|
Post by cupcakes on May 22, 2017 14:41:45 GMT
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on May 22, 2017 14:48:44 GMT
tpfkar Of course he was referring to the Immaculate Misconception. Just could not not type it. Mary's got a gun.
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on May 22, 2017 17:16:52 GMT
tpfkar Of course he was referring to the Immaculate Misconception. Just could not not type it. Mary's got a gun.I thought it was the Immaculate Contraception. Sadly, nobody knows about the Immaculate Contraception. They only care if God makes a baby, not if God bangs someone with a condom on.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on May 22, 2017 18:16:43 GMT
And my question, what makes your statement funny? It just is. It just aint. Sorry but you are full of shit, if the OP is just an insult, your statement is too. I really would expect more from a fellow Christian, but having said that this is what I expect from you.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on May 22, 2017 18:25:00 GMT
Weak. And hardly original. Sorry, but I can only give you 1/10 for an effort as lame as that. And that's being generous. He/she really deserves -1/10, if anything at all. ![](http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e41/imdbv2/imdbsmileys/roll.gif) This individual didn't even do his/her homework. The Immaculate Conception refers to **MARY'S** CONCEPTION, not her Son's. Correct. The OP was just trolling; and apparently successfully, since this thread has already over 40 replies (without any more doing from the OP itself). The sad thing is: This thread is more on topic than many threads started by regulars. It has to do with Religion, Faith and Spirituality.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2017 5:34:07 GMT
God knocking up a women without her consent. Yeah. That's rape. So Christ was a bastard child as a result of rape raised by another father as his own. And Christians and other believers somehow see this all as being good and pure? So glad I'm thinking for myself instead of following this bullshit. Damn, I'm good. Man, this is so off the mark. First, assuming Christianity is true, God is the one who created the universe and created morals. So to say God didn't something immoral is an oxymoron. If God does something, by default it's considered moral simply because God is doing it. He defines what morality is. You're making the mistake of applying humanist cultural man-made morality and current laws and applying it to God auto see how well he matches up. Your morals do not necessarily match God's: Second, God didn't have sexual relations with Mary, even though if he did it would automatically be the right thing, but he made her pregnant. Pregnancy is not associated with sex, when God is involved. You're incorrectly associating sex with pregnancy. You used the term "knocked up" yet that implies sex before pregnancy. Thus making her pregnant is similar to making a tattoo appear on her ankle, and saying God raped her. There was no sex or touching involved.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on May 28, 2017 12:59:15 GMT
tpfkar Sure, but the morals God defines are perverse & bestial. How pathetic does one have to be to accept as "moral" anything given to you from a slaughterous narcissistic savage, on par with humans that we have routinely put down? Aside from the crass perversity of "if He told me to drive my kids into the lake and start collecting my neighbors eyeballs in mason jars, it would be Good", making a baby grow and come out of somebody's hooch is quite a bit more invasive than making an ankle tattoo. At least he allowed a voyeur audience, I guess. ![](http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e41/imdbv2/imdbsmileys/giveup.gif) I do have to wonder if you're real, as I haven't before heard from a faithful one who's been willing to admit the inescapable nasty conclusions. Listen here girl, I bought that gear you got on, I paid you in here tonight
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on May 28, 2017 13:49:39 GMT
God knocking up a women without her consent. Yeah. That's rape. So Christ was a bastard child as a result of rape raised by another father as his own. And Christians and other believers somehow see this all as being good and pure? So glad I'm thinking for myself instead of following this bullshit. Damn, I'm good. There was really no such thing as "rape" back then, unless a woman was actively fighting you off in self defense. Rape implied an aggravated or violent encounter. If a woman did not protest, resist, or say no, or was drunk or unconscious, nobody back then would have considered that "rape". Even if she was married or under age, it still wasn't rape. Marital rape and statutory rape are modern inventions. Those things didn't become rape until modern societies began to recognize and acknowledge it as immoral. Thus, what we consider rape and immoral today was considered totally legit when the Bible was written. And since we can conclude that god never changes, and that Christian morality never changes, that means that all of those things are morally correct and not sinful according to Christianity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2017 14:08:35 GMT
You should really look up the meaning of the word 'rape' before using it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2017 15:11:23 GMT
God knocking up a women without her consent. Yeah. That's rape. So Christ was a bastard child as a result of rape raised by another father as his own. And Christians and other believers somehow see this all as being good and pure? So glad I'm thinking for myself instead of following this bullshit. Damn, I'm good. There was really no such thing as "rape" back then, unless a woman was actively fighting you off in self defense. Rape implied an aggravated or violent encounter. If a woman did not protest, resist, or say no, or was drunk or unconscious, nobody back then would have considered that "rape". Even if she was married or under age, it still wasn't rape. Marital rape and statutory rape are modern inventions. Those things didn't become rape until modern societies began to recognize and acknowledge it as immoral. Thus, what we consider rape and immoral today was considered totally legit when the Bible was written. And since we can conclude that god never changes, and that Christian morality never changes, that means that all of those things are morally correct and not sinful according to Christianity. Rape in any form falls under sexual immorality. Does the bible not repeatedly warn against committing sexual immorality?
