Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(January 28, 2015 at 9:33 pm)Nope Wrote: Explain please.
That law is for the protection of the girl and her child.
The law regarding rape of a betrothed girl is thus:
“But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. 26But you shall do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no offense punishable by death. For this case is like that of a man attacking and murdering his neighbor, 27because he met her in the open country, and though the betrothed young woman cried for help there was no one to rescue her."
But for an unmarried girl it is this:
“If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 29then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days."
We see, the man is only allowed to live, so that the girl and her offspring do not suffer more, or die. Instead his punishment is to support her unto his death. In those days, a unmarried girl with child was effectively a death sentence, she would not have been able to get another man to work and support her and her family, so the rapist must do it. It made the best of a bad situation, and was a law formed to protect the victims or rape.
Let me get this straight... your god made rules about not mixing different fibers but couldn't put in a simple rule to treat women like they have thoughts and feelings? Your god could have created a system where the rapist had to pay the girl monthly payments for the care of the child he created and left her alone. Bible god could have even made a rule that rape was forbidden. Why the hell not? Is your god all powerful or not?
A young woman or girl is humiliated and degraded. For the rest of her life she must serve and obey some asshole that thinks so little of her that he raped her in the first place. Because Hebrew women had little rights, she would have had to continue to have sex with him. Yet, you believe that the rapist is somehow the one being punished in this system?
(January 28, 2015 at 9:44 pm)YGninja Wrote: That law is for the protection of the girl and her child.
The law regarding rape of a betrothed girl is thus:
“But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. 26But you shall do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no offense punishable by death. For this case is like that of a man attacking and murdering his neighbor, 27because he met her in the open country, and though the betrothed young woman cried for help there was no one to rescue her."
But for an unmarried girl it is this:
“If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 29then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days."
We see, the man is only allowed to live, so that the girl and her offspring do not suffer more, or die. Instead his punishment is to support her unto his death. In those days, a unmarried girl with child was effectively a death sentence, she would not have been able to get another man to work and support her and her family, so the rapist must do it. It made the best of a bad situation, and was a law formed to protect the victims or rape.
Let me get this straight... your god made rules about not mixing different fibers but couldn't put in a simple rule to treat women like they have thoughts and feelings? Your god could have created a system where the rapist had to pay the girl monthly payments for the care of the child he created and left her alone. Bible god could have even made a rule that rape was forbidden. Why the hell not? Is your god all powerful or not?
A young woman or girl is humiliated and degraded. For the rest of her life she must serve and obey some asshole that thinks so little of her that he raped her in the first place. Because Hebrew women had little rights, she would have had to continue to have sex with him. Yet, you believe that the rapist is somehow the one being punished in this system?
He fucking just baffled me when he didn't agree with anything when i posted evidence out of the bible like go wouldn't allow that.
(January 28, 2015 at 9:33 pm)Nope Wrote: Explain please.
That law is for the protection of the girl and her child.
The law regarding rape of a betrothed girl is thus:
“But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. 26But you shall do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no offense punishable by death. For this case is like that of a man attacking and murdering his neighbor, 27because he met her in the open country, and though the betrothed young woman cried for help there was no one to rescue her."
But for an unmarried girl it is this:
“If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 29then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days."
We see, the man is only allowed to live, so that the girl and her offspring do not suffer more, or die. Instead his punishment is to support her unto his death. In those days, a unmarried girl with child was effectively a death sentence, she would not have been able to get another man to work and support her and her family, so the rapist must do it. It made the best of a bad situation, and was a law formed to protect the victims or rape.
"a law formed to protect the victims of rape"
Couldn't god have... I dunno... made the rapist not rape someone?
Seriously; do you people think this through? A girl gets raped, and to "protect" her, god makes a law that makes it so the rapist has someone to rape on the regular- and she has nothing to say about it? Are you fucking fucked in the head?
It's really sad to see people make excuses for the blatantly hideously immoral things in the bible. I find it the greatest irony that it's christians who try to convince us that the bible is the word of God, or at least very close, yet it's christians who spend the whole time explaining why God didn't really mean what he said and we should ignore it.
But thanks for being honest ninja and saying all good christian morality is obvious. Any attempts to prove otherwise in this thread have backfired, and lead to clear demonstrations of how xian morality is clearly worse, even on simple matters like marriage.
The whole problem with religion, any religion with a holy book, is this absolutely brain explodingly squirrel up the arse bat shit insane idea that these books are the word of God. That, to me, is the single biggest myth being perpetuated, and it's the one thing that keeps religion's hold over society, and people's ability to reason. As we expereince regularly on this site.
Anyone with a shred of honesty has to admit that men wrote the book. Men, not God. If God wants me to know information, he can beam it directly into my brain. He can make an amazing flying parchment appear in front my eyes, with a personal message for me. He can do almost anything, and it would be more convincing to me than the idea that superstitious warmongers 2000 years ago just happened to be selected as god's storytellers. He would make sure there was no evidence to back up any of the supernatural claims, and then make no attempt to clear up all the confusion ensuring from the book. Let alone all the others "fake" books.
