marienbad wrote: » What Gospel was that then ? Love your enemies ?
JimiTime wrote: » Watching the regular sniggering abuse, and awful modship, I can't believe he lasted this long tbh. His selfless intentions were going to eventually lead to him considering the lack of value in trying to bring the Gospel to Kermit, Fozzy and the gang My intentions being mostly selfish here, you'll still have me annoying yee now and again so don't fret.
marienbad wrote: » Has Philologos left the house ?
Peregrinus wrote: » For many Christians, it has - I'd say for most Christians, so far as the submission of women in marriage is concerned. It may not have moved as far as you (or I) would like, but it has certainly moved. It's a mistake to seek out the Christians you disagree most violently with, and then treat them as normantive of Christianity. They aren't, necessarily.
Peregrinus wrote: » Actually, I don’t think it is that simple. Remember how we got to this point. Somebody - I forget who, at this point - made the claim that the bible condones rape, and when that claim was challenged a number of people offered various scripture passages said to support the claim. On examination, most of the passages which referred to rape proved not to condone it, and most of the passages which did condone something - possibly something quite nasty - weren’t really, or at any rate primarily, condoning rape. On this particular passage, I think people would be on fairly strong ground if they complained that the bible condones forced marriage, or abduction for marriage. But they’ve kind of painted themselves into a corner where they have to attack this passage on the grounds that it condones rape. And that’s not quite so clear.
Peregrinus wrote: » She may well, given that she doesn’t share our assumptions and values. Remember, this is a woman who never had any expectation of choosing her own marriage partner. Her marriage partner would be chosen by her father. Or, possibly, by her grandfather. Or, if her father was of low status, by her father’s patron, or some other high-status figure on whom her father was dependent. Or, if her father was a slave, by her father’s owner. And at any point the person in a position to choose her marriage partner might change - death, decline in fortune, war, etc. She’s essentially property (or, at any rate, the right to select her marriage partner is essentially property) and property can change hands at any time. When there’s a war, and her family’s on the losing side, and awful lot of things change, including expectations with regard to marriage.
Peregrinus wrote: » Semantically, we can defend the claim that she was raped, because this is a sequence of events which will likely lead to her having sex, and at no point is her consent necessarily sought or obtained (though it’s not necessarily withheld either). But the corollary is that every woman who ever married a husband not of her own choosing, every woman who has married out of economic or social necessity, was raped every time she has sex with her husband. And that’s the experience of most women who have ever lived, since the romantic idea of marriage in which two individuals choose one another out of romantic inclination is a fairly recent invention. And that’s such a broad definition of rape as to be not much use - and, more to the point, it’s not what we normally think of when we use the word “rape”.
Peregrinus wrote: » So, does the bible condone rape? In this passage, yes, indirectly, for certain values of “rape”. But we have to do a good deal of shoehorning to get to that point, and in doing so we end up skipping over some much more fundamental moral issues. Possibly, just possibly, the central moral problem in what’s described here isn’t the acts of sex that are presumed to follow the forced marriage?
Peregrinus wrote: » I think it's much more likely to be classed as abduction or ethnic cleansing, to be honest. I don't think there's any example, ancient or modern, of forcible marriages in these circumstances being classed for criminal purposes as rape, even by people who disapproved of them or denounced them. (If you know of an example, I'll be happy to consider it.)
Peregrinus wrote: » My point here is not that this practice would be defensible; not at all. My point is that this conversation has all the hallmarks of one in which people start by denouncing the bible for condoning rape, and only looked for evidence when the assertion was challenged. Their initial belief was not evidence-based. And they don't find any very convincing evidence, which is why, after other passages initially cited have been quietly dropped, they have to rely on passages like this, which are the best they can do but, frankly, don't provide the kind of support that they expected and hoped to find.
Peregrinus wrote: » If you started by reading the bible and forming opinions about what your read, you might well deplore this passage, but I suspect the focus of your denunciation would not be that it condones rape. In fact what this law does is prevent rape; if a conqueror desires a captive woman, he can't just have her; he has to marry her, tqke her into his home, allow her a period of mourning, give her a status, rights and a future. It's not great, perhaps, but it's better than what would happen if the law were not there.
Peregrinus wrote: » Yes, marriage can itself be a rape, and for those senses of "rape", this passage condones rape. But, as for the primary sense of rape, as for the kind of rapes that to this day still happen to the women on the losing side in a war, this passage is clearly aimed at preventing those rapes, and I suggest it's less than honest for people who claim that the bible "condones rape" not to acknowledge this.
marienbad wrote: » So if bibically thinking has moved on in this area why has it not done so as regards homosexuality or the submission of women in marriage ?
