kurious_kathy explain this.

[Ladewig]

Deuteronomy 22:23-24 refers to adultery, not rape specifically. The fact that the woman didn't resist ("she did not cry out in the town") means she was willing, so it wasn't rape.

So if the man has a knife to her throat and says that she if she screams that she will be dead before anyone can burst through the door, then she is willing and it is not rape? WTF? I hope that you never serve on a jury.

 

[Bri]

Actually, Bri, if you recall, I was arguing FOR free will. True, I don't believe there's a god, but I do believe in free will. I just found the entire conversation to be rather dense. Nice little ad hom on your part tho.

kmortis, I wasn't implying that you were arguing for or against free will. I apologize if I wasn't clear. I only meant that I agreed with you concerning the nature of such discussions (that they are rarely entertaining).

Ossai's need to bring the anamosity he apparently feels into a different thread is a testament to how unentertaining they can be!

EDIT: Perhaps you thought that I was implying that you were one of the "two other people" mentioned in Ossai's post. I wasn't, and I apologize if it seemed like I was.

-Bri

 

[David Swidler]

So if the man has a knife to her throat and says that she if she screams that she will be dead before anyone can burst through the door, then she is willing and it is not rape? WTF? I hope that you never serve on a jury.

Um, no. The field situation is a type, not the only mitigating circumstance. Your case is clearly the same.

 

[Ossai]

David Swidler

Did I miss something, Ossai? Is every person mentioned in the Bible supposed to have sterling character? Lot was no saint. He chose to live in Sodom, for cryin' out loud.

No. I was correcting Bri’s statement of the bible not condoning rape.

Bri

The thread in question concerned some folks who claimed that they could prove that God doesn't exist (involving discussions on compatibility of free will and omniscience).

You’re leaving out a few major chunks.

Ahem, let’s get back to the bible condoning rape. The Bible depicts god’s chosen people raping war victims and god’s chosen representative, Moses, getting angry because the Israelite army didn’t slaughter enough. So, taking the bible and reading like a fundy, it does indeed condone rape.

Ossai

 

[Bri]

Ahem, let’s get back to the bible condoning rape. The Bible depicts god’s chosen people raping war victims and god’s chosen representative, Moses, getting angry because the Israelite army didn’t slaughter enough. So, taking the bible and reading like a fundy, it does indeed condone rape.

As David Swindler indicated, even a more literalist reading of the passages you've posted don't indicate the Bible condoning rape. Do you have some other references that weren't already addressed?

-Bri

 

[Ladewig]

Um, no. The field situation is a type, not the only mitigating circumstance. Your case is clearly the same.

I see. They are "clearly the same," even thought the Bible doesn't describe them as being clearly the same. How precisely did you come to the conclusion that verse 25 was talking about all mitigating circumstances when it describes a very particular mitigating circumstance, i.e. in a field away from help? I would think that the inspired word of God would have been a little more clear on the matter of when to put a rape victim to death and when to not put a rape victim to death.

 

[SirPhilip]

Excuse me? I just dont have any idea where he is getting this info from.

The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whos consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer. If you point these things out to the brothers, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, brought up in truths of the faith and of the good teaching that you have followed. Have nothing to do with godless myths and old wives tales: rather, train yourself to be godly. For physical training is of some value, but godliness has value for all things, holding promise for both the present life and the life to come. This is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance,(and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.
1 Timothy 4:1-10

Ok, Kathy, I think we all at this point understand you think all this stuff is set in stone, and immutable truth. Assuming you just aren't trying to stir up trouble, though, you can either start parroting the bible with: "In my opnion, based on this screed (s) written by a bunch of people and revised by dozens more" because that is truly what it is by any measure of honest evaluation - either come to terms with this fact or be polite and take it somewhere else. Nobody enjoys having a dialogue with someone who feels with all their heart a giant pumpkin created everything and can't for the life of them imagine anything else. There is no respect whatsoever in the way you come across - it is you forcing your own inability to face your own uncertainty and rootlessness, on someone else. Take the wall down, land the plane, or go back to your walled off forum. Capiche?

 

[kurious_kathy]

I see. They are "clearly the same," even thought the Bible doesn't describe them as being clearly the same. How precisely did you come to the conclusion that verse 25 was talking about all mitigating circumstances when it describes a very particular mitigating circumstance, i.e. in a field away from help? I would think that the inspired word of God would have been a little more clear on the matter of when to put a rape victim to death and when to not put a rape victim to death.