You have to already have decided that the book is the word of God to come to this conclusion. If you look at the situation objectively for just 5 minutes, and assess your book as if you had never seen it before, and had no idea if it was true or not, you would dismiss it out of hand immediately as unsupported claims not to be taken seriously.
"Moderates" are people who perpetuate the myth that these books are the word of God, yet clearly demonstrate through their actions that they either don't think this is true, or that they know better than God. And they are providing credence to these fucking books, so that when someone comes along who thinks, "Ok everyone tells me this is the word of God. I suppose I better take that seriously!" they are labelled an insane radical. Who sounds more insane in this picture?
Man! Just stop it already. Admit these are just books, learn metaphorical lessons or whatever, but drop the act. You're clearly not even convincing yourselves.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.
January 29, 2015 at 7:21 am (This post was last modified: January 29, 2015 at 7:24 am by YGninja.)
(January 28, 2015 at 11:05 pm)Nope Wrote:
(January 28, 2015 at 9:44 pm)YGninja Wrote: That law is for the protection of the girl and her child.
The law regarding rape of a betrothed girl is thus:
“But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. 26But you shall do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no offense punishable by death. For this case is like that of a man attacking and murdering his neighbor, 27because he met her in the open country, and though the betrothed young woman cried for help there was no one to rescue her."
But for an unmarried girl it is this:
“If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 29then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days."
We see, the man is only allowed to live, so that the girl and her offspring do not suffer more, or die. Instead his punishment is to support her unto his death. In those days, a unmarried girl with child was effectively a death sentence, she would not have been able to get another man to work and support her and her family, so the rapist must do it. It made the best of a bad situation, and was a law formed to protect the victims or rape.
Let me get this straight... your god made rules about not mixing different fibers but couldn't put in a simple rule to treat women like they have thoughts and feelings? Your god could have created a system where the rapist had to pay the girl monthly payments for the care of the child he created and left her alone. Bible god could have even made a rule that rape was forbidden. Why the hell not? Is your god all powerful or not?
A young woman or girl is humiliated and degraded. For the rest of her life she must serve and obey some asshole that thinks so little of her that he raped her in the first place. Because Hebrew women had little rights, she would have had to continue to have sex with him. Yet, you believe that the rapist is somehow the one being punished in this system?
You can drag your heels if you like but the biblical and historical context is unavoidably clear.
This was 3-3500 years ago, there was no choice, for any man or woman. 99% of partnerships would have been to the nearest neighbors daughter/son, living over the hill a few miles away. What mattered was survival. The woman could have never married a different man, after she'd had a child with one, the best she could have hoped for is for the original man to stick with and support her and her child. The reason the rapist of a married woman gets death, yet an unmarried woman is forced to marry and support that woman, is clearly because the married woman has no need of support from rapist, so he can receive full punishment. The law, which is created for the benefit of unmarried rape victims, assumes the victim will need the support of the rapist. But if that weren't the case, the most reasonable inference from the context is that the rapist would receive full punishment.
(January 28, 2015 at 10:03 pm)Roxy904 Wrote: This is just so wrong. A woman gets raped, and then, not only is her rapist not punished, she is forced to live with him. That's not making the best of a bad situation; it's just cruelty, plain and simple. It doesn't fix the situation, or even put a band-aid or it; it wides the problem even further. And, seriously, there was no other solution whatsoever?
The OT treats women as property. Note that the sentence for rape is death if the woman is betrothed; in other words, if she is another man's property, the rapist is put to death for defiling her. He is primarily committing a crime against her owner, not her. On the other hand, if she does not belong to another man, then the sentence is basically a form of "you broke it, you bought it." She probably loses value in the eyes of other men, and therefore the guy who 'damaged the goods' must pay for the loss (note that the price is paid to the woman's father).
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
January 29, 2015 at 8:55 am (This post was last modified: January 29, 2015 at 8:56 am by robvalue.)
As you would expect, the OT (Optional Testament) is (at best) a pure reflection of the morality that existed at the time. Because it was written by men, at that time. And now our society is so vastly different, none of this stuff is relevant anymore. Yet pretending this book has magic powers is a way for bigoted bastards to claim divine righteousness when they degrade women or homosexuals.
If god wants to make excuses about why his book is so terrible, let him do it himself.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.
(January 29, 2015 at 7:21 am)YGninja Wrote: This was 3-3500 years ago, there was no choice, for any man or woman.
But there was plenty of choice for god. The same god who drowned the world because people were becoming too wicked. The same god who struck a man down on the spot for trying to steady the ark of the covenant when he thought it was going to fall over. The same god who visited plagues upon Egypt, hardened the heart of its leader to force them to watch, then buried his army under the sea. The same god who massacred 70,000 innocents because their king took a census. The same god who struck down a man and his wife on the spot when they lied about the sale of a plot of land.
You're telling us that the same god who did all of that suddenly found his hands tied when it came to protecting women from rape?
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
