Israeli Academic: Raping Palestinian Women Would Deter Future Attacks

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Notice how only one person in the debate is using the text in question. Straight from the source.

Where's the condoning of rape?





​

 

[Type Username Here]

Notice how only one person in the debate is using the text in question. Straight from the source. Just going to continue to quote the text and let it speak for itself. Tells you a lot of about the world when people don't think there is anything wrong with the text I'm quoting, doesn't it? God condones ands kills infants/young boys but somehow isn't condoning rape and forced marriages because that would be too much.

So they instructed the Benjamites, saying, “Go and hide in the vineyards and watch. When the young women of Shiloh come out to join in the dancing, rush from the vineyards and each of you seize one of them to be your wife. Then return to the land of Benjamin.

Moses became angry with the officers, the commanders of battalions and companies, who had returned from the war. He asked them, "Why have you kept all the women alive? Remember that it was the women who followed Balaam's instructions and at Peor led the people to be unfaithful to the Lord. That was what brought the epidemic on the Lord's people. So now kill every boy and kill every woman who has had sexual intercourse, but keep alive for yourselves all the girls and all the women who are virgins.

You may, however, take for yourselves the women, the children, the livestock, and everything else in the city. You may use everything that belongs to your enemies. The Lord has given it to you.

I swear to you that I will cause someone from your own family to bring trouble on you. You will see it when I take your wives from you and give them to another man; and he will have intercourse with them in broad daylight. You sinned in secret, but I will make this happen in broad daylight for all Israel to see.' " "I have sinned against the Lord," David said. Nathan replied, "The Lord forgives you; you will not die. But because you have shown such contempt for the Lord in doing this, your child will die."

"When the Lord your God gives you victory in battle and you take prisoners, you may see among them a beautiful woman that you like and want to marry. Take her to your home, where she will shave her head, cut her fingernails, and change her clothes. She is to stay in your home and mourn for her parents for a month; after that, you may marry her. Later, if you no longer want her, you are to let her go free. Since you forced her to have intercourse with you, you cannot treat her as a slave and sell her.

fukking sick. Thankfully most modern Christians and Jews have ignored these parts due to secular pressure, laws and common sense. I mean, God condoning the death of children:

So now kill every boy

is sick. Even going on to kill infants himself.

When is murdering an infant ever morally right? When God commands it or does it I suppose.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Notice how only one person in the debate is using the text in question. Straight from the source. Just going to continue to quote the text and let it speak for itself.

Proof by assertion, sometimes informally referred to as proof by repeated assertion, is an informal fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction. Sometimes, this may be repeated until challenges dry up, at which point it is asserted as fact due to its not being contradicted (argumentum ad nauseam). In other cases, its repetition may be cited as evidence of its truth, in a variant of the appeal to authority or appeal to belief fallacies.

This fallacy is sometimes used as a form of rhetoric by politicians, or during a debate as a filibuster. In its extreme form, it can also be a form of brainwashing. Modern politics contains many examples of proof by assertions. This practice can be observed in the use of political slogans, and the distribution of "talking points", which are collections of short phrases that are issued to members of modern political parties for recitation to achieve maximum message repetition. The technique is also sometimes used in advertising.

​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

My challenge still stands. Prove that rape is condoned in the Bible and I'll take a permanent ban from this forum.

Copy-n'-pasting the same drivel over and over again isn't proof of anything except your mouse and keyboard functionality.....and your bias.

​

 

[Type Username Here]

Notice that I made the claim, and provided text as proof of my claim.

The response has been a unequivocal: "that's not rape". No supporting argument, disregards the text posted, disregards that in the same text god condones killing young children but somehow would never condone rape/forced marriages (which he clearly does). It disregards patriarchal systems of control in the times leading up modern age (and that continues in a lot of places in the present).

What kind of individual in modern society and times looks back at these passages and not see the oppression of women? They can't see how they are treated as property? How the sex is forcibly initiated by the men?

So now kill every boy and kill every woman who has had sexual intercourse, but keep alive for yourselves all the girls and all the women who are virgins.

