Topless Danes

[Archivist]

YOU are that self apointed moralist when you decide for others that partial nudity should be status quo for anybody who feels like stripping down.

As if you are not appointing yourself to that role.

I always love how people point at conservatives as if we're the moral police - when actually, their IMMORALITY is pushed with the same agenda in the opposite direction.

No one is pushing "immorality." What we are pushing is equal rights, as I addressed in my earlier post(which you still have not addressed).

YOU are that person setting moral standards over others when you vote in the voting booth for things like this or promote them publically.

And you are doing the same.

That means EVERYONE is a self appointed moralist in some way unless they live in a communist society and have no power over moral laws.

And you have certainly taken on that role in this thread. The difference is that we are simply proposing that women have the same rights as men. Nobody is forcing them to exercise that right (and as I pointed out earlier, in NY relatively few women have taken advantage of that right). You on the other hand are trying to forcibly prevent women from having equal rights.

They fixed nothing except letting people see their boobs and it's no victory,

It is a victory for equal rights

it's a disgrace.

In your opinion.

God will deal with all this when the time comes.

Nothing in Scripture indicates that he will have a problem with it.

Thankfully I'm not responsible for other's immorality.

The only immorality that you are responsible for is your own.

 

[Angel4Truth]

No, the Bible is not universal and ageless

Thank you. This explains why your view on women walking around topless as a believer is ok -quite clearly.

 

[The Lady Kate]

YOU are that self apointed moralist when you decide for others that partial nudity should be status quo for anybody who feels like stripping down.

*GASP* You mean... PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO MAKE THEIR OWN MORAL DECISIONS INSTEAD OF YOURS?

I always love how people point at conservatives as if we're the moral police - when actually, their IMMORALITY is pushed with the same agenda in the opposite direction.

Is it now? Name one person who is forcing, requesting, or even particularly wanting you to act immorally... Just one; I'll wait.

YOU are that person setting moral standards over others when you vote in the voting booth for things like this or promote them publically.

Aren't we all... yourself included?

That means EVERYONE is a self appointed moralist in some way unless they live in a communist society and have no power over moral laws.

Thus rendering the term utterly meaningless.

They fixed nothing except letting people see their boobs and it's no victory, it's a disgrace. God will deal with all this when the time comes. Thankfully I'm not responsible for other's immorality.

Then why do you want so badly to be responsible for their morality? What will you do when God's judgement upon them never comes?

 

[LightHorseman]

Thank you. This explains why your view on women walking around topless as a believer is ok -quite clearly.

Unless you believe that slavery and stoning rape victims is OK, you agree with me that the Bible is not ageless and changeless, whether you admit it or not.

 

[Machachachi]

Well considering we are no longer under the law, I would say the Bible hasn't changed at all, and neither does our interpretation have to change, considering none of us would be Christians at all, if God has not let Gentiles into the folds of Christianity.

Deuteronomy 22:23-27


23 “Suppose a man meets a young woman, a virgin who is engaged to be married, and he has sexual intercourse with her. If this happens within a town, 24 you must take both of them to the gates of that town and stone them to death. The woman is guilty because she did not scream for help. The man must die because he violated another man’s wife. In this way, you will purge this evil from among you.
25 “But if the man meets the engaged woman out in the country, and he rapes her, then only the man must die. 26 Do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no crime worthy of death. She is as innocent as a murder victim. 27 Since the man raped her out in the country, it must be assumed that she screamed, but there was no one to rescue her.


Wait what about stoning rape victims?

 

[LightHorseman]

Well, since we don't stone rape victims, and the Bible commands us to, I find that compelling evidence to consider the Bible as not being universally applicable or that it is unchanging (or rather, the appropriateness of it to social context is not unchangeing)

 

[Machachachi]

Well, since we don't stone rape victims, and the Bible commands us to, I find that compelling evidence to consider the Bible as not being universally applicable or that it is unchanging (or rather, the appropriateness of it to social context is not unchangeing)

No seriously. Read the scripture, stoning rape victims is not acceptable.

 

[Nadiine]

Well considering we are no longer under the law, I would say the Bible hasn't changed at all, and neither does our interpretation have to change, considering none of us would be Christians at all, if God has not let Gentiles into the folds of Christianity.

Deuteronomy 22:23-27


23 “Suppose a man meets a young woman, a virgin who is engaged to be married, and he has sexual intercourse with her. If this happens within a town, 24 you must take both of them to the gates of that town and stone them to death. The woman is guilty because she did not scream for help. The man must die because he violated another man’s wife. In this way, you will purge this evil from among you.
25 “But if the man meets the engaged woman out in the country, and he rapes her, then only the man must die. 26 Do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no crime worthy of death. She is as innocent as a murder victim. 27 Since the man raped her out in the country, it must be assumed that she screamed, but there was no one to rescue her.

Wait what about stoning rape victims?

First off, we may not be "under law", but the entire moral law of the OT pertains to everyone today - it is fully in tact and repeated in the NT several times in detail. 1 Cor 6:9-11, 1 Tim 1:8-11, Galations 5, Eph 4-5 & many more.

You are listing a CIVIL LAW here the civil actions taken for a moral violation (which ONLY pertained to Israel and those within the gates of Israel, no one else).

That is also completely off topic to continue OT law disputes in detail.

