Before I post let say don't shock if I don't reply for while or take awhile as I'm going to college and college will come first no matter what.

NOW TO BEGIN!

"About the word 'violate'

In the context of raping I think this is the definition of 'violate' being used: to molest sexually, especially to rape.

So yeah, it's more likely that 'violate' means raping rather than 'commiting a crime.' Of the many definitions of 'violate', you have to assume it's talking about committing a crime. but you don't have to assume that 'violating' means raping. Since it makes sense."

Violate has negative term to it.  And like I said before when we fuse the violate with the man having to pay for the father and now support the wife. This is clear picture of a crime taking place. The act of the man being forced to marry the woman which is said. This is saying ok because of x you have y which has rules and laws go. If you drink and drive you will pay a fine. <- This tells us ok someone did something wrong here not they give away tickets for free(Crime-> Punishment). This basic context clues. The bible talks about not causing trouble within your own group and has laws against violience. This would have gone with violence. Your argument is one from slience just because someone doesn't out right say don't x doesn't mean he does want you to do something or it's legal. For example, you are no suppose to hurt anyone person without justifable cause in the Bible.  Someone could make an argument well  God didn't say x therefor he is ok with it when it already be put into a group of a general law of don't hurt someone with out justifable reasons. This is common sense.

To add to more of a problem of your argument.

1.Harming people in the society is illegal without good reason(self-defense/etc) and sex is suppose to be honorable thing to God and the persons who are marriaged. Both were illegal if you are opposite.

2. Rape is goes against both of these.

Obvivously this was crime. 

But we can ADD more to it and see how it was common sense and the law was to warn others of no doing this action.

Was the man given  a punishment.

YES. He had to pay the father (fine) and support the woman forever without choice. This is a legal action. Therefor this was crime. This isn't even a question.

"Exodus 20:14 You shall not commit adultery."

If he chose to date someone else he would be punished even more. The man would be forced to change his act fast  because if he tried it again he would be put death because of adultery or more labor(depending on the crime). 

So, when doing basic context clues  and how passages interact with each and not reading one line and thinking we know everything we can see that. This was legal action against a man and that rape was illegal because it goes against God view on sex being between a marriage couple. Rape by defintion goes aginst the law of being marriage before having sex therefor you have no argument. Plus there are laws about harming family members of a man (father) and the man would be killed if he failed. This is to much of a case to countered.

Deuteronomy 24:5

 That's right the adulterer and ALL the sexually immoral which would be rape as it goes against the marriage and sex.  It was immoral to have sex without being marriaged. This is very close to saying out loud don't rape it's illegal.

Colossians 3:18-19

@ Bolded 1

No, I'm admitting that large sections of the bible were updated for good reason. Christians don't believe that the Old Testiment is irrelivant, if that's what you're getting at. So for example the rule that thou shall not steal, eventhough it was given thousands of years ago, is still relivant today. Rules however like removing yourself from the camp at the sign of infection or disease were good for that time when there were no modern medicines and the simplest disease could spread rapidly. But today you would just go see a doctor.

So I don't think you can generalise and say that large sections of the Bible are irrelivant because they've been updated. God told Noah to build a boat essentially out of wood, but I'm sure if God told you build a boat today it would be out of steel and metal. But does that make the story of Noah irrelivant? No, because there are strong fundametal teaching in that story that apply today as well, for example, being obediant to good, eventhough it seems crazy. Also, as a side note, one way the bible proves its authenticity is by display the large amount of Historical fact it contains, regarless of how relevant moder society finds those facts.

@ Bolded 2

I agree that the bible can be used for all manner of evil, like if you just read, 'an eye for an eye', which was a rule for a time and a certain (stuburn) people. Jesus later said from now on you should 'turn the other cheek'. In any event, there is always one true way, I think, of knowing whether what someone is doing, thinking or saying is in line with God, by consiering whether it amounts to (1) Loving God and (2) Loving your fellow man. I think it is safe to say that if human actions fail either of these tests, it is not of God or the Bible, or Jesus and is not Christian.

