Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #109621

Re: Rape in the Bible [was: Re: Why is Jesus the only way?]

Show all headers | View raw

Snit to Anton Shepelev:

> > > Deuteronomy 22:28-29а:
> > >
> > >    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.
> > >
> > > Yeah: the bible says a rapist must  pay  fifty
> > > pieces  of silver and then the ictim is forced
> > > to marry the rapist.
> >
> > No, the rapist is forced to marry the victim.
>
> I do not see the hair you are splitting.  They are
> forced  to  marry each other.  That is reprehensi-
> ble.

My point here is that in those days it would be  un-
thinkable  for  a  woman to refuse this marriage be-
cause her only alternative was to be forlorn for the
rest  her  life and either die of hunger or become a
slave or a  prostitute.   "Prince  Amnon  raped  his
half-sister,  Tamar.   The horror and shame of being
violated yet unmarried made Tamar beg him  to  marry
her  (her half-brother!), even after he had rejected
her."

The Jews, as many other ancient  cultures,  believed
in a sort of Telegony and considered a raped woman a
contaminated vessel.  Nobody would take  her  for  a
wife.   By forcing the man to marry her the law made
sure she would not be a social outcast.

> > Looks like a genuine anti-rape law to me
>
> Forcing a victim of rape to marry  the  rapist  is
> NOT an anti-rape law in ay way, shape, or form. It
> is repulsive and very pro-rape. It encourages rape
> foe any man who wants to marry a woman who has re-
> jected him.

If the rapist is a brain-damaged sexual maniac,  who
takes  pleausure  in  the very act of rape, then the
law works against him, for he must have a new woman,
often a virgin, every time.  Burdening such a rapist
with family bounds will make him most unhappy.

If the rapist is a man  overcome  with  passion  for
that  certain  woman, then the prospect of having to
live with, and care for, a woman who does  not  love
him,  and will likely hate him after the rape, seems
rather depressing as well and should cool him down.

> Just rape her and she is FORCED to marry him.

You are inverting that phrase again.  The man is the
forced  party  "because  he hath humbled her, he may
not put her away all his days."

> > that will make any man think  twice  before  at-
> > tempting  a  rape,  because that may be the last
> > rape in his life, and  the  last  woman  in  his
> > life.
>
> A  man  rapes someone, is caught, and is forced to
> marry his victim... and you think he will not rape
> her  again?   Of  course he will.  Again and again
> and again.  For years.

I think he won't, because in the  absence  of  love,
such  coercive  circumstances  and lack of any sport
kill sexual desire in a man, whereas the  mad  beast
of a serial rapist deamnds a virgin every time.

> Or do you think once the victim is forced to marry
> her rapist she will suddenly find  true  love  and
> accept him willingly?

No, but see the story of Tamar and Ramnon.

> > It  is also quite expensive and has serious con-
> > sequences.
>
> Expensive!

I am not sure how much it is, but the fee serves  an
additional discouragement from rape.  Cynical though
it may seem, if this reduced the  number  rapes,  it
worked.   If  you have raped a virgin and don't have
fifty sheckels at hand, you are in for more  trouble
than forced marriage!

> Poor  guy...  he rapes a woman and is then "given"
> her like she was a hunk of meat where he can  rape
> her  over  and over and over and you are concerned
> it might cost him some money to be married to her!

Not quite.  I think that law  *prevented*  rape,  so
that your post-factum sentiments do not apply.

> From the page you linked to:
>
>    Tarico  was  critical  of Deuteronomy 22:28-29,
>    saying that "The punishments for rape  have  to
>    do  not  with compassion or trauma to the woman
>    herself but with honor, tribal  purity,  and  a
>    sense that a used woman is damaged goods."

That is only partly true.  The forcing of the rapist
to marry the victim is an act of care  for  the  the
latter,  who  would  otherwise  be  doomed to misery
and/or prostitution.

> Cheryl Anderson, in her book Ancient Laws and Con-
> temporary  Controversies:  The  Need for Inclusive
> Bible Interpretation, discusses an anecdote  about
> a  student,  who,  when exposed to the passages in
> Deuteronomy, said that "This is the word  of  God.
> If it says slavery is okay, slavery is okay. If it
> says rape is okay, rape is okay."[33]

But it does not say so.

> Elaborating on this, she  states  in  response  to
> these  passages,  "Clearly, these laws do not take
> into account the  female's  perspective.  After  a
> rape,  [the  victim] would undoubtedly see herself
> as the injured party and would probably find  mar-
> riage  to her rapist to be distasteful, to say the
> least.

