How stupid do you have to be?...

[Esquilax]

Do you have any idea of what 50 shekels amounted to? no one knows for sure but it was a king's ransom for sure. (Christ was sold out for only 30 shekels. 1500 years later) With that same 30 Judas' 'resting place' was purchased.

The 80 shekels was a deterrent. and if one could not pay he would have been sold into slavery till he could pay off his debt.

Without proper context, I agree it seems like a pittance. In context it is something to be feared.

Okay, let's sum up, shall we?

A man rapes a woman (immoral) and is punished by having to pay 50 shekels (immoral.) You claim that this is a lot of money, essentially turning the woman who was just raped (immoral) into an expensive novelty good (immoral.) Your defense to this is that 50 shekels is a lot of money, you guys (if not immoral, a total dick move.)

The woman, meanwhile, would be sold to her rapist (immoral) and if the rapist can't pay, then he's sold into slavery himself (immoral) until he's paid his (immoral) debt, instead of going to prison (immoral.) Oh, and he might not get out of slavery, of course: the old testament also has provisions for the owners of a debt slave (immoral) to keep them forever by giving them a wife (immoral) and essentially tricking them into retaining their life of slavery or lose their family (immoral.)

If the debt slave rapist (double whammy immoral) manages to avoid this and pays off his debt, he is given his victim as a wife (immoral.) And according to you, this is a punishment, when viewed in context.

The context being important somehow, despite your view that the two thousand year old rules in the new testament still apply today without change, despite the massive shift of context between then and now.

Awful lot of immorality from the good book, hmm?

[max-greece]

Well that's very telling of what you think of people that aren't willing to put faith in something you can't possibly prove to exist. You're talking like a sociopath, and I hope you receive the help you need someday: a lobotomy.

Just having some fun.. Most of you go the otherway and say something about flying planes into buildings.

to each his own.

I don't recall if it was in this thread or in another but I mentioned the Story of Samson somewhere.

Could you illustrate to me the essential difference between Samson's actions and those of 9/11. Seems awfully similar to me.

[Drich]

Okay, let's sum up, shall we?

A man rapes a woman (immoral) and is punished by having to pay 50 shekels (immoral.)

what do you think happens today? when a man rapes a woman he goes to trial, do you think this was free? there is a cost associated with a trial, upon conviction the guy is sentenced to 50 to 10 on a first offence, do you think this is free?

In that day there were no jails, there was slavery via hard labor. What this law does is provide the woman the money to use at her descression, that we would use to put a rapist on trial and house feed cloth the rapist for 10 years.

You claim that this is a lot of money, essentially turning the woman who was just raped (immoral) into an expensive novelty good (immoral.) Your defense to this is that 50 shekels is a lot of money, you guys (if not immoral, a total dick move.)

Again please provide some sort of arguement that seperates what they did given their social ecconomic structure and our own.

In essence a butt load of money still exchanges hands when a woman is raped, except now the state keeps it, so again please explain how this in more 'moral.'

The woman, meanwhile, would be sold to her rapist (immoral) and if the rapist can't pay, then he's sold into slavery himself (immoral) until he's paid his (immoral) debt, instead of going to prison (immoral.)

Now keep thinking. If you knew this would happen to you, then it kinda take some of the desire out of the nature of sponteanious sex that rape provides.

Oh, and he might not get out of slavery, of course: the old testament also has provisions for the owners of a debt slave (immoral) to keep them forever by giving them a wife (immoral) and essentially tricking them into retaining their life of slavery or lose their family (immoral.)

Which none of this applies if the man has any reasoning ablity at all. As all of these things act as a deturrant to a Rape. In essence it is a life sentence.

If the debt slave rapist (double whammy immoral) manages to avoid this and pays off his debt, he is given his victim as a wife (immoral.) And according to you, this is a punishment, when viewed in context.

The context being important somehow, despite your view that the two thousand year old rules in the new testament still apply today without change, despite the massive shift of context between then and now.

Awful lot of immorality from the good book, hmm?

Again the term 'morality' is subjective, to the time, generation and a given soceity. Are you so foolishly prideful that you truly think all that this current soceity deems as 'moral' will not be looked upon by furture soceities as being nazi level immoral, just like you have judged those who lived under this law?

The word/term 'morality' is a joke as any type of real standard. for what was moral to our fathers is laughed at today, and on and on it goes till God puts an end to our reign.

God's standard is Righteousness, you do not recognise Righteousness as a standard because by defination 'morality' has taken you far from it.

Isaiah says it like this in chapter 5:
Woe to those who call evil good
and good evil,
who put darkness for light
and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet
and sweet for bitter.

21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes
and clever in their own sight.

