|
Post by captainbryce on May 29, 2017 14:55:25 GMT
captainbryce How is it "perfectly okay"? He must pay compensation, marry her and is prohibited from divorcing her. It's like saying it's perfectly okay to break the road speed limit providing you pay the fine and permanently lose your driving licence. ![](http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e41/imdbv2/imdbsmileys/laugh.gif) I can't believe you have such a cavalier attitude about RAPE! And I'm not even going to engage in this conversation with you any further until you demonstrate some level of condemnation or acknowledgement that all forms of rape are morally unacceptable. Right now, you seem to be endorsing rape under certain circumstances, or providing that the rapist marries the victim and pays her father. And if THIS is the avenue you truly want to take as a Christian, then you are not doing your religion any justice. I will await a more reasonable response from you before determining whether or not I can speak to you again. I can't in good conscious carry on a discussion with someone who legitimizes, minimizes, or trivializes RAPE in any way shape or form. Your response has truly nauseated me.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on May 29, 2017 14:58:28 GMT
Ladies and gentlemen...I give you CHRISTIANITY! ![](https://s3.amazonaws.com/secretsaucefiles/photos/images/000/103/920/large/iWKad22.jpg?1485311798)
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on May 29, 2017 16:59:20 GMT
tpfkar ![](https://emojipedia-us.s3.amazonaws.com/cache/11/52/11528212c628e7ed1c9ad2fa1babfe3d.png) Should just be a "rape ticket", amirite? Women shouldn't be presidents, prime ministers or chancellors.
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on May 29, 2017 17:48:59 GMT
captainbryce Are you serious? Where is the word consent used or even implied in your original quote? You claimed if a woman did not protest, resist, or say no, nobody back then considered that rape. Now if a woman today doesn't protest, resist, or say no, what reason would we have to consider it rape? How is it "perfectly okay"? He must pay compensation, marry her and is prohibited from divorcing her. It's like saying it's perfectly okay to break the road speed limit providing you pay the fine and permanently lose your driving licence. ![](http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e41/imdbv2/imdbsmileys/laugh.gif) Hey, don't worry too much about being raped because we're going to make the guy marry you and never leave you! That just might be the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on May 29, 2017 17:50:35 GMT
tpfkar ![](https://emojipedia-us.s3.amazonaws.com/cache/11/52/11528212c628e7ed1c9ad2fa1babfe3d.png) Should just be a "rape ticket", amirite? Women shouldn't be presidents, prime ministers or chancellors.You want to marry someone but they aren't too keen on the idea (or you)? Just rape them! Then Cody will show up and force you to marry and live with the girl for the rest of your life. What does the girl want? Who gives a fuck?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2017 18:05:33 GMT
captainbryce How is it "perfectly okay"? He must pay compensation, marry her and is prohibited from divorcing her. It's like saying it's perfectly okay to break the road speed limit providing you pay the fine and permanently lose your driving licence. ![](http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e41/imdbv2/imdbsmileys/laugh.gif) I can't believe you have such a cavalier attitude about RAPE! And I'm not even going to engage in this conversation with you any further until you demonstrate some level of condemnation or acknowledgement that all forms of rape are morally unacceptable. Right now, you seem to be endorsing rape under certain circumstances, or providing that the rapist marries the victim and pays her father. And if THIS is the avenue you truly want to take as a Christian, then you are not doing your religion any justice. I will await a more reasonable response from you before determining whether or not I can speak to you again. I can't in good conscious carry on a discussion with someone who legitimizes, minimizes, or trivializes RAPE in any way shape or form. Your response has truly nauseated me. Actually if you take a look at the context and investigate the original language a strong case can be made that this passage isn't even dealing with rape at all but seduction. The word translated as rape in verses 28-29 is shakab which means to lie down, sexually or can be otherwise. The word for rape used in the previous verse is taphas which means to catch, handle, lay hold, take hold of, seize, wield. So yeah the bible very much condemns all forms of rape and so do I for that matter.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on May 30, 2017 18:42:37 GMT
tpfkar ![](https://emojipedia-us.s3.amazonaws.com/cache/11/52/11528212c628e7ed1c9ad2fa1babfe3d.png) So what was all your talk about speeding tickets and marriage for rape? Does a banana have a brain and organs too? Yet it shares roughly the same % of DNA to us as a Fruit Fly. The evidence discredits itself.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on May 30, 2017 21:30:48 GMT
I can't believe you have such a cavalier attitude about RAPE! And I'm not even going to engage in this conversation with you any further until you demonstrate some level of condemnation or acknowledgement that all forms of rape are morally unacceptable. Right now, you seem to be endorsing rape under certain circumstances, or providing that the rapist marries the victim and pays her father. And if THIS is the avenue you truly want to take as a Christian, then you are not doing your religion any justice. I will await a more reasonable response from you before determining whether or not I can speak to you again. I can't in good conscious carry on a discussion with someone who legitimizes, minimizes, or trivializes RAPE in any way shape or form. Your response has truly nauseated me. Actually if you take a look at the context and investigate the original language a strong case can be made that this passage isn't even dealing with rape at all but seduction. The word translated as rape in verses 28-29 is shakab which means to lie down, sexually or can be otherwise. The word for rape used in the previous verse is taphas which means to catch, handle, lay hold, take hold of, seize, wield. So yeah the bible very much condemns all forms of rape and so do I for that matter. Okay, I'm willing to accept your explanation here (in terms of how you see it anyway). But a few problems I have with this defense are as follows: 1) You are incorrect about which word is translated as "rape". In verse 28, the word you just referenced taphas IS the word translated correctly as "rape". Sakab is also used in the same verse and is translated as "lies with". So the passage is most correct rendered as "and seizes her and lies with her". The NIV translation consolidates all of that into "and rapes her", while other more word for word translations render both words. The point is, the passage is still talking about rape in the end (according to the original Hebrew). Deuteronomy 22:28 (Hebrew Interlinear)2) The answer provided by the Christian apologist website "gotanswers.com" acknowledges that the passage is talking about rape, and attempts to defend the scripture by saying this: We must see Deuteronomy 22:28–29 through the lens of ancient culture. In those days, social convention treated women poorly. They couldn’t own property. They couldn't get a job to support themselves. If a woman had no father, husband, or son, she had no legal protection. Her options were slavery or prostitution. If an unmarried woman wasn’t a virgin, it was extremely difficult for her to get married. If she wasn’t marriageable, her father didn’t have much use for her.
