(September 4, 2013 at 4:50 pm)Ryantology Wrote: 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.

The statute is apparently designed to discourage violence.

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

Effectiveness as a deterrent is quite relevant.

Quote: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.

I'd say loss of a hand is much less serious than loss of ability to reproduce.

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

Compromise implies imperfect people. Jesus says straight out that OT divorce law was a compromise.

(September 4, 2013 at 5:00 pm)John V Wrote:

Quote: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.

I'd say loss of a hand is much less serious than loss of ability to reproduce.

Since the discussion is about the wife of one of the men, it is safe to say that (in those times) reproduction was already taken care of.

(September 4, 2013 at 4:49 pm)John V Wrote:

(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:

Dude. He said himself he wasn't talking about the bible verse you drug out. Yes, it's potentially confusing...as you stand evident. You may not like the confusion, but life goes on.

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

There is that word again. You brought up an alternative verse to discuss, and attempted to engage several members here about it. No big deal, and not worth denying.

(September 4, 2013 at 1:50 pm)John V Wrote:

(September 4, 2013 at 1:44 pm)Brakeman Wrote: Only, it doesn't say that does it? No, there is no place in the bible where it says that if a man grabs hold of your junk he is to be punished by having his junk cut off or seized, without pity.

It's not there now is it???

Yes, it is there.

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

No it is not! Grabbing someone's junk is not disfigurement at all. You are being deceitful in your attempt to cover this.

---

(September 4, 2013 at 5:00 pm)John V Wrote: I'd say loss of a hand is much less serious than loss of ability to reproduce.

So you equivocate a girl touching your junk as a serious injury such that you would lose the ability to reproduce? Wildly unlikely, guys get hit there all the time and still manage to have kids. Besides, the verse says nothing about grave bodily injury, it only implies sufficient pain to help her husband escape the man's attack, which would be minimal, as a man quickly loses focus when someone has a hand on his junk.

Furthermore, the verse does not make note or exception to the cause of the altercation with the husband. If the attacker were a criminal bent on doing evil to the husband, the wife would still lose her hand, Is that fair?

Even if she did affect his ability to reproduce, the loss of her hand as a punishment is barbaric and unjust. We would never allow such a thing in our US courts because of the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments. Today we know that if you want to be unmolested, don't go around attacking people. There is no need to dream up misogynistic punishments.

[quote='Captain Colostomy' pid='502350' dateline='1378329933']
Dude. He said himself he wasn't talking about the bible verse you drug out. Yes, it's potentially confusing...as you stand evident. You may not like the confusion, but life goes on.[/quote]
Dude. He referenced a specific verse. Other people agreed with him. After much discussion he changed his story. That's fine - nothing wrong with retraction and restatement. But don't act like I'm the source of any confusion.
[quote]
There is that word again. You brought up an alternative verse to discuss, and attempted to engage several members here about it. No big deal, and not worth denying.
[/quote]
I didn't deny it. I noted - correctly - that I have continued to also directly discuss the original verse.

---

[quote='Brakeman' pid='502357' dateline='1378331689']
No it is not! Grabbing someone's junk is not disfigurement at all. You are being deceitful in your attempt to cover this.[/quote]
http://men.webmd.com/guide/testicle-injuries
[quote='John V' pid='502335' dateline='1378328421']
[quote]So you equivocate a girl touching your junk as a serious injury such that you would lose the ability to reproduce?[/quote]
No. Neither do I equivocate a woman going after a man's junk in the context of a fight with "a girl touching [his] junk."
[quote]Wildly unlikely, guys get hit there all the time and still manage to have kids. Besides, the verse says nothing about grave bodily injury, it only implies sufficient pain to help her husband escape the man's attack, which would be minimal, as a man quickly loses focus when someone has a hand on his junk.[/quote]
The verse mentions neither injury nor sufficient pain to help her husband escape. I've already covered the fact that injury is not certain.
[quote]Furthermore, the verse does not make note or exception to the cause of the altercation with the husband. If the attacker were a criminal bent on doing evil to the husband, the wife would still lose her hand, Is that fair?[/quote]
That would be for the judge to decide. Such laws gave principles which judges would adapt to specific situations. Heck, if you're going to take it that literally, I could counter that the verse gives great power to women - they could kick the man in the nuts or hit him with a heavy object in the nuts and take absolutely no punishment, so long as they didn't use their hands.
[quote]Even if she did affect his ability to reproduce, the loss of her hand as a punishment is barbaric and unjust.[/quote]
You're right, it is unjust - in favor of the woman. Just punishment would be for her to lose her ability to reproduce, and fertility was a highly valued attribute of women in that culture.
[quote]We would never allow such a thing in our US courts because of the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments.[/quote]
So what? Are you saying that US jurisprudence is objectively correct?
[quote]Today we know that if you want to be unmolested, don't go around attacking people. [/quote]
A point I made earlier - if the woman just stays out of the fight, she keeps her hand.

