jump to last post 1-9 of 9 discussions (66 posts)

why God's law said men could 'force' virgins...

  1. insanebutright profile image59
    insanebutrightposted 6 years ago

    Can anyone come up with a justification on why God allowed rape on virgin women in the bible? Read Duet ch 22 near the bottom.

    He was told to keep her as his wife afterward because he had "humbled" her. No punishment for the rapist.

    Could anyone come up with a moral reason for God to allow this?

    I came up with one. But you first.

    1. Shadesbreath profile image89
      Shadesbreathposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Because religions are written and interpreted by men.  Religion is regularly made a tool of power: to justify power, to define power, to give powers, and to bind the enthralled to he who wields power with Divine ordinance etc.

      Sex is a primary urge in the male human, and often individual women prefer to pick their partners (or to grow to adulthood before doing it), and this can be troublesome to a desirous man with power. So, religion is made to serve his desire easily enough.

      1. alternate poet profile image79
        alternate poetposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Not regularly - that is what it is all about, if it was the word of a god then it would be a male chauvinistic violent pig of a god

        1. Shadesbreath profile image89
          Shadesbreathposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          The only reason I qualified that statement is because, in theory, and in practice occasionally, albeit not for long, some religions are at least initially devised to create social order and give a common framework to a society, providing some important answers, a series of rituals to mark time and tradition, and to bind people as part of a larger community including rules that are underpinned by supernatural consequences.  It's the priests or shaman that corrupt it, or not.  At least that's what I've seen/read, etc., and come to understand.

          1. alternate poet profile image79
            alternate poetposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I think that was primitive religion rather than the organised religions since writing became the in-thing.

            When the Roman government official Paul re-wrote the christian religion to make it a trading religion he did it as a means of getting trade across borders etc - basically to do what diplomacy does today - nothing to do with religion at all at base.  He was just copying the idea from the eastern trade routes like the silk road where Buddhism provided all the safe stops along the way

            1. Aficionada profile image94
              Aficionadaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Paul was not a Roman government official at all.  Check your information.

              1. alternate poet profile image79
                alternate poetposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I think you will find he was a tax collector.  No more official than that.

                1. Aficionada profile image94
                  Aficionadaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Nope. Still wrong.

                  Prior to his conversion to the Christian faith, Paul (Saul) was a "rising star" in the Jewish religious establishment, carrying letters of introduction and recommendation to allow him to rout out the Christians in certain areas.  After his conversion, he was a missionary who practiced tentmaking as a trade to support himself.

                  You are probably thinking of either Zacchaeus or Matthew (one of the twelve disciples), both of whom actually were tax-collectors.  But even so, they were not Roman government officials by any stretch of the imagination.  Throughout the Roman Empire, tax-collecting was like purchasing a franchise, not like being employed by anyone.  Tax-collectors were independent businessmen who purchased from the Roman government the right to collect taxes, and they had to turn over a fixed amount of their take to the Roman government.

                  Paul was not one of them.

                  1. 0
                    china manposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    that is not the bible description that was drilled into me as a catholic.

            2. 0
              offensivetruthposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I like how these guys swallow any sort of history book except the bible, just because it makes big claims from a God who is against them.
              a Flood, a coming judgment, just too much for them to handle.

      2. insanebutright profile image59
        insanebutrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Or...
        If you take the stance that the bible is God's word, you'd have to find a moral justification for the rape allowance.

        So I've done just that.

        Perhaps women just don't like being loved for being intimacy objects. They would rather her intelligence or charitable deeds be respected, rather than meeting a biological need for respect.  But if she can't do something as honest as that, how do her other acts prove she is respectable? Maybe the issue is that she doesn't like to have to do SOMETHING FOR THE MALE to get respect. Maybe THAT'S why God allowed men to rape such women, to "humble" her.

        1. Shadesbreath profile image89
          Shadesbreathposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          No, horny men with power wrote verses to justify rape (polygamy) and whatever else, corrupting the purpose of religion so they could get a piece without having to answer to angry family and neighbors.  "Look, God said I could," as they point to the passage in the latest edition of the book.

          1. insanebutright profile image59
            insanebutrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Oh, you're saying that thinking I haven't thought of that already.
            Too bad. I have. The explanation I gave is something YOU haven't thought about.

        2. IzzyM profile image85
          IzzyMposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          You got a problem with women?

        3. ediggity profile image60
          ediggityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          But what you wrote is not GOD's word.

    2. Marisa Wright profile image92
      Marisa Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      If you read the Old Testament, you'll find lots of situations where horrible acts are advocated - genocide, rape, child sacrifice...

