[quote=ActRaiserTheReturned]I don't agree about the Bible supporting rape.[/quote] It's not a matter you can choose to agree on. It's written in the Bible, it's there. The Bible supporting rape is fact. You can choose not to believe in it. But that won't change the fact it's there, no amount of disagreeing will change that. [quote=Shy] -Lots of Bible analysis- [/quote] Might as well respond to each of these. Deuteronomy 22:25-28 = True, this was a search engine result of simply showing any quote involving rape. The point of the link was to highlight those links later on that do support it though. I'll just mark future one's that this case happens to with "Search result". Deuteronomy 22:28-29 = I'll grant, the wording here of "Lay Hold on her" isn't clear in if it's rape, or consensual. Though the fact it also leads to forced marriage and paying the father leans it in the direction of rape. Not overly though cause both forced marriages and paying the father after marriage are common practices today even when rape is never involved. Deuteronomy 22:23-24 = And so was the victim. Zechariah 14:1-2 = Agreed here, it is clearly supporting rape. Deuteronomy 21:10-14 = It's forced sex and marriage after she was imprisoned by them and had her parents killed. It's rape. Leviticus 18:19-23 = Search Engine (Though oddly enough, it is another point to showing the Bible is Homophobic) Galatians 5:19-21 = Search Engine 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 = Search Engine Judges 5:30 = Gives men damsels to be taken as spoils. Most likely rape, but Jorick is right in terms of being a bit tenous. It's defelently in support of kidnapping however and treating women as property, which rape comes hand in hand with many times. Numbers 31:7-18 = Same case as the last one. Deuteronomy 20:10-14 = Same thing again. Leviticus 20:10-16 = Search Engine, though yet again one that supports the Bible in being Homophobic. Exodus 21:7 = Search Engine, seems more of a case of sexism than anything else. Genesis 19:1-38 = Two different parts here that rape seems to be relevant in. In the hostage part, he was willingly giving his wife and daughters away for safety. No mention of them consenting, just seems to be Lot making the choice himself. That's basically the woman being forced into ownership (and most likely sex) with the invaders. But sense having sex is not outright said, it doesn't work 100%. It's just knowing humans, their nature and our history there's very little reason to give woman away like that if not to be raped. The second part where rape seems relevant seems to be the daughter's raping their Dad. They made him drunk on wine, and slept with him. Which being coerced/unconseual sex is rape. However, this case seems more as a recanting of something that did happen, rather than something that the Bible outright supports. *Skipped Quotes* Judges 21:10-24 = First men pillaged a town, took 400 women as captives to claim as wives. Forced marriage and most likely forced sex/rape. The bigger part here is later, where they're isn't enough women for all the men. So the remaining ones are told to wait in the bushes to ambush and take women forcefully as wives of their own. This one screams every alarm for rape without outright saying the women were raped. Deuteronomy 23:17-18 = Search Engine Leviticus 20:1-27 = Search Engine/Longer version of something above. Judges 19:1-30 = Specifcally 24-25. He gave his Concubine to some men and they quote "so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, [b]and abused her all the night until the morning:[/b] and when the day began to spring, they let her go". Then disgustingly enough, at 29 she get's cut up into 12 pieces and they get sent to different parts of Egypt. Though the later part is just revolting, the earlier part is clear rape. ------------------------------ So an overall count gives us: -Search Engine Glitches: 8 -Suggested but not Confirmed Rape: 5 (Note: This one includes the confirmed rape with the Dad. Listed here though since it seems more history recall than wanted by God, plus it's the same quote involving giving the daughters away to invaders). -Confirmed Rape: 4 -Other Barbaric Things, but not Rape: 1 So that list didn't seem the most efficient, had it's hiccups. But there were a number of quotes that supported the point. I'll note next time to grab the individual quotes rather than post the page overall. My apology for that, I figured it'd save stress and effort of finding them on your part by simply giving the link to the one page. Otherwise, we got 4 cases of confirmed rape. Only one was needed to prove the Bible supports Rape. At least if you go by the "The Bible is God's word, to reject any of his word is blasphemy" approach. And 5 other cases strongly suggesting rape on top of that, a few are only not listed as confirmed rape if for the sake being objective. But in most society and situations it is very safe to assume there was rape there, and God would of allowed/supported it. Even with the Spoils of War argument being common practice. This is very true, but that doesn't defend the act of rape in the first place. Rape is rape. At the same time, it doesn't change the fact that this being the Bible would of been act's God would of had or at least allowed his followers to do. So to address the last comment here: [quote=Shy] Again, stop just pulling quotes out without analyzing them. [/quote] The first time it's a case of not being a bible you yourself follow. There are many bibles