Slavery

[nPeace]

Have you not read my post about me having read the bible?


Don't worry, you won't be repeating yourself.


Sorry, but blaming me because you haven't given the narrative of slavery in the bible, whether intentionally or out of ignorance, does not mean that I didn't read your posts.

If I wasn't following the discussion, then I would have never known that nPeace agrees with me that God did condone slavery.


No you didn't. I agree, it's not hard to find posts of any user. So check out post #110 and #114. The search engine is my friend. And my friend showed me your denial.

So please, give a clear and honest narrative of slavery in the bible regarding Israel.

See post #1.

 

[nPeace]

no. This was @Deeje, she wrote:

Deeje never wrote "no scream, no rape". That was your assumption.

no. This was @DeejeThere it is the hypothesis: no scream - no rape. I referred to that one.
Later, you admitted (see #199) "as far as I know, I agree with my fellow JW" - Deeje, in this case.
So, you contradicted yourself when you said that you "did not say that rape without any screaming involved is no rape" (also in #199).

I did not admit to what you imagine, and created as an idea, or hypothesis. You are making false oaths.

no. This was @Deejewhen they say no, it's no. Regardless of what they show or what you think they show. Even if before they said yes.
statutory rape involves minors, that's different. No, I don't think the government misused this term.

You have not answered the first question.
However, I am going to assume your answer is no.
How is statutory rape different, may I ask?

no. This was @Deejeverse 27 deals with rape. It is presumption on your side that verse 24 also deals with rape.
The situations outlined in verse 24 and verse 27 are different.

I believe you really don't understand what rape it.
Some people think that rape always involves physical force. Is that what you think also?

no. This was @DeejeThese are your fantasies. Please don't show that you are content seeing me before the judge. This is impolite, I think.

no. This was @DeejeYou talked about my "big fat ego", as you put it. This was getting personal. Stop it.
My qoute "Don't abuse Jesus' holy name to spread your own JW teachings about rape." isn't personal, in contrast, because it refers to an action - as opposed to the person.

I really think you are having trouble understanding.
I have a feeling it has to do with your personal feelings toward the ones your are speaking to.
I never said you had a big fat ego.
A suggestion - Why not try reading carefully, or if it is a case of strong feelings of irritation, perhaps try to calm yourself a bit, or at least try. It's easy to read into things, what's not there, when one has a target they are seeking to destroy.

no. This was @DeejeI am not your friend. Don't call me "my friend", please.

Do you really hate JWs that much.
One of these days you might actually be saying the opposite, like "Please don't just call me friend, but brother."
As you wish.

no. This was @DeejeI did not put words or thoughts in your mouth.
I never said "no scream no rape" was my hypothesis. I didn't admit I assumed it. Don't put words in my mouth here.

Yes sir.

 

[YoursTrue]

Perfection is impossible but being a little better tomorrow than what we were yesterday is always possible.

Tell that to the women and men that are raped, children, too, or whose faces are burned off by acid because someone was angry with them, or those who can't get adequate healthcare because medical bills are causing people to relinquish treatment. And that's just a small bit of it. The head of European economic development was interviewed lately and spoke of the European wars until the European Union was established more recently. I don't have enough time to read everything, but then reading about Napolean, England, Germany -- all ENEMIES for a long, l-o-n-g time, people losing their lives, their families, their limbs, their happiness. She spoke of the ENORMOUS salaries the CEO's are presently getting, while the workers are getting very little. She also mentioned it is "human nature" to be greedy. Interesting, eh? Now you hope things will get better. So do I, but I believe it will happen not as you imagine. This world is wonderfully foretold to change by God's hand. You couldn't possibly change things that are sad and unfortunate on a world-wide basis, or even a small basis in many cases. If you tried on a large scale basis, trouble would follow. It's always nice if a person falls and someone comes to help. Some risk their lives to help others. Then worry about losing life because of polluting the oceans and the air and not having medical treatment. And the drug trade, that's another sad story. Well, each day will take care of itself, and I appreciate Jesus' prayer, "Lord, let your kingdom come..." If God's kingdom were on the earth when earlier societies had slaves, Jesus would not have taught his disciples to pray for something else. (God's administration.)

