God approves of rape

[skepticbud]

"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, 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." (Deuteronomy 22:28-29, NASB)

(for all Holdingites and Dee Deeites: don't you worry, all you have to do is remember one phrase, "the bible can never be 'wrong', so keep trying until you find an interpretation that will square up with your preconcieved belief that the bible contains no mistakes."
and then WOW, see! No mistakes in the bible, once you, eh, "interpret it properly!

Can you imagine the mental torment and terror such a woman would endure after being married to her rapist?

Oh yeah, biblegod did his very best in the circumstances, and making the rapist marry his victim was the, eh, "best" thing god could think of to rectify the situation, eh?

God forbid that the priests should be commanded to financially support this woman and her father for the loss and force the rapist to work off the amount paid in hard labor. God forbid that god should never have taught that a woman's virginity was this thing to take from her as a goal, but that she as a person is to be prized, whether she has endured rape or not.

Nah, that's just the worldly thinking of devil-inspired atheists who want to rationalize everything with merely human logic, who do not realize that god loves women more than any atheist could, and proves this by commanding that a rapist marry his victim.

When Christians say "but she doesn't have to marry him, it only says that he has to marry her!" it makes me laugh.

When Christians say "yeah they have to marry each other, but she is free to deny him sexual relations", it makes me wonder: no sex for her either, eh? Or, she can marry another man if she wants, while her rapist is still married to her (he cannot divorce her all his days)? Is god into Jerry Springer or what?

Do Christians suggest these things because they can see very easily that this is a proof that the bible god has deplorably morals? Or because their modern conscience reads them into the politically incorrect text?

Really now, I'm trying to think if god, in her infinite wisdom, truly didn't have any other solutions to the problem of virgins being raped. There was absolutely no other way to solve this problem that would have still guaranteed justice and yet also reduced the emotional pain of the victim and her family more so than making him marry her? Am I able to think of a better solution because i'm smarter than god, or just because I'm a stupid unbeliever that hasn't grown used to convenient "god's mysterious ways" excuse just yet?

yeah, the cookies are old, but don't be lazy, just chew harder.

[jpholding]

:zzz:

More ananchronistic complaints, Bud?

Been here. Done that. I took Brooks Trubee to heck and back and laid him out like a gutted fish on this one ages ago.

News flash, Bud: The rapist would have been put into a life of servitude to the woman's family, and this is exactly the solution that the family, INCLUDING the woman, would have WANTED in this time. Remember this is the world BEFORE beer, 7-11, and Food Lion. Survival, little man. You're worried about sex? We'll put you in the desert for a few years and see how much that concerns you.

What a loser you are, Bud. :rofl:

[Piebald]

J.P. please, post the article in the thread. Don't just post a link to the argument as this violates the forum rules.

[jpholding]

Too big to post, Hamster. That's why I summed it up. But I'll go delete the link.

[Nowhere357]

Today @ 03:53 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=80871#post80871)
jpholding:
What a loser you are, Bud. :rofl:

The bible is a lousy guide to moral behavior.

I've noticed that the weaker the xian position, the more xians start with the invectives. Interesting.

[jpholding]

Today @ 04:39 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=80905#post80905)
Nowhere357:



The bible is a lousy guide to moral behavior.

I've noticed that the weaker the xian position, the more xians start with the invectives. Interesting.

I've noted that the less atheists have to say, the more vague, irrelevant and anachronistic comments they make. :rofl:

[DBoone]

Saying that God APPROVES rape from the verse in Deut 22 is one of the most emotionalistic and pretzel-logic responses I've ever heard. I'm not even going to respond to the issue because article that Holding supplies is more than enough info to see that Bud is wholly unfounded in his assertion.

Sorry Bud, but your comments lead me to the conclusion that you just plain HATE God, never mind calling yourself a skeptic, you have an intolerance for the Biblical God and read everything in the Bible in that light.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[The Laughing Man]

Skeptics' Commandments for Bible Reading:

-Thou shalt read the Bible like a newspaper
-Thou shalt apply modern-day standards to everything written in the Bible
-Thou shalt take everything in the Bible hyper-literally
-Thou shalt misunderstand the concept of reading the Bible literally and claim it leaves no room for figures of speech, hyperbole, etc.
-Thou shalt ignore any and all attempts to expand your limited and often false understanding of the Bible
-Thou shalt viciously defend your sophomoric beliefs about the Bible with equally sophomoric arguments

(Anyone want to add on? :teeth: )

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 06:51 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=81049#post81049)
Jinx72:

-Thou shalt apply modern-day standards to everything written in the Bible

Because God was too stupid to write something that would make sense throughout the ages. He didn't stop to think that condoning rape would look a bit iffy several thousand years after the fact.

It's funny really, that he wrote it such that it now seems an anachronistic pile of outdated drivel. :teeth:

Still, at least he has his merry band of apologists to try and defend the nastier parts of his otherwise mind-numbingly dull story.

Paul

[Sheepdog]

Today @ 03:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=81106#post81106)
lordsnooty:

Because God was too stupid to write something that would make sense throughout the ages.

or, because God is in no obligation to accomidate the modern occurance of arrogant skeptocentrics, who think they are the center of the universe and anything that doesn't bow down and worship them is stupid, and are too lazy to actually try to understand a text in its social context.

next thing you know, lordpoopy will be crying about the problem of suffering because God won't miraculously wipe his butt. :bawl:

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 09:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=81119#post81119)
Sheepdog:
or, because God is in no obligation to accomidate the modern occurance of arrogant skeptocentrics

Or, apparently anyone whatsoever - he demands obidience, but isn't willing to give much away - apart from a vague book of nonsense.


who think they are the center of the universe and anything that doesn't bow down and worship them is stupid

Explain how I think I am the centre of the universe, and how I believe that anything that doesn't worship me is stupid.


and are too lazy to actually try to understand a text in its social context.

Social context is irrelevant, since this book is supposedly divinely inspired. God did not need to bow to the social habits of the people alive during that period.


next thing you know, lordpoopy will be crying about the problem of suffering because God won't miraculously wipe his butt. :bawl:

U-huh.

Paul

[skepticbud]

Sheepdog:
"next thing you know, lordpoopy will be crying about the problem of suffering because God won't miraculously wipe his butt."

A little child is presently being brutally raped somewhere in the world right now.

The child is probably crying out for help too.

Where is biblegod?

At the foot of the bed, watching, but refusing to interfere.

Thank Christ the babysitters you Christians hire don't respond to such attacks on children in this "godly" manner, eh?

you lose.

[skepticbud]

Today @ 06:51 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=81049#post81049)
Jinx72:

Skeptics' Commandments for Bible Reading:

-Thou shalt read the Bible like a newspaper


"I am the way the truth and the life; no one comes to the father, except through me" (John 14:6) Should I read that like a newspaper, plainly and literally? or should I entertain the possibility that perhaps Jesus was just employing semitic exaggeration to make a point, or any number of other contrivances you list below that can be fired right back at each of your beliefs?



-Thou shalt apply modern-day standards to everything written in the Bible


I stand corrected. My disgust for the rape of women is just a result of my having been born into a liberal society that is permeated with feminists who make the unbiblical cry for equal rights, and who have the audacity to press charges against a rapist. Silly me, I should realise that the rules of life in the Pentateuch are far more civilized and rational.



-Thou shalt take everything in the Bible hyper-literally


"Verily, verily, I say unto thee, not everyone that says to me "lord, lord" will enter the kingdom of heaven". Do you take that hyperliterally? Or do you believe that absolutely everybody who calls Jesus "lord" will go to heaven?



-Thou shalt misunderstand the concept of reading the Bible literally and claim it leaves no room for figures of speech, hyperbole, etc.


Oh, I forgot, god's sanction of rape in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 can always be escaped from by suggesting it might be a figure of speech, hyperbole, etc. So how about it? Are you going to suggest that this passage is a figure of speech or hyperbole?



-Thou shalt ignore any and all attempts to expand your limited and often false understanding of the Bible


What bible verse in Romans tells me what I need to do and believe in order to go to heaven?



-Thou shalt viciously defend your sophomoric beliefs about the Bible with equally sophomoric arguments


Let's analyze your high school thinking:

-Thou shalt viciously defend your freshman beliefs about the Bible with equally freshman arguments

-Thou shalt viciously defend your sophomoric beliefs about the Bible with equally sophomoric arguments

-Thou shalt viciously defend your junior beliefs about the Bible with equally junior arguments

-Thou shalt viciously defend your senior beliefs about the Bible with equally senior arguments

There ain't no level of understanding in your high school logic that would sound good anyway!



(anyone want to add on? :teeth:)


Sure!

-thou shalt interpret literally the bible statements that support thine doctrines.

-thou shalt interpret other than literally the bible statements that appear to defy logic or common sense.

-thou shalt never reveal the criteria and rule which thou followest to interpret the bible, they may turn and rend thee again.

-thou shalt take every thought captive unto the obeidence of Christ, yes, even those thoughts about whether or not thou shouldest take thine thoughts captive unto the obedience of Christ.

-thou shalt praise god for the big bag of hereneutical party tricks he left behind, which you can dip into and hide behind whenever satan's minions suggest a bible verse has an error.'

-thou shalt offer a lamb for the 'hyperbole' exuse, sprinkle your ear with blood for the 'figurative' excuse, and present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holding and acceptable to god, for the "greco-roman rhetoric" excuse.

-thou shalt emply these excuses only on a "need-to-because-the-bible-just-can't-have-any-mistakes-in-it" basis.

anybody wanna add on? :lol:

[DBoone]

Skepticbud -

<What bible verse in Romans tells me what I need to do and believe in order to go to heaven?>

Confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart God raised him from the dead, and you shall be saved. For with the heart man believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. (Romans 10:9,10)

[Nowhere357]

Yesterday @ 11:31 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=81219#post81219)
DBoone:

Skepticbud -

What bible verse in Romans tells me what I need to do and believe in order to go to heaven?;

Confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart God raised him from the dead, and you shall be saved. For with the heart man believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. (Romans 10:9,10)

Do you wish to stand by your interpretation? Well then all babies, muslims, and aboriginals go to hell. Also the mentally retarded, the people who died before jesus was born, and I could go on and on.

This interpretation is hateful, intolerant, contrary to peace, and indicitive of an actively evil god who is interested in acquiring mindless slave-drones, and not in our morality.

Do you really stand by that interpretation?

[KingDavid8]

Today @ 12:37 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=81303#post81303)
Nowhere357:

Do you wish to stand by your interpretation? Well then all babies, muslims, and aboriginals go to hell. Also the mentally retarded, the people who died before jesus was born, and I could go on and on.

This interpretation is hateful, intolerant, contrary to peace, and indicitive of an actively evil god who is interested in acquiring mindless slave-drones, and not in our morality.

Do you really stand by that interpretation?

I stand by that interpretation, myself, but not by your interpretation of that interpretation. It says (summarizing) that if you accept Jesus as your savior, you get salvation. You interpret that as meaning that if (for whatever reason) you DON'T accept Jesus as your savior, you WON'T get salvation. So if someone says, "If you get a job at a supermarket, you will earn money", you would interpret that as "If you DON'T get a job at a supermarket, you WON'T earn money", as if no other place of business pays money.

To be fair, many Christians interpret that passage the same way. But hardly all of us.

David

[jpholding]

Snoots:

Or, apparently anyone whatsoever - he demands obidience, but isn't willing to give much away - apart from a vague book of nonsense.

And you've been PERFECTLY obedient, have you? And he owes you a life of ease in your La Z Boy, yes?

Explain how I think I am the centre of the universe, and how I believe that anything that doesn't worship me is stupid.

This from the man who wants God to kiss his rear and says goofy stuff like:

"Social context is irrelevant, since this book is supposedly divinely inspired. God did not need to bow to the social habits of the people alive during that period. "

Um. So God should have made it easier for YOU to understand at
THEIR expense.

How is life at the center of the universe, Snoots? :rofl:

As for you, Bud -- *snort*

A little child is presently being brutally raped somewhere in the world right now. The child is probably crying out for help too. Where is biblegod?

Where's your gratitude and obedience showing you want Him around any time other than when you find it convenient?

I am the way the truth and the life; no one comes to the father, except through me" (John 14:6) Should I read that like a newspaper, plainly and literally?

Yep, because it's an identity statement and an honor claim matching the ani hu of Isianic oracles. Had enough education yet?

or any number of other contrivances you list below that can be fired right back at each of your beliefs?

Try shooting something other than blanks. It may help to know how to load your gun. Contrivances? Are you accusing me of simply making this stuff up, Bud? You haven't got the education to do more than fart at this stuff.

My disgust for the rape of women is just a result of my having been born into a liberal society

It's not a matter of disgust -- the ancients were disgusted by it too. Your problem is that you don't see a punishment where there is one and are so uneducated that you think the passage endorses rape. :duh:

"Verily, verily, I say unto thee, not everyone that says to me "lord, lord" will enter the kingdom of heaven". Do you take that hyperliterally? Or do you believe that absolutely everybody who calls Jesus "lord" will go to heaven?

Why don't you give us some ground rules for telling hyperbole from reality, Bud? All this uneducated posturing is putting us to sleep. :zzz:

Oh, I forgot, god's sanction of rape in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 can always be escaped from by suggesting it might be a figure of speech, hyperbole, etc.

No, Bud. Jinx was mocking people like you generally. .

anybody wanna add on?

Thou particularly shall cover thy ignorant butt with jokes.

[Defenestrator]

SAT analogy time!

That Deut. verse is to "God approves of rape" as pro-choice advocates are to "I approve of abortions."

I've yet to meet one person that actually thinks abortions are a good thing. Yet there are many people who think that a "safe, legal abortion" is better than a back-alley, coathanger abortion.

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 01:31 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=81387#post81387)
jpholding:
Or, apparently anyone whatsoever - he demands obidience, but isn't willing to give much away - apart from a vague book of nonsense.

And you've been PERFECTLY obedient, have you? And he owes you a life of ease in your La Z Boy, yes?

I don't believe in God, so I wouldn't bother being obedient to the laws attributed to him.


Explain how I think I am the centre of the universe, and how I believe that anything that doesn't worship me is stupid.

This from the man who wants God to kiss his rear and says goofy stuff like:

&quot;Social context is irrelevant, since this book is supposedly divinely inspired. God did not need to bow to the social habits of the people alive during that period. &quot;

Um. So God should have made it easier for YOU to understand at
THEIR expense.

No, God should simply have realised that much confusion would have arisen from what was written in the bible. So he could have created it such that anyone, in any time, would be able to understand it.

But if he only wishes to appeal to Jewish goat herders and the unswervingly gullible, then I suppose he went about it the right way.


How is life at the center of the universe, Snoots? :rofl:

Fine. How's life in your make-believe fantasy world?


A little child is presently being brutally raped somewhere in the world right now. The child is probably crying out for help too. Where is biblegod?

Where's your gratitude and obedience showing you want Him around any time other than when you find it convenient?

Well, do you approve of child-rape? I'm guessing it's a safe bet that you do not. I'm also guessing that you are as obedient as possible (all that stuff Jesus said about being nice to people aside). So why doesn't God help out if you ask him? Nobody's saying he has to do anything for the sake of us Evil Disobedient Atheists.

You come up with this 'why would you expect God to do anything for you' crap frequently. But the issue is whether or not he does anything for you, or any other true believers.

Apart from making many of them insufferably smug, I can't see that he does an awful lot for any of them.

Paul

[Kyle]

Snooty, this is addressed to JP but I would like to step in.

"I don't believe in God, so I wouldn't bother being obedient to the laws attributed to him."

Yeah, well what about normal, everyday wrongs? Things that are obviously wrong whether or not you believe in a particular religion. If you actually wish to claim that you have lived a morally perfect life, then I'm going to have to join Holding in asking you "what it's like in the center of the universe?"

"No, God should simply have realised that much confusion would have arisen from what was written in the bible. So he could have created it such that anyone, in any time, would be able to understand it."

Oh should He now? Well, how do you know that God didn't make the PERFECT Bible considering the vast amounts of different cultures over vast amounts of time (and potentially into the future with all-new cultures)? I'm guessing that you don't know. Do you have some sort of comparitive study of "God would have saved more souls if His Bible said this."? No? Well, then your argument is nothing short of useless.

"But if he only wishes to appeal to Jewish goat herders and the unswervingly gullible, then I suppose he went about it the right way."

Well, goat herders and the "unswervingly gullible" are people too, aren't they snooty? Of course, when you're in the center of the universe, you're opinion is much superior to all those idiot ancients.

"You come up with this 'why would you expect God to do anything for you' crap frequently. But the issue is whether or not he does anything for you, or any other true believers."

You missed the point snoot. Even us believers are no moral perfectionists. We have flaws too, just like atheists. So, the fact that we are "true believers" does not mean that we don't ignore God until we need him (at least some of the time).

Sincerely,

Kyle.

[Socrates]

No, God strongly disapproves of rape, as the Bible makes clear. Even the passages that our context-impaired misotheists burp up support this, when read properly not as a 21st century newspaper.

But a recent book made the horrifying claim that men rape for evolutionary reasons (Thornhill, R. and Palmer, C.T., A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion, The MIT Press, Massachusetts, 2000). And you could watch co-author Palmer squirm in the interview with Lofton, Lofton, J., Rape and evolution, Creation 23(4):50–53, 2001. Although Palmer agreed that rape was still morally wrong, he couldn't provide any basis for this under his evolutionary world view, and admitted that Christianity DID provide such a basis.

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 03:17 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=81506#post81506)
Kyle:
&quot;I don't believe in God, so I wouldn't bother being obedient to the laws attributed to him.&quot;

Yeah, well what about normal, everyday wrongs? Things that are obviously wrong whether or not you believe in a particular religion. If you actually wish to claim that you have lived a morally perfect life, then I'm going to have to join Holding in asking you &quot;what it's like in the center of the universe?&quot;

I do my best. But still, this doesn't address the point - Holding appears to be saying that God doesn't bother to help us - or anyone else - because we're not perfect. But - duh. God created us that way, so it's his fault.


Oh should He now? Well, how do you know that God didn't make the PERFECT Bible considering the vast amounts of different cultures over vast amounts of time (and potentially into the future with all-new cultures)? I'm guessing that you don't know.

Then guess again! :thumb:

For instance, just a few brief words from Jesus would have ensured that the split between the catholics and protestants would never have occured. Many lives would have been saved. But he wasn't clear enough, and people suffered as a result.



Well, goat herders and the &quot;unswervingly gullible&quot; are people too, aren't they snooty? Of course, when you're in the center of the universe, you're opinion is much superior to all those idiot ancients.

True, true... :cool:


You missed the point snoot. Even us believers are no moral perfectionists. We have flaws too, just like atheists. So, the fact that we are &quot;true believers&quot; does not mean that we don't ignore God until we need him (at least some of the time).

Right. So in that case, why doesn't he do something on your behalf, such as prevent rape or murder?

After all, you're doing your best.

I don't ignore God until I need him, because I just don't believe that he exists. But if you do, then I think an explanation of his apparent failure to intervene is required.

Paul

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 03:31 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=81512#post81512)
Socrates:
No, God strongly disapproves of rape, as the Bible makes clear. Even the passages that our context-impaired misotheists burp up support this, when read properly not as a 21st century newspaper.

I would agree that the passage quoted is not 'approving' of rape per-se. But the 'punishment' supposed to be doled out to the rapist is pathetic and insensitive to the woman's feelings.


And you could watch co-author Palmer squirm in the interview with Lofton, Lofton, J., Rape and evolution, Creation 23(4):50–53, 2001. Although Palmer agreed that rape was still morally wrong, he couldn't provide any basis for this under his evolutionary world view, and admitted that Christianity DID provide such a basis.

Yeah, 'cus all evolutionists subscribe to an 'evolutionary world view', whatever the hell that is.

Oh, and we must all be Christian to have morals (either that, or we must steal the morals of Christians).

Paul

[The Laughing Man]

It's not a matter of disgust -- the ancients were disgusted by it too. Your problem is that you don't see a punishment where there is one and are so uneducated that you think the passage endorses rape.

Absolutely. One does not approve of something by having people punished for doing it. If there were no punishment, then skeptics would have a leg to stand on. As it stands, however, in trying to make claims like Bud makes here (and defend them as other skeptics have attempted), they just end up lopping off their own legs at the neck. :teeth:

[Kyle]

"I do my best. But still, this doesn't address the point - Holding appears to be saying that God doesn't bother to help us - or anyone else - because we're not perfect. But - duh. God created us that way, so it's his fault."

We have the ability to resist temptation and live moral lives. We just don't. Not God's fault. Not to mention that we are more than "not perfect". Human beings are often times despicable (especially under the right circumstances. It's easy for me to be a "nice guy" living here in the U.S.A. with plenty of food and no fear of wrongful persecution. But would I be such a "nice guy" when different situations occur? Would I become a traitor to save my own life? I like to think not, but I can never really be sure. It's all too easy to appear moral on the outside in today's society, but that doesn't mean that we are truly good. Just look at Nazi Germany for a prime example.)

"For instance, just a few brief words from Jesus would have ensured that the split between the catholics and protestants would never have occured. Many lives would have been saved. But he wasn't clear enough, and people suffered as a result."

Hmmm... But perhaps MORE people were saved as a result of the splitting between the Catholics and Protestants, because a lot of people would never have become Christians if only the Catholic Church existed. Perhaps the sobering intellectual battle between Catholics and Protestants have led many to Christ. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that this is not true? Of course not, such evidence is not even possible. So, you're whole argument is really just a one-dimensional personal opinion.

"I don't ignore God until I need him, because I just don't believe that he exists. But if you do, then I think an explanation of his apparent failure to intervene is required."

Yes, but the point is that I DO believe in God YET I ignore him a great deal of the time in order to live my life the way I want to live it. I am nowhere near perfect, so I don't expect God to intervene on my behalf either.

Sincerely,

Kyle.

[DBoone]

Lordsnooty said:

<I don't ignore God until I need him, because I just don't believe that he exists. But if you do, then I think an explanation of his apparent failure to intervene is required.>

Before I explain why people suffer I would like you to tell me something: have you ever heard of and do you understand the idea of covenantal relationship, and if so can you tell me what you know? This will be very helpful in further discussion.

[skepticbud]

Today @ 03:47 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=81526#post81526)
Jinx72:

Absolutely. One does not approve of something by having people punished for doing it.


So how about if I rape your virgin daughter, then pay you the equivilent of 50 shekels of silver, and then ask you to marry me to her for life, so I can never divorce her all of my days?

Would you consider that a "punishment" to me?

How about "sadistically cruel" to your daughter?

If it was good enough as 'punishment' back then in Old Testament days, why wouldn't it be sufficient today?

A woman's viriginity has a market value of just about 50 shekels of silver, so god was right after all, eh?

[skepticbud]

Today @ 05:20 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=81600#post81600)
DBoone:

Lordsnooty said:

&lt;I don't ignore God until I need him, because I just don't believe that he exists. But if you do, then I think an explanation of his apparent failure to intervene is required.&gt;

Before I explain why people suffer I would like you to tell me something: have you ever heard of and do you understand the idea of covenantal relationship, and if so can you tell me what you know? This will be very helpful in further discussion.

"covenantal relationship" = a fictional new relationship with god through jesus conjured up by New Testament authors that is the foundation for their new abberrent form of Judaism called Christianity.

Definition #2 - A popular doctrine believed by most Christians because it says so in the bible, but which doesn't have the least bit of demonstrable reality, even granting the existence of Jesus of Nazareth and god.

[skepticbud]

Since you think that you can throw around "social context!" protests every time you disagree with someone, why do you tell how exactly, and with specific details, Moses would enforce the law upon a rapist which I brought up?

Here it is for convenience:

"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, 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."

Tell us how the law authorities of ancient Israel would enforce this law.



Of this, our skeptic finds much that is unfair. But knowing the social context does a world of good.

First, our subject objects that the victim may not want to marry the rapist. In modern times this would be a sensible objection; but for the ancients, this was a highly viable and indeed merciful solution. The victim would no longer regarded as marriagable and would therefore lose means of interdependent support.


read the bible, it's god's fault for causing these people to prize virginity so highly that any woman not a virgin on her wedding night would be disregarded. Also, a woman's hymen can break by several means other than sex, so the absence of blood, which the whole freakin family was waiting to see on the sheets, actually meant nothing, not necessarily that she had been unfaithfulful, but do you find this exception clause in the bible? Nope, after all, god gave the word, so there's no questioning it, after all the fear of the lord is the beginning of wisdom. I wonder how many woman were stoned to death because on their wedding night they were unable to bloody the sheets. What a sick and ignorant god you serve. No, wait, if something in the bible is yucky when interpreted literally, it must not be literal.



The rapist is here being required to provide that support.


If you are willing to be married to your victim for life and pay 50 shekels of silver to her father, feel free to rape whoever you want.



It is quite unlikely in this social context that the victim would refuse this arrangement; indeed, they might well demand such an arrangement. This is not a matter of having the rapist be one's loving partner, or cohort for further sexual relations.


yeah, i know, when "marriage" between a man and woman is spoken of everywhere else in the bible as including and implying sex (the two shall become one? GEEEEE!) :duh:, this doesn't mean anything. It wouldn't look very good if your god allowed the rapist to have sex with his victim after the marriage, so just argue from silence whenever you need to that sex, which is ALWAYS implied and assumed in biblical marriages, must have been prohibited, even though it fails to specify this in the very context in which it would surely would have been, had the authors truly felt that sex would not be allowed. But go ahead and eisogete, Holding. Surely it must mean sex was prohitibted! Your god isn't that yucky, so just keep on searching until you conjure up some politically correct machination that will make your god look like at least a RECOVERING alcoholic.



Some may still find the above objectionable; certainly our subject would continue to rail about the unfairness of it all! But this is naught but, as we say, skeptical chauvanism. Our subject has no right to make moral judgments of any kind upon those whose shoes he hasn't the room to fill.


If I raped your virgin daughter, what would you think if the court who convicted me sentenced me to life in marriage to her, no sex, and I had to pay you 50 shekels of silver? Is that justice?

And if god is so concered about punishing the rapist, you would figure he would be equally concerned to put something down in his eternal yeah right word about how to help the rape victim recover.

God says Z I P about the mental torment of the victim, unless you think that marrying her to her attacker would help her heal from the terror and trauma :whack:

[Bill the Cat]

Here it is for convenience:

"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, 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."

Tell us how the law authorities of ancient Israel would enforce this law.


This is not a verse on rape. Deut 22:25 describes rape. This verse 28 uses a different word all together.


If I raped your virgin daughter, what would you think if the court who convicted me sentenced me to life in marriage to her, no sex, and I had to pay you 50 shekels of silver? Is that justice?

If you raped my virgin daughter, I'd personally see you in jail for 20 years and call everyone in the joint and tell them what you did. Lucky you don't live in those days, cause verse 25 says what would happen to you bud.

[skepticbud]

Today @ 08:21 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=81692#post81692)
Bill the Cat:

This is not a verse on rape. Deut 22:25 describes rape. This verse 28 uses a different word all together.


Prove it. Unsupported assertions mean nothing.



If you raped my virgin daughter, I'd personally see you in jail for 20 years and call everyone in the joint and tell them what you did. Lucky you don't live in those days, cause verse 25 says what would happen to you bud.
[/QUOTE]

Wrong, Deuteronomy 22:25 refers to the rape of an ENGAGED woman; 22:28 refer to a woman that is NOT engaged.

It was a higher crime to rape an engaged woman than an unengaged woman.

And if verse 28 isn't about rape, then obviously she must have given her consent for sex (consent is the pivotal issue when discussing whether an act of sex was rape or not).

If she gave her consent, why is only the man fined?

[Bill the Cat]

Today @ 03:40 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=81697#post81697)
skepticbud:



Prove it. Unsupported assertions mean nothing.


Gladly. Numbers are Strong's numbers for defs.
Deu 22:25 But if518 a man376 find4672 (853) a betrothed781 damsel5291 in the field,7704 and the man376 force2388 her, and lie7901 with5973 her: then the man376 only905 that834 lay7901 with5973 her shall die:4191

Deu 22:28 If3588 a man376 find4672 a damsel5291 that is a virgin,1330 which834 is not3808 betrothed,781 and lay hold8610 on her, and lie7901 with5973 her, and they be found;4672

See, different words. The key is he forced her.



Wrong, Deuteronomy 22:25 refers to the rape of an ENGAGED woman; 22:28 refer to a woman that is NOT engaged.

It was a higher crime to rape an engaged woman than an unengaged woman.

And if verse 28 isn't about rape, then obviously she must have given her consent for sex (consent is the pivotal issue when discussing whether an act of sex was rape or not).

If she gave her consent, why is only the man fined?

Well, let me quote this:
and lay hold on her, and lie with her, she yielding to it, and so is not expressive of a rape, as Deu_22:25 where a different word from this is there used; which signifies taking strong hold of her, and ravishing her by force; yet this, though owing to his first violent seizure of her, and so different from what was obtained by enticing words, professions of love, and promises of marriage, and the like, as in Exo_22:16 but not without her consent:
John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

The man must pay the dowery for the woman because he took her virginity. Both are punished because they are forced to marry each other.

Oh, and do you get those cute message headings from a cracker jack box?

[DBoone]

Skepticbud says:

<So how about if I rape your virgin daughter, then pay you the equivilent of 50 shekels of silver, and then ask you to marry me to her for life, so I can never divorce her all of my days?

Would you consider that a "punishment" to me?

How about "sadistically cruel" to your daughter?>

You said it not me, but you're right. Having to marry you might be sadistically cruel to my daughter.
:teeth:
But you still don't get it. Maybe you're single and lonely, so you see this as some kind of bonus for the guy.

If we in our society had the same value of virginity that they did in the OT days, then if my daughter was raped she would have become "damaged goods", no one would have married her, and it would be the same as cutting off her livelihood. Even if the rapist was emasculated, scourged, and killed for his offense it would not undo the long term effects of what he had done to her. But he wasn't thinking about that when he was gratifying his short term needs anyway. So as punishment, he must take responsibility for what he has done and give up his rights to marry if and when and to whomever he pleases, and to support his new bride and their child so that the dignity of both mother and child could be maintained in that society. There's another issue at work here too, and that is the rehabilitation of the rapist so that he can begin to function like a humane person. What would it be like for him to have to face the personal effects of his crime, daily watching the grieving process of his new bride as she deals with the loss of something very precious to her, her virginity, and is thrust into motherhood against her will. The rapist would be included in the social circle of parents and relatives of the bride, who would not exactly be too kind to this 'man' if you can call him that. He would have to face the full brunt of the consequences for his actions. It seems pretty obvious to me that this daily exposure to the fact of his crime would be a humbling experience to say the least, and that he would come out of it with a real appreciation for what he had taken from his bride, child, family-in-law, and society. Oh I forgot to mention how his own family would take it. That would also add pressure towards his repentance.

Ask yourself how you would fair under the circumstances. Are you sure you would maintain your callous disregard for others?

But by today's standards this would be a non-issue. First of all, our sex education would have stripped the young woman of any respect for her virginity way before the incident. In fact by the time she's 14 she's probably already given it away to someone who can bootleg a 6-pack of beer for her. And if she was raped, what would happen to the rapist? Not much by today's standards of punishment for the crime, especially if he's under 18. In fact, even after he's 'done his time' which ain't much, he's paid his debt to society and never has to face the consequences of his actions again, his victim becomes a non-entity to him, ensuring that he never really has an opportunity for personal rehabilitation. The one thing that our society can grant the woman is the freedom to go out and earn a living for her family since she's a single mom, and her child can have the pleasure of not seeing his/her mom for 8-10 hrs a day for the first 5 yrs of his/her life, which incidentally are the formative years for any growing child.

Tell me, which law is more loving? Which society is more perfect in how it deals with crime?

[jpholding]

Looks like the butt kicking is proceeding nicely here and Snooty and Bud suffereing appropriately.

I'll sit back and watch and jump in when needed. :smile:

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 04:00 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=81914#post81914)
jpholding:

Looks like the butt kicking is proceeding nicely here and Snooty and Bud suffereing appropriately.

I'll sit back and watch and jump in when needed. :smile:

You really know how to talk out of your arse.

Paul

[jpholding]

I really know how to talk so people like you will understand me. :rofl: :rofl:

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 04:55 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=81981#post81981)
jpholding:

I really know how to talk so people like you will understand me. :rofl: :rofl:

Carry it on Holding, the baby Jesus is cheering you on.

Paul

[jpholding]

Yes, he is. He used riposte very well. :brow:

[DBoone]

The 'baby Jesus' grew up.

He's not a Christmas lawn ornament.

In the beginning... the Word... with God... was God.

The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.

Emmanuel, God is with us.

Christ.

Messiah.

He's the King of kings, Lord of lords, Name above all names.

[The Laughing Man]

Today @ 11:01 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=81992#post81992)
lordsnooty:

Carry it on Holding, the baby Jesus is cheering you on.

That bankrupt of rational thought, eh? :shrug:

[The Laughing Man]

Today @ 01:15 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=81665#post81665)
skepticbud:

So how about if I rape your virgin daughter, then pay you the equivilent of 50 shekels of silver,

Which was a virtual fortune for those "desert nomads" thousands of years ago. How much do you have in the bank?


and then ask you to marry me to her for life, so I can never divorce her all of my days?

Ask? You would've had no choice in the matter, Bud.


Would you consider that a &quot;punishment&quot; to me?

If we were ancient Israelites wandering around in the desert for 40 years (without access to modern or even ancient "correctional facilities"), I probably would consider it a just punishment. And considering how much skeptics like to caterwaul about how the "skydaddy-biblegod" is so "cruel," that's quite a merciful punishment as well. Indeed, if the punishment had been death, I'm sure you still would have found offense in that. "How could your biblegod be so cruel as to demand the killing of someone just for raping a woman?" And if the punishment had been less, you guessed it - you would've found offense. I don't believe that there is any punishment that would make you happy.


How about &quot;sadistically cruel&quot; to your daughter?

More anachronistic standards, I see. If it doesn't fit your self-centered, ignorant, modern-day conventions, then it was obviously "sadistically cruel" thousands of years ago in a land thousands of miles away in a culture far removed from modern Western civilization.


If it was good enough as 'punishment' back then in Old Testament days, why wouldn't it be sufficient today?

Because today we have access to a modern legal system and "correctional facilities."


A woman's viriginity has a market value of just about 50 shekels of silver, so god was right after all, eh?

Yeah, "just" 50 shekels. And a hundred years ago or so, Americans made "just" a few cents for a days labor (which could very well be more than the modern expectation of 8 hours). How could they possibly live off so little money? Employers were so "sadistically cruel" back then!

:rofl:

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 05:08 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=82004#post82004)
jpholding:

Yes, he is. He used riposte very well. :brow:
Holding compares himself to Jesus sensation.

Paul

[Nowhere357]

lordsnooty:

People like (Jinx) and Holding are the antithesis of Christianity.

Christianity is touted as a religion of peace, humility and kindness towards fellow man. You and he are full of nothing but arrogance, smugness and spite. You use abuse in lieu of rational argument. You wouldn't know decency if it hit you.


I think they help forward the cause of freethought. Their poor styles and skills reflect on their worldview, and lurkers are sure to notice.

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 07:38 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=82139#post82139)
Jinx72:
Yeah, &quot;just&quot; 50 shekels. And a hundred years ago or so, Americans made &quot;just&quot; a few cents for a days labor (which could very well be more than the modern expectation of 8 hours). How could they possibly live off so little money? Employers were so &quot;sadistically cruel&quot; back then!

:rofl:

Right, this is fascinating. So you think there is a price at which rape becomes acceptable?

Yes, that really is interesting.

Paul

[$cirisme]

Having to marry you might be sadistically cruel to my daughter.

LOL! :rofl:

[The Laughing Man]

Today @ 02:10 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=82188#post82188)
lordsnooty:

People like you and Holding are the antithesis of Christianity.

And who are "people like" us? Christians who defend their faith? Outspoken Christians? Christians who don't conform to your narrow-minded, bigotted view?


Christianity is touted as a religion of peace, humility and kindness towards fellow man.

And we all know that Christians are supposed to be limp-wristed wimps who are not supposed to defend their faith, right?

I don't know what you are reading into my posts, but I think it's safe to say that only you and "people like you" find anything other than peace, humility and kindness in my posts. You see what you want to see because of your own prejudices.


You and he are full of nothing but arrogance, smugness and spite.

So why is it that only you are complaining? Why don't other Christians on the board see what you are seeing? Why don't they correct us?


You use abuse in lieu of rational argument. You wouldn't know decency if it hit you.

Both those statements are ironic coming from you.


If there is a hell, you two ought to be careful you don't end up there.

A "fire and brimstone" sermon from someone who doesn't believe in such a thing? How completely bizarre...

[The Laughing Man]

Today @ 02:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=82202#post82202)
lordsnooty:

Right, this is fascinating. So you think there is a price at which rape becomes acceptable?

What in the world are you talking about? Did I say anything like that? No. Did I even hint at anything like that? Again, no. So why would you make such a deduction (which you obviously believe is true, considering the subsequent statement).

Let's consider the fact that even today, courts mete out monetary reparations to victims for crimes committed against them (including rape). Does the general acceptance of this practice mean that those crimes (including rape) are "acceptable" to society? Does it mean the victims consider the crimes "acceptable" just because they get a wad of cash? By your absurd stretch of logic, it obviously does. I guess that makes the modern legal system no better than the laws they had in Biblical times.


Yes, that really is interesting.

The only thing interesting is how you constantly read things in and into my posts which simply aren't there.

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 08:33 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=82209#post82209)
Jinx72:
And who are &quot;people like&quot; us? Christians who defend their faith? Outspoken Christians? Christians who don't conform to your narrow-minded, bigotted view?

Christians that cannot engage in discussion without resorting to abject rudeness.

All I ask is that you take a step back and actually look at some of the stuff you post on a regular basis. Everyone has off-days, but some people here are foul every day of the week.



I don't know what you are reading into my posts, but I think it's safe to say that only you and &quot;people like you&quot; find anything other than peace, humility and kindness in my posts.

Oh my god, you cannot be serious. Tell me you're not serious.

Do you want me to find some examples of what I'm talking about here?


You see what you want to see because of your own prejudices.

Irony (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=irony).


So why is it that only you are complaining? Why don't other Christians on the board see what you are seeing? Why don't they correct us?

I'd imagine that many are too worried about siding with atheists to dare to say anything. Either that, or they're as bad as you are.

But it's odd that I don't find all Christians here as objectionable as you, isn't it?


A &quot;fire and brimstone&quot; sermon from someone who doesn't believe in such a thing? How completely bizarre...

The point is not that I do not believe it, but that you do.

Paul

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 08:42 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=82217#post82217)
Jinx72:
What in the world are you talking about? Did I say anything like that? No. Did I even hint at anything like that? Again, no. So why would you make such a deduction (which you obviously believe is true, considering the subsequent statement).

Someone mentioned that a woman's virginity was only worth only 50 silver pieces. You then launched into a tirade about how 50 shekels was actually quite a good sum of money, thank you.

I wouldn't have thought any money was enough, in those circumstances.

Paul

[jpholding]

I wouldn't have thought any money was enough, in those circumstances.

So what do you want, the death penalty? That money replaced the dowry the family would have gotten for a marriage -- money they needed to SURVIVE thank you.

Poor Snoots. He only has that strawman Jesus to lean on. Peace, humility? Peace means the cosmic order is aright. Humility has no place when facts are at issue. Show us your humility when a building is burning. "Who me, a hero? No, someone else can do it." :rofl:

Otherwise, Jinx is on spot with the cultural issues. :thumb:

[Sheepdog]

meh... my apologies for the lateness...


Yesterday @ 04:25 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=81129#post81129)
lordsnooty:

Or, apparently anyone whatsoever - he demands obidience, but isn't willing to give much away - apart from a vague book of nonsense.

Translation from skep-speak to english: "it doesn't make sense to me, so it is garbage." hey, would you disapprove of me verbal carpet bombing Aristotle's material "a vague book of nonsense," simply because i don't understand it? (this is hypothetical, of course: i haven't read Aristotle)

ironically enough, the Bible makes perfect sense to people who actually to seek to understand it. it seems that the only ones who complain about it are skeptics. then again, many Christians who don't understand something in the Bible, rather than complain, seek to educate themselves to understand it better. and to think freethought was supposed to free us to educate ourselves better :shrug:


Explain how I think I am the centre of the universe, and how I believe that anything that doesn't worship me is stupid.

well, it was originally hyperbolic humor intended to make a point. because based on how you've handled yourself up to the point of your post, your argument is akin to: "if it makes no sense to lordsnooty, it is garbage." typical skeptocentric reasoning, that places the skeptic as the deity who decides what is true and what isn't-- forget the fact that others may have a different insight into the Bible, that it may make perfect sense if the skeptic can free himself from his cardboard box "reasoning."


Social context is irrelevant, since this book is supposedly divinely inspired. God did not need to bow to the social habits of the people alive during that period.

thus saith lorddroopydrawers, the lord of floaters and god of sinkers: "God did not need to bow to the social habits of the people alive during that period"? yes. but, perhaps God appealed to the precepts and understanding of the Biblical societies for a valid reason? no! what lorddookie says goes. lordpooperscooper would be content with yelling at Chinese people in English using parables about quantum physics, then chastizing them for not understanding what he is talking about.

you see, when you speak to other people, snooty, don't you speak with words they understand, using figures of speech and analogies that are relavent to them? of course you do, you could never be a proficient online debater if you didn't. so, what gives you the authority to condemn the Bible for being written in language, with idioms and parables that the biblical societies would grasp? if the Bible is inspired, what makes you think God doesn't get to decide how He goes about inspiring it?

so, if you were so interested in understanding what the Bible says, why don't you pick up a background commentary on the Bible, or whatever you can do to find what kind of insights are available? hey, at worst, you can learn about the culture, then expose how the Bible is nonsense to them too, instead of hiding behind worthless argumentum ad ingoratium. :shrug:

[Sheepdog]

Yesterday @ 05:35 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=81175#post81175)
skepticbud:
A little child is presently being brutally raped somewhere in the world right now.

meanwhile the liberal skeptic hands her a birth control pill and says, "morals are relative, so who am i to judge what is acceptable practice in another society?" :whack:


The child is probably crying out for help too.

Where is biblegod?

At the foot of the bed, watching, but refusing to interfere.

spare me the river of tears, SmokinBud. your own morals betray you, for you can't step in either to intervene: morals are relative, so you are you t condemn the rapist?

oh, and by the way, we do believe that God will bring justice for rape vistims, either in secret or in the open, but always just.


...
you lose.

i lose? you haven't geivn us anything of content. all you have given us is crybaby arguments by outrage.

[lordsnooty]

Yesterday @ 11:32 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=82414#post82414)
Sheepdog:
Translation from skep-speak to english: &quot;it doesn't make sense to me, so it is garbage.&quot; hey, would you disapprove of me verbal carpet bombing Aristotle's material &quot;a vague book of nonsense,&quot; simply because i don't understand it? (this is hypothetical, of course: i haven't read Aristotle)

I understand the bible. I just don't believe it. And I can't believe that others believe it either, but that's another story.


ironically enough, the Bible makes perfect sense to people who actually to seek to understand it.

Or to people that chuck their critical faculties out of the window. That's the only way you could believe something that you would otherwise dismiss as rubbish (as you presumably do with other non-Christian religious documents).


it seems that the only ones who complain about it are skeptics.

Christians aren't likely to complain about their own beliefs.


then again, many Christians who don't understand something in the Bible, rather than complain, seek to educate themselves to understand it better.

By turning to apologists? The contrived means they have for explaining away the errors, inconsitancies and factual errors in the bible are nothing short of scandalous.


well, it was originally hyperbolic humor intended to make a point. because based on how you've handled yourself up to the point of your post, your argument is akin to: &quot;if it makes no sense to lordsnooty, it is garbage.&quot; typical skeptocentric reasoning, that places the skeptic as the deity who decides what is true and what isn't-- forget the fact that others may have a different insight into the Bible, that it may make perfect sense if the skeptic can free himself from his cardboard box &quot;reasoning.&quot;

Please don't try to fool yourself into thinking that it is narrowness of vision that convinces skeptics that the bible is false.

It's restricted vision that ensures that so many Christians fail to accept evidence of the gaping holes in the bible.


thus saith lorddroopydrawers, the lord of floaters and god of sinkers: &quot;God did not need to bow to the social habits of the people alive during that period&quot;? yes. but, perhaps God appealed to the precepts and understanding of the Biblical societies for a valid reason?

Or maybe it was written purely by people that lived in that time, which explains it all a lot better. That's why it doesn't contain any genuine prophesy, any scientific information, or anything in fact that couldn't have been dreamt up by the people that lived in that era.

If the bible is true, and the early Christians had seen such wonders with their own eyes, they would not need to be convinced by having the texts written in such a way as to appeal to their own cultural ideals.

This would have left God free to ensure that the bible contained something that made sense.


you see, when you speak to other people, snooty, don't you speak with words they understand, using figures of speech and analogies that are relavent to them? of course you do, you could never be a proficient online debater if you didn't.

I'm not saying that it should have been written in modern day English, but it does seem a little odd that the book is so firmly rooted in the past, if God intended it to be used to this day.


so, what gives you the authority to condemn the Bible for being written in language, with idioms and parables that the biblical societies would grasp? if the Bible is inspired, what makes you think God doesn't get to decide how He goes about inspiring it?

Well, God is free to inspire anything as he sees fit. But it doesn't strike me as very likely that God would need to write a book that needed so much explaining two thousand years on.

He could at least provide a revised and updated version...

Paul

[AtheistArchon]

Skeptics' Commandments for Bible Reading:

-Thou shalt read the Bible like a newspaper
-Thou shalt apply modern-day standards to everything written in the Bible
-Thou shalt take everything in the Bible hyper-literally
-Thou shalt misunderstand the concept of reading the Bible literally and claim it leaves no room for figures of speech, hyperbole, etc.
-Thou shalt ignore any and all attempts to expand your limited and often false understanding of the Bible
-Thou shalt viciously defend your sophomoric beliefs about the Bible with equally sophomoric arguments

- Does anyone else find it kind of ironic that Jinx uses "Thou shalt" as satire? :shrug: Isn't that um... how the ten commandments are worded? You take THEM seriously, don't you?

- Rape does not make the ten commandments for some reason. Coveting your neighbor's ass does, but rape does not. I find this strange.

[Alden]

If it was good enough as 'punishment' back then in Old Testament days, why wouldn't it be sufficient today?

Let's try this, shall we genius? Do you understand that the passage that you are using to say that "God approves of rape" was written to a people who were of a different culture than ours? it is understandable to say that what they would consider reparation for a crime would be different from what we would consider as just.

[jpholding]

Rape does not make the ten commandments for some reason. Coveting your neighbor's ass does, but rape does not. I find this strange

Isn't rape a coveting of someone else's attributes? :huh:

[AtheistArchon]

Let's try this, shall we genius? Do you understand that the passage that you are using to say that "God approves of rape" was written to a people who were of a different culture than ours? it is understandable to say that what they would consider reparation for a crime would be different from what we would consider as just.

- So if I'm a rapist, I should move to the most lenient culture I can find, and then it's biblically okay as long as I pay my dues?

- Wait a second. I thought Christian morality was objective!


Isn't rape a coveting of someone else's attributes? :huh:


- I think it's a little more than that. I can covet something all day and not take it by force. Besides, would you lower rape to petty theft? I don't think that's your intention.

[jpholding]

Wait a second. I thought Christian morality was objective!

It does recognize a hierarchy of morals.

I think it's a little more than that. I can covet something all day and not take it by force. Besides, would you lower rape to petty theft? I don't think that's your intention.

Nah. But when you have to pick 10 someone is sure to be offended no matter what. On the other hand, ancient law codes were didactic, so they could never include every possible instance, and sometimes you had to think (rape could be covered under coveting or adultery). Beyond that it occurs to me that rape was probably rarer in the ANE what with the tight family situations, so there may have been good reason why it didn't make the top 10. If it wasn't that common, more serious and common crimes would be more likely to hit the charts.

Do you know if rape made it to the Roman Ten Tables either, or Hammurabi's code? I don't think it did the latter and I'm not sure of the former.

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 01:04 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=82503#post82503)
jpholding:
Beyond that it occurs to me that rape was probably rarer in the ANE what with the tight family situations, so there may have been good reason why it didn't make the top 10. If it wasn't that common, more serious and common crimes would be more likely to hit the charts.

What, like taking the lord's name in vain?

You'd think that rape might have taken that position. The name in vain thing could have been the 11th commandment.

Also, rape is not especially uncommon in nations where, today, family links are strong (such as in the middle east).

Paul

[Bill the Cat]

I think you people fail to see the obvious. There are separate words used for the 2 separate acts in Deut. Rape is punishable by death. the verse from Deut 22:25 spells it out plainly.


. Numbers are Strong's numbers for defs.
Deu 22:25 But if518 a man376 find4672 (853) a betrothed781 damsel5291 in the field,7704 and the man376 force2388 her, and lie7901 with5973 her: then the man376 only905 that834 lay7901 with5973 her shall die:4191

Deu 22:28 If3588 a man376 find4672 a damsel5291 that is a virgin,1330 which834 is not3808 betrothed,781 and lay hold8610 on her, and lie7901 with5973 her, and they be found;4672

See, there are 2 different words. The key is in verse 25, he forced her. So you can complain about the cost of a woman's virginity all you want. It is irrelivant to the present verse. It is not a price on the rape victim.

[Sheepdog]

the lord opened his mouth, and speweth out many blanket assertions and fallacious reasoning:


Today @ 07:25 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=82469#post82469)
lordsnooty:

I understand the bible. I just don't believe it. And I can't believe that others believe it either, but that's another story.

if you really understood the Bible, you wouldn't be making the stupid skeptic assertions you make.


Or to people that chuck their critical faculties out of the window. That's the only way you could believe something that you would otherwise dismiss as rubbish (as you presumably do with other non-Christian religious documents).

so waitaminute. Willian Lane Criag, Ph.D., tossed his critical faculties out the window? i thought you needed critical thinking skills to earh Ph.D's. or how about Newton and Galileo? pioneering scientists who were also firm Bible believers (albeit Newton didn't believe in the Trinity-- no one is perfect). in response to the anti-science sentiment, did Galileo say, "throw out your Bibles and become freethinkers, you fools"? no! "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."

that is not to say that the Bible is true, just because these people are believers. however, you now get to prove to us why you think these men had "chuck their critical faculties out of the window." if you can't, please spare us the stupid skeptic tricks.


Christians aren't likely to complain about their own beliefs.

how belief is relavent to this, i do not know. hey snooty get back over here, we are talking about Bible difficulties. what, you don't think Christians don't stumble over hard passages?

snoopy then barks:


By turning to apologists?

naw. why do that when they can simply bury their head in the sand like so-called "freethinkers" do? it's much easier to appeal to ignorance than it is to actually read, think critically, and seek to understand. that whole education process must be scary to skeptics.


The contrived means they have for explaining away the errors, inconsitancies and factual errors in the bible are nothing short of scandalous.

what? educating themselves about ancient cultures, the idioms of such cultures, how they report relavent information, the rules of the their genres, their use of rhetoric? scandalous indeed.


Please don't try to fool yourself into thinking that it is narrowness of vision that convinces skeptics that the bible is false.

Thus saith lordsnooty :rofl:
http://www.msu.edu/~moserjus/misc/snoot.jpg


It's restricted vision that ensures that so many Christians fail to accept evidence of the gaping holes in the bible.

please wake me when you are done with the carpet bombing ad hominem :zzz:


Or maybe it was written purely by people that lived in that time, which explains it all a lot better.

it must be easy to just carpet bomb bald assertions over a field that requires a great deal of analysis.

hey watch me be a nontheist freethinker:
(college professor lays out entire course layout in a syllabus)
"Or maybe the professor made all this stuff up, which explains the all this class a lot better."
(Scientist shows that there will be a solar eclipse in a certain area next year)
"Or, maybe the scientist made it all up, which explains his assertions a lot better"
Etc.
Pulleeeze


That's why it doesn't contain any genuine prophesy, any scientific information, or anything in fact that couldn't have been dreamt up by the people that lived in that era.

i assume by genuine prophecy, you mean, "anything i haven't already dismissed because, by golly, they cramp my style." and scientific information? why would you expect natural science in a book that doesn't deal much with how the world works, but why it is here? i can imagine it now...

Moses: ok God, i am here now to write down the book of Genesis.

God: good. start it like this: on the first day, God created photons, that were neither particles nor waves, but had properties of both...

Moses: whu???

other than that, you add nothing of substance. appealing to what the people could have dreamt up is another stupid skeptic trick: i don't refute General Relativity simply by saying it isn't anything other that what Einstein could have easly made up. if you think they did make it up, show me with evidence how you came to this conclusion. and no, "i believe this because i don't want the Bible to be true" is not a valid answer.


If the bible is true, and the early Christians had seen such wonders with their own eyes, they would not need to be convinced by having the texts written in such a way as to appeal to their own cultural ideals.

you are 100% right, and 105% irrelavent. more than likely, the NT was put to text for a combination of possible reasons: (1) for reference materials, (2) to preserve the containing information for later generations, (3) to be sent to a distant church where the given apostle couldn't physically go at the momment (as the case of all the epistles, and also very likely for the Gospels as well). also, in the case of (2), the later generations would have included several immediate generations to whom the cultural perculiarities would still be relavent.


This would have left God free to ensure that the bible contained something that made sense.

ah, so if it doesn't make sense to you, it doesn't make sense at all. keep up with the skeptocentism. i'm finding it highly amusing :lol:

you stated earlier that you understood the Bible, and now you imply that it doesn't make sense. doesn't understanding preclude that it makes sense to you? go back to Critical Thinking 101, lordcontradiction :no:


I'm not saying that it should have been written in modern day English, but it does seem a little odd that the book is so firmly rooted in the past, if God intended it to be used to this day.

hello? that is why we have such a wealth of knowledge of historical cultures to learn from! :whack: what do you think all those seminary students do all day? empirically observe what pizza places deliver the fastest?

so, before you continue to criticize the Bible, get off your tush, pick up a book, and learn something new :idea:


Well, God is free to inspire anything as he sees fit. But it doesn't strike me as very likely that God would need to write a book that needed so much explaining two thousand years on.

of course not. why not miraculously wipe snooty's behind? but seriously, how hard is it to learn something new? how hard is it to read something like, this(?):
http://www.carm.org/parables/parableprodigal.htm
see that's not to hard. little kids are making sense of stuff that skeptics howl about how they can't figure it out


He could at least provide a revised and updated version...

the NASB, with a background commentary, perhaps?

[Sheepdog]

Today @ 08:25 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=82540#post82540)
lordsnooty:

What, like taking the lord's name in vain?

