As an atheist not familiar with the bible, I’m rather curious by this. What in blazes are they going to use as a defense for their actions?
They are as thick as it.
Guess they didn’t want to spill their seed on the ground?
Here is a pro-tip when dealing with rapists (or criminals generally). Don’t give to much credence or thought to what they say as justification. People usually don’t see themselves as bad and the human mind is great at making excuses which sound good to the person who needs them.
Characteristic of the news media, no matter how far down the story you keep reading, its all nothing but fluff and padding, without ever explaining the connection that the headline promises. I hasten to add, sometimes the news story does explain itself, but no less than 12 paragraphs down. It’s called “paragraph clickbait”. Keep reading, see if you find anything illuminating down there.
I wonder if this is a situation where the rapists know they are getting the book thrown at them big time, so they are taking a long shot at hoping they get a loony member of the jury that will hear “oh they were following the bible, that must be ok” and vote not guilty based on that.
They probably don’t understand that a hung jury just means the prosecution will try again, especially for a case like this. They probably do understand that it is incredibly unlikely that they’ll get one of the twelve members to sit through a case like this and decide to throw out all the actual evidence in favor of “god’s law is the only law that matters”, but when you’re facing whatever penalty they are facing a hail mary starts looking pretty good.
That, or they’re just delusional. I give it 50/50 either way.
They may be planning on using one of the “When God says it’s OK to rape women” verses, like Deuteronomy 21:
The Bible does say a man is the held of the household. Lot offered his underage daughters for rape and was called “righteous.” So he was being righteous according to the Bible.
That’s called a “delayed lead” in the industry (and a pretty old technique, probably going back to the beginnings of journalism itself.)
The story seems written fine to me, but probably doesn’t need quite that much space devoted to it.
This or what muldoonthief said is what I’m wondering. When he says,
I’m incredibly curious as to what he thinks he can pull from the bible that would save his ass.
Apparently, this kind of crime does not warrant the death penalty.
Probably the same stuff that tells real patriots that gold fringe on an American flag in a courtroom means they don’t have to pay taxes.
I gather their intent is not so much to prove that the Bible condones rape (although if they try they can certainly find passages that come uncomfortably close) as it is to simply reject secular law entirely and play into the already-packaged-for-wingnut-consumption notion that laws established by any authority other than one’s personal religious belief violate the First Amendment. Just trying to appeal to the “Discrimination and child abuse/neglect and tax evasion and any other crime is okay if you yell Jesus loud enough while you do it” crowd.
Annie X-Mas:
Where in the Bible is Lot called “righteous”?
Demonic possession could be their defense. As well as maybe hitting them with the book at then run out.
Heh. Personally I think this must be it.
Indirectly, when Abraham tries to bargain with God.
Nava:
Just because Abraham might - MIGHT - be implying that Lot is one of the 50, then 45, then 40, then 30, then 20, then 10 hypothetical righteous people for whose sake Sodom, Gomorrah, etc might have been saved, does not mean that in the eyes of Biblical morality, he was considered righteous. Don’t forget that in the end, G-d does say that there are not even 10 righteous people in Sodom (et al), and the matter is left there - we do not know if the actual number is 0 or 9, and if greater than 0, if Lot is considered to be one of them.
They don’t have a leg to stand on.
I don’t know what would be more disgusting: that these two are cynically playing a line of “defense” they know is counter to the explicit content of the Bible, or that they might sincerely believe their heresy.
I was wondering about that. The Talmud essentially says that when Jews live outside Israel, the law of the land is the law, with very few exceptions (being forced to worship another deity, for example). This is why no Jew has ever tried to argue in favor of bigamy in the US because it happens in the Torah.
I read the gospels, though it’s been a long time, I was pretty sure that Jesus had said something similar.
Thanks Gnoitall.