So Beta's arguing that the punishment for forced marriage. Should be the extermination of an entire  populous. And forced marriage . Behold perfect morality praise jeebus .

(July 19, 2017 at 7:48 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(July 18, 2017 at 3:58 pm)alpha male Wrote: No, actually such captives were given 30 days to mourn, then could be taken as a wife. If it didn't work out, the woman had to be freed.

Deut 21 [...] if you have no delight in her, then you shall set her free, but you certainly shall not sell her for money; you shall not treat her brutally, because you have humbled her.

[emphasis added -- Thump]

Mischaracterization. You try to paint it as neutral, when your "good" book makes it clear that the only consideration is if the captor is happy with his captive.

"If it didn't work out" would seem to translate as "If Stockholm Syndrome didn't set in".  *snort*

Notice there's still no reply. Gosh. I wonder why?

(July 23, 2017 at 8:50 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(July 19, 2017 at 7:48 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: [emphasis added -- Thump]

Mischaracterization. You try to paint it as neutral, when your "good" book makes it clear that the only consideration is if the captor is happy with his captive.

"If it didn't work out" would seem to translate as "If Stockholm Syndrome didn't set in".  *snort*

Notice there's still no reply. Gosh. I wonder why?

Yeah, I mean, it's not like having an answer that's complete bullshit or a total non sequitur is off the table for them.

(July 22, 2017 at 1:50 pm)Inkfeather132 Wrote:

(July 22, 2017 at 2:07 am)Godscreated Wrote:

---

 Where does it say that they married them while they were children, you are good at putting everyone in the same category. I also explained that the women/children would die on there own, they had no way to make a living and people couldn't afford to take them in even if they could reach other people, a war was going on.

---

No it doesn't because rape is more about brutality, sex is secondary.

GC

---

Women/children would die on their own you say? Well maybe they shouldn't have killed their husbands/brothers, or is god not smart enough to think of that? Also, if this is about providing for the children, why were the little boys not spared? Only the female children were spared, GC. Not the little male children, and not the adult women. This was absolutely not about providing for the defenseless when they had orders to kill most of the defenseless.

As for rape being primarily about brutality, you are absolutely wrong. It's about people taking what they want with no thought for what the victim wants. It doesn't have to be brutal at all, some girls go down without even a fight because they're drugged by someone they trust. Sometimes young people are tricked/manipulated into doing something they didn't really want to do. Rape is much broader than just "brutality".  And as I said in my post, which you conveniently ignored, even if they were married as adults, that would only be after years of slavery and conditioning. They would lack the ability and right to say no, and therefore can't give true consent. That means it would still be rape.

 You are assuming the worse for these girls/women and without any evidence as to how they were treated, why? Is it because that's what you want it to be, is it that you hate Christianity that much, what? 
 Okay I misstated rape as only physical abuse, though most rapes are violent for the woman involved. I doubt they had drugs they used in rape during those days. You do not know they were conditioned and as for slavery you are associating the slavery of the early America with that of Israel. The slavery in Israel was more of a servant type, but yes it was slavery nevertheless.

GC

We can read into the implications, GC. when you don't go into it assuming this invading army is the good side by default, or that their god is good by default, you can look at the event objectively. The whole thing is very poorly handled, without care for the interests of the other side. If that happened to us, we would consider that horrible, and traumatizing, thus we can empathize with these women. Nowadays we don't see killing as acceptable. If you have the power and are motivated enough, even if you think a group is evil you can still rehabilitate them. You don't have to slaughter them.

Now that culture was very different, but supposedly they had an enlightened and all powerful deity on their side, with many other options beyond just killing people. We can come up with better solutions, because we care about people. Even people who believe differently than we do. That's what real benevolence is.

You're really arguing that there's no good reason to think there's anything wrong with going into someone's house, killing the family inside except for the young unmarried woman, dragging her off to her place, shaving her head, holding her there for a month, and telling her she has to marry you or you're going to put her out on the street in a place where she has no support group or real value if you've already taken her virginity. And none of us can understand why you think that.

(July 22, 2017 at 2:29 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:

(July 22, 2017 at 2:07 am)Godscreated Wrote: [hide]

 Where does it say that they married them while they were children, you are good at putting everyone in the same category. I also explained that the women/children would die on there own, they had no way to make a living and people couldn't afford to take them in even if they could reach other people, a war was going on.

---

No it doesn't because rape is more about brutality, sex is secondary.

