How stupid do you have to be?...

[Bad Writer]

Drich, you are not faring well with these hard questions. Stop dismissing the concerns raised by the members of this forum by appealing to the idea that "things were different back then". We know this. What you fail to realize is that we don't care; we think they were immoral then, and we think it's the same amount of immoral now. The question is, do you feel the same, or are you going to continue defending rapists of the past by putting a theocratic spin on it?

[Mystical]

Drich, god had no qualms killing people for picking up wood on the sabbath or any other nonsensical madness; Why would he compromise now,
about slaving and raping just because men will do what they do? God opens up the earth and swallows people. Why would he give in now?

Also, in case you missed it,

---

Well I'm pleased you found me fit to answer my post on this subject, this time around. I was beginning to believe you
had blocked me I'm impressed if you actually went through each verse and reworded it yourself..

Pet peeve: being labled a 'liberal Christian' simply because I am not a legalistic one. If you have read the
NT you will see a separation from the OT. If you are a biblical believing Christian you also have to acknoweledge and
honor this separation in your faith. while all the while still acknoweledgeing the OT as we are instructed.

How is "the law is not abolished" and "follow the law" not a clear cut commandment to follow OT and NT commandment law?
If we are lifelong sinners, and break the laws anyways but Christians can atone for that with prayer, then what keeps
Christians on the straight and narrow if the law is negligible through atonement and you don't even bother following most
of it anyways? I mean, do you cut your hair? Or sleep next to your wife in bed during her menses? What clear cut
from the Bible mode of operation do you follow to decide what is and isn't important to uphold?

Why does sin require a death punishment and how were Adam and Eve sinning if they didn't know right from wrong in the
first place? Also do you mean physical or spiritual death (since we all die physical ones anyways)?

You do understand that the bible is a book that represents two separate religions correct?

You also understand that the passages you are looking at have nothing to do with Christianity correct?

That just it! nothing in the Law has Changed. What was a sin still is a sin.

That's what I'm sayin

1) “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is
accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least
in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”
(Matthew 5:18-19 RSV)

You do know being 'least in the kingdom' is the coveted position here right?
(Mat 20:16)

This seems non sequiter to me. Mat 20:16 states, "So the last will be first, and the first will be last."

Meaning (and correct me if I'm wrong), but the last in this physical reality will become first in heaven.
But Matthew 5:18 speaks of someone who leads their followers astray by being lenient on the law to be followed.
Therefore if you relax even the least of gods commandments then you shall be put in as the least in heaven which is
a punishment?
If parents took their drunkard teens to get stoned to death in the public square then and it was acceptable even dictated
by god, then would you nowadays do the same thing to your son if the law didn't prohibit it? For that matter, do you condemn
muslims for following the same procedures for their god to this day or do you call it barbaric?

"All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in
righteousness..." (2 Timothy 3:16 NAB)

Amen so what you say?

It's only stating here that teaching and correction from the OT are still applicable today.
One example: spare the rod, spoil the child.

Christian parents Biblically beat child to death with a Biblical rod

The most recent of the three child killings captured headlines this fall. On Sept. 29,
Larry and Carri Williams of Sedro-Woolley, Wash., were charged with homicide by abuse
after their adopted and home-schooled daughter, Hana Williams, was found dead.
Her
naked and skeletal body was discovered face down in the family’s backyard.


The girl had been beaten with a 15-inch plastic tube on the day she died, the sheriff’s report
said — the very instrument the Pearls recommend for spankings. Ms. Williams was a big fan
of their book and gave a copy to a friend, the report also said.

Last year, Lydia Schatz, seven, also home schooled and adopted from Liberia,
died after her parents beat her for hours, with frequent breaks for prayer.. She was
held down for several hours by Elizabeth and beaten dozens of times by Kevin on the back of
her body, causing massive tissue damage according to Butte County District Attorney Mike Ramsey.
She was being disciplined for apparently mispronouncing a word.[4][6] She died in the hospital on
February 6, 2010.[8] Her sister Zariah, 11 years old, was also beaten for "being a liar and a bad
influence on the 7-year-old."




Her father, Kevin, pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and torture and Elizabeth, her mother, to voluntary
manslaughter and unlawful corporal punishment. They are serving prison sentences.

A copy of To Train Up a Child was found in the family’s home, as was a piece of the
Pearl-endorsed plumbing pipe.

When asked by CNN what may have influenced the Schatzes to beat their daughter to death, Mike Ramsey, district
attorney for Butte County, Ca., said, “The book by Mr. Pearl, there’s no doubt about that.”

