Slavery

[Deeje]

I find your view of rape (and slavery) as per your interpretation of the Bible to be morally reprehensible.
Just one more reason why secular morality is superior to Biblical morality. Ugh.

It is the Bible's view as inspired by its author....if you don't agree, take it up with him....OK?

The Bible's laws, in principle, are the same yesterday, today and always. If you don't subscribe to them, that is not my problem. I am not anyone's judge......I am just a messenger. Shooting the messenger never works though, does it?

 

[nPeace]

Hence, the reason as to why I said that.


But denial is a lot easier, that's why you resorted to doing it right now.


See, denial.



Ah...Avoiding the issue fallacy, I was wondering when you will plan on using that again. I thought it was going to be this soon.


So you didn't anyone to point that out to you. Congratulations, you're half way there. Now you just have to complete it. How? Acceptance, and denial. I'm rooting for you.


You mean, not anymore, not after you realize your blunder.

And I thought you denied using songs/hymns as justification. Another blunder.

Please read what I said before. Don't want to be constantly repeating myself.

?What? Two of them! Oh dear.

 

[Father Heathen]

Omg, yikes...

Right? The more they try to defend their faith, the more abhorrent they make it look.

 

[Father Heathen]

It is the Bible's view as inspired by its author....if you don't agree, take it up with him....OK?

Those primitive savages are long dead, so we can't. The problem is that people still believe that they spoke on behalf of god and that their ancient beliefs and practices should still serve as a moral compass in the modern, civilized word.

 

[MNoBody]

Those primitive savages are long dead, so we can't. The problem is that people still believe that they spoke on behalf of god and that their ancient beliefs and practices should still serve as a moral compass om the modern, civilized word.

well that cuz of the voodoo they do, anthropomorphizing and literalizing, insensate as the human brute squad is prone to "naturally' be.

 

[nPeace]

this passage is about having sex with an engaged woman in town - engaged with someone else.
It says that if the woman does not scream, she must be killed.

That's an explanation, in your opinion, Thomas?
"It says that if the woman does not scream, she must be killed."
That's it? That's an explanation? Or a restating of partly what is written?

Partly, as you did not even mention anything of verse 24.
Also, the passage includes the following verses (25-27), which continues... "But if...". So the passage is not just about having casual sex, if that's what you are saying... Is that what you are saying?

If I understand your posts #131 and #155 right, you seem to infer that rape implies screaming or, to put it differently, no screaming no rape.

You definitely did not understand those posts.
If you did understand, there is no way you could conclude what you are claiming you understand.
In fact, there is no way your conclusion could be considered logical, after reading those posts... imo.

However, Bible proves you wrong. See 2 Samuel 13:12-14. It was clearly rape (verse 14), however she did not scream. Yet she had had plenty of time to do so in verse 12.
I hope this helps.

It does help. It helps us to see a few things.
Firstly, how can the Bible prove something wrong, if it was never said.
Is that why you made a conclusion on something I didn't say, so as to find something to "prove wrong"?

Secondly, the scripture you refer to in 2 Samuel 13, is a good one, which what I was indicating, but proves you wrong.
Ammon used his strength against Tamar, but she did not do all she could to prevent the rape. Thus, one cannot prove that she did not consent. If she screamed - which would be heard instantly, and clearly, she would have proved she gave no consent, at all.
This was similar to the case with Dinah.

A man can use his strength, etc. against a woman, along with his manipulation of her feelings, which may be weakened by a number of factors - fear of what would happen, if... Tamar revealed her fears. However, she can either be firm, in saying no, or she can be indecisive, and himahaw.
Ammon used that to his advantage, and so did Shechem.

So, where you said, Deuteronomy 22:23, 24 is about having [casual] sex, your own reference shows you are wrong. The woman was stoned because she did not scream, even if the man raped her - either by using his strength against her, or manipulated her feelings, or whatever advantage he used to rape her.
This is clear from the verses that follow, which shows that rape is being considered. Not casual sex.

EDITED, left out something..

*Forced rape is not all the same. There are different, in terms of the measure of force used.

 

[nPeace]

No, besides a few things, for the most part, that is what I'm sticking to, afterall, it is the bible's narrative of how an Israelite supposed to treat another fellow Israelite.