Let's see, if you read the whole chapter it's much more clear, but let look at verse 25-29...25"But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die. 26"But you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl worthy of death, for just as a man rises against his neighbor and murders him, so is this case. 27"When he found her in the field, the engaged girl cried out, but there was no one to save her. 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,
29then 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.

It seems clear to me that God always gives someone a choice to repent and make amends for their actions.

 

[Ossai]

Bri

As David Swindler indicated, even a more literalist reading of the passages you've posted don't indicate the Bible condoning rape. Do you have some other references that weren't already addressed?

Yes, especially since David Swindler didn’t address either of the two examples I posted.

Ossai

 

[Ladewig]

Let's see, if you read the whole chapter it's much more clear, but let look at verse 25-29...25"But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die. 26"But you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl worthy of death, for just as a man rises against his neighbor and murders him, so is this case. 27"When he found her in the field, the engaged girl cried out, but there was no one to save her. 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,
29then 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.

It seems clear to me that God always gives someone a choice to repent and make amends for their actions.

You have an amazing ability to construct non sequiters. What you pointed out has absolutely nothing with what was being discussed. The issue was whether or not women raped in the city who didn't cry out should be put to death. What does "God always gives someone a choice to repent" have to do with that question?

Furthermore that statement: "God always gives someone a choice to repent" is contradicted by the very chapter you are quoting from. Deuteronomy 22:24 says that a man who rapes a married woman in a city must be put to death. God's law does NOT give that person a choice to repent and make amends. God's law says that he must be put to death. Therefore, God does not always give someone a choice to repent and make amends; you are wrong.

 

[Bri]

Yes, especially since David Swindler didn’t address either of the two examples I posted.

Ossai, he addressed the example concerning Lot offering his daughters to the mob here and the example concerning Numbers 31 refers to captives of war, which was already addressed here.

Are you referring to two other examples?

-Bri

 

[kurious_kathy]

You have an amazing ability to construct non sequiters. What you pointed out has absolutely nothing with what was being discussed. The issue was whether or not women raped in the city who didn't cry out should be put to death. What does "God always gives someone a choice to repent" have to do with that question?

Furthermore that statement: "God always gives someone a choice to repent" is contradicted by the very chapter you are quoting from. Deuteronomy 22:24 says that a man who rapes a married woman in a city must be put to death. God's law does NOT give that person a choice to repent and make amends. God's law says that he must be put to death. Therefore, God does not always give someone a choice to repent and make amends; you are wrong.

I was merely showing there is an important part to this chapter that wasn't being acknowledge. God gave the rapist a chance to make it better, this does not mean rape is ok. These days hopefully justice is served and these guys go to jail to learn their lesson. Rape is a sin and derserving of punishment.

But as a "New Testement Believer "I can see how some of these guys, perhaps in jail come to faith and repent from the pain they caused others, and ultimitely to themselves, thus asking God to forgive them and give them a new life. There are people out there that are truely changed after they come to the cross. How do you explain that?

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

But as a "New Testement Believer "I can see how some of these guys, perhaps in jail come to faith and repent from the pain they caused others, and ultimitely to themselves, thus asking God to forgive them and give them a new life. There are people out there that are truely changed after they come to the cross. How do you explain that?

Correlation isn't causation. That sums it up nicely.

 

[UrsulaV]

I was merely showing there is an important part to this chapter that wasn't being acknowledge. God gave the rapist a chance to make it better, this does not mean rape is ok.

Ah...what part of that chapter exactly are you talking about? Can you provide a quote to back up your statement?

Once again, Kathy, you can't just SAY stuff and have people believe you. You have to provide EVIDENCE.

Now, at this point, you have made a specific claim that the contents of this particular chapter of Deuteronomy include God giving the rapist a chance to make things better.

In order to not come off as badly as you keep coming off, you have to actually include a quote from Deuteronomy that backs this statement up. Show us specifically where, IN THAT CHAPTER, God is showen to be giving the rapist a chance. And if you can do that, then you may actually show that you are capable of holding an actual conversation instead of just preaching ineptly.

Or you can just ignore this question, as you ignore so many, and we'll continue to think very little of you. You have a chance, right here, to redeem yourself slightly, by providing a quote to back up your specific claim, though.

