Father and son accused of rape want ‘only law book that truly matters’ at their trial: The Bible

I hope the filthy rotten ba****** go to the chair and get beaten sick in the slammer .

If they had followed their fucking bible they wouldn't be raping people in the first place.!

eddie wrote:If they had followed their fucking bible they wouldn't be raping people in the first place.!

I am going to be very interested to hear what sort of unhinged defense they come up with in this.
The problem is though, if the Bible was followed literally, this would be permissible Eddie.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/captive-virgins-polygamy-and-sex-slaves-what-marriage-would-look-like-if-we-actually-followed-the-bible/

Bibles, religious books from anywhere seem to be the cause of so much trouble, strife and have script which cannot be substantiated yet people believe it..

I wonder if all were destroyed would our world be a better place to dwell???

Major wrote:Bibles, religious books from anywhere seem to be the cause of so much trouble, strife and have script which cannot be substantiated yet people believe it..

I wonder if all were destroyed would our world be a better place to dwell???

What I have always wondered is why they are not considered hate speech?
That does not mean they should be banned, far from it, but they rightly should be classified as hate speech, when there is so much hate speech within them. Just because there is nice parts which only are nice in regards towards the same believers. Does not mean they are not riddled with hate.

I mean would any parent here teach a version of Santa Claus, where if children had not behaved he beheaded or stoned to death those children?  Yet for example you have the story of how the Biblical deity wipes out the first born of Egypt and this is acceptable.

Yet because something is a myth, we allow it to be taught to children, normalizing the hate found within, because its taught alongside a mythical paradise. Which for some reason makes people think this cancils out the hate taught within.

The Hebrew Bible started it when it said: God chose the Jews as special, and made a covenant with them.  This was the chosen people doctrine, which began the 'we-they' distinction leading to so much racism, war and strife over history.

It came back to haunt the Jews when Germany applied the 'we-they' dichotomy to the Jews themselves.  It continues today with the Israel-Islam strife.  Too bad...so much energy wasted trying to prove you are better.

Original Quill wrote:The Hebrew Bible started it when it said: God chose the Jews and made a covenant with them.  This was the chosen people doctrine, which began the 'we-they' distinction leading to so much racism, war and strife over history.

It came back to haunt the Jews when Germany applied the 'we-they' dichotomy to the Jews themselves.  It continues today with the Israel-Islam strife.  Too bad...so much energy wasted trying to prove you are better.

I cannot believe you just said that, as if the Holocaust was down to Germans getting back at Jews for a concept found in the bible. That has to be the worst apologist argument I have heard to date on the holocaust.
The fact that Non-Jews have more rights in Israel than any Muslim majority country, shows how poor your comment was, to then make the Israeli-Palestinian conflict comparable to what the Germans did to the Jews, Slavs, homosexuals etc, was on the boundaries of stupidity.

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:The Hebrew Bible started it when it said: God chose the Jews and made a covenant with them.  This was the chosen people doctrine, which began the 'we-they' distinction leading to so much racism, war and strife over history.

It came back to haunt the Jews when Germany applied the 'we-they' dichotomy to the Jews themselves.  It continues today with the Israel-Islam strife.  Too bad...so much energy wasted trying to prove you are better.

I cannot believe you just said that, as if the Holocaust was down to Germans getting back at Jews for a concept found in the bible. That has to be the worst apologist argument I have heard to date on the holocaust.

I didn't say that.  You must be more careful, didge...I said that the chosen people doctrine was the beginning of the 'we-they' distinction.  

The fact that the Germans brought discrimination back onto the Jews is perhaps ironic, but separated by some 12,000 years it can hardly be called causation.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:

I cannot believe you just said that, as if the Holocaust was down to Germans getting back at Jews for a concept found in the bible. That has to be the worst apologist argument I have heard to date on the holocaust.

I didn't say that.  You must be more careful, didge...I said that the chosen people doctrine was the beginning of the 'we-they' distinction.  

The fact that the Germans brought discrimination back onto the Jews is perhaps ironic, but separated by some 12,000 years it can hardly be called causation.

