- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by DeepThoughtSex without consent IS rape.
I don't own any slaves.
Once again, there are two separate offences, one of sex without consent, which is what rape was defined as and still is, and one of forced sex. In the modern world consent lies with the woman alone so the offences are identical, that wasn't the case in the ancient world. With a female slave consent lay with the master. So it ...[text shortened]... not think you can construct a rape out of it in either the modern or ancient sense of the term.
Period, end of, full stop.
Claiming otherwise is a one stop drop to moral scum hood.
You don't want to go there.
There is no other valid viewpoint.
Originally posted by vivifyNo, my post was not built around the last sentence in it - it was built around the observation that rape is defined as sex without consent and that in the ancient world the consenting party was the father, not the woman, and therefore when they talk about rape in ancient texts they may not necessarily mean what we would understand rape to be.
The Bible's punishment for raping an unmarried girl is so slack, that it's immoral. If I was a judge who didn't condone rape, but merely made rapists pay a fine, wouldn't you think I was an evil judge, especially if the victim was someone you loved?
And since your entire post in question was built around your incorrect belief that the bible condones premarital sex, the entire post ended up being part of a larger overall fallacious point.
Originally posted by googlefudgeHow dare you misrepresent what I am saying like that. I was describing the state of the law in ancient times. This is certainly not the same as condoning it. Where ancient texts refer to rape they may not be referring to the offence we understand rape as. In those days consent lay with the father, not the woman, so when they say rape they mean something different to what we do.
Sex without consent IS rape.
Period, end of, full stop.
Claiming otherwise is a one stop drop to moral scum hood.
You don't want to go there.
There is no other valid viewpoint.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
2 edits
Originally posted by DeepThoughtUtter bul*****
No, my post was not built around the last sentence in it - it was built around the observation that rape is defined as sex without consent and that in the ancient world the consenting party was the father, not the woman, and therefore when they talk about rape in ancient texts they may not necessarily mean what we would understand rape to be.
The ONLY relevant consent is by the people actually engaging in sex.
If you do not consent it's rape. period.
Now we do have statutory rape for when you have sex with someone unable
to legally consent. However this makes additional acts rape, it doesn't allow
anyone to remove another's right to say no, just some peoples right to say yes.
It doesn't matter what the people of the time 'understand' BECAUSE THIS WAS
SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN WRITTEN BY ALMIGHTY GOD'
If that was true it should not be possible for our present morality to be better
than gods is.
The bible gets no free pas because of it being written by ignorant ancient
peoples who didn't know better because those using it as a moral guide claim
it to be divinely inspired by fricking god.
So what your post is built around is trying to excuse rapists.
EDIT: whether that is you intention or not, it's what you are doing.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by DeepThoughtSee my last post.
How dare you misrepresent what I am saying like that. I was describing the state of the law in ancient times. This is certainly not the same as condoning it. Where ancient texts refer to rape they may not be referring to the offence we understand rape as. In those days consent lay with the father, not the woman, so when they say rape they mean something different to what we do.
How dare you try to justify this abomination.
The law is irrelevant because this is about ETHICS.
How can you be so blind as to not see that?
Originally posted by googlefudgeWhere have I justified forced sex? Rape like other legal terms is a technical term, defined in a particular way. If the legal jurisdiction does not recognise the right of one party to give consent then what we would regard as consensual sex becomes rape. It is a wider definition. So stop trying to demonise me to win an argument.
See my last post.
How dare you try to justify this abomination.
The law is irrelevant because this is about ETHICS.
How can you be so blind as to not see that?
Originally posted by googlefudgeHe is not justifying rape. He is pointing out that in ancient texts what is termed 'rape' isn't what you mean by the word.
How dare you try to justify this abomination.
The law is irrelevant because this is about ETHICS.
How can you be so blind as to not see that?
For example, suppose a girl has consensual sex with a man but her father does not approve. The Bible would call that rape.
Suppose a slave girl has non-consensual sex with her owner. The Bible would not call that rape.
His is not justifying either act.
