Lonely?
January 3rd, 2011 | Categories: Funny Stuff, Interesting, picture | Tags: bible, christianity, Funny Stuff, marriage, picture, rape
Your last stop before eternal enlightenment
- Home
- Forums
- Fundie Ramblings
- About irReligion.org
-
- Youdao
- Xian Guo
- Zhua Xia
- My Yahoo!
- newsgator
- Bloglines
- iNezha
Thanks for spreading the love :)
Well you are all wrong because you have taking the verse out of context as you have not compared scripture to scripture.
If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed,…. That is, meets with one in a field, which is not espoused to a man; and the man is supposed to be an unmarried man, as appears by what follows:
and lay hold on her, and lie with her, she yielding to it, and so is not expressive of a rape, as Deuteronomy 22:25 where a different word from this is there used; which signifies taking strong hold of her, and ravishing her by force; yet this, though owing to his first violent seizure of her, and so different from what was obtained by enticing words, professions of love, and promises of marriage, and the like, as in Exodus 22:16 but not without her consent:
and they be found; in the field together, and in the fact; or however there are witnesses of it, or they themselves have confessed, it, and perhaps betrayed by her pregnancy.
We are doing no such thing; we are not taking your book out of context, by any means. If there is a verse that looks to be barbaric, cruel, unusual, unkind, evil, and contradicting… then it probably is barbaric, cruel, unusual, unkind, evil, and contradicting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK7P7uZFf5o
And here is a legit example of taking something out of context:
“__black people really piss me off.”
Now, that is pretty racist, isn’t it…?
However, realize that the phrase in question was taken out of context.
Here is the original context of the phrase:
“People that spread hatred towards black people really piss me off.”
Amen, Greenworld! Preaching the razor sharp gospel of logic with proper and judicious use of language.
B-But… you’re taking those verses out of context!!
lol- Nuh-Uh! Read ‘em and weep :)
FFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
loools No I am not an Nuh-uh. Are you serious?
That is precisely what that verse says. If you fucktard of a God was omniscient he would have known it but since your all errant unloving cruel God is as dumb as his followers. I will spell it out for you.
That verse can be precisely used as it is stated on the billboard. If you are a single ugly male and wants to have a wife that is hot. Just pick out any good looking virgin and rape her. 50 shekels later and she is yours to fuck any time you please. God thinks women are property. Now go in the corner and don’t come out until you grow a brain!
Cheers :)
What’s funny is you’ve got such a large chip on your shoulder you don’t even realize the guy you’re talking to is also (like you) lamely making fun of Christians. You’re so ripe for a crusade against Christians you don’t even see it. I have to wonder if you’ve got some “Christian” jerks in your life making you hypersensitive or if you’re always like this?
Mike – I must agree with you. It CAN be used that way…. but you missed the INTENT of the message. It is not to give permission for the act – but to show what the PUNISHMENT of the act would be. FINISH THE VERSE! The “rapist” was to pay 50 sheckels of silver to the father as a dowrey. At 3.5 ounces per sheckel, that would be 175 ounces of silver. At today’s market value of $35 per ounce, that would be a minimum of $6125 for the “privilage” of having her for a wife. Then there is the rest of it…. he could NEVER EVER EVER EVER under ANY circumstances divorce her – no matter what a bitch she was, no matter what AIDS infected bastard she slept with, and by the same Jewish laws, he was OBLIGATED to have sex with this 70 year old skanky fat, disease ridden, unfaithful, bitch at least once a month for the rest of his life…. and there were no condems back then. Whatever diseases she got – he got. Not the life of fun you thought it sounded like is it?
Poe’s Law. Well played Greenworld.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_Law#N.E2.80.93Q
Link failure. For those who don’t know, Poe’s Law is “Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humour, it is impossible to create a parody of fundamentalism that someone won’t mistake for the real thing.”
28If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
There is no mention of the word rape here. It just says, if they have sex. Of course its still bullshit that you would pay the father of daughter but lets not lie. This is far from as bad as the billboard is making it out to be.
dude, you missed the “lay hold of” part. that’s capture. that makes it rape. tada!
It depends what version of the bible you are reading. The bible was not originally written in English, to the surprise of many Americans! Language can easily be softened by the translator, but there must be a connotation of “against her will” if some translators are translating it as “rape”.
