marienbad wrote: » Ok, and it is true to say that God sanctioned this , is that not also correct ?
Zombrex wrote: » While theists, particularly Christians, like to appeal to notions of objective morality when this is examined it turns out that the objective morality in the vast majority of cases matches their own subjective beliefs (I say theists but I mean all humans, it is just some humans don't realize this the case, theism is almost universally defined by notions of objective morality handed down by supernatural authority)
Zombrex wrote: » Or to put it another way they are drawn to religions that match up with what they already hold to be true, rather than the other way around.
marienbad wrote: » Come on PDN , if the passage was in any other book you would accept that it at least included the possibility of rape. It is not those of us that can see that that are being unreasonable.
philologos wrote: » The point is that when you read books, you tend to look for what is explicit rather than adding to it mentally. In numerous other parts of the Bible rape is actually explicitly mentioned as being unfavourable, both in the Jewish law, and in the historical books of the Old Testament. So I go with what is explicit, I.E that the Bible regards rape as being fundamentally wrong rather than making up what I want to add into the passage.
Fanny Cradock wrote: » Any particular passages?
PDN wrote: » Yes, that would be correct. This is very slow.
marienbad wrote: » Indeed it it PDN , so now we come to the nub of the issue- could that sex be regarded as rape ? can we at least agree that that is a valid question to be posed ?
PDN wrote: » It's a valid question, inasmuch as any question is valid. Of course the answer to the question is clearly 'No'. Unless you've caught the habit of another poster who redefines language to suit himself. I don't think, by any reasonable definition, offering to marry someone and so improve their socio-economic position is therefore rape. Imagine the conversations we could have:Rich Man: "Please will you marry me. I have a beautiful house and a good job, and I would be honoured if you would come and be my wife. I want to take you away from all this poverty."Poor Woman: "Rape! He just threatened to rape me!"
philologos wrote: » 2 Samuel 13:1-39Genesis 34:1-31 There are also laws concerning rape in Deuteronomy.
marienbad wrote: » Now it is you that is imposing a meaning that is not explicitly stated- ''marrying someone to improve their economic status'' - Surely not, otherwise why exclude the women who were not virgins.
The issue is simply does the sex in these marriages constitute rape or not , and if not why not ? And of course if yes then why yes .
And part of that issue is the matter of consent . Given an either/or choice - is that consent ?
All of the above questions by any reasonable standard are explicit in the text.
PDN wrote: » So you can't see that marrying an Israelite man and a property owner was an improvement in socio-economic terms from being a domestic servant or slave? I'm not sure what virgins have got to do with that point at all, particularly since virgins aren't even mentioned in the passage we are discussing (deuteronomy 21)? And the answer is simply 'No'. Why not? That is fairly obvious, because rape means something forced, and we have no indication that these marriages were forced. Every choice is either/or. That's what 'choice' means. You either choose one thing or you choose something else. These women were captives. They were going to be domestic servants or slaves. Some of them might get an offer of marriage. We have no reason to presume other than that they could choose to accept marriage, or choose not to. Where's the rape? No, they're implicit in your head. If they were explicit in the text then you could quote them. That's what 'explicit' means.
marienbad wrote: » I am more than willing to be educated here philologos but those passages are more about incest and circumcision than rape ,are they not ?
Genesis wrote: 1 Now Dinah the daughter of Leah, whom she had borne to Jacob, went out to see the women of the land. 2 And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, the prince of the land, saw her, he seized her and lay with her and humiliated her. 3 And his soul was drawn to Dinah the daughter of Jacob. He loved the young woman and spoke tenderly to her. 4 So Shechem spoke to his father Hamor, saying, “Get me this girl for my wife.” 5 Now Jacob heard that he had defiled his daughter Dinah. But his sons were with his livestock in the field, so Jacob held his peace until they came. 6 And Hamor the father of Shechem went out to Jacob to speak with him. 7 The sons of Jacob had come in from the field as soon as they heard of it, and the men were indignant and very angry, because he had done an outrageous thing in Israel by lying with Jacob's daughter, for such a thing must not be done.