First, it's very clear that the killing of children is ordered from the beginning. That's enough to show you how twisted the moral compass is. Now, we are supposed to read "keep alive for yourselves all the girls and all the women who are virgins" and infer that these women are to be used for what purpose? Clearly, by the surrounding context, time period and state of women to consent, it is clearly for a forced marriage or sex without their consent, and probably both. Those last two things constitute rape in many secular jurisdictions and modern societies.

You may, however, take for yourselves the women, the children, the livestock, and everything else in the city. You may use everything that belongs to your enemies.

Again, take yourselves the women and use them. Rape is too far fetched in this case according to some. It appears all those women willingly were used. We should infer that consent was authorized by them even though it has no general basis in historical fact, or that we were just shown that the killing of children was authorized and condoned.

You will see it when I take your wives from you and give them to another man; and he will have intercourse with them in broad daylight.

Again, we should infer consent from these women automatically because of what reason? You would only think that if you believed that God is not evil, so you read the text in a manner which has no basis in the time period or neglects the state of women's right to consent in such environments in order to assign properties to God. It's Euthyphro's dilemma personified in some ways.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Notice that I made the claim, and provided text as proof of my claim.

Nothing you've posted states that rape is condoned in any way, shape or form in the text unless you use eisegesis.

​

 

[Type Username Here]

Nothing you've posted states that rape is condoned in any way, shape or form in the text unless you use eisegesis.

​

By the speed of your reply, it seems you didn't even read the text and arguments I posted relating to the text. You saw that I replied and posted the above post, which exactly proves my point:

Notice that I made the claim, and provided text as proof of my claim.

The response has been a unequivocal: "that's not rape". No supporting argument, disregards the text posted, disregards that in the same text god condones killing young children but somehow would never condone rape/forced marriages (which he clearly does). It disregards patriarchal systems of control in the times leading up modern age (and that continues in a lot of places in the present).

There is no real counter-argument here. Just blind defense of faith. God is good, so modern interpretation of women's right to consent and women's civil rights are wrong. It's not rape it seems, yet would be considered rape in many modern societies.

Matter of fact, I would be willing to bet that if any of what I quoted happened to your mother, sisters, or daughters, that you would seek justice in some fashion. That to me presents a clear bias towards defending this text on nothing but religious faith, and abandoning all logic, disregarding historical and social context of when the text was written, and the lack of a real counter-argument.

The troubling aspect is that some men today, in secular societies, look at these texts and attempt to make policy decisions without input of women due to what they see as their god given right to control women in all facets of life, especially sexual ones. An example of that is the Israeli Academic in the original post. Rape is a tool to him.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

By the speed of your reply, it seems you didn't even read the text and arguments I posted relating to the text. You saw that I replied and posted the above post, which exactly proves my point:

That's because you're not proving that rape is condoned......anywhere. Let me make this simple: ONE verse that states something like 'It is right for a male to rape a female'.



You CAN'T prove your point without using eisegesis which renders your interpretation invalid.​

 

[Type Username Here]

That's because you're not proving that rape is condoned......anywhere. Let me make this simple: ONE verse that states something like 'It is right for a male to rape a female'.



You CAN'T prove your point without using eisegesis which renders your interpretation invalid.​

Notice that I made the claim, and provided text as proof of my claim.

The response has been a unequivocal: "that's not rape". No supporting argument, disregards the text posted, disregards that in the same text god condones killing young children but somehow would never condone rape/forced marriages (which he clearly does). It disregards patriarchal systems of control in the times leading up modern age (and that continues in a lot of places in the present).

What kind of individual in modern society and times looks back at these passages and not see the oppression of women? They can't see how they are treated as property? How the sex is forcibly initiated by the men?

So now kill every boy and kill every woman who has had sexual intercourse, but keep alive for yourselves all the girls and all the women who are virgins.