You'd think that rape might have taken that position. The name in vain thing could have been the 11th commandment.

it is interesting that snooty focuses on that commandment. forget the fact that in antiquity, a person's name signified his authority (i.e. when a messenger says "i come in the name of Julius Ceasar," what the messenger says was as though the Ceasar said it himself); so that misusing God's name is essentially a form of contempt to God. if a person regularly trampled God's authority (symbolicaly, by misusing God's name), why would the obey God when he says "don't covet," "don't commit adultry," or "don't rape"?


Also, rape is not especially uncommon in nations where, today, family links are strong (such as in the middle east).


i think we (both sides, in fact) need to look at the social-historical evidence before commenting on how common rape may have been during the time of the law.

[skepticbud]

Yesterday @ 03:54 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=81910#post81910)
DBoone:

If we in our society had the same value of virginity that they did in the OT days, then if my daughter was raped she would have become &quot;damaged goods&quot;, no one would have married her, and it would be the same as cutting off her livelihood.


Another proof that the morals the god of the OT instilled on his people are inferior to atheists today who think their virgin daughter is far above all cost, and the loss of her virginity should never be viewed as damaged goods by any prospective man she may date. But god wanted to see bloody sheets the night after every israelite marriage was consumated, so I just leave him in the dumpster where i found him.



Even if the rapist was emasculated, scourged, and killed for his offense it would not undo the long term effects of what he had done to her.


But 50 shekels of silver and forcing him to marry her, now THERE's an all-wise decision. God was so concerned about the woman healing emotionally that he never mentions the slightest word about it in his bloodthirsty quest to "deliver justice". I'm sure JP Holding will be only too happy to argue from dead silence that god shore wuhz concerned about the woman, and must have made some sort of unwritten unspoken provision that ain't in the biblical text. Justification? God just can't be wrong, and neither can the bible nor Holding. If the bible said Jesus was a demon worshipping homosexual, then Holding would worship a homosexual. You know! whatever "god" says!



But he wasn't thinking about that when he was gratifying his short term needs anyway. So as punishment, he must take responsibility for what he has done and give up his rights to marry if and when and to whomever he pleases, and to support his new bride and their child so that the dignity of both mother and child could be maintained in that society.


That society should have been taught by god that a raped woman is NOT damaged goods, and that rapists should be hauled away into forced labor to pay the arbitrary price of raping her. Right? Would that have been a superior moral?



There's another issue at work here too, and that is the rehabilitation of the rapist so that he can begin to function like a humane person. What would it be like for him to have to face the personal effects of his crime, daily watching the grieving process of his new bride as she deals with the loss of something very precious to her, her virginity, and is thrust into motherhood against her will. The rapist would be included in the social circle of parents and relatives of the bride, who would not exactly be too kind to this 'man' if you can call him that. He would have to face the full brunt of the consequences for his actions.


Now you are adding to the word of the Lord. God's justice is marriage to her for life without possibility of divorce plus payment of 50 shekels of silver. For the family to administer further punishment would be to go beyond the word of the Lord, something forbidden in their very own books, Proverbs 30:6.

But if you want to argue that Israel, who produced these books, was more often than not, disobedient to the god they professed to believe in, therefore your suggestion is more likely than mine, then I accept that, and you win!



Ask yourself how you would fair under the circumstances. Are you sure you would maintain your callous disregard for others?


That's not the issue; the issue is how sadistic it really was toward the women to be hooked up with this wretch for life. The biblegod and his ancient brutes are more concerned with their national image of intact families (mentioned and extolled everywhere in the bible) than they are with the mental healing and emotional support for the rape victim (mentioned NOWHERE in the bible.)



In fact, even after he's 'done his time' which ain't much, he's paid his debt to society and never has to face the consequences of his actions again, his victim becomes a non-entity to him, ensuring that he never really has an opportunity for personal rehabilitation.


Wrong, way so....The rapist would have to register as a sex offender in any county he goes to live in, and this means the local sheriff will inform the residents of the neighborhood ends up living in that he is there and is a convicted rapist.



The one thing that our society can grant the woman is the freedom to go out and earn a living for her family since she's a single mom, and her child can have the pleasure of not seeing his/her mom for 8-10 hrs a day for the first 5 yrs of his/her life, which incidentally are the formative years for any growing child.


That's a hasty generalization, I was raised by my mom, who was single until I was 13, and yet I now function in society as an adult no less than anybody down the street. Also, your argument can backfire. Suppose that a wife and husband have a child, the wife stays home all day while the husband goes to work and is gone 9 hours out of the day. Now then,,,,you were complaining that in today's society, a single mom must work, thus being away from her child....are you still prepared to say it's a bad thing? if so, then many fathers with stay at home wives also disappear from their kids' life for about 9 hours a day, is that bad too? Why is it worse for a child to be away from the mother 9 hours a day, but not from it's father?



Tell me, which law is more loving? Which society is more perfect in how it deals with crime?
[/QUOTE]

But you argue now on the basis of your oversimplified description of rapist-punishment. Sorry, no matter how many fundamentalists hollar every Sunday about the isolated cases where a rapist goes free through technicality, or else slapped on the wrist, the fact remains that those who are convicted of rape must register as sex offenders and then be advertised as such in the neighborhood they plan to live in, and must move on to other locations if there are enough locals who protest his presence.

Our modern society seeks to remedy rape by;

immediately seperating the rapist from his victim;

charging and convicting the rapist;

offering free counseling to the victim to help her deal with an heal from the attack;

a criminal record on computer file that will guarantee the rapist will never work for a company more prestigious than "Joe's lawn care" for the rest of his life.

the crime victim fund will be drawn from to compensate the victim for time lost from work.

The victim will necessarily win the civil suit against the rapist, insuring that even if he can't pay, the wages from his first legitimate job will be garnished to pay the court settlement.

The man must live with the stigma of being classed as a sex-offender and advertised as such the local sheriff in whatever town he decides to live in.

NOW whose society seeks the most justice for the criminal and the most loving care and support for the victim?

Where does god even hint at DIP about the rape victims emotional healing? You'll have to argue from silence that god was concerned, because god expresses this concern NOWHERE.

[Bill the Cat]

HEY BUD.... WAKE UP!!! THIS VERSE IS NOT ABOUT RAPE

There, now will you notice and stop this ridiculous thread. I have showed you twice that it does not and you ignore it and lala along and act like no one can answer you. Well, it's been handled whether you approve or not.

[skepticbud]

Yesterday @ 11:41 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=82424#post82424)
Sheepdog:

meanwhile the liberal skeptic hands her a birth control pill and says, &quot;morals are relative, so who am i to judge what is acceptable practice in another society?&quot; :whack:


Correction: advocating that morals are relative doesn't mean I cannot judge somebody else's morals. I judge them by my own morals! You insist it is an error to judge the morals of someone else, when the judging person admits all morals are relative, but this doesn't follow logically nor rationally. Relativistic morals simply doesn't mean "you can't call that other person wrong!"

From my frame of reference, they are. But because morals are relative the one thing I certainly cannot do is say they are ABSOLUTELY wrong. Sure, I can't do that, but I can still call them wrong when i disagree with their morals. the absence of absolutes doesn't mean there's nothing to discuss.



spare me the river of tears, SmokinBud. your own morals betray you, for you can't step in either to intervene: morals are relative, so you are you t condemn the rapist?


Ha ha, nice distraction argument, obviously you are passing the buck, so I'll set the record straight: I already showed how one person can call another 'wrong' when both agree that all morals are relative, for the only prohibition is to call the wrong person "absolutely" wrong. Second, answer my argument! [i]why does the biblegod stand at the foot of the bed and just watch without interfering when little children's innocence is stolen from them? What else would you expect to happen in a godless world where no god exists at all? And since you believe god has always existed, how can you possibly describe or hypothesize about what a godless universe would be like? You've never known any other universe than the one you live in which you say is run by god! Can you describe a vehicle that you've never seen or driven?



oh, and by the way, we do believe that God will bring justice for rape vistims, either in secret or in the open, but always just.


You got yourself a new thread right there.



i lose? you haven't geivn us anything of content. all you have given us is crybaby arguments by outrage.

Tell that to a little Christian girl whose just been raped and who concludes emotionally that god doesn't exist as a result :brow:

[skepticbud]

Today @ 12:47 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=82487#post82487)
Alden:

Let's try this, shall we genius? Do you understand that the passage that you are using to say that &quot;God approves of rape&quot; was written to a people who were of a different culture than ours?


Do you understand that when you say god "inspired" that text, that you are adding something to the text that causes it to transcend the culture, unless of course you say that the god of the universe is himself an ancient hebrew? Do you understand that when you cry 'culture', you are conviently forgetting your own doctrine that says god, who transcends culture, BREATHED OUT that text? How do you know which morals in the OT transcend the Hebrew culture and which don't? The bible says "thou shalt keep holy the sabbath day" as well as "thou shalt not steal" in the same text written in stone hot off the plates from Mt. Sinai?

[The Laughing Man]

Our modern society seeks to remedy rape by;

immediately seperating the rapist from his victim;

charging and convicting the rapist;

offering free counseling to the victim to help her deal with an heal from the attack;

a criminal record on computer file that will guarantee the rapist will never work for a company more prestigious than "Joe's lawn care" for the rest of his life.

the crime victim fund will be drawn from to compensate the victim for time lost from work.

The victim will necessarily win the civil suit against the rapist, insuring that even if he can't pay, the wages from his first legitimate job will be garnished to pay the court settlement.

The man must live with the stigma of being classed as a sex-offender and advertised as such the local sheriff in whatever town he decides to live in.

All this obviously condones rape. What an evil society we live in!

[skepticbud]

Today @ 03:55 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=82657#post82657)
Bill the Cat:

I think you people fail to see the obvious. There are separate words used for the 2 separate acts in Deut. Rape is punishable by death. the verse from Deut 22:25 spells it out plainly.


Correction, in verse 25, it is rape of a virgin already engaged to another man, quite a different story from the rape of a virgin who is not already engaged, as in verse 28, which is why the punishments are different.



. Numbers are Strong's numbers for defs.
Deu 22:25 But if518 a man376 find4672 (853) a betrothed781 damsel5291 in the field,7704 and the man376 force2388 her, and lie7901 with5973 her: then the man376 only905 that834 lay7901 with5973 her shall die:4191

Deu 22:28 If3588 a man376 find4672 a damsel5291 that is a virgin,1330 which834 is not3808 betrothed,781 and lay hold8610 on her, and lie7901 with5973 her, and they be found;4672

See, there are 2 different words. The key is in verse 25, he forced her. So you can complain about the cost of a woman's virginity all you want. It is irrelivant to the present verse. It is not a price on the rape victim.

Please describe for use the lexically justified difference between "force" and "lay hold on her".

[skepticbud]

Today @ 01:04 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=82503#post82503)
jpholding:

Do you know if rape made it to the Roman Ten Tables either, or Hammurabi's code? I don't think it did the latter and I'm not sure of the former.

Nah, the ancient people of most every part of earth were just as chauvinistic as the ancient Hebrews.

[Bill the Cat]

I already did that, you just ignored the comment totally, but as to avoid being accused, here is the post

and lay hold on her, and lie with her, she yielding to it, and so is not expressive of a rape, as Deu_22:25 where a different word from this is there used; which signifies taking strong hold of her, and ravishing her by force; yet this, though owing to his first violent seizure of her, and so different from what was obtained by enticing words, professions of love, and promises of marriage, and the like, as in Exo_22:16 but not without her consent:
John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

The man must pay the dowery for the woman because he took her virginity. Both are punished because they are forced to marry each other.

Exodus 22:16 says the same thing in a slightly easier to understand way.

[skepticbud]

Today @ 03:55 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=82657#post82657)
Bill the Cat:

I think you people fail to see the obvious. There are separate words used for the 2 separate acts in Deut. Rape is punishable by death. the verse from Deut 22:25 spells it out plainly.


. Numbers are Strong's numbers for defs.
Deu 22:25 But if518 a man376 find4672 (853) a betrothed781 damsel5291 in the field,7704 and the man376 force2388 her, and lie7901 with5973 her: then the man376 only905 that834 lay7901 with5973 her shall die:4191

Deu 22:28 If3588 a man376 find4672 a damsel5291 that is a virgin,1330 which834 is not3808 betrothed,781 and lay hold8610 on her, and lie7901 with5973 her, and they be found;4672

See, there are 2 different words. The key is in verse 25, he forced her. So you can complain about the cost of a woman's virginity all you want. It is irrelivant to the present verse. It is not a price on the rape victim.

First, the word "sieze" in verse 25 is kawzack, Strong's #2388, and this is the meanings it can have:

a primitive root; to fasten upon; hence, to seize, be strong, courageous, causatively strengthen, cure, help, repair, fortify, obstinate; to bind, restrain, conquer:

It is clear that in verse 25, the man is doing more than just taking her hand in his.

Second, the word for "seize" in verse 28 is tawfas, Strong's #8610, and it's meanings are:

a primitive root; to manipulate, i.e. seize; chiefly to capture, wield, specifically, to overlay;

You are arguing that the difference in words must mean the man takes the woman in verse 25 in a different way than he does in verse 28. But a look at the available meanings shows that they are so similar that any asserted difference cannot be based on the grammar alone, since BOTH words can mean "forced".

Third, the context bears this out. Ask yourself, why is ONLY the man punished in both cases? You are claiming one of the verses is not force, ok, why then isn't the woman in that verse punished along with him?

Answer: because in neither case can fault of any type be assigned to the woman. If she can't be faulted, it is clearly the man's fault in both cases, and that also means he must have taken her without her consent.

Clear now? didn't think so. But go ahead and respond with capitalized letters, perhaps holloring is the way to "prove" things, ya think?

WELL DO YA?

[Bill the Cat]

Today @ 12:58 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=82750#post82750)
skepticbud:



First, the word &quot;sieze&quot; in verse 25 is kawzack, Strong's #2388, and this is the meanings it can have:

a primitive root; to fasten upon; hence, to seize, be strong, courageous, causatively strengthen, cure, help, repair, fortify, obstinate; to bind, restrain, conquer:

It is clear that in verse 25, the man is doing more than just taking her hand in his.

OK, I got you so far.


Second, the word for &quot;seize&quot; in verse 28 is tawfas, Strong's #8610, and it's meanings are:

a primitive root; to manipulate (emphasis mine) .e. seize; chiefly to capture, wield, specifically, to overlay;

And you don't see the difference in forcibly taking the girl and coercing her? You are so blinded by your hatred of the Bible that you can't see plain definitions.


that the difference in words must mean the man takes the woman in verse 25 in a different way than he does in verse 28. But a look at the available meanings shows that they are so similar that any asserted difference cannot be based on the grammar alone, since BOTH words can mean (emphasis mine) &quot;forced&quot;.


But they don't mean the same thing.


Third, the context bears this out. Ask yourself, why is ONLY the man punished in both cases? You are claiming one of the verses is not force, ok, why then isn't the woman in that verse punished along with him?

She is punished by having to marry the man. The money goes to the dad of the girl the same as any other marriage.


Answer: because in neither case can fault of any type be assigned to the woman.

Sorry, but that's the wrong answer. Fault goes to both in the case of the coersion and they are forced to marry because they acted as a married couple by having sex.


Clear now? didn't think so.

Oh, it's quite clear. You just refuse to see because of your tremendous contempt for the Bible.


But go ahead and respond with capitalized letters, perhaps holloring is the way to &quot;prove&quot; things, ya think?

Well, if you'd have simply responded to my first post on page 2, the large font would not have been necessary.

WELL DO YA? [/QUOTE]

Now I see what JP and the others here mean about you....

[Sher]

Yesterday @ 03:21 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=81692#post81692)
Bill the Cat:

This is not a verse on rape. Deut 22:25 describes rape. This verse 28 uses a different word all together.
Not to interupt all this posturing with actual fact ... but Bill's post demands to be bumped up for speaking the truth (:thumb: Bill)

And BTW, Bud ... I am sure Bill was "hollering" over everyone who is taking this off-topic ... your job as originator is to keep others on-topic ... unless you LIKE this chaos? Then ... :rockon:

Here is the section so that the gentle reader can see for themselves in context what is being spoken about: Deut 22:22-29

22 "If a man is found lying with a woman married to a husband, then both of them shall die-- the man that lay with the woman, and the woman; so you shall put away the evil from Israel.

Straight up adultery ... no latitude for either of them in the punishment meted

23 "If a young woman who is a virgin is betrothed to a husband, and a 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 to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry out in the city, and the man because he humbled his neighbor's wife; so you shall put away the evil from among you.

Woman is betrothed to another man, and is still a virgin... and commits adultery ... straight up ... punishment meted out to them both ... and the woman not crying out in the city full of people, given as evidence that she was not raped.

25 "But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die.
26 "But you shall do nothing to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death, for just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so is this matter.
27 "For he found her in the countryside, and the betrothed young woman cried out, but there was no one to save her.

Woman is betrothed ... and raped (forces her) ... punishment meted out to the man only ... she cried out but no one to save her ... note that it says she was forced (raped) ... justice prevailed

28 "If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out,
29 "then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.

Verses that Bud questions ... which do not speak of the woman being forced ... but rather that she was seized ... and they were not found out ... THEY were not found out ... consentual sex here, Bud ... THEY! ... nothing there about her being forced, is there?

Rather the man had sexual relations with the woman ... and they got caught ... and like the shotgun weddings of old ... he was forced to pay the bride's price and actually marry her (ya play, ya pay). Think for a moment about shotgun weddings ... the couple got caught ... and had to get married ... the "punishment" here isn't really a punishment in the sense you are using it ... they had to actually get married. Bride's price is paid throughout Jewish history. For example: "So Jacob served seven years for Rachel, and they seemed only a few days to him because of the love he had for her." (Gen 29:20) Jacob had no money to pay a Bride's Price ... so he worked it off instead. It was the price he paid for his virgin wife ... Laban's deceit aside.

The emphasis on the virginity is because if she were not a virgin ... a woman of loose morals ... then she was playing the harlot and they probably wouldn't have been forced into marriage ... and he wouldn't owe a Bride's Price. It is because she was a virgin ... and the sexual relations would cause the bride's price to be negated from any future marriage ... the woman wouldn't be able to be married off because she was "used goods" to any prospective husband ... that the man is made to marry her and pay up to the father of the bride.

Nice try, Bud ... before you get outraged ... you should actually read in context.


EDIT: Adding info regarding bride's price and how it came to play in history:Why An Engagement?
The engagement is a means to an end-- marriage. Indeed, the full term is "engaged to be married." At one time, however, the engagement was as important as the wedding itself. Anglo-Saxons were used to stealing away their brides-to-be. Romance, wooing and engagements were not in the picture. But the families of the women insisted on being reimbursed for what was, after all, a working member of the family. The engagement itself signified the intended transfer of ownership from father to husband and also provided a period during which the "bride's price" could be agreed. Several centuries later the situation was in reverse and fathers were paying future sons-in-law, or their families, a "dowry" to marry off their daughters. The engagement was again a time for agreeing on the payment, or dowry, and also a time for collecting an extravagant trousseau, at least for rich brides.{emphasis mine} From: http://www.southshoreweddings.com/topic/101.htm

Stealing away ... Bud ... "seizing" in case you missed that in context.

[Sher]

:cheers: Bill! We were writing at the same time ...

I'll leave mine up though because it covers the Bride's Price ... something you didn't mention.

:smile: Now be a good kitty and relax awhile.

[Bill the Cat]

Gracias Sher Bear. I had to edit out some rather inflamatory remarks I made after I sent the post. I am really trying to get Bud to see that the real issue is his hatred of the Bible. And thanks for the link for bride price. I am bookmarking that to read tomorrow. :thumb:



Prrrrrrrr.....

[Sher]

Today @ 01:37 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=82773#post82773)
Bill the Cat:

Gracias Sher Bear. I had to edit out some rather inflamatory remarks I made after I sent the post. I am really trying to get Bud to see that the real issue is his hatred of the Bible. And thanks for the link for bride price. I am bookmarking that to read tomorrow. :thumb: The whole link isn't about Bride's Price ... just the section I posted. I really didn't take a lot of time looking for comprehensive links (I already knew the subject) but it shouldnt' be too hard to find.

I think I am going to start a topic about why Christians ... who are human ... get frustrated with skeptics. I don't know how many times I have done that same thing ... I'll explain in that topic.

(BTW, I wasn't "moderating" you if it came across that way ... I was just teasing ya re: your Wolverine avatar ... one of my favorite X-Men :smile: Hugh Jackman doesn't hurt the eyes either :thumb:)


ADDITION: I saw your kitty pic and had to add a :lol: You made my night ... rest well!

[Bill the Cat]

Not taken as moderating a bit, more as a Christian friend calming me down a bit. I agree that it will be a good thread, but I would make it exclusively for Christians, or you will get the " because you are wrong" responses. Good night Sher... And my wife loves Hugh as well. We're gonna go see X2 Firday night and I'll start a thread reviewing it if you'd like. :teeth:

[Sher]

Today @ 01:49 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=82780#post82780)
Bill the Cat:

Not taken as moderating a bit, more as a Christian friend calming me down a bit. I agree that it will be a good thread, but I would make it exclusively for Christians, or you will get the &quot; because you are wrong&quot; responses.As originator ... and moderator ... I posted it as a closed thread. I wasn't interested in arguing the points. Glad you took my comments as I intended them :smile:
Good night Sher... And my wife loves Hugh as well. We're gonna go see X2 Firday night and I'll start a thread reviewing it if you'd like. :teeth: Yes ... but wait until after the weekend please! ... or post a "spoilers" warning ... between that and the Matrix ... my movie money fund is gonna be overbudget this month :thumb:

Nite! :hi:

[Bill the Cat]

Well, I'll just say if it's a good watch or a wait for video movie. Oh and Matrix 2 is opening on my anniversary... 10 years!!! We have agreed to go as our present to each other... I hate being poor :frown: but I love my wife sooooooo much. I may just start a thread on how awesome she is!!!:love: :love:

[Sher]

Today @ 02:15 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=82798#post82798)
Bill the Cat:

Well, I'll just say if it's a good watch or a wait for video movie. Oh and Matrix 2 is opening on my anniversary... 10 years!!! Congrats! That is great! Hubby and I are almost at 15 years married ... 16 together.
We have agreed to go as our present to each other... I hate being poor :frown: but I love my wife sooooooo much. I may just start a thread on how awesome she is!!!:love: :love: Aww ... that is so sweet. And I totally agree on the poor part! It is always something that comes up ... but I'd really rather be a bit poor ... and continue to home educate and have a happy home life ... than be rich and misterable ...

Now ... happy and wealthy? I wouldn't argue with that.

~Sher ... who really is going to bed this time .... I mean it ... really!

Okay ... just 5 more minutes ... then I'll go to bed ...


maybe ...

[skepticbud]

“ Second, the word for "seize" in verse 28 is tawfas, Strong's #8610, and it's meanings are:

a primitive root; to manipulate (emphasis mine) .e. seize; chiefly to capture, wield, specifically, to overlay; ”

And you don't see the difference in forcibly taking the girl and coercing her? You are so blinded by your hatred of the Bible that you can't see plain definitions.


Excuse me, but where did you get the silly idea that you just flip and coin and select the definition which supports and arbitrarily reject the others, when the most popular and respected bible versions translate this passage in a way that says or implies physical forcing?

-- King James
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;

-- New King James
Deuteronomy 22:28 "If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out,

-- American Standard
Deuteronomy 22:28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, that is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

-- Revised Standard
Deuteronomy 22:28 "If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found,

-- New American Standard
Deuteronomy 22:28 "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,

-- New Jerusalem with Apocrypha
Deuteronomy 22:28 `If a man meets a young virgin who is not betrothed and seizes her, sleeps with her and is caught in the act,

-- New Revised Standard with Apocrypha
Deuteronomy 22:28 If a man meets a virgin who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are caught in the act,

-- Young's Bible
Deuteronomy 22:28 'When a man findeth a damsel, a virgin who is not betrothed, and hath caught her, and lain with her, and they have been found,

-- Darby's Bible
Deuteronomy 22:28 If a man find a damsel, a virgin, who is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found,

-- Webster's Bible
Deuteronomy 22:28 If a man shall find a damsel [that is] a virgin, who is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

--NIV
"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered,..."


a - most say "sieze" or "lay hold". Meriam-Webster Dictionary says "sieze" means:

1 a usually seise /'sEz/ : to vest ownership of a freehold estate in b often seise : to put in possession of something <the biographer will be seized of all pertinent papers>
2 a : to take possession of : CONFISCATE b : to take possession of by legal process
3 a : to possess or take by force : CAPTURE b : to take prisoner : ARREST
4 a : to take hold of : CLUTCH b : to possess oneself of : GRASP c : to understand fully and distinctly : APPREHEND
5 a : to attack or overwhelm physically : AFFLICT <suddenly seized with an acute illness -- H. G. Armstrong> b : to possess (as one's mind) completely or overwhelmingly <seized the popular imagination -- Basil Davenport>
6 : to bind or fasten together with a lashing of small stuff (as yarn, marline, or fine wire)
intransitive senses
1 : to take or lay hold suddenly or forcibly
2 a : to cohere to a relatively moving part through excessive pressure, temperature, or friction -- used especially of machine parts (as bearings, brakes, or pistons) b : to fail to operate due to the seizing of a part -- used of an engine
=====

Do any of those sound like he asked her, and she willingly had sex with him"? Nope. And remember, english translations are made by scholars for the purpose of communicating as accurately as possible the sense and meaning of the original langauge.

The NIV blows you away on this one. Suddenly, the NIV is notoriously flawed, right? :eek:



“ that the difference in words must mean the man takes the woman in verse 25 in a different way than he does in verse 28. But a look at the available meanings shows that they are so similar that any asserted difference cannot be based on the grammar alone, since BOTH words can mean (emphasis mine) "forced".
”
But they don't mean the same thing.


Would you accept similarly short shrift answers from me as proof that I won a point in a debate? What, are you just bored? Nothing good on cable? I wonder what JP Holding would say to a skeptic who used the exact same words to respond to something he said.



“ Third, the context bears this out. Ask yourself, why is ONLY the man punished in both cases? You are claiming one of the verses is not force, ok, why then isn't the woman in that verse punished along with him?”

She is punished by having to marry the man. The money goes to the dad of the girl the same as any other marriage.

“ Answer: because in neither case can fault of any type be assigned to the woman. ”

Sorry, but that's the wrong answer. Fault goes to both in the case of the coersion and they are forced to marry because they acted as a married couple by having sex.


Oh yeah, that's real punishment there alright! ha HA! JP Holding just recently argued on this subject that the woman would prefer to be married to her rapist because it would mean she would be supported financially! Holding is firmly convinced the women in Deuteronomy 22:28 is NOT guilty, but was raped.

"News flash, Bud: The rapist would have been put into a life of servitude to the woman's family, and this is exactly the solution that the family, INCLUDING the woman, would have WANTED in this time." (Posted On: 04-28-2003 at 03:53 PM, in the first thread here)

If your objection were valid, surely almighty Holding would have exploited it by now. Nope. Holding responds to my quotation of Deuteronomy 22:28-29 by saying the man in question was a rapist, no distinctions.

Perhaps you and Holding should have a few private email exchanges, and I'll let god's likeminded one's get their act together before any more Jesus-rejecting and guilt ridden tears flow from my eyes, I was soooo lost in deep darkness:bawl:

[skepticbud]

Today @ 06:21 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=82759#post82759)
SherBear:

28 &quot;If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out,
29 &quot;then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.

Verses that Bud questions ... which do not speak of the woman being forced ... but rather that she was seized ... and they were not found out ... THEY were not found out ... consentual sex here, Bud ... THEY! ... nothing there about her being forced, is there?


First, the New International Version (NIV) translates verse 28 this way:

" If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and RAPES her and they are discovered..."

I know, I know, you never said the NIV bible was inerrant or infallible, did you? Well neither are you, and you don't have half the scholarly training the the conservative Christian OT scholars did who put together the NIV, who by their conservative stance have lots of reason to translate away anything in the hebrew that makes the passage read politically incorrect to modern ears they seek to tickle.

Second, acknowledged bible commentator Matthew Henry, (his commentary is included in most bible software programs), although he eisogetes the women's consent to marry into the text, when her consent to marry is niether mentioned nor implied, nevertheless says verse 28 is about a viscious attack from the man;

[i]"If a damsel not betrothed were thus abused by violence, he that abused her should be fined, the father should have the fine, and, if he and the damsel did consent, he should be bound to marry her, and never to divorce her, how much soever she was below him, and how unpleasing soever she might afterwards be to him, as Tamar was to Amnon after he had forced her, v. 28, 29. This was to deter men from such vicious practices, which it is a shame that we are necessitated to read and write of."[i]

I just quoted two scholarly sources to refute you; The OT scholars of the NIV who translated verse 28 as "RAPE", and Matthew Henry, the popular early Christian commentator.

JP Holding would therefore insist that the argument is over with. I just quoted scholars who support my position!

[Bill the Cat]

Like I said, you can flip flop all you want, little fishy, but Exodus 22:16 says the same thing in a slightly easier to understand way.

Exo 22:16 "If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her to be his wife. (NASB)

It is coersion (seduction) that is the understanding.


And to respond to a few items:


Suddenly, the NIV is notoriously flawed, right?
In some places, I do not agree with the NIV rendering of some items, as Gordon Fee agrees.


Would you accept similarly short shrift answers from me as proof that I won a point in a debate? What, are you just bored? Nothing good on cable?

Well, if you answered a question and I asked the same question immediately after that, yes. and a few notes, 1) I do not have cable. Too expensive. and 2) I am at work helping overseas military personnel order critical parts for aircraft and helicopters, thank you very much.


Holding is firmly convinced the women in Deuteronomy 22:28 is NOT guilty, but was raped.

Well, I disagree with JP as I do on preterism, but that means nothing.


Perhaps you and Holding should have a few private email exchanges, and I'll let god's likeminded one's get their act together before any more Jesus-rejecting and guilt ridden tears flow from my eyes, I was soooo lost in deep darkness

Well, actually I have already emailed JP discussing this very issue. So I'll let you know how it turns out. Until that time, let's see you defeat the parallel verse of Exodus 22:16.

[skepticbud]

The "International Standard Bible Encyclopedia" refutes the shallow ignorant view that Deuteronomy 22:25-29 isn't about rape....



Rape.

chazak = "to seize," "bind," "restrain," "conquer, "force," "ravish." The punishment for this crime was greater when the act was committed against a betrothed woman (Dt 22:25-29).
(under entry "crimes...rape")

The ISBE is extolled by biblesoft.com this way:

Special consideration is also given to the Greek and Hebrew meanings of all major Bible words. And of course, with PC Study Bible you can access the entire five volume set by cross-referencing to and from the encyclopedia from nearly any point in your Bible study. ISBE is truly an exceptional work. Dr. James Orr, general editor, and a team of over 200 internationally-distinguished scholars worked for six years to produce this valuable resource. Yet ISBE is written for the average Bible student and Pastor, making "complex" theology accessible to the everyday reader while approaching its subjects with clarity, completeness, and a solid belief in the infallibility of God's Word. It's no wonder that the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia is still widely regarded as one of the best interdenominational Bible references of all time.

But JP Holding just lives for scholarly food fights, so he will deny the accuracy of these scholars who admit that Deuteronomy 22:25-29 is all about rape every step of the way, or else his Christian friends here will, because when you are defending bible accuracy, NO reasoning is too irrational.

Sooo, in whatever way Holding or his friends "refute" my scholarly backed interpretation, I will fire that logic right back at them to "refute" the arguments they post with scholarly comments on other subjects of disagreement.

Ready? GO!:love:

[Bill the Cat]

Sure,

The ISBE also says on seduction

The seduction of an unbetrothed virgin: In this case the seducer cording to J-E (Exo_22:16 f) is to be compelled to take the virgin as his wife, if the father consents, and to pay the latter the usual purchase price, the amount of which is not defined. In the Deuteronomic Code (Deu_22:28) the amount is fixed at 50 shekels, and the seducer forfeits the right of divorce


You also skipped the last part of the description of the punishment of rape which says SEE SEDUCTION. Typical skeptic. :doh:

[skepticbud]

Today @ 08:00 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=82823#post82823)
Bill the Cat:

Like I said, you can flip flop all you want, little fishy,
[QUOTE]

And the name calling starts immediate after he gets creamed in his own game. Do you seriously think that my quotation of bible versions and scholarly sources that support my position means I'm being "fishy"? If so, you must think Holding is a stinkiest tuna in the school.

[QUOTE]
but Exodus 22:16 says the same thing in a slightly easier to understand way.

Exo 22:16 &quot;If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her to be his wife. (NASB)

It is coersion (seduction) that is the understanding.


oh, I get it...abandon the immediate context and search the bible for another verse on the same subject which you insist is the "true meaning" of the original verse in question? What do you have to say about the scholars and bible translations which support me? Do you think the International standard bible encyclopedia is just a waste of time? DO you think the OT scholars who made the NIV were just high on paint thinner when they translated Deuteronomy 22:28 as "RAPE"?



And to respond to a few items:
In some places, I do not agree with the NIV rendering of some items, as Gordon Fee agrees.


But my sources disagree with you and Gorden Fee, so there's your own logic fired right back in your face. DO you suddenly feel that I am right because my scholars disagree with yours? Then neither do I agree with you just because you found scholars to disagree with me. i already gave you the grammatical argument that "sieze" doesn't sound at all like "she consented". Her consent was mentioned in other texts in that chapter (verse 24, her failure to cry out is reason to kill her, sounds like they thought the refusal to cry out equaled consent!), therefore they would surely have mentioned her consent in verse 28 if she actually did consent. They are concerned with mentioning her consent in verse 24, so they are concerned enough to spell out these sorts of details, why not also in verse 28? Answer; because she did NOT consent in verse 28. By your logic, and elephant circus must have fallen out of the sky next to her when she is being raped. How so? just because it doesn't mention it, doesn't mean it didn't happen! right?



Well, if you answered a question and I asked the same question immediately after that, yes. and a few notes, 1) I do not have cable. Too expensive. and 2) I am at work helping overseas military personnel order critical parts for aircraft and helicopters, thank you very much.
[QUOTE]

I sit at home on the internet all day, saving porn pictures to my computer, while my girlfriend works two jobs to feed and house me and my crack-whore lesbian roommates. When she came home yesterday without beer, I kicked her in the head, the police were called, but I told them it was an act of self-defense, and now she is in jail. She is a Christian by faith, and refuse to leave me, reasoning that god makes her stronger through trials and tribulation, and boy is she patient with me! The rent is paid up and those lesbians want me to fix the torn curtains in their room. AMEN! :yipee:

[QUOTE]
Well, I disagree with JP as I do on preterism, but that means nothing.


Wrong, you disagree with JP, you go to hell, just read it in 2nd Delusions 6:66, "i'malwaysright" version.



Well, actually I have already emailed JP discussing this very issue. So I'll let you know how it turns out. Until that time, let's see you defeat the parallel verse of Exodus 22:16.

Every scholar that supports me already has, and most of them are conservative Christians.

If it is so obvious that Exodus 22:16 is a commentary on Deuteronomy 22:28, you must think the scholars behind the NIV and the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia are absolutely stupid and ignorant for failing to notice something so completely obvious.

No suprise, you'll call any scholar "mis-informed" if they disagree with you.

[skepticbud]

Today @ 08:28 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=82836#post82836)
Bill the Cat:

Sure,

The ISBE also says on seduction

The seduction of an unbetrothed virgin: In this case the seducer cording to J-E (Exo_22:16 f) is to be compelled to take the virgin as his wife, if the father consents, and to pay the latter the usual purchase price, the amount of which is not defined. In the Deuteronomic Code (Deu_22:28) the amount is fixed at 50 shekels, and the seducer forfeits the right of divorce


You also skipped the last part of the description of the punishment of rape which says SEE SEDUCTION. Typical skeptic. :doh:

The quote that I supplied specifically calls Deuteronomy 22:25-28 RAPE. When they say "see SEDUCTION", does that mean " now wait a minute, verse 28 is actually not about rape", or "see related subject"?

Seduction can be related to rape without the crossing each other. There IS rape in verse 25, and yet they still say "see seduction". Does that mean verse 25 is actually about seduction anymore or less than verse 28?

typical christian tirade against common sense reading comprehension and critical thinking. :hi:

[Sher]

Today @ 02:47 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=82817#post82817)
skepticbud:

First, the New International Version (NIV) translates verse 28 this way:I'm not going to argue the authority of the NIV with you, Bud, because that won't help either of us ... (but I personal don't like it because I believe it to be a modern translation that doesn't stay true to the ancient languages) .... but the original language says "take hold of" and I have supported my point regarding ancient practices of seizing brides ... and bride's prices to be paid. Did you read that section of my post? I hope so because I am going to prove my point from scripture below that is supported by that historical information.

MHenry with emphasis on the part I think is relevant:

[i]&quot;If a damsel not betrothed were thus abused by violence, he that abused her should be fined, the father should have the fine, and, if he and the damsel did consent, he should be bound to marry her, and never to divorce her, how much soever she was below him, and how unpleasing soever she might afterwards be to him, as Tamar was to Amnon after he had forced her, v. 28, 29. This was to deter men from such vicious practices, which it is a shame that we are necessitated to read and write of.&quot;[i]
"if he and the damsel did consent" ... THEY were found ...

[...] although he eisogetes the women's consent to marry into the text, when her consent to marry is niether mentioned nor impliedThat is because, I believe, it is speaking about sexual consent ... not marriage consent ... you'll see in a moment why I say this ... again, supported by scripture.
I just quoted two scholarly sources to refute you; The OT scholars of the NIV who translated verse 28 as &quot;RAPE&quot;, and Matthew Henry, the popular early Christian commentator.Do you REALLY want to play the "who has more scholars supporting them game" ... or do you want an honest opinion on the scriptures you think are contradictory? If you are looking to hate the Bible ... and God ... no matter what ... then that is your perogative ... I can't help you. But if you want an honest answer ... I will continue to try to point out where your misunderstanding is ... if I can.
JP Holding would therefore insist that the argument is over with. I just quoted scholars who support my position! I'm not JP ... and :shocked: I don't always agree with his position ... so let's address here between us ... and leave insults of others out of this, k?

Now, back to the point ... the verse you question is cross-referenced (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tsk_b/Deu/22/28.html) to this verse: (Ex 22:16)

"If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. "

This is proof that the verse doesn't mean rape, Bud. Seducing the woman, THEY are caught ... the woman was a virgin ... the father demands the bride's price. (I couldn't find this one earlier but I knew I remembered one that clarified v.28)

Not only that ... but this also proves my issues with the NIV ... which translates this verse ... remember it is a cross-reference ... as not RAPE her ... but "sleeps with her":

Exod 22:16-17 "If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins." (NIV)

In fact, I couldn't find one more instance of "rape" being the translation in any usage of H8610 ... (for your ease in research) at the bottom of this post is a search listing from e-sword of all the instances it found of H8610 in the OT ... each of which ... have to do with some sort of seizure ... either something that it taken ... something that is grasped ... or something that is captured (as result of a war or some conflict). This is further strong support that the word isn't translated into "rape" correctly ... letting scripture interpret scripture ... other usage of the same word ... and historical background ... that all support my point.

(Gen 4:21) (Gen 39:12) (Num 5:13) (Num 31:27) (Deu 9:17) (Deu 20:19) (Deu 21:19) (Jos 8:8) (Jos 8:23) (1Sa 15:8) (1Sa 23:26) (1Ki 11:30) (1Ki 13:4) (1Ki 18:40) (1Ki 20:18) (2Ki 7:12) (2Ki 10:14) (2Ki 14:7) (2Ki 14:13) (2Ki 16:9) (2Ki 18:13) (2Ki 25:6) (2Ch 25:23) (Psa 10:2) (Psa 71:11) (Pro 30:9) (Pro 30:28) (Isa 3:6) (Isa 36:1) (Jer 2:8) (Jer 26:8) (Jer 34:3) (Jer 37:13) (Jer 37:14) (Jer 38:23) (Jer 40:10) (Jer 46:9) (Jer 48:41) (Jer 49:16) (Jer 50:16) (Jer 50:24) (Jer 50:46) (Jer 51:32) (Jer 51:41) (Jer 52:9) (Eze 12:13) (Eze 14:5) (Eze 17:20) (Eze 19:4) (Eze 19:8) (Eze 21:11) (Eze 21:23) (Eze 21:24) (Eze 27:29) (Eze 29:7) (Eze 30:21) (Eze 38:4) (Amo 2:15) (Hab 2:19)


EDIT: :shocked: NOW I am going to bed ... (and I'll look over what you guys posted while I was writing this book :hrm:)

[Bill the Cat]

Today @ 03:37 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=82845#post82845)
skepticbud:



[QUOTE] oh, I get it...abandon the immediate context and search the bible for another verse on the same subject which you insist is the &quot;true meaning&quot; of the original verse in question? What do you have to say about the scholars and bible translations which support me? Do you think the International standard bible encyclopedia is just a waste of time? DO you think the OT scholars who made the NIV were just high on paint thinner when they translated Deuteronomy 22:28 as &quot;RAPE&quot;?

No, I think we just disagree on this and I'm willing to just let it go at disagreement because you are banging your head against a brick wall. My scholars refute your scholars and your scholars refute mine.... It's an endless circle and I am not going to sit here and go back and forth with you. If you think that you won, I don't care. As far as I am concerned, I proved a parallel verse that just happens to disagree with your assertation.


DO you suddenly feel that I am right because my scholars disagree with yours? Then neither do I agree with you just because you found scholars to disagree with me.

Good, as long as that's settled. We do not agree.


i already gave you the grammatical argument that &quot;sieze&quot; doesn't sound at all like &quot;she consented&quot;.

And Sher Bear and I gave gramatical and contextual evidence to the contrary. We Disagree.


Her consent was mentioned in other texts in that chapter (verse 24, her failure to cry out is reason to kill her, sounds like they thought the refusal to cry out equaled consent!), therefore they would surely have mentioned her consent in verse 28 if she actually did consent.

Verse 23-24 says nothing about seizing or forcing her, so consent is implied.


They are concerned with mentioning her consent in verse 24, so they are concerned enough to spell out these sorts of details, why not also in verse 28? Answer; because she did NOT consent in verse 28.

Bologna. The implication was that he coerced her because it says THEY were found. They means they both were consenting.


By your logic, and elephant circus must have fallen out of the sky next to her when she is being raped. How so? just because it doesn't mention it, doesn't mean it didn't happen! right?

Don't tell me about your last date. By my logic, when one passage says one thing and a parallel passage says the same thing in more detail, voila.... It's called taking the time to read.


Wrong, you disagree with JP, you go to hell, just read it in 2nd Delusions 6:66, &quot;i'malwaysright&quot; version.

Silly. Just plain silly.


If it is so obvious that Exodus 22:16 is a commentary on Deuteronomy 22:28, you must think the scholars behind the NIV and the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia are absolutely stupid and ignorant for failing to notice something so completely obvious.

The ISBE supports me directly. See my reference to seduction which names the debated scripture SPECIFICALLY, not just a block of scripture. ANd I quote the whole thing too, not leaving out the part which doesn't agree with me like you did with the ISBE.


No suprise, you'll call any scholar &quot;mis-informed&quot; if they disagree with you.

Really? Where did I do that? I disagree with that scholar and have scholars who agree with me.


Oh, and if you previewed your post, I could reply to all of it. Sorry, but I don't make a habit of re-editing my posts to fix your problems.

[Bill the Cat]

Today @ 03:45 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=82846#post82846)
skepticbud:



The quote that I supplied specifically calls Deuteronomy 22:25-28 RAPE. When they say &quot;see SEDUCTION&quot;, does that mean &quot; now wait a minute, verse 28 is actually not about rape&quot;, or &quot;see related subject&quot;?

Seduction can be related to rape without the crossing each other. There IS rape in verse 25, and yet they still say &quot;see seduction&quot;. Does that mean verse 25 is actually about seduction anymore or less than verse 28?

typical christian tirade against common sense reading comprehension and critical thinking. :hi:

No, it says that see seduction for a clarification of verse 28, which it spells out explicitly and connects to Exodus directly.
The seduction of an unbetrothed virgin: In this case the seducer cording to J-E (Exo_22:16 f) is to be compelled to take the virgin as his wife, if the father consents, and to pay the latter the usual purchase price, the amount of which is not defined. In the Deuteronomic Code (Deu_22:28) the amount is fixed at 50 shekels, and the seducer forfeits the right of divorce

See, it directly links these two verses. So your source is not as concrete as you'd like to believe.

[Sher]

Pssst... I'm going to bed ... really now ... but just had to add this voice of reason from the ISBE:

CRIME; CRIMES: Seduction.-- ta`ah, "to dissemble," "seduce," and Ta`ah, with the same meaning; apoplanao, "to lead astray"; planao, "to go astray," "deceive," "err," "seduce"; and goes, "a wizard," "an impostor," "seducer." In all the passages in which the idea of seduction is expressed in the English the term is used not in the modern sense of a trespass against a woman's person, but in the more general and figurative sense of leading into sin generally (<2 Kin 21:9; Prov 12:26> the King James Version.; <Isa 19:13> the King James Version; <Ezek 13:10; Mk 13:22> the King James Version; <2 Tim 3:13> the King James Version; <I Jn 2:26> the King James Version; <Rev 2:20>).

However, the modern English idea of the word is expressed in the law found in <Exo 22:16-17>.

(from International Standard Bible Encylopaedia, Electronic Database Copyright (C) 1996 by Biblesoft)

So the reason that it is called "rape" in the NIV ... even when it more literaly means "seduction" ... is because it is seduction not in a "good" way ... like a wife seduces a husband ... but in a wrong way ... via deceitful means ...

"to lead astray"
"to go astray"
"deceive"
"err"
"seduce"

So ... they are considering seduction by deceit rape ... not that it is forceful rape as would be assumed by one who doesn't read the supporting evidence ... and this is, again, supported by the "seize"/"capture" ... "taken up" ... the woman is seduced, taken up in the deceit instead of remaining chase and pure ... and THEY are found ... and forced to marry "shotgun" style.

Thanks for the ISBE reference ... that proves our point. :tongue:

Nite ... for really, real this time :angel:

[skepticbud]

Today @ 09:11 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=82857#post82857)
Bill the Cat:

No, it says that see seduction for a clarification of verse 28,


Where does ISBE say "see seduction for a clarification of verse 28."?

It says "see seduction". I proved how stupid it is to interpret those two words as "now wait a minute, verse 28 isn't about rape", and how much more reasonable it is to understand it as "see related topic."

I'm not giving this up, Deuteronomy 22:28 is absolutely RAPE.

How so? If the woman in verse 28 isn't raped, why is only the man expressed as recieving the punishment. If you wanna play the "it says THEY, not he" game, I can play it too....verse 28 says "HE shall pay...HE cannot divorce her". Why does the text emphasize the man's part in the punishment, but fails to specify exactly that the woman is also guilty, since the author clearly takes the time to specify the guilt of the woman in the previous verses? Just got tired? No, the man is being punished, and it is YOUR burden to support your contention that the women in verse 28 was also being punished by having to be married to him.

Incidentally, Harris' Theological Wordbook says this about taw-fus (seize) in verse 28...

"Strong's Number: 8610
Harris Number: 2538
Transliterated: tapas
Harris Definition: catch, handle, lay hold.

Text: This verb appears forty-nine times in the Qal stem and fifteen times in the Niphal. It is also attested once in the Piel, in Prov 30:28, where, in light of context, we should probably read, "You can take a lizard in your hands" (cf ASV Marg., RSV, BDB). The verb means basically "seize, take hold of, " sometimes preparatory to further action. It is therefore often used of capturing people (II Kgs 14:13) or towns (Josh 8:8), or of grasping weapons (Amos 2:15) to use them or musical instruments(Gen 4:21) to play them."

So nobody can argue that the Hebrew word that is translated "seize" in verse 28, is so different from the one in verse 25, that verse 28 cannot imply force. It implies force many times throughout the OT, you will have to come up with another reason why this word doesn't mean force in verse 28, and the refusal to say the women is being punished in verse 28 (when the author had no problems specifying punishment for the women in previous verses) testifies that the author thought the women was NOT being punished.

Also, if your interpretation is obvious, there are plenty of scholars who disagree with you, so your interpretation is NOT obvious.

and if your interpretation is NOT obvious, it will remain a possibility that this verse really does prove that god approved of rape. that possibility remains when you say "let's agree to disagree".

[skepticbud]

Today @ 09:13 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=82859#post82859)
SherBear:

CRIME; CRIMES: Seduction.-- ta`ah, &quot;to dissemble,&quot; &quot;seduce,&quot; and Ta`ah, with the same meaning; apoplanao, &quot;to lead astray&quot;; planao, &quot;to go astray,&quot; &quot;deceive,&quot; &quot;err,&quot; &quot;seduce&quot;; and goes, &quot;a wizard,&quot; &quot;an impostor,&quot; &quot;seducer.&quot; In all the passages in which the idea of seduction is expressed in the English the term is used not in the modern sense of a trespass against a woman's person, but in the more general and figurative sense of leading into sin generally (&lt;2 Kin 21:9; Prov 12:26&gt; the King James Version.; &lt;Isa 19:13&gt; the King James Version; &lt;Ezek 13:10; Mk 13:22&gt; the King James Version; &lt;2 Tim 3:13&gt; the King James Version; &lt;I Jn 2:26&gt; the King James Version; &lt;Rev 2:20&gt;).

However, the modern English idea of the word is expressed in the law found in &lt;Exo 22:16-17&gt;.


Oh, so, Exodus 22:16 uses that word in the modern english sense of "trespassing against a woman's person" as opposed to "leading into sin"...? then that would make the verse read this way...

"If a man trespasses against a virgin, not merely leading her into sin, who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her {to be} his wife."

You cannot trespass against a person if they give you their consent to do what you want. But you are trespassing against them when they resist and you force yourself.



So the reason that it is called &quot;rape&quot; in the NIV ... even when it more literaly means &quot;seduction&quot; ... is because it is seduction not in a &quot;good&quot; way ... like a wife seduces a husband ... but in a wrong way ... via deceitful means ...
&quot;to lead astray&quot;
&quot;to go astray&quot;
&quot;deceive&quot;
&quot;err&quot;
&quot;seduce&quot;


I think you need to back up and read the first two sentences you bolded, they first assert that the modern english sense of the word means to trespass against the woman's person, and then afterward say that Exodus 22:16 is a case where seduce is used in that modern sense.

before you answer, be sure to keep 'leading into sin generally" and "trespass against a woman's person" seperate in their meanings, because that 's what ISBE does.



So ... they are considering seduction by deceit rape ... not that it is forceful rape as would be assumed by one who doesn't read the supporting evidence...


Deceit rape? Could you give an example of how a woman can give her consent with so much ignorance that the act is still rape?

Are you just desperate?



... and this is, again, supported by the &quot;seize&quot;/&quot;capture&quot; ... &quot;taken up&quot; ... the woman is seduced, taken up in the deceit instead of remaining chase and pure ... and THEY are found ... and forced to marry &quot;shotgun&quot; style.


I never understood why you emphasize "they" in verse 28. That verse talks about discovering "them". The subject of the discovery is "they". Whether the woman gives her consent or not, it always takes two to tango, so discovering a woman being raped or a woman after having given her consent, it is still a discovery of "they" in either case. Your point?

and if you continue to play that hair-splitting game, you should have no objections to the fact that it says "HE must marry her", emphasizing what the man is forced to do. Why emphasize how the man is punished without also emphasizing the woman's part in that punishment as well? Didn't the author take the time to specify that the woman AND the man would be punished even in previous verses where the woman's punishment was clearly implied anyway? Why then doesn't this author maintain consistency, and emphasize how the woman must marry the man, she cannot divorce him all her days"?

The author didn't maintain consistency and specify the woman's deserving of punishment in verse 28, like he took the time to do in previous verses where it was obvious anyway, because the author didn't think the woman was being punished in verse 28.

And thanks for pointing out how the author specified in previous verses that the woman AND the man were punished. That's his style when he thinks both are being punished, right?

[Bill the Cat]

Today @ 05:13 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=82878#post82878)
skepticbud:



Where does ISBE say &quot;see seduction for a clarification of verse 28.&quot;?

Sorry, I shoulda said "see seduction" where it clarifies verse 28.


It says &quot;see seduction&quot;. I proved how stupid it is to interpret those two words as &quot;now wait a minute, verse 28 isn't about rape&quot;, and how much more reasonable it is to understand it as &quot;see related topic.&quot;

So then the ISBE contradicts itself, does it not by your assertation?


I'm not giving this up, Deuteronomy 22:28 is absolutely RAPE.

Really? Nave's topical dictionary says Rape
The law of Moses imposed death penalty for
Deu_22:25-27; Note 28 is left out. It is absolutely seduction.



How so? If the woman in verse 28 isn't raped, why is only the man expressed as recieving the punishment.

Because only the man payed the dowery in any marriage.


If you wanna play the &quot;it says THEY, not he&quot; game, I can play it too....verse 28 says &quot;HE shall pay...HE cannot divorce her&quot;. Why does the text emphasize the man's part in the punishment, but fails to specify exactly that the woman is also guilty, since the author clearly takes the time to specify the guilt of the woman in the previous verses?

because she was promised to someone else. Here she is not breaking a betrothal vow to anyone. Her punishment was marriage, presumably before she was ready.


Just got tired? No, the man is being punished, and it is YOUR burden to support your contention that the women in verse 28 was also being punished by having to be married to him.

Well, she was not betrothed which means she was not intending to get married right then. Oh well for her. Shoulda kept it in her pants. or out of them.


Incidentally, Harris' Theological Wordbook says this about taw-fus (seize) in verse 28...

&quot;Strong's Number: 8610
Harris Number: 2538
Transliterated: tapas
Harris Definition: catch, handle, lay hold.