2 Samuel wrote: But when she brought them near him to eat, he took hold of her and said to her, “Come, lie with me, my sister.” 12 She answered him, “No, my brother, do not violate[a] me, for such a thing is not done in Israel; do not do this outrageous thing. 13 As for me, where could I carry my shame? And as for you, you would be as one of the outrageous fools in Israel. Now therefore, please speak to the king, for he will not withhold me from you.” 14 But he would not listen to her, and being stronger than she, he violated her and lay with her. [...] But Absalom spoke to Amnon neither good nor bad, for Absalom hated Amnon, because he had violated his sister Tamar.
Fanny Cradock wrote: » I don't know how you got that.
marienbad wrote: » Did these women freely consent to be married as we would understand it ?
marienbad wrote: » As I said I am more than willing ro be educated, but in the first instance if you read on down the objection seems to be more about circumcision than rape
PDN wrote: » I really don't know why you keep asking the same questions and somehow expecting a different answer. So I'll say it again: We don't know, because the passage doesn't tell us. How many times are we going to go through this routine before you understand that an argument from silence is always going to run into a brick wall? The passage doesn't mention consent, and it doesn't mention a lack of consent. Neither (despite your strange last post) does it mention virgins. They almost certainly wouldn't have had the same range of choices that most western women would expect today, but then neither did anyone else in those times.
marienbad wrote: » So it is not consent as we understand it then ?
PDN wrote: » No, that isn't what I said at all. :mad: Flipping heck, if you manage to read meanings into my posts that obviously aren't there, then it's hardly surprising that you do the same thing with Deuteronomy.
PDN wrote: » I really don't know why you keep asking the same questions and somehow expecting a different answer. So I'll say it again: We don't know, because the passage doesn't tell us.
How many times are we going to go through this routine before you understand that an argument from silence is always going to run into a brick wall? The passage doesn't mention consent, and it doesn't mention a lack of consent. Neither (despite your strange last post) does it mention virgins.
Numbers 31: 17 Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. 18 But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves.
ISAW wrote: » To be fair the one I was discussing does
marienbad wrote: » Ok then, we can use your wording, they had to make a choice, was that a free choice as we would understand it ?
It's theoretically possible that some of the soldiers raped the women, but given the circumstances it seems very unlikely. The soldiers would have known that rape was a violation of both the law and the instruction to purify themselves, as shown above; they had also seen God punish such violations with death during their travels in the desert. In fact, they had recently experienced a plague and executions resulting from their relations with Midianite women (25:1-9), as Moses reminded them. At that time, all those who had sexual relations with the Midianites were killed. It's highly implausible that the soldiers would have wanted to have anything to do with the Midianite women given this context. So what did happen to the women (and children)? God gave the Israelites permission to marry women they took captive, but they were to treat their wives with respect: the women were to have time to mourn their families first, and were not to be mistreated (Dt 21:10-14). Those who didn't marry would have become servants, but there were rules against mistreating them as well (Ex 21:26-27, Dt 23:15-16)
PDN wrote: » Yes, but that one doesn't mention marriage, or indeed any sexual relations.
PDN wrote: » Again, without seeing anything in the text to suggest otherwise, it would be a free choice. Their choices may have been limited, but I see nothing to say they weren't free.
marienbad wrote: » what does ''keep alive for yourselves '' mean then ? if it is servitude or something else why does she need to be a virgin ?
Well was she free to say '' no thanks to marriage or servitude , I think I will just leave at this point''
Fanny Cradock wrote: » Yes, you are very fond of telling us this. I'm happy to see that you acknowledge that it is a human trait - albeit one that I gather deep down you are convinced that you have been inoculated against.
Fanny Cradock wrote: » There are certain aspects of Christianity morality that I find very difficult to accept because they run contrary to my desires.
Fanny Cradock wrote: » But what has any of this got to do with my conjecture that objective morality exists whether we choose to acknowledge it or not? That's why I brought in objective truth as a direct analogy.
tommy2bad wrote: » OK at this stage it obvious that anything but some proof-text that contains the words "I command you to rape" and From the mouth of God at that! will not convince some people that God didn't only command rape but formalized it as a aid to genocide. Or that was the spin put on it in the OT. Choose to believe what you will but an edited document written by the victors isn't a reliable source. Pity the Canaanites left no books or the other tribes that the Israelites replaced. Pitty the Israelites left no Canaanites.
