(December 30, 2011 at 7:20 pm)LarissaAnn Wrote: Sure, these laws may apply to biblical times but they still prove my point that the bible and the god in it is sexist and one who who provides no justice for the rape victims themselves, putting more concern about what harm it does to the father's reputation.

Also according to biblical beliefs, the victim in such a case, though now married and not cast off, would still be expected to be "dutiful wife" too, to "obey" her rapist husband, to honor her rapist husband, etc. There is nothing in that at all that is justice whatsoever, it's just mental. 100% of all women raped, I'm sure even in those days would rather be single...nay, stick a fork in their eye, than marry their rapists.

Well, depends on what kind of a justice you're looking for.
If the rapist does not want to marry the woman he raped, he'll be stoned.
He does not have any other choice but to marry her and provide for her.
And well, indeed, if you are married, you are expected to fulfill the duties of marriage.
And let's read the verse again:

Quote:If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry her because he has violated her.

It says, if a man is "caught". Meaning, the guy must be spotted, caught, and brought before the woman's father, and pay him dowry.

However, it's quite unlikely that a rapist will be that stupid to allow himself to be caught on the act.
Instead, if the woman is raped, and he had not been caught on the act, there would be nothing to prove that he had raped her, as they lacked the technology to actually catch rapists via their DNA.
So, in that case, one must refer to the following verses:

"Exodus 22:16-17
16 "If a man ENTICES a virgin who is NOT BETROTHED (engaged), and lies with her, he shall surely PAY the bride-price for her to be his wife.
17 If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall PAY MONEY according to the bride-price of virgins."

Here is a verse that talks about consensual sex between two unmarried parties. In cases of false rape accusations, same, also applies.

Deuteronomy 23,24:
"If a young woman who is a virgin is betrothed to a husband, and a man finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry out in the city, and the man because he humbled his neighbor's wife; so you shall put away the evil from among you."

Here, we have a case of consensual sex between two parties, whereas one is bethothed to someone else, and the man flaunts the soon-to-be wife of another man(a case of either fornication, or adultery).

Another case:
"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.
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.
For he found her in the countryside, and the betrothed young woman cried out, but there was no one to save her."

In this case, the woman is also betrothed(case of rape).
Speaking in such terms, we can say that here, it actually comes down whether the relations between the two were consensual, and of course, whether the woman in question was betrothed.

[/quote]

What I meant by my previous post was that there are far better ways to protect a raped woman than by having her marry her rapist.

You said that an unmarried non-virgin would not be wanted by any men, so the rapist must marry her and be forced to provide for her. Sadly, in reality, the rapist would likely just rape her many more times, and be the absolute minimum he was required to be as a husband. He would provide no emotional comfort, and the woman would probably be miserable for most of her life. So this intended solution that the bible proposes fails in a way that a third grader could predict.

I propose that a better alternative would be to remove the stigma associated with not being a virgin. That way, the woman could go on to lead a normal life. But of course, the bible doesn't say that- because that would involve making women equal to men.

---

(December 30, 2011 at 8:03 pm)kılıç_mehmet Wrote:

(December 30, 2011 at 7:20 pm)LarissaAnn Wrote: Sure, these laws may apply to biblical times but they still prove my point that the bible and the god in it is sexist and one who who provides no justice for the rape victims themselves, putting more concern about what harm it does to the father's reputation.

Also according to biblical beliefs, the victim in such a case, though now married and not cast off, would still be expected to be "dutiful wife" too, to "obey" her rapist husband, to honor her rapist husband, etc. There is nothing in that at all that is justice whatsoever, it's just mental. 100% of all women raped, I'm sure even in those days would rather be single...nay, stick a fork in their eye, than marry their rapists.

Well, depends on what kind of a justice you're looking for.
If the rapist does not want to marry the woman he raped, he'll be stoned.
He does not have any other choice but to marry her and provide for her.
And well, indeed, if you are married, you are expected to fulfill the duties of marriage.
And let's read the verse again:

Quote:If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry her because he has violated her.

