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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #108842 > unrolled thread

Why is Jesus the only way?

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c

Contents

  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

Page 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7  Next page →

#109450 — Re: Rape in the Bible [was: Re: Why is Jesus the only way?]

On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 11:54:54 PM UTC+9, BruceS wrote:
> On 05/07/2017 07:08 AM, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> > Snit:
> > 
> >> 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.
> > 
> >> What a horrid lesson.  Makes me want to puke.
> >> 
> >> And  that  is  just  one of the horrid lessons and stories of rape
> >> in the bible.
> > 
> > Looks like a genuine anti-rape law to me  that  will make  any  man
> > think twice before attempting a rape, because that may be the last
> > rape in his  life,  and the last woman in his life.  It is also quite
> > expen- sive and has serious consequences.
> > 
> > I don't see why you think it supports rape in  some- wise.
> 
> If a man wants to marry a particular woman, but she doesn't want him, he
> can simply rape her, thus forcing the marriage on her for a fixed cost,
> with no punishment.  That's pretty pro-rape.  The Bible is a guide to
> the very worst sort of morals.

Read the whole thing. Well, see Exodus 22: 16-17, which is part of the necessary context. If the rape victim's father or other person who could speak for the girl or woman tells the guy to get lost, the guy still has to pay the money, and he doesn't get the girl. 

That's not a perfect solution, and it has its own problems when fathers are complicit, but in a society where the parents are complicit, there really isn't much to be done to protect the children.

Except kill the parents ...

which also is a really bad solution.

Sometimes there is no good solution. 

If we want to read the Old Testament and apply it to our own selves, we have to try to understand the context and the intent and do a bit of what believers call prayerful interpretation. We have to start with the thought that maybe the intent was to protect women as much as possible without promoting prostitution (which is a difficult thing to try to do). 

And we have to remember that they really didn't have police, and the court system was significantly different from modern court systems.

And then we have to read the whole thing before we jump to conclusions. For Christians, that includes the New Testament, where we read that the Law of Moses has been superseded (by, among other things, the Beatitudes, ca. Matthew 5). For Jews, that would be the entire Torah, and a lot of external traditional books that explain how to apply principles of mercy.

If you want to learn rape from the scriptures, you can, especially if you cherry-pick. If you want to learn respect, you can, but it takes more effort.

It's kind of like writing a good C compiler. A few pages of pre-ANSI K&R just doesn't cut it.

And we have to remember that even our modern legal systems suffer from corruption. 

And if I continue this OT post, it will definitely turn into preaching where I shouldn't, if it hasn't already.

--
Joel Rees

Rantomly randing:
http://reiisi.blogspot.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#109452 — Re: Rape in the Bible [was: Re: Why is Jesus the only way?]

On 2017-05-08, joel.rees@gmail.com <joel.rees@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 11:54:54 PM UTC+9, BruceS wrote:
>> On 05/07/2017 07:08 AM, Anton Shepelev wrote:
>> > Snit:
>> > 
>> >> 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.
>> > 
>> >> What a horrid lesson.  Makes me want to puke.
>> >> 
>> >> And  that  is  just  one of the horrid lessons and stories of rape
>> >> in the bible.
>> > 
>> > Looks like a genuine anti-rape law to me  that  will make  any  man
>> > think twice before attempting a rape, because that may be the last
>> > rape in his  life,  and the last woman in his life.  It is also quite
>> > expen- sive and has serious consequences.
>> > 
>> > I don't see why you think it supports rape in  some- wise.
>> 
>> If a man wants to marry a particular woman, but she doesn't want him, he
>> can simply rape her, thus forcing the marriage on her for a fixed cost,
>> with no punishment.  That's pretty pro-rape.  The Bible is a guide to
>> the very worst sort of morals.
>
> Read the whole thing. Well, see Exodus 22: 16-17, which is part of the
> necessary context. If the rape victim's father or other person who
> could speak for the girl or woman tells the guy to get lost, the guy
> still has to pay the money, and he doesn't get the girl. 
>
> That's not a perfect solution, and it has its own problems when
> fathers are complicit, but in a society where the parents are
> complicit, there really isn't much to be done to protect the children.
>
Hm, considering that death penalty in Bible is proclaimed for minor things, we can
conclude that rape was not considered serious thing...


