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

[BL2KTN]

I have not and will not. Anyone can read this thread and see you are making a false allegation.

 

[TheDag]

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

Once again that is just your opinion. That is because you refuse to acknowledge words have different meanings at different times. You have also refused to look at surrounding verses that shows your argument makes no sense in at all. Yet you think your going well.
I look forward to you actually addressing some of the issues raised in the other thread to see if you can actually give answers. I'm sure anyone who is against christianity will think you are doing well because that is what they see. I have at least in the past said I don't know about certain passages. So I'm willing to acknowledge these things but this is not one of the times. Of course perhaps it could be if simple questions are answered.

 

[Targaryen]

This debate over a piece of text that I'd say not only Christians do not practise in this day and age, but through you know, a deeper understanding of the horrors involved in rape and the like. I have no idea what is trying to be proved in this thread.

But i guess even Deists need to race around with circular logic.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

http://www.christianforums.com/t7831757/#post66020361New post is up: #9

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Second last post is up: #10

 

[BL2KTN]

Glad to be done with this debate. Found the whole thing gross. We'll see how Jeremy does in his conclusion and then I'll be happy to discuss, take questions, etc.

 

[theophilus777]

Glad to be done with this debate. Found the whole thing gross.

It's talking about a young couple falling in love, and the only possible way for a lady to get out of a pre-arranged marriage she'd rather not enter into. So the seduction involved could very likely be instigated by the female. And your response is ewww gross.

 

[Targaryen]

It's talking about a young couple falling in love, and the only possible way for a lady to get of a pre-arranged marriage she'd rather not enter into. So the seduction involved could very likely be instigated by the female. And your response is ewww gross.

I saw it the same way sadly, all in an effort to say "Don't trust this Book!"

 

[theophilus777]

I saw it the same way sadly, all in an effort to say "Don't trust this Book!"

At least he's honest about that motive.

 

[SolomonVII]

The debate itself became bogged down and circular after basic facts could of the meaning of words could not be agreed upon.

My bias at the beginning was was to accept a harsh understanding of the text as being necessary for harsh times. Now without looking at the final conclusion from J.E.W., it has become readily apparent that the text is geared more toward correcting reckless sexual behavior rather than accommodating what would be considered criminal sexual behavior in either our society, or society in the times in which that text was written.

Instead of sticking to the text in question, and demonstrating with better argument and better evidence that Jeremy could not be correctly representing that text, Blue has instead spun off to a variety of other texts that may or may not give reason for his bias against the Bible, but do nothing to advance his case on the more limited scope that this debate was concerning itself with.

Since Jeremy convinced me that my initial understanding of the text was insufficient, my vote is that he wins the peanut.

 

[Targaryen]

The debate itself became bogged down and circular after basic facts could of the meaning of words could not be agreed upon.

My bias at the beginning was was to accept a harsh understanding of the text as being necessary for harsh times. Now without looking at the final conclusion from J.E.W., it has become readily apparent that the text is geared more toward correcting reckless sexual behavior rather than accommodating what would be considered criminal sexual behavior in either our society, or society in the times in which that text was written.

Instead of sticking to the text in question, and demonstrating with better argument and better evidence that Jeremy could not be correctly representing that text, Blue has instead spun off to a variety of other texts that may or may not give reason for his bias against the Bible, but do nothing to advance his case on the more limited scope that this debate was concerning itself with.

Since Jeremy convinced me that my initial understanding of the text was insufficient, my vote is that he wins the peanut.

Agreed.

 

[squint]

Glad to be done with this debate. Found the whole thing gross. We'll see how Jeremy does in his conclusion and then I'll be happy to discuss, take questions, etc.

Many have no appreciation of the finer matters of the LAW.

You merely mistook it for what it seemed to you on the surface.

Paul gave us an interesting glimpse of an obscure Old Testament Law, and applied it to believers today. Yet that Law had nearly nothing to do with what that Law appeared to be on the surface of the matters:

1 Cor. 9:
8 Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also?
9 For it is written in the law of Moses, thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?
10 Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.

