- + New Debate
- Debate News
- About
- Debra AI More
frame
Best Great argument Content
-
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
@just_sayin
No. I am saying rape is an act of violence, therefore it is wrong and immoral.
Good to know.
1) The word rape is not used, even though it was just in the prior verses, instead a more neutral word is used, the word for 'take'. You have based an argument on a bad translation. In fact, if you look at other translations you see the error. For example Deuteronomy 22:28-29 in NLT translation:
The word "rape" is used in some translations like the NIV.
28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
So cherry picking translations can not bring a satisfying conclusion about as neither one of us are qualified to make such determinations arbitrarily. The entire context must be considered and established.
Arguments based on bad translations are not good arguments.
2) If this were rape, then passages that proceeds it would apply See Deuteronomy 22:25-26, explains what happens in the case of rape:“But if the man meets the engaged woman out in the country, and he rapes her, then only the man must die. 26 Do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no crime worthy of death. She is as innocent as a murder victim.
3) The passage, Deuteronomy 22:28-29, itself suggests that the sex is consensual. The phrase 'If they are discovered' strongly suggests this, if it were truly rape, then the man could be killed, however, to be completely accurate, in the OT, any crime that has as the maximum penalty - the death penalty, could be given a lesser sentence or punishment, except for murder.
Not necessarily. Not all rapes are violent and not all victims cry out for help. The only prerequisite for establishing rape mentioned is if the maid should cry out or not; which we all know isn't true. Or is that your argument, that rape is determined only in one way, if the victim cried out?
Meanwhile going back even further in the chapter to establish a more solid contextual foundation we realize sexual behavior in general that includes rape is being discussed. "If they are discovered" can have more applications then the just the one you suggest. A rapist and victim can be discovered and the participants remain rapist and victim. The realization that emotions are running high when a victim finds herself in this kind of extreme situation can cause women to react differently. Women have been known to forgive their assailants and have even entered relationships with them. Given the point in time that we're talking about the victim in a field could sense the isolation of her circumstance and simply submit in an effort to avoid any potential violence as well. Like an instinctual survival response. Remember this is a time where women were often referenced with the same frame of mind as when mentioning cattle to the extent her parents would have to keep proof of her virginity...Deuteronomy 22:
13 If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” 15 then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin. 16 Her father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels[b] of silver and give them to the young woman’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.
20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death.
So a rape in those days under your gods laws could hurt a women in many different ways. She in her situation may want to marry her rapist if for nothing else but to save herself from a life of despair and rejection. If that wasn't bad enough, add the possibility of single motherhood in such an unforgiving oppressive culture. It is in this context that the verses in question should be contemplated in. And not simply which translation best fits the narrative of choice.
I am not supporting rape, but supporting accurate biblical interpretation.
Commendable. However accurate biblical interpretation as I've just demonstrated appears to only condemn rape if the act violates the victims hymen and chooses not to marry her rapist. Well with one and one only exception, she cry out during her assault for help. But then if she does and isn't heard, then what? Also why speak of the female sex as "virgins" as that seems to be what the author is more concerned with; more so than the rape activity itself?
-
Should Marinara Be Legal?
Marinara is indeed very different than marijuana. Some differences:JulesKorngold said:
It's MY debate. The topic is MARINARA. Comply or rot in hell.RickeyHoltsclaw said:@JulesKorngold ; No it's not...Marijuana is the topic...stop the stup-idity.
1) 1 in 6 of those under 18 who use marijuana are addicted to it. Marinara, while tasty has not been found addictive.
2) Marijuana can damage the functioning of the brain and permanently lower IQs. Marinara has not been found to permanently damage one's brain, maybe appetite.
3) Marijuana affects reaction time, perception, and bodily movement which could result in driving accidents. While marinara has caused occasional heart burn, it has not impaired people's ability to move or drive.
4) People who use marijuana are more likely to have relationship problems, worse educational outcomes, lower career achievement, and reduced life satisfaction. Marinara has not been shown to make a person's life worse - maybe they get fat from the pasta they eat with the marinara, but not from the marinara itself.
So there are lots of differences between the two. So enjoy your marinara.
-
Is the United States in decline?
we can debate all we wont but i will prove why the USA needs TRUMP NOW! -
How were people in the Old Testament (before Jesus) saved from the "second death" in Hell?
-
Gay at birth?
I also encourage you to read the discussion too and you fully read and take it in you will find that not one the people mentioned have made any such argument that someone is born to gay or that there is a gay gene. We don't have to provide evidence for arguments we don't make.just_sayin said:
Jack,jack said:RickeyHoltsclaw said:LGBTQ is mental and spiritual illness. One "chooses" take another man's penis into his mouth.Hello Rickey:Yeah, one mans spiritual illness is another mans boner. Why do you hate freedom so??excon
If you have been following the discussion it is people like @Joeseph, @Factfinder, @MayCaesar, and @ZeusAres42 that seem to claim that sexual orientation is immutable and that if someone wants to change their sexual orientation they should not be allowed to try or get help in changing. I don't remember you asking why they hate freedom so much.
