| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| Open Forums for ExChristian.Net > Debating with Christians > For Xians and Ex-Xians only |
| Posted by: Emperor Norton II Nov 10 2004, 10:30 PM |
| I hadn't ever thought about it this way, but has anyone ever heard a pastor or minister condemn rape or child abuse? Thinking back, I can't remember any time I've heard these things condemned in a church... good sex seems to be worse than rape... |
| Posted by: Cerise Nov 10 2004, 11:10 PM |
| That's a big fat "NO" from my corner. Unless it was in the vague sermons of "sex is eeeeevil", rape was never mentioned in church. Didn't even know there was a name for it besides "sex" before I got out of high school. |
| Posted by: Fyrefly Nov 11 2004, 12:37 AM |
| I can't really answer this one, as it's been a long time since I set foot in a church other than for school. Ten years, in fact. |
| Posted by: Stankdeezle Nov 11 2004, 12:59 AM |
| my father is the only pastor i've ever listened to, honestly and he's very outspoken about the treatment of ladies and a common sense approach to women in: church leadership western culture the world as a whole and, in marriage and relationships. he's not afraid to say that shit is despicable and wrong. of course he doesn't say 'shit' when he talks about it, but i guess that's why i admire him so much, because he's not afraid to tell people when something they are doing is out of pocket. there was a couple in our church and the fella hit his wife a lot. pops wasnt cool with that at all and when they came to him for counseling he told the fella straight up 'if you'd respect your wife and treat her like a queen instead of a punching bag, it would solve a lot of your problems.' when i was sexually assaulted, my dad was there for me like a father should be. he told me that it wasn't my fault, NO MATTER what i was doing when it happened. [the kopperz told him i was drunk] he told me that he wanted the best for me, and that the fellow who raped me would find out that people really do reap what they sow. he said a lot of things to me, but mostly, he tried to communicate to me that i may have been drunk but that's no excuse to rape a gal. ever. no means no. my mom is the same way, very open, and very unafraid to say things regarding abuse, rape and the like. |
| Posted by: Lanakila Nov 11 2004, 05:33 AM |
| I had many pastors over my course of 18 years as a fundy. Some condemned the two crimes and others did not. My ex came out strongly against all wickedness when he was preaching, and often condemned child abuse, and even child rape. |
| Posted by: Reach Nov 11 2004, 06:19 AM | ||
Because you used the word, "heard" twice, I'm going to assume you are being quite literal here. Literally, I don't recall having heard any of the aforementioned (including incest and the rape or abuse of children) condemned by any of my pastors, but I have heard the same condemned by about a hundred other pastors or teachers. By the same token, however, in all fairness, neither did any of my pastors ever condemn any various types of sexual activity in marriage, while I have heard other pastors condemn nearly everything two adults could imagine, leaving one with the feeling that sex is naughty and only prostitutes and sluts are supposed to enjoy it. The pulpit does not generally issue a statement until something precipitates the need for such. It's possible these atrocities are not publicly and adamantly condemned until the issues of the particular congregation demand it. |
| Posted by: RichStPete Nov 11 2004, 07:19 AM |
| I was raised Catholic so of course child abuse was never mentioned! This was the priests' and nuns favorite past time! |
| Posted by: AUB Nov 11 2004, 08:10 AM |
| It would be a tad hypocritical, (not that that ever stops theistic polemics) to speak out against rape seeing as the bible promotes it. Keep quiet, hope nobody mentions it, that's their policy, can't risk someone looking in the thing for confirmation of a sermon, only to find previously "cog-dised" material that shakes things up. They don't so much use what the bible says, as what it doesn't, given that is leaves out a lot of important things concerning human life, such as abortion and euthanasia. This gives them room to developing diverse opinions, all of which they feel their deity stands for without any scriptural references. As we find or invent more things left out of the bible such as cloning they'll continue to develop firm "religious" stances on them, based on personal prejudice, but given a godly seal of approval in their own minds. All it takes is the ability not to read the bible, but read into it. After all they all feel god's telling them what rights and what wrong, who needs ethics or scripture when you have it hot from the source? Long as they are good with the "voice" in their imaginations, reality can get knotted. Don't expect any moral constancy from a minister. This is about faith, not ethics. Better a rapist than an atheist. The flesh is evil anyway, its the soul that matters. |
| Posted by: ChefRanden Nov 11 2004, 08:28 AM |
| No. The issue just never came up while I was preaching. Besides no one in the True Church of Christ would do such a thing. Well, except for Jim Jones, but other than that we was all as pure as the driven snow. |
| Posted by: rainyday8169 Nov 11 2004, 08:35 AM | ||
Same here |
| Posted by: Totallyatpeace Nov 11 2004, 08:43 AM |
| Many times over and over. I have been in the same church for 25 years and have seen the Pastoral position change 3 times. Each one of them have spoken against this. (and many other things) I must be very fortunate to be in the church that I'm in when I hear stories of what other's have experienced. |
| Posted by: Reach Nov 11 2004, 08:59 AM | ||
Fascinating... because we Protestants heard about your nuns and priests all the time, but as Chef said, "Well, except for Jim Jones, but other than that we was all as pure as the driven snow." And except for... And except for... And except for... And except for... And except for... And except for... And except for...  |
| Posted by: LadyFeline Nov 11 2004, 10:34 AM |
| Nope. Never heard a word condemning it. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised at all if I heard the current pastor of my former church support it, seeing as how we were taught that women were lowly, inferior creatures who deserved whatever evil befell them, all thanks to Eve... |
| Posted by: Stankdeezle Nov 11 2004, 10:35 AM |
| i always feel a bit lucky having known my parents after hearing about some of these dudes that think women are supposed to be Stepford Wives. |
| Posted by: fortunehooks Nov 11 2004, 12:31 PM |
| i can't really find the memories that would give me the correct response to make. so i guess,i would've hoped they condemned these acts. |
| Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Nov 11 2004, 04:28 PM |
| Phppt! You guys are noobs. The rape question is easy since everyone is against that (1). If you want a really tough question why don't you ask if a pastor has ever condemned gluttony when like half of his congregation is obese (in America anyways). ------------------------------------------------------ NOTES: 1: With the exception of ancient Israelites who've recently conquered another nation full of good looking virgins. (Do I know this crowd or what?) We've already discussed this at length, I'm not going into it again. Why do you spend so much time reading footnotes? |
| Posted by: Cerise Nov 11 2004, 05:08 PM |
| MG, you know as well as I do that if you can pay off the dad of your victim or keep her from screaming, then rape is a-okay in biblegod land. |
| Posted by: Slayer-2004 Nov 11 2004, 07:15 PM |
| wooooooaaaa ...never realized that I never heard it till now .... freaky ... |
| Posted by: Asimov Nov 11 2004, 07:22 PM | ||
Well...in Deuteronomy 22:28-29, the punishment for raping a young unbetrothed virgin is that you get to marry her, and rape her as much as you want! *edit to add: Oops, sorry Cerise, didn't notice that you posted nearly the exact same thing! I just added the bible passage to help.  |
| Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Nov 11 2004, 08:20 PM |