 

[Father Heathen]

Tell that to the women and men that are raped, children, too, or whose faces are burned off by acid because someone was angry with them, or those who can't get adequate healthcare because medical bills are causing people to relinquish treatment. And that's just a small bit of it. The head of European economic development was interviewed lately and spoke of the European wars until the European Union was established more recently. I don't have enough time to read everything, but then reading about Napolean, England, Germany -- all ENEMIES for a long, l-o-n-g time, people losing their lives, their families, their limbs, their happiness. She spoke of the ENORMOUS salaries the CEO's are presently getting, while the workers are getting very little. She also mentioned it is "human nature" to be greedy. Interesting, eh? Now you hope things will get better. So do I, but I believe it will happen not as you imagine. This world is wonderfully foretold to change by God's hand. You couldn't possibly change things that are sad and unfortunate on a world-wide basis, or even a small basis in many cases. If you tried on a large scale basis, trouble would follow. It's always nice if a person falls and someone comes to help. Some risk their lives to help others. Then worry about losing life because of polluting the oceans and the air and not having medical treatment. And the drug trade, that's another sad story. Well, each day will take care of itself, and I appreciate Jesus' prayer, "Lord, let your kingdom come..." If God's kingdom were on the earth when earlier societies had slaves, Jesus would not have taught his disciples to pray for something else. (God's administration.)

Yes, the world is in sad state but two hands working do far more than a thousand clasped in prayer. Better to strive for a better world than idly wait for the day god finally extracts his finger.

 

[night912]

See post #1.

So, did you look at #1?

I am assuming that we're still talking about slavery like in the bible.

 

[thomas t]

Deeje never wrote "no scream, no rape". That was your assumption.

as I said in #254, Deeje wrote

@nPeace has already explained that if the attack took place in a city, someone would have heard her scream,

So she said, IF rape (in town) THEN scream. By the rules of logic this implies: no scream - no rape.
I did not create this hypothesis, I inferred through logic that she put it forward.

I am not making false oaths.
As I said in #254, you wrote that you agree with Deeje as far as you know.

With regard to your question: no, I don't think that rape always involves physical force.

Statutory rape is sex with minors of age - this is a different topic. Even if they say "I want sex with an adult", every adult should refrain from it and act like it is a no. I think I answered this question.

I think I understand what rape is.
I don't have trouble understanding posts here.
You talked about "my big fat ego" in #199. I quoted it in #229. I asked you to stop.
I don't target people as this would be aggressive, I merely target opinions.

Do you really hate JWs that much.

I don't hate JWs. I hate what they teach here. I don't want to be mistaken for a JW. That's all.

EDITED for clarity and to add one sentence

 

[nPeace]

So, did you look at #1?

I am assuming that we're still talking about slavery like in the bible.

......................................................................................................
Is this some sort of game?
Do you have something you want to offer to the thread? Please do.
If you think I missed something, I think it's time enough you - according to Will Smith - Spill the beans on the table...".
Otherwise, I see no reason to continue this... err... What is this?

 

[nPeace]

as I said in #254, Deeje wrote

So she said, IF rape (in town) THEN scream. By the rules of logic this implies: no scream - no rape.
I did not create this hypothesis, I inferred through logic that she put it forward.

Do you understand yourself/? Do you know what to infer, or hypothesize is? Is your logic a conclusive fact?
Then to say that someone said A, just because you inferred they did, and they did not, is to make a false accusation.
To insist that your inference, or hypothesis- your idea is correct, when it is not, is to insist on lying on people, about what they said.
Would you consider that a good thing to do?

If someone said to you, that they inferred from what you said, that you said A, by their logic, and you told that person what you said, and that you did not say A, but B, what would you think of that person?
Would you think they are humble, full of themselves - aka. had a big ego, or maybe they are a bit slow of understanding, or what?

I am not making false oaths.

You don't think so? What would you call it? A false assumption? A wrong accusation? A strong feeling, that you refuse to let go? What?