It says, if a man is "caught". Meaning, the guy must be spotted, caught, and brought before the woman's father, and pay him dowry.

However, it's quite unlikely that a rapist will be that stupid to allow himself to be caught on the act.
Instead, if the woman is raped, and he had not been caught on the act, there would be nothing to prove that he had raped her, as they lacked the technology to actually catch rapists via their DNA.
So, in that case, one must refer to the following verses:

"Exodus 22:16-17
16 "If a man ENTICES a virgin who is NOT BETROTHED (engaged), and lies with her, he shall surely PAY the bride-price for her to be his wife.
17 If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall PAY MONEY according to the bride-price of virgins."

Here is a verse that talks about consensual sex between two unmarried parties. In cases of false rape accusations, same, also applies.

Deuteronomy 23,24:
"If a young woman who is a virgin is betrothed to a husband, and a man finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry out in the city, and the man because he humbled his neighbor's wife; so you shall put away the evil from among you."

Here, we have a case of consensual sex between two parties, whereas one is bethothed to someone else, and the man flaunts the soon-to-be wife of another man(a case of either fornication, or adultery).

Another case:
"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.
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.
For he found her in the countryside, and the betrothed young woman cried out, but there was no one to save her."

In this case, the woman is also betrothed(case of rape).
Speaking in such terms, we can say that here, it actually comes down whether the relations between the two were consensual, and of course, whether the woman in question was betrothed.

[/quote]

So. . . you're supporting the bible? Because you seem to have used accurate quotes, but they don't really support the religious assertion that the bible is moral.

Point STILL remains, the bible is sexist

---

(December 30, 2011 at 10:11 pm)Aegrus Wrote: What I meant by my previous post was that there are far better ways to protect a raped woman than by having her marry her rapist.

You said that an unmarried non-virgin would not be wanted by any men, so the rapist must marry her and be forced to provide for her. Sadly, in reality, the rapist would likely just rape her many more times, and be the absolute minimum he was required to be as a husband. He would provide no emotional comfort, and the woman would probably be miserable for most of her life. So this intended solution that the bible proposes fails in a way that a third grader could predict.

I propose that a better alternative would be to remove the stigma associated with not being a virgin. That way, the woman could go on to lead a normal life. But of course, the bible doesn't say that- because that would involve making women equal to men.

~ovation for Aegrus~
I said it before, I'll say it again, mankind is more logical and moral than anything you'd find in the bible.

LarissaAnn Wrote:Deuteronomy 22:28-29
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry her because he has violated her.

How is that not sexist? Is that the justice you would want for your daughter, sister, etc. if that were to happen to them? Does the fact that we put rapists in jail make man's law more moral and just than biblical law?

this is punishment for what the man did. are you really comparing today's culture to the law in the old testiment without looking at the culture? all women did back then and all they ever wanted to do was marry, take care of their husbands and raise a family. if she is defiled, then no man will want to marry her so, in order to make sure the woman is not deprived of her goal in life for something that wasn't her fault, they force the man to have her. whether you think that's right or not, that's how it was. don't try to compare ancient law to modern culture.

LarissaAnn Wrote:Leviticus 20:13
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done the detestable. They must be put to death.
How is that not homophobic?

how about the fact that just b/c it's illegal doesn't mean it's feared. homophobic was a word invented by gays in order to convince others they are hated. the fact is it is not feared just illegal the same way adultery, fornication, and such are ilegal. does that make the bible adulterphobic? fornicationphobic?

Norfolk And Chance Wrote:Let's not forget that incest is also OK, so long as daddy is pissed and his daughter makes the first move.

completely not true. incest is clearly defigned as wrong in the bible no matter who makes the first move.

(December 31, 2011 at 1:03 am)chipan Wrote:

Norfolk And Chance Wrote:Let's not forget that incest is also OK, so long as daddy is pissed and his daughter makes the first move.

completely not true. incest is clearly defigned as wrong in the bible no matter who makes the first move.

Genesis 19, 30-38 Wrote:And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.

And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:
Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.

