Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It has been two days since I submitted my rebuttal. Mark has been online multiple times each day, and I messaged him yesterday in several different ways for him to verify that he received the rebuttal for approval. He has not responded. I do not know when he will respond.
It has been two days since I submitted my rebuttal. Mark has been online multiple times each day, and I messaged him yesterday in several different ways for him to verify that he received the rebuttal for approval. He has not responded. I do not know when he will respond.
It has been two days since I submitted my rebuttal. Mark has been online multiple times each day, and I messaged him yesterday in several different ways for him to verify that he received the rebuttal for approval. He has not responded. I do not know when he will respond.
I was surprised they let me do another formal debate after the bible one.
Not in the modern sense. But rape still means without permission. In those days only a father had the authority to give that permission.
Mark said:I weigh each debate on it's merits. I don't need to agree with a particular premise; if everyone else did, there would be nothing to debate, would there?
The Old Testament and Rape : Commentary on Deuteronomy 22:28-29
As Brown-Driver-Briggs demonstrates, the word can be used in relation to sexual intercourse as well as for other things. The following examples help demonstrate that shakab does not necessarily imply a forced sexual act:
"And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, ‘Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: ‘If any man's wife goes astray and behaves unfaithfully toward him, and a man lies (shakab) with her carnally, and it is hidden from the eyes of her husband, and it is concealed that she has defiled herself, and there was no witness against her, nor was she caught—" Numbers 5:11-13 NKJV
Here, the word shakab refers to a voluntary sexual act between two consenting parties, in this case to a woman who voluntarily chooses to commit adultery. It is clear that the woman in question wasn't forced into having sex. Again:
"If a man lies with a woman so that there is a seminal emission, they shall both bathe in water and be unclean until evening." Leviticus 15:18
You can't exactly legislate a job market into existence wherein an independent woman could find gainful employment. In that time a woman needed a male provider because trade skills were passed down from father to son with no educational provisions for women, because there were no public schools. And even if she acquired such skills (which she surely could have, being that women and men are truly equal in ways ancient societies did not fully recognize), what person would hire her, a woman?
I bet you're one of the same people that relishes in reminding us that the US cannot go in and impose its way of life on Afghans or Iraqis. Healer, thyself.
You simply have unrealistic expectations about what law can and cannot accomplish in society. Law doesn't impose ideal situations upon society; it regulates society as it exists, within the social structures and markets that exist. Attempts to reconstruct societies through legislation are not necessarily doomed to failure, but in an ancient society without the provisions and resources of the modern industrial state, they almost certainly are.
And of course, that's what we need to recognize about the Torah: it is a law code for an ancient society that humanized the legal code within its ancient context. It is not, and can never be, an ethical code for all time.
the problem is that it has not been established that the passage is talking about rape. It just is not logical that it is. The issue has been raised that it means something else. All that has been done is that one person has come along and said this word today means this so therefore back then it must have meant the same thing. No adequate rebuttal has been made. If you don't get that point then let me ask you this. How many people in the 1940's would think you were calling them a homosexual if you described them as gay? None is the answer. All BlueLightningTN has done is looked at a couple of verses and ignored others.
Well there are responses to that but it does get into a rather lengthy conversation that would be way off topic. Of course I have found people aren't really that interested in answers and sometimes they don't like them because they have trouble thinking from a different mindset that isn't their own. Of course your response ignores the rest of the bible when it is a whole and not to be taken in parts.Here's my problem with this "defense": regardless if the word means "rape" or something else... it still speaks of women as if they are cattle or goods to be traded.
The entire passage shows zero respect for women and reïnforces the idea that women should sit in the back, shut up and do as told.
It's exactly what I would expect if human male's came up with these rules in a barbaric man's society.
It's the opposite of what I would expect if these rules really come from a divine being that represents perfect morality and justice.
The form that the bible takes has striking parallels with the forms that other Middle East literature and law codes take. The Covenants between Israel and God echo the covenants made between lord and liege in the Assyrians covenants. The Hammurabi code and the Law are of very similar design and cultural understanding. The flood myths of Sumeria are paralleled by biblical stories of similar form, structure, theme and content.Here's my problem with this "defense": regardless if the word means "rape" or something else... it still speaks of women as if they are cattle or goods to be traded.
The entire passage shows zero respect for women and reïnforces the idea that women should sit in the back, shut up and do as told.
It's exactly what I would expect if human male's came up with these rules in a barbaric man's society.
It's the opposite of what I would expect if these rules really come from a divine being that represents perfect morality and justice.
You're completely missing the point and babbling about irrelevant stuff.
I'm not talking about job markets etc. I'm talking about women being "doomed" in that society for being a victim of a crime. Being shunned and looked down on as if she is "damage goods".
Everything you said seems to confirm that this "perfectly moral" deity of yours simply accomodates the barbarism instead of speaking out against it.
We see this throughout the OT. Like condoning slavery and even detailing laws on how to do it. Instead of simply saying people are not property.
For an "unchanging, perfectly moral being", this is ... non-sensical.
Here's my problem with this "defense": regardless if the word means "rape" or something else... it still speaks of women as if they are cattle or goods to be traded.
The entire passage shows zero respect for women and reïnforces the idea that women should sit in the back, shut up and do as told.
It's exactly what I would expect if human male's came up with these rules in a barbaric man's society.
It's the opposite of what I would expect if these rules really come from a divine being that represents perfect morality and justice.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?