^No, this is really amusing. Don't take it away from the home page - it'll discourage me (and probably many others) from ever looking at it.

Orathaic,

Yes. In fact, it uses the word "violation" in respect to rape. See Deuteronomy 22:29 (and also before). (See also, in light of this passage, Exodus 22:28-29). See also 2 Samuel 13:12-14. (The rapist in this case was killed for his crime, vigilante-style. The same happened in Genesis 34).

Here is I think quite an interesting discussion of some of these issues.
http://christianthinktank.com/virginity.html

Thanks semck: a lot of that seems to be saying why issues like paternity (before paternity tests were available) were important. Justifying the laws from a realistic point of view.

Would you say that given our modern technology - in this particular example, our knowledge of genetics and access to DNA tests - justifies changing the law; and thus invalidates the bible/biblical law?

Semck, so do I hear you saying that the Bible isn't the last bastion of blood-thirsty, testosterone-filled, murderous rapist wanna-be's??? What about the valley of death and that chapter on us being like clanging bells if we don't conform to Jesus' teachings??

What about Revelations...

Allow me to apply my limited world understanding to the situation: the old testament is really just the Torah, so that doesn't apply as much to the christian faith as the new testament does. Within the new testament, Revelations was not added until around 100 CE, and it is a fairly widespread theory that "John" the author of Revelations is not the same author as the author of the gospel of John. Even when it was added, it barely made it in, with a large opposition. Not only that, but Revelations seems to contradict almost all 26 of the other New Testament books. That said, I find the book of Revelations to be irrelevant to the overall Christian religion, and a striking majority of Christians never use it in their services. These days, Revelations is just a tool for extremists to justify their beliefs.

Wow, nice, jmo.

You know, that incident in question was the one genuinely horrible thing I've ever done on this site. I have entirely put it past me, as well has the person to whom I said it. It's really a new low that you now feel the need to bring that up in this context to paint me as some kind of evil demon-rapist who can't be allowed to express a relevant opinion.

Anybody can see that this is a retroactively created justification for doing what was already done (locking a thread, yet again, for no valid reason). So you know what? I'm going to speak out against rape when or wherever I see it, and that includes religious contexts. Believing in God doesn't give you a pass from promulgating rape.

If you have to mute me, ban me, whatever, for that, go for it. Do it now, and spare everybody the trouble of waiting for me to "slip up" again - I promise you I'm not going to hold back. You're a really disgusting person for trying to represent me this way.

*crunches popcorn*

YJ, I can assure you that jmo's stated reason was the real reason for silencing the thread.

The fact is that you can raise criticisms against religion without being an inflammatory ass or harassing people over PM. You were asked to be a decent person and tone it down without being silenced or receiving any other punishment. You responded by that by making another inflammatory post. Your goal was clearly no longer to criticize Christianity, it was to create drama. Feel free to keep criticizing anything you want, but spare us the rest of it.

"Have we really gotten to the point where being asked to "tone down the rape talk" is taken as a personal affront to freedom of speech?"

Well, yes, since what you meant by "tone down the rape talk" is actually "YJ, you aren't allowed to point it out when a person or text seems to be favoring rape."

Maybe I was wrong. Maybe semck is right and the text doesn't say that at all! Guess we'll never know, since you felt it would be preferable to make "requests" (threats) for silence instead of letting the discussion run its course. Now I don't blame you entirely, I'm sure some fundie with a sore bum came crying to you first, but that's an entirely different discussion.

@YellowJacket, there is no debate here. You have been given a final warning, no idea why you weren't given one after your multi, but you've been given one now. If you ignore it you will be silenced without end or banned. I couldn't care less what you decide to do, and this conversation is over.

-WebDip Admin

@ghug if so that makes it worse, not better.


What's all this rot you are spewing about "harassing PMs?"

I sent tru one message "uninvited," and was frankly surprised at the vehemence of his response. We had an exchange, and then he stopped messaging me, so I stopped messaging him. Are you really trying to characterize that as harassment?

@jmo

Rape is bad and the Bible supports rape.

#doitfucker

Goodbye YJ. I hardly knew ye, fortunately.

Valis we would have ended up liking eachother I think :0

http://i.imgur.com/TyZIBud.png

Did somebody overplay his hand?

oops.

YJ, you don't need to act like this to express your negative emotions toward Christianity. Or are you simply exercising your power to have an effect on others? Either way, most of us 1) find it unpleasant, and 2) won't put up with much of it before we mute you again. OR you can have a place in this community as someone who is very capable of rational thought and who doesn't go around trying to score points off of the other people on this site. I suspect most people would welcome that.

rape is a real world occurrence. In Muskogee, a friend of my cousin's was raped by an older student, and he tried to use the bible in his defense. YJ's comments reminded me of the whole thing and although he was outright and vulgar, he was pointing out some problems in scripture. Frankly I think that censorship has been appropriate thus far, yet this whole incident as gotten me to think we are less Brave New World and more 1984 governed on this site. And Damnit I want shallow meaningless sex *references* on this site

please don't ban YJ, just take away some points or something. He's an asshole, but if you ban every rectum on this site, we'll be left with like 8 people, and at least 5 of them will be Draugnar accounts!

