Your Help Refuting a Blog

[Bango Skank]

Shouldn't Mark 16:17-18 be considered a litmus test for true christian?

Those verses are later additions that are absent from the earliest texts.

Yeah, i know it's a later addition, but it's still fun to use on fundies. i usually get either silence or "We shouldn't put God on test." excuse.

 

[thenexttodie]

What I think is that in reality it is people like those we have on this forum, who would defend the life of the guy who raped you. No matter what you think.

I, on the other hand, have no hard time telling you that I think anyone who rapes my daughter, wife, or any other woman should quickly be put to death in a scary and painful manner.

I think it's a good thing that they would defend his life no matter what I, as the victim, think. If we based convictions solely on what the victims thought would be suitable punishment there wouldn't be any legal security.

I don't understand what you mean. Convictions and punishments are 2 different things. I don't think it is a good thing to defend the lives of people who commit rape. People like many if not all those we have here on this thread, think it's a good thing. Just like you do, I guess..

Shouldn't you just require the woman to marry her attacker as the Bible requires?.

Yes, this is what you should do, thenexttodie, if you follow what the bible tells you.

What SF and perhaps even you yourself are referring to is Deuteronomy 22:28-29. It's one of the books of the Old Testament which was written in Hebrew (and a small amount of Aramaic). This is basically how these verses were written, in every bible until probably about 40 years ago:

" 28 If a man find a damsel [that is] a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty [shekels] of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days."

Now people like those on this forum, who defend the lives of rapists, would like for these verses to convey an image to you of men hiding in a woods somewhere, waiting for virgins to walk by so they can jump out and rape them so they could marry them.

The Hebrew words Taphas meaning "to lay hold of" and Shabak "to lie with" are accurately portrayed in the 2 verses above.
There are many reasons why I don't think these verses are talking about rape, but I don't have time to explain them to you.

Here is a link giving the case for one of these reasons: http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/ot_and_rape.htm

And here is a link to probably the best attempted refutation I have seen (both are common arguments): http://www.answeringchristianity.com/karim/answering_apologists_and_exposing_rape.htm

So...you can read them both if you like and decide for yourself what you think. And investigate things further on your own. Fuck Everyone Else.

Adios!

 

[SpecialFrog]

What SF and perhaps even you yourself are referring to is Deuteronomy 22:28-29. It's one of the books of the Old Testament which was written in Hebrew (and a small amount of Aramaic).

Unsurprisingly, one of your apologetics links doesn't work.

Anyway, the distinction between Deuteronomy 25 (woman assaulted in open country) and Deuteronomy 23 and 28 (woman assaulted in the city) is that in the city people around would have allegedly heard and intervened if the woman had cried out and since that didn't happen it clearly wasn't rape, at least according to the Hebrew scriptures.

This is consistent with the traditional Jewish interpretation of the text, I believe.

 

[lilmarome]

I don't understand what you mean. Convictions and punishments are 2 different things. I don't think it is a good thing to defend the lives of people who commit rape. People like many if not all those we have here on this thread, think it's a good thing. Just like you do, I guess..

What SF and perhaps even you yourself are referring to is Deuteronomy 22:28-29. It's one of the books of the Old Testament which was written in Hebrew (and a small amount of Aramaic). This is basically how these verses were written, in every bible until probably about 40 years ago:

" 28 If a man find a damsel [that is] a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty [shekels] of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days."

Now people like those on this forum, who defend the lives of rapists, would like for these verses to convey an image to you of men hiding in a woods somewhere, waiting for virgins to walk by so they can jump out and rape them so they could marry them.

The Hebrew words Taphas meaning "to lay hold of" and Shabak "to lie with" are accurately portrayed in the 2 verses above.
There are many reasons why I don't think these verses are talking about rape, but I don't have time to explain them to you.

Here is a link giving the case for one of these reasons: http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/ot_and_rape.htm

And here is a link to probably the best attempted refutation I have seen (both are common arguments): http://www.answeringchristianity.com/karim/answering_apologists_and_exposing_rape.htm

So...you can read them both if you like and decide for yourself what you think. And investigate things further on your own. Fuck Everyone Else.

Adios!

What I'm trying to tell you is that rape is not just done by monsters. Rape is not just committed by "men hiding in a woods" it's also done by the nicest people you will ever meet, your best friend, the guy who's always the first to respond when someone is sad or injured. Rape can also be to not wear a condom when the other part had said that he or she would only have sex if a condom was used.
It would be a huge loss to the world if we killed everyone who committed rape.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Agreed.

Not to mention that it's not just male-on-female rape either, although it's the most common form.

Perhaps this needs another thread(!?) - as an aside, there appears to be some controversy over "consent classes" at university.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[lilmarome]

"These consent lessons have good intentions," tweeted journalist Caroline Criado-Perez. "But I think they misread the problem. Rapists aren't ignorant. They just don't care."

I think she's ignorant about what kind of people can be rapists. I think many rapists do care but they are ignorant of what consent is, they're even ignorant of what rape is.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

"These consent lessons have good intentions," tweeted journalist Caroline Criado-Perez. "But I think they misread the problem. Rapists aren't ignorant. They just don't care."

