Interestingly, the Police declined to comment on whether they had any policy on this. Not surprised, sdince any policy would show that the police (and legislation) has a two faced hypocritical view on this.
Police, firefighters, ambulances (AFAIK) and Ministerial car drivers are allowed to speed under some circumstances, but legislation does not extend this to doctors.
Historically there would have been no problem since common sense would have prevailed all around. However times have changed and the Police have got more pedantic. Local police management can hardly ask the pfficer in question to pull his horns in without looking hypocritical.
Wouldn’t you have got rude and aggressive if you are rushing to an emergency, you get stopped, try to explain to the cop who you are, show him the pager message and the “STUPID FUCKING IDIOT WON’T FUCKING LISTEN”
Fire appliances can travel 15kph over the proper speed limit (i.e. 105kph in 100 zone (being a heavy vehicle with 90 limit), 65kph in 50 zone). Police are effectively unlimited from my understandingg but have guidelines regarding safety and appropriateness etc. Ambulances do not have any legislative allowance to break speed limits – it’s not uncommon for the drivers to be asked to pay tickets from cameras but obviously Police are unlikely to pull over a speeding ambulance.
I believe on-call doctors responding to an emergency have some allowance to break speed limits. However, they are also allowed to have a green flashing light on their car to indicate who they are. I think if it were compulsory for responding doctors to use a magnetic light this type of thing would never happen, he would merely have picked up an escort on his way through.
The woman died because there was no doctor on site. I DARE you to accuse the police of being resonsible Scott. the facts are that the cop verified who the doctor was then escorted him and did not charged him with a driving offence he had committed. Even ambulances are required to obey the road rules, there is no exemption for doctors who don’t have any id.
The doctor himslef acknowledges he doesn’t know that being stopped did not lead to the womans death. Are you so fucking god like that you know something that other don’t?
The cop stoped a speeding driver, you would have been up his ass if he’d done nothing and the driver had killed someone wouldn’t you. Next time just post that you hate the police and save us the agenda driven bullshit.
Doubtlessly things would get complicated in cities but at least in small towns & rural NZ all emergency services work together. The chance of a doctor being pinged for speeding to an emergency would be virtually zero…the police officer would be well aware that the next emergency could involve himself lying hurt kilometres away from help.
The following may have been posted by someone else on KB already but …
The BBC have put together a dynamite little flowchart of the Greek crisis that shows where it could lead, based a fairly simple set of Yes/No decisions. There are five outcomes:
1. Pyrrhic Victory
3. Moral Hazard
4. Political Turmoil and ….
tom hunter – I reckon scenario 5 with one provision, global FINANCIAL SYSTEM meltdown followed by a lot of very sad parasites topping themselves. A few months of political and civil turmoil and unrest followed by a return to sanity in the world’s financial system.
Bring it on.
Murray – “I DARE you to accuse the police of being resonsible Scott”
As I initially commented, the woman would probably have died anyway. The point I was trying to emphasize was that the cop wouldn’t listen, possibly because of an “us and them” mentality which leads him to believe everyone is a liar.
He exercised poor judgement. Had the woman been able to hang on a bit longer with CPR, 5 minutes could have made all the difference.
The cop is lucky she died so quickly.
My experience of cops is that a third are good at their job, a third are not really suited to the job, and a third are borderline criminals.
the current financial house of cards cannot stand. Hopefully, though I won’t hold my breath, this will result in serious reform to global finance and the banking system. And with any luck, an end to the monstrosity that is the EU.
There may be some merit in the argument but is this the time to raise it? To what end do you make controversial statements such as this during the middle of the world cup unless you simply want to be the centre of attention. If he wanted leverage he should have waited till 24 Oct. Then, if we win (if we get that far) IRC would have to sit up and take notice. Tew doesn’t do it for me. I wonder if he had the blessing of his employer before mouthing off?
Nookin – I know the timing is controversial but he’s speaking the truth. I don’t believe the current competition, the AB’s or NZ as a country will be adversely affected by the timing. The fact that the Aussies have come out in support so quickly speaks volumes.
If Tew knew the ABs were going to win the cup then after the final would have been the ideal time, however if they didn’t win then any statement about a boycott would have come out as sour grapes and toys out of the cot behaviour. For that reason alone his timing is spot on.
The left love train sets and Len wants to play with big ones. It does not make sense to waste money on projects that will cost lots and live off subsidies for ever. Trains will not fix Auckland transport problems. But its a big train choo choo
Just to change the topic. How many watched question time on Parliament(Channel90/94) yesterday.
There of course were the eulogies to the dead SAS trooper. But what came next was quite eery.
I have never seen the Labour party so dispirited,anxious and gloomy about the future.
I like to watch Steve Chadwick sitting behind Goff and Rick Barker, both govt whips. Chadwick has a facial mobility second to none. She looked sullen and dispirited, as though she realized she was in her last week on the taxpayer in parliament. Barker looked equally sullen, realizing that his days are numbered.The rest were braying like donkeys’ at slaughter.
When things got going Mallard had a fusilade of “poo’s” against the PM but got nowhere. Mallard’s efforts looked to be the dying efforts of an opposition that seems likely to slip further in the polls.
And of course the feeble efforts of Darrien Fenton to foment trouble against Peter Leitch’s support of John Key. What a joke. As though Labour has control over the hordes of Warrior supporters.
Boscowen,Act leader in the house looked to leading with his lance against the National Party, not seeming to be in tune with “Smoking” Don Brash.
I think Labour are now starting to face their wipeout. A lot will be sharpening up their CV’s.
Central city was dying [-that is blamed on lax planning. The birth of Malls etc.]
Will cost about 400% more to rent new office space.
Most great cities are built by autocrats. [ doesn't matter weather it's a private or public developer it depends on flare and vision. There's an argument there for leasehold tenure]
We don’t have sufficient cheap labour to emulate what other countries have done so best to leave the best buildings and make the down town garden city. [I must say I wondered how we were going to find the money to rebuild something fantastic. Was Steven Spielberg going to do it?]