-- 
press any key to continue or any other to quit...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#109453 — Re: Rape in the Bible [was: Re: Why is Jesus the only way?]

Melzzzzz, you are at enmity with God.  You have embraced the anti-Christ
spirit, and teach people his false teachings about Jesus Christ, sin,
the Bible, being born again, the spirit, and Hell.

You are heaping judgment and wrath upon yourself with every post.
I advise you to stop, for it would be in your best interests.

Thank you,
Rick C. Hodgin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#109458 — Re: Rape in the Bible [was: Re: Why is Jesus the only way?]

On 5/7/17, 7:36 PM, in article
03b5008e-0481-4a79-b4de-4871f1c47d0b@googlegroups.com, "Rick C. Hodgin"
<rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> wrote:

> Melzzzzz, you are at enmity with God.

You speak for God now?

> You have embraced the anti-Christ spirit, and teach people his false teachings
> about Jesus Christ, sin, the Bible, being born again, the spirit, and Hell.

You say this even as you show you know very little of the bible.

> You are heaping judgment and wrath upon yourself with every post.
> I advise you to stop, for it would be in your best interests.

Sounds like a veiled threat.

-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#109457 — Re: Rape in the Bible [was: Re: Why is Jesus the only way?]

On 5/7/17, 7:07 PM, in article oeojsc$lqc$1@news.albasani.net, "Melzzzzz"
<Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> wrote:

> On 2017-05-08, joel.rees@gmail.com <joel.rees@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 11:54:54 PM UTC+9, BruceS wrote:
>>> On 05/07/2017 07:08 AM, Anton Shepelev wrote:
>>>> Snit:
>>>> 
>>>>> 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.
>>>> 
>>>>> What a horrid lesson.  Makes me want to puke.
>>>>> 
>>>>> And  that  is  just  one of the horrid lessons and stories of rape
>>>>> in the bible.
>>>> 
>>>> Looks like a genuine anti-rape law to me  that  will make  any  man
>>>> think twice before attempting a rape, because that may be the last
>>>> rape in his  life,  and the last woman in his life.  It is also quite
>>>> expen- sive and has serious consequences.
>>>> 
>>>> I don't see why you think it supports rape in  some- wise.
>>> 
>>> If a man wants to marry a particular woman, but she doesn't want him, he
>>> can simply rape her, thus forcing the marriage on her for a fixed cost,
>>> with no punishment.  That's pretty pro-rape.  The Bible is a guide to
>>> the very worst sort of morals.
>> 
>> Read the whole thing. Well, see Exodus 22: 16-17, which is part of the
>> necessary context. If the rape victim's father or other person who could
>> speak for the girl or woman tells the guy to get lost, the guy still has to
>> pay the money, and he doesn't get the girl.
>> 
>> That's not a perfect solution, and it has its own problems when fathers are
>> complicit, but in a society where the parents are complicit, there really
>> isn't much to be done to protect the children.
>> 
> Hm, considering that death penalty in Bible is proclaimed for minor things, we
> can conclude that rape was not considered serious thing...
> 
True enough.

-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#109456 — Re: Rape in the Bible [was: Re: Why is Jesus the only way?]