James, you give draug way to much credit. He gets caught very quickly every time.

TVROCKS IS ABUSING MY CONSPIRACY LOVING SELF EXPRESSION BAN BAN BAN BAN BAN

I don't think that overcensorigg him is a good idea. The forums are available to all people, however, very few people use them, and it would be very rare to find something they dislike in it if they are not active. It seems the censorship is unnecessary, and that punishing someone just because an event may happen is bad. There is something called the mute button for those people who do have problems with something that is said on the site.

It also seems that people should also be able to discuss the flaws in the Bible, instead of just being allowed to discuss the things they view as good. The current situation would also probably be preferable to them making a "flaws in the Bible" thread.

yeah posting in the 'daily bible' thread was not right. maybe a specific quotation you could comment on or PM the poster your feelings, but no further. then again... IT'S THE DAMN FORUM

i've seen less scum in a bangladesh whore house

@orathaic,

"Would you say that given our modern technology - in this particular example, our knowledge of genetics and access to DNA tests - justifies changing the law; and thus invalidates the bible/biblical law?"

Well, I can't speak for what Jews would say about this (I'm pretty sure the large majority are just fine with modern family law, though); but anyway, the vast majority of Christian churches, Protestant and Catholic both, view the bulk of the OT law (and all, in some strains), almost always including the societal laws like this, as having been applicable to Israel and how it was supposed to function as a country before Christ, but not having been applicable since then. (That isn't to say there aren't eternal truths reflected in a lot of them, and those are usually reiterated in the NT -- e.g., don't murder, love your neighbor as yourself, etc.; but others were quite specific to the time and place).

So, long story short, our society is very different, and I (like most Christians) would see no reason to apply the laws that applied to ancient Israel. Which is distinct from saying that morality has changed, and those laws, analyzed carefully in the context where they occurred, can often be useful for learning about how morality should work. But it is applied now in a very different setting. So rape is still wrong. But we're likely to approach its punishment in a different way now than then.

I hope this was clearer than it feels like it was.

@ YJ:
"But spare all the young virgins, and keep them for yourself, so that you can buy them all ponies!

Don't be an idiot"

This was your initial unsolicited PM to me. I'm curious how you see this as a means of garnering a peaceful response.

Prior to your comments that got you banned, I saw you as a decent guy that liked to joke around, although in a way that may be construed as offensive.

Since your recent posts, your attitude and behavior has gone downhill to the point that it's no longer decent dialog but rather harassment.

Not banned, but rather silenced

@ora:

Also to expound on smeck's comments:
Conservative Christianity views the Old Testament as a pointer to Christ. Christ said this himself when he said that all of the Law and the Prophets speak of him. Some examples:
--The Sabbath was not designed to be a day of rest specifically, but rather an illustration of the rest we have in Christ Jesus--namely after salvation, we have freedom from sin and the seal of the Spirit which seals our salvation until the second coming of Christ. We now rest in Him. Throughout the OT, people lived in a way as to remind generations to come of spiritual things. The Jews were promised a Messiah since the beginning, hidden in the words of the Pentatuch and prophetic writings that would point to Jesus. The Sabbath is one example of people living out something that would point them to the Messiah when he came.
--the sacrifices that were given is another example. The sacrifices were to point to what Christ would one day fulfill, but were a temporary thing that illustrate what the Messiah would do. The sacrifices called for a flawless male animal that would temporarily take the sin of the sinner. The animal was slain as an offering to God--all pointer to Christ and his work on the cross.

Nearly everything written in the first 5 books of the Bible is like this.

Later came the prophetic writings that would show how Christ would operate while here on earth, what he would do and say, so that when He came, we would be able to identify Him. We would then know who it was the Law was pointing to.

The historical writings give background to things like the nature of God and man, the lineage of Christ as it was promised, the leading up to the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant and the history of God's people until the time of Christ.

When we get to the New Testament, it is there to show how God sent his Son to fulfill the things seen in the Old Testament and to spread the redemption of man beyond the Jews to all people in the earth. It is also there to discuss the ways we were and are truly meant to live our lives.

The NT also points to the second coming in the same way as the OT points to the first coming of Christ.

That said, the Bible and all of creation has One Author, One Fulfiller, and One Redeemer. One of the biggest (if not the biggest) theme in Scripture is that God is sovereign, not us. God declares how things will be and He alone has the power to bring them to pass. This goes for how we are to interact between each other--including what we should see as right and wrong, good and evil.

God calls us to be holy as He is holy, and it is a command to all people. Therefore, holiness and perfection have already been decided upon--not by us, but by God, and if God has declared something to be sin--which is unholiness--then it cannot be changed, even if we decide on earth by majority vote. Holiness was not decided by man, it is a depiction of God. Therefore to try to change what is meant by being holy, or being perfect and sinless is to try to change God.

Well put, TruNinja. I would also add that Jesus himself said that he came "not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it." Matthew 5:17. Paul expounds on this in some detail, and Revelation shows us the difference in how people are judged: Those who trust in Christ and know him have their names written in the Book of the Lamb, but everyone else will be judged by their actions. I personally don't want to be judged by a perfect God based on my actions and thoughts.