The Pearls teachings have also been linked to the death of Sean Paddock, four.
The couple’s teachings were discussed during the trial of his adoptive mother, Lynn.



The tube is just one version of the “rod” the Pearls advocate in their literal interpretation of Proverbs 13:
“He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.”

They also suggest using a 10- to 12-inch-long willow branch on a child as young as one. Or a one-foot ruler,
belt or three-foot cutting of a shrub. Something flexible that inflicts pain but doesn’t bruise
the skin or leave marks.

The Pearl training method begins in infancy, teaching children not to engage in undesirable
behaviour by placing something appealing before them and striking them with a switch when they reach for it.

It’s an act the Pearls liken in their book to how the Amish train their “stubborn mules.” And it’s
a strategy Mr. Pearl says parents must carry out with love, not anger. It will prevent them from
greater harm down the road, they say, and perhaps even the fiery pits of hell.

“Everybody thinks they’re emotionally stable, everybody thinks they’re not angry” when they
discipline a child, said the child clinical psychologist and professor of family social sciences at the
University of Manitoba.

“For a parent to hit a child when they’re not angry, that flies in the face of any kind of reality. If you’ve
got a cool mind, why can’t you think of something better to do?”

The Pearls’ advice is the polar opposite of what decades of child development research
recommends, she said, a point echoed by George Holden, a professor of psychology at
Southern Methodist University in Dallas, who has researched corporal punishment in the religious context.

“I just recently bought a copy of that book. [Pearl is] scary,” said Prof. Holden, who
co-authored a study in 1999 that found conservative Protestant parents are more likely to use
corporal punishment than parents from other religious groups.

“He’s very much into breaking the will, which was a concept back in the early part
of the 20th century that is totally outmoded and it’s totally out of touch with what
developmental psychologists know about how children develop. There’s a lot of dangerous
things here that would likely result in abusive behaviour.”

Let's look past the fact that all three cases were connected to a book written by one of your brethren.
The first child was found skeletal meaning she was malnourished. The second child victim was killed
for mispronouncing a word.
The last one died rolled up in a carpet FGS. All of these people believed they were justified and safe in their actions
based on your apparent word of god, whether they were or not. Do you think those kids might be
alive today were it not for your book? Doesn't that concern you? If those families hadn't fallen into your god trap then maybe
those kids would be alive. If those parents had read books by REAL PSYCHOLOGISTS instead of some old era nonsense flooded
and backed up by being the unerring word of god: this wouldn't have happened.

that passage in context:16 We told you about the power of our Lord Jesus Christ. We told you about his coming. The things we told you were not just clever stories that people invented. No, we saw the greatness of Jesus with our own eyes. 17 Jesus heard the voice of the great and glorious God. That was when he received honor and glory from God the Father. The voice said, “This is my Son, the one I love. I am very pleased with him.” 18 And we heard that voice. It came from heaven while we were with Jesus on the holy mountain.[a]

Second Epistle of Peter:
The questions of authorship and date are closely related. Self-evidently if Peter the Apostle wrote this epistle then it must have been written prior to his death in c 65–67AD. The letter refers to the Pauline epistles and so must post-date at least some of them, regardless of authorship, thus a date before 60 is not probable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Epistle_of_Peter

Despite this, I read the original scripture to be quite clear cut.
The entire bible was written by man under the spiritual influence of god therefore it's gods word you disobey if
you alter it or disobey it.

This is important because to disobey god is a sin guilty of death.

*in Drich context
‘Whoever says anything bad to their father or mother must be killed.’[c] 11 But you teach that people can say to their
father or mother, ‘I have something I could use to help you, but I will not use it for you. I will give it to God.’ 12
You are telling people that they do not have to do anything for their father or mother. 13 So you are teaching that it is
not important to do what God said. You think it is more important to follow those traditions you have, which you pass on
to others. And you do many things like that.”

there is a pattern, do you see it yet?

A pattern of ridiculousness, is all I see. That's like the law giving parents free reign to kill their children whenever they want.
The bolded part is what I don't get, one bit at all what your point is.

6) Jesus has a punishment even worse than his father concerning adultery: God said the act of adultery was punishable by death. Jesus says looking with lust is the same thing and you should gouge your eye out, better a part, than the whole. The punishment under Jesus is an eternity in Hell. (Matthew 5:27)

This scripture says to me that adultery is punishible by death--the act and the lustful thoughts. Therefore, thought crime that's punishible in an eternity of hell (according to the wording).

