(June 27, 2015 at 4:00 am)Huggy74 Wrote: [...] (after all rape is pretty straight forward seeing how there has to be two consenting parties) [...]

Every time I think you've plumbed the depths of stupidity, you surprise me with another offering.

Also, I'm having a big chuckle at watching yet another Christian defend Biblical slavery. This one is especially ironic, given that it is happening in a thread where Christians are arguing that only through their god do we have morality at all.

(June 27, 2015 at 12:04 pm)Brakeman Wrote: Very dishonestly you left off the explanation portion of the wiki article that explains why the term is non-sense.

I left nothing off, the wiki article was about ancient cultures in general, we're discussing Hebrew Law, a law in which there is a concept called jubilee in which every 50 years EVERYONE that was in bondage could go free if he chose to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_slavery

Quote:Biblical era

Ancient Israelite society allowed slavery; however, total domination of one human being by another (as the Israelites suffered under Egyptian rule) was not permitted.[16][17] Rather, slavery in antiquity among the Israelites was closer to what would later be called indentured servitude.[15] Slaves were seen as an essential part of a Hebrew household.[18] In fact, there were cases in which, from a slave's point of view, the stability of servitude under a family in which the slave was well-treated would have been preferable to economic freedom.[19] It is impossible for scholars to quantify the number of slaves that were owned by Hebrews in ancient Israelite society, or what percentage of households owned slaves, but it is possible to analyze social, legal, and economic impacts of slavery.

---

(June 27, 2015 at 12:22 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(June 27, 2015 at 4:00 am)Huggy74 Wrote: [...] (after all rape is pretty straight forward seeing how there has to be two consenting parties) [...]

Every time I think you've plumbed the depths of stupidity, you surprise me with another offering.

Also, I'm having a big chuckle at watching yet another Christian defend Biblical slavery.  This one is especially ironic, given that it is happening in a thread where Christians are arguing that only through their god do we have morality at all.

Was that too difficult for you to understand?

---

(June 27, 2015 at 12:07 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: That's Buggy's standard operating procedure. There is not a person on this board that is more deliberately dishonest than Buggy. Winner!

Says the guy that flip-flopped all over the definition of the word "outreach"....

---

(June 27, 2015 at 12:07 pm)abaris Wrote: Read the bible quotes I provided for you. And then come back on how moral and justified and voluntary this is all supposed to be. Especially the part about having a wife and children, but having to leave one's family behind when being set free, since they are still considered the property of the slaver. But, yes, the slave himself can stay on voluntarily, with his family, for a lifetime of servitude.

Are you really that dense or are you playing the three monkey theme here?

If the servant came with a family then he could could take them, if the master provided the family then he had to wait till jubilee to take them... got it?

Huggy Wrote:[...] (after all rape is pretty straight forward seeing how there has to be two consenting parties) [...]

Huggy Wrote:Was that too difficult for you to understand?

I'll let you figure it out on your own ... if you can. I've added secret little hints in this post to help you out.

Dictionary.com Wrote:noun

1. unlawful sexual intercourse or any other sexual penetration of the vagina, anus, or mouth of another person, with or without force, by a sex organ, other body part, or foreign object, without the consent of the victim.

2. statutory rape.

3. an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation:
the rape of the countryside.

4. Archaic. the act of seizing and carrying off by force.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rape

(June 27, 2015 at 12:35 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:

Huggy Wrote:[...] (after all rape is pretty straight forward seeing how there has to be two consenting parties) [...]

Huggy Wrote:Was that too difficult for you to understand?

I'll let you figure it out on your own ... if you can. I've added secret little hints in this post to help you out.

Dictionary.com Wrote:noun

1. unlawful sexual intercourse or any other sexual penetration of the vagina, anus, or mouth of another person, with or without force, by a sex organ, other body part, or foreign object, without the consent of the victim.

2. statutory rape.

3. an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation:
the rape of the countryside.

4. Archaic. the act of seizing and carrying off by force.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rape

ahh so it was too difficult for you.

Let me break down that statement for you since your trying to nitpick.

"after all rape is pretty straight forward seeing how there has to be two consenting parties"

Means "there has to be two consenting parties or it's rape"

that clear it up for you?

Huggy, let me make certain I understand you. You believe that the young girls and women who saw their villages massacred and were taken captives by the Hebrews consented to marry and have sex with the killers of their families?

Let me ask you the same question that I asked Randy. If a group of American soldiers massacred an entire Middle Eastern village and brought home the virgins for their wives, would you consider the soldiers rapists? It is a simple question.

(June 27, 2015 at 12:42 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: ahh so it was too difficult for you.

Let me break down that statement for you since your trying to nitpick.

"after all rape is pretty straight forward seeing how there has to be two consenting parties"

Means "there has to be two consenting parties or it's rape"

that clear it up for you?

Jesus, you're so stupid you don't know how to write simple English.

Dumbfuck.

English may not be his first language. I would think that if he were honest that he would acknowledge it and accept constructive criticism so that he could get his point across coherently, however, I do not think it would really change that much other than, perhaps, reducing some redundancy.

(June 27, 2015 at 12:51 pm)Nope Wrote: Huggy, let me make certain I understand you.  You believe that the young girls and women who saw their villages massacred and were taken captives by the Hebrews consented to marry and have sex with the killers of their families?

Let me ask you the same question that I asked Randy. If a group of American soldiers massacred an entire Middle Eastern village and brought home the virgins for their wives, would you consider the soldiers rapists? It is a simple question.

No need to go all hypothetical since this very scenario has taken place.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_bride

Quote:War bride is a term used in reference to wartime marriages between soldiers and foreigners, especially–but not exclusively–during World War I and World War II.

One of the largest and best documented war bride phenomenons is American soldiers marrying German "Fräuleins" after World War II. By 1949, over 20,000 German war brides had emigrated to the US.[1] Furthermore, it is estimated that there are "... 15,000 Australian women who married American servicemen based in Australia during World War II and moved to the US to be with their husbands"

No the soldiers aren't "rapists"....

Nobody should give apologists much attention. Their motto is to provide (sic) an answer. From all the believers, it's apologists that are the most dishonest.

(June 27, 2015 at 1:03 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: No need to go all hypothetical since this very scenario has taken place.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_bride

Quote:War bride is a term used in reference to wartime marriages between soldiers and foreigners, especially–but not exclusively–during World War I and World War II.

One of the largest and best documented war bride phenomenons is American soldiers marrying German "Fräuleins" after World War II. By 1949, over 20,000 German war brides had emigrated to the US.[1] Furthermore, it is estimated that there are "... 15,000 Australian women who married American servicemen based in Australia during World War II and moved to the US to be with their husbands"

No the soldiers aren't "rapists"....

And if they did it to all the women, not just those who chose to emigrate, on the basis of their virginity, would your opinion change?

Oh, and also, does the stubborn sophistry with which you insist on conducting yourself really seem worth the insane hit to your credibility you take every time you open your mouth? Because congratulations, you managed to delay having to answer the real contention of the post, that you have no answer for, for a whole one post.