| The OT flat out condemns rape and prescribes punishment for it. Any passage that deals with the relationship between a man and a woman must be understood with that as a given. Pretending otherwise is weak on a good day and downright silly most other times. |
| Posted by: ChefRanden Nov 11 2004, 08:35 PM | ||
 Good one MG. You found the real reason I left the church -- so I could be fat in peace. |
| Posted by: ChefRanden Nov 11 2004, 08:37 PM | ||
It does? Well flat out show us where. |
| Posted by: Slayer-2004 Nov 11 2004, 09:15 PM |
| The bible only condemns rape if the women is married / engaged to be married . But the punishment for the man is that same as it would be if he screwed with her normally . If a man rapes a unengaged/unmarried girl , then the girl is forced to become his wife for 50 shekles , and basically becomes his sex toy untill she dies . Lovely . |
| Posted by: BigToe Nov 11 2004, 09:24 PM |
| doh! I misvoted. I read condone so I voted no, but then I reread it... Yes, I have heard some. But I also went to churches that has named gays to high positions in their church so they aren't exactly as bad as a lot. in other churches it never came up. Though when I was raped I went to two ministers for words of wisdom (thought maybe they could tell me something to make me feel better or not hate God so much). One told me it was my fault and thats why god let it happen. The other gave me the name of several women in the church and several therapists should I wana talk about it, gave me a few books to read, and told me how wrong he thought it was. I guess it all depends on who you find. There are sick bastards out there. But there are also some really nice folks too. |
| Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Nov 12 2004, 04:27 AM | ||||
Hahaha! Are you a Chef in real life? Did you ever find any decent restaurants when you were in Lansing? It has been a trial living in Lansing as compared to Kansas City. Most of the restaurants here feature 'factory worker' food -- I've actually had a taco here with velveeta 'cheese' on it. I almost barfed. |
| Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Nov 12 2004, 04:31 AM | ||
I think if one considers the fact they didn't have DNA evidence back then and that cases of rape often end up being he said/she said affairs I think the OT does a nice job of condemning rape and handling the fallout in a very good way. Even if one feels that it isn't handled in the best way one thing is clear, the Old Testament condemns rape -- there is no 'Bibleland' where it is acceptable. |
| Posted by: JasonLong Nov 12 2004, 05:55 AM | ||
I see where MG is coming from and agree with him to an extent. There's no doubt that there are fines and punishments for rape. With that said, perhaps MG would consider these observations: 1. The punishment for raping an unbetrothed virgin is just as bad as the crime itself. In most societies, rape lands you death or lengthy imprisonment. In the society allegedly ran by omnibenevolent God, the woman has to marry her attacker. Do these rules sound like they were made by an omnibenevolent God, or a barbaric savage? 2. Men were allowed to sell their daughters to other men. The woman couldn't leave unless refused rights of marriage. If the punishments for rape were so lax against strangers, there would have certainly been no regulations against raping a bartered wife. Do these rules sound like they were made by an omnibenevolent God, or a barbaric savage? 3. The Israelites were ordered to take prisoners of war for themselves. The only exclusions were men, boys, and women who were no longer virgins. If such exclusions were made, what other use would these women serve? We even learn later in Deut 21 that the victim is only allowed a month of mourning before the man who killed her family gets to have sex with her. Do these rules sound like they were made by an omnibenevolent God, or a barbaric savage? Many have tried, but no one has ethically justified these points. |
| Posted by: Cerise Nov 12 2004, 06:03 AM |
| No Mg, what the bible condemns is stealing. In bibleland, when you rape a woman you are stealing another man's property. If she's married, you're stealing from the husband. If she's not, you're stealing from the father or the older brothers or the unlce or whoever has control of her at the moment. So, rape a married woman or engaged woman, big big no-no because you've just stolen something from a man. That's baaaaad. Rape a virgin and you've stolen something from the father, but you can fix it by arranging to marry what you've stolen. For the people of the bible, the crime wasn't towards the woman. It was towards whatever man possessed the woman. Don't you dare say OT condemned rape. It condemned theft purely for the benefit of the males of the society. There was nothing called "victim's rights". It had nothing to do with "he said/she said" and "lack of DNA" but it had everything to do with the fact that in the OT the crime was not "rape". It was theft. Now that you've stretched the hell out of the OT in order to make it fit to your comfortable little view of shiny happy God, what are you gonna do next? |
| Posted by: rainyday8169 Nov 12 2004, 06:15 AM |
| The bible gives step by step directions on how to rape a young virgin God was all about that kind of shit Just ask Moses |
| Posted by: SmallStone Nov 12 2004, 07:44 AM |
| No. My particular cult was so mortified by sex that they didn't really discuss it all. |
| Posted by: Willa.Cartwright Nov 12 2004, 07:52 AM | ||
Mad Gerbil Are you insane? Are you tacitly approving of rape and saying that the rules are “OK” because they’re in the Bible? Are you saying rape is not so bad? Are you one of those males that thinks “What’s the problem? Just lie back and enjoy the sex.” You don’t get it do you? This is half the problem ex-christians have with Christianity and the Bible. It’s the inequity. Jesus! You’d have to be one seriously fucked-up religious nut to think rape is ok because it’s in the Bible and it’s the rules!. I hope I’m wrong! Bestens Willa  |
| Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Nov 12 2004, 03:51 PM | ||||
Let’s review:
Clearly in this passage rape is condemned. There is no other way to read it than rape is something that is not approved. You’ll note in the first instance discussed that unlike current law where a man may get as little as 3 years in prison a man guilty of rape is put to death. In that regard the OT law is actually stricter than laws in our modern society. The guy isn’t getting off easy here – he’s dead. That is because the passage is actually talking about rape in verses 25-27. Verses 28-29 aren’t talking about rape, but rather consensual sex. Read the same passage in a different version:
For a full explanation see: http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/ot_and_rape.htm Once you see that two different words are used for the sex act in this same passage and the word in the second instance is not the Jewish word for rape the passage takes on an entirely different meaning than the poor NIV rendering. Feel free to critique this commentary and prove it inaccurate. |
| Posted by: crazy-tiger Nov 13 2004, 04:16 AM |
| Start using your brain for a few minutes... Look at it, and start thinking... If you rape an unbetrothed virgin, and get caught, you have to pay the father and marry your victim???? Aside from the fact that this is to punish the rapist and compensate the father, just how sick in the mind would you have to be to believe that this is acceptable to the victim? It forces a constant reminder of the rape on the victim, and, since they are married, also means the victim has to "allow" the rapist full access to her body. Now, what do you think will be going through their minds at that point? Happiness that they are married to the total bastard that forced themself upon her? Joy at the realisation that the only justice was given to the father? This is Christian morality at it's best... A constant punishment of the victim, both mentally and physically. Mind you, why don't you go and compare these veres with the ones that PROMOTE rape? Oh, hang on, that's ok since it's God telling people to rape. That makes it moral... Christian morality... An oxymoron if ever I've heard one. |
| Posted by: crazy-tiger Nov 13 2004, 04:24 AM | ||||
Oh yeah, seizing someone and laying with them just screams consensual sex, doesn't it? Get real... It's RAPE!
