- + New Debate
- Debate News
- About
- Debra AI More
frame
Best Fallacy Content
-
There is nothing inherently wrong about rape, debate me
Well, this is disappointing. I thought, "Wow, finally someone new with original thinking and insightful arguments came to this website! Let us debate!" And this is his response. Ah well.cheetahgod360 said:
-
There is nothing inherently wrong about rape, debate me
Good summary. Even prisoners of war were not allowed to be raped. Sex always had to be in a marriage setting and could not be compelled.RickeyHoltsclaw said:@Joeseph ; Why not study and practice discernment as opposed to listening to your fellow demonic atheists who are headed to de-ath in He-ll as you?Deuteronomy 22:28-29 are the ones that deal with rape (verses 25–27). The law has already prescribed the death penalty for that crime. Why would verses 28–29 address rape again and, in so doing, change the penalty? Obviously, different crimes are in view.
2) Exodus 22:16 is a parallel law: “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.” No force is involved, only seduction. It’s a case of consensual sex and requires the same penalty as prescribed in Deuteronomy 22: the man pays a fine and marries the girl he slept with.
3) In the wording of Deuteronomy 22:28, the penalty is enforced if “they are discovered.” The fact that both of them are “discovered” indicates the consensual nature of the sexual act. The condition that “they” (plural) are found out makes no sense in the case of rape. Thus, this law covers a consensual tryst. A man who seduces a young woman, sleeps with her, and then expects to avoid all responsibility is thwarted in his plan. God instructs the couple to get married and stay married.
4) There are two distinct Hebrew words used in the same passage. In Deuteronomy 22:25, the word chazaq is translated “rapes.” But in verse 28 is a completely different verb (taphas), translated “seizes” in the ESV and “has intercourse with” in the NLT. The different verbs suggest different behaviors.
Critics of the Bible also point to Numbers 31, in which Moses tells his fighting men that “the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves” (Numbers 31:18 NLT). Critics wrongly assume that the captive women were to be raped. Rape is never mentioned in the passage. The soldiers were commanded to purify themselves and their captives (verse 19). Rape would have violated this command (see Leviticus 15:16-18). The women who were taken captive are never referred to as sexual objects. Did the captive women eventually marry some of the Israelites? Yes, probably. Is there any indication that rape or sex slavery was forced upon the women? Absolutely not.
-
There is nothing inherently wrong about rape, debate me
@cheetahgod360 ;To any viewers I will only be debating with 2 people maximum.
You may as well debate with your 2 favorite people like you and your self which of course will be a mass debate. And thats if you can find them because it must be really dark up the but hole thats yours.
-
Why Can't 1.8 Billion Muslims Destroy Israel?
@JulesKorngold
It's not about gods or divine providence. Israel made wise choices when provided with opportunity and Gaza didn't. Palestinians keep listening to Arabs who don't want them in their countries. At some point they need to be held accountable for their own choices. I believe if they had adopted the idea that if Israel survives, we do too, they'd be in a much better situation right now.
-
What if Your a Black Gay Muslim Woman?
@RickeyHoltsclawRickeyHoltsclaw said:@Barnardot ; Conservative "Whites" won't murder you, they'll pity you as a lesbian who is spiritually ill and need of Jesus. Homosexuality - Lesbianism - Transexualism are the product of mental and spiritual illness. If you address something to me personally, please use @RickeyHoltsclaw as your quote does not notify me of your atheistic, demonic, idiocy.
@Barnardot ; Conservative "Whites" won't murder you, they'll pity you as a lesbian who is spiritually ill and need of Jesus. Homosexuality - Lesbianism - Transexualism are the product of mental and spiritual illness. If you address something to me personally, please use @RickeyHoltsclaw as your quote does not notify me of your atheistic, demonic, idiocy.
Your idiot god will kill them in the second death and you cheer that so don't pretend you wouldn't do as the voices in your head command and kill the infidel. You've already admitted to your disgusting abuse on innocents in Houston. The irony is you like to kneel before the crotch of your masculine fairytale deity.
-
There is nothing inherently wrong about rape, debate me
@Factfinder
I identify as Chaotic Neutral, so I will draw my morals from the most objective source out there: Captain Jack Sparrow. I do not need ten commandments as just one will suffice: "Where's the bloody rum?!" -
There is nothing inherently wrong about rape, debate me
@MayCaesar
Oh, you also think that there is no reason to consider impact of one's positions on other individuals without god? Digging yourself in a deep hole here, I see.
Imagine, guys, tomorrow god showing up and saying, "I am leaving, folks. No more objective morals for you: live your lives without me". We will need to survive a short zombie apocalypse!
Add to that the irony of his "objective morals" position he thinks is supernaturally delivered was scribed by humans in reality and given to his religion by human hands.
-
There is nothing inherently wrong about rape, debate me
Oh, you also think that there is no reason to consider impact of one's positions on other individuals without god? Digging yourself in a deep hole here, I see.just_sayin said:
@MayCaesar, leave it to you to miss the point I made. I have repeatedly pointed out that atheism leads to the logical conclusion of the OP. When an objective moral source is denied, then individuals or groups will conclude that what they want is the greatest good, no matter how that impacts another individual or group. Without an objective source of good, you can't really recognize what is evil. Thank you, once again, for making my point for me. I am loving this debate topic!!! - it is spotlighting the inherent problems of an atheist moral system.
I find it hilarious, you are attacking the guy who says rape is wrong and defends moral absolutes, while ignoring the ramifications of the logical conclusions of a non-objective moral system. That is so you, May. It speaks volumes.
Imagine, guys, tomorrow god showing up and saying, "I am leaving, folks. No more objective morals for you: live your lives without me". We will need to survive a short zombie apocalypse! -
There is nothing inherently wrong about rape, debate me
The values and objectives is dependent. I don’t care about the rights, but it simply depends on what YOUR goal is. To your goal the rape victim’s interests are more important. But to me, if the rapist wins, he/she wins. If the rape victim gets their way, they won. I don’t care about their values, I only look at the aftermath. So let me repeat it to you, values importance depends on situation. In a neutral situation, the variables are neutral as well.cheetahgod360 said:@just_sayin
Cool.
Most atheists don’t like “acts of violence” because they too have the drive that stopped cavemen from killing each other. If you haven’t out what that is, it’s called morality. It can be in their own view of morality that’s far less than the Christian moral view but anything that has emotion usually has morality to some degree. Including me, I just don’t let it blind me. And that’s the reason why atheists don’t like rapists either.The values and objectives is dependent. I don’t care about the rights, but it simply depends on what YOUR goal is. To your goal the rape victim’s interests are more important. But to me, if the rapist wins, he/she wins. If the rape victim gets their way, they won. I don’t care about their values, I only look at the aftermath. So let me repeat it to you, values importance depends on situation. In a neutral situation, the variables are neutral as well.
You are a gold mine of sound bites!!!! I wish more people were on the site. You are essentially arguing that might makes right. I'm not accusing you of being Hitler, and I am using it as an analogy. In an atheistic evolutionary view, Hitler did nothing wrong in killing Jews, because it accomplished his goal. That's what the view you have championed for rationally concludes. When there is no objective moral source then what is right or wrong becomes one individual or group vs another individual or group. The interest of the victim is not considered, because in atheistic evolutionary thought the individual or group is not created in the image of God, but just an obstacle or tool to use to accomplish one's desires.
This kind of moral foundation is far from the notion of do unto others as you would have done unto you and 'Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.'. Your fellow atheists are so mad with you right now, because you are saying the quiet part out loud. Turn up the volume!!!! -
There is nothing inherently wrong about rape, debate me
@MayCaesar, leave it to you to miss the point I made. I have repeatedly pointed out that atheism leads to the logical conclusion of the OP. When an objective moral source is denied, then individuals or groups will conclude that what they want is the greatest good, no matter how that impacts another individual or group. Without an objective source of good, you can't really recognize what is evil. Thank you, once again, for making my point for me. I am loving this debate topic!!! - it is spotlighting the inherent problems of an atheist moral system.MayCaesar said:
This is a pretty good argument for Christians being the least moral people in the world. That they think that there is no good reason to be against rape other than the word of some celestial creature say a lot.just_sayin said:
Again, I want to give you a bullhorn so that others can hear you. Most of the atheists on this site would agree that there is no objective morality, but would get uncomfortable with the logical conclusion - that acts of violence are OK. They cling to a religious morality that their view does not support. Their moral values are borrowed from a system they reject. If they were logically consistent, they would be pro-rape also.
I find it hilarious, you are attacking the guy who says rape is wrong and defends moral absolutes, while ignoring the ramifications of the logical conclusions of a non-objective moral system. That is so you, May. It speaks volumes.