First, it's very clear that the killing of children is ordered from the beginning. That's enough to show you how twisted the moral compass is. Now, we are supposed to read "keep alive for yourselves all the girls and all the women who are virgins" and infer that these women are to be used for what purpose? Clearly, by the surrounding context, time period and state of women to consent, it is clearly for a forced marriage or sex without their consent, and probably both. Those last two things constitute rape in many secular jurisdictions and modern societies.

You may, however, take for yourselves the women, the children, the livestock, and everything else in the city. You may use everything that belongs to your enemies.

Again, take yourselves the women and use them. Rape is too far fetched in this case according to some. It appears all those women willingly were used. We should infer that consent was authorized by them even though it has no general basis in historical fact, or that we were just shown that the killing of children was authorized and condoned.

You will see it when I take your wives from you and give them to another man; and he will have intercourse with them in broad daylight.

Again, we should infer consent from these women automatically because of what reason? You would only think that if you believed that God is not evil, so you read the text in a manner which has no basis in the time period or neglects the state of women's right to consent in such environments in order to assign properties to God. It's Euthyphro's dilemma personified in some ways.



There is no real counter-argument here. Just blind defense of faith. Only one of us in this debate is truly guilty of Eisegesis. "God is good", so modern interpretation of women's right to consent and women's civil rights are wrong. It's not rape it seems, yet would be considered rape in many modern societies.

Matter of fact, I would be willing to bet that if any of what I quoted happened to your mother, sisters, or daughters, that you would seek justice in some fashion. That to me presents a clear bias towards defending this text on nothing but religious faith, and abandoning all logic, disregarding historical and social context of when the text was written, and the lack of a real counter-argument.

The troubling aspect is that some men today, in secular societies, look at these texts and attempt to make policy decisions without input of women due to what they see as their god given right to control women in all facets of life, especially sexual ones. An example of that is the Israeli Academic in the original post. Rape is a tool to him.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Notice that I made the claim, and provided text as proof of my claim.

It DOESN'T prove your claim, unless you use eisegesis.

​

 

[Type Username Here]

It DOESN'T prove your claim, unless you use eisegesis.

​

May I ask if your claim is that it's not rape, how you can prove it without eisegesis? Seems it's very clear that you're ignoring historical context, the state of women's rights and ignoring modern thought on the concept of right of individual consent.

Stop the fallacies. You haven't provided a single historical, philosophical, or theological counter-argument. Your counter-argument has been entirely based on ad hominems and attacking the credibility of the person making the argument.

Therefore, one more time from the top.


Notice that I made the claim, and provided text as proof of my claim.

The response has been a unequivocal: "that's not rape". No supporting argument, disregards the text posted, disregards that in the same text god condones killing young children but somehow would never condone rape/forced marriages (which he clearly does). It disregards patriarchal systems of control in the times leading up modern age (and that continues in a lot of places in the present).

What kind of individual in modern society and times looks back at these passages and not see the oppression of women? They can't see how they are treated as property? How the sex is forcibly initiated by the men?

So now kill every boy and kill every woman who has had sexual intercourse, but keep alive for yourselves all the girls and all the women who are virgins.

First, it's very clear that the killing of children is ordered from the beginning. That's enough to show you how twisted the moral compass is. Now, we are supposed to read "keep alive for yourselves all the girls and all the women who are virgins" and infer that these women are to be used for what purpose? Clearly, by the surrounding context, time period and state of women to consent, it is clearly for a forced marriage or sex without their consent, and probably both. Those last two things constitute rape in many secular jurisdictions and modern societies.

You may, however, take for yourselves the women, the children, the livestock, and everything else in the city. You may use everything that belongs to your enemies.

Again, take yourselves the women and use them. Rape is too far fetched in this case according to some. It appears all those women willingly were used. We should infer that consent was authorized by them even though it has no general basis in historical fact, or that we were just shown that the killing of children was authorized and condoned.

You will see it when I take your wives from you and give them to another man; and he will have intercourse with them in broad daylight.

Again, we should infer consent from these women automatically because of what reason? You would only think that if you believed that God is not evil, so you read the text in a manner which has no basis in the time period or neglects the state of women's right to consent in such environments in order to assign properties to God. It's Euthyphro's dilemma personified in some ways.