And the first born bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day.

And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Benammi: the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day.

Please produce evidence that anyone in this wholesome story, including (and probably especially) the "just and righteous" Noah, was ever punished for their nocturnal family-bonding activities.

they made him drunk and then slept with him. this is considered by many to be a form of rape since consent cannot be given while intoxicated.

http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/

Gay sex- Abomination. Shrimp eating- Abomination.

This is according to chipan's god.

Chipan- Stupid. Chipan's god- abomination.

This is according to me.

Amen.

funny athiest quote- "thank God i'm an atheist"

attacks are not appreciated

Quote:So. . . you're supporting the bible? Because you seem to have used accurate quotes, but they don't really support the religious assertion that the bible is moral.

Dude, it's like someone coming up to me, I tell them about Das Kapital and how education and healthcare was free in the Soviet union, and he suddenly tells me that I'm supporting communism, where I was just stating facts.
Fug.

Quote:You said that an unmarried non-virgin would not be wanted by any men, so the rapist must marry her and be forced to provide for her. Sadly, in reality, the rapist would likely just rape her many more times, and be the absolute minimum he was required to be as a husband. He would provide no emotional comfort, and the woman would probably be miserable for most of her life. So this intended solution that the bible proposes fails in a way that a third grader could predict.

Dude, you're going into things that have nothing to do with this.
Besides, how do you know that this is going to be the way you describe it?
Most women of the time would have likely accepted their fate, and moved on anyways.

Quote:I propose that a better alternative would be to remove the stigma associated with not being a virgin. That way, the woman could go on to lead a normal life. But of course, the bible doesn't say that- because that would involve making women equal to men.

But the bible does, in fact. The punishment for adultery and voluntary fornication is the same for both men and women.
And how can you? If a man is no virgin, you have no way of determining that. But you can do that easily with a woman, that's why there is another law, that tells that a husband may challenge the honour of her wife by stating that she was no virgin during the first night, and her parents need to provide the blood stained sheets from the first night to prove it. If they can't, this'd mean that the usual punishment for fornication would take place, stoning.
Here, neither the woman, nor the man, has any other choice.

Quote:Point STILL remains, the bible is sexist

And my point is, that the bible is no more sexist than the standards of "sexism" for our times.
I think why it could be branded as sexist is that the woman are the ones which generally get raped, and women are the ones who actually consent to having sex. The man's opinion here does not really matter.
This is why virginity was something that was valued as a female virtue, rather than a male virtue.
Does that not ring true for today? It mostly comes down on the woman, to keep her chastity, as if she would want to lose it, she'd easily find someone to do it with. A man has no such luxury.

Quote:Shrimp eating- Abomination.

Yes, in the law of moses. Just like eating pig meat, shrimp was considered unclean by the dietary laws for Kosher.
Quoting Paul in Romans-14-14: "I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him that regardeth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean."

Same with Matthew 15-11: "Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man."

(December 31, 2011 at 1:03 am)chipan Wrote: this is punishment for what the man did. are you really comparing today's culture to the law in the old testiment without looking at the culture? all women did back then and all they ever wanted to do was marry, take care of their husbands and raise a family. if she is defiled, then no man will want to marry her so, in order to make sure the woman is not deprived of her goal in life for something that wasn't her fault, they force the man to have her. whether you think that's right or not, that's how it was. don't try to compare ancient law to modern culture.

Why not? The bible is supposed to be god's word, and god's laws. It is not supposed to be the law of an ancient culture of uncivilised brutes (even though it blatantly is just that).

Point being, god's morality should be the same now as it was then, our morality has certainly evolved from those days.

If you are saying "that was how it was then, things are different now" then you are accepting that the bible was made up by us in those times.

Quote:completely not true. incest is clearly defigned as wrong in the bible no matter who makes the first move.

It isn't.

Lot is not chastised in the bible for pumping his daughters, excuses are merely made for his behaviour. It clearly makes his case out to be of "it's alright because he'd had a drink and his daughters started it". Nowhere does it say that Lot was wrong to allow it to happen.