by Albert Einstein 113 Replies latest jw friends
Go Tuesday! If I ever get into a 'war of words', I want you to be my wing man.
Would all the bible/koran/holy book hugging people in da house, please shut up! You have been weighed and found wanting! You can nott site a ficticious book as fact, plain and simple!
Oh Joy Mad Dawg is back... I'm sure I'm about to expirience a heaping helping of ad hominem attacks.
As for "moving the goal posts," are you agreeing that the Bible does not approve of rape?
This I'm dealing with first because when I say moving the goalposts I described in detail what I said, what I said I was going to show and how you steadily moved them to try and get me to show something else. Let's go to my post that you're responding to:
initially I was talking about how we can't abide by all the laws of the old testiment, to which I made a comment about how I could take a captive for a month, have my way with her then if I didn't like her let her go. Now you're saying I need to show that the bible promotes rape?
Again you're moving the goal posts where I need to show where the bible promotes rape. So fine I'll get into that.
Tuesday, you assume they were raped to prove that they were raped, that's a nice piece of circular reasoning. You make a lot of noise about the women being raped before they were brought back to camp. Nothing in the verses gives any such permission. Yes, it probably did happen. However it would have been in spite of, not because of these verses. The purpose of the entire book of Dueteronomy is to end such practices.
So you're admitting here the women were more than likely raped on the battlefield, then taken back to camp. I'm saying the bible book is promoting bringing home rape victims to repeadedly rape them under the guise of being "married".
Show me where the Bible condones raping women on the battle field.
Moving the goal posts again, first it was show how the Deuteronomy text was promoting rape, then it was show in the bible where it promotes rape, now it's not just showing that it promotes rape but it has to be on the battle field.
Regardless Numbers 31:18; keep the women who have not known a man for yourselves. I can cite more, but please read my final paragraph before asking me to provide it here.
Quote mining? If you are the scholar you claim to be, you should know that quoting an author's own summary of their own work does not constitute quote mining. I simply repeated the author's own conclusions. It is odd that you would quote mine your own source then ignore her conclusions. If it will make you feel better, I could copy and paste the whole article.
I've basically copied and pasted the entire article. One paragraph does not a summary make and if you were the scholar that you claim to be you would know that as well. If You want to copy and paste the rest of the article by all means.
Context is more than showing that a word was used in some fashion in another place. If you understood ancient society as you seem to claim you do, you would understand that the Bible's treatment of women is quite good.
Context of a word is found exactly by that method. You need to find how it was used in other verses dealing with a similar subject in order to find out what it means in that verse. If you're talking historical context, and societal context those are taken into account when you're discussing how a scripture was carried out or why it was written, not when you're discussing what a specific word means in a given text.
Numerous sources? What are you smoking? You have quoted exactly one source - and even in that one, the author disagrees with you.
I said in my last post, at this point. Where I had discussed your sources and how they supported my position. If you're saying because one sentence of one paragraph seemingly disagrees with my position it means the entire article doesn't agree with my position, I'd rather have whatever you're smoking.
The reason I would reject the Provost of Harvard saying the same things, is that what you are saying is stupid, and coming from the mouth of the Provost doesn't make it any smarter.
Why is it stupid...because it disagrees with what you say? Of course. This is just a straight ad hominem attack. Is this your MO for every one of your debates, just attack, attack, attack?
Just because a word may be understood as one thing, or has been in certain instances understood that way, doesn't mean that it must be understood that way. You have given no evidence that the word is to be understood this way - just that this is what you agree with.
You're admitting here that where I discussed earlier about the use of the word was correct. I showed in the definition of your own source that the word could be construed as the way I define it for this text, not only that I cited a source that shows the word used similarly in various scriptures.
So, where do I give the benifit of the doubt to? The Bible and those who approach it in a serious manner, or some annonymous 'scholar' who claims to have fancy degrees but can do no more than conatantly repeat, "THEY WERE RAPED ON THE BATTLEFIELD" as if this somehow proves something.
