Dismiss Notice

Welcome to Christian Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
  • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
  • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting after you have posted 20 posts and have received 5 likes.
  • Access to private conversations with other members.

We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Bible Says Marry Your Rapist

Discussion in 'Christian Apologetics' started by BlueLightningTN, Nov 18, 2010.

  1. tyronem

    tyronem Presbyterian Baptist with Pentecostal leanings

    Messages:
    423
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Christian
    Humbled is only used Where extreme Shame is implied - see below
    24 - Consensual Adultery and the woman has been Shamed as a result
    29 - Consensual Sex prior to marriage


    24Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
    29Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.​


    Have you heard of the law of logic called the law of non-contradiction? Something cannot be True and also be False.

    Therefore something cannot be consenting and be rape at the same time

    Therefore when the Law of Logic of non-contradiction is applied here as it should be. He says :

    "if the woman was forced (raped) then the bride price is to be paid, And if they were Both consenting then marriage is compulsory" (Along with the Bride Price ) - ie if it was consenting the Bride price AND Marriage was compulsory. We have already defined that rape is the act of Forcing a woman, therefore consent is not involved in the first part that states rape the same as rape does not apply where consent is given between them.

    Putting the whole sentence together that defines consent makes much more sense

    (1) if he and the damsel did consent, he should be bound to marry her, and never to divorce her, how much soever she was below him, and how unpleasing soever she might afterwards be to him, as Tamar was to Amnon after he had forced her.

    NOTE he and the damsel did consent, this is not Rape

    (2) This was to deter men from such vicious practices, which it is a shame that we are necessitated to read and write of.​

    I don't think you are familiar with the story of Tamar, She was raped by her half brother Amnon who had lusted after her, then once he had, had his evil way with her he hated her and threw her out, and King David did nothing to punish him nor demand the bride price as a fine, 2 years later in vengeance Amnon was killed by his brother Absalom (Full Brother of Tamar).

    (1) The Authors reference was that even if a man who had lusted after the woman he had seduced now hated her after he had, had sex with her as Amnon hated Tamar he could not divorce her. (Amnon never married Tamar and he hated her very much after he had raped her) It is a comparison to show you how much a man could hate a woman and still be denied divorce because of his seduction of her.

    (2) This is a conclusion sentence.
    Notice he uses the Plural "Practices" This is deliberate because his previous sentences refer to two different things, rape and consent and applying the law of non-contradiction these items cannot be one and the same.

    The two Vicious practices he refers to is:
    1. rape (The Deterrence being the Fine) and the likely killing of the rapist by the brothers as Absalom did to Amnon (Not a useless statement as you stated)
    2. Is the seducing of a woman into consensual sex then casting her out once he has had his way with her in an attempt to have no consequence for himself. (The deterrence being the bride price plus the marriage and never divorce her)

    Both are vicious in their own way.
     
  2. Jaws13

    Jaws13 Urban Nomad. Literally.

    Messages:
    14,536
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    In Relationship
    Politics:
    US-Others
    Faith:
    Christian
    This does not negate or refute the information I gave you.



    Thank you for insulting my intelligence.
    Which means that Matthew Henry could not have been talking about seduction. Thank you for supporting my point.



    Once again you ignore the preceding clauses. Let me highlight for you:

    If a damsel not betrothed were thus abused by violence, he that abused her should be fined, the father should have the fine, and, if he and the damsel did consent,

    You see, there's an AND there which means the 'if they consent' part is talking about something INCLUDED in the punishment. Don't talk to me about elementary logic and ignore it at the same time.
    I'm quite familiar with it. It's a story where someone raped someone else and then despised them afterwards. I referenced this story myself earlier. Again, you're insulting my intelligence and at the same time ignoring a valuable part of the commentary.
    Amnon did not seduce Tamar. He raped her. How can you possibly come to the conclusion that he seduced her? It's not talking about seduction.

    No, it's not talking about two different practices.

    What you are doing to Henry's text here is no different than what the KKK and American slavers did to support their actions from the Bible.
     
