1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThere is nothing within this verse which in any way, shape or form implies rape---
It is idiocy like this that make the efforts of some herein so gosh-darned laughable. You, googlefudge and others seize upon isolated parts of Scripture and with your over-the-top 'a-ha!' mentality, demand all the readers to doubt the moral superiority (and thus the authority) of both the Bible and God.
Not even close.
Take the text within context a the consequences would befall both the man and the woman found in a compromising position.
How about the word 'rape'? How does that fit in with your scheme of things? Either you conveniently missed it or we're having one of those 'theist non-standard definition of a word moments'. Do tell.
The early scenarios depict adultery, death to them both. Engaged girls who get raped are split into two groups- those who get raped in the city and those who get raped in the countryside. Curiously those girls who get raped in the city who don't cry out are put to death, i guess that means they must be enjoying themselves too much to cry for help. Pity the girl who doesn't cry out because she has a knife to her throat or who is petrified with fear. Because let's face it, if a girl is raped and keeps it too herself, on her wedding night if her new husband finds out she is not a virgin the men of the town get to stone her to death. Nice. Which brings us to the text i quoted, which is exclusively for virgins who are not pledged to be married.
Now, what was your point?
Originally posted by FMFThat was just my imagination working to rationalize the differences that
Which specific words in this bible text do you claim mean that this verse could be about "the woman [seducing] the man into having intercourse with her in order to get married" [rather than non-consensual sex] as you suggested in an earlier post? Specifically.
might result in why the man might not be put to death like in the other
cases. There was other cases where a woman deceived the man into
having sex with her for one purpose or another and is recorded in the
Holy Bible.
Originally posted by RJHindsSo, confronted with a scenario in which there is non-consensual sex, you grant yourself leeway to imagine something else which is not supported by the text of the bible?
That was just my imagination working to rationalize the differences that
might result in why the man might not be put to death like in the other
cases.
Originally posted by wolfgang59I do think God made His Ten Commandments very clear. However, these
Do you not think that if there was a god and he wanted us to follow his laws he would make them concise, clear and unambiguous?
Do you not think that if there was a god he would have his laws communicated in all languages?
Do you not think that if there was a god he would want all you well-intentioned theists to understand and agree on his laws?
Do you not think?
laws were made by Moses, as Jesus pointed out. Moses was not perfect
and I believe he did what he could do to encourage the people to do right
by others. Moses was not known for his wisdom like Solomon.
Originally posted by RJHindsDid the bible refer to this deception/consensual sex as "rape"? If not, what does it have to do with the "rape" mentioned in the bible that we are discussing?
There was other cases where a woman deceived the man into
having sex with her for one purpose or another and is recorded in the
Holy Bible.
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper KnobYou make assumptions due to your lack of knowledge and that causes
[b]There is nothing within this verse which in any way, shape or form implies rape---
How about the word 'rape'? How does that fit in with your scheme of things? Either you conveniently missed it or we're having one of those 'theist non-standard definition of a word moments'. Do tell.
The early scenarios depict adultery, death to them both. Eng exclusively for virgins who are not pledged to be married.
Now, what was your point?[/b]
you to jump to conclusions. Maybe, that is why you do not do well in chess.
Originally posted by RJHindsoh dear, oh dear, with greater match up rates than either Bobby Fischer or Boris
You make assumptions due to your lack of knowledge and that causes
you to jump to conclusions. Maybe, that is why you do not do well in chess.
Spassky, two former world champions, id say you were treading on thin ice.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAre you now making disparaging remarks about my American chess hero
oh dear, oh dear, with greater match up rates than either Bobby Fischer or Boris
Spassky, two former world champions, id say you were treading on thin ice.
Bobby Fischer? You can say what ever you want about Boris Spasky,
Originally posted by Proper KnobWhile I appreciate your lack of exposure to the original language, and thus, any nuance involved, nonetheless the original text does not lend itself to forcible sex. Instead, "they" are found, implying a consensual act.
[b]There is nothing within this verse which in any way, shape or form implies rape---
How about the word 'rape'? How does that fit in with your scheme of things? Either you conveniently missed it or we're having one of those 'theist non-standard definition of a word moments'. Do tell.
The early scenarios depict adultery, death to them both. Eng ...[text shortened]... exclusively for virgins who are not pledged to be married.
Now, what was your point?[/b]
That being said, even if the act was not consensual your insistence that somehow the rapist was 'getting away with it' while the woman suffered more is equally uninformed. In those times, a woman's sole means of financial stability was tightly bound to her relationship with a man. Without a man, a woman was toast, in other words.
Also in those days, no man would take a wife who was not a virgin. A woman who was known to lack the virtue of virginity was damaged goods and sentenced to a life of solitude, save her immediate family, unless some other remedy was given her for relief.
Although this verse decidedly does not mention rape in the original language, it does speak about a man consummating a relationship with a virgin outside the bounds of acceptable methods. His penalty here is three-fold. He owes the father a sum of fifty shekels; he must now make the woman his wife; he can never divorce her--- no matter what.
In essence, he has become her security for her entire life all for one rash act of sensuality. Whereas marriage following the acceptable protocol allowed for divorce in certain situations, this man was bound forever to provide for her with no relief no matter the circumstance.
i guess that means they must be enjoying themselves too much to cry for help.
Your ignorance is appalling.
This is an issue of freedom and the protections thereof.
If a woman has a hope of preserving her virginity without losing her life, she is expected to do so.
Originally posted by FMFSure they do. In all cases where both are guilty, they are brought out together. When it is the man's forcible actions, he alone is found, he alone is brought. If that isn't enough to satiate your blood lust, the words immediately preceding this phrase do not accurately translate as rape, aren't the same as those used before.
The words "they are found" implies nothing of the sort.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNo. You're reaching. There is nothing implied by the word "they" as you contend, certainly not in the context - that you yourself portray - of women as chattel and women dishonoured by losing their virginity improperly, even if raped. RJHinds is arguing this bible text may imply false claims of rape by a deceitful woman and you are suggesting that the word "they" suggests consensual sex. Neither of you is convincing in the slightest.
Sure they do. In all cases where both are guilty, they are brought out together. When it is the man's forcible actions, he alone is found, he alone is brought. If that isn't enough to satiate your blood lust, the words immediately preceding this phrase do not accurately translate as rape, aren't the same as those used before.