You're saying here "Who do I give the benefit of the doubt to MY INTERPRETATION of the bible and THOSE WHO I HAVE DEEMED as approaching the bible seriously", by approaching the bible seriously you mean those who have come to the same conclusion as you have. Not surprisingly they are all apologists. I don't claim to have fancy degrees, I wouldn't say a bachelor's in English with a minor in Ancient Civilizations from Roger Williams University is a fancy degree, but a degree it is nonetheless. As for anonymous (that's how it's spelled, dispite you claiming to have your own degrees) I would highly doubt that as if you check my profile you will see a link to my youtube which has video of me speaking. I mention my former congregation in there, my professional wrestling name, where I wrestle, when I wrestle, the state I live in, where I went to college, really the only thing that's anonymous for me is my real last name. Which if I didn't have a bunch of death threats due to this youtube channel I would readily post, many from my former congregation post on these boards, with my permission by all means ask them and they'll tell you what my last name is. If anyone here is being anonymous I would say it is you Mr. Mad Dawg who has yet to say what their degree is in though asked numerous times, or what their qualifications on the subject is.
Lastly I'm going to say this, I have posted refutations to your points, I have cited sources and your posts have degenerated from posting sources to simply attacking my position, moving the goal posts, and most of all ad hominem attacks. We have strayed FAR from the subject at hand all due to a straw man which you asked me to define my position. I don't have a problem defining my position to which I have more than qualified my position, the only comment about our segment of this thread has been in my favor. If you want to debate me, please just post another thread with what you would like me to show to you, but please define your position as to what you will be trying to prove. We can even have the board score it if you want.
Oh, I get it. You are allowed to make an assertion and if I challenge the premise of said assertion, I am moving the goal posts.
You can challenge my assertions as much as you'd like, if I say that we can't live on OT principles and you challenge me to prove where OT promotes rape I would say that's moving the goal posts.
I understand your need to run from your own source, but her conclusions are clear. Her conclusion is is serveral paragraphs long and refutes your claim that the verses somehow approve of raping them. She clearly states that the purpose is to provide a means of marriage.
I'm not running from the source at all, I feel it still supports my point. It seemed to me her point was that the priests were more worried about the women causing the men to turn away from their religion, hence why they allowed this forceable taking of wives. This doesn't get around the fact that even though they're "married" it's still very much rape. It also establishes clearly the use of the word in the scripture dennotes rape.
I can write an article on racial hygein and, at the end condemn it in my summary or conclusion. The length of my conclusion is irrelevant. It is dishonest for any one to use quotes from the article, severed from the conclusion, to claim that I support the practice of racial hygeine.
You could, and it would. I would say that taking one paragraph from the conclusion and using it to say it skews the entire conclusion towards a view is dishonest.
I am familiar with the Numbers passage. It is a simalar situation, but is addressing a different issue. The issue is whether the women were to be brought into Jewish society or left in the desert to die.
I see it differently, but I can see how you might think that. It's something I would be interested in discussing, but again it would probably be best to start a separate thread to do so.
I did not say that they "were more than likely raped on the battlefield." I acknowledge that occurances likely happened, but that was in spite of these verses; not because of these verses. Just as the author of your source stated.
I'm saying because of the fact they were raped on the battlefield then were brought to Israel's camp it was promoting the further rape of these women. I don't think waiting a month while they're in the camp then having sex with them makes it any less rape, given the choice the women would not be in the situation.
If they were raped on the battlefield, that puts them in violation of other commandments and would be deserving of the penalties therein. So, we have a choice of where it is clearly condemned as a context or we can strain at a minor definition.
I'm not straining at a minor definition, it's a clear definition that has been established and used several times. The penalty of rape is paying 50 sheckles to the father and not being able to divorce the woman, this is if it's a jewish woman, the penalty is not described as being applicable to foreign women. Regardless, way off topic again. I don't see how the Deuteronomy verse could be viewed as anything but kidnapping women from their homes, forcing them to marry you, and raping them.
