philologos wrote: » lazygal: I'll give you the answer I see fit. I don't promise that you'll agree with what I say or that you will like my answer but genuinely I'm trying as best as I can to answer. Being an atheist doesn't give you the right to be rude. Genuinely I'd rather if we had a proper discussion without this childish attitude. There's no point in discussing if you genuinely aren't interested in listening. The passage doesn't speak about rape. It deals with premarital sex. Therefore I don't magically assume rape in there as that's bad reading irrespective of what I'm reading if I don't have sufficient license from the author I don't imagine stuff in that's simply not there.
philologos wrote: » I've shown you the passages that clearly show that rape was clearly condemned in the Old Testament. It isn't my fault if you don't want to listen.
philologos wrote: » I've shown you the passages that clearly show that rape was clearly condemned in the Old Testament. It isn't my fault if you don't want to listen. And yes it is childish and rude to continue goading when you've got an answer.
philologos wrote: » I already referenced this on thread. Please look back. It's not reasonable for you to ignore what I've posted and it is rude.
marienbad wrote: » Please stop lecturing people on what you deem proper behaviour. Thank you. You did not reply to the specific post and questtions I asked , would you like me to restate them ?
marienbad wrote: » It does say go take women captive and makes them your wives ? correct ?
marienbad wrote: » This post Philogos , can I have an answer please .
philologos wrote: » The passage says that it is permissible for marriage to occur in these cases. That's what we can conclude from it. Just to give a heads up. If we are doing to discuss, it should be a discussion rather than an interrogation session. I'm happy to discuss, but that's a two-way thing.
Peregrinus wrote: » I suspect it probably doesn’t imply rape in the sense that the woman’s consent is the issue. The previous passage, Deut 22:23-27, dealing with the case of sex with a woman betrothed to someone else, attempts to differentiate between cases in which the woman appears to have consented, on the one hand (in which case both die) and cases where she did not or where it cannot be known whether she did or not on the other (in which case only the man dies). Deut 22:28-29 deals with sex with a woman who is not betrothed, and the same consequences flow in all cases – i.e. consent is not an issue. Thus while the rule would apply to cases of rape, it would apply also to cases which were certainly not rape. If consent or the lack of it were an issue, that would be made clear, as it is in the immediately preceding passage. So, while the rule covers cases of rape, it’s not directed at cases of rape. I suspect “seize” (or the Hebrew word translated as “seize” here) basically means “take”, and it reflects a sexist assumption that an act of intercourse is normatively initiated by the man. A modern analogy would be our laws concerned sex with a person under 17 (“unlawful carnal knowledge”). Consent is not an issue. The rule is the same whether the young person is actually raped, or whether he or she is an enthusiastic participant, or something in between. The maximum penalty for u.c.k. is less than the penalty for rape, but nobody objects that having a law against u.c.k. “condones rape”. (Of course, if a young person is raped, then the perpetrator can be charged both with u.c.k. and with rape, but that just illustrates that u.c.k. is not the same as rape.) I also don’t think it’s fair to say that the rule in Deut 22:27-28 “condones” anything, whether it be sex with an unbetrothed woman, or rape. It takes its place in a long list of rules which prescribe penalties and consequences for acts which are clearly not condoned; if they were condoned, they wouldn’t attract penalties. You might object that it fails to treat the act as seriously as it should, or that it is sexist in its operation, or whatever, but imposing penalties on the perpetrator of an act is pretty much the opposite of condoning it.
philologos wrote: » No I'm sorry if you aren't going to allow for a two-sided discussion, or if you're going to continue treating any question I ask in the rude manner that you did before then I won't. The charter of this forum is quite clear on this. The passage says that in the specific situation of Israel in war that marriage between an Israelite and a captive is permissible. This stage in Israel's history has long passed and Christians are under a new covenant with Jews and Gentiles. Its important for a Christian to read the Bible in the light of Christ.
philologos wrote: » Are you going to discuss or interrogate? Unless this is a two sided discussion I haven't got the slightest interest to be honest. I've got more productive things I can do.
nagirrac wrote: » Masteroid, if God exists outside space and time, surely he can do whatever he wants. He created space and time, so why would he be subject to the laws of nature that he put in place himself?
Zombrex wrote: » And the Bible never condones rape if you assume that everything that could be rape isn't.
Worztron wrote: » Why is it that those who believe in a god say the universe could not have come from nothing yet they have no problem is thinking that their "god" came from nothing?
Brian Shanahan wrote: » No, the bible does not condone rape only if the definition of rape is not: "the forcible commission of a sexual act upon a person who is unwilling, or incapabe of agreeing to, such a sexual act." No amount of mealy-mouthed weasel words will deny this fact.
Brian Shanahan wrote: » If god exists outside space or time, then he exists outside of reality, as reality is the sum total of spacetime. If that is the case, then I don't give two shakes of a lamb's tail what it does, because its actions cannot effect me, because they are imaginary.
philologos wrote: » None of the passages actually endorse, condone or encourage rape - that is forced sexual acts. That's the point.
marienbad wrote: » would they be classed as forced sexual act by today's standards ?
robp wrote: » Physicists are quite confident that time did not always exist. It is a very difficult as language is structured and limited to describing things with time. Yet the 'time before time' period was in no way imaginary. Long before physicists realised this God was viewed as existing outside of time. There is a clear intellectual continuity there.
Brian Shanahan wrote: » But the difference between physics and religion is that under physics nothing existed before time started (ignore nagirrac his physics is prouchy at best), whereas under religion god existed before time started.
