Is it Rape or Not

You are going to have to quote this. There is no such thing in the Bible as burning human beings as an offering to God, although there are reports of the heathen nations doing that. In any case I have no idea what you are referring to. Some of the Bible is simple historical reports that we trust as truthful reports because God oversaw their reporting. It certainly doesn't mean that God approves of everything that is reported. What exactly are you talking about.

I already answered this from various Bible commentaries. How did you manage to miss it? The virgins were not held to be guilty of the crime of seducing the Israelites into sexual misconduct.

It does no such thing.

Um, how about you go and talk to the various nations in 1500 BC about their practices with captives.

The problem here, as usual, appears to be with "rightly dividing the word of truth." God's Law was an improvement over ancient law, as has already been said. Nobody has defended ancient law as the gold standard of law. I've said ancient customs reflect fallen human nature, not the redeemed nature that God brings about. Ancient law and in fact most human laws reflect fallen nature to some extent. But I assume our laws now, after centuries of Biblical influence, are better than the old.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You missed a great deal apparently. The Old Testament was written in the context of ancient Middle Eastern culture, which of COURSE strongly influenced the attitudes of the various peoples, including the Israelites. God's Law was given into the midst of this cultural context, both reflecting what was God-given in it, and prescribing correctives to what was wrong with it. People here tend to make the mistake of attributing mere fallen human culture to God, and the other mistake of not reading His law in the context which it is correcting.

quote:

---

actually, I never understood the whole men attracted to virgins thingy.

---

Virgins don't know any better and so can't criticize your skillz in the sack.

In this case the situation is reversed. It is those who refuse to accept that the Bible condemns homosexuality who point to context in the vain hope of finding a way to twist a few words to prove that it's really talking about something else, but in this case there is no context needed. The condemnation of homosexual acts is absolute and unambiguous.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

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.

Paul is the servant of God and his teachings are from God.The homosexual designs on the angels who visited Lot were not made in the context of temple worship.This is off topic however, so if you want to discuss it further I'm sure there are plenty of threads out there on the subject already. There is no context here whatever. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Perhaps subject matter for another thread, only one atrocity at a time.Check up on Numbers 31:28-29 These are supposed commands from God!!! Not historical artifacts.I am comforted that you are trying to distance God from these commands although....

Well, it just seems that God could have, you know, told them not to.Edited by docpotato, : No reason given.

No more on this theme.

---

deletedEdited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

I can't imagine the mentality it would take to read the passage about dividing the spoils among the various classes to include sacrificing human beings. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.