| Author | Message | ||
     Blake |
Dave, >>> god himself endorses rape on more than one occasion. That is outright blasphemy, a bald-faced malicious lie. From mosaic law prescribing the penalties/consequences for pre-marital sex you conclude that "God himself endorses rape"? >>> Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (NLT) If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her. I cannot find that "NLT" translation of that verse with the word "rape" in it anywhere. The NLT translation that I find says "Suppose a man has intercourse with a young woman who is a virgin but is not engaged to be married." Nothing in there about "rape" as you so eagerly accept from whatever source you are being duped. I notice that your cherry-picked passages are taken from a wide range of various translations. Did you read all of them? Are you choosing the wording that most tends to offend you, or are you searching to understand the most accurate meaning (truth)? I'm guessing the former. Is that a good way to seek truth?  No, it is the exact opposite. You are distancing yourself from truth. Actually from what you've offered here, you can't get much further from truth. Please reconsider and educate yourself on the truth. >>> Deuteronomy 21:10-14 (NAB) "When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion." Are you really so ignorant of the customary treatment of conquered war widows in that day and time? You like to invoke "rape" and "slavery", well that's what was customary thousands of years ago, and remains today in some cultures, the planes indians for example. The other customary practice was to sell the conquered as slaves. Context matters. History and perspective matter. Apparently in your view, it would be better for a widow of war to be raped and killed, or left to fend for herself in the desert rather than be allowed time to mourn, taken for a wife to be loved and respected by her husband or where then if things don't work out, she may have her freedom rather than being sold into slavery. Deuteronomy is not talking in context of you and your neighbor's wife. Do you even know the context of the book of Deuteronomy, time, place, culture? If you were among a massive horde of escaped slaves wandering a desert for years on end, what enforceable rules would you seek to impose in order to survive, prosper, and find a homeland in which to settle? But what does the Bible say about actual "rape"? Do you know? Of course not; how could you; you've not actually read the bible have you? Here is the answer...
>>> Judges 5:30 (NAB) They must be dividing the spoils they took: there must be a damsel or two for each man, Spoils of dyed cloth as Sisera's spoil, an ornate shawl or two for me in the spoil. (Judges 5:30 NAB) The passage you quote is telling of a Canaanite princess' answer to her queen's concern about her king's prolonged delay in returning from battle. Unbeknownst to both of them, he had been killed by the Israelites. The princess basically is telling her distraught queen, oh he probably is just getting him some conquered widow rape (customary among Israel's enemies of the day) and gathering lots of loot. Yet more proof that you don't really read, research, or intend to comprehend what you read if you read it, choosing instead to cut and paste laughably egregious misreadings--I call them lies--from anti-Christian, God-haters. Do you concede your error, and reject your false reading of the passage, and accept the correct ones as described by me? Do you concede that neither the Bible nor the God of the Bible is endorsing rape? | ||
| Blake |
No comment on your blatant misreading of the bible here? | ||
| Drawkward |
Blake, I don't see why you're arguing with him... In the New Testament, Jesus claimed that he was the New Covenant and that through him salvation could be had. You arguing Old Testament stories and teachings is pointless to your Christianity as it no longer truly matters. What matters is that a Christian lives his/her life in the way of Christ, not the Old Testament. And in that realization, any Christian who does harm to his neighbor in the name of the Bible is patently wrong. Any terror or violence done in the name of Christianity is wrong and one can prove that by simply reading the New Testament. This is far too often overlooked or not understood by many Christian hating atheists. The New Covenant through Jesus Christ has been the new Word of God since he brought his son to earth. The Old Testament is History to the Christian and the New Testament is supposed to be the way you are to live your life. So Blake, I'll ask again, who argue with this guy. His assertions that a Christian who does violence or any other "Old Testament" act is false by the very book he tell YOU to read. | ||
| Boltrider |
So the woman gets raped, then she has to marry him. Double ouch. | ||
| Blake |
You're confused. No such law in the Bible. Well maybe in the Dave H. translation, which is fraudulent. | ||
| Boltrider |
Ah yes, I misread it. | ||
| Hootowl |
Drawkward - I have explained that to people many times myself. Jesus's teachings sometimes directly contradicted the old testament, and the leaders of the church at the time condemned him for it. | ||
| Blake |
>>> Jesus's teachings sometimes directly contradicted the old testament, and the leaders of the church at the time condemned him for it. Is that right? They reproached him for violating the Mosaic laws (working on Sabbath, his disciples eating without first washing their hands), but he did not teach contrary to the law. What did he say though about keeping the old laws? Interesting discussion.  |