You'll find they removed the word "rape" to avoid offending the sensibilities of the common person. Unfortunately, the meaning is still plain, and cannot be avoided. (unless you have some form of mental blockage that stops you seeing what is there... Christianity, anyone?) |
| Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Nov 13 2004, 05:17 AM |
| Crazy Tiger: You are free to read the article again. I'm afraid I don't have time for the way you like to use the dictionary -- simply looking up a word in a dictionary and picking the meaning (out of 4) that uses the word the way you want to use it isn't a valid debate technique. Context becomes important at that point. ------------------------------------ Example: You are for health care benefits for gays, are you not? gay ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g) adj. gay·er, gay·est 1: Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex. 2: Showing or characterized by cheerfulness and lighthearted excitement; merry. 3: Bright or lively, especially in color: a gay, sunny room. 4: Given to social pleasures. 5: Dissolute; licentious Hmm... what does licentious mean? li·cen·tious ( P ) Pronunciation Key (l-snshs) adj. 1: Lacking moral discipline or ignoring legal restraint, especially in sexual conduct. 2: Having no regard for accepted rules or standards. I must admit, Crazy Tiger, that calling for health care benefits for people based soley on the fact they have no regard for standards is a bit odd. In fact, in the automotive industry it was the lack of good standards that caused an eventual lose of market share to Japan. No, I'm afraid good high standards are necessary for us to compete in a world economy so rewarding people for not having standards is a bad thing. ------------------------------------------------------------ If you want to argue by using the dictionary that way then you'll be speaking to yourself. I don't have time for it -- as you can see, it is nonsense. Furthermore, use of the dictionary fails you this time around since entirely different words are used in the sex act in the first instant and in the second instant. In short, not only does your argument fail on account that your use of the dictionary is pure nonesense, but even allowing for that two different words are used in the passage. I'd encourage you to read the article again, for the first time. |
| Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Nov 13 2004, 05:23 AM | ||
Um... even this assertion is wrong. The KJV, a much older translation, renders the passage more accurately. The word rape is actually used in a newer translation. So much for that conspiracy theory. |
| Posted by: Cerise Nov 13 2004, 09:06 AM | ||||||
Let's review: In this passage it is not "rape" that is not approved, otherwise paying off the dad of the unbetrothed virgin would be a ridiculous punishment. And if you don't think it is a ridiculous punishment, to have your father marry you off to your rapist for 50 shekels (what a bargain!) well then I don't know what's wrong with you. Secondly, "to seize" is the original meaning of the word rape. To seize, to carry off, etc. and used mostly to describe what happened to young women of villages under attack by other tribes. So when mr. tribe #2 came to tribe #1 and seized a woman and carried her off (see, Rape of the Sabines) it was assumed that he would force intercourse on her. You take woman, you rape woman, otherwise why take woman? They were certainly not used for anything else. And no Mad, I ain't using a dictionary. I'm using years of anthropology and classical literature. what are you using besides someone else's paltry website to make your argument? |
| Posted by: Vixentrox Nov 13 2004, 10:35 AM |
| I don't remember if the topic came up or now to be honest. So I can't say yes or no in good 'faith". |
| Posted by: JasonLong Nov 13 2004, 12:02 PM |
| MG's just as good as another member of this board, who I will not name, at avoiding context and ignoring points of a rebuttal to which he can't logically respond. Wherever the potential for a case may lie, so follows 100% of the attention. |
| Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Nov 13 2004, 12:27 PM | ||
I provided a commentary on the subject that evidently shows that the passage in question is talking about rape in the first instance -- hence the punishment of stoning to death, and consent in the second instance, hence the marriage and payment of a dowery. That is a direct address of the topic under discussion. Perhaps you could restate the point you feel I'm ignoring? |
| Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Nov 13 2004, 12:46 PM |
| Cerise: The word ‘forces (chazaq)’ is used in verse 25 (an obvious instance of rape) and the word ‘to sieze’ (taphas) is used in verse 28. If you want the passage to mean that in the second instance rape is involved you’ll have to do better than a vague appeal to your years of anthropological research. Another line of evidence (in the article, if you would have read it) is from Exodus which is a restatement of the law with some clarification: "If a man entices (pathah) a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies (shakab) with her, he shall surely pay the bride-price for her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money according to the bride-price of virgins." Exodus 22:16-17 In this instance it is clear that the marriage isn’t even required. Again, if someone is able to show that the commentary is misleading or even forging the underlying Hebrew then please do so since I don't want any part of my apologetic to be based on bad information. |
| Posted by: Cerise Nov 13 2004, 02:25 PM | ||
Gerbil (it's obviously a given that you are indeed "mad"), if you could give any reason as to why you had no answer to my previous post (ie. where you know as well as I do that "rape" was not a crime as much as "stealing" is the crime...otherwise the bible wouldn't bother specifying the status of the woman as betrothed, married, or virgin) I would probably be more inclined to listen to your prattlings. Not that I'd be more inclined to believe them mind, I don't often consider the words of madmen. Just more inclined to listen. Can you give a reason why "taphas" or "to sieze" would mean consensual sex? When the original meaning of "rape" is "to carry off" or "to seize"? |
| Posted by: Cerise Nov 13 2004, 02:28 PM | ||
I stopped reading your website at this point:
Sickening. Do you see what we have had to deal with since the beginning of time? |
| Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Nov 13 2004, 02:57 PM | ||||||||
First instance: 1: Phrase: chazaq shakab 2: Meaning: forced lie 3: Context: victim protests, victim innocent 4: Result: Rapist killed. Second instance: 1: Phrase: taphas shakab 2: Meaing: take hold and lie with 3: Context: no protest from the female participant 4: Result: pay the dowary and marry (marriage optional: see Exodus) If the author intended to communicate 'rape' in the second instance the author could have used the word for 'force' but the author did not do this, instead he used a word that can be understood to mean simply 'taking hold' -- which is what most people do when they have sex. The context and the words chosen make it clear that rape isn't the topic of the second instance. As for the original meaning of the word 'rape' in the English language, I fail to see the connection because the English language is based upon Greek and Latin is it not? We are speaking about Ancient Hebrew and a context that clears things up nicely. -----------------------------------------------------------
I'm dealing with the question of rape right now -- and the ridiculous assertion that Deut 22:27-29 demonstrates BibleG_d approves of rape. The 'property' issue is something we may explore in a different thread if you'd like to do that. |
| Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Nov 13 2004, 03:15 PM | ||||
What? You don't think that a clear indication that the sex is unwanted is a good way to discern whether or not the sex is actually rape? Tell me then, if a victim shows no sign of resistence whatsover how is a judge supposed to know if it is rape or simply a jealous gal trying to get revenge on a cheating boyfriend? If the gal doesn't indicate 'No' how is the guy supposed to know? I suppose everytime a gal claims rape the guy should be taken out and stoned even though there is no evidence whatsoever of the sex being forced? Oh that sounds fair. IF you find a way to make such an instance anything other than a He said, She said affair, share it with the rest of us please. |
| Posted by: Willa.Cartwright Nov 13 2004, 03:30 PM |
