- + New Debate
- Debate News
- About
- Debra AI More
frame
Best Recent Content
-
There is nothing inherently wrong about rape, debate me
@cheetahgod360
By copy and pasting their names, try and get an adult to help if you find it to difficult.
Yes I know you're on a debate site and find it inconvenient to debate more than two people , maybe you need another " hobby"?
So you're suggesting I get other members to type my arguments for me? You really are a prize retard is it genetic or what?
-
Are the Israel-hating pro-Palestine demonstrations wise or foolishness of the Devil?
How is it that when nutanyahu exposes himself as a religious nut who refers to Gazans as Amalekites who should all die, you don't recognize the racism in his statement.Or, how about the Israeli president who believes that all of the Gazans--yup, even babies and children--are the enemy and should be targeted?Religious nuts. -
There is nothing inherently wrong about rape, debate me
This is a pretty good argument for Christians being the least moral people in the world. That they think that there is no good reason to be against rape other than the word of some celestial creature say a lot.just_sayin said:
Again, I want to give you a bullhorn so that others can hear you. Most of the atheists on this site would agree that there is no objective morality, but would get uncomfortable with the logical conclusion - that acts of violence are OK. They cling to a religious morality that their view does not support. Their moral values are borrowed from a system they reject. If they were logically consistent, they would be pro-rape also.
-
There is nothing inherently wrong about rape, debate me
well, you said "inherently" wrong, which leads me to think rape is inerrant in humans, or the desire to. However it is sexual desire that is inherent, not rape itself. So, rape can not be inherent, it is simply the object of want and take, stemming from an inherent biological desire to have sex. However if you erase the word inherent, then what your question would be is rape wrong. That also leads to the question if causing others grief, pain, and mental anguish is wrong or not. Regardless of which question you are asking, i would say rape is not ok, morally or psychologically. Reproduction aside, you must ask yourself if rape is ok, in all matters; including if someone raped one of your family members. There is no evolutionary desire for rape. You need to prove that first. You are mixing the evolutionary biological desire to reproduce with rape. Rape is learned, not inherent. @cheetahgod360
-
There is nothing inherently wrong about rape, debate me
Not sure why you brought up the evolutionary angel but the idea actually can be a result of religious dogma...just_sayin said:
Rape is a crime because it is an act of violence. Rape violates the sanctity of the victim. Rape is about power and control. It is not an act of mutual consent.cheetahgod360 said:My reasoning for this is that rape is a form of sexual intercourse. Sex is only meant to reproduce and NOT to consider the feelings of a side. The desire to reproduce is backed up by the need for pleasure, therefore we shouldn't consider the feelings of someone when involved in rape.
The underlying logic is bad. It seems as if the OP is suggesting that if we just redefine acts of violence in more favorable terms then it is OK to commit them. If we said murder was OK, because it reduced global warming emissions, would it be OK to do it then? If we said theft was OK, because it was giving to the poor and needy, would it still not be wrong? The interests of the victim are ignored by the OP, and in so doing, they are dehumanized. Their rights as an individual are ignored. They are considered as something less than human, and only what they can contribute to some evolutionary goal is considered.
Deuteronomy 22:28- 29 “If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.”
Seems that dehumanizes women along the same lines. -
There is nothing inherently wrong about rape, debate me
Rape is a crime because it is an act of violence. Rape violates the sanctity of the victim. Rape is about power and control. It is not an act of mutual consent.cheetahgod360 said:My reasoning for this is that rape is a form of sexual intercourse. Sex is only meant to reproduce and NOT to consider the feelings of a side. The desire to reproduce is backed up by the need for pleasure, therefore we shouldn't consider the feelings of someone when involved in rape.
The underlying logic of the argument is bad. It seems as if the argument is suggesting that if we just redefine acts of violence in more favorable terms then it is OK to commit them. If we said murder was OK, because it reduced global warming emissions, would it be OK to do it then? If we said theft was OK, because it was giving to the poor and needy, would it still not be wrong? In the same way these acts of violence would still be wrong because they are acts of violence, rape would still be wrong because it is an act of violence. The interests of the victim are ignored by the argument, and in so doing, the victim is dehumanized. Her rights as an individual are ignored. She is considered as something less than human, and only what she can contribute to some evolutionary goal is considered.
