Originally posted by FMF
You are now trying to land even more insults on him by way of a post addressed to me.

Actually I was just explaining my position to you, landing more insults was just a happy bi-product.

Originally posted by FMF
I contend that the following bibles constitute legitimate scholarship, and that this body of published scholarship trumps your assertions, at least in my estimation: New International Version, English Standard Version, New American Standard, King James, God’s Word Translation, King James 2000, American King James Version, American Standard Version, Bible in Basi ...[text shortened]... e" is not an 'argument' per se, I accept that it is your view and I agree to disagree. 🙂

I quoted the American Standard Version for you already. Many of the other
versions vary in only minor points except the one or two that actually use the
word "rape" in case of the last virgin in which the man that took her virginity
is required to marry her and compensate the father.

Originally posted by FMF
Depending on where he is exactly along the Touche-Douche Continuum.

Lol

Originally posted by FMF
[quote]New International Version (©1984)
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married [b]and rapes her and they are discovered,

English Standard Version (©2001)
“If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found,

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"If a man finds a girl w ...[text shortened]... bibles that the verse refers to non-consensual sex. But I understand your view completely.[/b]

Except for the last case in which the woman does not cry out for help
but allows the man to continue his sexual act on her before they are
found out. This is why I believe Moses is not requiring the man be put
to death as he did in the earlier case in which the woman calls out for
help and the action is indicated as being forced on the woman by the
man.

Originally posted by FMF
You seem to be saying the numerous scholars and theologians who translated those bibles are "laughable" and "sloppy" and "simplistic", and I understand your view totally. I just don't agree. And presumably they don't agree with you either. And you don't agree with me or with them. I think the situation is pretty clear. I reckon you've argued your point pretty we ...[text shortened]... ranslations that I cited. If you need to have the last word, by all means go ahead. 🙂

It is obvious that you are not as knowledgeable about the Holy Bible as
FreakyKBH and myself. But I think if you wanted to really understand this
you you look for comments by various scholars on this. You do not have
to rely on the opinions of anyone here on RHP.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is obvious that you are not as knowledgeable about the Holy Bible as
FreakyKBH and myself. But I think if you wanted to really understand this
you you look for comments by various scholars on this. You do not have
to rely on the opinions of anyone here on RHP.

lol, you wouldn't know a bible if a crate of them fell from the sky and smacked you on
the head, fingers crossed!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
lol, you wouldn't know a bible if a crate of them fell from the sky and smacked you on
the head, fingers crossed!

Okay, FreakyKBH then. I will leave myself out of it and not post any more
on this subject on this thread. Are you happy now?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Okay, FreakyKBH then. I will leave myself out of it and not post any more
on this subject on this thread. Are you happy now?

I am only jesting

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
In essence, he has become her security for her entire life all for one rash act of sensuality.

In a forum populated mainly by men, I am not surprised this issue hasn't been called out as wrong.

I know this is a relatively old post, so I won't belabor the point, but I must point out that rape is NOT an "act of sensuality". It is an act of violence. Period.

Rape is as much an "act of sensuality" as is murder. Which is not at all.

Every time a man says that rape is an "act of sensuality", the women's movement is set back a hundred years in that one moment. Men need to start realizing this so that they don't sound stupid when discussing the issue.

Originally posted by Suzianne
In a forum populated mainly by men, I am not surprised this issue hasn't been called out as wrong.

I know this is a relatively old post, so I won't belabor the point, but I must point out that rape is NOT an "act of sensuality". It is an act of violence. Period.

Rape is as much an "act of sensuality" as is murder. Which is not at all.

Every time ...[text shortened]... eed to start realizing this so that they don't sound stupid when discussing the issue.

Your ire is aimed incorrectly. I take the verse to mean an act of consensual sex between a man and an un-betrothed virgin, not a rape, as translated by the NIV.

Originally posted by Suzianne
In a forum populated mainly by men, I am not surprised this issue hasn't been called out as wrong.

I know this is a relatively old post, so I won't belabor the point, but I must point out that rape is NOT an "act of sensuality". It is an act of violence. Period.

Rape is as much an "act of sensuality" as is murder. Which is not at all.

Every time ...[text shortened]... eed to start realizing this so that they don't sound stupid when discussing the issue.

I understand the feeling behind this post but if you could refine the aim of your ire a bit it
would be appreciated.

I am not sure I could rant against this part of the bible and how some people rationalise
and justify it more vociferously without getting forum banned.
And I am not the only one by any stretch.

Not all men are this frickin stupid.

And even if you contort yourself into saying that this part of the bible is mearly saying that
if a man and a woman are having consensual sex without being betrothed or married and
are discovered, treating the woman as damaged goods and fining the man to repay the
girls father and forcing the two to be married for the rest of their lives and thus treating
women as property of men is equally objectionable and unjustifiable as slavery.
Which the bible also condones.

When I was pointing out to freaky the idiocy of his comments and suggestion that life was
better back then when 'morals' were so strongly guarded/enforced women's rights was
top of the list of things I had in mind.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I understand the feeling behind this post but if you could refine the aim of your ire a bit it
would be appreciated.

I am not sure I could rant against this part of the bible and how some people rationalise
and justify it more vociferously without getting forum banned.
And I am not the only one by any stretch.

Not all men are this frickin stup ...[text shortened]... re so strongly guarded/enforced women's rights was
top of the list of things I had in mind.

Ahem.

What results of today's lax standards could you possibly hold up as evidence of their moral superiority to the codices of ancient Israel? You either forget or are completely ignorant of the fact that the sum of the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, but I challenge you nonetheless to pick out the law that contains a flaw--- one that restricts to such degree as to dehumanize or denigrate the essence of a person without just cause and/or an eye for the greater good.

Although I would never tell another to give up on their dreams, on this one, you'd be better off simply conceding your loss.

Today's standards routinely trumpet their supposed championing of personal rights while plunging their adherents into self-loathing.