"Relativism in law" (the loss of an absolute)

[FWI]

Professor Thomas Frank of NYU states that: Law has become undisguised as a pragmatic human process. It is made by men, and it lays no claim to divine origin or eternal validity. This leads Professor Frank to the view that: a judge in a court reaching a decision is not propounding a truth, but is rather experimenting in the solution of a problem. If his decision is reversed by a higher court, or if it is subsequently overruled, that doesn't mean it was wrong, only that it was, or became in the course of time, unsatisfactory.

Frank, also states that: Law is now characterized by existential relativism. Indeed, it is now generally recognized that no judicial decision is ever final, that the law follows the event, is not eternal or certain, is made by man and is not divine or true.

Professor Harold J. Berman of Harvard states: If law is merely an experiment, and if judicial decisions are merely hunches, why should individuals or groups of people observe those legal rules or commands if they do not conform to their own interests? It seems that he’s right.
(Excerpts from the book: "The Interactions of Law and Religion" by Harold J. Berman)

So, which side of the fence are you on...

[FWI]

[Replying to post 17 by Bust Nak]

Don't see how that helps you, laying hold of or grasping aren't exactly consensual sounding.

How, a certain usage of words helps someone is subjective and relates to others. I have no control over this. Hence, this subjectiveness has no bearing or effect on my comments.

Laying hold of or grasping falls into this type of category (subjectiveness). You see it from one perspective, I see it from another and then there’s the perspective of those who lived thousands of years ago and how they understood it. I feel that my perspective is closer to theirs, then yours.

For example: I can “grasp� someone’s hand to shake it or “lay hold of� a friend to hug them. But, neither of these attempts are offensive. Unless, it is stated by either individual that my actions are unwanted.

Also, according to the Torah, the kiss can be more than just a greeting; it represents loyalty. The Hebrew word for kiss is “nashay,� which means to literally or figuratively touch something. However, the Israelites believe there is a distinction between a good and bad kiss. The ultimate good kiss is pure, sublime and done with affection. A bad kiss deceives and misleads the receiver into believing he or she is accepted and loved. This concept of a bad kiss and the usage of tantalizing words has caused the unnecessary deaths of multiple millions of unborn babies and destroyed the lives of millions of young women today!

So, it would be: without merit, for someone today to believe that: a young woman can’t be “conned� into having consensual sex or that this type of practice is not used today or was used in the past, because this idea is beyond reality.

Never mind the abhorrent idea that not physically resisting implies consensual for now.

If you didn’t want to bring this idea up, then why did you, is there an ulterior motive here?

What about rape of a married or unpledged women? Are the laws set out in Deut. incomplete?

The bible has only one law that is related to “rape� and that requires the death penalty for the offender. However, an Israelite woman was required to resist, with all her being, no matter what. This responsibility was considered fulfilled if she became incapacitated or if the offence occurred beyond the hearing of others! Therefore, the laws to consensual and non-consensual sex are complete in Deut.

Thus, trying to apply the laws of today, with the laws of ancient times would be considered unreasonable, at best.

In other words: conforming to our own interests. I asked you what other reasons are there.

Sorry, but this question was not included in your post!

Let me ask why should individuals or groups of people observe those divine rules or commands if said rules do not conform to their own interests?

The reasons I gave were clear. Such as: for the benefit of others. It is clear that you didn’t include the interests in question, so you seem to be trying to put me a catch-22 situation. The games people play…

[Bust Nak]

How, a certain usage of words helps someone is subjective and relates to others. I have no control over this. Hence, this subjectiveness has no bearing or effect on my comments.

Laying hold of or grasping falls into this type of category (subjectiveness). You see it from one perspective, I see it from another and then there’s the perspective of those who lived thousands of years ago and how they understood it. I feel that my perspective is closer to theirs, then yours.

For example: I can “grasp� someone’s hand to shake it or “lay hold of� a friend to hug them. But, neither of these attempts are offensive. Unless, it is stated by either individual that my actions are unwanted.

How about you use the word hand shake and hug instead of grasp or lay hold of? At best it's ambiguous, at worse, well, rape.