And round and round he goes.

(September 5, 2013 at 8:24 am)John V Wrote: Dude. He referenced a specific verse. Other people agreed with him. After much discussion he changed his story. That's fine - nothing wrong with retraction and restatement. But don't act like I'm the source of any confusion.

Bullshit. You introduced that second verse...Ryantology momentarily engaged it in a response to you. Maelstrom directly answered a direct question posed, by you, about that verse. Neither Ryan or Mael 'agreed with Max', since Max's comments were addressing the OP, christians and the bible in general, as he has clarified. No one directly engaged Max's post under the assumption you imply. Your insistance on hammering on your preferred verse could be construed as confusion. Most posters are going to rightly discuss the OP, not some shift in focus you wedged in. Without further mention, it's reasonable to conclude posts address the thread topic.

(September 5, 2013 at 9:05 am)Captain Colostomy Wrote: Bullshit. You introduced that second verse...Ryantology momentarily engaged it in a response to you. Maelstrom directly answered a direct question posed, by you, about that verse. Neither Ryan or Mael 'agreed with Max', since Max's comments were addressing the OP, christians and the bible in general, as he has clarified.

Key words bolded. He needed to clarify because the plain reading of his post clearly indicated that he was addressing the second verse. Pretend otherwise all you want, but it doesn't change anything.

Quote:No one directly engaged Max's post under the assumption you imply. Your insistance on hammering on your preferred verse could be construed as confusion. Most posters are going to rightly discuss the OP, not some shift in focus you wedged in. Without further mention, it's reasonable to conclude posts address the thread topic.

Sure - but his post made further mention. The part he quoted included only one Bible verse, the second, and it appeared directly before his own commentary, which said "...if this was a quote from the Quoran as opposed to the Bible..."

(September 5, 2013 at 9:26 am)John V Wrote:

(September 5, 2013 at 9:05 am)Captain Colostomy Wrote: Bullshit. You introduced that second verse...Ryantology momentarily engaged it in a response to you. Maelstrom directly answered a direct question posed, by you, about that verse. Neither Ryan or Mael 'agreed with Max', since Max's comments were addressing the OP, christians and the bible in general, as he has clarified.

Key words bolded. He needed to clarify because the plain reading of his post clearly indicated that he was addressing the second verse. Pretend otherwise all you want, but it doesn't change anything.

Quote:No one directly engaged Max's post under the assumption you imply. Your insistance on hammering on your preferred verse could be construed as confusion. Most posters are going to rightly discuss the OP, not some shift in focus you wedged in. Without further mention, it's reasonable to conclude posts address the thread topic.

Sure - but his post made further mention. The part he quoted included only one Bible verse, the second, and it appeared directly before his own commentary, which said "...if this was a quote from the Quoran as opposed to the Bible..."

Who is pretending? I said it could have been misunderstood, and by your accounting, you did. But you are off on some tangent, attempting to show that this was widely the case. It was not. The confusion is obviously yours. I only say that you didn't help things by continuing the discussion from your end under this notion. It's not really a big deal, except if you make it out to be. Considering your tenacity, I'm guessing you have a compulsive need to think you're right...so don't let me dissuade you.

Bleh.

(September 5, 2013 at 9:36 am)Captain Colostomy Wrote: Who is pretending?

You. The post says what it says.

Quote:I said it could have been misunderstood, and by your accounting, you did.

I understood it just fine. That it was later revised does not mean that I misunderstood it.

Quote:But you are off on some tangent, attempting to show that this was widely the case. It was not. The confusion is obviously yours. I only say that you didn't help things by continuing the discussion from your end under this notion. It's not really a big deal, except if you make it out to be. Considering your tenacity, I'm guessing you have a compulsive need to think you're right...so don't let me dissuade you.

Bleh.

Er, pot-kettle, takes two to tango, etc. You seem to be fine with playing he-said she-said until you're losing, at which point your opponent has a compulsive need to think he's right. That's really lame.