19 Moses gave you the law, right? But you don’t obey that law. If you do, then why are you trying to kill me?”

20 The people answered, “A demon is making you crazy! We are not trying to kill you.”

21 Jesus said to them, “I did one miracle on a Sabbath day, and you were all surprised. 22 But you obey the law Moses gave you about circumcision—and sometimes you do it on a Sabbath day. (Really, Moses is not the one who gave you circumcision. It came from our ancestors who lived before Moses.) Yes, you often circumcise baby boys on a Sabbath day. 23 This shows that someone can be circumcised on a Sabbath day to obey the Law of Moses. So why are you angry with me for healing a person’s whole body on the Sabbath day? 24 Stop judging by the way things look. Be fair and judge by what is really right.”

This has nothing to do with what is being discussed

Well, actually it does. Unintentional on my part, but hey. What's Jesus doing? Sounds to me like he's doing exactly what
2 Peter talks about, interpreting the law that was written by god. He's making allowances for the ridiculousness of his fathers'
law by giving an exception to that law because his intentions were to praise god. Now if god specifically said "hey guys
you shouldn't do anything on the sabbath unless it's for the glory of my name," then we'd be getting somewhere. The only exception
I know is if a life is in danger. As far as I know one guy got killed for merely collecting wood. To Live. Perhaps Jesus
would have been better off waiting till monday to heal the person. Sound to me like Jesus was saying to them, Hey you
guys circumsize on the sabbath, I heal bodies on the sabbath. God'll get over it.

Nothing is being broken 'missy.' For the Same 'law' that identifies sin also provides a caveat for atonement. In other words atonement is just as much apart of the law as the 'thou shalt nots.' The Thou shalt nots are only 1/2 of the law. to over look the atonement part is to be guilty of ignoring that part of scripture. and you have provided enough BCV to know one can not do that.

Ah, but Jesus didn't save all of us automatically with his atonement offering, did he now? Nope. If he did, THEN I'd agree with you. But as things stand,
according to your bible, I and everyone ever born have been guilty of a sin we never committed, and are asked to submit
to a god too ridiculous for me to fathom.

who has provided a way to avoid said 'dickieness.' Meaning if you get dicked then it is your own fault.

Being born into sin is hardly anyone's fault, and a just and righteous god would recognize it as such.

---

You're welcome to reply in PM if you like.

[Esquilax]

are you intintionally being obstinate or are you not reading what is being said? Why rape a girl for 50 shekels when you can legally 'buy' a wife for a few shekels and live stock?

Because- and I need you to concentrate here- rape isn't always committed after careful consideration. People do it in the heat of the moment. Insane people do it. Criminals with no care for pros and cons do it. It still gets done, no matter the penalty. All this system does is ensure that when it does happen, whatever violent, crazy scum that does it, the poor victim is shackled to him for life.

Again morality is a meaningless standard.

You said it, not me.

proof? Link? no of course not, just the obligatory move to dismissale based on your word.

Oh, you mean like "morality is a meaningless standard?"

Anyway, here. One upping you, yet again.

To what end? Why would he want to keep her? If he wanted her or could afford to have her why not just pay what her father wanted in the first place?

Maybe he thought he could get away but didn't. Maybe he's crazy; remember, there's not any knowledge of mental illness back then. Maybe he's a sadist who cares more about the suffering of the woman than the consequences on him. Maybe once he gets caught he figures he'd at least make the best of a bad situation by intimidating his new wife into submission.

Are these the kinds of people you'd want to shackle a woman to?

This is how every bigotted man starts out in justifying his position over that of another or in this case thousands of years of a given soceity and millions if not billions of people.

The difference being, of course, that in this case I'm not talking about the entire race, but about the rapists and slavers among them. And again, go fuck yourself.

Your not even the first person to ask this.

again my recourses are limited to what the soceitial rules allow me in the way of a response. If he time traveled here he would be put in jail, If I time traveled there I'd take the money.

So would you if you were to be a law abiding citizen.

So funny how your concepts of the social responsibilities of these people disappears the moment it affects you. So it turns out there are some situations where you'd hold them to the correct standard; I guess they're not so incapable of it after all.

In today's soceity your right. in that one your wrong.

I reject the notion of entirely subjective morality. There are a number of things that are just bad, in that they never serve the collective wellbeing of mankind. Rape and slavery being two of those.

Just so you know i could call you all sorts of name questioning your intellegence here. Because you are obviously talking about a soceity you have spent very little time learning about.

Which is a meaningless objection in this case, because there's no context in which the sale of another human being becomes okay.

compared to what standard? we are discussing a culture that existed almost 4000 years ago. Wake up, no culture mirrored this one 4000 years ago. Your compareing apples and oranges.

Compared to the standard. Again, cultural context doesn't matter here.

