Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think it's much more likely to be classed as abduction or ethnic cleansing, to be honest. I don't think there's any example, ancient or modern, of forcible marriages in these circumstances being classed for criminal purposes as rape, even by people who disapproved of them or denounced them. (If you know of an example, I'll be happy to consider it.)

I would expect that, say in the UK for example, if a woman was subject to e forced marriage against her will (again a tautology) and her husband had sexual intercourse with her that he could, would and should be charged with rape, in addition to any charges relating to the forced marriage.

Rape was a major part of the ethnic cleansing that went on in Bosnia, and many other places I am sure. Of course, they did not force the woman to marry them, they just had them gang raped. The point being, rape is frequently part of ethnic cleansing and whether or not a rapist faces charges specifically for rape is neither here nor there. A man having sex with a woman without her consent, where that consent is not given under duress, is rape.

Peregrinus wrote: »

My point here is not that this practice would be defensible; not at all. My point is that this conversation has all the hallmarks of one in which people start by denouncing the bible for condoning rape, and only looked for evidence when the assertion was challenged. Their initial belief was not evidence-based. And they don't find any very convincing evidence, which is why, after other passages initially cited have been quietly dropped, they have to rely on passages like this, which are the best they can do but, frankly, don't provide the kind of support that they expected and hoped to find.

My belief has not changed at all during the course of this discussion. I am was of the opinion that this particular section condones what we would not consider to be rape and I am still of that opinion.

Peregrinus wrote: »

If you started by reading the bible and forming opinions about what your read, you might well deplore this passage, but I suspect the focus of your denunciation would not be that it condones rape. In fact what this law does is prevent rape; if a conqueror desires a captive woman, he can't just have her; he has to marry her, tqke her into his home, allow her a period of mourning, give her a status, rights and a future. It's not great, perhaps, but it's better than what would happen if the law were not there.

I would expect this from Phil, but not from you. I can kind of see where you are coming from, but I really don't think this law prevents rape, at least not in the sense that we would now understand it.

If a man grabs a woman, holds a knife to her throat and tell her that he will kill her if she does not have sex with him and then asks her if she will have sex with him, to which she answers "yes", is that not then a rape?

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, marriage can itself be a rape, and for those senses of "rape", this passage condones rape. But, as for the primary sense of rape, as for the kind of rapes that to this day still happen to the women on the losing side in a war, this passage is clearly aimed at preventing those rapes, and I suggest it's less than honest for people who claim that the bible "condones rape" not to acknowledge this.

I have to disagree. It only prevents rapes in the sense of the example I gave above. The woman has a knife against her throat and her response is "of course I will have sex with you." That is not consent and it is not consensual sex.

This law may have had the purpose of salving the rapist conscience, or in some sense trying to find a loophole in exist law, but when you look at the context and what is actually happening it is clearly rape.

MrP

Peregrinus wrote: »

Actually, I don’t think it is that simple.

Remember how we got to this point. Somebody - I forget who, at this point - made the claim that the bible condones rape, and when that claim was challenged a number of people offered various scripture passages said to support the claim.

On examination, most of the passages which referred to rape proved not to condone it, and most of the passages which did condone something - possibly something quite nasty - weren’t really, or at any rate primarily, condoning rape.

On this particular passage, I think people would be on fairly strong ground if they complained that the bible condones forced marriage, or abduction for marriage. But they’ve kind of painted themselves into a corner where they have to attack this passage on the grounds that it condones rape. And that’s not quite so clear.

It quite clearly condones forced marriage and abduction, this much is true, but I think it is quite dishonest to suggest that by implication it does not also condone rape. When you consider that sex is an essential requirement for christian marriage, it must follow that sex was part of these “marriages.”