As I said in #254, you wrote that you agree with Deeje as far as you know.

Yep. 100%. ....and she never said what your logic led you to infer.
Do you think you are so wise, as to not be wrong. What's the definition for that? Do you know?

With regard to your question: no, I don't think that rape always involves physical force.

Good.
Question ... Do you agree with this, or no?
Sexual coercion is when tactics like pressure, trickery, or emotional force are used to get someone to agree to sex. It can be as as simple as encouraging someone to have a few too many drinks, or it can hide inside threats like "I'll leave you if you don't sleep with me." But no matter what form it takes, sexual coercion isn't just "a part of life" — it’s manipulative at best, and at worst, it’s abuse. Source.

Statutory rape is sex with minors of age - this is a different topic. Even if they say "I want sex with an adult", every adult should refrain from it and act like it is a no. I think I answered this question.

It cannot be a different topic, if you agree it's rape. How is it a different topic?
Read the article in the link above. I can get more for you.

I think I understand what rape is.

Let's see.

I don't have trouble understanding posts here.

I think you do. If you don't, and you believe that with all your heart, I think it's something much worst than a lack of understanding.

You talked about "my big fat ego" in #199. I quoted it in #229. I asked you to stop.

I did not, but I just might. Hold on,

I don't target people as this would be aggressive, I merely target opinions.

Cool.

I don't hate JWs. I hate what they teach here. I don't want to be mistaken for a JW. That's all.

trust me, you can never be mistaken as a JW. LOL.

EDITED for clarity and to add one sentence

Thanks, but that's not necessary.
appreci9ate the clarity though.

 

[night912]

......................................................................................................
Is this some sort of game?

And there you go again, cherry picking bits and pieces in order to have a that you want. Since you left out some stuff, whatever you present, is not the narrative of the whole content of what was being said.

Asking you to give the narrative of slavery in the bible is not, in any way, a game. You being unable and/or unwilling to, is all on you, not me. It's not my fault. If you want to put blame on someone, then it's only reasonable to put it on the one who refuse give the narrative and follow up on my replies. Which is you.

But if you insist on playing a game, you're in luck. There's a game log that keeps a record of what was said, all you have to do is utilize it so that you can read up on what was said.

Do you have something you want to offer to the thread? Please do.

The offer was there. Now I'm just waiting on whether or not, you are willing to accept that offer.

If you think I missed something, I think it's time enough you - according to Will Smith - Spill the beans on the table...".
Otherwise, I see no reason to continue this... err... What is this? [/QUOTE]
Did you miss my post below? Or are you just avoiding to address it?

No you didn't. I agree, it's not hard to find posts of any user. So check out post #110 and #114. The search engine is my friend. And my friend showed me your denial.

So do what the Prince of Bel-Air said, "Spill the beans on the table." So give a clear and honest narrative of slavery in the bible regarding Israel.

Keep in mind, the Prince said beans, and never said anything about cherries. Eventhough it's second nature to you, avoid doing any cherry picking. Although I don't have faith in you not giving in to your temptation of cherries, I hope that you won't give in to your temptations and resort back to your cherry picking ways.

Avoid Avoid

 

[thomas t]

As I said in #266 you talked about my "big fat ego" in your post #199, I quoted that one in #229, already. I'd like to ask you to stop getting personal here.

If someone said to you, that they inferred from what you said, that you said A, by their logic, and you told that person what you said, and that you did not say A, but B, what would you think of that person?
Would you think they are humble, full of themselves - aka. had a big ego, or maybe they are a bit slow of understanding, or what

I would not make a judgement on their personality, I suppose.
But my inference was correct.
It's logic. Citing wikipedia - click here for source - a logical conclusion can be drawn like this:

If the dog detects an intruder, the dog will bark.
The dog did not bark.
Therefore, no intruder was detected by the dog.

