Tuesday, ....I am not sure where you are at. Can you please explain?! Are you gay, married, and frustrated? Etc. etc
Happily married for seven years with an 18 month old beautiful baby girl. I'm a civil rights advocate, part of alot of activist groups. This is why I argue for the subject, don't even get me started on the Iraq war I'll go on four times longer.
Now onto Mad Dawg and is incesent ad-hominem attacks.
Don't take my word for it, YOUR source specifically states that the Bible does not promote rape in the verses you cite.
Yup in one sentence that you quote mined. That sentence states that if you strictly read it straight through you COULD read that into it, however if you actually research the situations surrounding the verse shows that it was indeed a horrible form of captivity for women sex slaves.
YOUR source agrees with my viewpoint.
It doesn't and I've nearly pasted the entire article here to show you this.
Your trying to tie "anah" with rape can hardly be excused as etymology. If you trace a word in a foriegn language to its root, you don't do it in English. You compare it to other words of the same language (Yes, I understand that those words would then need to be translated back into English). Heck, if I am going to use your method, I can make any word mean anything.
So you don't have a problem with the method just the outcome...oh yeah because it doesn't agree with what you said. Of course I should've seen that. So really, if you're using my method you can make the word mean anything. OK I'll take you up on that, can you make that word mean "fluffy" or "pink"? Please cite your sources.
Let's face it, your entire argument hinges on accepting the minor definition of a single word. The rest is polemics, innuendo, and your own prurient imagination.
Prurient *claps* did you look that up in a thesaurus before posting? I'm very proud of you. It's actually using the definition of a word as it is used in other bible passages, that would be how you define context. Also it takes stepping away from the bible and looking at it from the woman who is taken captive's perspective. Try it, picture yourself as one of these women, tell me would you find it very loving the way you were treated. One would think not, but hey some people get their kicks in wierd ways, maybe you're an extreme submissive.
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fem02b.html
Let's take a look at what this says under the "mourned" section shall we?
Observation: Fontaine (SAIANE:157) refers to this as one of "Israel's more humanitarian values extending even to the treatment of female salves, the 'disposable' persons of the Ancient Near East." One can scarcely read the passage above (with its commands on male restraint!) without sensing God's concern for the protection of this captive female.
This is stating opinion; I fail to see how taking a women from her city after destroying it and forcing yourself upon her, then forcing her to marry you is protecting anyone. The ONLY thing it is protecting them from is being re-sold.
http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/ot_and_rape.htm
What I find most funny about that link you provided is that it is probably four pages worth of defining the word used in the scripture I used as forced sexual acts, then when it comes to the scripture I used it says that it was used a different way. Wouldn't you know that's the only paragraph that doesn't site sources, nor reference it with other scriptures. Something smells fishy about that one.
http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/femalecaptives.htm
I'm a big fan of this one, if only because it shows the absolute apologist nature of the author. Let's take a look at some passages from this little gem.
Looking at the passage there is not even the hint of a rape. In fact, just the opposite is given. When a woman who is not a Jew is made a captive, and the Israelite falls in love with her because of her beauty, he is not allowed to touch her for those 30 days so that she may mourn the loss of her family and country. The intention of this law is to protect her against any rude passion on the part of the man (i.e., rape), and give her time to get used to the Jewish culture and begin to learn an affection for the man.
Except for the fact that the rape had already occured at the battle field, and none of the scholars that they site say that no rape had already occured when the woman is then brought back to the Israelite's camp. I love the line "begin to learn an affection for the man", that's essentially saying "Give the bitch a month to learn to love me". Um...yeah, still disgusting. Moving on let's see one of the sources cited in this article...
Then Chief Rabbi J. H. Hertz (late chief rabbi of the British Empire) has said this: "A female war-captive was not to be made a concubine till after an interval of a month. The bitter moments of the captive's first grief had to be respected.
Now what was a concubine? A woman used for sex. Notice that this scholar does not go and say the woman wasn't already raped before she was brought back to the camp. Simply that after she is brought back she has 30 days to mourn. Wow, oh yeah loving, she's still in a foreign land, taken captive by a guy then given 30 days to learn to deal with her situation. Then at that point she is linked to the barbaric man who took her captive in the first place, oh unless the man doesn't "find delight in her".
The author of this then goes on to say
The Hebrew for the verb "dishonor" (NIV) in v. 14 is `inah, which can mean sexual abuse.
Oh yeah but not in verse 14, it can't because you know that would make the Israelites seem bad. Why doesn't it mean sexual abuse in this verse, well it must be because the author says so because he doesn't cite a single source.
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/virginity.html
I'm skipping this since it doesn't deal with the specific verse we're discussing, but I'm sure if I read through it I could find more sources to show that the verses I'm discussing have similarities to the words used for sexual assault.
http://www.htmlbible.com/kjv30/henry/H05C021.htm
Let's see what this says:
By this law a soldier was allowed to marry his captive, if he pleased. This might take place upon some occasions; but the law does not show any approval of it. It also intimates how binding the laws of justice and honour are in marriage; which is a sacred engagement.
Um, thanks that sure clears things up. There's nothing in question about the law not approving of taking foreign wives, he mentions nothing about whether the woman was raped before brought back to the camp. Why did you even post this, did you just pick a bunch of links that mentioned the scripture and thought that would somehow prove your point?
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom04.ii.ix.i.html
This is a cool one I'm glad you brought this to my attention. In his commentary he metnions that the whole point of the 30 day ritual was to get the woman to renounce her culture and accept Jewish culture or should I say religion. The coolest part of this reference is that he does answer the question of whether they were raped before they were brought back to the camp
But the question here is not of unlawful ravishment, but Moses only speaks of women who have been made captives by the right of war, for we know that conquerors have abused them with impunity, because they had them under their power and dominion.
So from YOUR OWN reference, this verse is describing the forced union to an Israelite of a rape victim. Yeah, thanks for that. Did you read these sources that you cite? I should've used this one for my own source.
And for your final source:
http://www.biblestudytools.com/Commentaries/JamiesonFaussetBrown/jfb.cgi?book=de&chapter=021
This yet again doesn't mention if the woman was raped before being taken captive. I do like this part of the explanation though:
If his love should afterwards cool and he become indifferent to her person, he was not to lord it over her, neither to sell her in the slave market, nor retain her in a subordinate condition in his house; but she was to be free to go where her inclinations led her.
That just strikes me as ridiculous. Rape the woman in battle, since you're enamored with her bring her home to marry, if after having 30 days and you decide that you don't want to marry her then just let her go. Grrr... I can't describe how horrible this is. On the bright side your sources have done so more than I ever could.
You leave with yet more ad-hominem attacks, which I asked you to stop but of course this is how little minds argue.
I have degrees of my own. So what? You haven't said where you are so qualified to comment on it either. Oh yeah, you took a couple of classes in history to fill some elective credits. Let me guess, you are now a Biblical scholar! I am soooo impressed. I don't care if you are the Provost of Harvard. Your rantings don't even pass the smell test.
Your degrees are in what? Where from? Are they accredited colleges? Do you have an online degree? I did say that it was my minor in college. I was a senior thesis class away from double majoring in ancient civilizations. I studied at Roger Williams University in Rhode Island, as I said I had a full ride and because of this passed up my partial scholarship to Brown. I never said I was a biblical scholar, I have a minor in Ancient Civilizations. I know you wouldn't care if I was the Provost of Harvard because if I disagree with your view on things as you've more than shown you will hurl ad hominem attacks, quote mine and nit-pick sources, then post your own nearly laughable apologist sources to show that your view is right. I mean really how could someone disagree with you AND have sources to back them up? They must be full of it... wait that was your last insult in this paragraph... how clever. You...you're good, are you a comedian of some sort? With witty reparte like that...is Family Guy hiring writers? You should look into that. Yes my rantings (note the negative context of rantings as opposed to viewpoint or counter-points) don't even pass the smell test, luckily they pass something that yours do not, the FACT TEST.
You still haven't established that the Bible promotes rape.
This is called moving the goal posts, initially I was talking about how we can't abide by all the laws of the old testiment, to which I made a comment about how I could take a captive for a month, have my way with her then if I didn't like her let her go. Now you're saying I need to show that the bible promotes rape? What exactly do I need to show you, because I have a feeling you will respond with "The bible needs to say 'go forth and rape women'" to which I will say it does not. However I have well established, through numerous sources at this point that it was more than acceptable for an Israelite to go into another land rape a woman, bring her back to his camp, hold her for thirty days, then rape her again (this time supposedly as his wife) and finally if he decides he doesn't want her anymore let her go. This is exactly what I said was the law in the bible and exactly what I have shown through sources. You have run the gamit of Christian Apologists logical fallacies, is there another that you would like to go into now?
Maybe you have some more third grade insults to hurl, please post more sources I love reading articles where the author is trying to convince people how awfully evil the Qu'ran is compared to the bible, and other apologists works. I haven't laughed this hard in ages.