| Mad Gerbil, You can come up with any and all justifications you like, but it is still not true. Point 1- please excuse me, but you are using the same tired old semantics and hair-splitting that every other sex-focused, religious dominate in the past used to say that a woman could not claim she was rapped by her husband when she was married. After all, she was propperty and / or it was his right! Point 2 - I don't know how old you are, so I'd be making assumptions, but if you are a member of the so called western nation (USA, Australia England, New Zealand, western Europe, etc) there is a very good chance that your Grandmother and maybe even your Mother was a alive when laws like this still existed. Point 3 - In nearly every country that removed the rule that allowed a man to "rape" his wife and not have to suffer the consequences for it, there were people (pastors, priests, men) quoting the same things you are here and justifiying their stances with Bible quotes. Call it what you like it, but when one human being forces another human being to have sex without consent, it's called rape. You can dress it in whatever social, cultural or religious context you like, but it's still rape. Plain and simple MG, the Bible does say that rape is OK. Implicity. It also mentions that it is OK to rape non-jews (not boys or men). MG, you really should call this one a day. The various OT rules have been laid out to you by a number of people, a number of times already in this forum. You've lost this one. Bestens Willa |
| Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Nov 13 2004, 04:36 PM |
| Willa: Believe whatever you wish to believe about the Bible and rape; however, it is quite clear that Deut 22: 27-29 doesn't support your claim in the least -- your claims of 'victory' notwithstanding. It is beyond me why anyone here 'needs' it to be rape anyways. As I told Mr. Neil, if you don't wish to believe then don't believe. You don't need to twist this passage in an unjustified way to excuse yourself. |
| Posted by: crazy-tiger Nov 13 2004, 05:14 PM | ||
This rather strange article that you have posted a link to, goes to great pains to deny that these passages mean rape. It gives a fair number of translations of those passages, and every one of them talks about forced sex, except one. Even then, it mentions the man talking the woman into sleeping with him. (I'm a cynic... To me, that could very easily be "sleep with me or I'll kill you". Hey, he's just talking her into it...) Another strange point that this article tries to make, is that Deut 22:28-29 is saying that both the man and the woman are to be held acountable. This is even though it STILL mentions how the man has "seized and laid with her" (that is rape, there is no other interpretation, no matter what you might say) This is only a quick reply to the info this article contains, but you might want to try reading it with an eye for the amount of spin it puts on things. It tries to muddy up the issue, it tries to lead the reader astray, and it uses fractured logic to come to the conclusion it stated at the start. All in all, I give it a 9 out of 10 for it's apologetic efforts, but 1 out of 10 for results. |
| Posted by: ChefRanden Nov 13 2004, 05:15 PM | ||
I should think that you ought to follow your own advice. Your fellow religionists of NIV fame obviously have come to the conclusion that rape was meant. And it isn't like they weren't above fixing the text of the OT to better fit Xianity, Isaiah7:14 for example. It seems as if they felt that changing from rape to embrace was too much of a stretch even for them. |
| Posted by: crazy-tiger Nov 13 2004, 05:30 PM | ||
Try thinking of it this way... If the woman DOESN'T say yes, then she's not giving consent. The question should never be "did she say no?", but should, instead, be "did she say yes?" Unfortunately, the question of "no" is the main reason why most rapists receive not guilty verdicts. (and also the main reason why a womans sexual history gets dragged into court) Sticking with the "she didn't say no" point of view, means that rapists will get away with it a lot more often. Change it to the "she didn't say yes" idea, and the rapist has to prove consent was given. (That fucks them up, doesn't it?) |
| Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Nov 13 2004, 05:45 PM | ||||
Oh, so a poor translation should be consulted over the orginal text? Clearly the Hebrews had a word for 'forced' and that was not the word that was used in the second instance. Can anyone come up with a good reason NOT to use the word for 'forced' when speaking of rape -- unless of course the verse isn't speaking of forced sex? |
| Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Nov 13 2004, 05:50 PM | ||||
The word for forced -- the same word used in the verse before where the man is killed for the act -- is NOT used in the next verse to speak of the sex act wherein the man and the woman marry. I don't see where anything is being read into the text when two different words are used in describing two different acts. Look, I try to be honest with you guys here but when two different Hebrew words aren't allowed to have two different meanings and the context adds to the interpretation I'm presenting it gets a little difficult to take any of this seriously. If you don't wish to believe, then don't believe the Bible -- but don't chuck it for manufactured reasons. |
| Posted by: lalli Nov 13 2004, 06:04 PM | ||||
Absolutely, Cerise. Mad Gerbil, has it ever occured to you that a rape victim might not have screamed or fought back because they were too fucking scared to? In retrospect, I could have screamed, but it probably wouldn't have done me much good. He'd shut the door, for a start, and everyone else was upstairs for the buffet and praise meeting, so nobody would have heard me anywys. Maybe that's why he chose that time to corner me in the church office and grope me. In any case, I was fucking terrified. I stood frozen in fear for quite a while before I managed to get a firm enough grip on reality to fight him off and run away. Plenty of rape victims don't scream or fight back. It's amazing how compliant you can become when you're scared, especially if you're a lot younger and/or weaker than the other party. It doesn't stop it being rape. Silence is not a form of consent. But to avoid "he said, she said" situations, you suggest making him pay a fine to have free cunt for the rest of his life? Fuck you for implying I should marry the pedophile who molested me.  |
| Posted by: Cerise Nov 13 2004, 06:15 PM | ||
thank gerbil, for reminding me why I never took monsieur pastor to court. Because assholes like you would say stupid shit like this and make my ordeal into a double rape. Rape of the body, rape of the mind. Let's make it a trinity, go for rape of the spirit. |
| Posted by: lalli Nov 13 2004, 06:28 PM | ||
Absolutely. Why bother reporting a rape if all that's going to happen is the perpetrator will get a fine and a slap on the wrist, and you'll be told by the tribal leaders and priests that since you didn't scream, you must have consented, and spend the rest of your life being looked on as a promiscuous, dirty slut by the rest of the tribe, not to mention your own family and friends? This is exactly the same kind of attitude behind the parent who yells at a child when they gather up the courage to say that daddy/uncle/grandpa/pastor raped them. |
| Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Nov 13 2004, 06:29 PM | ||
First: I'm not dicussing my current position on rape, I'm discussing an OT passage. I've made not implication whatsoever as to what you should do or what should have occured in your particular situation. Second: I've been arguing for two pages now that according to the OT in instances of actual rape the man is to be executed and that 'marrying the attacker' is the result of a mistranslation and not the intent of the passage. |
| Posted by: Cerise Nov 13 2004, 06:34 PM |
| First: Why should they be different issues? Did morality somehow change? Or are you another one of those Christians who likes to stick their fingers in their ears whenever OT is mentioned and go "la la la negated by NT so isn't applicable except when I want it to be la la la" or something? Second: You haven't been arguing it very well. |
| Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Nov 13 2004, 06:36 PM | ||||
I've been trying to point out for two pages now that the text isn't saying half of what you are reading into it. I assure you the ancient Isrealites took rape very seriously -- they executed rapists -- which means they were even more strict than the America is today. As for 'proof' I've already said that I'd like to see whatever alternatives you have to offer in regard to 'He said, she said' situations. If you've got something better than the current system in the USA or the OT system I'm sure we'd all like to hear it. Use this example: Your brother is an upstanding citizen by all accounts and the girl he is dating is an upstanding citizen by all accounts. After a Friday night date your brother comes home and goes to bed. The next morning the cops show up and arrest your brother for rape. He protests and claims to be innocent. He admits to having sex with her, but there is no evidence of abuse of any sort. You tell me what you'd do in that situation. |
| Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Nov 13 2004, 06:40 PM | ||||||
You don't see sex with consent and sex without consent as two seperate issues?
I'm dealing with an OT passage here without making reference to the NT whatsoever.