English? I have a B.S. in industrial engineering from the State University of New York. I loved English, history, and sociology classes because they were so easy.
Ah the ad hominem attack of credentials. I could say the same, oh state university eh. Likely the english, history and sociology classes were easy in state universities as was the rest of their curriculum. When I would compare papers from State Universities to the ones I had to write for my classes I was aghast with the grades the papers they turned in got because had they turned those in to my professors they would've failed in a heartbeat. However, you have provided your degree and it is a fine degree from a fine institution.
For the sake of clarity, are you saying that the Bible promotes rape?
For the sake of clarity, I do not see how this verse in Deuteronomy could be construed as anything but kidnapping, forced marriage and forced copulation of marriage (likely after having already been raped). I used this example in the case of homosexuality because homosexuality was condemned in the old testiment but this rule was in place in the old testiment. Hence I believe as a society we've grown past many of the laws of the old testiment and should probably grow past all of it's laws. I don't see how you can say "you must abide by this law in the old testiment, but this other one you can disregard". That was my original point with my post before we went down this segue. If you want to discuss whether rape is promoted in the bible, again I'm more than willing to do this with you, please start a new thread to do so however.
Here is a clear case in which the rapist has (1) stolen the girl’s ability to guarantee paternity, and by doing so has greatly limited her future options; and (2) has limited her father’s options of arranging a good marriage for her.
The rapist is now forced to become what he has cheated the girl out of—a ‘well off’ husband. The fifty shekels bride-price is five years worth of average wages, and is the price paid by the Pharaoh Amenophis III for the women of Gezer destined for his harem [ AI: 1:26]!
The girl’s future is now assured—she has a guaranteed support source (he cannot divorce her)—and she has a ‘big’ bride-price on deposit. The law has protected someone who was attempting to help the community, by preserving her virginity .
There is nothing that prevents the woman and her family from turning down the compensation.
While he cannot divorce her, there is nothing prohibiting her from divorcing him.
There is nothing that says she has to live with him or have sex with him.
Our own society is behind the times in failing to provide this level (five years wages) of compensation for a victim of crime.
Your source states, "Clearly, immediate rape is not allowed." What part of clearly do you not understand?
Another quote-mined text, here the author is talking about when they get back to the camp they have to wait a month. It still doesn't change the fact they were brought back with the express purpose to rape them. Whether they wait a month or not is irrelevant, they forceably removed someone from their home, took them back to an encampment and then either force marriage or after not finding delight in them released them.
The Army has written commands forbidding the rape of local women on the battlefield. They also have regulations for bringing them over as wives. Does this mean that if a soldier rapes a woman and convinces her to marry him that the Army endorses raping women on the battlefield and dragging them home for marriage?
The chief difference here is that the soldier has to convince the rape victim to come home with him. In the biblical case the Israelite forces the woman back to camp with him; that's how the law is written. Very fallicious example.
Here is what I talk about when I say you use straw-men WAY too much. Look at my above post to you, in one sentence I mention the penalty for rape which only applied to Jewish women. Now the majority of your post to me is regarding this passing sentence and still doesn't deal with the subject we're talking about which is whether this Deuteronomy passage is condoning rape or not.
You want me to go off in this big tangent so you can then get off the uncomfortable subject we're discussing and move along to something you feel like you stand on better grounds with. I don't know why you refuse to stick to the subject at hand.
If we're talking simply your take on it however there is a contradiction:
Here is a clear case in which the rapist has (1) stolen the girl’s ability to guarantee paternity, and by doing so has greatly limited her future options; and (2) has limited her father’s options of arranging a good marriage for her.
and what you said:
There is nothing that prevents the woman and her family from turning down the compensation.
Yes there is, now she's essentially damaged goods and has no other option. She is forced into the situation of marrying her rapist because he raped her and ruined her ability to seek marriage elsewhere. Just like the text you quoted states.
While he cannot divorce her, there is nothing prohibiting her from divorcing him.
