There is nothing inherently wrong about rape, debate me

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@cheetahgod360 ; Anyone who would make such a statement is a perverse id-iot...how do you debate a perverse id-iot?

cheetahgod360 said:

My reasoning for this is that rape is a form of sexual intercourse. Sex is only meant to reproduce and NOT to consider the feelings of a side. The desire to reproduce is backed up by the need for pleasure, therefore we shouldn't consider the feelings of someone when involved in rape.

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

cheetahgod360 said:

My reasoning for this is that rape is a form of sexual intercourse. Sex is only meant to reproduce and NOT to consider the feelings of a side. The desire to reproduce is backed up by the need for pleasure, therefore we shouldn't consider the feelings of someone when involved in rape.

Rape is a crime because it is an act of violence.  Rape violates the sanctity of the victim.  Rape is about power and control.  It is not an act of mutual consent.  

The underlying logic is bad.  It seems as if the OP is suggesting that if we just redefine acts of violence in more favorable terms then it is OK to commit them.  If we said murder was OK, because it reduced global warming emissions, would it be OK to do it then?  If we said theft was OK, because it was giving to the poor and needy, would it still not be wrong?  The interests of the victim are ignored by the OP, and in so doing, they are dehumanized.  Their rights as an individual are ignored.  They are considered as something less than human, and only what they can contribute to some evolutionary goal is considered.

Not sure why you brought up the evolutionary angel but the idea actually can be a result of religious dogma...

Deuteronomy 22:28- 29 “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.”

Seems that dehumanizes women along the same lines.

One prevalent idea in skeptical circles is that the God of the Old Testament is cruel and condones practices that are immoral. Each example that skeptics have provided to prove this thesis, however, has been shown to be false. We see time and again that the God of the Old Testament is the same God of love that we observe in the life and personality of Jesus Christ. One passage that is incorrectly used to impugn God’s character is Deuteronomy 22:28-29. Moses wrote:

If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.

According to the skeptic, these verses teach that a man who rapes a woman gets to have her as his wife. The skeptic then demands that any God who would reward a rapist with the woman he rapes is wicked and immoral. Thus the God of the Bible cannot be the loving God Christians say He is.

The reason the skeptic at first glance seems to have something of a case is simply because most English translations of these verses do not accurately render the original intent of the Hebrew. To be fair, this issue causes even those who are not skeptically minded some difficulty. When most English speakers hear that a person has “seized” another person, we necessarily jump to the conclusion that it is a violent action against the will of the other person. This problem has been aggravated by the fact that some translations inaccurately and mistakenly translate the word as “rape.” The truth is, however, the Hebrew word in this case translated “seizes” (tapas) can mean many things. Here are some examples of the way it is translated in Deuteronomy 22:28 in several different English translations:

• “lay hold on her” (ASV)
• “taking her” (DRA)
• “and takes her” (NLV/NAB)
• “and hath caught her” (YLT)

By looking at other passages that use the word, we can see that the word tapas sometimes has nothing to do with force, and therefore nothing to do with rape. As Greg Bahnsen has written:

The Hebrew word tapas (“lay hold of her,” emphasized above) simply means to take hold of something, grasp it in hand, and (by application) to capture or seize something. It is the verb used for “handling” the harp and flute (Gen. 4:21), the sword (Ezek. 21:11; 30:21), the sickle (Jer. 50:16), the shield (Jer. 46:9), the oars (Ezek. 27:29), and the bow (Amos 2:15). It is likewise used for “taking” God’s name (Prov. 30:9) or “dealing” with the law of God (Jer. 2:8). Joseph’s garment was “grasped” (Gen. 39:12; cf. 1 Kings 11:30), even as Moses “took” the two tablets of the law (Deut. 9:17)… [T]he Hebrew verb “to handle, grasp, capture” does not in itself indicate anything about the use of force (italics in orig.).

In truth, we use English words in this way on a regular basis. For instance, a brief look at the English word “take” illustrates the point. You can take someone’s cookie, or take a person’s wife, or take a bride to be your wife. The idea of force is not inherent in the word at all. If you take a person in your arms, what have you done? Or if a young man takes a young woman to be his wife, is there force involved? No. Also, think about the English word “hold.” You can take hold of something in a number of ways. We often say that a woman will hold the child in her arms, or a bridegroom takes a bride to “have and to hold.” The Hebrew word tapas is acting in exactly the same way as the English words “hold” and “take” are.

In addition, it is clearly evident from the immediate context of Deuteronomy 22 that rape is not being discussed in verses 28-29. We know that for two primary reasons. First, verses 25-27 give a clear instance in which rape is being discussed. In that case, a man raped a woman, she “cried out” (v. 27), but she was in the country and no one was there to help her. The text says that the man who committed the crime “shall die” (v. 25), but the Israelites were supposed to “do nothing to the young woman” since “there is in the young woman no sin worthy of death” (v. 26). It is of great interest that in this clear case of rape, the text uses a completely different word. The word translated “forces her” in verse 25 is the Hebrew word chazaq and yet in verse 28, the verb has been intentionally changed to tapas (see Shamoun, 2015). Second, the natural reading of verses 28-29 makes it evident that both parties are guilty of at least some of the blame. Notice that at the end of verse 28 the text says, “and they are found out.” When the passage discusses the obvious case of rape, the text specifically only mentions the man in verse 25 when it says “then only the man who lay with her,” and conspicuously leaves out any indication of “they” being involved in the sin. Dr. Bahsen compares Deuteronomy 22:28-29 to Exodus 22:16, which reads, “If a man entices a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies with her, he shall surely pay the bride-price for her to be his wife” (1992). Notice that in this verse in Exodus, there is no force and both parties shoulder some of the guilt.