Also, according to the Torah, the kiss can be more than just a greeting; it represents loyalty. The Hebrew word for kiss is “nashay,� which means to literally or figuratively touch something. However, the Israelites believe there is a distinction between a good and bad kiss. The ultimate good kiss is pure, sublime and done with affection. A bad kiss deceives and misleads the receiver into believing he or she is accepted and loved. This concept of a bad kiss and the usage of tantalizing words has caused the unnecessary deaths of multiple millions of unborn babies and destroyed the lives of millions of young women today!

Surely that's all the more reason not to use words that is up to subjective interpretation, in these cases where multiple millions of lives are on the line.

So, it would be: without merit, for someone today to believe that: a young woman can’t be “conned� into having consensual sex or that this type of practice is not used today or was used in the past, because this idea is beyond reality.

What are you saying here? Someone conned into consensual sex should rightly be executed?!

If you didn’t want to bring this idea up, then why did you, is there an ulterior motive here?

But I do want to bring the idea up, that's why I brought it up! The rather obvious motive here is that even if one was the grant you that "grasp" and "lay hold of" were somehow consensual, you are still not off the hook.

The bible has only one law that is related to “rape� and that requires the death penalty for the offender.

And that's the point - that one and only law does not apply to pledged or married women, (or indeed women raping men) hence my challenge of it being incomplete.

However, an Israelite woman was required to resist, with all her being, no matter what. This responsibility was considered fulfilled if she became incapacitated or if the offence occurred beyond the hearing of others! Therefore, the laws to consensual and non-consensual sex are complete in Deut.

Why is there this requirement though?

Thus, trying to apply the laws of today, with the laws of ancient times would be considered unreasonable, at best.

And why do you think that? We are talking about the laws from an omnipotent god after all.

Sorry, but this question was not included in your post!

I did say "there would be a reason other than self-interest to observe rules or commands."

The reasons I gave were clear. Such as: for the benefit of others. It is clear that you didn’t include the interests in question, so you seem to be trying to put me a catch-22 situation. The games people play…

The point was for the benefit of others IS own interest, and hence already included, what other reasons are there?

[FWI]

[Replying to Bust Nak]

How about you use the word hand shake and hug instead of grasp or lay hold of? At best it's ambiguous, at worse, well, rape.

This statement doesn’t seems to address, critique or even seem clear to what was implied in my comment. What’s your point?

Surely that's all the more reason not to use words that is up to subjective interpretation, in these cases where multiple millions of lives are on the line.

However, it’s your subjective interpretations that are contrary to the statements in the bible, not mine…

What are you saying here? Someone conned into consensual sex should rightly be executed?!

You seem to be wobbling here! If, a married man or woman has consensual sex, with anyone other than their spouse (adultery), then the death penalty is applied. For the “unmarried� this is not the case. So, it seems that you need to review these laws again…

But I do want to bring the idea up, that's why I brought it up! The rather obvious motive here is that even if one was the grant you that "grasp" and "lay hold of" were somehow consensual, you are still not off the hook.

The only one on a hook, is yourself. That’s why you are asking so many questions and not supplying any reasonable proof for your beliefs. It’s not my fault that you don’t understand the context of the bible, as related to the topic.

And that's the point - that one and only law does not apply to pledged or married women, (or indeed women raping men) hence my challenge of it being incomplete.

Sorry, but you are wrong again and do not understand the law of being pledged/marriage in the bible. It is becoming difficult to debate this topic with you, because of your lack of the facts. Yet, it doesn’t matter if a man rape a woman or a woman rapes a man, rape is rape! In either case, the death penalty would be applied.

I did say "there would be a reason other than self-interest to observe rules or commands."

And, I have given the answer twice! Wait, now three times: For the benefit of others…

The point was for the benefit of others IS own interest, and hence already included, what other reasons are there?

This is just your usage of subjective interpretation, again! If, the belief doesn’t benefit you (which it doesn’t). Then, why seek to withhold this from others? Because, if it doesn’t benefit you, doesn’t mean it won’t others. The statistics prove otherwise!

Why is there this requirement though?

And why do you think that?

Sorry, but if you don’t understand the answers to these two questions, then this debate has become unproductive and you seem to be applying the tactic of: "pestering with petty questions,� which is common among the atheists.

If, you wanted the last words, you just had to ask for it! I hold no such desire, so have at it…

[Bust Nak]

This statement doesn’t seems to address, critique or even seem clear to what was implied in my comment. What’s your point?

