Peanut Gallery - Does Yahweh Command Male Rapists to Purchase Their Voiceless...

[BL2KTN]

It has been two days since I submitted my rebuttal. Mark has been online multiple times each day, and I messaged him yesterday in several different ways for him to verify that he received the rebuttal for approval. He has not responded. I do not know when he will respond.

 

[bhsmte]

It has been two days since I submitted my rebuttal. Mark has been online multiple times each day, and I messaged him yesterday in several different ways for him to verify that he received the rebuttal for approval. He has not responded. I do not know when he will respond.

It must have been a doozy.

 

[BL2KTN]

I was surprised they let me do another formal debate after the bible one.

 

[SolomonVII]

It has been two days since I submitted my rebuttal. Mark has been online multiple times each day, and I messaged him yesterday in several different ways for him to verify that he received the rebuttal for approval. He has not responded. I do not know when he will respond.

Well that's disappointing.
It kind of feels like a waste of time to be invited to a debate, and not be able to see it through.
That must go doubly for those who are carrying the actual debate.

 

[BL2KTN]

Yes, it is confounding at this point.

 

[BL2KTN]

It's up now. Maybe Mark had just been very busy...

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

It has been two days since I submitted my rebuttal. Mark has been online multiple times each day, and I messaged him yesterday in several different ways for him to verify that he received the rebuttal for approval. He has not responded. I do not know when he will respond.

Sorry, I don't always log off. I admit that I was busy at work, and was somewhat exhausted... still am, but I am having fun there and here.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I was surprised they let me do another formal debate after the bible one.

I weigh each debate on it's merits. I don't need to agree with a particular premise; if everyone else did, there would be nothing to debate, would there?

 

[Achilles6129]

Not in the modern sense. But rape still means without permission. In those days only a father had the authority to give that permission.

Not in Biblical law. In Biblical law rape is actually punished by death.

"16 When a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged to be married, and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. 17 But if her father refuses to give her to him, he shall pay an amount equal to the bride-price for virgins." Ex. 22:16-17 (NRSV)

Incidentally, v.16 is exactly what the passage under discussion (Deut. 22:28) is referring to.

 

[BL2KTN]

I weigh each debate on it's merits. I don't need to agree with a particular premise; if everyone else did, there would be nothing to debate, would there?

Maybe one day the two of us can debate. I don't know on what, but I think you would likely be a formidable person to dialogue with.

 

[SolomonVII]

DebateLink
Tsk tsk tsk.
Someone forgot to link the latest debate post.

 

[SolomonVII]

The Old Testament and Rape : Commentary on Deuteronomy 22:28-29

As Brown-Driver-Briggs demonstrates, the word can be used in relation to sexual intercourse as well as for other things. The following examples help demonstrate that shakab does not necessarily imply a forced sexual act:

"And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, ‘Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: ‘If any man's wife goes astray and behaves unfaithfully toward him, and a man lies (shakab) with her carnally, and it is hidden from the eyes of her husband, and it is concealed that she has defiled herself, and there was no witness against her, nor was she caught—" Numbers 5:11-13 NKJV

Here, the word shakab refers to a voluntary sexual act between two consenting parties, in this case to a woman who voluntarily chooses to commit adultery. It is clear that the woman in question wasn't forced into having sex. Again:

"If a man lies with a woman so that there is a seminal emission, they shall both bathe in water and be unclean until evening." Leviticus 15:18

When it is a question of what is meant by a particular word, the rule of thumb has always been to let the Bible interpret the Bible.

In this case, one does not have to be proficient in the Hebrew language to see how the same word is used in different contexts, and therefore see that there are cases where rape cannot be the proper translation.

Going through the rest of the Deuternomy law on sexual behavior, the principle being established is consent, and the type of social obligations that either of the two parties were under when they entered into a sexual relationship, either willingly, or unwillingly.
The case was already established that if the woman was overtly unwillingly, the man has committed a capital offense, punishable by death.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You can't exactly legislate a job market into existence wherein an independent woman could find gainful employment. In that time a woman needed a male provider because trade skills were passed down from father to son with no educational provisions for women, because there were no public schools. And even if she acquired such skills (which she surely could have, being that women and men are truly equal in ways ancient societies did not fully recognize), what person would hire her, a woman?

I bet you're one of the same people that relishes in reminding us that the US cannot go in and impose its way of life on Afghans or Iraqis. Healer, thyself.

You simply have unrealistic expectations about what law can and cannot accomplish in society. Law doesn't impose ideal situations upon society; it regulates society as it exists, within the social structures and markets that exist. Attempts to reconstruct societies through legislation are not necessarily doomed to failure, but in an ancient society without the provisions and resources of the modern industrial state, they almost certainly are.

And of course, that's what we need to recognize about the Torah: it is a law code for an ancient society that humanized the legal code within its ancient context. It is not, and can never be, an ethical code for all time.

You're completely missing the point and babbling about irrelevant stuff.

I'm not talking about job markets etc. I'm talking about women being "doomed" in that society for being a victim of a crime. Being shunned and looked down on as if she is "damage goods".

Everything you said seems to confirm that this "perfectly moral" deity of yours simply accomodates the barbarism instead of speaking out against it.

We see this throughout the OT. Like condoning slavery and even detailing laws on how to do it. Instead of simply saying people are not property.

For an "unchanging, perfectly moral being", this is ... non-sensical.

 

[DogmaHunter]

the problem is that it has not been established that the passage is talking about rape. It just is not logical that it is. The issue has been raised that it means something else. All that has been done is that one person has come along and said this word today means this so therefore back then it must have meant the same thing. No adequate rebuttal has been made. If you don't get that point then let me ask you this. How many people in the 1940's would think you were calling them a homosexual if you described them as gay? None is the answer. All BlueLightningTN has done is looked at a couple of verses and ignored others.