Wrong.  See again the story of Tamar and Amnon.  An-
derson  takes  a modern perspective and forgets that
it is only thanks to men that in the 21st century in
many  countries  a pretty woman can walk in a street
alone at night without fear.  Two thousand years ago
the  situation  was different, and so was the social
position of the woman.  She could not survive  with-
out a man's care.

> Arguably,  there  are cultural and historical rea-
> sons why such a law made sense at the time.

That's it.

> [...] Just the same, the law communicates the mes-
> sage  that  faith  tradition  does not (and should
> not) consider ->

What is faith tradition?  What does that law have to
do with faith?  It is strictly a secular regulation.

> -> the possibility that women might have different
> yet valid perspectives."

What did that matter if they had to rely on  men  in
all ways?

Anderson  does  not seem to be an historian, for she
fails to study things in their right  context.   In-
stead,  she  is horrified at the thought of enacting
those ancient laws in the our modern society,  which
is ridicuous.

The  question is, whether such and such law was ade-
quate for its time and place.  But that seems beyond
Anderson.

> You skip that and reference the next section which
> starts with:
>
>    In a piece for TheBlaze, a variety of religious
>    scholars  condemn  the idea that the Bible sup-
>    ported rape. They write that the rape discussed
>    in Deuteronomy was not criminal rape, ...
>
> NOT CRIMINAL RAPE.
> Let that sink in.
> NOT CRIMINAL RAPE
>
> That  is  the defense... that rape was decriminal-
> ized that it would somehow make sense?

Unfortunately they do not expound what  non-criminal
rape is, but I think that modern Western legislation
makes it possible by stretching the  notion  of  sex
without  consent so far as to say that the woman may
withdraw her consent in the middle  of  intercourse,
giving  women an instrument to manipulate and black-
mail men.  This kind of  "rape"  is  very  different
from an attack on a lonely street.

I  am sure that the original law is about rape.  See
for example, the excellent KJV translation:

   If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is
   not  betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with
   her, and they be found;

Is it rape or fornicaton?

It would also have helped if you had quoted the  ac-
tual text:

   The   'rape'  that  is  talked  about  in  Dvarim
   (Deuteronomy), is obviously not criminal rape; it
   is  talking  about  a  case  where a relationship
   between a young man and woman got out  of  hand,"
   he said. "Sexual relationships in a Torah society
   are strictly forbidden before  marriage -- dating
   is  only for purposes of marriage in the Orthodox
   community."

   Averick also pointed  out  that  in  Jewish  law,
   women cannot be forced to marry against her will.
   If a man does not fulfill his duties  as  a  hus-
   band,  the woman is "entitled to initiate divorce
   proceedings." The "rapist," or fornicator, is not
   allowed to initiate such proceedings but is obli-
   gated to fulfill spousal duties.

   This requirement that a "rapist" marry  the  vio-
   lated  woman, Bock noted, was enacted in order to
   protect the woman whom he defiled with his sexual
   advances.

   "His  act has rendered her unacceptable as a wife
   for others," he  explained.   "So  this  law  was
   designed  to  indicate  responsibility in the sex
   act for the person in a patriarchal context where
   women  had  little  power  and where the women if
   left to the event would be on her own."

   Nettelhorst acknowledged that in  a  modern  con-
   text,  the  situation  mentioned  in  Deuteronomy
   "sounds awful," and it was not ideal at the  time
   it  occurred  either, but the idea was to, again,
   protect the woman and discourage sexual  immoral-
   ity.  By marrying her, the "rapist" was accepting
   the  consequences  of  his  actions,  paying  her
   father  a restitution and taking on the responsi-
   bilities of a husband to provide  protection  and
   security.

> Spero  added that a rape victim could "opt out" of
> marrying her rapist if she so  desired,  for,  "if
> not,  men could forcibly bring to altar any single
> woman he desired simply by raping her."

How do you know?  Have you  studied  ancient  Jewish
law?  Why do you accuse Rabbi Spero of lying?

