If I was to go out and rape the best looking young virgin girl I could find......... (page 10)

snowbird

There are at least two sides to every issue, Thomas.

Sylvia

DaCheech

man, man, man.............

how about cutting the balls off the rapist and forcing him to pay support for the woman for the rest of her life or until there was a man who really loved her as much as she loved him to get married!

snowbird

Sooo, you kill my mother and father and take me to your home. Then you allow me to mourn for a month, then I have to bear your children? And don't talk back or they can beat me with a stick no bigger than their thumb. Got it

It began in a Garden ...

Sylvia

bohm

Snowbird: "I would submit that being forced to marry someone, knowing you can't ever divorce her would be punishment enough. I'll bet it cooled the ardor of many a seducer."

So if you were to comfort the woman who had just been raped you would seriously tell her:

"Hey, look at it from the bright side: It might be that you are now married to the man who raped you and therefore took away your every hope of ever marrying the man you love, and it might be he is a no-good twit who will rape you again and again and again so you are constantly pregnant with with his children, which he, being a no-good raping retard, will never give you a chance to feed and will only help you in raising them by beating the living shit out of you and them every evening, and it might be that he is so deranged he will never let you divorce him so you can improve on that situation, but hey, all of that is HIS punishment!"

I know a woman who was raped at age 16. She got an eating disorder, a deep depression and various trips to the hospitals, including a prolonged stay after she tried to kill herself. 6 years later, despite intensive therapy, she had recurrent nightmares about him EVERY night and could not lie close to a man. Who do you think it would punish if she were to be raped by him again and again and again by that asshole as the laws of ancient israel would require?

Im very curious about your answer.

Quillsky

Is it possible that the term rape or the concept of forced sex has been lost in translation? Is it possible that the original scriptural terms refer to consensual unmarried sex where either the man has an agenda of short-term sexual satisfaction or the woman seduces the man in order to be looked after long-term by him and his tribe?

bohm

Snowbird: And by the way, the example is 100% real. I have seen her have one of those nightmares so i know she didnt make that up.

ThomasCovenant

Snowbird. I don't know how old you are or what gender. But if I imagine being a young girl of say about 13 or 14 and a fat, sweating, ugly, balding man in his fifties was to force himself on me sexually I would have to look to the authorities to deal with justice as best they could bearing in mind how puny, sinful, imperfect and godless they are.

If, however, I was one of the special group of people living several thousand years ago under the rulership and laws of the one and only true god I think I would be a little disappointed if the best he could come up with is ''YOU HAVE TO MARRY HIM, MY CHILD.''

Surely you are just playing Devil's advocate here aren't you?

Quillsky

Actually, I can't believe we're here, on the 21st century internet, debating whether primitive sexual "family laws" of nomadic patriarchal desert tribes 20 or 30 or 40 centuries ago still apply to us.........

pixiesticks

Snowbird, PSacramento, I find it interesting what you two are basically saying. To me, reading what you've written, you paint God as a sort of 'Sorcerer's apprentice' type character, unable to control his own crazy creations and being restricted as to what laws he can pass down because of their own willfulness.

This seems to be at odds with what the Bible says though. God has never been one to hesitate at passing down divine retribution to those that have ignored his will or purpose. Sometimes a relatively mild punishment as in the case of Jonah, who didn't want to preach in the area that God wanted him to because of the attitudes of the Ninevites. Sometimes a harsh and violent punishment, as in the case of the men of Beth-shemesh that looked into the Arc of the Covenant when God had told them not to. He personally killed 50,070 of them with his own power (1Samuel 6:19-20).
Sometimes God even strikes down those that break his laws even with good intentions, as with Uzzah who put his hand on the Arc to steady it when the oxen that were carrying it almost caused it to tip over.
These are just a few examples, there a many, many, many more (as I'm sure you're aware) of God passing down various punishments for those that do not strictly obey him. Sometimes one person, sometimes a couple, sometimes thousands. It's clear that God is not shy or at all hesitant in implementing his will on earth and his earthly subjects.

So why then, if God believed that rape was an awful, horrible sin, was God unable to pass down a law that said something to the effect of: "A man may never force a woman to have intercourse with him. It is a sin. He shall be castrated and cast out of the city in shame and the woman is to be comforted by her elders and she shall not be married until she is recovered. If she cannot be married because of the sin against her, let her be put into the service of God for the rest of her days" and "Women are people, not property and shall be treated with the same respect and dignity afforded to men."?
Do you really expect us to believe that the God who would strike down a man for trying to stop the holy Arc from crashing to the ground, could not make and impiment laws that would protect women?
At the very least, a compassionate God would not command that a raped woman have rocks thrown at her until she is dead for not screaming during the act. Definitely not. It is one thing not to order laws to protect the dignity of women, it is another entirely to order cruelty - not just permit cruelty, but actively order it. And if you personally think that commanding a rape victim marry their rapist is compassion, then I would seriously question your ethics and your own personal sense of empathy and compassion for your fellow humans.

But have either of you heard of the Euthyphro dilemma? It basically goes:
"Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?"It's an interesting dilemma and one that every theist needs to think about. It proposes two options that states that God's commanded laws exist...:
1. As a set of eternal truths and unchangeable moral standards independent of God forming "natural law" (Meaning that God could not change those laws even if he wanted to since they are solidly established for all eternity both backwards and forwards.)
or...
2. There are no moral standards other than God's will: without God's commands, nothing would be right or wrong. (Meaning that God can implement and remove law and punishment as he sees fit. God's commands are arbitrary. Whatever he commands becomes morally correct. Often referred to as Divine Command Theory.)

I highly recommend you read the articles that I linked to on the subject. I'd be interested to know what you think, as both options create a multitude of their problems and one's that theistic philosophers have been debating for centuries.

cofty

I just read this thread for the first time; its an amazing example of trying to defend the indefensible.

As a JW I got used to doing mental gymnastics in defense of the borg. As a christain I found I was still doing the same thing in defense of god and scripture. Its so great to not have to do that any more.

As Randolph Churchill said when he accepted the challenge of reading the entire bible in a month "God, what a shit god is!"

If I was to go out and rape the best looking young virgin girl I could find.........

Share this