Primordial Sex--Eden as Allegory

[Epimethean]

Because he says it's not. That is how faith operates-and fails.

[LarissaAnn]

You're right that most religious discussions with theists winds up that way but I'll wait until he responds before assuming he's the same as any other. However your comment made me think of this too lol

[Epimethean]

If you're wishing to give chipan the benefit of the doubt, you needn't waste the time. Check out his tone in every thread in which he's posted by doing a search: He's a total tool.

[LarissaAnn]

Hehe, still being something of a newbie I did not know, thanks for the heads up.

---

Lol it must be frustrating for theists coming to atheist groups thinking they can convert us or change our minds; either frustrating or it gives them a sense of holier than thou self righteousness when they think they've gotten one up.

[Epimethean]

He's two weeks newer than you, Larissa, and two lightyears behind you.

[LarissaAnn]

Aww, thanks deary =) Takes one to know one.

[kılıç_mehmet]

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?

It certainly does.
But think about the life of the ancient israelites.
A woman who was not a virgin was surely out alone. No one would marry her. She'd be effectively cut off from social life.
The reason why this law was in effect was due to this fact. It's now obsolete, since understandings and viewpoints on things have changed.
But for it's time, the law was put forth to protect the woman who was raped.

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.

It's certainly no new law. Variations of it can be found virtually everywhere.

[Aegrus]

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?

It certainly does.
But think about the life of the ancient israelites.
A woman who was not a virgin was surely out alone. No one would marry her. She'd be effectively cut off from social life.
The reason why this law was in effect was due to this fact. It's now obsolete, since understandings and viewpoints on things have changed.
But for it's time, the law was put forth to protect the woman who was raped.

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.

It's certainly no new law. Variations of it can be found virtually everywhere.

The most intelligent answer to this question that I've heard to date. The bar isn't high, but still, well done.

Here's where the argument fails. Instead of making the women marry their rapist, why doesn't the bible tell people not to ostracize women who were raped?

Because the people who wrote it were sexist bigots by today's standards, and their book reflects their views.

[kılıç_mehmet]

Here's where the argument fails. Instead of making the women marry their rapist, why doesn't the bible tell people not to ostracize women who were raped?

What exactly do you mean by "ostracize"?
Like exclude them? It wouldn't work. Take for example a case where the raped woman became pregnant.
In that case, it's almost certain that no one would marry her, as such marriages are even problematic for our times. The husband may not be willing to look after the child of some other person, and not willing to leave behind any property to that child at all.
And of course, if the rapist is unwilling to marry the woman he had raped, by mosaic law, he'd be stoned to death, it's all there.
But the woman would still not be able to marry, and mind you, the bible does not make any distinction between rape and consensual sex, other than in the case for the woman and man who engaged in relations inside and outside of inhabited areas, so this also applies to things like for example;
a woman who wants to marry a guy, allows herself to be abducted by him, and is therefore "raped". In this case, the "rapist" has to pay dowry to the father, and must marry her or face death.

This is so akin to the bride abduction thing that we have in Turkey.
Even if there are no relations between the abducter, and the abducted, they are given consent(or forced) to marry.
This is an ageold tradition that also held true for the Israelites.
And yes, also was applicable to people who were raped.

Because the people who wrote it were sexist bigots by today's standards, and their book reflects their views.

Code:

If you want to look at it that way, be my guest.
I just think that it has been written to fit as best as it could with the standards of that time.

[LarissaAnn]

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.