Granite on the Bible

[Granite]

It's that he's willing to ignore it at all costs:

That is a lie, Granite! You have not read it, because I have never written it. It is you who would love to twist the Scriptures to paint God as unjust, forcing rape victims to marry their attackers. Rapists should be executed, period. Victims of rape or any other crime should not be punished.

You have said in the past that this Deuteronomy passage does not refer to rape. I say it does. You have said in these situations the two individuals in question should marry. I'm opposed to this appalling conclusion.

Our disagreement boils down to the interpretation of this passage.

 

[Nineveh]

I don't "ignore" it, Nineveh. I disagree with it. Since when is a disagreement over a conclusion actually "ignoring" something?

Taphas can mean any number of things according to Strong's, including

Catch
Caught
Handle
Hold
Stop
Surprise
Take

Piney's concordance gives the same meanings: "manipulate, i. e. seize; chiefly to capture." This does not sound consenting or like much fun for the lady involved. When a guy in a field catches and takes a woman by surprise, we normally call that rape.

Oh, and you left out: "to use unwarrantably" (Not justifiable; inexcusable) such as having sex outside of marriage. Put all together, it appears we are talking about seduction not rape.

seduction: enticing someone astray from right behavior

Whereas in Deuteronomy 22:25 the word used is "chazaq" which we interpret as rape. Two different words there granite. There must be a reason for it.

Once again, I expect you will ignore it, even when the Bible calls for the death penalty for rapists.

Wife beating, segregation, and racism were all condoned by the church,

Geewiz granite. When are you going to come to the conclusion men don't have the authority to define morality? Church does not mean God. It never has. Both you and zakath can't seem to get it straight in your minds. Is it that you just really don;t understand it or is this another case of you ignoring the obvious?

supported with scripture, and endorsed by good Christian folk.

So at one point in time they certainly were "moral" stances to take.

I guess you can ignore where we all come from the same parents too. Makes it sort of hard to justify segregation and racism doesn't it?

But, fortunately, the morality changed.

The morality in Scripture never changed, it held to the fact we all came from the same parents twice.

When looking for evil in Scripture, you keep accidentally pointing to men who like to think they can make morality up as they go.

If this is true who is to say it's not you who is actually on the wrong side, this time?

If what is true? That the Bible has called for the death penalty since Noah and SCotUs flip flopped? Or that the Bible maintains we all came from the same parents?

 

[Granite]

Oh, and you left out: "to use unwarrantably" (Not justifiable; inexcusable) such as having sex outside of marriage. Put all together, it appears we are talking about seduction not rape.

seduction: enticing someone astray from right behavior

Whereas in Deuteronomy 22:25 the word used is "chazaq" which we interpret as rape. Two different words there granite. There must be a reason for it.

Once again, I expect you will ignore it, even when the Bible calls for the death penalty for rapists.



Geewiz granite. When are you going to come to the conclusion men don't have the authority to define morality? Church does not mean God. It never has. Both you and zakath can't seem to get it straight in your minds. Is it that you just really don;t understand it or is this another case of you ignoring the obvious?



I guess you can ignore where we all come from the same parents too. Makes it sort of hard to justify segregation and racism doesn't it?



The morality in Scripture never changed, it held to the fact we all came from the same parents twice.

When looking for evil in Scripture, you keep accidentally pointing to men who like to think they can make morality up as they go.



If what is true? That the Bible has called for the death penalty since Noah and SCotUs flip flopped? Or that the Bible maintains we all came from the same parents?

To use unjustly could also mean to rape, Nin. You are digging your heels in because you have no choice. Spin off a new thread on that topic if you wish; I already suggested as much to Turb if you, him, or anybody else wants to go back to it.

I don't care what the Bible says about the death penalty, but sexual predators--rapists and pedophiles and the like--should be executed. No problem there.

What's this "same parents" stuff you keep babbling about? I'm not trying to defend segregation. In this country, Christianity did. When it was inconvenient this position was abandoned. When slavery was inconvenient, its defense was abandoned. When Prohibition became unwinnable, that was abandoned, too. You guys know how to detect when the wind blows, that's for sure.

