In case you were confused about what you’re supposed to do after being raped, according to the Bible (click here for larger):The Bible certainly is the beacon of morality!
Dec 7, 2010
There’s one missing… “Married?” needs a third item: “To your husband?” — in which case it goes back up to “Cool. Enjoy life.”Pffft. Ugh. *sigh*
Cole Kleinschmit says:
Sadly, I was expecting to see that too.
In some parts of the world, unfortunately, that constitutes a marriage proposal when the traditional approach is declined.
Argh, that was meant to be “To your rapist?” — but I think y’all got what I meant…
I’ve just been watching the Hitchens/Blair debate on whether “Religion is a force for good in the world”.This seems as good a refutation as any other…
Quite honestly, we need to make more of these and just present them during debates.
i think modern religion is bad on equality, but let’s be clear: some of those verses explicitly mention rape while others refer only to having sex. you can think that being stoned for fornication is absurd (i sure do) but let’s not confuse it with being stoned for being raped.i also think that the whole “marrying your rapist” thing is often taken out of context. remember that the surrounding cultures, (and israelites, pre-law) called for victims of rape to br basically left for dead, with no way of financially supporting themselves. in the absence of a) prisons and b) a willingness among men to marry women who had been raped, requiring the rapist to marry his victim was a step toward justice, toward offering financial protection to victims. (“He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.”)there’s no doubt that’s abhorrent to us. it would have been *infinitely* more just if mosaic law jettisoned that ridiculous standard of sexual purity, particularly with respect to *victims*. but we don’t have to pretend it’s more absurd than it already is. ’cause, seriously, that’s more than enough.
please read my comment below. when understood in context, on balance this law was a force for good.
Sure. You make a good point – one which I’d not considered before. But the problem of religion is that in its necessarily unchanging attitude, this “abhorrent” system of legislature (I won’t use the word “justice” for obvious reasons) is deemed preferable to any more modern, civilised system. Not to mention the fact that these religions’ degradation of women is undoubtedly a cause for such abuse in the first place – as Geopsychic pointed out.
It seems the Hebrew Bible made the strong line for women between sex within marriage and sex outside of marriage and not between forced and unforced sex. 1. The man’s marital status did not matter2. The woman’s marital status did matter (not betrothed virgin, betrothed virgin, married, widow, prostitute)3. Forced sex only mattered in whether a woman was an offender and liable to punishment or notThe Bible doesn’t cover all cases but it does seem to cover some gray areas so by extrapolation one could guess.So sex (forced or unforced) with a non-betrothed virgin required the man to marry and maintain the womanThere may have been questions about whether betrothed virgins should be considered the same as married or as unbetrothed. The Bible comes down on the side of married which means it is adultery punishable by death. However it seems the woman though not the man escaped the death penalty if the sex was forced. Hence another gray area, if the act took place in the country it was assumed to be forced and in the city assumed not to be (I suspect if she could produce witnesses that heard her scream she might still get off). Not ideal since she might not have had the opportunity to scream. One assumes that if the woman was married, a similar rule was in place. The Bible doesn’t cover the rape of widows or prostitutes (my guess is that widows who had voluntary sex were considered prostitutes). Also rape within marriage was not a crime.Note that a lot of this has carried over to very modern times even in western countries. Legally a man forcing his wife to have sexual intercourse was not a crime in Britian or the US among other places until within my lifetime. In some countries (e.g., Chile until 1999) raping a prostitute or a ‘loose woman’ was not a crime. Some South American countries until very recently allowed men to get out of rape charges if they offered to marry their victim (though unlike the situation in the Bible, the man did have to be unmarried to have that out).
uummm… why is a level of purity required for marriage anyway? if it wasn’t for that little tid-bit, then they wouldn’t have to force a marriage (eerrr, justly? ethically?) between the rapist and the victim …let me guess … child birth? their are other ways to hold people accountable for leading to impregnation then marriage, for example, say they (/he, whichever you prefer) have to provide for the victim and the child for the rest of their life with no “Additional benefits” (which include the right to violate your ‘wife’ whenever you please)
Which verses explicitly mention rape?