I've provided you with a source for the meaning of the words behind the text as opposed to your provision of what, exactly? You've given me nothing here and even admit to not reading the entire article. When you are wanting to get back onto the topic at hand instead of trailing off into silly accusations you let me know. Until then, I'm through with you. |
| Posted by: Cerise Nov 13 2004, 06:41 PM |
| Does it matter what I'd do? I'm not the one who gets to make a decision on that. Hey gerbil, same question, your mother is an upstanding citizen. So's your father. One night he ends up getting arrested for spousal rape. He protests and claims to be innocent. What do YOU do? |
| Posted by: Cerise Nov 13 2004, 06:44 PM | ||
You've provided me with an apologetic source full of bullshit which I can plainly see right through. IF the second verse was about consensual sex, why would it need to be clarified with the little "by the way she didn't scream" disclaimer? Because we all know that if you don't scream, it's not rape. I'm more then through with you. Don't bother addressing me again you asshole. |
| Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Nov 13 2004, 06:45 PM | ||
If you are going to slam the OT for doing it wrong and call be an asshole for getting it wrong it seems to me that it is fair to ask you the right way to do it. Hey, I admit I'm an asshole for what I said -- now the right answer is what, Cerise? |
| Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Nov 13 2004, 06:52 PM | ||||
When humans are involved in 'He said, she said' situations we need some kind of evidence in order to discern the truth. All the 'scream' means is that those in the area are given some indication of what really occured. Look, if you are too terrified to scream or resist in some way (completely understandable) then how is an impartial judge supposed to know what really happened if the guy claims you consented? Are we supposed to execute every guy who gets accused and work from the assumption that women are incapable of lying about such a thing? The point of the scream is NOT that the lack of a scream changes the nature of the act, it is STILL rape. The point of the scream or some sort of resistence is it gives the judge something to work with as he attempts to get to the truth of the matter. Again, if you've a better answer then let's hear it. This is where apologetics gets tough, Cerise. It's childs play to rake other peoples positions over the coals but when you actually have to put your own set of answers on the table it get really tough. Can you do that? Can you give us a better answer? |
| Posted by: crazy-tiger Nov 14 2004, 01:19 AM | ||
Read the article again, and let me know when you find where it gives the meaning of the word "chazaq", which is the one that is used in the one you admit is rape. It doesn't have it. Now take another look at the combination of words that are used in Deut22:28-29... The 2 words used in combination mean rape, no amount of twisting changes that. |
| Posted by: Willa.Cartwright Nov 14 2004, 01:24 AM | ||
Gerbil, My calims of "victory" - ooh ahh. Take a look sunshine. No one is patting you on the back. You've alienated nearly everyone. No one here is saying "Wow - how clever and wise." No, they're saying you are wrong - that's why you lost! You also write "It is beyond me why anyone here 'needs' it to be rape anyways.". Yep, I think that's exactly the point - it IS beyond you. You can not understand and you wonder what all the fuss is. That's it, isn't it. You don't have a bloody clue, do you? This is laughable. Buddy, you lost this argument. Give up. No one here agrees with you - especially the females. What a joke. Willa |
| Posted by: crazy-tiger Nov 14 2004, 01:39 AM | ||
"Scream and I'll kill you" You going to scream? "resist and I'll kill you" You going to resist? 'Nuff said... But, as a nice little extra... Would someone please explain why the victim has to prove that they said no? Would someone please explain why the attacker never has to prove consent was given? Would someone please explain why the victims sexual history gets dragged up in court, yet the attackers very rarely is? Have you noticed that the current attitude in law makes it very easy for a rapist to get off scot free? Has it ever occurred to anyone that the current attitude of the law means that consent has to be denied rather than given? Try thinking of that in regard to your home... Just imagine having to prove that you denied a burglar entry, and that you denied them the authority to remove your belongings. (don't forget that you have to prove that you didn't authorise them breaking stuff to get in) It's amazing how it's only in cases involving a sexual assualt that the onus is on the victim... (then again, Christian nations, Christian morality, women as mens "property"... Not that surprising, really) Put the burden of proof where it should be, on the attacker. They are the one's claiming consent was given, so let them prove it... |
| Posted by: Willa.Cartwright Nov 14 2004, 01:48 AM |
| Gerbil, I just read through everything you've written again. Have you thought about discussing your belief in this matter with a Pastor or a Priest? That is, someone you really respect? Do you like your Dad? Is he a good guy? Someone you can trust? Why don't you get a second opinion and print off what you've written and show to someone whom you can trust and whom you respect? No offence son, but I think you need a different perspective on this. Willa |
| Posted by: ChefRanden Nov 14 2004, 10:19 AM | ||||||
What makes it a poor translation? The fact that it dissagrees with yours? What would be the motive of the "poor translators" to use rape when embrace would be so much more convienent? |
| Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Nov 14 2004, 10:27 AM | ||
It is my understanding that the NIV attempts to communicate an idea instead of merely being a word for word translation like the others. The NIV translator may have felt rape was being spoken of in that passage -- in fact, they may have very solid arguments for their decision. It is those solid arguments (even against my position) that I'd find very interesting. I'd give the NIV translators the exact same reasons I've given you here for my position that the passage isn't speaking of rape. They may have a good rebuttle for each point I make. I'd be interested to see it. (I'm not a Hebrew scholar so I'm at a disadvantage here). |
| Posted by: Ashlynn Nov 14 2004, 10:36 AM | ||
Talk to your priest.... |
| Posted by: Asuryan Nov 15 2004, 06:52 AM |
| Wellll... My version of the bible is not the King James one, it's the CEI version, the catholic one, and it's italian. I don't have the KJ bible written in my language, and since semantics is something Mad Gerbil is clinging to, I'd rather be sure of the nuances. It goes like that: (deut. 22: 23, if I recall the right way of writing down chapters.) "when a virgin is betrothed and a man, finding her in the city, sins with her, you'll take both of them to the city gates and you'll stone them to death. She will die because she didn't scream even if she were in a city, and he will die because he dishonored someone else's woman. This way you will repel evil from you. But if the man finds the betrothed virgin out of the city, and forcing himself upon her he sins with her, only the man who sinned with the virgin will die, and you won't do anything to the virgin. The virgin has no fault punishable with death: it's like when a man assaults another man and kills him, so is it in this case, because he met her outdoors; the betrothed virgin could scream, but no one was there to help her. If a man finds a virgin who isn't betrothed, if he seizes her with force and sins with her and they are caught, the man who sinned with her will give her father 50 silver shiekles, and she will become her wife since he has dishonored her, and he will never be able to send her away (divorce?)." Well I know, it's probably a bit ugly to see and read, but as english is not my mother tongue I did my best. Now let's see... Mad Gerbil, you say that if a woman doesn't scream, the judge has no way to see if there was rape or consensual sex. For the sake of debate I will pretend I don't agree with crazy tiger (yes, I too ask myself "why should women prove they say no? Why shouldn't men prove that the girl said yes?"). But let's pretend. There are ways to see if a virgin has been raped or if it has been consensual sex. If you are raped, and someone examines you soon afterwards, you bet that it's something that shows up. Since the fear of the victim makes the vaginal muscles try and close desperately, and the aggressor is acting with the most brutality, there will be bruises and lesions and other signs of damage. Remember, we're talking about raping a virgin, and in that society, virgins were very young. A rape would show up even without our modern ginecology. Soooo... Why say, as the bible does, "she didn't scream, she MUST have enjoyed this, so let's kill her", instead of "she didn't scream, let's check if she's all right or if she's hurt down there, then we'll decide"? And another thing... if the point is that the judge has no way to see if there was rape or consensual sex, why the death penalty for both of them? I think there's something sick in killing someone for lack of proofs, and assuming her guilty unless she can prove she's innocent. Try to imagine: the rapist has a knife and he points it at the girl's neck and he says "try to scream and I'll kill you.". So she is raped, and as soon as the aggressor ends his business, he goes away, and he's perfectly relaxed: he knows that if the girl tries to tell someone, anyone, what he has done to her... she will die. So, well, it's in her best interest to shut up... and be screwed as soon as her future husband discovers that she isn't a virgin anymore, so she will be killed as well. Can you imagine what this girl could feel in such a situation? How alone, how desperate, unable to ask for help because she knows she would then die? Rape is rape even if the girl doesn't scream. There ARE ways to discern rape from consensual sex. Please note also that "if he seizes her with force" means, well... it surely does *not* mean consensual sex. And I wonder why you took the pain to search all different bible versions and study all those different ebraic words... just to pick up the only one that agrees with you. I translated the italian word "afferrare" with "seizing with force" because I want to make it clear that in italian, that word can mean one thing only. Taking a thing as if it was an object, taking a person against his/her will. There are no other meanings, really. As of now, it seems to me that the Catholic bible and the KJ bible say the same thing: rape. Are they both "wrong" only because they don't agree with your point of view of the virgin, not betrothed girl that is raped? What do you think? P.s. I have been raped to, when I was a little girl (10 years old), and I feel very near to those women here that experienced the same thing. ...We know what we felt... I would love to be there and hug you all, girls. And it's not very funny to see Mad Gerbil saying "well, the laws in the bible are the best they can be. If you didn't scream, since the judge can't ascertain if you were raped or not, it's right to kill you.". Basically since he's saying that those laws are just, and I didn't scream (yep, I was too terrified and I was afraid that he would've hurt me even more if I dared to breathe too loud or even cry) I would've died, stoned to death, and it would've been right to kill me because, well, "perhaps I liked it". I know that it makes you want to kill him. He cannot understand. He really can't. I hope that someday he will, but I fear that the only way him, and those like him, can learn about this matter, is to see a female relative, a sister, a wife, a daughter, suffer the same fate. And I hope that this never comes to be. |