Peregrinus wrote: »

She may well, given that she doesn’t share our assumptions and values. Remember, this is a woman who never had any expectation of choosing her own marriage partner. Her marriage partner would be chosen by her father. Or, possibly, by her grandfather. Or, if her father was of low status, by her father’s patron, or some other high-status figure on whom her father was dependent. Or, if her father was a slave, by her father’s owner. And at any point the person in a position to choose her marriage partner might change - death, decline in fortune, war, etc. She’s essentially property (or, at any rate, the right to select her marriage partner is essentially property) and property can change hands at any time. When there’s a war, and her family’s on the losing side, and awful lot of things change, including expectations with regard to marriage.

And today, in the civilised world forced marriage is illegal and sex without actual and not coerced consent is rape.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Semantically, we can defend the claim that she was raped, because this is a sequence of events which will likely lead to her having sex, and at no point is her consent necessarily sought or obtained (though it’s not necessarily withheld either). But the corollary is that every woman who ever married a husband not of her own choosing, every woman who has married out of economic or social necessity, was raped every time she has sex with her husband. And that’s the experience of most women who have ever lived, since the romantic idea of marriage in which two individuals choose one another out of romantic inclination is a fairly recent invention. And that’s such a broad definition of rape as to be not much use - and, more to the point, it’s not what we normally think of when we use the word “rape”.

I think you might be stretching reality here a little. Granted, there may be some women who are not particularly happy with their marriage choice, but this is a far cry from being abducted, forced into marriage and then raped.
And the definition of rape is fairly broad as it is, certainly in the UK, but it would still be capable of making a distinction in these two cases. The key is consent. So where a man has sex with a woman and he knows, or should have reasonably known that she does not consent, then rape.

Where a man has abducted and forced a woman into marriage he should probably know that she does not consent to sex. I will grant you in biblical times the woman’s consent may not have not have been something considered, but that does not take away form the fact that by todays standard it is rape.

Peregrinus wrote: »

So, does the bible condone rape? In this passage, yes, indirectly, for certain values of “rape”. But we have to do a good deal of shoehorning to get to that point, and in doing so we end up skipping over some much more fundamental moral issues. Possibly, just possibly, the central moral problem in what’s described here isn’t the acts of sex that are presumed to follow the forced marriage?

I think the entire section, both what is explicitly stated and what is implied, is despicable. I have major issues with the forced marriage and abduction, believe me, as well as the inevitable rapes that will occur.

What I also fond irritating is the “well it does not actually mention that there was sex involved, so I would prefer not to think about that” type of apologetic nonsense. I don’t think it convinces anyone and simply makes it look like inadequate excuse making.

MrP

Peregrinus wrote: »

For many Christians, it has - I'd say for most Christians, so far as the submission of women in marriage is concerned. It may not have moved as far as you (or I) would like, but it has certainly moved.

It's a mistake to seek out the Christians you disagree most violently with, and then treat them as normantive of Christianity. They aren't, necessarily.

They are certainly the loudest and most strident

Has Philologos left the house ?

marienbad wrote: »

Has Philologos left the house ?

Watching the regular sniggering abuse, and awful modship, I can't believe he lasted this long tbh. His selfless intentions were going to eventually lead to him considering the lack of value in trying to bring the Gospel to Kermit, Fozzy and the gang

My intentions being mostly selfish here, you'll still have me annoying yee now and again so don't fret.

JimiTime wrote: »

Watching the regular sniggering abuse, and awful modship, I can't believe he lasted this long tbh. His selfless intentions were going to eventually lead to him considering the lack of value in trying to bring the Gospel to Kermit, Fozzy and the gang
My intentions being mostly selfish here, you'll still have me annoying yee now and again so don't fret.

What Gospel was that then ? Love your enemies ?

marienbad wrote: »

What Gospel was that then ? Love your enemies ?

And there ye have it. After all of his endeavors, you still have to ask. Seems he got wise.

JimiTime wrote: »

And there ye have it. After all of his endeavors, you still have to ask. Seems he got wise.

Now now Jimi don't you know you should never blame the pupils !

marienbad wrote: »

Now now Jimi don't you know you should never blame the pupils !

He probably wasn't qualified for this special needs class alright,:pac: but he had 22000 posts of honest endeavour at least.