-- 
()  ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\  http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Why is Jesus the only way? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-30 20:44 -0700
  Re: Why is Jesus the only way? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 20:55 -0700
    Re: Why is Jesus the only way? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-05-01 04:53 -0700
      Re: Why is Jesus the only way? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-01 08:18 -0700
        Re: Why is Jesus the only way? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-05-01 09:53 -0700
          Re: Why is Jesus the only way? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-01 11:38 -0700
            Re: Why is Jesus the only way? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-05-01 12:15 -0700
              Re: Why is Jesus the only way? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-01 12:27 -0700
                Re: Why is Jesus the only way? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-05-01 12:35 -0700
                Re: Why is Jesus the only way? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-01 12:51 -0700
                Re: Why is Jesus the only way? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-05-01 13:01 -0700
                Re: Why is Jesus the only way? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-01 13:39 -0700
                Re: Why is Jesus the only way? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-05-01 13:49 -0700
                Re: Why is Jesus the only way? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-01 13:57 -0700
                Re: Why is Jesus the only way? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-05-01 14:33 -0700
                Re: Why is Jesus the only way? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-01 15:59 -0700
                Re: Why is Jesus the only way? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-01 14:09 -0700
                Re: Why is Jesus the only way? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-05-01 14:15 -0700
                Re: Why is Jesus the only way? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-01 15:42 -0700
  Re: Why is Jesus the only way? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2017-05-01 21:53 +0800
    Re: Why is Jesus the only way? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-05-01 07:21 -0700
      Re: Why is Jesus the only way? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-01 08:24 -0700
      Re: Why is Jesus the only way? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2017-05-01 23:34 +0800
        Re: Why is Jesus the only way? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-05-01 09:55 -0700
          Re: Why is Jesus the only way? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-01 11:39 -0700
            Re: Why is Jesus the only way? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-05-01 12:17 -0700
              Re: Why is Jesus the only way? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-01 12:28 -0700
          [OT] Preaching machines in C? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2017-05-03 22:48 +0800
            Re: [OT] Preaching machines in C? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-05-03 08:43 -0700
              Re: [OT] Preaching machines in C? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 00:08 +0800
                Re: [OT] Preaching machines in C? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-05-03 09:19 -0700
                Re: [OT] Preaching machines in C? Mark Storkamp <mstorkamp@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-03 13:58 -0500
                Re: [OT] Preaching machines in C? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-05-03 12:11 -0700
            Re: [OT] Preaching machines in C? Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-03 09:48 -0700
              Re: [OT] Preaching machines in C? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 01:12 +0800
        Re: Why is Jesus the only way? Jens Stuckelberger <Jens_Stuckelberger@nowhere.net> - 2017-05-01 17:13 +0000
          Re: Why is Jesus the only way? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-05-01 10:46 -0700
        Re: Why is Jesus the only way? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-01 11:07 -0700
          Re: Why is Jesus the only way? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-05-01 11:23 -0700
            Re: Why is Jesus the only way? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-05-01 11:25 -0700
              Re: Why is Jesus the only way? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-01 11:55 -0700
                Re: Why is Jesus the only way? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-05-01 12:19 -0700
                Re: Why is Jesus the only way? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-01 12:43 -0700
                Re: Why is Jesus the only way? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-05-01 12:48 -0700
                Re: Why is Jesus the only way? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-05-01 13:36 -0700
                Re: Why is Jesus the only way? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-01 13:43 -0700
                Re: Why is Jesus the only way? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-05-01 13:45 -0700
                Re: Why is Jesus the only way? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-01 14:04 -0700
                Re: Why is Jesus the only way? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-05-08 13:41 -0700
                Re: Why is Jesus the only way? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-08 14:12 -0700
            Re: Why is Jesus the only way? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-01 11:54 -0700
    Re: Why is Jesus the only way? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-01 08:19 -0700
      Re: Why is Jesus the only way? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-05-01 08:32 -0700
      Re: Why is Jesus the only way? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2017-05-01 23:34 +0800
        Re: Why is Jesus the only way? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-01 11:07 -0700
          Re: Why is Jesus the only way? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-05-01 13:27 -0700
            Re: Why is Jesus the only way? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-01 13:41 -0700
              Re: Why is Jesus the only way? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-05-01 15:15 -0700
                Re: Why is Jesus the only way? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-01 16:01 -0700
              Re: Why is Jesus the only way? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-05-01 15:54 -0700
                Re: Why is Jesus the only way? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-01 16:39 -0700
                Re: Why is Jesus the only way? David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-05-03 12:23 -0700
                Re: Why is Jesus the only way? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-05-03 21:36 +0100