| Posted by: rainyday8169 Nov 15 2004, 07:01 AM | ||
It doesnt matter if you scream It doesnt matter if you fight back I screamed I fought I bit the big fucker in the face I stopped him Little me Now I was safe from my attacker but.......... Enter cops Look, that poor man is bleeding! That girl bit him in the face like a goddamned dog! Arrest her! Cuff her! Toss her in jail! Charge her with assault! The little animal! How dare she scar this poor man for life He got away I have a record I went to jail I was ALMOST raped Had I just not screamed Had I not fought back Maybe then the "impartial judge" would have seen things differently (BTW....... There is no such thing as an impartial judge) Idiot |
| Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Nov 15 2004, 07:24 AM |
| I have said repeatedly that a 'scream' doesn't make it rape anymoe than not screaming doesn't make it a rape. The idiotic JW interpretation of that passage is a travesty and one of the most ridiculous views of Scripture of which I'm aware. And rainyday, you did the right thing and the cops in your case did the wrong thing. Had I walked in on that situation I would have kicked the rapist's ass right then and there. I have a 9 year old daughter and a 12 year old daughter, I assure you, I don't take a light view of this subject. G_d help the man that I catch assualting my daughter that way -- I assure you that if I get power over him there will be no need for handcuffs. Rape is one of the ugliest crimes imaginable. You won't catch me excusing crooked judges and lazy cops. |
| Posted by: Asuryan Nov 15 2004, 07:31 AM |
| What about the rest of my post? I'd really like to know your opinion on it. |
| Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Nov 15 2004, 08:46 AM | ||
I'm in class all day today (and into the evening). I'll be happy to respond, point by point, but it cannot be today. Feel free to nag me if I don't get to it my Wednesday evening. |
| Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Nov 15 2004, 11:44 AM | ||||
Yes! Excellent insight CT. |
| Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Nov 15 2004, 12:46 PM | ||||||
How does one prove consent? Heck, using that analogy, my wife could put me away for rape. Why in 16 years of marriage she could have me cold on at least.. oh..I dunno... 10 counts of rape or so. (1) I agree with Cerise that society focusing on 'what the victim should have done' is lame. However, consent is often merely verbal and that leaves us with 'He said, She said' all over again. If you have a way, let me know because I really would like to know how one proves consent? ------------------------------------------- NOTES: 1: That is a joke, people. The joke is that it makes it look like in 10 years my wife and I have only done it about 10 times. Get it? Yuck, yuck, yuck.... oh never mind. |
| Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Nov 15 2004, 12:56 PM | ||
Pre-sexual agreements? Of course those could be coerced... I really don't know but I like the idea of having to have consent instead of having to be told no. I don't know an option that would be fair to both sides except that our law does hold one innocent until proven guilty, even if it's unfair to the victim. I don't know... |
| Posted by: Libertus Nov 15 2004, 01:03 PM |
| I'm scared. I have to agree with MG here. As bad as punishing a victim is, punishing someone wrongfully because they can't prove that consent existed would be a tremendous wrong. "Innocent until proven guilty" may not truly exist in most of our minds, but in the legal system it is a necessity to protect OUR rights. I don't have a tremendous level of sexual experience, but I never got a notarized permission slip for the experiences I have had. Do people actually have consensual sex and then one person lies and cries rape? Yes, it does happen. It's unfortunate, but people maliciously and falsely accuse others of crimes of all types. Libertus P.S. And I AM a surviving victim of non-consensual sexual abuse. |
| Posted by: rainyday8169 Nov 15 2004, 02:11 PM | ||
| Libertus
Have you ever been accused of a crime? Ever been to court over that accusation? I have I can tell you this much "innocent until proven guilty" does NOT exist in our justice system Even "guilty until proven innocent" does not exist What exists is a terrible thing called the "plea bargain" |
| Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Nov 15 2004, 04:30 PM |
| I think the OT standard is a good standard -- as I read it. If you look at the instance of the 'rape in the country' it doesn't even appeal to a proof standard we'd find acceptable today -- that is, the gal is essentially taken at her word since she had no recourse but to submit. That being said, I think it would be silly to think the ancients wouldn't try to test the testimony in one form or another. If a gal claimed rape (in the country) and the accused was a 3 day journey away at the time I wouldn't think they'd still execute him. However you read the OT standard, one thing is clear. I think understanding it along with the concerns Cerise and others have voiced is a very good idea. I don't think the OT law was intended to address every situation, but rather, provide a guideline used as the foundation for dealing with these difficult situations. |
| Posted by: ChefRanden Nov 15 2004, 06:01 PM | ||
Yes, lets hope that they had more sense in this matter than God did. |
| Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Nov 15 2004, 07:51 PM | ||||
I don't think the ancient Israelites would have been any more accepting of the 'rape' translation of vs. 28-29 than we would be today. That is another reason why I favor the consent definition of the word. Even if one agreed that women were viewed as property at the time I still think brothers are going to be protective of their sisters and fathers are still going to love their daughters. It would create chaos to have a law where if you rape a gal you get to marry her. That just doesn't even make sense on any level. Assume BibleG_d doesn't exist and that the whole thing is made up. The law would still seem downright silly -- you'd have guys tripping over each other to be the first to rape the prettiest (and wealthiest) gal in town so that he could be 'punished' by marrying her. To be fair, another apologist, JP Holding seems to think that the passage is speaking of rape and that the punishment is designed to force the rapist to care for his victim. I'm sorry, but I have to agree with the gals here that such a set up would definitely be much harder on the woman than the man. I think its absurd to suggest such a thing. |
| Posted by: Cerise Nov 15 2004, 07:57 PM |
| It's more about paying the bride-price then it is about marriage. I can't remember, at this time would it have been usual for a man to have many wives? That whole "one man and one woman" thing doesn't come up in the bible until Paul right? |
| Posted by: Libertus Nov 16 2004, 03:44 AM | ||
Right. And even then the only requirement is one wife for Bishops and Deacons. For everyone else, including everyone in Utah, polygamy is still a god-endorsed practice. Libertus |
| Posted by: Fweethawt Nov 16 2004, 03:57 AM | ||
I got a better idea! Let's "assume" that BibleSa_an does in fact exist, and he was the one behind the "inspiration" of the writings in the Bible and that an apologist is a person who has been completely deceived into thinking that this shit is the word of gawd, and that is why they have to resort to playing word games in order to defend it. I can hear his laughter now!!! HAHAHAHAAAAA! Look at those stupid people arguing over this shit as being the Word of God when it is all a bunch of in-yer-face bullshit. Listen closely. Can you hear it? |
| Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Nov 16 2004, 08:19 AM | ||||
Answering some of Asuryan's ideas:
The JW's read 'scream' as 'scream', which is idiotic as I see it. I read 'scream' as 'resist'. As you point out, an actual rape is going to leave some signs that it was a rape. I think what the law is trying to communicate is that there should be some sign of resistence if your gonna call it rape and stone the assailant. To hold that if the female fails to scream it isn't a rape is absurd. Should a young Jewish guy come away thinking 'If I knock her out first she cannot scream, hence BibleG_d is going to approve'? It is unfortunate there isn't a way to discern the truth in these matters -- for instance, a drunk or drugged woman could possible show no signs of trauma whatsoever -- and yet still have been raped. So in this case, I think the law is setting down a criteria, by way of example, that it is reasonable to expect some sign of resistence in cases of rape. I think 'scream' is an example of resistence but not definitively the required form of resistence. If you think about it, a 'scream' is the least form of resistence one might offer. The law isn't requiring bruises or a knife fight -- or even bruising. Even then the law makes exceptions when a 'scream' couldn't possibly be heard.
