From deutoronomy 22:23-27

“In case there happened to be a virgin girl engaged to a man, and a man actually found her in the city and lay down with her, 24 YOU must also bring them both out to the gate of that city and pelt them with stones, and they must die, the girl for the reason that she did not scream in the city, and the man for the reason that he humiliated the wife of his fellowman. So you must clear away what is evil from your midst.

25 “If, however, it is in the field that the man found the girl who was engaged, and the man grabbed hold of her and lay down with her, the man who lay down with her must also die by himself, 26 and to the girl you must do nothing. The girl has no sin deserving of death, because just as when a man rises up against his fellowman and indeed murders him, even a soul, so it is with this case. 27 For it was in the field that he found her. The girl who was engaged screamed, but there was no one to rescue her.



This sets up a contrast of two different rape scenes. If a woman is raped in a field it is not her fault because there was no one to save her even if she screams. If a woman is raped in the city and she doesn't get rescued it is her own damn fault, and it is the same as consent and both her and the man are to be put to death. Notice it doesn't say anything about if she screams and nobody rescues her, or if she couldn't scream because of fear of death. It's just that she didn't fight her rapist hard enough and that counts as consent. There is no law that kills only the man for rape in the city.

Now what is odd, is that you only take offense to that. Child execution at Numbers 31:18? No problem. Setting people on fire as a form of capital punishment in leviticus 20:14? Great. A woman being blamed for rape! Atrocious! So that begs the questions, what is it that decides your morality?

Damn it. I responded to that cuz I was in a hurry. Now please get the Fruit off my back. Please don't pretend that you know how I feel and think on this subject.

If a person killed someone with fire, they should be killed with fire. I think that if someone murders someone in a particular way, they should also be put to death in that way.

And you can't be serious about Numbers 31... I mean really? They are talking about a people that were the enemy. They already had caused the people of Israel to sin terribly. If they had let anybody live (they actually do in other places) they would simply cause problems for them later. That land was set aside for them long ago. It was promised to Abraham. Anybody who is on that land was trespassing on God's promise.

Also if you want to talk about Child sacrifice, how about where God condemns it.

It was a custom of the peoples around them to do this to appease the gods they worshiped. They only reason God told Israel to kill the entire city was because they would lead the people astray.

Would God say that today? Nope. Age of Grace. Punishment for sins against God are not judged in this life, but in the life to come. Punishments against fellow men are to be judged by the proper authorities. You have a chance to be forgiven of all your sins. Christ saw to that when He defeated death and Sin and rose from the dead.

Edit: I forgot to mention your rape verses. The first one, in the city, She has a chance to protect herself by calling for help. Would you not call for help if you were being raped? How do we know that in that verse it wasn't talking about consensual sex? It does not say that he grabbed her as in the next verse. If she did not call for help she probably was consensually agreeing with that man.

Now I leave this thread.

dtewi said: It goes back to the article in this thread. http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=32736&start=0 Where the Christian registrar wouldn't marry a gay couple. I think religion should never take priority over the law.

The problem in that article is that whichever way they ruled they violated somebodies rights. I don't think they put religion over the law so much as her personal right to not do something she isn't comfortable with. The only thing they can really do is get a registrar that has no problem marrying a gay couple.

LNRT said: dtewi said: It goes back to the article in this thread. http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=32736&start=0 Where the Christian registrar wouldn't marry a gay couple. I think religion should never take priority over the law. The problem in that article is that whichever way they ruled they violated somebodies rights. I don't think they put religion over the law so much as her personal right to not do something she isn't comfortable with. The only thing they can really do is get a registrar that has no problem marrying a gay couple.

You are confusing rights with beliefs.

Someone has a right to say that someone shouldn't be able to do something that doesn't harm anyone because of her beliefs?

She said "I am offended!" and she won the case.

That is wrong. You should be able to break the law because you don't like something.

 

LNRT said: dtewi said: It goes back to the article in this thread. http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=32736&start=0 Where the Christian registrar wouldn't marry a gay couple. I think religion should never take priority over the law. The problem in that article is that whichever way they ruled they violated somebodies rights. I don't think they put religion over the law so much as her personal right to not do something she isn't comfortable with. The only thing they can really do is get a registrar that has no problem marrying a gay couple.

I agree with that for the most part, except for the fact that it was her job. You have to know your job is going to put you in certain situations. If I become a window washer and I'm afraid of heights I can't claim they are violating my rights by forcing me to get on the scaffold when clearly it terrifies me. Honestly I think it could've been addressed far more tactfully by simply having one of her associates do it so she wouldn't have to, rather than just refusing and making a case out of it. She could preserve her right to say no based on her beliefs, while simultaneously respecting their right to get married. But if your job requires you, is actually part of the job description to do things that you are uncomfortable with you can't claim that your job is violating your rights. You can get a different job though.

 

 

The_vagabond7 said: A few things I disagree with here. A. Athiesm and agnostism are not religions, they are viewpoints.

 

this is true but there are agnostic theists like me who beleive there has to be some higher beings in existance or formally in existance that started all of this. Now wou,d you vierw my believe as a viewpoint or religion?

ssj12 said: The_vagabond7 said: A few things I disagree with here. A. Athiesm and agnostism are not religions, they are viewpoints.   this is true but there are agnostic theists like me who beleive there has to be some higher beings in existance or formally in existance that started all of this. Now wou,d you vierw my believe as a viewpoint or religion?

Viewpoint. Simply believing in a creator doesn't necessarily make one religious. Now if your belief in a creator leads to ritual observances, or you base your moral code and ethics on the teachings of this creator or his prophets or what have you, then it becomes religion. A viewpoint that does not contain or lay down any dogma is not a religion.

 

ssj12 said: The_vagabond7 said: A few things I disagree with here. A. Athiesm and agnostism are not religions, they are viewpoints.   this is true but there are agnostic theists like me who beleive there has to be some higher beings in existance or formally in existance that started all of this. Now wou,d you vierw my believe as a viewpoint or religion?

 

Viewpoint. As long as you do not observe any dogma or carry out any rituals due to your belief in a higher being I do not see how it could be considered religious.

dtewi said: You are confusing rights with beliefs. Someone has a right to say that someone shouldn't be able to do something that doesn't harm anyone because of her beliefs? She said "I am offended!" and she won the case. That is wrong. You should be able to break the law because you don't like something.

It is more complicated than that. Like I said in the other thread I am not sure there is a right answer to this problem and like the vagabond said it is her job but I still think it is also her right to not do something she isn't comfortable with. They can't really fire her because of her religious beliefs. The only logical solution I can see is to get somebody that will preform these same sex marriges.

 

It isn't. That is exactly what happened.

If we were able to bend the law every time someone got offended, it isn't law at all.