Benny_Cake

I'm extremely sorry to see that Phil has closed his account, while I disagreed with him on plenty of things he struck me as sincere and committed in his faith. It was a little like watching a cat wander into a dog park at times, but he showed a lot of grace despite the flak he took. Hopefully he'll return at some stage.

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I'm extremely sorry to see that Phil has closed his account, while I disagreed with him on plenty of things he struck me as sincere and committed in his faith. It was a little like watching a cat wander into a dog park at times, but he showed a lot of grace despite the flak he took. Hopefully he'll return at some stage.

Seems a bit extreme to simply avoid answering questions...

MrP

MrPudding wrote: »

Seems a bit extreme to simply avoid answering questions...

MrP

And yet he had the class not to make a deal out of it, simply leave quietly. Even in his retirement, he is a class above the likes of yourself with your jibing. Good man Phil, still leading by example.

lmaopml

MrPudding wrote: »

Seems a bit extreme to simply avoid answering questions...

MrP

That's a bit unnecessary Mr.P -

Well, I'll miss Phil, it will be weird not having him around tbh - and whatever the reason is that he has decided to take a break ( and I hope it's nothing too serious ) I hope it won't be forever. Thanks for all the postings and conversations and agreements and disagreements and spats and all the rest in the last few years Phil.....it won't be the same without you. Take Care..

JimiTime wrote: »

And yet he had the class not to make a deal out of it, simply leave quietly. Even in his retirement, he is a class above the likes of yourself with your jibing. Good man Phil, still leading by example.

He left the same way as he avoided questions, without comment. Yes, sheer class.

MrP

Benny_Cake

MrPudding wrote: »

He left the same way as he avoided questions, without comment. Yes, sheer class.

MrP

People close their accounts regularly for any number of reasons. He isn't here to speak up for himself, so no slagging him off, or infractions will follow. That goes for everyone.

MrPudding wrote: »

I would expect this from Phil, but not from you. I can kind of see where you are coming from, but I really don't think this law prevents rape, at least not in the sense that we would now understand it.

If a man grabs a woman, holds a knife to her throat and tell her that he will kill her if she does not have sex with him and then asks her if she will have sex with him, to which she answers "yes", is that not then a rape?

MrP, I think you should reread the passage concerned. Far from condoning the kind of behaviour you describe in your second paragraph, it prevents it.

Under this law, a conqueror cannot hold a knife to the throat of a woman and offer her the choice of sex or death. If he want to have sex with her he has to marry her, he has to take her into his home, he has to allow her a month to mourn, and then he can "go to her as a husband", which necessarily involves accepting continuing responsiblity for her and for their offspring. We can deplore this as facilitating forced marriage and ethnic cleansing, but at the same time honestly compels us to say that it is very clearly a measure directed against the kind of behaviour you talk about in your second paragraph. It forbids battlefield rape, or rape by an army of occupation. It forbids group rape. It forbids impulse rape. It forbids punishment rape. It forbids rape and abandonment. It says that if the conqueror wants to have sex with her, he has to marry her, and then wait a month. He has to give her status, a home, security and support.

It forbids, in short, the kind of rapes that, even today, are routinely perpetrated by conquering forces on conquered women. It forbids the kind of rapes that actually happen on a large scale in war situations. And, if you're determined to employ this verse as evidence in a debate about the bible's attitude to rape, this is clearly a relevant point.

nagirrac

Although I crossed swords with him on a number of occasions, I have the utmost repect for people of faith like phil who stand by their principles and refuse to be bullied. It is a little strange and saddening that a Christian poster can be hounded off the Christianity forum. I can say from experience that the kind of grandstanding and ad hominum attacks directed towards phil would quickly result in banishment from the A&A forum, having been threatened with expulsion myself for minor violations. Perhaps its time for a little less Christian "turn the other cheek" on this forum.