  3. tyronem

    tyronem Presbyterian Baptist with Pentecostal leanings

    Messages:
    423
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Christian
    Of course it does, there is no shame for a woman who is raped, only one who has broken God's Law.


    Woman don't consent to marrying their rapist, they consent to sex then are required to marry the man.

    You cannot justify your position in this because your position is that the man must marry the woman. You Cannot therefore hold the position that the man must marry the woman and then justify his statement about if they are both consenting. Because that is in contradiction to your statements.

    By doing this you have now concluded that if a woman is raped, the man gets to choose whether he marries her or not.

    However it is in no way a contradiction to my statement that if they both had consensual sex then they must marry.

    Yes he raped her, and I never said he seduced her I said he despised her. Then I said even if someone despised the woman they had seduced just in the same way as Amnon Despised Tamar they could not divorce her.

    So you now deny common English that a plural refers to many (2 or more) things?

    [/QUOTE]

    Not in the slightest. And might I remind you, that you still hold to the position that forces woman into a life of servitude and rape at the hands of her rapist. Only this time with her fathers consent like she was some form of property. That sounds much more like the KKK and Slaver position.

    You still have provided absolutely no published references for your statement and position.
     
  4. Jaws13

    Jaws13 Urban Nomad. Literally.

    Messages:
    14,536
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    In Relationship
    Politics:
    US-Others
    Faith:
    Christian
    ...are you serious? Do you know how many rapes actually get reported? You say there's no shame in rape? Do you know anyone who's been raped? Your point here, if anything, proves my point...

    Circular argument. It's consent because it's consent. Where is the proof besides a commentary you ripped out of context?

    It's a contradiction to what the passage from Henry actually says.
    No, that is not what I said. The passage makes it clear, there is no choice in the matter.

    Show that this was part of the practice, not the punishment.


    You equated the passage, which you say is talking about seduction, with one that talks about rape as if they are the same. If your seduction argument is true, then there would be no need for you to do this. Henry says it's rape.
    There is no optional part or plural part that indicates it's referring to two situations. The AND makes it clear that it is included in the previous requirement.

    I have provided published references that discuss the language and culture, and you have ignored them. One of these you provided for me. Henry's commentary, which you quoted, undermines your argument because it talks of it as rape, not seduction. Furthermore, the burden is on you to show it is seduction as you came in making that assertion. I have demonstrated from Henry's commentary and the language in the passage that it is talking about force, violence, and rape, not consensual sex. Almost every single translation available has this distinction, and you ignore it and cite inaccessible books as references which you could easily be quotemining as you did with Henry's text. Your position falls apart under scrutiny, and rather than responding to or addressing this, you have engaged in baseless accusation and ad hominem attack.
     
  5. tyronem

    tyronem Presbyterian Baptist with Pentecostal leanings

    Messages:
    423
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Christian
    There is NO Shame in being a rape victim, if a woman is raped she has NO reason to be shamed just as she does not have any reason to believe she is under the wrath of God for having been raped.

    As to who I know that has been raped that is absolutely unequivocally none of your business, You would be well advised to pull your head in and not go down the path of claiming a woman is humbled / lowered / shamed for being raped.

    But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter

    You claim you believe a woman must marry her rapist

    Yet YOU claim that Henry's statement backs you up when it clearly states:

    "And if they were Both consenting then marriage is compulsory"

    1.) You cannot consent to rape (Being Forced)

    2.) You cannot justify your interpretation of scripture with this notation from Henry because you say marriage is compulsory for rape yet you are trying to say that Henry is saying if they both consent to marriage then marriage is compulsory which is a non-nonsensical statement that also violates scripture and violates your position.

    The only interpretation that makes sense is if they were both consenting in sex then marriage was compulsory.

    This passage must back up one version or the other and it backs mine up perfectly while you are left trying to apply an unscriptural interpretation all the while refusing to see it in order to try and back up your claims.

