I love Jesus (the rapist)

Great Debates
1

We spend a lot of time here in GB discussing god. Liberal seems to think he’s all that and a bucket of fried chicken. So, I’m curious why Liberal and other Jesus Freaks, don’t seem to support rape. Now, I am myself against it, at least with my human mind.

But, as it would seem to be the case, the Lord, God Almighty, endorses rape of women. It’s a good thing. Rape is great, so let’s do it more often.

That said, I guess I must change my view to comport with the Christian God. So, I guess we should all be out raping the useless, weaker sex. I know, people will argue I’m full of shit.

But rape is God’s way. Observe: “Deuteronomy 22: 28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;” followed by “Deuteronomy 22:29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.”

So, why, if God is so for raping these loser women, should man, particularly the Christian ones, be against it?

In the alternative, it would seem that a payment of 50 shekels of silver can cover it. So, at the very least, God loves prostitution, if not outright rape.

I suppose this is our real aesthetic Jesus. Jesus, the rapist.

So, why does Jesus love and endorse raping women?

2

And here I assumed this thread would be about the Big Lebowski. You don’t fuck with the Jesus!

3

But Jesus will fuck with you! (if you’re a woman, and I by fuck with, I mean, rape, and by Jesus, I mean anyone since Jesus was gay* I guess)

*Just a guess; he might not be gay, but the pope might not be a Nazi either.

4

Guess you never heard of the 19th admendment to the Constitution.

Or are you just stirring the Christian pot.

5

Bolding mine. The “And they be found” part of the OP’s Deuteronomy quote sounds to me like “And he gets caught.” :dubious:

So … God has no problems with you raping someone. But if you’re dumb enough to get caught, well, then … pay up, fool.

6

I agree; the problem would be that one has to marry his bitch. You know, if you’re dumb enough to get caught raping some cunt, you have to marry that dumb bitch. How dare she get raped?!

7

What does a Late Bronze Age Hebrew legalism - progressive for its day, but now hopelessly archaic - have to to with Jesus?

8

Deuteronomy is in the old testament. As in, pre-Jesus. That’s a stretch that you’ve got going on there that may need some explaining. Pretty please.

When you do that make sure you reconcile your OP with the difference between the way the Old Testament treated women (50 shekels), and the way Jesus treated women (washing of the feet)

9

Incidentally, many retards run about claiming this is the word of God. So, my question to you (other than the obvious that it has no meaning today) is to ask how does it not for those who lie by saying they do believe in all of the Bible?

10

Is “lay hold of her pretty” much bibleverse for rape? Is it possible lay hold on her means something else?

11

I guess I’ve failed to notice that the SDMB is overrun by Biblical literalists. :eek:

12

Those bits you quoted don’t mention whether the maiden was willing or not. So how do you know it was rape?

13

What does a Jewish law in a Jewish book have to do with Jesus?

Maybe it is the word of God, maybe it isn’t. It was certainly written for a specific time and place and should not be taken literally in this day and age.

As for Bible literallists - hey, I’m with you. Morons.

14

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for reproof, for doctrine, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness.”

“God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.”

15

Dunno about “lay hold of her pretty” but “lie with” means “have sex with”.

16

I don’t know either; hence, I’m asking. It would surely seem that God, sorry, Jesus (not god in some conservations, but god in others) condones rape. No reading would seem to indicate otherwise, but I’m amenable to any Christian apologetisists? who might be able to shed some light otherwise.

I don’t want this to be a blog; I’m not Liberal after all: this, I encourage people to actually discuss the issue instead of lying and saying that my view is the only permissible one.

17

Doggone it I put the quotation mark in the wrong spot.

18

You know, I think this is the most intellectually dishonest OP I’ve ever seen here. And I’m not even a Christian.

19

I’m confused. What does the OP have to do with rape?

Since Deuteronomy is a book of law, they are talking about what should be done if they catch someone in the act. It’s not that it’s ok to rape someone if you get away with it, only that you can’t really enforce a law on someone if you don’t catch them in the act. The point of the law was so that a man couldn’t just deflower a virgin without taking responsibility for her as he has ruined her for marriage in the future. Before DNA analysis existed it was hard for people to establish paternity, and paternity was very important in tribal societies. So in this particular case it is trying to force the man who deflowers a virgin into taking responsibility for her.

20

And that said, perhaps it’s a question a Biblical literalist would have to deal with. But the post seems to follow a style we see much too often here: a nonbeliever demands Christians take the Bible literally with the intent of showing that taking the Bible literally is foolish. At best this is kind of a waste of time, but when it’s done to people who don’t claim to take the Bible literally at all, it’s more of a smear.