Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

lmaopml · 28-12-2011 12:11am

tommy2bad wrote: »

So 'rape' is what that society calls rape?
I recall a sifi story where sex was as common as a handshake and no concept of rape existed. Are we getting back to whats wrong is what God says is wrong?

God said plenty of things, he told us to not covet our neighbours wife, or goods, and to not commit adultery, and to not kill.

He also said that there would be a time for everything, because he knew our nature before we knew it, but like any parent he lets us learn..

He is the parent, we're apparently still learning the above. The culmination was in Jesus Christ for Christians, to love your enemy as yourself.

This 'love' thing is apparently the ultimate and most difficult challenge - but nonetheless every sense says it's the wisest course. Hey ho.

Zombrex · 28-12-2011 12:13am

PDN wrote: »

Now, if she absolutely dug her heels in, and screamed that there was no way she would marry this guy, then would she be dragged screaming off anyway? I see no hint in the text that would be the case. If it did, then that would certainly be rape. But it could easily be the case that she would be set to work as a slave/domestic servant on a farm or homestead somewhere. How many husbands would really want a wife under those circumstances anyway? That's sounds like a good way for a man to get his throat cut while he's sleeping and his wife is chopping the vegetables!

Unfortunately quite a lot during times of war. For someone who has much experience with repression in various different parts of the world that statement is very naive.

SIERRA LEONE: “Forced marriage” conviction a first
http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?Reportid=83160

The War Crimes Tribunal and Forced Marriage in the Khmer Rouge Era
http://lungliu.photoshelter.com/gallery/The-War-Crimes-Tribunal-and-Forced-Marriage-in-the-Khmer-Rouge-Era/G0000_B3f422YR1Q/

Forced Marriage within the LRA, Uganda
https://wikis.uit.tufts.edu/confluence/display/FIC/Forced+Marriage+within+the+LRA,+Uganda

Forced Marriage: An under recognized, poorly understood form of enslavement
http://activehistory.ca/2011/03/forced-marriage-an-under-recognized-poorly-understood-form-of-enslavement/

lmaopml · 28-12-2011 12:23am

Zombrex wrote: »

Unfortunately quite a lot during times of war. For someone who has much experience with repression in various different parts of the world that statement is very naive.

SIERRA LEONE: “Forced marriage” conviction a first
http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?Reportid=83160

The War Crimes Tribunal and Forced Marriage in the Khmer Rouge Era
http://lungliu.photoshelter.com/gallery/The-War-Crimes-Tribunal-and-Forced-Marriage-in-the-Khmer-Rouge-Era/G0000_B3f422YR1Q/

Forced Marriage within the LRA, Uganda
https://wikis.uit.tufts.edu/confluence/display/FIC/Forced+Marriage+within+the+LRA,+Uganda

Forced Marriage: An under recognized, poorly understood form of enslavement
http://activehistory.ca/2011/03/forced-marriage-an-under-recognized-poorly-understood-form-of-enslavement/

Well then join forces Zombrex and learn from our common descendants to fight inequality, and learn and grow, you are only person of this time too..not beyond it.

Or do you believe that understanding only comes from a naturalist understanding? Societies have been built and destroyed, but truth remains, that all people, all life is of inherent value in and of itself. That's what Christianity teaches. It just goes further sometimes than some find comfortable, but that's not new..

Zombrex · 28-12-2011 12:35am

lmaopml wrote: »

Well then join forces Zombrex and learn from our common descendants to fight inequality, and learn and grow, you are only person of this time too..not beyond it.

Or do you believe that understanding only comes from a naturalist understanding? Societies have been built and destroyed, but truth remains, that all people, all life is of inherent value in and of itself. That's what Christianity teaches. It just goes further sometimes than some find comfortable, but that's not new..

No, that is what you think Christianity teaches because it is what you believe.

Going back to my original point, believers put the morals and ethics they wish the religion to reflect into the religion, or if this is too hard they simply reject the religion completely.

lmaopml · 28-12-2011 12:51am

Zombrex wrote: »

No, that is what you think Christianity teaches because it is what you believe.

Going back to my original point, believers put the morals and ethics they wish the religion to reflect into the religion, or if this is too hard they simply reject the religion completely.

No, that's not true. Not so far as I read it..

I would say this is more true of moral relevatism which is prevalent among atheists or moral reletivists - obviously.