It is almost tragic comedy, were the subject not so heartrending, that posters would ask whether certain behaviors in Jewish society of 3,000 years ago would hold up in today's society. Especially as it pertains to a topic like rape. Take a moment and look at the "prostitution of children" entry on wiki. Have a look at the child labor statistics in China and other Asian countries. The whole of western society is awash in pornography which exploits most of those involved in its production.

There is plenty to do if posters are genuinely concerned about human exploitation. Stop buying products from China and other countries where child labor is praticed, stop travelling to or supporting in any way the economies of countries who do nothing to rid themselves of the horrors of child prostitution, stop supporting the porn industry that exploits human beings in the same economic sense slaves were exploited in biblical times.

It is utter hypocricy in my opinion to moan about abuses in the 3rd century BC, while our own society is in many ways much worse. Let those without sin, etc.

nagirrac wrote: »

Although I crossed swords with him on a number of occasions, I have the utmost repect for people of faith like phil who stand by their principles and refuse to be bullied. It is a little strange and saddening that a Christian poster can be hounded off the Christianity forum. I can say from experience that the kind of grandstanding and ad hominum attacks directed towards phil would quickly result in banishment from the A&A forum, having been threatened with expulsion myself for minor violations. Perhaps its time for a little less Christian "turn the other cheek" on this forum.

Well, in the first place, since Phil hasn’t given any reasons for deleting his account we don’t know that he has been “hounded off the Christianity forum”. I very much regret his going, and I will miss him, and I hope someday he returns, but as Phil said nothing about it I don’t think we should jump to conclusions about why he left; it may well be down to factors which have nothing to do with the Board.

And I think it’s also relevant that we’re in the “Atheism/Existence of God Debates” thread. I think it’s generally accepted that this is a place in which visitors from A&A who wish to do so can vent, grandstand and make with the shrill denunciations of Christianity and all its works and pomps. It was before my time, but I have the impression that when it was established this thread was conceived as a place where that kind of thing could be directed, so as to create space in other threads for more thoughtful, engaged discussion.

It’s perhaps unfortunate that the discussion of the “rape” texts from Deut etc came up here; a more enlightening discussion might have been had in a dedicated thread. But so it goes.

robp

Worztron wrote: »

How does a "moral high ground" come into this?

Well you have argued before that the notion of a loving compassionate Christian God is incompatible with human origins. That is entirely a moral argument.

Worztron

robp wrote: »

Well you have argued before that the notion of a loving compassionate Christian God is incompatible with human origins. That is entirely a moral argument.

I mentioned "moral high ground" not simply "moral".

The argument is illogical not moral.

Masteroid

You must get the irony here.

You accuse someone of lacking basic comprehension skills because he thinks that the term 'rape' can be inferred from biblical texts. You seem to have a problem with people being able to read what is not written.

I see that rape is quite clearly prescribed by Lot and that to misunderstand this reveals a clear lack of comprehension on your part so I respond with:

Masteroid wrote:

You could try a little of that yourself.

The bible doesn't describe rape, it prescribes it.

Lot, the only man in Sodom worth saving, offers his betrothed daughters to be raped by the crowd as a solution to their hostility.

And from that you infer:

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, he does. But it can’t have escaped your attention that the story doesn’t present that as a good, desirable or even effective solution to the problem. If you read the story exercising even a basic degree of critical thinking, and ask yourself what role Lot’s offer of his daughters plays in the story, why it’s included, what it’s significance is, it’s pretty well impossible to arrive in good faith at the conclusion that the point is “rape = good”.

In the last line of my quote I simply restate what is written in the bible which is:

Genesis 19:6-8 wrote:

So Lot went out to them through the doorway, shut the door behind him, and said, “Please, my brethren, do not do so wickedly! See now, I have two daughters who have not known a man; please, let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you wish; only do nothing to these men, since this is the reason they have come under the shadow of my roof.”

Apparently, Lot considers the abuse of his daughters to be less wicked than the abuse of his guests. It seems that Lot was trying to appease his brethren by sacrificing his daughters to them.