Text: This verb appears forty-nine times in the Qal stem and fifteen times in the Niphal. It is also attested once in the Piel, in Prov 30:28, where, in light of context, we should probably read, &quot;You can take a lizard in your hands&quot; (cf ASV Marg., RSV, BDB). The verb means basically &quot;seize, take hold of, &quot; sometimes preparatory to further action. It is therefore often used of capturing people (II Kgs 14:13) or towns (Josh 8:8), or of grasping weapons (Amos 2:15) to use them or musical instruments(Gen 4:21) to play them.&quot;

So by your literalization of word meanings, picking a guitar is the same as picking your nose? The same word can be used to express two different ideas as seen here. Do you seize a prisoner the same way as you seize a violin? No. That's why it is translated so many different ways:

tâphasì
Total KJV Occurrences: 67
took, 18
Num_31:27, Deu_9:17, Jos_8:23, 1Sa_15:8, 1Ki_18:40, 2Ki_10:14, 2Ki_14:7, 2Ki_14:13, 2Ki_16:9, 2Ki_18:13, 2Ki_25:6, 2Ch_25:23, Isa_36:1, Jer_26:8, Jer_37:13-14 (2), Jer_52:9, Eze_29:7
taken, 12
Num_5:13, Jos_8:8, Jer_34:2-3 (2), Jer_38:23, Jer_40:10, Eze_12:13, Eze_17:20, Eze_19:4, Eze_19:8, Eze_21:23-24 (2)
take, 10
Deu_20:19, 1Sa_23:26, 1Ki_18:40, 1Ki_20:18 (2), 2Ki_10:14, Psa_71:11, Pro_30:9, Isa_3:6, Eze_14:5
hold, 7
Deu_21:19, Deu_22:28, 1Ki_13:4, Pro_30:28, Eze_29:6-7 (2), Eze_30:21
handle, 5
Gen_4:21 (2), Jer_46:8-9 (3), Eze_27:29
caught, 3
Gen_39:12, 1Ki_11:30, Jer_50:24
handleth, 2
Jer_50:16, Amo_2:15
surprised, 2
Jer_51:41 (2)
catch, 1
2Ki_7:12
handled, 1
Eze_21:11
handling, 1
Eze_38:4
holdest, 1
Jer_49:16
laid, 1
Hab_2:19
stopped, 1
Jer_51:32
taketh, 1
Pro_30:28
taking, 1
Jer_50:46

So you see, it means a host of different things. Who's right?


So nobody can argue that the Hebrew word that is translated &quot;seize&quot; in verse 28, is so different from the one in verse 25, that verse 28 cannot imply force. It implies force many times throughout the OT, you will have to come up with another reason why this word doesn't mean force in verse 28,

It could imply force, but see some of the verses listed above that translate the exact same word in a non-physical manner.


and the refusal to say the women is being punished in verse 28 (when the author had no problems specifying punishment for the women in previous verses) testifies that the author thought the women was NOT being punished.

See above


Also, if your interpretation is obvious, there are plenty of scholars who disagree with you, so your interpretation is NOT obvious.

Well, so what. there are scholars who do agree with me. Circles round and round.


and if your interpretation is NOT obvious, it will remain a possibility that this verse really does prove that god approved of rape. that possibility remains when you say &quot;let's agree to disagree&quot;.

Well, even given our disagreement, a "possibility" of one verse is way overshadowed by the numerous that denounce it outright. And I still see it as a coersion, as did the ISBE.

[skepticbud]

Today @ 10:51 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=82889#post82889)
Bill the Cat:


So then the ISBE contradicts itself, does it not by your assertation?


Nope, "see Seduction" means "see related topic".



Really? Nave's topical dictionary says Rape
The law of Moses imposed death penalty for
Deu_22:25-27; Note 28 is left out. It is absolutely seduction.


Anybody can play a scholar's food fight.

Really? Smith's Bible Dictionary says

"Rape or seduction of an unbetrothed virgin to be compensated by marriage, with dowry (50 shekels), and without power of divorce; or, if she be refused, by payment of full dowry. (Exodus 22:16,17; Deuteronomy 22:28,29)



Because only the man payed the dowery in any marriage.


That doesn't make any sense. How exactly do you conclude that the author doesn't mention the woman is to be punished because the man is the one paying the dowery? As if the woman might also pay the dowery in any circumstance (!?)



because she was promised to someone else. Here she is not breaking a betrothal vow to anyone. Her punishment was marriage, presumably before she was ready.


You are begging the question, since whether the woman is in fact being punished in verse 28 is exactly the point of contention.



So by your literalization of word meanings, picking a guitar is the same as picking your nose?


If you were more concerned with reading comprehension than wit, you might have caught my explanation. I didn't say the Hebrew word underlying "seize" in verse 28 necessarily meant "to take hold by force". I was merely pointing out someone else's previous error in this thread of saying that because verse 25 and verse 28 use different Hebrew words for "seize", therefore verse 28 doesn't mean the same thing as verse 25. I proved that the word in verse 28 can also imply force just as surely as the word in verse 25 in spite of their differences, and therefore, whoever would argue that the word in verse 28 isn't force just because it isn't the same word as in verse 25, needs to do something more than cite the mere fact that different words were used.

If I say "I hit the ball" and then later "I struck the ball", who would argue that the difference in words thus requires that they mean something different? Ever hear of synonyms?



It could imply force, but see some of the verses listed above that translate the exact same word in a non-physical manner.


yup.

And chazaqu, the word in verse 25, can also mean "to take hold of", or even "encourage".

to seize, help, repair, cleave, confirm, be constant, constrain, continue, be of good , encourage (self), be established, mend, retain, seize, take (hold), be urgent, behave self valiantly, are other possible definitions of the word that would be denied by those who fallaciously assert this word being different than the word in verse 28 suddenly means verse 25 is talking about force and not verse 28. childish in the extreme.



Well, even given our disagreement, a &quot;possibility&quot; of one verse is way overshadowed by the numerous that denounce it outright. And I still see it as a coersion, as did the ISBE.

Sorry, the ISBE never saw Deuteronomy 22:28 as a case of coercion, and you never cited it to that effect anyway.

And to say that my interpretation is overshadowed by other verses on a similar subject which say different merely begs the question of the absolute harmony of Exodus and Deuteronomy, as if they compliment and never contradict or update or change one another. You shouldn't be so quick to toss the J-E-P-D theory out the window like that. It's entirely possible that the Exodus is talking about seduction while Deuteronomy is talking about rape.

You want evidence that this is true? In Exodus, the father is given a chance to disagree with marrying his daughter to her seducer, but nothing about the father's chance is mentioned either way in Deuteronomy 22. You have to first assume that Exodus and Deuteronomy are harmonious, before you cite Exodus as a further explanation of Deuteronomy. Assuming they are harmonious for the sake of proving that one text explains another, is one of the more pure forms of ad hoc reasoning the world has been graced to witness.

yeah, if exodus doesn't explain Deuteronomy, then that must mean the bible contradicts itself, and at that point, all hope is lost on the godless world of liberal scholarship!

Right?

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 04:46 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=82701#post82701)
Sheepdog:
if you really understood the Bible, you wouldn't be making the stupid skeptic assertions you make.

Yeah, I must lack the necessary imagination to interpret mythology as fact.


so waitaminute. Willian Lane Criag, Ph.D., tossed his critical faculties out the window? i thought you needed critical thinking skills to earh Ph.D's.

I'm not saying you have to be a gibbering mental cripple to be a Christian (but it helps :thumb:). All I'm saying is that in order to believe that the bible is true, you have to ignore your critical faculties.

This doesn't mean you can't reapply them as necessary.


or how about Newton and Galileo? pioneering scientists who were also firm Bible believers

Firm bible believers - hundreds of years ago! Newton died in 1727, and Galileo in 1642. Scientific learning was barely in it's infancy!

If that's the best you can do, then it's a pretty bad job.


that is not to say that the Bible is true, just because these people are believers. however, you now get to prove to us why you think these men had &quot;chuck their critical faculties out of the window.&quot; if you can't, please spare us the stupid skeptic tricks.

The bible is chock-full of error-riddled goodness. It gets the history wrong (or leaves important things out - Pharoah who?), and it makes spectacular claims without any supporting evidence. So any intelligent person that believes in Christianity must supress some of their critical faculties to allow themselves to brush over these problems.


naw. why do that when they can simply bury their head in the sand like so-called &quot;freethinkers&quot; do? it's much easier to appeal to ignorance than it is to actually read, think critically, and seek to understand. that whole education process must be scary to skeptics.

Isn't this a bit ironic coming from a science denier?

Science is our most effective method of discerning truth - you even appealed to science above. And yet you reject it in favour of an ancient book. Because... er... you want it to be true.


it must be easy to just carpet bomb bald assertions over a field that requires a great deal of analysis.

I question why the bible needs so much analysis when it contains so little material of any real content. Tall tales intended to act as moral guides can be written so much easier.


hey watch me be a nontheist freethinker:
(college professor lays out entire course layout in a syllabus)
&quot;Or maybe the professor made all this stuff up, which explains the all this class a lot better.&quot;

If the professor can provide no evidence to back up the information in his course, this is a fair comment.


i assume by genuine prophecy, you mean, &quot;anything i haven't already dismissed because, by golly, they cramp my style.&quot;

Oh, come on. If God had wanted to provide decent evidence to future generations, he could have done so easily by putting in a few irrefutable prohesies. He didn't, though.


and scientific information? why would you expect natural science in a book that doesn't deal much with how the world works, but why it is here?

What finer proof of God's existance could there be? It would have validated the bible for the rest of time. OK, so Moses might have been confused. But it's about time those bloody goat herders had to do some research to understand something God said.


other than that, you add nothing of substance. appealing to what the people could have dreamt up is another stupid skeptic trick: i don't refute General Relativity simply by saying it isn't anything other that what Einstein could have easly made up.

Well, you'd be hard pushed. We have evidence to back that up. We don't have any evidence that the bible is true.


if you think they did make it up, show me with evidence how you came to this conclusion. and no, &quot;i believe this because i don't want the Bible to be true&quot; is not a valid answer.

Ah, that's how you rationalise this. You think I don't want the bible to be true. How nice.

If the bible contained information that man could not possibly know, then I'd say there was a good chance it wasn't written by man. But wow - it doesn't.


little kids are making sense of stuff that skeptics howl about how they can't figure it out

Kids are easily convinced of anything.

Paul

[skepticbud]

And more and more proofs that I'm right and everybody else is a willing servant within hell's outhouse.

The Hebrew word anah (“humble, afflict,” emphasized above) used in Deuteronomy 22:29 is used to denote forcing a woman (Gen. 34:2; Jud. 20:5; 2 Sam. 13:12, 14, 22, 32; Lam. 5:11)

It can also mean to dishonor, mistreat, or afflict (e.g., Ex. 1:11; Gen. 16:6; Ex. 22:22; Deut. 8:2; Ps. 119:67),

The NIV is supported by

the Oxford Companion to the Bible 1993 which states "a man who raped an unbetrothed virgin was simply compelled to marry her" page 808.

Professor Gerald Larue confirms "A non-betrothed virgin who was
raped was compelled to become the wife of the rapist. The rapist was required to pay the woman's father fifty silver pieces as the bride price." (What the Bible Says 1989 p 89).

I quoted a bunch of scholars who agree with me! Since that is the sum and substance of most of Holding's articles, he must be chewing his nails all the way to his shoulders in fear of my high and mighty rebuttal to him. Just look at all those scholars that support me! Isn't the fallacy of argument from authority really quite stupid?

Holding will never admit it, to do so is to guarantee nuclear meltdown of his reputation.

Come on Holding, were counting on you to prove that all of my scholars were not born in the center of Syria's Jerusalem town square, thus they could not possibly know anything about how the mind of ancient jewish authors worked.

Were any of the OT scholars behind the NIV born and raised in Syria? Nope. I lose! It's that easy! :argue:

[skepticbud]

and scientific information? why would you expect natural science in a book that doesn't deal much with how the world works, but why it is here?

What finer proof of God's existance could there be? It would have validated the bible for the rest of time. OK, so Moses might have been confused. But it's about time those bloody goat herders had to do some research to understand something God said.

I'll disagree with Paul here, but hang on! paul will love me for it.

many Christian attempt to counter the skeptical objection that the bible should be scientifically precise if written by a perfect god, by quipping "ok, so god tells moses, 'the planets revolve around the sun in eliptical orbits, while the trajectories can be calculated...' to moses and other ancient people? yeah right!"

But wait a minute!

God not only transcends time, but also opens understanding, doesn't she?

What's the problem with saying god could have very easily been perfectly scientifically accurate in his writings, and could easily have opened the understanding of his human authors so that they were more intellectually advanced than any other culture...?

So, no, I will push the issue: Under christian bible believing assumptions, it would not only have posed no difficulty to god to write Genesis 1 and 2 in precise scientifically accurate langauge, and to inspire his hebrews to understand those truths perfectly before they actually came to light through man's own reasonining centuries later, but would also have served the purpose of Christian apologetics so well that apologists would have tons less work to do.

So the fact that I can think of a scenario that would serve god's purposes even more efficiently than the way his current plan works, testifies that i am either smarter than god, or smarter than the *real* authors of Genesis 1 and 2 :teeth:

By the way, I play guitar for a living and when I collect all the money at the end of the day, I flush it all down the toilet and continue to starve and be homeless, because god told me to live this way.

Yes, there are more efficient ways to go about living, but who art thou to judge god? perhaps he has higher mysterious ways for pursuing one of the lessor efficient paths? :no:

[Socrates]

Sheepdog:


or how about Newton and Galileo? pioneering scientists who were also firm Bible believers

Lord Snooty:Firm bible believers - hundreds of years ago! Newton died in 1727, and Galileo in 1642. Scientific learning was barely in it's infancy!The point is, these Bible-believers were instrumental in founding modern science in the first place! Atheism can provide no basis for an orderly universe, unlike Biblical Christianity. And there is nothing in REAL science, as opposed to the goo-to-you-via-the-zoo hypothesis in which LS has so much blind faith.

Lord Snooty:If that's the best you can do, then it's a pretty bad job.:rotf: coming from one who hasn't done any job at all, apart from hurl elephants.

Sherbear:


that is not to say that the Bible is true, just because these people are believers. however, you now get to prove to us why you think these men had "chuck their critical faculties out of the window." if you can't, please spare us the stupid skeptic tricks.

Lord Snooty:The bible is chock-full of error-riddled goodness. More unsupported assertions from one who has no knowledge of science or Biblical languages.

Lord Snooty:It gets the history wrong Care to document this? Or are you going to continue to hurl elephants like most bibliosceptical materialists?

Lord Snooty:(or leaves important things out - Pharoah who?),Since when is an omission an error??

Lord Snooty: and it makes spectacular claims without any supporting evidence. It provides plenty, e.g. the empty tomb of Jesus and reliable eye-witness reports that He was alive after His crucifixion. All LS has is a DOGMA against miracles.

Lord Snooty:So any intelligent person that believes in Christianity must supress some of their critical faculties to allow themselves to brush over these problems.So any intelligent person that believes in atheism must supress some of their critical faculties to allow themselves to brush over these problems.

[Socrates]

Skepticbud:Correction: advocating that morals are relative doesn't mean I cannot judge somebody else's morals. I judge them by my own morals! You insist it is an error to judge the morals of someone else, when the judging person admits all morals are relative, but this doesn't follow logically nor rationally. Relativistic morals simply doesn't mean "you can't call that other person wrong!"It does mean that you can't judge them as OBJECTIVELY wrong, and therefore your argument against God and the Bible collapses. All you are left with is "I don't like that", but who gives a monkey's what you like?From my frame of reference, they are. But because morals are relative the one thing I certainly cannot do is say they are ABSOLUTELY wrong. Sure, I can't do that, but I can still call them wrong when i disagree with their morals. the absence of absolutes doesn't mean there's nothing to discuss.As above, you have nothing except that you don't like something. But that's not an argument at all. There is nothing, under your perspective, to differentiate your personal distaste for rape from your personal distaste for, say, French Vanilla ice cream.

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 01:04 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=82937#post82937)
Socrates:
The point is, these Bible-believers were instrumental in founding modern science in the first place!

Of course they were, and the entire world owes them a debt of gratitude.

However, that doesn't mean a great deal. They were bible believers, yes. But everyone believed in their eras. As our knowledge of the universe has grown, more scientists have abandoned their religious beliefs.


Atheism can provide no basis for an orderly universe, unlike Biblical Christianity. And there is nothing in REAL science, as opposed to the goo-to-you-via-the-zoo hypothesis in which LS has so much blind faith.

Any religion can provide a basis for an 'orderly universe', that's by no means exclusive to Christianity.

As for evolution, that's OT in this thread, but suffice it to say that even a mentally retarded non-scientist like me can see that the evidence for evolution is rock solid. And that AIG is... well. Pig swill.


More unsupported assertions from one who has no knowledge of science or Biblical languages.

How do you know? I have some knowledge of science. Admittedly I have only my high-school science qualification to my name, but I read books.

You claim to be a scientist, but I haven't actually seen any evidence that you know what you're talking about.


Lord Snooty:It gets the history wrong Care to document this? Or are you going to continue to hurl elephants like most bibliosceptical materialists?

The errors have been listed many times. But here's one that gets me: Why do the gospels offer two seperate dates - ten years apart - for the birth of Jesus?


Lord Snooty:(or leaves important things out - Pharoah who?),Since when is an omission an error??

It's not, it's an omission. Quite a glaring one, though.


It provides plenty, e.g. the empty tomb of Jesus and reliable eye-witness reports that He was alive after His crucifixion.

Just being able to say that these things happened isn't providing evidence, or at least not strong evidence. In fact, is there any evidence weaker than hearsay?


All LS has is a DOGMA against miracles.

Until it can be proven that miracles happen, this is fair enough.

Paul

[Sher]

Bud ... I'm going to try this again. Please read this without preconceived prejudices ... and see if I don't clarify what your misunderstanding is, okay?

Let me preface by saying I have a horrible headache ... and I am very cranky ... so forgive any bluntness that comes across. I sincerely want you to understand this passage ... and as such will continue to try to help you "get it"

First of all, I want to clarify that I think the NIV ... as well as The Message ... is too quick to throw English words into scripture. They often weren't very careful to preserve the ancient texts' meanings. Let me show you why I say this:

In this scripture, supported by the cross-reference, the word is seduce ... not rape ... and btw, I didn't mean "deceit rape" ... but "seduction by deceit ... [which is technically] rape ..." I was clarifying how the NIV calls it rape ... but still is misleading the modern English reader ...

In the USA ... outside of a few states in which you can marry your first cousin who is barely out of diapers ... there is a crime called statutory rape. This is "rape" of a minor who isn't considered by law old enough to give consent ... but it is only correctly invoked (by law) when the two have had consentual sexual relations ... the reason being that forcful rape (without the consent of the woman) ... as you have been alleging in your outrage ... is punished by different means ... as a rape crime of a forceful nature ... bringing in forensics, etc.

Likewise ... the ancient established laws ... on which the USA based many of their laws, BTW ... looked at unbethrothed ... read here "young" because most were bethrothed at a young age ... virgins ... and said that such girls were seduced.

Seduction in this sense is a crime. That is why under "CRIMES" in the ISBE, you find the header RAPE ... and it says to SEE SEDUCTION as a cross-reference. I posted the full definition of seduction there so you can see how this supports that it is "rape" technically by modern definition of statutory rape ... but not rape by modern definition of forceable rape ... again what you were outraged about ... evidenced by your concerns of the woman having to marry her "rapist". While by modern law, and even probably ancient one, the man could technically be called a rapist ... the woman evidently didn't think so ...

Which is my reason for emphasis of THEY ... THEY are found out ... not HE is found out. It does take "two to Tango" but if only one were responsible ... as in the man was the only guilty party ... as in V.25 ... HE would be FOUND OUT ... not THEY. They had consentual sexual relations ... again it is technically statutory rape but NOT forceful rape ... and THEY are FOUND OUT ...

... and the shotgun wedding is forced .... with the man paying the bride's price ... the punishment for the seduction of a young virgin who could be wedded off to someone ... the family still gets the bride's price ... and the two that played get married.

Seduction ... the deceit of seduction ... was probably that the man wanted sex but not marriage ... or he would have sought betrothal. He was looking to "bag a virgin" as it were ... and had to pay up and marry her instead. She is punished by having to marry someone that she was seduced by ... whether she wanted to or not ... for falling for his seduction.

[Sher]

Hey Soc? Can you "clean up" your attribs? You put my name instead of Sheepdog's on those quotes. Thanks :smile:

[Sher]

Guys, guys, guys ... the wee'ng contest is getting a bit old ... can we get back on topic here?

... Not said as a Moderator ... but as someone who is getting tired of all this posturing back and forth ... especially when it is off-topic ... conversation isn't that bad ... like Bill and I had last night ... but this whining is getting on my last nerve ... thanks in advance!

[jpholding]

Well, this has sure grown since last night. Let's see if it can be sorted out --

Snoots:

What, like taking the lord's name in vain?You'd think that rape might have taken that position.

As an atheist/agnostic you of course beg the question of the relevance/importance of that command. Keep chasing yourself in a circle. Sheepdog: :thumb:

Also, rape is not especially uncommon in nations where, today, family links are strong (such as in the middle east).

Oh. Do we have some modern stats on rape from there, made comparatively, plus a comparison of family control factors ancient vs. modern, plus effect of modern ideologies like Westernism, Islam, etc? Or are you just mouthing off in the breeze? The latter. Yep. Sheepdog shoulda had you buried up to your rear, not just your head. The old "carpet bomb fart".

Bud:

Another proof that the morals the god of the OT instilled on his people are inferior to atheists today who think their virgin daughter is far above all cost, and the loss of her virginity should never be viewed as damaged goods by any prospective man she may date

Sorry, Bud, that "moral" was instilled not by God but was among the people already. God's rule undermined their own prejudices by reaffirming that the woman was NOT damaged goods but that a penalty was warranted. You don't end slavery by mere force of rule but by forcing the slavers to see the humanity of the slave. God orders such a view as you describe nowhere. There's your "superior moral". Try again.

But 50 shekels of silver and forcing him to marry her, now THERE's an all-wise decision.

Yep. It helped the family survive in spite of all the prejudices. :duh:

God was so concerned about the woman healing emotionally that he never mentions the slightest word about it in his bloodthirsty quest to "deliver justice".

Oh. Can you name a single law code, ancient or modern, that addresses "emotional healing"? As noted, the setup here is one that would have ben WANTED by the ancients. To have the guy around and see him working his tail off, being shamed -- and there's your stigma, BTW, in a society where honor and shame were as important as paying the bills -- would have been quite fulfilling and healing, thank you very much. Separation is a product of modern individualist preferences. Counseling is a modern invention that wasn't needed as a coping mechanism for people until just recently, though the family itself would serve such a function nevertheless. Get your head out of the 7-11.

Now you are adding to the word of the Lord.

No he isn't, loser. He's giving you an accurate rendition of what would happen in the social contex. Geez, like saying it is "adding to the word of the Lord" to suggest anyone in the Bible used the bathroom if it wasn't specified. Take yor frustrated drivel to someone who cares.

Nah, the ancient people of most every part of earth were just as chauvinistic as the ancient Hebrews.

Nah, you just beg the question of the prominence of the crime. Maybe you can provide stats that Snoots failed to.

I pass on your childish attempts to divide Bill and I. :cir: The focus is on you and you're not getting any breaks.

[DBoone]

Y'know what Bud? I was going to get into a long drawn-out argument with you, but I really don't see the point. You make some good points about the modern justice system taking measures to ensure the welfare of the victim and the awareness of consequence for the offender. But all the other stuff you say about me reading into the text is just plain idiotic. We are dealing with a passage in Mosaic Law, of course they're not going to get into all the social ramifications of the offense and punishment. But anyone with an ounce of imagination (oh my are we really allowed to do that in church?) AND understanding of the culture in which this law was written (in case you thought I was advocating the same fairy-tale approach you use in exegesis) would glean a more full understanding of the impact of the law in question. The reason I'm not going to debate this issue with you any longer is simply because you don't want to hear any points that have been expressed here, you just want someone to tell you that your hatred for the Biblical God justifies your twisting of the scriptures to your own destruction. Sorry you won't hear it from me. I'm not convinced by your argument, so let's just say that we agree to disagree on this one.

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 12:57 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=82936#post82936)
skepticbud:
What's the problem with saying god could have very easily been perfectly scientifically accurate in his writings, and could easily have opened the understanding of his human authors so that they were more intellectually advanced than any other culture...?

Also very true. One might expect a God of all-encompassing knowledge to give just a tiny bit to his beloved creations.

Paul

[jpholding]

Also very true. One might expect a God of all-encompassing knowledge to give just a tiny bit to his beloved creations.

Like what, for example? Can you tell us something that the average ANE peasant would have found useful while they were trying to figure out where their next meal was coming from?

Trap ahead. :brow:

[DBoone]

Skepticbud says:
"So, no, I will push the issue: Under christian bible believing assumptions, it would not only have posed no difficulty to god to write Genesis 1 and 2 in precise scientifically accurate langauge, and to inspire his hebrews to understand those truths perfectly before they actually came to light through man's own reasonining centuries later, but would also have served the purpose of Christian apologetics so well that apologists would have tons less work to do."

Bud, did you fall asleep watching "Back To The Future" last night?
Or maybe "Bill And Ted's Excellent Adventure"? Or maybe just about any episode of Star Trek: TNG?

If you pour 8 ounces of water into a 6 ounce glass, how much will spill on the floor?

God always works within the technology and science of the day. He didn't give Noah the plans to build an airplane or a spaceship when the technology and science of the day could neither contain nor accomodate the revelation. And maybe this is a good example of how we put the cart before the horse. If God was created in your image, I could imagine Him saying, "Let's not worry about the consequences of sin, let's just fill their head full of comparatively useless scientific trivia instead."

And what makes any of us think that the God of all truth is NOT responsible for the revelation of scientific truth to Mankind? Not long ago in our history, before the time when unbelievers drew the line between scientific and religious truth, people would actually give God credit for the things that they discovered. Wondeful thing, that humility, for helping us to keep things in perspective.

[DBoone]

Can we just get back to the topic, please?

[Nowhere357]

lordsnooty:

As for evolution, that's OT in this thread, but suffice it to say that even a mentally retarded non-scientist like me can see that the evidence for evolution is rock solid.


Paul is right. Scientifically, only the origin of life is in question. Evolution is a fact, to an extremely high degree of certainty, given that life exists.

[skepticbud]

Today @ 01:27 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=82952#post82952)
Socrates:

Skepticbud:Correction: advocating that morals are relative doesn't mean I cannot judge somebody else's morals. I judge them by my own morals! You insist it is an error to judge the morals of someone else, when the judging person admits all morals are relative, but this doesn't follow logically nor rationally. Relativistic morals simply doesn't mean &quot;you can't call that other person wrong!&quot;

It does mean that you can't judge them as OBJECTIVELY wrong, and therefore your argument against God and the Bible collapses. All you are left with is &quot;I don't like that&quot;, but who gives a monkey's what you like?


When I assert that child molestation is wrong, everybody cares about that remark of mine.



From my frame of reference, they are. But because morals are relative the one thing I certainly cannot do is say they are ABSOLUTELY wrong. Sure, I can't do that, but I can still call them wrong when i disagree with their morals. the absence of absolutes doesn't mean there's nothing to discuss.

As above, you have nothing except that you don't like something. But that's not an argument at all. There is nothing, under your perspective, to differentiate your personal distaste for rape from your personal distaste for, say, French Vanilla ice cream.

So!? Again you are proceeding under the errant assumption that i am claiming they are objectively and absolutely wrong, when I specifically denied it.

For example, I say child rape is wrong. Absolutely wrong? No. I just happen to have been born and raised in a culture where such an activity was always and consistently frowned upon and condemned heartily. A whole bunch of people agree that having sex with a four year old girl is wrong. That amount of support for my opinion means I have a case to argue. just because I don't claim child rapists are absolutely wrong doesn't mean I'm forbidden from saying that they have engaged in behavior which outrages my local community and indeed most of the world at large.

You think I just dug myself a hole? Better jump back before you unwisely assume that majority of human opinion is sufficient to call something absolutely wrong.

To do so extinguish any necessity for god's existence that apologists typical try to extract from their argument from absolute morals. :brow:

Tread very carefully, because anything you say can and will be used against you. You have the right to remain silent, if you don't have counsel, one will be appointed for you. You know the drill. :love:

[DBoone]

Sorry guys, but I just can't resist this one.

I don't actually have a problem with the Theory of Evolution as a theory, but it is far from fact. There's way too much in it that is just plain goofy. I don't normally quote from this source, but the info is sound:

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055%5F01.asp

I tried to load a sample page but it's not working so you just have to read it for yourselves.

[skepticbud]

Today @ 09:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=83398#post83398)
jpholding:

Also very true. One might expect a God of all-encompassing knowledge to give just a tiny bit to his beloved creations.

Like what, for example? Can you tell us something that the average ANE peasant would have found useful while they were trying to figure out where their next meal was coming from?

Trap ahead. :brow:

distraction argument #638 from Holding, because according to his own presuppositions about the bible, the great author who ultimately inspired the bible didn't write it ONLY for starving peasents, but knew that future generations of believers thousands of years into the future from those early days would need to read it as well.

But no, we don't find "Jesus is the son of god" written in archaic Hebrew in the stars. This is because god wants people to believe it, but is allowed to pursue other less efficient paths to attain that end.

Like I said, god tells me to flush all my money down the toilet, so that me and my son starve. Who the hell are you to judge god, for perhaps he has a higher reason that we can't understand right now, for telling me to inflict hardship upon myself...!?

Read about apostle Pauls tough persecuted life after he converted to Christianity. You dont' have dip to say to me, because "god's myserious ways" is ALWAYS construed by Christians as the ultimate "ah ha!" rebuttal to skeptical arguments for god's stupidity.

[skepticbud]

04-28-2003 @ 11:31 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=81219#post81219)
DBoone:

Skepticbud -

&lt;What bible verse in Romans tells me what I need to do and believe in order to go to heaven?&gt;

Confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart God raised him from the dead, and you shall be saved. For with the heart man believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. (Romans 10:9,10)

I'm sorry sir, but you are incorrect. If you had taken the time to read that passage in it's own context instead of reading it in the context of bible baptist tracts that offer quick invisible fixes for life's complex and visible problems, you might not have fallen into this guaranteed successfull trap, which I set outside the door of the local fundamentalist church downtown on the corner of 4th and Main streets.

5. For Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on law shall live by that righteousness.
6. But the righteousness based on faith speaks as follows: "DO NOT SAY IN YOUR HEART, 'WHO WILL ASCEND INTO HEAVEN?' (that is, to bring Christ down),
7. or 'WHO WILL DESCEND INTO THE ABYSS?' (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead)."
8. But what does it say? "THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART"--that is, the word of faith which we are preaching,



Just before Paul writes his famous line, do you agree that he first said that the word of faith was not only near, but was already in the mouth and heart?

[QUOTE]
9. that if you confess with your mouth Jesus {as} Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;
10. for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.


That confession of faith that Paul writes of, is something that he said was already in the heart and mouth, agreed?

Also, in the phrase "if you confess with your mouth", the word confess (Greek: homolegeo) is written as a present passive indicative, meaning, it literally says "if you are confessing with your mouth..."

But you Christians typically tell unbelievers that ONE, SINCERE, confession of Jesus as lord with their mouths, combined with heart believing, makes them born again, correct?

When is the last time you did what Paul did, and told believers who presently believe "if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is lord and believe in your heart that god has raised him from the dead you will be saved..." ?

Do you say that believers, like Paul did (see Romans 1:1), or do you reserve mention of this passage for just unbelievers?

Also, was paul writing this to believers or unbelievers? See Romans 1:1, and don't argue from silence that just because he doesn't specifically address unbelievers doesn't mean he wasn't addressing them. Romans 1:1 says he was addressing believers, and if you choose to say he was also addressing unbelievers at various point through the epistle, that is something you must PROVE, not assume.



11. For the Scripture says, "WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED."
12. For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same {Lord} is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him;
13. for "WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED."
14. How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?
15. How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, "HOW BEAUTIFUL ARE THE FEET OF THOSE WHO BRING GOOD NEWS OF GOOD THINGS!"
16. However, they did not all heed the good news; for Isaiah says, "LORD, WHO HAS BELIEVED OUR REPORT?"
17. So faith {comes} from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.


How does faith come? By confessing Christ as lord and believing in your heart that god raised him from the dead, right? WRONG! For if you confess, then obviously, faith has already arrived in your heart, because "out of the abudance of the heart, the mouth speaks, " correct?

Paul's answer to how faith arrives is not verses 9 and 10, but in verse 17.

I prove than, that whatever Paul is saying in Romans 10:9-10, he says to Christians, not unbelievers. While Christians typically say that verse to unbelievers for whom it was never originally intended.

You cannot argue that "whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" must mean it refers to the typical billy graham one-time confession, because verse 9 refers to a continual confession, which is exactly what Christians do, and the furthest thing away from what unbelievers do.

So you are wrong, Romans 10:9-10 doesn't tell me what I need to do to go to heaven, because it was never addressed to atheists or any kind of unbeliever in the first place. Instead it tells christians about the benefits they will recieve by continually confessing Jesus as lord and continually believing in his resurrection.

Wanna try again?:eek:

I don't presuppose blindly that the bible is inerrant, so you must first demonstrate that it's inerrancy must be given the benefit of the doubt first, before you proceed to circumvent my exposition in contexts with other statements in the bible outside Romans chapter 10 that talk about what unbelievers must do to get saved.

Better yet, refute my proof that Romans 10:9-10 was written to exhort Christians, and not unbelievers.

[skepticbud]

Today @ 11:35 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=83496#post83496)
skepticbud:

because &quot;out of the abudance of the heart, the mouth speaks, &quot; correct?


Whoops, I spelled abundance incorrectly there.

No doubt Dee Dee will abandon 99% of my argument and just focus on my spelling misteak as if it totally chucked the logical cohesiveness of my arguments out the window.

I misspell a word, I forget a word when i quote somebody else, surely skepticism has clearly been proven to be an atheists exercise in self-embarrassment and utter debasement?

[skepticbud]

"10. "When you go out to battle against your enemies, and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take them away captive,
11. and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and have a desire for her and would take her as a wife for yourself,
12. then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and trim her nails.
13. "She shall also remove the clothes of her captivity and shall remain in your house, and mourn her father and mother a full month; and after that you may go in to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife.
14. "It shall be, if you are not pleased with her, then you shall let her go wherever she wishes; but you shall certainly not sell her for money, you shall not mistreat her, because you have humbled her. (Deuteronomy 21, NASB)

I have some questions for Christians here who think the above does not qualify as "rape".

a - Do you have any evidence that the consent of the women was given the slightest consideration? Please notice that god appears to be more concerned with the man's freedom to choose than with the females consent, because the entire passage is all about decisions that the MAN comes to.

b - Do you think the fact that she was a prisoner of war might have some bearing on the issue of whether her consent for marriage was sought? She IS a captive of war, right? Her condition and status have something to do with her mental state of health, right?

c - I supply Numbers 31 below for an example of how the Israelites applied this law, and then i ask a question:

Numbers 31

The Slaughter of Midian
1. Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying,
2. "Take full vengeance for the sons of Israel on the Midianites; afterward you will be gathered to your people."
3. Moses spoke to the people, saying, "Arm men from among you for the war, that they may go against Midian to execute the LORD'S vengeance on Midian.
4. "A thousand from each tribe of all the tribes of Israel you shall send to the war."
5. So there were furnished from the thousands of Israel, a thousand from each tribe, twelve thousand armed for war.
6. Moses sent them, a thousand from each tribe, to the war, and Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, to the war with them, and the holy vessels and the trumpets for the alarm in his hand.
7. So they made war against Midian, just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed every male.
8. They killed the kings of Midian along with the {rest of} their slain: Evi and Rekem and Zur and Hur and Reba, the five kings of Midian; they also killed Balaam the son of Beor with the sword.
9. The sons of Israel captured the women of Midian and their little ones; and all their cattle and all their flocks and all their goods they plundered.
10. Then they burned all their cities where they lived and all their camps with fire.
11. They took all the spoil and all the prey, both of man and of beast.
12. They brought the captives and the prey and the spoil to Moses, and to Eleazar the priest and to the congregation of the sons of Israel, to the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by the Jordan {opposite} Jericho.
13. Moses and Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the congregation went out to meet them outside the camp.
14. Moses was angry with the officers of the army, the captains of thousands and the captains of hundreds, who had come from service in the war.
15. And Moses said to them, "Have you spared all the women?
16. "Behold, these caused the sons of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, so the plague was among the congregation of the LORD.
17. "Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately.
18. "But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves."

It is not unreasonable to suppose that most of the little boys ordered slaughtered by Moses were brothers to the little girls that were kept alive for the Israelites themselves.

As such, if you and your family had just been taken prisoner in war, and your captors just now slaughtered your dad and mother and little brother, so that you, a little virgin, were only kept alive, how much possibility is there that you would ever consent to sex with any of your family's murderers?

If no possibility, then the law in Deuteronomy 21 doesn't ever mention the woman's consent because her consent doesn't factor into that law at all. It's called 'rape' by everybody including fundamentalists, when they see the same scene outside the bible.

But inside the bible? "we have rest assured god had the best interests of the woman at heart." yeah right.

d - if you rationalize that killing off the little boys, men and non-virigin women was necessary to prevent the possibility of these people leading Israel into idolotry, then two more questions arise:

E - why didn't moses kill all the women and save only the men, since the last time Israel was lured into idolotry with these people, it was their WOMEN who lured them!? see numbers 25 and the incident at Peor.

F - if taking a little virgin girl into your home didn't pose any risk of her growing up and advocating idolotry like her parents did, why kill off the little boys? Are little boys somehow more prone to grow up in an Israelite home and end up advocating idolotry more so than little girls?

g- final question; are believers justified in taking god at his word, and that if they raise up their child in the nurture and admonition of the lord, he will not depart from it when he is old (paraphrasing two proverbs here)?

If so, then the Israelites, combined with help from god, could have E-A-S-I-L-Y adopted the little boys instead of killing them, faithfully believing that raising these pagan kids in Israelite foster homes, so to speak, would make them grow into believers in the true god.

But we all know the truth: It is much more convenient to kill off a bunch of little boys than it is to take the trouble to raise them in the nurture and admonition of the lord.

And don't you start talking about enconomic hardship, or I will start quoting Deuteronomic instances of miracle feedings and how a little miracle of food is better than mass murder of little boys.

i sure do love to guzzle beer and pick my nose at the front-for-prostitution-massage-parlor. :love:

[DBoone]

Bud -

I'm getting a little tired of your baiting game. If there's an issue you want to discuss, then just bring it up.

Now I hear what you are saying, that one must "keep confessing" with your mouth the Lord Jesus. This does imply the maintaining of the believer's heart. It is just like:

Matt.9
[12] But when he heard it, he said, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick.


But Bud, are you really trying to say that there is no indication anywhere in the Bible that salvation is meant for those that don't believe, only for those that do believe? Not for the heathen? Only for the believer? What kind of God do you think YHWH is? It's pretty evident from your other posts what the answer to that question is, but if you really think that God ever rejected any person who turned to him with a repentant heart, then that would definitely discourage you from repenting yourself.

Do you really think that Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles was telling Gentiles that the Gospel was not meant for them?

To quote Dr. Phil here: "It's time to get real here, son."

But in fact the truth is, and I know you don't want to hear it, but if you read through the Bible, especially the Gospels, you'll see that you are included in the following verses:

Matt.5
[19] Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Matt.12
[50] For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother, and sister, and mother.

Matt.16
[25] For whoever would save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

Matt.23
[12] whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Mark.8
[38] For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of man also be ashamed, when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.

Luke.14
[27] Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me, cannot be my disciple.
[33] So therefore, whoever of you does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple.

Luke.18
[17] Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.

John.3
[15] that whoever believes in him may have eternal life."
[16] For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

John.11
[26] and whoever lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?

John.12
[46] I have come as light into the world, that whoever believes in me may not remain in darkness.

Acts.2
[21] And it shall be that whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Heb.11
[6] And without faith it is impossible to please him. For whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.

1John.4
[6] We are of God. Whoever knows God listens to us, and he who is not of God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.
[15] Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.

:yipee:

If it's good enough for Billy Graham, it's good enough for me.

:lol: :hi: :brow:

:bonk:

[jpholding]

distraction argument #638 from Holding, because according to his own presuppositions about the bible, the great author who ultimately inspired the bible didn't write it ONLY for starving peasents, but knew that future generations of believers thousands of years into the future from those early days would need to read it as well.

Moving the goalposts #748230202 from Bud, who also fails to tell us what specific information was needed to be of use to the busy executive in Manitoba. :teeth: that would ALSO make sense to the starving peasant.

But no, we don't find &quot;Jesus is the son of god&quot; written in archaic Hebrew in the stars. This is because god wants people to believe it, but is allowed to pursue other less efficient paths to attain that end.

Nothing inefficient about a book. Moral teachers have been using them for thousands of years. You read them presumably. This is just an excuse.

for perhaps he has a higher reason that we can't understand right now, for telling me to inflict hardship upon myself...!?

Are you actually doing that now? Tell us more.

You dont' have dip to say to me, because &quot;god's myserious ways&quot; is ALWAYS construed by Christians as the ultimate &quot;ah ha!&quot; rebuttal to skeptical arguments for god's stupidity.

Not by me, sorry. You only wish it were that simple. :rofl:

[lordsnooty]

Yesterday @ 09:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=83398#post83398)
jpholding:
Like what, for example? Can you tell us something that the average ANE peasant would have found useful while they were trying to figure out where their next meal was coming from?

Trap ahead. :brow:

Sure thing. God might have told them about germs and hygiene. He might have told them about various medicines and how to manufacture them. And that's just off the top of my head. You can't deny that this sort of knowledge would be useful to these people.

Of course, as Bud says, God was supposed to be writing this stuff for all of mankind, irrespective of the time period...

Paul

[DBoone]

We need to rename this thread

"The topic that flew off the handle"

[Sher]

Bud? Did you address my post? Perhaps you missed it in the midst of the topic changes ... or perhaps I just missed your reply ...

Here it is (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=83131#post83131)

Thanks.

[jpholding]

Sure thing. God might have told them about germs and hygiene.

They knew about hygiene already (after all, b.o. was a known quantity, and dirt was obvious) and you don't need to know about germs to avoid getting sick. But:

He might have told them about various medicines and how to manufacture them.

I see. And let's say that the people get hold of this in 1400 BC, and in this society, what do you think would happen? Um, cures? Revolution and utopia? No -- the kings of the day would have horded the information and used it to keep the people in check. They would have used the knowledge to figure out how to conduct germ warfare. Um, Pharaoh Rammsess II wipes out the Assyrians with bubonic plage, that was easy. It was what was done with all of rhe religious knowledge and all the technical knowledge that they DID have. Try again.

You can't deny that this sort of knowledge would be useful to these people.

VERY useful to the tyrants who had the power in their hands, indeed.

Of course, as Bud says, God was supposed to be writing this stuff for all of mankind, irrespective of the time period...

Harry Turtledove once wrote a book about a time traveller who brought the Confederates AK-47s. Perhaps you should think carefully about this before your next answer. :smile:

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 02:20 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=83622#post83622)
jpholding:
They knew about hygiene already (after all, b.o. was a known quantity, and dirt was obvious) and you don't need to know about germs to avoid getting sick.

I disagree. People must have been constantly ill through their lack of understanding of basic hygenic principles. If you know about germs, washing your hands and so forth, it prevents much illness.


I see. And let's say that the people get hold of this in 1400 BC, and in this society, what do you think would happen? Um, cures? Revolution and utopia? No -- the kings of the day would have horded the information and used it to keep the people in check.

Isn't that something of an assumption? How often was medical knowledge kept secret like this in the ancient world?

Besides, since the knowledge was given by God to the people, it'd be difficult to contain it once it had become common knowledge.


They would have used the knowledge to figure out how to conduct germ warfare. Um, Pharaoh Rammsess II wipes out the Assyrians with bubonic plage, that was easy.

I'm not suggesting God could have set up the Egyptians with a bioweapons lab. Just the ability to make a few simple medicines.

If God's intention was to stop the creation of bioweapons, then he has surely failed.


Harry Turtledove once wrote a book about a time traveller who brought the Confederates AK-47s. Perhaps you should think carefully about this before your next answer. :smile:

Well even if you stick to your guns on the above points, then why couldn't God have simply mentioned something about - well, I don't know. Dark matter, gravity, the size of our galaxy - something that nobody of that time could have known.

Even if the locals wouldn't have understood, I doubt it'd be a great concern to them. The bible is a big book. Plenty of room for God to include some stuff that would conclusively prove the truth of the bible even to the most hard-nosed skeptic.

Paul

[KingDavid8]

Today @ 12:14 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=83534#post83534)
skepticbud:

a - Do you have any evidence that the consent of the women was given the slightest consideration?

Do you have any evidence that it WASN'T? It's saying the man "may" go into her. He has God's permission to do so. True, it doesn't say he needs the woman's consent. But it doesn't say he doesn't need it, either. So if it doesn't say either way, we're supposed to ASSUME God's giving His stamp of approval on rape?


Please notice that god appears to be more concerned with the man's freedom to choose than with the females consent, because the entire passage is all about decisions that the MAN comes to.

No kidding. Because the man in this case in an Israelite and the woman is not. And who was this book written for? The Israelites!



17. &quot;Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately.
18. &quot;But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves.&quot;

It is not unreasonable to suppose that most of the little boys ordered slaughtered by Moses were brothers to the little girls that were kept alive for the Israelites themselves.

As such, if you and your family had just been taken prisoner in war, and your captors just now slaughtered your dad and mother and little brother, so that you, a little virgin, were only kept alive, how much possibility is there that you would ever consent to sex with any of your family's murderers?

Perhaps none. And, in the event of the girls not consenting to sex, does the Bible say anything along the lines of "go ahead and have sex with them anyway"? No, it does not. So where do you get the idea of the approval of rape from this passage? You're assuming an awful lot that's NOWHERE in those passages or any other. You're assuming the Israelites would want to have sex with unconsenting women, and that God is okay with it. Why are you assuming this?



d - if you rationalize that killing off the little boys, men and non-virigin women was necessary to prevent the possibility of these people leading Israel into idolotry, then two more questions arise:

E - why didn't moses kill all the women and save only the men, since the last time Israel was lured into idolotry with these people, it was their WOMEN who lured them!? see numbers 25 and the incident at Peor.

So your argument is that if only the women did it last time, only the women would do it this time? Maybe. Maybe not. And maybe the men would attempt to kill many of the Israelites at some point (their men did have a history of that, you know).


F- if taking a little virgin girl into your home didn't pose any risk of her growing up and advocating idolotry like her parents did, why kill off the little boys? Are little boys somehow more prone to grow up in an Israelite home and end up advocating idolotry more so than little girls?

Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe the boys would grow up to revolt against the Israelties. And maybe not. I'll submit to the wisdom of the omniscient one here, if that's okay with you.


g- final question; are believers justified in taking god at his word, and that if they raise up their child in the nurture and admonition of the lord, he will not depart from it when he is old (paraphrasing two proverbs here)?

If so, then the Israelites, combined with help from god, could have E-A-S-I-L-Y adopted the little boys instead of killing them, faithfully believing that raising these pagan kids in Israelite foster homes, so to speak, would make them grow into believers in the true god.

I didn't know that passage also applied to the children of your enemies, who had thus far NOT been raised in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Would taking a child half-raised by others and completing their raising with the Lord make them believers in God? Maybe. Maybe not. Only God knows for sure.


But we all know the truth: It is much more convenient to kill off a bunch of little boys than it is to take the trouble to raise them in the nurture and admonition of the lord.

So your argument is that it raising boys instead of killling them is too much trouble, but raising girls instead of killing them is not? Based on what logic? And if it's less trouble to kill boys instead of raise them, then why didn't the Israelites kill their own little boys? Let's face facts. The admonition here applied to the boys of their enemies, but not the girls of their enemies, and not the boys (or girls) of the Israelites. Kind of hard to argue that 'killing is easier than raising' applies in this situation. The reason for killing those specific boys had to have been something else, wouldn't you say?


And don't you start talking about enconomic hardship, or I will start quoting Deuteronomic instances of miracle feedings and how a little miracle of food is better than mass murder of little boys.

Nah, I doubt it's about economic hardship at all, but about the risk of keeping people around who are likely to revolt against you and/or try to lure your people into idolatry. God kept the female children around, likely because He (being omniscient) knew that these ones would not be much of a problem.

David

[skepticbud]

Today @ 01:36 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=83578#post83578)
DBoone:

Bud -

I'm getting a little tired of your baiting game.


So go to sleep. You should have enough energy when you wake up to swallow hook line and sinker in the future.



What kind of God do you think YHWH is?...if you really think that God ever rejected any person who turned to him with a repentant heart, then that would definitely discourage you from repenting yourself.


"Then shall they cry unto the Lord, but he will not hear them: he will even hide his face from them at that time, as they have behaved themselves ill in their doings." (Micha 3:4). It doesn't matter the reason god refused to listen to them, i merely refute the popular Christian viewpoint that god is always willing to listen when you call out to him.



Do you really think that Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles was telling Gentiles that the Gospel was not meant for them?


I believe Paul was writing to the church which is at Rome.

I believe YOU assert paul addressed certain of his sayings therein to unbelievers. That's your burden of proof. Unfortunately, Romans 10 gives no indication that it was written to unbelievers anymore than Romans 1:1 was.



But in fact the truth is, and I know you don't want to hear it, but if you read through the Bible, especially the Gospels, you'll see that you are included in the following verses:

Matt.5
[19] Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.


But in context, it refutes everything Paul ever said about the Law:

18. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

I don't see any difference in a man teaching you that law x should be broken, and a man who says law x no longer applies.
Indeed, Paul was against legalism. He didn't think the sabbath day commandment in the 10 commandments still applied, as he says in Romans 14 that which day or days you choose to regard to the lord is a matter that every man should be convinced in his own mind about.

Therefore, if I refuse to keep holy the sabbath day (Saturday), apostle Paul says this is acceptable, so he falls under the condemnation of Jesus.

[skepticbud]

Today @ 01:38 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=83579#post83579)
jpholding:

distraction argument #638 from Holding, because according to his own presuppositions about the bible, the great author who ultimately inspired the bible didn't write it ONLY for starving peasents, but knew that future generations of believers thousands of years into the future from those early days would need to read it as well.

Moving the goalposts #748230202 from Bud, who also fails to tell us what specific information was needed to be of use to the busy executive in Manitoba. :teeth: that would ALSO make sense to the starving peasant.


It doesn't have to make sense to the starving peasent. god must have foreknown that the Jews would misunderstand messianic prophecy, (the Christian understanding of why the jews rejected jesus), but did god fail to write Isaiah 53( a presumably messianic prediction) just because he knew it would be misunderstood? Nope. Don't talk to me about how modern knowledge would profit ancient man. it is your contention that your god transcends culture, and wrote the bible for modern man too, so it's your problem that doesn't go away simply because you can't figure out how first-century peasents could use the info.

Apostle Peter, himself inspired according to you, asserted in 2nd Peter than Apostle Paul writes many things which are "hard to understand". It was not impossible for your god to open up Peter's understanding or anybody elses, yet under your own presuppositions, god allowed Peter and others to find it hard to understand Paul. By your own assumptions, god doesn't refuse to write or inspire a book simply because the persons who will read it first might not understand it.

[/QUOTE]
But no, we don't find &amp;quot;Jesus is the son of god&amp;quot; written in archaic Hebrew in the stars. This is because god wants people to believe it, but is allowed to pursue other less efficient paths to attain that end.

Nothing inefficient about a book. Moral teachers have been using them for thousands of years. You read them presumably. This is just an excuse.
[/QUOTE]

Correction, mere humans have no other choice to propagandize their beliefs, at that time, except preaching and book writing. But your god, ever more sophisticated than email, "chose to use a book"? Only if you think a professional mechanic working on the job uses a butter knife and chewing gum to fix cars..."because he is free to choose the way he wants to operate..."



You dont' have dip to say to me, because &amp;quot;god's myserious ways&amp;quot; is ALWAYS construed by Christians as the ultimate &amp;quot;ah ha!&amp;quot; rebuttal to skeptical arguments for god's stupidity.

Not by me, sorry. You only wish it were that simple. :rofl:

So do many Christians, which is how I knew enough to post that garbage which is necessarily and distinctly a form of Christian apologetics you disagree with.

But anyway, let's test your bankrupt theory with an analogy:

Holding: "God can of course write things in the stars, and cause everybody's hearts to realise more fully than they do presently that he is real and they should obey him, which is his greatest desire. He also has the ability to communicate to every person individually through powerful visions such as apostle is fabled to have received. However, god has chosen a path to reveal himself which clearly results in less conversions to him than many and powerful visions; in a word, stepping on his own toes. This is because she is god and can do whatever she wishes."

Skepticbud: skepticbud has the ability to write books, post on the internet, email, talk on the phone, snail mail and speak publicly to support atheism which is his greatest desire. However, skepticbud, choose to do none of this and instead, write his arguments in coded langauge on the inside walls of caves. Yes, this clearly the less efficient path to acheiving his desires, but who the hell are you to judge him? perhaps he has a reason for stepping on his own toes, which you are not able to bear?"

Everybody would call me "stupid" they knew my greatest desire was to promote atheism and that i have the ability to promote using modern tools such as books and internet and public speaking, and yet discovered that i "chose according to my own will" to promote my stuff by advertising it in ways clearly inferior to others.

However, when the god of all ability, "chooses of his own will" to promote his greatest desire in ways that are clearly less efficient or reliable than other established and proven methods (write it in the stars), suddenly, god is not subject to human judgement.

a - that begs the question of god's existence, which is questioned by the criticism.

b - it also asserts that god has a hidden reason, but it is never proven that god has a hidden reason, it is just assumed.

You may not like it if I bomb your house, but that doesn't mean I don't have a greater good to accomplish by it that I am currently not sharing right now.

See how stupid apologetic objections to the argument from evil really are?

How about if I go start a new thread entitled "Holding blown out of water with argument from evil."

[Alden]

Athiest Archon:

- So if I'm a rapist, I should move to the most lenient culture I can find, and then it's biblically okay as long as I pay my dues?

- Wait a second. I thought Christian morality was objective!


right...that's exactly what I was saying.:dufus: :whack: :bonk: :zzz:

[skepticbud]

Today @ 02:20 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=83622#post83622)
jpholding:

Sure thing. God might have told them about germs and hygiene.

They knew about hygiene already (after all, b.o. was a known quantity, and dirt was obvious) and you don't need to know about germs to avoid getting sick. But:


In Numbers chapter 5, god apparantly didn't think the ramifications of dirt contamination were all that bad, seeing that he forced a woman who was only suspected of adultery to drink a jug full of deliberately poisened water as a test. how stupid, since the word of the lord "came to" many sinners in the OT sometime while they are sleeping. But anyway, brace yourself, here is the most utterly sadistic and stupid yet god-inspired ritual you ever laid eyes on. *Note to parents: get the children out of the room before you scroll down any further.