I think she's ignorant about what kind of people can be rapists. I think many rapists do care but they are ignorant of what consent is, they're even ignorant of what rape is.

Not wishing to derail the thread but I think you'd have to clarify that.

I think it's more a case of being insensitive, whether initially unwittingly and/or - more often - knowingly (hence her "They just don't care" comment.)

Kindest regards,

James

 

[lilmarome]

Not wishing to derail the thread but I think you'd have to clarify that.

I think it's more a case of being insensitive, whether initially unwittingly and/or - more often - knowingly (hence her "They just don't care" comment.)

Kindest regards,

James

I don't really understand, if they don't know they are being insensitive then they might very well care about their partners well being. I don't think it more common at all that people knowingly commit rape, I think it's more common that rapists commit rape without being aware that what they are doing is wrong at all.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Not wishing to derail the thread but I think you'd have to clarify that.

I think it's more a case of being insensitive, whether initially unwittingly and/or - more often - knowingly (hence her "They just don't care" comment.)

Kindest regards,

James

I don't really understand, if they don't know they are being insensitive then they might very well care about their partners well being. I don't think it more common at all that people knowingly commit rape, I think it's more common that rapists commit rape without being aware that what they are doing is wrong at all.

I understand what you mean - you're implying that they don't realise perhaps because they think the victim "wants it" (sex).

The problem I have with this is that, after the first time, they're bound to find out that the victim didn't "want it", and - when they're in a similar situation where the perpetrator wants sex - they know what they're going to do is wrong. It's at this point that the journalist's comment applies: "They just don't care" - in other words, the perpetrator wants sex, regardless.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[lilmarome]

I understand what you mean - you're implying that they don't realise perhaps because they think the victim "wants it" (sex).

The problem I have with this is that, after the first time, they're bound to find out that the victim didn't "want it", and - when they're in a similar situation where the perpetrator wants sex - they know what they're going to do is wrong. It's at this point that the journalist's comment applies: "They just don't care" - in other words, the perpetrator wants sex, regardless.

Kindest regards,

James

The perpetrator is not bound to find out that the victim didn't want to have sex. What if the victim doesn't say anything about it afterwards or never meets the person again, and by just looking back the perpetrator might think "she didn't say no, so she must have wanted it" or that her trying to get away was just a fun game, he might even think that saying no was a game.

 

[SpecialFrog]

Dragan Glas, there is more nuance here than you seem to have think, which is why education on what consent means is actually useful.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

I understand what you mean - you're implying that they don't realise perhaps because they think the victim "wants it" (sex).

The problem I have with this is that, after the first time, they're bound to find out that the victim didn't "want it", and - when they're in a similar situation where the perpetrator wants sex - they know what they're going to do is wrong. It's at this point that the journalist's comment applies: "They just don't care" - in other words, the perpetrator wants sex, regardless.

Kindest regards,

James

The perpetrator is not bound to find out that the victim didn't want to have sex. What if the victim doesn't say anything about it afterwards or never meets the person again, and by just looking back the perpetrator might think "she didn't say no, so she must have wanted it" or that her trying to get away was just a fun game, he might even think that saying no was a game.

There would clearly be differences where it involves a stranger and someone known to the perpetrator/victim.

In the latter case it's unlikely that they wouldn't find out - unless the victim didn't say anything.

I realise I might be touching on your own circumstances here but, with all due respect, it's for the victim to make it clear that they didn't want it the previous time it happened and not this time either, particularly if the situation appears to be about to happen again. Otherwise, how is the perpetrator to change their behaviour, particularly if they otherwise care about the victim?

Even in the case of a stranger, I think it highly unlikely that a perpetrator would not find out - from talking/bragging about it to others - that what they did was wrong. If they continue to do this, there's certainly a case to be made that they're a serial rapist.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Dragan Glas, there is more nuance here than you seem to have think, which is why education on what consent means is actually useful.

Perhaps - I'm having difficulty with the idea that someone who cares about someone else would be so insensitive as to continue with unwanted sexual advances without being selfish.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[SpecialFrog]

Perhaps - I'm having difficulty with the idea that someone who cares about someone else would be so insensitive as to continue with unwanted sexual advances without being selfish.

I think a reasonable number of men are socialized to think things such as:
- men are entitled to sex from their wife / partner and that consent is not necessary in this context
- certain activities constitute tacit, irrevocable consent on the part of a woman
- trying to coerce women into doing sexual things they don't want to is not only okay but is expected

I agree that it is insensitive but not necessarily incongruous with caring about someone.

 

[thenexttodie]

Unsurprisingly, one of your apologetics links doesn't work.

If you were an honest person, you would just say something like "Hey this link doesn't work!" But you used the word "Unsurprisingly" as if I am the one who can't be trusted, inferring that I am always posting links which do not work. Which is not true.

I don't know why the link does not work here, but I can copy the first couple paragraphs here from the site





Answering Christian apologists, and the punishment for virgin-rape in the Bible!

By
Karim
(He is a new convert to Islam, from the Netherlands)







"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." Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NIV


This verse clearly speaks about the punishment for rape of a virgin girl, however not according to Sham Shamoun. This article refutes and exposes sham shamoun’s false claim that Deuteronomy 22:28-29 doesn’t talk about rape, his article can be found at http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/ot_and_rape.htm


Brother Sami Zaatril gave already a good reply to sham shamoun’s article before at:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/rebuttal_to_sam_shamoun_16.htm


This article proofs that brother Sami Zaatril is right and Sham Shamoun is wrong. At the end of this article you will see for your self how sham shamoun tried to deceive the readers with false statements and conclusions.



First let’s look at Genesis 34:1-7 , to see the similarity between these verses and deuteronomy 22:28-29.

Genesis 34:1-7 "Now Dinah the daughter of Leah, whom she had borne to Jacob, went out to see the women of the land. And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, the prince of the land, saw her, he seized (laqach) her and lay (shakab) with her and humiliated (anah) her. And his soul was drawn to Dinah the daughter of Jacob. He loved the young woman and spoke tenderly to her. So Shechem spoke to his father Hamor, saying, ‘Get me this girl for my wife.’ Now Jacob heard that he had defiled his daughter Dinah. But his sons were with his livestock in the field, so Jacob held his peace until they came. And Hamor the father of Shechem went out to Jacob to speak with him. The sons of Jacob had come in from the field as soon as they heard of it, and the men were indignant and very angry, because he had done an outrageous thing (n’balah) in Israel by lying with Jacob's daughter, for such a thing must not be done."

Genesis 34:1-7 clearly speaks about rape:




So If anyone wants to read it they could perhaps cut and past a section and then google it. I think the arguments are very weak but you can just sorta investigate it on your own if you like and then decide on your own. If you like.

 

[SpecialFrog]

So If anyone wants to read it they could perhaps cut and past a section and then google it. I think the arguments are very weak but you can just sorta investigate it on your own if you like and then decide on your own. If you like.

I have investigated on my own and posted my interpretation. You ignored it.

Here is a Jewish source agreeing that this passage is in fact talking about rape, though it claims that the obligation to marry was only on the attacker and not on the victim.

 

[thenexttodie]

I have investigated on my own and posted my interpretation. You ignored it.

I didn't ignore you're post at all, SpecialFrog. Actually after reading it I sat back and wondered "why the fuck did he post this?" Then I shook my head, laughed out loud and simply did not post anything.

 

[thenexttodie]

Here is a Jewish source agreeing that this passage is in fact talking about rape, though it claims that the obligation to marry was only on the attacker and not on the victim.

Oh look, you found a Jewish guy on the internet who disagrees with me. That must mean I'm wrong then!

 

[SpecialFrog]

Here is a Jewish source agreeing that this passage is in fact talking about rape, though it claims that the obligation to marry was only on the attacker and not on the victim.

Oh look, you found a Jewish guy on the internet who disagrees with me. That must mean I'm wrong then!

If you disagree with mainstream Jewish scholarship on the literal meaning of passages in Hebrew scripture then it probably does mean that you are wrong.

 

[thenexttodie]

I don't understand what you mean. Convictions and punishments are 2 different things. I don't think it is a good thing to defend the lives of people who commit rape. People like many if not all those we have here on this thread, think it's a good thing. Just like you do, I guess..

What SF and perhaps even you yourself are referring to is Deuteronomy 22:28-29. It's one of the books of the Old Testament which was written in Hebrew (and a small amount of Aramaic). This is basically how these verses were written, in every bible until probably about 40 years ago:

" 28 If a man find a damsel [that is] a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty [shekels] of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days."

Now people like those on this forum, who defend the lives of rapists, would like for these verses to convey an image to you of men hiding in a woods somewhere, waiting for virgins to walk by so they can jump out and rape them so they could marry them.

The Hebrew words Taphas meaning "to lay hold of" and Shabak "to lie with" are accurately portrayed in the 2 verses above.
There are many reasons why I don't think these verses are talking about rape, but I don't have time to explain them to you.

Here is a link giving the case for one of these reasons: http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/ot_and_rape.htm

And here is a link to probably the best attempted refutation I have seen (both are common arguments): http://www.answeringchristianity.com/karim/answering_apologists_and_exposing_rape.htm

So...you can read them both if you like and decide for yourself what you think. And investigate things further on your own. Fuck Everyone Else.

Adios!

[What I'm trying to tell you is that rape is not just done by monsters. Rape is not just committed by "men hiding in a woods" it's also done by the nicest people you will ever meet, your best friend, the guy who's always the first to respond when someone is sad or injured. Rape can also be to not wear a condom when the other part had said that he or she would only have sex if a condom was used.
It would be a huge loss to the world if we killed everyone who committed rape.

Let me be clear, I think that less than one percent of all rapes that have ever occured were done by men hiding in a woods.

If you have a "best friend" that always rapes you, and you're not sure what to do about it and your in a tiffy over what we should do about rapists and maybe they are nice people or whatever, then I can honestly tell you that you may as well just take a vacuum cleaner and hold it up to your head and suck your brains out. And then go flush them down the toilet, because they are obviously not doing you any good. That's about the only thing you can do. You can thank Sweden for that. All I can do is try to warn people not to end up like you.