How stupid do you have to be?...

[Drich]

Mhmm, sure. Leaving the rich to rape away.

are you intintionally being obstinate or are you not reading what is being said? Why rape a girl for 50 shekels when you can legally 'buy' a wife for a few shekels and live stock? One that you can divorce if she loses her mind in some way consistant with the law? The option is paying a kings ransom for a wife that will hate you forever, that you can never divorce no matter what.

Though I'll admit that's shifting the goalposts a bit; the entire arrangement is still immoral, and phrased in an awful way.

Again morality is a meaningless standard.

And again, you're phrasing this as though the primary objection is the fact that this is dealing with money. It's not, though I'd also object to your characterizing this as a huge amount of money- since the currency values changed over time, and there were four different types of shekel you'd have no way of knowing that. Also, a casual search shows a currency denomination equal to one hundred shekels, which to me would put your claim into doubt.

proof? Link? no of course not, just the obligatory move to dismissale based on your word.

I provided links/verses when I orginally framed out my assertions to establish what i was saying was actually based on something, what have you done? asked me to simply believe in you.

The issue is that, instead of simply punishing the guy, you instead have this system where his crime is instead treated like a faux pas, like he's walked into a store and broken something. He's paying for damaging someone else's property, not for a crime. And if he can pay it? He gets to keep the girl!

To what end? Why would he want to keep her? If he wanted her or could afford to have her why not just pay what her father wanted in the first place?

It says alot about your willingness to understand a culture that is not your own, when you are not willing to look at how a given people may differ from your own.

There's no need for understanding here,

This is how every bigotted man starts out in justifying his position over that of another or in this case thousands of years of a given soceity and millions if not billions of people.

What if one of these blokes time traveled to your door and raped your daughter? Would you let him pay you fifty shekels and be on his way with her? After all, we've got to be understanding! He doesn't fucking know any better!

Your not even the first person to ask this.

again my recourses are limited to what the soceitial rules allow me in the way of a response. If he time traveled here he would be put in jail, If I time traveled there I'd take the money.

So would you if you were to be a law abiding citizen.

First of all, I'm interested to note that her rapist is her new husband before he's sold into slavery, meaning that the entire premise of your argument still fails to address the issue at hand, namely that you shouldn't fucking sell women to their rapists.

In today's soceity your right. in that one your wrong.

Secondly, just from a logical standpoint, your question makes absolutely no sense, because if the rapist can't pay his debt yet then the father gets no money at all.

Just so you know i could call you all sorts of name questioning your intellegence here. Because you are obviously talking about a soceity you have spent very little time learning about.

If a man owed a debt he could not pay he would be sold into slavery to pay that debt. Meaning his wage earned as a slave (Yes slaves earned wages, which mean OT slavery is not what you understand to be slavery) was paided to the debtor, which would be the Father.

Thirdly, the very basis of your question is awful and misogynist.

compared to what standard? we are discussing a culture that existed almost 4000 years ago. Wake up, no culture mirrored this one 4000 years ago. Your compareing apples and oranges.

Actually, come to think of it... hold on...

Shit, you really fucked up, dude. Take a look:

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever.

keep reading to exo 22:17

A real quick run through of the bible gave me this little gem, the implication being that the wife of a debt slave is enslaved just the same, since's she's "freed" too. So if you want to persist with this bullshit, it actually becomes more inexcusably immoral, not less.

Why would a father have is raped daughter then marry a slave to pay the debt her raper owed?
(do some reading before you answer or i will rip into you this time.)

So you're acting like an immoral dick, and being flippant about it isn't helping you lose that image.

so you think peer pressure will get me to change my mind?
Uh, no, here is why: I have seperated the two soceities being compared and honestly looked at them without feeling or judgement and have decided if the roles were reversed and each soceity took on the resources of the other, they would eventually mirror the one they replaced.

your appeal to emotion and your sense of right is just plain near sighted ignorance. You have done nothing but point at people who lived 4000 years ago and say your better. Now do-mas ask yourself why. If your honest you would admit it has nothing to do with you, but the circumstances you live in.