    Your argument has no position in Henry's statement

    1. If a damsel not betrothed be thus abused by violence, he that abused her should be fined, the father should have the fine
    1. Refers directly to rape, the fine being equivalent to 10 years wages

    2.and if he and the damsel did consent, he should be bound to marry her, and never to divorce her, how much soever she was below him, and how unpleasing soever she might afterward be to him, as Tamar was to Amnon, after he had forced her,
    2. Refers directly to consensual sex

    He and the Damsel Consent to what? Consent to Sex of course. Then They have no choice in marriage so rape cannot be what he means no matter how you try to twist it.

    Then what happens? They are bound in marriage and may never divorce

    That makes perfect logical sense and is utterly and totally within the bounds of the righteousness of God

    You have provided nothing other than your dogmatic stance that a woman must marry her rapist. You also deliberately attempted to twist a valid reference I gave you to try and fit your stance, only to find that backfire when what is written contradicts your interpretation of scripture. It is IMPOSSIBLE to both consent and be forced in both sex and marriage


    Your inability to gain access to referenced material is not my problem, nor is it an excuse to attempt to dismiss them just because you cannot get access to them.

    I did not quotemine, as I clearly and absolutely demonstrated to you, your understanding is wrong.

    I'll keep going back to the dictionary for you if you want me to

    " deter men from such vicious practices,"

    noun /ˈpraktəs/ 
    practices, plural
    Scheme or plot for an evil purpose


    I do not attack your character (Ad Hominem), I attack your position, also the conclusions and outcomes of such a position. I will remind you that It was you who deliberately associated me with slavers and the KKK then you dislike it when it is turned on your own head and your position that woman should be forced to marry their rapists is neatly aligned with slavers and the KKK.

    At the end of the day I don't need to prove anything further to you, I have already tested my hypothesis on men 40 years plus in the faith one of whom is the head pastor of our Churches and is now the official Presbyterian Moderator for New Zealand.

    I challenge you to have your Pastor and Elders in your church read through this thread and give you their honest opinion as to the position you so adamantly maintain.


    ad ho·mi·nem
    adjective /ˈad ˈhämənəm/ 
    (of an argument or reaction) Arising from or appealing to the emotions and not reason or logic
    Attacking an opponent's motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain
    - vicious ad hominem attacks
     
  6. Incariol

    Incariol Newbie

    Messages:
    5,721
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Politics:
    US-Democrat
    Faith:
    Christian
    If you don't think shame is involved in the aftermath of sexual assault, I'm sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about.

    Sent from my iPod touch using Forum Runner
     
  7. tyronem

    tyronem Presbyterian Baptist with Pentecostal leanings

    Messages:
    423
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Christian
    A woman may feel "ashamed" after she is sexually assulted, that can be a normal reaction within herself, however that is also harmful and the process of rehabilitation for rape victims includes bringing them to an understanding that they have no need to be ashamed.

    She is In NO WAY shamed for having been raped. To say a woman is shamed / lowered / humbled by being raped is the equivalent of saying only "What that candian policeman said" get raped, a cowardly and debasing statement.
     
  8. Jaws13

    Jaws13 Urban Nomad. Literally.

    Messages:
    14,536
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    In Relationship
    Politics:
    US-Others
    Faith:
    Christian
    It's clearly talking about consenting to the punishment, as that is the word order in the sentence. There is no indication that it is talking about consensual sex, as denoted by words like 'abuse' and 'violence' and 'rape'.

    At the end of the day, you aligned my entire position with KKK and slavers, and I aligned your destruction of Henry's words with them. There's a huge difference. What you did was no different than saying, 'Well, you just think this, so why should I listen to you?' This is ad hominem attack. By insulting the position you insult the one who holds it, whereas I commented on your quotemining. You have not provided me with any indication that you're here for honest discussion and instead have tried to change the words of a prominent commentary, and when confronted, deny it trying to change the word 'and' to 'or' and redo the English langauge.

    When it comes to debate and this thread, you have a ton to prove. I don't care who you claim to have asked about this issue. This is the internet. I won't believe you anyway until I see a reliable source that clearly indicates what you're trying to prove without any possibility for quotemining. I've demonstrated how and why you have done so. Until you can discuss this honestly and without insulting me, I will not continue this discussion.
     