@ bolded 1

I'm not going to argue here as we're going to have to agree to disagree. I still see large sections of the bible (New testament included) as being irelevant to the modern day (Revelations for one). Times change but the bible as a text cannot change (except possibly, unintentionally via mistranslation). It may cover some universal themes, but they're not exclusive to Christianity, and as time passes the bulk of the text will become less relevant.

Also, purely for information purposes as it's quite interesting, the Noah's Ark story is strangely not biblical in origin. It actually originates from the Mesopotamian story "The Epic of Gilgamesh" which pre-dates the old testament. As a fairly common myth in the region, it managed to make its way into Hebrew society and the old testament.

@ bolded 2

We're kind of agreeing. You have your interpretation of the bible (which is nice enough), but others have theirs and they can be very twisted and outright bizzare. In this respect, it's not really that the bible is helping you become a moral person, it's that people use the bible to confirm their own moral bias. For you, it sounds fairly positive, for some others, not so much.

" 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.

I might as well respond since I'm here.

1. From what it appears, you're saying since I have no regard for the Bible, then I cannot use against Christians. Okay then.

2. Good Point. The Bible says pre-marital sex is wrong, therefore rape is inherently wrong. That is true. However, I could ask Christians, "Is pre-marital rape any more wrong than pre-marital sex?" If they say yes, then I woud like to know what they base their beliefs off of. If they say no, then I really wouldn't know what to say.

3. No. I don't say rape is wrong "because it is against the will of the woman." I say rape is wrong "because it against the will of the woman AND causes the woman extreme long-term mental and physical trauma  solely for the cause of pleasure by the rapist." 

Do you believe rape is wrong? Why?

4. I cannot. But he doesn't disaprove of it either. So Christians must really be confused when concerning the morality of rape. At least, I would assume as such.

5. As I said at point #4. It's not about simply being a lack of consent. It's the lack of consent in conjunection with the lifelong harm on the person.

@ Bolded 1

How do you find something is irrelivant if you from the outset have absolutly no regard for it? Let's stick with the rape issue. The underlying and ultimate purpose of that rule in the Bible was to protect the victim/women. Are saying then that that underlying principle, i.e. protecting the victim/woman, is irrelivant today?

Nothing predates the historical accounts of the bible, especially the new testiment. Many civilisations, Jewish and even Muslim, today confirm the authentisity of the Bible. To say that anything predates the accounts of the Bible just says that you have no idea of Biblical civilisations and how their traditions and culture were preserved throught time. You cannot go comparing biblical HISTORY to a bards tales. Next thing you'll be telling me is that Moses and the Isrealites were never in Egypt! Did the Romans ever occupy Israel and hence Crucify Jesus, or was that just another biblical wise tale that Christians love to tell?

@ Bolded 2

Maybe we do agree here. But I believe that we got or moral rules from God. Listen friend, you cannot give account for any man, so if someone wants to use the bible for evil works then he will one day have to answer to God. You just need to live a life that is pleasing to God. And I will leave you with this from the Bible, Pslams 37: 

  Fret not thyself because of evildoers, neither be thou envious against the workers of iniquity.

² For they shall soon be cut down like the grass, and wither as the green herb.

³ Trust in the Lord, and do good; so shalt thou dwell in the land, and verily thou shalt be fed.

⁴ Delight thyself also in the Lord: and he shall give thee the desires of thine heart.

⁵ Commit thy way unto the Lord; trust also in him; and he shall bring it to pass.

⁶ And he shall bring forth thy righteousness as the light, and thy judgment as the noonday.

⁷ Rest in the Lord, and wait patiently for him: fret not thyself because of him who prospereth in his way, because of the man who bringeth wicked devices to pass.

⁸ Cease from anger, and forsake wrath: fret not thyself in any wise to do evil.

⁹ For evildoers shall be cut off: but those that wait upon the Lord, they shall inherit the earth.

¹⁰ For yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be: yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be.

¹¹ But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace.

The problem is, I'm more moral than your god.