On 5/7/17, 6:35 PM, in article
22aa6d67-2295-4edb-8691-300b1c6fbd37@googlegroups.com, "joel.rees@gmail.com"
<joel.rees@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 11:54:54 PM UTC+9, BruceS wrote:
>> On 05/07/2017 07:08 AM, Anton Shepelev wrote:
>>> Snit:
>>> 
>>>> 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.
>>> 
>>>> What a horrid lesson.  Makes me want to puke.
>>>> 
>>>> And  that  is  just  one of the horrid lessons and stories of rape
>>>> in the bible.
>>> 
>>> Looks like a genuine anti-rape law to me  that  will make  any  man
>>> think twice before attempting a rape, because that may be the last
>>> rape in his  life,  and the last woman in his life.  It is also quite
>>> expen- sive and has serious consequences.
>>> 
>>> I don't see why you think it supports rape in  some- wise.
>> 
>> If a man wants to marry a particular woman, but she doesn't want him, he
>> can simply rape her, thus forcing the marriage on her for a fixed cost,
>> with no punishment.  That's pretty pro-rape.  The Bible is a guide to
>> the very worst sort of morals.
> 
> Read the whole thing. Well, see Exodus 22: 16-17, which is part of the
> necessary context.

  Exodus 22: 16-17:
    -----
    And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her,
    he shall surely endow her to be his wife. If her father utterly
    refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the
    dowry of virgins.
    -----

More evil in the bible, once again treating women like they are property.
But that is not as bad as forcing a victim of rape to MARRY her rapist and
be raped over and over and over.

> If the rape victim's father or other person who could speak for the girl or
> woman tells the guy to get lost, the guy still has to pay the money, and he
> doesn't get the girl.

The victim's FATHER! What about HER views? Women are NOT property (and
nothing in the other passage suggests anyone can stop the evil marriage
anyway).

> That's not a perfect solution, and it has its own problems when fathers are
> complicit, but in a society where the parents are complicit, there really
> isn't much to be done to protect the children.

How about NOT treating women like property.

How about NOT pretending the value of a women changes if she is or is not a
virgin?

These simple things would help make the bible not push such evil. But it
does.

> Except kill the parents ...
> 
> which also is a really bad solution.
> 
> Sometimes there is no good solution.

How about punish the rapist and not the raped. Yeah, seems a pretty easy
solution. 

Does not mean we can always know for certain who is guilt of a crime, but
none of this has to do with finding out if someone is guilt -- that is just
assumed.

> If we want to read the Old Testament and apply it to our own selves, we have
> to try to understand the context and the intent and do a bit of what believers
> call prayerful interpretation.

In other words not take it at face value. OK.

> We have to start with the thought that maybe the intent was to protect women
> as much as possible without promoting prostitution (which is a difficult thing
> to try to do). 

Why do we have to start with things that it does not say? And even then,
when it treats women as property that is NOT protection.

> And we have to remember that they really didn't have police, and the court
> system was significantly different from modern court systems.

OK, here I am largely with you: it was a different time and place and
society... and the rules were different. But to use THOSE rules in our
modern society is madness. It is a horrid book to get morals from.

> And then we have to read the whole thing before we jump to conclusions. For
> Christians, that includes the New Testament, where we read that the Law of
> Moses has been superseded (by, among other things, the Beatitudes, ca. Matthew
> 5). 

Jesus in the NT is very clear that he is not replacing the old law and that
it still applies. 

> For Jews, that would be the entire Torah, and a lot of external
> traditional books that explain how to apply principles of mercy.
> 
> If you want to learn rape from the scriptures, you can, especially if you
> cherry-pick. If you want to learn respect, you can, but it takes more effort.

Again largely agree: yes, you CAN pick and choose passages and re-interpret
them to make them support a moral worldview... but to do that you have to
start with that moral worldview.
  
> It's kind of like writing a good C compiler. A few pages of pre-ANSI K&R just
> doesn't cut it.
> 
> And we have to remember that even our modern legal systems suffer from
> corruption. 

Absolutely!

> And if I continue this OT post, it will definitely turn into preaching where I
> shouldn't, if it hasn't already.

You share your ideas without preaching or trying to convert. Even though I
disagree with you in places, above, I have no issue with you posting what
you did. We might disagree but that is fine in my book.

-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#109442 — Re: Rape in the Bible [was: Re: Why is Jesus the only way?]

