Your Help Refuting a Blog

[Shanara99]

So we've gone from "The bible condones rape" to well, whatever your point is now. I guess you are saying that because the bible doesn't mention sex slaves than it must condone sex slavery. I could probably give a similair misguided arguement about Christopher Hutchin's beliefs. sigh.

I think inferno made a good job underlining the relevant parts, but quoting the rest of the passage, so you couldn't acuse him of quotemining. That particular numbers's passage can't be read as anything else than Moses telling his men to grab virgin women for themselves against their will.

Then, there's Deuteronomy 20: 10-14

As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

Clearly women are just a kind of plunder, with the same rights than livestock.

I'll grant you, tho, that rape's punishment is death, as expressed in Deuteronomy 22: 23-24

If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.

It'd seem that the punishment for BEING RAPED is also death. And funny that there seems to be no male on male rape, or female on male rape... nor female on female rape, for that matter. Also worth noticing that the only bad thing in rape is "violated his neighbors wife". When you examine this in the context of other Deut passages, the crime here isn't raping, but using the propierty of another man.

Then, there's Zechariah 14: 1-2

Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city.

And that's just a cursory glance over the issue. So I'd say that yes, rape is pretty much condoned by the lord without rings, and his prophets. They just don't want their slaves raped by others.



And now onto the second part of your argument. The bible is, by your own admision, your primary source of truth, and information. I don't even know who Christopher Hutchin is. I even tried googling him... but all I got was a few pages about an australian, another british, and a few americans... so... who is this Mr Hutchins supposed to be, anyway? Why should we care about anyone misconstructing his beliefs, other than normal human decency?

I think you might be thinking about Christopher Hitchens, who, at least, was a famous critic of religion. But, you see, he's not "the leader of atheism", nor "the pope of atheism" or nothing like that. He was just a person who defended his position.We may or not agree with his ideas, but he was just ANOTHER atheist.

You just tried to equate science and religion, by giving science a hierarchal structure that lacks, by it's very nature. Believe it or not, in science, names don't matter. What matters is research, publications, experimentation, etc.

So, please, don't do that.



Oh, and, btw... the pope IS christian, by definition. We should try to get "NHo true Scottsman" renamed to "No true Christian" considering how often these creationoobs abuse that particular fallacy.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

So we've gone from "The bible condones rape" to well, whatever your point is now. I guess you are saying that because the bible doesn't mention sex slaves than it must condone sex slavery. I could probably give a similair misguided arguement about Christopher Hutchin's beliefs. sigh.

I think inferno made a good job underlining the relevant parts, but quoting the rest of the passage, so you couldn't acuse him of quotemining. That particular numbers's passage can't be read as anything else than Moses telling his men to grab virgin women for themselves against their will.

Then, there's Deuteronomy 20: 10-14

As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

Clearly women are just a kind of plunder, with the same rights than livestock.

I'll grant you, tho, that rape's punishment is death, as expressed in Deuteronomy 22: 23-24

If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.

It'd seem that the punishment for BEING RAPED is also death. And funny that there seems to be no male on male rape, or female on male rape... nor female on female rape, for that matter. Also worth noticing that the only bad thing in rape is "violated his neighbors wife". When you examine this in the context of other Deut passages, the crime here isn't raping, but using the propierty of another man.

Then, there's Zechariah 14: 1-2

Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city.

And that's just a cursory glance over the issue. So I'd say that yes, rape is pretty much condoned by the lord without rings, and his prophets. They just don't want their slaves raped by others.



And now onto the second part of your argument. The bible is, by your own admision, your primary source of truth, and information. I don't even know who Christopher Hutchin is. I even tried googling him... but all I got was a few pages about an australian, another british, and a few americans... so... who is this Mr Hutchins supposed to be, anyway? Why should we care about anyone misconstructing his beliefs, other than normal human decency?

I think you might be thinking about Christopher Hitchens, who, at least, was a famous critic of religion. But, you see, he's not "the leader of atheism", nor "the pope of atheism" or nothing like that. He was just a person who defended his position.We may or not agree with his ideas, but he was just ANOTHER atheist.

You just tried to equate science and religion, by giving science a hierarchal structure that lacks, by it's very nature. Believe it or not, in science, names don't matter. What matters is research, publications, experimentation, etc.