Peregrinus wrote: » Yes. (Just to be clear, I'm talking here about Deut 20:10-14, and I think you are too.) I think it's much more likely to be classed as abduction or ethnic cleansing, to be honest. I don't think there's any example, ancient or modern, of forcible marriages in these circumstances being classed for criminal purposes as rape, even by people who disapproved of them or denounced them. (If you know of an example, I'll be happy to consider it.) My point here is not that this practice would be defensible; not at all. My point is that this conversation has all the hallmarks of one in which people start by denouncing the bible for condoning rape, and only looked for evidence when the assertion was challenged. Their initial belief was not evidence-based. And they don't find any very convincing evidence, which is why, after other passages initially cited have been quietly dropped, they have to rely on passages like this, which are the best they can do but, frankly, don't provide the kind of support that they expected and hoped to find. If you started by reading the bible and forming opinions about what your read, you might well deplore this passage, but I suspect the focus of your denunciation would not be that it condones rape. In fact what this law does is prevent rape; if a conqueror desires a captive woman, he can't just have her; he has to marry her, tqke her into his home, allow her a period of mourning, give her a status, rights and a future. It's not great, perhaps, but it's better than what would happen if the law were not there. Yes, marriage can itself be a rape, and for those senses of "rape", this passage condones rape. But, as for the primary sense of rape, as for the kind of rapes that to this day still happen to the women on the losing side in a war, this passage is clearly aimed at preventing those rapes, and I suggest it's less than honest for people who claim that the bible "condones rape" not to acknowledge this.
marienbad wrote: » Peregrinus- no matter what the ancient interpretation you would you agree that by todays standards it would be a war crime . . .
marienbad wrote: » . . . and would be classed as rape ?
MrPudding wrote: » Forced marriage and subsequent rape is the natural consequence of what is described in those passages. Let me ask you a couple of questions that might help us tease things out. 1) Do you think a woman that has been abducted against her will (I appreciate that this is a bit of a tautology but I want to be sure everyone is talking about the same thing) is likely to consent or agree to marrying the person that abducted her? When I say consent, I mean real consent. Not that she agrees to it under duress, that is not consent. 2) Do you think that a woman that has been abducted and married against her will is likely to consent to sex with the person she has been married to against her will? Your book describes a course of action that by any reasonable analysis will end in rape. It really is that simple.
MrPudding wrote: » 1) Do you think a woman that has been abducted against her will . . . is likely to consent or agree to marrying the person that abducted her?
MrPudding wrote: » 2) Do you think that a woman that has been abducted and married against her will is likely to consent to sex with the person she has been married to against her will?
nagirrac wrote: » According to our physical laws the universe cannot come from nothing in a material sense (energy and matter), unless you redefine nothing as some cosmologists have done and argue that the quantum vacuum is nothing. Krauss' book on this subject is a proposal of how the universe went from one state to another, and provides no answer as to where the quantum vacuum came from or where the material that banged into exitance at the time of the big bang came from.
robp wrote: » ...Referring to 'fairy tales' or as Christians as non-thinking people doesn't reflect very well on someone who trying to take the moral high ground.
philologos wrote: » How can rape be condoned if it isn't described or mentioned in these passages? That's the main point and unless you can back it up there is no reason to assume that it is discussing rape or coercion. There's nothing plain there at all.
marienbad wrote: » Excuse me ! I am not asking you about rape . Yet again I am asking you would this practice be acceptable by todays standards ? and an illustration in case you still don't understand
philologos wrote: » Considering that rape is clearly condemned elsewhere in the Torah and in the Old Testament is offends logic and comprehension to claim that somehow the Bible advocates rape here when it isn't mentioned. That's the crux of the issue.
philologos wrote: » It doesn't say anything about rape, therefore I don't assume it. It doesn't say anything about the marriage being forced, therefore I don't assume it. Not assuming things without warrant is basic reading comprehension.
Worztron wrote: » Since nobody knows for certain where the universe came from -- it is best to leave a question mark there and not clutch onto adult fairy tales. There is nothing wrong in not knowing the answer to everything but it is madness to believe in things that are not falsifiable in order to fill in the gaps.
philologos wrote: » I've already answered it. Not getting an answer you like, or an answer that convinces you isn't the same as not getting an answer at all. Read post #6422
MrPudding wrote: » OK, you are accusing me of making assumptions yet you are assuming that a woman that has been captured, or taken against her will, will have consented to marriage and consented to sex just because it does not clarify exactly what happened? MrP
philologos wrote: » That's not in the passage and you're assuming / imagining it in there without warrant. That's why we're dealing with dishonesty rather than an earnest effort to read what it is saying. There's actually not even mention of the marriage even being forced. All we can read from it is that marriage between an Israelite and a captive woman is permissible in Torah law. I suspect unless you're willing to concede that it is not mentioned there that we'll both go away with bloody foreheads. That's our point.
philologos wrote: » I've answered that question already and I've told you I won't be entertaining an interrogation session from you.
