| ninetailschris said:
Violate:to break, infringe, or transgress ([a law, rule, agreement,promise, instructions], etc.). Defintion.
"It's the same as saying "you can stab someone, but you must take care of them afterwards." Sure, the suspect could take him to the hospital, pay for his stitches, give him a bed, feed him, etc, etc. But none of this negates the fact that stabbing people is wrong. " VIOLATE VIOLATE VIOLATE <- Not going to say anything else UNTIL you address the violate in passage which is obviously in reference to a crime happening. If your argument is why doesn't the bible say DON'T RAPE WOMEN! Than the answer is obvivous.... because it was common sense if you tried you would die. Do we need laws in school saying don't rape your fellow students or did it become obvious? High Context society hurts the argument even more. "The bible shouldn't say "Take care of the woman you rape." The bible should say "Raping is wrong and is a sin." First part.Of course it should say leave the girl you raped to die. It best if she doesn't get support because dying is much much better than eating and having water. Jay so I ask you should they have just killed the man and left the woman you die? Because you can't say support her because they had limited resources and the only way to surivive is to work and woman can't. So, Jay don't side-step the argument tell me would she just be better off killing herself or not eating to death? Don't argue oh in todays times because you keep on ignore the context of time and what was possible. "Raping sin part" Violate. Tells us it was crime that was common knowledge. In a High Context society heck even in today society of COURSE raping a woman is crime. They offer up the best solution at the time. I already listed the labor and other stuff she just can't do on here own and job. YET you still argue like they were happy about when they use the word violate a FREAKING word used to describe sexual crime happening. "The bible is saying that a man is fine and good if he rapes a woman, as long as he takes care of her. That's wrong in my book. Perhaps you disagree though." YOU IGNORE ALL OF MY POINTS. Below you ignored that it says violate. You obviously have a bias because you saying things he doesn't even say. It says this a crime and here is the punishment which i pointed out yet you dodged it. You mistake allow and violated. Because if he tried raping someone girl and ddidn't get sucessful that is what we like to call a public stoning to death(kick him in deep hole were he would die before being actually stone). Please tell me how that was ALLOWED. It seem like they had there hands tied behind there hands and had to make rational decision for there child. No one in the passage is saying oh man you did a great job here is babe. It's more like: " Ok you think your smart? You will now have to pay off what you made me loss money from no longer getting money from girl and you have to pay for my girl for the rest of your life. Guess wha you going to have to be working a lot more than you had to do before and you will have children from my girl and will have to do more. Any if you screw up you pay for your crimes of not doing the honorable thing and making up for mistake." Putting him in jail or killing him would do nothing for girl as she would still be screwed over and die from lack of food/water. This can't be avoided because we all know if your not working or not making money therefor no one is getting supported. Again the father of the woman or the woman herself would have requested to the man. If this was in a modern world the woman could get a job and have the man arrested but in OT life wasn't that simple. It's better to solve a problem than to just cause more." |
I ignored your points because they were saying what the man had to do after rape. Not whether or not rape was wrong.
- - - -
About the word 'violate'
In the context of raping I think this is the definition of 'violate' being used: to molest sexually, especially to rape.
So yeah, it's more likely that 'violate' means raping rather than 'commiting a crime.' Of the many definitions of 'violate', you have to assume it's talking about committing a crime. but you don't have to assume that 'violating' means raping. Since it makes sense.
- - - -
If your argument is why doesn't the bible say DON'T RAPE WOMEN! Than the answer is obvivous.... because it was common sense
Uhhm no. According to Christians, the bible teaches you exactly how to live your life. Nothing is up to a person's common sense. If common sense was a factor, then it becomes based upon a person's subjective feelings. If it becomes based upon a person's subjective feelings, then morals become subjective. That goes against the Christian code that the Bible teaches you exactly how to live your life. If the Bible doesn't say something is wrong, then Christians have no justification for saying it's wrong.
- - - -
I deleted those six points because they justified what the man had to do after raping a woman. That was never my point.
- - - -
As for this: You mistake allow and violated. Because if he tried raping someone girl and ddidn't get sucessful that is what we like to call a public stoning to death(kick him in deep hole were he would die before being actually stone). Please tell me how that was ALLOWED. It seem like they had there hands tied behind there hands and had to make rational decision for there child. No one in the passage is saying oh man you did a great job here is babe. It's more like:
You are right. Raping was disapproved in society. That was never my point. Was raping disapproved in the bible? No. Therefore, you don't know how God felt about rape. You just know he mentioned it, and said what to do afterwards. He didn't say it was morally wrong or right.
- - - -
I'll say this again:
I'm not arguing why the bible tells the man to stick with the vitcim. I'm asking why the bible doesn't say raping is wrong to begin with? You can say "because it's common sense." But that doesn't hold weight because someone's else's common sense can go against your own. Then, how would you settle your difference? You can't use the bible, so how would you know who was right? Would you use your subjective feelings? You can't do that because subjective feelings could be wrong?
- - - -
You seem to be making the argument that raping is wrong, even though it's not mentioned in the bible.
If raping is wrong, then that's not fair to people. It's not fair that there are actions that God disapproves of, that isn't in the Bible. How would the people know if raping is right or wrong? Christians moral code is directly from the bible. And from the bible, the only thing they know about raping is what they must do after raping someone. They have no idea of if raping is good or bad. So, if raping is disapproved, then that's just not fair to Christians, because it's impossible for them to know beforehand.
If raping is wrong. Then there are an infinite amount of potential actions that are also wrong, which aren't mentioned in the bible.
If there really are morally wrong actions that are not explicitely stated in the bible (which you are suggesting)...then the bible doesn't sound like a well crafted model for living your life.
