The Christian Discussion Thread X: Originally there were 15

[Tarsonis]

Ffs this isn’t the thread for this.

What is then

I dunno make your own thread if you’re curious about people’s opinions of certain groups. This thread is to discuss Christianity

[Pacomia]

What is then

I dunno make your own thread if you’re curious about people’s opinions of certain groups. This thread is to discuss Christianity

Fair.

[Kowani]

I dunno make your own thread if you’re curious about people’s opinions of certain groups. This thread is to discuss Christianity

Fair.

If we get a Atheist DT, you want me to OP, or you wanna do it?

[Lower Nubia]

Rape is a grave sin and is never legal under any circumstance.

Except when they’re foreign “virgin girl children” (Num 31:15-18) or you pay 50 shekels (Deut. 22:28-29)

No, allowing any sexual conduct outside of marriage is literally rule 7 of the 10 commandments.

[Bienenhalde]

Except when they’re foreign “virgin girl children” (Num 31:15-18) or you pay 50 shekels (Deut. 22:28-29)

Not an open invitation to rape "virgin girl children" whenever or wherever, nor explicitly about rape.

Literally a fine, a common punishment in numerous cultures before the construction of prisons. Admittedly, forcing the rapist to marry the victim is a strange Judaic law. Perhaps it made sense in the cultural context of the time, certainly not today.

I thought that verse referred to consensual premarital sex.

[Tarsonis]

Except when they’re foreign “virgin girl children” (Num 31:15-18) or you pay 50 shekels (Deut. 22:28-29)

No, allowing any sexual conduct outside of marriage is literally rule 7 of the 10 commandments.

Eh it hasn’t always

[Tarsonis]

"You damage the goods, you pay for them, and take them away"

That makes sense for the time, marriage was very much a formal economic transaction. Nowadays, not so much.

Should also be noted that the rabbinic scholars have interpreted this as a form of ancient Romeo and Juliet laws. The law wasn’t there to give a soft punishment to what we consider a rapist by modern standards, but rather to protect that couple in love against parents wishes, and who have technically violated the marriage laws. Rather than be put to death, they can pay a small fine and live miserably ever after.

[Salus Maior]

Rip, may God have mercy on him.

One suspects that God would not be inclined to be terribly lenient to one who committed sex offences against children while ordained as a priest.

"May God have mercy on your soul" is a very odd phrase when you think about it, since the implication seems to be "I'd probably let you off the eternal damnation, but I think the Lord could go either way".

Well, Christians shouldn't want people to be condemned.

[Salus Maior]

Rape is a grave sin and is never legal under any circumstance.

Except when they’re foreign “virgin girl children” (Num 31:15-18) or you pay 50 shekels (Deut. 22:28-29)

Well, if you ever find yourself in Bronze Age Judea you can be worried about that.

[Lower Nubia]

No, allowing any sexual conduct outside of marriage is literally rule 7 of the 10 commandments.

Eh it hasn’t always

In the context of Num 31:15-18 it certainly doesn’t allow sex slaves.

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

Except when they’re foreign “virgin girl children” (Num 31:15-18) or you pay 50 shekels (Deut. 22:28-29)

No, allowing any sexual conduct outside of marriage is literally rule 7 of the 10 commandments.

That’s not what those verses imply.

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

Except when they’re foreign “virgin girl children” (Num 31:15-18) or you pay 50 shekels (Deut. 22:28-29)

As a former Christian, surely you know the most basic theological distinction between the Old Law and the New Law that is propagated by the Church. In fact, I think you do know and are just posting this to annoy us. The teaching of the Church is clear on rape, that it is a grave, mortal sin and always evil.

I do. I also know it’s bullshit. Those who break even a letter of the old law will be called least in heaven.

I love how I’ve gotten three conflicting apologetics from three different people. That’s how you know you have an excellent scripture: even its defenders can’t agree on basic details.

[Salus Maior]

As a former Christian, surely you know the most basic theological distinction between the Old Law and the New Law that is propagated by the Church. In fact, I think you do know and are just posting this to annoy us. The teaching of the Church is clear on rape, that it is a grave, mortal sin and always evil.

I do. I also know it’s bullshit. Those who break even a letter of the old law will be called least in heaven.

I love how I’ve gotten three conflicting apologetics from three different people. That’s how you know you have an excellent scripture: even its defenders can’t agree on basic details.

