28 Feb '15 06:27>
Get.
Over.
It.
The OT accepted slavery.
Over.
It.
The OT accepted slavery.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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]
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.
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.