joe six-pack
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2010
- Messages
- 1,123
- Reaction score
- 384
- Location
- Six-Pakistan
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Nice troll thread. For one the Bible doesn't encourage rape or slavery.
Nice try. Read the next quote and try again.Nice troll thread. For one the Bible doesn't encourage rape or slavery.
Numbers is a good example of a "pro-rape" stance of scripture. Essentially war-wives are sex-slaves. But also note Leviticus 25:44-46Read Numbers 31, and try again. God clearly allows virgins of the Midianites to be taken captive and distributed amongst his warriors for their use (i.e., rape).
While the Bible doesn't speak in favor of slavery, it certainly treats it as a normal and natural way of life.
I don't know the original quote, but it's a paradox isn't it? Sounds akin to "This statement is a lie.""Nothing is true, everything is permitted."- The person who figures out where that is from gets a cookie!
I do have a moral code, but it's personalized. Because I realize that my morality is not the same as your morality.But yeah, I believe in moral relativism. Only very few things are wrong no matter what, and every situation is different. Motivation for the act is extremely important.
Nice try. Read the next quote and try again.
Numbers is a good example of a "pro-rape" stance of scripture. Essentially war-wives are sex-slaves. But also note Leviticus 25:44-46
“‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life"
Bible.cc Link
Pro slavery. So let's move on and never, ever, call this a "troll thread" again. Ok?
Thanks.eace
"Nothing is true, everything is permitted."- The person who figures out where that is from gets a cookie!
At least I take the Bible at face value. You seem to interpret it to mean whatever you want.As is the case with these troll threads, the op has a very sophomoric understanding of the Bible.
Way to stick your foot in your mouth.Further, the Leviticus passages you list are followed by a very important passage saying that those that are being addressed must not treat their "slaves" poorly. It isn't like the slavery of the 1800's. These "slaves" were more like live in employees. They are fed and clothed in exchange for work. They are the ancient equivalent of maids and butlers.
Sort of like Abraham agreeing to sacrifice his son to God, to justify God's jealously that Abraham loved his son more than God?As for moral equivalency, it is a term used (much as "grey area") by those needing an excuse to satisfy a cognitive dissonance that comes from making a choice that is personally beneficial but morally reprehensible.
It's a debate. Having an opinion of what the "truth" is is the entire point.Could we please stop having threads that have titles which start with "The True -", "The Truth About -" etc etc? These titles portray the OP as arrogant, as if it's the only way things can be perceived and *clearly* anyone who disagrees with the OP is patently wrong. While it's possible that's not the intention, it's certainly the way it comes across.
It's a debate. Having an opinion of what the "truth" is is the entire point.
Ironically, in the first paragraph of said argument I call "truth" subjective. Did you miss the irony of that or did you not bother reading a single word I wrote, aside from the title? Do you simply wander into threads randomly criticising a misplaced word here or there or do you have an intelligent contribution to make? I await your well thoughtout answer.
Christian's often criticize intellectuals of "moral relativism," which is to say that good and evil are subjective constructs. This idea is derived from the fact that the truth itself is subjective, because different people experience life differently. What is good for some is bad for others and vice versa.
But in truth, the dogma of Christian beliefs stem from a morality that comes from whatever people who write scripture "say" God thinks, even if different views of God's morality contradict each other or conflict with your average Christian's morality. The Bible doesn't say that slavery or rape are wrong. In fact, the Bible encourages both. Yet that same Bible is used as a moral compass by people who believe rape is immoral. To a Christian, morality is relative to what scripture says God thinks.
I was hoping to debate the content of my argument, not the style in which I made it. Frankly, a good debater uses challenging language. Do you really need that explained to you? I'm beginning to think you don't have anything serious to say.That's really my point, though. If you believe that thruth is subjective, then why such a bold thread title?
At what point did I ever say I was a Moral Relativist? I am making Argument A and I expect to debate those who decide to take up Argument B. It's really not any more complex than that. Since I never claimed to be a moral relativist, I'm not contradicting myself. But even in relativity, we need to be able to use the word "fact" to describe something that cannot be disproved. It cannot be disproved that the Bible contains pro-rape and pro-slavery passages.The beginning of your paragraph at the very least implies that this is the only way things can be interpreted. You claim that you are a relativist, and then in the next paragraph go on to claim what the "truth" is? Aren't you contradicting yourself?
