You can interpret them into meaning the female held the man at knifepoint and forced him to have sex with her, I just don't think there's anything in that passage that actually implies seduction.

(December 8, 2014 at 12:53 pm)alpha male Wrote: No, the observation under discussion was your implication that the texts cannot be interpreted as indicating seduction.

Oh camon Johnny, you are lacking on your Christian™ skills for not thinking this through. Are you implying that the holy scripture is bound to an arbitrary interpretation? If that was true, there would be a whole bunch of christian denominations......... Oh wait

You know, much as I hate to say it, Alfie has a point here...although it is probably not the one he is thinking of making.

This site, Biblehub.com, does parallel translations of various versions of this holy horseshit. Here is the comparison for the verse in question.

http://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/22-28.htm

Now, these are merely a small sampling of all the bible "translations" out there and from the variety in this small sample, all done by accomplished scholars who are supposed to be able to read this shit, it is apparent that this shit can be made to say whatever the reader wishes to see. You'd think a 'god' would be less scattershot in delivering his "message" wouldn't you?

Dunno, a man "seizing" a woman doesn't conjure up many images of a sultry seductress and an uwitting male.

(December 8, 2014 at 12:55 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: You can interpret them into meaning the female held the man at knifepoint and forced him to have sex with her, I just don't think there's anything in that passage that actually implies seduction.

Consider this:
Deut 22
28 “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, 29 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.

They are found out implies that they're colluding.

Also, you see the Deuteronomy passage cited on plenty of atheist sites, but you rarely see the earlier parallel passage from Exodus:

Ex 22
16 “If a man entices a virgin who is not betrothed, 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.

I'm not sure how you're extracting a "consensual and mutual sexual engagement" from a "they" in a passage that only gives agency to the man, but whatever.

As to your second part, no, that's still disgusting. The woman does not have agency over her own body.

(December 8, 2014 at 1:15 pm)alpha male Wrote: Consider this:
Deut 22
28 “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, 29 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.

As long as they were not "found out" makes it all OK.

Even if the passage in question was talking about completely consensual sex between a man and a woman, what on earth makes it okay for the woman to lose agency over her own body and be forced to submit to the will of her father?

(December 8, 2014 at 2:26 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Even if the passage in question was talking about completely consensual sex between a man and a woman, what on earth makes it okay for the woman to lose agency over her own body and be forced to submit to the will of her father?

You load the question with your own moral positions as if they're givens. They're not. Until you can prove that every person has a right to agency over their own body, your question doesn't need an answer.

Ugh, don't know how many times I have to say this.. I'm not now (or ever) talking about an inherent property of reality that bestows rights into humans, I'm speaking from a moral system that values human wellbeing. If you value human wellbeing, confiscating the agency of someone over their own body is monstrous.


Do you think the father taking agency away from the woman is moral?