Ironic?
The chosen aspect is around a possession aspect of their God, that he possesses them. Which to me is no better than slavery. Now do not get me wrong its a religious form of racism, but is miles removed from the racism that latter formed out of different groups of peoples. The Jews were one of twelve tribes, of which the others were defeated and either enslaved or exiled. To then the Jews themselves having to suffer under the Seleucid's and Romans, through two massacres, which led to many being exiled. If anything they have suffered this countless times in history even more so after, being ethnically cleansed so many more times from countless nations. So you would hardly think that this people are in anyway chosen, maybe chosen to continually suffer in history as they have done, but not in anyway chosen for benefits. It is not separated by 12,000 years either.

So whilst I think the "chosen people" concept is sheer arrogance and absurd, its based around a belief of a God's possession, not where the Germans viewed people as racially inferior. You really sometimes come out with the most absurd view points and actually not speaking about the views raised, by making it yet another chance for you to make a poor cheap point against Israel.

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I didn't say that.  You must be more careful, didge...I said that the chosen people doctrine was the beginning of the 'we-they' distinction.  

The fact that the Germans brought discrimination back onto the Jews is perhaps ironic, but separated by some 12,000 years it can hardly be called causation.

Ironic?
The chosen aspect is around a possession aspect of their God, that he possesses them. Which to me is no better than slavery. Now do not get me wrong its a religious form of racism, but is miles removed from the racism that latter formed out out of peoples. The Jews were one of twelve tribes, of which the others were defeated and either enslaved or exiled. To then the Jews themselves having to suffer under the Seleucid's and Romans, through two massacres, which led to many being exiled. If anything they have suffered this countless times in history even more so after, being ethnically cleansed so many more times from countless nations. So you would hardly think that this people are in anyway chosen, maybe chosen to continually suffer, but not in anyway chosen for benefits. It is not seperated by 12,000 years either.

So whilst I think the "chosen people" concept is sheer arrogance and absurd, its based around a belief of a God's possession, not where the Germans viewed people as racially inferior. You really sometimes come out with the most absurd view points and actually not speaking about the views raised, by make it another chance for you to make a poor cheap point against Israel.

All of your points are good and valid.  And they do a lot to explain how the discrimination came back on the Jews, in Europe and elsewhere...the irony of the whole thing.

But the fact remains that the chosen people doctrine was one of the earliest documented expressions of metaphysical justification for discrimination.  Along with the monotheism of the Abrahamic religions, it says these people are superior to those people.  That is the underlying principle of the 'we-they' distinction.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Ironic?
The chosen aspect is around a possession aspect of their God, that he possesses them. Which to me is no better than slavery. Now do not get me wrong its a religious form of racism, but is miles removed from the racism that latter formed out out of peoples. The Jews were one of twelve tribes, of which the others were defeated and either enslaved or exiled. To then the Jews themselves having to suffer under the Seleucid's and Romans, through two massacres, which led to many being exiled. If anything they have suffered this countless times in history even more so after, being ethnically cleansed so many more times from countless nations. So you would hardly think that this people are in anyway chosen, maybe chosen to continually suffer, but not in anyway chosen for benefits. It is not seperated by 12,000 years either.

So whilst I think the "chosen people" concept is sheer arrogance and absurd, its based around a belief of a God's possession, not where the Germans viewed people as racially inferior. You really sometimes come out with the most absurd view points and actually not speaking about the views raised, by make it another chance for you to make a poor cheap point against Israel.

All of your points are good and valid.  And they do a lot to explain how the discrimination came back on the Jews, in Europe and elsewhere...the irony of the whole thing.

But the fact remains that the chosen people doctrine was one of the earliest documented expressions of metaphysical justification for discrimination.  Along with the monotheism of the Abrahamic religions, it says these people are superior to those people.  That is the underlying principle of the 'we-they' distinction.

Sorry, you are saying that this explains the discrimination to Jews?
You are saying because of these aspects in the bible is why they were persecuted?
The mind boggles at some of the nonsense you come out with
Its pointless trying to engage on something, you have no idea what you are talking about on.
I am not denying it was an early form and neither does it state they are superior to others.
Show me where it states superior? Again you fail to understand theology on the concept of when Yahweh made a covenant with Abraham, of which clearly this deity went back on, as they have suffered continuously.
Again the bases is around God's possession of this people.