                Re: Why is Jesus the only way? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-03 14:35 -0700
                Re: Why is Jesus the only way? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-05-04 01:07 +0100
                Re: Why is Jesus the only way? David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-05-03 18:01 -0700
                Re: Why is Jesus the only way? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-05-03 18:26 -0700
                Re: Why is Jesus the only way? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-05-03 18:54 -0700
                Re: Why is Jesus the only way? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-03 22:48 -0700
                Re: Why is Jesus the only way? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 04:36 -0700
                Re: Why is Jesus the only way? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-04 11:10 -0700
                Re: Why is Jesus the only way? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 11:18 -0700
                Re: Why is Jesus the only way? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-04 19:42 -0700
                Rape in the Bible [was: Re: Why is Jesus the only way?] Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2017-05-07 16:08 +0300
                Re: Rape in the Bible [was: Re: Why is Jesus the only way?] BruceS <bruces42@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-07 08:54 -0600
                Re: Rape in the Bible [was: Re: Why is Jesus the only way?] "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-05-07 10:06 -0700
                Re: Rape in the Bible [was: Re: Why is Jesus the only way?] Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-07 11:34 -0700
                Re: Rape in the Bible [was: Re: Why is Jesus the only way?] "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-05-07 10:12 -0700
                Re: Rape in the Bible [was: Re: Why is Jesus the only way?] Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-07 11:27 -0700
                Re: Rape in the Bible [was: Re: Why is Jesus the only way?] Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-07 11:53 -0700
                Re: Rape in the Bible [was: Re: Why is Jesus the only way?] joel.rees@gmail.com - 2017-05-07 18:35 -0700
                Re: Rape in the Bible [was: Re: Why is Jesus the only way?] Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2017-05-08 02:07 +0000
                Re: Rape in the Bible [was: Re: Why is Jesus the only way?] "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-05-07 19:36 -0700
                Re: Rape in the Bible [was: Re: Why is Jesus the only way?] Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-07 20:02 -0700
                Re: Rape in the Bible [was: Re: Why is Jesus the only way?] Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-07 20:01 -0700
                Re: Rape in the Bible [was: Re: Why is Jesus the only way?] Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-07 20:01 -0700
                Re: Rape in the Bible [was: Re: Why is Jesus the only way?] Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-07 11:44 -0700
                Re: Rape in the Bible [was: Re: Why is Jesus the only way?] Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 22:35 +0300
                Re: Rape in the Bible [was: Re: Why is Jesus the only way?] Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-09 13:00 -0700
                Re: Why is Jesus the only way? joel.rees@gmail.com - 2017-05-03 22:08 -0700
                Re: Why is Jesus the only way? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 04:16 -0700
                Re: Why is Jesus the only way? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-03 22:44 -0700
                Re: Why is Jesus the only way? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 04:21 -0700
                Re: Why is Jesus the only way? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-04 11:12 -0700
                Re: Why is Jesus the only way? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-05-03 18:37 -0700
                Re: Why is Jesus the only way? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-03 22:42 -0700
                Re: Why is Jesus the only way? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-05-04 09:33 +0100
                Re: Why is Jesus the only way? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 04:53 -0700
                Re: Why is Jesus the only way? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-04 15:08 +0200
                Re: Why is Jesus the only way? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-05-04 14:51 +0100
                Re: Why is Jesus the only way? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 09:18 -0700
                Re: Why is Jesus the only way? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-04 11:18 -0700
                Re: Why is Jesus the only way? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-05-04 12:13 -0700
                Re: Why is Jesus the only way? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 12:27 -0700
                Re: Why is Jesus the only way? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-05-04 13:02 -0700
                Re: Why is Jesus the only way? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 13:20 -0700
                Re: Why is Jesus the only way? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-04 19:48 -0700
                Re: Why is Jesus the only way? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-04 19:47 -0700
                Re: Why is Jesus the only way? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-04 19:44 -0700
                Re: Why is Jesus the only way? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-05-07 19:55 -0700
                Re: Why is Jesus the only way? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-05-07 20:09 -0700
                Re: Why is Jesus the only way? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-07 20:37 -0700
                Re: Why is Jesus the only way? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-07 20:36 -0700
                Re: Why is Jesus the only way? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-05-07 22:14 -0700
                Re: Why is Jesus the only way? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 03:59 -0700
                Re: Why is Jesus the only way? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-08 11:10 -0700
                Re: Why is Jesus the only way? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-08 11:07 -0700
  Why is Jesus the only way? cpascoshi@gmail.com - 2017-05-04 09:45 -0700
  Re: Why is Jesus the only way? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 13:55 -0700
  Re: Why is Jesus the only way? "max.muster@picca.de" <dominic.ernst91@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 02:42 -0700
    Re: Why is Jesus the only way? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 03:27 -0700
    Re: Why is Jesus the only way? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-11 09:12 -0700

csiph-web