Posted on 09/19/2010 12:54:50 AM PDT by Stoat
They're read online in debates and repeated.
So who posted 193 to me, then? Did someone hijack your account just for that one post?
C'mon . . .
Frankly, it wouldn’t surprise me a bit.
Check my posting history.
Oh and, I was responding to YOUR post about.....GUESS WHO?!
I don't think you need to be so paranoid.
God. And it's perfectly reasonable to discuss God, or one's notion of God, without invoking the Bible.
There is no authority on God outside of the Bible.
Goodness. I do believe I may have struck a nerve. My apologies.
OK, then the description is inclusive, not exclusive.
"Are you suggesting heterosexual rape would be a free trip to Disney World?"
Are you suggesting that the description is exclusive rather than inclusive?
" . . . or perhaps this is a bit of a stretch . . . "Let's see, homosexual rape is so bad that instead of allowing two complete strangers to be raped by every man-jack in town, I'd rather see everyone rape my own flesh and blood instead. Because heterosexual rape is far better than homosexual rape." Patently ridiculous on its face. No human parent in the world, except for the most depraved ones, would make that trade."
Except that Pashtun tribesmen protected Marcus Luttrell, a Navy Seal, at the risk of their own and their families' lives from the Taliban.
It's part of a culture that you simply don't understand and would rather label 'patently ridiculous' and 'depraved' before you would learn from it.
"Okay, but to believe this, you'd have to believe that every single male in Sodom was, in fact, a homosexual rapist. You'd have to believe that a human settlement would have been able to be established, maintained, etc., with all the daily intercourse of human activity like trade, co-operation, etc., over time enough to maintain it to the degree where it was so memorable to human history as for us, in this modern age, to know about it now, where the entire male population of that settlement was both a homosexual and a rapist."
Fallacy of the false dichotomy noted.
"You believe this?"
You? No.
Well said.
I'm suggesting that "rape" is "violent and hostile" to strangers.
Except that Pashtun tribesmen protected Marcus Luttrell, a Navy Seal, at the risk of their own and their families' lives from the Taliban.
Can you point me to the part where the Taliban soldiers wanted to rape Marcus Luttrell, and where the Pashtun tribesmen offered up their daughters instead? I couldn't find that part in the public record.
And finally, "false dichotomy" be damned: I'm talking about real history here. The Bible says that "all" the men in Sodom were gay rapists. Do you honestly believe a human civilization could have existed in any point in human history where the entire male population consisted of homosexual rapists?
Not at all; no apologies necessary.
Which version?
Awww. You’re not even trying.
There aren’t different “versions”.
Nope.
It appeared that you wanted to exclude homosexual rape from the reasons that Sodom was destroyed and replace it with 'violence' and 'hostility to strangers'. Glad to see you acknowledge that the 'violent' and 'hostile to strangers' description is inclusive and therefore irrelevant for excluding homosexuality as the reason that Sodom was destroyed.
"Can you point me to the part where the Taliban soldiers wanted to rape Marcus Luttrell, and where the Pashtun tribesmen offered up their daughters instead? I couldn't find that part in the public record."
Can you point me to the part where offering your life and your families' lives in defense of a guest is any less valuable?
"And finally, "false dichotomy" be damned: I'm talking about real history here."
Well of course you want the fallacy of the false dichotomy to be damned. It doesn't allow you to present a scenario of your own making as the only acceptable alternative.
"The Bible says that "all" the men in Sodom were gay rapists."
No it doesn't. You are defining it as such in order to commit the fallacy of the false dichotomy.
"Do you honestly believe a human civilization could have existed in any point in human history where the entire male population consisted of homosexual rapists?"
Again, the fallacy of the false dichotomy is noted.
I see. So the New Testament canon did not develop over time? I’m trying to learn, here.
No you're not.
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.