 

[slickcat]

Let's see, if you read the whole chapter it's much more clear, but let look at verse 25-29...25"But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die. 26"But you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl worthy of death, for just as a man rises against his neighbor and murders him, so is this case. 27"When he found her in the field, the engaged girl cried out, but there was no one to save her. 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,
29then 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.

It seems clear to me that God always gives someone a choice to repent and make amends for their actions.

I read the bible once, nice story, I heard Tarantino's doing the screenplay.

 

[Ladewig]

I was merely showing there is an important part to this chapter that wasn't being acknowledge. God gave the rapist a chance to make it better, this does not mean rape is ok. These days hopefully justice is served and these guys go to jail to learn their lesson. Rape is a sin and derserving of punishment.

But as a "New Testement Believer "I can see how some of these guys, perhaps in jail come to faith and repent from the pain they caused others, and ultimitely to themselves, thus asking God to forgive them and give them a new life. There are people out there that are truely changed after they come to the cross. How do you explain that?

The good news is that I no longer consider you to be a troll, i.e. one who posts statements that he or she doesn't believe just to provoke an emotional reaction form others. The bad news is that I am now convinced that your argumentative skills are so bad as to be almost beyond belief.

Let's back up.
I was arguing with D. Swindler about the precise meaning of Deutoronomy 22:23-24, specifically whether or not verse 24 was to be interpreted broadly enough to allow other mitigating circumstances or not. You then quoted some other verses and concluded that "God always gives someone a choice to repent and make amends for their actions" (my emphasis). I pointed out that your claim of "always" was incorrect because the verses that D. Swindler and I were discussing involved putting rapists to death. Your bringing up something not related to the discussion can formally be called a non-sequiter (literally, "does not follow") because it was not related to the issue at hand.

You then responded by saying that "I was merely showing there is an important part to this chapter that wasn't being acknowledge. God gave the rapist a chance to make it better, this does not mean rape is ok. " D. Swindler and I were not arguing about whether or not God (or anyone else) thought rape was bad or whether God's love was available to all or whether rapists should receive a second chance. The discussion was about what should happen to rape victims.

As to your question, how can we explain that "there are people out there that are truly changed after they come to the cross," the answer is simple. Some people change their lives after finding Jesus, some people change their lives after finding Allah, and some people change their lives without any religion at all. There are lots of ways to change one's life. You changed yours by finding Jesus - good for you. That, however, does not mean that Christians have a monolpoly on how to change a life or on optimism or on happiness.

I'll repeat that last part becuase I fear you may miss it.

There are lots of ways to change one's life. You changed yours by finding Jesus - good for you. That, however, does not mean that Christians have a monolpoly on how to change a life or on optimism or on happiness.

As long as I am repeating stuff, I'll cover a few other things you missed before.

We are not offended by the Bible.
We are not offended by your belief.
We are happy without faith in Jesus Christ.
Many of us were Christians before we left the Church.

 

[Ducky]

We are not offended by the Bible.
We are not offended by your belief.
We are happy without faith in Jesus Christ.
Many of us were Christians before we left the Church.

This bears repeating:

We are not offended by the Bible.
We are not offended by your belief.
We are happy without faith in Jesus Christ.
Many of us were Christians before we left the Church

Just the right size for kathy to notice it.

kathy: just leave us alone.

 

[SirPhilip]

You have an amazing ability to construct non sequiters. What you pointed out has absolutely nothing with what was being discussed. The issue was whether or not women raped in the city who didn't cry out should be put to death. What does "God always gives someone a choice to repent" have to do with that question?

On the subject of sins, would it be a sin to lock Iacchus and Kathy in a closet together against their own will?

 

[SirPhilip]

I was merely showing there is an important part to this chapter that wasn't being acknowledge. God gave the rapist a chance to make it better, this does not mean rape is ok. These days hopefully justice is served and these guys go to jail to learn their lesson. Rape is a sin and derserving of punishment.

Stupidity causes more suffering than rape does, which just degrades someone. Forcing Christianity and guilt on children is also rape - an act you would commit without any regard for their right to evaluate things truthfully, if there weren't people around to stop you. Locking you in solitary confinement isn't a noble thing also? What's good enough for the gander is good enough to goose (sic) you with.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

On the subject of sins, would be a sin to lock Iacchus and Kathy in a closet together against their own will?

Without sterilising them first, just to be safe, yes, a grievous sin.