(December 3, 2014 at 3:23 pm)JonDarbyXIII Wrote: Lot's wife died as a result of her own actions (moral lesson: don't look over your shoulder....for some reason or other) Besides, the Abraham's entire argument when he was bargaining with God was a petition so save 'the righteous.' Sodom and Gomorrah were supposedly destroyed because of sexual sin; yet you're saying that God punished Lot's sexual sin by letting him live?

First, note that the passage says that God was merciful to Lot. If Lot were indeed righteous, mercy would not be necessary. Lot apparently did not join in the sexual sin of Sodom, and we're not told for what sins mercy was shown. Some commentators note that "Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom," which in that culture indicated significant status, making it likely that Lot was in good with people whom he should have viewed as wicked. This is a possibility, but we really don't know what sins are intended.

So, I'm saying that God let Lot live because he didn't join in the town's sin, but punished him for reasons unknown with certainty to us by having him end up in caves in the hills.

(December 3, 2014 at 1:39 pm)robvalue Wrote: I'd like to see someone use the "the bible says it's ok" defence in court and see how far that gets them.

If you can get away with killing children through neglect, and claim religion as an excuse, I don't see why you can't get away with rape by claiming religion as an excuse.

(December 3, 2014 at 4:11 pm)alpha male Wrote: So, I'm saying that God let Lot live because he didn't join in the town's sin, but punished him for reasons unknown with certainty to us by having him end up in caves in the hills.

And Lot offering his daughters to be gang raped was all fine and dandy. At least he didn't join in the town's sin and only pimped out his own children.

(December 3, 2014 at 4:15 pm)abaris Wrote: And Lot offering his daughters to be gang raped was all fine and dandy. At least he didn't join in the town's sin and only pimped out his own children.

You give another possible reason that Lot was punished. Thanks!

(December 3, 2014 at 4:11 pm)alpha male Wrote: So, I'm saying that God let Lot live because he didn't join in the town's sin, but punished him for reasons unknown with certainty to us by having him end up in caves in the hills.

Ask to have sex with men: get roasted by fireballs from God
Offer your daughters up to gang rape: spend the rest of your life in a cave.

If God is the ultimate, just judge, why do punishments never fit the 'crime'

(December 3, 2014 at 4:14 pm)Chad32 Wrote:

(December 3, 2014 at 1:39 pm)robvalue Wrote: I'd like to see someone use the "the bible says it's ok" defence in court and see how far that gets them.

If you can get away with killing children through neglect, and claim religion as an excuse, I don't see why you can't get away with rape by claiming religion as an excuse.

Do you mean things like refusing blood transfusions?

Has someone actually used that as a valid defence then? (In recent times)

(December 3, 2014 at 4:23 pm)JonDarbyXIII Wrote: Ask to have sex with men: get roasted by fireballs from God
Offer your daughters up to gang rape: spend the rest of your life in a cave.

If God is the ultimate, just judge, why do punishments never fit the 'crime'

It's interesting that regarding the bad guys, you phrase it as merely having sex. Regarding the (relatively) godly man, you phrase it as gang rape.

Yes...two dudes getting it on consensually is what "sex" is. A crowd of men having their way with a woman without any regard for her consent is what "gang rape" is. How hard is that to understand?

(December 3, 2014 at 4:35 pm)robvalue Wrote: Do you mean things like refusing blood transfusions?

Has someone actually used that as a valid defence then? (In recent times)

blood transfusions, vaccinations, medical treatment in general. and yes, it's sickening, but it does happen

(December 2, 2014 at 10:41 am)Nope Wrote:

Quote:Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB)

"When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion.

There isn't any way to defend this passage. Religious people can't get around the passage by saying that it is only reporting historical events in a neutral fashion. Obviously, god is telling the Hebrews how to treat female captives.

And, ironically, the very next chapter of the same book goes into details about not raping female virgins. Although, don't let that fool you. The text and the context are all exceptionally creepy:

• If she's betrothed to be married and is raped in a city, she and the rapist are to be put to death (wow!)
  
• If she is betrothed and raped out of the city, just the rapist is to be put to death (that puts the earlier law in context. In the city, if she doesn't scream, then she wanted it).
  
• As mentioned earlier in the thread: if she is not betrothed, she gets to marry her rapist! The rapist must pay a fine to the father (you see, the real victim here is the father. He now has an unmarriable daughter.).
  
• No explicit prohibition on raping non-virgins. The NT will later complain about fornication, but we're not talking about that; we're talking about Deuteronomy.
  
• Absolutely no word on marital rape. Ever.