The point is those words are inappropriate for consensual interactions.

However, it’s your subjective interpretations that are contrary to the statements in the bible, not mine…

It literally says rape in some translation. What made your subjective interpretations better than mine or anyone elses?

You seem to be wobbling here! If, a married man or woman has consensual sex, with anyone other than their spouse (adultery), then the death penalty is applied.

Yes, including those who were conned into sex apparently. That's what I was asking you.

For the “unmarried� this is not the case. So, it seems that you need to review these laws again…

I am not sure how that helps, nothing in there mention conning people into sex.

The only one on a hook, is yourself. That’s why you are asking so many questions and not supplying any reasonable proof for your beliefs. It’s not my fault that you don’t understand the context of the bible, as related to the topic.

But it is your fault for thinking the law as set out in the Bible is somehow reasonable.

Sorry, but you are wrong again and do not understand the law of being pledged/marriage in the bible. It is becoming difficult to debate this topic with you, because of your lack of the facts. Yet, it doesn’t matter if a man rape a woman or a woman rapes a man, rape is rape! In either case, the death penalty would be applied.

That's not what the Bible says though. It clearly and explicitly says "if a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her..." It says nothing about any other combination of rapist and victim, you introduced your own meaning.

You want us to think that when the Bible isn't explicit about rape or consensual sex, it has to mean one thing and one thing only. But when the Bible is explicit about man raping a pledge woman, it mean any instances of rape. That is a double standard.

And, I have given the answer twice! Wait, now three times: For the benefit of others…

I heard you the first time round, I was looking for other reasons.

This is just your usage of subjective interpretation, again! If, the belief doesn’t benefit you (which it doesn’t). Then, why seek to withhold this from others? Because, if it doesn’t benefit you, doesn’t mean it won’t others. The statistics prove otherwise!

What are you talking about? What belief doesn't benefit me? What statistics?

Sorry, but if you don’t understand the answers to these two questions, then this debate has become unproductive and you seem to be applying the tactic of: "pestering with petty questions,� which is common among the atheists.

What you think are petty questions, are opportunities for you to back up your claims. Take it or leave it.

If, you wanted the last words, you just had to ask for it! I hold no such desire, so have at it…

Okay, I do want the last words - you have nothing but your bravado to back up your claims. The Bible clearly does not say what you want it to say. You accuse us of judging the law it lays out by today's standard, yet you are the one who is introducing today's standard such as not punishing rape victim into the Bible to make it sound more reasonable.

[DPMartin]

Professor Thomas Frank of NYU states that: Law has become undisguised as a pragmatic human process. It is made by men, and it lays no claim to divine origin or eternal validity. This leads Professor Frank to the view that: a judge in a court reaching a decision is not propounding a truth, but is rather experimenting in the solution of a problem. If his decision is reversed by a higher court, or if it is subsequently overruled, that doesn't mean it was wrong, only that it was, or became in the course of time, unsatisfactory.

Frank, also states that: Law is now characterized by existential relativism. Indeed, it is now generally recognized that no judicial decision is ever final, that the law follows the event, is not eternal or certain, is made by man and is not divine or true.

Professor Harold J. Berman of Harvard states: If law is merely an experiment, and if judicial decisions are merely hunches, why should individuals or groups of people observe those legal rules or commands if they do not conform to their own interests? It seems that he’s right.
(Excerpts from the book: "The Interactions of Law and Religion" by Harold J. Berman)

So, which side of the fence are you on...

law is relative to the nation and its people. doesn't matter if its "man made" or not. the nation and its people agree to those terms and some one like a judge is entrusted to support those terms to the letter. (allotment for mercy aside)

a judge is not entrusted to play "what happens if I do this" with the law or those affected by it. its basically unethical and corrupts the system set in place by the people and its nation. that is not what a judge is sworn to do is it? and those who have the authority to do something about it, don't.

also judges aren't stupid they are quite aware that they are corrupting the system, and their actions are unethical no matter the line of crap they dish out for their views.

today its all about who has the power to do, without ramifications. if you toke that judges paycheck and fined him so hard he'd have to make a loan just to get a cup of coffee, that horse dump would stop.

if a judge isn't allied with the truth, then the truth is his sworn enemy.