Traditionally, most believers whom Christians hold up as Saints don't inject moral standards to those of their time, but rise above moral norms and rise above them in what is commonly understood as a person reflecting Gods image of love and charity at the detriment of their own desires for love and recognition.

Humility is the signature of the Saint.

Pride is the opposit. Love of an enemy is charity, hatred or pride is a deterrent to indeed the natural order and what we were born to strive for right here and now in this time and age to survive. Jesus has something to teach, faith, hope and love, but above all these is love..

Zombrex · 28-12-2011 1:05am

lmaopml wrote: »

No, that's not true. Not so far as I read it..

Pages and pages of Christians attempting to explain that God had a good reason for what he did in the Old Testament would suggestion otherwise.

lmaopml wrote: »

I would say this is more true of moral relevatism which is prevalent among atheists or moral reletivists - obviously.

Well they know they are doing it. Believers often don't. I guess part of the appeal is that the religion justifies their own beliefs. It is not their beliefs, they are handed down from God. But in the end they are still their beliefs.

Its actually relatively easy to demonstrate though through a pretty simply thought experiment.

If the objective law of the universe, be it handed down by God or whoever, informed you that it was in fact moral to do something that you consider hideously immoral (like rape a toddler or something, just an example of a commonly agreed immoral action) would you accept the objective version?

The answer for the vast majority of people, including yourself I'm guessing, is no absolutely not.

You know this to be true.

lmaopml · 28-12-2011 1:16am

Zombrex wrote: »

Pages and pages of Christians attempting to explain that God had a good reason for what he did in the Old Testament would suggestion otherwise.

What exactly did God do in the Old Testament that you think is not inline with belief that God is a Just and Omniscient being? I think this has been covered more than once Zombrex throughout the thread. Christians submit every prayer and intention with 'thy will be done'....This is not a democracy, but an opportunity to recognise beauty, and live and see and hear and feel love.

Well they know they are doing it. Believers often don't. I guess part of the appeal is that the religion justifies their own beliefs. It is not their beliefs, they are handed down from God. But in the end they are still their beliefs.

Are you suggesting a fundamental difference in brain activity? lol....how contrived and petty, and pretty moronic.....'Mama, I have a hurt that needs kissing, because I'm different to all the other kids, I'm better really' - pull the other one.

Its actually relatively easy to demonstrate though through a pretty simply thought experiment.

If the objective law of the universe, be it handed down by God or whoever, informed you that it was in fact moral to do something that you consider hideously immoral (like rape a toddler or something, just an example of a commonly agreed immoral action) would you accept the objective version?

The answer for the vast majority of people, including yourself I'm guessing, is no absolutely not.

You know this to be true.

No, I don't. That's where you totally part ways in understanding of God and goodness which is God.

By the way, I'm not saying I am any more 'good' than anybody, I am not - I'm on a journey - but you are too, whether you realise it or not.

Fanny Cradock · 28-12-2011 1:19am

Zombrex wrote: »

Its actually relatively easy to demonstrate though through a pretty simply thought experiment.

If the objective law of the universe, be it handed down by God or whoever, informed you that it was in fact moral to do something that you consider hideously immoral (like rape a toddler or something, just an example of a commonly agreed immoral action) would you accept the objective version?

The answer for the vast majority of people, including yourself I'm guessing, is no absolutely not.

You know this to be true.

That really doesn't demonstrate anything other than the absolute clashing with the subjective.

Zombrex · 28-12-2011 2:28am

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

That really doesn't demonstrate anything other than the absolute clashing with the subjective.

It demonstrates that the subjective is ultimately what decides what is or isn't the absolute.

Zombrex · 28-12-2011 2:32am

lmaopml wrote: »

What exactly did God do in the Old Testament that you think is not inline with belief that God is a Just and Omniscient being?

Just to who's standards? Why do you think God is a just being?

lmaopml wrote: »

Are you suggesting a fundamental difference in brain activity?

No, I'm suggesting a fundamental difference in recognition.

lmaopml wrote: »

No, I don't. That's where you totally part ways in understanding of God and goodness which is God.

So if God told you to rape a toddler you would know that it was a good thing to do and you would happily do it.

Not that you would believe it was bad but God has his reasons that you do not understand. But that it was good in of itself, not requiring further justification?