The Adultery Test
11. Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying,
12. "Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, 'If any man's wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him,
13. and a man has intercourse with her and it is hidden from the eyes of her husband and she is undetected, although she has defiled herself, and there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act,
14. if a spirit of jealousy comes over him and he is jealous of his wife when she has defiled herself, or if a spirit of jealousy comes over him and he is jealous of his wife when she has not defiled herself,
15. the man shall then bring his wife to the priest, and shall bring {as} an offering for her one-tenth of an ephah of barley meal; he shall not pour oil on it nor put frankincense on it, for it is a grain offering of jealousy, a grain offering of memorial, a reminder of iniquity.
16. 'Then the priest shall bring her near and have her stand before the LORD,
17. and the priest shall take holy water in an earthenware vessel; and he shall take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put {it} into the water.
18. 'The priest shall then have the woman stand before the LORD and let {the hair of} the woman's head go loose, and place the grain offering of memorial in her hands, which is the grain offering of jealousy, and in the hand of the priest is to be the water of bitterness that brings a curse.
19. 'The priest shall have her take an oath and shall say to the woman, "If no man has lain with you and if you have not gone astray into uncleanness, {being} under {the authority of} your husband, be immune to this water of bitterness that brings a curse;
20. if you, however, have gone astray, {being} under {the authority of} your husband, and if you have defiled yourself and a man other than your husband has had intercourse with you"
21. (then the priest shall have the woman swear with the oath of the curse, and the priest shall say to the woman), "the LORD make you a curse and an oath among your people by the LORD'S making your thigh waste away and your abdomen swell;
22. and this water that brings a curse shall go into your stomach, and make your abdomen swell and your thigh waste away." And the woman shall say, "Amen. Amen."

23. 'The priest shall then write these curses on a scroll, and he shall wash them off into the water of bitterness.
24. 'Then he shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that brings a curse, so that the water which brings a curse will go into her and {cause} bitterness.
25. 'The priest shall take the grain offering of jealousy from the woman's hand, and he shall wave the grain offering before the LORD and bring it to the altar;
26. and the priest shall take a handful of the grain offering as its memorial offering and offer {it} up in smoke on the altar, and afterward he shall make the woman drink the water.
27. 'When he has made her drink the water, then it shall come about, if she has defiled herself and has been unfaithful to her husband, that the water which brings a curse will go into her and {cause} bitterness, and her abdomen will swell and her thigh will waste away, and the woman will become a curse among her people.
28. 'But if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, she will then be free and conceive children.
29. 'This is the law of jealousy: when a wife, {being} under {the authority of} her husband, goes astray and defiles herself,
30. or when a spirit of jealousy comes over a man and he is jealous of his wife, he shall then make the woman stand before the LORD, and the priest shall apply all this law to her.
31. 'Moreover, the man will be free from guilt, but that woman shall bear her guilt.' "
(Numbers 5)

yeah, even though I can recieve the word of the lord in order to know the truth about whether you committed adultery, or I can go to a prophet who is able to do so, nevertheless, god wants you to drink this deliberately poisened water to prove yourself.

I wonder how many innocent women caught the infection and were thus banned from israel, or how many guilty women had enough of an immune system to maintain their health after drinking this crap.

but no, Holding will assuredly plod on, because to him it doesn't matter if the bible says eat dirt or eat dung or if god's chariot is piloted by aliens that have four different faces each, ALL things biblical must be defended, or he risks working at Mcdonald's to pay the rent. Go to your phones and dial that number and make an offering to,...ah...."the Lord!", yeah, that's it. Ain't god great?



He might have told them about various medicines and how to manufacture them.

I see. And let's say that the people get hold of this in 1400 BC, and in this society, what do you think would happen? Um, cures? Revolution and utopia? No -- the kings of the day would have horded the information and used it to keep the people in check.


Stop your paranoia in the name of the bored. How about instead of "god told THEM", how about "god told EVERYBODY about medicines?" God has granted freewill to everybody, right? And people use their freewill against others all the time!

Therefore your complaint that the suggested course of action would only result in more evil on earth is overturned: God also knew that planting a tree in the garden of eden would result in sin, because the lamb of god was slain from the foundation of the world( sin was foreknown to occur).

Did god thus refuse to put that tree there on account of the evil he knew it would bring about? no. Therefore you cannot poo-poo any corrections we suggest on the grounds that the suggested course of action would result in evil or more evil.

And don't forget, he could have given such modern medicine knowledge to EVERYBODY. Then there would no monopoly by which tyrants could abuse secret knowledge. You appear to have been reading the book of first enoch for so long that you actually believe bad angels taught women how to cook up curses with plants and destroy the world thereby.



They would have used the knowledge to figure out how to conduct germ warfare.


God could kill everybody who attempts to use that knowledge in an evil way. God sought to kill a baby for the somewhat lessor offense of having a flap of skin on the head of his penis. And then gave up the chase after a women did something to him that all Christians agree is necessarily abusive and extremely violent, but make exceptions precisely because it's in the bible, their favorite book that can never be wrong in the stubborn "charge ahead" view.

Thus there are no problems with god's "kill 'em all, i'll sort 'em out" rebuttal to your worry-wort excuse, correct?



Um, Pharaoh Rammsess II wipes out the Assyrians with bubonic plage, that was easy. It was what was done with all of rhe religious knowledge and all the technical knowledge that they DID have. Try again.


So? Are you under the delusion that your biblegod does NOT like killing off babies and children whenever people who use his name are charging through town? Please explain yourself.



You can't deny that this sort of knowledge would be useful to these people.

VERY useful to the tyrants who had the power in their hands, indeed.


God could reveal the knowledge to the common folk, but blind the tyrants to it.



Of course, as Bud says, God was supposed to be writing this stuff for all of mankind, irrespective of the time period...

Harry Turtledove once wrote a book about a time traveller who brought the Confederates AK-47s. Perhaps you should think carefully about this before your next answer. :smile:

I appreciate your immediately thinking of a time traveler handing modern weapons to early soldiers as response to something said about the bible. In both cases, absurd and obvious fiction abounds. :poke:

[The Laughing Man]

Everybody sing!

This is the thread that doesn't end
Yes it goes on and on my friend
Some skeptics started whinging here and making a big stink
And they'll continue whinging here because they just can't think

This is the thread that doesn't end
Yes it goes on and on my friend
Some skeptics started whinging here and making a big stink
And they'll continue whinging here because they just can't think

This is the thread...

:teeth:

We now return you to your irregular, unscheduled thread.

[DBoone]

SkepticBud says:
'"Then shall they cry unto the Lord, but he will not hear them: he will even hide his face from them at that time, as they have behaved themselves ill in their doings." (Micha 3:4). It doesn't matter the reason god refused to listen to them, i merely refute the popular Christian viewpoint that god is always willing to listen when you call out to him.'

You point out yourself that these people were crying out for the wrong reasons, and definitely not out of a penitent heart. Too bad. Nice try, but no score on that one.

"But in context, it refutes everything Paul ever said about the Law"

Sorry, you don't know Jesus, and you don't know Paul either. Romans is the perfect example of how the believer does exactly what Jesus said "I came not to destroy the law but to fulfill it."

"I believe Paul was writing to the church which is at Rome."

Well, you got that right. Right audience, wrong subject: "For the wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the GODLESSNESS and WICKEDNESS of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness." Romans 1:18

Don't forget this, the letter to the Romans was written after his first trip to Rome, when he first planted the church there. And who was he preaching to when he first arrived, the converted? You should know enough about this to see how goofy your premise sounds.

How about we get back to the topic you started? You're really not doing too well on this tangent anyway.

[DBoone]

By the way, Bud...

Did you read thru any of those verses I gave you? They were for "whoever" so I figured that included you too.

It's still not too late to "Let go and let God." You'll be glad you did.

:hi:

[skepticbud]

a - Do you have any evidence that the consent of the women was given the slightest consideration? ”

Do you have any evidence that it WASN'T?


yes, she was a prisoner of war, and since this text is about marrying a war captive, it would have been the perfect place to mention something about her consent or lack thereof, but such mention occurs nowhere. It is a silence that screams.

She would be marrying someone from the mob that killed her family! Would YOU give your consent? Not on your life. If a mob came in, killed off your whole family, and then kidnapped you, using "god told us to" as their cheap convienient excuse to steal your whole life, and telling you that your current religion was absolute blasphemy in the eyes of their god, would you CONSENT to marry one of those marauders?



It's saying the man "may" go into her. He has God's permission to do so.


How about if I write in a book that "the lord says" i can take your daughter, because your family is idolotrous? How about if you find out the hard way that I just happen to have the bigger and better army? Are you suddenly convinced that "the lord" surely must be with me on account of my victory over you? That's exactly how the ancient hebrews interpreted their victories, and so did everybody else ascribe winning a war to their god.

And let's not forget that your immediate answer here is nothing but passing the buck and begging the question.

Do you have any evidence that atheism is NOT inspired by a foolish god who loves to spend time creating contradictions? How long would you labor to prove this false to me before you pointed out that I was shifting the burden of proof without justification?



True, it doesn't say he needs the woman's consent. But it doesn't say he doesn't need it, either. So if it doesn't say either way, we're supposed to ASSUME God's giving His stamp of approval on rape?


Sorry, if any woman in those circumstances DID give her consent, that still doesn't even qualify, because it would be a clear result of mental anguish and a last ditch effort to make the best of a shattered life. This is not "consent" by a long shot and you know it.

You are also avoiding my argument that if god is so concerned with the details about the man's preferences, HOW could god have failed to mention the necessity for her consent? His failure to mention her consent is like you failing to mention Jesus when telling an unbeliever what he must do to get right with god. Not at all, the failure to mention is absolute proof that the item not mentioned was consciously and deliberately discarded from consideration.



“ Please notice that god appears to be more concerned with the man's freedom to choose than with the females consent, because the entire passage is all about decisions that the MAN comes to. ”

No kidding. Because the man in this case in an Israelite and the woman is not. And who was this book written for? The Israelites!


Exactly! Israelites are the apple of god's eye, so as long as they're happy and have guidence, who cares about kidnapped females in war that are married off to the men who just kidnapped them and killed their families! Amen, bruthuh! Insert hearty back-patting here.



17. "Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately.
18. "But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves."

It is not unreasonable to suppose that most of the little boys ordered slaughtered by Moses were brothers to the little girls that were kept alive for the Israelites themselves.

As such, if you and your family had just been taken prisoner in war, and your captors just now slaughtered your dad and mother and little brother, so that you, a little virgin, were only kept alive, how much possibility is there that you would ever consent to sex with any of your family's murderers? ”

Perhaps none. And, in the event of the girls not consenting to sex, does the Bible say anything along the lines of "go ahead and have sex with them anyway"?


yes, the very text we are discussing, which i already proved is NOT concerned either way with whether the woman consented.



No, it does not. So where do you get the idea of the approval of rape from this passage? You're assuming an awful lot that's NOWHERE in those passages or any other. You're assuming the Israelites would want to have sex with unconsenting women, and that God is okay with it. Why are you assuming this?


If my god told me to go and kidnap your family and kill off everybody but you, and then I tell you I desire to marry you, would you think your consent played any significant part in my viewpoint? Nope.



d - if you rationalize that killing off the little boys, men and non-virigin women was necessary to prevent the possibility of these people leading Israel into idolotry, then two more questions arise:

“ F- if taking a little virgin girl into your home didn't pose any risk of her growing up and advocating idolotry like her parents did, why kill off the little boys? Are little boys somehow more prone to grow up in an Israelite home and end up advocating idolotry more so than little girls? ”

Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe the boys would grow up to revolt against the Israelties. And maybe not. I'll submit to the wisdom of the omniscient one here, if that's okay with you.


translation = "i can just fall back on utterly blind faith when I get smeared and can't answer a skeptical question"



“ But we all know the truth: It is much more convenient to kill off a bunch of little boys than it is to take the trouble to raise them in the nurture and admonition of the lord. ”

So your argument is that it raising boys instead of killling them is too much trouble, but raising girls instead of killing them is not? Based on what logic?


It was so much trouble to the Israelites that they killed off the little boys!



And if it's less trouble to kill boys instead of raise them, then why didn't the Israelites kill their own little boys?


You are happier raising your own kids than somebody else's. That's why there's always that time for the neighbor kid to go home and leave your house at the end of the day. Right? They are not your responsibility unless you choose to get involved to that degree, correct?

Think of it the way the israelites in Numbers 31 did, steal everything, keep what you want, and throw away the rest.

And Israelites DID kill their own kids, the lad who curses his father or mother shall be stoned to death.



Let's face facts. The admonition here applied to the boys of their enemies, but not the girls of their enemies, and not the boys (or girls) of the Israelites. Kind of hard to argue that 'killing is easier than raising' applies in this situation. The reason for killing those specific boys had to have been something else, wouldn't you say?


NO! Again, even you couldn't answer with an assured "yes, those boys would grow up and cause idolotry" to justify their death, you had only a "maybe/maybe not".

So if you aren't sure that your raising up a child in the way he should go would cleanse his early pagan beliefs, should you just kill the kid, or raise him in the hope that god will honor his word, and that no cultic involvedment is too deep that the Holy Spirit cannot break through and enlighten them with the truth?



“ And don't you start talking about enconomic hardship, or I will start quoting Deuteronomic instances of miracle feedings and how a little miracle of food is better than mass murder of little boys. ”

Nah, I doubt it's about economic hardship at all, but about the risk of keeping people around who are likely to revolt against you and/or try to lure your people into idolatry.


Puhleese! Little boys? You obviously don't have kids, because otherwise you would know that little boys are extremely impressionable, and are easily led to believe whatever things are constantly around them. Your above answer mocks the faithfulness of god to his word, to honor the request of godly parents and instill his laws into their child's hearts. The way you talk, you act as if keeping the little boys alive and raising them with faithful expectation that they will embrace the truth when they grow up, was an unreasonable expectation. Sorry, you are the one with the bag of miracles ready to cure all problems, so you have no excuse for killing little boys or supporting anybody else that does.



God kept the female children around, likely because He (being omniscient) knew that these ones would not be much of a problem.

yeah, the incident at peor (Numbers 25)demonstrated how insignificant a woman's influence was :thumb:

Ha ha ha, the israelites had no faith in the redeeming transforming power of god. The only odds on their side were the little girls, oh yeah, there was no reason at all to say anything positive about raising the little boys. Surely they would lead all to hell. You are only kidding yourself. They kept the little virgins for sex, and your refusal to justify similar war atrocities that are documented in other non-biblical literature testifies that you are just grasping at straws.

NO amount of biblical sanctioned violence against humanity will convince you that you are wrong. Nope, your assumption "what I believe just can't be wrong" isn't tainted by sin :ahem: , so it's only blasphemous to question it. Better continue to plod on, making excuses for Numbers 31 in ways you couldn't be paid to do for similarly ancient documented violence.

[skepticbud]

Today @ 04:59 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=83790#post83790)
DBoone:

SkepticBud says:
'&quot;Then shall they cry unto the Lord, but he will not hear them: he will even hide his face from them at that time, as they have behaved themselves ill in their doings.&quot; (Micha 3:4). It doesn't matter the reason god refused to listen to them, i merely refute the popular Christian viewpoint that god is always willing to listen when you call out to him.'

You point out yourself that these people were crying out for the wrong reasons, and definitely not out of a penitent heart. Too bad. Nice try, but no score on that one.


it doesn't say they didn't change their mind. The fact that they cried out would seem to indicate that they are experiencing punishment and realize they were wrong. You are simply insisting that they cried out without repentence, this is an argument from silence. The crying out itself implies their repentence. Have you ever "cried unto god" without repentent heart? you can scream at god without repentence, but "cry unto god" isn't the same as "screaming at him" otherwise it makes little sense to say "even though they scream at me, i will not answer", since obviously screaming at god will not obtain an answer.



Sorry, you don't know Jesus, and you don't know Paul either. Romans is the perfect example of how the believer does exactly what Jesus said &quot;I came not to destroy the law but to fulfill it.&quot;


Paul certainly taught that certain laws no longer applied, and if they don't apply, you can hardly disobey them. Paul and Jesus definitely disagree, jesus says not to disobey the least law, but Paul doesn't really care whether you keep the sabbath day or whether you regard every day the same way (Romans 14/Colossians 2).



You point out yourself that these people were crying out for the wrong reasons, and definitely not out of a penitent heart. Too bad. Nice try, but no score on that one.


it doesn't say they didn't change their mind. The fact that they cried out would seem to indicate that they are experiencing punishment and realize they were wrong. You are simply insisting that they cried out without repentence, this is an argument from silence. The crying out itself implies their repentence. Have you ever "cried unto god" without repentent heart? you can scream at god without repentence, but "cry unto god" isn't the same as "screaming at him" otherwise it makes little sense to say "even though they scream at me, i will not answer", since obviously screaming at god will not obtain an answer.



&quot;I believe Paul was writing to the church which is at Rome.&quot;

Well, you got that right. Right audience, wrong subject: &quot;For the wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the GODLESSNESS and WICKEDNESS of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness.&quot; Romans 1:18


First, christians learn about that all the time by reading it, and it was addressed to christians. just because a phrase is about unbelievers doesn't suddenly mean it is addressed to them.

Second, That passage in context is not talking about all mankind:

18. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

(all Christians here are very happy to affirm that i DON'T hold the truth at all. But this verse sure does sound like a believer in god who accepts biblical truths, but whose walk with the lord is inconsistent.)

19. Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

(a popular question-begging verse; the skeptic says "this verse must be wrong, god has never shown me anything about himself", and the Christian begs the question and says "but Romans 1:19 says he has, so god must have...")

20. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

That's just an opinionated ancient man. paul was a pharisee all his life before he converted to Christianity, so he basically never knew what it was like to live without knowledge of god. This is the exact selfish error of today's apologists; they just cannot imagine how anybody could think there is no god!


21. Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

you'll find out real shortly that "when they knew god" doesn't mean "when everybody in the world without exception, past present and future, knew god..."

22. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

I have never professed to be "wise" except maybe in relation to teenagers or children. Either way, it proves this verse is not about general mankind, and you will start seeing which exact group it IS about....

23. And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Only a fundamentalist would say "if you believe in evolution, you have changed the glory of god into the corruptible image of four=-footed beasts and birds!" Everybody else accepts it for the reference to ancient idolotry among the Israelites that it really is.

24. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

It's written as a past tense "GAVE them up.." How can god give up to uncleanness, a person that hasn't been born? See? it's not about everybody that will ever live.

25. Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

This could easily be a reference to Jeremiah 8:8, which admits the law of the Lord was corrupted by the lying pen of scribes.

26. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

Now, i DO approve of lesbianism, because my two roommates are lesbians. perhaps I did worship birds in a past life.

27. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Male homosexuality is completely gross to me, wow, Paul just lumps everybody together so conveniently.

28. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

"retain"? How about atheists who have always been atheists since birth? There is no "retain god in their mind" to speak of regarding these types of atheists.



Don't forget this, the letter to the Romans was written after his first trip to Rome, when he first planted the church there. And who was he preaching to when he first arrived, the converted? You should know enough about this to see how goofy your premise sounds.


It is more goofy to talk about who Paul preached to at Rome, when we were first talking about who Paul WROTE to at Rome.

Agian, if you assert anything in Romans was intended by Paul to be read by unbelievers, YOU have to prove that. I proved the letter was written to believers with Romans 1:1.



How about we get back to the topic you started? You're really not doing too well on this tangent anyway.
[/QUOTE]

I shot you out of the sky on Romans 1, which is NOT about general mankind, but all about specifically the OT Israelites which once did have the knowledge of god, but didn't like to retain that knowledge, who DID transform the image of god into images of four footed beasts and birds, and who thus served and worshipped the creature more than the creator.

:bonk:

[Sher]

Yesterday @ 09:16 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=83616#post83616)
SherBear:

Bud? Did you address my post? Perhaps you missed it in the midst of the topic changes ... or perhaps I just missed your reply ...

Here it is (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=83131#post83131)

Thanks.

Bud??? Ya there? I thought you really wanted an answer on this?



Jinx? :lol: on the parody of the lambchop song ... geeze we date ourselves, though, don't we ... Now that song will be stuck in my mind for days :tongue:

[Bill the Cat]

Today @ 10:51 AM post located here
Bill the Cat:


So then the ISBE contradicts itself, does it not by your assertation?
Nope, "see Seduction" means "see related topic".
Either way, the ISBE says under the topic of SEDUCTION
The seduction of an unbetrothed virgin: In this case the seducer cording to J-E (Exo_22:16 f) is to be compelled to take the virgin as his wife, if the father consents, and to pay the latter the usual purchase price, the amount of which is not defined. In the Deuteronomic Code (Deu_22:28) the amount is fixed at 50 shekels, and the seducer forfeits the right of divorce
See it says DIRECTLY that verse 28 is SEDUCTION. (The only reason I add the caps is to let you see that no matter how you wiggle, seduction is described by the ISBE as describing verse 28.)




Really? Nave's topical dictionary says Rape
The law of Moses imposed death penalty for
Deu_22:25-27; Note 28 is left out. It is absolutely seduction
Anybody can play a scholar's food fight.
So unless you want more tuna salad in your eye, stop quoting scholars who say it is rape.





Because only the man paid the dowry in any marriage
That doesn't make any sense. How exactly do you conclude that the author doesn't mention the woman is to be punished because the man is the one paying the dowry? As if the woman might also pay the dowry in any circumstance (!?)
I didn’t conclude squat other than that’s how the marriages were settled.


because she was promised to someone else. Here she is not breaking a betrothal vow to anyone. Her punishment was marriage, presumably before she was ready
You are begging the question, since whether the woman is in fact being punished in verse 28 is exactly the point of contention.
And I am saying she is being punished because of her consent and marriage before she was ready (unbetrothed) is the sentence.
“ ”




So by your literalization of word meanings, picking a guitar is the same as picking your nose?
If you were more concerned with reading comprehension than wit,
:rofl: Really? That comment came from YOU ? :rofl:

you might have caught my explanation. I didn't say the Hebrew word underlying "seize" in verse 28 necessarily meant "to take hold by force". I was merely pointing out someone else's previous error in this thread of saying that because verse 25 and verse 28 use different Hebrew words for "seize", therefore verse 28 doesn't mean the same thing as verse 25. I proved that the word in verse 28 can also imply force just as surely as the word in verse 25 in spite of their differences, and therefore, whoever would argue that the word in verse 28 isn't force just because it isn't the same word as in verse 25, needs to do something more than cite the mere fact that different words were used.
And I did that. I showed that seduction and consent were meant. You just have the ol’ blinders on and nothing anyone will ever say will convince you that maybe, JUST MAYBE, you were mistaken about this verse. I at least concede that the NIV does translate it rape, but I personally feel that it is incorrect. I may be wrong. Can you make the same statement? Or do you just deny that it could even POSSIBLY mean coercion.


If I say "I hit the ball" and then later "I struck the ball", who would argue that the difference in words thus requires that they mean something different? Ever hear of synonyms?
Ah, so I see you’ve taken Farrell’s English class. Of course I know what a synonym is. I also know what a supporting text is.


It could imply force, but see some of the verses listed above that translate the exact same word in a non-physical manner.
yup.

And chazaqu, the word in verse 25, can also mean "to take hold of", or even "encourage".

to seize, help, repair, cleave, confirm, be constant, constrain, continue, be of good , encourage (self), be established, mend, retain, seize, take (hold), be urgent, behave self valiantly, are other possible definitions of the word that would be denied by those who fallaciously assert this word being different than the word in verse 28 suddenly means verse 25 is talking about force and not verse 28. childish in the extreme.
Whatever, I forgot you are an expert in Hebrew language and law. Do you study before or after your lesbian roommates come home?

“ . ”




Well, even given our disagreement, a "possibility" of one verse is way overshadowed by the numerous that denounce it outright. And I still see it as a coersion, as did the ISBE
Sorry, the ISBE never saw Deuteronomy 22:28 as a case of coercion, and you never cited it to that effect anyway.

Either you are a liar or have an EXTREMELY short memory.
Seduction under the ISBE says:
The seduction of an unbetrothed virgin: In this case the seducer cording to J-E (Exo_22:16 f) is to be compelled to take the virgin as his wife, if the father consents, and to pay the latter the usual purchase price, the amount of which is not defined. In the Deuteronomic Code (Deu_22:28) the amount is fixed at 50 shekels, and the seducer forfeits the right of divorce

So admit you just lied. It directly links Ex 22:16 (seduction) with Deut 22:28. This is the third time I posted this definition and Sher Bear posted it at least once too. Continual denial doesn’t erase html code. Would you like links to the specific posts?


And to say that my interpretation is overshadowed by other verses on a similar subject which say different merely begs the question of the absolute harmony of Exodus and Deuteronomy, as if they compliment and never contradict or update or change one another. You shouldn't be so quick to toss the J-E-P-D theory out the window like that. It's entirely possible that the Exodus is talking about seduction while Deuteronomy is talking about rape.

And it’s also entirely possible that the Exodus passage talks about seduction, as does the Deuteronomy passage. Harmony is the angle I argue from. But according to your stance, this verse may have been corrupted by some ancient Jew and may have said seduction in the original. For you to use a verse to argue against another verse is so ridiculous. You don’t believe in the accuracy of the text, so you are using a lie to argue.



You want evidence that this is true? In Exodus, the father is given a chance to disagree with marrying his daughter to her seducer, but nothing about the father's chance is mentioned either way in Deuteronomy 22. You have to first assume that Exodus and Deuteronomy are harmonious, before you cite Exodus as a further explanation of Deuteronomy. Assuming they are harmonious for the sake of proving that one text explains another, is one of the more pure forms of ad hoc reasoning the world has been graced to witness

Of course I consider them harmonious. And is it ad hoc? Not in the least. You have no hard evidence that they are not harmonious other than a defunct JEPD theory.


yeah, if exodus doesn't explain Deuteronomy, then that must mean the bible contradicts itself, and at that point, all hope is lost on the godless world of liberal scholarship!

And if you can give a concrete reason that they are not harmonious, I’ll listen to something else you say, but you made the accusation. The burden of proof is yours.

The biggest difference between you and me is that I can disagree with people like JP and we are ok with that disagreement. You are nothing more than Kermit the Frog with Farrell's hand up your butt moving your mouth and saying the words for you.

[skepticbud]

First of all, I want to clarify that I think the NIV ... as well as The Message ... is too quick to throw English words into scripture. They often weren't very careful to preserve the ancient texts' meanings. Let me show you why I say this:

In this scripture, supported by the cross-reference, the word is seduce ... not rape ... and btw, I didn't mean "deceit rape" ... but "seduction by deceit ... [which is technically] rape ..." I was clarifying how the NIV calls it rape ... but still is misleading the modern English reader ...


But I don't think the cross-reference applies. Exodus is about seducing a woman, which give the father the right to refuse, while Deuteronomy 22:28 is about seizing her, thus the father doesn't have the right to refuse. I already did a word study showing that the word for "seize" in verse 28 can easily mean the same thing that the word in verse 25 means. If verse 28 is consent, why does it say the man seized her, and not "they seized each other"? Why all the emphasis on the man "seizing" her? By the way, most english translations say "seize" and we don't think of "mutual agreement" when we hear "seize" we think of "TAKE" or "grab forcefully". Look it up in the dictionary if you don't believe me.



In the USA ... outside of a few states in which you can marry your first cousin who is barely out of diapers ... there is a crime called statutory rape. This is "rape" of a minor who isn't considered by law old enough to give consent ... but it is only correctly invoked (by law) when the two have had consentual sexual relations ... the reason being that forcful rape (without the consent of the woman) ... as you have been alleging in your outrage ... is punished by different means ... as a rape crime of a forceful nature ... bringing in forensics, etc.


False distinction, "statuatory rape" refers to both forced and consensual sex with a minor.



Likewise ... the ancient established laws ... on which the USA based many of their laws, BTW ... looked at unbethrothed ... read here "young" because most were bethrothed at a young age ... virgins ... and said that such girls were seduced.


It says "seized" in Deuteronomy 22:28, and it means nothing if it was consensual because only the man is pictured as doing the seizing. I pointed out before that the author took time to specify when consent was present, so why didn't he do it in verse 28? Because consent ISN'T THERE!



Seduction in this sense is a crime. That is why under "CRIMES" in the ISBE, you find the header RAPE ... and it says to SEE SEDUCTION as a cross-reference. I posted the full definition of seduction there so you can see how this supports that it is "rape" technically by modern definition of statutory rape ... but not rape by modern definition of forceable rape ... again what you were outraged about ... evidenced by your concerns of the woman having to marry her "rapist".


Your inclusion of modern hair splitting distinctions about what exact type of rape it is all follows from your first error of quoting another book to support your interpretation of something in a different book. NO Christian is just able to stay in the context of Dueteronomy 22 with me, they all run to Exodus. Sorry, I don't accept that Exodus and Deuteronomy were refering to the same exact crime with different terms. The fact that one says "seduce" and the other says "seize" tells me they refer to important differences.



Which is my reason for emphasis of THEY ... THEY are found out ... not HE is found out.


I already beat that game. It also says "he seizes her" not "THEY seize each other". Does the emphasis on "he" prove he was the only one grabbing her? Then neither does "they" somehow prove that both had consented. Obviously in order to discover a woman being raped, you must discover "THEY". A man cannot rape himself! Takes two to tango!



It does take "two to Tango" but if only one were responsible ...
as in the man was the only guilty party ... as in V.25 ... HE would be FOUND OUT ... not THEY. They had consentual sexual relations ... again it is technically statutory rape but NOT forceful rape ... and THEY are FOUND OUT ...


Again, you'll have to specify why you interpret "seize" in a way that the english word doesn't normally function, even though that's exactly why most bible translators selected that word to represent the intent of the Hebrew at verse 28. You equate seizing with seducing, no way. if I seize you, have I seduced you. Why would I seize you if you are seduced already?

It doesn't say "THEY seized each other", but "HE sezied her".

... and the shotgun wedding is forced .... with the man paying the bride's price ... the punishment for the seduction of a young virgin who could be wedded off to someone ... the family still gets the bride's price ... and the two that played get married.
[/QUOTE]

That's still a crime against humanity to force a virgin to marry the man that seduced her, especially in light of your previous comments that the seduction was his fault and was only through her own ignorance.

[Sher]

Hi again Bud ... thanks for getting back to me.
Today @ 02:05 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=83862#post83862)
skepticbud:

But I don't think the cross-reference applies. Exodus is about seducing a woman, which give the father the right to refuse, while Deuteronomy 22:28 is about seizing her, thus the father doesn't have the right to refuse. Sorry, Bud ... Exodus clarifies that the father can refuse ... and you are right that Deuteronomy doesn't say that that the father can refuse. However, it doesn't say that he can't refuse, does it? You are aguing from the silence of one scripture ... while we are showing you the accepted cross-reference that gives full meaning to the one you question.
I already did a word study showing that the word for &quot;seize&quot; in verse 28 can easily mean the same thing that the word in verse 25 means. If verse 28 is consent, why does it say the man seized her, and not &quot;they seized each other&quot;? Why all the emphasis on the man &quot;seizing&quot; her?Bud, think for a moment. First of all, "can mean" isn't "does mean" ... but that aside ...

The man takes the woman away from her family ... and they have sexual relations because he seduced her .... either into believing he would marry her ... or by some other deceit ... they are found out ... and he has to marry her and pay the bride price. The emphasis on seize is of your own making ... not an emphasis in the scriptures.
By the way, most english translations say &quot;seize&quot; and we don't think of &quot;mutual agreement&quot; when we hear &quot;seize&quot; we think of &quot;TAKE&quot; or &quot;grab forcefully&quot;. Look it up in the dictionary if you don't believe me.I never disputed that the man seized her ... just that this taking/capture/seizing doesn't equal rape in the forceful sense you are trying to make it be. Seize refers to how he GOT the woman ... not how he "got" the woman ... not how he had sex with her. Seize could simply be from the point of the bride's family ... "they stole my little girl" ... or it could be that the family didn't approve and he took her anyway ... but these are speculations ... just like you are speculating that your reasoning is the correct one ... but it just doesn't fit why "they" are found out ... and not "he" is found out. If the man was the only one at fault ... both for the seizing and the sexual relations that were forced on the woman ... he would be guilty of rape in the forcable sense ... and stoned for his crimes. However, he is only guilty in the statutory sense ... still not nice ... but not forced on the woman like you outraged about.
False distinction, &quot;statuatory rape&quot; refers to both forced and consensual sex with a minor.Aww ... ya gonna make me pull out the law links? Okay ... from: http://www.sexlaws.org/statrape.html Statutory rape is illegal sexual activity between two people when it would otherwise be legal if not for their age. The actual ages for these laws vary greatly from state-to-state, as do the punishments for offenders. Many states do not use the actual term "statutory rape," simply calling it rape or unlawful sexual penetration." As I said, with our laws based on the laws of the ancients ... read here consentual sex ... because if it wasn't consentual ... it wouldn't be legal if they were of age now, would it? Statutory rape ... sometimes simply called rape ... as in the NIV ... means sexual relations with someone who is under age ... seduction of a young, unbetrothed virgin in the case of Deu 22:28.
It says &quot;seized&quot; in Deuteronomy 22:28, and it means nothing if it was consensual because only the man is pictured as doing the seizing. I pointed out before that the author took time to specify when consent was present, so why didn't he do it in verse 28? Because consent ISN'T THERE!He also took the time to point out that it was NOT consented in the other verse ... so your logic is faulty ... and repeating yourself doesn't make it so.
Your inclusion of modern hair splitting distinctions about what exact type of rape it is all follows from your first error of quoting another book to support your interpretation of something in a different book.Why is it suddenly hair-spliting when you are losing the point? If you used it ... it would be support. Double standard?

The exact understanding is important because you have made such an issue out of the "price" for the "raped" woman's virginity and how the Bible "supports rape". However, you still haven't proven that this is so aside from your conjectures. We have shown supporting evidence from scripture ... which, yes, I realize you dispute ... but you fail to prove it is unconnected ... especially since I showed you the cross-referenced reference in my other post ... but you showed nothing but your opinon on the exact wording ... do you not understand that cross-referencing doesn't have to be exact wording in two scriptures ... that one can interpret the other without repeating the other verbaitum? ... I have also given you historical evidence regarding capture of brides and bride's prices by the ancients ... and finally the law on statutory rape ... which has it's history in the ancient laws.

I'm sorry... but I am skipping your next three paragraphs which repeat the English definition for seize you already covered in a previous paragraph. I responded above already.
That's still a crime against humanity to force a virgin to marry the man that seduced her, especially in light of your previous comments that the seduction was his fault and was only through her own ignorance. Okay ... so what you are saying is that the woman ... who was seduced ... but did sleep with the man ... thereby more than likely negating her option to ever marry ... being branded a harlot for losing her virginity and not marrying ... is better than making the man actually marry her. Ex talks about the woman refusing via the father ... so the bride's family evidently could make that choice ... but to me, it is a far kinder thing to that woman to make the man marry her after he seduced her ... I mean, she liked him enough to sleep with him ... even being seduced ... to me, she deserves a bit of the blame anyway ... but that is just me ... so it is hardly a crime against "humanity" that he is forced to marry her, and that she is married instead of ostracized. You may want to start a different thread to discuss and knock heads about whether she was possibly kidnapped from her home ... but since I already agreed with the seized part ... I won't argue that with you. But the "rape" part is resolved ... at least to anyone who reads this with reasonable understanding beyond trying to be outraged ... no?

[skepticbud]

Today @ 06:37 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=83848#post83848)
Bill the Cat:

Either way, the ISBE says under the topic of SEDUCTION
The seduction of an unbetrothed virgin: In this case the seducer cording to J-E (Exo_22:16 f) is to be compelled to take the virgin as his wife, if the father consents, and to pay the latter the usual purchase price, the amount of which is not defined. In the Deuteronomic Code (Deu_22:28) the amount is fixed at 50 shekels, and the seducer forfeits the right of divorce
See it says DIRECTLY that verse 28 is SEDUCTION. (The only reason I add the caps is to let you see that no matter how you wiggle, seduction is described by the ISBE as describing verse 28.)


First, read the first thing they say:

Rape.

chazak = "to seize," "bind," "restrain," "conquer, "force," "ravish."

The punishment for this crime was greater when the act was committed against a betrothed woman (Dt 22:25-29). See also Seduction."

Do you agree that their primary definition of Deuteronomy 22:25-29 is rape IN THIS ENTRY? If you think seduction was the primary definition, you must think rape was second, so then tell me why rape is the main entry. And they did not say verse 28 was about seduction, they quoted Deuteronomy 22:28 to demonstrate what the bride price was. YOU are the one connecting "seduce" with verse 28, but only because you completely ignore the stated reason they quote 28. While they say verse 28 has the bride price, they NEVER say verse 28 is about seduction. They have simply thrown verse 28 into the discussion of seduction because it refers to the bride price and addresses a similar moral crime. Your position that they say verse 28 is about seduction is NOWHERE expressed, but my position, that the entire section of Deuteronomy 22:25-29 is about RAPE, is specifically stated so. YOU are drawing an implication that is not at all clear, but my own position doesn't require such subjective judgement. The entire subject of the sentence in the seduction entry that uses verse 28 is the bride-price, that is the only sure connection. Whether they thought the seducers of Exodus were also being portrayed in Deuteronomy 22:28 is NOT explicitly stated the way they stated 22:25-29 was a section on "RAPE".



Anybody can play a scholar's food fight.
So unless you want more tuna salad in your eye, stop quoting scholars who say it is rape.
[/QUOTE]

no can do, i will cite the scholars that agree with me all day long, it will cause you and Holding to fight about how much is proven when you "quote a scholar". I've got lots of scholarship on my side in this one, that's why Holding suddenly had to fly to france to visit his dying great aunt and hasn't been present to offer a full rebuttal.



I at least concede that the NIV does translate it rape, but I personally feel that it is incorrect. I may be wrong. Can you make the same statement? Or do you just deny that it could even POSSIBLY mean coercion.


No possible way, verse 28 is about rape by force. You haven't sufficiently explained why the author, who presumably thought it was seduction, said the man seized her, when, by your own logic, seduction would mean her consent, and so they both grab each other. You will never explain why the author completely disregarded all mention of the woman's guilt or consent in verse 28 and focused exclusively on how the man is to be punished.



Ah, so I see you’ve taken Farrell’s English class. Of course I know what a synonym is. I also know what a supporting text is.


Apparantly not, since Exodus refer to seduction and Deuteronomy 22 doesn't use that word in verse 28. But ring true to christianity you will, and shove together two different ideas as if one comments on the other, when the difference in words, what you would naturally expect to see as proof they are about different subjects, doesnt' bother you a bit. One says "seduce", the other says "seize", and you are the only one here who thinks they mean the same thing simply because they refer to dowry price and paying the father. You are wrong, a man can rape a woman, or he can seduce her, and either way, he has to pay that dowry.



And chazaqu, the word in verse 25, can also mean &quot;to take hold of&quot;, or even &quot;encourage&quot;.

to seize, help, repair, cleave, confirm, be constant, constrain, continue, be of good , encourage (self), be established, mend, retain, seize, take (hold), be urgent, behave self valiantly, are other possible definitions of the word that would be denied by those who fallaciously assert this word being different than the word in verse 28 suddenly means verse 25 is talking about force and not verse 28. childish in the extreme.

Whatever, I forgot you are an expert in Hebrew language and law. Do you study before or after your lesbian roommates come home?


I can see you are starting to wear down, thats good, I do a word study to support my point, and you trivialize with "whatever" and then another comment about my roommates. Oh yeah, I'm so wrong in this debate. if I ask a question about your roommates, does that mean that *I* win?



Sorry, the ISBE never saw Deuteronomy 22:28 as a case of coercion, and you never cited it to that effect anyway.

Either you are a liar or have an EXTREMELY short memory.
Seduction under the ISBE says:
The seduction of an unbetrothed virgin: In this case the seducer cording to J-E (Exo_22:16 f) is to be compelled to take the virgin as his wife, if the father consents, and to pay the latter the usual purchase price, the amount of which is not defined. In the Deuteronomic Code (Deu_22:28) the amount is fixed at 50 shekels, and the seducer forfeits the right of divorce

So admit you just lied. It directly links Ex 22:16 (seduction) with Deut 22:28. This is the third time I posted this definition and Sher Bear posted it at least once too. Continual denial doesn’t erase html code. Would you like links to the specific posts?
[/QUOTE]

And I already demonstrated that the explicity expressed purpose they had for citing Dueteronomy 22:28 was because it contained the specific amount of the bride's price, they did NOT express in the same direct fashion that 22:28 is about seduction, that is a more subjective interpretation. And you completely ignored that the entire passage of Deuteronomy 22:25-29 was classified under their entry "RAPE". You act like they only meant that certain parts of Deuteronomy 22:25-29 were about rape. Sorry, that is just a second example of how you extract implications where none are to be found.



And it’s also entirely possible that the Exodus passage talks about seduction, as does the Deuteronomy passage. Harmony is the angle I argue from.


Not the angle you argue from, from the dogma you die for.



But according to your stance, this verse may have been corrupted by some ancient Jew and may have said seduction in the original. For you to use a verse to argue against another verse is so ridiculous. You don’t believe in the accuracy of the text, so you are using a lie to argue.


I never said SQUAT about either of these verses being textually corrupt!

Exodus is about seduction because it says "seduce" correct?

You better not agree with me, otherwise I will say:

Deuteronomy is about seizing a woman, because it says "seize", correct?

Why do you accept normal word definitions in Exodus but not Deuteronomy? Answer, because if biblical inerrancy is disproven, let us eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die, as all fundamentalist preachers, who can't imagine life without an invisible friend, insist.



Of course I consider them harmonious. And is it ad hoc? Not in the least. You have no hard evidence that they are not harmonious other than a defunct JEPD theory.


I don't think the JEPD theory is defunct. If you say it is defunct, then tell me what characteristics you wo9uld expect to see in a document written by two different authors, since writing style differences don't mean squat to you.



And if you can give a concrete reason that they are not harmonious, I’ll listen to something else you say, but you made the accusation. The burden of proof is yours.


Sure, seduce mean seduce, seize means seize. Let me know if you require further clarification.



The biggest difference between you and me is that I can disagree with people like JP and we are ok with that disagreement. You are nothing more than Kermit the Frog with Farrell's hand up your butt moving your mouth and saying the words for you.
[/QUOTE]

Please delete the deviant sexual references from your response before you post it. I know this is a christian forum and all, but still, you ARE going to offend somebody somewhere if you talk about such deviant practices. Even Christians will take offense if you talk too dirty.

I LOVE improper file extensions.

[Bill the Cat]

Today @ 06:37 AM post located here
Bill the Cat:

Either way, the ISBE says under the topic of SEDUCTION
The seduction of an unbetrothed virgin: In this case the seducer cording to J-E (Exo_22:16 f) is to be compelled to take the virgin as his wife, if the father consents, and to pay the latter the usual purchase price, the amount of which is not defined. In the Deuteronomic Code (Deu_22:28) the amount is fixed at 50 shekels, and the seducer forfeits the right of divorce
See it says DIRECTLY that verse 28 is SEDUCTION. (The only reason I add the caps is to let you see that no matter how you wiggle, seduction is described by the ISBE as describing verse 28.)
First, read the first thing they say:

Rape.

chazak = "to seize," "bind," "restrain," "conquer, "force," "ravish."

The punishment for this crime was greater when the act was committed against a betrothed woman (Dt 22:25-29). See also Seduction."

Do you agree that their primary definition of Deuteronomy 22:25-29 is rape IN THIS ENTRY? If you think seduction was the primary definition, you must think rape was second, so then tell me why rape is the main entry. And they did not say verse 28 was about seduction, they quoted Deuteronomy 22:28 to demonstrate what the bride price was. YOU are the one connecting "seduce" with verse 28, but only because you completely ignore the stated reason they quote 28. While they say verse 28 has the bride price, they NEVER say verse 28 is about seduction.
I have to stop your tirade here with a little lesson :whip:. The last bit of the entry for seduce says plainly . “In the Deuteronomic Code (Deu_22:28) the amount is fixed at 50 shekels, and the seducer forfeits the right of divorce

The seducer pays 50 bones and forfeits the right of divorce. The offender in verse 28 according to the ISBE is a SEDUCER, not a RAPIST. Read the sentence. It was not only to show the bride price, but shows that the SEDUCER loses the right to divorce, which shows it’s the same situation as Exodus. SEDUCER SEDUCER SEDUCER. Whether you like it or not.

They have simply thrown verse 28 into the discussion of seduction because it refers to the bride price and addresses a similar moral crime.
And calls the offender a seducer. Can ya feel it? Can ya feel it Captain Compost?

Your position that they say verse 28 is about seduction is NOWHERE expressed,
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA. Wrong again!!
. In the Deuteronomic Code (Deu_22:28) the amount is fixed at 50 shekels, and the seducer forfeits the right of divorce


but my position, that the entire section of Deuteronomy 22:25-29 is about RAPE, is specifically stated so. YOU are drawing an implication that is not at all clear, but my own position doesn't require such subjective judgement. The entire subject of the sentence in the seduction entry that uses verse 28 is the bride-price, that is the only sure connection.
Ah if you only wished. . In the Deuteronomic Code (Deu_22:28) the amount is fixed at 50 shekels, and the seducer forfeits the right of divorce


Whether they thought the seducers of Exodus were also being portrayed in Deuteronomy 22:28 is NOT explicitly stated the way they stated 22:25-29 was a section on "RAPE".
. In the Deuteronomic Code (Deu_22:28) the amount is fixed at 50 shekels, and the seducer forfeits the right of divorce

And I’ll keep on quoting it till you get it.



So unless you want more tuna salad in your eye, stop quoting scholars who say it is rape.


no can do, i will cite the scholars that agree with me all day long,
Then you asked for it. Don’t say I didn’t warn you. Look out for the Jello flying!!!

it will cause you and Holding to fight about how much is proven when you "quote a scholar".
Why would I fight with JP? He and I disagree and he grants that it is not a big issue to cause division, which, as you have so freely admitted, is your ultimate goal.

I've got lots of scholarship on my side in this one
Well, I took one away. . In the Deuteronomic Code (Deu_22:28) the amount is fixed at 50 shekels, and the seducer forfeits the right of divorce


, that's why Holding suddenly had to fly to france to visit his dying great aunt and hasn't been present to offer a full rebuttal.
Your master left for a week for the same thing, so was he afraid of us? I think not. Don’t flatter yourself.


I at least concede that the NIV does translate it rape, but I personally feel that it is incorrect. I may be wrong. Can you make the same statement? Or do you just deny that it could even POSSIBLY mean coercion.

No possible way, verse 28 is about rape by force.
In the Deuteronomic Code (Deu_22:28) the amount is fixed at 50 shekels, and the seducer forfeits the right of divorce

You haven't sufficiently explained why the author, who presumably thought it was seduction, said the man seized her, when, by your own logic, seduction would mean her consent, and so they both grab each other.
Well, he had to do the seducing before she consented. He seized her, coerced her and she acquiesced and they lay together and got caught. If she consented from the get-go, there would have been no seizing necessary. He had to seize her to get her alone to seduce her.

You will never explain why the author completely disregarded all mention of the woman's guilt or consent in verse 28 and focused exclusively on how the man is to be punished.
Her having to marry him is the punishment for her consent, for the millionth time. For crying out loud, do you not get that we’ve told you this over and over?


Ah, so I see you’ve taken Farrell’s English class. Of course I know what a synonym is. I also know what a supporting text is.

Apparantly not, since Exodus refer to seduction and Deuteronomy 22 doesn't use that word in verse 28. But ring true to christianity you will, and shove together two different ideas as if one comments on the other, when the difference in words, what you would naturally expect to see as proof they are about different subjects, doesnt' bother you a bit. One says "seduce", the other says "seize", and you are the only one here who thinks they mean the same thing simply because they refer to dowry price and paying the father.
In the Deuteronomic Code (Deu_22:28) the amount is fixed at 50 shekels, and the seducer forfeits the right of divorce
Sorry, but Mr. ISBE sees it my way.

You are wrong, a man can rape a woman, or he can seduce her, and either way, he has to pay that dowry.

In the Deuteronomic Code (Deu_22:28) the amount is fixed at 50 shekels, and the seducer forfeits the right of divorce


I can see you are starting to wear down, thats good, I do a word study to support my point, and you trivialize with "whatever" and then another comment about my roommates. Oh yeah, I'm so wrong in this debate. if I ask a question about your roommates, does that mean that *I* win?
No, I just realize I’m beating a dead horse. I could tell you the sky was blue at midday, and you’d never believe it. I have shown that the ISBE thinks that verse 28 refers to seduction over and over again, and you still don’t get it.
In the Deuteronomic Code (Deu_22:28) the amount is fixed at 50 shekels, and the seducer forfeits the right of divorce




Either you are a liar or have an EXTREMELY short memory.
Seduction under the ISBE says:
The seduction of an unbetrothed virgin: In this case the seducer cording to J-E (Exo_22:16 f) is to be compelled to take the virgin as his wife, if the father consents, and to pay the latter the usual purchase price, the amount of which is not defined. In the Deuteronomic Code (Deu_22:28) the amount is fixed at 50 shekels, and the seducer forfeits the right of divorce

So admit you just lied. It directly links Ex 22:16 (seduction) with Deut 22:28. This is the third time I posted this definition and Sher Bear posted it at least once too. Continual denial doesn’t erase html code. Would you like links to the specific posts?


And I already demonstrated that the explicity expressed purpose they had for citing Dueteronomy 22:28 was because it contained the specific amount of the bride's price, they did NOT express in the same direct fashion that 22:28 is about seduction, that is a more subjective interpretation.
In the Deuteronomic Code (Deu_22:28) the amount is fixed at 50 shekels, and the seducer forfeits the right of divorce

And you completely ignored that the entire passage of Deuteronomy 22:25-29 was classified under their entry "RAPE". You act like they only meant that certain parts of Deuteronomy 22:25-29 were about rape. Sorry, that is just a second example of how you extract implications where none are to be found.
In the Deuteronomic Code (Deu_22:28) the amount is fixed at 50 shekels, and the seducer forfeits the right of divorce

from the dogma you die for.
Better to die for a good cause than to live for foolishness.


I never said SQUAT about either of these verses being textually corrupt!

So you admit the text is correct as written?


Exodus is about seduction because it says "seduce" correct?
Actually in the KJV it says entice. The Bible in Basic English translates the same word entice in Hosea 2:14 like this “I will make her”


You better not agree with me, otherwise I will say:

Deuteronomy is about seizing a woman, because it says "seize", correct?
See my reference to Hosea where entice can mean forcibly “making her ” like seizing her.


Why do you accept normal word definitions in Exodus but not Deuteronomy? Answer, because if biblical inerrancy is disproven, let us eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die, as all fundamentalist preachers, who can't imagine life without an invisible friend, insist.
Because words can mean several things. Ever heard of synonyms?

I don't think the JEPD theory is defunct. If you say it is defunct, then tell me what characteristics you wo9uld expect to see in a document written by two different authors, since writing style differences don't mean squat to you.
The same person can use various writing styles for different topics, and at different times in their life. For example, C.S. Lewis wrote children's stories, science fiction, and theology, and his style is more varied than differences in the OT.
Over 92 verses are split between different "authors" according to the liberal Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary.
Genesis 2:4; 7:16,17; 8:2,3,13; 10:1; 12:4; 13:11,12; 16:1; 19:30; 21:1,2,6; 25:11,26; 31:18; 32:13; 33:18; 35:22; 37:25,28; 41:46; 42:28; 45:1,5; 46:1; 47:5,6,27; 48:9,10; 49:1,28
Exodus 1:20; 2:23; 3:4; 4:20; 7:15,17,20,21; 8:15; 9:23,24,35; 10:1,13,15; 12:27; 13:3; 14:9,19,20,21,27; 15:21,22,25; 15:13,15; 17:1,2,7; 19:2,3,9,11,13; 24:12,15,18; 25:18; 31:18; 32:8,34,35; 33:5,19; 34:1,11,14
Numbers 13:17,26; 14:1; 16:1,2,26,27; 20:22.
This theory is garbage.




And if you can give a concrete reason that they are not harmonious, I’ll listen to something else you say, but you made the accusation. The burden of proof is yours.
Sure, seduce mean seduce, seize means seize. Let me know if you require further clarification.
See the Hosea reference above




The biggest difference between you and me is that I can disagree with people like JP and we are ok with that disagreement. You are nothing more than Kermit the Frog with Farrell's hand up your butt moving your mouth and saying the words for you.

Please delete the deviant sexual references from your response before you post it. I know this is a christian forum and all, but still, you ARE going to offend somebody somewhere if you talk about such deviant practices. Even Christians will take offense if you talk too dirty.

Sorry, but the mods have PM’d me and said it is not over the line of decorum for Tweb. It was not a sexual reference anyway. It merely shows, quite adequately I must say, that you are nothing more than a mindless puppet of Farrell Till.

And one more time to sink it in your thick Cro-Magnon descendant skull
In the Deuteronomic Code (Deu_22:28) the amount is fixed at 50 shekels, and the seducer forfeits the right of divorce

[skepticbud]

Today @ 10:10 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=83956#post83956)
Bill the Cat:

I have to stop your tirade here with a little lesson :whip:. The last bit of the entry for seduce says plainly


Nope, i was asking about the first part. Apparantly you are so scared of my argument that you ignore it completely. I won't be answering you on what ISBE meant unless you first tell me what Bible verses they associated with the main entry "RAPE".



And I’ll keep on quoting it till you get it.


Rape.
chazak = "to seize," "bind," "restrain," "conquer, "force," "ravish." The punishment for this crime was greater when the act was committed against a betrothed woman (Dt 22:25-29).

That will be the last time i quote my proof to you though, you may hold out hope for me, but I don't hold out hope for you.



Why would I fight with JP? He and I disagree and he grants that it is not a big issue to cause division, which, as you have so freely admitted, is your ultimate goal.


Not my ultimate goal, just a freak side show at this circus cuz I want my nickel's worth.



Well, he had to do the seducing before she consented. He seized her,


Yup, "seize" never implies "would you put your hand in mine? thanks!"



coerced her and she acquiesced


It says only "seized". Do not add to the word of the Lord or he will reprove you and call you a liar, Proverbs 30:6. But the word of god means nothing. if you want to add to it anyway, just insist that Proverbs 30:6 isn't meant to be taken literally. In a town with no garbage, even the dust can be kicked up quite high unto the choking of cars and model airplanes everywhere.



and they lay together and got caught. If she consented from the get-go, there would have been no seizing necessary. He had to seize her to get her alone to seduce her.


Wow, when you pull that crap out of thin air, you really don't know when to quit, eh?



Her having to marry him is the punishment for her consent, for the millionth time. For crying out loud, do you not get that we’ve told you this over and over?


Sure, you've said it over and over, but the text doesn't say it once. You are so concerned about verse 28 that you never bother to read verse 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.

How is the sex a violation of her, when she gave her consent? I can understand how RAPE would make the author say "he violated her", but consensual sex? Not a chance.



In the Deuteronomic Code (Deu_22:28) the amount is fixed at 50 shekels, and the seducer forfeits the right of divorce
Sorry, but Mr. ISBE sees it my way.