Why would a father have is raped daughter then marry a slave to pay the debt her raper owed?
(do some reading before you answer or i will rip into you this time.)

Why is it you think any of this excuses the central immorality at play here?

so you think peer pressure will get me to change my mind?

No, I don't think anything, including reality, would ever change your mind. I just want you to know exactly how we all see you, when you continue down your arrogant little path.

Uh, no, here is why: I have seperated the two soceities being compared and honestly looked at them without feeling or judgement and have decided if the roles were reversed and each soceity took on the resources of the other, they would eventually mirror the one they replaced.

You mean, you leap to the defense of your holy book and the shit in it, and then cloak it in this charade of having dispassionately looked over the facts.

your appeal to emotion and your sense of right is just plain near sighted ignorance. You have done nothing but point at people who lived 4000 years ago and say your better. Now do-mas ask yourself why. If your honest you would admit it has nothing to do with you, but the circumstances you live in.

No, because for one, I can think of an alternative, within the means of these people, and that's to not force the woman to marry her rapist.

Oh, by the way, I'm also taking this in context; isn't it funny that the punishment for almost everything but rape in the bible is death? Think about that.

lol. again you do not understand the culture. Being a 'misogynistic' culture women (ones men back then wanted to rape) were virgins and they were kept under lock and key. one's only access to a girl like that would have been through the courtship process.

Kinda no sex test drive to see if you wanted to haggle out a deal. On these 'dates' would be when a girl would be raped.

Are you seriously that stupid that you've never heard of a home invasion? Or any context beyond the one you're intent on portraying?

It's only indefensable if you are not willing to look beyond the culture you grew up in and feel comfortable with.

If there was a culture today, in a third world country, where this happened, would you be okay with it?

Actually it's not. It's anti reperations for rape. Not once have you denounced rape.

Oh, so every time I called the rapists involved criminals, and monsters, that doesn't count? My generally disgusted tone with you for defending this shit doesn't count?

You're a fucking idiot, Drich.

Only the payment of rape. Even if you had you have not supported any possiable deturrants to rape in that time, no supported any of the deturrants the bible provides for. Don't lie to yourself and try and take the high road, all youve done here is condemn Jews for doing their best to prevent rape.

I submit to you that their best could easily have involved taking out that "she marries her rapist" thing at no cost to anyone, which puts it in line with your little shtick here.

But they didn't.

Wow, at the self righteousness.

Yeah, it's usually you acting like that! Good thing I employ it when it matters, huh?

again not once have you said anything that seperates you from the conditioning your soceity has indoctrinated you with, which means your not one to 'think for yourself.' your a sheep and you follow the flock. your self righteous rant proves this fact. Which means if you were born in Hitlers germany you'd be goose stepping jews into death camps, or if you were an OT jew you would do whatever your soceity told you was right.
You in yourself righteousness, and the veil of obliviousness you have pulled over your own eyes turns my stomach, so I guess we are even.

You're... you're actually godwinning me? Good lord, you must really not have an argument if the best you can do is baseless blind firing. How about you drink a nice big cup of shut the fuck up, and come back once you've pulled up your big boy pants, put down your baby foo foo, and thought of a real argument, hmm?

Oh wait, there aren't any for your position, I forgot.

Straw Man.

Your argument.

WHEN a man raped a woman, how do you suggest that soceity should have handeled it 4000 years ago?

By not forcing his victim to spend the rest of her life with him.

Remember no jail, no lawyers, no social infrastructure at all. And please it must be something viable or i will call you out as a dumbass. Show me something that would have work in the existing laws place.

By not forcing his victim to spend the rest of her life with him.

Oh, and again, at no point have you ever considered the woman's feelings. Pretty interesting look at your headspace, there.

Look, in the end, you're failing to understand the basic concept: I don't care what culture they happened to be in, nor the means at their disposal. There's no reason to make the woman marry her rapist, nor any reason to resort to slavery. Especially not when the rest of the law functions on this eye for an eye, death penalty for every other crime stuff.

I guess I don't really care if you think I'm preachy for thinking that way. I'd rather be preachy than having to be an apologist for slavery and the sale of women. I don't think I'm alone in that; why do you think nobody else has come to your defense, here?

Why do you think everyone's taking my position too?

[Bad Writer]

What I really wonder is how Drich's wife thinks about the fact that these rape victims were forcibly sold to their personal rapists. He mentions her as being a filter for his posts, but I'm thinking these particular responses slipped right by her.