Here, try understanding something before engaging in something you know little about

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews_as_the_chosen_people

Don't be rude, didge.  Stick to the topic and drop the snide comments.

It is true that Reform Judaism attempts to mitigate the implications of the chosen people doctrine by saying it

"..did not preclude a belief that God has a relationship with other peoples — rather, Judaism held that God had entered into a covenant with all humankind, and that Jews and non-Jews alike have a relationship with God."

But let's be logical...Jews are either the chosen people, or they are not the chosen people.  Which is it?

This is not an internal debate about rabbinic literature.  I am relating the chosen people doctrine to an external debate: to select a people as superior is to introduce status and discrimination into he general pool of ideas.  If a god poses himself as THE god (monotheism); and that god elevates a people to be HIS people; is that not a doctrine that says the supreme authority, has made these the chosen people...therefore they are likewise supreme over other people.

Original Quill wrote:Don't be rude, didge.  Stick to the topic and drop the snide comments.

It is true that Reform Judaism attempts to mitigate the implications of the chosen people doctrine by saying it

"..did not preclude a belief that God has a relationship with other peoples — rather, Judaism held that God had entered into a covenant with all humankind, and that Jews and non-Jews alike have a relationship with God."

But let's be logical...Jews are either the chosen people, or they are not the chosen people.  Which is it?

This is not an internal debate about rabbinic literature.  I am relating the chosen people doctrine to an external debate: to select a people as superior is to introduce status and discrimination into he general pool of ideas.  If a god poses himself as THE god (monotheism); and that god elevates a people to be HIS people; is that not a doctrine that says the supreme authority, has made these the chosen people...therefore they are likewise supreme over other people.

You have not been on topic once and not being rude, when I know how you play, absurd games on here Quill
If you take offense over that, you must be very emotional all the time

In fact its evident you did not read the link accept the beginning.

So yes lets be logical, you jumped in an claimed this concept the chosen people has led to Nazism, even though both are far removed. Claimed this concept was why Jews were persecuted, even though they were often for being blamed for the death of Jesus. Then read the beginning of the link I give you, fail to understand what the covenant with Abraham's descendants are, invoke a comparability to Israel/Islam to the holocaust. What has been logical about your views based on all previous posts and the article?

You're a waste of time. I don't have time for games.

Original Quill wrote:You're a waste of time.  I don't have time for games.

Funny, as its clear you are attempting t play games.
Hence why I said previously. I can easily see past it and not going to have you derail the thread.
Like I said you wanted to deliberately divert this to make it about Israel and even worse compare the present situation with the holocaust. It was pathetic Quill

Thorin wrote:

eddie wrote:
If they had followed their fucking bible they wouldn't be raping people in the first place.!

I am going to be very interested to hear what sort of unhinged defense they come up with in this.
The problem is though, if the Bible was followed literally, this would be permissible Eddie.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/captive-virgins-polygamy-and-sex-slaves-what-marriage-would-look-like-if-we-actually-followed-the-bible/

They are playing with a "double edged sword" there though...

Once found guilty, imagine if the same kind of Old Testament "eye for an eye" punishments could be meted out to them..

After having all of their property forfeited to the girl and her family in reparations, they could then be stoned to death by her family members, friends and fellow townsfolk.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Thorin wrote:
I am going to be very interested to hear what sort of unhinged defense they come up with in this.
The problem is though, if the Bible was followed literally, this would be permissible Eddie.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/captive-virgins-polygamy-and-sex-slaves-what-marriage-would-look-like-if-we-actually-followed-the-bible/

They are playing with a "double edged sword" there though...

Once found guilty, imagine if the same kind of Old Testament "eye for an eye" punishments could be meted out to them..

After having all of their property forfeited to the girl and her family in reparations, they could then be stoned to death by her family members, friends and fellow townsfolk.

That is a very interesting point Wolf.

I am intrigued more than anything to see what drivel they use from the bible as evidence.