The Atheist 'Pay 50 Shekels for a Rape, Get A Rape' Myth

Obviously you didn't.

He says it doesn't mean rape, but two unmarried people having premaritial sex. Maybe your Hebrew is better than the author's, I don't know. When this was first posted the atheists got it, why don't you?

The was previously posted, please try and keep up:

"Note that throughout the Old Testament no rape victim is ever recorded as being forced to marry a rapist. However it is plausible that there could be circumstances in which a father would choose to have his daughter marry a rapist. In 2 Samuel 13, Amnon, a son of David, rapes his half-sister, Tamar. Tamar was not forced to marry Amnon. Interestingly, though, Tamar seemed to have wanted to marry Amnon after the rape (2 Samuel 13:13-16). Why would she desire such a thing? In that culture, virginity was highly prized. It would have been very difficult for a woman who was not a virgin, and especially a woman who had been raped, to find a man to marry her. It seems that Tamar would have rather married Amnon than live desolate and single the rest of her life, which is what happened to her (2 Samuel 13:20). So Deuteronomy 22:28-29 could be viewed as merciful to the woman, who, because of the rape, would be considered unmarriageable. In that culture, a woman without a husband would have a very difficult time providing for herself. Unmarried women often had no choice but to sell themselves into slavery or prostitution just to survive."

They you're a certified illiterate if you can't read and comprehend a simple article. I'll spell it out for you, the word 'rape' in the OP is a bad translation.

What eternal moral law was changed?

4th CHALLENGE

 

Laws under our COTUS have to be justifiable on a secular basis. A law that states a religious basis can not pass as it is considered to be representative of establishing a given faith as state supported. If you can't justify it secularly it is, ipso facto, unconstitutional.
You can support a law because it appeals to your faith, but it can't be written as an overtly religious law.

 

I read it. Here's an excerpt.

"There are two points to note here. First, even though the verse may seem to be instructing the rapist to marry the victim the passage nowhere sanctions, condones or even approves of rape. This is simply a gross misreading of the text. The injunction is intended to instruct the Israelites on how to deal with and address a rape situation if and when it occurs."

He understands what he wrote was about dealing with rape. How come you can't decipher English? We aren't asking you to read Aramaic!

The Tamar example never shows her wanting to marry her attacker. It shows her to be a woman without options. We all agree that the option god provides is far less than justice. That section also confirms that we are talking about rape, by the way.

Your article that you cited never says it is a mistranslation. He says it means exactly that.

Keep asking your question. You'll get no answer until you deal with this one.
You still haven't addressed that last paragraph of my post.

 

Funny you left out one of the two points. Here it is:

"Second, by taking a careful look at the context and consulting the original languages of the Scriptures a strong case can be made that this citation isn’t even addressing a rape case at all. We must remember that the Holy Bible was not written in English. The OT was written in Hebrew, with parts of it being written in Aramaic. The NT was written in Koine or common Greek. This means that if we want to know whether an English translation has faithfully and accurately translated the inspired author’s intended meaning we must turn to the original language of the sacred text. Once this is done, it will become quite apparent that the Holy Bible does not sanction that a rapist marry his victim."

The author goes on to show a long list of verses where the Hebrew word mistranslated at 'rape' in the OP does not mean rape.

Please read it again, and this time past the first paragraph.

Yes it does.

Agreed, marrying her attacker was the best of some bad options, kind of like choosing between surgery or chemo if you have cancer. Sin often has serious consequences for innocent victims, as in the case of abortion.

God promises ultimate justice, but often not on this earth.

In the Tamara section, correct, but it is a completely different passage. Note also that she ended up not marrying her attacker because her father didn't allow it. Since you hate patriarchy, would you have been happier if Tamara had been able to marry her attacker without her father's 'interference'?

Sigh, please read the entire article before you look any sillier.

 

The author's primary argument is stated in the first paragraph.
He says an argument could be made otherwise, but his primary premise is he is acknowledging that this verse is dealing with "if and when a rape occurs." You have cited someone that fundamentally disagrees with you.
I know the Tamara passage is different. You were the one who brought it up, not me.
You change the subject to god's ultimate justice so you don't have to discuss his total lack of justice in the issue being discussed. Nice bob and weave.
You still haven't coped with the last paragraph of my previous post.
I will assume you are, once again, flummoxed.