So, please, don't do that.



Oh, and, btw... the pope IS christian, by definition. We should try to get "NHo true Scottsman" renamed to "No true Christian" considering how often these creationoobs abuse that particular fallacy.

I can refute these atheists by pointing out God is concerned with his children and not children who are not his,until they come into a relationship with God they are not of God,these laws are for God's children and he wants them to win when they go to war,not play-patty cake with the enemy.

You can claim God is telling his people to rape but no Jew or Christian condones of teaches there people to do these thongs,no Muslims you can make a case but not with Jewish culture or Christian culture,sure man sins and men do rape but there are laws in place to punish them.

God's laws concerned his people and God loves his kids.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

Sorry but these atheist talking points will not work with me.I don't know how they worked for you but I can refute these attacks against the bible easily.Atheists like to try to make God out to be evil but it won't work.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I was about to say...

Seriously "thenexttodie", how come YOU call yourself a Christian? Every single denomination has a different opinion of what a "real Christian TM" is.

Process of elimination.
Well how about we start with the all the christian denominations that teach rape is ok. Which ones are those? Must be a pretty big list.

Thus, rapists are not Real Christians[sup]TM[/sup]. Now one wonders what criteria thenexttodie is using to eliminate the pope. Please, do tell.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

I can refute this with one sentence Inferno.

No Jew or Christian teaches their people from the bible to do these things in both Jewish and Christian culture.

 

[Shanara99]

I can refute these atheists by pointing out God is concerned with his children and not children who are not his,until they come into a relationship with God they are not of God,these laws are for God's children and he wants them to win when they go to war,not play-patty cake with the enemy.

You can claim God is telling his people to rape but no Jew or Christian condones of teaches there people to do these thongs,no Muslims you can make a case but not with Jewish culture or Christian culture,sure man sins and men do rape but there are laws in place to punish them.

God's laws concerned his people and God loves his kids.

Wait, so then, god didn't create every human, then? I mean, if some people are "children of god" and some are not, that means they don't come from god, right? Huh. Wonder if these are the people Cain found west of Eden....

Also, how nice of a god to offer them rape as an incentive, so they feel motivated. Not that he'd need to motivate then, cause, well, you know, omnipotence. And don't bother pulling the "free will" card. If god was truly omnipotent and omniscient, he'd know a way to kill his enemies without affecting free will and without needing people to actually go and do the killing.

But regardless of all that, your point here is that MODERN christians, who are influenced heavily by secular moral, don't condone rape. I assume you'll defend that christianism doesn't condone torture either...

I'd suggest you to take a look at christianism in the low middle ages.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

I can refute these atheists by pointing out God is concerned with his children and not children who are not his,until they come into a relationship with God they are not of God,these laws are for God's children and he wants them to win when they go to war,not play-patty cake with the enemy.

You can claim God is telling his people to rape but no Jew or Christian condones of teaches there people to do these thongs,no Muslims you can make a case but not with Jewish culture or Christian culture,sure man sins and men do rape but there are laws in place to punish them.

God's laws concerned his people and God loves his kids.

Wait, so then, god didn't create every human, then? I mean, if some people are "children of god" and some are not, that means they don't come from god, right? Huh. Wonder if these are the people Cain found west of Eden....

Also, how nice of a god to offer them rape as an incentive, so they feel motivated. Not that he'd need to motivate then, cause, well, you know, omnipotence. And don't bother pulling the "free will" card. If god was truly omnipotent and omniscient, he'd know a way to kill his enemies without affecting free will and without needing people to actually go and do the killing.

But regardless of all that, your point here is that MODERN christians, who are influenced heavily by secular moral, don't condone rape. I assume you'll defend that christianism doesn't condone torture either...

I'd suggest you to take a look at christianism in the low middle ages.

Iron Maiden it does not change anything I said man is a sinner and sins but God loves his kids.

 

[Shanara99]

Iron Maiden it does not change anything I said man is a sinner and sins but God loves his kids.

Oh. you got the idea that I was talking about the Spanish Inquisition? Well, noone expects the Spanish Inquisition, and I sure didn't.