[The Reality Salesman01]

Drich, how things were back then are really quite moot. Your omniscient God told these people to do all this stuff, encouraged them to put it into his instruction manual, and never clarified, with absolute certainty, any justification for it being there other than divine command. This puts you in a pinch Drich, because you're not here defending the people of those times, you're defending the God which you believed commanded them to do these things. You believe this God to be all-knowing, and perfect, yet, you don't find it odd that he didn't foresee any conflict between a modern civilizied society and his condoning rape, slavery, and murder?

Couldn't God have avoided all this confusion with a discaimer? Something SO simple like: "These are just some things necessary for people to follow during the early BC years. Once you've established a working 3 branch government and have the technology to build satelites, you can pretty much throw all this stuff out."

Instead, we have Drich. We have Drich, and countless other people that are not privy to any information we dont' have, but simply insist that we ignore what God tells people in the old testament because Drich, and countless others don't think it's all that bad, and isn't intended for us.

If you honestly think this is the method an omnipotent, omniscient God thinks is the most efficient way to relay vital information, then I have no choice than to assume that A, you're an idiot, and B, your idea of a God is not only incompetent, but also completely detached from his creation that he supposedly cares so much for. If he had any interaction with modern man at all, he'd see that we've constructed much more effective forms of communication. Hey...Maybe that's why he killed Steve Jobs! God is clearly not too technologically savy and Jobs would be the perfect candidate to get him up to speed. Maybe he just needs help unlocking his iPhone? Of course, he could've just came down and asked for help, but then again, showing up also seems to be one of his weaknesses.

[Minimalist]

Drich, you are not faring well with these hard questions. Stop dismissing the concerns raised by the members of this forum by appealing to the idea that "things were different back then". We know this. What you fail to realize is that we don't care; we think they were immoral then, and we think it's the same amount of immoral now. The question is, do you feel the same, or are you going to continue defending rapists of the past by putting a theocratic spin on it?

Remember that Drippy's goal here is to get his god off the hook. He doesn't care about the victims or justice or any such concepts. If his god looks like a dick then he looks like a dick and that is something that jesus freaks simply cannot allow.

They need to maintain the fiction that their petty, vile, murderous, vindictive, sexist, god is "good." Once they figure out a way to tell themselves that they go "phew...dodged a bullet," even if it hits them right between the eyes.

[The Reality Salesman01]

Sorry Drich, We're not buying it. The GODDAMN PEN IS BLUE!

[gall]

Drich, you are not faring well with these hard questions. Stop dismissing the concerns raised by the members of this forum by appealing to the idea that "things were different back then". We know this. What you fail to realize is that we don't care; we think they were immoral then, and we think it's the same amount of immoral now. The question is, do you feel the same, or are you going to continue defending rapists of the past by putting a theocratic spin on it?

Remember that Drippy's goal here is to get his god off the hook. He doesn't care about the victims or justice or any such concepts. If his god looks like a dick then he looks like a dick and that is something that jesus freaks simply cannot allow.

They need to maintain the fiction that their petty, vile, murderous, vindictive, sexist, god is "good." Once they figure out a way to tell themselves that they go "phew...dodged a bullet," even if it hits them right between the eyes.

I like fiction. I wouldn't read that story if someone presented it as that...I would get through the and god created and shut the damn thing and never look back...Makes it ten times worse they present it as though it is all real.

My gerbil is more real than most of these idiots. Just because you believe doesn't make you an idiot. That part comes in when you blindly and willfully ignore the lack of reason one displays in order to actually believe that kind of drivel.

[The Reality Salesman01]

Remember no jail, no lawyers, no social infrastructure at all. And please it must be something viable or i will call you out as a dumbass. Show me something that would have work in the existing laws place.

I am floored that you continue to make such feeble attempts to defend this lunacy. So, payment is sufficient penalty for rape, but what exactly is the point of this?...

Deuteronomy 25

"11 If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, 12 you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity."

I sure hope she wasn't raped and purchased by the bastard.

Then, this little gem follows a few verses later...

"16 The Lord your God commands you this day to follow these decrees and laws; carefully observe them with all your heart and with all your soul. 17 You have declared this day that the Lord is your God and that you will walk in obedience to him, that you will keep his decrees, commands and laws—that you will listen to him. 18 And the Lord has declared this day that you are his people, his treasured possession as he promised, and that you are to keep all his commands. 19 He has declared that he will set you in praise, fame and honor high above all the nations he has made and that you will be a people holy to the Lord your God, as he promised."

Nothing here that could possibly mislead anybody...I guess you're right Drich, nothing fishy here.

[Jackalope]

Seriously, what the hell do you guys expect from someone who has defended slavery as just, so long as it was conducted within the framework of biblical instructions?

P.S. Oh, yes he did.