Are murdering abortion clinic bombers terrorists? - Page 5

Diesel66 · 01-24-2007, 05:16 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.

Please let's get a show of hands of people who think that isn't rape

Everyone that can read english.

RMNIXON · 01-24-2007, 05:27 PM

Originally Posted by hsmith

since when did the definition of a terrorist say there must be >1 people to be considered a terrorist?

I concede the point. Any person who does an act of violence for a political motive can be classed as a terrorist.

So what?

Is that the point of this thread?

If so we can play a useless game of one-upmanship all day long.

I will start:

Unabomber (Hero of the Eco Left)

(Don't feel limited to one person)

RMNIXON · 01-24-2007, 05:30 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

So is this terrorism? Would you label him a Christian Terrorist or is the same as someone who holds up a bank with a pez dispenser and runs out with a bag of money?

Here is one organization:
The Army of God - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ironically, thats the exact name of Hezbollah

Now, are they terrorists, or a legitimate political movement?

Wikipedia has a write-up of several examples:
Christian extremist terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which have killed thousands of people, probably more, in the past several decades

Ofcourse, if we went back to turn of the 20th century, we'd have tens maybe hundreds of thousands of "christian terrorism" murders

Now do any of you still think the intention here is to examine the acts of one man to make a case for modern day "Christian Terrorism?"

Diamond Cross · 01-24-2007, 05:56 PM

Doesn't mention sex just unwilling abduction.

Ardentfrost · 01-24-2007, 05:57 PM

Stop with the bringing up old covenant examples of why Christianity is bad. Even the jews say that those old rules no longer apply (and they don't believe in the new covenant I think).

Thorgrim · 01-24-2007, 06:29 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Stop with the bringing up old covenant examples of why Christianity is bad. Even the jews say that those old rules no longer apply (and they don't believe in the new covenant I think).

I didn't want to bring up the OT, but we have diesel here saying that the above passage isn't rape, and the laws about torturing your slave or beating him until he can't get up for 2 days are perfectly moral

Just say "ok, thats what they say, but we don't follow that anymore"

Rather than "WHATS WRONG WITH SLAVERY? AND THAT ISN'T RAPE!"

Thorgrim · 01-24-2007, 06:31 PM

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

Doesn't mention sex just unwilling abduction.

Think of your closet young female relative, you think if a fat, ugly, 50 year old iraqi insurgent took her, shaved her head, and had a little ceremony and had sex with her until he got sick of her...then he gave her a plane ticket home, that wouldn't be rape?

can you be realistic here for just a little?

Diamond Cross · 01-24-2007, 06:45 PM

That would be rape, but the passage you cited does not mention unwanted sex. It does not describe having unwanted sex. There is no mention of unwanted sex or sex at all, just a kidnapping.

Rape is forced or unwanted sex.

And the passage, I repeat again, does not mention it at all.

Thorgrim · 01-24-2007, 06:55 PM

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

That would be rape, but the passage you cited does not mention unwanted sex. It does not describe having unwanted sex. There is no mention of unwanted sex or sex at all, just a kidnapping.

Rape is forced or unwanted sex.

And the passage, I repeat again, does not mention it at all.

Funny, my text said nothing about forced or unwanted sex

You just inferred it was unwanted

The bible makes no mention of consent because it is unnecessary, consent is automatically given, just like a slave gives "consent" to be regarded as the property of the master

Yet somehow you think every woman captured would want to be tried out for sex, its all wanted, consent is given every time! "Hey you stole me from my family and I just met you, sure let's have sex until you decide whether to discard me or not" I am sure that's EXACTLY how all women were.

I mean cmon, how could anyone SERIOUSLY think anything close to that

Diamond Cross · 01-24-2007, 07:24 PM

You're the one saying the text condemns rape, but at least you just admitted that you're wrong because of your admittance it does not mention sex.

Thorgrim · 01-25-2007, 12:23 AM

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

You're the one saying the text condemns rape, but at least you just admitted that you're wrong because of your admittance it does not mention sex.

"since you have dishonored her"

every respectable religious scholar would tell you thats sex, heck, probably any person who can read would tell you that means he fucked her

Diamond Cross · 01-25-2007, 01:34 AM

Dishonor is not neccessarily sex. The passage does not talk about sex, you'vce already admitted to it.

Thorgrim · 01-25-2007, 01:39 AM

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

Dishonor is not neccessarily sex.

Yes it is

Diamond Cross · 01-25-2007, 11:20 PM

No it is isn't.

Thorgrim · 01-25-2007, 11:28 PM

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

No it is isn't.

Ok, so there's no law about a slave or woman having to consent to sex (much like there isn't a law saying you can't have a 60 year old man have sex with a 13 year old girl, but they still did it...because there was no law against it)

Take into account that there are no consent laws

The passage talks about picking out a girl from her home, taking her home and forcing marriage on her, then if he got sick of her, tossed her aside but didn't sell her for profit because she had been dishonored

Now, what do you think happened on the wedding night, and what else could have possibly been meant by dishonor that was so severe he couldn't sell her

Kidnapping was not a new practice, there was no particular dishonor, and other Old Testament laws make it clear slavery is approved and the Israelis could sell captives...which is exactly what that girl was

So, it can't be the taking captive, it has to be the man-woman relationship that is so dishonorable to require special action

nothing is mentioned except a tightening of that relationship, one that leads to sex, thats not only the sole logical conclusion, its also the one agreed on by any religious scholar with a brain

You will not find one Jewish or an old testament scholar who will tell you sex was not involved

Just tell me you don't think sex is involved, so I can dismiss you as a rejectionist of all modern theological thought

Diamond Cross · 01-26-2007, 01:42 AM

Ok, which scholars say it is?

It's

Diamond Cross · 01-26-2007, 01:54 AM

You will not find one Jewish or an old testament scholar who will tell you sex was not involved

OK, show me the money. Show me which scholars say so, don't just make the claim.

It's called being literal, not metaphorical nor allegorical. If the Bible doesn't say something it's not in there.

The passage doesn't say one damned thing about sex in either way shape or form. So sex is not in the passage and the passage is not about rape.

You can pass it off if you want to, but unless the Bible specifically mentions an act, either through description such as the story of Amon raping his sister, it doesn't mention it.

And there are better passages which does describe sex:

Deuteronomy 22:28-29
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver.

Numbers 31:17-18
Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

But nowhere in your passage does it specifcally mention sex.

Metaphorically or allegorically.

Diamond Cross · 01-26-2007, 02:02 AM

And you might want to check out this verse in support of rape:

(Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

Thorgrim · 01-26-2007, 03:18 AM

You still didn't tell me the passage has nothing to do with sex, the dishonor is something else entirely

Thorgrim · 01-26-2007, 03:21 AM

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

And you might want to check out this verse in support of rape:

(Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

They are talking about Jewish girls who had different rules

Yes, if you violently raped a single Jewish girl, what do you think would happen? Yeah a small fine woohoo, but what other choice did they have...you can't have a guy running around town raping all the women

But a foreign girl or a slave? Rape away, actually, it wouldn't be considered rape because consent is implied, but a single jewish woman being raised by her father has not consented because her father didn't consent

No one, including the bible, is using 21st century secular american laws to define rape