I said LOW middle ages, not HIGH middle ages. You could even focus your attention to the Reconquista, sometimes refered as a crusade... mostly because it kinda was Christian versus Muslims. With Jews on the side of Christians.

But let me recap a little on your argument here.

You claim that the bible is the literal word of god, except when it's not, and sometimes is the story of how satan controlled everyone, except when it was god. The existance of rain proves the bible is true. And there are 2 kind of people: those created by god, and those not created by god. All this proves, according to you a double creation myth. Supported from evidence from the bible, and a piece of ice 12 billion light-years away from us.

Of course, now it all makes sense! The illuminati were behind everything!!!

 

[Inferno]

Process of elimination.
Well how about we start with the all the christian denominations that teach rape is ok. Which ones are those? Must be a pretty big list.

Don't put words in my mouth, I never claimed what you say I claimed.
I merely pointed out that every Christian denomination has a different perspective on what a "True Christian TM" is. Why do you get to judge and not someone else? You specifically mentioned the Pope, so my retort is this: He has more followers than you, so maybe he should get to decide and not some random internet persona.

No it isn't.

You are just randomly picking verses from the bible, pretending like you know everything when you don't.

Verses you haven't shown to contradict my point, by the way.
However, you're wrong again: I don't pretend to know everything, I know that I know a lot more than you do. I base my arguments on the best available evidence. This particular point is an amalgamation of Matt Dillahunty and various websites, including some Hitchens, Dawkins and others. It's difficult to dig through The Atheist Experience, but these two bits touch on rape:
Morals, rape and punishment
Children aren't so innocent so raping them might be OK

These are just two examples I found from the show. They don't touch on particular verses, but like I said that's difficult to find in their show. I suggest you give them a call, Matt knows the Bible back to front. He's the "authority" I turn to when it concerns the Bible.

So we've gone from "The bible condones rape" to well, whatever your point is now.

A sex slave, as far as I understand it, is still forced to have sex with you. Sex slave = rape. Would you claim there's a difference?
My point is still the same: The Bible condones rape.

I guess you are saying that because the bible doesn't mention sex slaves than it must condone sex slavery.

No, I'm saying that God specifically told Moses to destroy the Midians and take their women as sex slaves. That's the very opposite of "not mentioning them", that's explicitly telling Moses and his people to have sex slaves.
My second point was that there are laws for a multitude of things in the Bible: How to cut your beard, what to eat on what day, how to clean the loot from the tribe you just destroyed. Why isn't there a single law against rape? Why isn't there a single law against slavery? Why is there a commandments saying "honour your father and mother" but no commandment saying "don't rape, beat or psychologically abuse a child"? Why is there no law to preserve nature?

I could probably give a similair misguided arguement about Christopher Hutchin's beliefs. sigh.

If you use the straw-man argument you made, yes. If you apply the actual argument I used, you might still be right. Christopher Hitchens, despite his brilliance, wasn't a particular moral man. More than most, less than many.

 

[thenexttodie]

Process of elimination.
Well how about we start with the all the christian denominations that teach rape is ok. Which ones are those? Must be a pretty big list.

Don't put words in my mouth, I never claimed what you say I claimed.
I merely pointed out that every Christian denomination has a different perspective on what a "True Christian TM" is.

I'm not putting any words in your mouth! You said that there are different Christian denominations that believe different things and I'm just asking you which denominations teach that rape is ok?

So what's your answer?

Why do you get to judge and not someone else? You specifically mentioned the Pope, so my retort is this: He has more followers than you, so maybe he should get to decide and not some random internet persona.

We can start another thread about it, if you like.

No it isn't.

You are just randomly picking verses from the bible, pretending like you know everything when you don't.

Verses you haven't shown to contradict my point, by the way.
However, you're wrong again: I don't pretend to know everything, I know that I know a lot more than you do. I base my arguments on the best available evidence. This particular point is an amalgamation of Matt Dillahunty and various websites, including some Hitchens, Dawkins and others. It's difficult to dig through The Atheist Experience, but these two bits touch on rape:
Morals, rape and punishment
Children aren't so innocent so raping them might be OK

These are just two examples I found from the show. They don't touch on particular verses, but like I said that's difficult to find in their show. I suggest you give them a call, Matt knows the Bible back to front. He's the "authority" I turn to when it concerns the Bible.