      Remember Jesus came along and said God was all about love, not hate.  I can never understand why, bearing in mind Jesus' teachings, fundamentalist Christians persist in swallowing the Old Testament whole instead of re-interpreting it with his philosophy in mind.

    3. Milla Mahno profile image60
      Milla Mahnoposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Cause he doesn't care I guess. Frankly I can to some extent understand male christians, but female chrstians are beyond my understanding - so much gender hate is in the babble...

    4. 0
      Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      ediggity is correct.
      Just more hate speech fuel against your own ambiguity.
      Until you actually understand Hebrew translations, you might want to join the other Mickey Mouse clubhouse folk.

      Congratulations!

      Whatever her name was, truly messed you up.

    5. Jane Bovary profile image88
      Jane Bovaryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      So...women should be prepared to be raped if they fail to service mens biological needs? And that would be just and right because it's woman's ego preventing her from putting out?

      Doesn't sound like a very sound moral justification to me. Try that one in a court of law.

    6. ceciliabeltran profile image84
      ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      well it wasn't G-d ofcourse, it was the patriarch who put it down as G-d's work.

      1. 0
        Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        `ello stranger!

        1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
          ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Hi there. I got your book. It's not yet there!

          1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
            ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            it takes forever these lulu guys

          2. 0
            Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            When did you order it?
            I didn't see it come across my 'desk'.
            8 days in total, i think.

            1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
              ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              What? It should be here already.

    7. qwark profile image60
      qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Insane:
      The god thing of the bible also gives men the right to rape baby girls.
      It's all there in the "good" book.

    8. qwark profile image60
      qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Why would this biblical god thing reward his killers with BABY GIRLS? It's all there to be read in the "bible."

    9. Aficionada profile image94
      Aficionadaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      In NASV, the word is "violated."

    10. pisean282311 profile image57
      pisean282311posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      it is simple ..religious books are not word of god but word of man who lived during those eras..

  2. ediggity profile image60
    ediggityposted 6 years ago

    Have you even read all of Deuteronomy?  Every verse in there is about how you should be stoned or die if you participate in inappropriate sexual acts. It doesn't say what you wrote at all.

  3. Haunty profile image85
    Hauntyposted 6 years ago

    I certainly hoped we wouldn't have to hear your pathetic idea of a 'moral reason'.

  4. Onusonus profile image87
    Onusonusposted 6 years ago

    The verse is congruent with Exodus 22: 16-17, If a man entices a maid that is not betrothed , and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.

    1. ediggity profile image60
      ediggityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      How is this even close to what the OP is talking about?  This verse says that if a dude sleeps with a girl who is not married, then he better try to make it right by asking her father for marriage, and if the dad refuses he must pay.

      1. Onusonus profile image87
        Onusonusposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Because it's not rape. He is misinterperting the verse.

        1. insanebutright profile image59
          insanebutrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          And 'enticing' her is supposed to 'humble' her?
          I think RAPE  humbles her, my friend.
          Those were two separate laws.

          1. Onusonus profile image87
            Onusonusposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Why then a few verses earlier (Deut 22:25-26) does he say that if a man forces himself on a woman he should be stoned to death and no fault should be found with the woman?

            1. insanebutright profile image59
              insanebutrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              That was talking about a MARRIED woman. "every" word of God is pure...pay close attention to them.

              1. Onusonus profile image87
                Onusonusposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                You are absolutely right but too bad he entrusted those words with fallable men. Plus There is always going to be a few interpertation problems when fixing 5000 year old words into modern language.

                1. insanebutright profile image59
                  insanebutrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  How else was he supposed to get his word put out? If it had to be through men, common sense says he can 'make sure' it is properly penned and translated and preserved, despite man's fallibility. Yes, if God didn't have anything to say or didn't want what he said to be CLEAR, he would've just left it up to man to figure it out from loose translations, rather than God making sure a perfect translation was made and the meaning literal, leaving no room for other interpretations: symbolic and metaphorical. And he'd make sure his Spirit beared witness to that book so people would know what translation to trust.

                  1. Onusonus profile image87
                    Onusonusposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    I agree, the only way to interpert the bible is through the witness of the Holy Spirit, this is why he made it that way, so people couldn't rely souly on logic and common sense. There has to be faith in the translation process. a few verses such as;
                    "God has chosen the weak things of the world to confound the wise," or,
                    "Surely your turning of things upside down will be estemed as the potters clay," or
                    lean not unto thy own understanding but trust in the Lord with all your heart..."
                    these illustrate the fact that true understanding of the scriptures comes by revelation through fasting and prayer, and not nessicarily a theological degree.

