quote: Point being, a slave from a nation you had been at war with would be an enemy, and the rape of an enemy would not be considered as serious a crime as, say, the rape of an Israeli woman. Seeing as she isn't put to death, "they shall not be put to death, because she was not free.", and the crime IS still a serious one (warrenting a sacrifice. Then again, that probably occured every second hour), It would seem a reasonable punishment for rape
Let's back up for a minute:
You're justifying the slavery of women. Alright, consider that it's okay to own a human being. This women who was raped, regardless of her social status, is the one punished because of someone else's lust. If your God justifies that, then your god is the same being you call Satan.
So you're saying that because this person was an enemy, it's alright to mistreat her. Am I correct?
Well, your valued Bible contradicts itself in Exodus 23:4-5 saying: “If thou meet thine enemy's ox or his [donkey] going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again. If thou see the [donkey] of him that hateth thee lying under his burden, and wouldest forbear to help him, thou shalt surely help with him.”
This is morality: "Be kind to your enemies. Do good to those who hate you." Yet, you just stated that this is not the case, and that it is -alright- to punish the enemy slave.
quote: Another thing which factors into here is the willingness of the woman. In a close community, with row-to-row houses,any struggle would be heard, and recognized. If the woman did not resist her rapist, it would be grounds for crime, sex outside of marrige, and all
She was willing? Rape is when the rapist does not have consent during sexual intercourse (with the exception of adolescents). Where in that passage does it say that she was attacked inside of a house? It's different in many cases, yet the slave woman is still punished. You’re telling me that because someone isn't in ear's reach of a raping, it's automatically the female's fault, and that makes her "willing?" What kind of credulous BS is that?
quote: Yes, but technology is not a measure of brainpower
Yet without brainpower and intelligence, you cannot have technology. Recognize the correlation there, and exactly why it was mentioned?
quote: It would be hard to think of, even today, a scientific reason for a sea parting, river turning to blood, spontanious arrivals of locusts and killah toads, as well as pillars of fire
But the Bible is myth, as far as I am concered. You have no scientific proof to solidify your argument that the sea actually parted, or that locusts spontaneously arrived on God's command, etc. Just because it's in the Bible does not mean it happened UNLESS you can provide some type of tangible evidence/recordings.
quote: Naw, they deemed it wrong because God did. I would, if the supreme ruler was telling me...
I suppose that God personally told you homosexuality was wrong.. or did you just assume that’s what he/she/it wants because the Bible indicates so?
quote:19:20:And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free. 19:21:And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering. 19:22:And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the LORD for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him.
My understanding of this is that, in Biblical times, at least with the Israelis, slaves came about as "spoils of war". And from the "and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; ", we can probably judge this as being slave(I think you already said that....yes you did). Point being, a slave from a nation you had been at war with would be an enemy, and the rape of an enemy would not be considered as serious a crime as, say, the rape of an Israeli woman. Seeing as she isn't put to death, "they shall not be put to death, because she was not free.", and the crime IS still a serious one (warrenting a sacrifice. Then again, that probably occured every second hour), It would seem a reasonable punishment for rape. Another thing which factors into here is the willingness of the woman. In a close community, with row-to-row houses,any struggle would be heard, and recognized. If the woman did not resist her rapist, it would be grounds for crime, sex outside of marrige, and all. Anyhow, that was messy. Hope you can make some sense out of it.
quote:Because back in BC times, people didn't have technology and were quite ignorant (e.g. they believed the earth was flat, weather was controlled by different gods, etc).
Yes, but technology is not a measure of brainpower, and dealing with the Bibles events is different that earthquakes and floods. Well, not floods, but you get the idea. It would be hard to think of, even today, a scientific reason for a sea parting, river turning to blood, spontanious arrivals of locusts and killah toads, as well as pillars of fire, ect...and that's only in Exodus.
quote:And because man can't have babies with men, they deemed it wrong.
Naw, they deemed it wrong because God did. I would, if the supreme ruler was telling me...
Who cares about the bible? Come on. You know, schitzophrenia has existed for a really long time, so those prophets who you listen to with such reverance very well might of needed lithium or shock therapy for their problem. Of corse they were convinced that "God" was talking to them, so they wrote it down, it wasnt their fault. Well neither is being gay. My best friend is gay, although i am not, i do not see a thing wrong with it.
quote: And because man can't have babies with men, they deemed it wrong. What's your reason?)
I think that people deem homosexuality wrong because females, in biblical times, were really only deemed "useful" for producing male children, along with cooking, cleaning, etc. (Sounds a bit familiar, eh?) Having children was literally the future for some, and without that, (as depicted in previous biblical scriptures that I already posted) women had no purpose. So ideally, if a male was in a relationship with another male, or a female was in a relationship with another female, they could not produce children together (there was no artificial insemination back then, obviously, and adoption was not like it is today). That, to me, says that if two people of the same gender love each other, they have no tangible future (back then, the more children in one family, the more prosperous that family would become). And today, with so many Bible-worshippers, a great majority of people believe that homosexuality is wrong, though times have greatly changed (duh?), thus making heterosexuality the only type of acceptable way of life.
Anyway, that’s what I think. And by no means am I proclaiming that this is purely the situation of things, but I could be wrong.
And BTW, Jookly: if you accidentally double-post, just click the “Delete Message” icon in the right-hand corner instead of having to have an unnecessary post.
PrincessMonica, you live in California? I would think that you come from some tiny town in the south to have an opinion. How do you get away with thinking that way in such a free place?
Don't you think in order to put down other people in such a cruel way, you at least need some reason to back you up? What is your reason for hating homosexuality? P.S. And no, it being gross does not count.
Thanks, gemini. A book written thousands of years ago can't be trusted 100% because things change. A lot of things written there really happened, just not they way they percieved it. (For example, they, not knowing what an earthquake was, assumed it to be god. And because man can't have babies with men, they deemed it wrong. What's your reason?)
Leviticus: 19:20:And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free. 19:21:And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering. 19:22:And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the LORD for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him.
To sum this up, the rape of a slave woman is to be punished by scourging the victim (the slave woman), but the rapist's sins "shall be forgiven him."
Ezekiel: 18:5:But if a man be just, and do that which is lawful and right 18:6:And hath not eaten upon the mountains, neither hath lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, neither hath defiled his neighbour's wife, neither hath come near to a menstruous woman
To sum this one up, a "good" man never gets near a menstruating woman.
That may have been what fetch was referring to.
quote: And why would a book written thousands of years ago be any less accurate than one written today?
Because back in BC times, people didn't have technology and were quite ignorant (e.g. they believed the earth was flat, weather was controlled by different gods, etc).
Does God or religion have to be part of this conversation? Why can't you argue against homosexuality from a religiously neutral possition? And tell me, why should they be thrown in jail, what are you afraid of? Isn't that just bigotry?
...you do realise the bible was written thousands of years ago? And that it treats women as less than men (considered nothing if she isn't a virgin and isn't allowed to touch anyone if she's on her period). Also, the bible includes slavery and so on. Do you really want to live by that?
And if you do- don't you need a reason to go fro something? I mean, sure, you think homosexuality is wrong "because the bible says so". But WHY does the the bible say it's wrong, do you know? I've found most people don't.
Topics 
