"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...

[Divine Insight]

By the way, there is no indication that the Father has a choice here:

These two verses are all we have on the matter:

Deuteronomy 22:
[28] If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
[29] Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

That's all there is on that specific situation. There is no more. So I think the father might have a difficult time trying to reject God's law here. Sounds to me like he has no choice but to take the fifty shekels and invite his new son-in-law into the family.

It doesn't even say what to do if the man who defiled the daughter doesn't have fifty shekels. We can only guess that he'll have to pay it over time as he earns it.

[Bust Nak]

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.

Of course he is right, but the an implication here is that had laws been something other than man made, had judicial decisions been something more than mere hunches, then there would be a reason other than self-interest to observe rules or commands. 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?

[FWI]

[Replying to Divine Insight]

[FWI]

[Replying to Divine Insight]

I already did that.

Sorry, but this is not the case. Of all the words you have written in response to me, there was only one bible reference, which had two verses. This can hardly be construed as a legit defense that the bible condones: slavery and required a victim of rape to marry her rapist.

In fact, the part of the chapter you pointed to actually starts at verse 13:

[13] If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,

What you have pointed to is a situation where the man had already taken the woman as his wife.

That's not the verses I was talking about.

Sorry, this also is not true and just spin! You clearly referenced your remarks to rape…

The Bible even condones that if a man rapes a women he has to marry her.

[FWI]

[Replying to post 9 by Divine Insight]

The verses in Deut. 22:28-29 are not referring to rape, but fornication. The usage of the term: “they are found out� implies that they (man/woman) were trying to hide their action. But, in this case the woman became pregnant! Hence, the instructions on what to do, in a case like this. The onus is “always� laid upon the shoulders of the man (except, when a woman commits adultery). Ironically, this is pretty much how it works today!

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 12 by FWI]

Does the phrase "and seizes her" not gave you pause before you pronounce that this is somehow consensual?

[FWI]

[Replying to post 10 by Bust Nak]

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?

Simply put, if refused, we are destined to relive the chaos of the past, but in a more catastrophic way. Which, we can review through-out the pages of our history and certain other books. Human nature requires an “absolute� to instructions or a source which knows the best interests of our species. Without this, we are destined to destroy ourselves.

We live in a world where self-interests are the mainstay of today’s societies. However, one set of interests could and does conflict with the interests of others. When these conflictions becomes unsolvable, war ensues. Since, man has the ability to make our world a waste land, it would seem that our survival is at stake.

Now, I realize that this will not be accepted. But, because of this, those alive at the time, will not be able to ask for mercy when it finally occurs. It will be too late. Hence, the responsibility falls to the individual, who can past this warning onto his/her descendants.

[FWI]

[Replying to post 13 by Bust Nak]

Does the phrase "and seizes her" not gave you pause before you pronounce that this is somehow consensual?

No, the Hebrew word that would coincide with non-consensual would be Strong's #H2388 or forced. This word is used in Deut. 22:25 and is understood in English as rape or against the woman's will. This is not the same word used in Deut. 22:28. The word used is Strong's H8610 and means to lay hold of or he grasped her. Hence, in this case, the imagination of both the translator and reader are not in agreement with the reality of the true meaning of the text.

We would also need to consider what the difference is between consensual and non-consensual. Deut. 22:27 tells us that if the woman cries out or resists, this is not consensual. There is no indication of this in Deut. 22:28, but as mentioned earlier, they where found out or tried to hide their fornication. This implies some sort of consent.

[bluethread]

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...

This presumes judicial activism. That is not consistent with constitutional morality. Though it can be argued that morality is relative. Under constitutional morality, it is relative to the attended agreement between the signitors to the agreement, not the personal views of the judge. The purpose of the judge is to see that the arbitration of any dispute is in accordance with the stipulations of the agreement. In the case of HaTorah, the signitors are Adonai and His people and the judges are the heavens and the earth.

[Bust Nak]

No, the Hebrew word that would coincide with non-consensual would be Strong's #H2388 or forced. This word is used in Deut. 22:25 and is understood in English as rape or against the woman's will. This is not the same word used in Deut. 22:28. The word used is Strong's H8610 and means to lay hold of or he grasped her. Hence, in this case, the imagination of both the translator and reader are not in agreement with the reality of the true meaning of the text.

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

We would also need to consider what the difference is between consensual and non-consensual. Deut. 22:27 tells us that if the woman cries out or resists, this is not consensual. There is no indication of this in Deut. 22:28, but as mentioned earlier, they where found out or tried to hide their fornication. This implies some sort of consent.

Never mind the abhorrent idea that not physically resisting implies consensual for now. What about rape of a married or unpledged women? Are the laws set out in Deut. incomplete?

[[url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 439#897439]
Simply put, if refused, we are destined to relive the chaos of the past, but in a more catastrophic way. Which, we can review through-out the pages of our history and certain other books. Human nature requires an “absolute� to instructions or a source which knows the best interests of our species. Without this, we are destined to destroy ourselves...

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