The practical value of God’s instruction in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is easy to see. A man has sexual intercourse with a young woman who is not betrothed to anyone. There is no force involved, and it is not rape. But their action has been discovered. Now, who in the land of Israel wanted to marry a young girl who has not kept herself pure? The man cannot walk away from his sin. He has put the young woman in a very difficult life situation, in which there would be few (or no) other men who would want to marry her. Since it was often the case that women had an extremely difficult time financially without the help of a husband, this would be even more devastating to the young woman. God holds both the parties accountable, instructing them to get married and stay together, both suffer the shame, and work through the difficulties that they have brought on themselves. Nothing could be more moral, loving, and wise than these instructions. Once again, the skeptical charge against God’s love is without foundation.

end quote

It appears that once again, your feelings toward God, have caused you to make a false accusation.  In all seriousness, @FactFinder, talk to someone about your anger toward God.  It is not healthy.

“Suppose a man has intercourse with a young woman who is a virgin but is not engaged to be married. If they are discovered, 29 he must pay her father fifty pieces of silver. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he may never divorce her as long as he lives.

 “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. 

 “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. 

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?

1. There can be multiple paths towards achieving the same goal, and some of those path may achieve or not achieve other goals. In practice, it is very rare for a living organism to have a singular goal. For example, suppose you have a choice between raping someone, and having consensual sex with them. The latter option comes with some benefits that the former option lacks, such as the possibility of forming a strong emotional bond with the person, having a more pleasant sex (for both parties) - and, let us not forget the elephant in the room, not being thrown in jail. I would also argue that psychologically employing coercion in order to achieve one's goal is highly suboptimal and reinforces the vision according to which the world is not on your side, but is against you, and the best way to navigate it is to try to subdue it.
2. The idea that the purpose of sex is procreation seems fallacious to me, since nature does not know what a "purpose" is. Humans assign purpose to different things. One could argue that evolutionary processes strongly incentivize procreation, and sex is the only means of executing that - however, that does not imply that sex cannot be used for different purpose. Much like humans were conditioned to like sugar because of its nutritional importance, yet nowadays many humans eat sugary cheesecakes purely for pleasure (and, actually, to the detriment of their health).
3. You make a claim about inherent wrongfulness of rape (or lack of it), but all of your arguments reference specific aspects of it such as "purpose". When talking about inherent property of something, it seems to make sense to only refer to its attributes that are completely independent of one's subjective perspective, and one's goal is certainly subjective intrinsically.

MayCaesar said:

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.

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:

@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.  

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.

Preparations (verses 1–6)

In verses 1 and 2, Yahweh reminded Moses to take revenge on the Midianites as instructed in Numbers 25:16–18, as his last act before his death.[1][3] Accordingly, Moses instructed a thousand men of each of the Twelve Tribes of Israel – 12,000 in total, under Phinehas' leadership – to attack Midian.[2]

War (7–13)

The Israelite soldiers are narrated to have killed all Midianite men, including the five kings, as well as the sorcerer Balaam.[2] According to verse 49, the Israelites themselves suffered zero casualties.[2] All Midianite towns and camps were burnt;[11] all Midianite women, children and livestock were deported as captives[2] to the "camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho", where Moses and Eleazar received them.[2]

Killing of captive children and non-virgin women (14–18)

Moses was angry that the soldiers had left all women alive, saying: "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to Yahweh in the Peor incident, so a plague struck Yahweh's people. Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."[15][11]

Ritual purification (19–24)

Next, Moses and Eleazar instructed the soldiers to ritually cleanse and purify themselves, the captives and all objects they had over a period of seven days. Objects mentioned are the clothes, all objects of leather, goat hair and wood, and all metal objects, specifying that all fireproof objects had to be cleansed by both fire and water, the rest only by water.[1][3]

Division of spoils of war (25–54)edit

The plunder from the Midianite campaign was "675,000 sheep, 72,000 cattle, 61,000 donkeys and 32,000 women who had never slept with a man."[2] Yahweh instructed Moses and Eleazar to divide these spoils according to a 1:1 ratio between the Israelite soldiers on the one hand, and the Israelite civilians on the other. Yahweh demanded a 0.2% share of the soldiers' half of the spoils for himself; this tribute would be given to him via the Levites, who were responsible for the care of Yahweh's tabernacle. Some of the Midianite golden jewellery plundered during the war (combined weight: about 418 pounds/190 kilograms[15]) was also offered as a gift to Yahweh "to make atonement for ourselves before Yahweh".[15][2]

POOR OLE RICKY ANDJUST SAYIN CHICKENED OUT OF A DEBATE ON BIBLICAL SLAVERY AFTER LYING AND SAYING THEY WOULD DEBATE IT ......

ISNT CHRISTIAN " MORALITY WONDERFUL"?

KEEP WOMEN CAPTIVES AND "ENJOY THEM" SAYS THE GOD RICKY AND JUST SAYIN CRAWL TO .....

More Murder Rape and Pillage (Deuteronomy 20:10-14)

As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace.  If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor.  But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town.  When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town.  But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder.  You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

What kind of God approves of murder, rape, and slavery?

A MAN AFTER RAPING A WOMAN MUST MARRY HER SAYS THE CHRISTIAN GOD ......HOW DELIGHTFUL FOR THE VICTIM 

4) Laws of Rape (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NAB)

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father.  Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

What kind of lunatic would make a rape victim marry her attacker?  Answer: God.

RAPE VICTIMS WHO DONT CRY OUT LOUD ENOUGH MUST BE STONED TO DEATH AS ACCORDING TO GODS LOGIC THEY MUST HAVE GOT PLEASURE FROM THE ACT 

5) Death to the Rape Victim (Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB)

If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.