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

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

.... 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....

The book of judges being a great testamony to that once again and let some live on.

 

[TheDag]

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?

Yes I did mistakenly read your posts in other threads including the debate and include that here. My mistake

 

[BL2KTN]

No worries.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Latest post is here: #8

 

[BL2KTN]

The book of judges being a great testamony to that once again and let some live on.

I quote from Judges in this one =)

 

[theophilus777]

This is not a "hard law for hard times".

This is a sick, immoral law which supposedly come from a non-sick moral god. It makes no sense.

Translation: you do not understand it. It does take effort. It will not arrive at something we would approve of today.

 

[theophilus777]

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.

You miss the point. It is not moral to overturn society. You don't charge straight into a stampede of cattle, either. Instead, you ride up alongside them, and nudge them a little bit at a time, until they are going where you want them to go.

God is not a slavedriver, that is satan. God is the Good Shepherd. If that's not what you want, there's always ... the other camp. Do you really think you will find him more to your liking?

 

[theophilus777]

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.

And again you ignore the harsh reality of a pre-modern agricultural society of subsistence farmers.

 

[godenver1]

I haven't read the actual formal debate past one or two responses, but I'm enjoying the dialogue here.

 

[BL2KTN]

Glad you're enjoying - hope you learn a bit, whatever side you take.

 

[theophilus777]

hope you learn a bit

Jeremy has failed to point out that the initiation of the sexual act could very well have been by the female. Neither one of you address the fact that this was an honor society. Mr "scholar, author and educator," you never once give any indication of knowing what this even means. Further, you give every indication of the idea never having dawned on you because you dwell on definition of words moreso than their context. What 3 things are most important in understanding any Biblical passage? Context, context, and context. You have ignored all 3. You do stick to your preconceived ideas though.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Jeremy has failed to point out that the initiation of the sexual act could very well have been by the female. Neither one of you address the fact that this was an honor society. Mr "scholar, author and educator," you never once give any indication of knowing what this even means. Further, you give every indication of the idea never having dawned on you because you dwell on definition of words moreso than their context. What 3 things are most important in understanding any Biblical passage? Context, context, and context. You have ignored all 3. You do stick to your preconceived ideas though.

Theophilus, you are right. I have failed to point this out but my reason was simple.

I do not need to. You see, I am being charitable to my opponent and will not push the issue that these laws we are referencing are general statutes and not mean't to be comprehensive. These laws find their place within the large metanarrative of the OT. I believe leaving this out, we can still demonstrate that the verses in question do not legislate a rapist being able to marry his/her rape victim without his/her consent.

 

[BL2KTN]

Jeremy, it is considered bad taste to way in on the Peanut Gallery while you are participating in the debate.

Also, I encourage you to cease being charitable; it isn't going well for you.

 

[theophilus777]

Theophilus, you are right. I have failed to point this out but my reason was simple.

I do not need to. You see, I am being charitable to my opponent and will not push the issue that these laws we are referencing are general statutes and not mean't to be comprehensive.

Quite right. I'm a bit abrasive with his guy due to his smug attitude, and claim of scholar, author and educator. So much he should have known before undertaking such a debate but yes, you won handedly w/o even needing to bring this point up. I'm just hoping he lets a little truth sink in here about what he has so vehemently opposed w/o understanding. "Who is this who darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?" (Job 38:2)

I don't even mind someone undertaking more than they realized, its the vehemence combined with it that rubs me the wrong way.

These laws find their place within the large metanarrative of the OT. I believe leaving this out, we can still demonstrate that the verses in question do not legislate a rapist being able to marry his/her rape victim without his/her consent.

TOTALLY correct! And that is the pivotal issue, the consent of the female, who likely was never a "victim" in the context of the passage in question. In an honor society, this would automatically be considered a rape until the Father also gave his consent. Its a very strange way of thinking, compared to our society. I'm glad all that has been left behind. But the usage of the term "rape" here would be very different than the way we use it today. More like the way a lady is taught to cover up a bit as she sits, while wearing a dress. Its a polite social convention.

And with apologies to Mr Tennessee, it is SO easy to miss these subtle social cues that are never explained in the text. Compare it to someone in the year 3075 finding a present day newspaper clipping that reads "Seahawks beat Dolphins," and trying to base scientific discovery upon that, due to being utterly clueless about our sports culture.

 

[BL2KTN]

Mr "scholar, author and educator," you never once give any indication of knowing what this even means.

I'll be happy to address your concerns once the debate is over. In the meantime, please remember not to be demeaning.

 

[theophilus777]

Jeremy, it is considered bad taste to

You warned Sarah that Jeremy is the one to "debate the debate." SMH

 

[BL2KTN]

Yes. I wasn't a part of that debate and helped instruct her as to his odd tactics. That doesn't pardon your behavior of calling me names. That isn't in accordance with the rules of the forum and it certainly isn't befitting of the symbol that denotes you as a Christian. Others might report you to moderators, but I just hope you'll clean up the conduct on your own instead.

 

[theophilus777]

Yes. I wasn't a part of that debate and helped instruct her as to his odd tactics. That doesn't pardon your behavior of calling me names. That isn't in accordance with the rules of the forum and it certainly isn't befitting of the symbol that denotes you as a Christian.

The names I called you are right beside your username. Names you chose for yourself. To take offense to that is silly. You call yourself a scholar? I expect some scholarship of you. Funny that. You call yourself a teacher and an author? Hopefully it is not on any topic related to the Bible. Perhaps you are more knowledgeable in whatever your field of expertise is.

Others might report you to moderators, but I just hope you'll clean up the conduct on your own instead.

Calling error error is not against the rules. It is those errors themselves that is the conduct to clean up. If you can't tolerate being confronted with the truth, why hang out with Christians? We got martyred for being mealy-mouthed?

 

[BL2KTN]

Your demeaning conduct doesn't phase me. I'll be happy to respond to your questions when the debate is over. Just be aware that comments like "perhaps you are more knowledgeable in whatever your field of expertise is" won't garner any kind of response. I'll just ignore it and continue along with the actual questions.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Jeremy, it is considered bad taste to way in on the Peanut Gallery while you are participating in the debate.

Also, I encourage you to cease being charitable; it isn't going well for you.

So says the one who has been weighing in since the beginning.