GC

---

You profess to believe in the Bible but you sure do call it a pack of lies a lot.


1 Timothy 1:13-14 (CEV) = "13 After all, Adam was created before Eve, 14 and the man Adam wasn’t the one who was fooled. It was the woman Eve who was completely fooled and sinned. "

 First of all 1st Timothy 1:13-14 doesn't say that at all, you should either find a source to copy that knows what they are talking about or find things for yourself.
 1st Timothy 2:13-14 are the verses stated. Paul used this to show that women shouldn't need to be teachers of men, if you had read a few more verses 11-15 you would have seen this, well maybe, you do not seem to understand scriptures because you are so narrow minded about them and will do anything to get them to say what you want.
 
Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man (Adam), and death through sin, so death spread to all men because all sinned. This verse shows us who is at fault for the results of sin, the verses you tried to quote shows that though Eve sinned first, she is not named as the one responsible, those verses are specifically speaking about women teaching men in the church.

GC

(July 24, 2017 at 12:01 pm)Godscreated Wrote:

(July 22, 2017 at 1:50 pm)Inkfeather132 Wrote: Women/children would die on their own you say? Well maybe they shouldn't have killed their husbands/brothers, or is god not smart enough to think of that? Also, if this is about providing for the children, why were the little boys not spared? Only the female children were spared, GC. Not the little male children, and not the adult women. This was absolutely not about providing for the defenseless when they had orders to kill most of the defenseless.

As for rape being primarily about brutality, you are absolutely wrong. It's about people taking what they want with no thought for what the victim wants. It doesn't have to be brutal at all, some girls go down without even a fight because they're drugged by someone they trust. Sometimes young people are tricked/manipulated into doing something they didn't really want to do. Rape is much broader than just "brutality".  And as I said in my post, which you conveniently ignored, even if they were married as adults, that would only be after years of slavery and conditioning. They would lack the ability and right to say no, and therefore can't give true consent. That means it would still be rape.

 You are assuming the worse for these girls/women and without any evidence as to how they were treated, why? Is it because that's what you want it to be, is it that you hate Christianity that much, what? 
 Okay I misstated rape as only physical abuse, though most rapes are violent for the woman involved. I doubt they had drugs they used in rape during those days. You do not know they were conditioned and as for slavery you are associating the slavery of the early America with that of Israel. The slavery in Israel was more of a servant type, but yes it was slavery nevertheless.

GC

Wow you are dense. Slave or servant, it means the woman was under the control of her master. And not because she wanted to be, but because she was forced into it after seeing her entire family murdered by the guy. She didn't have the ability to opt out of the sex, so she didn't have the ability to consent to it either. This makes it rape. You say the Bible doesn't specifically say the women were raped? Well guess what, it also doesn't specifically say they weren't.

I don't hate Christianity, I hate people like you who think that what happened in those verses was in any way good or moral. It wasn't. Not on any level.

---

(July 24, 2017 at 12:45 pm)Godscreated Wrote:

(July 22, 2017 at 2:29 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: You profess to believe in the Bible but you sure do call it a pack of lies a lot.


1 Timothy 1:13-14 (CEV) = "13 After all, Adam was created before Eve, 14 and the man Adam wasn’t the one who was fooled. It was the woman Eve who was completely fooled and sinned. "

 First of all 1st Timothy 1:13-14 doesn't say that at all, you should either find a source to copy that knows what they are talking about or find things for yourself.
 1st Timothy 2:13-14 are the verses stated. Paul used this to show that women shouldn't need to be teachers of men, if you had read a few more verses 11-15 you would have seen this, well maybe, you do not seem to understand scriptures because you are so narrow minded about them and will do anything to get them to say what you want.
 
Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man (Adam), and death through sin, so death spread to all men because all sinned. This verse shows us who is at fault for the results of sin, the verses you tried to quote shows that though Eve sinned first, she is not named as the one responsible, those verses are specifically speaking about women teaching men in the church.

GC

1 Timothy 2:11-15
11 A woman[a] should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[b] she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women[c] will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

These verses are interesting. First, they show how Paul sucks at arguing. Basically: A. Women were formed second, B. Eve ate the fruit first, Therefore C. Women shall not have authority. This isn't a logical argument because Paul is making a judgement about an entire group of people (women) based on a sample size of one woman (Eve). This is like me saying all men are gullible idiots because Adam never questioned Eve and just ate the fruit because she told him to.
Second, it says that "women will be saved through childbearing". So men are saved by grace, women are saved by works? The more you quote the Bible, the worse it looks, GC.