On 5/7/17, 6:08 AM, in article
20170507160840.4ea045a8bdb6462c349a41d5@gmail.com, "Anton Shepelev"
<anton.txt@gmail.com> wrote:

> Snit:
> 
>> 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 reprehensible.

>> What a horrid lesson.  Makes me want to puke.
>> 
>> And  that  is  just  one of the horrid lessons and
>> stories of rape in the bible.
> 
> 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 rejected him. Just rape her
and she is FORCED to marry him.

Just sickening. Seriously, how can anyone read that without being repulsed?

> that  will make  any  man think twice before attempting 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.

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

> It is also quite expen- sive and has serious consequences.

Expensive! 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!

Seriously: WTF!

> I don't see why you think it supports rape in  some-
> wise.

How can you not?

> Wikipedia has a page on the matter:
> 
>    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_the_Hebrew_Bible

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."[14]

    Cheryl Anderson, in her book Ancient Laws and Contemporary
    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] 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 marriage to her
    rapist to be distasteful, to say the least. Arguably, there are
    cultural and historical reasons why such a law made sense at the
    time. [...] Just the same, the law communicates the message that
    faith tradition does not (and should not) consider the possibility
    that women might have different yet valid perspectives."[34]
    -----

You skip that and reference the next section which starts with:
    -----
    In a piece for TheBlaze <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TheBlaze> ,
    a variety of religious scholars condemn the idea that the Bible
    supported 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 decriminalized that it would somehow
make sense? Then it goes on:

    -----
    that a woman could opt out of marrying her rapist,
    -----

Completely made up. Not in that law at all. But it goes on:

    -----
    and that the law was created to protect the woman
    -----

A law forcing a woman to marry her rapist and spend a lifetime of being
raped over and over, and treating her like property is now being twisted to
be a law designed to protect her!

How can you read this stuff without wanting to puke?

> includeing a link to an article:
> 
>    
> http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07/26/fact-check-does-the-bible-really-su
> pport-rape-and-polygamy-theblaze-explores-atheists-critiques/
> 
> Does  bible  pretend these laws to be direct word of
> God?

Some do... and if so then God is evil.

-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#109621 — Re: Rape in the Bible [was: Re: Why is Jesus the only way?]

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]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#109626 — Re: Rape in the Bible [was: Re: Why is Jesus the only way?]

On 5/9/17, 12:35 PM, in article
20170509223518.1b604fb434ac5de3e13bbfed@gmail.com, "Anton Shepelev"
<anton.txt@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 reprehensible.
>> 
> My point here is that in those days it would be unthinkable for a woman to
> refuse this marriage because 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.

I get the society was different... but to defend the GENERAL principle that
a raped woman has to marry her rapist and be subjected to being raped over
and over and over and over is NOT moral. Any book which pushes this idea is
simply not moral.

>>> 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 rejected 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.

Rewarding a rapist with treating his victim as property and granted her to
him as a wife is NOT a punishment, even if it not everything he might want.
It is a HUGE reward.

> 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.

Ah, giving him the object of desire (and she is being treated as an object)
to have his way time and time again is NOT a punishment.

>> 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."

They are forced to marry each other. There is no "inversion" there.

>>> that will make any man think twice before attempting 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.

So a rapist given full legal "rights" to rape the same person again and
again, and placed in a house with her, and who has his victim forced to
marry him, will suddenly decide to NOT rape her again?

That is a fairy tale. Of course he will.

>> 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.

Nothing was needed after the "no".

>>> It is also quite expensive and has serious consequences.
>>> 
>> 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!

Ah, forcing a rape victim to marry her rapist and then be raped over and
over and over is, somehow, going to reduce the number of rapes (?) and that
makes it moral.

Again, this is just rubbish.

>> 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.

Rewarding the rapist with a woman he can rape over and over and over is NOT
preventing rape, no matter how many times you try to twist it as such.