My money’s on an aversion of the crisis with 3 more years of stagnant growth.
My money’s on them trying to avert the crisis and swallowing the resultant stagnant growth. Basically a replay of what the US has done since 2008: set up a government mechanism to absorb the toxic debts and keep the banks (some banks) alive, while flooding the system with printed money.
The problem here is that the EU just is not the unified group that the states of the US are, even though that has been the intention of the EUcrats from day one, and even though some see the current crisis as an opportunity to push further in that direction. In effect they would have to create “Eurobonds” that could then be purchased by the ECB, a replication of the US Fed-US Treasury interactions. But at the end of the day that still means the toxic debts are sitting, now backed by Germany, with vague handwaving promises that the PIIGS will really, truly, cross-my-heart-and-hope-to-die, change the societal structures systems that led to this.
Somehow I can’t see the German voters being willing to go that far for unity. Are they really going to risk their credit ratings, and perhaps even their economy, to solve the problems of Greece et al. At best they might only be persuaded by the least-worst argument, that Greece leaving the Euro or defaulting inside the Eurozone, would be more damaging to Germany. That’s a tough argument to make, especially when a Eurobond solution looks much the same as what has been tried for the past three years.
I think what they’ll get is an aversion of this crisis, followed soon after by an even bigger one rather than several years of crap growth.
I’d already spotted the Stewart-Paul interview and have it teed up on YouTube to watch. I can’t help but suspect that Jon would simply love to have a spoiler in the GOP ranks to allow an Obama victory. For all his bitching about the Big O, Stewart still thinks the Blue Model can be saved as long as left-wingers are in power.
tom hunter – “The problem here is that the EU just is not the unified group”
Yes that certainly is a danger, along with the Swiss not looking quite so impregnable, and German electorate dissent growing. Perhaps the tipping point could be reached if the China bubble bursts, and they are no longer willing or able to buy up American and European debt. That could trigger another great depression. (Simplistic analysis I know. It’s all I’m capable of)
Don’t know what the Saudis are doing, unless they *are* the Swiss banks.
“I can’t help but suspect that Jon would simply love to have a spoiler in the GOP”
I don’t know about that. Like me, I think Jon is seduced by the idea of robust constitutional property rights forming the basis of capitalistic self-regulation, but also like me, he thinks it all sounds a bit too good to be true. He also likes Ron Paul for his moral consistency, as do I.
“Politically, the antimoderne is counter-revolutionary; unlike contemporary conservatives, his opposition to modernity’s liberal order is radical, repudiating its underlying premises. Philosophically, the antimoderne is anti-Enlightenment; he opposes the disembodied rationalism born of the New Science and its Cartesian offshoot, and he sides with Pascal’s contention that “the heart has its reasons that reason knows not.” Existentially, the antimoderne is a pessimist, rejecting the modern cult of progress, with its feel-good, happy-ending view of reality. Morally or religiously, the antimoderne accepts the doctrine of “original sin,” spurning Rousseau’s Noble Savage and Locke’s Blank Slate, along with all the egalitarian, social-engineering dictates accompanying modernity’s optimistic onslaught.”
(Simplistic analysis I know. It’s all I’m capable of)
I would not be too modest about it as it’s all anybody is capable of in this situation. My second degree focused heavily on finance supporting two different majors, so I actually do have a good understanding of puts, calls, hedging strategies and the rest. Moreover I’ve been following this shit for twenty years – and my analysis is not much more than yours!
Frankly at this stage I think the “simplistic” analysis has more going for it than anything produced by the economic graduates of Havard, Yale, Cambridge or the Grandes Écoles. They’re the geniuses that guided us to where we are.
Greece should have been ring-fenced two years ago and booted from the Eurozone then: it would have been painful to both the Greeks and Europeans in general but what we have now is far worse. I don’t think people realise how financial debt is very much like the actual black holes of astronomy: it feeds on itself, and if you keep feeding it the thing just gets bigger.
Written from an Australian perspective, but relevant also for New Zealand. A warning of the tyranny that will result from a rejection of the British Monarchy.
“The Australian nation-state will cease to exist if republicans have their way. It will become a state without a nation. Patriotism will be displaced by new forms of statist idolatry. “Constitutional patriotism,” as the new state religion is called, disapproves the love of fathers. Instead, we are to transfer our loyalty to an impersonal state liberated from the bonds of history and law. Lest the managerial regime be confined within the old superstitious rituals of “ancestor worship” associated with the common law jurisprudence of liberty, progressive judges have already transformed the meaning of constitutionalism itself. The constitution is no longer a set of fixed rules and principles intended to limit the potentially despotic reach of governments. On the contrary, in well-managed, modern republics, constitutions are heavily watered, “living trees.” Open to perpetual innovation from the top down, their function is to enhance the power of the state. Tradition, authority, and the common law spirit of liberty: All will be sacrificed on the multiculturalist altar of equality.”
MONARCHS AND MIRACLES: AUSTRALIA’S NEED FOR A PATRIOT KING
When you go to The Standard they are going about John Key as Prime MINCER (bc of his Catwalk appearance a month or two ago). Everyone knows he is straight as a die.
But when you raise the spectre of Helen Clark being a HOMOSEXUAL you get banned and deleted.
“Maybe they could take down the Wellington one at the same time ”
Nah – the Wellington BNZ building (now the State Insurance Building) should remain forever in situ as a reminder of the stupidity of the Boilermakers Union – the militant action on that site led to almost a decade of construction delays and better still, a re-think how buildings could be constructed in not only Wellington, but also across the rest of NZ.
The result of this shambles was a total shift away from steel framework in construction and in parallel it eliminated the possibility of an action replay of strikes courtesy of said Boilermakers Union. In fact, this is a classic example of a union cocking things up for their members.
After I put up that BBC interview with a trader who said some rather blunt things – like the Eurozone is toast and Goldman Sachs rules the world rather than governments – there were some opinions expressed (the first from a left-winger who is presumably no friend of bankers) that he was just an “amateur” working out of his mother’s basement. That may well be so, but it did not address the arguments of his analysis.