While women might be "saved" the biblical fairy tale does not specifically say that any of them will end up in the giant bejeweled golden cube called New Jerusalem.

(July 24, 2017 at 12:01 pm)Godscreated Wrote:

(July 22, 2017 at 1:50 pm)Inkfeather132 Wrote:

---

Women/children would die on their own you say? Well maybe they shouldn't have killed their husbands/brothers, or is god not smart enough to think of that? Also, if this is about providing for the children, why were the little boys not spared? Only the female children were spared, GC. Not the little male children, and not the adult women. This was absolutely not about providing for the defenseless when they had orders to kill most of the defenseless.

As for rape being primarily about brutality, you are absolutely wrong. It's about people taking what they want with no thought for what the victim wants. It doesn't have to be brutal at all, some girls go down without even a fight because they're drugged by someone they trust. Sometimes young people are tricked/manipulated into doing something they didn't really want to do. Rape is much broader than just "brutality".  And as I said in my post, which you conveniently ignored, even if they were married as adults, that would only be after years of slavery and conditioning. They would lack the ability and right to say no, and therefore can't give true consent. That means it would still be rape.

---

 You are assuming the worse for these girls/women and without any evidence as to how they were treated, why? Is it because that's what you want it to be, is it that you hate Christianity that much, what? 
 Okay I misstated rape as only physical abuse, though most rapes are violent for the woman involved. I doubt they had drugs they used in rape during those days. You do not know they were conditioned and as for slavery you are associating the slavery of the early America with that of Israel. The slavery in Israel was more of a servant type, but yes it was slavery nevertheless.

GC

Say what?  You doubt they had drugs . . . ??  So you advocate for drugging the women you plan on raping because . . . why?  It's less violent??  They can't fight back so you don't have to break any bones and threaten to murder her family?  Any penetration that a woman isn't ENTHUSIASTICALLY ready for is unpleasant, just due to the biology of the act.  No captive, no child "bride", and no coerced "partner" is going to have any fun, the best they can hope for is that it will be over quickly.  

   No drugs.  Arguing that a woman kidnapped into a man's house after seeing her entire family murdered, and then being forced to marry her captor (and naturally, serve as his sex slave) would ever be an acceptable or positive experience . . .    And then arguing that THEIR slavery was better because it was more like a servant.  Well, geez, there were plenty of house-servant slaves in America too.  They may have been treated passably well, but they weren't paid and they were still slaves.  And a lot of the females were raped.  It was a great way to make cheap new slaves, I'm sure you would be all for this wonderful example of financial genius.  Free new slaves!  All you have to do is rape!  No drugs needed! Ooh, and you SAVED them too! They had babies, now they're saved.

   Wow, just wow.  I have run into despicable xtians who turned off their brain and defended the Yahweh Sky War-Demon, but - - this is disgusting.

(July 25, 2017 at 12:18 pm)drfuzzy Wrote:

(July 24, 2017 at 12:01 pm)Godscreated Wrote:  You are assuming the worse for these girls/women and without any evidence as to how they were treated, why? Is it because that's what you want it to be, is it that you hate Christianity that much, what? 
 Okay I misstated rape as only physical abuse, though most rapes are violent for the woman involved. I doubt they had drugs they used in rape during those days. You do not know they were conditioned and as for slavery you are associating the slavery of the early America with that of Israel. The slavery in Israel was more of a servant type, but yes it was slavery nevertheless.

GC

Say what?  You doubt they had drugs . . . ??  So you advocate for drugging the women you plan on raping because . . . why?  It's less violent??  They can't fight back so you don't have to break any bones and threaten to murder her family?  Any penetration that a woman isn't ENTHUSIASTICALLY ready for is unpleasant, just due to the biology of the act.  No captive, no child "bride", and no coerced "partner" is going to have any fun, the best they can hope for is that it will be over quickly.  

   No drugs.  Arguing that a woman kidnapped into a man's house after seeing her entire family murdered, and then being forced to marry her captor (and naturally, serve as his sex slave) would ever be an acceptable or positive experience . . .    And then arguing that THEIR slavery was better because it was more like a servant.  Well, geez, there were plenty of house-servant slaves in America too.  They may have been treated passably well, but they weren't paid and they were still slaves.  And a lot of the females were raped.  It was a great way to make cheap new slaves, I'm sure you would be all for this wonderful example of financial genius.  Free new slaves!  All you have to do is rape!  No drugs needed!  Ooh, and you SAVED them too!  They had babies, now they're saved.