>> 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.

It is exactly true that this is from the page you linked to.

> 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.

Forcing a victim of rape to marry her rapist where she will be raped over
and over again is NOT an "act of care".

>> Cheryl Anderson, in her book Ancient Laws and Contemporary 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.

It DOES say slavery is OK.

>> 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 marriage to her rapist to be distasteful, to say the least.
>> 
> Wrong.

Not wrong at all. A rape victim is going to be VERY unlikely to want to
MARRY her rapist.

> See again the story of Tamar and Amnon. Anderson 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 without a man's care.

Again: I am talking about the words of the bible and how moral they are...
yes, I get society was different in the past. Does not make the ideas there
moral.

>> Arguably, there are cultural and historical reasons why such a law made
>> sense at the time.
>> 
> That's it.

But that does not make it a good moral guide for NOW.

...
>> 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?

I am going by what the bible says... and it is CLEARLY not a good moral
guide for today. It is a horrid one.

-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#109166

On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 10:26:20 AM UTC+9, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 9:02:16 PM UTC-4, David Kleinecke wrote:
> > ...I can ignore his Christian nonsense but Islam is a
> > real problem area today and Islamophobia is too important
> > to ignore.
> 
> Islam is evil top to bottom.  There is nothing redeeming about it. 

All human approach to religion falls short of the truth, or of the 
glory of God. Isaiah 55 or 56, is it?

> It
> is a religion of hate and death,

Christianity, as practiced by some, has been a religion of hate and 
death.

It's important to separate the religion from those who practice it, 
particularly when various who practice it have different practices.

And the religion may be wrong, but you can't properly deal with the 
errors in the religion unless you separate those errors from the 
errors of those who practice it.

> and it is wrought with sin in its "god"
> (who calls himself the chief liar),

I have heard people use the Bible in similar accusations against 
the God of the Bible. Would you give credit to such accusations?

> as well as in Muhammad (married a
> six-year old little girl, and consummated their marriage when she was
> nine!!  A "prophet of god" having sex with a nine-year old little girl).

Compared to the customs of the time, it was not nearly as extreme as 
it seems now.

But some claim that Aisha was, in fact, already a teenager at the 
time of the agreement with her parents. 

Various reasons are given for commonly reporting a younger age, 
most of them political. The idea that such politics should come 
into play doesn't speak well for the community that followed them, 
IMO.

Either way, it should not be made the basis of hate against the 
people who practice that way.

> And that doesn't mention the Jihad they are called to wage as war
> against all of the infidels.

Some see jihad as literal. Some see it as metaphorical.

Most of their believers, as I understand it, see jihad as a 
metaphor for the personal struggle against sin.

Paul uses war as a metaphor in describing the struggle against sin.

And I referred to the Crusades above, but I'll refer to them again.
Many Christians have misconceived how they should fight against sin.

My opinion is that some incidents of the Bible show that some of 
the people of ancient Israel took war as a metaphor for the struggle 
against sin too literally.

> Islam is evil top to bottom, front to back, side to side, and it has
> no redeeming traits whatsoever.  Period.

Sometimes, my wife says the same thing about the Internet. And I 
have a hard time arguing with that, because I know some ways in 
which the Internet is being used to fulfill certain prophecies.

Likewise, computers could easily be called the modern idolatry, 
the modern abomination mentioned by Daniel.

But there is a difference, in that Islam is a religion, and 
computers and the Internet don't have to be used religiously.

Neither has to be used for evil.

Islam brought a period of peace to an area that had been constantly at 
war to that time. Among other things. 

Witness if you will, but you might want to look for good things to 
witness about, as well. We are not good in comparison to others, 
only in whether we are willing to follow the example of Jesus.

Which reminds me of His attitude towards the Samaritans, if you will.

But this is not the place to argue about religion. We all have other 
things we should be doing, like work, to provide for our families.

