Originally posted by @dj2becker
Maybe if you actually committed to a position there would be no confusion or mischaracterizations.

You don't seem confused, you just seem to be using deceitful and underhand debating techniques.

Originally posted by @avalanchethecat
You don't seem confused, you just seem to be using deceitful and underhand debating techniques.

Ok so why don’t you clearly state what your position is rather than being vague about it?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Ok so why don’t you clearly state what your position is rather than being vague about it?

The question currently under consideration is from where do you derive your moral certainty regarding rape given that your scripture is ambivalent on the subject. On what subject are you interested in my views?

Originally posted by @avalanchethecat
The question currently under consideration is from where do you derive your moral certainty regarding rape given that your scripture is ambivalent on the subject. On what subject are you interested in my views?

Given up on this one then have you beckerjunk?

Originally posted by @avalanchethecat
The question currently under consideration is from where do you derive your moral certainty regarding rape given that your scripture is ambivalent on the subject. On what subject are you interested in my views?

The question currently under consideration is from where do you derive your certainty that the scriptures are ambivalent on the subject of rape.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
The question currently under consideration is from where do you derive your certainty that the scriptures are ambivalent on the subject of rape.

I wondered how you were going to deal with that point. Obviously you are just going to deny it, of course, you really have no other option do you? And hey, here's an idea, why not try constructing your own sentences?

Originally posted by @avalanchethecat
I wondered how you were going to deal with that point. Obviously you are just going to deny it, of course, you really have no other option do you? And hey, here's an idea, why not try constructing your own sentences?

There is always the option of backing up your assertions if you could.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
There is always the option of backing up your assertions if you could.

They're not my assertions. You know full well that the bible does not unequivocally condemn rape and slavery, and that many people have espoused interpretations condoning both acts.

Originally posted by @avalanchethecat
They're not my assertions. You know full well that the bible does not unequivocally condemn rape and slavery, and that many people have espoused interpretations condoning both acts.

Deuteronomy 22:25-27

But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no offense punishable by death.

Both the Old and New Testaments condemn the practice of “man-stealing,” which is what happened in Africa in the 16th to 19th centuries. Africans were rounded up by slave-hunters, who sold them to slave-traders, who brought them to the New World to work on plantations and farms. This practice is abhorrent to God. In fact, the penalty for such a crime in the Mosaic Law was death: “Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death” (Exodus 21:16).

https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-slavery.html

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Deuteronomy 22:25-27

But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no offense punishable by death.

Both the Old and New Testaments condemn the practice of “man-stealing,” whic ...[text shortened]... caught must be put to death” (Exodus 21:16).

https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-slavery.html

Yep, read it all before, and I'm equally sure that you've read the arguments which condone both rape and slavery. That's the point. There are arguments for both positions. That's what unequivocal means.

Originally posted by @avalanchethecat
Yep, read it all before, and I'm equally sure that you've read the arguments which condone both rape and slavery. That's the point. There are arguments for both positions. That's what unequivocal means.

Give me what you think are the best arguments that condone rape and slavery.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Give me what you think are the best arguments that condone rape and slavery.

No i'm not interested in another discussion with you. My point is made by virtue of the existence of those arguments.

Originally posted by @avalanchethecat
No i'm not interested in another discussion with you. My point is made by virtue of the existence of those arguments.

Well the fact that 'arguments exist' do not mean they are justified at all, but I'm sure you know that and if you thought the arguments carried any weight you wouldn't have hesitated to share them.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Well the fact that 'arguments exist' do not mean they are justified at all, but I'm sure you know that and if you thought the arguments carried any weight you wouldn't have hesitated to share them.

Still not interested

Originally posted by @avalanchethecat
Still not interested

I would be either if I were you considering the 'arguments' I would have to try to defend.