Let me do the needful by STRESSING OUT some points from this forcibly marriage verse before I reply your post

1. It's what they acquire after the WAR against their enemies. vr 10
2. The DESIRE (the version you quoted used "so enamored" some version used 'desire') is to MARRY HER, which negate your wrong accusation of RAPE. vr 11
3. MARRIAGE RIGHT MUST BE PERFORMED which shifted the woman from the POSITION of being TREATED AS A SLAVE to the POSITION of being TREATED as a FULL HOUSE WIFE. vr 12-13a
4. In fact the man has to WAIT FOR GOOD ONE MONTH before he can do anything with her. vr 13b
5. After ONE MONTH the commandment is "...and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife.(the version you use)"

With this I hope you get it.

Kay17:
Lets start with that. Isn't forcible marriage a form of rape?

Now it's a form of RAPE again NOT RAPE ITSELF beside. Why are you just decided to be bending the truth? You've given the definition of RAPE as "Rape is the use of sexual intercourse as an assault against a person with the lacking consent."

At least the husband in such a marriage enjoys the sexual benefits but note, these benefits were not given out voluntarily.

Was the marriage consummated? If yes! Are you telling us that in every legal marriage it's the husband who enjoys the sexual benefit?

First of all, you denied such a verse existing, but I hope you are shamed to see this exist.

Please be more sincere in everything you're doing.
When you first listed your RAPE VERSES my respond to this particular passage was "Again this is clear enough that this passage is talking about marriage though under compulsion..." which is as a result of what they acquired from war. So where did I deny anything?

Second of all, if you find nothing wrong with forcible marriages like this, then you admittedly endorse such marriages in our modern times. So if a man steals your sister and forces her into a marriage endorsed by the Christian God, and forcibly derives sexual pleasure from such a marriage, would you approve of it?!

That was then when the Israelite were making move to SETTLE down in their promise land with WAR up and down which is what I emphasized on, in my first quote to you that THIS ACT IS DESCRIPTIVE and not PRESCRIPTIVE for Christians today.

@bold-please how FORCIBLY will he derive sexual pleasure in considering the highlighted points above?

Now can you compare this with what Muhammad did when he ordered his soldiers to have sexual intercourse with slave women EVEN IN THE PRESENCE of their husbands.

Emusan:
Let me do the needful by STRESSING OUT some points from this forcibly marriage verse before I reply your post

1. It's what they acquire after the WAR against their enemies. vr 10
2. The DESIRE (the version you quoted used "so enamored" some version used 'desire') is to MARRY HER, which negate your wrong accusation of RAPE. vr 11
3. MARRIAGE RIGHT MUST BE PERFORMED which shifted the woman from the POSITION of being TREATED AS A SLAVE to the POSITION of being TREATED as a FULL HOUSE WIFE. vr 12-13a
4. In fact the man has to WAIT FOR GOOD ONE MONTH before he can do anything with her. vr 13b
5. After ONE MONTH the commandment is "...and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife.(the version you use)"

With this I hope you get it.



Now it's a form of RAPE again NOT RAPE ITSELF beside. Why are you just decided to be bending the truth? You've given the definition of RAPE as "Rape is the use of sexual intercourse as an assault against a person with the lacking consent."



Was the marriage consummated? If yes! Are you telling us that in every legal marriage it's the husband who enjoys the sexual benefit?



Please be more sincere in everything you're doing.
When you first listed your RAPE VERSES my respond to this particular passage was "Again this is clear enough that this passage is talking about marriage though under compulsion..." which is as a result of what they acquired from war. So where did I deny anything?



That was then when the Israelite were making move to SETTLE down in their promise land with WAR up and down which is what I emphasized on, in my first quote to you that THIS ACT IS DESCRIPTIVE and not PRESCRIPTIVE for Christians today.

@bold-please how FORCIBLY will he derive sexual pleasure in considering the highlighted points above?

Now can you compare this with what Muhammad did when he ordered his soldiers to have sexual intercourse with slave women EVEN IN THE PRESENCE of their husbands.

What you fail to see, is at the root of the forcible marriage, there was no consent. There was no willingness on the part of the bride. Therefore anything benefits the husband enjoyed regardless of the ceremonious or religious dressing given to it, was a moral crime against the woman. The equivalent of that today, is kidnapping a woman, marrying her and having sexual intercourse with her. It is still rape. The vital ingredient of consent is lacking.

That aside, if the descriptive aspects of the Bible has no moral lessons for us, why are they in the Bible?

Kay17:
What you fail to see, is at the root of the forcible marriage, there was no consent.

It is war Mr man, my Grandma told me that during war some hopeless people will purposely surrender themselves to people who came to ravage their village.

That's why the commandment went on to say that the man MUST even WAIT FOR FULL ONE MONTH so that the woman will mourn for her family (which will can also said that the man must have done everything to console her and gain her consent--though the scripture didn't point this out)

There was no willingness on the part of the bride. [size=14pt]Therefore anything benefits the husband enjoyed regardless of the ceremonious or religious dressing given to it,[/size] was a moral crime against the woman. The equivalent of that today, is kidnapping a woman, marrying her and having sexual intercourse with her. It is still rape. The vital ingredient of consent is lacking.

That aside, if the descriptive aspects of the Bible has no moral lessons for us, why are they in the Bible?

After my explanation you can still come with the bold part.
The verse you quoted uses the past tense of 'enamored' which means TOTALLY IN LOVE
How can the man benefit anything when he has already TOOK HER AS A FULL HOUSE WIFE? Unless if the man just naturally wicked as some people do nowadays in their marriage, so this negates every wrong reason you have attached to it which you're just reading into the Bible.

