Peanut Gallery - Does Yahweh Command Male Rapists to Purchase Their Voiceless...

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Peanut Gallery thread for Formal Debate - Does Yahweh Command Male Rapists to Purchase Their Voiceless, Female Victims?

Thread is located here: Formal Debate - Does Yahweh Command Male Rapists to Purchase Their Voiceless...

 

[BL2KTN]

First post is submitted. Should be a weird debate... =\

Hopefully it opens eyes though.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

"A little learning is a dangerous thing; Drink deep or taste not the Pierian Spring."

Half a thought strikes again!

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

First post is submitted. Should be a weird debate... =\

Hopefully it opens eyes though.

First post is now up and can be found here: #2

 

[SolomonVII]

Hard laws are forged for hard times. Those who would presume that their own soft attitudes are universal, and proper for all places and all times, are uninspired and uninspiring.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Hard laws are forged for hard times. Those who would presume that their own soft attitudes are universal, and proper for all places and all times, are uninspired and uninspiring.

This is not a "hard law for hard times".

This is a sick, immoral law which supposedly come from a non-sick moral god. It makes no sense.

A "hard law" would be to give the rapist the worst possible punishment.
Not "force" him to BUY his victim and MARRY her.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

"A little learning is a dangerous thing; Drink deep or taste not the Pierian Spring."

Half a thought strikes again!

Except, when ignorance proclaims itself, two halves never make a whole. This is easily explained when one understands that stupidity is cumulative.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

I posted my response which is being reviewed.

 

[bhsmte]

Hard laws are forged for hard times. Those who would presume that their own soft attitudes are universal, and proper for all places and all times, are uninspired and uninspiring.

It is a hard law, hard on the victim.

That is, unless you don't feel being raped = being a victim.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

Hard laws are forged for hard times. Those who would presume that their own soft attitudes are universal, and proper for all places and all times, are uninspired and uninspiring.

In other words, you can't help but be biased to ancient middle eastern laws and customs with a 21st century western understanding, with the assumption that your morals are superior. Am I correct?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Second post is up: #3

 

[SolomonVII]

In other words, you can't help but be biased to ancient middle eastern laws and customs with a 21st century western understanding, with the assumption that your morals are superior. Am I correct?

No.

The opposite in fact. Soft morals are inferior and not up to standard for hard times. It is an open question if they are even up to standard for soft times

EDIT:

Upon re-read of your post, I now see that my initial understanding of what was being said was wrong.

In which case, the answer is not "No", but YES. In order to do a fair assessment of this law, it becomes necessary to recognize our own biases, and that our own frame of reference will prejudice our answer. A fair judgment of the goodness or badness of the law in question must first take in account the frame of reference of ancient Israel, and look at the utility of such a law not from the perspective of all the choices avaiable to us, but from the perspective of all the choices available to them.

 

[SolomonVII]

It is a hard law, hard on the victim.

That is, unless you don't feel being raped = being a victim.

Being raped and being completely abandoned and shunned is not just infinitely more hard on the victim, but deadly in a world where women looked to men for survival.

 

[SolomonVII]

Second post is up: #3

The English term for what is described, especially in its conclusion, fits loosely under the category of 'shotgun wedding'.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

This is not a "hard law for hard times".

This is a sick, immoral law which supposedly come from a non-sick moral god. It makes no sense.

A "hard law" would be to give the rapist the worst possible punishment.
Not "force" him to BUY his victim and MARRY her.

It requires the rapist to financially and socially support his victim in a society where a raped woman would find no hope for a husband, and therefore no hope for survival once her father died.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

We have another post up: #4

 

[bhsmte]

Being raped and being completely abandoned and shunned is not just infinitely more hard on the victim, but deadly in a world where women looked to men for survival.

In your world then, accepting the rapist to live with the rest of your life is a better option?

 

[TheDag]

First post is submitted. Should be a weird debate... =\

Hopefully it opens eyes though.

Nope hasn't opened my eyes. What I have seen so far is exactly what I expected which is a person thinkingthey have made a good point when they are actually very carefully selecting verses that suit them. I have seen you address people in the past who select stuff they want to be the case and how you have responded. Yet you do the same thing here. Such a shame. I had hoped for better.

 

[SolomonVII]

In your world then, accepting the rapist to live with the rest of your life is a better option?

In the world I live inm women have opportunities. A new consciousness has developed since the Christ revolution, in which the elites of society are no longer esteemed as gods, and the hoi polloi, the dregs, and women are no longer considered to be not much higher than animals.


That describes my world. Does it describe yours as well, or do we live in two different worlds?

 

[SolomonVII]

We have another post up: #4

Post 4 does not deal with the main objection laid out in the previous post, in which Yale biblical scholars were asserting that the behavior being dealt with was not what we would now refer to as rape, but rather to what we would refer to as seduction.

This kind of point is probably lost on most of us, who have been born after the age of the Pill and abortion and modern birth control. We now enter our sexual relationships all as biological men for all intents and purposes, basically sterile toward the procreation of a new child. But as late as the 1950's attitude towards seduction and 'roues' and 'libertines' were very different than attitudes to those who have basically are now referred to as 'players'.

It is all about consensual or non-consensual now, and libertine attitudes toward all consensual sex predominate, where the only point of contention is whether or not the word "No" was ever uttered.