Scripture has been used to defend all these evils.

If the men of the past got it wrong then, who's to say you're not getting it wrong now?

 

[Crow]

I've read Turbo's justification for rapists wedding their victims; I've also read other theonomists tackle this issue as well. Personally I think it's some of the worst, sickening transference I've ever encountered. This is the logical extension of grotesque and twisted thinking: when a woman raped is forced to marry her attacker, we are absolutely living in the twilight zone. And a girl seduced who has to marry her seducer is almost equally bad.

I've missed the justification for rapists wedding their victims. What I have seen Turbo post is that an unmarried man and an unmarried woman who engage in consensual sex outside of marriage should have to marry.

 

[fool]

Is this the tread where I ask Ninevah what she was thinking when she said slavery wasn't wrong, or should I do that in the other thread?

 

[Granite]

I've missed the justification for rapists wedding their victims. What I have seen Turbo post is that an unmarried man and an unmarried woman who engage in consensual sex outside of marriage should have to marry.

I think the Deuteronomy passage in question is clear on this point...when a woman is surprised in a field and taken off guard, I'm not sure what else to call the situation other than rape.

 

[Granite]

Is this the tread where I ask Ninevah what she was thinking when she said slavery wasn't wrong, or should I do that in the other thread?

I think that'd fit right in...

 

[Nineveh]

To use unjustly could also mean to rape, Nin. You are digging your heels in because you have no choice. Spin off a new thread on that topic if you wish; I already suggested as much to Turb if you, him, or anybody else wants to go back to it.

You have already lost more than once on this granite. So maybe those heels you hear digging in are yours.

I don't care what the Bible says about the death penalty, but sexual predators--rapists and pedophiles and the like--should be executed. No problem there.

I know you don't care what the Bible says, it makes it harder for you to continue in willful ignorance. The death penalty, believe it or not, relies on more than granite's say so.

What's this "same parents" stuff you keep babbling about? I'm not trying to defend segregation. In this country, Christianity did. When it was inconvenient this position was abandoned. When slavery was inconvenient, its defense was abandoned. When Prohibition became unwinnable, that was abandoned, too. You guys know how to detect when the wind blows, that's for sure.

I am trying to point out to you that we are all from the same parents. That defeats racist and segragational ideas. Just because some guy says so, doesn't make it so. If we look to the Bible for the moral foundation, we can see what it says. Unless of course we have some ulterior motive to ignore what the Bible says, such as proving ourselves right. Sort of like what you are trying to do with the issue of rape. But that still doesn't change what the Bible actually says.

Scripture has been used to defend all these evils.

You mean misused by men.

If the men of the past got it wrong then, who's to say you're not getting it wrong now?

I would say read the Bible, but you seem incapable.

 

[fool]

I think that'd fit right in...

OK. Hey Ninevah! What were you thinking when you said slavery wasn't wrong?

 

[Granite]

You have already lost more than once on this granite. So maybe those heels you hear digging in are yours.



I know you don't care what the Bible says, it makes it harder for you to continue in willful ignorance. The death penalty, believe it or not, relies on more than granite's say so.



I am trying to point out to you that we are all from the same parents. That defeats racist and segragational ideas. Just because some guy says so, doesn't make it so. If we look to the Bible for the moral foundation, we can see what it says. Unless of course we have some ulterior motive to ignore what the Bible says, such as proving ourselves right. Sort of like what you are trying to do with the issue of rape. But that still doesn't change what the Bible actually says.



You mean misused by men.



I would say read the Bible, but you seem incapable.

The death penalty relies on the will of the people. It does not rely on the writings of a sand-faring flock of nomads who may or may not have existed. And I certainly don't care about the simplistic solution you present vis a vis the evils of segregation and racism: Christianity made a cottage industry out of denouncing so-called "Hamitic" peoples as subhuman, so, knock yourself out.

 

[GuySmiley]

When slavery was inconvenient, its defense was abandoned.

Minor point here, but you keep saying Christians defended slavery. No, it was the Christians who were against slavery. Slavery in the Bible is a different thing, like indentured servitude.