  9. tyronem

    tyronem Presbyterian Baptist with Pentecostal leanings

    Messages:
    423
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Christian
    I gave you 10 reliable sources

    That is your problem, you ignore what you want to ignore without justification

    You refuse to believe common sense interpretation

    You have provided no reference for your position even though you began this by attacking mine. Other translations are not a reference, I expect published resources just as I provided you.

    Clearly you will not take your opinions to your Elders and Pastor so you do not desire correction nor correct understanding.

    I've never met an atheist yet (And I have debated many) who has held to the position a woman must marry her rapist after he has been given far less information than I have given you, and you are supposed to know the nature of God.
     
  10. Jaws13

    Jaws13 Urban Nomad. Literally.

    Messages:
    14,536
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    In Relationship
    Politics:
    US-Others
    Faith:
    Christian
    Tyrone, I hope in the future you can discuss issues with me with a bit more respect than you've shown me in this thread. Until then, adios.
     
  11. Jpark

    Jpark Contributor

    Messages:
    5,053
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    Private
    Faith:
    Christian
    My God, 7 pages?

    The answers right there in verse 29:

    and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days.

    Because he has violated her. What does that mean other than she is now considered unclean?

    He cannot divorce her all his days. What does that mean other than a fitting punishment?

    What this shows is that the OT's system was inferior. No adequate provisions (see Leviticus 16). If the blood of Jesus was then available, such a thing would not occur and both would be cleansed if they were willing.
     
  12. tyronem

    tyronem Presbyterian Baptist with Pentecostal leanings

    Messages:
    423
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Christian

    With God's Law being a manifestation of His righteousness how do you equate the OT Laws with being inferior? Such a statement only begets the equality that God's righteousness is inferior and that it changed in the NT, however that is unscriptural because the Bible teaches God is unchanging.

    Why do you consider it a punishment for the man who now has his own sex slave he can rape at will without reprise?

    How do you justify within yourself and in the light of God's Love the horror that would be unjustly put upon the woman who is forced to marry her rapist?

    Do these questions not make you think "Hold on a second this interpretation doesn't sound right" ?

    Last question, did you read all seven pages? :)
     
  13. Jpark

    Jpark Contributor

    Messages:
    5,053
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    Private
    Faith:
    Christian
    Does the NT have complicated and specific commands? I think not.

    Because the man has morals.

    Hence why I said the OT system was inferior. They didn't have the provisions at the time.

    I'm not really interested. And no, I didn't.

    I'm just barging in. I'll leave immediately.
     
  14. Chanya

    Chanya New Member

    Messages:
    320
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    Private
    Faith:
    Atheist
    First of all the Bible says a lot of things like don't cut your hair on Sundays or you will be stoned, and secondly I think all this talk about sex and virginity on the board is sick, some of us are trying to have a good time here and not see all these threads cause it makes us feel bad.
     
  15. tyronem

    tyronem Presbyterian Baptist with Pentecostal leanings

    Messages:
    423
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Christian
    lol :)
     
  16. Jaws13

    Jaws13 Urban Nomad. Literally.

    Messages:
    14,536
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    In Relationship
    Politics:
    US-Others
    Faith:
    Christian
    At the time, the Law was an improvement- other societies didn't do anything for the woman or to the man for such a thing, yet the OT Law illustrates exactly what to do in every situation surrounding an illicit sexual encounter common to that day.

    Sidenote: Jesus' death on the cross in no way excuses a rapist from getting off scot-free.
     
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2011
  17. Jpark

    Jpark Contributor

    Messages:
    5,053
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    Private
    Faith:
    Christian
    I didn't say Jesus' death cleans a person. I said the blood of Jesus does.
     
  18. Jaws13

    Jaws13 Urban Nomad. Literally.

    Messages:
    14,536
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    In Relationship
    Politics:
    US-Others
    Faith:
    Christian
    And I'm not talking about cleanliness.
     
Loading...