--
Joel Rees

http://reiisi.blogspot.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#109184

On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 1:08:43 AM UTC-4, joel...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 10:26:20 AM UTC+9, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> > [Islam] is a religion of hate and death,
> 
> Christianity, as practiced by some, has been a religion of hate and 
> death.

Yes.  Go to Jesus and learn how to be.  Jesus does not call any
Christians to killing in the flesh, fighting people in the flesh,
doing things in the flesh to restrain or constrain others.  His
guidance is spirit, and it is teaching, and it is an inner change
made from within rather than something forced upon our flesh from
without.

Thank you,
Rick C. Hodgin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#109171

On 5/3/17, 6:26 PM, in article
53714ea1-3fcf-4ac1-b5a1-ff66b0fc285c@googlegroups.com, "Rick C. Hodgin"
<rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 9:02:16 PM UTC-4, David Kleinecke wrote:
>> ...I can ignore his Christian nonsense but Islam is a
>> real problem area today and Islamophobia is too important
>> to ignore.
> 
> Islam is evil top to bottom.  There is nothing redeeming about it.  It
> is a religion of hate and death, and it is wrought with sin in its "god"
> (who calls himself the chief liar), as well as in Muhammad (married a
> six-year old little girl, and consummated their marriage when she was
> nine!!  A "prophet of god" having sex with a nine-year old little girl).
> 
> And that doesn't mention the Jihad they are called to wage as war
> against all of the infidels.
> 
> Islam is evil top to bottom, front to back, side to side, and it has
> no redeeming traits whatsoever.  Period.
> 
> Thank you,
> Rick C. Hodgin

Keep in mind the Christian bible has just as much "bad" stuff in it.

With that said, in case you missed it elsewhere, I misread your quote when
you said "People who don't convert are to be killed." I MISTAKENLY took that
as you saying it as your view and not you sharing a bigoted view of Islam.
While I disagree with your bigotry, that does not mean you meant that view
to be yours.

My apologies.

-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#109185

On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 1:44:27 AM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> Keep in mind the Christian bible has just as much "bad" stuff in it.

It doesn't.  Everything God has done is right and just and holy.  And
there are explanations for it, but so long as you close yourself off
to hearing them ... they will forever elude you, and you will go to
the grave in your arrgoance and pride believing yourself justified
in railing against God, only to find out how wrong you were on that
day, "Snit."

Jesus warns us in advance so we can be saved.  But, not everybody
will be saved.  That's one of the hardest lessons I've had to learn
as a Christian.  It's one that breaks my heart.

> With that said, in case you missed it elsewhere, I misread your
> quote when you said "People who don't convert are to be killed."
> I MISTAKENLY took that as you saying it as your view and not you
> sharing a bigoted view of Islam.

It's not a bigoted view of Islam.  THAT _IS_ ISLAM!  The reason why
we don't see more Muslims killing non-Muslims is because they are
not practicing their faith, just as many Christians who are not
more holy but are just like the people of the world, except that
they call themselves by the name "Christian."

-----
"Snit," you're going to learn one day that Jesus is God, and that
He came here to save your eternal soul from death in Hell.  If you
learn that before you leave this world you are saved.  If you learn
that after you leave this world, you will be cast into Hellfire.

I advise you to learn it before you leave this world.

Thank you,
Rick C. Hodgin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#109239

On 5/4/17, 4:21 AM, in article
4b96502c-218f-436f-8eff-42083a88030e@googlegroups.com, "Rick C. Hodgin"
<rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 1:44:27 AM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>> Keep in mind the Christian bible has just as much "bad" stuff in it.
> 
> It doesn't. 

It does. But you snip it every time I quote it to you and then say you will
not click links that take you to bible quotes.

Your actions show you loathe the bible.

So why call yourself a Christian when you clearly hate the bible so much?

... 
>> With that said, in case you missed it elsewhere, I misread your
>> quote when you said "People who don't convert are to be killed."
>> I MISTAKENLY took that as you saying it as your view and not you
>> sharing a bigoted view of Islam.
> 
> It's not a bigoted view of Islam.