Is this a fucking joke?

A sex slave, as far as I understand it, is still forced to have sex with you. Sex slave = rape. Would you claim there's a difference?
My point is still the same: The Bible condones rape.

..I'm saying that God specifically told Moses to destroy the Midians and take their women as sex slaves.

You haven't shown anything in the Bible that says God or even Moses condoned or commanded rape or sex slavery. Me quoting bible verses to you won't change that fact..

 

[tuxbox]

You haven't shown anything in the Bible that says God or even Moses condoned or commanded rape or sex slavery. Me quoting bible verses to you won't change that fact..

Numbers 31:7-18

Judges 21:10-24

Deuteronomy 20:10-14

Deuteronomy 21:10-14

Deuteronomy 22:28-29

There are more than these.

 

[thenexttodie]

Numbers 31:7-18

Judges 21:10-24

Is life, to you, just a dress rehearsal? Or are you a robot?
It's obvious that you haven't even read this thread, let alone any of the books of the bible you are quoting from. Since anyone can see that I've already discussed these same verses with Mr. Inferno. Here's a recap

POINT A
Judges tells about how the Benjimenites raped women. Only someone who knows nothing about the bible would use this to argue that the bible condones rape. The main theme of much of the bible is to show that no matter what God did, no matter what he told people to do, no matter what miracles He did, people almost always rebelled against Him and did evil every time. God did not command this to be done, it was something evil they chose to do on their own.

POINT B
(Regarding Numbers) The guidelines God gave to the Israelites for the treatment of the women taken from conquered enemies are probably somewhere in Numbers. The problem was i think that God actually commanded them to kill everyone but the Isrealites kept wanting to take the women with them. God said they could marry these women but could not have sex with them while they were grieving and that basically, if it didn't work out then you had to give the woman a bunch of money and that she could not be your slave.

Inferno did not know this and tried to argue that because women and plunder were once mentioned in the same sentence, that that somehow equals rape and sex slavery.

POINT C
Points A and B are sound. They are based on FACT. No one has even attempted to refute them. So unless some one is able to show an actual error I have made, can you all just agree that I am right and that all of you were wrong, at least as far as points A and B are concerned? Then maybe we could move on, without me having to repeat myself over and over again?

 

[tuxbox]

Is life, to you, just a dress rehearsal? Or are you a robot?
It's obvious that you haven't even read this thread, let alone any of the books of the bible you are quoting from. Since anyone can see that I've already discussed these same verses with Mr. Inferno. Here's a recap

:lol: You're correct, I did not read this thread. That said, I was subjected to your book from 2nd grade through high school. We had to read it from front to back.

POINT A
Judges tells about how the Benjimenites raped women. Only someone who knows nothing about the bible would use this to argue that the bible condones rape. The main theme of much of the bible is to show that no matter what God did, no matter what he told people to do, no matter what miracles He did, people almost always rebelled against Him and did evil every time. God did not command this to be done, it was something evil they chose to do on their own.

POINT B
(Regarding Numbers) The guidelines God gave to the Israelites for the treatment of the women taken from conquered enemies are probably somewhere in Numbers. The problem was i think that God actually commanded them to kill everyone but the Isrealites kept wanting to take the women with them. God said they could marry these women but could not have sex with them while they were grieving and that basically, if it didn't work out then you had to give the woman a bunch of money and that she could not be your slave.

Inferno did not know this and tried to argue that because women and plunder were once mentioned in the same sentence, that that somehow equals rape and sex slavery.

POINT C
Points A and B are sound. They are based on FACT. No one has even attempted to refute them. So unless some one is able to show an actual error I have made, can you all just agree that I am right and that all of you were wrong, at least as far as points A and B are concerned? Then maybe we could move on, without me having to repeat myself over and over again?

Carry on with your blind faith.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

POINT C
Points A and B are sound. They are based on FACT. No one has even attempted to refute them. So unless some one is able to show an actual error I have made, can you all just agree that I am right and that all of you were wrong, at least as far as points A and B are concerned? Then maybe we could move on, without me having to repeat myself over and over again?

