carlfense Posted April 3, 2012 Author Share Posted April 3, 2012 Do you know how a Jewish woman during the time of Deuteronomy would think, you are amazing? Is that a haiku? I think it might be the original Hebrew. +1. Link to comment
knapplc Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 I don't know what a woman of that time might think. Do you know how a Jewish woman during the time of Deuteronomy would think, you are amazing? Was she given the choice to live the rapist or did she have to go, you get back to me on that one? Obvciuosly by our standards now that would be ludicrous. What do you mean "Was she given the choice to live the rapist or did she have to go...?" You're handing out treats for correct answers in this thread and you don't know yourself? Haven't you read your Bible, Johnny? You know very well she wasn't given the choice. You know very well her options were to live with her rapist - as his wife, for crying out loud - or live as an outcast from society, the society specifically labeled "God's Chosen People." What kind of question is, "Do you know how a Jewish woman during the time of Deuteronomy would think?" Do you really think women would have changed their minds about rape so much in the past four millennia that they would have liked it back then? Link to comment
Enhance Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 The only difference between rape thousands of years ago, and rape today, is that rape was more common and less of a crime. Women have similar emotions towards it today as they did then. Link to comment
johnnyrodgers20 Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 okay, let's say that that law was just. The law was just trying to look out for the raped girl by forcing her to marry her attacker. She needed saving! Can we accept that and move on to Deuteronomy 22:21? If a woman is found not to be a virgin after being married. Say...for example...the original rape happened and she decided NOT to declare it. Because she didn't want to be forced to marry her attacker since she'd only be a burden on society...can we now stone her to death for not being a virgin? It really is a Catch-22 for the woman. Can you just agree that there some parts of your holy book that you find reprehensible? No doubt there are some very bad parts to the book. Those are rules from an ancient time and knapplc is using our knowledge today. That just doesn't work, obviously, Christians like me would be appauled to make a woman live with her rapist. knapplc twists the circumstance and then uses our morals today to try and make his argument, it is really pathetic, considering if he lived in Israel at the time he would have enforced those laws. Link to comment
johnnyrodgers20 Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 Do you know how a Jewish woman during the time of Deuteronomy would think, you are amazing? Is that a haiku? God bless you!! Link to comment
knapplc Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 Those are rules from an ancient time and knapplc is using our knowledge today. That just doesn't work, obviously, Christians like me would be appauled to make a woman live with her rapist. knapplc twists the circumstance and then uses our morals today to try and make his argument, it is really pathetic, considering if he lived in Israel at the time he would have enforced those laws. Buzzzzzzzzz. Wrong answer. Rape was wrong back then, too. That's why it was called rape, and why Leviticus called for the execution of the rapist in some cases. I suppose you could continue to hide behind the cloak of "it was a long time ago," Johnny. But the reality is, rape was wrong then, it's wrong now, and any attempts to justify making a violated woman marry her rapist is silly, by today's standards and by the standards of four millennia ago. Let's remember that the entire world didn't treat women as property, and that if a man raped a woman in, say, ancient Greece, he wouldn't be rewarded with the right to marry her, he'd be executed. And she'd go on with her normal life. Not an outcast. Link to comment
johnnyrodgers20 Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 Those are rules from an ancient time and knapplc is using our knowledge today. That just doesn't work, obviously, Christians like me would be appauled to make a woman live with her rapist. knapplc twists the circumstance and then uses our morals today to try and make his argument, it is really pathetic, considering if he lived in Israel at the time he would have enforced those laws. Buzzzzzzzzz. Wrong answer. Rape was wrong back then, too. That's why it was called rape, and why Leviticus called for the execution of the rapist in some cases. I suppose you could continue to hide behind the cloak of "it was a long time ago," Johnny. But the reality is, rape was wrong then, it's wrong now, and any attempts to justify making a violated woman marry her rapist is silly, by today's standards and by the standards of four millennia ago. Let's remember that the entire world didn't treat women as property, and that if a man raped a woman in, say, ancient Greece, he wouldn't be rewarded with the right to marry her, he'd be executed. And she'd go on with her normal life. Not an outcast. I never said it wasn't wrong and we are talking about Deuteronomy not about the greeks, knapplc. You would have enforced the laws if you lived back then and you wold have forced a raped woman to live with her rapist. So don't act all high and mighty when you would be critized for the very action you abhore. And you, somehow, like most liberals paint me as some uncaring male that would make a woman live with her rapist when you know that isn't true. I have the same view of rape as you and I have the same anger and dismay by the way women are treated unjustly so go back to your high horse and continue with your self righteous bag of crap, it doesn't affect me. I know the truth about lefties like you. Link to comment