Applied to our case this means:

If the woman gets raped, she will scream. (Deeje's sentence from #154)
The woman did not scream.
Therefore, the woman wasn't raped. (conclusion)

All I did was drawing a logical conclusion. I called Deeje's sentence hypothesis. Wikipedia also calls it premise, or conditional premise. If Deeje's hypothesis is true ... saying that there is no rape when there is no scream is also true. That's a conclusion. I referred to that conclusion as the "no scream no rape" hypothesis. Deeje's hypothesis isn't true, of course.

I agree that Sexual coercion is when tactics like pressure, trickery, or emotional force are used to get someone to agree to sex.

As soon as minors of age are involved it's a different topic, because there is no consenting sex between adults and minors to begin with - the official age of consent may vary according to the country you live in.

Don't educate me on this subject here presenting informatory links, please.

I understand myself, I think. And I understand what inferring or hypothesizing is.
I did not make a false accusation.
I did not lie.
I do not think I am "so wise". I merely think I am not wrong here.
As I said in #266, I don't have trouble understanding posts here.
And it's not "something much worst than a lack of understanding", either.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I believe I am responsible for my actions. I am sorry if you don't feel the same.

Apparently you even believe that you are responsible for the actions of the rapist who raped you.

Foolish actions do lead to sad consequences.
If I choose a particular course, knowing the risks involved, I share the responsibility.
For example...
If I get in a motor car, and put pedal to the metal, and wind up badly burnt, and damaged, I share the responsibility, even if the car malfunctioned.





If I choose a course that involves life or death - for example, I join a political party, knowing that the opposition are violent, i accept some of the responsibility, if I am harmed.
There are many more I can mention. It's not one rule applies to every situation, but as you are accustomed doing, you like to cherry pick scenarios, which make things appear to be in your favor, but they do not apply. They are black and white, imo.

i can raise an equally foolish argument, like if I go into my garden, and a bee stings me, do I share responsibility for being stung. That has nothing at all to do with what I said, and what I am relating to. If however, I saw a bee hive in my garden, and I went into the garden, and got stung, I deserve it, because I acted stupidly - as stupid as the most stupid arguments,

You nay think your point is a good one and it may be, but applied to another conversation. Perhaps you can save it for such..
I think your argument would more apply, if it went this way - in line with my earlier post... If you are aware that the Nazis are rounding up Jews, to execute them, and you choose, as a Jew, to put yourself in their hands, do you accept any responsibility for your death?
Perhaps you can ask the martyrs when they return to life. as for me, I accept they are consequences for my choices, and Jesus did say, that if you follow him, be prepared to drink the cup that he drank.

No one is saying the person killed themselves, as no one is saying the victim raped themselves, but we saw the danger, and we either went to it, or hid from it.
Proverbs 22:3 (CEV)
When you see trouble coming,
don’t be stupid
and walk right into it -
be smart and hide.

Edit: @TagliatelliMonster and this is what happens when you have limmited time, but you are trying to respond so that you can get to the other things you are doing, you miss thoughts, or the thoughts are not always complete. So mistakes can be made.
Consider too... No one is saying that all women that are raped share the responsibility, so if a Jew is caught, even though he did all he could to concealed himself, or if some unsuspecting Jew is caught, these are circumstances that exist, beyond the control of the person - like being in your living room, and a stalker breaks in and rapes or murders the occupants - women and children.

This is the point being made.
Sorry if you do not grasp it.

This is about morals. Not about risk assessment.

Is it smart to go talk a walk in a sexy dress in a gang area where rapes happen every night? Not really. But you have no moral blame for being raped there. At best, one could blame you for misjudging the risk. But the immoral blame is 100% on the side of the rapist.

Nobody is going to throw you in jail for frequenting the park at midnight and getting raped.
Punishments are handed out for moral wrongs, not for misjudgement of the risk of being raped.

You should think about it a bit more.


EDIT: fixed quoting problem

 

[SkepticThinker]

Why do you people feel so threatened by everything in opposition to your stance? It's as though your own position causes you to jump out of your own skin, so that one just has to say something whether from the Bible, or not, and you feel threatened.
That should tell you something.
It's like a man that's so miserable on the inside the slightest sound gets on his nerves. Or a man who jumps at his own shadow. LOL.
No one is threatening you mate. Relax. Breathe. Breathe. LOL.

