kurious_kathy explain this.

[Elind]

Kathy, I don't believe you're real; or if you are you are on a metaphysical high that has no relevance to this debate, if it can be called that.

I'll certainly commend your self control in face of the ridicule thrown at you, but my main concern is that you don't seem to see it as most humans would.

Therefore, I decide that you are an alien in disguise or wannabe candidate for the Colbert Report.

 

[AnotherSillyAlias]

Kathy, I don't believe you're real; or if you are you are on a metaphysical high that has no relevance to this debate, if it can be called that.

I'll certainly commend your self control in face of the ridicule thrown at you, but my main concern is that you don't seem to see it as most humans would.

Therefore, I decide that you are an alien in disguise or wannabe candidate for the Colbert Report.

Oh, I'm quite certain she's real. I have known people like her. Usually they are not the sharpest tools in the shed, which doesn't help, but they are basically so wrapped up in their self delusions that they literally cannot comprehend how others might not think the same way. In some respects they are similar to the famous kilik, no amount of logic, evidence, explanations or anything else will sway them one single inch. They KNOW they are correct, therefore everyone who disagrees MUST be incorrect.

I have had conversations with people like this in real life, it's quite bizarre. You can point out a very obvious fact to them and, if it doesn't quite fit their delusion, they just act as though you never spoke. It can get very tiring after a while.

 

[Elind]

Oh, I'm quite certain she's real. I have known people like her. Usually they are not the sharpest tools in the shed, which doesn't help, but they are basically so wrapped up in their self delusions that they literally cannot comprehend how others might not think the same way. In some respects they are similar to the famous kilik, no amount of logic, evidence, explanations or anything else will sway them one single inch. They KNOW they are correct, therefore everyone who disagrees MUST be incorrect.

I have had conversations with people like this in real life, it's quite bizarre. You can point out a very obvious fact to them and, if it doesn't quite fit their delusion, they just act as though you never spoke. It can get very tiring after a while.

Yes, but this one is highly active in her responses; kids in the background and all. Most people, however sincere their persuasion, do tend to debate with others as if the others were real people whose opinions matter; meaning at least that it is possible to piss them off at some point.

I have come in late on this and haven't read it all, but this Kathy seem to have no human emotion. It's like a program flicking through a book for suitable answers to semantics, but totally devoid of what we call human emotions.

She is an alien, or perhaps a clever program. No question. Scary.

 

[AnotherSillyAlias]

I have come in late on this and haven't read it all, but this Kathy seem to have no human emotion. It's like a program flicking through a book for suitable answers to semantics, but totally devoid of what we call human emotions.

I think this is because things like anger and similar emotions that people like you and me might have are a work of the devil and since she is controlled by her god there is no way that the devil can be stirring up any negative emotions. All part of the delusion.

 

[Ducky]

Thanks. This forum has been an eye-opening experience, but I'm usually too scared to post. I still don't consider myself well-informed enough to enter a complex debate though I do possess a healthy dose of scepticism.

Anyhow, I was responding to Bri's assertion that the two passages were similar. I don't see how rape and seduction could possibly be similar, except in the case of statutory rape. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I doubt there were legal (or even divine) clauses for statutory rape in biblical times.

You are, of course, very welcome.

I would love to agree outright with you, but I would like to see some cites on this.

Please understand, this is not an attack on you (you most certainly didn not act a troll. don't take ofense to my asking for evidence. Please.)

we're just curmudgoenly f***ers that need to see evidence.

I very much welcome you, and I encourage your debate here. Even if you are not an expert in a certain subject, this forum can very well teach you how to debate that subject like a pro.

You see, all it takes is evidence. after that it's just logic.

I never got that until this forum.

You will do fine here, and you are welcome.

(ok now: cite? please help me and others with a website to cite.)

 

[Roadtoad]

What about the girl, does she get any choice?

Of course not!

You have to remember, this is Israel under the Torah. It is a life led under Force and Law, rather than a life led under Spirit and Compassion. Sort of like California in the 21st Century.

 

[kmortis]

Of course not!

You have to remember, this is Israel under the Torah. It is a life led under Force and Law, rather than a life led under Spirit and Compassion. Sort of like California in the 21st Century.

Well, to be fair, it was very common at this time and place to have Patriarcal rule. The concept of equality between the sexes is still a long way off. This is especially true in the Isrealie society as the lineage is traces through the mother (let's face it, you can be 100% certain who your mother is, but there will always be some doubt as to the ID of your father), so one way to get into a "good family" is by marrying the right girl.

With that being the case, I find it amazing that they didn't protect their women better. You'd think that TPTB would do what the powerful elite have done everywhere else; namely, protect their own.

