARD
> Unsure.
>
> >MWF
> > If you cannot come up with satisfactory answers for at least the first three
> > above, using the bible and strict deductive logic, then what that tells us is
> > that the Bible, rather than being "gods holy word" and a SOURCE of "absolute
> morals"
> > actually -presupposes- that the reader already HAS a moral code, and thus thus
> > the bible merely supplies Gods backing for the priestly punishments for
> > violations of the presupposed moral code by putting the sentences in Gods mouth.
> But > note, that adds nothing to the arena of moral discourse.
>
> WARD
> I completely agree. But the Bible deals with mankind at his origin (or
> at least those under covenant. The Bible teaches that sin (transgression
> of the law [Gods law] is not imputed when there is no law.
MWF That's what makes it so easy to murder, steal, and rape.
> It is not
> saying it is not sin,
MWF But whatever could be wrong with it? I'm just a poor law student, and I can do a
MUCH better job of defining crimes than the supposed omnipotent God of the Bible did.
> but rather it is saying that those who are without
> law perish without law. I am fine with this. We are dealing with those
> who have law exposed to them, regardless of whether they are professing
> "JEWS" or not.
MWF Well, the law doesn't seem to prohibit much at all, so I guess I'll just stick
with secular codes, I feel MUCH safer, thank you.
> > Good luck.
>
> I don't believe in luck or freewill.
Perhaps that's why your answers were so unsatisfactory.
You need to reread this part of the challenge so that you won't make the same error
again:
> What you should be able to do is find the applicable passages and demonstrate
> that it is unnecessary to already know what "murder" "stealing" or "rape" are in
> order to infer that each is prohibited. Another way to put it is that you should
> be able to go through the Bible, replace any instance of any of the above words
> or their cognates, and demonstrate that the Bible defines such terms contextually
> such that it is possible to know exactly what it is that is prohibited, even if
> that particular word was otherwise unknown for some reason.
If you don't like the consequences which flow from your selected verses, you need
to try again.
So far according to your bible, we're all free to murder, rape, and steal. We just
have to be careful how we do it.
Ciao.
--
Michael Fisher, ET1/SS USN ret., law student
>>NEW->http://www.infidels.org/library/humor/lioaca.html
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
http://home.aol.com/Mfish6994
* * *
". . . a very LONG discussion is one of the most
effective veils of Fallacy: . . . A Fallacy which
when stated barely . . . would not deceive a child,
may deceive half the world if diluted in a quarto
volume"
Richard Whately, "Elements of Logic", p. 151