God’s punishment on the rapist of a virgin—a monetary fine and lifelong responsibility—was designed to deter rape by holding the rapist responsible for his actions. He ruined her life; it was his responsibility to support her for the rest of her life. This may not sound fair to modern ears, but we don’t live in the same culture they did.Why does the bible condones rape?All things being equal, the simplest explanation is the best one. The reason that this explanation sounds unfair is because it is in fact UNFAIR! Not because of cultural differences that allow for immorality to be interpreted as moral. If God's morality is universal, unchanging, and correct, then the cultural norms of the time (what is considered moral through the lens of the common man) become entirely irrelevant. And I'm pretty sure you yourself (as well as many other Christians) have made this exact argument to explain why LGBT rights are "wrong". The idea being passed off as "Christian" is that God says it's wrong, therefore it is always wrong regardless of how society views it. Well you can't have it both ways! Either God's morality adapts to the culture, or it is always consistent irrespective of the culture. And if the penalty for rape is marrying the victim and paying the father, then rape is obviously not considered an abominable crime as is say homosexuality (where the penalty is DEATH). And that's just an example of how messed up biblical morality is. That because women are not viewed as equal with men but only as property, then violent rape of a woman becomes tolerated as a much lesser sin than the consensual loving relationship between two members of the same sex. And no logical argument for why homosexuality is considered a sin worthy of death is EVER actually given in the bible. The one sin in the bible that harms no one, and is an expression of consensual love is coincidentally the one sin that offers no moral reason for why it is worthy of death. It merely says words to the effect of God doesn't like it. He finds it detestable (for whatever reason), and everyone is just supposed to go along with that without any further explanation. By contrast, RAPE which is obviously harmful to the victim is not worthy of death so long as the woman wasn't already engaged (i.e. married off by her father).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2017 22:39:19 GMT
captainbryce Let's go through the passage carefully, along with the surrounding context. Key parts underlined: ““But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die.”Deuteronomy 22:25The Hebrew word translated here as "forces"(chazaq) is actually translated as rape in the NIV, why does the author choose a different word in verse 28 when he could have used the same word he uses for an actual rape like the one clearly highlighted in verse 25? “But you shall do nothing to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death, for just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so is this matter.”Deuteronomy 22:26 The woman here is clearly the victim and the innocent party. “For he found her in the countryside, and the betrothed young woman CRIED OUT, but there was no one to save her.”Deuteronomy 22:27 Notice here the betrothed woman cried out? By screaming it indicates that the woman is being forced to have sex against her will, non-consensual in other words. ““If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.”Deuteronomy 22:28-29Now notice there's no "cried out" involved here. This indicates that she consented to sex with the man. This is evidenced even further when it reads "they are found out" showing that both of them are held accountable as opposed to the woman in verse 25-27 who is not guilty.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2017 22:56:16 GMT
captainbryce Th penalty for rape is death. Contextually and linguistically it makes for more sense that what's being dealt with in verse 28 is about punishment of a man seducing an un-married virgin woman.