 

[Roadtoad]

TPTB did. It was the common man for whom this was written. You know: mutts like us.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

.................
An important point here, is that contrary to popular ( or unpopular, depending on your perspective ) belief, God had no problem with married Jewish men getting all the strange they could manage ( via rape or otherwise ) , as long as it was not with a married ( to someone else ) Jewish woman..

This statement is inaccurate. Rape is definitely a crime in the OT, and promiscuous sex outside of marriage by both men and women is also frowned upon.

-Bri

You could be right, but I would like to see a source that shows promiscuity by men ( other than an adultrous situation ) was frowned upon..

Please keep in mind that I'm not a theologian or Biblical scholar by any means. This is information that is readily available on the Web.

Deuteronomy 23:18:
There shall not be a promiscuous woman among the daughters of Israel, and there shall not be a promiscuous man among the sons of Israel.

-Bri

Bri,

I can't seem to find a translation that is worded like this. Can you provide your source?

You wouldn't have made your own translation to satisfy your argument, would you ?

 

[kmortis]

TPTB did. It was the common man for whom this was written. You know: mutts like us.

Heh.

I dunno, usually societies try to maintain the fiction that all have to follow the same laws.

Does anyone know when the OT was committed to writing? Or Hama<mutter>ti's Code? I've heard that Vlad Dracul was one of the first Western leaders to write their laws down. I don't know if The Torah (or other contemporary codes of law) were written at the time they were being enforced. I suspect so, but I don't know for sure.

 

[UrsulaV]

You (and another poster as well) missed the point. I was simply pointing out that the translation of both passages is very similar and in both cases seems to indicate that the man must marry the woman (from which one could perhaps infer that nobody involved has a choice in the matter). However, upon further inspection, one of them clearly indicates that in fact the father does have a choice in the matter. Therefore, since similar wording is used in both cases (indeed in a Hebrew version that I have, the translations of both passages are nearly exactly the same where it talks about his obligation to marry her) it is more likely that both passages simply indicate that the man doesn't have a choice in the matter.

-Bri

I am still a little leery of accepting this statement, since even if the translations are indeed similiar, it strikes me that that escape clause is kinda important. I'll grant you, however, that my ancient Hebrew is non-existent, mind you, and I could certainly be at the mercy of a set of lousy translations of a Very Important Point. (And there's also a rather key point about what if the woman is not particularly interested in marrying her rapist, but we'll let that go for the moment..)

However, unless somebody's translation involved leavin' out a coupla verses, there does not appear to be any other punishment set out for raping the unmarried. If you rape someone who's betrothed, you get killed. If you rape someone who isn't betrothed, you have to marry her...or...what? There's no addition here that states alternatives. You marry her, end statement. There is no follow-up at all, like there is in the passage in Exodus. You may claim that there's an implied option in the translation, and that may well be true, but what then? Does this mean that if you rape the unmarried and they quite healthily have no interest in marrying you, you get off scott-free?

Is the only way to punish a rapist of the unmarried, in this case, to marry them and try to nag them to death before they succeed in raping you to death?

Or is the thirty shekels of silver for the rape, and THEN the similiar translation kicks in, and she supposedly has the option to marry him or not?

I am not neccessarily willing to accept your statement at face value without further documentation of the translations, but at the same time, I'm not willing to spend a coupla years learning ancient Hebrew just to look it up, either, which we'll chalk up to a failure on my part. *grin*

Either way, however, and whether I'm dead wrong or not, you at least did me the courtesy of addressing the point, which is far more than our resident preacher did, and for that I am grateful.

 

[Bri]

What about the girl, does she get any choice?

I believe that other passages in the Bible and other texts indicate that she would have had a choice, yes. For example, I believe there are passages indicating that the father, the girl, or the potential husband may veto the marriage in the case of an unmarried woman having consensual sex with a man (if she was a virgin, apparently the man must still pay a fine to the father for future losses of dowry). I'll try to find sources if you're interested (or you can do an Internet search).

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Of course not!

You have to remember, this is Israel under the Torah. It is a life led under Force and Law, rather than a life led under Spirit and Compassion. Sort of like California in the 21st Century.

Remember that the Torah wasn't the main source of the laws by which people lived. There were other texts which contained the laws. The Torah only contained a basis for those laws, and wasn't an exhaustive list of all possible scenarios. In this case, the section in question is concerned with financial loss, in this case the loss of the dowry by the father, so it is likely not intended to be the final word on punishment for all cases of rape. Other texts provide more details of the restitution and punishment in the case of rape.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

I can't seem to find a translation that is worded like this. Can you provide your source?

The source for that one is a Hebrew version I have, and the translations are directly from the Hebrew. I found the passage via a webpage here concerning the topic of promiscuity that cited the passage, and I looked it up.

You wouldn't have made your own translation to satisfy your argument, would you ?