Except for the fact the man had to declare divorce. The woman could only request it.
http://bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Def.show/RTD/isbe/ID/2755/Divorce-In-Old-Testament.htm
There is nothing that says she has to live with him or have sex with him.
Living with the man is what marriage was in the Old Testiment, that's how it was finalized. You honestly believe a woman living with a man in those ancient cultures would be able to withhold sex from him? I suppose you think she would make him sleep on the couch too?
Our own society is behind the times in failing to provide this level (five years wages) of compensation for a victim of crime.
Sure, we're too busy criminalizing it and providing psychiatric help for the victims of the violent crime. Feel free to speak to a rape victim though and see what they want, if they want monetary compensation from their rapist or for them to be punished? I have a feeling you won't get the answer you expect, we don't even have to add the proviso that they marry their rapist. I can get you in contact with one if you want, I'm good friends with a person who is a victim of rape, I'm sure she'd love to talk to you about this loving provision from the old testiment.
This paper has examined the Targumim and a number of post-biblical texts relevant to Deut. 21: 10-14, the beautiful captive woman. It has examined certain of the post-biblical texts in an attempt to trace the development of some of the relevant issues mentioned in the introduction. Some of the conclusions reached are as follows:
It is difficult to conceive of a war which the participants would consider non-obligatory. Such assessments have only been attributed in hindsight. Even obviously expansionary wars can be explained as "offence is the best defence". As the capture and subsequent marriage of an enemy woman to an Israelite is only permitted is a non-obligatory war, it can perhaps be construed that such a situation would not occur often. Yet the Talmud tells us that David had four hundred captive wives. One possible (non- traditional) explanation might lie in a concusion of source criticism - that Deuteronomy was later than David.
A biblical imperative is sacrosanct, but the sages were unhappy with the situation of a heathen captive woman attached to an Israelite soldier. According to the Bavli sages in Kiddushin 21b, the permission offered to the soldier in this case is an accommodation to lust. The captive woman then becomes the vehicle for the satisfaction of his evil inclination. In bHullin 109b it is explained that the Torah forbids a man a non-Jewess, but permits him the captive woman. Not only is she the vehicle by which he releases his lust, she is not even his first choice. The captive woman can be described as a consolation prize.
As these women were heathens and by definition sexually desirable, the sages felt threatened by the possibility that the captive women's sexual power might entice men away from Judaism. This attitude can be seen in the way the laws applicable to the captive woman were developed.
Other than the compassion displayed by Maimonides, there was very little if any sympathy expended on the plight of the captive. The sages' major concern, given the inviolability of the biblical permission, was the conversion of the woman to Judaism. If that could not be done, then the absolute minimum was her conversion away from heathenism. Once the captive woman's heathenism could be obliterated, the effect of having a diverse and larger genetic pool could be accepted as beneficial.
There was no uniform opinion as to when the first intercourse was permitted. The timing varied from immediately after the battle, but in a private place, to not until after thirty days and conversion. Clearly, there was coercion in both cases, whether physical or psychological or both.
According to the Bavli, first intercourse could occur before the captive arrived at the man's home, perhaps as soon as the actual fighting stopped. The journey to his home could be lengthy, as she was taken from a city far away (Deut. 20: 15). It might occur that very shortly after she arrived at the man's home she would discover that she was pregnant. Even if she was not, her options were very limited. In order to simply survive, she might choose to be converted and remain in the household. It can be understood that a woman in these circumstances would be unhappy and resentful, and possibly full of hatred against the one she perceived to be the cause of her unfortunate circumstances. Possibly the sages were sensitive to this when they claimed that the marriage would not be a happy one.
When the man no longer wanted her, he had to let her go. Once he had intercourse with her, he could no longer enslave her. The captive woman was not a wife before conversion and not a captive after conversion. Once converted and married she was accorded the same privileges and had the same obligations as a Jewish born wife.
