How stupid do you have to be?...

[Drich]

Okay, let's sum up, shall we?

A man rapes a woman (immoral) and is punished by having to pay 50 shekels (immoral.)

what do you think happens today? when a man rapes a woman he goes to trial, do you think this was free? there is a cost associated with a trial, upon conviction the guy is sentenced to 50 to 10 on a first offence, do you think this is free?

In that day there were no jails, there was slavery via hard labor. What this law does is provide the woman the money to use at her descression, that we would use to put a rapist on trial and house feed cloth the rapist for 10 years.

You claim that this is a lot of money, essentially turning the woman who was just raped (immoral) into an expensive novelty good (immoral.) Your defense to this is that 50 shekels is a lot of money, you guys (if not immoral, a total dick move.)

Again please provide some sort of arguement that seperates what they did given their social ecconomic structure and our own.

In essence a butt load of money still exchanges hands when a woman is raped, except now the state keeps it, so again please explain how this in more 'moral.'

The woman, meanwhile, would be sold to her rapist (immoral) and if the rapist can't pay, then he's sold into slavery himself (immoral) until he's paid his (immoral) debt, instead of going to prison (immoral.)

Now keep thinking. If you knew this would happen to you, then it kinda take some of the desire out of the nature of sponteanious sex that rape provides.

Oh, and he might not get out of slavery, of course: the old testament also has provisions for the owners of a debt slave (immoral) to keep them forever by giving them a wife (immoral) and essentially tricking them into retaining their life of slavery or lose their family (immoral.)

Which none of this applies if the man has any reasoning ablity at all. As all of these things act as a deturrant to a Rape. In essence it is a life sentence.

If the debt slave rapist (double whammy immoral) manages to avoid this and pays off his debt, he is given his victim as a wife (immoral.) And according to you, this is a punishment, when viewed in context.

The context being important somehow, despite your view that the two thousand year old rules in the new testament still apply today without change, despite the massive shift of context between then and now.

Awful lot of immorality from the good book, hmm?

Again the term 'morality' is subjective, to the time, generation and a given soceity. Are you so foolishly prideful that you truly think all that this current soceity deems as 'moral' will not be looked upon by furture soceities as being nazi level immoral, just like you have judged those who lived under this law?

The word/term 'morality' is a joke as any type of real standard. for what was moral to our fathers is laughed at today, and on and on it goes till God puts an end to our reign.

God's standard is Righteousness, you do not recognise Righteousness as a standard because by defination 'morality' has taken you far from it.

Isaiah says it like this in chapter 5:
Woe to those who call evil good
and good evil,
who put darkness for light
and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet
and sweet for bitter.

21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes
and clever in their own sight.

22 Woe to those who are heroes at drinking wine
and champions at mixing drinks,
23 who acquit the guilty for a bribe,
but deny justice to the innocent.
24 Therefore, as tongues of fire lick up straw
and as dry grass sinks down in the flames,
so their roots will decay
and their flowers blow away like dust;
for they have rejected the law of the Lord Almighty
and spurned the word of the Holy One of Israel.
25 Therefore the Lord’s anger burns against his people;
his hand is raised and he strikes them down.

---

Just having some fun.. Most of you go the otherway and say something about flying planes into buildings.

to each his own.

I don't recall if it was in this thread or in another but I mentioned the Story of Samson somewhere.

Could you illustrate to me the essential difference between Samson's actions and those of 9/11. Seems awfully similar to me.

Samson was a prophet or 'Judge' of God. He fought to Free Israel from their oppressors who had invaded their land and enslaved their people 40 years prior to his birth. He received blessing(strength) and instruction from God to help Israel break free from oppression.

What happened on 9/11 was an attack on western civialization. The orginal targets (White house/congressional building, pentagon, World trade center) was designed to cripple our goverment, (To put the country into chaos) kill our military leaders (so we could not respond, and they could continue to rain down terror at will) Destroy the western economy.(As TWTC was a symbol of western Money)

In their mind they were trying to even the playing field. To drag down western civialization back to the Iron age or where ever the stopped developing so as to be a world power, allowing them to govern or rule the world as they saw fit.

Samson look to liberate, Osama looked to oppress. How again do you only see them as the same?