Same Law. Two entirely different understandings derived. The text provides what may be deemed by some as 'the codes' on how Paul got from point A to point B.

But a person who has no appreciation of Gods Words and how to 'track them down' and, in the spiritual sense, to EAT them, are purposefully blocked out at the surface sights and get caught up in nonsense debates trying to disparage God.

The debate was worth your less than 2 cents worth. You merely see how you are led to see by the fleshly noose, the ring in the nose of the bull of the flesh beast to see.

Nothing more than that.

s

 

[theophilus777]

Everyone is telling Mr BluelightningTN the same thing, each from our own unique POV. Even though all that is true, the debate topic was "Does Yahweh Command Male Rapists to Purchase Their Voiceless, Female Victims?"

There is no possible debate on that, if one confuses the actual situation at hand with rape, and if one confines their consideration to the Hebrew people, at that specific time. He did not confine his consideration in this fashion, but still, that basic point (that the male in the text in question was indeed commanded to marry the female) is a given and not even up for debate. This contributes to why the debate itself was rather strange, and each participant went about making their own points but not really addressing one another much. Clearly BluelightningTN has a lot to get off his chest, and hopefully this helped with that. Maybe even being exposed to some of the depth of Scripture helped? I have no idea.

I do think Jeremy stayed closer to the actual topic, but the debate topic really needed to be re-constructed to make for a good (or even valid) debate.

All that being said, the OT does tackle some really icky stuff. God knows us well, and is not embarrassed by His Creation, nor our sexuality, nor any of our other problems. If nothing else, this topic should show us all that God not only knows, and sees, but CARES for us, even in the middle of our struggles that so often embarrass US.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

The debate itself became bogged down and circular after basic facts could of the meaning of words could not be agreed upon.

My bias at the beginning was was to accept a harsh understanding of the text as being necessary for harsh times. Now without looking at the final conclusion from J.E.W., it has become readily apparent that the text is geared more toward correcting reckless sexual behavior rather than accommodating what would be considered criminal sexual behavior in either our society, or society in the times in which that text was written.

Instead of sticking to the text in question, and demonstrating with better argument and better evidence that Jeremy could not be correctly representing that text, Blue has instead spun off to a variety of other texts that may or may not give reason for his bias against the Bible, but do nothing to advance his case on the more limited scope that this debate was concerning itself with.

Since Jeremy convinced me that my initial understanding of the text was insufficient, my vote is that he wins the peanut.

 

[Achilles6129]

I'm going to have to say that I think that Jeremy won the debate. Good job.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

I'm going to have to say that I think that Jeremy won the debate. Good job.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Final post is up: #11

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

The debate was a good one I think. Thanks Mark for setting it up and thank you BlueLightningTN for participating.

 

[The Outlier]

I did a paper on this very subject, but seeing as it appears to be garbled when I type it in, I will have to post it later.

 

[The Outlier]

Its interesting that in the Old Testament, women could inherit property, and yet they were treated as property. If there is one thing you need to get from the Bible, it should be this: Whenever you read about a practice in history that sounds unfair, try to find out what life was like at the time and what life was like before that. The past will reveal new information and hopefully give a new outlook to anyone who grew up surrounded by rights they take for granted and rights that other people fought for. The law given to the Hebrews in the desert mandated that if a man wanted to marry a woman, there was a process he had to go through.

He couldn’t just pick her up and carry her off on his back like a sack of potatoes- at least, not among God’s people. The bride price was like a dowry. It was also essentially giving her status. There were 3 stages to the marriage: contract, consummation and then a ceremony. In our culture we have the proposal (which is not really a binding contract), the wedding ceremony, and then both are free to consummate the marriage. This is not the way it worked back then. In the Code of Hammurabi, if a man had not slept with a woman, she was not his wife. In this culture too, consummation was a mandate for marriage. An unmarried girl was her father’s property and responsibility until a man came along. So, while she was considered her father’s property, she was protected by him.

If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife.17 If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins.