Maybe because people like to post Bible quotes that are in essence, threats against non-believers.
You didn't just post something that was "in opposition to his stance." You posted a quote from the Bible that is literally a threat. That seems to be what Frank is speaking to.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No one here is trying to blame rape victims for being raped. I don't think you understand what is being said.
It seems a common thing though, I noticed.

Perhaps you should read over some of the posts. I understand just fine. There is definitely blame going on here. Telling someone that they got raped because they wore immodest clothing places blame on the victim.

"If you don't want to create the appetite, then don't feed the eyes or the desire."

That is victim blaming.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Just shows how you easily miss what we are saying.
The rapist does not lose control. The rapist has already lost control - probably doesn't know that exists (I am not talking about a one off situation) The rapist is obsessed with what they are already thirsting for. The rapist looks for, and often doesn't have to look for, but it's shoved in his face, by those willing to expose them selves.
All the rapist needs, is the opportunity.
You are clearly missing the point, but I understand. It's an emotional thing.

So you say you disagree, and then agree exactly with what I said, which involves blaming the victim.

The rapists are all out there, all out of control and just looking for immodestly dressed women to pounce on. Therefore, a woman is to blame for seducing (for lack of a better word) the rapist with her immodest attire, should she happen to walk by a rapist.

That's victim blaming.

 

[Clara Tea]

Slavery, torture, and war are wrong, everyone knows it, the bible preaches it, yet the problem is getting people to avoid sin.

For example, God said "thou shalt not kill," and Revelation said that two demons (Dragon and son Beast) from the smokey bottomless pit of hell will come to earth, rise to leadership of the strongest nation in the world, attack Iraq (innocent of terrorism) with weapons that shoot fire into the air (as the bible said), and, corrupt Iraq with their sin (simple pearl necklaces, altering elections, and a nation known for sexual misconduct (like Brit Jennifer Fitzgerald's job with her CIA boss that compromised national security). Yet, with all of that, the US (most powerful nation in the world mentioned in Revelation 17:18) did attack Iraq twice (just as prediction in Revelation said), and a torture camp was made in Guantanamo. God said not to attack Iraq, and specified consequences (Revelation 15: seven plagues for attacking Iraq). Yet, Christians did kill in Iraq, knowing full well what the consequences would be.

We know that Moses opposed slavery, since he was sentenced to death for murdering a slave beater. Then God ordered Moses back to Egypt to free all of the slaves.

Yet, Father Junipero Serra was sainted after enslaving Native Americans to build missions in California. Among many sources: Why Native Americans Oppose Junipero Serra’s Sainthood

 

[SkepticThinker]

We? Let's consider that.
What do you think we are doing when we get up every morning, according to the time allotted for work hours, by our boss - interesting adjustment - and we have to work for a certain amount of hours, allotted by our boss, in order to put food on the table, and a roof over our heads?
Is it not time to be awake from sleep, and stop dreaming?
What do you think we are doing, when we serve God and Christ? Is there an alarm clock around here. Some people are in a deep sleep.
What do you think you are doing when choose not to serve God? Of course, I don't expect you could answer that.

Yeah, someone already tried that on me.

That's not slavery. I don't own any human beings as property. Nor does my employer who pays me money to work for him, a job which I can freely leave any time I want.

This is a disgusting apologetic to hand wave away the actual slavery that is condoned in the Bible. Slavery where human beings are owned as PROPERTY.

God's view on slavery was never what was implemented by man.

Oh? So weird that he would explicitly explain to humans how to practice slavery then.

The term slave is actually man made, so it did not originate with God.

So what? The Bible explicitly lays out what a slave is, where to find and purchase them, and how to treat them, which includes an allowance to beat them, as long as they don't die in a few days.

Offering oneself willingly in behalf of other, is actually God's view. He comes first in being served though, because he is the source of life, and the giver, of every good and perfect gift... according to the Bible.
I am a willing slave of God, and our master, Christ. They are not like the masters, or the modern term bossed, that demand you work, at their time, and most of whom only care that your labor makes them fat... or fatter.