-
There is nothing inherently wrong about rape, debate me
Are you suggesting forcible rape is simply an act of reproduction? If so how do you explain child rape and same sex rape where reproduction is known not to be possible?cheetahgod360 said:My reasoning for this is that rape is a form of sexual intercourse. Sex is only meant to reproduce and NOT to consider the feelings of a side. The desire to reproduce is backed up by the need for pleasure, therefore we shouldn't consider the feelings of someone when involved in rape.
-
Should Marinara Be Legal?
@RickeyHoltsclaw
THC makes one s-t-u-p-i-d.
Says the guy who hears voices in his head and prays to his special imaginary friend. -
There is nothing inherently wrong about rape, debate me
You don't seem to concerned about the victims welfare at all. So with all this bull that you couldn't formulate an opinion in your own words so you chose to spam your argument with, you're arguing that rape isn't really rape, just like the op that you chastised for dehumanizing victims? Classic.just_sayin said:
You have misread the passage, again. I'm just going to quote from Apologetic Press:Factfinder said:
Not sure why you brought up the evolutionary angel but the idea actually can be a result of religious dogma...just_sayin said:
Rape is a crime because it is an act of violence. Rape violates the sanctity of the victim. Rape is about power and control. It is not an act of mutual consent.cheetahgod360 said:My reasoning for this is that rape is a form of sexual intercourse. Sex is only meant to reproduce and NOT to consider the feelings of a side. The desire to reproduce is backed up by the need for pleasure, therefore we shouldn't consider the feelings of someone when involved in rape.
The underlying logic is bad. It seems as if the OP is suggesting that if we just redefine acts of violence in more favorable terms then it is OK to commit them. If we said murder was OK, because it reduced global warming emissions, would it be OK to do it then? If we said theft was OK, because it was giving to the poor and needy, would it still not be wrong? The interests of the victim are ignored by the OP, and in so doing, they are dehumanized. Their rights as an individual are ignored. They are considered as something less than human, and only what they can contribute to some evolutionary goal is considered.
Deuteronomy 22:28- 29 “If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.”
Seems that dehumanizes women along the same lines.
begin quote:One prevalent idea in skeptical circles is that the God of the Old Testament is cruel and condones practices that are immoral. Each example that skeptics have provided to prove this thesis, however, has been shown to be false. We see time and again that the God of the Old Testament is the same God of love that we observe in the life and personality of Jesus Christ. One passage that is incorrectly used to impugn God’s character is Deuteronomy 22:28-29. Moses wrote:
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.
According to the skeptic, these verses teach that a man who rapes a woman gets to have her as his wife. The skeptic then demands that any God who would reward a rapist with the woman he rapes is wicked and immoral. Thus the God of the Bible cannot be the loving God Christians say He is.
The reason the skeptic at first glance seems to have something of a case is simply because most English translations of these verses do not accurately render the original intent of the Hebrew. To be fair, this issue causes even those who are not skeptically minded some difficulty. When most English speakers hear that a person has “seized” another person, we necessarily jump to the conclusion that it is a violent action against the will of the other person. This problem has been aggravated by the fact that some translations inaccurately and mistakenly translate the word as “rape.” The truth is, however, the Hebrew word in this case translated “seizes” (tapas) can mean many things. Here are some examples of the way it is translated in Deuteronomy 22:28 in several different English translations:
- “lay hold on her” (ASV)
- “taking her” (DRA)
- “and takes her” (NLV/NAB)
- “and hath caught her” (YLT)
By looking at other passages that use the word, we can see that the word tapas sometimes has nothing to do with force, and therefore nothing to do with rape. As Greg Bahnsen has written:
The Hebrew word tapas (“lay hold of her,” emphasized above) simply means to take hold of something, grasp it in hand, and (by application) to capture or seize something. It is the verb used for “handling” the harp and flute (Gen. 4:21), the sword (Ezek. 21:11; 30:21), the sickle (Jer. 50:16), the shield (Jer. 46:9), the oars (Ezek. 27:29), and the bow (Amos 2:15). It is likewise used for “taking” God’s name (Prov. 30:9) or “dealing” with the law of God (Jer. 2:8). Joseph’s garment was “grasped” (Gen. 39:12; cf. 1 Kings 11:30), even as Moses “took” the two tablets of the law (Deut. 9:17)… [T]he Hebrew verb “to handle, grasp, capture” does not in itself indicate anything about the use of force (italics in orig.).