Of course it is. You want special entitlements for Christians and deny equal
rights to others. You think you have a monopoly on truth... the ultimate
sign of arrogance and pride -- things your religion claims are bad.

...

-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#109159

David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> writes:
[...]
> Scabs. I can ignore his Christian nonsense but Islam is a
> real problem area today and Islamophobia is too important
> to ignore.

But you aren't.

*plonk*

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#109170

On 5/3/17, 6:01 PM, in article
c8e52627-31a1-4af9-9d24-787480e7a962@googlegroups.com, "David Kleinecke"
<dkleinecke@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 5:07:48 PM UTC-7, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> writes:
>> <snip>
>>> Look, people, RCH really believes this stuff. I think he is
>>> deluded but I wouldn't waste time trying to undelude him. I
>>> suggest just ignoring him.
>> 
>> According to my newsreader you posted this seven minutes before replying
>> to one of RCH's religious diatribes yourself.  (By the way, I agree that
>> there is nothing to be done but ignore these posts.)
> 
> Scabs. I can ignore his Christian nonsense but Islam is a
> real problem area today and Islamophobia is too important
> to ignore.

His arrogance and bigotry is worth noting it is wrong.

-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#109176

On 04/05/17 02:01, David Kleinecke wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 5:07:48 PM UTC-7, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> writes:
>> <snip>
>>> Look, people, RCH really believes this stuff. I think he is
>>> deluded but I wouldn't waste time trying to undelude him. I
>>> suggest just ignoring him.
>>
>> According to my newsreader you posted this seven minutes before replying
>> to one of RCH's religious diatribes yourself.  (By the way, I agree that
>> there is nothing to be done but ignore these posts.)
>
> Scabs. I can ignore his Christian nonsense

So can I. Except that, speaking as a Christian myself, I would again (as 
I very occasionally do) like to point out that his theology is all 
twisted up. It is not /Christian/ nonsense, just nonsense. If you must 
attack him here, and I'd much prefer it if you stuck to C, please attack 
him /correctly/, at least.

> but Islam is a
> real problem area today and Islamophobia is too important
> to ignore.

But that, surely, is a matter for a soc group, not a comp group?

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#109187

On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 4:33:17 AM UTC-4, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> [I would] like to point out that his theology is all 
> twisted up.

I'd like to ask you to show me where, Richard.  Here's what I see:

You remain silent while souls around you are heading off to the
eternal flames.  You do not join in my posts here on comp.lang.c
(or elsewhere) due to some twisted self-belief that it is better
to stay on topic than teach people what the world will not teach
them.

You place a greater authority on what men say than what God said
when He said to to all nations and teach ("disciple all the nations"
http://biblehub.com/text/matthew/28-19.htm), and in the book of Acts
we learn that even if an Earthly authority were to say we should stop
teaching about Jesus, it is for us to place the guidance of God in
its proper place relative to the guidance of man:

    http://biblehub.com/kjv/acts/4-19.htm
    19 But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it
       be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than
       unto God, judge ye.

I'd like to know where my teachings are "twisted," Richard.  My
teachings are thus:

    (1)  We are all sinners (biblehub.com/kjv/romans/3-23.htm).
    (2)  We are all already condemned (biblehub.com/kjv/john/3-18.htm).

    (3)  None of us can save ourself
             (biblehub.com/kjv/ephesians/2-8.htm).

    (4)  Jesus came to save us from sin and death
             (http://biblehub.com/kjv/1_john/3-8.htm).

    (5)  All who come to Him are forgiven
             (http://biblehub.com/kjv/john/6-37.htm) and
             (http://biblehub.com/kjv/john/6-39.htm) and
             (http://biblehub.com/kjv/john/14-6.htm).