It was pretty disgusting seeing you implying that a woman losig her virginity means she's broke. You can damn well be sure that doesn't make me feel good.

But like I said before, it's really heart warming seeing religions strugling so much nowadays compared to any time in the past. The power of science is pushing the religions further into a corner and I'd be surprised if by the next turn of the century religion in the advanced world won't be something studied in a history class.

tic-toc-tic-toc...

1 sentence. One that is a subjective opinion it's like me saying blue is better than red. Your own moral system is based on your personal desires and thoughts not based on objective terms.

"It was pretty disgusting seeing you implying that a woman losig her virginity means she's broke. You can damn well be sure that doesn't make me feel good."

That's how rules are because sex is suppose to be sacred thing be for the God and the couple. This prevents sexual dieases and makes marriage more important. If you thing sex is for just pleasing yourself and you like that fact there men today have children and leave there wifes with no support. But again the most important is that sex is giving meaning with marriage. If your some type one night stand guy you will never understand this because you're animal and not human/man. If you just threw your body in that time that was considered not honorable and showed you had no self-respect/control. The society was the exact opposite of the societies nearby where you had child riturals,animal sex, and lot's corruption. The law  also helped it from having woman become posititutes and sex slaves.

Did people in that time had to worry about sexual disease? No.

Did they have to worry about people cheating? No, if they did they would be punished so people rarely did it, unlike today where you have millions.

Did this indirectly advertise safe-sex? YES! 

Did this prevent from woman having babies with some random stranger? YES

Did this teach self-control and later rewards from doing so? Yes, look at what happens when after getting married the woman you suppose to treated with respect and giving happiness for a whole MONTH. The guy can't even work doing this because he must treat his wife with happiness.

Did this strengthen family structure? Yes, because no one had to worry would there child would have sex with a man and ruin the family with money problems.  The women were CLASSIER because of this. You wouldn't hear about how cool it was to have sex with 5 men. 

Did this prevent marjority of kids from making bad decisions that could ruin there lives? Yes.

Now please tell why this was bad? The woman did a crime to herself, to God, her family or anyone else if she did something as careless as that. If she is raped then obviously like I stated eariler they solve the problem without punishing her because she didn't do anything. This was all taken very seriously they all agreed to never break this rules like any law.

No one at the time would even consider dating a woman like that because she already is telling everyone I don't care about what society says I will do my own thing. I don't care about my parents or God I know more than them. But guess what? Society isn't going to want to accept someone like that because there to busy trying to survival. By not following these laws you are already telling people all they need to know and therefor God doesn't even need to say anything becasue to people themselfs will be  disgusted.  Self-control and thinking about your society must be shown to want to continue in the society.

The fact is the society was better of because of the law than the opposite.

Good luck arguing against this because I know you will avoid it like last time.

"But like I said before, it's really heart warming seeing religions strugling so much nowadays compared to any time in the past. The power of science is pushing the religions further into a corner and I'd be surprised if by the next turn of the century religion in the advanced world won't be something studied in a history class."

Science and Christian goes as far back as Newton Isacc and the apple and even he believed in God and Science. Fast forward to today we see people who study evolution to how the world started and are Christians. I wouldn't be greatly surprised if you ever read a book on anything not forced on you from school. Science has never been a enemy of Christian on the fundmentalist believe that and goes for both atheists and Christians.

in your view having sex is a crime to yourself, to your family and to your magic sky daddy?

in your view having sex is a crime to yourself, to your family and to your magic sky daddy?

if anything this shows exactly how religion can twist and really destroy someone's humanity. i doubt you'll  ever understand it, but my point was never to convince you of that. my point was exactly to give you enough rope so you'd display full on how sickening those views are and how much we evolved as a society.

it's ok though... i think i can find a good solution to you. maybe go live in saudi arabia or  Uganda. They seem like the kind of societies in today's world whose accepted views seem to be on par with your own.

i'm still fighting to control the vomiting reflex i got from reading your post. the conversation will be over after this, it's enough. i'll reply no more.

tic toc tic toc