Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Unanswered, once again, is what did the *women* do to deserve a public raping? Why do you fundamentalists either avoid that question, or dance around it?
Once again, rape is not mentioned in this verse. Futhermore, there is nothing in the following events that shows that these women were raped at all.
Once again, rape is not mentioned in this verse. Furthermore, there is nothing in the following events that shows that these women were raped at all.
The word rape was not used, no. Could it be that rape was not considered 'rape'? After all, the men had a right to a woman's body. But not a right to another man's property so that is where the shame would come into it - for him. She did not count.
It might be true that these women were not raped (in public) in the end but the threat of rape is what is in question here - as a punishment for some guy who was offending God.
I do find it just a tad disconcerting that the Lott, the only 'righteous man' in Sodom offered his virgin daughter and his maid servant to the group of alleged homosexuals to 'do what they pleased with'!?
The word rape was not used, no. Could it be that rape was not considered 'rape'? After all, the men had a right to a woman's body. But not a right to another man's property so that is where the shame would come into it - for him. She did not count.
It might be true that these women were not raped (in public) in the end but the threat of rape is what is in question here - as a punishment for some guy who was offending God.
I do find it just a tad disconcerting that the Lott, the only 'righteous man' in Sodom offered his virgin daughter and his maid servant to the group of alleged homosexuals to 'do what they pleased with'!?
Hey, did it say it actually took place or could it have been an imagery by God. Do you know what the 4-fold problems were for David as Nathan's parable tripped him up ?
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,920,960 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by perry335654
Hey, did it say it actually took place or could it have been an imagery by God. Do you know what the 4-fold problems were for David as Nathan's parable tripped him up ?
Let's go with your hypothesize that it was an imagery by your god. Even though that god said that it would cause it to happen.... but let's just your perspective for a second.
What kind of a "letter before "B" hole" entity would even consider putting the women in the position where they would suffer the violence of unwanted sex in public. Unwanted sex that constituted *RAPE*.
The word rape was not used, no. Could it be that rape was not considered 'rape'? After all, the men had a right to a woman's body. But not a right to another man's property so that is where the shame would come into it - for him. She did not count.
It might be true that these women were not raped (in public) in the end but the threat of rape is what is in question here - as a punishment for some guy who was offending God.
And you haven't even established a threat of rape. The only thing the passage says specifically is that David would lose his wives to another man. They could have voluntarily gravitated towards the man in power which was David's son.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 303Guy
I do find it just a tad disconcerting that the Lott, the only 'righteous man' in Sodom offered his virgin daughter and his maid servant to the group of alleged homosexuals to 'do what they pleased with'!?
Then take it up with Lot. That was Lot's decision, not God.
The word "homosexuality" doesn't appear anywhere in the bible yet you manage to point to all manner of passages to buttress your bigotry.
Why do you keep dancing around that fact?
Because the Bible is pretty plain and specific about it?
"In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error." Romans 1:27
See, shameful is not good in any language. If homosexuality was natural, it would not be saying that it was unnatural here.
Because the Bible is pretty plain and specific about it?
"In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error." Romans 1:27
See, shameful is not good in any language. If homosexuality was natural, it would not be saying that it was unnatural here.
The bible also said to kill disobedient children. Do you still believe that one?
If homosexuality was NOT natural, it wouldn't occur throughout the animal kingdom - of which we are a part - despite your hand-waving protests to the contrary.
The bible also said to kill disobedient children. Do you still believe that one?
If homosexuality was NOT natural, it wouldn't occur throughout the animal kingdom - of which we are a part - despite your hand-waving protests to the contrary.
How I imagine fundies reading this post....
"Don't call me no dang animal, Trout! We ain't no gosh darned animals! We are dirt men and rib women!! And we all know that THOSE parts of the Bible aren't to be followed anymore! Only the part about two dongs touching needs to be adhered to!!!!"
Because the Bible is pretty plain and specific about it?
"In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error." Romans 1:27
See, shameful is not good in any language. If homosexuality was natural, it would not be saying that it was unnatural here.
Oh, but it doesn't SPECIFICALLY say that there was sex involved, so therefore you can't be sure it was.... See, we can say that too!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
See, we can say that too!