    (6)  And all who are forgiven are restored, made alive again
         spiritually, entering in to eternal life with God in
         Heaven forever:
             (http://biblehub.com/kjv/luke/23-43.htm) and
             (http://biblehub.com/kjv/john/3-5.htm) and
             (http://biblehub.com/kjv/john/14-2.htm) and
             (http://biblehub.com/kjv/john/14-3.htm) and:

    5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things
      new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and
      faithful.
    6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the
      beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of
      the fountain of the water of life freely.
    7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his
      God, and he shall be my son.
    8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and
      murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and
      all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with
      fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Does this mean anything to you, Richard?  Why do you remain silent?

Thank you,
Rick C. Hodgin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#109189

On 04/05/17 13:53, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 4:33:17 AM UTC-4, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> [I would] like to point out that his theology is all 
>> twisted up.
> 
> I'd like to ask you to show me where, Richard.  Here's what I see:
> 
<snip>
> Does this mean anything to you, Richard?  Why do you remain silent?
> 

I suspect Richard will not reply to this.  The key reasons Richard does
not join in your religious threads are that this is the wrong time and
place for them (it is a C discussion group - and Richard has too much
respect for the other group members to get involved in such off-topic
threads), and that experience has shown that such threads are utterly
useless.  The do not encourage anyone towards Christianity (quite the
opposite).  They do not encourage off-topic posters to moderate their
behaviour (again, they have the opposite effect).  They do not lead to
anyone learning anything, or gaining a better understanding of other
viewpoints.

I have engaged Rick in religious discussions in the past.  I have even
argued that the occasional off-topic thread is not a problem for a group
like c.l.c.  But I have learned that it is quite useless.  Rick is
apparently totally incurable, and lives in his own world with no regard
for anyone else.

I will not be following up on this (and Rick has promised not to reply
to me).  I strongly encourage Snit, David K, and anyone else who feels
provoked to respond to Rick, that they don't bother.  The threads here
in the past couple of days show that these threads are not useful
discussions, and simply serve to annoy people.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#109206

On 04/05/17 14:08, David Brown wrote:
> On 04/05/17 13:53, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>> On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 4:33:17 AM UTC-4, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> [I would] like to point out that his theology is all
>>> twisted up.
>>
>> I'd like to ask you to show me where, Richard.  Here's what I see:
>>
> <snip>
>> Does this mean anything to you, Richard?  Why do you remain silent?
>>
>
> I suspect Richard will not reply to this.

Well, I won't reply to /that/, because I've plonked the guy. I don't 
mind replying to /your/ article, though, albeit briefly, and only on 
topicality grounds.

> The key reasons Richard does
> not join in your religious threads are that this is the wrong time and
> place for them (it is a C discussion group - and Richard has too much
> respect for the other group members to get involved in such off-topic
> threads), and that experience has shown that such threads are utterly
> useless.

Right on all counts. There are groups for discussing Christian theology, 
and I do take part in some of those groups, but /this/ is not one of 
those groups. If Mr Hodgin wants me to explain exactly what is wrong 
with his theology, he can take it up with me in one of those groups. In 
/this/ group, however, I have him kill-filed.

I seem to recall making email enquiries (maybe even to you - I'm afraid 
I've forgotten) about whether Mr Hodgin had started behaving himself 
and, as a result, I unplonked him for a while, but quickly re-plonked him.

> The do not encourage anyone towards Christianity (quite the
> opposite).  They do not encourage off-topic posters to moderate their
> behaviour (again, they have the opposite effect).  They do not lead to
> anyone learning anything, or gaining a better understanding of other
> viewpoints.

If anyone wants to discuss the subject matter with /me/ (and has a 
robust killfile to deal with the noise, which is considerable), they 
have only to post in alt.religion.christianity or 
alt.christnet.christianlife and I will be glad to engage in polite, 
logical, and sensible[1] discussion with them *in one of those groups*.

But not here. This is a C group.

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
[1] I nearly wrote "intelligent", but I can't promise that! I hope that 
"sensible" constitutes a reasonable substitute.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c

csiph-web