|
|
blade
Junior Member
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@blade
Posts: 2,005
Likes: 636
|
Post by blade on May 30, 2017 23:28:26 GMT
captainbryce Let's go through the passage carefully, along with the surrounding context. Key parts underlined: ““But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die.”Deuteronomy 22:25The Hebrew word translated here as "forces"(chazaq) is actually translated as rape in the NIV, why does the author choose a different word in verse 28 when he could have used the same word he uses for an actual rape like the one clearly highlighted in verse 25? “But you shall do nothing to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death, for just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so is this matter.”Deuteronomy 22:26 The woman here is clearly the victim and the innocent party. “For he found her in the countryside, and the betrothed young woman CRIED OUT, but there was no one to save her.”Deuteronomy 22:27 Notice here the betrothed woman cried out? By screaming it indicates that the woman is being forced to have sex against her will, non-consensual in other words. ““If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.”Deuteronomy 22:28-29Now notice there's no "cried out" involved here. This indicates that she consented to sex with the man. This is evidenced even further when it reads "they are found out" showing that both of them are held accountable as opposed to the woman in verse 25-27 who is not guilty. Exactly my point earlier in this thread. "they are found out" It is consensual sex.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on May 30, 2017 23:30:16 GMT
tpfkar Just yesterday you were saying it was marriage and not being able to play the field. ![](http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e41/imdbv2/imdbsmileys/giveup.gif) Women shouldn't be presidents, prime ministers or chancellors.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on May 31, 2017 0:22:12 GMT
Let's go through the passage carefully, along with the surrounding context. The Hebrew word translated here as "forces"(chazaq) is actually translated as rape in the NIV, why does the author choose a different word in verse 28 when he could have used the same word he uses for an actual rape like the one clearly highlighted in verse 25? ““If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.”Deuteronomy 22:28-29Now notice there's no "cried out" involved here. This indicates that she consented to sex with the man. This is evidenced even further when it reads "they are found out" showing that both of them are held accountable as opposed to the woman in verse 25-27 who is not guilty. The answer to the first question is irrelevant UNLESS you can prove that the two words have different meanings in the context of the passages. The fact that the concordance defines both words as "to seize" signifies that in this context they are synonymous. If if you want to claim that they should be interpreted differently, well that actually cuts against your argument because "chazaq" is actually the more benign word as it can also mean to aid, to amend, to repair, to fortify, or to strengthen. "Taphas" on the other hand is ostensibly used in a more aggressive (negative) context. If you want to ask why an author wrote something the way he did, well that's pretty much what this whole discussion is about. Unfortunately we can never truly know the motivation for any author dead for thousands of years. They wrote it because those were the stories they heard through oral tradition throughout their lifetimes. Does it imply that they are true, or that they make sense? No. Regarding verses 28-29 not mentioning the girl crying out -- the passage doesn't require that stipulation! Because the issue isn't whether or not she was a willing participant (the fact that she was seized implies that she wasn't). Whether she was willing or not is irrelevant to the author (as it would have been to anyone during that time since women were not equal to men). The issue is whether or not her father was compensated for his daughter being violated. The reason the earlier verses make reference to the woman "crying out" or not is because if she did not cry out then she was guilty of ADULTERY (which was a crime worthy of death). A virgin cannot commit adultery, so it doesn't matter if she cries out or not. If she is raped, then her rapist is allowed to marry her against her will providing he pays her father. Her rights as a virgin are irrelevant; she has none!
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on May 31, 2017 0:31:22 GMT
captainbryce Th penalty for rape is death. Contextually and linguistically it makes for more sense that what's being dealt with in verse 28 is about punishment of a man seducing an un-married virgin woman. But that's not what "Taphas" means! It means to seize, stop, surprise, take hold on, catch, handle, wield, take, etc. All of those terms imply possession, NOT seduction. If the author wanted to imply that seduction was taking place, he would have use the word "yə·p̄at·teh", which means to entice or seduce and conveys the meaning you are attempting to impart much better than the word that is used. So no, that argument doesn't work either.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2017 7:39:03 GMT
captainbryceYour argument fails here by the fact that whenever rape is clearly described in other parts of the OT such as Shechem on Dinah and Amnon on Tamar none of them use the word "taphas", but "chazaq" and/or "shaqab".
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on May 31, 2017 10:49:51 GMT
captainbryce Your argument fails here by the fact that whenever rape is clearly described in other parts of the OT such as Shechem on Dinah and Amnon on Tamar none of them use the word "taphas", but "chazaq" and/or "shaqab". Actually my "argument" is that the word "taphas" means to seize, and in the context of sex can only be interpreted as rape (which is why it is translated as such). What is your counter argument? If you are implying that it means something OTHER than rape, how then should it be taken according to you (and why do most biblical scholars disagree with you)?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2017 11:51:03 GMT
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on May 31, 2017 11:55:55 GMT
tpfkar Your arguments laughably fail because before you switched to redefining words, your answer was that marriage and the loss of "playing the field", was a good punishment for rape, just like any good Islamist. Women shouldn't be presidents, prime ministers or chancellors.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on May 31, 2017 17:25:15 GMT
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on May 31, 2017 17:28:55 GMT
tpfkar Your arguments laughably fail because before you switched to redefining words, your answer was that marriage and the loss of "playing the field", was a good punishment for rape, just like any good Islamist. Women shouldn't be presidents, prime ministers or chancellors.Kettle logic is ALWAYS used in defense of the bible on nearly every indefensible topic. That's why I hold to the mantra that the simplest explanation is the best one. If it looks like a rat, and sounds like a rat, and smells like a rat, it's probably NOT a squirrel! And if God's word and biblical moral were truly universal and self evident, then it shouldn't require mental gymnastics, convoluted explanations, and kettle logic to justify. Since it always does, what then is a neutral observer supposed to assume about it?
|
|