28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
What you all seem to be missing is context. Context is king. You will see the preceding verses dealt with rape, this verse deals with consensual sex outside of the bounds of marriage. So what is God’s punishment for pretending you are married with none of the societal obligations of marriage? Simple: It’s marriage. God’s punishment for rape, that we saw in the previous verses is death.
“But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces (chazaq) her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death, for just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so is this matter. For he found her in the countryside, and the betrothed young woman CRIED OUT, but there was no one to save her. If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and THEY ARE found out, then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.” Deuteronomy 22:25-29 NKJV
http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/ot_and_rape.htm
Actually no. The paragraph you quote quite clearly states that the punishment is death IF the woman is betrothed and not if she is a virgin and unwed.
That’s the point though. Rape is sex. It says nothing about consent in the passage, therefore if you rape a woman, you can marry her with a small offering of silver..
I agree with Sean
Seriously, whoever put that up is either an ignorant atheist or someone who thinks everyone else is ignorant enough to believe that.
You mean like ignorant enough to actually believe any crap found in the bible? I agree.
Are you sleepy? It is in the bible. It is the inerrant word of the creator in all his divine glory…right? I am sorry but I am a ray of sunshine for the dim intellect of that ignorant fictional deity’s followers. When you figure out nobody but a bunch of half witted misogynistic desert tribes men wrote this rubbish. The sooner you can break free from this mental meme that chains you to ancient ignorance.
Hey dumbasses, it says the *penalty* for sex is marriage. Not rape, just sex.
Either way, that wife will only cost you 50 shekels
It is not sex…buy a clue. It is rape. It does not talk and fooling around. It is about taking possession of the virgin you wish to marry. It is not about permission. No wonder you are still a sleepy minded belieber. Save your biblical apologies for your inside voice. This is public.
If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed,…. That is, meets with one in a field, which is not espoused to a man; and the man is supposed to be an unmarried man, as appears by what follows:
and lay hold on her, and lie with her, she yielding to it, and so is not expressive of a rape, as Deuteronomy 22:25 where a different word from this is there used; which signifies taking strong hold of her, and ravishing her by force; yet this, though owing to his first violent seizure of her, and so different from what was obtained by enticing words, professions of love, and promises of marriage, and the like, as in Exodus 22:16 but not without her consent:
and they be found; in the field together, and in the fact; or however there are witnesses of it, or they themselves have confessed, it, and perhaps betrayed by her pregnancy.
You are just like those priests and religions that changes the sense of bible texts or uses phrases out of the context to fool people!
Shame on you! You try to parody it but you are just LIKE those people!
Dumb ass!
Ok, let’s look at the KJV for Deuteronomy 22:28:
“If a man find a damsel [that is] a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;”
The phrase “lay hold on her” seems to indicate that the woman’s consent is not being sought by the man. The Hebrew word used is “taphas”, which Strong’s definition clearly indicates that force is being used on the woman.
How about other translations? Well let’s see…
ASV: “If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, that is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;”
ESV: “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found,”
NASB: “If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered,”
NIV: “If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered,”
NLT: “If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged,”
RSV: “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found,”
Hmmm… these all seem to indicate that consent isn’t being sought here and force is definitely being used.
Finally, the classic Matthew Henry Commentary for this verse is pretty clear that rape is what is happening here:
“If a damsel not betrothed were thus abused by violence, he that abused her should be fined, the father should have the fine, and, if he and the damsel did consent, he should be bound to marry her, and never to divorce her, how much soever she was below him, and how unpleasing soever she might afterwards be to him, as Tamar was to Amnon after he had forced her, v. 28, 29. This was to deter men from such vicious practices, which it is a shame that we are necessitated to read and write of.”
Absolutely awesome.
The real problem with any religion that has been translated again and again becomes rather apparent here; You go from meanings that are innocent compared to some of the more barbaric translations.
So which version of the bible do you believe? How do you figure out which bible is right, and which one is a sure path to hell? Are you going to base your life around customs and beliefs of (in the case of the King James bible) a book that was first published around the 1690′s in England?
Say you go to an earlier incarnation of the bible – one with less translations of translations – you’ll probably have even more issues. Who is going to explain all of the odd cultural phrases to you? When should you be taking the author literally, and when should you realize that the author is just making an analogy, or something else that’s an idiom in the language for that time period?