That's not what it says.

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

I do. I also know it’s bullshit. Those who break even a letter of the old law will be called least in heaven.

I love how I’ve gotten three conflicting apologetics from three different people. That’s how you know you have an excellent scripture: even its defenders can’t agree on basic details.

That's not what it says.

Matthew 5:17-20

It is.

[Nea Byzantia]

Well that is kind of gross.

metal heads are adorable

Julian the Apostate was the first metal-head, I suppose.

[Salus Maior]

That's not what it says.

Matthew 5:17-20

It is.

That the purpose of the law has been fulfilled by Christ? Look, this doesn't mean we practice or are supposed to practice Levitical law. In fact throughout the Gospels and in the Epistles, it is suggested otherwise.

[Tarsonis]

Eh it hasn’t always

In the context of Num 31:15-18 it certainly doesn’t allow sex slaves.

No it doesn’t, but under levitical law Adultery was having sex with a married or betrothed woman. Married men could sleep around all they wanted with harlots and such.

[Lower Nubia]

No, allowing any sexual conduct outside of marriage is literally rule 7 of the 10 commandments.

That’s not what those verses imply.

Which implies you’re reading it wrong, more than anything.

[Tarsonis]

That’s not what those verses imply.

Which implies you’re reading it wrong, more than anything.

“So children what’s the lesson we learn from the story of Jacob and Rachel? You can never trust an employer.”-

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

Matthew 5:17-20

It is.

That the purpose of the law has been fulfilled by Christ? Look, this doesn't mean we practice or are supposed to practice Levitical law. In fact throughout the Gospels and in the Epistles, it is suggested otherwise.

Christ fulfilled the sacrifical law in accordance with the later destruction of the temple. He did not fulfill moral obligations or regulations. The case I described was clearly a regulation.

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

That’s not what those verses imply.

Which implies you’re reading it wrong, more than anything.

“Ah yeah, they’re allowed to take virgin girls. Wait, why does it matter that they’re virgin? Well, I better just turn off that thinking switch, I’m not allowed to think about that.”

[Benuty]

metal heads are adorable

Julian the Apostate was the first metal-head, I suppose.

Emperor "let me turn Greco-Roman polytheism into an inconceivable form" Julian probably would have failed in his religion attempts even if he hadn't been killed. Case in point, Atenism in Egypt didn't survive past Akhenatens death to any significant degree.

[Hanafuridake]

Julian the Apostate was the first metal-head, I suppose.

Emperor "let me turn Greco-Roman polytheism into an inconceivable form" Julian probably would have failed in his religion attempts even if he hadn't been killed. Case in point, Atenism in Egypt didn't survive past Akhenatens death to any significant degree.

Julian was a pretty standard Neo-Platonist, most learned people at the time would have been familiar with his beliefs. There was nothing like what we saw with Akhenaten banning the worship of every deity except one and trying to make people follow a new cult.

[Benuty]

Emperor "let me turn Greco-Roman polytheism into an inconceivable form" Julian probably would have failed in his religion attempts even if he hadn't been killed. Case in point, Atenism in Egypt didn't survive past Akhenatens death to any significant degree.

Julian was a pretty standard Neo-Platonist, most learned people at the time would have been familiar with his beliefs. There was nothing like what we saw with Akhenaten banning the worship of every deity except one and trying to make people follow a new cult.

The fact that the former oracle of Delphi blew him the fuck out of the water means something. She would basically tell Theodosius later on that Apollo was pretty much dead because he stopped speaking to her so Julians attempt to court her was pretty much worthless. His attempts at consolidation failed at every step of the way because his response to Christendom to put it simply was "too little, too late". It was perhaps mercy he was struck down in battle rather than going full cult of Reason.

[Tarsonis]

Which implies you’re reading it wrong, more than anything.

“Ah yeah, they’re allowed to take virgin girls. Wait, why does it matter that they’re virgin? Well, I better just turn off that thinking switch, I’m not allowed to think about that.”

Not what he said, he said you’re reading it wrong. The virgin quantifier is important, but not for the reason you think. Go back and read that entire story. God’s vengeance on Midian was so severe for their crime that they slaughtered every male
In the Midian camp, young or old. Then they slaughtered the women who had slept with those men. They spared the virgins because they had not been defiled by said men. The qualifier of virgin here has to do with Arab/Semitic blood feuds, not with sex slavery.