“the euro is “practically dead” and Europe faces a financial earthquake from a Greek default”
… “The euro is beyond rescue”
… “The only remaining question is how many days the hopeless rearguard action of European governments and the European Central Bank can keep up Greece’s spirits.”
….”A Greek default will trigger an immediate “magnitude 10” earthquake across Europe.”
…”Holders of Greek government bonds will have to write off their entire investment, the southern European nation will stop paying salaries and pensions and automated teller machines in the country will empty “within minutes.”
Hmmm. Who issued that apocalyptic call? Well it’s a guy called Attila Szalay Berzeviczy, Head of Global Securities Services at UniCredit Group in Milan and former Chairman of the Hungarian stock exchange.
There’s also this interview in Stern (you can run Google translator across the whole damned thing and read it yourself).
…. he considered it “impossible” that Greece through radical austerity measures come back on its feet. The country would achieve in the coming year, a debt ratio of 160 percent of gross domestic product. “The debt service for this horrendous burden the country can no longer afford to simply and easily”, he said
… “Without a serious debt cut is no longer the country on its feet.” This must be “at least 50 percent more likely to” be. That will not go inside the monetary union. Greece therefore had to resign after an average debt of the euro zone.
…“A restructuring in the euro zone would be a de facto carte blanche for Greece and other highly indebted countries to get rid of a reduction of their debt problems.”That would be “the end of the monetary union”.
That’s Otmar Issing, former chief economist of the European Central Bank.
FANTASTIC NEWS! SANITY RETURNING TO EDUCATION IN BRITAIN.
“Children will be instructed to learn poetry by heart and recite the kings and queens of England, in a return to a “traditionalist” education planned by the Conservatives.
The national curriculum would be rewritten under a Tory government to restore past methods of teaching history, English, maths and science, Michael Gove, the Shadow Children’s Secretary, told The Times.
“I’m an unashamed traditionalist when it comes to the curriculum,” Mr Gove said. “Most parents would rather their children had a traditional education, with children sitting in rows, learning the kings and queens of England, the great works of literature, proper mental arithmetic, algebra by the age of 11, modern foreign languages. That’s the best training of the mind and that’s how children will be able to compete.”
History should be taught “in order — it’s a narrative,” Mr Gove said. Lessons should celebrate rather than denigrate Britain’s role through the ages, including the Empire. “Guilt about Britain’s past is misplaced.””
HAHA – The BNZ Centre (now State Insurance Tower) was originally to have BNZ spelt out around the top floors with the window surrounds. If you look at the image at the link below you can see that’s how it as at the bottom (you have to think slightly ‘creatively’). But if you look at what it spells at the top, it reads “HAHA” – a final laugh courtesy of the union members who built it.
“It’s not a contradiction when some of us say that we are radical and traditional.
We are radical because we seek fundamental change—we’re not looking for reforms; we’re looking for something entirely new.
At the same time we are traditional, because our project is rooted in Tradition, even if it is futuristic.
This is why we are not conservatives: conservatism is the negation of the new; Tradition is the ongoing affirmation of the old, of the archaic. And therefore it’s endlessly regenerating. Constantly renewing.”
Yes, it’s always fascinating that if one is dishonest enough to try to represent a Markov chain (evolutionary process) as a series of statistically independent events, (and avoid the whole initial-conditions conundrum), how readily the claim withers way into a black-hole of lost integrity.
I completely agree. I have no problem with some form of evolution, as I have said, but I’m also interested in arguments against it, not because of anything to do with Scripture, but becasue I like to tilt at windmills.
I posted this over on the VSM thread as a response to something Weihana said, but I think it belongs here (and I’ll keep it and repost it if necessary) as it might go some way to defusing some of the annoying arguments about Christianity and the Bible that seem to be so endless and so fruitless.
To me, the fundamental difference between Modernists and Traditionalists is how they view/see/relate to and understand the world, and the language they use to describe it.
A Modernist, when asked to describe a rose, will say that it has such and such dimensions, is such and such a colour, and has so many petals.
A Traditionalist when asked to describe a rose will talk about its beauty, the smell, the asthetic pleasure it gives, and what it inspires in the imagination.
Now thats a simplification I admit (Modernists can do the second bit as well), but it does describe how both approach ultimate reality as a general rule.
Traditionalism is a poetic approach, or more accurately, a mytho-poetic approach to reality. Modernism is a literalist approach.
Modernists claim that they can better describe truth and reality because they are literalists. They believe that because they stick to a purely literal approach, their desriptions of reality are better and more accurate than others, especially those people or ideas they see as pre-modern.
Traditionalists on the other hand believe that the literalist approach actually distorts reality, because it narrows things down too much, to the point where much of what is important in life, and equally a part of reality, gets lost. Like the example of the rose, the Traditionalist believes that literalists are missing a whole lot of vital information and truth, merely because that truth is not “literal”.
So lets take the talking snake in Genesis. Literalists say “well we know snakes cannot talk, so thats not true.” Ironically they make exactly the same mistake as Fundamentalists (Fundamentalism is actually a form of Modernism). The fundamentalist says, “well, the Bible says a snake talked, therefore a snake talked.”
BOTH are taking a superficially literal (Modern) approach to the story.
The Traditionalist on the other hand takes a more nuanced view. A Traditionalist will say “I believe that the Bible is telling a true story that actually happened in history, but it is using mythic-poetic language to do so.” So the Traditionalist affirms the truth of Scripture, but not in a superficially literal way.
This does mean the Bible is a fairy tale, in the way Modernists will understand that term. as meaning something that is not true, because a Traditionalist still affirms the historical truth of the Bible. BUT is does mean that Scripture uses a form of mytho-poetic language to describe that truth, and it does so for a very good reason, because mytho-poetic language is the only way to describe Trascndednt realities and truths, not because they are not real, but because they are TRANSCENDENT.
One modern thinker who understood this is Carl Jung. He’s worth reading.
Is Chthoniid THE Spiderman? Certainly takes a good photo. That high res picture of a tui’s head a couple of weeks ago revealed a level of detail I’ve never seen before. Almost as if it had been taken by a spider…. OMFG!!!
