I love how a religion debate either always boils down to "don't trust science, it's just as faulty and faith based as religion". Every goddamn time. it's either that or "the science behind the bible is as trustworthy as any science: IE - eyewitness reports say Jesus turned water into wine, therefore Jesus turned water into wine", regardless of the gross leaps of faith and horendously flawed logic involved.

Keep it classy believers.

Christians are confused of who jesus is,

Mark 9 vs 5
Peter said to Jesus, "Rabbi, it is good for us to be here.

Mattew 17 vs 4
Peter said to Jesus, "Lord, it is good for us to be here.

Mark says "rabbi"
BUT
Mattew says :Lord"

Sounds like bad manipulation to me.

That kind of proves the point that this god character didn't really create humans, humans have created this god. And 'his' oppinions seem to always reflect the morals and oppinions of the society that creates it.

In the example above if instead treating the woman as damaged good  this god character would say 'if you rape a woman you shall be punished. a woman who was raped is no less than she was before. virginity is not a quality in which you should value someone as a person, instead only take into consideration how well they treat themselves and others'

Now if this god character actually said something to this effect... maybe you could at least have a point for good advice

How about there being actually context in which commands are given?  Christianity is not a theocratic religion.  At its core it builds small communities in a larger framework, and assumes people will not be in a position of power.  The Old Testament operated in a context of a theocratic society, where the society completely consisted of everyone under a common religion.  Because of this, and how it is, the situation is different.  Now, do you want to take the Old Testament command on the rape situation, and add the New Testament on top of it?  Well the rapist is required to love his wife the way Christ loves the Church, and even die for her.

In light of this, there is also giving comnands and so on, within the constraints by which they could be followed.  Or heck, they aren't even given as a means a a guide of some sort of way to obtain righteousness, but as a way to show how mankind falls short.  

Reality is, you can read whatever you want into this, and believe whatever you want.  And you are free to believe this.  So, go ahead.  Personally, I have no interest in proceeding here and trying to discuss issues if your mind is set and you want to try to persuade one way or the other.  

If you want to end up making this about the Christian religion, then show where in line with what Jesus said, and New Testament texts say, that there is allowing rape?  If the ideal is waiting until one is married for sex, and that, where the heck do you fit in rape?  Can you make out anywhere, where rape would end up being an acceptable practice by a Christian?  If not, then why are you even arguing this point?  I don't see the Bible saying anything about software piracy either, so that means Jesus condones it?

If you want to take the Christian religion, and people having Jesus as their Lord/Boss/superior, they respond to, and the idea is people do this genuinely, then show your understanding of what the Christian faith DOES say about how individuals are to live, if they are Christians, and what they are to strive for.  Focus on what is there, not what is permitted, condoned, etc....

Software piracy is acknowledged because it's a form of stealing. And stealing prohibited in the Bible.

But anyway, raping and software piracy are different. Software piracy isn't directly mentioned. But raping (and slavery) is directly acknowledged several times in the bible. Yet there are no rules placed against it. There are rules on what to do after one rapes someone. But nothing is set in place which says 'do not rape' That's what condoning means - to overlook behavior that is considered wrong. You don't have to enourage something; the fact that an act is seen but is overlooked is what condoning means.

If the Bible never mentioned rape, then I wouldn't be able to what the Bible's stance on religion is. But it does acknowledge it, directly. And considering it's the word of God, I would expect something that says it's wrong. 

But instead, the Bible says that if you rape a woman, then there are rules in place for you. And that rule is to marry the victim. So if you follow those rules, then you're morally good. Therefore, a person can rape a woman, and as long as he marries the woman, then he is morally good. I'll leave it up to you to decide if that's truly right or wrong.

I'm going to label my response in your quote.

1.When you say allow it you make it seem like it's like a good deed. That's not how it works as it even uses words that are crime words meaning this if you rufused would have been killed and the woman would would be trouble because of lack of support. It's called making best of situation. If he is put in jail he is not able to make a profit for the woman and if he isn't married with her she isn't going to have anyone to physically her with labor that man do. So, not only does he have to work more he also has to more general labor for his new wife and possible children that society would mostly forced him to do because the father(of woman) would want his generation to go on. Again this is crime. If he rufused he would have been stone. When forced to marry her he is paying with lot more labor.

Again you can't ignore these factors.

1.Don't work don't get feed.

2. No support from a man means  you will die off . No food or water.

3.HAving children back in those time was VERY important to that woman because it meant there generation goes on and that was honorable in the society they were in Honor is the most important thing.