I'm afraid I don't know Hebrew, and I didn't make up the translation to satify my argument. I can give you more information about the Hebrew version my translation came from if you want to look it up yourself.

-Bri

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I'm afraid I don't know Hebrew, and I didn't make up the translation to satify my argument. I can give you more information about the Hebrew version my translation came from if you want to look it up yourself.

-Bri

It is interesting that no other translator ( that I can find ) ended up with the word ‘ promiscuous ‘ .

What is the Hebrew word from your Hebrew version of Deuteronomy, that you are saying means “ promiscuous “ ?


Anyway, from the context, your verse still did not indicate that promiscuity among Israeli men was frowned upon by God or anyone else..


Do you have any other Biblical references that does support your position?


Added:
Just read your link.. Looks like the Rabbi is doing a little post Levitican tap dancing, to not appear to support male promiscuity, while there is no such discouragement in the OT..

Deuteronomy 23:18, while one would suspect it was the best the good Rabbi could come up with, clearly does not support this position,.. It's a gross error to suggest it does..

 

[Bri]

I am still a little leery of accepting this statement, since even if the translations are indeed similiar, it strikes me that that escape clause is kinda important.

I very much understand where you're coming from. My point is only that it's not necessarily cut and dry. Even for a literalist, there can be different interpretations given that the Torah was written in ancient Hebrew, and often guesses have to be made about nuances of words by looking at how those words are used elsewhere in other passages. Note that such ambiguities go both ways, and kurious_kathy ought not take passages out of context to support her own arguments either.

The fact is that this passage does not indicate that the girl doesn't have a choice, nor that there aren't other punishments and restitutions required of the rapist. It would make sense that details concerning restitution for the victim and punishment of the rapist are omitted if the passage concerns financial loss (such as the loss of dowry by the father). That would also explain why this passage specifies the rape of an unbetrothed virgin (since a higher dowry is given for a virgin).

Unless you can provide evidence to support the theories that a rape victim is forced to marry her rapist or that there was no other punishment for the rapist, then this passage is no basis for those conclusions. Other texts that provide the actual set of laws by which people lived back then provide strong evidence to the contrary.

-Bri

 

[UrsulaV]

It would make sense that details concerning restitution for the victim and punishment of the rapist are omitted if the passage concerns financial loss (such as the loss of dowry by the father). That would also explain why this passage specifies the rape of an unbetrothed virgin (since a higher dowry is given for a virgin)

Mmmm. I am not aware of a section that takes up later that says "By the way, in the case of rape, please pay the following..." This whole section is about marriage violations and punishments, like stoning, and thus I would doubt they're omitting the passages about punishment because they're talking specifically about finances at this time--they're happy to mention stoning and whatnot earlier in 22. If they have jumped specifically to only dealing with finances and not mentioning the additional punishments required, it's a break from the rest of Deuteronomy 22, and I don't know where the additional punishments are in fact listed.

That's not to say that there may not be a section detailing additional restitutions in this case--I hardly have the OT memorized!--but I am unaware of it, and it doesn't show up in this verse, it just goes straight to "also, don't sleep with your father's wife" and then ends.

 

[Bri]

Mmmm. I am not aware of a section that takes up later that says "By the way, in the case of rape, please pay the following..."

I don't know if there is one or not. I'm simply saying that there are other interpretations that may more accurately represent the intent of the passage. At any rate, there is nothing there that would allow one to definitely conclude that rape victims must be forced to marry their rapists.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

What is the Hebrew word from your Hebrew version of Deuteronomy, that you are saying means “ promiscuous “ ?

"kedeshah" is the word used for a promiscuous woman, and "kadesh" is the word used for promiscuous man. It seems that Jewish sources tend to translate it this way, whereas Christian sources seem to use the translation "temple prostitutes."

Anyway, from the context, your verse still did not indicate that promiscuity among Israeli men was frowned upon by God or anyone else.

Apparently promiscuity is frowned upon in the Jewish code of laws, at least in part based on the above passage, so I guess there is room for disagreement!

Do you have any other Biblical references that does support your position?

Not offhand. Like I said, I only found those by searching the Internet and then by looking them up in a Hebrew version that I have.

Added:
Just read your link.. Looks like the Rabbi is doing a little post Levitican tap dancing, to not appear to support male promiscuity, while there is no such discouragement in the OT..

Deuteronomy 23:18, clearly does not support this position.. It's a gross error to suggest it does..

Here is another source that uses a similar translation and interpretation. I'm certainly not saying that this is the only possible translation or interpretation of the passage, only that you certainly cannot conclude definitively that promiscuity by men was not frowned upon. Again, other texts that contain laws in use at the time would be evidence against that conclusion.

-Bri

 

[Elind]

How does that justify ordering rape and the killing of innocents?

Just a little digression here; does that mean you support the rape and killing of the less than innocent?