 

[Crow]

I think the Deuteronomy passage in question is clear on this point...when a woman is surprised in a field and taken off guard, I'm not sure what else to call the situation other than rape.

This is what I like about a message board--I can ask people to tell me just exactly what they believe and why.

Turbo, do you believe that a woman should be forced to marry a man who rapes her based upon scripture?

 

[Granite]

Minor point here, but you keep saying Christians defended slavery. No, it was the Christians who were against slavery. Slavery in the Bible is a different thing, like indentured servitude.

Sorry Guy, but that's a load of BS. Good, southern, Christian white folk fought and died in a war involving this issue and others, that I recall.

Northern, liberal, unitarian New Englanders opposed it. The intellectual great grandfathers of your enemies fought slavery and birthed the abolitionist movement. Talk about irony.

 

[Poly]

You have said in the past that this Deuteronomy passage does not refer to rape. I say it does. You have said in these situations the two individuals in question should marry. I'm opposed to this appalling conclusion.

Our disagreement boils down to the interpretation of this passage.

You're such a liar!
Why say "I've read Turbo's justification for rapists marrying their victims." Even if he does misinterpret the passage (which I don't think he does), somebody misinterpreting it to mean that people who engage in sex outside of marriage should get married is a WHOLE LOT DIFFERENT than a person who justifies rapists marrying their victims. And now you're trying to make it seem as if it's only a matter of a disagreement on the interpretation of a passage to take the focus off of such a blatent and false accusation that you've made against Turbo.

You're nothing but low.

 

[Nineveh]

OK. Hey Ninevah! What were you thinking when you said slavery wasn't wrong?

I started a thread about it

 

[Nineveh]

The death penalty relies on the will of the people.

Not in a nation that that claims to stand on Biblical morals.

It does not rely on the writings of a sand-faring flock of nomads who may or may not have existed. And I certainly don't care about the simplistic solution you present vis a vis the evils of segregation and racism: Christianity made a cottage industry out of denouncing so-called "Hamitic" peoples as subhuman, so, knock yourself out.

Man granite, it sure would be nice if you could finally come to the conclusion God does not equal men's words and deeds.

 

[Granite]

You're such a liar!
Why say "I've read Turbo's justification for rapists marrying their victims." Even if he does misinterpret the passage (which I don't think he does), somebody misinterpreting it to mean that people who engage in sex outside of marriage should get married is a WHOLE LOT DIFFERENT than a person who justifies rapists marrying their victims. And now you're trying to make it seem as if it's only a matter of a disagreement on the interpretation of a passage to take the focus off of such a blatent and false accusation that you've made against Turbo.

You're nothing but low.

If what I've said is so blatant and false, Poly, someone can demonstrate that, can they not? And by the way, give me some credit. I don't think you actually think I'm stupid enough to lie so blatantly when such a deception could be so easily disproved. I suggest everybody here takes a deep breath.

As I see it, making a woman marry her rapist justifies what the rapist did. No two ways around it. And I'm stunned that it's women, of all people, running to the defense of Turbo. Even if I'm wrong and all the guy did was seduce the woman, the Mosaic law's solution to this problem is absolutely sickening.

 

[Nineveh]

What Turbo actually said.

 

[Crow]

What Turbo actually said.

That doesn't sound like forcing a rape victim to marry her attacker. It sounds like when a girl gives in and has sex with a man who comes on to her, the man should be forced to marry her, and the girl's father can refuse to let her marry him, but her lover still has to pay her bride price.

 

[GuySmiley]

Sorry Guy, but that's a load of BS. Good, southern, Christian white folk fought and died in a war involving this issue and others, that I recall.

Northern, liberal, unitarian New Englanders opposed it. The intellectual great grandfathers of your enemies fought slavery and birthed the abolitionist movement. Talk about irony.

Well it was a long time ago so you probably don't recall too well. But good, northern, Christian white folk aslo fought and died in a war involving the issue. Northern Christians were the bulk of the abolishionist movement and the underground railroad. Talk about a load of BS you've been fed by anti-Chiristian revisionists, which you at all too happy to swallow.