You go ahead and be someone's property if you want, because you think you have to or whatever.
I think it's immoral.

Thus, that is, and was, and will always be God's view.

Hmm, funny how we have to get God's supposed view from you, rather than right from the Bible, as I was doing.
Thank goodness you're here to translate on behalf of God!

He allowed the slavery that exists through man, to continue. However, just as he ended slavery ammong his people - the Israelites, and eventually slavery of captives also ended, God will end all slavery existing today, because he did not institute them.

Servitude, another term of man, will continue, because that is the kind of slavery, if you will, that God approve. No one is driven, but willing service is given.

Except that God did institute them, at least, according to the Bible.

How easy would it have been for God to just include it in the Commandments ... "Thou shalt not own human beings as property."
But this God didn't do that. Instead, this God explained how to do slavery in pretty great detail.

It is like a man saying, I really love this man, and I want to offer services to him. because he is a good man, and deserves it.
How does that works...? As it did in the past.
If I have a skill, I will offer my services to those who don't have that skill, and the person will offer their skill to others.. because they want to.
Is that not a good view to have?
That's God's view.

No one here has denied that God did not allow things he did not approve... for a time.
People who claim to get things from the Bible, are not always truthful. Yet you believe them, and doubt the Bible. Hmm.

Great, so God is moral sometimes and not moral other times.
Got it.

Morality is not universal and timeless, according to the God who supposedly created them. (Or maybe just according to you).

Got it.


I thought you read the Bible though.
From what I have read, God did tell his people that something was not a good practice, and he did stop them, but as a parent, do you let your children learn lessons from what they experience for themselves, rather that state rule after rule, after rule? How might they view you?
If you do help or have helped your children to learn things for themselves, as millions of wise parents do, I commend you.
That's exactly what the Bible says God does.[/QUOTE]
I have read the Bible. I was a Christian for the first 18 years of my life. Not a Jehovah's Witness though.

As a parent, I don't teach my kids that they can smack other kids in the head when they don't get what they want when they're a child, and then turn around and teach them not to do that when they're adults, because that is inconsistent. And I wouldn't ever teach my kids it's okay to own another person as property.

Where did God every say in the Bible that slavery is not a good practice?? Or that it was moral to own human beings at one point in time, but it becomes immoral at another point in time. If we're using your example, God is an inconsistent parent.


You didn't really address what I said there though, did you? You sidestepped it instead.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Let me put it this way: now that I know what the Bible says about rape and/or fornication and/or adultery, etc., I (1) wouldn't put myself in a position where it would be easy to attack me sexually, (2) I would fight bloody murder, tooth and nail and anything else I could get my hands on if someone attempted to rape me.

What if they drugged you first?

Who's "making excuses"?!?! And there's no "poor rapist"!

More than one person on this thread is making excuses for rapists and victim blaming.

Stop misapplying what we're saying.

I think I've spoken directly to their words in their very own posts.

If you think I've misapplied what they're saying, it would be great if you would point out where.

Rape is wrong! Rapists should be killed!


Why do you always focus & harp on the Hebrew Scriptures, when denigrating Biblical morality?! The Laws were designed to govern a society in ancient times.

How about quote from Colossians 3 12-14? (Of course, you might not like 5-11, touching on avoiding sexual immorality.) Or the counsel found in Ephesians 4:25-32? Or Ephesians 5:28-33? Or James 1 19,26,27?
This is proper morality! This is actually worship that God accepts!

Oh are the Hebrew scriptures not a part of the Bible? That's weird because they're part of the Bible I have.

So the morality of the God you worship is not timeless and is not universal. Got it. Basically, it's based on whatever that God's opinion is at the time. Got it. And the morality God told us about in the Bible only applies in ancient times. Got it. Morality changes over time. Got it.
Just wondering what we need this God for then.


Thanks for yet again, highlighting the superiority or secular morality over Biblical morality. My secular morality tells me that rape is not the victim's fault and that own other human beings as property is immoral. Always.