Thomas Everett Haynes says:
I will be the one to make the marijuana joke. :-|
Deuteronomy. And I’m sorry M, but I can’t stand when people argue that things were simply a sign of the times. Founding Fathers owned slaves? Well, that’s just the way things were back then. It’s still evil, it’s still wrong, and I’m damn well going to judge it. I refuse to legitimize any practice that is based solely on maintaining material wealth as it applies to inheritance, which is the basis of all sexual purity requirements of women. When men can’t be sure whose baby they are raising, they brutalize women to make sure they aren’t cuckolded.The verses describing so-called “city rape” make it explicitly clear that that the woman is to be stoned to death, because in the city she could have called for help. If she’s raped in the country, her rapist pays her father a fine and then marries her. Women are not people in these scenarios, they are property. The only “justice” you’re speaking of is between the two men — the father whose chattel is now sullied and will never get him a dowry, and the rapist who now has purchased himself a wife at a reduced price. It’s abhorrent and there is no justification for it in civilized society. None.*Edit: I apologize, the majority of my reply is in reference to M’s post above.
Deuteronomy *explicitly* mentions rape? I don’t think so. As a matter of fact, I don’t think there’s even a biblical word that specifies rape.
Where does it say anything about the man having to be unmarried? Polygyny is not forbidden by the bible, only polyandry. Solomon had a thousand wives, and this did not break any old testament commandment.It is the woman who must still be unmarried, not the man.
Svlad Cjelli says:
“… is deemed preferable to any more modern, civilised system.”Except of course when God’s unchanging eternal Law only applies eternally to the past, and there’s [i]another[/i] unchanging eternal Law for the present.
aunty christmas says:
like everything in the bible this law was designed to support Men in the knowledge of the parentage of who would inherit the Fathers Property. Actually the bible is a book written to justify the ownership of women and slaves. It has the purpose of justifying the principles of Profit before People or Planet and the concept of personality being far more important than Principles. As in thou shalt not kill and “Thou shall not suffer a witch to live”, a witch being most often a land owning single women.
Deuteronomy 22 (NIV)
25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, 27 for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her. 28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
KJV doesn’t like to use the word rape, so it goes with euphemisms like “lay hold on her.”Deuteronomy 22 at Skeptics Annotated BibleOh, and this isn’t Deut, but P.O.W. virgins are cool to rape. Since the dads are dead you don’t even have to pay the fee and marry them. Score!
And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? … Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. — Numbers 31:15-18
Additionally, like everything in the Old Testament, particularly the Pentateuch, this instruction is pertinent only to the Jews of antiquity. It is too easy to judge the contents of historical documents, without context, with the standards of today.
Off-topic, but this image is a good show-case for why JPEG is the wrong format for such diagrams (look at all the icky artifacts, especially around hard edges like text).
Besides being an absolutely horrendous graphic which is even more offensive than anything Jenny doodles has tried to float here…the graphic is incomplete and slanted to suggest something other than what is…women were worthless, back then, etc.Not so.Actually they were held in very high regard.Today, in a time where every woman is a slut, feministas can’t really appreciate the lofty status of women in OT times. The concept of saving oneself and giving oneself only to a cherished beloved is lost on the purely sensate types. Today’s throwaway youth are quite ready for sex, they just aren’t ready for the demands of consuming love. Besides, nothing has ever been special to a slut.Thanks for the laughs though…this blog is always a good place to find those, in the post and in the comments. Only PZ can guarantee more laffs. Erp was a little more fair in his analysis of Deut. 22.
Gus Snarp says:
To all those talking about whether these ancient rules have any relevance I say this: as long as Leviticus is being quoted as the reason that homosexuality is immoral and Genesis to say the masturbation and/or birth control are immoral, then we have every right and reason to point out the utter immorality of other biblical laws. This is the book that many today still claim can tell us what is moral, even in its oldest books. That the book is chock full of things that are so completely odious is entirely relevant. No book that condones and even encourages slavery, rape, incest, murder, and genocide should be used to tell us that loving someone with the same sex organs is wrong.