There is no real counter-argument here. Just blind defense of faith. Only one of us in this debate is truly guilty of Eisegesis. "God is good", so modern interpretation of women's right to consent and women's civil rights are wrong. It's not rape it seems, yet would be considered rape in many modern societies.

Matter of fact, I would be willing to bet that if any of what I quoted happened to your mother, sisters, or daughters, that you would seek justice in some fashion. That to me presents a clear bias towards defending this text on nothing but religious faith, and abandoning all logic, disregarding historical and social context of when the text was written, and the lack of a real counter-argument.

The troubling aspect is that some men today, in secular societies, look at these texts and attempt to make policy decisions without input of women due to what they see as their god given right to control women in all facets of life, especially sexual ones. An example of that is the Israeli Academic in the original post. Rape is a tool to him.

 

[Poppa_Dock]

raping a dudes wife/daughter back then was like the ancient equivalent of going bonus stage on a dudes farrari.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

May I ask if your claim is that it's not rape, how you can prove it without eisegesis? Seems it's very clear that you're ignoring historical context, the state of women's rights and ignoring modern thought on the concept of right of individual consent..

That's what happens when you read the text 'out of context'. The only person ignoring historical context is YOU.
​

 

[Type Username Here]

Notice that I made the claim, and provided text as proof of my claim.

The response has been a unequivocal: "that's not rape". No supporting argument, disregards the text posted, disregards that in the same text god condones killing young children but somehow would never condone rape/forced marriages (which he clearly does). It disregards patriarchal systems of control in the times leading up modern age (and that continues in a lot of places in the present).

What kind of individual in modern society and times looks back at these passages and not see the oppression of women? They can't see how they are treated as property? How the sex is forcibly initiated by the men?

So now kill every boy and kill every woman who has had sexual intercourse, but keep alive for yourselves all the girls and all the women who are virgins.

First, it's very clear that the killing of children is ordered from the beginning. That's enough to show you how twisted the moral compass is. Now, we are supposed to read "keep alive for yourselves all the girls and all the women who are virgins" and infer that these women are to be used for what purpose? Clearly, by the surrounding context, time period and state of women to consent, it is clearly for a forced marriage or sex without their consent, and probably both. Those last two things constitute rape in many secular jurisdictions and modern societies.

You may, however, take for yourselves the women, the children, the livestock, and everything else in the city. You may use everything that belongs to your enemies.

Again, take yourselves the women and use them. Rape is too far fetched in this case according to some. It appears all those women willingly were used. We should infer that consent was authorized by them even though it has no general basis in historical fact, or that we were just shown that the killing of children was authorized and condoned.

You will see it when I take your wives from you and give them to another man; and he will have intercourse with them in broad daylight.

Again, we should infer consent from these women automatically because of what reason? You would only think that if you believed that God is not evil, so you read the text in a manner which has no basis in the time period or neglects the state of women's right to consent in such environments in order to assign properties to God. It's Euthyphro's dilemma personified in some ways.



There is no real counter-argument here. Just blind defense of faith. Only one of us in this debate is truly guilty of Eisegesis. "God is good", so modern interpretation of women's right to consent and women's civil rights are wrong. It's not rape it seems, yet would be considered rape in many modern societies.

Matter of fact, I would be willing to bet that if any of what I quoted happened to your mother, sisters, or daughters, that you would seek justice in some fashion. That to me presents a clear bias towards defending this text on nothing but religious faith, and abandoning all logic, disregarding historical and social context of when the text was written, and the lack of a real counter-argument.

The troubling aspect is that some men today, in secular societies, look at these texts and attempt to make policy decisions without input of women due to what they see as their god given right to control women in all facets of life, especially sexual ones. An example of that is the Israeli Academic in the original post. Rape is a tool to him.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Notice that I made the claim, and provided text as proof of my claim.

You've only proven that you can only read the text using eisegesis which is invalid and you're still a liar.

​