He was protecting the men in his house, not his daughters. I don't consider that Lot thought that the rape of his daughters would have been a good thing but I do think he considered that to be 'better' than the rape of the angels.

Personally, I think that Lot would have extended the same courtesy to any male under the protection of his house. I think that females were considered to be 'property' at that time, expendable, and at best, they were treated as 'second-class citizens'.

Like it or not, Lot is the hero of the piece. He shows that he is willing to do almost anything to protect the emissaries of God. But what my apparently less than "basic degree of critical thinking" causes me concern is why did Lot put his house in danger by imposing himself on the angels?

Perhaps he was testing them. Perhaps he realised that the angels were protecting him and wouldn't allow his daughters to be raped. That would be hubris, wouldn't it? And not altruism. And what if he had been wrong and the angels were powerless to protect him?

But this would have to be inferred and we know you don't like us to infer, so let's not.

It seems clear that Lot's presence in the bible is for the sole purpose of exemplifying the monster that justifies the destruction of an entire city and is yet another tale of justifiable genocide.

Lot's house provides a setting where a demonstration of the evil of Sodom can be played out.

The author of this story would have realised that having the angels arrive at Lot's doorstep might be construed as irresponsible, that the angels might be blamed for 'upsetting the apple-cart' so to speak. So the author avoids this by having Lot insist that the angels stay with him.

This indicates to this reader that Lot was offering his protection to the angels who presumably would have been in danger had they stayed in the square.

This means that Lot at least had some idea of what the danger was but I find it difficult to believe that the author intended for us to infer that the angels knew less than Lot since they were there to destroy the city.

Nevertheless Lot, understanding the danger that was posed to the angels, insists they stay with him. He doesn't send his daughters to safety either. If he sends his daughters to safety then he can't use them as bargaining chips.

Bargaining chips? That seems a little unsavoury. Especially in the presence of two angels, don't you think? And questionable. Then why was the offer of his daughters to a sexually depraved crowd by Lot included?

Well, the author can kill two birds with one stone. By caricaturising the perverted morality of the people of Sodom, the author justifies the pending and total destruction of the entire city and it is the inclusion of the offer made by Lot that provides the caricaturisation while at the same time demonstrating how God feels about homosexuality.

I think the author didn't intend us to consider Lot's 'culpability' in that part of the tale, rather he intended us to consider the crowd's reaction to the offer. We are not meant to judge Lot but we are meant to condemn Sodom.

The lack of acceptance of the offer of two female virgins shows that the morality of Sodom had become so distorted that the crowd were entirely motivated by homosexuality.

The girls wouldn't do.

How can you possibly argue with this?

Peregrinus wrote: »

They do. But I await your argument showing that the story presents this as a good thing.

Well, don't hold your breath.

My point is that it is sometimes okay to capture an unbetrothed female and have sex with her, for some people at some time.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Indeed. But where is this presented as good? A fairly obvious reading of this cycle of war stories is that the message is “war is sh*tty”, precisely because of its dehumanising and debasing effect on everyone involved, even the supposed good guys. I struggle to believe that this reading has never occurred to you, so you must have some reason for having dismissed it. Are you going to share that reason with us?

I'm starting to suspect that your obsession with 'good' is entirely based on the fact that you have nothing better to offer.

You may think that the bible is trying to tell us that 'war is sh*tty' but I find something different.

For instance, when the Jews were taken as slaves by the Egyptians, what happened to their men, women who had slept with a man and male children?

I think we all know that war is sh*tty but it seems to be sh*ttier if you are on the losing side against Israel.

This cycle of wars actually points out that the Hebrew God of War's mercifulness toward the Jewish people depends of the Jew's mercilessness with their enemies.

Samuel tells us that God turned away from Saul forever because he spared the life of a captured king. What do you take from this?

Genocide was the order of the day and that is not good.

Imagine if the Romans had taken that path, to systematically utterly destroy all males of all peoples.

You say it is about slavery, not sex - how can you think that the Jews operated a program of genocide and designated female virgins as 'spoils of war' that can be married without understanding the rape implications?

