NOGO

Your position is totally irrational.
You seem to think that giving an answer, any answer, is the same as giving a rational answer. None of your answers are based on reason. They are based on a futile attempt at justifying what is obviously unjustifiable and wrong. Every time you post you give proof of the irrationality of Christianity.

Starboy

Ed, how have you done that?

Ed

No, a basic principle for understanding scripture is that scripture is interpreted with scripture. We know from Job and other scriptures how God operates with regard to evil. He lets out the leash so to speak with Satan and evil people. But since God is ultimately in control of the situation he is the indirect cause of it and that is why it is worded in the way it is. But there is a significant difference between being a direct cause and an indirect cause.

No, see above. Just like when you violate man's law there are consequences that may impact your family so also when you violate God's law there may be consequences to your family.

No, reread this thread NOW.

No, reread this thread NOW.

Ed

No, in the original hebrew it is plain what it means in context.

Quote:

wj: The bible DOES condone it, as has been shown many times before - Man rapes woman. Man is forced to marry woman and pay the father of the bride. Man can never divorce the woman. Woman is forced to marry a rapist.

No, it is plainly forbidden by the Golden Rule and reread my posts to Jack for how it is handled in the OT.

Quote:

wj: Ed, WHERE ARE THE WOMAN'S RIGHTS IN THE BIBLE?!?!?

They are plainly implied in the Ten Commandments and women are entitled to all the dignity and respect given one created in the image of the King of Universe.

winstonjen

Ed, the way it was handled in the OT proves that the laws in those days were written BY MEN, FOR MEN. The women had no say, and in addition to this, were treated basically as objects for reproduction. Your 'evidence' against this point is nonexistent.

Riiiight, that's why they weren't allowed to divorce rapists. Rape, in case you are unaware, Ed, is sex without consent.

As for dignity and respect for one 'created in the image of the King...blah blah blah', that respect was obviously not extended to the Amakelites who were massacred.

lpetrich

Notice Ed's argumentation technique. He selects out a part of the Bible that is convenient to him and acts as if that automatically cancels out some part of the Bible that states the opposite.

winstonjen

Yup. And he completely ignores any counterarguments, and asserts that the rest of us haven't read the thread. That makes me sure he's either an incoherent hypocrite, or a robot, probably programmed by your typical fundie.

passion9

I just wanted to say one thing in regard to the rape issue. If I remember correctly, Jesus is a direct decendant of a child born from one of those situations. Not everything in the world is black and white, atleast not to humans, because His thoughts and plans are higher than ours... of course meaning that we CAN'T figure Him out, only be let in on some specifics by Him.

Another example, King David and Bathsheeba. As a result of his actions towards her, David had Bathsheeba's husband deliberately murdered. Now from what we can infer her husband was in good standing with God, so his death only led him to a better place. Also, David's subsequent repentance and the Psalm that was written due to it (51) David became a much stronger man of God, and Christians for years to coem would have a model of what a truly repentant heart put into God's hands can yield.

Lastly, a little reverse of what has been brought up (as far as I know). Joseph and Potipher's wife. She tried to seduce him, and even went to the lengths of grabbing his cloak to try and get him to sleep with her. As a result... he is thrown in prison (which, of course, God uses to good) and she gets away scott free, kinda puts a reverse on the woman vs man argument.

Also you have to remember the society in which this all took place was MUCH different from ours...

Grace and Peace

Jack the Bodiless

Here is the relevant passage:
But of course you already KNOW this. Because it's been pointed out to you before.

When you attempted to imply that there was a death penalty for rape, you lied. And I pointed out your lie. Now you're repeating the same lie. And everyone knows it.

You still haven't explained WHY you keep lying like this. You're not fooling ANYBODY, Ed. So what's the point? You're just digging an ever-deeper hole for yourself.

winstonjen

I think there's a death penalty for rape (not that it helps Ed's case) if a woman (not sure if she's betrothed, married or not) does not cry out in a city where many people can hear her, she gets put to death.

Nothing much happens to the rapist, though. I guess god looks after his own.