Jay520 said:
| ninetailschris said:
Violate:to break, infringe, or transgress ([a law, rule, agreement,promise, instructions], etc.).
Defintion.
1."does not say raping is morally wrong or should not be done" uses the word violate a word used to describe a crime happening. If I told you I violated your mother would you think I meant I touched her in way with was deem ok. No, they are telling you in what there saying is a crime happening and here is the punishment. It is worded like that because it is stated a law in passage. You can't jump around it. You continue to ignore the word violate a word commonly use in there day to refer to a crime and even to today.
"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.
|
Before I post let say don't shock if I don't reply for while or take awhile as I'm going to college and college will come first no matter what.
NOW TO BEGIN!
"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."
Violate has negative term to it. And like I said before when we fuse the violate with the man having to pay for the father and now support the wife. This is clear picture of a crime taking place. The act of the man being forced to marry the woman which is said. This is saying ok because of x you have y which has rules and laws go. If you drink and drive you will pay a fine. <- This tells us ok someone did something wrong here not they give away tickets for free(Crime-> Punishment). This basic context clues. The bible talks about not causing trouble within your own group and has laws against violience. This would have gone with violence. Your argument is one from slience just because someone doesn't out right say don't x doesn't mean he does want you to do something or it's legal. For example, you are no suppose to hurt anyone person without justifable cause in the Bible. Someone could make an argument well God didn't say x therefor he is ok with it when it already be put into a group of a general law of don't hurt someone with out justifable reasons. This is common sense.
To add to more of a problem of your argument.
1.Harming people in the society is illegal without good reason(self-defense/etc) and sex is suppose to be honorable thing to God and the persons who are marriaged. Both were illegal if you are opposite.
2. Rape is goes against both of these.
Obvivously this was crime.
But we can ADD more to it and see how it was common sense and the law was to warn others of no doing this action.
Was the man given a punishment.
YES. He had to pay the father (fine) and support the woman forever without choice. This is a legal action. Therefor this was crime. This isn't even a question.
"Exodus 20:14 You shall not commit adultery."
If he chose to date someone else he would be punished even more. The man would be forced to change his act fast because if he tried it again he would be put death because of adultery or more labor(depending on the crime).
So, when doing basic context clues and how passages interact with each and not reading one line and thinking we know everything we can see that. This was legal action against a man and that rape was illegal because it goes against God view on sex being between a marriage couple. Rape by defintion goes aginst the law of being marriage before having sex therefor you have no argument. Plus there are laws about harming family members of a man (father) and the man would be killed if he failed. This is to much of a case to countered.
If a man has recently married, he must not be sent to war or have any other duty laid on him. For one year he is to be free to stay at home and bring happiness to the wife he has married.
An actual law in the bible which shows RESPECT to the woman as the woman is suppose to be respected. Obliviously bring happiness would would not to rape her again as he would be punished with probably more labor or some other program I can't think at the moment.
Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will [judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral]. Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have, because God has said, "Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you." So we say with confidence, "The Lord is my helper; I will not be afraid. What can man do to me?" Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith.
That's right the adulterer and ALL the sexually immoral which would be rape as it goes against the marriage and sex. It was immoral to have sex without being marriaged. This is very close to saying out loud don't rape it's illegal.
Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives and do not be [harsh with them.
Adding more to what I said before. adding to context nuff said here. Adding to don't HARM your wife and could to be expanded to just don't hurt women in general.
Just in case you try avoiding this.
Harsh.
1. having a coarse uneven surface that is rough or unpleasant to the touch
2
a : causing a disagreeable or painful sensory reaction :irritating
b : physically discomforting
: painful
"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."
Umm according the Bible which was for Devolt followers of the time who could refer to passages like this to the normal followers. The bible was made for the devote followers to teach the ones that were not studing everyday the bible. They were the scholars of the day not some random guy who read the bible once and knew nothing of the contexts. This should be obvious to you because the bible is made in a way in assumes to you know the contexts(society,communication, etc). This why you make mistakes is because you assume the bible was written for the average American hen it was really amn for a scholar to teach the average American. The bible was only arounf to those that were scholars or devotes of the time and was only mass printed during King James printing. You assumptions show you don't understand at all the history of bible you have only a generalized idea from a public view not historial view.
On the point of common sense is that it was common sense based on numerous passages that hinted at it and would be pointed out by the society of the time or devote follower at the time who would point it to you, the context and understanding of each passage. In high context society they take that for granted things that are commonly know and assume you already know because your in the society. A scholar in today could tell how the society was and is ...there are even books on it.
You're showing that you have a very low research view of how the bible is supposed to be seen as and only have a popularized one. There is nothing subjective of what I speak of anyone that facts of how the society ran and how passages tell you if you read everything and see how it became obvious.
"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 think I covered this with the first response and passages. It's not even debatable was it not wrong at this point. Goes against not harming a woman and sex with marriage. If you can't add one and one to see that it was obvious to them because they were told both.
"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."
What I said was it doesn't say in text "You shall not rape woman" but it tells you in passages and other laws that it was a obvious crime.
God didn't need to tell them thou shall not rape your father/sister/mother/your child/pet goat/a rock because it was obvious with laws against in other passages.