Peregrinus wrote: »

If you’re talking her about the Deut 20:10-14 quoted by Brian above, a careful reading of the text will show that the orders here are not given by God; they are given by the (nameless) Deuteronomist.

(And – although it’s hardly a justification – you’ll note that what the text suggests here is not rape, but slavery. Is this relevant? Only to this extent; to support his claim that the bible condones rape Brian finds he has to press into service texts which actually don't deal with rape, suggesting possibly that he can't find that many texts which do, and which can be used to support his claim.)

But, rape or slavery, I grant you that the text is certainly troubling. But it is either pretty stupid, or downright dishonest, to pretend that there is only one possible reading, which is that enslaving or raping your defeated enemy is what God wants. There’s ample writing on the “texts of terror”, as they’re called, which faces precisely this challenge and seeks to read the texts coherently with the wider scriptures as a warning, rather than a mandate.

Yes, I am talking about that passage in Deuteronomy. Have you actually read it yourself because I am struck by disbelief at your inferences?

We are quite clearly meant to understand that it is Moses who speaks in Deuteronomy. He refers to himself often including a statement, 'a prophet like me', which identifies him precisely. Do you question this?

And if not, do you believe him when he tells us what God has said to him?

Now, try to put an argument together that can show that Deuteronomy 20:10-15 indicates anything other than Moses telling his people that it is the will of God that all the males of all the cities that are far away be destroyed and that virgins should be kidnapped.

And they are the lucky ones. The cities that are not far away are wiped out entirely, virgins and all.

All according to God's will.

Or do you think that Moses was lying?

Peregrinus wrote: »

It is possible, I grant you, to read the bible (or at least parts of it) in this way, if you have your heart set on such a reading and are determined either not to admit the possibility of other readings, or to dismiss them. The question is, why would anyone approach reading the texts with such a determination?

That is exactly what I was wondering - why are you so determined to infer what is not there in order to protect your faith when I am simply referring to what is actually written?

You're the one being dismissive with regard to what are reasonable conclusions based on a simple reading of the text. And so far you have failed to offer a reasonable or even logical alternate view that doesn't contradict what is written.

I mean, if the bible can only be understood by cryptologists then why bother making us read it at all? If nothing in the bible means what is written in the bible then why not just publish an unencrypted version that tells the story how it was meant to be heard?

At least that way simple people who lack critical thinking faculties can understand the inspired word of God.

Ah, but then we wouldn't need priests to explain it, would we?

Priests kind of make sure that questions will be asked of them.

They also kind of make sure they don't get answered too.

Masteroid, Lot is not the hero of the story. There is nothing in the story to present him in a heroic light. This doesn’t read to me like a story that has a hero.

The story ias about the citizens of Sodom. Lot is a plot device, included to counterpoint and underline the evil of Sodom. The evil was not, as you assume, homosexuality; it was inhospitality - a point which becomes very clear when you read the immediately preceding story where the angels visit Abraham, and are hospitably received. Genesis 19 is a very pointed contrast to Genesis 18. The Sodomites are the antithesis of Abraham (who is, of course, the father of the Jewish people, so we know at the outset who's going to be the goodie and who the baddie).

The point of Lot’s offering to sacrifice his daughters is not that sacrificing your daughters is a Good Thing, and you will find absolutely nothing in the text to support the view that that is the point. The signficance of the offer is not what it tells us about Lot, but what it tells us about the citizens of Sodom. (Remember, this is a story about Sodom first of all, not about Lot.)

In offering his daughters, Lot offers the most precious thing he has. He offers them to them mob in order to induce them to behave towards strangers as they should behave with no inducement at all. But even with this offer the mob clings to their fear-filled, hate-filled rage. The point, then, is to underline how depraved the mob is; nothing, not the most precious thing imaginable, will turn them from the destructive course on which they are bent. To make this point, it is not necessary that Lot should be right to offer his daughters, and there is no implication that he is.

Masteroid wrote: »

We are not meant to judge Lot but we are meant to condemn Sodom.