But he called it rape FIRST in the main entry for "RAPE". I don't expect you to go there, though, you have established a history now of running away and passing the buck.



No, I just realize I’m beating a dead horse.


But you need to learn to accept the fact that changing yourself will take time. You can't expect to just suddenly start thinking clearly. You've been a christian a long while, it sinks in pretty deep, so much that you'll beat a dead horse for a long time before you realise the last of his bodily juices have already evaporated over several summers.



So you admit the text is correct as written?


that's pretty stupid. As written? Which version?



Actually in the KJV it says entice. The Bible in Basic English translates the same word entice in Hosea 2:14 like this “I will make her come”

See my reference to Hosea where entice can mean forcibly “making her come” like seizing her.


Nope, I stay in the immediate context, because if a word can have more than one meaning, the way the author intended the word to be understood can only be known by addressing it's immediate context first.



The same person can use various writing styles for different topics, and at different times in their life. For example, C.S. Lewis wrote children's stories, science fiction, and theology, and his style is more varied than differences in the OT.


Ok, so what differences would you expect to see if two different people authored a single document using their own words?

Over 92 verses are split between different &quot;authors&quot; according to the liberal Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary.
Genesis 2:4; 7:16,17; 8:2,3,13; 10:1; 12:4; 13:11,12; 16:1; 19:30; 21:1,2,6; 25:11,26; 31:18; 32:13; 33:18; 35:22; 37:25,28; 41:46; 42:28; 45:1,5; 46:1; 47:5,6,27; 48:9,10; 49:1,28
Exodus 1:20; 2:23; 3:4; 4:20; 7:15,17,20,21; 8:15; 9:23,24,35; 10:1,13,15; 12:27; 13:3; 14:9,19,20,21,27; 15:21,22,25; 15:13,15; 17:1,2,7; 19:2,3,9,11,13; 24:12,15,18; 25:18; 31:18; 32:8,34,35; 33:5,19; 34:1,11,14
Numbers 13:17,26; 14:1; 16:1,2,26,27; 20:22.
This theory is garbage.
[/QUOTE]

surely the fundamentalist church you attend has taught you at least three or four convenient poo pooing excuses to drop scholarship that doesn't agree with you.



Please delete the deviant sexual references from your response before you post it. I know this is a christian forum and all, but still, you ARE going to offend somebody somewhere if you talk about such deviant practices. Even Christians will take offense if you talk too dirty.

Sorry, but the mods have PM’d me and said it is not over the line of decorum for Tweb. It was not a sexual reference anyway. It merely shows, quite adequately I must say, that you are nothing more than a mindless puppet of Farrell Till.
[/QUOTE]

it's fun to drink my girlfriends' beer slobber. Each stain on her shirt has a whole story about a bar and barf behind it. wanna hear about it?

So i lied...
Rape.
chazak = "to seize," "bind," "restrain," "conquer, "force," "ravish." The punishment for this crime was greater when the act was committed against a betrothed woman (Dt 22:25-29, oh, wait a minute, verse 28 isn't about rape, we might mislead the readers! Better make it "Dt 22:25-27, 29" There. Whew!).

And to make things worse for you, The talmud commentary magazine Judaic Seminar, volume 8, Number 9, agrees that Deuteronomy 22:28 is about RAPE:

"She was seen by Shekhem, the prince of the land, who raped her. The Torah is not completely critical of Shekhem. The Torah
reveals a human side to this person.

But his emotions clung to Dina, Ya'aqob's daughter-he
loved the girl and he spoke to the heart of the girl. So
Shekhem said to Hamor his father, saying: Take me this girl
as a wife! (34:3-4; SB)

Later the Torah would legislate this very behavior, that should
a woman be raped, it is incumbent upon the man to marry her and he cannot divorce her forever[b] (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)[b].

Apparently, in the society of old, such behavior was not
considered as reprehensible as we consider it today. Shekhem,
son of Hamor, was going to do the proper thing, to marry the
woman whom he raped (this stands in sharp contrast to the
behavior of Amnon, King David's son after he raped his half-
sister Tamar. See 2 Samuel 13).

[jpholding]

I disagree. People must have been constantly ill through their lack of understanding of basic hygenic principles.

They WERE constantly ill, yes, as far as the lit tells us, but it was not through lack of knowledge of hygiene but lack of available running water. When the nearest is a river miles away, I don't think you'd wash your hands as much as you should either.

Isn't that something of an assumption? How often was medical knowledge kept secret like this in the ancient world?

Religious knowledge certainly was; beyond that it is also a matter of lack of literacy (95% in the ancient world, as much as 99% in some places) which meant a lack of direct access. You say "given by God to the people" but the people could not read, and there was no one around to read it to them at all times.

The OT text was probably read aloud now and then (cf. Deuteronomy and Ezra) but given how much attention was paid to it by the people, even instructions for hygiene would have been ignored.

I'm not suggesting God could have set up the Egyptians with a bioweapons lab. Just the ability to make a few simple medicines.

Once the genie is out of the bottle, the potential leads where it does. If you learn to make simple meds, bioweapons are only a few years after that.

If God's intention was to stop the creation of bioweapons, then he has surely failed.

I don't think it was His intention to anything we do. As I have noted, if we want that, look out -- you could be the next thing God stops. Do you want that?

Dark matter, gravity, the size of our galaxy - something that nobody of that time could have known.

Hmm. Let's say God mentions dark matter c. 1400 BC. What would the people of that time think? They'd think it was crazy nonsense, would they not? And then would they not reject the rest of the message? Fine for us, but put it this way: If a guy came to you with revelations and spoke of "Glorpians on the planet Grug", you'd say he was crazy, yes? He may be proved right 300 years from now. But what good does that do you, now?

[DBoone]

Amazing, what you find on your first hit in a search engine, isn't it?

I do offer that my thinking on the Book of Romans has been changed since having this discussion. Romans is addressed to the church with only a retrospective on the godless condition of the world without Christ, but is aimed primarily at encouraging the church to allow the Gentile believers into the fold. Thanks for helping me see that, Bud.

http://www.apostolic-churches.net/bible/mhc/MHC45001.HTM

" In this last part of the chapter (Romans 1:19-32) the apostle applies what he had said particularly to the Gentile world, in which we may observe,

I. The means and helps they had to come to the knowledge of God. Though they had not such a knowledge of his law as Jacob and Israel had (Ps. cxlvii. 20), yet among them he left not himself without witness (Acts xiv. 17): For that which may be known, &c., v. 19, 20. Observe,

1. What discoveries they had: That which may be known of God is manifest, en autois--among them; that is, there were some even among them that had the knowledge of God, were convinced of the existence of one supreme Numen. The philosophy of Pythagoras, Plato, and the Stoics, discovered a great deal of the knowledge of God, as appears by abundance of testimonies. That which may be known, which implies that there is a great deal which may not be known. The being of God may be apprehended, but cannot be comprehended. We cannot by searching find him out, Job xi. 7-9. Finite understandings cannot perfectly know an infinite being; but, blessed be God, there is that which may be known, enough to lead us to our chief end, the glorifying and enjoying of him; and these things revealed belong to us and to our children, while secret things are not to be pried into, Deut. xxix. 29.

2. Whence they had these discoveries: God hath shown it to them. Those common natural notions which they had of God were imprinted upon their hearts by the God of nature himself, who is the Father of lights. This sense of a Deity, and a regard to that Deity, are so connate with the human nature that some think we are to distinguish men from brutes by these rather than by reason.

3. By what way and means these discoveries and notices which they had were confirmed and improved, namely, by the work of creation (v. 20); For the invisible things of God, &c.

(1.) Observe what they knew: The invisible things of him, even his eternal power and Godhead. Though God be not the object of sense, yet he hath discovered and made known himself by those things that are sensible. The power and Godhead of God are invisible things, and yet are clearly seen in their products. He works in secret (Job xxiii. 8, 9; Ps. cxxxix. 15; Eccl. xi. 5), but manifests what he has wrought, and therein makes known his power and Godhead, and others of his attributes which natural light apprehends in the idea of a God. They could not come by natural light to the knowledge of the three persons in the Godhead (though some fancy they have found footsteps of this in Plato's writings), but they did come to the knowledge of the Godhead, at least so much knowledge as was sufficient to have kept them from idolatry. This was that truth which they held in unrighteousness.

(2.) How they knew it: By the things that are made, which could not make themselves, nor fall into such an exact order and harmony by any casual hits; and therefore must have been produced by some first cause or intelligent agent, which first cause could be no other than an eternal powerful God. See Ps. xix. 1; Isa. xl. 26; Acts xvii. 24. The workman is known by his work. The variety, multitude, order, beauty, harmony, different nature, and excellent contrivance, of the things that are made, the direction of them to certain ends, and the concurrence of all the parts to the good and beauty of the whole, do abundantly prove a Creator and his eternal power and Godhead. Thus did the light shine in the darkness. And this from the creation of the world. Understand it either, [1.] As the topic from which the knowledge of them is drawn. To evince this truth, we have recourse to the great work of creation. And some think this ktisis kosmou, this creature of the world (as it may be read), is to be understood of man, the ktisis kat exochen--the most remarkable creature of the lower world, called ktisis, Mark xvi. 15. The frame and structure of human bodies, and especially the most excellent powers, faculties, and capacities of human souls, do abundantly prove that there is a Creator, and that he is God. Or, [2.] As the date of the discovery. It as old as the creation of the world. In this sense apo ktiseos is most frequently used in scripture. These notices concerning God are not any modern discoveries, hit upon of late, but ancient truths, which were from the beginning. The way of the acknowledgement of God is a good old way; it was from the beginning. Truth got the start of error.

II. Their gross idolatry, notwithstanding these discoveries that God made to them of himself; described here, v. 21-23, 25. We shall the less wonder at the inefficacy of these natural discoveries to prevent the idolatry of the Gentiles if we remember how prone even the Jews, who had scripture light to guide them, were to idolatry; so miserably are the degenerate sons of men plunged in the mire of sense. Observe,

1. The inward cause of their idolatry, v. 21, 22. They are therefore without excuse, in that they did know God, and from what they knew might easily infer that it was their duty to worship him, and him only. Though some have greater light and means of knowledge than others, yet all have enough to leave them inexcusable. But the mischief of it was that, (1.) They glorified him not as God. Their affections towards him, and their awe and adoration of him, did not keep pace with their knowledge. To glorify him as God is to glorify him only; for there can be but one infinite: but they did not so glorify him, for they set up a multitude of other deities. To glorify him as God is to worship him with spiritual worship; but they made images of him. Not to glorify God as God is in effect not to glorify him at all; to respect him as a creature is not to glorify him, but to dishonour him. (2.) Neither were they thankful; not thankful for the favours in general they received from God (insensibleness of God's mercies is at the bottom of our sinful departures from him); not thankful in particular for the discoveries God was pleased to make of himself to them. Those that do not improve the means of knowledge and grace are justly reckoned unthankful for them. (3.) But they became vain in their imaginations, en tois dialogismois--in their reasonings, in their practical inferences. They had a great deal of knowledge of general truths (v. 19), but no prudence to apply them to particular cases. Or, in their notions of God, and the creation of the world, and the origination of mankind, and the chief good; in these things, when they quitted the plain truth, they soon disputed themselves into a thousand vain and foolish fancies. The several opinions and hypotheses of the various sects of philosophers concerning these things were so many vain imaginations. When truth is forsaken, errors multiply in infinitum--infinitely. (4.) And their foolish heart was darkened. The foolishness and practical wickedness of the heart cloud and darken the intellectual powers and faculties. Nothing tends more to the blinding and perverting of the understanding than the corruption and depravedness of the will and affections. (5.) Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, v. 22. This looks black upon the philosophers, the pretenders to wisdom and professors of it. Those that had the most luxuriant fancy, in framing to themselves the idea of a God, fell into the most gross and absurd conceits: and it was the just punishment of their pride and self-conceitedness. It has been observed that the most refined nations, that made the greatest show of wisdom, were the arrantest fools in religion. The barbarians adored the sun and moon, which of all others was the most specious idolatry; while the learned Egyptians worshipped an ox and an onion. The Grecians, who excelled them in wisdom, adored diseases and human passions. The Romans, the wisest of all, worshipped the furies. And at this day the poor Americans worship the thunder; while the ingenious Chinese adore the devil. Thus the world by wisdom knew not God, 1 Cor. i. 21. As a profession of wisdom is an aggravation of folly, so a proud conceit of wisdom is the cause of a great deal of folly. Hence we read of few philosophers who were converted to Christianity; and Paul's preaching was no where so laughed at and ridiculed as among the learned Athenians, Acts xvii. 18-32. Phaskontes einai--conceiting themselves to be wise. The plain truth of the being of God would not content them; they thought themselves above that, and so fell into the greatest errors.

2. The outward acts of their idolatry, v. 23-25. (1.) Making images of God (v. 23), by which, as much as in them lay, they changed the glory of the incorruptible God. Compare Ps. cvi. 20; Jer. ii. 11. They ascribed a deity to the most contemptible creatures, and by them represented God. It was the greatest honour God did to man that he made man in the image of God; but it is the greatest dishonour man has done to God that he has made God in the image of man. This was what God so strictly warned the Jews against, Deut. iv. 15, &c. This the apostle shows the folly of in his sermon at Athens, Acts xvii. 29. See Isa. xl. 18, &c.; xliv. 10, &c. This is called (v. 25) changing the truth of God into a lie. As it did dishonour his glory, so it did misrepresent his being. Idols are called lies, for they belie God, as if he had a body, whereas he is a Spirit, Jer. xxiii. 14; Hos. vii. 1. Teachers of lies, Hab. ii. 18. (2.) Giving divine honour to the creature: Worshipped and served the creature, para ton ktisavta--besides the Creator. They did own a supreme Numen in their profession, but they did in effect disown him by the worship they paid to the creature; for God will be all or none. Or, above the Creator, paying more devout respect to their inferior deities, stars, heroes, demons, thinking the supreme God inaccessible, or above their worship. The sin itself was their worshipping the creature at all; but this is mentioned as an aggravation of the sin, that they worshipped the creature more than the Creator. This was the general wickedness of the Gentile world, and became twisted in with their laws and government; in compliance with which even the wise men among them, who knew and owned a supreme God and were convinced of the nonsense and absurdity of their polytheism and idolatry, yet did as the rest of their neighbours did. Seneca, in his book De Superstitione, as it is quoted by Aug. de Civit. Dei, lib. 6, cap. 10 (for the book itself is lost), after he had largely shown the great folly and impiety of the vulgar religion, in divers instances of it, yet concludes, Quæ omnia sapiens servabit tanquam legibus jussa, non tanquam diis grata--All which a wise man will observe as established by law, not imagining them grateful to the gods. And afterwards, Omnem istam ignobilem deorum turbam, quam longo ævo longa superstitio congessit, sic adorabimus, ut meminerimus cultum ejus magis ad morem quam ad rem pertinere--All this ignoble rout of gods, which ancient superstition has amassed together by long prescription, we will so adore as to remember that the worship of them is rather a compliance with custom than material in itself. Upon which Augustine observes, Coleb at quod reprehendebat, agebat quod arguebat, quod culpabat adorabat--He worshipped that which he censured, he did that which he had proved wrong, and he adored what he found fault with. I mention this thus largely because methinks it doth fully explain that of the apostle here (v. 18): Who hold the truth in unrighteousness. It is observable that upon the mention of the dishonour done to God by the idolatry of the Gentiles the apostle, in the midst of his discourse, expresses himself in an awful adoration of God: Who is blessed for ever. Amen. When we see or hear of any contempt cast upon God or his name, we should thence take occasion to think and speak highly and honourably of him. In this, as in other things, the worse others are, the better we should be. Blessed for ever, notwithstanding these dishonours done to his name: though there are those that do not glorify him, yet he is glorified, and will be glorified to eternity.

III. The judgments of God upon them for this idolatry; not many temporal judgments (the idolatrous nations were the conquering ruling nations of the world), but spiritual judgments, giving them up to the most brutish and unnatural lusts. Paredoken autous--He gave them up; it is thrice repeated here, v. 24, 26, 28. Spiritual judgments are of all judgments the sorest, and to be most dreaded. Observe,

1. By whom they were given up. God gave them up, in a way of righteous judgment, as the just punishment of their idolatry--taking off the bridle of restraining grace--leaving them to themselves--letting them alone; for his grace is his own, he is debtor to no man, he may give or withhold his grace at pleasure. Whether this giving up be a positive act of God or only privative we leave to the schools to dispute: but this we are sure of that it is no new thing for God to give men up to their own hearts' lusts, to send them strong delusions, to let Satan loose upon them, nay, to lay stumbling-blocks before them. And yet God is not the author of sin, but herein infinitely just and holy; for, though the greatest wickedness follow upon this giving up, the fault of that is to be laid upon the sinner's wicked heart. If the patient be obstinate, and will not submit to the methods prescribed, but wilfully takes and does that which is prejudicial to him, the physician is not to be blamed if he give him up as in a desperate condition; and all the fatal symptoms that follow are not to be imputed to the physician, but to the disease itself and to the folly and wilfulness of the patient.

2. To what they were given up.

(1.) To uncleanness and vile affections, v. 24, 26, 27. Those that would not entertain the more pure and refined notices of natural light, which tend to preserve the honour of God, justly forfeited those more gross and palpable sentiments which preserve the honour of human nature. Man being in honour, and refusing to understand the God that made him, thus becomes worse than the beasts that perish, Ps. xlix. 20. Thus one, by the divine permission, becomes the punishment of another; but it is (as it said here) through the lusts of their own hearts--there all the fault is to be laid. Those who dishonoured God were given up to dishonour themselves. A man cannot be delivered up to a greater slavery than to be given up to his own lusts. Such are given over, like the Egyptians (Isa. xix. 4), into the hand of a cruel lord. The particular instances of their uncleanness and vile affections are their unnatural lusts, for which many of the heathen, even of those among them who passed for wisemen, as Solon and Zeno, were infamous, against the plainest and most obvious dictates of natural light. The crying iniquity of Sodom and Gomorrah, for which God rained hell from heaven upon them, became not only commonly practised, but avowed, in the pagan nations. Perhaps the apostle especially refers to the abominations that were committed in the worship of their idol-gods, in which the worst of uncleannesses were prescribed for the honour of their gods; dunghill service for dunghill gods: the unclean spirits delight in such ministrations. In the church of Rome, where the pagan idolatries are revived, images worshipped, and saints only substituted in the room of demons, we hear of these same abominations going barefaced, licensed by the pope (Fox's Acts and Monuments, vol. 1, p. 808), and not only commonly perpetrated, but justified and pleaded for by some of their cardinals: the same spiritual plagues for the same spiritual wickednesses. See what wickedness there is in the nature of man. How abominable and filthy is man! Lord, what is man? says David; what a vile creature is he when left to himself! How much are we beholden to the restraining grace of God for the preserving any thing of the honour and decency of the human nature! For, were it not for this, man, who was made but little lower than the angels, would make himself a great deal lower than the devils. This is said to be that recompence of their error which was meet. The Judge of all the earth does right, and observes a meetness between the sin and the punishment of it.

(2.) To a reprobate mind in these abominations, v. 28.

[1.] They did not like to retain God in their knowledge. The blindness of their understandings was caused by the wilful aversion of their wills and affections. They did not retain God in their knowledge, because they did not like it. They would neither know nor do any thing but just what pleased themselves. It is just the temper of carnal hearts; the pleasing of themselves is their highest end. There are many that have God in their knowledge, they cannot help it, the light shines so fully in their faces; but they do not retain him there. They say to the Almighty, Depart (Job xxi. 14), and they therefore do not retain God in their knowledge because it thwarts and contradicts their lusts; they do not like it. In their knowledge--en epignosei. There is a difference between gnosis and epignosis, the knowledge and the acknowledgement of God; the pagans knew God, but did not, would not, acknowledge him.

[2.] Answerable to this wilfulness of theirs, in gainsaying the truth, God gave them over to a wilfulness in the grossest sins, here called a reprobate mind--eis adokimon noun, a mind void of all sense and judgment to discern things that differ, so that they could not distinguish their right hand from their left in spiritual things. See whither a course of sin leads, and into what a gulf it plunges the sinner at last; hither fleshly lusts have a direct tendency. Eyes full of adultery cannot cease from sin, 2 Pet. ii. 14. This reprobate mind was a blind scared conscience, past feeling, Eph. iv. 19. When the judgment is once reconciled to sin, the man is in the suburbs of hell. At first Pharaoh hardened his heart, but afterwards God hardened Pharaoh's heart. Thus wilful hardness is justly punished with judicial hardness.--To do those things which are not convenient. This phrase may seem to bespeak a diminutive evil, but here it is expressive of the grossest enormities; things that are not agreeable to men, but contradict the very light and law of nature. And here he subjoins a black list of those unbecoming things which the Gentiles were guilty of, being delivered up to a reprobate mind. No wickedness so heinous, so contrary to the light of nature, to the law of nations, and to all the interests of mankind, but a reprobate mind will comply with it. By the histories of those times, especially the accounts we have of the then prevailing dispositions and practices of the Romans when the ancient virtue of that commonwealth was so degenerated, it appears that these sins here mentioned were then and there reigning national sins. No fewer than twenty-three several sorts of sins and sinners are here specified, v. 29-31. Here the devil's seat is; his name is legion, for they are many. It was time to have the gospel preached among them, for the world had need of reformation.

First, Sins against the first table: Haters of God. Here is the devil in his own colours, sin appearing sin. Could it be imagined that rational creatures should hate the chief good, and depending creatures abhor the fountain of their being? And yet so it is. Every sin has in it a hatred of God; but some sinners are more open and avowed enemies to him than others, Zech. xi. 8. Proud men and boasters cope with God himself, and put those crowns upon their own heads which must be cast before his throne.

Secondly, Sins against the second table. These are especially mentioned, because in these things they had a clearer light. In general here is a charge of unrighteousness. This is put first, for every sin is unrighteousness; it is withholding that which is due, perverting that which is right; it is especially put for second-table sins, doing as we would not be done by. Against the fifth commandment: Disobedient to parents, and without natural affection--astorgous, that is parents unkind and cruel to their children. Thus, when duty fails on one side, it commonly fails on the other. Disobedient children are justly punished with unnatural parents; and, on the contrary, unnatural parents with disobedient children. Against the sixth commandment: Wickedness (doing mischief for mischief's sake), maliciousness, envy, murder, debate (eridos--contention), malignity, despiteful, implacable, unmerciful; all expressions of that hatred of our brother which is heart-murder. Against the seventh commandment: Fornication; he mentions no more, having spoken before of other uncleannesses. Against the eighth commandment: Unrighteousness, covetousness. Against the ninth commandment: Deceit, whisperers, back-biters, covenant-breakers, lying and slandering. Here are two generals not before mentioned--inventors of evil things, and without understanding; wise to do evil, and yet having no knowledge to do good. The more deliberate and politic sinners are in inventing evil things, the greater is their sin: so quick of invention in sin, and yet without understanding (stark fools) in the thoughts of God. Here is enough to humble us all, in the sense of our original corruption; for every heart by nature has in it the seed and spawn of all these sins. In the close he mentions the aggravations of the sins, v. 32. 1. They knew the judgment of God; that is, (1.) They knew the law. The judgment of God is that which his justice requires, which, because he is just, he judgeth meet to be done. (2.) They knew the penalty; so it is explained here: They knew that those who commit such things were worthy of death, eternal death; their own consciences could not but suggest this to them, and yet they ventured upon it. It is a great aggravation of sin when it is committed against knowledge (James iv. 17), especially against the knowledge of the judgment of God. It is daring presumption to run upon the sword's point. It argues the heart much hardened, and very resolutely set upon sin. 2. They not only do the same, but have pleasure in those that do them. The violence of some present temptation may hurry a man into the commission of such sins himself in which the vitiated appetite may take a pleasure; but to be pleased with other people's sins is to love sin for sin's sake: it is joining in a confederacy for the devil's kingdom and interest. Syneudokousi: they do not only commit sin, but they defend and justify it, and encourage others to do the like. Our own sins are much aggravated by our concurrence with, and complacency in, the sins of others.

Now lay all this together, and then say whether the Gentile world, lying under so much guilt and corruption, could be justified before God by any works of their own."

[jpholding]

In hops Bud, still ranting drunkenly,

It doesn't have to make sense to the starving peasent.

Um, yes it does. See my "planet Grug" example above, O egocentric heathen. :rofl:

god must have foreknown that the Jews would misunderstand messianic prophecy, (the Christian understanding of why the jews rejected jesus), but did god fail to write Isaiah 53( a presumably messianic prediction) just because he knew it would be misunderstood?

Nope. Because not all DID misunderstand it. :rofl: Sorry, Bud, apples and oranges. And as an aside, disagreement was not with whether Christian METHODS of interpretation were wrong, but with whether Jesus fit the bill.

it is your contention that your god transcends culture, and wrote the bible for modern man too, so it's your problem that doesn't go away simply because you can't figure out how first-century peasents could use the info.

Nor can you, apparently. The problem you cite is non-existent. It is logically impossible to transcend all cultural values and norms throughout time unless you want a message that can be moved in a fleet of vans. I can hear your complaints now.

By your own assumptions, god doesn't refuse to write or inspire a book simply because the persons who will read it first might not understand it.

And your point is, what? As a fundy you expected God to hold your hand while you sucked your thumb. Your expectations are not the measuring rod. Peter had the ability to understand if he wanted and needed to. What's your excuse? Beer?

Correction, mere humans have no other choice to propagandize their beliefs, at that time, except preaching and book writing.

No other choice is needed. Books are superior to email until everyone gets a computer and knows how to use it. Provincialist Bud, what percent of the world now has computers and what percent of people through histry? Hello? (Oh -- of course, we forgot all those web pages with the Bible on them....)

However, skepticbud, choose to do none of this and instead, write his arguments in coded langauge on the inside walls of caves. Yes, this clearly the less efficient path to acheiving his desires, but who the hell are you to judge him?

Sorry, apples in your orange basket again. The Bible is not coded language other than to those who remain ignorant willfully, just like a McGuffey is "coded language" to any goof who chooses not to learn to read. You, Bud, are that goof, and sorry, the Lord is not here to wipe your nose.

It remains that for the majority of history and even still today, a book is the best avenue for the majority of people -- and we DO have the same sources online for others, by our own doing. I don't think the reason is hidden, other than to the extent that we can't discern what would happen in alternate timelimes (the reason for my Turtledove example, which flew right over your head and dropped a bomb on you). I think the reasons are very easy to figure out.

See how stupid apologetic objections to the argument from evil really are?

I see how stupid uneducated Skeptics are, yes. Argument from evil? Glenn Miller has a huge item on it that's bust your chops. On Numbers 5, too. Poisoned? Get real. There was less dirt in there than you ate as a child in an hour in the yard. Oh, and BTW Miller also has an item showing how that ceremony actually protected women. Nice try.

he risks working at Mcdonald's to pay the rent.

Hardly. My education guarantees me a job that makes more than you spend on beer in a year.

Stop your paranoia in the name of the bored.

Learn your history in the name of common sense. The steamship, radio and TV were all heralded as instruments of world peace. Now they are all used for war. Hello? Technology is neutral. People are the problem.

How about instead of "god told THEM", how about "god told EVERYBODY about medicines

Great. So everyone has a chance to make germ warfare. Don't like you neighbor's dog barking? Poison the thing. It's what people do today with access to poisons.

God also knew that planting a tree in the garden of eden would result in sin, because the lamb of god was slain from the foundation of the world( sin was foreknown to occur).

Nice try, but unless you'd rather be an autobot and would not have made the same decision, you have no basis for a complaint.

God could kill everybody who attempts to use that knowledge in an evil way.

Yeah. God could also kill you for your next sin. Sound fair?

God sought to kill a baby for the somewhat lessor offense of having a flap of skin on the head of his penis.

Er, no -- that's not what "cut off" means, Bud. I already slapped Till for that; want to be next?

Thus there are no problems with god's "kill 'em all, i'll sort 'em out" rebuttal to your worry-wort excuse, correct?

None at all. Just an ignorant debate partner. :rofl:

So? Are you under the delusion that your biblegod does NOT like killing off babies and children whenever people who use his name are charging through town?

Nope. It only happens after the people get plenty of chances to skeedaddle. Looks like you'll need some Miller poured on you soon, and I don't mean beer.

God could reveal the knowledge to the common folk, but blind the tyrants to it.

Great, then the common folk could assassinate the tyrants and take their place. :duh:

In both cases, absurd and obvious fiction abounds.

Add a third: Your posts.

[jpholding]

I can't give links now, but Bud raised this garbage in Rel 102 previously and I gave a pointer to a Glenn Miller article that takes him to pieces on this subject.

[skepticbud]

Today @ 03:43 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=84121#post84121)
jpholding:

I can't give links now, but Bud raised this garbage in Rel 102 previously and I gave a pointer to a Glenn Miller article that takes him to pieces on this subject.

perhaps you will also quote an astronomer to prove that the sun doesn't exist?

My position against you is very solid, and THAT is why you hide behind the work of others instead of dealing with the text yourself. If you didn't have scholars, you wouldn't know what John 3:16 meant. :poke:

[jpholding]

In rides Bud, in drunken rant mode,

My position against you is very solid, and THAT is why you hide behind the work of others instead of dealing with the text yourself.

Your "position" is bent over, head in sand. :rofl: That was an extraordinarily dumb comment, even for you.

If you didn't have scholars, you wouldn't know what John 3:16 meant. :poke:

If you didn't have a dictionary or an education that included vocabulary, you wouldn't either. :whack:

[skepticbud]

Today @ 03:43 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=84121#post84121)
jpholding:

I can't give links now, but Bud raised this garbage in Rel 102 previously and I gave a pointer to a Glenn Miller article that takes him to pieces on this subject.

Are you high on crack?

Glenn Miller's comments on Deuteronomy 22:28 agree with me that RAPE is being described:

"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 the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Here is a clear case in which the rapist has (1) stolen the girl’s ability to guarantee paternity, and by doing so has greatly limited her future options; and (2) has limited her father’s options of arranging a good marriage for her.

The rapist is now forced to become what he has cheated the girl out of—a ‘well off’ husband. The fifty shekels bride-price (see below on the Exodus 22.16 passage) is five years worth of average wages, and is the price paid by the Pharaoh Amenophis III for the women of Gezer destined for his harem [AI:1:26]!"
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/virginity.html

Like I said in mocking tone in my first post in this thread, forcing the victim and her rapist to get married was the "best" that god could do?

No other solution to the problem of raping a virgin would preserve justice?

How about, the rapist must pay the father the bride price, by 5 years of forced labor, even if he has enough money already to pay the fine?!

How about, god can teach that a woman as a person is valuable, and virginity is not the prize the bachelor should have his mind on, because a raped woman is no less worthy to be someone's wife than a virgin, in reality?

How about, mention just the slightest something or other about the steps god suggests for the woman to begin the process of healing her emotional scars?

Nah, this is all completely ridiculous....forcing the victim to marry the rapist was the solitary option god had to insure justice, and any other option would only insure further rebellion and anarchy.

oh wow, god sure did consult his deep wisdom on this one:eww:

[Sher]

On-topic bump:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=83884#post83884 is my reply to you on this thread, Bud.

Thanks ...

[jpholding]

Are you high on crack?

Nope. On your back. :rofl:

Glenn Miller's comments on Deuteronomy 22:28 agree with me that RAPE is being described:

I do too, if you'll remember. Just in case you were/are drunk.

Like I said in mocking tone in my first post in this thread, forcing the victim and her rapist to get married was the &quot;best&quot; that god could do?

Like I said in my post back to you, it's what they WANTED, Mr. Provincialist. Girl included.

How about, the rapist must pay the father the bride price, by 5 years of forced labor, even if he has enough money already to pay the fine?!

They'd get the same out of him and more via the marriage. As part of the family he sure didn't sit in the chair and drink beer all day. He worked in their fields, washed the cart, and broke his back doing it. Hello?

How about, god can teach that a woman as a person is valuable, and virginity is not the prize the bachelor should have his mind on, because a raped woman is no less worthy to be someone's wife than a virgin, in reality?

How about you stop importing your own anachronistic lessons into the text? The punishment DOES teach this, Bud. A fine and the equal to a prison life sentence before prisons. So are you going to whine that modern sentencing procedures don't teach that people have value?

How about, mention just the slightest something or other about the steps god suggests for the woman to begin the process of healing her emotional scars?

Find me the same in any law code in the ancient world or in modern law books. Gee, Florida Statues say zip about emotional healing for rape victims, guess they don't care...I asked you this once already, Bud. Stop repeating yourself. And don't forget that in an honor-shame society like this one (UNlike ours), "emotional healing" is an anachronism. The woman being dishonored would get her satisfaction by seeing the rapist shamed by being made a slave, as well as being taunted and rebuffed by the village elders and her own family. Think out of the (6 pack) box for once.

oh wow, god sure did consult his deep wisdom on this one:eww:

Bud sure did consult the social world of the Bible to come up with these asinine criticisms. :rofl: :eww:

[skepticbud]

Today @ 07:44 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=83884#post83884)
SherBear:

Hi again Bud ... thanks for getting back to me.Sorry, Bud ... Exodus clarifies that the father can refuse ... and you are right that Deuteronomy doesn't say that that the father can refuse. However, it doesn't say that he can't refuse, does it?


Deuteronomy 22 has lots of specifics in it, and even outlays several instances of illegitimate sex with attending details. If the author of that chapter thought the father had the option to refuse, he surely would have said so. And where does Deuteronomy 22 say that an two-headed twin circus DIDN'T blow through town on a weekly basis? There's no denial, so freak shows must have occured often.



You are aguing from the silence of one scripture ... while we are showing you the accepted cross-reference that gives full meaning to the one you question.


That cross-reference is not as accepted as you would wish. Even JP Holdings favorite Christian Glenn Miller admitted the connection with Exodus 22 isn't obvious.

"A related passage is in Exodus 22.16, although its relationship with Deut is somewhat unclear: “If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. 17 If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins. (Ex 22.16) (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/virginity.html)



Bud, think for a moment. First of all, &quot;can mean&quot; isn't &quot;does mean&quot; ... but that aside ...


The proof that the word for "seize" in Deuteronomy 22:28 means "to take by force" is found in the immediate context, verse 29, which says "he has violated her". The only people that say it violates a woman to have sex after she consents, are Christians who are concerned to white wash the laws of Moses without due concern for looking rational.



The man takes the woman away from her family ... and they have sexual relations because he seduced her


The text doesn't say SEDUCE, it says "SEIZE" and then "HE VIOLATED HER"!



The emphasis on seize is of your own making ... not an emphasis in the scriptures.I never disputed that the man seized her ... just that this taking/capture/seizing doesn't equal rape in the forceful sense you are trying to make it be. Seize refers to how he GOT the woman ... not how he &quot;got&quot; the woman ... not how he had sex with her. Seize could simply be from the point of the bride's family ...


First "could simply be" doesn't mean "that must be how it happened", but that aside...

Second, the word "SEIZE" does indeed appear whether you like it or not, and the immediate context provided in verse 29 tells us why the author used that word instead of seduce: He violated her, it's that simple.



is the correct one ... but it just doesn't fit why &quot;they&quot; are found out ...


I already gave you the reason, logically, it takes two to tango, so the only finding out that could possibly take place would be the kind that concerns at least TWO people.



and not &quot;he&quot; is found out.


And I already responded by applying your own game to your own self....the text doesn't say "she violated herself" but "HE violated her..." Your attempt to explain why the man is emphasized without make use of the obvious "it's his fault" answer, was shot out of the sky the day it took off. Because he is the one paying the bride price? It wouldn't be possible to say that anybody else paid the bride price anyway! The author's logical necessity to say it is the man that must pay the bride price doesn't mean the woman therefore is also guilty! The fact that the man had to pay the bride-price indicates that he himself was solely guilty, otherwise, if she consented, why not make both of them pay? Your suggestions makes mince-meat out of the passage.



If the man was the only one at fault ... both for the seizing and the sexual relations that were forced on the woman ... he would be guilty of rape in the forcable sense ... and stoned for his crimes.


Nope, you keep forgetting that the forced rape in verse 25 that carries the death penalty is rape of an ENGAGED woman. I said way back at the beginning of this thread already that verse 25 is the rape of an engaged virgin, which was a higher crime with greater punishment than the rape of an UNengaged virgin. The woman in verse 25 is substantially different than the one in verse 28. Verse 25 describes a rape that was viewed by the Hebrews as not just the violation of a woman alone, but violation also of the man who was destined to marry her, a notworthy difference from the totally single and unengaged woman in verse 28.



However, he is only guilty in the statutory sense ... still not nice ... but not forced on the woman like you outraged about.Aww ... ya gonna make me pull out the law links?


No need for that, because it is far from proved that "statutory rape " was the sense of the passage in the first place.



The exact understanding is important because you have made such an issue out of the &quot;price&quot; for the &quot;raped&quot; woman's virginity and how the Bible &quot;supports rape&quot;. However, you still haven't proven that this is so aside from your conjectures. We have shown supporting evidence from scripture ... which, yes, I realize you dispute ... but you fail to prove it is unconnected


Again you argue from silence, assuming they are connected, when there is no a priori reason to think so, especially when somes scholars don't see the connection like me, and then you ask me to prove that your particular theory is wrong? No, that's not sound reasoning, you need to first provide evidence that exodus was designed to clarify Deuteronomy 22:28, and yu haven't done that, because you fail to deal with the fact that Exodus says seduce and Dueteronomy 28 says "seize". you are only concerned about the similarlities between the two passages, not the differences, which by the way, are the major difference between seduction and rape. YOU argue that seduction and rape are two different things, right?

[/QUOTE]
... especially since I showed you the cross-referenced reference in my other post ... but you showed nothing but your opinon on the exact wording ... do you not understand that cross-referencing doesn't have to be exact wording in two scriptures ... that one can interpret the other without repeating the other verbaitum?
[/QUOTE]

No, I am completely unfamilier with how you prove that Exodus was written to be a commentary on Deuteronomy. Please provide that proof.

Also, to insist that one bible books provides a commentary on another bible book, without having the explicit saying so of the author of the commentary book, is nothing but begging the question of the harmony of the bible, which is NOT obvious. Many Christians insist that Romans 4 and James 2 are commentaries on each other, simply because they are inerrantists who absolutely refuse to give up belief that the apostles ever disagree with each other, even though James 2 is sufficiently contrary to Romans 4 that only christian commentators argue for their harmony, everybody else can call a spade a spade.



Ex talks about the woman refusing via the father ... so the bride's family evidently could make that choice ... but to me, it is a far kinder thing to that woman to make the man marry her after he seduced her ...


But only assuming he did seduce her, which hasn't been proven you, because you act like the admission of his violating her in verse 29 doesn't exist. You simply haven't "violated" a woman, if that woman gave her consent. Sorry, doesn't work that way. Violations only occur when resistence is discovered and then overcome with force.



You may want to start a different thread to discuss and knock heads about whether she was possibly kidnapped from her home ... but since I already agreed with the seized part ... I won't argue that with you.


You wouldn't argue against anybody who said perhaps the man kidnapped her? Does kidnapping sound like consent? Whatever you say, Patty Hearst.

[skepticbud]

Today @ 07:10 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=84295#post84295)
jpholding:

Glenn Miller's comments on Deuteronomy 22:28 agree with me that RAPE is being described:

I do too, if you'll remember. Just in case you were/are drunk.




Like I said in mocking tone in my first post in this thread, forcing the victim and her rapist to get married was the &amp;quot;best&amp;quot; that god could do?

Like I said in my post back to you, it's what they WANTED, Mr. Provincialist. Girl included.


First, the rape victim would WANT to be married to her attacker? Obviously you've never been raped.

Second, you ducked my question, because you DO BELIEVE that this text is inspired by god too, and not just a grocery list of desired items. Does god think the written solution in the bible is is the best solution or not? If yes, what's wrong with my suggestions on how justice could be better served? If no, then what crazy kind of doctrine of biblical "inspiration" do you actually hold? God inspires texts that disagree with his own better judgement?



How about, the rapist must pay the father the bride price, by 5 years of forced labor, even if he has enough money already to pay the fine?!

They'd get the same out of him and more via the marriage. As part of the family he sure didn't sit in the chair and drink beer all day. He worked in their fields, washed the cart, and broke his back doing it. Hello?


No, he could easily claim that "the bible" prescribes no more punishment upon him than payment of 50 shekels of silver and marrying his victim. It states nowhere that he has to do chores for anybody. You are expaning his punishment to make it seem more politically correct to us moderns, and you do it in violation of Proverbs 30:6. You will add scooby doo to the word of god, if you needed to in order to defend neo-inerrancy.



How about, god can teach that a woman as a person is valuable, and virginity is not the prize the bachelor should have his mind on, because a raped woman is no less worthy to be someone's wife than a virgin, in reality?

How about you stop importing your own anachronistic lessons into the text?


How about, my suggestion is clearly moral superior and more clearly upholds the equality of women than your chauvinist god?
How about you don't like my suggestion because it blows "gawd'z wurd" out of the water? Your god is not god, he is absolutely STUCK in the land of the ancient hebrews.



The punishment DOES teach this, Bud. A fine and the equal to a prison life sentence before prisons.


There are too many rapists that would be only too happy to be forced to marry their victims. But defend your sick villan god you will. if god said eating dung is healthy, you Christians would interpret the resulting gastrointestinal diseases as god's healthy choice, and shunning all thought that it's not healthy. After all, the ways of the world are foolishness to god, right?



So are you going to whine that modern sentencing procedures don't teach that people have value?


No, because there are no crazies i know of that insist that the source of modern man's laws is an inerrant book inspired by a god that just can't be wrong not matter what. the legislature is a democratic process, thus it changes all the time. Kind of like the bible, irony not intended.



How about, mention just the slightest something or other about the steps god suggests for the woman to begin the process of healing her emotional scars?

Find me the same in any law code in the ancient world or in modern law books.


No, I agree with you that ALL ancient semitic people's were chauvinist in the extreme. Agreed?



Gee, Florida Statues say zip about emotional healing for rape victims, guess they don't care...I asked you this once already, Bud. Stop repeating yourself.


Statues only look like people, Holding. They don't really say anything. But anyway, the law of Deuteronomy 22:28 itself suggests why no further law about her emotional healing can be found....well, if you are going to force her to marry her rapist....obviously you don't give a flying rat's bass about her emotional state of health.



And don't forget that in an honor-shame society like this one (UNlike ours), &quot;emotional healing&quot; is an anachronism. The woman being dishonored would get her satisfaction by seeing the rapist shamed by being made a slave, as well as being taunted and rebuffed by the village elders and her own family. Think out of the (6 pack) box for once.


Violation of Proverbs 30:6. Your list of additional punishments goes way beyond the word of the lord. And you are too quick to conclude that a raped woman would get satisfaction that way. Like I told others, go get yourself raped....than ask yourself if you would like to be forced to marry the guy, if you were a woman? Can't identify completely? then don't act like you know what a rape victim would find satisfaction in.



oh wow, god sure did consult his deep wisdom on this one:eww:

Bud sure did consult the social world of the Bible to come up with these asinine criticisms. :rofl: :eww:

But your social world excuses are not automatic proofs the way you use them. Sure, it was an honor-shame society. Does that mean the rape victim would find the slightest solace in being forced to marry her attacker? Not at all, go get yourself raped. If you can't, then don't pretend with all that bad acting that you know what exactly a rape victim would need to heal.

Face it, the moral in this text is the exact opposite of modern civilized society, and you would campaign against it if some fundamentalists started trying to legislate it as state law in your state.

But why? God isn't bound by culture, is he? what criteria do you use to seperate pentateuchal laws into the "applies today" and "doesn't apply today" categories?

[jpholding]

First, the rape victim would WANT to be married to her attacker? Obviously you've never been raped.

Obviously, you have never lived in the ancient world. Why do you think this would be objectionable? Because you live in the here and now when it WOULD be.

Second, you ducked my question, because you DO BELIEVE that this text is inspired by god too, and not just a grocery list of desired items.

What question? It's hard to tell sometimes that you're asking anything in these passionate drunken spiels of rhetoric. Either way I see no reason not to think the solution was the best for the time and place and conditions, and your own suggestions, as noted, either ARE part of the package (adjusted for the time and culture) or would be irrelevant. It would be foolish to apply the same kind of punishment today -- but not then.

No, he could easily claim that &quot;the bible&quot; prescribes no more punishment upon him than payment of 50 shekels of silver and marrying his victim. It states nowhere that he has to do chores for anybody.

Um, Bud, being a member of a family in that time had certain, uh, PRESCRIBED OBLIGATIONS? These people were collectivist in outlook and it was automatic to assume obligations to help your group survive. It's rather boring to have to keep correcting your anachronistic outlook every time you spin out some new rationalization based in miseducation.

You will add scooby doo to the word of god, if you needed to in order to defend neo-inerrancy.

So speaketh Shaggy. :rofl:

How about, my suggestion is clearly moral superior and more clearly upholds the equality of women than your chauvinist god?

Sorry, it doesn't. Not for that time and place.

How about you don't like my suggestion because it blows &quot;gawd'z wurd&quot; out of the water?

:zzz: How about you are a scared little freak looking for a new security blanket?

Your god is not god, he is absolutely STUCK in the land of the ancient hebrews.

Gee, considering that's who He wrote these commands for... :ahem:

There are too many rapists that would be only too happy to be forced to marry their victims.

How happy would they be if it meant slaving for a family for the rest of their life? Think of it, Bud: You're married to the woman...but you don't share a bed (oops! no sex!)...her family hates you...so do the neighbors...you work 8-12 hours a day in the heat doing backbreaking labor...you experience shame of the worst sort in a time when shame was an ultimate value....you'd be happy? What are you, a sadomasochist?

After all, the ways of the world are foolishness to god, right?

And the ways of Bud are foolishness to all. Apples and oranges on the dung as well as a begged question. Carry your dung elsewhere.

No, because there are no crazies i know of that insist that the source of modern man's laws is an inerrant book inspired by a god that just can't be wrong not matter what.

That dodges the question rather than answering it. So far the only basis for your complaint is "Me, me, me and my view!"

No, I agree with you that ALL ancient semitic people's were chauvinist in the extreme. Agreed?

Nope. You're way more chauvinist than they were.

Statues only look like people, Holding. They don't really say anything.

Ah. Statutes. So the T key at the seminary library stuck. Sue me.

....well, if you are going to force her to marry her rapist....obviously you don't give a flying rat's bass about her emotional state of health.

Still assuming that it's not what is wanted, are we? It's the opposite -- if you do NOT make this the penalty in this world, it shows that you just kissed a rat's bass.

Violation of Proverbs 30:6. Your list of additional punishments goes way beyond the word of the lord.

The list is part of the social context of the day and the background of the Word. Lose the narrow mind and get with the program.

And you are too quick to conclude that a raped woman would get satisfaction that way.

After only years of study of this culture? Yep, that was waaaaaay too quick. And you've been studying it for, uh, how long? You've read how many books by OT scholars and social studies experts? Um.

But your social world excuses are not automatic proofs the way you use them. Sure, it was an honor-shame society. Does that mean the rape victim would find the slightest solace in being forced to marry her attacker?

Er, in her attacker being forced to marry HER, and undergo all that follows, YES. In this case the marriage contract was more like a contract to be an indentured servant. I'll add here that the marriage process was itself a way of restoring honor to the woman by making the arrangement legal. As for you, I doubt you know dip about honor-shame societies and what they are all about. Make me surprised and tell me what you know about them.

Face it, the moral in this text is the exact opposite of modern civilized society

Yep, it's what was wanted in ANCIENT civilized society, you bigot. :rofl:

and you would campaign against it if some fundamentalists started trying to legislate it as state law in your state.

Of course I would. They would be as badly decontextualizing it as you are. You are, after all, a former fundy so I expect the same idiotic behavior.

But why? God isn't bound by culture, is he? what criteria do you use to seperate pentateuchal laws into the &quot;applies today&quot; and &quot;doesn't apply today&quot; categories?

:duh: Study, scholarship. Critical comparison. Four words you fear. God isn't bound, Bud, but WE are. You who would give Rome a steam engine, I suppose.

[Sher]

Today @ 02:34 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=84313#post84313)
skepticbud:

Deuteronomy 22 has lots of specifics in it, and even outlays several instances of illegitimate sex with attending details. If the author of that chapter thought the father had the option to refuse, he surely would have said so. And where does Deuteronomy 22 say that an two-headed twin circus DIDN'T blow through town on a weekly basis? There's no denial, so freak shows must have occured often.And if you can find where it says in a cross-referenced verse that there was a circus in town, you might have had a case. The cross-referenced verses say the father can refuse ... the precedence is established ... so it is valid to say that just because it isn't in this particular verse doesn't mean that it is negated. You, however, are asserting that because it isn't in this verse, it cannot be true. Your assertion lacks the proof.
That cross-reference is not as accepted as you would wish. Even JP Holdings favorite Christian Glenn Miller admitted the connection with Exodus 22 isn't obvious.Let's begin with something Glenn Miller says in the text of the page your referenced:Needless to say, if the girl was deprived of her virginity via a rapist or seducer (and didn’t marry said individual), her probability of being sought out by families in desperate need for a demonstrable virgin (in other words, the families with the most inheritable property and land!) would drop to zero. This would make the task of providing for/ensuring the long-term welfare of the daughter that much more difficult.So Mr. Miller opens the topic there up to both rapists and seducers ... and explains later the part that you referenced. Mr. Miller says previously, regarding v. 23 & 24:This crime is a type of ‘statutory’ rape, of sorts. There is nothing about force here, and it is essentially tantamount to regular adultery I hadn't read his article until now ... seems he started on the same thought that I have on these passages regarding statutory rape ... sex with a minor ... or a young virgin as in the OT. After this, to the part that you quoted, is where I disagree with Mr. Miller. I think he was on this correct track ... he outlines that sex with the young virgin is statutory rape ... and then goes on to discuss her being betrothed ... but when she is not betrothed, he abandons this point that he has established, and speaks of forced sexual relations. This isn't harmonious with the other cross-referenced scripture ... and that is why he has to then comment:A related passage is in Exodus 22.16, although its relationship with Deut is somewhat unclear If Mr. Miller had gone back to his reasoning from verses 23 and 24 ... instead of continuing his thought from verses 25 and 26 ... the cross-referenced verses would have been very clear to him.
The proof that the word for &quot;seize&quot; in Deuteronomy 22:28 means &quot;to take by force&quot; is found in the immediate context, verse 29, which says &quot;he has violated her&quot;. The only people that say it violates a woman to have sex after she consents, are Christians who are concerned to white wash the laws of Moses without due concern for looking rational.I'm not looking to whitewash anything. I am looking to explain to you that you are wrong ... wrong scripturally, historically, and sociologically. Seize does mean take ... I already said that I have no dispute there. Violate can mean any number of things ... including the other translations for that same word ... the ancient word also means "humbled" ... meaning that the virginity was lost. I'll explain more in a minute.
The text doesn't say SEDUCE, it says &quot;SEIZE&quot; and then &quot;HE VIOLATED HER&quot;!hang on ... I'm getting there ... passing your repeats ...
First &quot;could simply be&quot; doesn't mean &quot;that must be how it happened&quot;, but that aside...

Second, the word &quot;SEIZE&quot; does indeed appear whether you like it or not, and the immediate context provided in verse 29 tells us why the author used that word instead of seduce: He violated her, it's that simple.passing your repeats ...
I already gave you the reason, logically, it takes two to tango, so the only finding out that could possibly take place would be the kind that concerns at least TWO people.You are missing the point here, Bud. Your "interpretation" would necessitate that it say HE was found out ... not that THEY are found out ... because that would establish guilt of only him. However, it is shown to be concentual ... but statutory rape ... because THEY are found out.
[...] The fact that the man had to pay the bride-price indicates that he himself was solely guilty, otherwise, if she consented, why not make both of them pay? Your suggestions makes mince-meat out of the passage.I'm sorry, but you only think you "shot is out of the sky". Now ... How did he "violate" her, you ask ... several times ... He violated her ... humbled her ... because she is the one who lost her virginity!

BTW... your reasoning regarding it not saying "she" is ludicrious ... she couldn't have lost her virginity to herself.

Anyway, as I said ... violate has many meanings ... including "breach" (opening, rupture, etc.) ... if he "breached" her ... broke her maidenhead ... she lost her virginity ... it is a violation to her in the sense that she is no longer a virgin ... she has been violated ... also referred to as a "humbling" ... which is submission ... submission of the maidenhead to the man. This doesn't mean that it HAD to be by force ... the loss of virginity ... the violation of the maidenhead ... is the violation.

And so, the word violation still doesn't prove your assertion that he forced her ... that he raped her in the forceful sense of the word.

(Not only that ... sexual relations outside of marriage is also a violation ... of God's laws ... so again he violated her in that manner as well by seducing her.)

You fail to prove your case that your definition is the correct one ... especially since your definition makes a contradiction to the scripture ... not in harmony with the cross-referenced verses ... as I have already outlined.

So, your assertion that "violate" her must mean forceful rape ... is proven incorrect. It doesn't HAVE to mean that ... and the context of this verse ... along with the cross-referenced verses ... shows that it DOESN'T mean forceful rape.

The proof of the cross-reference was already given to you in one of my previous posts. Any cross-referencing Bible should show the same ... or look on www.biblegateway.net or www.crosswalk.com ... for a free Bible and look for the ones that show cross-refs ... if you don't want to go back and search my posts on this thread.

So again, Bud ... you fail to make your case. You use "coulda, shoulda, woulda's" to assert what might have happened ... you have not a lick of support in history, scripture, nor social context ... all which show that the woman was not forcefully raped ... she was seduced.


** In fact .... I'll even be kind and give you the area to look in on Crosswalk (http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=Deuteronomy+22%3A28-29&section=0&version=nkj&new=1&showtools=1&oq=&NavBook=de&NavGo=22&NavCurrentChapter=22). If this link works, you should be on Naves Topical Bible for Deu 22:28-29. Look where it says: NTB -> Adultery; Church; Damages And Compensation; Seduction; Women
TTT -> Woman
TSK -> Entry for 22:28
BED -> Divorce; Money; Punishment; Sexuality, Human
EBD -> Fornication
SMT -> Law of Moses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WES -> Notes on 22:29
NTB -> Adultery; Church; Damages And Compensation; God (continued); Marriage; Seduction; Shekel; Women
TTT -> Woman
TSK -> Entry for 22:29
BED -> Divorce; Money; Punishment; Sexuality, Human
EBD -> Fornication
SMT -> Divorce; Law of Moses; Piece of silver And note where it lists SEDUCTION there ... click on the link for the following text:Nave's Topical Bible

Seduction



General scriptures concerning
2 Timothy 3:6,13

Laws concerning
Exodus 22:16,17; Deuteronomy 22:23-29

See RAPE

INSTANCES OF
Of Dinah
Genesis 34:2
Of Tamar
2 Samuel 13:1-14 Oh no :shocked::eek: can Bud possibly be right?? It says rape there ... but if you click on rape ... you see this information:Nave's Topical Bible

Rape



The law of Moses imposed death penalty for
Deuteronomy 22:25-27

Captives afflicted with
Isaiah 13:16; Lamentations 5:11; Zechariah 14:2

INSTANCES OF
Of the servant of a Levite, by Benjamites; the tribe of Benjamin nearly exterminated by the army of the other tribes, punishment for
Judges 19:22-30; 20:35
Of Tamar by Amnon; avenged in the death of Amnon at the hand of Absalom, Tamar’s brother
2 Samuel 13:6-29,32,33Oops ... RAPE stops at verse 27!!!

