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

Bolded above proves that christians live ALL of their lives through unprovable myths....

 

Your idea of *proof* is ahem, at variance with the real world.

For me, it just has to be shown God is more likely true than not. Neither of us has *proof* for our worldviews, I simply choose to take a step towards God, you choose to take a step away from Him.

 

When one starts a thread, it is best if the one making the thread, has a clue what the thread is suppose to be about.
This thread should be closed based on the fact it started out as a lie.

 

She was in a situation where she chose the slightly lesser of two evils. I seriously doubt she was happy about it.

 

The deflection was the irrelevant junk. The Craig video is a punt because you can't be bothered to defend your opinion. If I watch the video and then respond with a video that counters it, would that make you feel like this is a meaningful exchange? Should we just go back and forth with dueling videos and call that a discussion, or would you like to actually put some effort into this conversation? Don't give me excuses and pretend like I'm somehow the person who is not serious about this when you can't bring yourself to put up anything other than a link to defend your points.

 

Yeah, not so much. There are a number of versions that call it rape, so either god is a failure at getting people to translate, or it really means it's rape. Anyway you look at it, an honest person could not conclude otherwise, given the context.

NAS version:

How in the world, in that context, could one think that this is NOT rape? We have other verses showing that women will be stoned for premarital sex. Why would she cry out if it wasn't rape? Because she was moaning with ecstasy? So, if a girl reeeaally likes premarital sex, she won't be stoned to death? And why does it say "there was no one there to save her." Who needs to be saved from consensual sex? Furthermore, why does it compare it to murder? Who compares consensual sex to murder?

In neither case, does the girl get stoned, even though the punishment for premarital sex is a stoning. Therefore, regardless of whether or not it says she was raped, she obviously was, especially given the context, where it talks about her crying our and needing to be saved.

 

Not really, from my earlier link:

"Now someone may want to argue that the preceding examples do not combine the two words together as is the case with Deuteronomy 22. Hence, the use of the word taphas in conjunction with shakab in Deuteronomy implies that the sexual act was forced upon the maiden without her consent. A careful reading of both the passage itself, as well as its surrounding context, dispels such a notion. We quote the passage again, yet this time adding the surrounding context for further clarification:

"But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces (chazaq) her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death, for just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so is this matter. For he found her in the countryside, and the betrothed young woman CRIED OUT, but there was no one to save her. If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and THEY ARE found out, then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days." Deuteronomy 22:25-29 NKJV

Although vv. 25-27 refers to a woman that is betrothed, the point is still clear. By screaming, the woman indicates that she is being forced to have sex without her consent. Hence, when the woman does not scream this indicates that she willfully chose to engage in the sexual act with the man. This is further seen from vv. 28-29 where both the man and the woman are held accountable, i.e. "and THEY ARE found out." This is unlike the woman of vv. 25-27 who is said to be not guilty.

Also notice that in v. 25 a different word is used when signifying rape, namely chazaq. If the inspired author wanted to imply that the woman in vv. 28-29 was being raped, he could have used this same word chazaq; especially since this is the word he uses in the preceding verses to refer to an actual rape incident. The fact that he didn't use it should further caution us from reading rape into vv. 28-29."

- - - Updated - - -

Yes I would. I have no problem looking at a three minute video, why do you?

 

I'll admit I didn't read the whole 60+ page thread, but really, what are your alternatives when the times meant that the woman was likely to suffer death or need to become a prostitute, because no one would marry her?

I have a feeling it's something along the lines of "society should create a welfare system" which is why I said what I did, that there was no welfare system in the old testament times and there wasn't going to be one.

You guys really don't understand what those times were like. There was no welfare, no police and the most advanced weapon was a sword. People lived by farming or maybe weaving and selling pots, at which point she would need help to defend her wares from thieves. A woman usually could not survive without a man to help her out. The average life expectancy, usually under 30, meant that she could not rely upon her parents for very long.

 

we care because we see otherwise smart and good, kind people compromise themselves horribly to support a morally bankrupt dogma. we care because we want to see the human condition improved and progressed, not held in the middle ages. we do not get 'upset' with god, any more than you get upset with the Flying Spag Monster.

 

there has never been a single verifiable incidence of god/s impact on this planet. i.e., the evidence suggests that it's highly unlikely that god/s exist. your 'choice' to step toward superstition is, on that basis, not because you've been shown god is likely. further, suggesting we take a step away from god is kinda silly. you can't step away from nothing. try it and see

 

Okay, well that takes very little effort. Here's a counter video:

[video=youtube;HDT03RjHxbg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDT03RjHxbg[/video]

 

I don't really see how this addresses anything I said. It doesn't explain why a women would cry out if it was consensual. It doesn't explain why consensual sex is like murder and the women is to blame for not crying out during consensual sex, and it doesn't explain why a women would need to be saved from consensual sex. It also doesn't explain why a women would be kept from a stoning in one of these instances, when there is already a law that says the punishment for premarital sex is a stoning. Again, given the context, there is no way to take this as consensual sex.

From my original post a few pages back:

 

So in other words, you mean welfare, or maybe you just have no solution, since someone can't live off of love and respect. I was right then in regards to my first post in the thread, what a surprise

 

lol, wait, what? You think having a rapist financially support his victim is welfare? deeeeeerp. How is that welfare, how is that not a solution, and how is that unfair? You're feeling bad for a rapist here? What's wrong with you?

 

Christianity, it does something to a person's mind. Even they will say so; but they get confused on what it does.

 

all part of the cunning plan. rewire 'em to think up is down, and defend that to the death.

 

What is hilariously funny about all your arguments is you are making the case for the atheists.
The only response you have to anyone is that this was the best god could do given the culture of the time.
In other words, you are admitting that the bible is written as a relative thing to the culture, serving their beliefs, not molding them. It is merely a cultural creation.
If god was making groundbreaking decrees giving the woman to her rapist for life, what not really break some ground? Provide for the woman. Whether or not it was obeyed is not an argument. Many laws are disobeyed. The law states what is expected.
But what god actually does in scripture is serves the patriarchal society by treating the woman as chattel, which is exactly what they were in ancient times. Marriage was an ownership contract and it was unilateral.
All of your responses come back to what was appropriate for the culture, not what was appropriate to god.
A better case for the fabrication of scripture by man I have never read.

 

POST OF THE WEEK

I've been thinking along the same lines on this. It's been very interesting to watch.

 

Thank you. Thank you.
I'll be here all week!

 

Where did you go Pablo?

 

the bible was describing what one coulture used to do, how is this relivent to today other than a history ?

 

It is relevant to the extent that we see it yet again demonstrated that the bitter clingers / fundamentalists are as regressive, anti intellectual, and misogynist as they ever were.

 

Once again proclaiming yourself an agnostic.

 

Interesting sometimes the contrast between how a person sees himself, and what others know them to be.

I watched an episode of "American Idol" (one was plenty)
It had some interest to it, this British guy who was one of the judges had a very analytical
way of talking about a singer's performance, for example.

The thing that was remarkable to me was, these people who could not sing, at all, would
get up there and make these awful sounds, then be all outraged and talk conspiracy when
they were told to stop, that they werent going to be selected.

Its a wonder, how little insight so many people have, into who and what they really are.

 

Definately people on this forum like that.

- - - Updated - - -

No I'm not. You really think this describes me?

: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

Because God can't be proven to you, doesn't mean He hasn't been proven to me.