Originally posted by vivify
The Bible's punishment for raping an unmarried girl is so slack, that it's immoral. If I was a judge who didn't condone rape, but merely made rapists pay a fine, wouldn't you think I was an evil judge, especially if the victim was someone you loved?
And since your entire post in question was built around your incorrect belief that the bible condones premarital sex, the entire post ended up being part of a larger overall fallacious point.
The Bible's punishment for raping an unmarried girl is so slack, that it's immoral. If I was a judge who didn't condone rape, but merely made rapists pay a fine, wouldn't you think I was an evil judge, especially if the victim was someone you loved?I do not think that the Bible is saying this. Referring back to the section we looked at from Deuteronomy it is basically saying that if she can prove rape (in the modern sense of the word) then the perpetrator is to be executed. The problem with their law code is that the burden of proof is with her - if she does not cry for help, which a victim is not necessarily going to do out of fear, then she is assumed to have consented. The fine is for consensual pre-marital sex.
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes, that was precisely my point. A few observations though. In your first example, the consensual case, I certainly would not condemn the couple. In the second example, with the slave girl she is not happy with it so it is clear, but there's an interesting question about cases she is happy with the situation. Then her consent is not entirely freely given, because she is a slave and not free, the property relation distorts the human relationship.
He is not justifying rape. He is pointing out that in ancient texts what is termed 'rape' isn't what you mean by the word.
For example, suppose a girl has consensual sex with a man but her father does not approve. The Bible would call that rape.
Suppose a slave girl has non-consensual sex with her owner. The Bible would not call that rape.
His is not justifying either act.
1 edit
Originally posted by sonshipI was expecting some signatures.
Please indicate if one Christ as Lord and Savior according to the "new covenant".
Just sign your ID below.[/b]
In case it was not noticed, allow me to repost this:
======================================
Please sign your tag under this, indicating your concern if this is the situation:
"If I confess I am a sinner and receive Jesus Christ for salvation and redemption, I will not be able to be a Christian in good conscience. The reason is that I might have to have slaves, or stone a woman according to the Law of Moses."
Please indicate if one or more of the laws of Moses forbid you to receive Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior according to the "new covenant".
Just sign your ID below.
4 edits
Along with the fear of having to be a Christian with slaves, pending the above debate, I'd like to know if there is a fear of HAVING to have pre-marital sex. You fear perhaps that the Old Testament books of Leviticus or Deuteronomy will obligate you to have pre-marital sex.
Who has this kind of concern:
"If I become a follower of Jesus Christ I may have to have pre-marital sex or rape a woman. Therefore the OT laws forbid my conscience from following Jesus Christ."
Sign your ID to this if you have this kind of hesitation for believing in the Son of God.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtWell the property relationship itself is immoral and should be questioned as much as the rape.
Yes, that was precisely my point. A few observations though. In your first example, the consensual case, I certainly would not condemn the couple. In the second example, with the slave girl she is not happy with it so it is clear, but there's an interesting question about cases she is happy with the situation. Then her consent is not entirely freely ...[text shortened]... ven, because she is a slave and not free, the property relation distorts the human relationship.
If you lived in a society where slaves were the norm and 'raping' a slave was considered permissible, then one might choose to not rape ones slave on moral grounds, but one should equally choose not to have slaves. I guess to what extent one should fight against slavery in such a society would be up for debate.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by twhiteheadUtterly irrelevant to the discussion at hand which is whether the bible is a pile
He is not justifying rape. He is pointing out that in ancient texts what is termed 'rape' isn't what you mean by the word.
For example, suppose a girl has consensual sex with a man but her father does not approve. The Bible would call that rape.
Suppose a slave girl has non-consensual sex with her owner. The Bible would not call that rape.
His is not justifying either act.
of moral filth as judged by US.
The term being used IS our term not theirs.
I am using OUR meaning of the word pointing to the act NOT the one in the bible.
The ACTS described in the bible match OUR definition of rape [which is not JUST a
legal term] and as such the bible condones, authorises, and encourages rape by
OUR definition and is such an immoral pile of garbage.
THAT is the point.
Arguing that the word 'rape' as used in the bible or by the people of that time might
mean something different is to spectacularly miss the point.