gobiggergoredder Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 The only difference between rape thousands of years ago, and rape today, is that rape was more common and less of a crime. Women have similar emotions towards it today as they did then. Thank you for the insight. I feel like I now have a better understanding of 2000 years ago. Link to comment
knapplc Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 I never said it wasn't wrong and we are talking about Deuteronomy not about the greeks, knapplc. You would have enforced the laws if you lived back then and you wold have forced a raped woman to live with her rapist. So don't act all high and mighty when you would be critized for the very action you abhore. And you, somehow, like most liberals paint me as some uncaring male that would make a woman live with her rapist when you know that isn't true. I have the same view of rape as you and I have the same anger and dismay by the way women are treated unjustly so go back to your high horse and continue with your self righteous bag of crap, it doesn't affect me. I know the truth about lefties like you. So you agree that the statement of Hebrews 13:8 is wrong, and that God is NOT "the same yesterday, today and tomorrow." Interesting. There were rules back then that were OK, but are not OK now. The rules from Leviticus were based on God's law, and I presume that you at least attempt to live by God's law today. Yet that law has, apparently, changed with the times. Interesting. Link to comment
johnnyrodgers20 Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 I never said it wasn't wrong and we are talking about Deuteronomy not about the greeks, knapplc. You would have enforced the laws if you lived back then and you wold have forced a raped woman to live with her rapist. So don't act all high and mighty when you would be critized for the very action you abhore. And you, somehow, like most liberals paint me as some uncaring male that would make a woman live with her rapist when you know that isn't true. I have the same view of rape as you and I have the same anger and dismay by the way women are treated unjustly so go back to your high horse and continue with your self righteous bag of crap, it doesn't affect me. I know the truth about lefties like you. So you agree that the statement of Hebrews 13:8 is wrong, and that God is NOT "the same yesterday, today and tomorrow." Interesting. There were rules back then that were OK, but are not OK now. The rules from Leviticus were based on God's law, and I presume that you at least attempt to live by God's law today. Yet that law has, apparently, changed with the times. Interesting. knapplc, God doesn't change but that doesn't mean that laws can't change. You have different rules for children as they grow up don't you, you wouldn't let a three year old drive would you? So as society changes certain laws may not be needed or used. Changing a law doesn't change God. Link to comment
carlfense Posted April 4, 2012 Author Share Posted April 4, 2012 So you agree that the statement of Hebrews 13:8 is wrong, and that God is NOT "the same yesterday, today and tomorrow." Interesting. There were rules back then that were OK, but are not OK now. The rules from Leviticus were based on God's law, and I presume that you at least attempt to live by God's law today. Yet that law has, apparently, changed with the times. Interesting. Sounds like a "living document." Apparently original intent only applies to documents written between 1786 and 1789. Link to comment
knapplc Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 So you agree that the statement of Hebrews 13:8 is wrong, and that God is NOT "the same yesterday, today and tomorrow." Interesting. There were rules back then that were OK, but are not OK now. The rules from Leviticus were based on God's law, and I presume that you at least attempt to live by God's law today. Yet that law has, apparently, changed with the times. Interesting. Sounds like a "living document." Apparently original intent only applies to documents written between 1786 and 1789. Well, certainly. Man's rules can't change AT ALL, but God's rules? Eh. They change with the times. Link to comment
johnnyrodgers20 Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 So you agree that the statement of Hebrews 13:8 is wrong, and that God is NOT "the same yesterday, today and tomorrow." Interesting. There were rules back then that were OK, but are not OK now. The rules from Leviticus were based on God's law, and I presume that you at least attempt to live by God's law today. Yet that law has, apparently, changed with the times. Interesting. Sounds like a "living document." Apparently original intent only applies to documents written between 1786 and 1789. Atta boy carlfense, let's just do the bait and switch, Nice!! Link to comment
johnnyrodgers20 Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 So you agree that the statement of Hebrews 13:8 is wrong, and that God is NOT "the same yesterday, today and tomorrow." Interesting. There were rules back then that were OK, but are not OK now. The rules from Leviticus were based on God's law, and I presume that you at least attempt to live by God's law today. Yet that law has, apparently, changed with the times. Interesting. Sounds like a "living document." Apparently original intent only applies to documents written between 1786 and 1789. Well, certainly. Man's rules can't change AT ALL, but God's rules? Eh. They change with the times. knapplc, Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrong answer- Don't have anything else to say onthis subject so you get your buddy to help change the subject. Link to comment
knapplc Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 Um, no, Johnny, that's not the wrong answer. That's what you just said. If you have nothing else to say, then I accept your withdrawal from the field. Link to comment
Recommended Posts