The post-biblical sources use the biblical term "woman of beautiful appearance," to describe the woman in Deut. 21: 10- 14. This paper has used the term "captive woman" instead. Sifrei pisqa 211 points out that her actual appearance is of no consequence. She merely has to be sexually desirable to a soldier at the time of her capture. As the term "beautiful woman" is used biblically, so it is used throughout the sources. It is interesting that in the post- biblical development of this section, a number of major changes were introduced by the sages. That they chose not to change or add to the term "beautiful woman" is an indication that they either did not find it inappropriate or it was not important enough to address.
Clearly, however, the operating principle in her description was not her appearance but her powerlessness. This may have been an issue the sages did not wish to confront. Perhaps they understood that if their perception of the captive woman changed from perpetrator to victim, it would be very difficult to set down the stringent rules of conversion. As theological pollution was their primary concern, it was easier to implement their goal if she were objectified.
Legislating behaviour is no guarantee that it will be followed, but it does demonstrate the intention of the legislators.The Yerushalmi clearly was against rape of captive women by soldiers at war. In light of recent events in Bosnia, it must be appreciated how ethically and morally forward this thinking was.
Thanks for posting the conclusion that I had already posted.
Well let's get on with it then.
Nope, nothing here suggesting that the verses promote rape. Although Bavli wants to allow it, there is nothing in the verses it self that gives such permission. At best we have indirect quotes of Bavli, so we really don't know what his opinion is.
Nothing? Really? What about this paragraph?:
A biblical imperative is sacrosanct, but the sages were unhappy with the situation of a heathen captive woman attached to an Israelite soldier. According to the Bavli sages in Kiddushin 21b, the permission offered to the soldier in this case is an accommodation to lust. The captive woman then becomes the vehicle for the satisfaction of his evil inclination. In bHullin 109b it is explained that the Torah forbids a man a non-Jewess, but permits him the captive woman. Not only is she the vehicle by which he releases his lust, she is not even his first choice. The captive woman can be described as a consolation prize.
You still haven't clearly stated if you believe that said verses promote rape
I don't see how these verses could be construed as otherwise.
The 50 shekel is not limited to Jewish woman only. Please cite verse that says it is.
Where in these verses or any in the Pentetuch that the Israelite man must pay 50 sheckles to the foreign woman's parents that he kidnapped? I guess he wouldn't because he had already killed the woman's family.
Marriage is a legal status. I knew a woman who hadn't seen her husband for 30 years, but was still married to him, assuming he is still alive. One does not need to live with another to be married in a legal sense. Same was true back then. Marriages weren't suspended just because the man went on a military campaign for a couple of years. In fact the ancient nobility of the time frequently didn't live in the same house as their wives at all. There is a difference in marriage as a legal contract and that of societal expectations.
You're missing though that the marriage process was public engagement then when they lived together is when the marriage was finalized. They were not suspended due to the participants being separated, however by the woman leaving the man she no longer had his support. Unless you can point to me a verse that shows the support a man gave to his wife that is not living with him while still married to him.
Yes, the woman may forced to marry him from a practical perspective of the circumstances, but it is a choice that is made in the best interest of the woman and her family. If it were not in their best interest, they could refuse it.
The problem is that in the circumstance she had no other choice. It was in her best interest because she was damaged goods in the eyes of many Israelites now, to have a woman supported for the rest of her life and married regardless of the surrounding circumstances was always in the families' best interest.
Compensation and punishment is not an either/or proposition. They both should happen, as well as any other help the victim may need. This country does a poor job of compensating victims.
I agree that our country does do a poor job of compensating victims, however in this case of the Israelites can you point to the punishment the rapist received other than having to provide compensation?
We could very easily institute this here and now. The victim of rape would be awarded $200K (5x the median U.S. income) and a monthly stipend. All to be paid by the perpetrator. The marriage was simply a mechanism to make the compensation happen. Therefore, is not important as long as the larger goal of compensation is achieved. Don't you agree that something along this line would be a good thing to do today? This would allow the victim the time and resources to get the help she will need to heal.
I think it's a very good idea in theory, I don't see how it could be practically applied nor do I know alot of women who would want to take money from their rapist. I know many who want them to go to jail for a very long time so they can't hurt others and to know they will never see them again. I only know one rape victim though, and have only had passing conversations with a few others, so my scope on that opinion is rather limited to my immediate circle.
Although the article you linked is generally well written, it overlooks that ancient writing is done in a manner that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. The Bible does not give licsence for a woman to steal an ox because it does not say that she can't. It says that a man can't steal an ox and it is understood that a woman can not either. Unless there is a distinct and separate handling of a situation stated, it is assumed that the same standards applied to both sexes. This would hold true of divorce.
Except to the woman the man is the head and makes all the decisions in the marriage. I haven't had the chance to look this up completely, so if you know more about it please correct me, in those laws regarding stealing, adultery and so forth isn't the word for man meant as humankind and the laws for divorce the word man is literally meant as man? It's been a while since I've looked into original hebrew so I'm probably rusty on it.
Your source also states: Divorces from the earliest times were common among the Hebrews. All rabbis agree that a separation, though not desirable, was quite lawful. The only source of dispute among them was as to what constituted a valid reason or just cause. It is unimaginable that she would be denied the right to a separation.
It is also unimaginable that a man would release property that he still valued, which once married the woman was considered. I also can't think of a biblical example of a woman divorcing her husband, I can however think of one that supports my view. Bath-Sheba and David, yes they committed adultery together, but why did David have to kill Bath-Sheba's husband. She would've had full support to go live with the King, if it were possible for her to get a divorce she could've simply asked for one. No doubt they killed her husband because he would not have granted this divorce request. You can correct this if you want, please stick to the divorce portion though, I realize that part of their reasoning was to cover their adultery.
Where in these verses or any in the Pentetuch that the Israelite man must pay 50 sheckles to the foreign woman's parents that he kidnapped? I guess he wouldn't because he had already killed the woman's family.
Different situation
You're missing though that the marriage process was public engagement then when they lived together is when the marriage was finalized. They were not suspended due to the participants being separated, however by the woman leaving the man she no longer had his support. Unless you can point to me a verse that shows the support a man gave to his wife that is not living with him while still married to him.
Show me where it says that if she doesn't live with him, that would relieve him of his obligations. The marriage was official following the ceremony, consumation was not necessary.
I agree that our country does do a poor job of compensating victims, however in this case of the Israelites can you point to the punishment the rapist received other than having to provide compensation?
This is an interesting question, I will have to look into it further. I will say that the social stigma that would be attached would be harsh. Also, these verses are about compensation, perhaps we are to look else where for punishement. He would have a very difficult time attracting a wife under these conditions. No wife means no sons or daughters. This would be a very harsh situation in the ANE. Even if he had a family already, he would have a hard time raising his own children in a proper fashion, which would affect the children's ability to support him in his later years.
I think it's a very good idea in theory...
The victim could be given the choice. DA's often confer with victims before recommending a sentence.
...isn't the word for man meant as humankind and the laws for divorce the word man is literally meant as man?
I don't know off hand. Will have to look into it.
It is also unimaginable that a man would release property that he still valued...
This presumes that he would have had all the rights that he would have had by marriage under normal circumstances, which he didn't.
The reason that David killed Uriah the Hittite was that Bethsheba was pregnant. David tried to cover this up by having Uriah spend some R&R with his wife. Uriah refused to enjoy time with her while his brothers in arms were in the field. David sent Uriah back carrying his own death sentence. With Uriah out of the way, David quickly married Bethsheba to make the child appear legitamate, thus avoiding a scandle. The thing to keep in mind is that just because the Bible records an event does not mean that it condones it. A number of verses later, David's actions are specifically condemned by Nathan the prophet.
Divorce by either party could only be granted for cause. Bethsheba had no cause to ask for a divorce. Uriah wasn't asking for a divorce either as he had no knowledge of the affair. A divorce simply wasn't going to happen at all. David took the course he did because he felt the need to marry her quickly. If he married her, say, 8 months before the baby arrived; it would have been a huge scandle.
