kurious_kathy explain this.

[Ducky]

That's nice, Kathy. Now can you actually answer my question?

It's real simple. I've asked it a coupla times now. I'll keep on asking until you either tell me directly that you have no intention of answering me, or until (glory of glories!) you actually answer the specific question.

Do you believe that unmarried rape victims should be required to marry their rapists, as the Bible requires in Deuteronomy 22:28?

It's reaaaaaal simple. You could even go "yes" or "no" if you wanted. But I'm gonna keep asking...

I'm with you UrsulaV, I'd like to see an answer to my question and avhienda's also. but we have this:

Who ever said I think I have to be right? Aren't you perceiving me that way? Just asking??

And as for some of the questions I might not choose to answer...well it's usually because I think it's either a stupid question?, or I just can't believe someone would ask it??

Which means that she's just admitted to intellectual dishonesty by ignoring questions furthering discussion.

 

[AnotherSillyAlias]

I was sort of looking forward to getting back into the fun this morning but I started reading the crap from the KK troll and became depressed. All the fun has gone out troll baiting for me for now.

Maybe later when I've managed to purge the worst of her crud from my system.

 

[TobiasTheViking]

I was sort of looking forward to getting back into the fun this morning but I started reading the crap from the KK troll and became depressed. All the fun has gone out troll baiting for me for now.

Maybe later when I've managed to purge the worst of her crud from my system.

*hug*

 

[Pauliesonne]

Just give it time.

It's just like when cartman saw the couple with buttocks for faces and thought he had lost any chance he had of laughing again.

But we all know how that ended.

 

[Bri]

Do you believe that unmarried rape victims should be required to marry their rapists, as the Bible requires in Deuteronomy 22:28?

Are you folks getting your information from the Skeptic's Annotated Bible? At least get your facts from a reliable source. Sure, I doubt that kurious_kathy will know the difference, but at least make valid arguments (there are plenty of valid arguments to be made).

"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

That looks like a direct order to me, to marry the victim.

The passage you quoted does not indicate that the victim is forced to marry the rapist, and other laws requiring a woman to give her consent to marriage contradict the notion. This passage concerns the crime of rape, and the rapist must make restitution for the crime by marrying the girl and supporting her for the rest of his life, as well as paying a dowry to the father. In those times, a woman who was not a virgin would have a more difficult time marrying, and therefore her financial security would be uncertain. Therefore, the rapist is required to marry her and cannot divorce her, if she and her father wish. Otherwise, the rapist must still pay a fine to the father (or to the girl if she has no father).

-Bri

 

[Ducky]

Are you folks getting your information from the Skeptic's Annotated Bible? At least get your facts from a reliable source. Sure, I doubt that kurious_kathy will know the difference, but at least make valid arguments (there are plenty of valid arguments to be made).



The passage you quoted does not indicate that the victim is forced to marry the rapist, and other laws requiring a woman to give her consent to marriage contradict the notion. This passage concerns the crime of rape, and the rapist must make restitution for the crime by marrying the girl and supporting her for the rest of his life, as well as paying a dowry to the father. In those times, a woman who was not a virgin would have a more difficult time marrying, and therefore her financial security would be uncertain. Therefore, the rapist is required to marry her and cannot divorce her, if she and her father wish. Otherwise, the rapist must still pay a fine to the father (or to the girl if she has no father).

-Bri

Which other laws? Please explain how the woman had a choice in this matter, and where it says specifically that the victim of rape can disagree to be married to the rapist.


I've gotten mine from NIV as well, not skeptics annotated.

 

[UrsulaV]

Are you folks getting your information from the Skeptic's Annotated Bible? At least get your facts from a reliable source.

NIV, actually. But feel free to take them to task if you feel they're an unreliable source.

The passage you quoted does not indicate that the victim is forced to marry the rapist, and other laws requiring a woman to give her consent to marriage contradict the notion.

-Bri

Please, by all means, quote me those laws! I would be delighted to hear what you have that contradicts this statement.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Which means that she's just admitted to intellectual dishonesty by ignoring questions furthering discussion.

Or she is saying the Bible is stupid, which is where the questions are coming from...

 

[Skeptical Greg]

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..

 

[slingblade]

Evidently, Kathy, you misread the word "right."

