Pride and Hubris
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-09-2013, 11:54 PM
RE: Pride and Hubris
excubitor Wrote:There is no indication that they were raped. In fact we know from other passages that they were married and the men were committed to care for them.

Lack of free informed consent is what makes it rape. Since most marriages were arranged or forced regardless of weather your tribe was being conquered or you were being sold to a neighbor, I think it's safe to conclude that our concept of rape is interchangeable with their concept of "marriage".

You can lead a theist to reason, but, you cannot make him think.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes NoSkyDaddy's post
30-09-2013, 12:52 AM
RE: Pride and Hubris
(29-09-2013 01:50 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(29-09-2013 05:59 AM)excubitor Wrote:  There is no indication that they were raped. In fact we know from other passages that they were married and the men were committed to care for them.

So you're saying these women wanted their men and children killed so they could just take up with the people who destroyed them?

You're saying they wanted this?

You're saying it wss ok because they were cared for and 'married' the men?

You're saying from the beginnig when these righteous men of god, laid these women down, splayed their legs open and entered them -- they (the women) wanted it? It wasn't rape?!

Excubitor didn't say any of that.

He said, "There is no indication that they were raped. In fact we know from other passages that they were married and the men were committed to care for them."

If you want to attack him for saying what he said that's fine. But don't do it by making a list of things he didn't say, and say he said them and then use that to attack him. That's bad argumentation.

Look at post 31 for a good argument against what Excubitor actually said.

Vosur, Anjele, Hanoff.....have you learned nothing in my absence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-09-2013, 03:51 AM
RE: Pride and Hubris
(29-09-2013 11:54 PM)NoSkyDaddy Wrote:  
excubitor Wrote:There is no indication that they were raped. In fact we know from other passages that they were married and the men were committed to care for them.

Lack of free informed consent is what makes it rape. Since most marriages were arranged or forced regardless of weather your tribe was being conquered or you were being sold to a neighbor, I think it's safe to conclude that our concept of rape is interchangeable with their concept of "marriage".
seeing this has been endorsed as a"good argument" against what I stated then I will respond to this post and not to the utterly bad argument that mommysboys put forward which was an utter joke.
I deny that the scripture condones rape in any context whatsoever. Deut 22:23-26 specifically condemns rape and gives the death penalty to rapists. I also deny that the scripture condones forced marriages. It permits them in Deut 21. Every civilisation until modern times has had a custom of raping the women at every town and city. These women were violated and discarded.

In Deut 21 the wise commandment moderates the lust of the conquering Israelites forbidding them to rape and commanding them to bring them home to meet the parents. The conquering male then had to make the woman look ugly by cutting off her hair, then had to listen to her wail and holler for her dead parents for a full month, and only then could he marry her. By then his passions would have cooled down. Hate to break it to you but not many men want to marry someone who hates your guts. To marry someone you have to provide for them all your life and live with them. In fact the scripture says that the woman fails to delight the man then he has to let her go. So the woman has many ways in one month to make herself undelightful if she finds her prospective husband unappealing.

When we dig into the commandments and laws given to Ancient Israel we find that by contrast the treatment of women conquered by Israel was exceptionally good as compared to the treatment of women conquered by other nations.

Even so, nobody is suggesting that the commandments of Israel are the epitome and model of marriage. If it were then why would we need Christ to come and teach us about marriage. Why would we need the church to teach us how marriage was intended to be from the beginning?
What amazes me is how atheists focus on the very worst interpretation of the warts and all accounts of ancient Israel, and entirely neglect the ultimate and epitome of marriage described by Christ and the apostle Paul. If an animal wants a female mate it just goes and takes it. As atheists that is your standard. As we are animals in your eyes with survival of the fittest why can't we just go out and take whatever woman we want to perpetuate our genes?

The reason is that you have social mores, most of which have come from centuries of our ancestors living out the principles of marriage outlined in the New Testament.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-09-2013, 04:15 AM
RE: Pride and Hubris
(30-09-2013 03:51 AM)excubitor Wrote:  The reason is that you have social mores, most of which have come from centuries of our ancestors living out the principles of marriage outlined in the New Testament.

I'm sure at least some of the mothers of the virgins probably told their daughters stories about how they themselves were abducted/traded from another tribe. Back in the day, this is how you brought genetic diversity into your tribe. There is a little truth to the stories of caveman finding a wife, clubbing her unconscious, and dragging her back to the cave by her hair.

Brutal by todays standards yes, but taking young women from a another tribe was a very effective technique which enhanced your own tribes survivability. What good would it do humanity to have 20th century morality back in the old old testament if doing so caused humanity to die out?

