I just finished debating someone who claimed I was taking several passages out of context, such as 2 Kings 2:23-24 when god sends forth two bears to kill 42 children and Deuteronomy 22:28-29 where if a woman is an unengaged virgin and is raped, but the rape is caught in the act, the woman must marry her rapist.
The logic he presented to try and justify them and to show I was taking them out of context was simply astonishingly absurd. For example, with a woman having to marry her rapist he responded with the following:
"Ahh, this old hat. Once again, easily taken out of context. Here is how it is actually read: Deut 22:28 - Then the man (rapist) that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
This law was meant as a punishment for the rapist, as well as a means of "compensation" for the victim. The rapist has to pay the father 50 shekels of silver, which by the way was a lot of money back then, and had to marry the virgin to support her for the rest of her life (notice no mention of further sexual relations). This was because, unlike today, a woman who wasn't a virgin could not land a husband anymore! Pretty practical law in favor of the victim if you ask me. See, God is cool! Not like today's PC "kiss the perpetrators ass" and dump on the victim rulings. Makes me want to vomit."
Yep...God is pretty cool alright.
You can read the whole debate here if interested: http://digg.com/comics_animation/Thor_speaks_on_the_topic_of_Jesus_Pic?t=31176292#c31176292
It wasn't even planned but ended up happening after a comment I made got his attention.
Thanks to info from the debate that occurred on the Dwindling in Unbelief website regarding the bear story, I was able to knock him into a corner in regards to showing that it really does say "little children" were mauled and not "young men." You just have to look at the other verses in which the Hebrew words are used sequentially.
At that point he had to change the topic and resort to atheist criticism, which I've come to learn is a regular with apologists who realize that they've lost.
Sorry skanksta, I probably should have been clear on how to view it. If you go to the page you should be able to see my comment and right below that, a comment by BandX2 which doesn't automatically show. Just click "show" and then "21 replies" at the bottom of his comment to expand it all.
6 comments:
I just finished debating someone who claimed I was taking several passages out of context, such as 2 Kings 2:23-24 when god sends forth two bears to kill 42 children and Deuteronomy 22:28-29 where if a woman is an unengaged virgin and is raped, but the rape is caught in the act, the woman must marry her rapist.
The logic he presented to try and justify them and to show I was taking them out of context was simply astonishingly absurd. For example, with a woman having to marry her rapist he responded with the following:
"Ahh, this old hat. Once again, easily taken out of context. Here is how it is actually read:
Deut 22:28 - Then the man (rapist) that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
This law was meant as a punishment for the rapist, as well as a means of "compensation" for the victim. The rapist has to pay the father 50 shekels of silver, which by the way was a lot of money back then, and had to marry the virgin to support her for the rest of her life (notice no mention of further sexual relations). This was because, unlike today, a woman who wasn't a virgin could not land a husband anymore! Pretty practical law in favor of the victim if you ask me. See, God is cool! Not like today's PC "kiss the perpetrators ass" and dump on the victim rulings. Makes me want to vomit."
Yep...God is pretty cool alright.
You can read the whole debate here if interested: http://digg.com/comics_animation/Thor_speaks_on_the_topic_of_Jesus_Pic?t=31176292#c31176292
It wasn't even planned but ended up happening after a comment I made got his attention.
Thanks to info from the debate that occurred on the Dwindling in Unbelief website regarding the bear story, I was able to knock him into a corner in regards to showing that it really does say "little children" were mauled and not "young men." You just have to look at the other verses in which the Hebrew words are used sequentially.
At that point he had to change the topic and resort to atheist criticism, which I've come to learn is a regular with apologists who realize that they've lost.
Looked quite interesting, but I couldn't find it from that link ?
Sorry skanksta, I probably should have been clear on how to view it. If you go to the page you should be able to see my comment and right below that, a comment by BandX2 which doesn't automatically show. Just click "show" and then "21 replies" at the bottom of his comment to expand it all.
I got it eventually, ta.
I can see what god did there. You'd only rape a girl you wouldn't marry. Else, you'd just buy her.
It's the perfect punishment. And don't talk about how the girl feels, we all know women are souless animals and can't feel emotions or pain.
I can't see the posted video; could someone describe it to me? :-(
Post a Comment