Further nails in the coffin of the fact that it is seduction ... not forced rape.

And here is your biblegate.net cross-ref proof ... once again ... so that you cannot acuse me of dodging the issue ... even though I provided it for you previously:

http://www.biblegateway.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=deu+22%3A28-29&NASB_version=yes&language=english&x=14&y=6

NASB, which gives cross-refs (as do other Bibles ... especially study ones), cites the Exodus verse ... 22:16 ... as proof that this is tied together ... that it was seduction ... not forced rape.

[jpholding]

After looking this over the diff between my view and Sherbear's may be just a matter of semantics. But either way Bud is up in it to his neck. :thumb:

[AtheistArchon]

First, the rape victim would WANT to be married to her attacker? Obviously you've never been raped.

Obviously, you have never lived in the ancient world. Why do you think this would be objectionable? Because you live in the here and now when it WOULD be.

- Wait... wait a second here. I'm sure you're not suggesting, JP, that being married to your rapist is ever a good thing. I shudder for the objective moral precepts behind Christianity if something like rape is so subjective that a simple thousand or so years of culture can change the moral concept by this much.

- Perhaps murder is okay too, as long as you pay the family of the person you murdered? Back in the biblical days, that is...

- What about incest? Oh yeah...

- I'm sorry to say it, but this doesn't really inspire me to respect Christian moral codes.

[jpholding]

- Wait... wait a second here. I'm sure you're not suggesting, JP, that being married to your rapist is ever a good thing.

If by "good" you mean it's what would be wanted as a fate, no. If by "good" you mean, it's what the people would have wanted IF someone raped someone, the answer is yes. Mark well: the marriage would be little more, as I say, than a formal contract that amounted to the man being an indentured servant and paying his dues that way. Do not think in terms of marriage here as a modern, intimate relationship.

I shudder for the objective moral precepts behind Christianity if something like rape is so subjective that a simple thousand or so years of culture can change the moral concept by this much.

You shouldn't. This is a world far removed from our own in many ways and the circumstances and results are far different than what you're likely imagining. If you can, try to keep yourself from judging their world until you have been as thoroughly immersed in it as I have.

I'm sorry to say it, but this doesn't really inspire me to respect Christian moral codes.

These aren't Christian codes -- they're ancient Jewish codes and would also have found a home in other ANE societies. It would find no place today in our society of the isolated individual. When it comes down to it, though, it's a far more serious punishment than most rapists today get, who end up sitting on their rear ends in a prison cell, working maybe 30 minutes a day cleaning up a 10 x 10 foot parcel of ground and eating free food and getting free medical care at our expense, and spending most of the day idling aimlessly around a compound or working out and beefing up on the weights.

I'd rather put 'em to work on the road gang myself.

[KingDavid8]

Today @ 05:29 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=83808#post83808)
skepticbud:

She would be marrying someone from the mob that killed her family! Would YOU give your consent? Not on your life. If a mob came in, killed off your whole family, and then kidnapped you, using &quot;god told us to&quot; as their cheap convienient excuse to steal your whole life,


Except the reason was much greater than that, namely that the Midianites were trying to destroy the Isrealites. Yes, God told them to, but with better reason than ‘because I say so’.



and telling you that your current religion was absolute blasphemy in the eyes of their god, would you CONSENT to marry one of those marauders?


If they ultimately weren’t any worse than the people who raised me, I don’t see why not. Are you under the impression that the Midianites were just living in peace with the world, never harming a soul, until the big bad Israelites came along and said, “Hey, those people worship idols! Let’s get ‘em!” The Midianites were out to destroy the Israelites. That the Israelites let ANY of them live is an act of mercy, and if I’d been one of those Midianite girls, I’d be grateful to them for sparing my life. True, I’d probably have a problem with marrying the specific individuals who killed my family, but others from the same culture? If my only other choice was a life of loneliness and celibacy, I don’t see why not.



How about if I write in a book that &quot;the lord says&quot; i can take your daughter, because your family is idolotrous?


Do you honestly believe that the only reason the Israelites were trying to defeat the Midianites was that they worshipped idols?



Do you have any evidence that atheism is NOT inspired by a foolish god who loves to spend time creating contradictions? How long would you labor to prove this false to me before you pointed out that I was shifting the burden of proof without justification?


It’s too silly to bother trying to prove it false. First of all, if an atheist wants to argue that a foolish god is responsible for their atheism, then aren’t they blaming someone they don’t believe exists? Besides that, Biblical contradictions, if any exist (my faith doesn’t shudder at the thought that they do, but I haven’t seen any that the Christian camp hasn’t provided a decent answer for), would be from the fallibility of those doing the actual writing, not the God who inspired them. Inspiration is not dictation, and being inspired by an omniscient being doesn’t make the writer omniscient.



Sorry, if any woman in those circumstances DID give her consent, that still doesn't even qualify, because it would be a clear result of mental anguish and a last ditch effort to make the best of a shattered life. This is not &quot;consent&quot; by a long shot and you know it.


I do, huh? Yeah, whatever it takes to read “rape” into a passage where it doesn’t exist.



You are also avoiding my argument that if god is so concerned with the details about the man's preferences, HOW could god have failed to mention the necessity for her consent?


Because in practically every case of sexual intercourse, consent is a given. Unless we’re starting with the assumption that the men are rapists, there’s no point in saying “by the way, don’t rape them, okay?”



Israelites are the apple of god's eye, so as long as they're happy and have guidence, who cares about kidnapped females in war that are married off to the men who just kidnapped them and killed their families! Amen, bruthuh! Insert hearty back-patting here.


You completely missed my point. I was saying that the book we’re quoting from here was intended (at least at the time) to only give guidance to the Israelites. Since the woman here is a non-Israelite, why would we be expecting it to give HER guidance in her decision-making process?



17. "Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately.
18. "But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves."

I said: Does the Bible say anything along the lines of "go ahead and have sex with them anyway?"

You replied: yes, the very text we are discussing, which i already proved is NOT concerned either way with whether the woman consented.

Where is there anything in that passage about having sex at all? You do realize they’re talking about pre-pubescent children here, right? Do you think the phrase ‘spare for yourselves’ is talking about something sexual?



If my god told me to go and kidnap your family and kill off everybody but you, and then I tell you I desire to marry you, would you think your consent played any significant part in my viewpoint? Nope.


I suppose not, as long as you were a rapist by nature. Why are you assuming that the Israelites are rapists by nature?



translation = &quot;i can just fall back on utterly blind faith when I get smeared and can't answer a skeptical question&quot;


Okay, so how about I submit to YOUR wisdom instead, and assume that despite the fact that the Midianite boys had thus far been raised to be warriors in a culture that was out to destroy the Israelites, the only possible reason that the Israelites wanted to kill those boys is that they didn’t want “to take the trouble to raise them.” Yeah, that makes a LOT more sense than the idea that the boys might eventually try to kill the Israelites.



NO! Again, even you couldn't answer with an assured &quot;yes, those boys would grow up and cause idolotry&quot; to justify their death, you had only a &quot;maybe/maybe not&quot;.


Fine, I’ll change it to a “maybe, but almost certainly not”. Since the Bible doesn’t give the reason, I don’t know what it is, and neither do you. But your idea that it was because the boys would grow up to cause idolatry is, by your own admission, ridiculous. As you pointed out, women were fully capable of tempting people into idolatry (as shown by the Peor incident), so it’s illogical that this would be the reason they will kill the boys and keep the girls. If that was their concern, they’d have killed the girls, also. It had to be a reason that applied to the boys, but not the girls, such as the fact that the boys had been raised to hate and kill the Israelites, while the girls had not.



So if you aren't sure that your raising up a child in the way he should go would cleanse his early pagan beliefs, should you just kill the kid, or raise him in the hope that god will honor his word, and that no cultic involvedment is too deep that the Holy Spirit cannot break through and enlighten them with the truth?


Except that it’s almost certainly not about a need to cleanse the boys from their pagan beliefs, but about stopping them from potentially revolting against, and killing, Israelites.



Puhleese! Little boys? You obviously don't have kids, because otherwise you would know that little boys are extremely impressionable, and are easily led to believe whatever things are constantly around them.


So you believe that females would absolutely, positively never consent in marriage with someone who killed their families, but that boys would completely and unquestioningly embrace those who killed their families? So Midiniate girls were far more strong-willed and aggressive than Midianite boys, huh?



Your above answer mocks the faithfulness of god to his word, to honor the request of godly parents and instill his laws into their child's hearts. The way you talk, you act as if keeping the little boys alive and raising them with faithful expectation that they will embrace the truth when they grow up, was an unreasonable expectation.

Again, you argue that the girls would never embrace anything about their captors, but that it’s ‘unreasonable’ to think the same thing of the boys.

What’s going on here isn’t a ‘blue fairy’ type reward like ‘If you raise your child right, God will put a magic spell on the kid and turn him into the perfect little Israelite’. It’s saying that the result of raising a child, from birth, in a Godly way has the direct result of that child learning Godly ways from his parents. No supernatural miracles are being described here, just that good parenting makes good kids. So is it too late to change a kid who was already raised for part of his life by non-Godly people? Will the loving hand of Israelite parents reverse the damage that has been done so far? Honestly, I don’t know. And neither do you. The Bible makes no promises about such situations. But we do know that the stakes were much higher with the boys. With the girls, failure to turn them into Godly women would most likely mean that they’d still be idolaters as adults. Pretty bad stuff. But evidently the risk of such a result wasn’t so great that it was worth killing the little girls over. But failure to turn the boys off of the path their birth families set for them would mean that they’d grow up to hate and kill the Israelites. A much greater, and evidently unacceptable, risk.



You are only kidding yourself. They kept the little virgins for sex,


Ah, so your assumption isn’t just that the Israelites were rapists, but that they were also pedophiles. Want to assume they were into beastiality, also?



and your refusal to justify similar war atrocities that are documented in other non-biblical literature testifies that you are just grasping at straws.


No, I actually believe that all civilizations have the right to defend themselves against those out to destroy them.



Nope, your assumption &quot;what I believe just can't be wrong&quot; isn't tainted by sin :ahem: , so it's only blasphemous to question it.


When did I ever say, or imply, that questioning the Bible was blasphemous? It was my own questioning of the Bible that led me from atheism to Christianity. If I considered your questions to be blasphemy, I wouldn’t even be talking to you.

David

[Sher]

Today @ 04:32 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=84409#post84409)
jpholding:

After looking this over the diff between my view and Sherbear's may be just a matter of semantics. But either way Bud is up in it to his neck. :thumb:

:lol: Wanna join forces and really spook him? :eek:


:teeth:

[Bill the Cat]

We are not alone!!!! :yipee:

Here is an article feom answering-islam on this exact issue. The same arguments I use are used by Sam Shamoun:

www.molthagen.de/answering-islam/Main/Shamoun/ot_and_rape.htm



Some Muslims claim that the following passage from the Holy Bible condones rape:

"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives." Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NIV

At first glance this passage does seem to condone rape. That is, until one takes a careful look at the context as well as the original languages. We must remember that the Holy Bible was not written in English. The OT was written in Hebrew, with parts of it written in Aramaic. The NT was written in Koine or common Greek. This means that if we want to know whether an English translation has faithfully and accurately translated the inspired author's intended meaning we must turn to the original language of the sacred text. Once this is done, it will become quite apparent that the Holy Bible does not sanction rape at all.

In the first place, the word which the NIV translates as rape comes from two Hebrew words, taphas and shakab. Here are the meanings listed by Strong's in reference to these two words:

taphas -

# 08610
1) to catch, handle, lay hold, take hold of, seize, wield

a) (Qal)
1) to lay hold of, seize, arrest, catch
2) to grasp (in order to) wield, wield, use skilfully
b) (Niphal) to be seized, be arrested, be caught, be taken, captured
c) (Piel) to catch, grasp (with the hands)

AV - take 27, taken 12, handle 8, hold 8, catch 4, surprised 2, misc 4; 65
(Source: Blue Letter Bible)

Here is one example of how this word is used:

"The priests did not ask, ‘Where is the LORD?’ Those who deal (taphas) with the law did not know me; the leaders rebelled against me. The prophets prophesied by Baal, following worthless idols." Jeremiah 2:8


shakab -

# 07901
1) to lie down

a) (Qal)
1) to lie, lie down, lie on
2) to lodge
3) to lie (of sexual relations)
4) to lie down (in death)
5) to rest, relax (fig)
b) (Niphal) to be lain with (sexually)
c) (Pual) to be lain with (sexually)
d) (Hiphil) to make to lie down
e) (Hophal) to be laid

AV - lie 106, sleep 48, lie down 43, rest 3, lien 2, misc 10; 212
(Source: Blue Letter Bible)

As Strong's demonstrates, the word can be used in relation to sexual intercourse as well as for other things. The following examples help demonstrate that shakab does not necessarily imply a forced sexual act:

"And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, ‘Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: ‘If any man's wife goes astray and behaves unfaithfully toward him, and a man lies (shakab) with her carnally, and it is hidden from the eyes of her husband, and it is concealed that she has defiled herself, and there was no witness against her, nor was she caught—" Numbers 5:11-13 NKJV

Here, the word shakab refers to a voluntary sexual act between two consenting parties, in this case to a woman who voluntarily chooses to commit adultery. It is clear that the woman in question wasn't forced into having sex. Again:

"If a man lies with a woman so that there is a seminal emission, they shall both bathe in water and be unclean until evening." Leviticus 15:18

These examples clearly demonstrate that these terms do not in and of themselves necessarily imply that rape is in view. This is reflected in the way Deuteronomy 22 has been translated by the following translations:

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; KJV

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, who is not espoused, and taking her, lie with her, and the matter come to judgment: DOUAY-RHEIMS

If a man shall find a damsel [that is] a virgin, who is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; WEBSTER BIBLE

If a man find a lady who is a virgin, who is not pledged to be married, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; WORLD ENGLISH BIBLE

When a man findeth a damsel, a virgin who is not betrothed, and hath caught her, and lain with her, and they have been found, YLT

When a man findeth a damsel that is a virgin who is not betrothed, and layeth hold of her and lieth with her, and they are found, ROTHERHAM

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, that is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; JPS 1917 OT

"If a man find a damsel who is a virgin who is not betrothed, and lay hold on her and lie with her, and they be found, THIRD MILLENNIUM

If a man find a damsel, a virgin, who is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found, DARBY

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, that is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; AMV

If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, RSV

If a man meets a virgin who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are caught in the act, NRSV

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, NASB

If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, ESV

If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her and they are found, AMPLIFIED

Suppose a woman isn't engaged to be married, and a man talks her into sleeping with him. If they are caught, CEV

Now someone may want to argue that the preceding examples do not combine the two words together as is the case with Deuteronomy 22. Hence, the use of the word taphas in conjunction with shakab in Deuteronomy implies that the sexual act was forced upon the maiden without her consent. A careful reading of both the passage itself, as well as its surrounding context, dispels such a notion. We quote the passage again, yet this time adding the surrounding context for further clarification:

"But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces (chazaq) her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death, for just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so is this matter. For he found her in the countryside, and the betrothed young woman CRIED OUT, but there was no one to save her. If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and THEY ARE found out, then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days." Deuteronomy 22:25-29 NKJV

Although vv. 25-27 refers to a woman that is betrothed, the point is still clear. By screaming, the woman indicates that she is being forced to have sex without her consent. Hence, when the woman does not scream this indicates that she willfully chose to engage in the sexual act with the man. This is further seen from vv. 28-29 where both the man and the woman are held accountable, i.e. "and THEY ARE found out." This is unlike the woman of vv. 25-27 who is said to be not guilty.

Also notice that in v. 25 a different word is used when signifying rape, namely chazaq. If the inspired author wanted to imply that the woman in vv. 28-29 was being raped, he could have used this same word chazaq; especially since this is the word he uses in the preceding verses to refer to an actual rape incident. The fact that he didn't use it should further caution us from reading rape into vv. 28-29.

The final line of evidence demonstrating that Deuteronomy 22:28 does not condone rape comes from Exodus:

"If a man entices (pathah) a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies (shakab) with her, he shall surely pay the bride-price for her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money according to the bride-price of virgins." Exodus 22:16-17

Note that in this passage the word pathah is used in place of taphas. Strong's defines pathah as:



# 06601
1) to be spacious, be open, be wide

a) (Qal) to be spacious or open or wide
b) (Hiphil) to make spacious, make open
2) to be simple, entice, deceive, persuade
a) (Qal)
1) to be open-minded, be simple, be naive
2) to be enticed, be deceived
b) (Niphal) to be deceived, be gullible
c) (Piel)
1) to persuade, seduce
2) to deceive
d) (Pual)
1) to be persuaded
2) to be deceived

AV - entice 10, deceive 8, persuade 4, flatter 2, allure 1, enlarge 1, silly one 1, silly 1; 28
(Source: Blue Letter Bible)

As can be seen, the word can mean entice, persuade, deceive etc. The following passage uses the word in a slightly similar fashion to that of Exodus, namely how God will allure or draw Israel back to his love:

"‘Therefore I am now going to allure (pathath) her; I will lead her into the desert and speak tenderly to her. There I will give her back her vineyards, and will make the Valley of Achor a door of hope. There she will sing as in the days of her youth, as in the day she came up out of Egypt. In that day,’ declares the LORD, ‘you will call me "my husband"; you will no longer call me "my master." I will remove the names of the Baals from her lips; no longer will their names be invoked. In that day I will make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field and the birds of the air and the creatures that move along the ground. Bow and sword and battle I will abolish from the land, so that all may lie down in safety. I will betroth you to me forever; I will betroth you in righteousness and justice, in love and compassion. I will betroth you in faithfulness, and you will acknowledge the LORD.’" Hosea 2:14-20

It is clear from the context that Exodus is referring to a man persuading or enticing a woman into having sex. Hence, this passage lends support to the fact that the woman in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 consented to the sexual act, and wasn't forced into having sex. In other words, there was no rape involved between the man and the woman.

[skepticbud]

I do a lot of debating on the internet, and if you think "he vilated her" means "after she consented", you need to take a few reading comprehension classes as well as unlearn all that inerrantist "define-the-word-in-whatever-way-that-will-support-our-view-of-god" mental conditioning.

I will offer a last rebuttal to you, and will not discuss the issue again unless somebody else.

First, your word study is incomplete, as if quoting that it is translated as "humble", somehow implies she consented? As if "humble" doesn't mean "forced"? So let me clean up the garbage you threw into this biblical parking lot:

Strong's Ref. # 6031
Romanized `anah
Pronounced aw-naw'
a primitive root [possibly rather ident. with HSN6030 through the idea of looking down or browbeating]; to depress literally or figuratively, transitive or intransitive (in various applications, as follows):

Notice how that word is translated by the most modern and respected translations made by scholars who are trying to translate it so the english speaking reader will know the proper sense of the original Hebrew word:

-- King James
Deuteronomy 22:29 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.

-- New King James
Deuteronomy 22:29 "then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.

-- American Standard
Deuteronomy 22:29 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.

"Humbled" was understood by the KJV translaters to be a word that was used in the sense of forcing someone to do what one wanted:

"And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger," (Deuteronomy 8:3)

God "humbled" Israel by making them starve...8:16

The egyptians "humbled" Israel through forcing them into hard bondage....26:6

You clearly believe the author of Exodus was the same as, or harmonious with, the author of Deuteronomy, and the way this word is used in this book also supports my contention that force was meant:

Exodus 1:11, egyptian masters placed over Israelites to "humble" them with hard labor. Oh yeah, but only if the Israelites gave their consent to be placed into hard labor? Nota.

Exodus 22:22,23, do not "humble" an orphan or widow. But if this Hebrew word carries the connotation of the humbled person having already given their consent (as you argue the word implies in Deuteronomy 22:29), what's wrong with doing to somebody exactly what they ask for? No, obviously the word itself doesn't carry any connotation of the person being humbled having given their consent.

"And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her." (21:14) I'd say if the female was kidnapped, her family killed, and then one of the mob of murderers takes her to be his wife as described in the context, that doesn't mean "humbled with her consent (did she consent to have her family massacred?) but "humbled" in the normal sense of "forced", which you deny solely because admitting this perfectly obvious definition and use of that Hebrew word would make your god look sadistic, an option you cannot afford to take.

Nope, if Deuteronomy 22:28 had said "forced her against her will", you would interpret that as "coerced her until she willingly consented."

-- Revised Standard
Deuteronomy 22:29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her; he may not put her away all his days.

-- New American Standard
Deuteronomy 22:29 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.

-- New Revised Standard with Apocrypha
Deuteronomy 22:29 the man who lay with her shall give fifty shekels of silver to the young woman's father, and she shall become his wife. Because he violated her he shall not be permitted to divorce her as long as he lives.

"violated" was the word chosen by many OT scholars involved in the above translations.

What does "violated" mean?

To break or disregard (a law or promise, for example).
To assault (a person) sexually.
To do harm to (property or qualities considered sacred); desecrate or defile.
To disturb rudely or improperly; interrupt: violated our privacy.
(http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=violated)

The dictionary says in the case of a person being violated, it means "assault sexually". yeah, I know...he assaulted her with her permission, I know....or else it means to harm, but when it's talking about a person, the sense is having used force. THAT is the primary meaning.

When you violate a person's trust, you do so by force, not after they give you permission to violate that trust!

When you violate an agreement, you do so by force, not because the other person consented to it! If they consent, it is a mutal agreement, not a violation!

When you violate the law, you do so by force, not because the law first gave you permission to violate it!

Do you see now that "violate" and "consent" simply CAN'T go together? Probably not, after all, to admit your god's morals are in the sewer, tosses the viability of what you believe in out the window. You BETTER hang on and continue arguing over words.

Newflash:
You have argued at length about the WORDS "seize," "seduce," "humbled," and "violated". You are clearly disobeying apostle Paul's instructions in 2nd Timothy 2:14 to avoid arguing over words, right?

Should you feel the necessity to continue arguing with me about words, but wish to save face, ask JP Holding for advice on how to duck a bible verse that condemns your exact behaviour; he has a large bag of hermeneutical party tricks for all occasions. No matter what kind of jam you are in, either "semitic exaggerration" or "that's just Greco-Roman rhetoric" will surely bail thee out of hard times. The trick to it is to keep the criteria you use to determine such literary phenomena well hidden, that way the other guy cannot see the rules you operate by, and you are thus free to impose such interjections whenever expediency dicatates.

For example. Jesus said nobody comes to the Father except through him, in John 14:6. Well, that's just semitic exaggerration. just because an ancient jew uses a universal term "nobody comes to the Father", doesn't mean he intended that to mean absolutely everybody must get to the father that way. To assert otherwise is to impose western hyperliteralist modernist assumptions of modern day Americans anachronistically on a text that came from a culture halfway around the world from and 2000 years before modern Americans.

Soooo, there must be other ways to get to the Father besides Jesus. Don't you just love Holding? No rules! No reasons! The only way the bible would disagree with anything Christians believe is if it is interpreted "hyperliterally", a key buzz word and a pot-shot that is never justified with evidence. Just say the word, and obviously, the skeptics must be wrong.



But anyway, i will not debate you anymore on this matter, even us die hard skeptics have our limits, and when you said his violation of her just meant she lost her virginity, your pathetic refusal to admit the obvious connotation of force (and my examples above prove that "violate" implies force always), it was the last straw.

Ha ha, just kidding. You'll be the first to quit, I'll keep going on this for months.

[jimbo]

Skepticbud,

Regarding "Holding's" rationalizations for Bible problems: there is nothing in principle or in theory which he would EVER acccept as as a bible error. He was asked by a skeptic to provide a theorectical example of what he would accept as an error in the Bible--but he would not provide even a theorectical example. This very elegantly demonstrates that absolutely nothing anyone could ever possibly show him would ever make him admit he was wrong about the inerrancy of the Bible. Which means that he has no standards--he just automatically and mindlessly rationalizes away anything that threatens his inerrancy delusion.

Presumably, even if the biblical god himself was a rapist (which some people would argue he is), Holding would justify it.

Jimbo

[skepticbud]

Yesterday @ 09:07 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=84396#post84396)
jpholding:

First, the rape victim would WANT to be married to her attacker? Obviously you've never been raped.

Obviously, you have never lived in the ancient world. Why do you think this would be objectionable? Because you live in the here and now when it WOULD be.


Obviously you can't read Deuteronomy 22:27, which says the woman cried out. You honestly think an ancient woman would desire to be married to her rapist which caused her to cry out during the rape? By your logic, an ancient man should select his victim carefully, for after he rapes her, she will be his forever, because that will be what she WANTS! Your interpretation makes the passage an incitement to rape, not a deterrent.



Second, you ducked my question, because you DO BELIEVE that this text is inspired by god too, and not just a grocery list of desired items.

What question? It's hard to tell sometimes that you're asking anything in these passionate drunken spiels of rhetoric. Either way I see no reason not to think the solution was the best for the time and place and conditions, and your own suggestions, as noted, either ARE part of the package (adjusted for the time and culture) or would be irrelevant. It would be foolish to apply the same kind of punishment today -- but not then.


Sorry, I don't take your word for it, almighty Holding. Only in desperate apologetics, does confidence talk equal scholarship.



No, he could easily claim that &amp;quot;the bible&amp;quot; prescribes no more punishment upon him than payment of 50 shekels of silver and marrying his victim. It states nowhere that he has to do chores for anybody.

Um, Bud, being a member of a family in that time had certain, uh, PRESCRIBED OBLIGATIONS?


Where are they prescribed in the bible? if they aren't in the bible, they don't matter, because that would be adding to the word of the lord, violating Proverbs 30:6



These people were collectivist in outlook and it was automatic to assume obligations to help your group survive. It's rather boring to have to keep correcting your anachronistic outlook every time you spin out some new rationalization based in miseducation.


You provide no scholarly sources. It was automatic to assume obligations because almight holding hath spoken.



How about, my suggestion is clearly moral superior and more clearly upholds the equality of women than your chauvinist god?

Sorry, it doesn't. Not for that time and place.


Yeah, I should have guessed that our modern practice of keeping the victim seperated from the rapist, if advocated by ancient hebrews, would only have caused them greater hardship and emotional pain. How stupid of me. Perhaps if they went further and not only made them marry, but demanded to watch while he raped her again, this would restore peace in the land once again? Hey, the culture was different, so the sky is the limit.

Here's a nasty tidbit....a woman's hymen has a fixed cost? i thought god viewed virginity as priceless?! (Reminder: this is one of those "ah HA!'s from skeptics)



Your god is not god, he is absolutely STUCK in the land of the ancient hebrews.

Gee, considering that's who He wrote these commands for... :ahem:


You just bought yourself a new thread addressed to you. Go find my new subject in religion 101.

There are too many rapists that would be only too happy to be forced to marry their victims.

How happy would they be if it meant slaving for a family for the rest of their life?
[/QUOTE]

You haven't supported this statement, you have simply generalized. It doesn't matter how you answer anyway, Proverbs 30:6 says don't add to the word of the Lord, and the word of the lord has no more punishment prescribed except marriage to the victim (oh yeah, torture) and fifty shekels of silver paid to the father. Do not waste my time generalzing about how it "must have been" unless you have scholarly quotations to prove that the ancient Hebrews happily violated Proverbs 30:6 and it's similar verses in the Torah.



Think of it, Bud: You're married to the woman...but you don't share a bed (oops! no sex!)...


Excuse me? Where does god's word say they weren't allowed to have sex? Only in the mind of those concerned to white-wash the sadistic god of the OT so they won't stupid for believing such cruel fictions. You are very quick to add your own extra ideas to the text where the idea isn't even implied. He paid the bride price, he was forced to marry her, and then Glenn Miller says:

"From a physical standpoint, of course, there is only one way to ensure that a specific child is indeed the ‘genetic’ heir of the household father: the mother must be a virgin at the time of marriage, and must be completely faithful to the husband until at least after the specific baby is born. There is no other way whatsoever—in the pre-DNA-testing ancient world—to be absolutely sure of this" (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/virginity.html).

It is FAR from certain that the rape in question would result in conception. Therefore Glenn's mention of children in this context means he believed future acts of sex would occur.

Your interpretation is stupid anyway. A married couple in ancient Israel, who are not allowed to have kids? Aren't YOU the one saying I need to consider the social aspects? Alright then! How important was it to have lots of kids back then? Glenn refutes Holding:

"The need for “genetic” labor, of course, was a procreation issue (although sometimes supplemented with semi-slave labor). The husband and wife needed to produce children who would survive to adulthood (always a tenuous situation, with child mortality and constant risk of death/illness), and this generally involved having as many kids as possible."

it is abundantly clear, if you accept Miller, (I accept that brand of beer when i'm in between welfare checks), that the punishment for raping a virgin wasn't being forced into a sexless marriage. If they were going to be consistent with their culture an have more than one kid, sorry holding, but that requires future acts of sex. For you to insist they couldn't have sex is to violate the cultural norm, which the punishment law here was designed to protect and uphold.



her family hates you...so do the neighbors...you work 8-12 hours a day in the heat doing backbreaking labor...you experience shame of the worst sort in a time when shame was an ultimate value....you'd be happy? What are you, a sadomasochist?


If that was your interpretation, then the inspired authors of that text must be sado-masochists. Did that ancient culture consistently remind the rapist of his mis-deed in this extreme way because of natural evolution, or because god told them to do it that way?



After all, the ways of the world are foolishness to god, right?

And the ways of Bud are foolishness to all. Apples and oranges on the dung as well as a begged question. Carry your dung elsewhere.


That answer was an incoherent attempt to distract from the force of my word and focus the reader's attention on how greatly you disapprove of my arguments. Sorry, your disapproval doesn't count. Only arguments and evidence count.



No, because there are no crazies i know of that insist that the source of modern man's laws is an inerrant book inspired by a god that just can't be wrong not matter what.

That dodges the question rather than answering it. So far the only basis for your complaint is &quot;Me, me, me and my view!&quot;


If you would learn to quote in context, the reader would see that I answered DIRECTLY the question you asked me.

Holding: "So are you going to whine that modern sentencing procedures don't teach that people have value?

Skepticbud: No, because there are no crazies i know of that insist that the source of modern man's laws is an inerrant book inspired by a god that just can't be wrong not matter what. the legislature is a democratic process, thus it changes all the time. Kind of like the bible, irony not intended.



No, I agree with you that ALL ancient semitic people's were chauvinist in the extreme. Agreed?

Nope. You're way more chauvinist than they were.


Even if my suggestion of how the rape problem could be better solved in the ancient Hebrew world didn't quite fit into that culture and time, how was ANYTHING I said "chauvinistic".

Really Holding! where did I ever say anything indicating that I think men are generally better than woman, or that woman are infererior? Perhaps I should have said the rape problem could have been solved by putting the victim in jail? perhaps THEN you would have construed my comments as supporting women's rights?



Statues only look like people, Holding. They don't really say anything.

Ah. Statutes. So the T key at the seminary library stuck. Sue me.


Say the same to your wife. :eyebrow:



....well, if you are going to force her to marry her rapist....obviously you don't give a flying rat's bass about her emotional state of health.

Still assuming that it's not what is wanted, are we? It's the opposite -- if you do NOT make this the penalty in this world, it shows that you just kissed a rat's bass.


I should have realized that desperate apologists will insist that a woman who was raped in the ancient Hebrew world would desire to marry her attacker, acting as if the difference in culture from our modern world suddenly turned rape into a good thing that would insure the woman is set for life. Like i said before, your interpretation of this law turns it into an incentive to rape, not a deterrent.



Violation of Proverbs 30:6. Your list of additional punishments goes way beyond the word of the lord.

The list is part of the social context of the day and the background of the Word. Lose the narrow mind and get with the program.


Nope, you have added to the word of the Lord. maybe this is why he added to you the things described in the book of revelation. Didn't four horsemen come galloping out of the sky a while back and knock you out of your job at the prison? Didn't that cause you to seek out donations for your ministry because enough money wasn't coming in, causing food shortages?



And you are too quick to conclude that a raped woman would get satisfaction that way.

After only years of study of this culture? Yep, that was waaaaaay too quick. And you've been studying it for, uh, how long? You've read how many books by OT scholars and social studies experts? Um.


I don't have to. By the standards of the society I live in, any woman that desired to marry her rapist is crazy and needs professional psychiatric services. And if you argue that's tough because that's the difference in the cultures, then you are agreeing that morality is relative. What is the most moral way to punish rape? In one era, force the victim to marry the rapist. In a later era, keep them seperate.

Thanks for being a staunch supporter of situational ethics. God's word really doesn't have a whole lot to say to guide the modern American world, since everything god's word says came out of a culture that thought almost completely opposite to us, right?

And what criteria do you use to determine which biblical laws can be safely discarded by modern American Christians and which must still be obeyed as stoutly as the they were when originally given? Guess work? Should Christians keep holy the sabbath day? If god is the author of absolute morals, how is it that sincere bible believing christians cannot even answer the question of the sabbath day the same way?

Is your acceptance of paul, to be used as the criteria for determining whether paul was an authoritative and properly qualified teacher of Christianity? you agree with Paul, so everybody else should too?



But your social world excuses are not automatic proofs the way you use them. Sure, it was an honor-shame society. Does that mean the rape victim would find the slightest solace in being forced to marry her attacker?

Er, in her attacker being forced to marry HER, and undergo all that follows, YES.


Ahhhh..... then how stupid of god to set up such a stupid culture that required rape to be solved by making the victim marry her rapist.



In this case the marriage contract was more like a contract to be an indentured servant.


If I agree with you, god is still stupid for creating and allowing this kind of society to exist. But because "who art thou that repliest to god, o' man" is drilled into your head, you will defend even child rape, if the bible supported that practice. How convenient that the only practices you would have to find in the bible in order to give up your faith are exactly the practices that you know cannot be found in the bible to begin with. But before you became the highway of convenient ad hoc reasoning you are today, you always thought a rape victim should never marry her rapist under any circumstances. You admit I'm right and you'll have nothing but emotion to justify your continued stay in Christainity. yeah, you BETTER continue to split hairs and defend moral reprehensible concepts. God just can't be wrong, correct?
If the bible said it is good to have sex with animals, you'd be out gathering statistics to show that people who engage in beastility are statistically more healthy than those that don't. And you'd blame the conspiricies of the devil if you couldn't find those statistics.



I'll add here that the marriage process was itself a way of restoring honor to the woman by making the arrangement legal.


Legal marriages never forbade sex, and where you think a marriage did forbid sex, it doesn't say anything close to that in the text in question. But silent texts don't stop a desperate apologist who will stop at nothing to make his god politically palatable to modern people by shoving him so far into an ancient culture that you can't tell which is god and which is ancient custom.



As for you, I doubt you know dip about honor-shame societies and what they are all about. Make me surprised and tell me what you know about them.


They were completely stupid, which is why you don't live by their rules. Let society evolve on it's own a few thousand years, and we'll soon have superior economy and society, because obviously the bible god is far too hebrew to do us any good today.



Face it, the moral in this text is the exact opposite of modern civilized society

Yep, it's what was wanted in ANCIENT civilized society, you bigot. :rofl:


But I judge the ancients as stupid on the basis of the same modern society and it's rules that YOU also favor over the brainless ancient rules. What criteria do you use to judge the level of virtue or vice in ancient laws?



and you would campaign against it if some fundamentalists started trying to legislate it as state law in your state.

Of course I would. They would be as badly decontextualizing it as you are. You are, after all, a former fundy so I expect the same idiotic behavior.


But why would you campaign against it? It's god's laws! And if you say it was only for those ancient times, you admit that those laws were relative! Again, what criteria do you use to determine which biblical laws given to ancient Hebrews were relative to their culture and time and which apply to all people in all times and all cultures?



But why? God isn't bound by culture, is he? what criteria do you use to seperate pentateuchal laws into the &amp;quot;applies today&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;doesn't apply today&amp;quot; categories?

:duh: Study, scholarship. Critical comparison. Four words you fear. God isn't bound, Bud, but WE are. You who would give Rome a steam engine, I suppose.

One law says "don't steal". Another says "drink the bowl full of deliberately poisened water so we can see if you get sick and thus prove you are guilty of adultery" (Numbers 5).

Which of those laws still apply today? how do you know?

And make sure you answer in a specific way, instead of using a general evasion that i can take up and employ to "justify" my own position.

[skepticbud]

Yesterday @ 09:32 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=84409#post84409)
jpholding:

After looking this over the diff between my view and Sherbear's may be just a matter of semantics. But either way Bud is up in it to his neck. :thumb:

Sherbear: "Deuteronomy 22:28 isn't about rape."
Holding: "Deuteronomy 22:28 IS about rape."

Semantics? Not hardly. you have argued long enough that verse 28 is about rape, not seduction, so you are in diametric opposition ot Sherbear.

But you believe yourself to be on god's damage control team, so you are forgiven. I wouldn't expect anything less from someone who is soliciting donations to help do apologetics. You admit a skeptic kicked your theological butt, and you'll be mowing lawns for milk money.

[Sher]

Today @ 02:58 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=84916#post84916)
Bill the Cat:

We are not alone!!!! :yipee:

^5 Bill

[Sher]

Today @ 06:22 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=84985#post84985)
skepticbud:

I do a lot of debating on the internet, and if you think &quot;he vilated her&quot; means &quot;after she consented&quot;, you need to take a few reading comprehension classes as well as unlearn all that inerrantist &quot;define-the-word-in-whatever-way-that-will-support-our-view-of-god&quot; mental conditioning.

I will offer a last rebuttal to you, and will not discuss the issue again unless somebody else.

Were you responding to me, Bud? (It isn't clear because you didn't address anyone.) And "... unless somebody else" WHAT? You left a sentence fragment here, Bud.

If so, I would appreciate if you address all the points I made instead of skipping around in incoherent answers that don't appear to be attached to anything. Then I can answer you in kind.

Thanks.

EDIT:
Today @ 06:22 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=84985#post84985)
skepticbud:


Newflash:
You have argued at length about the WORDS &quot;seize,&quot; &quot;seduce,&quot; &quot;humbled,&quot; and &quot;violated&quot;. You are clearly disobeying apostle Paul's instructions in 2nd Timothy 2:14 to avoid arguing over words, right?
BTW, whether you are talking to me or not ...

2 Tim 2:14 says: "Remind them of these things, charging them before the Lord not to strive about words to no profit, to the ruin of the hearers."

There is profit in straightening out your misconceptions ... it is to the profit of the hearer who would be mislead to ruin by your willful ignorance of the scriptures.

That verse refers to: (2 Tim 2:17b-18):
"Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort, who have strayed concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already past; and they overthrow the faith of some."

Nice try to pull one verse out to twist it to an admonishment ... again willfully ignoring the context ... You're getting pretty good at that, Bud :thumb: ...

.... of course, it just proves our point about your agruing techniques ... and destroys your credibility.

[jpholding]

He was asked by a skeptic to provide a theorectical example of what he would accept as an error in the Bible--but he would not provide even a theorectical example.

Correct. I leave bait to the suckers like you, Matilda. :brow: Presumably farts like this are your substitiute for being unable to answer anything I write.

So where's proof like you were supposed to provide in the Janitor's Closest? Answer there.

[jimbo]

Mr. "Holding,"


Correct. I leave bait to the suckers like you, Matilda.

The fact is that you have no standards to judge whether something is an error in the Bible because you have determined, a priori, that there are no errors in the Bible. Therefore you will never, ever, ever provide an example of what, even in theory, could be an example of a biblical contradiction. The fact is that if the Bible said that two plus two was five, you would find a way to argue that this was true. If the Bible says that the human race is only 4000 years old, well, you have to accept that and claim that it is true. If the Bible has god forcing women to marry their rapists, you are forced to pretend that this actually makes sense.

The position you are locked into is both humorous and sad at the same time.

Thanks for the humor. : )


Mike

[jpholding]

In rides Bud, driving his keyboard while drunk,

Obviously you can't read Deuteronomy 22:27, which says the woman cried out. You honestly think an ancient woman would desire to be married to her rapist which caused her to cry out during the rape?

Uh, YEAH. Hello? The cry for help hardly means that all of the honor and shame factors, all of the practical necessities of survival, disappear. Bud, does stupidity come in alcoholic form now? You also wrote:

By your logic, an ancient man should select his victim carefully, for after he rapes her, she will be his forever, because that will be what she WANTS! Your interpretation makes the passage an incitement to rape, not a deterrent.

Pay attention:

* No one obviously WANTS to be raped.
* But if someone IS raped, in the ancient world, THAT is what they wanted.
* And, if you think a man would be "incited" to rape by the punishment I described, you MUST be a sadomasochist.

Sorry, I don't take your word for it, almighty Holding.

Isn't that just too bad. Look at me, I'm all in tears :bawl: because Bud, who wouldn't read Social World of Ancient Israel because it has no pictures he can color, doesn't believe me.

Also means, "Bud can't refute me either."

Where are they prescribed in the bible? if they aren't in the bible, they don't matter, because that would be adding to the word of the lord, violating Proverbs 30:6

They were prescribed in that SOCIAL WORLD and your old "if it isn't in the Bible" game is a load of bulldada that appeals only to infected post-fundies like you. next you'll tell us that no one in the Bible ever went to the bathroom except Saul, because he's the only one who ever is said to go to the bathroom.

You provide no scholarly sources.

You don't care even when I do, so what? :rofl: I gave you an offer to provide a reading list on GRR. You ain't said dip back yet. So who gives a flying bazoonga what you say, since you don't even show any interest in learning? Beer, I know: Bud's comfort food.

Yeah, I should have guessed that our modern practice of keeping the victim seperated from the rapist, if advocated by ancient hebrews, would only have caused them greater hardship and emotional pain.

"Guessing" of course is the only learning process you know and positing extremes in ignorance is your trump card. Social study of the ancient world would be too hard


You just bought yourself a new thread addressed to you. Go find my new subject in religion 101.

I'll probably ignore it like you ignore all the new threads you keep starting.

How happy would they be if it meant slaving for a family for the rest of their life?

You haven't supported this statement, you have simply generalized. It doesn't matter how you answer anyway, Proverbs 30:6 says don't add to the word of the Lord blah blah blah blah

I studied the ancient world. You didn't. End of discussion, you have NO refutation. Bon voyage.

you have scholarly quotations to prove that the ancient Hebrews happily violated Proverbs 30:6 and it's similar verses in the Torah.

I guess you never heard of Targums or midrash, huh?

Excuse me? Where does god's word say they weren't allowed to have sex?

Uh, you think she'd GIVE him any, excuse me? Now who's violating common sense? Why don't you show ME where sex is ORDERED for these people if you are such a Humpty Dumpty for not adding to the word? Miller's statement says zip about forcing sex between these people and all you're doing is raping his text and adding your own ideas too it out of desperation.

Alright then! How important was it to have lots of kids back then? Glenn refutes Holding:

Uh, no, he doesn't. Hello? They got their "slave" -- the rapist. Plus you also are too ignorant to know that they had extended families with as many as 4-5 generations living in one household or village. EVERYONE of course had as many kids as they could -- precisely because there were times when someone in the family couldn't.

Your uni-dimensionalism is utterly astounding in the breadth of its ignorance. Means your fundy mindset still adheres even in Skepticism.

If that was your interpretation, then the inspired authors of that text must be sado-masochists. Did that ancient culture consistently remind the rapist of his mis-deed in this extreme way because of natural evolution, or because god told them to do it that way?

It was what they naturally did. How that made the authors sadomasochists is one of those Scooby Doo statements of yours we'll probably never figure out.

That answer was an incoherent attempt to distract from the force of my word and focus the reader's attention on how greatly you disapprove of my arguments

That was a drunken retort to distract you from the beer on the wall.

If you would learn to quote in context, the reader would see that I answered DIRECTLY the question you asked me.

You may as well have "directly answered" with the theme song from Dragnet.

Holding: "So are you going to whine that modern sentencing procedures don't teach that people have value?

Skepticbud: No, because there are no crazies i know of that insist that the source of modern man's laws is an inerrant book inspired by a god that just can't be wrong not matter what. the legislature is a democratic process, thus it changes all the time. Kind of like the bible, irony not intended.

That isn't an answer to the question. The question noted that the law books today have no provisions in their rape laws about emotional healing -- I presume, because what someone does for such healing is none of the state's danged business. Therefore I ask again: What makes the Deuteronomic law code inadeqauate for lack of mention of these things? Your only answer amounts to "I think so" and that is no answer at all. Either you say the legislatures of today are flawed too for this, or you have to shut up and go home.

Even if my suggestion of how the rape problem could be better solved in the ancient Hebrew world didn't quite fit into that culture and time, how was ANYTHING I said "chauvinistic".

Because you despise other cultures. Telling Confucius he was stupid was just the first example.

Really Holding! where did I ever say anything indicating that I think men are generally better than woman, or that woman are infererior?

Beg pardon? The crime extends to just more than male-female prejudices.


I should have realized that desperate apologists will insist that a woman who was raped in the ancient Hebrew world would desire to marry her attacker, acting blah blah blah blah blah

And around in the same circle he goes. "It would be that way!" "No, it wouldn't, and here's why." "That makes no sense! I say it would be that way!"

Nope, you have added to the word of the Lord. maybe this is why he added to you the things described in the book of revelation. Didn't four horsemen come galloping out of the sky a while back and knock you out of your job at the prison? Didn't that cause you to seek out donations for your ministry because enough money wasn't coming in, causing food shortages?

Nope, that's one of Till's lies. I left the job voluntarily because I didn't want the alternative job, and I had another job in between I also left on my own volition. Just goes to show how much you love uncritical sources.

You've read how many books by OT scholars and social studies experts? Um.

I don't have to. By the standards of the society I live in, any woman that desired to marry her rapist is crazy and needs professional psychiatric services.

The delicious irony here speaks for itself. "I don't have to." "...the society I live in..." That's all I need to have you say.

And if you argue that's tough because that's the difference in the cultures, then you are agreeing that morality is relative.

Hierarchical, actually, as I know you'd agree. What you call "situational ethics" is not the same thing.

God's word really doesn't have a whole lot to say to guide the modern American world, since everything god's word says came out of a culture that thought almost completely opposite to us, right?

It does if you study. But don't forget that most of the world is still more like the culture in the Bible than like America. Wrap your bigotry in Stars and Stripes, do we, Mr. Bunker? :rofl:

And what criteria do you use to determine which biblical laws can be safely discarded by modern American Christians and which must still be obeyed as stoutly as the they were when originally given? Guess work?

Homework. I answer the Sabbath question on my site. Your panic button hermenoootic is mighty lame.

Is your acceptance of paul, to be used as the criteria for determining whether paul was an authoritative and properly qualified teacher of Christianity? you agree with Paul, so everybody else should too?

Question made no sense as worded. Try again.

Ahhhh..... then how stupid of god to set up such a stupid culture that required rape to be solved by making the victim marry her rapist.

"Edith, get me a beer, NOW!" "Commmming, Archie!"

But because "who art thou that repliest to god, o' man" is drilled into your head,

Not in the least. More like, "who art you, beer swiller, that repliest to social sciences in bigotry". I'd say the same if I thought the Bible was just another man's book. I really don't care if it is, actually.

you will defend even child rape, if the bible supported that practice

Fallacy of posited strawman excess.

And you'd blame the conspiricies of the devil if you couldn't find those statistics.

Sorry, as a preterist I think the devil is bound. I only have man to blame and you definitely fit the bill of what is wrong with society.

his god politically palatable to modern people by shoving him so far into an ancient culture that you can't tell which is god and which is ancient custom.

Except by doing the homework that scares the rafters out of you. :rofl:

“ As for you, I doubt you know dip about honor-shame societies and what they are all about. Make me surprised and tell me what you know about them. ”

They were completely stupid, which is why you don't live by their rules.

"EDITH! I said bring me my beer!" "Yes, Arrrrrchie!!!" I don't live by their rules, actually, because I wasn't born in one. But I do happen to live by some of their rules by choice, because unlike a bigot, I appreciate their differences. So:

But I judge the ancients as stupid on the basis of the same modern society and it's rules that YOU also favor over the brainless ancient rules.

No, actually, I don't. I favor appropriate rules for appropriate cultures. You bigot.

But why would you campaign against it? It's god's laws! And if you say it was only for those ancient times, you admit that those laws were relative!

Repeat of rants above and already answered.

One law says "don't steal". Another says "drink the bowl full of deliberately poisened water so we can see if you get sick and thus prove you are guilty of adultery" (Numbers 5).Which of those laws still apply today? how do you know?

Simple case: "Don't steal" is found in a brad sweep of cultures; it is tied to property, which is a universal. Numbers 5 is a ceremony, not a law, actually; and it provided specific protection for women against methods of the day which are now otherwise available by other means (see Miller's article if you aren't drunk again).

Semantics? Not hardly. you have argued long enough that verse 28 is about rape, not seduction, so you are in diametric opposition ot Sherbear.

Not in the least. Either way the guy was one of those scummy jerks unfortunate women sometimes meet. Rape by force or by trickery doesn't seem much different morally to me in terms of personal responsibility.

I wouldn't expect anything less from someone who is soliciting donations to help do apologetics.

And that means, what about Dan Barker and Infidel Guy?

Beer?

[jpholding]

Today @ 07:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=85507#post85507)
jimbo:

Mr. &quot;Holding,&quot;



The fact is that you have no standards to judge whether something is an error in the Bible because you have determined, a priori, that there are no errors in the Bible.


:zzz: :zzz: :zzz: :zzz:

Darn, we need a farting smiley. :rofl: They're perfect for people who won't engage specifics.

[DBoone]

There's something I still don't get:

What is inherently wrong with thinking that the Word of God would be anything but inerrant? Yes I understand that humans wrote this stuff down, but if they were writing something that God inspired, which is the premise of the Bible, then even though it has all the humanness in it, there are truths which are transcendent, which we will never fully comprehend. After all it's just like God says, "Your ways are not My ways, your thoughts are not My thoughts." I have no problem with the idea that I have alot of learning to do about God, and His Word is there to help me do that. And there are things I simply do not understand, which to my mind scream out "CONTRADICTION!" But then I meet someone who's done some studying on the subject and I get more insight, or I get real "desparate" and actually pray. ;-)

The skeptic has alot of work to do in convincing the believer that he knows the meaning of the Bible without having met the Author.
At least this much should sink in to the mind of the skeptic: the believer not only studies the literary work, he also studies the Author. Prayer is the difference between ignorance and understanding when it comes to the Bible.

[jimbo]

Mr. "Holding,"


They're perfect for people who won't engage specifics.

Like you, who adamantly refuses to even name a theorectical example of a Bible error. This indicates that there is nothing even in theory that you would accept as a Bible error. If this is the case, then you have no standards that you go by in judging the correctness of the Bible. God himself could tell you that he did not write the Bible, and point out to you how archaic and backwards it was, and you would plug ears and scream "na na na na. I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!!!"

Cheers,

Jimmy

[Sher]

Today @ 03:59 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=85634#post85634)
jimbo:

Like you, who adamantly refuses to even name a theorectical example of a Bible error.

What does your tauntology have to do with this topic?

[jpholding]

Like you, who adamantly refuses to even name a theorectical example of a Bible error.

It's simple, Jimmyboy:

Any problem that doesn't find a reasonable solution rooted in contextual scholarship.

Now go fart elsewhere. :rofl: The adults are trying to have a conversation.

[Bill the Cat]

JP (on the left) tries to confront Bud (on the right) about his beer gut!!

[skepticbud]

Yesterday @ 12:54 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=84570#post84570)
KingDavid8:

skepticbud:
She would be marrying someone from the mob that killed her family! Would YOU give your consent? Not on your life. If a mob came in, killed off your whole family, and then kidnapped you, using "god told us to" as their cheap convienient excuse to steal your whole life,
”
Except the reason was much greater than that, namely that the Midianites were trying to destroy the Isrealites. Yes, God told them to, but with better reason than ‘because I say so’.


Oh yeah, they said god told them to kill the midianites and they even have a story about how the midianites led them into idolotry. So obviously it must have happened that way. That ancient group of israelites, who constantly were led astray from their faith by completely stupid temptations(if we take them at their word), would NEVER have a reason to lie about their history.



and telling you that your current religion was absolute blasphemy in the eyes of their god, would you CONSENT to marry one of those marauders?

If they ultimately weren’t any worse than the people who raised me, I don’t see why not.


So if you are kidnapped by some fundamentalist mormons (been listening to the news in the last 4 months?) who then kill off your whole family, and will be marrying you off to one of their own, and they said your view of god was blasphemy, that you would consent to marry into that mob? This is exactly why I battle christianity, the stupid things people will say once they come to the belief that any and all examples of Old Testament stupidity are to be defended to the death.



Are you under the impression that the Midianites were just living in peace with the world, never harming a soul, until the big bad Israelites came along and said, “Hey, those people worship idols! Let’s get ‘em!”


No, I am under the impression that the Israelites were land-hungry brutes that were not essentially different from their identical neighbors. The fact that their own history testifies to how easily they will abandon their faith (when their history includes such great aids to faith as the witnessing of miracle performances by god) tells me their faith wasn't worth a dime. Any church that was full of Christians who fell into idolotry as easily as did the Israelites (as admitted in their own books) would be laughed at the by entire Christian world as a bunch of falsely professing Christians who don't really have true faith, but are mere impostures who have no spiritual backbone. Is there any reason i should regard the wishy-washy Israelites as anything other than what their own checkered history says they are? ("we are extremely inconsistent in our faith, nevertheless (sticking chest out) we serve a real god"). Ha ha ha, not a chance.

By the way, the israelite's own history in the OT testifies that conversions of other pagans to their own religion didn't happen hardly at all, and even the fact that they were constantly at war with non-Israelites. This tells me that the pagan neighbors of ancient Israel were more consistent in their own professions of faith.

Now that's a nasty turn of events, eh? And don't forget that Israel itself was divided against itself, with each half saying the other didn't truly have god, and/or had falsified the word of the lord. Oh yeah, it's SOOOO "obvious" that Israel (is that one or two entities?) had a real faith.



The Midianites were out to destroy the Israelites.


So the story goes, but whether it is true or not, is a different story.