Vosur, Anjele, Hanoff.....have you learned nothing in my absence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-09-2013, 04:16 AM
RE: Pride and Hubris
(30-09-2013 03:51 AM)excubitor Wrote:  seeing this has been endorsed as a"good argument" against what I stated then I will respond to this post and not to the utterly bad argument that mommysboys put forward which was an utter joke.
I deny that the scripture condones rape in any context whatsoever. Deut 22:23-26 specifically condemns rape and gives the death penalty to rapists. I also deny that the scripture condones forced marriages. It permits them in Deut 21. Every civilisation until modern times has had a custom of raping the women at every town and city. These women were violated and discarded.

In Deut 21 the wise commandment moderates the lust of the conquering Israelites forbidding them to rape and commanding them to bring them home to meet the parents. The conquering male then had to make the woman look ugly by cutting off her hair, then had to listen to her wail and holler for her dead parents for a full month, and only then could he marry her. By then his passions would have cooled down. Hate to break it to you but not many men want to marry someone who hates your guts. To marry someone you have to provide for them all your life and live with them. In fact the scripture says that the woman fails to delight the man then he has to let her go. So the woman has many ways in one month to make herself undelightful if she finds her prospective husband unappealing.

When we dig into the commandments and laws given to Ancient Israel we find that by contrast the treatment of women conquered by Israel was exceptionally good as compared to the treatment of women conquered by other nations.

Even so, nobody is suggesting that the commandments of Israel are the epitome and model of marriage. If it were then why would we need Christ to come and teach us about marriage. Why would we need the church to teach us how marriage was intended to be from the beginning?
What amazes me is how atheists focus on the very worst interpretation of the warts and all accounts of ancient Israel, and entirely neglect the ultimate and epitome of marriage described by Christ and the apostle Paul. If an animal wants a female mate it just goes and takes it. As atheists that is your standard. As we are animals in your eyes with survival of the fittest why can't we just go out and take whatever woman we want to perpetuate our genes?

The reason is that you have social mores, most of which have come from centuries of our ancestors living out the principles of marriage outlined in the New Testament.

This is easily one of the dumbest and most ignorantly offensive things I've ever seen a theist write on this site, and I've been here long enough to remember Egor...

I'll give this a proper and vetted rebuttal when I have more time at home.

[Image: qce9oP7.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-09-2013, 04:30 AM (This post was last modified: 30-09-2013 04:37 AM by excubitor.)
RE: Pride and Hubris
(30-09-2013 04:16 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(30-09-2013 03:51 AM)excubitor Wrote:  seeing this has been endorsed as a"good argument" against what I stated then I will respond to this post and not to the utterly bad argument that mommysboys put forward which was an utter joke.
I deny that the scripture condones rape in any context whatsoever. Deut 22:23-26 specifically condemns rape and gives the death penalty to rapists. I also deny that the scripture condones forced marriages. It permits them in Deut 21. Every civilisation until modern times has had a custom of raping the women at every town and city. These women were violated and discarded.

In Deut 21 the wise commandment moderates the lust of the conquering Israelites forbidding them to rape and commanding them to bring them home to meet the parents. The conquering male then had to make the woman look ugly by cutting off her hair, then had to listen to her wail and holler for her dead parents for a full month, and only then could he marry her. By then his passions would have cooled down. Hate to break it to you but not many men want to marry someone who hates your guts. To marry someone you have to provide for them all your life and live with them. In fact the scripture says that the woman fails to delight the man then he has to let her go. So the woman has many ways in one month to make herself undelightful if she finds her prospective husband unappealing.

When we dig into the commandments and laws given to Ancient Israel we find that by contrast the treatment of women conquered by Israel was exceptionally good as compared to the treatment of women conquered by other nations.

Even so, nobody is suggesting that the commandments of Israel are the epitome and model of marriage. If it were then why would we need Christ to come and teach us about marriage. Why would we need the church to teach us how marriage was intended to be from the beginning?
What amazes me is how atheists focus on the very worst interpretation of the warts and all accounts of ancient Israel, and entirely neglect the ultimate and epitome of marriage described by Christ and the apostle Paul. If an animal wants a female mate it just goes and takes it. As atheists that is your standard. As we are animals in your eyes with survival of the fittest why can't we just go out and take whatever woman we want to perpetuate our genes?

The reason is that you have social mores, most of which have come from centuries of our ancestors living out the principles of marriage outlined in the New Testament.

