Israeli Academic: Raping Palestinian Women Would Deter Future Attacks

[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. The only counter arguments have been name-calling, ad-hominems, and attacking me.

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 have yet to prove your claim that rape is condoned in the Bible or that I posted anything that stated it did. What you have shown, however, is.....
​

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.

Your arguments are ALL like that or forms similar to it.

Copy-n'-paste more walls of text that don't prove your claim.


​

 

[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. The only counter arguments have been name-calling, ad-hominems, and attacking me.

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]

LeyeT Disease. Gotta love it.

​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

“These stories offend our moral sensibilities. Ironically, however, our moral sensibilities in the West have been largely, and for many people unconsciously, shaped by our Judaeo-Christian heritage, which has taught us the intrinsic value of human beings, the importance of dealing justly rather than capriciously, and the necessity of the punishment’s fitting the crime. The Bible itself inculcates the values which these stories seem to violate.”

Dude's entire moral foundation is based on the same text he's reading out-of-context while using eisegesis.​

 

[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. The only counter arguments have been name-calling, ad-hominems, and attacking me.

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]

Exegesis and eisegesis are two conflicting approaches in Bible study. Exegesis is the exposition or explanation of a text based on a careful, objective analysis. The word exegesis literally means “to lead out of.” That means that the interpreter is led to his conclusions by following the text.

The opposite approach to Scripture is eisegesis, which is the interpretation of a passage based on a subjective, non-analytical reading. The word eisegesis literally means “to lead into,” which means the interpreter injects his own ideas into the text, making it mean whatever he wants.

Obviously, only exegesis does justice to the text. Eisegesis is a mishandling of the text and often leads to a misinterpretation. Exegesis is concerned with discovering the true meaning of the text, respecting its grammar, syntax, and setting. Eisegesis is concerned only with making a point, even at the expense of the meaning of words.

​

 

[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. The only counter arguments have been name-calling, ad-hominems, and attacking me.

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]

eis·e·ge·sis
[ahy-si-jee-sis]
an interpretation, especially of Scripture, that expresses the interpreter's own ideas, bias, or the like,rather than the meaning of the text.

​

 

[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. The only counter arguments have been name-calling, ad-hominems, and attacking me.

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.

This is rape:​

Deuteronomy 22:25(KJV)​

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:

Notice what happens to the rapist?


​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

You seem to be having some difficulties finding a verse that is equivalent to the one I posted............

You can keep copy-n'-pasting all you wish, but you can't prove the text condones rape unless you're speaking to an idiot that can't read and lacks critical thinking ability.

​

 

[Type Username Here]

This is rape:​

Notice what happens to the rapist?


​

Nice try. Selective editing and deliberately left out the text before it:

"If there is a girl who is a virgin engaged to a man, and another man finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and you shall stone them to death; the girl, because she did not cry out in the city, and the man, because he has violated his neighbor's wife.

Clearly states that if she was raped and not in a position to cry for help, that she deserves death just as well. If in the cases where she consented to a sexual act (adultery), God condones the death of both individuals for consenting to sex.

So either we have a case where God commands a woman who is unable to cry for help or be heard be put to death for being raped

OR

we have God commanding and condoning putting two people to death for mutually consenting to sex, which is just as barbaric.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Clearly states that if she was raped and not in a position to cry for help

No, it doesn't.......​

Deuteronomy 22 (KJV)

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;

Is not equivalent to.....​

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:

......Reading is Fundamental.​

 

[Type Username Here]

No, it doesn't.......​

Is not equivalent to.....​

......Reading is Fundamental.​

What about here:

"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.

Reading is fundamental. Man is not put to death, but instead has total control of his rape victim. Can rape her some more. No death coming.



God can't even keep track.