        2. ediggity profile image60
          ediggityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Oh Ok, then we are on the same page.  I think if he read the whole chapter he would understand a lot better.

  5. SpiritLeo profile image73
    SpiritLeoposted 6 years ago

    Men Men...

    We, women, don't have such headaches!!!

    1. ediggity profile image60
      ediggityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Yeah, you only have headaches when we want something.

      1. Onusonus profile image87
        Onusonusposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        lol

      2. SpiritLeo profile image73
        SpiritLeoposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Its our right!!! LOL

        1. ediggity profile image60
          ediggityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Yeah, yeah, story of my life.

        2. insanebutright profile image59
          insanebutrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Your right to make men suffer?

          All because you don't like to have to DO something to earn MAN'S respect: put out. It's all about respect allright, as you women say. The problem is, I've figured it out more in detail what you mean by respect: that you don't want to have to earn HIS.

          You know that's what you're doing, making men suffer. That's why you got to surround yourself with girlfriends and therapists who can assure you you're doing nothing wrong. The therapist will then tell you that your man's biological urges are an insecurity HE needs to fix. God slaps you and him in the face with a clever wink from omniscience: the-rapist (therapist)
          Rape was ordered long ago for people like you.

          1. Cagsil profile image61
            Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Men can always find other avenues for releasing their hormone issues, and raping a women is not an option.

            It's not about making anyone suffer? Give it a break.

            Men do not suffer if they don't get sex. If they do, it's only to their own pathetic ego. Thus, so what.

            1. insanebutright profile image59
              insanebutrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              What you just said PROVES my point.

              Who's the egotistical one?

              The man who actually has a legitimate biological need...

              Or the woman who's only need is egotistical: to not have to earn respect by meeting his need?

              1. Cagsil profile image61
                Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Sounds like bait and I'm not biting. You're one who likes to play on words and twist to suit your own personal agenda, instead of addressing the facts of the situation.

                Therefore, I will leave it simple for you to understand.

                Right to life and right to choice/right to choose is given to each person on this planet.

                Right to life - You are in control.
                Right to choose- You are in control of what happens in your life.

                Man and/or Woman, are equal. Period.

                One may not infringe upon another person's individual rights. Period.

                Woman chooses to not have sex with a man, regardless of reason, it is her RIGHT to make that CHOICE.

                The man will have to find some other way to release his hormones. PERIOD!

                Got it! Good! Have a great day!

          2. Shadesbreath profile image89
            Shadesbreathposted 6 years ago in reply to this



            Be a man, for yourself.  Chicks like that and will want to do dirty things to you.  It has NOTHING to do with anyone "having to DO something" to earn someone's respect.

            The only "suffering" a real man, a confident, kind, compassionate man has to endure, is that of sore muscles and some fingernail damage in rows along his back. 

            Chicks offer it up if you are worthy of respect for who you ARE, not who you are proving yourself to be for them or whatever twisted thing you have in your head as how it is supposed to work.  If women aren't trying to get with you, you need to figure out what's wrong with yourself, not what's wrong with them.

  6. Cagsil profile image61
    Cagsilposted 6 years ago

    Then, you've just proven "god" doesn't exist or isn't perfect as claimed. hmm

    1. qwark profile image60
      qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      ..of course "it" doesn't Cags, but scripture in the bible tells "believers" that "his" killers are rewarded with little girls to do with as they pls.
      ..damned pervert!...:-)

    2. 0
      Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      quark affirmed 'god' exists by engaging a self disputed probability. Thus making his pure and oh so perfect science fallible in himself.

      1. Cagsil profile image61
        Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Everyone is fallible. lol

  7. insanebutright profile image59
    insanebutrightposted 6 years ago

    I believe all sex is rape to a woman. She just likes to 'allow' the rape. I think this is the hidden mystery of women, revealed.
    This is why women have an 'emotional' need for 'respect' before sex... at least that's the actual reason she has that need, anyway.

    1. Aficionada profile image94
      Aficionadaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Garbage. Not worth dignifying any further. Goodbye.

      1. insanebutright profile image59
        insanebutrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Now you know why God said what he said.

        Goodbye.

  8. Faybe Bay profile image84
    Faybe Bayposted 6 years ago

    Isn't it against policy to have two threads by the same OP on the same subject or am I wrong?

  9. blondepoet profile image79
    blondepoetposted 6 years ago

    You are obsessed with all these forums on rape and rapists.
    I have a chill up my spine.
    There will be no further comments from me.

Closed to reply
 
working