Now that that has been settled, let's go back to the topic of slavery in Israel. Please provide the bible's narrative of slavery.

What. ...and repeat myself. Why?

 

[nPeace]

I'm just saying that basing whether a person was raped on whether they screamed or fought back is pretty stupid and backwards.

Okay. Why was it stupid and backward?
Or was your use of the word "is", a deliberate application to today's modern methods, and thinking?

Please note that, that if you are not taking the entire situation into consideration, you are missing important details.
So, for example, was it the case that a woman screamed, and on hearing the scream, men rushed in, dragged the man out, and stoned him?
Is that the visual you have?
I have a feeling it is. That's wrong.
I'll wait and see see what you have in mind first, though.

As a heads up, please read Exodus 18:25, 26, and Deuteronomy 1:16-18

 

[Deeje]

Those primitive savages are long dead, so we can't. The problem is that people still believe that they spoke on behalf of god and that their ancient beliefs and practices should still serve as a moral compass in the modern, civilized word.

So you think the current moral standards in the world are better?...and make people's lives happier and more meaningful? What moral compass exists today?

I should perhaps point out the suicide rate among our youth who have the physical maturity to engage in sex but not the emotional or mental maturity to manage relationships.
Most have no desire for a relationship anyway.....they just want to copulate. Its hardly a good way to live and pass on good good behavior patterns to the children...whoever their fathers might be....
The fabric of society is held together in strong family relationships.....which are now disappearing.
The most powerful empire on earth fell because they failed to value the family and allowed decadence and immorality to rule them......I can see its happening again.

Calling the world "civilized" is hardly backed up by the outcomes of their behavior. Its becoming more and more uncivilized.

Give me the Bible's standards any day. You can choose whatever standards you like.....makes no difference to me.
IMO all humans have done is swap one kind of slavery for another.....

 

[thomas t]

That's an explanation, in your opinion, Thomas?
"It says that if the woman does not scream, she must be killed."
That's it? That's an explanation? Or a restating of partly what is written?

Partly, as you did not even mention anything of verse 24.
Also, the passage includes the following verses (25-27), which continues... "But if...". So the passage is not just about having casual sex, if that's what you are saying... Is that what you are saying?

the passage is about all sorts of sex with an engaged woman. It's a simple rule.
There is no more explanation required, as I see it.

So, where you said, Deuteronomy 22:23, 24 is about having [casual] sex, your own reference shows you are wrong. The woman was stoned because she did not scream, even if the man raped her - either by using his strength against her, or manipulated her feelings, or whatever advantage he used to rape her.

I didn't claim otherwise (bolded passage).

Ammon used his strength against Tamar, but she did not do all she could to prevent the rape. Thus, one cannot prove that she did not consent.

Bible says rape. So, it is proven and clear to the reader that it was rape. 2 Samuel 13:14. If Bible says it, you can't prove me wrong here. Since that's the Bible story.

This was similar to the case with Dinah.

when it comes to Dinah, again it was clearly rape. Genesis 34:2.

You definitely did not understand those posts.
If you did understand, there is no way you could conclude what you are claiming you understand.
In fact, there is no way your conclusion could be considered logical, after reading those posts... imo.

So, now you want that you did NOT say that ... rape without any screaming involved is no rape?
these were your writings, though:

Yes [...] I did explained

and in the post you answered, we read
"They judged any situation according to God's law. "He said, she said" has never been a good way to judge any matter if there were no witnesses.

@nPeace has already explained that if the attack took place in a city, someone would have heard her scream,"

So now, you want to have left it open that rape without screaming is no rape? But this is not possible when you read your #155 as quoted above, in my opinion.
If you don't want to have agreed to the no-screaming-no-rape hypothesis, English language offers you plenty of opportunities to point out that you do NOT agree with what your fellow Jehova Witness made your stance look like.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I was honestly shocked by some of those posts.

I was as well. And I am not easily shocked (these days).

 

[SkepticThinker]

It is the Bible's view as inspired by its author....if you don't agree, take it up with him....OK?

I can't take it up with an invisible being that doesn't communicate with me, or people who have been dead for thousands of years.