   Wow, just wow.  I have run into despicable xtians who turned off their brain and defended the Yahweh Sky War-Demon, but - - this is disgusting.

 Your lack of understanding is a terrible thing, I never condoned rape and never will, so you can take this and put it where the sun doesn't shine, 

GC

---

(July 24, 2017 at 1:23 pm)Inkfeather132 Wrote:

(July 24, 2017 at 12:01 pm)Godscreated Wrote:  You are assuming the worse for these girls/women and without any evidence as to how they were treated, why? Is it because that's what you want it to be, is it that you hate Christianity that much, what? 
 Okay I misstated rape as only physical abuse, though most rapes are violent for the woman involved. I doubt they had drugs they used in rape during those days. You do not know they were conditioned and as for slavery you are associating the slavery of the early America with that of Israel. The slavery in Israel was more of a servant type, but yes it was slavery nevertheless.

GC

Wow you are dense. Slave or servant, it means the woman was under the control of her master. And not because she wanted to be, but because she was forced into it after seeing her entire family murdered by the guy. She didn't have the ability to opt out of the sex, so she didn't have the ability to consent to it either. This makes it rape. You say the Bible doesn't specifically say the women were raped? Well guess what, it also doesn't specifically say they weren't.

I don't hate Christianity, I hate people like you who think that what happened in those verses was in any way good or moral. It wasn't. Not on any level.


Hating me isn't going to help you feel better about anything but that's your problem. Like I said in to you in another thread it's sad when people through their common sense out the window. I never said that any of the situation was good for the girls/women. I said it was better than the alternatives and you do not know how these women were treated and neither do I. I can tell you that if it was outside God's will they were punished, we saw that when one man stole goods that were to be either destroyed or put in with the rest of the goods captured. You keep on saying these girls were raped when you have no idea as to what happened to them and you do not know that whoever chose the girl was the one she saw killing her parents. All you have are speculations you developed to satisfy your own dirty little mind.
Like I said to two others I'm finished with this conversation due to your lack of reasonable thought.

GC

---

(July 24, 2017 at 1:23 pm)Inkfeather132 Wrote:

(July 24, 2017 at 12:45 pm)Godscreated Wrote:  First of all 1st Timothy 1:13-14 doesn't say that at all, you should either find a source to copy that knows what they are talking about or find things for yourself.
 1st Timothy 2:13-14 are the verses stated. Paul used this to show that women shouldn't need to be teachers of men, if you had read a few more verses 11-15 you would have seen this, well maybe, you do not seem to understand scriptures because you are so narrow minded about them and will do anything to get them to say what you want.
 
Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man (Adam), and death through sin, so death spread to all men because all sinned. This verse shows us who is at fault for the results of sin, the verses you tried to quote shows that though Eve sinned first, she is not named as the one responsible, those verses are specifically speaking about women teaching men in the church.

GC

1 Timothy 2:11-15
11 A woman[a] should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[b] she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women[c] will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

These verses are interesting. First, they show how Paul sucks at arguing. Basically: A. Women were formed second, B. Eve ate the fruit first, Therefore C. Women shall not have authority.  This isn't a logical argument because Paul is making a judgement about an entire group of people (women) based on a sample size of one woman (Eve). This is like me saying all men are gullible idiots because Adam never questioned Eve and just ate the fruit because she told him to.
Second, it says that "women will be saved through childbearing". So men are saved by grace, women are saved by works? The more you quote the Bible, the worse it looks, GC.

 Paul could have argued circles around you. The argument came from the creation and the punishment God laid out to Adam and Eve. The sin has always been passed down to every human being it belongs to us from birth and thus the punishments God laid down. An man in Adams position would have eaten the fruit, Eve had the knowledge he did not and so she in actuality had a power over him though it was a deadly one. That's not what the Bible says and it's not exactly what Paul was trying to get across to his readers either. i used the Bible verses and shot down WoG's argument. I wasn't afraid to correct WoG and show the real verses either, so no I'm quoting scripture and it defends itself.

GC

---

(July 24, 2017 at 11:29 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: While women might be "saved" the biblical fairy tale does not specifically say that any of them will end up in the giant bejeweled golden cube called New Jerusalem.

 The Bible says that all who believe in Jesus Christ and follow Him will be saved and enter the New Jerusalem. The all covers women, too.

GC