Please come with another thing.

They were in the Bible for lesson which means you don't need to take only this verse you must consider other verses with it, even salvation in the NT was not based on ONLY one verse you must consider other verses too.


Shalom!

Emusan:


It is war Mr man, my Grandma told me that during war some hopeless people will purposely surrender themselves to people who came to ravage their village.

That's why the commandment went on to say that the man MUST even WAIT FOR FULL ONE MONTH so that the woman will mourn for her family (which will can also said that the man must have done everything to console her and gain her consent--though the scripture didn't point this out)




After my explanation you can still come with the bold part.
The verse you quoted uses the past tense of 'enamored' which means TOTALLY IN LOVE
How can the man benefit anything when he has already TOOK HER AS A FULL HOUSE WIFE? Unless if the man just naturally wicked as some people do nowadays in their marriage, so this negates every wrong reason you have attached to it which you're just reading into the Bible.

Please come with another thing.

They were in the Bible for lesson which means you don't need to take only this verse you must consider other verses with it, even salvation in the NT was not based on ONLY one verse you must consider other verses too.


Shalom!

Now you have accepted that there was no consent, how are you able assert there was no rape?! How?!

Kay17:
Now you have accepted that there was no consent, how are you able assert there was no rape?! How?!

Why do you enjoy lying against someone?
You said "NOW YOU HAVE ACCEPTED" please wasn't this stressed out from post right from on set?

Beside, you have to make your point clear on "NO CONSENT" that you wrote...
Consent of marrying them or having sexual intercourse with them?

How are you also forcing rape into those verses, isn't this show your dishonesty?

According to the definition of rape you gave above, where was it written that any woman was sexually assaulted as it against their consent?

If you can't provide answers to these questions then forget it.

Emusan:


Why do you enjoy lying against someone?
You said "NOW YOU HAVE ACCEPTED" please wasn't this stressed out from post right from on set?

Beside, you have to make your point clear on "NO CONSENT" that you wrote...
Consent of marrying them or having sexual intercourse with them?

How are you also forcing rape into those verses, isn't this show your dishonesty?

According to the definition of rape you gave above, where was it written that any woman was sexually assaulted as it against their consent?

If you can't provide answers to these questions then forget it.

In my moral universe, having sex with women through the excuse of "a hostage marriage" qualifies as an assault of the woman's body. Yes the Biblical terms were hard and tough, but taking a woman as a part of you without her permission and having sex with her is still sex without her consent. She is in the position of a slave, her will is not with the entire arrangement of marriage.

tartar9:
*shivers* everybody come and see o.DERANGED SATANIC MANIPULATION OF THE TRUTH CALLED BIBLE
Gweuc , nekaa (f ), sortpub ( m),
iLUMeN8 (m ), Frankie9ice (m ), Austin234( m), bal,
adeyemijoseph, diamondsz, samuelezekiel ( m),
OYAY (m ), chrisezeh , acc2020 (m ), flowjoe,
Nikkyparadise (m ), tomsniel (m ), ayo111uk ( m),
vinchristy, dominionideal , bodmasjay , bcity,
ibson99(m ), iyeyemi, yinparc, pinkbee ( f ),
loadeddave (m ), jaysleem (m ), Davaken (m ),
Browser69( m), Bonchila( m), negativecreep,
camelus , effeoghene , kblaze111 , handie (m ),
Precioussilas10 (m ), keppyy( f ), popekay (m ),
vincentont (m ), onaopepo1 , salisu2007 ( m),
smithoo( m), Olamitisoji (m ), Ifeann(f ), ayofag (m ),
mrpablo (m ), haloyeah(m ), pacodas, MrPresident1 ,
ashieduplus ( m), meldeezyne(f ), extension ,
Welly12 , gabrielahamz, jokeliszo , BIGDOE (m ),
Sydney94( f ), Obynobyl (m ), nellycobs, leon12 ( m),
KingsalemV11 , expozey( f ), empron(m ), Refino (m ),
Boy2boy, igmuhammed( m), zwar , paulGrundy( m),
free2ryhme , abeyvita(m ), bumps (m ), Meel ,
victorulo ( m), bodem ( m), ev4real (m ), smartxyz ( m),
Jidefido (m ), PastorOla1 , OkpataOzuo1 ,
5minsmadness , Anas09 , ikorodureporta , oote ,
offorbuike , ayili, FOLYKAZE (m ),
CORRECTMAN78( m), supremepapey( m), ayuse ( m)
, ducii , chikevictor( m), flakky15 , AlPicapcI , bblaw ,
elelem( m), treasure2015 , Loyee94 , ulaa (f ),
oluwadamilolah (f ), LivinaPatrick (f ), Masky2000 ,
Bsc( m), groovie( m), idu1 (m ), Babe2sure ( f ),
saheedandu(m ), shaddie ( m), tochinoyi( m),
DProDG( m), johnydon22 (m ), Beebee88 ,
achikefifty , steviano( m), simp , rhazur( m),
missterious (f ), ladyvan88 ( f ), pato255( m),
Aroniyo200 (m ), dustymania(m ), oluwagbotemi599 ,
smartsk

Wow you have plenty of time to waste trying to list ZWAR..
I am happy, that i have inspired you to do so...Loolz...
Ignorance is bliss....[color=#006600][/color]

I have said it before that there are too many CHILDREN in this nairaland.