Correct. But you cannot say that, and at the same time say that we are intended see Lot’s offer of his daughters as “good”, because that would be to make a judgment of Lot. If we’re not meant to make a judgment of Lot, then this can’t be a story about the morality of Lot’s actions. And it quite clearly isn’t; it’s a story about the morality of the citizens of Sodom.

There is, as you possibly know, a “version B” of this story in Judges 19, which does explore more fully the offer of the daughters. In version B the story takes place in Gibeah, not Sodom, and the names of all the players are different, but it is recognisably the same story. A Levite (a priest) is passing through the city with his (apparently loved and valued) concubine, on their way home from a visit to the concubine’s father. They are given hospitality by an old man who lives in Gibeah, who warns them against sleeping in the public square. Some “wicked men of the city” surround the house and demand that the Levite be sent out so that they can rape him. The old man offers his daughter, and for good measure the Levite’s concubine, instead. Familiar so far?

But now the stories diverge. In version B the Levite sends his concubine out. She is repeatedly raped and then left for dead and is found insensible (and possibly dead) in the morning. The Levite carries her home on his donkey, and by the time he gets home she is certainly dead. He dismembers her and sends her limbs into all parts of Israel, to excite general horror. A war ensues against the tribe that lives in Gibeah (the tribe of Benjamin). The whole thing is a complete sh*tstorm; thousands are killed on both sides; cities are burned; livestock is destroyed; whole tribes are driven into the wilderness. It’s a disaster, and there is no good outcome; the war simply stops when everyone is dead or exhausted. The story ends with “in those days Israel had no king; everyone did as they saw fit”, and it’s a panegyric against the escalation of violence.

Right. Both versions of the story are canonical, and the Jews would have been familiar with both. You clearly can’t read the second story and think that sending the concubine out to face rape and murder is presented as a Good Thing. It’s part of an escalating spiral of violence, anarchy and horror. It makes matters worse, not better.

An audience familiar with both versions of the story can’t possibly think that Lot did the right thing in offering his daughters, since the consequences of that course are teased out in gruesome detail in Version B. So to pretend that the bible endorses sending your daughters out to be raped because Lot is said in Genesis 19 to have attempted this, you have to be willing to pretend that Judges 19 doesn’t exist.

So, to summarise. In the story of Sodom, there is a complete absence of any language to suggest that Lot did right in offering his daughters. Reading the story, it’s clear - as you concede yourself - that it’s about the morality of the Sodomites, and therefore the point of the offer of Lot’s daughters is not what it tells us about Lot, but what it tells us about the Sodomites. The story is not about either homosexuality or rape; it’s about the hostility of the Sodomites to the angels, as contrasted with the hospitality of Abraham. The morality of offering up your female dependents is explored more directly and more fully in “version B” in the Book of Judges, where it’s presented as, basically, making a bad situation much worse.

You need to work really hard to ignore all this, and read the story of Sodom as an endorsement of rape.

Masteroid wrote: »

Yes, I am talking about that passage [Deut 21:10-14] in Deuteronomy. Have you actually read it yourself because I am struck by disbelief at your inferences?

OK, confession time. I am responsible for a misunderstanding between us.

In my earlier post I referenced Deut 20:10-14, which reads as follows:

“When you draw near to a city to fight against it, offer terms of peace to it. And if its answer to you is peace and it opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall do forced labor for you and shall serve you. But if it makes no peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it; and when the LORD your God gives it into your hand you shall put all its males to the sword, but the women and the little ones, the cattle, and everything else in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourselves; and you shall enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the LORD your God has given you.”

But what I meant to refer to, and what I was actually talking about, was Deut 21:10-14:

“When you go forth to war against your enemies, and the LORD your God gives them into your hands, and you take them captive, and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you have desire for her and would take her for yourself as wife, then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and pare her nails. And she shall put off her captive's garb, and shall remain in your house and bewail her father and her mother a full month; after that you may go in to her, and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. Then, if you have no delight in her, you shall let her go where she will; but you shall not sell her for money, you shall not treat her as a slave, since you have humiliated her.”