Not really defending anything because I believe it, however according to the part of the Bible that Christians are supposed to listen to, none of that applies since Deut, is part of the old testament, something that Jesus and Paul (the main foundational teachers of which Christianity is supposed to be based on, not always is but is SUPPOSED to be) dismissed upon the creation of Christianity. So when you say “The Bible” you’re also forgetting to point out that this isn’t technically Christian belief, but Jewish. (Since much like the pork eating and other 300 some odd laws of the OT Christians don’t follow, this kind of falls into that category of “not their rules”)Just a nitpick for me since both Christians and Non Christians have the weirdest habit of pointing out old testament laws when they’re arguing for or against something, skipping over the fact that the new testament, blatantly at some points says “Hey, don’t follow that old crap no more” and then no one gets up on Jewish people about this even though it actually is their rules, which they still follow in some places.Sorry, it’s just something that as a scholar in Theology always bothered me when people decided to target just Christians for the odd beliefs found in parts of the Bible.((Anyway, return to what you were doing, nothing really to see here, derp derp derp))
Actually, no one says “Don’t follow that old crap no more”. While the Bible does have Jesus saying he brings a new covenant, it is specifically in the context of an eye for an eye, and he’s actually basically making a more stringent requirement. In the Old Testament you could take the eye of someone who took your eye, in the New Testament you can’t do squat. Otherwise he expressly says that he comes not to destroy the law but to uphold it and that no part of the law shall pass away (sorry, I can’t quote precisely or give chapter and verse, but that’s fundamentally it). This is the quote many Christians will use to explain why Leviticus still applies (to gay people, but not to eating shellfish, for some reason). You’re right that they’re stunningly inconsistent in their application of this, but they’ve got a pretty good case, theologically speaking, that the Bible supports the Old Testament laws continuing to apply. The reason Christians don’t follow all of those rules anymore is because latter Christians stopped following them, probably in part to be different from Jews, not because Jesus said not to. Anyone quoting Leviticus really ought to be living pretty much as a Hasidic Jew.
Dec 8, 2010
Oh, I see, you’re purposely being obtuse because you think you’re making a point. Loreleion has got this covered below, but I’ll also add that the modern Bible as we know it has been translated several times and heavily edited so trying to argue semantics over whether the actual word rape is used rather than the spirit of the word is pointless, and you know it.
Also, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah also specifically mentions rape. The “evil” men of Sodom want Lot to give them the angels who are visiting so they can rape them, and the virtuous Lot offers them his daughters instead, telling them that they can do “whatever they want” to them. The story of Lot and his daughters just gets better after that.
You’re right. He says something about upholding all of the previous laws of God. I can’t find the exact scripture on it but you’re exactly right; this is what fundamentalists will quote to anyone who claims that Jesus refuted the laws of the OT.
“Additionally, like everything in the Old Testament, particularly the Pentateuch, this instruction is pertinent only to the Jews of antiquity. It is too easy to judge the contents of historical documents, without context, with the standards of today.”Sure I can buy that, now if we can just convince 33% of the planet that its not a fucking instruction manual for how to treat women, but is rather an outdated and unnecessary fairy tail.
They hate it when you point out that the sermon on the mount loophole doesn’t actually exist.
With regards to “not their rules” two important points.1. They are their rules according to Jesus who spoke out against anybody ignoring or preaching to ignore even one slip of the pen of the old law. It’s Paul that brought up all that “New Covenant” stuff. So, for any law, any Christian can claim that this one is still important.2. By any Christian’s faith, it’s the same all good, all perfect, all powerful, and unchanging God. Acknowledging laws like this is an important address to the belief that Christianity is all about being a good person by following the will of a God that would will such things as human chattel being sold over to their rapists as damaged goods.
Your a scholar in theology? You should really hit the books then because you missed some pretty important parts.
I really shouldn’t feed the troll, but I’m going to anyway. Yes, women were held in high regard… as property. As you read the laws and how they differ between men and women, you can see a clear demarcation, and it is never in favor of the women.I do find it interesting that you have to fall back on terms like “slut” and “feministas” as a way to demean women you don’t agree with, making them in this context less than where you consider yourself. Not too far from dehumanizing…. Take that logic as far as you wish.