Fanny Cradock · 28-12-2011 2:33am

Zombrex wrote: »

It demonstrates that the subjective is ultimately what decides what is or isn't the absolute.

Then truth is also what you decide it to be. Therefore, the moon is made of cheese. Brie to be exact.

Zombrex · 28-12-2011 2:35am

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Then truth is also what you decide it to be. Therefore, the moon is made of cheese. Brie to be exact.

And God exists and Jesus came back from the dead after turning water into wine

Appealing to the nonsense of accepting fantastical things is probably not the best idea on the Christianity forum.

Fanny Cradock · 28-12-2011 2:59am

Zombrex wrote: »

And God exists and Jesus came back from the dead after turning water into wine

Appealing to the nonsense of accepting fantastical things is probably not the best idea on the Christianity forum.

Your hilarious joke actually supports my point. You don't believe that Jesus was resurrected because you think there are such things as objective truths. It happened or it didn't. Just like the moon is made of Brie or it isn't.

Either engage with my point or don't. If all you have to offer is a conversational side-step delivered in the form of a snide remark about Christianity then I'm not interested in talking.

ISAW · 28-12-2011 3:02am

Zombrex wrote: »

It depends on the reason, hence the term "rational"

I gave the reason "in spite of others believing something different". Is it reasonable to believe in something even though others think differently?
Now your example was it is not reasonable to believe just because others do. But Christians don't believe just because others do.
What I was asking however was different.
Is it more reasonable to believe something different to others ( or j simply not to believe what they do) even though those others all have the same belief?

tommy2bad · 28-12-2011 2:24pm

You don't believe that Jesus was resurrected because you think there are such things as objective truths. It happened or it didn't.

Sorry?
I'm a bit thick here but isn't that what were talking about, 'is or is not' Are you suggesting that truth is an interpretation of things or something else?

tommy2bad · 28-12-2011 2:29pm

PDN wrote: »

No, we aren't. I don't think the scenario I described is rape by any normal use of language.

use of language is the problem, normal for who?
What if I manoeuvres someone into a position that gives them no option but consenting to sex, have I raped or seduced them? Or just struck a deal.
I'm not a monster, I'll always leave them the option of death as an alternative, wouldn't want to go too far.....

marienbad · 28-12-2011 3:31pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

use of language is the problem, normal for who?
What if I manoeuvres someone into a position that gives them no option but consenting to sex, have I raped or seduced them? Or just struck a deal.
I'm not a monster, I'll always leave them the option of death as an alternative, wouldn't want to go too far.....

This is exactly the issue with the passage under question. And anyone (including God) setting out those conditions was giving license to rape.

PDN · 28-12-2011 4:00pm

marienbad wrote: »

This is exactly the issue with the passage under question. And anyone (including God) setting out those conditions was giving license to rape.

If that were exactly the issue, then the choice in the passage would be between consenting to sex or death. Please point us to anywhere in the passage where that is indicated.

PDN · 28-12-2011 4:02pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

use of language is the problem, normal for who?
What if I manoeuvres someone into a position that gives them no option but consenting to sex, have I raped or seduced them? Or just struck a deal.
I'm not a monster, I'll always leave them the option of death as an alternative, wouldn't want to go too far.....

Don't you think we would be better off discussing what the Bible says, rather than a scenario that you've imagined?

marienbad · 28-12-2011 4:15pm

PDN wrote: »

Don't you think we would be better off discussing what the Bible says, rather than a scenario that you've imagined?

Come on PDN , if the passage was in any other book you would accept that it at least included the possibility of rape. It is not those of us that can see that that are being unreasonable.

tommy2bad · 28-12-2011 4:27pm

PDN wrote: »

Don't you think we would be better off discussing what the Bible says, rather than a scenario that you've imagined?

LOL I've forgotten which passage we were discussing it was so far back.
Zechariah 14:2 or Isaiah 13:16 or was ir some other one?

PDN · 28-12-2011 4:47pm

marienbad wrote: »

Come on PDN , if the passage was in any other book you would accept that it at least included the possibility of rape. It is not those of us that can see that that are being unreasonable.

I'm prepared to accept that it includes the possibility of rape, or the possibility that the women were carried away by UFOs, or indeed the possibility of just about anything else. That's what an argument from silence gives you.

Now, will you please answer my question? Where in the passage is there any indication, no matter how slight, that women were given the choice between death or consenting to sex?

