Israeli Academic: Raping Palestinian Women Would Deter Future Attacks

[Type Username Here]

The man has no shame, even after having his credibility and knowledge exposed by his own source.



Google a book cover to bolster your argument without reading the content inside brehs.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

The man has no shame, even after having his credibility and knowledge exposed by his own source.

The source actually CONFIRMS that rape is not condoned.

Try harder and lie more.

​

 

[Type Username Here]

The source actually CONFIRMS that rape is not condoned.

Try harder and lie more.

​

Like I said, no shame.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Deuteronomy 22

23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;

THIS is considered 'seduction'. Since sexual intercourse was only 'correct' in a marriage, outside of it was considered 'immoral' and both participants were killed.
​

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:

THIS is considered 'rape'. The rapist is the only one killed.​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Like I said, no shame.

You can say all you want, you just can't prove that rape is condoned in the Bible.


​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

The only way that an Israelite would be morally justified in having sexual intercourse with a female captive was if he made her his wife, granting to her the rights and privileges due to a wife.




Eisegesis is not valid for the purposes of interpretation.​

 

[Type Username Here]

I think I can safely say that this conversation from DaFunkDoc has shifted from his theological defense of his religion (or his family's religion) to his support of rape. That's the only logical conclusion I can come to. Either that or he really doesn't understand what rape is. I'm hoping it's the latter.

The man he cited (or the book cover he googled, which seems more likely considering he didn't read the contents), who extensively did his research using original texts (not Shakespearean translations from European Christian sources which had a vested interested in softening the language to shine a positive light), came to same conclusions that anyone with common sense would:

"The rapist owes to the girl's father"
"The rapist pays, in addition, damages for pain" (not death)

"'Rape' means rape: sex without the girl's consent"
"The only difference between rape and seduction is the rapist's inability to divorce his wife"


Again, this is dafunkdoc's OWN source. Someone he thought was credible because he liked the book cover. This is not from me. According to dafunkdock's logic, his OWN source suffers from eisegesis


This dude googled a book cover to bolster his strength without reading what was inside

He's just getting around to reading it now.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

I think I can safely say that this conversation from DaFunkDoc has shifted from his theological defense of his religion

Please show in the source I provided where rape is condoned?

I'll wait......might take a while.....like forever.



I NEVER link anything I haven't read first.​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Take more screenshots yet still be unable to prove your claim.

​

 

[The Real]

THIS is considered 'seduction'. Since sexual intercourse was only 'correct' in a marriage, outside of it was considered 'immoral' and both participants were killed.
​

THIS is considered 'rape'. The rapist is the only one killed.​

Doesn't the second quote only apply to Israelites? It specifically refers to betrothed women as well.

It seems like the book suggests different standards for in-group vs out group rape. In the latter case, whether prisoner or not, they must marry the victim and, if the woman is an Israelite, pay her father, but the harm of the rape is retroactively cancelled by the ceremony. It doesn't say anywhere that the raped prisoner or slave has any right to refuse either the rape or the marriage.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Doesn't the second quote only apply to Israelites? It specifically refers to betrothed women as well.

Israelites were forbidden to marry 'foreign' women. The only way they could without being considered 'unclean' and unable to participate in the community was if the woman converted to Judaism. The specificity is due to writing conventions, not a willingness to withhold information. They were very 'frugal' with their words so as not to blur the meanings. 'Betrothed' means she was already promised (basically married) to another family, otherwise, she was treated as just another child whether foreigner or Israelite until/unless she was married.​

It seems like the book suggests different standards for in-group vs out group rape. In the latter case, whether prisoner or not, they must marry the victim and, if the woman is an Israelite, pay her father, but the harm of the rape is retroactively cancelled by the ceremony. It doesn't say anywhere that the raped prisoner or slave has any right to refuse either the rape or the marriage.

There is no 'rape' (in the modern sense of the term) involved in that verse. As far as 'in-group/out-group' 'betrothed/unbetrothed'.......

Exodus 22 (KJV)

16 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.

17 If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.​

'Virginity' was the main concern, not whether she was part of the 'in-group' or promised to be married. Slaves, by definition, had little/no rights aside from those given by their 'masters' but were considered a part of the family. As far as those captured for marriage:

Deuteronomy 21 (KJV)

12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;

13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.

14 And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.

We're talking about a patriarchal society 3,000+ years ago and the ONLY way a man wouldn't have 'delight' with a woman is if she refused him. Women couldn't be coerced into marriage which, by Israelite law, was only legitimate upon consummation. No consummation (her refusal/his inability) = no marriage = let her go.​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

One last thing to add to this fun-filled romp through bigotry, ignorance, and bias. Israel was the ONLY civilization in the Ancient Near East that had specific laws detailing what was to happen to captive women.............

5.1.1.6 Two laws discuss the treatment of unfree women acquired as wives in divergent ways.

a) The "amah of the Book of the Covenant (Exod. 21:7–10) is an Israelite woman sold for this status by her father. If the buyer has designated her for his son, she is treated like any other daughter in-law, becomes a wife, and is not freed in the seventh year. If the man for whom she was acquired as a wife did not want her, he could “redeem her” to another family but he could not sell her, for his not marrying her was considered a betrayal. If he married another woman, he had to keep providing for his "amah; if not, she would go free. The debt for which her father may have sold her is cancelled, but she would not get back any monetary payment to her father, for it was not considered a bride-price. Deuteronomy explicitly frees both male and female Hebrew slaves in the seventh year, an indication that there were no more "amah arrangements for acquiring wives.

b) Deuteronomy provides for capturing a wife in war (Deut. 21:10–14). Brought home, she was to perform transition rituals—shaving her head, cutting her fingernails, and changing her clothes. She was also to “mourn her father and her mother” for a month, after which her captor could consummate the marriage. As with the "amah of Exodus, the captive bride could not be treated as an ordinary slave and sold. Changing his mind was considered abuse, and if he did not want her, she would go free.


~Vol. 2, pg. 1008

There is NOTHING for any other Ancient Near Eastern civilization. The Bible (OT at that time) was exceptional in it's legal treatment of human beings during war........​

9.3.4 Nothing certain can be said about the rules of war. A declaration of war sometimes preceded hostilities, but there appears to have been no general obligation. Prisoners of war were at the mercy of their captors, to treat at their discretion. They were either killed, enslaved (often being blinded), or ransomed. Civilians were regarded as legitimate booty. Humane treatment seems to have depended on political expediency and internal inhibitions rather than on recognized legal rules.

~Vol. 1, pg 86

'Rape' was not condoned in the Bible......

EDIT: Put in gif.

​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

​

 

[Type Username Here]

after which her captor could consummate the marriage

Prisoners of war were at the mercy of their captors, to treat at their discretion.

Humane treatment seems to have depended on political expediency and internal inhibitions rather than on recognized legal rules.

Reading Is indeed fundamental.


There is so much ether coming tomorrow. After Satlow was posted here and went on to describe rape being condoned in the OT, I went on a little research mission, piggybacking from Satlow onto other scholars, and I what found was illuminating.

It's going to be funny, all I will say right now.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Reading Is indeed fundamental.

Then you should actually READ the text without bias/presuppositions and within the historical context. In the meantime.........



​