This is exactly why looking to an ancient book for information on your “God(s)” is inherently silly. You will never find the truth you’re looking for, because there will always be a different translation. As soon as you invalidate one translation, you’re telling an entire group of people that the beliefs that they’ve held dear are wrong, and they should believe something different. Are those people going to listen to you when you tell them that they’re wrong due to some sort of logical fallacy with their version of the Great Book?
Welcome to the issues that Atheists deal with on a daily basis. Except it’s not just one little subset of people within a religious group that are wrong – it’s everyone. Just go out, live, love, don’t be a dick, and stop wasting your life on figments of your imagination.
Nice bit of eisegesis there, Skippy!
Confusion could be cleared up with a slightly longer excerpt of the chapter:
25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.
26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:
27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.
28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
30 A man shall not take his father’s wife, nor discover his father’s skirt.
Sorry for the scripture, I’m not a christian apologist and I’m certainly not about to justify the shite in the bible but I need to display it so we have a reference point on this page.
You have to consider the context of these words. Originating in an ancient Hebrew culture that had a tightly regulated code of conduct. Rape was seen as a severe crime, equatable to murder, and I think lines 25 & 26 echo this notion. Obviously it still happened but seldom would the rapist and the victim have been from the same tribe/village (unless of course they were already married and husband demanded his “rights” from an unwilling wife – only recently has this problem been recognised as rape).
Also, you’ll notice that rape was a crime then, as it is now, but for different reasons. The distinction in these lines is whether or not the woman is *betrothed* to another man, NOT whether she actually consented (let’s not be silly, a woman’s opinion in ancient Leventine would have been bitch-slapped right out of her defiant mind).
Line 28 says “lay hold on her”. This most likely means charmed or seduced, not captured. For example if two young love-birds are caught screwing behind the barn, then the girl would be seen as a tainted bargaining chip for her father. Since she can no longer be bartered to another man, the boy who “humbled” her is now committed to seeing it through to the end. Divorce was not an option in unions set up under these conditions… Of course, if they never got caught, he’d be 50 shekels better off.
I don’t believe this chapter “justifies” rape, however its wording is poor enough that someone could convince himself that it does. Especially since society has now changed so much that modern theists are less and less likely to relate to the scripture when it constantly refers to oxen, asses, shekels, and other tribal affairs.
Hal is close, but misses a few things. There is the difference of “the field” and “the city”. The assumption being that in the field, no one can hear you scream, so no one could come to the defense of the woman. According to verse 25, the woman would not even have to prove she was unwilling, but by the mere fact that it happened “in the field”, the man would be executed for rape. “In the city” is a legal term for where someone could hear her protest and would come to her defense. That implies consent, since she would’ve otherwise called out.
Remember this is a legal code, so the terms would have meaning much like our Habeus Corpus. Not all crimes involve a body but you must always ‘have the body’ at court.
The 50 pieces of silver is a legal fine paid to the father of the woman. This is because he was the one in charge of her care. If the father was dead, the money would instead go to the woman.
Another interesting point is that he cannot divorce her, but is now responsible for her the rest of his life. If he does not care for her, he will have to face the social and legal ramifications.
Though debating the particularities of a legal code that is at least 4,000 years old, belonged to a culture alien to nearly all the readers here, and has not been in effect for nearly half of that, is a little more complicated than the internet allows.
Some interesting insight. Thanks for that.
There is also another big difference between the woman described in verse 25 and the one in 28: the former is betrothed while the latter is not. Another man having sex with a betrothed woman could call into question the legitimacy of any children she may bare for the next year at least. That’s not an issue for the unbetrothed woman, since any children she bares while unbetrothed are all illegitimate. In an odd way, forcing the rapist to marry the unbetrothed woman actually ensures any children are legitimate and could be seen as a deterrent for men who consider doing such an act. Pretty brutal for the woman but consistent with the views of the time and culture.
It’s pretty vague in the King James version. There’s no such vaguary in other translations. It’s clearly rape. The King James version uses a lot of euphemisms to avoid indelicate topics. It’s a bad source for grittier topics.
Again, close but not quite. Rape comes from the Latin “rapere” which mean “to seize”. The Rape of the Sabine Women” is about their capture, not the sexual impropriety, though that was implied. To “seize” or “lay hold of” would mean the same thing as rape does these days, it’s just older language. Rape in the English language has not always exclusively meant what it means now.