This is easily one of the dumbest and most ignorantly offensive things I've ever seen a theist write on this site, and I've been here long enough to remember Egor...

I'll give this a proper and vetted rebuttal when I have more time at home.
Have a cry little petal. Obviously your non-belief system is getting a hammering.
Go home where you can find a safe familiar chair, grab yourself a stiff drink, muster your inner fortitude and see if you can pull yourself together.
God forbid that I should receive a half baked, uncontrolled, ill conceived post from an atheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-09-2013, 07:01 AM (This post was last modified: 30-09-2013 07:04 AM by NoSkyDaddy.)
RE: Pride and Hubris
(30-09-2013 03:51 AM)excubitor Wrote:  I deny that the scripture condones rape in any context whatsoever.
(Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB)"When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion."

These were not consensual "marriages". These were prisoners assigned forcefully to serve as sexual property. This by any just standard is rape.

Or, how about this gem?

(Judges 21:19-23 NLT) Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem. They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, "Go and hide in the vineyards. When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife! And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, 'Please be understanding. Let them have your daughters, for we didn't find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.'" So the men of Benjamin did as they were told. They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance. Then they rebuilt their towns and lived in them.
What were you saying about scripture and rape? Ah yes, I remember: "I deny that the scripture condones rape in any context whatsoever". Kidnapping to boot.

(30-09-2013 03:51 AM)excubitor Wrote:  Deut 22:23-26 specifically condemns rape and gives the death penalty to rapists. I also deny that the scripture condones forced marriages.
(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."

This is referring to adultery. Note the specification of "betrothed". This is a violation of another man's property as specifically stated in the text. And don't BS about it not saying "property". Other verses specifically mention selling daughters for wives.

An unmarried/un-betrothed woman however....

(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)"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."

Not only is this a forced marriage, but the victim is forced to marry the rapist!!




(30-09-2013 03:51 AM)excubitor Wrote:  It permits them in Deut 21. Every civilisation until modern times has had a custom of raping the women at every town and city. These women were violated and discarded.
WOW! So that makes it just okey-dokey doesn't it? I guess it's only immoral to rape a woman you intend to let her live. I'm not sure which is more disgusting, the fact that they did it, or the way you casually dismiss it.Blink


(30-09-2013 03:51 AM)excubitor Wrote:  In Deut 21 the wise commandment moderates the lust of the conquering Israelites forbidding them to rape and commanding them to bring them home to meet the parents.
Meet the parents? It doesn't say that in the text. You are making a large assumption and trying to use it to diminish the crime being committed. Dodgy



(30-09-2013 03:51 AM)excubitor Wrote:  The conquering male then had to make the woman look ugly by cutting off her hair, then had to listen to her wail and holler for her dead parents for a full month, and only then could he marry her. By then his passions would have cooled down. Hate to break it to you but not many men want to marry someone who hates your guts. To marry someone you have to provide for them all your life and live with them.
Oooooh, pity the poor imposed upon rapist.Sadcryface2 That's pathetic.

(30-09-2013 03:51 AM)excubitor Wrote:  In fact the scripture says that the woman fails to delight the man then he has to let her go. So the woman has many ways in one month to make herself undelightful if she finds her prospective husband unappealing.
Why should she have to do anything to get out of an undesired marriage? Your "easy out" theory is hardly a caveat considering she has to endure a month of unwanted non-consensual sex (this is called rape BTW). Drinking Beverage



(30-09-2013 03:51 AM)excubitor Wrote:  When we dig into the commandments and laws given to Ancient Israel we find that by contrast the treatment of women conquered by Israel was exceptionally good as compared to the treatment of women conquered by other nations.
In which chapter and verse do you find this comparison? Even if it's there, how can you prove the description of other customs isn't slanderous? I mean, it's not like ancient people never said nasty things about each other, right? Dodgy

(30-09-2013 03:51 AM)excubitor Wrote:  Even so, nobody is suggesting that the commandments of Israel are the epitome and model of marriage. If it were then why would we need Christ to come and teach us about marriage. Why would we need the church to teach us how marriage was intended to be from the beginning?
If god was omnipotent (not to mention existent) he should have mentioned it to the Hebrews in the first place. But, I guess he was to busy imparting true wisdom such as "Thou shalt not seethe a goat in it's mother's milk". Laughat
We don't need the church. Marriage can simply be defined between any adults capable of informed consent. Yes


(30-09-2013 03:51 AM)excubitor Wrote:  What amazes me is how atheists focus on the very worst interpretation of the warts and all accounts of ancient Israel, and entirely neglect the ultimate and epitome of marriage described by Christ and the apostle Paul.
Given the litany of murder, theft, rape, genocide, human and animal sacrifice (scapegoating), topped off with cannibalistic blood rites... oh wait. The apostle Paul describes marriage? Oh,..well, forget I said anything! Censored



(30-09-2013 03:51 AM)excubitor Wrote:  If an animal wants a female mate it just goes and takes it. As atheists that is your standard. As we are animals in your eyes with survival of the fittest why can't we just go out and take whatever woman we want to perpetuate our genes?