In difficult passages it is often necessary to go back to the Hebrew (and often that isn't much help). All versions have errors and 'best guesses' -- and in fact, your Catholic Bible 'might' be correct. It seems like a bad translation though, for the reasons I've expressed in another post. Asuryan, I'm sorry for the suffering you've endured. I must stress that I don't hold this passage is defining rape as much as giving starting point guidelines for dealing with a very ugly crime. I do NOT think the Bible is saying that a 10 year old failing to scream makes the 'sex' non-rape. If I've glossed over anything, ask again.  |
| Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Nov 16 2004, 09:24 AM | ||||
I just love that analogy! We are the ones going to heaven...neener, neener, neeeeeeener! |
| Posted by: ChefRanden Nov 16 2004, 03:51 PM | ||
If God meant resist why did he write scream? Why didn't he list the acceptable forms of resistance? After all he must have known that his wack job priests would take him literally eventually, and some woman would get gagged and therefore stoned. Why didn't God show them how there would be tearing and bruising? Seems simple enough for a guy that knows everything. You are just digging your hole deeper, by offering excuses. A second year law student could write better law than this. What is more, what the hell is so bad about a woman enjoying sex with another man, that she should be stoned? You think we should do that now days? Why not? |
| Posted by: Cerise Nov 16 2004, 03:57 PM | ||
The same reason God can say "hate your mother and father" but mean "love them, but love me more". Can't make it too easy for us. Then preachers would have nothing to do. |
| Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Nov 16 2004, 04:10 PM | ||||
ChefRanden: I invite you to perform a demonstration for us. Please write a law so tight that it cannot be abused by some degenerate priest. You've got the 100 words to do it in. |
| Posted by: Cerise Nov 16 2004, 04:17 PM |
| I'll take a crack at it Gerbil. Cerise 4:16 Thou shalt not, like a degenerate priest, create thine own law and then claim it as thy Benevolent Cherry's, for verily, She shall be angry. |
| Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Nov 16 2004, 04:21 PM | ||
That is why I asked ChefRanden the question, and not you.  |
| Posted by: ChefRanden Nov 16 2004, 04:22 PM | ||
Very cute, Mad. Good dodge. Now address the points, please. 1. The question is why can't all knowing god write better law than a 2nd year law student. The question is not why can't chef write better law than a 2nd year law student. 2. Then what is so bad about this behavior that it deserves death. 3. Then whould you recomend that we apply the same penalty today? 4. Then if not, why not? |
| Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Nov 16 2004, 04:54 PM | ||||
ChefRanden: I only hopped into this thread to rebutt the notion that the OT doesn't forbid rape. The questions you've asked are good questions but I've not the time nor the energy to get into those topics and I'm involved in other topics. Also, you went to seminary -- you already know the answers. |
| Posted by: Koal Nov 16 2004, 04:58 PM |
| That's typical. |
| Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Nov 16 2004, 05:02 PM | ||
I'm one person with a wife and kids. I cannot answer all the objections that come up here -- I think Chef's questions deserve more than some stupid off the cuff comments I could formulate on the spot to meet your acceptable turn around time. ChefRanden already knows what I'd say off the cuff anyways. Not only could he provide supporting arguments for anything I could say, he could provide the rebuttle and then answer the rebuttle. He's been educated in this stuff more than I've been educated in this stuff. So yeah, I could vomit out a response real quick but I actually believe some of the questions asked here are worth more than the time I'm able to give right now. |
| Posted by: Asuryan Nov 16 2004, 05:47 PM | ||||||||||
Well, why interpreting? Screaming is screaming. Resisting is resisting. I think that it's much more honest to take the words exactly for what they are.
I think the young jewish guy came away thinking "if I knock her out first she cannot scream, then I can have my way with her and the judges will have no way of knowing I have raped her and that it wasn't consensual, since she wasn't able to scream even if we are in town... So she'll have to be quiet about that." Then again you're not considering that, very often, for men it's better to make love with a conscious woman than with an unconscious one. A conscious woman can tremble, she can struggle, she can squirm, and for those man who rape, this is cause of greater arousal. A conscious woman is a woman, an unconscious one is like a doll... for them.
A scream is the better resistance form a woman can provide if, i.e, her wrists are tied together or the man is holding them down someway... And the woman couldn't have necessarily had the time to pick up a knife. Then again a man could gag a woman and avoid all risks...
But this is not explaining the reason why those lines in the bible aren't speaking of controlling the woman's vagina to check that everything is all right. Even something like "If a woman claims rape, and no one heard her scream even if she was in town, a healer will check her conditions, and if she is bruised and hurt between her legs, then the man will be stoned..." blah blah. God should be omniscient. He should've known that someone would've interpreted those words the wrong way (if it really IS wrong, of course). He should've put those lines there, if he existed. Ah, what the heck, he is all powerful. He could simply have zapped with a lightning or something like that all those rapist, the moment they started doing the crime. He didn't.
If "scream" means "scream", and "seize" means "seize", and everything else means what I've read (and I have no real reason to think differently), I think so. I think the bible is saying that not screaming is death for a virgin girl. |
| Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Nov 16 2004, 06:42 PM |
| Well Asuryan, I've read your position and all I can say is that you are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG and you'll BURN, BURN, BURN.... *Rameus whacks MG up alongside the head with an unfinished copy of his book* .... what I meant to say was that I've come to believe one thing about the passage based on the evidence I've provided in another post. You are quite free to come to a different conclusion on the matter. I don't think your position is completely without merit, although I do think it is a weaker position than mine. |
| Posted by: Asuryan Nov 16 2004, 10:03 PM | ||
You missed something Mad Gerbil...
This part of the rant. Come on, I want to know why, in your opinion, the possibility of checking if the woman is hurt or not isn't in the bible. And note that I understood the problem "if a women is drunk or drugged, there could be a lack of bruises, so those women would have been condemned anyway". But it's better to save SOME women from an unjust death than to condemn them all only because perhaps some of them could've been drugged. Don't you agree? |
| Posted by: Fweethawt Nov 17 2004, 02:41 AM | ||||||
Doesn't all of this, the messed up verses, the hatred, the psychological abuse, and the bickering among each other make a LOT more sense when this analogy is used?   Yes, I even believed that at one point.  |
| Posted by: Fweethawt Nov 17 2004, 02:44 AM | ||
It would take a god to do something like that.  |
| Posted by: rainyday8169 Nov 17 2004, 07:05 AM | ||
MG:
How is she wrong? Where? Are you saying EVERYTHING she said is wrong? And who the fuck are you pass judgment and tell her she will burn? That my dear rabid rodent, is a muthafuckken SIN BURN BURN BURN |
| Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Nov 17 2004, 07:54 AM | ||||
It was a JOKE JOKE JOKE as one might gather by reading the next line. It was an attempt at self-depreciating humor -- by virtue of the fact Rameus slugs me with his book to correct the hyper-judgemental attitude. I'll ask you to forgive my sense of humor. I think hyper-fundamentalists are clowns -- I used to be one, I'm poking fun at myself. |
| Posted by: rainyday8169 Nov 17 2004, 07:57 AM |
| OK yer forgiven This time |
| Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Nov 17 2004, 07:57 AM | ||||
I like that thought. I don't agree with it, but in one sense it is actually very true. |
| Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Nov 17 2004, 08:27 AM | ||||
That would be a reasonable inclusion into the text, Asuryan. However, in my way of viewing it that consideration is implied by 'scream'. I think what is interesting here is that one can turn this whole thing on its ear by an instance of a woman entering a man's home in the middle of town and screaming rape -- even though the man has done nothing. What happens when my daughters scream while chasing each other around the house? Mother to Children: "I'm sorry dears, your father was stoned today. I screamed when I saw my quiche fell and the town elders stoned him before I could react..." -------------------------------------------- I'm not mocking you there -- my intent is to illustrate that I don't think a 'wooden' reading of the law makes any sense. How do you define scream? Measure decibels? Sorry, virgin -- your 'scream' was technically a 'yell' -- next time try to get 2 more decibels in there. In short, I believe the ancient Israelites (although certainly not viewing women's rights in the same light we do today) would have used some investigative techinques in addressing this problem; meaning then, that the law was a guideline and shouldn't be so woodenly interpreted. The problem with law is that the more specific you get, the more loopholes are generated. See US Tax Law. Again, if you wish to come away believing the OT is 'lite' on rape then that is your choice. I've learned from reading ya'lls views on this topic, I hope I've returned the favor in some degree. |
| Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Nov 17 2004, 09:42 AM |
| Maybe they looked to see if she was a virgin like they did with they captured women before they were killed for not being a virgin. You see, they can still be a virgin without an intact hymen. Surely god would have known this. The men at that time didn't and that is why they used that procedure to check for virginity. How many virgins were killed because of the lack of this understanding? Maybe better dead than to be taken away and used by your capturers. Just throwing a little rant in here... |
| Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Nov 17 2004, 10:26 AM | ||
I give the rant a 7 outta 10. |
| Posted by: ChefRanden Nov 17 2004, 10:36 AM | ||
Exactly. That is why the law is a piece of shit. It would be and has been followed woodenly. Gosh where is the surprize in that. Even a sorta all knowing god could have figured that out. What is so bad about adultery that requires death? Nothing. The law is unjust before it even starts to describe the circumstances. However, even if one could come up with a good reason to stone folks for extra-curricular sex it certainly can't be a strong enough reason to risk the lives of the innocent. I don't know why you don't just admit that if this God is real, it is just an arbitrary asshole. This God doesn't seem to mind the reputation, since he lays his evil out for everyone to see. And he did say that the asshole, terrorist, prick David was a man after his own heart. Therefore, I can't see that any harm would come to you for just saying, "Yep, he is a prick alright, but I love him anyway." |
| Posted by: Asuryan Nov 17 2004, 10:41 AM | ||
Since when your mother screams "RAPE!" or "HELP ME!" when she drops a quiche? There's too little on the bible to be able to represent a valid law code. There's something sick in the "in the case of consensual sex, the two should be killed", too. Sue wants to have sex with John, John wants to have sex with Sue, well let's stone them. I think that "an eye for an eye" works well for an ancient law code. "As you have raped the girl, so you will be raped now." Much more satisfying for the victim that being forced to marry the asshole.  |
| Posted by: Reach Nov 17 2004, 10:48 AM | ||||
Even for bishops and deacons, it does not say, one wife throughout a lifetime. It could also mean... one wife at a time. |
| Posted by: ChefRanden Nov 17 2004, 11:41 AM | ||||
MG, I don't know why you would consider your family more important then us, after all your children will be required to hate you later anyway. However, since you insist that your family is more important, I guess I will just have to answer my own questions. Moreover, since you have acknowledged that my education is superior to your education, we will just have to assume that my answers are the correct ones. 1. Non-existing beings cannot write at all let alone better than a 2nd year law student. 2. Nothing. 3. No you would not agree that adulterous people should be stoned to death, or hung, or electrocuted, or injected, or even branded with a scarlet letter. 4. Because you know that a law requiring death for adultery is unjust and just plain stupid. There, you see, that wouldn't have taken very much time. chef |
| Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Nov 17 2004, 12:33 PM |
| *ack* I deleted my post since it was more inane than usual. |
| Posted by: Libertus Nov 17 2004, 02:29 PM | ||||||
Very true. |
| Posted by: SOIL-ITU Nov 22 2004, 02:44 PM | ||||||||||
Matthew 19:3-8 (ESV)
(Bold emphasis mine) Sorry, I'm not sure if I have yet read through this entire thread - (I do remember reading some of it several days ago though - and this page today - but I suppose this passage may have been covered before). Jesus (and Adam and Eve) were "before Paul". I think the above passage (at a minimum) says that Jesus didn't think it would be "OK" to divorce one wife and then marry another one - and hence via that technique, be regarded as only being married to "one wife at a time". Of course that passage does not appear (to me anyway) to speak directly about either the situation where a wife (spouse) has died - or to the practice of polygamy (though I suppose some may think it implies a restriction on polygamy, given there was only Eve in the Genesis story - and not Eve, Jane, Rhonda, etc...). I have spent quite a bit of time and energy thinking about that passage in Matthew, and the few verses that immediately follow it. My thinking (at this time), is that one of the main things Jesus was trying to accomplish through his comments, most likely involved his desire to protect many women who would be put in a very difficult living condition (especially in that society) if their husbands were to divorce them - "for any cause". Perhaps the question was put to Jesus in the first place, because the Pharisees did not approve of how Jesus was treating women (why, one might even get the impression that he was thinking they were as good as a man!) (e.g. He actually spoke with the Samaritan woman at the well, and he did NOT throw a stone at (or even condemn) the woman caught in the act of adultery). -Dennis |
| Posted by: Kay Nov 27 2004, 04:00 PM |
| A woman doesn't resist and that somehow makes it hard for the judge to decide whether there's consent or not? How incredibly stupid that comment sounds. The stench of ignorance is overwhelming. The problem is not the "he said she said". The current problem with the law of rape is that perception of consent by the male is subjective as opposed to the stricter standard of objective. In law, the usual yardstick to judge the appropriateness of someone's behaviour is to hold it against the 'reasonable person'. Whilst self defence is exempt from this standard (thank goodness, because I would be the last reasonable person when confronted with a life threatening situation), it unfortunatley applies to rape as well - which is utterly idiotic. If a man unreasonably believes that a woman was consenting, despite the fact that she might be trying to claw at his face ("she's just being kinky"), then he gets let off. What we need is not to reverse the onus of proof and whatnot. What we need is for the defendant to objectively establish that there was consent, that is: "would the reasonable person in the same position have also believed that the woman was consenting." This is not a reverse of the onus of proof. This is proving the mens rea. That makes the process more equitable. Yes, the woman didn't resist, but let's also consider the circumstances surrounding her non-resistance to determine whether or not a reasonable person would still consider her to be consenting despite her lack of struggling. If she was dead drunk or high on drugs (date rape), a reasonable person would not have believed that a woman had consented to sex because her mental state at the time prevented her from forming consent. Likewise, a battered wife who lives in constant fear of her husband, who doesn't struggle or resist, cannot reasonably be seen to be consenting because the presence and influence of fear, and whatever her husband has done to instil such fear, would make it unreasonable to establish that she did consent. Luckily, the law has also recognized that children under 16 don't have the maturity to be able to consent, hence statutory rape - aka all that needs to be proved is the act, regardless of any belief, reasonable or not, that the girl consented. A recent case in Australia had an ex-highschool teacher convicted for having a relationship with his 14 year old student despite the fact that she was very willing at the time. As for the lame example that MG could be charged with several accounts of rape by his wife because she wasn't exactly in the mood when they had sex on several occassions - she has to actually want to report you to the police first. If she herself doesn't mind obliging to have sex with you even if she's not in the mood, that's her business. But if a woman who is involved in non-consensual sex does go to the police, that's a completely different matter because she obviously thought that was not ok. |
| Posted by: Jay Nov 28 2004, 08:37 PM |
| Yes, in fact, one of my former pastors is a strong advocate for execution of rapists. |