I've answered the first one before.Put simply,it's to protect someone from being wrongly sentenced to death.If the victim dies two weeks after getting beaten,it's probably not the beating he died from.
It has absolutely nothing to do with justice as you're trying to portray it. Even if it did, it's clearly not for the slave. All it takes is for the slave to die on the
3rd day, when it would be very clear that they died from injuries received from their beating, but that's all it would take for their assailant to face no punishment at all.
And it's not "someone" it's specifically slave owners. We're not talking about someone being wrongly accused and sentenced, we're talking about slavers
known for beating their slaves. There would be no guidelines for this common practice otherwise.
What you're dancing around though is that you have to accept slavery as being ok, you have to accept the ownership of human beings as property, you have to accept beating another human being severely enough that they could die within a day or two from their injuries, and you accept someone beating another human being essentially to death and getting away with it, as long as they hold out for 3 days.
The other is a popular one."God makes women marry their rapist"It's actually there to protect the woman,to see that she and any potential children are cared for.In those days if a woman wasn't a virgin,she wouldn't be allowed to marry.(No "respectable" man would,and she would be in danger of being condemned for prostitution.)
It's beyond disturbing that you can write this at all, be ok with it, and not see the glaring issues it has. Women were treated as property. This had nothing to do with protecting the woman. It had to do with her being damaged goods the father now had to get off of his hands.
Really? Being forced to marry someone that has zero respect for your personhood, so much so that they feel they can violate you and take what they want from you without your consent, is considered "protection" to you? That's in the best interest of the woman though she has no say in the matter? She has to live with this savage for the rest of her life and that makes sense to you? (I say the rest of her life, because if rape is a reason to get married, I don't see what could possibly be a reason for divorce). What, he's going to settle down, have a few kids and change his ways?
What is wrong with you? If this was your mother, daughter, or sister, would you accept this?
The "other" sin falls under "perversion" which also (you guessed it) includes homosexuality.
In typical fashion, you avoided the question here. He asked how you could condone harsher punishment for laying with a beast over the rape of a woman. Rape an animal, you die, rape a woman, you get a new family.
Not that I expect our resident atheists to except or understand any of that.
Wow, you're actually being smug about accepting the fact that your god and your bible condone slavery, rape, and treating women as property and less than animals?
You are clueless beyond belief. We're not asking you to explain these passages to us. Trust me, we've already read them and understand them. We're asking why you accept them. None of this is ok. Do you not get that?
You mention a woman marrying her rapist to avoid being accused of being a prostitute. We
understand that this is the case, what we don't understand is why you accept blaming the victim as ok. This society that your god laid down the rules for and presided over has women living amongst savages and
they (the women) are punished for the savagery carried out against them.
None of this is right. It never has been and it never will be, and you know this. Acknowledging this would force you to question your beliefs, so instead it's the evil immoral atheist that has the problem. This must be the case in order for you to continue to avoid the thought that your bible and your god are not what you want to believe they are.
Community Forum
Topic: Gay Marriage: Where do you stand? (Read 22915 times)
May 30, 2011, 07:01:44 am