 

[nPeace]

As I said in #266 you talked about my "big fat ego" in your post #199, I quoted that one in #229, already. I'd like to ask you to stop getting personal here.

I would not make a judgement on their personality, I suppose.
But my inference was correct.
It's logic. Citing wikipedia - click here for source - a logical conclusion can be drawn like this:

If the dog detects an intruder, the dog will bark.
The dog did not bark.
Therefore, no intruder was detected by the dog.

Applied to our case this means:

If the woman gets raped, she will scream. (Deeje's sentence from #154)
The woman did not scream.
Therefore, the woman wasn't raped. (conclusion)

All I did was drawing a logical conclusion. I called Deeje's sentence hypothesis. Wikipedia also calls it premise, or conditional premise. If Deeje's hypothesis is true ... saying that there is no rape when there is no scream is also true. That's a conclusion. I referred to that conclusion as the "no scream no rape" hypothesis. Deeje's hypothesis isn't true, of course.

I agree that Sexual coercion is when tactics like pressure, trickery, or emotional force are used to get someone to agree to sex.

As soon as minors of age are involved it's a different topic, because there is no consenting sex between adults and minors to begin with - the official age of consent may vary according to the country you live in.

Don't educate me on this subject here presenting informatory links, please.

I understand myself, I think. And I understand what inferring or hypothesizing is.
I did not make a false accusation.
I did not lie.
I do not think I am "so wise". I merely think I am not wrong here.
As I said in #266, I don't have trouble understanding posts here.
And it's not "something much worst than a lack of understanding", either.

Thanks for sharing your opinions, though not wanting to accept that you are wrong in what you are claiming.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You know, I think you’re capable of reasoning, but you just don’t want to....

So the morality of the God you worship is not timeless and is not universal.

His morality is fine —- again, rapists were killed —- but the Mosaic Law was for the Israelites as a nation to follow.

But for Christians? No. Acts of the Apostles 15 tells us that. Verses 28,29 reveal there were only a few “necessary things” from the Law that were required for followers of Christ. Everything else in it, was covered and regulated by their love for God, and their love for other humans.

So no...that Law was not timeless, and not universal.
Jeremiah 31:31-34 makes it clear that another was coming.

I hope, one day, you’ll soften your countenance toward Jehovah.

Peace.

 

[nPeace]

Maybe because people like to post Bible quotes that are in essence, threats against non-believers.
You didn't just post something that was "in opposition to his stance." You posted a quote from the Bible that is literally a threat. That seems to be what Frank is speaking to.

This is certainly a marvel.
I am truly amazed skeptic. Amazed doesn't even come close to expressing the level of wonder.

Which part of which scripture do you view as a threat?
...and how does it not address or relate to, or is not something in opposition to their stand?

Perhaps you should read over some of the posts. I understand just fine. There is definitely blame going on here. Telling someone that they got raped because they wore immodest clothing places blame on the victim.

"If you don't want to create the appetite, then don't feed the eyes or the desire."

That is victim blaming.

Sounds more like loving advice to me. I see it as my sister showing care for those who might be potential victims, and may be able to avoid it.
I think it is how we choose to look at things.
Of course your perspective is not going to be the same as ours, but we can't change that, simply by my accepting your view, and you accepting mine.
I don't think you are ready to be Christian, are you?

So you say you disagree, and then agree exactly with what I said, which involves blaming the victim.

The rapists are all out there, all out of control and just looking for immodestly dressed women to pounce on. Therefore, a woman is to blame for seducing (for lack of a better word) the rapist with her immodest attire, should she happen to walk by a rapist.

That's victim blaming.

I think you misunderstand, and I don't believe there is anything more we can say to change that.
If you believe I am saying the rapists is just looking for immodest clothing, then we have a communication problem. So I don't know how to fix that.
Did I say the rapist is obsessed with immodest clothing? Did I?
Sometimes I honestly believe people don't want to understand, and it's an emotional problem - not meaning mental, but just too emotional. ..imo.