Hassan-i Sabbah, but you probably know it from Assasins Creed. Now where's my cookie?
At least I take the Bible at face value. You seem to interpret it to mean whatever you want.
It literally says, "Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves." (young girls?)
Deuteronomy 20:14
"But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you."
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT (If you rape a virgin, you have to marry her LOL)
"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."
2 Samuel 12:11-14 NAB (God will force your wife to be raped)
"Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives [plural] while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight."
Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB (In war, take wives of your captives and rape them)
"When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house.... After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her." (relations means rape, buddy)
Maybe instead of "trying" to insult me, you should read the Bible and get a better grasp of it's content? Think about it.
Way to stick your foot in your mouth.
The passage literally says, "You may buy slaves." Only a complete idiot or a delusional ideologue would argue that is not an endorsement of slavery.
Slavery was customary in ancient times, and some forms are condoned by the Torah[6]. In the Bible, Hebrews are forbidden to kill slaves[7], force a slave to work on the Sabbath[8], return an escaped slave[9], or to slander a slave[10]. It is common for a person to voluntarily sell oneself into slavery for a fixed period of time either to pay off debts or to get food and shelter.[11] It was seen as legitimate to enslave captives obtained through warfare[12], but not through kidnapping[13][14] for the purpose of enslaving them. Children could also be sold into debt bondage[15], which was sometimes ordered by a court of law[16][17][18].
Christianity and slavery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sort of like Abraham agreeing to sacrifice his son to God, to justify God's jealously that Abraham loved his son more than God?
Yeah, moral relativism. You enjoy your "grey" area.
And this supports your thesis that the Bible supports rape how??
What version of the Bible is that? The NKJ version is as such:
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (New King James Version)
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.
But you conveniently left out 25-27 which says that the man that forces a woman to lie with him will surely die. Of course, there is more than one type of death. There is death of the body and death of the sole. When God talks about someone dieing as punishment, he generally is speaking of their sole. I.e. hell.
Uh, that doesn't say they are unwilling. That just says that they'll have sex with their neighbor.
I don't see how you get rape out of that. It talks about taking the woman as a wife after an appropriate grieving period.
It supports rape by providing a moral justification for it ("God says it's okay if I do it to my enemy's wife or daughter.")
This isn't hard for most of us to figure out.
Let me explain slowly. Seize a virgin and lie with her (i.e., rape her) and you will be forced to marry her without an out clause. Seize someone's WIFE, and you will be killed (mainly for theft of his property).
See, in Biblical terms, women were property. These were the consequences for devaluing another man's property.
No. It states that he will have sex with them, at will. Whether they want it or not, is the implication. Again, women are property. You've taken his property to do with as you wish. Women had zero rights to own themselves per Biblical law. Rape was evil, not because you'd violated a woman, but because you'd stolen and/or devalued another man's property.
It's about taking them, willing or unwilling, and using them as your property. Do you think that a month would be an appropriate grieving period for most women who'd seen their neighbors/husbands/children/parents slaughtered in front of them by these holy warriors?
And this applies to Christians how? I mean lets face it we #1 do not take prisoners of war from an enemy, we also are not bound by old testament law.
It may or may not be rape depending on the situation. Either way it is not condoning it.
It is important to note the customs of the time, as what is considered sexist today,
might then have been normal, and in some cases progressive for the time.
Of course women in ancient Israel got trusted much better than most other ancient society's. Funny how people leave that out.
Would not matter to us as again it does not apply outside of history.
You're attempting to shift the playing field to something more to your liking. The original post was that the BIBLE contains support for rape and slavery. The proof has been delivered.
Yahweh allowed and/or condoned such practices, and in some cases, ordered them.
I'm pretty sure that you do want to wash your hands of the unsavory historical elements of the Bible. But aren't you the one that repeatedly reminds us that Jesus came to fulfill the law of God? Aren't you someone who repeatedly uses Levitical law (in addition to other Biblical sources) to defend the interpretation of homosexuality as sin?
Yes, yes you are.
Oh really. Are we now redefining condoning? When Biblical law and/or prophets speak, and state that God has told them that the Israelites are allowed to take unwilling captives as wives/property, that is in fact condoning rape and slavery.
Oh. So rape and slavery are progressive?
Evidence? Women in Israel and most of the middle east were treated like property. The Israelis were not significantly more humane to their women.