In truth, we use English words in this way on a regular basis. For instance, a brief look at the English word “take” illustrates the point. You can take someone’s cookie, or take a person’s wife, or take a bride to be your wife. The idea of force is not inherent in the word at all. If you take a person in your arms, what have you done? Or if a young man takes a young woman to be his wife, is there force involved? No. Also, think about the English word “hold.” You can take hold of something in a number of ways. We often say that a woman will hold the child in her arms, or a bridegroom takes a bride to “have and to hold.” The Hebrew word tapas is acting in exactly the same way as the English words “hold” and “take” are.
In addition, it is clearly evident from the immediate context of Deuteronomy 22 that rape is not being discussed in verses 28-29. We know that for two primary reasons. First, verses 25-27 give a clear instance in which rape is being discussed. In that case, a man raped a woman, she “cried out” (v. 27), but she was in the country and no one was there to help her. The text says that the man who committed the crime “shall die” (v. 25), but the Israelites were supposed to “do nothing to the young woman” since “there is in the young woman no sin worthy of death” (v. 26). It is of great interest that in this clear case of rape, the text uses a completely different word. The word translated “forces her” in verse 25 is the Hebrew word chazaq and yet in verse 28, the verb has been intentionally changed to tapas (see Shamoun, 2015). Second, the natural reading of verses 28-29 makes it evident that both parties are guilty of at least some of the blame. Notice that at the end of verse 28 the text says, “and they are found out.” When the passage discusses the obvious case of rape, the text specifically only mentions the man in verse 25 when it says “then only the man who lay with her,” and conspicuously leaves out any indication of “they” being involved in the sin. Dr. Bahsen compares Deuteronomy 22:28-29 to Exodus 22:16, which reads, “If a man entices a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies with her, he shall surely pay the bride-price for her to be his wife” (1992). Notice that in this verse in Exodus, there is no force and both parties shoulder some of the guilt.
The practical value of God’s instruction in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is easy to see. A man has sexual intercourse with a young woman who is not betrothed to anyone. There is no force involved, and it is not rape. But their action has been discovered. Now, who in the land of Israel wanted to marry a young girl who has not kept herself pure? The man cannot walk away from his sin. He has put the young woman in a very difficult life situation, in which there would be few (or no) other men who would want to marry her. Since it was often the case that women had an extremely difficult time financially without the help of a husband, this would be even more devastating to the young woman. God holds both the parties accountable, instructing them to get married and stay together, both suffer the shame, and work through the difficulties that they have brought on themselves. Nothing could be more moral, loving, and wise than these instructions. Once again, the skeptical charge against God’s love is without foundation.
One prevalent idea in skeptical circles is that the God of the Old Testament is cruel and condones practices that are immoral. Each example that skeptics have provided to prove this thesis, however, has been shown to be false. We see time and again that the God of the Old Testament is the same God of love that we observe in the life and personality of Jesus Christ. One passage that is incorrectly used to impugn God’s character is Deuteronomy 22:28-29. Moses wrote:
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.
According to the skeptic, these verses teach that a man who rapes a woman gets to have her as his wife. The skeptic then demands that any God who would reward a rapist with the woman he rapes is wicked and immoral. Thus the God of the Bible cannot be the loving God Christians say He is.
