Is it Rape or Not

Do Mr.'s Jamieson, Fausset and Brown provide any evidence for this actually happening? Because, in the ancient world of warfare, dressing attractively in expectation of an invading army sounds like a really effective way to be gang-raped to death.

How do you figure that? The passages refer to same-sex activity in the context of religious prostitution and sexual rites, common activities at the time the epistles were written, and even that part isn't the words of Jesus, it's just Paul(?) mouthing off his own opinions. There's nothing at all in the Bible that suggests that the prohibition of homosexual activities extends beyond that.Every time "men giving themselves to unnatural lusts" or whatever is described, it's in the context of "what those pagans next door are doing in their temple, but we're not like that." That's pretty contextual, I'd say.

deletedEdited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

Do you actually think that was the best God was capable of at the time?Don't get me wrong. These passages are part of a historical trend to establish boundaries of conduct during wartime. Our own Geneva conventions are an extension of the same idea. A gradual improvement in the conditions of treatment for the losers of war (which is usually almost everybody) is exactly what we would expect from civilizations trying to deal with the realities and horrors of war.But is that really the best we can expect from God? I thought God didn't compromise on morality. I thought that sins were equally bad in the eyes of God. The backbending you have to do to square these slight improvements with the idea of a God of infinite mercy and justice is just ridiculous.

You can't really believe that's true, though, can you?

I'd say the Bible describes about 20 different gods, but yes, the God of Abraham is described as a God of justice for whom any sort of moral failing is abhorrent. I couldn't say. But what it does do is make it pretty obvious that the Bible is really nothing more than the history of a civilization that, like all the rest, had to figure it out as they went along instead of getting it all on a plate from On High.A legal framework for the rape of captives is an outrage by our modern standards but an act of mercy by theirs. That's not consistent with the edicts of a God of eternal justice and unwavering moral certitude. But it is consistent with an entirely evolutionary (if you will) history of human legal progress.

"Justice delayed is justice denied", as they say. If rape of captives - slavery in general - is a moral outrage as we understand it now, and if God's morality is timeless, then it should have been a moral outrage then, too. I mean, it had only been a few centuries since God hand-delivered the Ten Commandments, and those hardly have a lot of wiggle room - nor are they waved away by believers as "depending on context" or the like.It seems to me that God is entirely comfortable delivering moral absolutes regardless of the times, and expecting them to be followed regardless of current fashions. It's inconsistent that, in this case, that's not what happened. I'm not saying it does. But it certainly rules out, to my mind, a certain kind of micromanaging God for whom two men having TEH BUTTSECKS is a red-alert violation of the cosmic order. (I'm not saying that's your God, but it's definately some people's.)

Only the repeated statements of his believers, who constantly assert that things don't simply become OK just because they're the current fashion. You know, like homosexuality or abortion. (How soon they forget, I guess. Apparently there's no position Bible apologists can take that they can't abandon when it ceases to be convinient.)Of course, the Bible informs us that God's morality is an extension of God's nature, and the Bible tells us that God's nature is timeless and eternal. QED. Um, if you have some Biblical support for your contention that things like idolatry and murder were totally OK with God before he handed down the Decalogue, I'd like to see that. Maybe you have a different Bible than I do, or something?

Um... yes? They're synonymous.Seriously, is this the best you have to bring to the table? This, and your misrepresentations?

Timeless, as far as I'm aware, means "doesn't change with the passage of time." I'm no dictionary, though. I'm not familiar with any instance that "timeless" hasn't been used to indicate something that has always remained the same.If it's your belief that God occasionally shifts morals, I guess I can't argue with that. You can basically make up a God that does anything at all.