Only in the last 300 years or so has a non literal view of the bible been postulated. Before the rise of science it was literal interpretation of the bible or else. A little bonfire with you as the center piece would be the outcome of your views
The bible τὰ βιβλία is just another religious comic as valid as the Koran القرآن ,or the Kama sutra कामसूत्र as a guide for life.
“Only in the last 300 years or so has a non literal view of the bible been postulated. Before the rise of science it was literal interpretation of the bible or else.”
Sorry, but this simply is not true. In fact the opposite is true. I am student of Christian history. As part of my studies I read early church theologians from the first to the fifth centuries in particular. They did not take a superficially literal approach to Scripture. Also they constantly argued and debated amongst themselves. The “or else” part of your claim is mere modernist fantasy and prejudice.
The great Protestant Reformer John Calvin who lived from 10 July 1509 – 27 May 1564 said that the language of Scripture was God “lisping to us the way an adult talks to a baby”, in language that we could understand. Nor was he the only medieval to late medieval theologian to take that view.
Superficial literalism is a modern approach to Scripture, not an ancient one.
Also, the issue is nto literalism vs non-literalism, but a particularly modern superficial literalism which is a form of reductionism, vs a mytho-poetic Traditional approach.
Christian fundamentalists and Secular Atheist fundamentalists are both Modernists, and both wrong.
As I have been an atheist since I was twelve. I of course had to at least have some understanding of what I chose not to believe in. So I have tried to read the bible and read a few commentaries for and against. Nothing about any religion makes any sense to me or most other atheists. In fact I find the number of different interpretations of “God” as one of the many arguments against his existence.
By the way lee the Muslims that I know are not as against Christianity as you are against them. I read the twelve days of Christmas to a friends children while waiting for him to return from the mosque. Its his youngest daughters favorite nursery rhyme.
“So I have tried to read the bible and read a few commentaries for and against.”
Fair enough. But that does not mean you can claim to understand the history of Christian theology and teaching. I’m not saying this to attack you, but merely to point out that the claim often made by Atheists that the pre-modern West was one long dark age of superstition and fundamentalist Biblical literalism is a lie. And its an evil one, because it prejudices people in the West to our common heritage.
“By the way lee the Muslims that I know are not as against Christianity as you are against them.”
I’m not against them per-se. I’m against them being here in large numbers and attempting to subvert our heritage, or supporting terrorists.
One of my faveourite Traditionalists was a Muslim. Rene Guenon was a French Traditionalist who converted to Islam. He wrote two books after his conversion, ‘The Crisis of the Modern World’ and ‘The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times which have had a major influence on me.
Exercise some self-reliance and personal responsibility and stop spamming the blog with posts about the Tooth Fairy.
If I need advice on the exact laws around buying slaves and how much I can beat them, or whether that rape victim from last week should be killed, then I’ll ask. Okay?
(For anyone who doesn’t know, the answer is yes. We must kill the girl who was raped. I know I know. But I don’t make the rules. And do you think you know better in this matter than an invisible space pixie? No. Didn’t think so. The stoning’s at eleven tomorrow.)
My Master dominates me every minute. He makes rules for me and I follow his wishes. He watches me all the time and I can only talk to him in a whisper, with my eyes closed and on my knees, at his mercy. At his whim. Waiting for him to take me…
I’m sure wat will be happy with this, but I have to take a couple of weeks off posting here. I have a huge workload with assignments and studying for tests, and I work part time and have a family, so my time is severely limited. But don’t worry wat………I’ll Be Back!
Thanks to all of you who have debated with me with civility and decency, regardless of whether we agreed or not. I have enjoyed your company.
“Traditionalist conservatism, also known as “traditional conservatism,” “traditionalism,” “Burkean conservatism”, “classical conservatism” and (in non-American English or Australian English-speaking nations) “Toryism”, describes a political philosophy emphasizing the need for the principles of natural law and transcendent moral order, tradition, hierarchy and organic unity, agrarianism, classicism and high culture, and the intersecting spheres of loyalty. Some traditionalists have embraced the labels “reactionary” and “counterrevolutionary”, defying the stigma that has attached to these terms since the Enlightenment. Having a hierarchical view of society, many traditionalist conservatives, including a few Americans, defend the monarchical political structure as the most natural and beneficial social arrangement.”
1. Resacralization of the world versus materialism.
2. Natural social hierarchy versus an artificial hierarchy based on wealth.
3. The Crown, the Nation and the Family versus artificial globalisation and multiculturalism.
4. Stewardship of the earth versus the “maximization of resources.”
5. A harmonious relationship between men and women versus the feminist “war between the sexes.”
6. Agrarianism, handicraft and artisanship versus industrial mass-production and factory farming.
7. Distributism versus Corporate Capitalism and State Socialism.
8. Tradition versus cultural Marxism and Liberalism.
9. Respect for Authority and Communitarian values versus rampant individualism.
10. The West’s Judeo-Christian heritage and moral values versus Atheism and moral anarchy.
WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE A TRADITIONALIST?
It means to reject the modern, materialist reign of “quantity over quality,” the absence of any meaningful spiritual values, environmental devastation, the mechanization and over-specialization of urban life, and the imperialism of corporate monoculture, with its vulgar “values” of progress and efficiency. It means to yearn for the homogeneous national and local communities that flourished before globalisation—societies in which every aspect of life was integrated into a holistic system. Politically, the Traditionalist is counter-revolutionary; unlike contemporary conservatives, his opposition to modernity’s liberal order is radical, repudiating its underlying premises. Philosophically, the Traditionalist is anti-Enlightenment; he opposes the disembodied rationalism born of the New Science and its Cartesian offshoot, and he sides with Pascal’s contention that “the heart has its reasons that reason knows not.” Existentially, the Traditionalist is a pessimist, rejecting the modern cult of progress, with its feel-good, happy-ending view of reality. Morally or religiously, the Traditionalist accepts the doctrine of “original sin,” spurning Rousseau’s Noble Savage and Locke’s Blank Slate, along with all the egalitarian, social-engineering dictates accompanying modernity’s optimistic onslaught.”