By forcing a man with marital intentions to come up with a bride price, God was providing a way for a woman who was unloved after a situation of rape to gain freedom and justice from the man. If he raped her whether he was interested in her or not afterwards he had to pay it. He either had to make her his wife, giving her protection and rights under marriage, or he had to give her the dowry of a married woman. The father had to consent to this. So while many today look at that and see a raped woman forced into marriage with a man who raped her, there is a choice involved. The man had a choice, the woman had a choice, and the father had a choice. Let’s look at the story of Rebecca in Genesis. This story starts with Abraham being very old and asking a servant to find a wife for his son Isaac. The agreement was that he would find a girl at the well (which was a common place to find them), ask for water, evaluate her character by her response, and then offer her the proposal. Verse 15 tells of the beginning of the confrontation:

Before he (Abrahams servant} had finished praying, Rebekah came out with her jar on her shoulder. She was the daughter of Bethuel son of Milkah, who was the wife of Abraham’s brother Nahor. 16 The woman was very beautiful, a virgin; no man had ever slept with her. She went down to the spring, filled her jar and came up again.
The servant hurried to meet her and said, “Please give me a little water from your jar.”
Drink, my lord,” she said, and quickly lowered the jar to her hands and gave him a drink.
After she had given him a drink, she said, “I’ll draw water for your camels too, until they have had enough to drink.20 So she quickly emptied her jar into the trough, ran back to the well to draw more water, and drew enough for all his camels. 21 Without saying a word, the man watched her closely to learn whether or not the Lord had made his journey successful.
When the camels had finished drinking, the man took out a gold nose ring weighing a beka and two gold bracelets weighing ten shekels. 23 Then he asked, “Whose daughter are you? Please tell me, is there room in your father’s house for us to spend the night?”

Notice he asked: “Whose father are you?” A girl belonged to her father until marriage.

She answered him, “I am the daughter of Bethuel, the son that Milkah bore to Nahor. 25 And she added, “We have plenty of straw and fodder, as well as room for you to spend the night.”

We see so far that she is a very generous, hospitable woman. On a side note, notice how our views on piercings would conflict with theirs. She had a nose ring and was given another nose ring. This was a sign of beauty- not paganism.

Now Rebekah had a brother named Laban, and he hurried out to the man at the spring30 As soon as he had seen the nose ring, and the bracelets on his sister’s arms, and had heard Rebekah tell what the man said to her, he went out to the man and found him standing by the camels near the spring. 31 “Come, you who are blessed by the Lord,” he said. “Why are you standing out here? I have prepared the house and a place for the camels.”
So the man went to the house, and the camels were unloaded. Straw and fodder were brought for the camels, and water for him and his men to wash their feet. 33 Then food was set before him, but he said, “I will not eat until I have told you what I have to say. Then tell us,” Laban said.

After this encounter, the servant goes directly to her father Laban and tell him of his purpose.

When Abraham’s servant heard what they said, he bowed down to the ground before the 53 Then the servant brought out gold and silver jewelry and articles of clothing and gave them to Rebekah; he also gave costly gifts to her brother and to her mother. 54 Then he and the men who were with him ate and drank and spent the night there.

What you have just read is the marriage contract proposal. They bear gifts along with their offer.

When they got up the next morning, he said, “Send me on my way to my master.”
But her brother and her mother replied, “Let the young woman remain with us ten days or so; then you may go.
But he said to them, “Do not detain me, now that the Lord has granted success to my journey. Send me on my way so I may go to my master."

Next you will read about how there was a consent on the woman’s part as well.

Then they said, “Let’s call the young woman and ask her about it58 So they called Rebekah and asked her, “Will you go with this man?”
I will go,” she said.

Contrary to popular belief, it was not God’s will that marriage be forced upon women. That doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. There were plenty of incidences where the Hebrews did not obey God’s will. The bride price, however made His will a Law.

Then the servant told Isaac all he had done. 67 Isaac brought her into the tent of his mother Sarah, and he married Rebekah. So she became his wife, and he loved her; and Isaac was comforted after his mother’s death."

Consummation had not happened yet, therefore there was no ceremony.
Just for your reference, read the entire book of Ruth. It is only a few chapters and is yet another perfect example of God providing for women.