That the Israelites let ANY of them live is an act of mercy, and if I’d been one of those Midianite girls, I’d be grateful to them for sparing my life.


Don't be so confident there, if you just had been kidnapped by a mob who just killed off your whole family, don't be too quick to talk big. Unless you have experienced that exact trauma, you cannot dogmatize upon how you would react. You are simply insisting you would have this conveniently favorable to the Israelites attitude because you are first and foremost a person who believes the ancient Israelites served a real god, which just happens to the be the on you serve and the one whom you say doesn't have any inconsistencies or moral defects in his character.



True, I’d probably have a problem with marrying the specific individuals who killed my family, but others from the same culture? If my only other choice was a life of loneliness and celibacy, I don’t see why not.


So you agree then that the pressure of circumstances would motivate your consent, not because you had other equally desirable options available. Sure, a divorced dad can agree to let his coniving wife have full custody of the kids so that she doesn't act upon her threat to ask the court for double child support payments, but his "consent" to give her the kids is hardly voluntary. It is a hell of a lot different than his giving her the kids freely by his choice even when there were no threats against him. You see then that "consenting" to circumstance A, when the only other options will bring worse fate, is not a truly voluntary consent.



How about if I write in a book that "the lord says" i can take your daughter, because your family is idolotrous?

Do you honestly believe that the only reason the Israelites were trying to defeat the Midianites was that they worshipped idols?


No, I believe they warred against them to take their land, and cooked up the story about the women leading them into sexual sin in Numbers 25, and cooked up the story about god telling them to war against them in Numbers 31:1 to justify it.



Do you have any evidence that atheism is NOT inspired by a foolish god who loves to spend time creating contradictions? How long would you labor to prove this false to me before you pointed out that I was shifting the burden of proof without justification?

It’s too silly to bother trying to prove it false. First of all, if an atheist wants to argue that a foolish god is responsible for their atheism, then aren’t they blaming someone they don’t believe exists?


So? My god causes me to believe in atheism, and I can't make him stop. If you say that's foolish, I'll say my god hath already declared in my heart that the ways of christianity and human logic are foolishness to him, and his ways are foolishness to them, but unto atheists who have the truth, it is the power of this god unto salvation. You might wanna think real hard before you say these words of mine are just convenient excuses that don't have substance.



Besides that, Biblical contradictions, if any exist (my faith doesn’t shudder at the thought that they do, but I haven’t seen any that the Christian camp hasn’t provided a decent answer for), would be from the fallibility of those doing the actual writing, not the God who inspired them.


First, it was never proved that they were inspired in the first place. If I write something that is correct, does that mean god inspired it? Not necessarily. Therefore you cannot argue from any accuracy in the OT story that god must have inspired it on that account.

Second, the fallibility of the writing testifies against the idea that any god was inspiring them, so some degree at least. I'm not saying there is any such error in their stories, I'm saying IF there were, it would be hostile to the notion that any god was inspiring them.



Inspiration is not dictation,


That's your opinion, there are many christians who believe dictation is how god inspires. If you wish to show that the extreme fundamentalist view of inspiration (dictation) is wrong, your gonna be talking about how god does things, that involves an assumption that god exists, so you'll have to first show that god exists, before you can talk about how he or she does things.



and being inspired by an omniscient being doesn’t make the writer omniscient.


Can you demonstrate that without first proving the assumption that statement is founded on (that god exists)? Nope.



Sorry, if any woman in those circumstances DID give her consent, that still doesn't even qualify, because it would be a clear result of mental anguish and a last ditch effort to make the best of a shattered life. This is not "consent" by a long shot and you know it.

I do, huh? Yeah, whatever it takes to read “rape” into a passage where it doesn’t exist.


So answer the problem directly instead of ducking the bullet! if any female war captive was kidnapped by a mob who just killed off her family, and she later consented to marry one of them, doesn't that sound like a desperate decision to make the best of a shattered life? Does consent under desperation qualify as true "consent"?

Suppose you get kidnapped, and the only way the kidnapper will let you and your family go, is if they are allowed to shoot each of you in the foot with a small hand-gun. If you "consent", does that make the plan morally justified? Hey! YOU GAVE YOUR CONSENT! SO IT'S ALL FAIR, RIGHT?



Israelites are the apple of god's eye, so as long as they're happy and have guidence, who cares about kidnapped females in war that are married off to the men who just kidnapped them and killed their families! Amen, bruthuh! Insert hearty back-patting here.

You completely missed my point. I was saying that the book we’re quoting from here was intended (at least at the time) to only give guidance to the Israelites. Since the woman here is a non-Israelite, why would we be expecting it to give HER guidance in her decision-making process?


YOU are missing MY point. It would have been better to see god telling the hebrew man "if you see a beautiful woman among the captives and wish to marry her, you must first obtain her consent." That is not instructing the captive, but the hebrew man and yet that instruction doesn't exist, although based on my previous proof that god is concerned about little details, her consent to marry WOULD have been written and specified IF the Hebrews thought the femal war captives consent was needed.



17. "Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately.
18. "But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves."
I said: Does the Bible say anything along the lines of "go ahead and have sex with them anyway?"
You replied: yes, the very text we are discussing, which i already proved is NOT concerned either way with whether the woman consented. ”

[QUOTE]
Where is there anything in that passage about having sex at all? You do realize they’re talking about pre-pubescent children here, right? Do you think the phrase ‘spare for yourselves’ is talking about something sexual?


Guess what? Suppose I kidnapped your family while you are away on business. I call you and tell you this, and that I also killed everybody except your 9 year old daughter. I then say "I have spared her for myself."

And you WOULDN'T be thinking that I was a crazed lunatic who might sexually molest her?



If my god told me to go and kidnap your family and kill off everybody but you, and then I tell you I desire to marry you, would you think your consent played any significant part in my viewpoint? Nope.

I suppose not, as long as you were a rapist by nature. Why are you assuming that the Israelites are rapists by nature?


Hold it just a minute. Forget about any assumptions that they were rapists by nature. Go back and read that hypothetical again:

If my god told me to go and kidnap your family and kill off everybody but you, and then I tell you I desire to marry you, would you think your consent played any significant part in my viewpoint? Nope.

Now don't worry about MY assumptions about rapists. IF that scneario above actually happened, would you think I would feel it necessary to obtain your consent for the marriage?



[i]NO! Again, even you couldn't answer with an assured "yes, those boys would grow up and cause idolotry" to justify their death, you had only a "maybe/maybe not".

Fine, I’ll change it to a “maybe, but almost certainly not”. Since the Bible doesn’t give the reason, I don’t know what it is, and neither do you.


If the exact scenario happened to you, you could gather from the surrounding details that rape was going to happen.



So if you aren't sure that your raising up a child in the way he should go would cleanse his early pagan beliefs, should you just kill the kid, or raise him in the hope that god will honor his word, and that no cultic involvedment is too deep that the Holy Spirit cannot break through and enlighten them with the truth?

Except that it’s almost certainly not about a need to cleanse the boys from their pagan beliefs, but about stopping them from potentially revolting against, and killing, Israelites.


Lets make it real simple. Since moses said "kill ALL the little one's among the males." would you mind explaining how toddlers of 2 years old and less would already have the kind of mental conditioning that could not be cleansed with 10 years of Israelite religion and life (they became men around 12 or 13 years old).

Are you seriously trying to tell me that a 1 year old midianite baby boy poses more threat to the Israelites after 10 years of being indoctrinated with YHWH religion, than a 1 year old midianite baby girl? Do you have any examples to show that what a 1 year old has learned so far in life can so easily displace a later 10 year segment of religious life and worship?

By your own logic, they should have killed the girls too. if 1 year olds can ignore years of israelite religious life and rebel on the basis of their first year of life having living in midianite culture, the girls might grow up to become witches on the same basis!



Puhleese! Little boys? You obviously don't have kids, because otherwise you would know that little boys are extremely impressionable, and are easily led to believe whatever things are constantly around them.

So you believe that females would absolutely, positively never consent in marriage with someone who killed their families, but that boys would completely and unquestioningly embrace those who killed their families?


First, yes, by the time those boys were old enough to fight for the Israelites, they would have endured more Israelite indoctrination for many more years than they had endured midianite religious life. Even adults can convert into new religions. If Adults can make this change, surely little boys, who are all the more known for imitating the older one's they grow up with, can do the same.

You wouldn't suggest that little boys who are taken from militant cults when they are little, pose any threat to their new foster parents after years of living in their new environment. You are only insisting that little boys would be this highly unlikely threat, because to admit that they posed no more threat than female toddlers, leaves you without justification for this cruel crime against humanity, and makes your god look morally bankrupt. But because your god cannot be morally bankrupt, you are forced into this uncomfortable positions that require you to assert highly unlikely scenarios, as if what the Israelites did was the best plan of action that could be concieved. not a chance.



So Midiniate girls were far more strong-willed and aggressive than Midianite boys, huh?


Given the difference that the girls who were old enough to be considered for marriage would be old enough to witness and remember how the Israelites kidnapped and killed their families, and given that the little boys Moses ordered killed included even toddlers and babies that wouldn't remember or understand what had just happened, yes.



Your above answer mocks the faithfulness of god to his word, to honor the request of godly parents and instill his laws into their child's hearts. The way you talk, you act as if keeping the little boys alive and raising them with faithful expectation that they will embrace the truth when they grow up, was an unreasonable expectation.

What’s going on here isn’t a ‘blue fairy’ type reward like ‘If you raise your child right, God will put a magic spell on the kid and turn him into the perfect little Israelite’.


yeah, so because Proverbs are not magic spells that work perfectly every time, just kill the kids, it's easier that way.



It’s saying that the result of raising a child, from birth, in a Godly way has the direct result of that child learning Godly ways from his parents. No supernatural miracles are being described here, just that good parenting makes good kids.


Isn't that still sufficient hope for little boys?



So is it too late to change a kid who was already raised for part of his life by non-Godly people?


yeah, again, because nobody can know whether a little boy has already undergone indoctrination that no amount of prayer can overcome, better kill him just to make sure? How's that tight spot feel?



Will the loving hand of Israelite parents reverse the damage that has been done so far? Honestly, I don’t know. And neither do you. The Bible makes no promises about such situations. But we do know that the stakes were much higher with the boys.


No we don't. We know that since all the little males were killed by moses specific order, even little boys from 2 years old and under were also killed. yes, you CAN know that whatever training such a small child already had, would not be so much of a threat against new indoctrination to justify just killing them.



With the girls, failure to turn them into Godly women would most likely mean that they’d still be idolaters as adults. Pretty bad stuff. But evidently the risk of such a result wasn’t so great that it was worth killing the little girls over.


You just don't want to admit the one difference between little virgin girls and everybody else who was killed off. JP Holding will tell you that the ancient Hebrews prized virginity before sex greatly.

NOW can you think of why the little virgins were spared? You are acting like the fact that they were female and were virgins shouldn't form part of the answer, yet that's exactly the basis upon which they were allowed to live! You sure don't want to admit that the ancient Hebrew men loved little virgin girls, do ya?!
Ask JP Holding and Glenn Miller just who greatly these ancient men were enamored with and highly prized the virginity of a woman.



But failure to turn the boys off of the path their birth families set for them would mean that they’d grow up to hate and kill the Israelites. A much greater, and evidently unacceptable, risk.


yeah, because a one year old baby boy has recieved one year of midianite indoctrination, enough hope has been lost for him that sadly, we need to kill him. ha ha ha. not a chance.



You are only kidding yourself. They kept the little virgins for sex,

Ah, so your assumption isn’t just that the Israelites were rapists, but that they were also pedophiles. Want to assume they were into beastiality, also?


yes, I do, seriously. There is no law in the bible against having sex with children.

If you say "that's because god thought it was so obvious a crime against nature that everybody would already know it and not need to be reminded of it", then

Why does Leviticus 18 specifically prohibit sex with animals, which is MORE obviously wrong to humans?

Wasn't this crime also just as perfectly obviously wrong to the Israelites as child-sex?

If so, why specifically write a prohibition against one but not the other?

I say there is no law against pedophilia because the Israelites practiced it and approved of it, but the felt compelled to write a prohibition against the equally if not more so absurd crime of beastility because Moses disapproved of it and knew the Israelites had enough tendancy to commit that crime.



and your refusal to justify similar war atrocities that are documented in other non-biblical literature testifies that you are just grasping at straws.

No, I actually believe that all civilizations have the right to defend themselves against those out to destroy them.


So if Sadaam Husein attacks America because America has been trying to destroy the empire and civilization he is trying to build, and your family happens to be in the skyscraper that comes crashing down and kills them, oh well, you don't have a problem with it, because you actually believe that all civilizations have the right to defend themselves against those who are out to destroy them.

[skepticbud]

Yesterday @ 04:33 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=85215#post85215)
SherBear:

2 Tim 2:14 says: &quot;Remind them of these things, charging them before the Lord not to strive about words to no profit, to the ruin of the hearers.&quot;

There is profit in straightening out your misconceptions ... it is to the profit of the hearer who would be mislead to ruin by your willful ignorance of the scriptures.


More modern translations translate that passage in a way that favors my interpretation and is against yours:

-- Revised Standard
2 Timothy 2:14 Remind them of this, and charge them before the Lord to avoid disputing about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers.

-- International English
2 Timothy 2:14 Continue reminding the people about these things. Warn them before God not to have fights about words, for that is useless. It destroys the people who are listening.

-- New American Standard
2 Timothy 2:14 Remind {them} of these things, and solemnly charge {them} in the presence of God not to wrangle about words, which is useless {and leads} to the ruin of the hearers.

-- New Jerusalem with Apocrypha
2 Timothy 2:14 Remind them of this; and tell them in the name of God that there must be no wrangling about words: all that this ever achieves is the destruction of those who are listening.

-- New American with Apocrypha
2 Timothy 2:14 Remind people of these things and charge them before God to stop disputing about words. This serves no useful purpose since it harms those who listen.

-- New Revised Standard with Apocrypha
2 Timothy 2:14 Remind them of this, and warn them before God {Other ancient authorities read [the Lord]} that they are to avoid wrangling over words, which does no good but only ruins those who are listening.

-- Weymouth's New Testament
2 Timothy 2:14 Bring all this to men's remembrances, solemnly charging them in the presence of God not to waste time in wrangling about mere words, a course which is altogether unprofitable and tends only to the ruin of the hearers.


-- International Standard Version
2 Timothy 2:14 Remind others about these things, and warn them in the sight of God not to argue over words. Arguing does not do any good but only destroys those who are listening.

-- Montgomery New Testament
2 Timothy 2:14 Always call these truths to men's mind; adjuring them in the presence of God to avoid controversy. It is a useless thing, and subverts those who listen to it.

--New International Version
2 Timothy 2:14 Keep reminding them of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen

[Sher]

Yesterday @ 06:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=86658#post86658)
skepticbud:

More modern translations translate that passage in a way that favors my interpretation and is against yours:Bud, Bud, Bud ... what are we going to do with you and your reading comprehension problem? Do you not read before you post? Have you not read the context of the verse in the midst of the surrounding verses ... in ANY translation? I already explained this to you once ... must we keep rehashing it over and over for you to "get it" ...

... notice where you skipped in that same post where I said: That verse refers to: (2 Tim 2:17b-18): "Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort, who have strayed concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already past; and they overthrow the faith of some." Nice try to pull one verse out to twist it to an admonishment ... again willfully ignoring the context ... You're getting pretty good at that, Bud ... of course, it just proves our point about your agruing techniques ... and destroys your credibility. As anyone can see, I explained this to you already ... this appears to show that you are merely doing this to promote intentionally malice ... that you have no interest in learning anything ... you only want to cause trouble.

Here is that section again ... so that you can see for yourself where you err:(2Ti 2:14 - 18 YLT) "These things remind them of, testifying fully before the Lord--not to strive about words to nothing profitable, but to the subversion of those hearing; be diligent to present thyself approved to God--a workman irreproachable, rightly dividing the word of the truth; and the profane vain talkings stand aloof from, for to more impiety they will advance, and their word as a gangrene will have pasture, of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus, who concerning the truth did swerve, saying the rising again to have already been, and do overthrow the faith of some" As I said ... it is to every profit to show you where you err ... to divide the word of the truth ... from your profane vain talkings ... your blasphemies of the word of God and your twisting of scriptures to fit your agenda of attempted embarrassment ... just as it was fitting to correct Hymenaeus and Philetus who from the "truth did swerve" ... to overthrow the faith of some.

Myself, JP, and anyone else who holds the standard of the Bible up to your profane attempts to scoff ... is holding to Biblical standards ... The same standards that Paul himself followed when he said in Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, "And to seeds," as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed," who is Christ. He made sure that it was understood that it was not "seeds" but "Seed" ... making sure to the word that the truth was given.

BTW, I noticed you still haven't addressed my points from my previous post on this topic. Thanks :hi:

[skepticbud]

Newflash:
You have argued at length about the WORDS "seize," "seduce," "humbled," and "violated". You are clearly disobeying apostle Paul's instructions in 2nd Timothy 2:14 to avoid arguing over words, right? ”


BTW, whether you are talking to me or not ...

2 Tim 2:14 says: "Remind them of these things, charging them before the Lord not to strive about words to no profit, to the ruin of the hearers."

There is profit in straightening out your misconceptions ... it is to the profit of the hearer who would be mislead to ruin by your willful ignorance of the scriptures.


I'm very sorry to inform you but "to no profit" doesn't mean "if the arguing about words doesn't profit, then don't do it".

Rather it means "arguing over words doesn't profit."

And i gave you an whole list of the more popular and respected translations that transated it with updated english, which gives the sense that I used it in. YOUR interpretation is straight out of the KJV or else one of it's daughters, and more modern translations have corrected the erroneous inference that arguing over words is justified as long as it is profitable.

You'll have to first answer those other more modern versions that do NOT support the sense of "to no profit" that you get out of it.



That verse refers to: (2 Tim 2:17b-18):
"Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort, who have strayed concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already past; and they overthrow the faith of some."

Nice try to pull one verse out to twist it to an admonishment ... again willfully ignoring the context ... You're getting pretty good at that, Bud ...


First, I was talking about verse 23, which is 6 verses away from verse 17, and there it is far from certain that "refuse foolish questions" means "don't argue with people who say the resurrection is passed."

Second, if it DID mean that, then what is the lesson you learn from that? That you should engage in discussions in which an opposer defends what you believe is a foolish and stupid argument?

Third, I'm sorry, the modern modern translations make it an admonishment, and the admonishment isn't directly or completely fastened to the reference to the error of saying the resurrection is past, you are mereley assuming that because the context includes this item, there's a direct connection. I don't see it.

Fourth, your bantering about how much I don't read the context is itself a shallow attempt to avoid that word study I did, which proved that the sense of Paul's exhortation I got out of it, was correct, and not yours.

Fifth, I'm curious as to why your statements are loaded with such things as ".... of course, it just proves our point about your agruing techniques ... and destroys your credibility."

I'm sure you would like to think that, but you would do better to just answer the arguments instead of concluding dogmatically how wrong I am. But then again, it's only natural for those who divert attention away from my word studies by screaming I didn't read the context, to conclude dogmatically my credibility is shot.

[Sher]

Bump ...

Still waiting for context and Young's Literal to be addressed ...

[AtheistArchon]

Myself, JP, and anyone else who holds the standard of the Bible up to your profane attempts to scoff ... is holding to Biblical standards ...

- And of course, biblical standards are always the best. Because they say they are. :ahem:

[Sher]

Today @ 09:41 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=95171#post95171)
AtheistArchon:

- And of course, biblical standards are always the best. Because they say they are. :ahem:

Actually, they are the best to use ... the very ones that Bud is using when he is attempting to argue from scripture ... therefore, the response should be from scripture to prove he is incorrect.

I referred to Biblical standards ... the very ones that Paul, himself, followed ... which Bud is, again, admonishing us for not following ... to show that Paul thought it very important to correct those who misrepresented scripture ... which proves that Bud is incorrect and misreading scripture

... and this is "evidenced" by his comments that show he thinks context cannot be revealed and supported 6 verses away from the verse he pulls out by itself :no:

But hey, you appear to be a very good student of his ... since you follow in his footsteps and do the very same thing to me :poke:

If you had quoted the whole section ... in context ... it would have been obvious what I meant ... but instead you pick and chose what you wanted to ridicule.

I said:Myself, JP, and anyone else who holds the standard of the Bible up to your profane attempts to scoff ... is holding to Biblical standards ... The same standards that Paul himself followed when he said in Gal 3:16:


Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, "And to seeds," as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed," who is Christ.
He made sure that it was understood that it was not "seeds" but "Seed" ... making sure to the word that the truth was given.
WTG, AA ... you should make Bud proud ...

[AtheistArchon]

I referred to Biblical standards ... the very ones that Paul, himself, followed ... which Bud is, again, admonishing us for not following ... to show that Paul thought it very important to correct those who misrepresented scripture ... which proves that Bud is incorrect and misreading scripture

- Uh... what? I've tried a few times, but I can't follow this.

- My point, and I think you just validated it, was that you're using your interpretation of scripture (Paul) to justify your interpretation of scripture. Ironically, the topic in question is interpretation of scripture. Which kind of means that you're going to call Bud on his interpretation every time, claim that you are correct, and justify "correcting" him because you're correct in your own interpretation.

- Or something.


... and this is "evidenced" by his comments that show he thinks context cannot be revealed and supported 6 verses away from the verse he pulls out by itself

- Sher, if the bible were a white paper, this might be a valid complaint. As it stands, "six verses away" is simply not a suitable measure for context.


But hey, you appear to be a very good student of his ... since you follow in his footsteps and do the very same thing to me

- Do what to you... take you out of context? :shrug:


If you had quoted the whole section ... in context ... it would have been obvious what I meant ... but instead you pick and chose what you wanted to ridicule.

- Um, I don't think I've misunderstood you at all. All I implied was that using a "biblical" standard doesn't always mean it's the "best" standard.


WTG, AA ... you should make Bud proud ...

- Get off it please. :troll: I'm not insulted by you comparing me to Bud, I never commented on any of his posts yet, and it doesn't make you any more intelligible.

[jpholding]

Today @ 02:41 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=95171#post95171)
AtheistArchon:



- And of course, biblical standards are always the best. Because they say they are. :ahem:

Nope. Because they make the most benefit to the world they were given to. I'd say the same if they were in the Code of Hammurabi...and some of them are.

[Sher]

05-13-2003 @ 11:00 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=95244#post95244)
AtheistArchon:

- Uh... what? I've tried a few times, but I can't follow this.

Okay, it's probably me ... painkiller fugue.

Let me try again ...

The point is that Bud is trying to make is based on Biblical standards. Answering him from those same standards is not only reasonable ... it is the only basis that should be used ... no other standard makes sense in this context:

Bud states that the scripture of Paul admonishes correcting someone over words. I pointed out scripture that not only proves this is not the case ... but other scripture shows that Paul (the author of the "admonishment" that Bud quotes) does this very same thing. Paul corrected words to give the full correct meaning to scripture, corrected those that were using the wrong words. By that standard, Paul's own ... a/k/a Biblical standards, we are right on this issue ... not Bud.


Sher, if the bible were a white paper, this might be a valid complaint. As it stands, &quot;six verses away&quot; is simply not a suitable measure for context.

I disagree ... where do you arrive at that arbitrary decision?

Context could be from another chapter, from another book, etc. Scripture interprets scripture.

For example, note verse 31 in the following ...

(Gen 1:24-31)
24 Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind"; and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."
29 And God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food.
30 "Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food"; and it was so.
31 Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Reading verse 31, one could ask what happened on the sixth day? What did God make that He found very good? We need to backtrack 8 verses to find the context ... to see where the sixth day began.

In this same manner, 2 Tim 2:14-23
14 Remind them of these things, charging them before the Lord not to strive about words to no profit, to the ruin of the hearers.
15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
16 But shun profane and idle babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness.
17 And their message will spread like cancer. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort,
18 who have strayed concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already past; and they overthrow the faith of some.
19 Nevertheless the solid foundation of God stands, having this seal: "The Lord knows those who are His," and, "Let everyone who names the name of Christ depart from iniquity."
20 But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay, some for honor and some for dishonor.
21 Therefore if anyone cleanses himself from the latter, he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified and useful for the Master, prepared for every good work.
22 Flee also youthful lusts; but pursue righteousness, faith, love, peace with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart.
23 But avoid foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing that they generate strife.

Notice in the above ... verse 14 is reiterated in both v. 16 and v. 23 ... and in between is the context. Paul is speaking about those that stray from the truth and would overthrow the faith of some ... and indicted two whose profane and idle babblings spread like cancer.

If one only picks and choses single verses, then the full meaning of scripture will never be clear. For most scripture, only in the context of other scripture does the single verse speak the truth of the message.

The funny thing in all this is ... Bud quotes all these different versions of verse 14 ... and in the next post states he was talking about verse 23 :doh: So really, my reply was only 3 verses away ... 14 to 17. :angel:

[skepticbud]

05-13-2003 @ 02:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=95160#post95160)
SherBear:

Bump ...

Still waiting for context and Young's Literal to be addressed ...

But I have offered evidence that you have abused context as well as offering other respectable bible versions that remove the sense you are arguing for.

So, like you, I'm still waiting for context and my other cited versions to be addressed. I got you good and that is why you are now playing hide and seek.

But since I already knew that most atheists are more honest than most desperate apologists, I'll go ahead and answer your latest criticism.

How do you determine which parts of the immediate context have a bearing on a disputed phrase? Very simple, you go to verse the other guy insists is part of the context, note how far away it is from the verse originally in question, and note how many different subjects/ideas there are between the verse in question and the purported "control" verse.

13. If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself.
An Unashamed Workman
14. Remind {them} of these things, and solemnly charge {them} in the presence of God not to wrangle about words, which is useless {and leads} to the ruin of the hearers.
15. Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.
16. But avoid worldly {and} empty chatter, for it will lead to further ungodliness,

paul leaves the subject of not arguing over words in verse 14, to talking about accurate handling of the word of truth.

Then he starts in with avoiding worldly chatter.

17. and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus,
18. {men} who have gone astray from the truth saying that the resurrection has already taken place, and they upset the faith of some.

According to the rules of context, a case MIGHT be made that "avoid worldly chatter" in verse 17 is the contextual limit for verses 17 and 18. Indeed, we know that verses 17 and 18 are a single context because there is not a foreign idea inserted between them.

However, verse 14 is seperated from verses 17 and 18 by insertion of an additional idea that is not directly associated with avoiding disputes over words. As such, his comment in verse 14 cannot assuredly be tied up with the heresey in verses 17 and 18. Indeed, by your own logic and interpretation, it appears that paul didn't mind if Christians argued over words, so long as it wasn't about Hymannaus or Philetus or their resurrection heresy!

Don't you find it the least bit puzzling that in your interpretation, Paul allows for arguing over words, as long as it profits, but that he prohibits arguing over words having to do with Hymannaus and Philetus and their particular heresy?

Saying that the resurrection is passed is a heresy in Paul's eyes just as surely as legalism was, yet paul in Galations disputed with many words on legaism in that epistle.

Your context becomes more irrelevent to the context as we go further:

19. Nevertheless, the firm foundation of God stands, having this seal, "The Lord knows those who are His," and, "Everyone who names the name of the Lord is to abstain from wickedness."

security of salvation

20. Now in a large house there are not only gold and silver vessels, but also vessels of wood and of earthenware, and some to honor and some to dishonor.

houses have different objects in them that are used for different purposes.

21. Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from these {things,} he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified, useful to the Master, prepared for every good work.

do what is right in the sight of god, and you will be ready to do what you need to do

22. Now flee from youthful lusts and pursue righteousness, faith, love {and} peace, with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart.

have a clean heart and resist sins that commonly beset younger Christians

There is quite enough different ideas not directly and necessarily derivative of one another between your "context" passage and my original verse 14, that there is absolutely ZERO necessity to restrict Paul's meaning in verse 14 to his later mentioned words about the resurrection being passed.

Jamison Fawcett and Brown agree with me:

14.that they strive not about words--rather, "strive with words": "not to have a (mere) war of words" (2Ti 2:23, 24; 1Ti 6:4) where the most vital matters are at stake (2Ti 2:17, 18; Ac 18:15).

Did you get that? Commenting on verse 14, they offer verses 23 and 24 of the same chapter as cross references. Yeah sure, these acknowledged biblical authorities knew that Paul was talking about verses 17 and 18 in verse 14, but they just "chose" not to mention it, in their attempt to, eh, "exposit" it's meaning? No, you are wrong, verses 17 and 18 are NOT any type of restriction on verse 14, you merely expand and abuse the "context" to avail yourself of additional ideas to escape the dilemma.

Also, there was never any evidence that your "context" was proper anyway. YOU are the first person to ever say the heresy of the resurrection in verses 17 and 18 are the absolute limit of meaning for verse 14, and I have used verse 14 against apologists like Holding for years. i also defy you to quote any commentaries that disagree with my position. They don't exist, so don't waste your time.

JFB continue:
14. to no profit--not qualifying "words"; but Greek neuter, in apposition with "strive in words," "(a thing tending) to no profit," literally, "profitable for nothing"; the opposite of "meet for the master's use" (2Ti 2:21).

Did you get that? "NOT QUALIFYING "words".

But isn't it your position that Paul qualfied his words in verse 14 with his words in verses 17 and 18?


Forerunner Commentary
2 Timothy 2:14-17
"Renouncing ungodliness appears here in an interesting context. People in the congregation were getting into heated discussions about genealogies, meanings of words, and technicalities of law. Paul called this "ungodliness" (or irreligion) and instructed Timothy to shun such things -- John W. Ritenbaugh
"
This commentary says the general sense is what was implied, so that three different subjects of heated discussion all come under the umbrella of verses 14-17. Paul clearly said nothing about avoiding such disputes of words in verses 15, 16 and 17, but he sure did say something relevent in verse 14.

Additionally: " 3. If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness,
4. he is conceited {and} understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions,
5. and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain." (1st Timothy 6:3-5)

I do not agree with the words of Jesus nor with words Paul thinks are conformed to godliness, and I also suppose that godliness is a means of gain.

Do you agree that paul was saying I am therefore the kind of person who has a morbid interest in disputes about words? If so, then you DO realize that he said this sort of constant friction was BETWEEN men of depraved minds (i.e., both men have depraved minds...), agreed? In other words, there is no way you can extract "christians disputing with atheists" out of this passage, you can only get "depraved mind against depraved mind." If you don't the depraved mind as defined in this context that describes absolutely unChristian behavior, why are you still arguing with me over words?

"9. But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.
10. Reject a factious man after a first and second warning,
11. knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned." (Titus 3)

I am obviously factious, and this is understood by Paul to imply a sinning self-condemned person. Are they still believers? It doesn't matter. If you are to reject even a born again Christian because he is factious, how much more so an atheist, who doesn't have any spiritual connection whatsoever and probably has more desire to cause strife than a Christian, for whom there is at least a bit of hope?

Now don't be a typical online apologist and respond to my post here as if I had never responded before it. You have failed to answer my post in which i cited the translations that deny the sense of verse 14 that you are suggesting. Please answer that post first and then this one second.

[Sher]

Today @ 01:27 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=100133#post100133)
skepticbud:

But I have offered evidence that you have abused context as well as offering other respectable bible versions that remove the sense you are arguing for.

Funny that you argue I "abused context" ... when your "offering" consisted of several translations of that one verse ... out of context with the surrounding verses.


So, like you, I'm still waiting for context and my other cited versions to be addressed. I got you good and that is why you are now playing hide and seek.

There was no need to address them individually as you took them all out of context ... I gave you the context in the next post ... again ... as means of addressing them as a whole ... and providing the literal interpretation of the original text.


How do you determine which parts of the immediate context have a bearing on a disputed phrase? Very simple, you go to verse the other guy insists is part of the context, note how far away it is from the verse originally in question, and note how many different subjects/ideas there are between the verse in question and the purported &quot;control&quot; verse.

That may be how YOU determine context ... but most people determine context by whether statement B is related to statement A ... no matter what is said in between. So by your reasoning, since you interupted your first thought with ad hominem, I should consider that this next part is not in context with the first part ... that you changed the subject? :dufus: No one reads like that ... not even you, I think.


<snip for space>

paul leaves the subject of not arguing over words in verse 14, to talking about accurate handling of the word of truth.

Then he starts in with avoiding worldly chatter.

Yes ... he does speak of avoiding worldly chatter ... a furtherance of his thoughts from verse 14 ... not a change of subject. Going back to the YLT:(2Ti 2:14 - 18 YLT) "These things remind them of, testifying fully before the Lord--not to strive about words to nothing profitable, but to the subversion of those hearing; be diligent to present thyself approved to God--a workman irreproachable, rightly dividing the word of the truth; and the profane vain talkings stand aloof from, for to more impiety they will advance, and their word as a gangrene will have pasture, of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus, who concerning the truth did swerve, saying the rising again to have already been, and do overthrow the faith of some" Notice that the whole thing is admonishment ... do not strive about words to nothing profitable ... rightly divide the word of the truth from profane vain talkings ... How can you possibly think this is a change of subject?


According to the rules of context, a case MIGHT be made that &quot;avoid worldly chatter&quot; in verse 17 is the contextual limit for verses 17 and 18. Indeed, we know that verses 17 and 18 are a single context because there is not a foreign idea inserted between them.

However, verse 14 is seperated from verses 17 and 18 by insertion of an additional idea that is not directly associated with avoiding disputes over words. As such, his comment in verse 14 cannot assuredly be tied up with the heresey in verses 17 and 18.

Again ... what is your criteria for this? You do it yourself ... interupt one thought with another and come back to that thought ... and still assume the reader is astute enough to recognize that in context, you are still speaking about that same subject. But I submit that saying "be diligent to present thyself approved to God--a workman irreproachable" isn't a change of subject at all ... that it is a reasoning for the subject at hand.

Consider this:

Mother: When you go to the playground, do not curse. Be a good little boy -- like I know you are, who does not use profanity but instead find intelligent things to say instead ... not like little Johnny down the street who always uses bad words and makes his mother ashamed.

In this simple example, the mother adds in there that the little boy should be good ... and continues the thought without a change in subject ... even providing a counter-example ... how NOT to behave.

Likewise, consider the following:

not to strive about words to nothing profitable, but to the subversion of those hearing;

Admonishment not to strive about words to no profit ... striving that only subverts (ruins) those hearing ... avoid "words to no profit" a/k/a profane babblings referred to in verse 16[

be diligent to present thyself approved to God--a workman irreproachable,

Interuption of subject with related thought ... like the mother saying to "be a good little boy"

rightly dividing the word of the truth; and the profane vain talkings stand aloof from, for to more impiety they will advance,

Futherance of the same admonishment ... with additional instruction ... to divide truth from profane vain talkings ... because it will cause impiety (An act of disrespect toward something sacred)

and their word as a gangrene will have pasture, of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus, who concerning the truth did swerve, saying the rising again to have already been, and do overthrow the faith of some

And an example of those that necessitated the admonishment ... that ties the first part and the second part together ... note not only did they "concerning the truth did swerve" ... from part two of the admonishment ... but also "do overthrow the faith of some" ... from part one of the admonishment ("to the subversion of those hearing" ... to subvert something is "To overthrow completely" ... note the dictionary definition uses the same word ... overthrow) ... a neat package deal ... a complete admonishment ... in context with the surrounding verses ... and which continues to futher verses which speak of futher instructions to follow ... even through verse 23 (:teeth: ... yeah ... that was a mistake, right?)


Indeed, by your own logic and interpretation, it appears that paul didn't mind if Christians argued over words, so long as it wasn't about Hymannaus or Philetus or their resurrection heresy!

Wha ...? Hymenaeus and Philetus are given as examples of those not to imitate. How in the heck did you arrive at that convoluted conclusion ... and say it was my logic and interpretation? I said nothing of the sort that would lead to that being drawn from it.


Don't you find it the least bit puzzling that in your interpretation, Paul allows for arguing over words, as long as it profits, but that he prohibits arguing over words having to do with Hymannaus and Philetus and their particular heresy?

No ... but then again, I don't come to that erroneous conclusion.


<snip for space>
There is quite enough different ideas not directly and necessarily derivative of one another between your &quot;context&quot; passage and my original verse 14, that there is absolutely ZERO necessity to restrict Paul's meaning in verse 14 to his later mentioned words about the resurrection being passed.

Okay ... wait a minute here ... you are again concluding something that I didn't say ... I never said that there was a "restriction" ... nor that only the portion "about the resurrection being passed" was it .... this was ONE example given of people who didn't follow these instructions ... but that example gives outline to what sort we should avoid ... not the only thing, but an example.


Jamison Fawcett and Brown agree with me:

<snipped for space>

Did you get that? Commenting on verse 14, they offer verses 23 and 24 of the same chapter as cross references.

They agree with you? agree? :rofl: Perhaps you forget your own words from post #179 ...


05-07-2003 @ 02:47 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=89700#post89700)
skepticbud:

First, I was talking about verse 23, which is 6 verses away from verse 17, and there it is far from certain that &quot;refuse foolish questions&quot; means &quot;don't argue with people who say the resurrection is passed.&quot;

Where you imply that because something is 6 verses away, it can't be in context ... something that A_A understood you to mean as well, evidenced by his follow-up comment that doesn't refute you meant that: (SherBear: ... and this is "evidenced" by his comments that show he thinks context cannot be revealed and supported 6 verses away from the verse he pulls out by itself ”)
AtheistArchon: "- Sher, if the bible were a white paper, this might be a valid complaint. As it stands, "six verses away" is simply not a suitable measure for context."But perhaps you thought 9 verses away would be okay though?


Yeah sure, these acknowledged biblical authorities knew that Paul was talking about verses 17 and 18 in verse 14, but they just &quot;chose&quot; not to mention it, in their attempt to, eh, &quot;exposit&quot; it's meaning? No, you are wrong, verses 17 and 18 are NOT any type of restriction on verse 14, you merely expand and abuse the &quot;context&quot; to avail yourself of additional ideas to escape the dilemma.

So what that they didn't mention it? Others tie those verses together as I will show in a moment ...


Also, there was never any evidence that your &quot;context&quot; was proper anyway. YOU are the first person to ever say the heresy of the resurrection in verses 17 and 18 are the absolute limit of meaning for verse 14, and I have used verse 14 against apologists like Holding for years. i also defy you to quote any commentaries that disagree with my position. They don't exist, so don't waste your time.

Uh, no ... you are the first ... ok, not the first really ... person to conclude something I didn't say ... to try to put words in my mouth ... I never said it was the absolute limit ... that is your own erroneous conclusion. I was referring to that, as Paul did, as an example of those who are wrong in what they do ... and whose example we should not follow.

But let's move on to your defying challange ... to show those to combine 17 and 18 in with verse 14 ... which contradicts your position ... and it's my time to waste ... I had nothing better to do at the moment ...

Matthew Henry ... who reference verses 14-18 (through 21 in some expanded commentaries) together for block commentary:14-21 Those disposed to strive, commonly strive about matters of small moment. But strifes of words destroy the things of God. The apostle mentions some who erred. They did not deny the resurrection, but they corrupted that true doctrine.
Note that MH continues the same thought ... that strifes over words destroys the things of God ... and in the next sentence speaks of the example that is given ... of those who erred by corrupting the true doctrine. Furthermore, note MH tells what these admonishments are against ... "matters of small moment" ... nothing against trying to correct those that blasphemy and promote erroneous Biblical teachings ... or skeptical misinterpretations ... but small matters that cause the "overthrow the faith of some." Therefore, since the Resurrection isn't a "small matter" ... it was proper for correction ... as Paul corrected "Seed" instead of "seeds" ... but for minor disputes within the church ... that would overthrow the faith for their pettiness ... we are to avoid those. The big ones ... we are to correct and rebuke ... as seen further in this post when I comment on some cross-reference that you, yourself, bring up.


JFB continue:
14. to no profit--not qualifying &quot;words&quot;; but Greek neuter, in apposition with &quot;strive in words,&quot; &quot;(a thing tending) to no profit,&quot; literally, &quot;profitable for nothing&quot;; the opposite of &quot;meet for the master's use&quot; (2Ti 2:21).

Did you get that? &quot;NOT QUALIFYING &quot;words&quot;.

Yup ... so what :shrug: "to no profit" qualifies "strive" instead of "words" ... did you have a point here?


But isn't it your position that Paul qualfied his words in verse 14 with his words in verses 17 and 18?

Oh! You thought that this refers to verse 14 not being qualified by other verses? :rofl:

Apposition means "A construction in which a noun or noun phrase is placed with another as an explanatory equivalent, both having the same syntactic relation to the other elements in the sentence" ... this is an explanation of grammar in verse 14 :dufus:


Forerunner Commentary 2 Timothy 2:14-17
&quot;Renouncing ungodliness appears here in an interesting context. People in the congregation were getting into heated discussions about genealogies, meanings of words, and technicalities of law. Paul called this &quot;ungodliness&quot; (or irreligion) and instructed Timothy to shun such things -- John W. Ritenbaugh
&quot;
This commentary says the general sense is what was implied, so that three different subjects of heated discussion all come under the umbrella of verses 14-17. Paul clearly said nothing about avoiding such disputes of words in verses 15, 16 and 17, but he sure did say something relevent in verse 14.

Yet ... note for yourself, verse 14-17 are under that same "umbrella" ... that they are all together for context! Notice that Ritenbaugh gives examples of what sort of heated discussions were taking place in the congregation ... nothing about correcting skeptics and blasphemers ... but heated discussions ... that disrupt the services and harming people's faith ... in the CHURCH.

This is a good point here also ... you have no faith by your own admission ... there is no faith to be harmed in you ... so you are negated from consideration for that point alone ... It is only to correct your errors ... so that you do not corrupt others ... that we make sure your poison doesn't spread ... thereby harming the faith of others.


<snip verses for space> (1st Timothy 6:3-5)

I do not agree with the words of Jesus nor with words Paul thinks are conformed to godliness, and I also suppose that godliness is a means of gain.

Do you agree that paul was saying I am therefore the kind of person who has a morbid interest in disputes about words? If so, then you DO realize that he said this sort of constant friction was BETWEEN men of depraved minds (i.e., both men have depraved minds...), agreed? In other words, there is no way you can extract &quot;christians disputing with atheists&quot; out of this passage, you can only get &quot;depraved mind against depraved mind.&quot; If you don't the depraved mind as defined in this context that describes absolutely unChristian behavior, why are you still arguing with me over words?

Do you realize this section is speaking about false teachers in a Church? I do agree it isn't atheist against Christian ... it has nothing to do with atheists here.

See Clarke:1Ti 6:3 - If any man teach otherwise - It appears that there were teachers of a different kind in the Church, a sort of religious levellers, who preached that the converted servant had as much right to the master’s service as the master had to his. Teachers of this kind have been in vogue long since the days of Paul and Timothy.{emphasis mine} Since you are not a teacher in the Church ... this has no bearing on anything anyway ... but let's take a quick look at a few others to make sure you have no wiggle-room on this section:

Clarke says: "Of false teachers, who suppose gain to be godliness, 1Ti_6:3-5.
Barnes says: "if their masters were Christians, they were, on that account, to serve them with the more fidelity, and any opposite kind of teaching would tend only to stir up strife and produce dissatisfaction and contention, and could proceed only from a proud and self-confident heart." Note Barnes stresses that opposing teaching of Christians teachers would cause strife and produce dissatisfaction ... not atheist skeptics which gives great satisfaction ... correcting errors and keeping others from straying.
People's Commentary says:"1 Timothy 6:5 Supposing that gain is godliness. Men who have come into the church for gain and think that godliness is a source of gain." You are not a teacher in the church ... therefore, this doesn't apply to you.
TSK says: "Not to have fellowship with newfangled teachers"
InterVarsity Press NT Commentary ([ur=http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/webcommentary?language=english&version=niv&book=1tim&chapter=6]located here[/url] in totality for this section) says, in part (because it is too long to post here):"False Doctrine (6:3) Paul first categorizes their ministry. As in 1:3, he charges them with, literally, "teaching different doctrine." [...] Third, they took perverse pleasure in controversy and quarreling. This so marked their behavior that Paul describes them as "sick with" (having an unhealthy interest in) disputes. As this dangerous sickness spreads, it produces poisons that destroy relationships and church unity."Again ... false teachers in the church here are spoken of ... that destroy church unity ... not atheist skeptics whose falsehoods need to be corrected.

(BTW, what does "If you don't the depraved mind as defined in this context ..." mean? "If I don't" what? I couldn't make that bit out)


&quot;9. But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.
10. Reject a factious man after a first and second warning,
11. knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned.&quot; (Titus 3)

I am obviously factious, and this is understood by Paul to imply a sinning self-condemned person. Are they still believers? It doesn't matter. If you are to reject even a born again Christian because he is factious, how much more so an atheist, who doesn't have any spiritual connection whatsoever and probably has more desire to cause strife than a Christian, for whom there is at least a bit of hope?

Titus 3:9-11 is along the same lines as 1 Tim 6:3-5 ... in fact, you probably found them by cross-ref, didn't you? These verses are cross-referenced to 1 Tim 1:3-7As I urged you when I went into Macedonia-- remain in Ephesus that you may charge some that they teach no other doctrine, nor give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith. Now the purpose of the commandment is love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from sincere faith, from which some, having strayed, have turned aside to idle talk, desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm. Notice that this speaks about CHARGING some that TEACH falsely. Also cross-referenced to this is Titus 1:13-14This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn from the truth. Notice the REBUKE THEM SHARPLY ... and in context of the surrounding scriptures ... is speaking about the CHURCH leaders and teachers ... not skeptics outside the church.

About this section in Titus, Matthew Henry says:Titus must give no countenance to these, but avoid and oppose them; for they are unprofitable and vain: this is to be referred to all those foolish questions and genealogies, as well as those strivings about the law. They are so far from instructing and building up in godliness, that they are hindrances of it rather: the Christian religion, and good works, which are to be maintained, will hereby be weakened and prejudiced, the peace of the church disturbed, and the progress of the gospel hindered. Observe, Ministers must not only teach things good and useful, but shun and oppose the contrary, what would corrupt the faith, and hinder godliness and good works; nor should people have itching ears, but love and embrace sound doctrine, which tends most to the use of edifying.Notice not only shun BUT OPPOSE the contrary that would corrupt the faith.

These passages are also talking about false teachers. In this case, they cause falsehoods to be propegated. They are to be rebuked ... then shunned ... driven out from the church ... no longer teachers.

I'd apply this to you as well ... but Dee Dee won't let me ban you (j/k ... "no, not really")


Now don't be a typical online apologist and respond to my post here as if I had never responded before it. You have failed to answer my post in which i cited the translations that deny the sense of verse 14 that you are suggesting. Please answer that post first and then this one second.

Actually, I answered that in the very next post where I said: "Have you not read the context of the verse in the midst of the surrounding verses ... in ANY translation?" ... {emphasis added now} ... and again I address this at the beginning of this post. You pull verse 14 out of context ... and it doesn't matter how many times you do it ... you are still wrong as I have shown in the remainder of this post.

Now, don't be a typical online pseudo-skeptic and fail to respond to the points ... especially the ones where you are hoisted by your own petard. :rofl:

But seriously, Bud, you need to keep it to one or two points per post ... and then allow reply ... to avoid others having to reply in length like this ... and to follow the forum rules, k? We are both covering way too many points at one time and these posts are just getting longer and longer. (not to imply that I moderate this section ... just that I'm sure the mods here would say the same thing)

[skepticbud]

Why didn't you address the more modern translations, which remove the sense you are arguing for?



There was no need to address them individually as you took them all out of context ... I gave you the context in the next post ... again ... as means of addressing them as a whole ... and providing the literal interpretation of the original text.


Yup, just like i thought, you are a typical online apologist...because you avoided answering the other translations of the passage which completely destroy your hair-splitting "context" arguments.

First of all, context doesn't mean anything, when you start with a misleading translation. You will answer the other translations and how they remove the sense of the passage AND the sense of the context that you are arguing for, or you will not hear from me again on the matter except to remind the world how fast you hide behind the "out of context!" excuse.

So let's get the translation correct first.

Second, in your entire spiel, you have not shown RESTRICTION to the error of Hymanaus and Philetus....you merely argue "see!? it's in the context, so obviously Paul's words are LIMITED to that single example!"

Sorry, paul doesn't say his advice is restricted to that example in any way, shape or form.

Third, I could argue with your same logic and prove that it would be ok to argue about words disputed by Hymmanaus and Philetus about the resurrection....I could point out that it is indeed profitable to argue about words on that matter of false teaching because I have caused many hearers to take my side in the matter thus promoting unity. Paul is only warning people to avoid arguments that don't profit. i think my arguments with heretics are profitable, thought I have no scriptural support for that, just like you think arguments over words with atheists is profitable, although absolutely nothing in the entire bible says you should argue about word meanings with atheists. if you are allowed to read your personal success into the text, I can read mine into it as well. Just because Paul wasn't successful at arguing over words with those two heretics doesn't mean everybody would find it unprofitable. Therefore, since my arguments have always been profitable, surely Paul would approve!

Well? That's ALSO based on your faulty translation which gives the wrong sense. The corrected translations don't leave it up to the reader to judge whether some word-argument is profitable or not. The more accurate translations say arguing about words doesn't profit.

Fourth, I will not answer any post of yours on this subject again until you answer the other more modern and more accurate translations I supplied weeks ago, which completely contradict the sense of the phrase that the KJV and it's daughter versions give.

[Sher]

Today @ 05:12 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=102997#post102997)
skepticbud:

Why didn't you address the more modern translations, which remove the sense you are arguing for?

Yup, just like i thought, you are a typical online apologist...because you avoided answering the other translations of the passage which completely destroy your hair-splitting &quot;context&quot; arguments.

And I could say the same about you for avoiding all the points I addressed and proved ... it is easy to sit back and make accusations ... far harder for you to actually prove your point, huh?

Context is hardly hair-splitting. As I said, I can rip your posts down to a sentence that is completely different than what you actually are saying ... and you would be screaming "out of context" in a high-pitched whine ... but for someone to tell you that you are wrong because you pull one verse out of thousands ... and try to make it fit to your erroneous mindset ... you don't see it :hrm:


First of all, context doesn't mean anything, when you start with a misleading translation.

I provided the literal translation in keeping with the original text ... in context ... that shows you are wrong. You pulled an individual verse from several different modern versions ... and tried to make it say what you want by not showing the context. What do you have to hide, Bud?

Here's a verse for you ... out of context:

"I will accept no bull from your house" (Psalms 50:9a -- RSV)

:rofl:


You will answer the other translations and how they remove the sense of the passage AND the sense of the context that you are arguing for, or you will not hear from me again on the matter except to remind the world how fast you hide behind the &quot;out of context!&quot; excuse.

Go ahead, Bud, see if you can stick that chest out a bit further in your posturing. :lol:

Let me try: You will post the other translations IN CONTEXT with the surronding verses so that someone can GET the sense of the passage AND the sense of the context YOU are missing ... either way, you will hear from me again to remind the "world" how SLOW you are when you quote out of context. :rofl:

How's that? :ahem:


So let's get the translation correct first.

Sure ... refer back to YLT ... Young's LITERAL Translation ... in context.


Second, in your entire spiel, you have not shown RESTRICTION to the error of Hymanaus and Philetus....you merely argue &quot;see!? it's in the context, so obviously Paul's words are LIMITED to that single example!&quot;

Sorry, paul doesn't say his advice is restricted to that example in any way, shape or form.

My post says neither "restricted" nor "limited" ... so now you are taking my posts out of context ... nasty habit there, Bud.


Third [...] Therefore, since my arguments have always been profitable, surely Paul would approve!

And you would be wrong. So not only would you take one verse out of context, now you would argue from taking a few words from one verse out of context? ... missing "testifying fully before the Lord" and "be diligent to present thyself approved to God--a workman irreproachable, rightly dividing the word of the truth"??

Your false conclusion follows neither of these. Paul is NOT ONLY warning people to avoid arguments that don't profit ... he is also couching that admonishment in the terms of being approved by God ... You would have to first show that your "profit" was approved by God ... and secondly, that your arguments supported the "word of the truth" ... which is Scripture. So arguing against scripture ... no matter what you personally think is the gain ... is the complete opposite of what Paul approved and spoke of here.


Fourth, I will not answer any post of yours on this subject again until you answer the other more modern and more accurate translations I supplied weeks ago, which completely contradict the sense of the phrase that the KJV and it's daughter versions give.

Um ... YLT is NOT the KJV, nor a "daughter version" ... it is Young's LITERAL Translation. You have no proof that it is less accurate ... and have not shown the context for any determination to be made on the versions you quoted. It is akin to someone who would open a science book and quote a single formula ... yet avoids explaining what that formula is for ... by not quoting the surronding text ... by quoting it out of context.

And do you really think your "threat" of not answering my post makes any difference to me or anyone else? It only shows that you have nothing to support your claim save one verse taken over and over out of context.

[Sher]

:joy: Bump

[Sher]

:joy: :joy:

Bumpity -- Bump

[winstonjen]

[i]04-28-2003 @ 03:53 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=80871#post80871)
[b]We'll put you in the desert for a few years and see how much that concerns you.

What a loser you are, Bud. :rofl:


And wandering in the desert caused people to hallucinate and write the bible.

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 12:33 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=137197#post137197)
winstonjen:

And wandering in the desert caused people to hallucinate and write the bible.

One day an infudgel might surprise us and learn that the Bible's authors included kings, shepherds, a cupbearer, a rabbinic scholar, fishermen, a physician, a tax collector ... And what has this cultural chauvinist and chronological snob got against desert dwellers anyway? :poke:

[jpholding]

Wow! Winstonjen has arrived, to provide us with another source of natural gas! :rofl:

[Jin-Roh]

:lol: :lol: :lol:
Why is this thread still going on?!
:rofl:

[Walt]

04-29-2003 @ 01:03 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=81353#post81353)
KingDavid8:



I stand by that interpretation, myself, but not by your interpretation of that interpretation. It says (summarizing) that if you accept Jesus as your savior, you get salvation. You interpret that as meaning that if (for whatever reason) you DON'T accept Jesus as your savior, you WON'T get salvation. So if someone says, &quot;If you get a job at a supermarket, you will earn money&quot;, you would interpret that as &quot;If you DON'T get a job at a supermarket, you WON'T earn money&quot;, as if no other place of business pays money.

To be fair, many Christians interpret that passage the same way. But hardly all of us.
David
But doesn't it say "There is no other name under heaven whereby we must be saved."? So according to your post, we could say ' There is no other job you could have whereby you can make money"!

