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

1. 58

   insanebutrightposted 13 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.

   report
   1. 79

      Shadesbreathposted 13 years agoin 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.

      report
      1. 67

         alternate poetposted 13 years agoin 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

         report
         1. 79

            Shadesbreathposted 13 years agoin 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.

            report
            1. 67

               alternate poetposted 13 years agoin 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

               report
               1. 82

                  Aficionadaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

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

                  report
                  1. 67

                     alternate poetposted 13 years agoin reply to this

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

                     report
                     1. 82

                        Aficionadaposted 13 years agoin 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.

                        report
                        1. 0

                           china manposted 13 years agoin reply to this

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

                           report
               2. 0

                  offensivetruthposted 13 years agoin 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.

                  report
      2. 58

         insanebutrightposted 13 years agoin 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.

         report
         1. 79

            Shadesbreathposted 13 years agoin 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.

            report
            1. 58

               insanebutrightposted 13 years agoin 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.

               report
         2. 87

            IzzyMposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            You got a problem with women?

            report
         3. 61

            ediggityposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            But what you wrote is not GOD's word.

            report
   2. 87

      Marisa Wrightposted 13 years agoin 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.

      report
   3. 60

      Milla Mahnoposted 13 years agoin 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...

      report
   4. 0

      Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin 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.

      report
   5. 86

      Jane Bovaryposted 13 years agoin 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.

      report
   6. 66

      ceciliabeltranposted 13 years agoin reply to this

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

      report
      1. 0

         Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         `ello stranger!

         report
         1. 66

            ceciliabeltranposted 13 years agoin reply to this

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

            report
            1. 66

               ceciliabeltranposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               it takes forever these lulu guys

               report
            2. 0

               Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin reply to this

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

               report
               1. 66

                  ceciliabeltranposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  What? It should be here already.

                  report
   7. 61

      qwarkposted 13 years agoin 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.

      report
   8. 61

      qwarkposted 13 years agoin 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."

      report
   9. 82

      Aficionadaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      In NASV, the word is "violated."

      report
   10. 63

       pisean282311posted 13 years agoin reply to this

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

       report
2. 61

   ediggityposted 13 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.

   report
3. 75

   Hauntyposted 13 years ago

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

   report
4. 0

   Onusonusposted 13 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.

   report
   1. 61

      ediggityposted 13 years agoin 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.

      report
      1. 0

         Onusonusposted 13 years agoin reply to this

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

         report
         1. 58

            insanebutrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

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

            report
            1. 0

               Onusonusposted 13 years agoin 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?

               report
               1. 58

                  insanebutrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

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

                  report
                  1. 0

                     Onusonusposted 13 years agoin 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.

                     report
                     1. 58

                        insanebutrightposted 13 years agoin 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.

                        report
                        1. 0

                           Onusonusposted 13 years agoin 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.

                           report
                           1. 61

                              qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                              Onusonus:
                              Why is it that you only study fictional works?
                              It is obvious to a student of "life" that you lack a well rounded education.
                              To one who has been a scholar in the field of religious history, I find what you have to offer is religiously trite and extremely bigoted.
                              You have nothing of import to offer....just an opinion.
                              Why bother?

                              report
                              1. 0

                                 Onusonusposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                 It is a common liberal tactic to attack the character of those with whom you disagree, when you havn't a leg to stand on.

                                 report
                                 1. 0

                                    Onusonusposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                    Oh, and congratulations on being so smart, and superior to me. I feel so inadiquate being in your presence.
                                    It's almost as if I should be denied my God given right to freedom of speech when clearly you know it all.

                                    report
                                    1. 61

                                       qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                       Naw, I respect that right.
                                       You go right ahead and play with the "truths" you find in fiction.
                                       We who have done our homework can seperate the "wheat from the chaff."
                                       You provide an occassional good chuckle.  :-)

                                       report
                                    2. 0

                                       Onusonusposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                       I don't have to "Play with the truth" when it has already been given to me from the source of all truths. You see there are few, if any, people who understand any part of the philosophies formulated by me which, right or wrong, answer, to my great disappointment, the reason for our existence.

                                       report
                                       1. 61

                                          qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                          Hahaha...you plagerize comments from my profile?
                                          No quotation marks used? you are a thief!...but a funny thief...lol
                                          You have now been entered on my list of those who are not worthy of responses.
                                          lmao!

                                          report
         2. 61

            ediggityposted 13 years agoin 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.

            report
5. 65

   SpiritLeoposted 13 years ago

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

   report
   1. 61

      ediggityposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah, you only have headaches when we want something.

      report
      1. 0

         Onusonusposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         

         report
      2. 65

         SpiritLeoposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Its our right!!! LOL

         report
         1. 61

            ediggityposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Yeah, yeah, story of my life.

            report
         2. 58

            insanebutrightposted 13 years agoin 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.

            report
            1. 73

               Cagsilposted 13 years agoin 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.

               report
               1. 58

                  insanebutrightposted 13 years agoin 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?

                  report
                  1. 73

                     Cagsilposted 13 years agoin 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!

                     report
            2. 79

               Shadesbreathposted 13 years agoin 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.

               report
6. 73

   Cagsilposted 13 years ago

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

   report
   1. 61

      qwarkposted 13 years agoin 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!...:-)

      report
   2. 0

      Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin 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.

      report
      1. 73

         Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Everyone is fallible.

         report
7. 58

   insanebutrightposted 13 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.

   report
   1. 82

      Aficionadaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Garbage. Not worth dignifying any further. Goodbye.

      report
      1. 58

         insanebutrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Now you know why God said what he said.
         
         Goodbye.

         report
8. 68

   Faybe Bayposted 13 years ago

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

   report
9. 69

   blondepoetposted 13 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.

   report