It shows us the character of the deity that you worship. In essence, the god you revere is bloodthirsty, tribalistic, warlike, and saw women as property to be seized. Did God's character change from the Old Testament to the New Testament?
Consensual sex isn't called "seizing her and lying with her."Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (New King James Version)
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."
When I "give your wife" to someone else for sex, does it sound like she has a choice? No.Uh, that doesn't say they are unwilling. That just says that they'll have sex with their neighbor.
Right. After you kill a young girls parents and force her into marriage with intercourse--to you it's not rape, because she's your "war-wife." You really have no idea what your talking about. When you force a slave into marriage, after killing her family, there is no way sex with her will be consensual. At least not at first.I don't see how you get rape out of that. It talks about taking the woman as a wife after an appropriate grieving period.
You clearly lack a basic, literal, understanding of the Bible. Read it again.You seem to have an implication problem. You imply lots of off the wall meanings to very clearly written statements. I never insulted you and you have yet to show a deeper understanding of the Bible.
Not good enough. Slavery is wrong, but the Bible supports slavery.You don't understand what slavery was in that time.
No it didn't. Christ healed slaves and slave owners, but never said that slavery was wrong or should be condemned. Christ condemned the act of stoning a women to death for adultery, but never once said "rape is wrong" or "slavery is wrong."And has that not changed with the New Testament?
I have no intention of judging you or your private beliefs. But Christianity has more grey area and moral ambiguity than I can list in this thread along. You can make all the weak arguments you want about "war-wives" not being rape victims--as if carrying women off the battle-field to be make 'wives' by intercourse isn't rape--but you are really just fooling yourself.No, I don't have any relativism or grey areas.
Ever hear of the Crusades? Ok, well let that slide.And this applies to Christians how? I mean lets face it we #1 do not take prisoners of war from an enemy, we also are not bound by old testament law.
The Bible condones taking "sex-slaves," which people with morals consider rape.It may or may not be rape depending on the situation. Either way it is not condoning it.
More moral grey area from a Christian. Why am I not surprised?It is important to note the customs of the time, as what is considered sexist today,
might then have been normal, and in some cases progressive for the time.
Because:Would not matter to us as again it does not apply outside of history.
Consensual sex isn't called "seizing her and lying with her."
"Seize" means to capture or take hold. Again, taking a slave against her will and then taking her to your bed is not consensual sex. But nice try. The Basic English version or God's word explicitly translate it to mean unconscionably sex. Look it up yourself, the rest of the version simply imply that it's rape:
Deuteronomy 22:28
When I "give your wife" to someone else for sex, does it sound like she has a choice? No.
Maybe you should work on your reading comprehension?
Right. After you kill a young girls parents and force her into marriage with intercourse--to you it's not rape, because she's your "war-wife." You really have no idea what your talking about. When you force a slave into marriage, after killing her family, there is no way sex with her will be consensual. At least not at first.
Yes, a wive may grow to love her rapist, but not at first. Not after three months.
You clearly lack a basic, literal, understanding of the Bible. Read it again.
Not good enough. Slavery is wrong, but the Bible supports slavery.
If the Bible is the Word of God, and God is an All-Knowing being, then God would have made it clear that slavery was wrong and forcing women and children (young girls) to get married and forcing them to have sex with their husbands is morally wrong. Rape is still rape, even if the two people are married.
You want to compare "slavery" to "employment?" You can quit a job, smarty-pants.
No it didn't. Christ healed slaves and slave owners, but never said that slavery was wrong or should be condemned. Christ condemned the act of stoning a women to death for adultery, but never once said "rape is wrong" or "slavery is wrong."
Guess again.
I have no intention of judging you or your private beliefs. But Christianity has more grey area and moral ambiguity than I can list in this thread along. You can make all the weak arguments you want about "war-wives" not being rape victims--as if carrying women off the battle-field to be make 'wives' by intercourse isn't rape--but you are really just fooling yourself.
No one else is fooled. God is supposed to be your ultimate moral guide, but can't tell you that kidnapping women for sex or slavery is morally wrong? Do you think slavery is a moral grey area like the Bible?
Thankseace
Ever hear of the Crusades? Ok, well let that slide.