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on May 28, 2017 15:38:25 GMT
There was really no such thing as "rape" back then, unless a woman was actively fighting you off in self defense. Rape implied an aggravated or violent encounter. If a woman did not protest, resist, or say no, or was drunk or unconscious, nobody back then would have considered that "rape". Even if she was married or under age, it still wasn't rape. Marital rape and statutory rape are modern inventions. Those things didn't become rape until modern societies began to recognize and acknowledge it as immoral. Thus, what we consider rape and immoral today was considered totally legit when the Bible was written. And since we can conclude that god never changes, and that Christian morality never changes, that means that all of those things are morally correct and not sinful according to Christianity. Rape in any form falls under sexual immorality. Does the bible not repeatedly warn against committing sexual immorality? I agree with you. But you are using modern standards of morality and trying to apply them to a biblical standard of morality thousands of years ago. That doesn't work because society and morality has evolved significantly since the days when the bible was written. The bible doesn't define what "sexual immorality" actually is when the term is used. However, based on the context of the verses it nearly always applies to either "prostitution" or "adultery" (often determined by the usage, the writer, and the audience). Anytime the expression is used, it's translated from the term "porneia" (which in biblical Greek originally referred to Temple Prostitution, and then later became prostitution in general, which then somehow got conflated with adultery, which later then extended to fornication, then after that homosexuality, until it essentially became a catch all for anything the Church deemed sexually immoral to include in recent years rape). But those are all additions and relatively modern interpretations of what the writing originally referred to. By Paul's time, the term was being used principally as a reference for adultery, and each generation has subsequently redefined what is/is not sexually immoral. Similarly, the concept of rape has been continually redefined and strengthened. In the 1970s, it was not considered rape to offer a woman quaaludes and bring her back to your house for the purpose of having sex. In 2017, it is (ie: Bill Cosby)! So while "rape" itself has always been sexually immoral, the bible rarely addresses sexual immorality in that context, and rape itself was defined and viewed differently. If you want to get really technical, by today's standards and modern definitions of rape, the bible actually condones rape in certain circumstances (as it condones slavery, genocide, racism, and various other things that we would consider immoral today).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2017 17:48:38 GMT
Rape in any form falls under sexual immorality. Does the bible not repeatedly warn against committing sexual immorality? I agree with you. But you are using modern standards of morality and trying to apply them to a biblical standard of morality thousands of years ago. That doesn't work because society and morality has evolved significantly since the days when the bible was written. The bible doesn't define what "sexual immorality" actually is when the term is used. However, based on the context of the verses it nearly always applies to either "prostitution" or "adultery" (often determined by the usage, the writer, and the audience). Anytime the expression is used, it's translated from the term "porneia" (which in biblical Greek originally referred to Temple Prostitution, and then later became prostitution in general, which then somehow got conflated with adultery, which later then extended to fornication, then after that homosexuality, until it essentially became a catch all for anything the Church deemed sexually immoral to include in recent years rape). But those are all additions and relatively modern interpretations of what the writing originally referred to. By Paul's time, the term was being used principally as a reference for adultery, and each generation has subsequently redefined what is/is not sexually immoral. Similarly, the concept of rape has been continually redefined and strengthened. In the 1970s, it was not considered rape to offer a woman quaaludes and bring her back to your house for the purpose of having sex. In 2017, it is (ie: Bill Cosby)! So while "rape" itself has always been sexually immoral, the bible rarely addresses sexual immorality in that context, and rape itself was defined and viewed differently. If you want to get really technical, by today's standards and modern definitions of rape, the bible actually condones rape in certain circumstances (as it condones slavery, genocide, racism, and various other things that we would consider immoral today). Apart from the unconscious bit, how is this generally any different to the modern view? No it wasn't. For example Dinah's brothers murdered Shechem after he violated their sister. Absolam killed Amnon for raping his sister Tamar. After a concubine was gang raped by men from the tribe of Benjamin. Other tribes considered it a major injustice and waged war against them seeking retribution. There was also laws in place against rape.. “If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you. But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her. If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.”Deuteronomy 22:23-29 This is the sort of rubbish PD used to peddle.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on May 28, 2017 21:23:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on May 28, 2017 22:32:11 GMT