So I can see how you had difficulty reconciling my comments about Deut 21 with the text of Deut 20. My fault; I apologise.

I still suggest, though, that while Deut 20 deals with enslaving conquered people, Deut 21 deals with having sex with them, and the fact that such very different provision is made indicates that your assumption that “slavery” = “sexual slavery” is not, in fact correct. Romans were free to have sex with their slaves; the Israelites were not necessarily free to do so. The Hebrew purity codes were quite concerned with who you could have sex with, and who you couldn’t, and when, and in what circumstances, and this is an example of that. So the licence to “take as booty” the women, children, animals and goods is not a licence to rape the women any more than it is a licence to engage in paedophilia, b estiality or whatever the word is for sexual relations with an inanimate object.

If anything, Deut 21 underlines that you can’t have sex with a slave taken in these circumstances. While you can enslave a conquered woman under the passage in Deut 20, by Deut 21 if you want to have sex with her you have to forgo that. You must marry her, and give her the status and rights that go with marriage. The text is explicit that, even if you subsequently divorce her, she is not again reduced to slavery.

So, reading the two passages together, yes, you can enslave conquered women (and that is morally objectionable to us, obviously) but no, that doesn’t mean you can rape them. In fact, if you want to have sex with them, you have to forego the possibility of enslaving them; and instead marry them. This rules out both battlefield rape/slave rape and taking conquered women as concubines.

Peregrinus wrote: »

In fact, if you want to have sex with them, you have to forego the possibility of enslaving them; and instead marry them. This rules out both battlefield rape/slave rape and taking conquered women as concubines.

A married, raped woman is still a raped woman.

MrP

MrPudding wrote: »

A married, raped woman is still a raped woman.

Sure. But, at the risk of going in circles:

1. The passage in Deut 20, said by some in this thread to condone rape, doesn't in fact condone rape. The belief that it does is based on an assumption that "slavery" = "sexual slavery", an assumption which is contradicted by Deut 21.

2. The passage in Deut 21 does condoned rape, to the extent that in many cases forced marriage presumptively leads to rape. But it's disingenuous, to put it no higher, not to note at the same time that it also prevents rapes of the kind alleged to be condoned by the Deut 20 passage - the kinds of rape that, to this day, happen on a large scale in war zones. Thus to present this simply as a text which condones rape is, um, tendentious. The full story is a lot more nuanced than that.

Kiwi in IE

nagirrac wrote: »

It is almost tragic comedy, were the subject not so heartrending, that posters would ask whether certain behaviors in Jewish society of 3,000 years ago would hold up in today's society. Especially as it pertains to a topic like rape.

I actually think you have a very good point here. But it is not a point that does the argument for Christianity any favours in the long run. Societal norms of biblical times were entirely different from those of today. Many of the interpretations and understanding of phenomena and social norms of the times, are worlds apart from those of today, as can be seen with the rape argument. Why then do people still consider it appropriate to follow a book written by authors who lived in these times and adhered to these norms and interpretations, as an authority on modern morality?

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I actually think you have a very good point here. But it is not a point that does the argument for Christianity any favours in the long run. Societal norms of biblical times were entirely different from those of today. Many of the interpretations and understanding of phenomena and social norms of the times, are worlds apart from those of today, as can be seen with the rape argument. Why then do people still consider it appropriate to follow a book written by authors who lived in these times and adhered to these norms and interpretations, as an authority on modern morality?

This is the crux of the matter, in particular those that insist on taking it literally , And then defy logic by cherry picking what is literal and what is not, all to fit their own view.

Kiwi in IE

marienbad wrote: »

This is the crux of the matter, in particular those that insist on taking it literally , And then defy logic by cherry picking what is literal and what is not, all to fit their own view.

I find it impossible to believe that Christians, particularly those who are able to put forward clear, concise, intelligent arguments, cannot see this for themselves.