Actually, Christ ordered his flock to follow the commandments of the Old Testament and to obey the Law and scripture. Since Christ based his ministry on the Old Testament (and was Jewish) we can surmise that Christian's still operate under Old Testament as well as the New. Besides, it's IN YOUR BIBLE.
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." - J. Christ.
The Law of the prophets was Moses' Law and the Old Testament.
The Bible condones taking "sex-slaves," which people with morals consider rape.
All this thread is doing is proving that Christian's have moral grey areas when it comes to the Bible. On the topic of slavery and rape two or three Christians have defended the Bibles promotion of such crimes. Why would Christians with morals defend slavery and forced-sex, if they thought those things were immoral?
More moral grey area from a Christian. Why am I not surprised?
Because:
A. It's the supposed word and will of God.
B. Because it applies to Christians, their teachings and beliefs.
C. Because it's in your "Good Book."
The Christian Bible is the Old Testament and the New Testament.
Any questions?eace
You sound like a Lawyer looking for a legal loophole to ignore scripture.Christ died on the cross fulfilling the law. Even for Jews the destruction of the temple ended the sacrificial laws.
That statement contradicts Christs own words. God's words still apply.Yes it does in the case of prisoners of war in the Old Testament, which has no bearing on Christians at all. That was the old covenant between God and his chosen people. Jesus fulfilled the prophecy's and ended the Mosaic laws for all men, not just the Jews.
The Temple was destroyed long before Christ was born. But on that I will agree with you.Even they Jews no longer follow aspects of the law since the destruction of the Temple.
Actually, all of this proves that Christian's don't understand the Bible.Actually all this proves is you have not really read the Bible or understand the relationship between the Old and New Testament.
Keep telling yourself that.No not really. Your lack of understanding biblical concepts is noted, and answers most if any questions we would have for you.
Actually, I'm using the entire Bible, you seem to be obsessed with only the New Testament.No, you use small passage sets to create larger meanings.
You asked for it. I'll post the entire section and point out where you are wrong.I pointed it out above, you conveniently left out passages before and after that completely changed the meaning so that you could create a demonization of a religion for your own personal political gain.
If a woman is to be married, but is raped, she and the rapist must be killed: "because she gave no cry for help."Deuteronomy 22 said:
23 If a young virgin has given her word to be married to a man, and another man meeting her in the town, has connection with her; 24 Then you are to take the two of them to the doorway of the town, and have them stoned to death; the young virgin, because she gave no cry for help, though it was in the town, and the man, because he has put shame on his neighbour's wife: so you are to put away evil from among you.
If a man rapes a "woman to be married," and the rape is far away from people, then only the man should be killed. But...Deuteronomy 22 said:25 But if the man, meeting such a virgin [to be married] in the open country, takes her by force, then only the man is to be put to death; 26 Nothing is to be done to the virgin, because there is no cause of death in her: it is the same as if a man made an attack on his neighbour and put him to death: 27 For he came across her in the open country, and there was no one to come to the help of the virgin in answer to her cry.
If a man rapes a woman or girl not promised to be married, he must marry her.Deuteronomy 22]
28 If a man sees a young virgin, who has not given her word to be married to anyone, and he takes her by force and has connection with her, and discovery is made of it; 29 Then the man will have to give the virgin's father fifty shekels of silver and make her his wife, because he has put shame on her; he may never put her away all his life.
Actually, what I have done is small. All I have done is prove I know more about the Bible than you do. This was proven when you tried to argue that the Bible doesn't condone slavery, which it does. This was proven again when you tried to argue the Bible doesn't condone rape, which it does "if" the women was not promised to be married, and the man who rapes her also marries her.You think you've done something so great, but you just set up a very weak straw-man argument that was knocked down and now you lash out with personal attacks because you've lost the battle in the intellectual field.
That's the second time you have resorted to name calling.And this is why you are called a troll. You blindly ignored evidence
God doesn't change. Read the Bible, it says so.Nice try, but I wasn't talking about slaves, I was talking about the changing methods of God.
You think too much of yourself. I could care less about you, I'm talking about the dogma and theology of Christianity--you are the one making this personal. Do you get emotional much? What kind of a narcissist would say something like that?Well that's just a flat out lie. You absolutely intend to judge me and all other Christians...that was the intent of this thread.
That's all you ever give and you are often wrong. The Ten Commandment don't say anything about rape.I'm just going to give you the lazy and easy answer....
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?