NIV is probably one of the most whitewashed versions.The SAB used the KJV for a reason; look at their FAQ. Technically, they probably could have done better by using a Jewish translation for the Old Testament, but in this case it would have made little or no difference. The closest it comes to actual mention of rape is “force her, and lie with her [under certain specific conditions]”. While the implication of action is clear, there is no implication that this in and of itself was considered an unacceptable act, i.e. rape. ~m’s defense of the marry-your-rapist law said that the bible explicitly mentions rape, which it does not, because it doesn’t have a word for rape, in much the same way there was no specific word for forcibly taking milk from a goat, forcibly taking eggs from a chicken, or forcing a mule to transport goods.(No Blitzgal, I was not being obtuse, and I was making a valid point. The bible and the founding fathers are worlds apart; at least some of the founding fathers admitted that what they were doing was wrong, and from such pangs of conscience eventually grew the abolitionist movement, which finally led to the end of the legal slave trade in this country. The bible has no evidence of any such recognition by any of the leadership of that time; its language betrays evidence contrary to such recognition, and because of that, many of the strongest bible believers to this day defend every abuse within it, not only with ~m’s lame “it seemed like a good idea at the time” defense, but with the claim that it is just as relevant today as it was back then. Admittedly, I would have to agree with them on that one point…)
There was, as I’ve said, no word for rape. The Sodomites (and…Gomorrans?) wanted Lot to send the men out so that they could “know” them. It is clear only from context that this “knowing” was intended to be forced upon the men.(In fact, though force is usually accepted as implied, even with the context it was not certain beyond a reasonable doubt; perhaps even an attempt to persuade them to perform homosexual acts would be considered evil. After all, most bible believers today would consider it so. Remember also that at 13 a Jewish male is considered a “man”, so these “men” could conceivably have been as young as 14 years old. If this was the case, perhaps Lot was fearful not that they would be raped, but that they would be corrupted. Or in that case, would the bible be “specifically mentioning” statutory rape?)It is clear that Lot offered his two daughters to the crowd with permission to do as they pleased with both of them, but it certainly doesn’t sound to me like Lot or the story’s narrator had any understanding of the concept of rape. Without such understanding of the concept, there is no possible intention to convey it.(See response to loreleion…)
the founding fathers’ notion that all white men were equal is painfully incomplete. but it was a step toward justice, regardless. the problem is when people stop taking steps forward.
In the Bible yes, in more modern “Christian” countries which allowed rapists to avoid punishment by marrying their victim, the rapist had to be single to take advantage of that out. See http://www.nytimes.com/1997/03…
Sorry, my mistake; I misread your post…
Patrick Marchi says:
It’s like the morality of the bible sometimes makes more sense when you evaluate it in the context of civilzation three thousand years ago. Weird!
It’s like people still use this book as a supposed source of modern morality. Weird!And societal context makes rape okay? Does it make genital mutilation or forcing women to hide themselves and have male escorts to go anywhere okay in modern societies where those things are practiced? How much context is needed to make those things okay?
Sam Barnett-Cormack says:
*puts on vaguely-knowledgeable-about-this hat*Don’t forget that the laws of Deuteronomy, Leviticus, etc are the laws of God’s covenant with the Israelites (or whatever name you apply to this group). Taking the Christian bible in toto, for the sake of argument, Christians shouldn’t be applying it unless they’re making some sort of reasoned argument that it actually makes sense, or is in line with the “new covenant” of Christ. The gospels have Christ declaring that the original covenant is ended and he’s starting a new one. That knocks out a lot of Old Testament law, except that explicitly (or possibly implicitly) endorsed by Christ.Of course, those arguments are only necessary (or valid) when dealing with Christians. I don’t know how any modern Jewish groups approach the problem, although ISTR that the Talmud adds extra laws to make various bits of the Torah more palatable. And anyone else shouldn’t need an argument made to ignore the Old Testament, and anyone who doesn’t want to take ancient, possibly mis-translated texts of dubious origin as “Law” can just be reasoned with.PS: Okay, so I was wrong. I did say “vaguely”… problem is the degree to which conflicting information comes from apparently reliable sources…
Not to speak for another, but “makes more sense” doesn’t necessarily mean “okay”. An awful lot of the Bible is by no means okay by any modern (okay, liberal) moral standard (although the Gospels are actually better on that than the Old Testament or any of the Epistles) – and that’s the only standard we can honestly apply. However, one can understand from historical context that the standards of the time were different, and the Old Testament represents some improvements from what we understand of the standards of the day. In terms of people using it today, yeah, that’s just crazy.However, one aspect I feel I must share is the observation that marriage doesn’t absolutely entail further sex in the Old Testament view, IIRC. I don’t know if there’s any commandment requiring a wife to “give herself” to her husband in this way, but there must be exceptions allowed, because one is implied. A man may not sleep with the wife of his brother, or even see her naked, and this has certainly been generally interpreted to apply posthumously. However, there are circumstances where a man must marry his brother’s widow (even if he’s already married). It seems clear thus that “marry” sometimes does simply mean “provide for”. What doesn’t help is that, at least in our translations, there is no differentiation.It’s a bit like the “eye for an eye” thing in some ways. Yes, obviously (to most of us), and “eye for an eye” is insane. However, the status quo it was applied to was continuous escalating vengeance, far more destructive. The law of “eye for an eye” prevented escalation, and cut it short, as the taking of the proverbial (or literal) eye wasn’t a crime in itself, so no recompense was needed against it. It’s been argued that the contextual meaning is “take no more in recompense than was taken from you” – that is, a proscription rather than prescription.The bottom line here is that it’s all less crazy when taken in its original context; that doesn’t stop it being utterly crazy when people try to apply it in a modern context.