The reason the skeptic at first glance seems to have something of a case is simply because most English translations of these verses do not accurately render the original intent of the Hebrew. To be fair, this issue causes even those who are not skeptically minded some difficulty. When most English speakers hear that a person has “seized” another person, we necessarily jump to the conclusion that it is a violent action against the will of the other person. This problem has been aggravated by the fact that some translations inaccurately and mistakenly translate the word as “rape.” The truth is, however, the Hebrew word in this case translated “seizes” (tapas) can mean many things. Here are some examples of the way it is translated in Deuteronomy 22:28 in several different English translations:
- “lay hold on her” (ASV)
- “taking her” (DRA)
- “and takes her” (NLV/NAB)
- “and hath caught her” (YLT)
By looking at other passages that use the word, we can see that the word tapas sometimes has nothing to do with force, and therefore nothing to do with rape. As Greg Bahnsen has written:
The Hebrew word tapas (“lay hold of her,” emphasized above) simply means to take hold of something, grasp it in hand, and (by application) to capture or seize something. It is the verb used for “handling” the harp and flute (Gen. 4:21), the sword (Ezek. 21:11; 30:21), the sickle (Jer. 50:16), the shield (Jer. 46:9), the oars (Ezek. 27:29), and the bow (Amos 2:15). It is likewise used for “taking” God’s name (Prov. 30:9) or “dealing” with the law of God (Jer. 2:8). Joseph’s garment was “grasped” (Gen. 39:12; cf. 1 Kings 11:30), even as Moses “took” the two tablets of the law (Deut. 9:17)… [T]he Hebrew verb “to handle, grasp, capture” does not in itself indicate anything about the use of force (italics in orig.).
In truth, we use English words in this way on a regular basis. For instance, a brief look at the English word “take” illustrates the point. You can take someone’s cookie, or take a person’s wife, or take a bride to be your wife. The idea of force is not inherent in the word at all. If you take a person in your arms, what have you done? Or if a young man takes a young woman to be his wife, is there force involved? No. Also, think about the English word “hold.” You can take hold of something in a number of ways. We often say that a woman will hold the child in her arms, or a bridegroom takes a bride to “have and to hold.” The Hebrew word tapas is acting in exactly the same way as the English words “hold” and “take” are.
In addition, it is clearly evident from the immediate context of Deuteronomy 22 that rape is not being discussed in verses 28-29. We know that for two primary reasons. First, verses 25-27 give a clear instance in which rape is being discussed. In that case, a man raped a woman, she “cried out” (v. 27), but she was in the country and no one was there to help her. The text says that the man who committed the crime “shall die” (v. 25), but the Israelites were supposed to “do nothing to the young woman” since “there is in the young woman no sin worthy of death” (v. 26). It is of great interest that in this clear case of rape, the text uses a completely different word. The word translated “forces her” in verse 25 is the Hebrew word chazaq and yet in verse 28, the verb has been intentionally changed to tapas (see Shamoun, 2015). Second, the natural reading of verses 28-29 makes it evident that both parties are guilty of at least some of the blame. Notice that at the end of verse 28 the text says, “and they are found out.” When the passage discusses the obvious case of rape, the text specifically only mentions the man in verse 25 when it says “then only the man who lay with her,” and conspicuously leaves out any indication of “they” being involved in the sin. Dr. Bahsen compares Deuteronomy 22:28-29 to Exodus 22:16, which reads, “If a man entices a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies with her, he shall surely pay the bride-price for her to be his wife” (1992). Notice that in this verse in Exodus, there is no force and both parties shoulder some of the guilt.
The practical value of God’s instruction in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is easy to see. A man has sexual intercourse with a young woman who is not betrothed to anyone. There is no force involved, and it is not rape. But their action has been discovered. Now, who in the land of Israel wanted to marry a young girl who has not kept herself pure? The man cannot walk away from his sin. He has put the young woman in a very difficult life situation, in which there would be few (or no) other men who would want to marry her. Since it was often the case that women had an extremely difficult time financially without the help of a husband, this would be even more devastating to the young woman. God holds both the parties accountable, instructing them to get married and stay together, both suffer the shame, and work through the difficulties that they have brought on themselves. Nothing could be more moral, loving, and wise than these instructions. Once again, the skeptical charge against God’s love is without foundation.
end quote
It appears that once again, your feelings toward God, have caused you to make a false accusation. In all seriousness, @FactFinder, talk to someone about your anger toward God. It is not healthy.
-
There is nothing inherently wrong about rape, debate me
Are you suggesting forcible rape is simply an act of reproduction? If so how do you explain child rape and same sex rape where reproduction is known not to be possible?cheetahgod360 said:My reasoning for this is that rape is a form of sexual intercourse. Sex is only meant to reproduce and NOT to consider the feelings of a side. The desire to reproduce is backed up by the need for pleasure, therefore we shouldn't consider the feelings of someone when involved in rape.