Again, the evidence shows that people are not born gay - that there is no gay gene, so-called genetic markers are not genetically determinate, that there is fluidity in sexual orientation with between 10- 20% of the population having changed their sexual orientation.
You will find however, someone making the argument here that someone can physically choose to be physically attracted to on person on one day and then choose to be physically attracted to another person the next day. Of course, there is no evidence for this, it's nowhere to be seen in update literature including the outdated ones he references, and it's not even a topic that is discussed these days by contemporary scientists as it's archaic,
and to mention how nonsensical it is. @jack
-
Are The Jews Worse Than The Muslims?
@Bogan ;Take a good look. This is Islam.
Take a good look in the mirror. This is an extreme half brain nit who tries to make out that all of an entire culture of people is the same as the extremists with in it.
It’s just the same as posting a picture of a half brain bogan with teeth missing and corks hanging from his and then saying Take a good look. This is Australia. But just as well only a few Australians are bogans.
Why do you have such a malicious bigoted bias mind that you have to judge a group of people as if they are all the same as the worst in the group. Your a disgusting example of what’s worst in man kind.
-
Gay at birth?
Something very obvious that I would like to insert in this discussion is that the question of what causes homosexuality is separate from the question of whether it is changeable at will. Even if homosexuality was purely environmental (which it very well might be), it still would not imply that it can be changed intentionally. Human psychology has incredible memory, and 90-year old people are still chiefly run by their childhood traumas. Someone who had a very traumatic confrontation with their parent when they were 5, may still experience painful flashbacks every time they enter a confrontation at the age of 95. They were not born with these flashbacks, but they are so deeply ingrained in their psychology that they might as well be an inherent part of their brain.
Changing one's behavior is difficult enough. Changing one's preferences is downright impossible without very serious and long inner work. Take someone who hates the taste of carrots and try to get them to love it - most likely will not happen. And changing disliking one vegetable to liking it is a billion times easier than changing being sexually attracted to one gender to another.
Lastly, I invite anyone who seriously believes that homosexuality can be changed into heterosexuality at will - conduct the opposite experiment. Pick a month and, assuming you are heterosexual, live it as if you were homosexual. Go on dates with guys (involving making out), share bed with them, watch gay porn... Then let us know how it went.
-
Is Religion a Mental Illness?
In my view religion is all about calming an internal anguish that can emerge when having the cognitive ability of comprehending an impending demise.
-
Did God(s) Create Humans or Did Humans Create God(s)?
@Factfinder
Your opponent has erected a wall against logical criticisms of his (mis)understanding of the underlying science. Here is what the "fine tuning" argument (the scientific one, not the religious nonsense masking as one) really is about.
Basically, we find that a number of properties of the Universe are strongly interlinking, in the sense that slightly changing one would require all other properties to change slightly as well, otherwise the whole construct breaks down. For instance, if the fine structure constant changed from ~1/137 to ~1/138, all other constants staying the same, then the Universe would change in very dramatic ways. However, if it changed to ~1/138 and other constants changed correspondingly, then everything would largely stay the same. It would come down to simple recalibration of values. It would be akin to replacing meters with inches and recalculating all other conversion ratios.
The meaning of this observation is that the Universe is a subject to the "butterfly effect": small changes in initial conditions lead to dramatic changes in the long-term behavior of the system. It is reasonable to expect that with slightly different initial conditions life as we know it today would be absolutely impossible. Our world as we see it today, indeed, appears to be "finely tuned" in this sense.
What it does not imply is that life would be impossible in principle with a different set of initial conditions, or that the Universe somehow would not be viable. Everything would be different, but within that different framework complex structures would arise, including self-replicating ones constituting life. There would be no humans on birds - but then even in our own Universe, chances are, life is abundant, but, for the most part, looks nothing like life on Earth.
The fallacy some religious folks commit when talking about these things is that it somehow implies that our Universe is special. It is not. I think I mentioned this example before: if you take a penny, throw it 1000 times in a row and record H for each head and T for each T, then the sequence that you get has the probability of occurring of exactly 2^(-1000), which is an unbelievably low number: if you write 1 in the numerator, the denominator will have over 330 zeroes in it, the number bigger than the number of all particles in the universe taken to the 4th power. Is it special though? Not really: it is as "special" as 2^1000-1 other possible sequences.
It would be special if you got the same sequence twice in a row... But that is a completely different situation. As far as I know, no one "rolled the Universe" twice and got the same outcome.