PDN · 28-12-2011 4:50pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

LOL I've forgotten which passage we were discussing it was so far back.
Zechariah 14:2 or Isaiah 13:16 or was ir some other one?

Deuteronomy 21:10-14.

philologos · 28-12-2011 4:52pm

Zombrex: Simply put my conscience would say no. In the Christian conception the conscience was create by God to act as a moral compass to lead us in terms of what is good and what is evil. See Romans 2:

For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is ywritten on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

As has been mentioned to you on this thread. Hypotheticals concerning God are irrelevant when the subject of our discussion is the Christian concept of God. The final revelation of which came through Jesus.

If you want to discuss something other than Christianity, the Spirituality forum will do. Otherwise the discussion will need to keep within the boundaries of who Christians say that God is. I have no interest in defending a whatever-yer-havin'-yerself type of deity.

Zombrex · 28-12-2011 4:57pm

philologos wrote: »

Zombrex: Simply put my conscience would say no. In the Christian conception the conscience was create by God to act as a moral compass to lead us in terms of what is good and what is evil. See Romans 2:

As has been mentioned to you on this thread. Hypotheticals concerning God are irrelevant when the subject of our discussion is the Christian concept of God. The final revelation of which came through Jesus.

If you want to discuss something other than Christianity, the Spirituality forum will do. Otherwise the discussion will need to keep within the boundaries of who Christians say that God is. I have no interest in defending a whatever-yer-havin'-yerself type of deity.

That is missing the point. The question is a matter of why people accept Christianity in the first place, given that this is the atheist debate thread.

Zombrex · 28-12-2011 5:02pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Either engage with my point or don't. If all you have to offer is a conversational side-step delivered in the form of a snide remark about Christianity then I'm not interested in talking.

Er, Fanny I presented my point and you made a some what silly comment about the Moon being made of cheese. You can't really blame me for being equally flippant.

While theists, particularly Christians, like to appeal to notions of objective morality when this is examined it turns out that the objective morality in the vast majority of cases matches their own subjective beliefs (I say theists but I mean all humans, it is just some humans don't realize this the case, theism is almost universally defined by notions of objective morality handed down by supernatural authority)

Or to put it another way they are drawn to religions that match up with what they already hold to be true, rather than the other way around.

tommy2bad · 28-12-2011 5:07pm

Zombrex wrote: »

Or to put it another way they are drawn to religions that match up with what they already hold to be true, rather than the other way around.

Admittedly I'm a poor example of a Christian but this is so far from the mark in my case.
What I perceive to be true of the world is the opposite of what I believe to be true in Christianity.
Maybe it hope for something better that keeps me coming back, Pandora's box again.

philologos · 28-12-2011 5:10pm

Zombrex wrote: »

That is missing the point. The question is a matter of why people accept Christianity in the first place, given that this is the atheist debate thread.

I accept Christianity because I find it to be consistent with reality, both on an experiential level, and on how realistic it's claims are.

Zombrex wrote: »

Or to put it another way they are drawn to religions that match up with what they already hold to be true, rather than the other way around.

How could that be true in cases where people knew very little about Christianity? Or cases where people rejected the existence of God, or indeed cared little about the existence of God.

There's only so far that that case can go, particularly in the case of converts.

marienbad · 28-12-2011 5:12pm

PDN wrote: »

I'm prepared to accept that it includes the possibility of rape, or the possibility that the women were carried away by UFOs, or indeed the possibility of just about anything else. That's what an argument from silence gives you.

Now, will you please answer my question? Where in the passage is there any indication, no matter how slight, that women were given the choice between death or consenting to sex?

In the passage we are discussing ( or any other passage as far as I know) the choice of sex or death is not given, OK ? Again you are taking something said in a semi-humerous mode as gospel ( at least that was my reading of it).

Now to get back to the disputed issues.

women were given the choice of marriage or servitude - are we agreed on that ?

Zombrex · 28-12-2011 5:14pm

philologos wrote: »

How could that be true in cases where people knew very little about Christianity? Or cases where people rejected the existence of God, or indeed cared little about the existence of God.

It is even more true in such cases, since most people's first interactions with Christianity are through the nice stories of Jesus, rather than say Moses ordering his soldiers to genocide.

What would be the first things you would teach someone about Christianity?

ISAW · 28-12-2011 5:16pm

Zombrex wrote: »

That is missing the point. The question is a matter of why people accept Christianity in the first place, given that this is the atheist debate thread.

Atheism as opposed to believing in God It is assumed the Christian God and not some makey uppey as we go along one.

philologos · 28-12-2011 5:20pm

Zombrex: It seems the more you post, the less it makes sense.

How could that be possibly true? How could one have Christian beliefs before they have Christian beliefs?

ISAW · 28-12-2011 5:21pm

Zombrex wrote: »

It is even more true in such cases, since most people's first interactions with Christianity are through the nice stories of Jesus, rather than say Moses ordering his soldiers to genocide.

I note you dropped the "God ordered rape" claim and now it has become "Moses ordered genocide" Niceswitch. You are good at the shell game.

What would be the first things you would teach someone about Christianity?

Dunno.
That they don't make claim and then switch to other ones later if they can't support them?
Nah maybe not. That Christians believe in a golden rule . Following that rule means following something outside of yourself. Unlike laws of the universe you have a free choice to follow the rules or not.

ISAW · 28-12-2011 5:24pm

marienbad wrote: »

In the passage we are discussing ( or any other passage as far as I know) the choice of sex or death is not given, OK ? Again you are taking something said in a semi-humerous mode as gospel ( at least that was my reading of it).

Now to get back to the disputed issues.

women were given the choice of marriage or servitude - are we agreed on that ?

I wouldn't agree on that. The women were taken as servants without being married or raped would be my interpretation. The order was an order not to kill them and not an order to rape them.

marienbad · 28-12-2011 5:37pm

ISAW wrote: »

I wouldn't agree on that. The women were taken as servants without being married or raped would be my interpretation. The order was an order not to kill them and not an order to rape them.

How is that different than what I asked ?

PDN · 28-12-2011 6:07pm

marienbad wrote: »

In the passage we are discussing ( or any other passage as far as I know) the choice of sex or death is not given, OK ? Again you are taking something said in a semi-humerous mode as gospel ( at least that was my reading of it).

Now to get back to the disputed issues.

This is exactly the issue with the passage under question. And anyone (including God) setting out those conditions was giving license to rape.

Sorry for not realising that was semi-humorous.

women were given the choice of marriage or servitude - are we agreed on that ?

Yes, I would agree. Or, to be more precise, they were offered marriage as a way out of servitude.

marienbad · 28-12-2011 6:12pm

PDN wrote: »

This is exactly the issue with the passage under question. And anyone (including God) setting out those conditions was giving license to rape.

Sorry for not realising that was semi-humorous.

Yes, I would agree. Or, to be more precise, they were offered marriage as a way out of servitude.

Ok then, the marriage would have included sex would it not, just as the servitude would have included work etc ?

Are we agreed on that ?

PDN · 28-12-2011 6:14pm

marienbad wrote: »

Ok then, the marriage would have included sex would it not, just as the servitude would have included work etc ?

Are we agreed on that ?

Yes, marriage normally includes sex, at least as far as my experience of it goes.

Fanny Cradock · 28-12-2011 6:21pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

Are you suggesting that truth is an interpretation of things or something else?

I acknowledge that people can make up their own truths. But this is not the same type of truth as something being independently true. For example, Stalin initially refused to believe report sent from his front-line commanders when they reported back that the Germans had broken the non-aggression pact and were rolling over the borders into the Soviet Union.

What we have is truth on two levels.

1) Subjective truth - an incredulous Stalin is initially convinced that the reports sent from his front-line commanders are fabrications. The truth in this case is whatever we believe it to be.

2) Objective truth - Operation Barbarossa happening whether everyone in Soviet Union believes it or not. The truth in this case is independent of us. It remains true whether we believe it or not.

marienbad · 28-12-2011 6:24pm

PDN wrote: »

Yes, marriage normally includes sex, at least as far as my experience of it goes.

Ok, and it is true to say that God sanctioned this , is that not also correct ?

PDN · 28-12-2011 6:30pm

marienbad wrote: »

Ok, and it is true to say that God sanctioned this , is that not also correct ?

Yes, that would be correct.

This is very slow.