Well, [sarcasm]since you vanquished all others on this thread[/sarcasm], could you please respond to my question?

he_who_is_nobody[/url]"]

Process of elimination.
Well how about we start with the all the christian denominations that teach rape is ok. Which ones are those? Must be a pretty big list.

Thus, rapists are not Real Christians[sup]TM[/sup]. Now one wonders what criteria thenexttodie is using to eliminate the pope. Please, do tell.

You also made the point that people proudly engage in behaviors that the bible obviously condemns, but still want to be accepted as Christians. One can only imagine that you are talking about people that wear mixed fabrics and eat pork/shell fish, or did you have something else in mind?

 

[Deleted member 619]

POINT C
Points A and B are sound. They are based on FACT. No one has even attempted to refute them. So unless some one is able to show an actual error I have made, can you all just agree that I am right and that all of you were wrong, at least as far as points A and B are concerned? Then maybe we could move on, without me having to repeat myself over and over again?

Well then, let's take a lookie, shall we?

POINT A
Judges tells about how the Benjimenites raped women.

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Thank you for playing.

While the latter part of Judges 21 certainly does talk about the Benjimenites [sic] (how did you mangle the spelling so badly? Never come across the name 'Benjamin', as in 'tribe of'? Ed), you failed to note that the verses cited begin from verse 10. The first 3 verses of that deal with the taking of the 400 virgin girls from Jabeshgilead, thus:

10 An dey sent l2,ooo kittehs der, an told dem, Go scratch all teh kittehs of Jabeshgilead, an teh girl kittehs and teh baby kittehs too.

11 An do dis too, kill all teh boy kittehs, an teh girl kittehs dat had buttsecks.

12 An dey fownd foar hunnert girl kittehs dat didnt has buttsecks an brawt dem to Shiloh wich is in Kaynin. (Sownds liek Kaynine but der r no dogs der.)

Only someone who knows nothing about the bible would use this to argue that the bible condones rape.

I wouldn't exactly call this condoning rape, but it doesn't appear that anybody in this little drama questions the morality of killing all the men and boys, and any women who weren't virgins, while keeping the virgins for themselves (in fact, the passage talks about young girls, so even hints of paedophilia there, but I won't press that point, because it could well be an issue of translation). Now, I don't know what your thoughts are but, in my book, taking the virgin girls to be wives (as detailed in the preceding passages) with no mention of their consent certainly translates as rape.

The main theme of much of the bible is to show that no matter what God did, no matter what he told people to do, no matter what miracles He did, people almost always rebelled against Him and did evil every time. God did not command this to be done, it was something evil they chose to do on their own.

Total bollocks. A fair bit of the theme of the OT is evil actively commanded by god and Moses*, which bring us nicely to the other alleged point you thought you had:

(Regarding Numbers) The guidelines God gave to the Israelites for the treatment of the women taken from conquered enemies are probably somewhere in Numbers.

Probably? Fucking probably? From somebody who's attempting to set himself up as a fucking authority on what the bible says sufficiently to be able to refute arguments rooted in what it says? Here's a fucking clue for you: It's in that bit of Judges just prior to the bit cited in the post in question, namely Judges 21:1-9.

1 Srsly, all teh kittehs swarez in Mispeh, sayin, Benjamin no can marrees r girl kittehs.

2 An teh kittehs went to Ceiling Cat's kitteh condo an staid der and mewd.

3 An sed, Srsly Ceiling Cat, y der be wun tribe of kittehs missin in Isreel?

4 An teh necks day all teh kittehs woak up urly an made a pile of stuff.

5 An teh kittehs uf Isreel sed, Wich kittehs dint come heer wif us to Ceiling Cat's kitteh condo? Cuz all teh kittehs had sed if u no come to Ceiling Cat's kitteh condo dayd kill u an send u to Basement Cat, srsly.

6 An teh kittehs uf Isreel sed, Der is wun tribe uf kittehs dats kicked out uv Isreel.

7 But srsly, how dey gunna have wife kittehs? We sed to Ceiling Cat dat dey no can marrees r girl kittehs.

8 An dey sed, Wich is teh kitteh dats aint heer? But nun of teh kittehs frum Jabeshgilead were der to sez "O hai."

9 Cuz der wurrnt dat many kittehs, and nun uv dem were kittehs frum Jabeshgilead.

The problem was i think that God actually commanded them to kill everyone but the Isrealites kept wanting to take the women with them. God said they could marry these women but could not have sex with them while they were grieving and that basically, if it didn't work out then you had to give the woman a bunch of money and that she could not be your slave.