Except that a lot of rapes don't happen after a carefully considered weighing up of the pros and cons, do they?

lol. again you do not understand the culture. Being a 'misogynistic' culture women (ones men back then wanted to rape) were virgins and they were kept under lock and key. one's only access to a girl like that would have been through the courtship process.

Kinda no sex test drive to see if you wanted to haggle out a deal. On these 'dates' would be when a girl would be raped.

If they did, we'd have far less of them now. Fucking hell, is there any lengths you won't go to in defense of the indefensible?

It's only indefensable if you are not willing to look beyond the culture you grew up in and feel comfortable with.

Oh, fuck right off, you unbelievable wanker. My position is anti rapist,

Actually it's not. It's anti reperations for rape. Not once have you denounced rape. Only the payment of rape. Even if you had you have not supported any possiable deturrants to rape in that time, no supported any of the deturrants the bible provides for. Don't lie to yourself and try and take the high road, all youve done here is condemn Jews for doing their best to prevent rape.

anti slaver, and anti misogynist, fuck you very much. This is blatant poisoning of the well, and coming from an increasingly immoral little shit like you... well, you done pissed me off now. I'll stop, before this just becomes a long line of swear words in increasingly large font.

Wow, at the self righteousness.
again not once have you said anything that seperates you from the conditioning your soceity has indoctrinated you with, which means your not one to 'think for yourself.' your a sheep and you follow the flock. your self righteous rant proves this fact. Which means if you were born in Hitlers germany you'd be goose stepping jews into death camps, or if you were an OT jew you would do whatever your soceity told you was right.
You in yourself righteousness, and the veil of obliviousness you have pulled over your own eyes turns my stomach, so I guess we are even.

Again, you seem to imply that there's a context in which rape and slavery and the sale of women is acceptable.

Straw Man.

Uh huh, that's why we still see people enslaved to a single employer for their entire life, without an option to leave.

I used to work at a place that has been around since the 1930's there was a guy who worked there since the 60's he was fired a little more than a year ago. If given the option he would have died there. If people's needs are met they would indeed work one place their whole lives.

That's why we see those employers giving wives to people.

If you do not think your job has anything to do with who you marry or how long your married then you are a fool.

This is really fucking stupid, Drich.

indeed I'm beginning to see the futility in speaking with someone who has closed their minds to everything except what he or she is acustom to.

You can't unrape her, but you can ensure she doesn't get MARRIED TO HER FUCKING RAPIST! All the rest is just unpleasant fripperies from an unpleasant man.

Maybe you should take the time to actually read everything the bible has to say on that topic before you say anything else.

I'm just going to go ahead and say this: the "in theory you can leave" part, is the important part.

I think I see the hamster starting to turn that wheel...

Oh! So's the "you're not allowed to beat your employees, nor can you give them wives so that they stay with you forever" thing. Among other things.

Uhh, nope he just rolled over and went back to sleep.

Alright, preachy mcgee, whatever you say.

Now, who wants to follow this guy to heaven? Show of hands?

Yeah, I fucking thought so.

I think there is a major point you have not addressed in all of your preachiness.

WHEN a man raped a woman, how do you suggest that soceity should have handeled it 4000 years ago?

Remember no jail, no lawyers, no social infrastructure at all. And please it must be something viable or i will call you out as a dumbass. Show me something that would have work in the existing laws place.

---

No sport, open your eye or maybe read a little more before you comment. I've said several time we do not know how much a shekel of silver was worth. We have some Idea because of the purchase Judas made.

I have read the entire thread for your information.
You missed the point entirely, whether that is accidental or on purpose, i will never know but i can guess.
The specific amount of money is irrelevant, what matters is that it is a lot. Stop deflecting and answer the question.

What question? This is what you wrote:

Are you suggesting you would be OK with it, if it were more money given? Say $1000000. Cause thats pathetic!

Ok with what? The question you ask does not pertain to anything the highlighted passage says when placed back into it's orginal context.

I was trying to illustrate the point that even in Jesus' time 30 shekels was enough money to buy a few acres of land.. What does that have to do with what you asked?