You're the one communicating here with me about YOUR views of the Bible. So I'm asking YOU.

The Bible's laws, in principle, are the same yesterday, today and always. If you don't subscribe to them, that is not my problem. I am not anyone's judge......I am just a messenger. Shooting the messenger never works though, does it?

Except when they're not.
Like slavery.

As to not being anyone's judge ... you sounded pretty judgy there when trying to victim blame women for wearing provocative clothing, as though wearing provocative clothing is some kind of invitation to be raped. Ugh. We need to move past that kind of misogynistic, antiquated thinking.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So you think the current moral standards in the world are better?...and make people's lives happier and more meaningful? What moral compass exists today?

I should perhaps point out the suicide rate among our youth who have the physical maturity to engage in sex but not the emotional or mental maturity to manage relationships.
Most have no desire for a relationship anyway.....they just want to copulate. Its hardly a good way to live and pass on good good behavior patterns to the children...whoever their fathers might be....
The fabric of society is held together in strong family relationships.....which are now disappearing.
The most powerful empire on earth fell because they failed to value the family and allowed decadence and immorality to rule them......I can see its happening again.

Calling the world "civilized" is hardly backed up by the outcomes of their behavior. Its becoming more and more uncivilized.

Give me the Bible's standards any day. You can choose whatever standards you like.....makes no difference to me.
IMO all humans have done is swap one kind of slavery for another.....

Yes. I think a world in which we don't blame women for being raped is a better world than the one you are advocating from ancient times.
That's just for starters.

 

[Deeje]

I can't take it up with an invisible being that doesn't communicate with me, or people who have been dead for thousands of years.

You're the one communicating here with me about YOUR views of the Bible. So I'm asking YOU.

And I have given you his answers...directly from the scriptures......which God will not allow anyone to rewrite. His standards never change....why would they? If you do not subscribe to his standards, then of what interest is that to me? You make your choices and I make mine.
Sometimes you get what you ask for....and it isn't what you want.

As to not being anyone's judge ... you sounded pretty judgy there when trying to victim blame women for wearing provocative clothing, as though wearing provocative clothing is some kind of invitation to be raped. Ugh. We need to move past that kind of misogynistic, antiquated thinking.

Immodesty to a Christian is an invitation for immorality......it's not misogynistic or antiquated to us who believe in God and the benefits of following his standards. If you don't want to create the appetite, then don't feed the eyes or the desire. Its not rocket science surely....?

It only becomes rape when consent is withdrawn, which could be at the last minute....sorry but 'you reap what you sow'. Only in this instance is the woman equally responsible IMO. If its the consequences of your own actions, then cop some of the blame. How is that not fair?

Those who experience rape as an unprovoked attack...then that is a whole different kettle of fish, and it should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Yes. I think a world in which we don't blame women for being raped is a better world than the one you are advocating from ancient times.

We just need to put the blame where it lies.....you can't invite the wrong kind of attention and then cry rape when it doesn't suit you. I'd like to live in a world where people didn't engage in this behavior at all.....frankly, I am not at all attracted to the sleazy side of life where alley cats actually have better morals....and pregnancy is often seen as an unwanted side effect of their sex life. If that is your preferred world, then you are welcome to it....

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Ironically... your brother in Jehova Witness faith, @Hockeycowboy just laid out in #175 that rape does not require screaming, he even said seduction was rape according to him

No, apparently you misunderstood. It’s according to the Bible. Did you read Genesis 34 about Dinah and Shechem? The Bible calls the seduction, “rape”, does it not? A man causing a woman to ‘lose her virginity’, either by persuasion or force, was a serious matter among Jehovah’s people!

 

[night912]

What. ...and repeat myself. Why?

I said the narrative for slavery. You haven't given that yet.

 

[thomas t]

Did you read Genesis 34 about Dinah and Shechem? The Bible calls the seduction, “rape”, does it not?

of course I read this one twice.
The Bible is clear: rape. However, "seduction" does not figure in the text. So no, Bible does not call seduction rape.
Afterwards, Shechem tried to get her as wife. He even talked gently to her. This doesn't make the rape undone.
Sweet talking after rape is sexual harassment, as I see it.

I agree - losing one's virginity in the then context was a big thing. Yet it didn't mean rape.

Thomas

EDITED

 

[SkepticThinker]

And I have given you his answers...directly from the scriptures......which God will not allow anyone to rewrite. His standards never change....why would they? If you do not subscribe to his standards, then of what interest is that to me? You make your choices and I make mine.
Sometimes you get what you ask for....and it isn't what you want.

What I'm saying is all I can do is ask you for the answers to my questions, since it is you I am engaged in conversation with and not ancient peoples or any gods.
Remember, you told me to take it up with the author. I can't.

Immodesty to a Christian is an invitation for immorality......it's not misogynistic or antiquated to us who believe in God and the benefits of following his standards. If you don't want to create the appetite, then don't feed the eyes or the desire. Its not rocket science surely....?

And that's the problem.

It's misogynistic and antiquated to believe that a woman is responsible for being raped, simply because she had on what someone interpreted to be "immodest" or revealing clothing. This basically makes an excuse for a rapist, like, "oh the poor rapist couldn't help it because he saw that woman's ankle and couldn't control himself." We've come a lot farther than this simple-minded thinking during the course of human development. Hmm, maybe this is a reason why we shouldn't follow ancient peoples' ideas about morality.

Not to mention that standards of "modesty" have drastically changed over the centuries (i.e. it's subjective). Not so long ago, it was considered grossly immodest for a North American woman to show her ankles or her wrists or her throat. They would have said to them, "Oh you got raped? Well, if you don't want to create the appetite, then don't feed the eyes or the desire" because her big sexy wrist was hanging out of her sleeve. This is antiquated thinking that blames the victim and makes excuses for the rapist.

This kind of ingrained thinking is why #MeToo was necessary. And still is, apparently.

It only becomes rape when consent is withdrawn, which could be at the last minute....sorry but 'you reap what you sow'. Only is this instance is the woman equally responsible IMO. If its the consequences of your own actions, then cop some of the blame. How is that not fair?

Yeah, that's what rape is. Consent is a requirement to have sex with anyone.

Consent can be withdrawn any time. A person is allowed to change their mind about something that is happening to their own body at any time they choose. A grown adult human being can and should be able to stop when someone asks them to stop. You can't seriously be arguing against this, can you? What do you think rapists are, some fragile little snowflakes that need coddling?

Those who experience rape as an unprovoked attack...then that is a whole different kettle of fish, and it should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

I'm sorry, there is some kind of provoked version of rape? How does that look? Is it a person who wears an "immodest" T-shirt?

We just need to put the blame where it lies....

Yeah.

WITH. THE. RAPIST.

The rapist is the criminal here. Not the person being raped.

Good grief, do you blame people when they get mugged on the street? "Well you shouldn't have been wearing your wedding ring out in public. Of course you got mugged, and it's your fault!"

You know what Deeje, I think you're actually more moral than this. But you're stuck having to justify this horrible stuff because for some reason, you have to believe what the Bible says at all costs. Even at the cost of your humanity and moral compass.

.you can't invite the wrong kind of attention and then cry rape when it doesn't suit you. I'd like to live in a world where people didn't engage in this behavior at all.....frankly, I am not at all attracted to the sleazy side of life where alley cats actually have better morals....and pregnancy is often seen as an unwanted side effect of their sex life. If that is your preferred world, then you are welcome to it....

Ridiculous.

You can invite any kind of attention you want without expecting to be raped or murdered or have some other crime committed against you. There aren't certain kinds of behaviours that attract rapists or murderers to the point where they just can't help themselves and must murder, or must rape. And if there are, then the rapist is the one that has the problem that needs addressing, not the person being raped.

What a said state of affairs you describe, where everyone is a rapist just waiting to happen, depending on what another person is wearing and whether the rapists thinks it's "modest" or not.

Yuck. Secular morality is superior to Biblical morality, if this is the best you have to offer.

 

[nPeace]

the passage is about all sorts of sex with an engaged woman. It's a simple rule.
There is no more explanation required, as I see it.

No please. It is not.
You can say it is, because it can be easily used to apply that way, but the context specifically shows it deals specifically with rape.... hence "because she did not scream". There would be no need for that, if it was about all sorts of sex.
Nope. No Thomas.