4. You have to have a man to do certain things a woman just can't do in those days. Like go get food yourself if your low on curreny or cattle work.

5. It was treated as crime when using the word "violated her" it was nothing to laugh about. And remember if he tried to rape her in front of father they would try to stop him and kill. But once it happens it's over there is no going back it's damaged. There forced to pick between letting your child die from lack of support or find a solution. You didn't get anything for free in the country you had to work like collectivist. 

6. To stess again when they say forced to marry that means if you disagree your dead. If you don't support her your dead. This guy can't screw up and do adultury because he would be stoned. You don't think he has ANY pressure?  It's like having a gun to your head everywhere you go because if you screw up BAM you're punished. He has work more to pay off the father and support the woman so again he has to do LOT forever. 

You mistake allow and violated. Because if he tried raping someone girl and ddidn't get sucessful that is what we like to call a public stoning to death(kick him in deep hole were he would die before being actually stone). Please tell me how that was ALLOWED. It seem like they had there hands tied behind there hands and had to make rational decision for there  child. No one in the passage is saying oh man you did a great job here is babe. It's more like:

" Ok you think your smart? You will now have to pay off what you made me loss money from no longer getting money from girl and you have to pay for my girl for the rest of your life. Guess wha you going to have to be working a lot more than you had to do before and you will have children from my girl and will have to do more. Any if you screw up  you pay for your crimes of not doing the honorable thing and making up for mistake."

Putting him in jail or killing him would do nothing for girl as she would still be screwed over and die from lack of food/water. This can't be avoided because we all know if your not working or not making money therefor no one is getting supported. Again the father of the woman or the woman herself would have requested to the man/ or leader(mostly the leader). If this was in a modern world the woman could get a job and have the man arrested but in OT life wasn't that simple. It's better to solve a problem than to just cause more. For example a woman dying from lack of food which is the worst possible way to die.

Again, you're asserting that there are rules involved after raping someone. I'm not arguing that.

I'm arguing the fact that the bible does not say raping is morally wrong or should not be done. It says that raping can be done, but there are rules afterwards. 

It's the same as saying "you can stab someone, but you must take care of them afterwards." Sure, the suspect could take him to the hospital, pay for his stitches, give him a bed, feed him, etc, etc. But none of this negates the fact that stabbing people is wrong. 

The bible shouldn't say "Take care of the woman you rape." The bible should say "Raping is wrong and is a sin."

The bible is saying that a man is fine and good if he rapes a woman, as long as he takes care of her. That's wrong in my book.  Perhaps you disagree though.

" And 'his' oppinions seem to always reflect the morals and oppinions of the society that creates it. "

Or....it could mean they got there way of living from God like the Commmandments. Like what they folloe and interact with. I don't even know how you twisted that into what you said. Because obvivious if you do some looking into how these people lived they lived exactly how they were told to live by God.

"In the example above if instead treating the woman as damaged good  this god character would say 'if you rape a woman you shall be punished. a woman who was raped is no less than she was before. virginity is not a quality in which you should value someone as a person, instead only take into consideration how well they treat themselves and others'"

So, you want to him to say something that he goes in to contradiction to what he says for you feel happy?  That would go against everything he says to say virginity is important because seperate us from some common dog on street humping anyone dog. The reason for virginity being quality is it's suppose to sarcred between man and woman in commintment to God in marriage. This suppose to be taken very seriously even though you think it is.  "consideration how well they treat themselves and others" Um why because that makes you feel good?  There steps to make marriage a contact between two genders to become one with God. It's not about do what every you feel like because it's meaningless then. Hell I could say have sex with children  as along as treat yourselfs and others good. It's just your own personal opinion on something which has nothing to with the point. 

"Now if this god character actually said something to this effect... maybe you could at least have a point for good advice"

Again why because it makes you feel good? You gave no reason but I want God to act the way i want him to and not like God. You using a entitlement argument where you think God is entitled to think like you who would be vasing inferior to a mind of God. It's like rat trying to tell me advise on how to be a man you don't understand percent of God knows yet you can teach him something? It's a circular argument. 

Just because God doesn't do what you think doesn't make him God it just make you seem to believe to know more then you actually do.

The Bible also makes mention of divorce.  Does the fact it does mean God approves of divorce?   Just because they are rules doesn't mean the conduct under those rules are approved.

And just so long as you give letter of divorce to a woman, that means the divorce is ok?  In no way do you argue that just because some law is written on a subject to address an issue, that means that God approves of something.  It doesn't mean you are morally good either.  

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19&version=NIV