Absolutely; to avoid such confusion, one just has to be clear about the context of the discussion. Is it being approached as a historical document, with historical context, or is it being approached as a modern document that people use to justify a point? The aspects that are relevant to each case are different, and confounding if you try to combine them.
This is probably because Christians proselytize while Jews don’t. (The Jewish religion forbids it; anyone that comes to Judaism must come on their own, and the conversion process is designed to weed out the less sincere. This doesn’t stop the Lubavitches from attempting to get anyone who answers yes to the question “are you Jewish?” to perform some Jewish ritual…)Often these criticisms are directed at all Abrahamic believers, but much more often than not, they appear in the context of an answer to some Christian claim of the superiority of either Christianity or religion in general to secularism or atheism. This argument also includes those who answer the brainwashing they received in their own past upbringing; since Jews make up a very small minority, formerly observant Jews who are now atheists (as well as formerly observant Muslims who are now atheists) make up a far smaller portion of the atheist population than formerly observant Christians who are now atheists (though it might be the case that as a percentage of their own religious population, Jews move more rapidly to atheism than Christians, having less excuse to cherry pick, and more rapidly than Muslims as well, having no rational fear that they will be killed for doing so).Also, as others here have pointed out, the Christians who “don’t follow that old crap no more” are just cherry picking. In fact, many Christians do follow that old crap as religiously as a Lubavitch.
also, i was there, and thought the debate was pretty bad. thoughts?
So I don’t have a concept of Germany if I say there is a country just south of Denmark famous for sausages, where die Lehrerin die Schüler unterrichtet, without mentioning it by name?
And for follow-up, what if I call it Tyskland?
No, you don’t have a concept of Germany if you have no name for the place and don’t believe it to be a country, but simply the location of a group of people living in a southern area of Denmark, said people sharing no particular characteristic other than that they happen to live in that area, and to whom you would refer to as, perhaps “the people who live south of South Jutland in the continuous area also bordering the North Sea, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Switzerland, Austria, the Czech Republic, Poland, and the Baltic Sea,” not mentioning your belief that they are citizens of Denmark because you take that as a given and assume that others will too.
Well, then you’d have a name for it, wouldn’t you? (See previous post below….)But since “Tyskland” is just a translation of the word “Germany” to another language, a less ambiguous form of your question would be: What if you called it “Waffi-Waffi-Goo-Goo Land”? The fact is it doesn’t really matter what you call it, as long as you have a name that translates well to what “Germany” means in common usage, e.g. the way that “rape” in common usage implies a socially unacceptable act in and of itself, regardless of who the victim is, or what the circumstances are. If “Waffi-Waffi-Goo-Goo Land” was just another name for “Germany”, then obviously, you’d have a concept of Germany. But if you believed that “Waffi-Waffi-Goo-Goo Land” was a part of Denmark as described below, and not a separate state, then you still wouldn’t have any concept of Germany. The same is true for calling it “Tyskland”, and even for calling it “Germany”. But if you don’t even have a name for the place, and even your concept of the place is significantly different from what most people mean when they say “Germany”, then you certainly don’t have any concept of Germany, even if you can notice that people are living in that area and can refer to them as the people that live in that area. Rape is not just forcing a woman and then lying with her. Even without the euphemism, it is not simply forced sex. “Play rape” can be forced in the physical sense, but it is not real rape. Statutory rape can conceivably be consensual, so there is a legitimate argument that in some cases it is not rape other than in the legal sense. (18 plus one second is legal; 18 minus one second is not; for the extreme case, put one partner on each side, or put both partners on the lower side and then try them as adults…) Rape is sex that is non-consensual and unacceptable for that reason, again, regardless of who the victim is, or what the circumstances are. I have seen no shred of evidence that the authors of the old testament law had any such concept. If they did, they certainly were not at all explicit in expressing it.
“I have seen no shred of evidence that the authors of the old testament law had any such concept.”Are you implying that rape did not occur in those times? If not, why this ridiculous semantic argument? I’m not an anthropologist, but I’m quite sure based on my knowledge of human nature that non-consensual sex has been occuring since before recorded history. That said, that the authors of the bible decided not to use the word ‘rape’ doesn’t mean that the act didn’t occur. “a rose by any other name”.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
© 2010 The Jenome.
All Rights Reserved.
Powered by WordPress.
Designed by WPSHOWER