I was wondering the same thing.
Right, it’s silly nonsense. They don’t recognize that in the old testament ‘The Law’ and ‘God’s Law’ were synonymous. Whether or not God exists is irrelevant to it, he is quoting ancient hebraic law and trying to make it into a pointless personal attack against Christians.
You know, given what I know of the moderators, this is the most honest moderator I’ve ever seen: it surely beats the outright lies you’ve told elsewhere, along with your compatriots. Anyway, I’m glad that not all of you are that fucking stupid as to ignore reality.
Of course, this implies that your estimation of my question is actually dishonest. It is, after all, in the Bible, and how the fuck are you to imply otherwise?
hugs
I read it as others have: If a man is caught deflowering a virgin, he will make restitution to her family and support her for the rest of his life. That’s a world away from saying rape is good and women are worthless. Consider that in some cultures even today the woman might be killed and the man escape any kind of responsibility in the same circumstances.
I’m no God fan myself, but the OP doesn’t do the skeptics’ side any favors - although it isn’t wrong in every detail.
I think I agree with you. I’m not sure though, so you’ll have to correct me if I’m wrong.
It isn’t in the good book to commit rape, but if it is, then you have to make that fucking cunt your bitch because of it.
The point, in your view, is that it’s okay to have sex with a virginso long as you aren’t caught. If you are caught, then tough shit: fess up to it. You fucked that bitch, now own up to it.
I’m sorry, did you read what I actually wrote? Or would more be required to clue you into the obvious?
This isn’t actually ambiguous.
I’m an agnostic, Biblical literalism is idiotic, and you’re a fucking moron who should go play WoW and stop bothering the adults.
Well, this would seem to be a TOS violation, but our GD moderator seems to allow such comments from those who are jesus freaks. That, however, doesn’t change the fact that you didn’t actually respond to the OP. Better luck next time.
(damn but is someone off their meds today?)
The primitive, outmoded, misogynistic Law of Moses presumes that it’s rape if she says so. Somewhere else (you can look it up) you’ll find another verse along these lines that says if they’re caught in a built-up area then she can be punished as a harlot deserves, but if it happened in the fields then she’s not to be touched, because there was no-one to help when she called - the Law presumes she called, and received no help. Again, slightly more enlightened than you might have been led to expect.
Did you ignore the part where Telperien said she was agnostic, or does that mean “jesus freak” where you come from? And the language aside, I believe you got all the answer you deserved.
Worse, the OP is taking a swing at Biblical literalism - on the SD, the easiest possible low-hanging target - and misses.
I didn’t even think that was possible. 
Well as has been pointed out you are assuming that it’s rape. But also your modern notions of rape are kind of provincial. You have to realize the times in which these people were living. The entire notion of Civilization was not what it is today, the step to bloody heathens living in skins wasn’t that many steps behind. They were the poor and uneducated class in Egypt before that. So they are passing on laws to people who not a terrible many generations before were probably just grabbing women in the bush and fucking them like a dog might. Seriously, if you look at the role of religion in bringing man from being just a dumb animal to what he is today it makes a whole lot more sense. Judging them by the criteria that you judge rape today is like judging a toddler by the criteria you would a grown man in his mid-thirties.
No, my point is that it’s archaic law and needs to be viewed anthropologically within it’s own temporal context without trying to impress your modern notion of rape and women’s rights onto it. As Alessan pointed out it was pretty progressive for its day. You are making a mistake as to who the audience is in this case. The audience is both the potential sinner, but also the people whose shoulders it will fall upon to enforce the law. Yes, if you can get away with it then you can skirt the law. That doesn’t mean that people thought it was A-Ok, only that they recognized the value of ‘proof’.
No, no, please, show me. You word won’t do.
No, no, Really, stop making fucking vague reference to somewhere it might have been said that so and so did such and such. Make a citation; otherwise, shut up.
I’m sorry, your complete inability to make any reference to your dubious claims drowned out your preaching. Can you possibly support your imagined claims with scripture?
But the Bible’s a bunch of hooey, so you can’t yourself with it, never mind that I attacked Christians with it, etc. etc.
Dude, I’m an atheist. I’m probably about as athey as they come. Even I think you’re being a jerk.
Your thread started out so promisingly, too.
You should be.
Unfortunately, yes, as indicated by my response to it.
Some things are obvious from your posts, but they are probably not the things you intended.
Indeed, the point you actually made in post #1 (as distinct from the point you may have intended to make) was unambiguous and is strengthened by each subsequent post.
You’re right. I realize that it doesn’t require a great deal of thought, which isn’t something Christians are known for anyway, but you have failed completely to respond to the OP.
If you can’t be bothered to respond to it, then shut the fuck up. In the meantime, this GD is relegated to people who can read and respond to a topic; you fall into neither topic.
Here to help. Need a wipe for that egg on your face?
So, ashman, is it your premise that people should be punished for crimes when they’re not caught? How exactly do you propose that that should be implemented?
Phew, you almost caught me. Back to the OP, which is in the bible. Thank you for trying to avert the topic.