& this has been covered extensively in other websites. This has to do w/ a woman not reporting that she was raped.... in that day, the women remained VIRGINS prior to being married.
It actually had to do with HER protection in society. It would mean that if she didn't announce her rape, she was no longer a virgin and men would not marry her; it would force her to be a single woman all her life and not have the financial support of the male in society along w/ lack of any offspring - which was a blessing back then.

You have GOT to stop reading the Bible with modernized views and put your mind into ANCIENT CULTURE and how they thought and lived back then. We're talking over 4000 years ago - look at your own culture & think back to how different it was just 200 years ago! This is a huge error people make in bible study.

Anyways, IF she didn't announce why her virginity was gone via, she'd be viewed as a fornicator - a loose woman - (a ho'), and that would affect her standing in society and esp. w/ the one she's engaged to. (remember the story of Joseph & Mary when she was with child yet they didn't have sex yet? He was going to leave her.)
In other words, if she wasn't raped, SHE WANTED THE SEX PRIOR TO MARRIAGE.

Also, what if she got pregnant by the act? Remember Bathsheba who's husband Uriah was away at war? David had to try to cover up his affair w/ her becuz of that... same possibility & problem exists.
Most of the OT laws that seem harsh on their face, were actually for the woman's protection in the society she lived in.

(which doesn't negate law - namely when moral law is repeated into the NT from the OT, and stands).

this should get back to topic - it's moving towards issues against OT law which is another topic entirely.

 

[Believers Baptism]

No seriously. Read the scripture, stoning rape victims is not acceptable.

unless they were raped in a town or city...

 

[Machachachi]

AND didn't cry out, which meant consent. Consent does not equal rape.

To Nadiine:

First of all, a challenge to Biblical authority is entirely relevant to a conversation that hinges upon Biblical authority. Also I agree with you about the law, but that IS another topic.

 

[Nadiine]

AND didn't cry out, which meant consent. Consent does not equal rape.

Meaning, IF SHE WAS RAPED, she needed to speak out, becuz of how she would be viewed by those around her.

She'd be labeled a tramp/ a sinful woman in fornication. In Israel, that was serious sin and not acceptable like it is today in our immoral cultures that make it common practice.
It had to do with her future in society - the law was for her protection.

This is now turning into a skeptic debate I see in Athiest forums who are attacking the bible & God.

 

[Nadiine]

there is nothing bad whatsoever about sexual desire - it is God's tool for pro creation.

too true.

 

[Machachachi]

Meaning, IF SHE WAS RAPED, she needed to speak out, becuz of how she would be viewed by those around her.

She'd be labeled a tramp/ a sinful woman in fornication. In Israel, that was serious sin and not acceptable like it is today in our immoral cultures that make it common practice.
It had to do with her future in society - the law was for her protection.

This is now turning into a skeptic debate I see in Athiest forums who are attacking the bible & God.

That's what I said.....

 

[Nadiine]

Well, since we don't stone rape victims, and the Bible commands us to, I find that compelling evidence to consider the Bible as not being universally applicable or that it is unchanging (or rather, the appropriateness of it to social context is not unchangeing)

Again, you're quoting a CIVIL LAW to a moral violation.

There's the SIN of what is morally done, and then the PENALTY for it which is CIVIL LAW.

Just like murder today is still SIN/ immoral conduct. How we penalize & punish the sin/evil is the CIVIL LAW.
You see the difference? Civil law of the OT only goverened over ISRAEL. Nowhere else.

Actually, it shows us how evil and malicious God views sin. The problem isn't God's laws of death penalties, IT'S OUR CASUAL VIEW ON SIN.
The problem is US, not God. All sin deserves death - in fact, that is the penalty of sin from Genesis.
"for the wages of sin is DEATH". God isn't malicious or evil or a monster for administering harsh penalty. And until you view sin for what it is, the same way God views it, you will find the punishments "overkill" and "unfair".
The problem is US, not God. (it's also pride; thinking you are the moral compass; according to YOUR views - which usurp God's commands of what is moral and good, as if you know more than God about what goodness is).

 

[Nadiine]

That's what I said.....

ok sorry, I read your statement as arguing against what I said - I think I m ust have read it wrong.:o

 

[Machachachi]

The only reason I'm even arguing about the bible supporting the stoning of rape victims, is because it very clearly does NOT. It clearly says that crying out, saying "I am being raped." Or something means you are clearly NOT consenting. In fact that Bible goes so far as to give the woman the benefit of the doubt if said rape happened in the country. That's a big step in FAVOR of the woman, not the other way around, as some posters would clearly like to twist. And that's what it is, its pure twisting, and pretty poor twisting at that.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Unless you believe that slavery and stoning rape victims is OK, you agree with me that the Bible is not ageless and changeless, whether you admit it or not.

Neither do I believe those things are ok - and neither do I believe the bible says any such thing - but then those who read it in context understand completely what it says and especially those of us who would never purposely attempt to tarnish the character of God to appease their own flesh.

Now - want to stop trying to take the thread off topic yet? Ive asked you repeatedly in this thread to make a new thread on these issues and ill be happy to discuss them with you.

 

[dies-l]

Now - want to stop trying to take the thread off topic yet? Ive asked you repeatedly in this thread to make a new thread on these issues and ill be happy to discuss them with you.

.

 

[Angel4Truth]

board hiccup

 

[Angel4Truth]

board hicup