Islam: A Religion of Lies...

[Walks_in_islam]

If a tree falls in the city and nobody hears, that tree gets stoned for it in your bible, but only if that tree was betrothed to another tree. Otherwise, that tree gets a life sentence with the axman. Thus says the LORD.

Damages go to the father of the tree.

Biblical marriage is wholesome and beautiful!

OH yah and ummm dusty old books like "The History of the Jewish People: A Story of Tradition And Change By Jonathan B. Krasner, Jonathan D. Sarnapage" was actually "written for Muslim apologetics" too. Just takes a little bit of ministerial assistance to help the sheeple draw that conclusion.

You have gotten NOWHERE here.

[Ferd]

while we are arguing about wemmen the relgion of peace just killed up a bunch of people again.


hey walks with islam, walk carfully dont offend. you can die for offending a muslim.

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by Ferd

while we are arguing about wemmen the relgion of peace just killed up a bunch of people again.


hey walks with islam, walk carfully dont offend. you can die for offending a muslim.

Ain't limited to Muslims Ferd. You can learn to be pretty respectful towards folks up in Alaska and in about 15-20 other states.

[Dordrecht]

Killing Charlie Hebdo….. How long should we accept these muslim murderers to continue?

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

With limited time I will weed through these and address the high points only.

Originally Posted by Pliny
Divorce and marriage are entwined together. In case you are unaware of this interesting fact, you don’t get divorced unless you are married. This is even understood by Islamic “scholars”.

Posted By WII
Earlier question: Based on what the bible DOES say about marriage, and since you accept the marriage of Rebecca with Isaac as biblically sound, it IS biblical for a 40-yr-old man to marry a young teen.

Is this practice sinful or not? Still currently distasteful. Sinful? Declare. Same question applies to Mary and Joseph.

Welcome to the “straw man” argument museum. A “straw man” argument attempts to counter an argument with a different argument.

The question asked by you was whether or not marriage to a prepubescent girl is a sin. I affirmed it was based upon Biblical data.

Data such as Jesus Himself, correcting the error of Jewish tradition, referencing the creative order of one man and one woman in marriage. The fact that God created the universe in maturity is indicative of Adam and Eve being created in maturity as well. For example, the vegetation had to be created in maturity or the animals created the next day have died due to a lack of food. Adam was to tend to the garden, indicating mature thought processes.

As to the marriage of Isaac and Rebekah they were indeed married. However, she was not a prepubescent girl. She was a mature young woman. The ESV gets the translation right.

Your argument that he was forty and she was a teen is based upon your wishful imagination because the Biblical text does not give her age. You must prove she was a “teen”. Although, this is interesting. You first attempted to argue she was a three year old girl, I discuss that fallacy below. Now you are trying to argue she was a “teen”. I applaud your reversal, if it’s sincere. I doubt the sincerity though.

As to Isaac’s age I would have to look at that a little more closely. Although, his age is simply another rabbit trail from the point – your prophet married and consummated that marriage with a prepubescent girl. This practice continues TODAY by Mohammedans because it’s enshrined by his example and his teachings. It has the divine stamp of approval by the Islamic deity.

Next you have tried to make arguments about Mary and Joseph. Again you must prove the ages. How old were they? The Biblical data would indicate they were both mature individuals. Beyond that no age is given. You are entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts. Facts are stubborn things…

It appears to me that you are grasping at straws to find anything to justify your prophet.


You initially attempted to put forth commentary that Rebekah was 3 years old.
There are two major issues with your logic.
1) You used the commentary of a man, Rashi, that lived thousands of years after the events. He was wrong. Not a good choice for “evidence”.
2) There is no moral equivalency between a man’s commentary and the Bible. The Bible is where my foundation is laid not the comments of humanity.

You have attempted other “straw man” justifications for your prophet’s marriage to and consummation of marriage to a prepubescent girl such as:
1) Arguing that the American Colonies allowed marriages to very young girls. I did not verify the information you posted because it was pointless. Pointless because it has no bearing on the facts. The laws of man are not morally equivalent to the Bible.
2) You tried arguing that it was a cultural norm hundreds and thousands of years ago. This is problematic because:
a. Culture is not morally equivalent to the Bible.
b. Islam has this enshrined in its law, Shariah. It is perpetuated today in Islam because your prophet and his teachings made this a valid marriage for all Mohammedans. Therefore, it is a practice that continues today not just hundreds or even thousands of years ago.

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Originally Posted by Pliny
As far as those taking more than one wife as “sinning”, yes they did. Jesus affirmed the creative order as being between one man and one woman. So simple even a cave man can understand it!

Posted By WII
Jesus described divorce quite well. Where is it specifically stated in the bible that polygamy is a sin?

Same logic used by many to justify their particular positions. The Bible, as already mentioned, is not a list of do’s and don’ts. There are mitzvahs (commandments) to be sure but they are not exhaustive. To be exhaustive would require a library. The Bible does not even include everything Jesus did. The Apostle John stated:
(Joh 21:25 KJV) And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

Welcome back to the straw man museum! Our guide will be “Walks In Islam”. Once again the point is that Muhammad married a six year old girl and consummated that marriage when she was nine.

Moses allowed polygamy as well as divorce. In answer to the specific question of divorce He, Jesus, corrected the errors of Jewish tradition by pointing back to the created order. In the created order that Jesus used as the standard for marriage, there is one man and one woman. So easy even a cave man can see it.

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Yeah, you aren't the first minister to declare that his flock needed the ministry to use the principles of God to establish what is or is not sin. This is, I believe, the root of the problem here.

Thank you! No I am not the first minister that said a flock needs the ministry.
God told Moses directly for the need of ministers (Deu. 17:8-11)!

Paul stated that the ministry is for the perfecting of the saints (Eph. 4:11-12). Then he told the Thessalonians to esteem the ministry very highly (1 Thess. 5:12-13).

The writer of Hebrews said to obey them that have the rule over them and to submit to them (Heb. 13:17).

So many other scriptures could be given but you will not hearken to these so what’s the point? This is just another straw man argument to keep from dealing with the issue – your prophet married a six year old and consummated that marriage when she was nine.

BTW for someone who whines about being insulted you sure do try to insult a lot…

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Originally Posted by Pliny
Oh and to your point about Muhammad divorcing the girl. He should have NEVER married her to begin with. Don’t you agree? After all even you cannot deny that what he did was “distasteful” can you?

Posted By WII
He arranged a marriage, waited 3 years, consummated it. Seems that practice predates Islam.
Either he is the most patient pedophile in history or he simply, not realizing that in the 21st century these actions would be judged under a different set of criteria, was following the practices of that time.

Wow! So your justification is that he didn’t molest her when she was six. He waited until she was nine. The mind is never as resourceful as when it’s trying to justify itself.

So allah isn’t all knowing after all! I find that funny!

According to your deity it’s okay. According to your prophet it’s okay. You believe the quran right?
Surah 33. Al-Ahzab
“21. Indeed in the Messenger of Allah (Muhammad) you have a good example to follow for him who hopes for (the Meeting with) Allah and the Last Day, and remembers Allah much.”

Surah 68. Al-Qalam
“4. And verily, you (O Muhammad) are on an exalted (standard of) character.”

Your quran says Muhammad’s example is a good example.

[Pliny]

Your quran says Muhammad had an exalted character.

I guess that’s where you get the idea that he was such a great guy. He waited until she was nine before molesting her. Really exalted character for Mohammedans to follow…

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Originally Posted by Pliny
Additionally, Rebekah had the mental acumen to know the state of the family’s provisions. It’s clear she was, as the ESV states, a young woman. Every case of marriage in the Bible is between mature individual’s not prepubescent girls, as exemplified by your prophet. Jesus affirmed the creative order of one man and one woman (Mtt. 19).

Posted by WII
Sure. So she was a young teen. So, as the marriage between Mary and Joseph, a Jacob's marriage to a young teen was also a loving biblical marriage. This is acceptable?

Welcome back to the straw man museum! You have failed to prove Rebekah was three years old and now you are fixated on saying she was a “teen”. As though that is equivalent to Muhammad consummating a marriage with a nine year old. News flash, it’s not.

Your agenda is to make them as young as possible. In this way you can continue trying to equate them with the “good example” your deity says was set.

BTW a nine year old is just over half the age of a fourteen year old. Roughly 65% of the age of a fourteen year old. Common sense lets us know that there is a huge difference between a nine year old and a fourteen year old in maturity. Therefore, once again there is no moral equivalency for your premise. Your straw man argument is once again reveled to be a logical fallacy.

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Originally Posted by Pliny
For someone who whines about “insults” you have no problem attempting to insult others. I will not respond in like manner.

Posted by WII
A little late for that. I do not mind if you want to turn a discussion into a knife fight. Up to you.

Oh so know the “religion of peace” wants to speak of a “knife fight”. Typical of islam. It just so happens that Mohammedans are up to it once again!

An apparent terrorist-related shooting at French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo left at least 12 people dead and wounded 10 more in Paris on Wednesday, police said.
…
Eyewitness images taken at the time of the attack allegedly show two gunmen apparently abandoning a car. They were heard shouting "Allahu Akbar," an Islamic phrase that means "God is great."
…
President Francois Hollande, appearing at the scene immediately following the incident, said the shooting was "undoubtedly a terrorist attack" and that several other terror attacks had been thwarted in recent weeks. He described the shooting as an act of terrorism against France.

French Europe 1 radio said one of the attackers was heard shouting that the "prophet was avenged."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/w...sher/21377861/

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Originally Posted by Pliny
The Bible is divinely inspired literature. Muslims believe the life example of Muhammad is to be followed along with his teachings. After all he’s the “messenger of god”. There is a consensus about Muhammad and his teachings on this point.

It’s without controversy that he was a pedophile and your deity has “blessed” that relationship. You cannot find anything in the Bible, the moral equivalent, to support your wishful thinking. Thus you must seek for it elsewhere.

Posted by WII
Wishful thinking is when you declare a sin without a specific passage to support it. I actually have no goal, no gain, and nothing to lose here.

Which of course is yet another prevarication on your part. Hey if YOU are okay with your prophet being a pedophile that’s your problem not mine. If you don’t have a problem with your religion “blessing” pedophilia again that’s your problem not mine. If you think your prophet’s example is a “good example” to follow, once again that’s your problem not mine. If you think that this act reflects an “exalted character” then once again, that’s your problem not mine. Just quit trying to justify it with the absurdities you have become infamous for.

Your justifications have as much substance to them as a vacuum.

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Originally Posted by Pliny

Let’s see… Your “proof” comes from the commentator Rashi. You are aware that Rashi was born in France and lived from 1040 – 1105 AD right?
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...aphy/rashi.htm

So your “logic” is to ignore the clear teaching of the text and accept the comments of someone born in Europe who lived thousands of years after the event. I guess he had a crystal ball that he could look at to make that determination. Your logic here explains a lot.

Posted by WII
Rashi is a rabbi and as you yourself FINALLY admitted God did not spell it out leaving it to "the ministry" to do so.

Welcome back to the straw man express! Please note what I said. Your “Logic” is to ignore the clear teaching of the text… Not surprising. I guess in islam it’s okay to “invent” whatever you want. Well not exactly anything you want but it is okay to “invent” things and of course that’s not a lie right?

“He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar.” (Bukhari vol.3:857 p.533)

Situational ethics must be highly “exalted” in islam…

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Originally Posted by Pliny

You do understand that the Jewish rabbis disagree on the age of Rebakah right? Yet you fixate upon the one that agrees with your agenda. Why is that? Your paradigm at work? It doesn’t even matter to you that he lived thousands of years after the events he is commenting on. As long as it helps you sleep at night why let the truth get in the way of the narrative…

Posted by WII
Nope, I got what I needed from that. I just wanted you to declare a marriage between a young teen and a 40-yr-old man as biblical and blessed and you have done so. Thanks.

Wow! Where did I say “teen”? Wait I know! You must have found Rashi’s crystal ball! LOL! Regardless of Rebekah’s age she was NOT a nine year old girl. That is clear from the Biblical text. There you go with your inventions again.

Once again, welcome to the “straw man” show where we watch WII tap dance all around the point. Watch as he sophomorically attempts to juggle meaningless data to try to justify his religion. Even if Rebekah was fourteen there is a world of difference between that and the example set by Muhammad, the man with an exalted character. ROTFL. Aisha was nine years old which is just a little less than half that age (technically it’s about 65% of that age – fourteen).

Here’s a hint. Try to find something biblically that is equivalent. Oh wait. You can’t! Oh well according to islam you can invent something and it’s not a lie.

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Originally Posted by Pliny

Here is what the Bible states concerning Rebekah.
She was old enough to go to the well alone.
She was physically capable of fetching water for the entire family to use throughout the day.
She was physically capable of drawing water for the camels (there were ten camels according to Genesis 24:10) of Abraham’s servant. As documented in an earlier post, camels drink up to twenty gallons of water at a time. They had been on a long journey. Rebekah retrieved enough water for the camels to drink till they were satiated. Do the math. That’s a lot of water to draw!
She was mature enough to have full understanding of the state of affairs of her family. She understood the camels need hay to lay down on and “provender” enough (Genesis 24:25) for the camels.
She did not have to run home and ask any of these questions and also understood there was room for him and the men with him to lodge with them.
She was able to make the decision to stay or go (Genesis 24:57-58).
This all points to a young woman not a three year old girl as suggested by you. I will stick with the Biblical text. You can have the Jewish commentator here.

Posted by WII
Me too. She was right at or near puberty, as per the consensus of the majority. So you accept this as biblically acceptable yes?

I said “I will stick with the biblical text”. You said “me too”. It appears by this that you agree to stick with the text. Yet, what do we find? You immediately follow up with I will go with “the consensus of the majority”. It is clear that you are not speaking of the Majority Text because the Majority text is a New Testament text. Thus, you said you would stick with the text and immediately move to something other than the text to attempt, poorly, to establish what you apparently need.

Since you once again failed to document your assertion it’s left up to the reader to determine what you are inventing this time. It seems to me you are trying to establish a premise by the logical fallacy known as “argument ad populum”. This is the belief that it must be true because it’s popular. The people of Noah’s day found out the hard way about that kind of nonsensical logic.

Maybe you should look up what a theory laden observation is. You are a classic example.

The text does not give her age. It does let us know she was physically able to water 10 camels after a long journey. Since I documented earlier this is up to 20 gallons she would have had to bring up to 200 gallons of water for the camels alone. She went to the well alone. She was fully cognizant of her family’s state of affairs by knowing they could take care of Abraham’s servants and the animals with him.

Now you can go with the “majority” if you want to. That’s your opinion and you are entitled to your opinion. Just don’t force that opinion upon the text. That is deceitful or should I say inventive?

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Originally Posted by Pliny
It is apparent that your “information” comes from this site:
http://discover-the-truth.com/2013/0...omment-page-1/
Here is the citation for the quote from the Islamic apologetic source:

Please note this is point 2 and footnote 1.

Posted by WII
You are not implying that dusty old books like "Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, Volume 8 edited by G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, Heinz-Josef Fabry" were secretly written for Muslims are you? That's ridiculous.

ROTFL! What is ridiculous is that you would even say what you said! LOL! The point here is that you were trying to establish that Rebekah was three years old. Your information appears to have come from this site because everyone of your “evidences” are on this Islamic apologetic site. Yet, this site has a written document stating that Rebekah was much older than that.

There is a written statement:
Minimum Age For Marriage In The Bible
Kaleef K. Karim
In this article I will establish that the age for marriage, when someone is allowed to get married Biblically, is when one enters puberty.
http://discover-the-truth.com/2014/0...-in-the-bible/

ROTFL! Your own Islamic apologetic site states this is the MINIMUM age. LOL!

So what about intellectual integrity. Why would someone post something they knowingly disagree with? I guess it’s that inventive spirit of islam. The end justifies the means.

Next thing you know you will try to say Joseph was 90 years old when betrothed to Mary! ROTFL!!!

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Me? I care less what the Talmud says actually. It was you who said that God did not spell out every single sin and it was those who developed the Talmud who represented the ministry assigned by God to do it

Actually it’s the Bible (Deu. 17:8-11).

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Originally Posted by Pliny
It doesn’t matter what the Talmud states. It’s only correct inasmuch as it agrees with the Bible. The Bible is the standard not Judaism’s rabbis, oral traditions or the Talmud. You are aware that Jesus taught against the doctrines of the Pharisees right? Please see Matthew 16:12 for one example, there are others as well. Why would I or any other Apostolic attempt to establish doctrine from the teachings Jesus specifically preached against?

Posted by WII
Did he? You ARE aware that Jesus specifically said (at least you would be if you had followed my recommended bible study the other day)

2 The Pharisees and the teachers of the Law are experts in the Law of Moses. 3 So obey everything they teach you, but don’t do as they do. After all, they say one thing and do something else.

I have no idea as to possible motives as to why you would establish doctrine that is different from the teachings Jesus specifically said to follow. Can you explain why you just said one thing and Jesus in Matthew 23 said the exact opposite? Is this another example of where you are using "ministerial guidance" to explain what Jesus probably MEANT to say? LOL

Firstly, the point here is that you built another one of your infamous straw man arguments. You attempted to justify your prophet by the Talmud. The Talmud is the written oral traditions handed down generation to generation until the writing of the Talmud.

Secondly you definitely need to find a Bible believing church somewhere and start learning proper exegesis. It’s abundantly clear all you have is an agenda.

A.T. Robertson is a well-known Greek scholar. This means he read and interpreted the Greek into English. He wrote a verse by verse word picture of the Greek New Testament. He says this about your verse:

Matthew 23:3
For they say and do not (legousin kai ou poiousin). “As teachers they have their place, but beware of following their example” (Bruce). So Jesus said: “Do not ye after their works “ (mē poieite). Do not practice their practices. They are only preachers. Jesus does not here disapprove any of their teachings as he does elsewhere. The point made here is that they are only teachers (or preachers) and do not practice what they teach as God sees it.

See how easy that was? So easy even a cave man can do it. Unless that cave man has an agenda…

Just another straw man argument to keep from dealing with the fact that your prophet consummated his marriage to a nine year old girl. Through his “good example” and “exalted character” Mohammedans around the world continue to practice this distasteful act.

Interesting that you believe your prophet is distasteful which clearly contradicts your own “holy writings”.

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

One quick question because this is sort of a double standard -

Originally Posted by Pliny

Posted by WII
First you posted this is good, these girls were headed for loving, wholesome, biblical marriages, no way were they mistreated:

Another invention by the resident muslim apologist wannabe. I guess intellectual integrity means nothing. ROTFL

I challenge you to find the quote where I said:
“this is good, these girls were headed for loving, wholesome, biblical marriages, no way were they mistreated”

If you can’t then I guess that tells us all we need to know. Once again you are entitled to your opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts. Facts are stubborn tings.

Once again we see that your posts have the substance of a vacuum.

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

(Num 31:15 KJV) And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
(Num 31:16 KJV) Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
(Num 31:17 KJV) Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
(Num 31:18 KJV) But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Since you don’t know how to document your assertions or how to keep it in context, I can only guess at what or where this came from.

Therefore, I must conclude that this was posted in the context of your attempt to justify the prepubescent consummation of marriage to Aisha (the nine year old) by your prophet. As I recall this was one of your “proof texts” that fell flat on its face. One of the “evidences” that the God of the Bible allowed the same thing as exemplified by your prophet.

What is really hilarious about all this is:
1) That you now say Rebecca was older than this, almost twice the age of Aisha at the time of the consummation.
2) That the Islamic web site that you seem to get your information from does not believe this either.

It’s in this context that the passage was used. Apparently you have never learned that a text with no context is a pretext. In other words your agenda is revealed once again.

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Then you posted look at this terrible thing that happened in the news:

Since January, 2011 through March, 2014, over 550 Christian girls were kidnapped by Muslim men and forced to convert and marry their abductors, often after suffering violence at the hands of their kidnappers

I do not in any way condone these terrible deeds by these so-called "muslims". I do wonder. Suppose all of their family members, fathers, mothers, brothers, were lined up and butchered in front of them, then they were taken, would that constitute "suffering violence" and if this happened wouldn't that be exactly what happened in this little story that you post over and over and over and isn't what happened to them actually better than what happened to young girls in the bible?

Because in posting this, and waving the (probab-lie) good things that happened later to these little girls ("they were slaves but hey they had freedom of choice so look at how good they had it blah blah") you are actually openly condoning everything that happened for these girls to end up as "freedom of choice slave girls".

I am glad you don’t condone the acts of those muslims who act in accordance with the example of Muhammad. In the narrative of Numbers it’s a tragedy that judgment fell on that group of people because of their sinful exploits. Just as it is a tragedy that the world prior to the flood had to be cleansed from the mikvah of the flood. It was also a tragedy for the people of Sodom and Gomorrah.

The fact is the females that were saved from the destruction had the choice to become married or not. They did not have to marry a Jewish man. The statement of facts are amoral.

This is simply a Red Herring.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

What does that make you?

A. A sicko?
B. A twisted sicko?

Neither of these. This BTW is an example of a false dichotomy. Just another poor attempt at an insult. You continuously whine about being “insulted” but do the same every chance you get.

Of course for muslims inventing things is okay.
“He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar.” (Bukhari vol.3:857 p.533)

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

You should be condemning the whole story. Instead you are waving it online as the standard of wholesome loving biblical marriage. Whats up with that?

Yet another Red Herring. I never “waved it online as the standard of wholesome loving biblical marriage”. Please quote me where I said this concerning this passage.

If you can’t then we will know you are once again inventing your own “facts”. But hey why let the truth get in the way of your Red Herring?

What I have done is repeatedly went to the creative order as the standard set by God in the beginning. That is one man and one woman created in maturity.

Thanks for proving the title of this “Thread”.

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Also you seem to find this passage quite challenging so you have skirted around it this entire discussion. You skipped it in your little "seminar" on rape like a schoolgirl on the hopscotch court.

23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her,
24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife.

Instead you only posted this:

25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die.
26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor

That's intellectually dishonest. Just saying. If a tree falls in the city and nobody hears, that tree gets stoned for it in your bible. Thus says the LORD.

ROTFL! You have had a bad habit of not documenting anything. Thus, making the reader guess. Just like now you can’t even give the book or the source of the citation.

If I have not addressed this before it is no doubt because you have not been clear in your explanation. I will be happy to do so.

BTW that surely wasn’t another poor attempt at an insult was it? LOL!
I believe Jesus would call you a hypocrite.

And actually if you had quoted me correctly it would have looked like this:
(Deu 22:23 KJV) If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
(Deu 22:24 KJV) Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

Please note the book, chapter and verse that is used when a citation is made.

Concerning the passage in question. Here is the text once again:
(Deu 22:23 KJV) If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;

It is stated that these people lied together. A man finds her and “lies with her”. This speaks of a consensual relationship. This is underscored in the next verse:

(Deu 22:24 KJV) Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

This woman did not cry out. There was no rape. It was a consensual relationship.
See how easy that was? And with keeping in context with the passage and the entire Bible.

[shazeep]

It's a shame that you seem to have read the Bible, and yet grasped none of it, Pliny. Of course, that's in there also, huh?

Originally Posted by Dordrecht

Killing Charlie Hebdo….. How long should we accept these muslim murderers to continue?

Well, Islam condemns these acts of violence--but i doubt that Fox News has shown any of that, so; the real question for us, as Christians, is why we allow and even encourage hate to propagate. From the pulpit, no less--or possibly ex-pulpit (Pliny is obviously retired). A strong argument could be made that because we have allowed disturbed individuals to insinuate themselves into positions meant for pastoral types--which let's admit, you guys don't seem to come across as--we now have the society we have today.

But of course i expect that neither of you will man up and go do something about your...convictions, being as how it is so much more convenient to mock and giggle back here, where it's safe. WII, why do you keep feeding these trolls?

[shazeep]

Although, Pliny was a Roman, so perhaps you are just a frog hopping, so to speak.