How stupid do you have to be?...

[gall]

I particularly like this timeless piece of biblical wisdom.

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Because women who get raped totally want to marry the fuck shit asshole garbage dump man who violated them so he can do it everyday legally...

Fuck this book and anyone who buys into this reasoning. They don't deserve to be part of a modern and free thinking society until they can say this is a violation against human kind.

[Drich]

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.

how does that differ from a marriage she did not want to enter into?

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.

How would you think these women 'feel' being called 'goats?'

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?

as apposed to what? her getting raped and getting nothing more than the satasifaction of knowing that some body gets to spend the next 10 years in jail at tax payers expense?
It completely depends on how the soceity I live in decides to punish the rapist.

eitherway in your senerio my Daughter gets raped. My only recouse as a law abiding citizen is to go with what my soceity allows for this situation.

[Esquilax]

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.

Mhmm, sure. Leaving the rich to rape away. Though I'll admit that's shifting the goalposts a bit; the entire arrangement is still immoral, and phrased in an awful way.

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.

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.

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!

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 isn't some fucking cultural disagreement where you can be like "oh, they have their ways, we have ours!" Fuck that; rape and slavery and selling other people is wrong. Are you saying that if a French person raped your daughter and offered to buy her, you'd be okay with it because he's from another culture?

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!

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

Okay, there is so much wrong with this sentence. Jesus fucking christ...

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. 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.

Thirdly, the very basis of your question is awful and misogynist. Fourth... you know what? Fuck it: people less clueless than you can see what's wrong here. I don't need to spotlight every fucking thing.

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?

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.

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.

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

Don't be disingenuous. The legal system today in no way involves the the criminal coming out the end shackled to the victim. Stop equivocating.

So? Price of Tea in China??

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

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

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

Indeed because your core issue is anti-semitism/bigotry.

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

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..

Fuck. You.

Again, you seem to imply that there's a context in which rape and slavery and the sale of women is acceptable. You're wrong. I don't care if these people are Jews, or Australians like me, or Americans, or even my own fucking mother and father: this behavior is wrong, and it would be wrong if they lived in a fucking floating metropolis in the year 3000, or a mud fucking hut in the middle of nowhere. There is not a context in which these actions become in any way better, and by pretending that there is, you're just revealing the inner asshole that we're all so very well acquainted with.

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.

Uh huh, that's why we still see people enslaved to a single employer for their entire life, without an option to leave. That's why we see those employers giving wives to people. That's why the criminal justice system has a chapel attached to the prison so those rape victims can go marry their rapists.

This is really fucking stupid, Drich.

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.

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.

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.)

There is no possible way you actually believe this. If you do, you're more stupid than I thought. And that's saying something.

But assuming you do, please detail to me the modern day scenario in which a person is sold to another with no option to leave, and take the consequences of that leaving. Please, do that. I could do with an angry, venom filled laugh.

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.

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

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.

Funny how you skipped over those, huh?

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..

Alright, preachy mcgee, whatever you say.

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

Yeah, I fucking thought so.

[Jackalope]

"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.

The available evidence suggests that he in fact does not see it as unjust. It's god's law, the very pinnacle of righteousness.

[Bad Wolf]

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.

[Minimalist]

they do not in and of themselves fix a date of composition,

Finkelstein gives a terminus ad quo for the composition of certain parts of the OT, Apo and it is the 7th century BC. Egyptologist, Donald Redford, has come up with the same date using a different line of evidence which in archaeology is about as good as it gets. At the end of the 7th century both Egypt, under the 26th Dynasty and Judah were in a position to contest for areas being evacuated by the Assyrians. This was the only time in the entire first millennium when Egypt and Judah were serious rivals. A story about how "god" had helped a bunch of slaves escape Egypt and punished the Egyptians makes sense as a propaganda tool at that point in time.

Some of the other anachronisms that Finkelstein and Redford point out have to do with towns which were named in the bible account but which did not exist until the Iron Age. Goliath's armor and weapons are identical to those of a Greek hoplite, a style of warfare which only developed in Greece at the end of the 8th century but which quickly spread because of its success. Certainly, there were no hoplites in the 10th century and Egyptian reliefs of their battle with the Philistines in the early 12th century BC show that the Philistines were armed and armored as light infantry... pirates in other words, in keeping with the concept of the Sea People of which they were a component part.

Certainly this OT crap was edited and massaged over the centuries so that it could serve the needs of the ruling class. That ruling class reached its zenith near the end of the 2d century BC when the Hasmonean dynasty actually did manage to form a jewish state that was a minor regional power. The terminus ad quem would be the time when this shit was last edited to suit that ruling class. They stopped being a ruling class when the Romans came through in 64 BC so that is where I would look.

[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?

[Bad Wolf]

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.

You wrote:

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.

The fact that you are arguing over 50 dollars and 50 shekels implies that you care about the amount of money that was given to you if the man raped your daughter. My point being is that you shouldn't care at all how much, you could give me all the money in the world and I wouldn't allow it. That is why i asked whether you would be ok with a man raping and marrying your daughter as long as he gave you a lot of money.

[ronedee]

Well, if you want to see the silliness in Christianity how about this:

Christianity is based on Jesus being crucified for your sins. Seeing as god is supposed to be GOD, he could have simply said, "I now forgive sins."

Was the crucifixion like a witches spell that forced 'almighty' god into forgiving sins? Of course not. The crucifixion did nothing.

Unfortunately, free-will leads to sin. Which in turn, led to God's warning being fulfilled in cursing us to death.

And there was only one way for that curse to be abolished.

2 Cor5:21. "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him."

God, through Christ Jesus paid the price for putting sin before us. And humans were given His flesh to curse, and ultimately kill. We were then reconciled with God the Father.

But, beware of the "second death"! The death of the soul.

Everyone looks at the flesh as an end-all, when it is more a vehicle to a greater purpose. The soul is now our main concern as spiriual beings.

"...as He shared in our humanity, so we will share in His divinity."

It makes perfect sense to those with understanding.

[Faith No More]

This thread...



Drich...