I agree with you. But you are using modern standards of morality and trying to apply them to a biblical standard of morality thousands of years ago. That doesn't work because society and morality has evolved significantly since the days when the bible was written. The bible doesn't define what "sexual immorality" actually is when the term is used. However, based on the context of the verses it nearly always applies to either "prostitution" or "adultery" (often determined by the usage, the writer, and the audience). Anytime the expression is used, it's translated from the term "porneia" (which in biblical Greek originally referred to Temple Prostitution, and then later became prostitution in general, which then somehow got conflated with adultery, which later then extended to fornication, then after that homosexuality, until it essentially became a catch all for anything the Church deemed sexually immoral to include in recent years rape). But those are all additions and relatively modern interpretations of what the writing originally referred to. By Paul's time, the term was being used principally as a reference for adultery, and each generation has subsequently redefined what is/is not sexually immoral. Similarly, the concept of rape has been continually redefined and strengthened. In the 1970s, it was not considered rape to offer a woman quaaludes and bring her back to your house for the purpose of having sex. In 2017, it is (ie: Bill Cosby)! So while "rape" itself has always been sexually immoral, the bible rarely addresses sexual immorality in that context, and rape itself was defined and viewed differently. If you want to get really technical, by today's standards and modern definitions of rape, the bible actually condones rape in certain circumstances (as it condones slavery, genocide, racism, and various other things that we would consider immoral today). If a woman did not protest, resist, or say no, or was drunk or unconscious, nobody back then would have considered that "rape" Apart from the unconscious bit, how is this generally any different to the modern view? Are you serious right now? I don't know where you are from but in America (in the modern view), if a woman does not consent (or is inebriated), its rape! Again, have you heard of Bill Cosby? Thus, what we consider rape and immoral today was considered totally legit when the Bible was written No it wasn't. For example Dinah's brothers murdered Shechem after he violated their sister. Absolam killed Amnon for raping his sister Tamar. After a concubine was gang raped by men from the tribe of Benjamin. Other tribes considered it a major injustice and waged war against them seeking retribution. There was also laws in place against rape.. None of these facts invalidate what I actually said. I'm not talking about aggravated, violent rape (which has always been condemned). I'm talking about non-aggravated rape which the bible does not condemn (or even define as rape), but modern society does. The passage you quoted actually reaffirms my exact point. Notice that the first example is NOT rape that is condemned, but adultery. The second example is a rape, but that's not the crime that's being addressed or punished. It only calls for punishment if a man rapes a woman who is betrothed. Raping a virgin is perfectly okay, as long as he pays her father and marries her (against her will). So you just made my point for me. And since we can conclude that god never changes, and that Christian morality never changes, that means that all of those things are morally correct and not sinful according to Christianity. This is the sort of rubbish PD used to peddle. It also happens to be the type of thing peddled by Christians.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on May 29, 2017 1:09:25 GMT
|
|
blade
Junior Member
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@blade
Posts: 2,005
Likes: 636
|
Post by blade on May 29, 2017 1:16:14 GMT
That's not rape.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on May 29, 2017 2:03:28 GMT
And the sex they have when they're married will no doubt be consentual, right?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on May 29, 2017 2:34:10 GMT
He rapes her but it's not rape. Not a surprising conclusion from you there, swiftiekitten. A black guy getting chicken? ![](http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e41/imdbv2/imdbsmileys/none.gif)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2017 9:04:35 GMT
captainbryce Are you serious? Where is the word consent used or even implied in your original quote? You claimed if a woman did not protest, resist, or say no, nobody back then considered that rape. Now if a woman today doesn't protest, resist, or say no, what reason would we have to consider it rape? How is it "perfectly okay"? He must pay compensation, marry her and is prohibited from divorcing her. It's like saying it's perfectly okay to break the road speed limit providing you pay the fine and permanently lose your driving licence. ![](http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e41/imdbv2/imdbsmileys/laugh.gif)
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on May 29, 2017 14:51:10 GMT
captainbryce Are you serious? Where is the word consent used or even implied in your original quote? You claimed if a woman did not protest, resist, or say no, nobody back then considered that rape. Now if a woman today doesn't protest, resist, or say no, what reason would we have to consider it rape? ![](http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e41/imdbv2/imdbsmileys/uhoh.gif) No...are YOU serious? Because I honestly can't tell at this point. I don't know if you are playing Devil's Advocate here or are genuinely naive, but this is such a serious topic that I can't even joke around with you about it. If you don't know what "consent" means, then you really need to educate yourself before you end up in an unfortunate legal situation. " Consent" means a freely given agreement to the act of sexual penetration or sexual conduct in question. Lack of verbal or physical resistance or submission by the victim resulting from the use of force or threat of force by the accused shall not constitute consent. Consent means intelligent, knowing, and voluntary consent and does not include coerced submission. Consent shall not be deemed or construed to mean the failure by the alleged victim to offer physical resistance to the offender. " Without consent" means any of the following: 1) the victim is coerced by the immediate use or threatened use of force against a person or property 2) the victim is intentionally deceived as to the nature of the act 3) the victim is intentionally deceived to erroneously believe that the person is the victim’s spouse 4) the victim is unaware that the sexual intercourse or other sexual conduct is occurring 5) the victim is physically helpless 6) the victim is incapable of consent by reason of mental disorder, mental defect, drugs, alcohol, sleep or any other similar impairment of cognition and such condition is known or should have reasonably been known to the defendant
|
|