"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.

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.

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

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

Today @ 03:53 PM post located here
jpholding:
What a loser you are, Bud.

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.

Today @ 04:39 PM post located here
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.

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.

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? )

Today @ 06:51 PM post located here
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.

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

Today @ 03:30 PM post located here
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.

Today @ 09:12 PM post located here
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.

U-huh.

Paul

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.

Today @ 06:51 PM post located here
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? )

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?

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)

Yesterday @ 11:31 PM post located here
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?

Today @ 12:37 AM post located here
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