|
Post by sacerdotal on Aug 30, 2012 10:16:40 GMT -5
Disturbing interview with a Catholic leader. It pertains to the fellowship with no name as well because I have heard the same arguments from the friends and workers- that the sister workers or the friends MUST HAVE seduced the poor, brother workers. I have seen and heard that allegation more than once in regards to the smearing of one poster on this site. In the article the 78 year old friar says the following:"People have this picture in their minds of a person planning to — a psychopath," Groeschel said. "But that’s not the case. Suppose you have a man having a nervous breakdown, and a youngster comes after him. A lot of the cases, the youngster — 14, 16, 18 — is the seducer."
Pressed for clarification, the New York State-based religious leader explained that kids looking for father figures might be drawn to priests to fill an emotional hole in their lives.
I have heard some of the friends use the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT to try and excuse away a worker's behavior. Stop it. It's called statutory rape if the person is under 18. No matter if the girl took her clothes off and danced around naked in the worker's suitcase- it is rape. Period. End of story. No mitigating circumstances. No excuses. But, that wasn't the end of the friar's foot in the mouth disease. He went on to say that just 10 or 15 years ago, no one thought of sex with boys as a crime! What??!!! Religion really warps reality. Here is his quote: Furthermore, Groeschel expressed a belief that most of these "relationships" are heterosexual in nature, and that historically sexual relationships between men and boys have not been thought of as crimes.
"If you go back 10 or 15 years ago with different sexual difficulties — except for rape or violence — it was very rarely brought as a civil crime. Nobody thought of it that way... And I’m inclined to think, on first offense, they should not go to jail because their intention was not committing a crime."This post isn't a slam on the workers or friends. But it is very much a mirror and a chance to see how we as friends and workers look when we try and excuse away sexual misdeeds by the workers. We are then complicit in their evil and worse, we doubly hurt the victims. www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/29/father-benedict-groeschel-teens-seduce-priests_n_1840900.html
|
|
|
Post by snow on Aug 30, 2012 10:32:13 GMT -5
Not surprised in the least. It is still very much a crime where the victim is the one that is in the wrong. Crazy making for sure!!
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Aug 30, 2012 10:35:29 GMT -5
10 or 15 years ago, it was difficult to report a sex crime. You could, but authorities didn't take it seriously. There wasn't much of a penalty. Plus, no Internet, so people would see someone penalized for "a little sex," and you didn't see the impact on the victim's life.
Past ignorance isn't good policy for future behavior.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2012 10:37:38 GMT -5
I agree sacerdotal that this is a typical mindset for many with roots in ultra conservative religious context --- expecially if one backs the clock with 10 to 20 years. Taking into account that 2x2 leadership is at least 40-50 years out of touch with reallity it isn't so strange that it is unable to deal with the situations of today.
A major problem for 2x2ism is its hardnecked resistance to any kind of receptivness to modern moral insight - in short their hardnecked resistance to any form of reform or improvment. This in turn has its root in the idiotic self-righteous doctrine that 'our organizational principles are perfect and always have been "
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2012 12:02:46 GMT -5
I have been told repeatedly over the past 8 months by famly, friends and workers that these are crimes of the flesh and there for, should not be talked about!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by ts on Aug 30, 2012 12:15:58 GMT -5
I agree sacerdotal that this is a typical mindset for many with roots in ultra conservative religious context --- expecially if one backs the clock with 10 to 20 years. Taking into account that 2x2 leadership is at least 40-50 years out of touch with reallity it isn't so strange that it is unable to deal with the situations of today. A major problem for 2x2ism is its hardnecked resistance to any kind of receptivness to modern moral insight - in short their hardnecked resistance to any form of reform or improvment. This in turn has its root in the idiotic self-righteous doctrine that 'our organizational principles are perfect and always have been " The problem has nothing to do with not being receptive to modern, moral insight. It has to do with not being receptive to the life of Jesus and HIS view of righteousness. THAT is where the stiffneckedness comes in. I don't give a fig about past, present of future societal moral insight. Jesus view of purity is the same as God's and that has never changed. Men have changed but not God. Sexual immorality defiles the body and damages others in many ways. It is serious and will keep a person out of heaven for all eternity. Sexual immorality is compared to idolatry.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Aug 30, 2012 12:16:41 GMT -5
I have been told repeatedly over the past 8 months by famly, friends and workers that these are crimes of the flesh and there for, should not be talked about!!!!!!! Yes, sex has always been a taboo for discussion amongst the people in the fellowship! Again, there are many of us that are raised within the fellowship and as young girls and ladies going out into the world to make our place that we were not and are not taught how to protect ourselves....and thus we end up with a male who is aggressive like LW was with the SW who said she "froze" because she did not know what to do.....and as usual, her attacker warned her that she would be put out of the work and out of the fellowship if she should squeal on him..... But being taught just what to do has helped many young females protect themselves and yes, rat, I know that some have been raped anyway.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Aug 30, 2012 12:21:07 GMT -5
There is no excuse for people who believe the bible to not have understood that forcing anyone with sexual activity is not to be tolerated.....in fact in the bible, it speaks about men who compromise a maid what is to be done in whatever action happened...if he forced a maid and she did not scream and they were in an area where her screams would have been heard, both her attacker and she herself were to be stoned to death.
However it does say that if a male forces a maid and they are where her screams were not heard, that the male was to be stoned to death but the maid was not stoned. And if the male forced an unespoused female that he had to pay the bride price to her father and he had to take her as his wife and keep her all his days.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Aug 30, 2012 12:38:30 GMT -5
There is no excuse for people who believe the bible to not have understood that forcing anyone with sexual activity is not to be tolerated.....in fact in the bible, it speaks about men who compromise a maid what is to be done in whatever action happened...if he forced a maid and she did not scream and they were in an area where her screams would have been heard, both her attacker and she herself were to be stoned to death. However it does say that if a male forces a maid and they are where her screams were not heard, that the male was to be stoned to death but the maid was not stoned. And if the male forced an unespoused female that he had to pay the bride price to her father and he had to take her as his wife and keep her all his days. Yeah that's a great solution. Tell me, what woman here would want to be given as a wife to someone that had just raped her?? There is no consideration whatsoever for women in the bible. It is a very rare occurance that they are not a possession, a commodity. Yet people think the bible is a good guideline of how to treat women now? Not imo.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2012 12:47:32 GMT -5
I don't give a fig about past, present of future societal moral insight. Jesus view of purity is the same as God's and that has never changed. Men have changed but not God. Sexual immorality defiles the body and damages others in many ways. It is serious and will keep a person out of heaven for all eternity. Sexual immorality is compared to idolatry. Wow --- that sure has it all nailed down!!! Sure to bad about David in the old testiment, the woman at the well, the woman taken in adultery etc etc. But sure am thankful there are morally pure folks like you to keep the standard high!!! Maybe Jesus should have taken a few lessons from you as to how to deal with imorality. He seemed a little slack.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Aug 30, 2012 13:11:12 GMT -5
I don't give a fig about past, present of future societal moral insight. Jesus view of purity is the same as God's and that has never changed. Men have changed but not God. Sexual immorality defiles the body and damages others in many ways. It is serious and will keep a person out of heaven for all eternity. Sexual immorality is compared to idolatry. Wow --- that sure has it all nailed down!!! Sure to bad about David in the old testiment, the woman at the well, the woman taken in adultery etc etc. But sure am thankful there are morally pure folks like you to keep the standard high!!! Maybe Jesus should have taken a few lessons from you as to how to deal with imorality. He seemed a little slack. It does not matter if we are morally pure or not. God's standards are the same. If God's standards changed with our society, one culture would have to confess one type of sin that was not a sin for another culture. Think of the satan worshipers whom God can speak to and draw out of satan worship. Now, are they going to say that it is ok for people to worship satan(and all the immorality that goes with it) as long as it is a part of their beliefs and culture? NO!! they will rebuke that activity and still have compassion on them. I think the problem is that people have a hard time believing that rebuke and compassion go together. There is too much of people calling rebuke "judgmental".
|
|
|
Post by snow on Aug 30, 2012 16:44:28 GMT -5
Wow --- that sure has it all nailed down!!! Sure to bad about David in the old testiment, the woman at the well, the woman taken in adultery etc etc. But sure am thankful there are morally pure folks like you to keep the standard high!!! Maybe Jesus should have taken a few lessons from you as to how to deal with imorality. He seemed a little slack. It does not matter if we are morally pure or not. God's standards are the same. If God's standards changed with our society, one culture would have to confess one type of sin that was not a sin for another culture. Think of the satan worshipers whom God can speak to and draw out of satan worship. Now, are they going to say that it is ok for people to worship satan(and all the immorality that goes with it) as long as it is a part of their beliefs and culture? NO!! they will rebuke that activity and still have compassion on them. I think the problem is that people have a hard time believing that rebuke and compassion go together. There is too much of people calling rebuke "judgmental". Rebuke requires someone to judge that the other person did something wrong. So yes, rebuke is judgemental. You're not supposed to be focused on what others do ts. We all have enough to manage just watching ourselves. Self righteousness is never seen by the one being self righteous though. And, yes, I'm sure I've been there more than once.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Aug 30, 2012 17:17:05 GMT -5
It does not matter if we are morally pure or not. God's standards are the same. If God's standards changed with our society, one culture would have to confess one type of sin that was not a sin for another culture. Think of the satan worshipers whom God can speak to and draw out of satan worship. Now, are they going to say that it is ok for people to worship satan(and all the immorality that goes with it) as long as it is a part of their beliefs and culture? NO!! they will rebuke that activity and still have compassion on them. I think the problem is that people have a hard time believing that rebuke and compassion go together. There is too much of people calling rebuke "judgmental". Rebuke requires someone to judge that the other person did something wrong. So yes, rebuke is judgemental. You're not supposed to be focused on what others do ts. We all have enough to manage just watching ourselves. Self righteousness is never seen by the one being self righteous though. And, yes, I'm sure I've been there more than once. Yes, you are right. Rebuking someone of sexual immorality requires judgment. But righteous judgment is different from self-righteous judgment. It is right to depart from immorality and to get power over sin by the power of the blood of Yeshua. If one does not do that, then they will not be saved from a lost eternity. We know that it is possible to do so because of Yeshua. It is not self righteous to proclaim the source of all help and forgiveness. It is not self righteous to give our testimony of the journey by which we were saved from the same path of destruction. It is with urgency that I speak this because we don't know how many years or days we have left before Yeshua returns or before we die. Plus, our Father has much more in store for us than for anyone to just be saved or waste their years in sin. He has a mission for each of us. A destiny to fulfill in His will. If that message is self righteous, then there is no one who can proclaim YHVH's message and urge men towards obedience to YHVH that is righteousness. There, then, are none who can preach the gospel.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Aug 30, 2012 17:50:05 GMT -5
...And Jesus certainly sent men to preach the gospel.
However, immorality in the ministry is not acceptable. Neither is deception and greed. Those who are against kicking out immoral workers make it seem like there are none capable of preaching the gospel unmarried without having sex any number of times with any number of people and being forgiven for it in order to remain in ministry.
I actually agree with that. But the solution is not to keep the immoral ones in the work but to restructure the work to have marriage and families. But still not allow immorality in the ministry.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 30, 2012 17:55:32 GMT -5
I have been told repeatedly over the past 8 months by famly, friends and workers that these are crimes of the flesh and there for, should not be talked about!!!!!!! Shocking doctrine. From Jude: 17 But, dear friends, remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ foretold. 18 They said to you, “In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires.” 19 These are the people who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit. 20 But you, dear friends, by building yourselves up in your most holy faith and praying in the Holy Spirit, 21 keep yourselves in God’s love as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life. 22 Be merciful to those who doubt; 23 save others by snatching them from the fire; to others show mercy, mixed with fear—hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2012 19:07:47 GMT -5
What do they mean by a "crime of the flesh" and how does that differ from other crimes?
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Aug 30, 2012 19:49:13 GMT -5
One cannot have reasonable discourse on these topics without separating the three: Illegal, immoral and sinful. They are not one and the same.
While it may be illegal for an 18-year old single man to have sex with a single woman aged 17 years and 364 days old, and legal a day later, all other things being equal, it doesn't necessarily mean that either or both are moral.... or immoral.... And who's to say whether either or both are sinful? Kind of depends on which part of the bible one wishes to apply.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Aug 30, 2012 21:08:30 GMT -5
Editor’s Note: Child sexual abuse is never excusable. The editors of the National Catholic Register apologize for publishing without clarification or challenge Father Benedict Groeschel's comments that seem to suggest that the child is somehow responsible for abuse. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our publication of that comment was an editorial mistake, for which we sincerely apologize. Given Father Benedict's stellar history over many years, we released his interview without our usual screening and oversight. We have removed the story. We have also sought clarification from Father Benedict. Jeanette R. De Melo Editor in Chief
www.ncregister.com/daily-news/father-benedict-groeschel-reflects-on-25-years-of-the-franciscan-friars-of/
AUGUST 30, 2012 BY ADMIN FILED UNDER LATEST NEWS RELEASES Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on remarks made by Father Benedict Groeschel in the National Catholic Register regarding the sexual abuse of minors: A quarter century ago, Father Groeschel and seven other priests broke away from a religious community to found the Franciscan Friars of Renewal. His service to the Church over the past half-century has been nothing less than heroic. His ministry to the least among us is especially noteworthy. Father Groeschel holds a Ph.D. in psychology from Columbia University, and has put his training to work by counseling some of the most mentally and socially challenged people in our society. In addition, for the past four decades he has been screening men for the priesthood, weeding out those who should not be ordained. His record is impressive.
In a recent interview, he hypothesized how a young person (14, 16 or 18, as he put it) could conceivably take advantage of a priest who was having a nervous breakdown. He also referred to Jerry Sandusky, the disgraced Penn State football coach, as “this poor guy.” For these remarks, and related comments, he is now being labeled as a defender of child abuse.
The accusation is scurrilous. In the same interview, Groeschel emphatically said that priests who are sexual abusers “have to leave.” His reference to Sandusky was exactly the way a priest-psychologist might be expected to speak: “poor guy” conveys sympathy for his maladies—it is not a defense of his behavior! Indeed, Groeschel asked, “Why didn’t anyone say anything?” Groeschel is nearly 80 years old. A few years back, he was almost killed in an auto accident that left him disabled; it has definitely taken a toll on him. I have known him for two decades, and recently spent an afternoon with him. I’ve read his books, listened to his tapes—on sexual abuse—and have come to know a great priest. To condemn him for one part of one interview is wholly unjust. www.catholicleague.org/fr-groeschel-under-fire/
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE August 30, 2012
The Community of the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal sincerely apologizes for the comments made by Fr. Benedict Groeschel in an interview released yesterday by the National Catholic Register, online addition. In that interview, Fr. Benedict made comments that were inappropriate and untrue. A child is never responsible for abuse. Any abuser of a child is always responsible, especially a priest. Sexual abuse of a minor is a terrible crime and should always be treated as such. We are sorry for any pain his comments may have caused. Fr. Benedict has dedicated his life to helping others and these comments were completely out of character. He never intended to excuse abuse or implicate the victims. We hope that these unfortunate statements will not overshadow the great good Fr. Benedict has done in housing countless homeless people, feeding innumerable poor families, and bringing healing, peace and encouragement to so many.
Fr Benedict helped found our community 25 years ago with the hope of bringing the healing peace of Jesus Christ to our wounded world. Our desire has always been to lift-up humanity and never to hurt. About seven years ago, Fr. Benedict was struck by a car and was in a coma for over a month. In recent months his health, memory and cognitive ability have been failing. He has been in and out of the hospital. Due to his declining health and inability to care for himself, Fr. Benedict had moved to a location where he could rest and be relieved of his responsibilities. Although these factors do not excuse his comments, they help us understand how such a compassionate man could have said something so wrong, so insensitive, and so out of character. Our prayers are with all those who have been hurt by his comments, especially victims of sexual abuse.
Personal Statement from Fr Benedict Groeschel:
I apologize for my comments. I did not intend to blame the victim. A priest (or anyone else) who abuses a minor is always wrong and is always responsible. My mind and my way of expressing myself are not as clear as they used to be. I have spent my life trying to help others the best that I could. I deeply regret any harm I have caused to anyone.
franciscanfriars.com/for-immediate-release-august-30-2102/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2012 21:39:16 GMT -5
"He also added later that anyone involved "on their first offense, they should not go to jail because their intention was not committing a crime." "This is pretty unreal. Nice coverup though: "The friars expressed regret for the remarks and highlighted Groeschel's medical history. They said he had been in a car accident several years ago, and that "in recent months his health, memory and cognitive ability have been failing." They described the comments as "out of character." "www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/30/benedict-groeschel-sex-abuse-apology_n_1844947.html
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 30, 2012 22:05:41 GMT -5
There is no excuse for people who believe the bible to not have understood that forcing anyone with sexual activity is not to be tolerated. I can't decide if this is a joke or if this is what you really believe. If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.Rape is tolerated. You just have to pay the woman's father. And then the victim is forced to marry the man who raped her and is never allowed to be divorced. How many victims are forced to spend the rest of their lives with their abuser? God's view of rape: Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.'God brings the women to the neighbors and lets them rape them in plain sight on the roof of the palace. How does this speak against rape? When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again.Selling daughters as slaves to please the new owner??? And selling her as a refundable item if she does not please her owner. What part of these point out the wrongness of rape? What is the moral compass expressed in these rules/laws?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 30, 2012 22:20:09 GMT -5
It does not matter if we are morally pure or not. God's standards are the same. If God's standards changed with our society, one culture would have to confess one type of sin that was not a sin for another culture. So owning a slave is still the high moral ground? Selling your daughter men as slaves - still the unchanged moral code? And if you rape the punishment is that you have to pay the father (just like you would for damaged property) and the victim gets to live with the abuser for life. And these are the moral codes from the god you fear? Point out one moral issue that people who you claim worship satan that is worse than selling your daughter for someone's sexual pleasure. You claim the moral codes from god are unchanging. I have mentioned some moral codes presented by god to 'his people'. Taking you at your word, you believe these are true and unchanging. So the buying and selling of slaves as well as beating them, as long as they live a day or two, is acceptable?
|
|
|
Post by kencoolidge on Aug 30, 2012 22:56:58 GMT -5
It does not matter if we are morally pure or not. God's standards are the same. If God's standards changed with our society, one culture would have to confess one type of sin that was not a sin for another culture. So owning a slave is still the high moral ground? Selling your daughter men as slaves - still the unchanged moral code? And if you rape the punishment is that you have to pay the father (just like you would for damaged property) and the victim gets to live with the abuser for life. And these are the moral codes from the god you fear? Point out one moral issue that people who you claim worship satan that is worse than selling your daughter for someone's sexual pleasure. You claim the moral codes from god are unchanging. I have mentioned some moral codes presented by god to 'his people'. Taking you at your word, you believe these are true and unchanging. So the buying and selling of slaves as well as beating them, as long as they live a day or two, is acceptable? To quote you I can't decide if this is a joke or if this is what you really believe.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2012 5:39:06 GMT -5
I was also told by a few MEN that the only reason this was being made a big deal of at this time in the WORLD is because the WORLD is obsessed with SEX. It is interesting to see the MEN on here argue about weather rape was approved by God or not. Then you WONDER why workers and friends are so messed up about this. I have to ask if it was your wife, daughter or sister being raped or molested would you think GOD APPROVED!!!!!!!!! I don't think for one minute God approved what was done to me as a CHILD.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 31, 2012 8:00:59 GMT -5
I was also told by a few MEN that the only reason this was being made a big deal of at this time in the WORLD is because the WORLD is obsessed with SEX. It is interesting to see the MEN on here argue about weather rape was approved by God or not. Then you WONDER why workers and friends are so messed up about this. Actually, It was sharon who made the claim that the bible didn't approve of rape. And it has long been the claim of Ken and TS that the unchanging morals of a feared god form the basis of their moral code. I was pointing out that the bible doesn't take a very strong stand against rape and, in fact, is often part of the commands given by god. The question I have, which of course was not answered, is that if these are the unchanging moral examples provided by the bible as the basis for people's moral compass how can you expect a bible believing theist to take a stronger stand against rape than to force the woman to marry the rapist and pay off her father? It was not immoral for a father to sell his daughter to strangers to do with as they wished and Lot was willing to offer his virgin daughters to protect his guests. With these being presented in the bible as the guiding examples what behavior do you expect? What makes you think it makes any difference how the women are related? A rape is a rape whether it is your wife, mother, sister, or a young child in Africa. This is one of those moral questions. While the bible, for example, blames the woman if she is within the city walls and doesn't yell loud enough should there be a condition on rape? I guess it depends on what you base your moral code.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2012 8:07:33 GMT -5
I was also told by a few MEN that the only reason this was being made a big deal of at this time in the WORLD is because the WORLD is obsessed with SEX. It is interesting to see the MEN on here argue about weather rape was approved by God or not. Then you WONDER why workers and friends are so messed up about this. I have to ask if it was your wife, daughter or sister being raped or molested would you think GOD APPROVED!!!!!!!!! I don't think for one minute God approved what was done to me as a CHILD. Actually, It was sharon who made the claim that the bible didn't approve of rape. And it has long been the claim of Ken and TS that the unchanging morals of a feared god form the basis of their moral code. I was pointing out that the bible doesn't take a very strong stand against rape and, in fact, is often part of the commands given by god. The question I have, which of course was not answered, is that if these are the unchanging moral examples provided by the bible as the basis for people's moral compass how can you expect a bible believing theist to take a stronger stand against rape than to force the woman to marry the rapist and pay off her father? It was not immoral for a father to sell his daughter to strangers to do with as they wished and Lot was willing to offer his virgin daughters to protect his guests. With these being presented in the bible as the guiding examples what behavior do you expect? Those are tough questions for bible believers but ones that all Christian theists need to examine to understand where and how the bible should fit into a sound faith. Avoidance of the issue is not healthy for one's personal integrity.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 31, 2012 8:13:32 GMT -5
So owning a slave is still the high moral ground? Selling your daughter men as slaves - still the unchanged moral code? And if you rape the punishment is that you have to pay the father (just like you would for damaged property) and the victim gets to live with the abuser for life. And these are the moral codes from the god you fear? Point out one moral issue that people who you claim worship satan that is worse than selling your daughter for someone's sexual pleasure. You claim the moral codes from god are unchanging. I have mentioned some moral codes presented by god to 'his people'. Taking you at your word, you believe these are true and unchanging. So the buying and selling of slaves as well as beating them, as long as they live a day or two, is acceptable? To quote you I can't decide if this is a joke or if this is what you really believe.Ken, Consider this is not a joke. Unchanging morals based on the fear of god. Slavery? OK as specified by god's commandments? Rape? Ok if you pay the father and force the victim to marry the rapist?
|
|
|
Post by electbygrace on Aug 31, 2012 8:29:23 GMT -5
Here's an exegesis of Deuteronomy 22:28-29 which comes to different conclusions from Rational www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/ot_and_rape.htm"We prayerfully hope that by the grace of our risen Lord and eternal Savior Jesus Christ, this short paper will be of great help to those Christians who have been confronted by Muslims with the accusation that the Holy Bible condones the raping of women."
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 31, 2012 9:03:48 GMT -5
Here's an exegesis of Deuteronomy 22:28-29 which comes to different conclusions from Rational www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/ot_and_rape.htm"We prayerfully hope that by the grace of our risen Lord and eternal Savior Jesus Christ, this short paper will be of great help to those Christians who have been confronted by Muslims with the accusation that the Holy Bible condones the raping of women." Wow. 4,500+ words to spin this in the right direction. Most words have multiple meanings and if the definitions are carefully selected you can spin almost any meaning. Thanks for the reference.
|
|