Here's my problem with this "defense": regardless if the word means "rape" or something else... it still speaks of women as if they are cattle or goods to be traded.

The entire passage shows zero respect for women and reïnforces the idea that women should sit in the back, shut up and do as told.

It's exactly what I would expect if human male's came up with these rules in a barbaric man's society.

It's the opposite of what I would expect if these rules really come from a divine being that represents perfect morality and justice.

 

[TheDag]

Here's my problem with this "defense": regardless if the word means "rape" or something else... it still speaks of women as if they are cattle or goods to be traded.

The entire passage shows zero respect for women and reïnforces the idea that women should sit in the back, shut up and do as told.

It's exactly what I would expect if human male's came up with these rules in a barbaric man's society.

It's the opposite of what I would expect if these rules really come from a divine being that represents perfect morality and justice.

Well there are responses to that but it does get into a rather lengthy conversation that would be way off topic. Of course I have found people aren't really that interested in answers and sometimes they don't like them because they have trouble thinking from a different mindset that isn't their own. Of course your response ignores the rest of the bible when it is a whole and not to be taken in parts.

In any case from a debate point of view which is where I was approaching it from my comment still stands. BlueLighteningTN has not addressed a vital point yet is in this thread acting all smug despite not addressing a vital part.

 

[BL2KTN]

Hard for me to act smug when every post I've done has been to inform about the status of the debate. I haven't discussed the material of the debate or given any commentary whatsoever.

Projecting much?

 

[SolomonVII]

Here's my problem with this "defense": regardless if the word means "rape" or something else... it still speaks of women as if they are cattle or goods to be traded.

The entire passage shows zero respect for women and reïnforces the idea that women should sit in the back, shut up and do as told.

It's exactly what I would expect if human male's came up with these rules in a barbaric man's society.

It's the opposite of what I would expect if these rules really come from a divine being that represents perfect morality and justice.

The form that the bible takes has striking parallels with the forms that other Middle East literature and law codes take. The Covenants between Israel and God echo the covenants made between lord and liege in the Assyrians covenants. The Hammurabi code and the Law are of very similar design and cultural understanding. The flood myths of Sumeria are paralleled by biblical stories of similar form, structure, theme and content.

There may well be the perfect sounds that may be made that contain Divine messages of perfect justice and mercy, devoid of any and all cultural biases. Certainly an omnipotent, omniscient God could make those sounds to that satisfaction of even the most discerning and critical atheist. Instead God asks the question(rhetorically) if we have ears and do not hear, and eyes and do not see?
Even every and all messages made in a language and a style completely comprehensible to the people of the day went unheeded and was disobeyed.
Still, what the Bible gives us is a sacred history. Even as the commodification of women and bodies in general continues up until our day, and in many ways has even increased, there are many of us who are ready to move on from the Codes of Hammrabi and Assyrian contracts between lord and liege.

Your objections are no different than what most religious people today would have. Religious people do not follow the Hammurabi code any more nor less than you do. The Sacred History that the Bible ushered in flows along, carrying believer and non-believer alike in its current.

And then, once we understand that we are not the leaders looking down upon God, but followers iof history, fish flowing in the current of the Sacred path of History that he has set us all upon through his Bible, we are in a position to look upon any of the obscure passages and discern what is actually being said, and how such passages have led us from there, to here, and how the wisdom of the bible may lead us still from here, to where goodness is.

 

[BL2KTN]

New post from Jeremy is up; my response is submitted and will probably appear this afternoon.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

You're completely missing the point and babbling about irrelevant stuff.

I'm not talking about job markets etc. I'm talking about women being "doomed" in that society for being a victim of a crime. Being shunned and looked down on as if she is "damage goods".

Everything you said seems to confirm that this "perfectly moral" deity of yours simply accomodates the barbarism instead of speaking out against it.

We see this throughout the OT. Like condoning slavery and even detailing laws on how to do it. Instead of simply saying people are not property.

For an "unchanging, perfectly moral being", this is ... non-sensical.

So you don't even understand why I'm talking about job markets?

Alright then, let me ask this question: What would you suggest a woman who has been the victim of a crime do to secure her future?

(And I should note, as others have, that the passage in question is not talking about nonconsensual sex, i.e. rape, in the sense of a non-consenting woman, but only in the sense of a non-consenting father)

 

[squint]

Here's my problem with this "defense": regardless if the word means "rape" or something else... it still speaks of women as if they are cattle or goods to be traded.

The entire passage shows zero respect for women and reïnforces the idea that women should sit in the back, shut up and do as told.

It's exactly what I would expect if human male's came up with these rules in a barbaric man's society.

It's the opposite of what I would expect if these rules really come from a divine being that represents perfect morality and justice.

The Law of the Old Testament is not as easy as you propose to dissect.

Yes, God gave them the Law.

No, God did NOT give them a heart to understand that Law.

Therein resides the dilemma of the Old Testament Law.

Deuteronomy 29:4
Yet the Lord hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.

Even when tossing about terms such as man and woman, in truthful understandings there are no such applications applied to the sexes. The woman as the church for example, even if containing men. The relationship of Oneness, apart from male and female. All serve to blur the lines off of a strictly literal interpretation.

The short version?

The Law was never meant to be understood in the strict plane of the physical senses.

And no, disobedient children weren't meant to be stoned at the city gate either.

The debate from the flesh man understanding is worthless, as usual.

s