under Christianity, just because it's not your version specifically doesn't make my past argument or references invalid at all. If that comment was directed at you specifically, and then you responded saying "Sorry, that's not my Bible, this is my Bible" then it'd be valid to tell me to try again. But the first time was not directed at you specifically, so it did not need to tailor to the specific Bible you choose to go by. As for this case, like said above. I was sending one link for convenience on both ends. I've noted to not do this next time, and simply pull the individual quotes out of it. Even if it causes a bigger time to look over and a more cluttered post. Plus, it had 4 quotes directly confirming and another 5 that strongly suggest it. So it was hardly far off or unanalyzed. [quote=Jorick] This seems like a fun thread.[/quote] It is :P *Also to note ahead of time: I agree 100% with what you said both to me and the others here. [quote=Jorick]Woah woah woah, hold on there. Are you forgetting the foundational assumptions upon which science is built? Saying no assumptions are made is simply and objectively wrong. I'll list these assumptions so you can see what I mean. 1 - The universe is a real physical place. Pure objective no assumptions science only gets us as far as cogito ergo sum. Everything past that is an assumption. 2 - Human senses and tools to enhance them are reliable. We cannot know for absolute certainty that our senses are accurate, and we happen to know there are things we cannot naturally perceive (spectrum of light for instance), so we are assuming that we can actually gather objective data. 3 - Through observation and experimentation, we can understand and make predictions about the world around us. This is a combo of the above and the assumption that cause and effect is a real thing and that it's reliable and predictable with enough knowledge. Without making those core assumptions, we cannot have science. We cannot know them to be true with objective certainty, thus they are assumptions. These assumptions being made are part of the root of why science is said to never be 100% objectively accurate: it's always possible that one of those core assumptions is false, thus invalidating everything we know as science. It's easy to forget these are assumptions because we humans constantly make them in day to day life, but they are indeed assumptions. Just keep that in mind next time you want to say how science is better than religion due to supposed objectivity. I happen to agree that science is preferable due to its methodology, and I have many issues with religion and its methodology, but you've got to have intellectual integrity with this stuff and admit the failings of your preferred system if you wish to have a stable foundation upon which to build your arguments.[/quote] This is a good point that I had missed/not considered at all. It is easy to forget that science is based on some assumptions such as we are observing all we need to. So I will take back the science makes no assumptions argument. But I will still stand by that it relies on proof and evidence, and adapts when proven wrong rather than argue it or label it as heresy. [quote=Jorick]As a non-religious person, I can provide an answer to this that's rooted in science. The basic biological imperative of all living things is to reproduce and pass on genetic material. This is the sole purpose of the existence of any living thing, the only purpose in life one can really derive from a purely scientific perspective, and this purpose is strongly enforced by things like the sex drive in humans and the migration of various animals to mating grounds during certain seasons. Homosexuality goes counter to this biological imperative because it cannot produce offspring, thus it is bad. If you want to go further with it, you can even say it's a non-beneficial mutation, just as would be a mutation that causes sterility, both being non-beneficial for the same reason. Obviously (or I hope it's obvious, at least) this isn't a good justification for discrimination and whatnot. Our population numbers and technological advancements mean that some people not mating and producing offspring doesn't truly do any harm to the species. Someone else being homosexual doesn't do you any harm, so there's no point in giving a shit about it on a social or moral level. From the pure biological perspective it's bad, but fuck it, not really relevant to humans in this day and age.[/quote] Good point, though when I asked that question I was already aware of this potential answer. I just figured it'd be better to let him list it as one before I replied. It'd be pretty one sided if I debunked all the possible defenses he could of had before he even had a chance to reply. But since you now brought it up, I'll give the response to it. You've already given half of it, we're at a day and age it's not going to harm us anymore. The other half is, we're already in an age where Gay Marriages and Legal Abortions are on the rise and we still have many children in orphanages without a family to support them. We're already facing an abundance/over-population of children. If anything more Gay Marriages means there are more children who will have a loving family, a home and a healthy upbringing. Also if they truly wanted a biological child of their own, there are other means. Surrogate mother/Sperm donor, simply having sex with another person for the purpose of a child (Not too common, but it happens).