Posted on 05/04/2014 12:34:25 PM PDT by Olog-hai
Legendary conservative columnist George Will says he is an atheist. […]
“I’m an amiable, low voltage atheist,” Will explained. “I deeply respect religions and religious people. The great religions reflect something constant and noble in the human character, defensible and admirable yearnings.”
“I am just not persuaded. That’s all,” he added. …
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
Like I said, “khazaq” means to seize by force, and given it’s one instance, the outcome is clear. And in those verses, the word translated “damsel” (na’arah) implies virginity.
Not "seduce." Capture. Seize.
You could say that the entire basis of Christianity has to do with whether or not you think one certain thought when you expire. Acts, good or bad, are irrelevant.
So where's your access? What does it say about slavery and genocide?
Perhaps Mr. Will thinks his inalienable rights were granted off the back panel of a cereal box.
Islam forbids lying, not taqiyya. See how that works? The OT God and Allah both have separate rules for how you deal with people inside the community, and how you deal with outsiders. I assure you, modern day Islam is closer to Deuteronomy than anything you're living. Now, if you're saying that the OT is wrong about what God is "really" like, I won't argue. I've found that everyone who believes in God is also such an expert as to His innermost self that they are practically soulmates. It's almost as if every believer has his very own God, and it's astonishingly compatible with their own precious self.
Sure, if she's only betrothed she'd better still be a virgin.
But what if she's not betrothed? Can you please show me the verse that differentiates VERY CLEARLY between the betrothed damsel and the non-betrothed? What happens if you seize a non-betrothed damsel by force?
I saw a preview and thought of you.
I don't know how to break this to you, but that is rape.
You have proven my point. A man can CAPTURE, WEILD, OVERLAY, CATCH, SUPRISE, TAKE a virgin, and all he has to do is pay a bride price to her father (whose property she currently is) and marry her, unless she belongs to some other man.
There is no stigma to rape. You sully another man's property, you die. If that property went with you willingly, she dies too. If not, they cut her a break. That's as far as it goes.
That's Deuteronomy, and that's Islam. Face it.
As for “kill” and “murder,” thank you. This is handy as it correlates very nicely with Islamic distinctions. You can kill (outsiders), you just can’t murder other muslims. Jews could kill Canaanites and any other enemy, but not murder each other. Yes indeed, the more we talk, the more OT Islam looks.
It's always interesting to ask a believer if they are still under dictum to kill an Amalekite on sight.
Hitchens asked Douglas Wilson this question, and Wilson said that he indeed would kill an Amalekite if he encountered one. Nice morality.
1. to take by force or stratagemSince the word taphas clearly has the meaning of manipulation, the method of capture is by stratagem—and seduction is a means of capture, clearly not of the same character as indicated by khazaq (taking by force/violence, hence rape).
2. to gain control of or exert influence over …
Missing dimension: the Gibeonites’ appeal to Joshua. None of the other Canaanites were of the same mind.
There was an earlier promise of driving out the Canaanites supernaturally, which was rescinded due to the disobedience of the Hebrews in the wilderness.
Also, Haman in the book of Esther is described as an Agagite, which shares the name of one of the kings of Amalek.
Do you believe the children of Amalek and the children of Jericho deserved to be slaughtered?
I wasn’t there. But the record we have states there was some warning (even from Balaam and others like him), and Amalek had a history of aggression towards the Israelites, attacking them at Rephidim and slaughtering a number of them while they were disadvantaged due to being tired out. Only the Gibeonites had the mind of submitting rather than meeting the Israelites in battle.
So it CAN MEAN you take her by force, and all you have to do is pay the bride price and marry her. All this does is confirm that rape and seduction were indistinguishable to Middle Easterners. You have sex with a virgin, you marry her. Whether you held her down and punched her in the face, or gave her chocolates, it's all the same to them. If she belongs to another man, you die. You die if you held her down. You die if you gave her chocolates. It doesn't matter to your legal status.
It might buy HER freedom, but it won't make the slightest difference to the man. They did not recognize rape in evaluating the man's guilt, only the woman's.
No. That’s the definition of English “capture”, not Hebrew “taphas”, which refers to one sense of “capture” and not all. Twisting words around really isn’t helping your case.
We access our hearts, supplemented with what we read in the Bible. Not just bit parts, but integration of the whole.
I oppose slavery because God tells me it’s wrong, both in my heart and in the New Covenant. Same with genocide.
No ambiguity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.