[BeHereNow]

jpholding:

Wow! Winstonjen has arrived, to provide us with another source of natural gas! :rofl:

Uh oh, JP has arrived to demonstrate his character arsenal! :fight:

[BeHereNow]

In response to the original post (skipping the 11 pages of filler), my answer to SkepticBud is this: This verse is simply another example of Hebrew misogynism. For them it was nothing special to treat women as property. When they lost their virginity, they were essentially worthless slaves unless they were married. If they didn't have kids, they were a shame to the family. There are countless examples of how badly the Hebrews treated their women.

JP and others who are well-read will quickly jump to say "haha! you are dumb! You have to look at CULTURE and see that raping women wasn't so bad back then!" Sorry, that type of answer doesn't cut it for me. I got two words for that argument: Minoan Crete. Taken from from "Woman: A Synopsis" by Arthur Frederick Ide:

Women in ancient Crete enjoyed full equality with men. Women in ancient Crete were barred from no public or private activity ... Women were highly regarded in ancient Minoan civilization. The society itself was matriarchal. The theology was woman oriented and centered....

Is that chronistic enough for you JP? The Minoans of Crete were contemporaneous with the Hebrews, whose women were treated as equals or inferiors to cattle. From the same book:

Woman was of little importance among the ancient Hebrews. Her birth was mourned and her death was celebrated. She was damned as the "temptress of mankind" and the "authoress of evil." Much of this condemnation came because of a physiological function: her menstrual cycle which "brought forth blood." ... Childless women were viewed as failures. No sympathy was extended to childless women. They became the butt of ill-humored teasing, and by public pressure were forced to allow their husbands to take other wives or mistresses--as Sarah permitted Abraham to take Hagar.

It should be noted that Ide says this ill treatment of women didn't start until after the Exodus, when women were besting men in most areas and seen as a threat by you know who (woot! go Moses!).

So, how exactly does this stack up to the anachronistic argument? If looking at chronology is your best answer, then you have sorely lost this argument.

(edit: grammar)

[BeHereNow]

Bump. Hoping to get a response from JP.

[johnnytries]

04-28-2003 @ 08:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=81106#post81106)
lordsnooty:



Because God was too stupid to write something that would make sense throughout the ages. He didn't stop to think that condoning rape would look a bit iffy several thousand years after the fact.

It's funny really, that he wrote it such that it now seems an anachronistic pile of outdated drivel. :teeth:

Still, at least he has his merry band of apologists to try and defend the nastier parts of his otherwise mind-numbingly dull story.

Paul

ok, to say that God condones rape is false. one theorization of why peope rape is from fear of itimacy. therefore, to be forced to live with the woman you just violated is, in a sense, the worst punishment there is.
i understand that it would suck for the woman if it did happen, but think with me for a minute. if you were told that if you killed someone, you would be punished by having to take care of his family- don't you think that you would think twice about murder???
however, that is a foreign idea in todays world of "we must treat criminals like humans". in todays world, we have other forms of punishment.

[jpholding]

Sorry, BHN, for some reason I never saw this.

For them it was nothing special to treat women as property. When they lost their virginity, they were essentially worthless slaves unless they were married.

Actually, this is a very anachronistic reading. I defer here though to Glenn Miller's treatment on the ThinkTank. You did not anticipate my answer correctly at all. The Hebrews did not treat their woman as "property" or as "cattle". If you think you can show this, do so.

[Jezz]

jpholding:

Sorry, BHN, for some reason I never saw this.

For them it was nothing special to treat women as property. When they lost their virginity, they were essentially worthless slaves unless they were married.

Actually, this is a very anachronistic reading. I defer here though to Glenn Miller's treatment on the ThinkTank. You did not anticipate my answer correctly at all. The Hebrews did not treat their woman as &quot;property&quot; or as &quot;cattle&quot;. If you think you can show this, do so.
There is also the matter of how the Hebrews actually treated their women, versus how they were supposed to treat their women. If the Bible tells us anything, it's that often the Hebrews didn't do as they were told. :smile:

Even if you can show that the Hebrews really did treat women badly , this doesn't necessarily reflect on YHWH's attitude towards women. To show that YHWH treats women as property, you need to show that this was not against the Law (or better still, was actually encouraged by the Law).

[eschaton]

Respnse to original post.

I don't see any reason to say God approves of rape.

Do we put people to death for rape in this country? No. We put them in prison. The Hebrews didn't carry a prison with them in the wilderness, so the punishment was either death or monetary.

The punishment for rape is death in Deuteronomy if the woman is married or engaged to be married.

If the woman was not betrothed the man had to pay 50 shekels to the family and support the woman for the rest of her life. I don't know what kind of penalty 50 shekels is, but David bought two oxen and a threshing floor hundreds of years later with that amount (2 Sam 24:24). Would that be like a house and two cars today? Maybe $200,000? Plus shekels would have been a lot harder to come by for a guy wandering around out in the desert than they were for King David.

The woman wasn't obligated to duties in such a marriage because she couldn't be divorced no matter what. Basically the guy had to support her and put up with her family for the rest of her life.

So God imposes the death penalty or a heavy lifetime fine. The woman is under no obligation because she can't be divorced. So is rape okay with God? Only if you don't mind the death penalty or lifetime fine.

[FirstSunday33ad]

JP and others who are well-read will quickly jump to say "haha! you are dumb! You have to look at CULTURE and see that raping women wasn't so bad back then!" Sorry, that type of answer doesn't cut it for me. I got two words for that argument: Minoan Crete. Taken from from "Woman: A Synopsis" by Arthur Frederick Ide:

BHN has me on "ignore" after I ticked him off by questioning his need for a "sign" from God, so this is for any who care about this.

Arthur Frederick Ide is a kook. He writes about everything under the sun from politics to religion but always with his own biased spin.

So little is known about Minoan Crete that there is absolutely no way he could make a statement about how women were treated or their level of participation in political life with any sort of confidence. We haven't even been able to translate Minoan writing.

To quote this individual as some sort of authority is weak at best, dishonest at worst.

[BeHereNow]

jpholding:

Sorry, BHN, for some reason I never saw this.

For them it was nothing special to treat women as property. When they lost their virginity, they were essentially worthless slaves unless they were married.

Actually, this is a very anachronistic reading. I defer here though to Glenn Miller's treatment on the ThinkTank. You did not anticipate my answer correctly at all. The Hebrews did not treat their woman as "property" or as "cattle". If you think you can show this, do so.

I still haven't had the chance yet to give a response to this, but if you could link me to the article in question I'd appreciate it. Think Tank has quite a few articles about women in the Bible and I don't know which one you are referring to.


FirstSunday33ad
BHN has me on "ignore" after I ticked him off by questioning his need for a "sign" from God, so this is for any who care about this.

FS, I have you on ignore for the reason you demonstrate here. It's not because you "questioned" me, it's because you repeatedly twisted what I said and used extremely rude and unprofessional tactics to argue with me. That is why. Why I read this post: morbid curiosity. Please don't expect much response from me if you continue to misrepresent me to make a point.


Arthur Frederick Ide is a kook.

Aren't most scholars? :smile: Ide has demonstrated his ability to interpret over a dozen languages, including hieroglyphics, cuneiform, etc. and I've found him to be very insightful. His grammar is lacking, but I don't mind that.

Can you point out any specifics as to what makes Ide a "kook," or is it just that he doesn't agree with your opinions?


He writes about everything under the sun from politics to religion but always with his own biased spin.

Show me a political book that doesn't have bias "spin"! Good grief. Look how desparate you are to make him look bad.

As for the religion books, just because he does not agree with your interpretation does not mean he is employing a "biased spin." Obviously, if someone says YHWH was a tribal warrior god, you will disagree, but does this necessarily make their point invalid?

Would you consider A Case for Faith to be "biased spin"? Oh... no because it agrees with you, right? pfffft...


So little is known about Minoan Crete that there is absolutely no way he could make a statement about how women were treated or their level of participation in political life with any sort of confidence. We haven't even been able to translate Minoan writing.

Well there must be a lot of people using guesswork, because there's plenty of material written about Minoan Crete. Am I to trust you over published scholars? What are you referencing here that we should believe your biased spin?

Also, which books by Ide have you read?

[jpholding]

BHN, since you asked the link is

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/femalex.html

As for Ide, can you tell us what peer-reviewed journals he has published in? I'd be able to give him a great deal more credence if he had even one such article.

[BeHereNow]

jpholding:

As for Ide, can you tell us what peer-reviewed journals he has published in? I'd be able to give him a great deal more credence if he had even one such article.

To my knowledge he only publishes books, not essays. Is there a way to search all journals for a specific author? (My library skills are suxorz.)

[jpholding]

Yesterday @ 06:47 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=224462#post224462)
BeHereNow:



To my knowledge he only publishes books, not essays. Is there a way to search all journals for a specific author? (My library skills are suxorz.)

If you're patient I can teach you how to use OCLC which does have listings for many scholarly journals. If you like books better there are a number of indices, like the American Theological Library Association's. Of course you'd have to do some special digging in a well-equipped seminary....

[Queen]

I guess you guys were never raped?

I am a rape survivor...twice! I have escaped a so-called gang-bang. I have and still suffer from these "events"......If this is standing in the bible, this book should be re-written soon...and with the help of women!!! It is too barbaric for words and don't tell me that @#@$ about that age. Those women suffered as terribly from it as the women today. They were punished for the rest of their lives. Do you really think a rapist will serve that woman? A rape is about power and humiliation and he will continue to act upon that.....giving him a victim in his home......Persephone!!!!! Hades got his Persephone

Well, sleep well, you guys!!!

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen
My two cents

[jimbo]

Queen,

I am sorry for what you went through. I hope you can continue to recover and that the guys who did it are in jail or worse.

Because Mr. "JP Holding" needs to protect the idea that this rape "law" came from God-as the bible indicates-he has to defend the law as being good. So he is forced to say things such as the following:


BROOKS: Deuteronomy 22:22-30:



"If a man is found lying with the wife of another man, both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman; so you shall purge the evil from Israel. If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor's wife; so you shall purge the evil from the midst of you. But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But to the young woman you shall do nothing; in the young woman there is no offense punishable by death, for this case is like that of a man attacking and murdering his neighbor; because he came upon her in the open country, and though the betrothed young woman cried for help there was no one to rescue her.

"If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her; he may not put her away all his days.

In the first passage, the woman is stoned to death because she did not cry out. But if the woman was being raped and she did cry out, her attacker may have killed her. Seems like a cruel Catch 22 situation to me. What do you think? Also, it appears that the man is to be executed not because he attacked a woman, but because he "violated his neighbor's wife." Deuteronomy shows that it is not rape per se which deserves death, but the violation of another man's property. As we can see in the last passage, a man who rapes an unbethrothed girl is not put to death, but gets to marry her after paying off her dad. I know that you would say this is a wonderful, merciful solution to the problem of finding this girl a husband, but don't you think the supreme ruler of the universe could have come up with something slightly more palatable to the girl than forcing her to marry her rapist?

"JP HOLDING": You're being a temporal provincialist again. In this time and place, the girl would want this solution (to marry her rapist-Editor) -- you need to look at this through the eyes of a society where the essence of survival was the preservation of key social units.

(snip)

BROOKS: Let's say that you were raped by a 300 pound psychopath name Bruno. Would you "want" to be his bed-partner and life-long companion because he raped you?

"JP HOLDING": You assume that the forced marriage means automatically a bed-partner and companion. Now Brooks, think in more than two dimensions -- do you think that rapist would settle down into a happy family life? No! He'd be no more than the servant of the family whose daughter he disgraced. He would have to make up for the lost financial support -- that means work in the fields, polishing the doorknobs, no getting out of it! The marriage would be, as it always is, a binding legal covenant; but that's not the equal of bed partnering (yes, you don't understand marriage at all). Bruno the Psycho isn't going to be a happy camper the rest of his life -- he'll be paying his debt off with sweat. Now would you "want" that, maybe, if Bruno had bonged you? I'd find it immensely satisfying, personally.


This comes from a discussion that is preserved on the Internet.

It is obvious that this law did not come from a perfect god, but that it was created by fairly ignorant, misogynistic ancient men. It is sad when modern people can't figure this out and feel the need to invent rationalizations for it.

Cheers,

Jimbo

[Queen]

Jimbo, Thanks.....I never reported anyone of them. I was so ashamed that I never told anyone......So, they live carefree lives right now. I am the one that got life sentence......Thank you for your sweet words!!!! :flowers:

I must admit that the way JP holding is thinking scares the #@$@ out of me.

To JP HOLDING: :rant:
Let me give you a vivid picture here.

First rape: I didn't cry out, I didn't resist (hard to do when your 5 ft and 100 pound against an adult man I was 17 he 25+). He was my boyfriend. So I had to be around him for the rest of my life??

Second rape: Ex-boyfriend/ abuser during our relationship (my age I was 19). He raped me, I screamed, but he smothered me, I stop resisting because it made things worse. He seemed to like that.....I had to marry this guy????? That is punishment for him????

Really, I am sorry to say this, but you are NUTS!!!!

Every 6 minutes a woman/man/child is raped in the USA....EVERY 6
MINUTES...Lot of marriages...... :thumbd: Some of them resist and are murdered, every one of them is scared for life only 20% is reported and 75% of the rapist are somehow related to the victim......(Boyfriend, father, friend, husband)

1 out of 4 women/ girls are raped....1 out of 8 men/boys are raped. Rape is an act of power......Most males are raped by heterosexual males to humiliate them.

Ladida ladida....Let's rewrite that book....at least that merciless part and many other out of date nonsense in that book!

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

[Harlequin Solit]

That's really sad, queen.... I can't imagine having to go through someting like that... But twice? That's awful. :(

This whole thing about what it says in teh Bible just confirms that it is utterly out-of-date, and therefore none of it is from this 'God', as he is supposedly all knowing, powerful, etc.... Unless one of these new religious cults has the real new Bible, but you guys aren't believing them and will go to hell. Even though you've probably never heard of them. Ahh, 'God' sounds like such a fair and balanced guy...

[jpholding]

Here we go again with the irrational ---

I guess you guys were never raped?

I guess you never lived in an agonistic, pastoral society in the Ancient Near East?

Do you really think a rapist will serve that woman?

Do you really think he won't serve her and her family with the family and the village elders standing over him the rest of his life, ready to knock him into next week (or worse) if he doesn't?

Well, sleep well, you guys!!!

I do. Homework does tend to offer greater contentendness than a mere emotional reaction.

I must admit that the way JP holding is thinking scares the #@$@ out of me.

Understandably, since you are not an ancient Near Easterner living in an agonistic setting.

Let me give you a vivid picture here.

Very vivid indeed, but how do vivid details change any of the sociological facts involved here, and that the persons in question do not live in our modern world, but in one oriented towards collectivism and an honor-shame dialectic?

So I had to be around him for the rest of my life??

Not anymore, because we are not in such a society anymore where you would have preferred that option, as they would have.

He seemed to like that.....I had to marry this guy????? That is punishment for him????

Is he working in your fields 12 hours a day with no other life options open until he dies?

Really, I am sorry to say this, but you are NUTS!!!!

Really, I am sorry to say this, but you are protesting anachronistically. I don't suppose it could ever occur to you that some societies have different values and ways of getting justice than ours. Maybe you'll even be like Jimbo and skepticbud and end up saying, "Yeah, well, honor and shame societies are stupid!" What say ye?

Every 6 minutes a woman/man/child is raped in the USA

And how does this affect anything in the Ancient Near East? Throwing out statistics to afflict the emotions isn't an argument.

Let's rewrite that book....

That's right, assert your cultural superiority. Contextualizing it and doing homework? Nah.

Lots of corn and field peas,
JP

[Harlequin Solit]

Riiight.... With the whole 'serving' thing, you seem to be totally ignorant to the fact that every time you see your 'husband' you think about what he did to you. Plus, you'd have to live with a dangerous, abusive person all your life. And to top it all off, you can never marry the one you really love. Well, that sounds fair.

jp scares me too... lol... Are you totally blind to emotion? You seem to think that marriage is like getting a parking ticket. And in your little village setting, you'd never be able to divorce, either. No wonder the women wouldn't speak of being raped; They'd be scaresd sh**less by the consequences, therefore letting the raper get away free.

[jpholding]

Riiight.... With the whole 'serving' thing, you seem to be totally ignorant to the fact that every time you see your 'husband' you think about what he did to you.

As usual, you seem to be totally ignorant to the fact that every time you see your "husband" and think about what he did to you, you are reminded that your honor is restored by his subservience and his shame is added to by it. This is the way an agonistic society worked. Honor was as important to these people as paying the bills is to us. If you don't understand the culture and its differences, don't comment.

Plus, you'd have to live with a dangerous, abusive person all your life

Plus, that dangerous, abusive person is surrounded by people ready to kick his rear if he so much as snarls.

And to top it all off, you can never marry the one you really love.

To top it all off, you think that a concept like romantic love was prominent among ancient peasants, who married their children off at age 14 to whoever had the most property. They were a lot more interested in survival, sorry.

jp scares me too... lol... Are you totally blind to emotion?

When it comes to the rational, yes. It keeps from being fooled.

No wonder the women wouldn't speak of being raped; They'd be scaresd sh**less by the consequences, therefore letting the raper get away free.

What do you mean, they wouldn't speak of it? Of course they would. Where do you get that prime piece of nonsense? (Let me guess....a decontextualized reading of the OT?)

[Queen]

JPHolding:

You don't have any idea....you don't have any clue what it feels like to be raped?

Do you really think women in ancient cultures and other cultures did not suffer the same pain as I?

Ever heard of PTSD (Post traumatic Stress Syndrome)?

Flashback, nightmares, fear and anxiety, depression, suicidal feelings, feelings of guilt, not able to make love to the one you love and so on

The survivors of rape haven't changed, you know....the laws have changed and finally it is accepted that women need help and don't have sexual fantasies about being raped.......

Do you really think those women accepted this fact? They suffered the rest of their lives in silence. You know what that means, to suffer in silence?....I did that 20 years.

I really hope you will always be safe, because this is such a terrible crime.....you are violated, your soul and body! And whatever some God decides...it is wrong to say this ina any day and age....and I pitty those women in that bigamist society.....I feel so sorry for them...How cruel can a law be anyway?

And if it is so ancient....should we not adapt this to this day and age? Because you say I have to place it in those days......but I live in the here and now.

You have hurt me by belittling my pain and suffering and of those millions of men and women that suffer this every year....I feel sorry for you, that your heart is so locked up in the word of God that you are not able to feel any compassion and ridicule this topic with your harsh and insensitive opinions...
Still I wish you your whole life,

Lots of love and sunshine and I hope your heart will fill with compassion one day!
Queen

[jason_r]

Queen, i'm really sorry to hear about what you've gone through and all of the suffering you've experienced. i know it probably doesn't mean anything to you, but i'll pray for you.

[Queen]

Jason,

Thanks, it does mean a lot to me!!!......and I appriciate the prayers, a lot.

I might be an atheist, but I am not heartless. I accept any kind of compassion...how small it may seem to others!!

Thank you for your prayers. You are a good human being.... :flowers:

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

[Mitbulls]

You have hurt me by belittling my pain and suffering and of those millions of men and women that suffer this every year....I feel sorry for you, that your heart is so locked up in the word of God that you are not able to feel any compassion and ridicule this topic with your harsh and insensitive opinions...
Still I wish you your whole life

Sorry to interject, but just a point in defense of JPH. I think you're misinterpreting his point. I seriously doubt that JPH is trying to downplay the tragedy of the event of rape, but to make the punishment more understandable to you through the cultural situation. The women at that time did suffer, he's not arguing that they didn't. He IS arguing, however, that the law provides fair punishment for the crime. He's also trying to encourage you to look at the law in the way it was intended, in context of the culture to whom it was written. When you do this, his arguments make perfect sense without seeming "insensitive"

[Queen]

Okay...let's take it to that time..... :grin:

You now tell me I should place this verse from the bible in that age and time, right?

Well, if this verse should be placed in that time, what about the rest? You just said that the bible should be placed in that age and time and there are a lot of things in the bible that do not fit in this age and time and culture.....so the word of God is not something of this age anymore. So the word of God can be adapted to this age.....

I think that Genesis is out of date. Let's replace that book by the origins of species.
Homosexual relationships are not unantural, they occur in nature so that should be adapted.
Scarifice is not of this day and age, you can't just sacrifice your goat in your backyard.
We have new diseases, new weapons, new ways of life.......let's just throw the whole book away and re-write it, because it is so old fashioned that it is from the Ancient days....

Hmm......how true are the words from the bible anyway?

Just hypothesis.......just looking at it without emotion and feelings and respect for the religion....looking at it rationally......

Yes, am am emotional, thank you......what is wrong with emotions? I love my emotions, they are part of me. So I am irrationally? well, better irrationally than cold! :rant:

Man, I sound really mad....not personally meant, I needed to let out some steam here!!!

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

[Harlequin Solit]

Right.... So your rational, but you place all your faith in an ancient book with no real evidence whatsoever? You really are teh definition of rational, especially how you said 'as usual' and you and I have only ever posted against each other what, once before?

What do you mean, they wouldn't speak of it? Of course they would. Where do you get that prime piece of nonsense? (Let me guess....a decontextualized reading of the OT?) Well, lessee, maybe the forced marriage against the person tehy hate the most for the rest of their life might make them think twice....

[jpholding]

Ahem,

You don't have any idea....you don't have any clue what it feels like to be raped?

How does that affect wheher or not the punishment was what the ancients preferred? Mitbulls is correct. And you are using emotional as an argument where it has no application.

As for knowing about it, it may interest you to know that more men are raped in the USA than women. It's just not heard about because it happens behind bars. That said if I had my druthers rape today would receive the death penalty.

Do you really think women in ancient cultures and other cultures did not suffer the same pain as I?

I do know that they dealt with that pain differently.

Ever heard of PTSD (Post traumatic Stress Syndrome)?

Diagnosed in 1400 BC? I think not. Are you even hearing what is being said about the differences of an agonistic culture?

The survivors of rape haven't changed, you know...

Until you explain to me why it is the same under an honor-shame dialectic, all you are doing is assuming that everyone, everyplace, thinks as you do. Is that wise?

Do you really think those women accepted this fact?

No. As I clearly indicated, they as much wanted the man shamed as anyone else, and their own honor restored. No silence there. Their justice was loud and proud. It just wasn't what YOU would do, which is fair because you are neither agonistic in outlook nor collectivist.

and age....and I pitty those women in that bigamist society

"Bigamist"? What's that got to do with this?

nd if it is so ancient....should we not adapt this to this day and age?

Yes. Who told you it should be used today? You won't hear that out of my mouth. You merely assumed it, did you not? Is that fair?

Well, if this verse should be placed in that time, what about the rest?

The same. But who is telling you they should be applied exactly the same? Obviously some laws reflect moral universals (like "thou shalt not steal") but beyond that, there are others that are specifically applicable only to that setting. (And actually, since the majority of the world is even now still collectivist and agonistic -- it's us who are "odd" in America and the West. Not them.)

.....so the word of God is not something of this age anymore. So the word of God can be adapted to this age.....

Yes it can. But only with great care and suitable knowledge.

I think that Genesis is out of date. Let's replace that book by the origins of species.

Poor analogy. Cultural differences are one thing; science issues are another. One relates to complex psychology; the other relates to objective, testable facts.

Homosexual relationships are not unantural, they occur in nature so that should be adapted.

Hmm. Beg my pardon for asking, but doesn't rape occur in nature also? And murder within species?

Scarifice is not of this day and age, you can't just sacrifice your goat in your backyard.

That one at least is correct. Sacrifice was a function of the specific Deuteronomic covenant.

We have new diseases, new weapons, new ways of life.......let's just throw the whole book away and re-write it, because it is so old fashioned that it is from the Ancient days....

How about the concept of "annotation" instead? Or would you also throw away Confucious, Seneca, Pliny, Lao Tzu?

Hmm......how true are the words from the bible anyway?

Which ones do you wish to talk about?

Yes, am am emotional, thank you......what is wrong with emotions? I love my emotions, they are part of me. So I am irrationally? well, better irrationally than cold! :rant:

Hmm. Do tell me that the next time someone needs CPR in a crowded bus and all the emotional people are beside themselves while the one cool, rational head "coldly" steps forward to save a life...

Harlequin Solit:

Right.... So your rational, but you place all your faith in an ancient book with no real evidence whatsoever?

Uh huh. Piles of evidence, actually. And if you want to debate an issue I'm up on, let's hear it.

said 'as usual' and you and I have only ever posted against each other what, once before?

As usual for the collective of persons who regularly decontextualize.

Well, lessee, maybe the forced marriage against the person tehy hate the most for the rest of their life might make them think twice....

Running in circles? #1, this "forced" marriage represents what these persons wanted to vindicate themselves, as I have noted, but to which no one has replied with an actual answer. #2, here's a little lesson from Hillers' book, Covenant: The History of a Biblical Idea:

..(T)here is no evidence that any collection of Near Eastern laws functioned as a written code that was applied by a strict method of exegesis to individual cases. As far as we can tell, these bodies of laws served educational purposes and gave expression to what was regarded as just in typical cases, but they left considerable latitude to local courts for determining the right in individual suits. They aided local courts without controlling them.

In other words, if by some chance the woman decided she did NOT want the marriage, she could appeal to the local courts to rule differently. But once again, as Hillers puts it, the marriage option as such laws was actually TYPICAL of what was normally desired, so let's not have that rather silly picture of a bunch of googly-eyed village idiots each whipping out their copy of Deuteronomy and putting on their tunnel vision.

You won't find the Code of Hammurabi appealed to in any Babylonian court documents either.

[BeHereNow]

JPH:

Just letting you know I haven't forgotten about this thread (pg. 13) (or Campbell for that matter~). I've been too busy to engage in research and discussion lately, but I promise I will get to it as soon as my schedule allows.

:bunny:

[jimbo]

Queen,

Don't let "JPH" bother you. Understand that he has devoted his life to Christian apologetics. He has to defend biblical atrocities and absurdities so he has invented various rationalizations for them. His excuse for this rape "law" from God is just another in a long list of excuses he has manufactured for various God-ordained cruelties and barbarities in the bible.

Keep in mind that, despite his posturing as a completely rational and highly educated intellectual, Mr Holding is by all indications a young earth creationist and he thinks that the Adam and Eve story is an actual historical event. In other words, he doesn't think Genesis needs to be updated or thrown out. I would say that Mr. "Holding" accepts the Adam and Eve story as true not because of the a careful appraisal of the facts of history and science, but rather because of an emotional attachment to his religious beliefs.

Cheers,

Jimbo

[jimbo]

Mr "Holding,"


QUEEN: You don't have any idea....you don't have any clue what it feels like to be raped?

"HOLDING": How does that affect wheher or not the punishment was what the ancients preferred?

You have never been raped, have you Mr. "Holding"?

Jimbo

[Wesley's son]

Today @ 10:15 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=245950#post245950)
jimbo:

Queen,

Don't let &quot;JPH&quot; bother you. Understand that he has devoted his life to Christian apologetics. He has to defend biblical atrocities and absurdities so he has invented various rationalizations for them. His excuse for this rape &quot;law&quot; from God is just another in a long list of excuses he has manufactured for various God-ordained cruelties and barbarities in the bible.

Keep in mind that, despite his posturing as a completely rational and highly educated intellectual, Mr Holding is by all indications a young earth creationist and he thinks that the Adam and Eve story is an actual historical event. In other words, he doesn't think Genesis needs to be updated or thrown out. I would say that Mr. &quot;Holding&quot; accepts this Adam and Eve story as true not because of the a careful appraisal of the facts of history and science, but rather because of an emotional attachment to his religious beliefs.

Cheers,

Jimbo


Speculation on your part. I have seen Mr. Holding, in writing, abstain from creation/evolution debate as he admits it is not his forte.

[Wesley's son]

Today @ 10:41 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=245974#post245974)
jimbo:

Mr &quot;Holding,&quot;



You have never been raped, have you Mr. &quot;Holding&quot;?

Jimbo

Which punishment is worse: going to prison for a few years (as is the case in the American judicial system), or being a family's personal slave until your death?

[jimbo]

Wesley,


Speculation on your part. I have seen Mr. Holding, in writing, abstain from creation/evolution debate as he admits it is not his forte.

"Holding" appears to dismiss evolution because he objects to some analogies Dr. Richard Dawkins uses to illustrate various principles of evolution:

http://www.tektonics.org/evologic.html

Here is a critique of "Holding's" article on Dawkins:

http://members.aol.com/bbu82/holdevo.htm

"Holding" is a bible inerrantist who links to Answers in Genesis for questions about creationism. If creation/evolution is not his "forte" though, how can he pretend that he knows AIG's information is reliable?

http://www.tektonics.org/TK-E.html

"I'm no scientist, so expect mostly links here. I prefer to refer folks to my friends at Answers in Genesis."

Answers in Genesis is a young earth creationist organization. This organization has a "Statment of Faith (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp)" that includes the following:


D) GENERAL

The following are held by members of the Board of Answers in Genesis to be either consistent with Scripture or implied by Scripture:

Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation.

The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six [6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of Creation.

The Noachian Flood was a significant geological event and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time.

The ‘gap’ theory has no basis in Scripture.

The view, commonly used to evade the implications or the authority of Biblical teaching, that knowledge and/or truth may be divided into ‘secular’ and ‘religious’, is rejected.

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. (emphasis added) Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

Remember-"Holding" refers people to AIG for scientific information.

Furthermore, in various parts of his site,"Holding" defends the Adam and Eve story and indicates that he believes Genesis is literally true. Here is a quote from his site:

http://www.tektonics.org/TK-GEN.html

"The Discovery of Genesis by Ethel Nelson -- buy this book from Amazon.com -- how Chinese language characaters confirm the literal truth of Genesis -- see related item here."

Here are some "Holding" essays on Genesis.

http://www.tektonics.org/cainwife.html

http://www.tektonics.org/TK-GEN.html (repeated link)

Jimbo

[Queen]

Lovely people,

Please throw away the bible for one second and look at this subject with the heart. Look at it from your own feelings. This is not something you can rationalize and place in a different time and age. It happens still and it will happen in the future as well. As soon as I push this button another woman or man has suffered rape and will be sentenced for life. That happens when you are a victim/survivor. They stopped struggling, were afraid to scream even though it happened in the garden, their own house, their street, in their home towns. They are sinners because they froze and did not scream? They deserve to die? Because God tells us that she has to scream or she will be stoned to death if she heard help and didn't scream? And if she could not scream for help she has to face him everyday? Excuse me if I am confused. Many things are scared from the bible and and the laws of God still mean everything to many Christians here. Nothing wrong with beliefs/ faith, but why should these laws be different, as you so gallantly express. I mean I respect your beliefs and faith, but if homosexual acts are a sin by God's law, why should this law be any different?


Which punishment is worse: going to prison for a few years (as is the case in the American judicial system), or being a family's personal slave until your death?

Which punishment is worse: Not seeing that sick ...... anymore or being faced with the body and soul that caused you horrific humiliation everyday?

Are you ready to read some rape stories? This is the link. Be careful, some of these stories are very graphic, written by survivors of rape. Don't go there if you can not handle this...

http://www.survivingtothriving.org/shareyourstory

Tell me after you have read these, that I must stay rational. Please understand my disgust about these "laws"..........

"Rape is the only crime where the victim becomes the accused"

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

[jpholding]

jimbo:
You have never been raped, have you Mr. "Holding"?



You've never lived in the Ancient Near East, or lived in an agonistic society have you "Jimbo"?


Queen:

Please throw away the bible for one second and look at this subject with the heart. Look at it from your own feelings. This is not something you can rationalize and place in a different time and age.

In other words, you don't have any answer other than continued temporal provinicialism. Queen, do you value cultural diversity? Isn't it rather bigoted and presumptive to assume that just because you felt a certain way, all others thorugh space and time have as well? This is your one and only argument. You're not answering any points I have made about the difference; all you do is continue to universalize your experience without any justification.

They are sinners because they froze and did not scream?

And of course, rather than answer, you change the subject? Keep in mind the words of Hillers: If the woman said, "I was too scared to scream," or if the rapist stuffed her mouth with something, the judges took this into account. Reread what Hillers says. This is case law, not an instruction booklet.

Nothing wrong with beliefs/ faith, but why should these laws be different, as you so gallantly express. I mean I respect your beliefs and faith, but if homosexual acts are a sin by God's law, why should this law be any different?

The answer depends on each law by case and the reason for it.

Which punishment is worse: Not seeing that sick ...... anymore or being faced with the body and soul that caused you horrific humiliation everyday?

To an ancient agonistic person, seeing that sick....horrifically humiliated every day is even better. Can you even imagine that?

Are you ready to read some rape stories?

If they all come from modern, individualist persons they are of no relevance to this discussion. You do not universalize these experiences by mere repetition, Queen.

Tell me after you have read these, that I must stay rational.

You must, about the subject of how Deut. deals with the matter, otherwise you become "one of them" as you in essence violate the text and the judgment values of the persons who wrote it. Is that what you want to do?

Please understand my disgust about these "laws"..........

And why are you not willing to understand their perspective?

In closing, here is a link as well:

http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.08.29/living5.portion.html

It is short enough to include here, however. It is indirectly relevant, but does show how the thinking of the Easterner is different even today. Read this and tell me that you have the right to universalize your feelings.

We Have a Different Sense of Justice
THE PORTION
Deuteronomy 16:18-21:9
By GARY A. RENDSBURG

In 1931 my late teacher Cyrus Gordon, who died in 2001, was a young archaeologist working at an excavation in the Kurdish region of northern Iraq. As one might imagine, the region was much safer than it is in our day. Indeed, usually there were no problems with the local villagers on such scholarly expeditions. On one occasion, however, as professor Gordon related, a minor annoyance occurred. Each morning the archaeological team would awake to find that its Jeep had been overturned. The men would turn the Jeep right side up each time, but the next day they would find that the Jeep had been overturned again. After several days of such activity, the archaeologists complained to the local mukhtar (the Arabic word for "mayor," though in the typical village he serves as mayor, chief of police and magistrate all rolled into one). The mukhtar said he would take care of the matter.

Later that day the mukhtar came to the archaeologists and said, "Your Jeep will not be overturned again." The excavators asked, "What did you do?" The mukhtar pointed to the nearest house situated atop one of the nearby hills and said, "Do you see that house up there? My men went in there and roughed up the place." The archaeologists asked, "Are they the ones that overturned the Jeep?" And the mukhtar replied, "No, but they will find out who did it, and they will take care of them." The archaeologists understandably were astonished by such a display of justice, but the mukhtar had a ready reply. He had been exposed to some Western ideas of jurisprudence, and he explained to the American visitors, "You see, we have a different sense of justice than in your society. In your society, you punish criminals. In our society, we punish crimes."

I first heard this story from professor Gordon when I was a graduate student in the 1970s. Our graduate seminars typically involved reading ancient texts in various Semitic languages, and the usual approach was to compare one ancient Near Eastern culture to another. Most often we would apply knowledge gained from reading the literature of the Babylonians or the Canaanites or the Egyptians to the Bible. But very frequently something in a text would resonate with one of my teacher's life experiences from his years in the modern Middle East. And he delighted in sharing such stories with us.

The comparison between something experienced in this century and something from 3,000 years ago is possible because the Near East is a region of tenaciously traditional lifestyles and values. Obviously, the Near East today is rapidly changing, so when we speak of the traditional Near East, we do not have in mind people under the influence of Western society who may speak English or French and who dress in European fashion (as one encounters in urban settings in the modern Middle East). Instead, we must seek out villagers and Bedouins whose social world has changed little since antiquity.

For the biblical scholar today, often such villages and Bedouin tribes are inaccessible. Most scholars of the Bible today have traveled extensively in Israel, but have limited experience in other countries. And since Israel is the most westernized of the Middle Eastern countries, it is not the best place to study traditional Near Eastern life. Fortunately, however, the generation of scholars to which I belong had teachers who experienced the Near East both before the increase of Westernization and before modern politics made travel in many countries extremely dangerous.

How does all this relate to this week's portion? The last of the many laws presented in Shoftim is the law of unsolved homicide. Deuteronomy 21:1-9 describes a situation whereby a slain corpse is found in the open field between two cities and the identity of the slayer is unknown. The elders of the two cities are to measure the distance between the site and their cities, and the residents of the closer city must perform a ritual of expiation and atonement. The specifics of this ritual are rather strange. A heifer that has never been worked must be taken to a wadi, and there it is to be killed by breaking its neck. The elders of the closer city are to wash their hands over this slain animal and declare: "Our hands did not shed this blood, nor did our eyes see it done. Absolve your people Israel whom you redeemed, O Lord, and do not place innocent blood amidst your people Israel."

Now the elders of the closer city are by no means guilty of an offense, but it is interesting to note that a crime has been committed and thus expiation is necessary. One need only compare what would occur under similar circumstances in the United States. Obviously, the police would do all they could to investigate the crime. But if no murderer were found, that would be the end of the case. True, the police file would remain open, for years in fact, but no further criminal procedure would be necessary. To be sure, no one would have to be absolved of or punished for the crime. The reason is obvious, and indeed it was stated by the mukhtar in the story related above. In our society, we punish criminals. If no criminal is found, then the case does not proceed further. But in the Near East, crimes are punished. This is true not only in the story that professor Gordon related, but said story explains the law in Deuteronomy more adequately than a dozen scholarly monographs on biblical theology and law.


Gary Rendsburg is the Paul and Berthe Hendrix memorial professor of Jewish studies at Cornell University.

[Queen]

JP,

You use the same answers to different questions. Am I bigoted? I believe you are living in lala land, thinking that rape should be placed in that ancient time as something women "accepted". This is such Bull#$@#. Because I am reacting emotional to an insulting law in the bible, I am a bigote??????

And where did you came up with words like temporal provinicialism? Me? You really don't know me. I act as a temporal provinicialist? Man, if someone of us two is broad minded it is surely not you. I think you are afraid of the here and now, because you know this law sucks in the here and now. If it is out of date and those women accepted this law......I don't want to read such tasteless things in my bible. (Yep, I owe a bible... :tongue: ).


If they all come from modern, individualist persons they are of no relevance to this discussion. You do not universalize these experiences by mere repetition, Queen.

Why do you use a computer??????? Are you afraid to read it? You should be ....these are stories from people all over the world women but also men, from different cultural backgrounds. How strange they suffer the same. PTSD may not have had a name in that day and age, but why should these women not suffer from the same symptoms. Breaking a leg in that age was the same as breaking a leg today. We just have better ways to treat it....that doesn't mean it didn't exist 1400 BC.

You use the same lame answers on your site....you don't speak from the heart.....that would be too difficult I guess

And the fact that you make these survivors of rape ridiculous and belittle them, the survivors of the here and now tells me a lot about your true personality. I am not planning to talk with you anymore, because you are like a brick wall......and I don't want to waste my strenght on you anymore. So I push the ignore button and wish you a good life.

Queen

[jason_r]

Sorry for getting in the middle of this, but I think you two are just on different "wavelengths." I totally understand JP's answers, but I can also see that Queen is approaching this issue from a different persepective so the discussion isn't quite "connecting." I don't know...Just wanted to throw in my observations of this.

[Queen]

Probably Jason, but JP could have expressed that in a different way.....IMHO...but I guess we are all just human. I just don't understand if the laws of God apply as well to the now, why this should be different...

Well, never mind...I am rambling..... :metro:

I should not have entered this discussion in the first place, because it is very personal.....so the mistake is mine in this case.

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

[ChrisChillin]

Hi Queen!

Great name, it's the nickname for of my old friends in high school. But now we're far away from each other - she's at school in Pennsylvania and I am still down in the South (okay, well, in London for this semester). Sniff sniff. You sound very sweet - just like she is.



JP could have expressed that in a different way.....IMHO...but I guess we are all just human.

Indeed. I'm sorry if it sounds like JP is incapable of understanding that you've been through a lot of pain. I don't think that's the case. Instead, he's approaching the subject rationally because he thinks, and I do as well, that unless you go about it that way, then it is extremely unlikely that you will be able to understand a millennia-old text. His point is quite valid that cultures are very different - in some ways, people are people. In others, it can be quite surprising how different other societies are in comparison to our understanding of the values and mores of shared humanity. Another way this was brought home to me was recently in my Shakespeare class. The professor remarked that literary critic Harold Bloom actually argues in a book that Shakespeare is largely responsible, through his plays, for the emergence in Western civilization of the concept of an inner, individual self. It sounds strange to our ears, as we are thoroughly soaked in individualism, with all its attendant blessings and curses, in this modern society.

The fact remains, that people thought, felt, and acted differently in ancient Israel.
But there is also the fact that, because the women of those days were as human as they are, they suffered greatly when they were raped.
But returning to the first fact, one realizes that the way they in that society carried out justice and relieved the pain was different from our methods, since they were different from us.

Arguing this point is in no way meant to minimalize your suffering or pain. God help anyone who who would think that way.


I just don't understand if the laws of God apply as well to the now, why this should be different...

Because we are a different society with a different social structure, standard of living, economic system, and so on and so forth. We can recognize the principle (that rape is wrong and must be dealt with) and then determine the types of punishment and relief that would best serve our current civilization.

For a Christian, the approach to these laws is to discern the great moral principles in them that justly apply to any age and society. The principles stay the same, but their specific application in terms of appropriate methods of justice and redemption from suffering can change with the times.

I hope this little bit helps. I will pray for your continual progress along the road to recovery.


Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

Yay! May the sun shine always on your face.

- Chris

[Queen]

Hi ChrisChillin,

Thanks for your sweet explanation. This is much better. I understand that the laws at those times were different, but still it seems cruel. I notice here that people take the words of the bible literally and why should this be any different. The fact that a woman doesn't scream for help and was stoned to death makes her the accused as well.....as if she wanted that. With my personal story I just wanted to explain that it is not justice even in that day and ancient times. Those laws seem so unjust to me. The women may have accepted this as a punishment, but even when a rapist is punished today according our laws, it doesn't heal the survivor immediately. They suffer....I call it life sentence to explain that the victims are punish by the act of rape itself.....even if they do not show it to the outside world.

I talk with women and men on the web that are raped as well. They are so strong, but also deserve some compassion.JP might be correct, but his response to my emotional posts lack compassion (at least I don't see it....so it could be my fault). I am called a temporal provincinalist and a bigot because I reacted from the heart......that is unfair, I don't deserve that.

My rapists were never reported by me. I was too scared and too ashamed. I didn't cry out for help and I know people were close enough to help me, but I froze.......so these laws have a personal impact on me. And the only way to avoid myself from committing suicide is to accept the fact that I am totally innocent although I feel guilty. These verse from the bible express this feeling of guilt. All I wanted from JP is some understanding and not called these names. He is blinded by his faith, because he repeats the answers and does not reply from the heart...

All this is of course my own view on the matter and has nothing to do with JP as a person. I don't know him personally, but I will avoid him, because he has hurt me, even if it was unintentionally I have to think of me first in this matter.

Thank you again for your sweet explanation and it is really wonderful that you defend JP's intensions and POV's. You are the sweet person here, not me! I just wish he had done it.

I dunno.....like I said, it is my own stupid fault to even participate in these kind of discussions..... :doh: :metro:

Let there be sunshine on your roads in life, always

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

[jpholding]

Sigh....

I believe you are living in lala land, thinking that rape should be placed in that ancient time as something women "accepted".

Well, since Queen is ignoring me now, this is just for the benefit of defense. Read carefully:

It is NOT that the RAPE was accepted.

It is that DIFFERENT PUNISHMENT for rape was accepted and desired.

Queen's error is in continuing to assume that persons living in this day were sated by the same forms of administrative justice as she would be.

And where did you came up with words like temporal provinicialism?

The author Michael Crichton. In his book on time travel into the Middle Ages.

Me? You really don't know me.

I know what you argue, and that evidences temporal provincialism.

I think you are afraid of the here and now, because you know this law sucks in the here and now.

Hmm. So merely reaffirming your provinicialism is the answer? Isn't this contrary to what Queen says elsewhere about being glad people find peace in whatever they find peace in? What if they found peace and justice in this law (never mind considering how it was socially suited to the period)?

Why do you use a computer??????? Are you afraid to read it?

Are you grasping at straws by assuming that fear is behind every decision you don't like? What's to fear? I've stared down prison inmates. I've read their transcripts at trial and heard their stories. I've seen accounts of child molestation that would turn everyone here blue in the face. The point remains that personal accounts of modern persons has no bearing on the issue of how people lived and thought in 1400 BC. Not today.

but why should these women not suffer from the same symptoms.

Because psychology was entirely different. A broken leg is a very poor analogy -- the simple fact is that there were different forms of thinking and different ways of reacting to such traumas. A leg is not a human psyche.

Do you even realize how much of these people's time was occupied with just the question of where their next meal was coming from? There was constant danger from bandits, starvation, wild animals, disease, climate -- there was no time for introspection or "PTSD" to develop. The stresses they were under would turn all of us here into blithering idiots.

You use the same lame answers on your site....you don't speak from the heart.....that would be too difficult I guess

It would be too patently irreponsible. Speaking from the heart apparently equates here with not answering the argument.

And the fact that you make these survivors of rape ridiculous and belittle them

How, exactly? By noting that their stories are not germane to the question of social paradigms of the ancient world? That makes it "ridiculous" and "belittling"? It's clear that all that was done was looking for buzzwords, and turning adjectives into proper pronouns as below.

So I push the ignore button and wish you a good life.

In short, Queen cannot answer my questions. And then she asks Chris the same ones I have already answered. Hmph. So here is how it goes:

Q: "Those laws seem so unjust to me!"
J: "Well, they were not considered unjust because X Y and Z was so."
Q: (ignoring X Y and Z) "Well, those laws seem so unjust to me!"
J: "But you are not living in that day and don't even think as they did. Here is how they thought differently: A, B, C. Now what do you say?"
Q: (ignoring A, B and C) "Well, those laws seem so unjust to me!"

(repeat for the next 452 hours)

All I wanted from JP is some understanding and not called these names.

Did I call "names"? Let's see...

"In other words, you don't have any answer other than continued temporal provinicialism. Queen, do you value cultural diversity? Isn't it rather bigoted and presumptive to assume that just because you felt a certain way, all others thorugh space and time have as well?"

Did I call a name here? Or did I address specific actions?

He is blinded by his faith, because he repeats the answers and does not reply from the heart...

If replying "from the heart" involves distorting or ignoring the truth, then the heart is best left out of the conversation.

The story of dealing with the modern world. Good luck, Chris.

[Harlequin Solit]

The truth that there is a superbeing in space who made everything, and if you don't :bow: you'll get pitchfork somewhere you don't want it in the afterlife... That's truth because an old book says so...

Uh-huh, excuse my sarcasm, but I doubt you are in the same faith/religion as JP anyway, you sensible Christians out there, not someone who believes that punishing the victim is the way to go...

You were raped! You'll live with the rapist for the rest of your life, you'll eat and sleep with him, as a punishment to him! He obviously fancies you, and you hate him, so you'll marry! That'll teach him that raping isn't the way to get what you want, eh?

[jason_r]

Posted by Harlequin Solit on Today 05:04 PM:

The truth that there is a superbeing in space who made everything, and if you don't :bow: you'll get pitchfork somewhere you don't want it in the afterlife... That's truth because an old book says so...

Uh-huh, excuse my sarcasm, but I doubt you are in the same faith/religion as JP anyway, you sensible Christians out there, not someone who believes that punishing the victim is the way to go...

You were raped! You'll live with the rapist for the rest of your life, you'll eat and sleep with him, as a punishment to him! He obviously fancies you, and you hate him, so you'll marry! That'll teach him that raping isn't the way to get what you want, eh?

wow...you really make atheists look ignorant. :p

hmm...sorry...i guess all the negativity is rubbing off on me.

[geebob]

And the only way to avoid myself from committing suicide is to accept the fact that I am totally innocent although I feel guilty. These verse from the bible express this feeling of guilt.

This shows that our sexuality is involved with the very core of our being. So naturally such a mangling would strike at our self worth. It must be terrible feel like commiting suicide, but now that you know what rape does to someone, perhaps you can imagine why it should be impressed upon girls to defend themselves in such a situation by whatever means possible including screaming. They should scream out of regard for their life because sexuality in so many ways is an issue of life and death.

Suppose you had an infant in your arms and a man came at you with a knife to kill your infant. If there were people nearby who could help only if notified, you would scream rather than try to protect something so valuable on your own. And How would we view the mother who didn't do everything to protect her baby?

A fallacy here is to assume that we are worth less than infants. God is no respecter of persons so we are inconsistent when we assume that a full grown woman is not worth as much. But that assumption is pronounced by the obviousness of the value of a child. You are that valuable person that you are charged with protection, and only for the sake of another should you even consider giving it up.

I don't see that you have to like that law but perhaps you could appreciate what it was for, to get girls to preserve something that goes to the very core of their being. And not doing so would be culpable. But if this sounds awful to you, there are two reasons. One is that you did not live in a culture that impressed the importance as gravely for you to protect yourself in such a way, as much bravery as that may have taken. For all I know, The people nearby may not have been the type of folks who would rush to the aid of a screaming woman (There was a real infamous similar case in New York were several dozen people watched from their windows as a woman screamed as an attacker proceeded to murder her. I can't recall the name of the case). Secondly, we are now in a much better situation. God has come down and has made his suffering evident in a radical way. So it was not only you that suffered in that grave circumstance, but God suffered with you ("for whatever you do unto the least of these..."). And we can find healing when we pour our suffering into the suffering of God ("by his stripes (wip lashes) we are healed"). But as long as we live in the flesh, such deep wounds will leave permenant scars, but they are scars that God has as well.

[sbgrace]

I hope this proves to be consoling to Queen or anyone else who may have suffered the horrors of rape: God promises there will ultimately be justice. He will wipe away all tears; he will heal the broken-hearted. Things will be set right in the end.
I can think of no more heinous crime than rape. However, I'm also under no delusion that I have a higher moral standard than God. God hates rape. I think if we read the Bible in it's complete context and avoid isolating specific passages of scripture, we will see that the Bible makes this very clear.
Jesus paid the price for all of our sin, rapists included. Therefore God has suffered more because of rape than anyone (though I don't mean to minimize Queen's or anyone else's pain in saying this: I merely hope to make clear that God shares that pain in a very personal and intimate way).

[Queen]

sbgrace,

You not minimize my pain. This is very sweet of you. I am an atheist so I see things differently, but it is good to know that you believe there is something out there that understands and shares my pain and the pain of all rape victims....You are very kind!! Thank you.

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

[geebob]

me neither. I said it was indicative of truth. hope you didn't stop reading till you got to the end.

[sbgrace]

Queen, thank you for your kind reply. I'm glad my post may have helped you in some way. May I ask you a question? If you're an athiest, why do you come to a theology web site? Please don't interpret this as me saying you shouldn't come to this site; on the contrary, I think your perspective and insights are very valuable. I was just curious as to what you gain from the discussions that take place. Are you open to the possibility that God exists?

[Harlequin Solit]

That may have been for Queen, but if I may, may I put in my 2 cents?

I am open to the possibility of God existing, when there is hard evidence. If they found evidence of the Loch Ness Monster or the Yeti, I would accept that as fact too.

[Queen]

Hi sbgrace,


Queen, thank you for your kind reply. I'm glad my post may have helped you in some way. May I ask you a question? If you're an athiest, why do you come to a theology web site? Please don't interpret this as me saying you shouldn't come to this site; on the contrary, I think your perspective and insights are very valuable. I was just curious as to what you gain from the discussions that take place. Are you open to the possibility that God exists?

I believe there is good in all religions and I want to share my POV with people of all kinds of religions. What do I gain from discussions here? Simple....It widdens my horizon, my view of the world. I also am always interested in the spiritual part of life. The fact that I do not believe in an Almighty presence, doesn't mean I am not interested in the spiritual part of people. And I came here to react to an homosexual discussion thread (because I am bisexual and I had to give some input...)

Not a very clear answer...but I stayed here, because I like these discussion with people who respect me for who I am....

Does this answer your question?

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

[geebob]

I am open to the possibility of God existing, when there is hard evidence. If they found evidence of the Loch Ness Monster or the Yeti, I would accept that as fact too.

The more fundamental question is what kind of God exists. If we don't know what to look for, I might as well hand you some alleged pictures of the lochness monster and say "see, here's some evidence that God exists."

[sbgrace]

Thanks again for your reply Queen, and thanks for chiming in too, Harlequin; glad to have your participation. I have another question for the two of you: do you believe in absolute truth? For example, would you say it's always wrong to rape someone? Is "rape is wrong" an absolute truth in that no matter the circumstances or situation, it's always wrong to forcibly have sexual relations with another person? Does absolute unchangable truth exist?

[jimbo]

sbgrace,


For example, would you say it's always wrong to rape someone? Is "rape is wrong" an absolute truth in that no matter the circumstances or situation, it's always wrong to forcibly have sexual relations with another person?

I think it is wrong to "forcibly have sexual relations with another person." In most human ethical systems, harming innocent people by assaulting them is viewed as morally wrong. I am not quite sure what you mean when you use the term "absolute truth." When you ask "Is 'rape is wrong' an absolute truth in that no matter the circumstances or situation, it's always wrong to forcibly have sexual relations with another person?" are you implying that this idea is clearly laid out in the bible?

Would you say that the following things are absolutely morally wrong?:

"Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

Moses to his "soldiers"-Numbers 31:17


"Behold the day of the Lord is coming, when the spoil taken from you will be divided in the midst of you. For I will gather the nations against Jerusalem to battle, and the city shall be taken and the houses plundered and the women ravished..."

Christian god-Zechariah 14:1

Would you say that forced, lifelong slavery is absolutely morally wrong?:

"As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from the nations that are round about you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you, to inherit as a possession forever; you may make slaves of them, but over your bretheren the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another, with harshness."

Christian god-Leviticus 25:44

Jimbo

[jpholding]

Keep in mind that "Jimbo" knows that the Christian Thinktank has extensive answers to his objections, which he utterly ignores because he doesn't have the wherewithal to answer them.

[Queen]

Dear sbgrace,

Difficult question, but I will try to reflect my feelings on this matter.


For example, would you say it's always wrong to rape someone? Is "rape is wrong" an absolute truth in that no matter the circumstances or situation, it's always wrong to forcibly have sexual relations with another person? Does absolute unchangable truth exist?

Yes and no. Rape is always wrong, whatever the circumstances!! But their is of course nothing like absolute truth. Some rapists have no idea what they did to the victim. Still the victim always suffers, nobody what anyone else says.

Stealing is also wrong, but there can be a difference. Stealing a bread to feed your children is different fron stealing a cd from a store, because you don't want to spend the money on it....or whatever. In the case of rape their is no thin line between consensual sex and rape.....Rape is not about sex, but about power. The victim has to obey you or he/she will be punished. Of course I am not totally objective on the matter because I am a survivor of rape.....

Maybe someone else has a better look at things......at least a logical look without diminishing the pain of the survivors (no matter what time of history)

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen