Trump sez: Transgenders B gone!
- Thread starter ok doser
- Start date
Maybe that's because DNA hadn't yet been discovered...?
:idunno:
DNA samples are witnesses in and of themselves. Which means we ARE settling it "the way scripture says to."
Show me in scripture where is says that a woman deserves to be raped by a man due to her promiscuous actions.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
You lying piece of filth.
I'm not drinking.
No one has said such. In fact, I specifically stated the opposite....
In case that wasn't explicit, allow me to make it so.
The stripper would not be charged for being raped. She WOULD be charged for being a stripper.
The RAPIST would be charged with rape. Not the victim.
Do you remember what the Bible says about the rape victim's innocence? It's in the Law (the first portion of the Old Testament), if you need a hint.
No it's not.
When scripture speaks of witnesses it is speaking of people.
And when there is no witness scripture gives a ritual in the law to perform, as has already been pointed out.
And, as Glorydaz has already pointed out, only one nation was given that law to follow.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
your posting behavior indicates otherwise :idunno:
Then you haven't been paying attention to what Doser thinks both in this thread and in several of his previous threads that some women DESERVE to be raped due to their actions.
His very word --- DESERVES.
No it does not.
Only your perverted imagination does.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
and in a trial with dna evidence, the dna evidence is supported by the testimony of an expert who can explain the significance of that evidence
that expert is a person
I recommend you retract that statement and get a Bible concordance, and look up the term "witness." You'll find that throughout the Bible, the term witness is used to refer to both people AND inanimate objects.
False premise. "Witness" means more than "eyewitness" in the Bible.
So then we should just get rid of the law entirely, right? WRONG.
Paul says we ESTABLISH the law.
Please quote the post where he said this.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
wow
that was literally years ago (eta - three years ago)
and you're still burning over that enough to bring it into this conversation where it has no validity?
if you like, I'll resurrect a couple of those rape threads and we can hash it all out again :idunno:
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
she's presenting it out of context - guess i better pull up one of the threads in question
To be honest, "deserve" is a pretty strong word.
Should a stripper be, for lack of a better term, prepared to deal with the consequences of her actions? Of course.
But no one "deserves" to be raped.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Here, JR - this is one of my favorites: http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...g-Wrong-quot&p=4622372&viewfull=1#post4622372
now, the question i was asking is this - has mary "earned by her actions the consequences of those actions"?
that's the definition of "deserve" that we were working with, as specified by kmoney
now, the question i was asking is this - has mary "earned by her actions the consequences of those actions"?
that's the definition of "deserve" that we were working with, as specified by kmoney
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Zechariah 14:1
Last edited:
That person did not witness the crime, retard.