Fanny Cradock · 28-12-2011 6:34pm

Zombrex wrote: »

While theists, particularly Christians, like to appeal to notions of objective morality when this is examined it turns out that the objective morality in the vast majority of cases matches their own subjective beliefs (I say theists but I mean all humans, it is just some humans don't realize this the case, theism is almost universally defined by notions of objective morality handed down by supernatural authority)

Yes, you are very fond of telling us this. I'm happy to see that you acknowledge that it is a human trait - albeit one that I gather deep down you are convinced that you have been inoculated against. There are certain aspects of Christianity morality that I find very difficult to accept because they run contrary to my desires. I know I'm not the only Christian who feels the same way.

But what has any of this got to do with my conjecture that objective morality exists whether we choose to acknowledge it or not? That's why I brought in objective truth as a direct analogy.

Zombrex wrote: »

Or to put it another way they are drawn to religions that match up with what they already hold to be true, rather than the other way around.

That may or may not be the case. Either way it has nothing to do with my point.

philologos · 28-12-2011 6:39pm

marienbad wrote: »

Come on PDN , if the passage was in any other book you would accept that it at least included the possibility of rape. It is not those of us that can see that that are being unreasonable.

The point is that when you read books, you tend to look for what is explicit rather than adding to it mentally. In numerous other parts of the Bible rape is actually explicitly mentioned as being unfavourable, both in the Jewish law, and in the historical books of the Old Testament. So I go with what is explicit, I.E that the Bible regards rape as being fundamentally wrong rather than making up what I want to add into the passage.

Fanny Cradock · 28-12-2011 6:45pm

philologos wrote: »

The point is that when you read books, you tend to look for what is explicit rather than adding to it mentally. In numerous other parts of the Bible rape is actually explicitly mentioned as being unfavourable, both in the Jewish law, and in the historical books of the Old Testament. So I go with what is explicit, I.E that the Bible regards rape as being fundamentally wrong rather than making up what I want to add into the passage.

Any particular passages?

philologos · 28-12-2011 6:50pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Any particular passages?

2 Samuel 13:1-39
Genesis 34:1-31

There are also laws concerning rape in Deuteronomy.

marienbad · 28-12-2011 6:53pm

PDN wrote: »

Yes, that would be correct.

This is very slow.

Indeed it it PDN , so now we come to the nub of the issue- could that sex be regarded as rape ? can we at least agree that that is a valid question to be posed ?

philologos · 28-12-2011 6:56pm

marienbad: You could take a sentence and imagine anything into it. However, when it comes to this, it's probably wiser to take the explicit meaning of the sentence, especially since the Bible condemns rape explicitly in its pages.

PDN · 28-12-2011 7:00pm

marienbad wrote: »

Indeed it it PDN , so now we come to the nub of the issue- could that sex be regarded as rape ? can we at least agree that that is a valid question to be posed ?

It's a valid question, inasmuch as any question is valid.

Of course the answer to the question is clearly 'No'. Unless you've caught the habit of another poster who redefines language to suit himself.

I don't think, by any reasonable definition, offering to marry someone and so improve their socio-economic position is therefore rape.

Imagine the conversations we could have:
Rich Man: "Please will you marry me. I have a beautiful house and a good job, and I would be honoured if you would come and be my wife. I want to take you away from all this poverty."
Poor Woman: "Rape! He just threatened to rape me!"

marienbad · 28-12-2011 7:12pm

PDN wrote: »

It's a valid question, inasmuch as any question is valid.

Of course the answer to the question is clearly 'No'. Unless you've caught the habit of another poster who redefines language to suit himself.

I don't think, by any reasonable definition, offering to marry someone and so improve their socio-economic position is therefore rape.

Imagine the conversations we could have:
Rich Man: "Please will you marry me. I have a beautiful house and a good job, and I would be honoured if you would come and be my wife. I want to take you away from all this poverty."
Poor Woman: "Rape! He just threatened to rape me!"

Now it is you that is imposing a meaning that is not explicitly stated- ''marrying someone to improve their economic status'' - Surely not, otherwise why exclude the women who were not virgins.

The issue is simply does the sex in these marriages constitute rape or not , and if not why not ? And of course if yes then why yes .

And part of that issue is the matter of consent . Given an either/or choice - is that consent ?

All of the above questions by any reasonable standard are explicit in the text.

marienbad · 28-12-2011 7:18pm

philologos wrote: »

2 Samuel 13:1-39
Genesis 34:1-31

There are also laws concerning rape in Deuteronomy.

I am more than willing to be educated here philologos but those passages are more about incest and circumcision than rape ,are they not ?

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Comments