As animals with an evolved sense of morality, we exclude individuals who create social discord and resentments from the gene pool. This includes thieves, murderers, rapists to name a few. They are systematically separated from the group in increasing levels of severity commensurate with the severity and repetition of their crimes. Our species is socially interdependent. We rely on our social group to survive and protect that social unity and survival thus. Smartass


(30-09-2013 03:51 AM)excubitor Wrote:  The reason is that you have social mores, most of which have come from centuries of our ancestors living out the principles of marriage outlined in the New Testament.
This is the closest to the truth you've gotten so far. However, it has nothing to do with the NT. Our social mores are genetically determined behaviors. They allow social unity which in turn allows our species not only to survive, but to thrive. Advanced brain structures are biologically expensive, and come at the cost of other armaments that would help our species defend against wild predators. It is precisely the evolution of our brain and our social structures (morality) that allowed our ancestors to survive despite our physical weaknesses. The NT marriage is one expression of that evolution, not it's source. Drinking Beverage

I will state it in no uncertain terms.
If the bible is the best moral guide that could possibly be written, rape should be absolutely condemned in all cases at all times and for all reasons.
NO EXCEPTIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You can lead a theist to reason, but, you cannot make him think.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like NoSkyDaddy's post
30-09-2013, 07:25 AM (This post was last modified: 01-10-2013 01:25 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Pride and Hubris
(30-09-2013 04:30 AM)excubitor Wrote:  Have a cry little petal. Obviously your non-belief system is getting a hammering.
Go home where you can find a safe familiar chair, grab yourself a stiff drink, muster your inner fortitude and see if you can pull yourself together.
God forbid that I should receive a half baked, uncontrolled, ill conceived post from an atheist.


Actually it looks like NoSkyDaddy already ripped your pitiful ass a new asshole, so I needn't bother. Drinking Beverage

To reiterate his final point; rape should be condemned in all circumstance, no exceptions. The fact that the Bible you defend so unquestionably does not, and in fact both condones and commands it, is nothing but proof that you've irreparably destroyed your human empathy and moral compass in defense of your dogma. In centuries past your uncritical acceptance of dogma and complete lack of empathy would have had you personally burning people for witchcraft in the Inquisition, enslaving the natives as you helped in conquering the New World, reclaiming the Holy Land by blood and sword during the Crusades, or operating the gas chambers and crematoriums in Auschwitz.

Are are, quite simply, sick in the fucking head.

[Image: qce9oP7.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
30-09-2013, 07:38 AM
RE: Pride and Hubris
(30-09-2013 03:51 AM)excubitor Wrote:  In fact the scripture says that the woman fails to delight the man then he has to let her go. So the woman has many ways in one month to make herself undelightful if she finds her prospective husband unappealing.

You freaking idiot, if he "lets her go" (also called: "throws her out") she is prey to EVERYONE, not just one man. There is no job market. She has no means of survival and she is available to any who would grab her.

Not to mention her parents and brothers were killed, likely in front of her. The kindest thing to do would be to kill her on the spot.

You are a monstrous person. YIKES!

[Image: dobie.png]

Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Dom's post
01-10-2013, 04:30 AM
RE: Pride and Hubris
(30-09-2013 07:25 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(30-09-2013 04:30 AM)excubitor Wrote:  Have a cry little petal. Obviously your non-belief system is getting a hammering.
Go home where you can find a safe familiar chair, grab yourself a stiff drink, muster your inner fortitude and see if you can pull yourself together.
God forbid that I should receive a half baked, uncontrolled, ill conceived post from an atheist.


Actually it looks like NoSkyDaddy already ripped your pitiful ass a new asshole, so I needn't bother. Drinking Beverage

Are are, quite simply, sick in the fucking head.
For gross crudity and almost unbelievable insult you will be ignored from here on out.
Again, this post was another example of the extreme debasement of people who take on the atheistic non-belief system. They say that beasts are their ancestors and so little by little they become beasts like their ancestors.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: