(September 4, 2013 at 3:34 pm)John V Wrote:

(September 4, 2013 at 3:23 pm)Maelstrom Wrote: It is not commensurate, and it is lunacy.

The verse max referenced was:

19 If a man causes disfigurement of his neighbor, as he has done, so shall it be done to him.

How is that not commensurate?

---

(September 4, 2013 at 3:30 pm)Captain Colostomy Wrote: The passage quoted goes beyond commensuration, so this I call lunacy. Actually, 'cruel and unusual' is a more appropriate label.

Just because you believe your god to be just and fair doesn't make it so.

The verse max quoted was:

19 If a man causes disfigurement of his neighbor, as he has done, so shall it be done to him.

This is, indeed, commensurate.

Actually I wasn't referencing that passage I was referring to the passage about cutting off a woman's hand for touching the genitals of an assailant on her husband.

That is not commensurate in any way, shape or form.

(September 4, 2013 at 3:36 pm)Maelstrom Wrote: By the very fact that it is primitively inhuman.

That has absolutely nothing to do with commensurateness.

This has nothing to do with junk damage.

This law was created by guys with little junk to keep their women from finding out who the big junk guys were....plain and simple

Why would god created a law to protect our junk...junk he created attached to the outside of our bodies where its easily damaged (like when you pick up you little grand nephew and he stomps on your junk with his new sneakers)


.

I was agreeing with Max's overall impression of how Christian's flock to the cross, yet disparage other anachronisms presented in other religions' fairy tales. (Paraphrasing mine). I was not commenting on any biblical passage except the OP's. JohnV...apologies for the confusion. That said, your jumping for joy at a less illogical passage doesn't absolve the inherent lunacy in the bible...which Brakeman's quote is just one example of thousands.

(September 4, 2013 at 3:41 pm)max-greece Wrote:

(September 4, 2013 at 3:34 pm)John V Wrote: The verse max referenced was:

19 If a man causes disfigurement of his neighbor, as he has done, so shall it be done to him.

How is that not commensurate?

---

The verse max quoted was:

19 If a man causes disfigurement of his neighbor, as he has done, so shall it be done to him.

This is, indeed, commensurate.

Actually I wasn't referencing that passage I was referring to the passage about cutting off a woman's hand for touching the genitals of an assailant on her husband.

The post speaks for itself. You referenced the verse on disfigurement, and others agree with you.

Quote:That is not commensurate in any way, shape or form.

Correct, the case of the woman's hand is not necessarily as commensurate as the general rule. As previously noted, the general rule can't apply between people with different body parts. Depending on the damage done to the man, the woman's punishment could be either more or less than commensurate. If more, than it should certainly serve as a deterrent. You guys act as if women have no control over their actions.

(September 4, 2013 at 3:52 pm)John V Wrote:

(September 4, 2013 at 3:41 pm)max-greece Wrote: Actually I wasn't referencing that passage I was referring to the passage about cutting off a woman's hand for touching the genitals of an assailant on her husband.

The post speaks for itself. You referenced the verse on disfigurement, and others agree with you.

Max grabbed a large chunk of quotes...your bible verse just happened to be on the end. Maybe you were confused by this, but I understood he was still addressing the OP.

I find it amusing you are downplaying an obvious 'god is an asshole' type verse in favor of a 'god requires schoolyard justice' verse. Harp on either....neither paint your Yahweh in flattering colours.

(September 4, 2013 at 1:10 pm)Brakeman Wrote: In
Deuteronomy 25:12
it says:
11"If two men, a man and his countryman, are struggling together, and the wife of one comes near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who is striking him, and puts out her hand and seizes his genitals, 12then you shall cut off her hand; you shall not show pity.

Why is god so suddenly concerned about a woman touching a man's privates?
He has no such prohibition or punishment for a man helping his friend and grabbing another man's junk.

Is god a hateful Homo?

Is this still in force?

If some guy was beating my ass, I'd love for my wife to twist his nuts off, and yet I am the fairly jealous type.

slow bible day I guess?

(September 4, 2013 at 4:27 pm)Captain Colostomy Wrote: Max grabbed a large chunk of quotes...your bible verse just happened to be on the end. Maybe you were confused by this, but I understood he was still addressing the OP.

That's incorrect. He said:

Quote:Now deep down you must know that if this was a quote from the Quoran as opposed to the Bible you would condemn it as vehemently as we are doing.

The only quote from the Bible in that post was:

Lev 24
19 If a man causes disfigurement of his neighbor, as he has done, so shall it be done to him.

Quote:I find it amusing you are downplaying an obvious 'god is an asshole' type verse

Incorrect, I've continued to directly address the original verse. My last post had more on the original verse than on the commensurateness issue.

Quote:in favor of a 'god requires schoolyard justice' verse. Harp on either....neither paint your Yahweh in flattering colours.

I don't see where arguing against punishment commensurate with the crime paints you guys in flattering colors.

(September 4, 2013 at 2:19 pm)John V Wrote: I disagree. I don't think that most societies want to put people in jail, but rather they'd prefer their citizens to be law-abiding.

It depends on what the law is designed to enforce. If the law is constructed so as to protect the people who are to follow it, then most times, not so. When the law is nothing more than a tool to legitimize a despot's arbitrary whims, as is the case with God's law with its multifarious examples of harsh and disproportionate retribution, then it is, at best, tantamount to making psychopathic behavior official.

Quote:For all you know, the statute in question was completely effective as a preventative, and never needed to be enforced.

Except, the likelihood of this is virtually nonexistent, and it's irrelevant either way.

Quote:If the result is loss of reproductive ability for the man, then loss of a hand is a disproportionately light sentence.

Perhaps that says something about the functionality of your penis, but a man without his penis is inconvenienced. A woman without a hand is seriously handicapped.

Quote:And a woman's maximum punishment is less than that of a man's in this case. It's a compromise.

Compromise implies an imperfect system, which implies an imperfect god. Can't have your cake and eat it, too.

(September 4, 2013 at 3:52 pm)John V Wrote:

(September 4, 2013 at 3:41 pm)max-greece Wrote: Actually I wasn't referencing that passage I was referring to the passage about cutting off a woman's hand for touching the genitals of an assailant on her husband.

The post speaks for itself. You referenced the verse on disfigurement, and others agree with you.

Quote:That is not commensurate in any way, shape or form.

Correct, the case of the woman's hand is not necessarily as commensurate as the general rule. As previously noted, the general rule can't apply between people with different body parts. Depending on the damage done to the man, the woman's punishment could be either more or less than commensurate. If more, than it should certainly serve as a deterrent. You guys act as if women have no control over their actions.

Why are you talking about rules? Are you insane? A fight between 2 men breaks out. The wife of one weighs in to support her husband. During the fracas she touches the other guys genitals and so her hand must be cut off.

That's the rule. No mention of tweaking his nipples, gouging out an eye, biting off his ear - just the genitals - and only for the woman.

Her husband is under attack - she is trying to defend him and you see fault in her??

You don't see subjugation at work here? You don't see the message - however wrong a man is woe betide the woman that attempts to control him? Really? You see a crime that should be punished?

Have you ever considered moving to Saudi Arabia? I think you would fit in just fine over there. They love loping off body parts for minor infringements.