22 Woe to those who are heroes at drinking wine
and champions at mixing drinks,
23 who acquit the guilty for a bribe,
but deny justice to the innocent.
24 Therefore, as tongues of fire lick up straw
and as dry grass sinks down in the flames,
so their roots will decay
and their flowers blow away like dust;
for they have rejected the law of the Lord Almighty
and spurned the word of the Holy One of Israel.
25 Therefore the Lord’s anger burns against his people;
his hand is raised and he strikes them down.

---

Just having some fun.. Most of you go the otherway and say something about flying planes into buildings.

to each his own.

I don't recall if it was in this thread or in another but I mentioned the Story of Samson somewhere.

Could you illustrate to me the essential difference between Samson's actions and those of 9/11. Seems awfully similar to me.

Samson was a prophet or 'Judge' of God. He fought to Free Israel from their oppressors who had invaded their land and enslaved their people 40 years prior to his birth. He received blessing(strength) and instruction from God to help Israel break free from oppression.

What happened on 9/11 was an attack on western civialization. The orginal targets (White house/congressional building, pentagon, World trade center) was designed to cripple our goverment, (To put the country into chaos) kill our military leaders (so we could not respond, and they could continue to rain down terror at will) Destroy the western economy.(As TWTC was a symbol of western Money)

In their mind they were trying to even the playing field. To drag down western civialization back to the Iron age or where ever the stopped developing so as to be a world power, allowing them to govern or rule the world as they saw fit.

Samson look to liberate, Osama looked to oppress. How again do you only see them as the same?

[Bad Writer]

If the term Morality is subjective, then all those assholes that publish Bibles need to put a disclaimer on the front that says (contains some immoral bullshit that shouldn't be followed anymore). It doesn't though, and that's why we harp on you to stop touting the whole thing as good, but to instead pay attention to what the authors apparently wrote under the influence of your god. Socio-economic-political whining a aside, do you think that the actions described here are moral. If a man raped your daughter, paid you 50 bucks, and then married her for life, do you think this would be a justified action?

[Esquilax]

what do you think happens today? when a man rapes a woman he goes to trial, do you think this was free? there is a cost associated with a trial, upon conviction the guy is sentenced to 50 to 10 on a first offence, do you think this is free?

My problem wasn't with the concept of punishment, nor with the idea that it costs something. My problem was with a: the fact that the punishment for rape was a fine, and b: that this was sale price for the woman he raped, not a punishment in the sense that it was recompense for the crime.

It says an awful lot about your mental state that we're talking about this and the only objection you think I have is about the money.

In that day there were no jails, there was slavery via hard labor. What this law does is provide the woman the money to use at her descression, that we would use to put a rapist on trial and house feed cloth the rapist for 10 years.

Except that it doesn't say that the woman gets the money, it specifically states that the rapist pays her father.

Again please provide some sort of arguement that seperates what they did given their social ecconomic structure and our own.

In essence a butt load of money still exchanges hands when a woman is raped, except now the state keeps it, so again please explain how this in more 'moral.'

Once again, you keep phrasing this shekels deal like it's a punishment. It's not. It's a transaction.

Now keep thinking. If you knew this would happen to you, then it kinda take some of the desire out of the nature of sponteanious sex that rape provides.

Perhaps this is news to you, but I think slavery is immoral regardless of the context. I think most people here agree... well, not most christians. You guys seem to be leaping to the defense of this shit a lot these days.

And you keep saying this is a deterrent anyway: in this scenario it's more akin to working off a debt. And again, at the end of it, the man gets to keep the woman he raped.

Do you just instinctively know that the core issue I'm having here isn't one you can defend? Is that why you keep deflecting with all these pathetic side issues?

Which none of this applies if the man has any reasoning ablity at all. As all of these things act as a deturrant to a Rape. In essence it is a life sentence.

Can we just... holy shit. Can we... I don't... I can't even...

Can we just take a moment to acknowledge the fact that not only is Drich okay with selling a woman, not only is he okay with selling her to her rapist, not only is he okay with the fact that the kind of person this woman would then be shackled to is most likely dangerously violent or mentally unstable, but that he thinks this is still a negative prospect for the rapist.

Drich, let me ask you a really simple question that might clear some things up, and frankly I feel it's a disturbing look into your views here that you haven't already thought of it: in this scenario, why are you only thinking about how the rapist would feel?

Again the term 'morality' is subjective, to the time, generation and a given soceity. Are you so foolishly prideful that you truly think all that this current soceity deems as 'moral' will not be looked upon by furture soceities as being nazi level immoral, just like you have judged those who lived under this law?

Are you so foolishly head over heels with your fucking bible that you'd actually think there's a context in which rape and the sale of human beings is morally acceptable?

Can you even produce a context where you would be okay with it?

The word/term 'morality' is a joke as any type of real standard. for what was moral to our fathers is laughed at today, and on and on it goes till God puts an end to our reign.

God's standard is Righteousness, you do not recognise Righteousness as a standard because by defination 'morality' has taken you far from it.

If your god's righteousness is accepting of rape, and slavery, and all this other shit, then I'm very happy indeed to be taken far away from it.

[Drich]

If the term Morality is subjective, then all those assholes that publish Bibles need to put a disclaimer on the front that says (contains some immoral bullshit that shouldn't be followed anymore). It doesn't though, and that's why we harp on you to stop touting the whole thing as good, but to instead pay attention to what the authors apparently wrote under the influence of your god. Socio-economic-political whining a aside, do you think that the actions described here are moral.

Do you not see what you had to do to trivialize the 50 shekels of silver? You just took it out of context. Why is that? does it make too much sense when looked at in the context in which the bible frames it? What does it say of your 'morality' if allows you to strip away the proper context of a given discussion, just so you can win an arguement?

Again what you did is appearently a 'moral' thing to do, but by God. It was not a righteous thing to do.

If a man raped your daughter, paid you 50 bucks, and then married her for life, do you think this would be a justified action?

Not only have you removed the context provided by the bible you have substituted what the bible actually say and replaced with your own.

The bible does not say 50 dollars. It says 50 Shekels of silver. Once again Jesus was betrayed to the cross for 30 shekels, and that same thirty was used to buy the field that Judas died in. Put it this way How much money would it take for you to betray Christ, a man you KNEW was the Son of God? A man that you walked and talked with one that you saw perform impossiable mirical after mirical.. Would 30 dollars be enough to cover the cost of your soul? what about 30K? 300K? 30 million maybe?

Whatever the exact worth a shekel in that soceity was worth a great deal more than a dollar is worth to ours.

And remember Judas' betrayal was 1500 to 2000 years after this command was orginally given. Which means it was worth a great deal more, because of the scarcity of silver before the Iron age (And the tools needed to mine for it.) 50 Shekels probably enough to live on for a great while if not the rest of your life with a kid in tow.

again this was a deturrant like the prolifiaction of nuclear arms. If the cost was so great to use them then mutually assured destruction would ensure no one would.

In otherwords if raping some woman cost you a lifetime of wages, ensured you were sold into slavery, then still have to care for her forever, anyone with any sense would not rape a woman. After all a woman could be 'bought' for a lot less, and according to what Christ said/complained about Mosaic divorce, one had an option to get rid of her and move on to the next one if she displeased you for even a trivial reason.

If you raped a woman you were bound for life.

[max-greece]

"If you raped a woman you were bound for life."

That's all well and good but it appears that she, the victim is bound to you for life.

Surely you see that is extremely unjust and harsh on her - which is the point I think.

[Bad Wolf]

The bible does not say 50 dollars. It says 50 Shekels of silver. Once again Jesus was betrayed to the cross for 30 shekels,

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

[Bad Writer]

The point is not the amount of money. If you're worried about context, how do you think the woman feels in this entire arrangement? From her point of view, this is completely unjust, and she's being sentenced to a life with this awful man for a crime she never committed. Of course, it was a bunch of patriarchal goatfuckers that made up these laws, so it stands to reason that all empathy for the fate of the woman was removed from the equation.


My question stands, Drich. Even if your daughter's rapist paid you an inordinate amount of money, perhaps more than you can possibly spend in 100 lifetimes, would you still feel it justified to marry your daughter for life to the man that raped her?

[Drich]

My problem wasn't with the concept of punishment, nor with the idea that it costs something. My problem was with a: the fact that the punishment for rape was a fine,

I wasn't a fine. It was an impossiable amount of money. It was imprisionment to hard labor, it was the end of a given man's life.

and b: that this was sale price for the woman he raped, not a punishment in the sense that it was recompense for the crime.

Again why would one spend so much money and risk slavery when one could have simply have made a deal with the girl's father? for quite abit less? Because a man did not want to be bound by a wife. If a man does not want a wife, but still wants sex, it's proably because He could not afford to keep one as the law demands. which means he would not be able to pay this kings randsom, which leads to slavery.

So again it a massive deturrant, not a simple fine or fee for rape.

It says an awful lot about your mental state that we're talking about this and the only objection you think I have is about the money.

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.

Except that it doesn't say that the woman gets the money, it specifically states that the rapist pays her father.

...And who in your mind takes care of said woman when he new husband has been sold into slavery to pay his debt??

If I were a slave owner why would i want the added expense of another mouth or two to feed when I only get one slave to work with?

Once again, you keep phrasing this shekels deal like it's a punishment. It's not. It's a transaction.

so is the arrest, processicution, and jailing of a convict now. It just depends on how you want to look at things.

Perhaps this is news to you, but I think slavery is immoral regardless of the context. I think most people here agree... well, not most christians. You guys seem to be leaping to the defense of this shit a lot these days.

So? Price of Tea in China??

And you keep saying this is a deterrent anyway: in this scenario it's more akin to working off a debt. And again, at the end of it, the man gets to keep the woman he raped.

See post above. Again there are alot easier and 'cheaper' was of obtaining a woman back then.

Do you just instinctively know that the core issue I'm having here isn't one you can defend? Is that why you keep deflecting with all these pathetic side issues?

Indeed because your core issue is anti-semitism/bigotry. Because the Jews in the time frame we are speaking did not have the social resources to 'afford' modern "morality" they are being looked down upon. The 'side issues' are being dicussed so that you may see the differences between how you able to live now, verses the options they had then. But, again they are not important because your looking to persecute OT Jews..

Can we just... holy shit. Can we... I don't... I can't even...

Can we just take a moment to acknowledge the fact that not only is Drich okay with selling a woman, not only is he okay with selling her to her rapist, not only is he okay with the fact that the kind of person this woman would then be shackled to is most likely dangerously violent or mentally unstable, but that he thinks this is still a negative prospect for the rapist.

Again see post above yours. In that time people were bought and sold. fact of life. They are still bought and sold, fact of life. The only difference is we have renamed and reworked how money exchanges hands. Just because the Jews did not use the methods or use the correct verbage of buying and selling humanity does not make it wrong nor does it make it right. It's just unappologetic in how it speaks of the transactions concerning Human life. Which is the biggest sin against modern morality being discussed here.

Drich, let me ask you a really simple question that might clear some things up, and frankly I feel it's a disturbing look into your views here that you haven't already thought of it: in this scenario, why are you only thinking about how the rapist would feel?

Because you can not unrape a woman, therefore there is nothing but reperations to be made by the rapist (At that time.) If this is your only recourse then as a soceity they must make the punishment for rape so costly it does not make sense to rape a woman.

Are you so foolishly head over heels with your fucking bible that you'd actually think there's a context in which rape and the sale of human beings is morally acceptable?

again, human being are bought and sold now. The bible simply strips away all of the soceitial pretext we place in front of this act, which is the only real sin (against modern soceity.)

Can you even produce a context where you would be okay with it?

What do you think Marriage is? when you promise to care for your wife? How is that care provided? do you chop your own trees and build you own house? Do you grow and raise all your own food? did you mine the ore, pounded into steel and build your own car? did you dig your own oil well, refine your own gas? Or did you pay for these things? did you take your dirty money and buy the items needed to provide yourself with the proper circumstances to have a wife?

and how did you do all of this? Where did you get this money? Did you print it yourself? Or did you sell 2/3's of your day, 2/3's of your life to get the money to pay for this stuff, you used to buy your family? Now your turn to explain to me how this differs from the the time a Hebrew slave sells to his master?

don't say your free to come and go as you wish. i own a business and have several employees working for me, and I know these guys are here because the literally have to be. Heck I'm here because I literally have to be. If they or I left we would loose everything, and become wards/slaves of the state. How long after that happens would your wife stay? So again, in theory yes you can leave, but only at the cost of everything you have worked for to this point in your life. So in practice you are a slave to the circumstances you have selected for yourself. Which in practice is absolutly no different than where an OT rapist would be.

If your god's righteousness is accepting of rape, and slavery, and all this other shit, then I'm very happy indeed to be taken far away from it.

That's just it. Your a do-mas if you think you've gone anywhere.

Your still a slave even if you can not admit it to yourself. and Rape is still being regulated by deturrents.. So what has changed? nothing the only thing one position allows you to do over the other is seperate yourself from God. If that is what you want (seperation) then just nut up, and just spit in the eye of God. you do not need all of this pomp and circumstance to give you an excuse to do the same deed..

---

"If you raped a woman you were bound for life."

That's all well and good but it appears that she, the victim is bound to you for life.

Surely you see that is extremely unjust and harsh on her - which is the point I think.

Your missing the bigger picture.

If a man wanted to 'buy' a wife he could for less money. (that is what help prevent rape.) why rape a woman for 50 shekels when you could 'buy her' for 5 and a few goats?

Which means this particular soceity was not built on equality of men and women. Is that extreme? the answer depends on what you compare that to. if you comapre it to our soceity? then yes. But if you do a intelectually honest compareson would also look at what our soceity affords us, that their soceity would not afford them.

Again in the west 'we' have the opinion that 'we' are always right and piss on any culture that does things differently.

---

The bible does not say 50 dollars. It says 50 Shekels of silver. Once again Jesus was betrayed to the cross for 30 shekels,

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

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.