 

I do not like Obama either but this has little to do with Religious fundamentalists making laws for religious reasons.

I gave you examples. If you want to pretend to be ignorant to things such as the Temperance Movement where Preachers were giving speeches claiming that Alcohol was from "the Devil" that's fine.

It was Religious belief that forced prohibition on people and the same is happening with Abortion in Texas.

Of course there is freedom from religion. Are you not bright enough to figure out that "freedom of Religion" is the same as freedom from religion?

I understand that you are clueless in relation to the Constitution as that is the norm these days.

Do not enforce the legal observation of "religious beliefs" by law... such as "though shalt not drink" and so on. Madison is clear in what he was saying but if there is any doubt:

One of the primary purposes of the constitution was separation of Church and State.

Here is some further clarification for you

These folks knew well the evils that happen when Church mixes with State.

Natural Authority of the People alone ... without pretence of "Religion"

Church and State mixing = bad news.

I have more if you like.

Aside from what the founders thought.... it is also what Jesus thought. Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to me what is mine.

What is a shame is that not only do you not understand the Constitution but you do not understand the message of Jesus either which was one of forgiveness, turning the other cheek, Taking the log out of your own eye before picking at the speck in your brothers .. and most importantly

Do unto others as you would have them do to you.

You are not a Christian and you are definitely not a real conservative.

It is a sick and unhappy mind that is so desperate to make others conform to his religious beliefs that he is willing to use force and violence to do it.

Such people belong in a strict Islamic Theocracy and then they might learn to appreciate the value of freedom.

 

Not it is not, his primary purpose is that passage does not refer to rape. Just the sheer volume of what was written proves that. Did you read the entire link?

You wish. You're ignoring the whole link I posted proving it isn't rape.

 

I'm inclined to agree that Paul is neither christian or conservative.

 

Again, it is none of your business why someone supports a position.

How is that unconstitutional?

Good, I hope the TX movement succeeds. The idea that abortion is murder goes back to the Hippocratic Oath, long before Christianity.

You have no right not to have to deal with religious people. As a former SCOTUS justice said about Americans, we are a religious people.

You certainly demonstrate that. This is from Joseph Story, SCOTUS Justice appointed by James Madison, the 'father of the constitution':

§ 1868. Probably at the time of the adoption of the constitution, and of the amendment to it, now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.

Where does the Bible say 'thou shalt not drink'?

I agree with the separation of Church and State, not that it has done the UK any harm.

Jefferson was a bit of a flake among the Founders when it came to religion, and was not representative of them. I could put up quotes all day long from the Founders that make them sound like Jerry Falwell.

Actually, the whole assumption of the Founders was that our inalienable rights come from God, and are loaned to politicians.

You're zero for two there. At least you're consistent.

What Christian is doing that, outside of the alternate universe inside your head? Voting is 'force and violence', LOL.....

- - - Updated - - -

What am I, an atheist and flaming liberal? As dumb as me saying you're really a Chistian. Whay you might mean to say is, I don't align with your mischaracterization of Christianity.

 

I read the whole link.
He states it is about rape and then spends the rest of the article trying to make a case where it could possibly be otherwise. It is desperate and pathetic.
You are in denial, and you still won't address my post.

 

You're ignoring my post. You keep regurgitating this link but can't explain how it makes any sense for it to be consensual sex. Again:

 

I don't disagree with this, and don't see anyone trying to pass any overtly religious laws.

 

That's progress.

Completey wrong. You may have read the article, but you didn't comprehend it. Here's a smaller chunk that gets to the point (also for AKR's benefit):

"The clear and decisive command from God when a man has seduced a virgin is found in Exodus 22:16-17: “If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall surely pay her dowry to make her his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he shall weigh out money according to the dowry for virgins.”

In this text there is no question whatsoever of forcible rape. The Hebrew verb used to describe the sin (italicized in the quotation above) is patah, used elsewhere for “coaxing” (Jud. 14:15), “luring” (Jud. 16:5; Hos. 2:14), and “enticing” (Prov. 1:10; 16:29). When a man gets a virgin to consent to have sexual relations with him, he is morally obligated to marry her – as the following commentators indicate:

John Calvin: “The remedy is, that he who has corrupted the girl should be compelled to marry her, and also to give her a dowry from his own property, lest, if he should afterwards cast her off, she should go away from her bed penniless” (Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the Form of a Harmony, vol. 3, pp. 83-84.