I didn't claim otherwise (bolded passage).

Of course you didn't. you only didn't explain anything about that, which is puzzling since you were asked to explain, after saying so much... I know Christians are happy to explain Biblical passages especially when they claim to know so much on it.

Bible says rape. So, it is proven and clear to the reader that it was rape. 2 Samuel 13:14. If Bible says it, you can't prove me wrong here. Since that's the Bible story.

Of course it was rape. It was not casual sex. That where it proves you wrong, because it shows that rape does not need to involve beating, and vicious manhandling, as in Deuteronomy 22.

You are saying then, that you believe rape cannot involve any consent at all?
So you believe that a woman who does not put up a fight under no threat of harm, is necessarily raped without consent. Is that correct? It's a question.

when it comes to Dinah, again it was clearly rape. Genesis 34:2.

So, now you want that you did NOT say that ... rape without any screaming involved is no rape?

I've been saying that all along.. not just now.
I can say it again. I did not say that "rape without any screaming involved is no rape."
If you want it said louder, I can do that too... but no, I did not say what you jumped to as a conclusion.

these were your writings, though: and in the post you answered, we read
"They judged any situation according to God's law. "He said, she said" has never been a good way to judge any matter if there were no witnesses.

@nPeace has already explained that if the attack took place in a city, someone would have heard her scream,"

There you go. i did not say what you concluded, or perhaps just misinterpreted, or whatever, idk. Case closed. You verified by your own testimony, that you lost the case.
Thrown out by any proper judge, and a charge of perjury brought against you. How do you plead?

So now, you want to have left it open that rape without screaming is no rape? But this is not possible when you read your #155 as quoted above, in my opinion.

It's not a "now you want to" situation. It's more a "You assumed wrong, and you are not showing yourself humble enough to accept that you were wrong, even though you know it, and have been shown.
It's like someone so determined to put their own words, or thoughts in someone's mouth, in order to create an argument they think will give them some sort of satisfaction.
What would you get out of that Thomas, other than a big fat ego? What will you feed it with? Surely there would be no room for God's word, or spirit.

If you don't want to have agreed to the no-screaming-no-rape hypothesis, English language offers you plenty of opportunities to point out that you do NOT agree with what your fellow Jehova Witness made your stance look like.

Ah. so now you admit it's a hypothesis. Wow Thomas. Whose hypothesis is it? Yours of course. It's an idea from your head. ....and what results came back from testing it? Not the results that are also in your head... another hypothesis. Wow though.
It seems to me this is a JW gripe. Why didn't I figure that one out.
As far as I know, I agree with my fellow JW. Maybe you can be more specific about where we disagree.

 

[nPeace]

I can't take it up with an invisible being that doesn't communicate with me, or people who have been dead for thousands of years.

You're the one communicating here with me about YOUR views of the Bible. So I'm asking YOU.


Except when they're not.
Like slavery.

As to not being anyone's judge ... you sounded pretty judgy there when trying to victim blame women for wearing provocative clothing, as though wearing provocative clothing is some kind of invitation to be raped. Ugh. We need to move past that kind of misogynistic, antiquated thinking.

No ma'am. You are mistaken. God's view has not changed, on slavery, or any other human practice.
One that reads the Bible carefully, and without bias, sees this.
Do you imagine that God viewed the actions men took up, as his way, just because he allowed it?
No. That is not the case.
In fact, Jesus confirmed this on more than one occasion.
For example...

Spoiler

(
(Mark 10:2-12) 2 And Pharisees approached, intent on testing him, and they asked whether it was lawful for a man to divorce a wife. 3 He answered them: “What did Moses command you?” 4 They said: “Moses allowed the writing of a certificate of dismissal and divorcing her.” 5 But Jesus said to them: “Out of regard for your hard-heartedness, he wrote this commandment for you. 6 However, from the beginning of creation, ‘He made them male and female. 7 For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother, 8 and the two will be one flesh,’ so that they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore, what God has yoked together, let no man put apart.” 10 When they were again in the house, the disciples began to question him about this. 11 He said to them: “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, 12 and if ever a woman after divorcing her husband marries another, she commits adultery.”