If the rape point you are referring to is found in this comment, then you are misrepresenting the law that you have quoted. That quote does not refer to rape at all, it refers to fornication.
Rape is dealt with in this way, later in that chapter (google it, as I did, if you want to check it):
25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and
rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, 27 for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.
28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
While we might find it objectionable to make a raped woman marry her rapist, at least they are not executing her, as you suggest. Indeed, your example is misleading.
“There is a germ of religion in human nature so strong that whenever an order of men can persaude the people by flattery or terror that they have salvation at their disposal, there can be no end to fraud, violence , or usurpation.”
John Adams, 2nd POTUS
Lee good on for your belief system, I also have one, but as tedious as I can be on other things nothing fucks up GD like the God bothering. Its been rooted all week, in a week when there has been some quite interesting stuff happening.
On the contrary, it is you who are misleading. You are simply omitting the verse where the rape victim has to be killed.
23 “If there is a girl who is a virgin engaged to a man, and another man finds her in the city and lies with her, 24 then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and you shall stone them [n]to death; the girl, because she did not cry out in the city, and the man, because he has violated his neighbor’s wife. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you.
25 “But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die. 26 But you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl worthy of death, for just as a man rises against his neighbor and murders him, so is this case. 27 When he found her in the field, the engaged girl cried out, but there was no one to save her.
28 “If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days.
The rule is that rapes in a built up area mean the victims must be be stoned to death. You see ladies, if you don’t cry out when you are raped in town it implies that you are a willing participant. And you have therefore to be killed in the cruelest way possible – by stoning you.
My advice? Rape alarm.
It might not stop you getting raped but if you can at least show that you used it it will go well for you when you are on trial for your life afterwards (on the other hand if you don’t get a chance to use it before being hit over the head then that undeployed alarm means you’ve signed your own death warrant.) Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.
You have lost the will to live. Your head is throbbing and you can’t speak too quickly or else you might spew.
Your boss has already lambasted you for being late and has given you a lecture for reeking of booze.
You wore nice clothes, but you smell of socks, and you can’t hide the fact that you (depending on your gender) either missed an oh-so crucial spot shaving, or, it looks like you put your make-up on while riding the dodgems.
Your teeth have their own individual sweaters. Your eyes look like one big vein and your hairstyle makes you look like a reject from a Year 2 class circa 1976.
You would give a weeks pay for one of the following – home time, a doughnut and somewhere to be alone, or a Time Machine so you could go back and NOT have gone out the night before.
You scare small children in the street just by walking past them.
As I said belief systems are wonderful but I truly believe they are like your sexual relationship with your wife, they are your business and frankly I am not interested, and GD has been ordinary lately, thanks to God Botherers and the climate yawn
Its wonderful that people have been inspired to create beautiful music and paint great beauty but that is all
“What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of “humility.” This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism.”
“We could call order by the name of God, but it would be an impersonal God. There’s not much personal about the laws of physics.”
“I like Christ, I do not like Christians. Christians are so unlike Christ.”
Religion isn’t the cause of war. It’s just the excuse.
Verses 23/24 talk the scenario in the town – where there are people around to hear – and 25/26 talk about the same situation out in the field, where there’s no one to hear. That’s the difference that’s being explained. It’s the same girl in both pairs of verses and the same thing is happening to her. The only difference is that, out in the field, “there is no one to save her.” That’s the only difference, and that’s why the girl gets treated differently.
When she is raped in town, in verses 23/24, if she doesn’t cry out enough then she’s considered culpable, and must be stoned to death.
The same situation out in the field, where there’s no one to cry out to, means she’s not considered culpable.
But it’s still rape in both pairs of verses. That’s why the man is killed, for the “violation.”
“That is how it reads to me. Which means it is not rape but fornication.”
The implication is that any rape victim who doesn’t cry is actually a willing participant.
All a defense lawyer has to do is ask a victim if she cried out, and if she says no then the defendent walks free? (oh wait, no: both of them are stoned to death aren’t they.)
Goodness there’s been a great of religious debate this last week on KB. It’s all rather exciting to we Christians.
Keep it up lads, the more you talk about it the more you think about it and that’s a very good thing.
After all, if we Christians are in fact right and you others are, in fact, wrong, would it not be a pity to have only spent a teeny part of one’s thought-time on that most important issue which to your great regret since you’re now dead and have discovered that yes, you were wrong, you can’t now do anything about?
Andrei was on holiday in Queensland, but alas, it pissed down with rain for days on end, and the waters began to rise. Everyone except Andrei fled for higher ground.
Stubbornly staying put he proclaimed,”God will save me, so I’m not going anywhere!”
The flood got higher. Luckily a boat came by and a rescuer said “Come on mate, get in!”
“No” replied Andrei. “God will save me!”
The flood got very high now and Andrei was forced to stand on the roof of his chalet.
Fortunately, a helicopter spotted him and lowered a harness for Andrei to grab hold of.
“No, God will save me!” he said
Sadly, the floodwaters didn’t abate, and Andrei was swept to his doom.
So when he got to heaven, Andrei was rather miffed. He marched up to God, and demanded, “I had faith in you Lord. Why didn’t you save me?”
Testily, God replied, “For fuck’s sake! First I sent a boat, and then a helicopter. What more do you want!”
I agree with Pauleastbay’s point at 8.27pm. There is a difference in the language there, and quite a significant one. My opinion, from reading what you quoted and the subsequent verses, is that your quote does not talk about rape but about fornication. The next two examples are indeed rape, as Pauleastbay points out in the wording differences.
The implication is that any rape victim who doesn’t cry is actually a willing participant.
And I agree with you, apart from the word ‘rape’. I don’t think that fits in your quote. There is nothing in that quote to indicate a lack of consent. It appears to imply that if she was being raped then she would have cried out, which , given the way towns were set out in the Middle East of the day appears a reasonable assumption.
All a defense lawyer has to do is ask a victim if she cried out, and
if she says no then the defendent walks free? (oh wait, no: both of them are stoned to death aren’t they.)
I don’t get that. Where does a defence lawyer come into it? The question you are positing would be asked by a prosecution lawyer.
EDIT: Actually, from my recall of ancient family customs from my history books, the engaged virgin would possibly be guilty of adultery, not fornication. Which, I think, is counted as being worse in many societies.
You are ignoring the fact that the two pairs of verses are talking about the same event, in town and in a field respectively. i.e. one situation where there is (supposedly) help around and the other where there isn’t. That’s the only difference. You are just playing word games when you say that one has the word “lies” and other “seizes” or “forces.” Some translations use the word “sleeps.” Do you suppose it is really talking about going to sleep?
In town, a rape victim who is able to scream and get help won’t be killed. But if she doesn’t scream she must be stoned to death.
I disagree that they are talking about the same event but in different places. I think the difference in wording has to be a point of difference. Those latter two examples indicate violence, whereas the first does not.
And we use the word ‘sleep’ for to describe consensual sexual intercourse in the modern day, so perhaps those translations are doing the same thing?
No, I think Paul has it right.
EDIT: Duh, “because he has violated his eighbor’s wife.”
The woosh you just heard was stuff going over your head.
She didn’t cry out in the city because she was a willing participant in the rogering, ergo as she was engaged she is looked upon as an adulteress, the bloke cops it because he is tupped his neighbours wife.
She doesnt get the chop in the next scenario because she was forced ,even if she did cry out there was nobody to save her. If the forcing had taken place in the city the presumption is she would have cried out, unless her mouth was full, and she would have been rescued. See she was engaged so he dies because he’s taken another mans wife (to be)
Next hes has to marry her because she was not engaged a bit harsh this one but at least no body dies.
Simple really, not a play on words just ya basic comprehension
Good to see Labour have completly removed the Election hording from the corner of Tauhinu & Greenhithe Road, Greenhithe, Auckland I kicked/pulled down on Sunday. Reason was the signs were not meant to go up until Monday.
May be a few midnight raids coming up:)
Do you agree that verses 23/24 are talking about the same event as verses 25/26 – the only difference being whether it takes place in town or field?
As I have already said, no, I do not. My reading is that the town one is thought to be consensual, because if she was being raped then she would have cried out. To be honest, many juries today would still think this. I don’t know if the Bible says that elsewhere, but it isn’t what I think personally, although I would suspect that if a woman was being raped in an area where people can be alerted easily, then she would be more likely to cry out. That is not to say that it should be considered compulsory. Rape is wrong, in whatever context.
The man’s defence lawyer would ask the girl if she cried out. If she didn’t – for any reason – including a knife to the throad – then, according to the Bible, that is proof of consent.
No, the defence lawyer would not ask that. Because if the defence lawyer was asking that question then the defence would already be accepting that there was a sexual encounter between the man and the woman. That would, it seems, ensure a death sentence at least for the male. The male defendant’s only option is to dispute that there was an encounter at all. So, again, the question you posit would not be asked by a defence lawyer for the man.
That was the point I was trying to make, not to belittle Jesus.
Absolutely Scott I know you’re not like that. Christian spiritual thinking is different from spiritual emotion per se. All of us have spiritual emotion.
Which is why all of us enjoy music. There is a definite spiritual element to the human presence on Earth. Why people don’t sense this obvious reality is beyond me but many non-religious people sense it too.
So what is it, is the question both of us try to answer.
IV. If a damsel were betrothed and not married, she was from under the eye of her intended husband, and therefore she and her chastity were taken under the special protection of the law. 1. If her chastity were violated by her own consent, she was to be put to death, and her adulterer with her, Deuteronomy 22:23,24. And it shall be presumed that she consented if it were done in the city, or in any place where, had she cried out, help might speedily have come in to prevent the injury offered her. Qui tacet, consentire videtur–Silence implies consent. Note, It may be presumed that those willingly yield to a temptation (whatever they pretend) who will not use the means and helps they might be furnished with to avoid and overcome it. Nay, her being found in the city, a place of company and diversion, when she should have kept under the protection of her father’s house, was an evidence against her that she had not that dread of the sin and the danger of it which became a modest woman. Note, Those that needlessly expose themselves to temptation justly suffer for the same, if, ere they are aware, they be surprised and caught by it. Dinah lost her honour to gratify her curiosity with a sight of the daughters of the land. By this law the Virgin Mary was in danger of being made a public example, that is, of being stoned to death, but that God, by an angel, cleared the matter to Joseph. 2. If she were forced, and never consented, he that committed the rape was to be put to death, but the damsel was to be acquitted, Deuteronomy 22:24-27. Now if it were done in the field, out of the hearing of neighbours, it shall be presumed that she cried out, but there was none to save her; and, besides, her going into the field, a place of solitude, did not so much expose her. Now by this law it is intimated to us, (1.) That we shall suffer only for the wickedness we do, not for that which is done to us. That is no sin which has not more or less of the will in it. (2.) That we must presume the best concerning all persons, unless the contrary do appear; not only charity, but equity teaches us to do so. Though none heard her cry, yet, because none could hear it if she did, it shall be taken for granted that she did. This rule we should go by in judging of persons and actions: believe all things, and hope all things. (3.) That our chastity should be as dear to us as our life when that is assaulted, it is not at all improper to cry murder, murder, for, as when a man riseth against his neighbour and slayeth him, even so is this matter.
“If there is a girl who is a virgin engaged to a man, and another man finds her in the city…blah blah blah…But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged…blah blah blah…
The same engaged girl. The only difference being explored and explained between the two pairs of verses is whether the act takes place in town – where there are people to hear – or field – where there are not.
It’s the same act but in two different contexts.
If it’s rape in the second pair of verses then it’s rape in the first pair.
Otherwise what’s the point of stressing the town and field environments and whether there are other people around? It becomes irrelevant it you try to have that the first two verses are talking about consensual sex whilst the other two are talking about rape. What’s was all that stuff about fields and towns if we’re talking about two entirely different acts? The context could have been omitted entirely.
It’s the same act being committed in either case. It’s just that in the field there is no one to hear her scream, but in the town if she doesn’t scream for any reason then she is considered to have consented.
“No, the defence lawyer would not ask that…That would, it seems, ensure a death sentence at least for the male. ”
Yes, I did observe that. But for the rape charge you are suggesting that if the woman concedes that she didn’t cry out then by definition no rape took place. This is biblical law.
Scott Chris (1,687) Says:
September 29th, 2011 at 8:46 pm
Where are your brains, I assure you Jesus has not lost the plot.
You have a lot of pride to make a statement like that.
I look forward to the last day when you are on your knees before Him with the rest of us.
there will be no smart cracks then, nor jokes belittling others.
You (as we all will) will be being held to account for our lives.
Manolo (4,882) Says:
September 29th, 2011 at 4:23 pm
If they’ve got any sense that 95% will not vote for the messiah this time.
As for the Jews, if they haven’t worked out he is a Israel hater by now they will if they reelect him.
Jews who hate Israel – go figure, I can’t.
But for the rape charge you are suggesting that if the woman concedes
that she didn’t cry out then by definition no rape took place.
Well, I am not saying that personally, but it is a correct interpretation of the passage, from what I read of the it. I think that bit of the commentary that I posted above covers it:
And it shall be presumed that she consented if it were done in the city,
or in any place where, had she cried out, help might speedily have come
in to prevent the injury offered her. Qui tacet, consentire
videtur–Silence implies consent.
In town people will hear you cry out, therefore if you are being raped you will obviously cry out and people can come to your aid. However, if you are being raped and do not cry out, then it does look like you might have been complicit.
for any reason
Now, I don’t read that as being part of the deal. I would say that if the victim was gagged, for example, that would make a difference. I don’t know, I am a present day defence lawyer, not a bibilical scholar or ancient Israelite.
Therefore we are talking about two different acts, just worded in a similar fashion. Hence the difference in the words denoting the act of intercourse.
It might take a couple of years to rebuild the membership, but it’s not the end of the world.
Dr Matt Flannagan was the president of the Waikato University Students’ Association when voluntary membership was introduced there.
He says the move in Parliament last night to have student union membership made optional will make the organisations look at the way they do business, and that is not all bad.
Dr Flannagan says it made Waikato realise money was being spent on propping up the pet political causes of certain strident student activists.
“We had a finger in every pie, we couldn’t justify propping up businesses and things that were making massive losses and weren’t really providing the majority of students with a service,” he told Newstalk ZB’s Mike Hosking
He says most students don’t care about politics to the extent of wanting to join the student union.
Actually, there is an interesting commentary here:
First, it is important to recognize the preceding context. Deuteronomy 22:22 commands the death penalty for adultery; both the man and the woman are to be put to death. Deuteronomy 22:23-24
commands the death penalty for both the man and the woman in an
instance of a man having sex with a woman who is betrothed (engaged). It
seems to be speaking of consensual sex, since the woman does not cry
out for help. Deuteronomy 22:25-27 seemingly commands the death penalty for a man who “rapes” a woman who is betrothed.
Second, it is important to understand that the Hebrew words used in
Deuteronomy 22, verses 25 and 28 do not necessarily indicate rape. In
verse 25, the Hebrew word chazaq is used, and it essentially means “seize,” or “take hold of.” In verse 28, a different Hebrew word taphas is used, and while it has a very similar meaning to chazaq, it is not the same word. In both verses 25 and 28, the Hebrew word shakab
is used, and while it literally means “lie down,” it is used throughout
the Old Testament to refer to sexual intercourse. So, both verses 25
and 28 describe a man seizing and having sex with a woman. While this is
a possible description of rape, it does not explicitly refer to rape.
Also, the differences in the Hebrew words between Deuteronomy 22, verses
25 and 28, could be interpreted as verse 25 referring to rape, with
verse 28 referring to consensual sex. Further, in other Old Testament
passages that refer to rape, different Hebrew words are used (Judges 19:25, 20:5; 2 Samuel 13:14, 32; Zechariah 14:2).
Third, we should not read the modern image of a violent rape into Deuteronomy 22:28-29.
The passage gives very few details in regards to what is being
described. All it describes is a man seizing a woman and having sex with
her. To automatically assume that it was a violent encounter with the
man brutally attacking the woman is not biblically supportable. It could
just as easily be describing a man forcing a woman, with whom he was
romantically involved but not betrothed, to have sex with him before she
was willing/ready. While that would still be rape, there are definitely
different degrees of rape and different amounts of violence that occur
in connection with rape.
First, it is important to recognize the preceding context. Deuteronomy 22:22 commands the death penalty for adultery; both the man and the woman are to be put to death. Deuteronomy 22:23-24 commands the death penalty for both the man and the woman in an instance of a man having sex with a woman who is betrothed (engaged). It seems to be speaking of consensual sex, since the woman does not cry out for help. Deuteronomy 22:25-27 seemingly commands the death penalty for a man who “rapes” a woman who is betrothed.
Second, it is important to understand that the Hebrew words used in Deuteronomy 22, verses 25 and 28 do not necessarily indicate rape. In verse 25, the Hebrew word chazaq is used, and it essentially means “seize,” or “take hold of.” In verse 28, a different Hebrew word taphas is used, and while it has a very similar meaning to chazaq, it is not the same word. In both verses 25 and 28, the Hebrew word shakab
is used, and while it literally means “lie down,” it is used throughout the Old Testament to refer to sexual intercourse. So, both verses 25 and 28 describe a man seizing and having sex with a woman. While this is
a possible description of rape, it does not explicitly refer to rape. Also, the differences in the Hebrew words between Deuteronomy 22, verses 25 and 28, could be interpreted as verse 25 referring to rape, with
verse 28 referring to consensual sex. Further, in other Old Testament passages that refer to rape, different Hebrew words are used (Judges 19:25, 20:5; 2 Samuel 13:14, 32; Zechariah 14:2).
Third, we should not read the modern image of a violent rape into Deuteronomy 22:28-29. The passage gives very few details in regards to what is being described. All it describes is a man seizing a woman and having sex with her. To automatically assume that it was a violent encounter with the man brutally attacking the woman is not biblically supportable. It could just as easily be describing a man forcing a woman, with whom he was romantically involved but not betrothed, to have sex with him before she
was willing/ready. While that would still be rape, there are definitely different degrees of rape and different amounts of violence that occur in connection with rape.
Wat, taking note of the comments of the others, this may be an opportune time to agree to disagree and move on? I don’t want to prolong an unpopular debate.
He was known as the saint and the sage who in his private life and in his dealings with people practiced the high virtues of morality and resignation, just as he taught them in his maxims with unexcelled brevity and earnestness
The golden rule “What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole book; the rest is the explanation; go and learn”
“If I am not for myself, who will be? And when I am for myself, what am ‘I’? And if not now, when?”
“Don’t trust yourself until the day you die.”
he who increases not [his knowledge] decreases; whoever learns not is worthy of death;
“Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you”, is a standard of behaviour found in his writings It is related to the ethical principle of the Golden Rule.
Why cant they see. (Nz P)
No matter how much DNA they have, revealed or otherwise,
It’s of no consequence, how far up the wrong tree you go.
If its the wrong tree.
SEX has nothing to do with it.
This is a drug ripoff matter.
We spent the first 48 hrs and longer looking for a sex maniac.
“she was a prostitute, must be a sex maniac case”
If such a specimen existed he would have struck again by now.
Please focus your efforts away from prurient sex.
Wake up NZ police.
Bring in a whole new crew to investigate this very solvable crime.
I think that you are forgetting that most Christians base seem to base their faith on the New Testament commands rather than those of the Old Testament.
For example, I don’t think Christians consider themselves bound by Old Testament dietary laws.
I think that your argument is in fact like trying to argue against hanging for theft, when that was abolished 150 odd years ago.
All that said, if you are a woman and you know that you are under an obligation to cry out if you are being raped in the town, you would do your very best to cry out, wouldn’t you? It comes back to the ‘silence is consent’ thing.
I do note a couple of interesting things, in looking at this online, firstly,
Standards of evidence:
Though the Old Testament authorizes executions in principle, in practice “there were such extensive procedural requirements for the imposition of the death penalty that, by design, it was nearly impossible to secure a death verdict.”…In the Talmudic courts (called Sanhedrins) two witnesses judged to be competent had to testify that they saw the accused commit the crime after being forewarned that the act was illegal and punishable by death. Confessions were inadmissible. So was testimony against the defendant by family members of the victim or persons with a preexisting grievance against the defendant. If any aspect of the evidence or testimony was found to be unreliable, the defendant could not be killed. Such restrictions served to make capital punishment extremely rare under Talmudic law.
—Mark Costanzo, Just Revenge: Costs and Consequences of the Death Penalty (New York: St. Martin’s, 1997)
Moreover, you are not allowing for the ancient setting.
On the testimony of two or three witnesses a person is to be put to
death, but no one is to be put to death on the testimony of only one
witness. Deuteronomy 17:6
So it does not appear to be the same situation as with the Islamic requirement of four male witnesses for a man to be found guilty of rape, but where a woman can be convicted on the evidence of her complaint of rape. In the Jewish law, it seems that there would be two or more witnesses who saw the act, so if the person was actually being raped then one would presume that might be obvious to the witnesses who must have discovered them.
I don’t think this is as clear cut as you are trying to make out.
EDIT: Wat, those further examples are Talmudic laws. I don’t think they are considered to apply within Christianity. For example, Christians do not seem to require animal sacrifices.
If someone is beaten with a piece of re inforcing steel rod,
then manually strangled, then stabbed to death, if that was a sex crime then the perp
is a sex maniac. When did we last see such a case in NZ ?
This was not a sex crime.
Greatest respect to NZ Police but,
New minds are required on this case.
The Quotes above were included in the teaching of the pharisees just before the time of Jesus. It is not a great leap from the teaching of hillel to those attributed to Jesus His great advance in morality looses its impact when you learn the history of the time. Add the Trinity from gnostic teachings and snippets from a few other sects and hay presto Christianity.
Hillel (הלל) (born Babylon traditionally c.110 BCE, died 10 CE in Jerusalem) was a famous Jewish religious leader, one of the most important figures in Jewish history .Hillel was recognized as the highest authority among the Pharisees (predecessors to Rabbinic Judaism).
“I think that you are forgetting that most Christians base seem to base their faith on the New Testament commands rather than those of the Old Testament.”
I’m not forgetting. But the point is that when they do that they are simply making up their own ethics and morality the same as atheists, and just using the Bible highly selectively to justify their prejudices.
Imagine! A book of instructions written by an omniscient, omnipotent deity. And Christians think they can choose which bits they’ll take notice of and which bits they’ll ignore! The sheer egotism to think they know better than the creator of the Universe and all things in it!
Nor does it make any sense whatsover to claim that Jesus “abolished” the old law (and noting that he specifically said he came not to abolish it but to fulfill it.) By definition, morality cannot turn on a sixpence like that, so that one day we have to kill everyone in the neighbouring city and the next day we don’t. That might be law but it is not morality.
So Christian morality has no more authority that atheist morality, because they ignore all the stuff they find inconvenient or which is palpably evil (i.e. most.)
Have you noticed how the Bible has more column inches about the necessity of living in absolute poverty than it does about homosexuality?
Yet how many of the “Christians” pay any attention to the former, whilst working themselves into suspiciously enthusiastic lathers over the latter?
“All that said, if you are a woman and you know that you are under an obligation to cry out if you are being raped in the town, you would do your very best to cry out, wouldn’t you? It comes back to the ‘silence is consent’ thing”
A believe a very large proportion of women are far too scared to react.
I am mostly a legal realist- I don’t see a need to have natural morality shape laws.
But I was arguing your interpretation of your quote, which I thought, and still think, you have wrong. The justification behind it you will have to argue with Lee or some of those others more theologically inclined than myself.