You are trying to tell us about God and God's word. I take it as given that you don't want to tell us the wrong thing, or misspeak yourself, or lead us down paths you never intended (you know, the paths that lead away from God?).

So until you can figure out how to answer apparent (read: obvious) contradictions in the bible in such a way that the contradiction is resolved, or the "true meaning" can be revealed, you don't want to answer at all.

Thus, you don't want to answer until you can answer and be right.


By the way, you keep harp---er, saying that you're just a baby Christian. This is just a personal anecdote, and carries no evidentiary weight, but all of the preachers and pastors I have ever known have been firm in the notion that baby Christians should not prozelytize. For one, it's a bad idea for you, because you run the risk that we evil non-christians will be able to change your mind and turn you from your new-found belief.

For another, as you have demonstrated, you have not been indoctrinated into your new faith fully enough to yet know what you are talking about. So you keep losing these debates, and your religion and belief just looks more and more silly. Go back and look at your bible, where it talks in the NT about the "milk and meat" of faith. You're currently on a milk diet, and we're throwing serious chunks of raw meat at you.

Why don't you pack up now and move back home to the forum from which you came, and content yourself with praying for us?

After all, if you trust God as much as you say you do, why can't you trust him to answer your prayers and work His will in our lives while you get on about yours? We know where you roost. If we have any amazing and miraculous conversions, we'll run right over and let you know, mmm-kay?

 

[Beleth]

The passage you quoted does not indicate that the victim is forced to marry the rapist,

Please describe a situation where the girl is free to not marry the rapist and at the same time the rapist "must marry the girl." Forcing the rapist to marry the girl necessarily forces the girl to marry the rapist. If she's not forced to marry him, then he's not forced to marry her.

and other laws requiring a woman to give her consent to marriage contradict the notion.

You mean the Bible contradicts itself? Stop the presses!

Therefore, the rapist is required to marry her and cannot divorce her, if she and her father wish. Otherwise, the rapist must still pay a fine to the father (or to the girl if she has no father).

Please provide a Biblical quote which justifies the addition of your conditional.

 

[Bri]

Which other laws? Please explain how the woman had a choice in this matter, and where it says specifically that the victim of rape can disagree to be married to the rapist.

I never claimed that it says specifically that a victim of rape can disagree to marry a rapist. Show me where it says that a victim of rape must marry the rapist. The quote you provided from NIV didn't say that!

I've gotten mine from NIV as well, not skeptics annotated.

I don't necessarily disagree with your translation, but the conclusion you came to based on it are a bit of a stretch. Here is one refutation of your reading of the passage (I'm sure there are others). The matter is certainly far from cut and dry as you have implied.

-Bri

 

[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

 

[Ducky]

I never claimed that it says specifically that a victim of rape can disagree to marry a rapist. Show me where it says that a victim of rape must marry the rapist. The quote you provided from NIV didn't say that!

Actually you said:

The passage you quoted does not indicate that the victim is forced to marry the rapist, and other laws requiring a woman to give her consent to marriage contradict the notion. This passage concerns the crime of rape, and the rapist must make restitution for the crime by marrying the girl and supporting her for the rest of his life, as well as paying a dowry to the father. In those times, a woman who was not a virgin would have a more difficult time marrying, and therefore her financial security would be uncertain. Therefore, the rapist is required to marry her and cannot divorce her, if she and her father wish. Otherwise, the rapist must still pay a fine to the father (or to the girl if she has no father).

The first sentence is contesting that the rape victim has to marry the rapist. try again.

I don't necessarily disagree with your translation, but the conclusion you came to based on it are a bit of a stretch. Here is one refutation of your reading of the passage (I'm sure there are others). The matter is certainly far from cut and dry as you have implied.

-Bri

Not a stretch at all. here are the words (since you don't disagree with the translation)

"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

Note the use of the term "must." This means it is not up for discussion - they marry and they cannot divorce.

 

[Ducky]

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:



-Bri

Argument from incredulity.

Also non-sequiter. Your provided verse does not address the issue of whether a rape victim can refuse to marry the rapist.

Try again.

 

[Bri]

Please describe a situation where the girl is free to not marry the rapist and at the same time the rapist "must marry the girl." Forcing the rapist to marry the girl necessarily forces the girl to marry the rapist. If she's not forced to marry him, then he's not forced to marry her.

Please provide a Biblical quote which justifies the addition of your conditional.

First, please keep in mind that I am not defending kurious_kathy in any way. I am simply pointing out that many of the most-quoted Biblical passages used in arguments against theists are often mistranslations or misinterpretions (or both). Many (maybe most) are far from cut and dry.

Case in point, here is the NIV translation of a very similar passage (Exodus 22:16) to the one in question:

16. If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife.

"She shall be his wife" seems pretty cut and dry, right? If the guy sleeps with her, he marries her. Period, end of story. But then look at the next passage:

17. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins.

Oh, but wait! Didn't it say in the previous passage that he must marry her? Obviously, that's not exactly an accurate interpretation of what the passage means. Upon further inspection, it simply means that he has no choice in the matter. The passage in question in Deuteronomy is very similar, except that a rape has taken place, and in a similar manner the point is that the rapist doesn't have a choice in the matter of whether or not to marry her (and in that case, whether or not to divorce her once they are married).

Keep in mind that the quote above is from the same translation that was used for the posts to which I was responding. Often, if you look at the original Hebrew and consult different translations, you'll start to see a slightly different story emerge.

I'm actually on your side of this argument, but these sorts of quotes from the Bible are rarely as definitive as you might want to believe.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Argument from incredulity.

Also non-sequiter. Your provided verse does not address the issue of whether a rape victim can refuse to marry the rapist.

Try again.

fowlsound, that wasn't even in response to your post! I was responding to a different poster about whether the Bible frowns upon promiscuity. Give me a break!

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Note the use of the term "must." This means it is not up for discussion - they marry and they cannot divorce.

See my post to Beleth here where the same source (NIV) uses very similar phrasing with an obviously different meaning than you ascribe to it.

A translation that I have that is directly from the Hebrew uses the word "shall" in both cases. If you insist, I'll post the two passages from that translation so you can compare them.

My point is simply that translations of the Bible are often far from cut and dry.

-Bri

 

[Ducky]

See my post to Beleth here where the same source (NIV) uses very similar phrasing with an obviously different meaning than you ascribe to it.

A translation that I have that is directly from the Hebrew uses the word "shall" in both cases. If you insist, I'll post the two passages from that translation so you can compare them.

My point is simply that translations of the Bible are often far from cut and dry.

-Bri

Sorry for the tone, you caught me mid titanium spark.

So, if I read this correctly instead of marriage the bible orders payment for services rendered? Not much of an improvement. We've gone from forcing the victim to marry to basically prostitution.

And no, I don't see this as a legal issue for damages. There is still no provision for actual penalty for the crime of rape. In a case where civil damages are awarded, it is seperate (and usually after) criminal punishment is decided.

Thank you for pointing out the next verse, but it still doesn't negate that while contradictory, it still treats the rape victim as property in both verses.

As for the bible contradicting itself, color me not surprised.

For the record, I did not say you were defending kathy.

 

[Bri]

Sorry for the tone, you caught me mid titanium spark.

Not a problem!

So, if I read this correctly instead of marriage the bible orders payment for services rendered? Not much of an improvement. We've gone from forcing the victim to marry to basically prostitution.

Again, it is not my intent to defend the Bible, but according to commentary in a Hebrew version of the Old Testimate that I have and according to a couple of sources on the Internet, the passage appears in a section that talks mainly about financial losses. In those days, fathers expected a dowry for marrying off his daughter, and the dowry would be more for a virgin daughter. A dowry isn't generally considered prostitution, and it is fairly clear that this passage is mainly concerned with the potential loss of the dowry by the father because of the rape, not with providing laws for rape.

And no, I don't see this as a legal issue for damages. There is still no provision for actual penalty for the crime of rape. In a case where civil damages are awarded, it is seperate (and usually after) criminal punishment is decided.

The OT is not generally read as an exhaustive list of laws, even by fundamentalists. There are other texts which provided details of the laws by which people actually lived in those days. Apparently, other texts provide further restitution/punishment based on physical and mental pain suffered by a victim of rape.

For the record, I did not say you were defending kathy.

I know you didn't. I anticipated some backlash from my comments and I wanted to make it clear that I wasn't arguing the opposite side!

-Bri