J. C. Connell: “Although she consented, it was still his responsibility to protect her from lifelong shame resulting from the sin of the moment by marrying her, not without payment of the regular dowry” (“Exodus,” New bible Commentary, ed. F. Davidson, p. 122).

Adam Clarke: “This was an exceedingly wise and humane law, and must have operated powerfully against seduction and fornication; because the person who might feel inclined to take advantage of a young woman knew that he must marry her, and give her a dowry, if her parents consented” (The Holy Bible ... with a Commentary and Critical Notes, vol. 1, p. 414).

Alan Cole: “If a man seduces a virgin: ... he must acknowledge her as his wife, unless her father refuses” (Exodus: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Series, p. 173).

James Jordan: “the punishment for the seducer is that he must marry the girl, unless her father objects, and that he may never divorce her (according to Dt. 22:29)” (The Law of the Covenant, p. 14.

Walter C. Kaiser, Jr.: “Exodus 22:16-17 takes up the problem of the seduction of a maiden who was not engaged .... Here the seducer must pay the ‘bride-price’ and agree to marry her” (Toward Old Testament Ethics, p. 107).

(Bahnsen, Pre-Marital Sexual Relations: What is the Moral Obligation When Repeated Incidents are Confessed?, PE152, Covenant Media Foundation, 1992)

In light of the foregoing, we feel the following rendering best captures the intended meaning of the passage which has nothing to do with a woman having to marry her rapist:

“Suppose a woman isn’t engaged to be married, and a man talks her into sleeping with him. If they are caught, they will be forced to get married. He must give her father fifty pieces of silver as a bride-price and can never divorce her.” Contemporary English Version (CEV)


That it is not talking about rape is hardly a novel interpretation, the author has a list of Bible commentators who agree going back to John Calvin. Once again, we have atheists with no real understanding of the context or original languages who pretend they have a 'gotcha' moment, when all they are doing is embarrassing themselves. It is an ignorant distortion to call this 'pay for rape'.

Now that we are past the mistranslation of rape, I for one think it a just system that protects women against a seducer. Today men can use women like kleenix, with no responsibility. It is a modern form of concubinage, where women are used sexually with no legal responsibilites on the part of the man. I'm pretty sure the OT theocracy of Israel didn't have the huge numbers of STDs and unwanted pregnancies that we see today.

 

You get your own OP wrong and then think others should be embarrassed?

AND in that whole post all your quotes ,written and interpreted by men, not one tiny thought to what the woman involved wanted...so rape or no rape it's still garbage.

 

When I find information that contradicts a previous position, I change my mind. What do you do? I'm still waiting for you to admit the original atheist 'pay for rape' garbage, was, and is, wrong.

She would have wanted to have been supported and the man held accountable, rather than being cast aside like a used kleenix as happens today.

 

Can you please tell me EXACTLY how you know how all women feel and think?
Or WHY you think they all think alike?

Because they don't even though your buybull says they're nothing more than cattle, they aren't and each woman can think for herself...

 

Do you think this would be considered justice if your daughter were raped OR seduced? It doesn't matter. I think all your apologists are stretching, but in the end it's irrelevant.
My point is you are making a great case for the cultural relativity of scripture, that it is a man made defender of a patriarchal worldview and not the infallible word of god.
And you have made it very well.

 

Forcing a young woman to spend the rest of her life with a rapist seems a bit unjust to me, but I guess the 50 shekels paid to her father mitigates that.

 

That would be two people whose lives would be short, if it was me.

I would kill him first chance, then I suppose I'd be executed.

 

Exactly.
That is why we see so much legislation with truly absurd justifications that get defeated. They try to write it to hide the true intent behind it and the justification is such a stretch that it never has a chance.

 

Ya but then, according to the "kind , compassionate" believers , you'd be sent to hell for doing what their god was incapable of doing...that "just" god...

 

That didn't happen. Is this the first post on this thread you've read?

 

I never said that, stop making things up.