Several things wrong with this. Firstly, if this is your contention, you haver to support it with the relevant text, as I've done above. And yes, I know I've used the text from the Lolcat bible, but that's frankly the level of argumentation you've engaged in and all the fucking respect this book of bollocks actually deserves. Telling us what you think won't cut it. Secondly, since the original contention also included Moses condoning rape, shall we see what the next citation given in the original argument actually says?

7 They fited at Midian, as Ceiling Cat tol Moses, and pwned al teh d00dz.8 Som of teh pwnd d00dz was Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba—the five laik hed d00dz of Midian. They also pwned Balaam son of Beor with lvl 141 Blade of Savagery.9 Teh Israelites yoinked all teh Midianite women and goatz and stuf.10 Tehy burns all teh towns n stuf wtf.11 Tehy takes all teh booty + teh ppl n goatz,12 Tehy brings all teh booty + teh ppl n goatz 2 Moses and Eleazar teh priest n teh Israelites @ teh camp on teh planes of Moab, by the Jordan cros from Jericho.
[[1]]

13 Moses, Eleazar teh priest and all the big guys was laik wtf.14 Moses were pissed w/ teh mane d00ds taht camed back frm teh fite.

15 N moses was laik, "has sav teh chiks?"16 "check it, tohse chiks gived teh clap to Ceiling Cat's ppl wtf"17 "K, so kil teh n00b lttl boyz 2 deth, n kil al teh sluts taht has secks w/ d00dz. DO NOT WANT"18 "But teh lttl girlz taht has no secks w d00dz can liv so u can has pedo buttsecks w tehm n stuf cuz Ceiling Cat is pedo." nfw

Oh, and as an aside, how many 'women that had not known man by laying with him' (or, as ceiling cat would have it, 'girl kittehs dat didnt has buttsecks') were there?

35 and 32,000 virgin gurlz

Inferno did not know this and tried to argue that because women and plunder were once mentioned in the same sentence, that that somehow equals rape and sex slavery.

Well, since women were treated as chattel, and since the verses in Judges unequivocally talk about what those 'girl kittehs dat didnt has buttsecks' were actually for, I'd say that the charge is warranted. Not only that, can you think of any task that can be performed only by virgin girls for which these girls might have been kept other than fucking them?

Once again, the atheist knows the holy text of the apologist better than the apologist.

Would you like a shot at the fucking title?

 

[DanDare]

Seriously, we need a popcorn icon.

 

[tuxbox]

Seriously, we need a popcorn icon.

Get a free webhosting account somewhere and use your own.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Seriously, we need a popcorn icon.

I picked you up a bag from a friend of ours:

Uncle Orph's - Serving you wherever you are, even when I'm not

 

[thenexttodie]

Well, [sarcasm]since you vanquished all others on this thread[/sarcasm], could you please respond to my question?

he_who_is_nobody[/url]"]

Process of elimination.
Well how about we start with the all the christian denominations that teach rape is ok. Which ones are those? Must be a pretty big list.

Thus, rapists are not Real Christians[sup]TM[/sup]. Now one wonders what criteria thenexttodie is using to eliminate the pope. Please, do tell.

You also made the point that people proudly engage in behaviors that the bible obviously condemns, but still want to be accepted as Christians. One can only imagine that you are talking about people that wear mixed fabrics and eat pork/shell fish, or did you have something else in mind?[/quote]

What is your question?

 

[thenexttodie]

After re-reading your last post It seems to me like you are trying to ask me why it's not wrong to eat shellfish, and why eating shellfish not as bad as being a homosexual.

So..where would you like me to start? Even the most novice atheist bible experts should already know the answer to the first part of this question. So lets not pretend you can get away with acting dumb in an attempt to misrepresent.

And actually, that's pretty effing shameful of you. You know that the Bible does not teach that you cant eat shellfish if you want to be a Christian.


So lets see if you will answer this question;
Did you really not know that? Be honest.