I’m afraid I have to agree with the apologists on this one, it’s a red herring. It does, however illustrate that the bible is not infallible as an infallible document would be easy to translate. You also can’t ignore that some might have interpreted it as above, and I have to wonder how many women were sold to their rapists? Finally, good for you…one verse in the bible isn’t as evil as it’s made out to be. You only have thousands left. Let’s start with cutting babies from the womb…aaaaaaand…go!
BTW, kudos to Toni. The link you provided gives an insightful, critical and intelligent response to this issue. That’s how an intelligent debate should be carried out. I’ll be keeping my eye on you!
You may as well illustrate that water is dry. The bible is not infallible, it is inerrant. The claim to infallibility belongs to the Church’s teaching authority which includes her interpretation of the bible. The texts were never intended for individual interpretation, but for authoritative interpretation both in the old and new covenants (Jewish and Christian times).
You probably think I’m crazy, but at least now you will be more precise as to why.
read the whole bible ya just might learn something do you know what this means, i might live in this world but im not part of this world, read and learn
You’re… not part of it?
DEBRA, YOU’RE OUT OF THIS WOOOOORLDDDD!!!
You broke her, you buy her.
By ‘this world’ you mean the educated and literate world? Because your post certainly reinforces that.
praise the lord!
So much for the woman’s feelings on what she wants. It amazes me people think the creator of the universe would make such a mistake as not realizing women have rights too. Something tells me the god of the bible is yet another fake god people invented.
Well, most Xians assume a “black-and-white” point of view:
1) Give them 100% rights — they’ll go and sleep with every man and do drugs and kill people and abort children, etc. because of this;
-OR-
2) Force them the role of housewife and don’t let her have a say in anything — this way, she will be an obedient, “godly” woman to her husband.
To them, there are no distinctions from either two positions. And this “logic” comes from an “all-knowing” and “all-loving” god.
This is yet another obtuse postulation showing a cursory study of the bible.
Who cares? The bible is just a book of myths, its contents are completely irrelevant to our existence. Your beliefs don’t change anything.
I have known believers assuming those two types of women as the only possibilities.
I’m not sure that “easy to translate” is a necessary condition for infallibility. Doesn’t it just mean you can’t translate it properly?
Young’s Literal translation says, “Deuteronomy 22:28-29 `When a man findeth a damsel, a virgin who is not betrothed, and hath caught her, and lain with her, and they have been found, then hath the man who is lying with her given to the father of the damsel fifty silverlings, and to him she is for a wife; because that he hath humbled her, he is not able to send her away all his days.”
*hath caught her* In other spots, it says also *hath laid hold of her*
I think it’s pretty clear that the sex was against her will. To say otherwise is to twist the meaning of the words around.
As to “city vs field”, yes, that means that it is expected that a woman will call for help (and loudly enough to be heard) if raped. But accounts from and conversations with modern rape victims will tell you that this isn’t always possible. What if a man held a knife to your throat and said he’d kill you if you call out? Or lays hold of your neck? Strangles you to unconciousness? Or knocks you out? If that happens, the woman would now be *forced*, so to speak, to keep quiet about the rape or face punishment herself. Pretty sweet situation for the rapist.
It would be in the best interest of the rapist to be sure you are silent. He will be punished one way or another if discovered.
Look to the Habeas Corpus analogy. City vs field is to mean that she gave a struggle, it is a legal term not a strict requirement.
Man I Luv this!
anyone that loves this is obviously a democrat. and thus being a democrat does not have a true concept of reality. so meh, this board i give a 2 out of 10, at least the moron who posted it knew how to spell. kudos to being a a pro war atheist with little to no grasp on the real world.
Damn, looks like I missed a good one. Maybe I’ll sit and read through the comments at some point.
Actual billboard? If so, do you know the location? Or photoshop?
Photoshop of course.
I think Francis Collins, head of Human Genome Project and author of “The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief” would not agree with this billboard.
I don’t think any of us care.
Seriously, folks. This is so not worth arguing over. None of us can ever know if these were the original words of this verse, much less what the author’s intent truly was. The only thing that’s certain, is that the billboard points out the imprecision of the whole system.
Well that’s relevant.
LOL you got me!
err, so those skanky, fat, disease ridden women have no say in the matter? Why would the man choose such a hideous person to lock in to “matrimony” in such a way? How is this supposed to make it mo0re moral?
I honestly can not tell the POE from the pious here, so sorry if I’m out of line.
Atheist Logic http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxXGzvZw4F4
Christian Logic http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVHyKgehGPA