Why no commandment against rape?

[Oneironaut]

What does the Bible say about rape? A lot of Christians don't read the Bible so they don't know, but they assume that somewhere in there is an explicit statement that rape is always immoral. And of course, if we do a little digging, we're bound to come up with something like that...right?

The closest I could find was this passage from Deuteronomy 22, where God is laying out his laws to the Israelites and instructing them on how to deal with cases of rape.

If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;

Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.

But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:

For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
A few comments on this verse. First of all, if the woman is raped and does not scream loud enough and she is in a populated area, she is to be killed. This was because it would be presumed that she willingly had sex with the man, and they had some strange idea that having sex for fun is bad and people who do it outside the context of marriage should be killed. Obviously this cannot be a law that was cooked up by a moral being, yet the Bible is claiming these are the words of an infinitely moral God. How can that possibly be?

If the woman is married, it is considered a serious crime worthy of the death penalty for the rapist. Why? Because in ancient Israel, wives were basically considered property. If you read the Old Testament through, this is very clearly what marriage means in their society. Women are property, and if you rape another man's wife, that is defiling his property. Nobody cares about the woman, but defiling another man's property is considered a serious offense.

As if to prove this point, it goes on to say that if the woman is not married to anyone, the punishment for the rapist is to pay her father some money (daughters as well as wives are considered property), and then the woman is bound to be married to the rapist.

How come God doesn't come out and say "Thou shalt not rape"? In his list of Ten Commandments, he considers it important to prohibit breaking the Sabbath or coveting your neighbor's donkey, but he doesn't consider it important to prohibit sexual abuse? How come? If I were pressed to come up with a list of ten laws I wanted everybody to follow, surely "don't rape people" would be more important than "take one day out of seven to worship me" or "don't want things other people have, even though humans are incapable of exercising conscious control over their desires". Why is rape not on that top ten list? Why isn't it ANYWHERE? Surely everyone agrees rape is one of the most immoral possible actions a person can do. Why is the Bible completely silent about it?

Three to six percent of the Catholic priests in this country are raping children. USCCB - The Nature and Scope of the Problem of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States (http://www.usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/) I don't think that's a coincidence. I think that number would be much lower if God explicitly condemned rape a few times in these priests' scriptures, and especially if a prohibition on rape was on that list of Ten Commandments they clergy's got plastered everywhere.

The fact that the Bible does not condemn rape (or slavery for that matter) is one of the most obvious reasons, to me, that it could not have possibly been penned by a moral genius of any sort. It is simply a compilation of common moral beliefs of the time, before we ourselves, without the help of God or the Bible, advanced our own moralities to the point that we all now abhor rape and slavery.

[Matt the Funk]

Religion is BS dude. You aren't convincing people who want to believe in it. You aren't changing anyones views. It just starts flaming. Although for me it was a fun little read.

[Oneironaut]

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I'm asking a question here out of real curiosity. I want to know how the Christian mind overcomes this huge hurdle. I know the Christians have some rationalizations on why the highest moral authority has failed to condemn one of the most immoral things you can do. I want to hear it.

[rebgirl420]

I dont know, I always thougt it was a common sense thing. BUT I think that if someone does indeed rape or molest anyone that they should be killed in a horrible, atrocious way. Slowly too. But thats just my 2 cents

[MadSativa]

I could have swore their was a sex before marriage commandment. I think that would fall into that however it would be crazey if some guy married her just to rape her. Not that raping her is not psyko in the first place.

[Sleepyhead1]

Honestly during all the copying and rewritting of all bibles. Man has left out many books and stories for us to read. You've heard of "The lost Books of The Bible" correct? Even practicing rasta like myself I still wonder what are in those lost books and during mans translation. What have we miss translated and or left out. Its just a thought im not hear no tread on anyones religion.:thumbsup:

[Oneironaut]

I could have swore their was a sex before marriage commandment. I think that would fall into that however it would be crazey if some guy married her just to rape her. Not that raping her is not psyko in the first place.
Yes, that's true. In the same chapter I quoted above, actually right before the passage I quoted, is the bit where it says that a woman is to be stoned to death if on her wedding night her husband discovers she has already had her cherry popped.

Sex was basically the purpose of marriage in Israelite culture. You didn't ask your wife's permission to have sex. You owned her. Marriage and the virginity commandments were just a way to make the sexual relationship exclusive, so that if the woman got pregnant the man could be assured that he was the father. If the woman was not a virgin when she was married or if she committed adultery during the marriage, the man would not be assured that he was the father. That's why they considered it such a heinous crime.

In fact, if a man had his eye on a virgin that he wanted to be his, all he had to do apparently was rape her, pay 50 shekels of silver to her father, and badda-bing badda-boom she's required to marry him. That commandment is in there because a non-virgin would have no chance of marrying anyone else, and would actually have to be stoned to death if she did. So "God" (i.e. whoever was making this shit up) decided it was more merciful for her to be forced into marriage with a rapist than to be unmarried forever, or even worse, for her to enter into marriage with someone she did not lose her virginity to.

[Oneironaut]

Honestly during all the copying and rewritting of all bibles. Man has left out many books and stories for us to read. You've heard of "The lost Books of The Bible" correct? Even practicing rasta like myself I still wonder what are in those lost books and during mans translation. What have we miss translated and or left out. Its just a thought im not hear no tread on anyones religion.:thumbsup:
It's all man's writing. I have yet to be convinced that there is any divine substratum to these stories. Why would God write a story that he knew would be corrupted and to future generations would look like something no god could have written?

By the way, if you're looking for cool texts they left out of the Bible, check out The Apocalypse of Peter. It was part of most of the earliest Christian Bibles, but eventually they took it out because it describes in graphic detail the torments that the damned suffer in Hell. As a consequence, the Bible now says very little about Hell. But the ideas of the Apocalypse of Peter were powerful. They influenced Dante's Inferno and other popular visions of what Hell is like, and a lot of them survive to the modern day, even though the churches do not recognize it as officially part of the Bible.

The Apocalypse of Peter (http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~dfalk/courses/proph/peter.htm)

[Oneironaut]

I could have swore their was a sex before marriage commandment. I think that would fall into that however it would be crazey if some guy married her just to rape her. Not that raping her is not psyko in the first place.
I forgot to mention that the commandment against premarital sex applies only to women. Men are basically allowed to have all the sex they want. If a man is not a virgin on his wedding night, no big deal.

In fact, according to the chapter immediately preceding the one I quoted in the original post, a man in battle is allowed to take a woman captive to marry her (women don't have a choice in marriage in the Bible) and essentially rape her. If he doesn't like his new rape toy, he can let her go, and the only reason he can't sell her for money is because he screwed her. Isn't it amazing how much barbaric sexism the Bible can cram into just a few pages?

Deuteronomy 21:10-14

When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive,

And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;

Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;

And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.

And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.
Note that "thou shalt go in unto her" means exactly what you think it means.

[couch-potato]

I dont know, I always thougt it was a common sense thing. BUT I think that if someone does indeed rape or molest anyone that they should be killed in a horrible, atrocious way. Slowly too. But thats just my 2 cents


Being that I do not support rape in any way (except in cartoons, as it is generally humorous), killing them in that matter is makes you no better than they are. Although they do deserve punishment... it's a fragile topic. See my quote by Mr. Nietzsche.

[slipknotpsycho]

dude, since when has religion EVER made sense? why bother trying to make sense of it now? i mean you of all people should know of the countless hypocritical statments in the bible, the double standarding, and everything else... just don't even bother trying to make sense of it all, you'll end up giving yourself an anuyerism.

[Hardcore Newbie]

I dont know, I always thougt it was a common sense thing. BUT I think that if someone does indeed rape or molest anyone that they should be killed in a horrible, atrocious way. Slowly too. But thats just my 2 centsYou'd figure that don't murder and don't steal would be common sense things too, but they've got commandments for those :p

[BlueDevil]

It's the result of sexual dimorphism mixed with the homo sapien notion of culture. Over time men were able to create religious notions to affirm their gender bias, and these notions permeated popular culture via organized religion.

A curious, albeit depressing, factoid: Italy didn't have an anti-rape law until 1984. Remember that next time someone starts ranting about how Western civilization is superior to all others not based around the Judeo-Christian ethos.

[slipknotpsycho]

i just realized something, the satanic bible (LaVey) does say it is wrong to rape.. but the christian bible doesn't? hmm.... intresting indeed... :p

[jdmarcus59]

dude, since when has religion EVER made sense? why bother trying to make sense of it now? i mean you of all people should know of the countless hypocritical statments in the bible, the double standarding, and everything else... just don't even bother trying to make sense of it all, you'll end up giving yourself an anuyerism.

you said " dude, since when has religion ever made sense? why
bother trying to make sense of it now? if you dont belive in the bible why waist your time even talking about? if you saw dog crap
on the side walk, whould you go home and then get on your computar and waist your time talking about dog crap? that no one
cares anthing about? its the same old story, lets talk about God
and the bible and put all the cristian down, just to make are selfs
seem so SMART and well read. you seem to be very intelligent, did
you get your Phd from Harverd, and what year was it that you went around the world, debating all the great minds, and Iam sorry
that I missed you on Dr phil when you came out with the great evidence on how God can not excist in three words are less.
sir you trully have a great mind iam so glad that we have people like you around to tell the rest of us the truth. wow what a load off, now I dont have to do to church anymore, because what I really want to do on sundays is watch nascar. Thank you Ive been waiting all my life for some one like you to come and set me straight.thank you thank you so much.

[slipknotpsycho]

you said " dude, since when has religion ever made sense? why
bother trying to make sense of it now? if you dont belive in the bible why waist your time even talking about? if you saw dog crap
on the side walk, whould you go home and then get on your computar and waist your time talking about dog crap? that no one
cares anthing about? its the same old story, lets talk about God
and the bible and put all the cristian down, just to make are selfs
seem so SMART and well read. you seem to be very intelligent, did
you get your Phd from Harverd, and what year was it that you went around the world, debating all the great minds, and Iam sorry
that I missed you on Dr phil when you came out with the great evidence on how God can not excist in three words are less.
sir you trully have a great mind iam so glad that we have people like you around to tell the rest of us the truth. wow what a load off, now I dont have to do to church anymore, because what I really want to do on sundays is watch nascar. Thank you Ive been waiting all my life for some one like you to come and set me straight.thank you thank you so much.

no problem, happy to help any time.

[Oneironaut]

you said " dude, since when has religion ever made sense? why
bother trying to make sense of it now? if you dont belive in the bible why waist your time even talking about? if you saw dog crap
on the side walk, whould you go home and then get on your computar and waist your time talking about dog crap? that no one
cares anthing about?
That analogy is a bunch of dog crap. Who are you to tell us non-believers that we shouldn't voice our opinions on the content of the Bible? I live in a country where the Bible's most fervent supporters are saying it is the foundation of our society and ought to be the foundation of our legal system, and yet they say we who do not believe in the Bible should just shut our mouths. Well, fuck you if you hold that opinion.

The Bible does indeed have a huge impact on our culture. There's no denying that. Why bother discussing it? Why bother discussing other literature that has cultural influences? Why bother discussing any religious text that you don't believe in? Well, why the fuck not? These documents are important, and their contents have serious consequences for how their followers will act in our society. I can talk about the Bible, I can talk about the Qur'an, I can talk about the Buddhist scriptures all I want, because these things genuinely interest me. Not only do the mythologies themselves interest me, but also the psychological phenomenon of people actually believing the mythologies in the absence of evidence and even in the face of contrary evidence.

It's really fascinating the mental gymnastics you theists use to justify these ancient scriptures and their ancient moralities in the presence of a society which has progressed morally far beyond these scriptures. Really, it is. You can learn a lot by studying the religious mind, or the mind of someone engrossed in a conspiracy theory, or the mind of someone who genuinely believes they have psychic powers, and how they deal with the criticism of their claims. This is one criticism I have never seen reasonably answered by someone who believes that God had something to do with the laws laid down in the Old Testament: why are rape and slavery explicitly approved of by this so-called "highest moral authority"? It just doesn't make sense. If you believe in objective morality, that morality cannot change. If rape and slavery are evil now, they were evil when God was endorsing them in Deuteronomy and Exodus.

[Oneironaut]

I dont know, I always thougt it was a common sense thing.
Aren't stealing and killing also common sense things? I mean, there isn't a culture on the planet where it would be okay to kill your neighbor and steal all his stuff. Everybody knows killing and stealing are wrong, and yet God doesn't hesitate to mention them in the Ten Commandments. So why isn't a prohibition on rape anywhere in the Bible? Why do I actually find verses where God says it is okay to rape women from captured towns during battle? That just doesn't make any sense to me. And yet, it seems perfectly reasonable that the Israelites simply took their already existing laws and cultural traditions and said that God ordered them to have those laws and traditions. All other religions do the same thing, don't they? They take moral ideas that humans invented and put them into the mouths of their gods.

BUT I think that if someone does indeed rape or molest anyone that they should be killed in a horrible, atrocious way. Slowly too. But thats just my 2 cents
I am firmly against the death penalty, and I think in that respect I am more moral than the God of the Old Testament, who teaches not mercy and forgiveness but mercilessness and revenge. Any sophisticated moral system starts out with trying to understand why people do the things they do and trying to empathize with them; not brandishing people as inherently evil and not worthy of life.

Love. Don't hate. Even people who have done evil things still have some good in them. There is no such thing as a completely evil person. It is possible to change people with forgiveness and love, and to rehabilitate them into people who do not do evil things. I find it surprising how often Christians tout themselves as the sole guardians of that message, and how few actually practice it. If your Jesus-inspired moral system is all it's cracked up to be, an atheist shouldn't have to be telling you that mercy and forgiveness, not murderous revenge, is the way to confront evil in our society.

[Stoner Shadow Wolf]

umbrella commandment:

thou shalt not interfer with the free will of another being.


try it on, think of any "sin" and see if it holds up.

even theft.

you cannot rape the willing...

nor can you steal from the giving.

i like to steal free samples. it makes me feel gangsta.

[Oneironaut]

Yes, ultimately the only moral principle is to maximize the happiness and minimize the suffering in the world. Something the Bible doesn't talk about at all. According to biblical morality, the reason you should do good deeds is not because it will increase happiness or decrease suffering, but because it will get you brownie points with God and keep him from making your afterlife unpleasant. Ironically, the Christian religion has turned morality into a completely self-centered thing for a lot of people. They act morally not for the sake of doing the right thing, but because they think they are being threatened by the most powerful being in the universe with the most horrible punishment in the universe.

If a Christian thinks that's what it takes to make them act ethically to others, then that says a lot about how much they really esteem their fellow humans. I have a lot more respect for someone who does the right thing because it's the right thing to do, than someone who does the right thing just to avoid a horrible punishment like Hell or prison. Someone who doesn't murder only because a law prohibits them from murdering is not an ethical person.

[Stoner Shadow Wolf]

free will = morality.


if your actions impose upon the freedom or free will of others, you are doing wrong.it is impenitrable.

[natureisawesome]

Oneironaut said:


What does the Bible say about rape? A lot of Christians don't read the Bible so they don't know, but they assume that somewhere in there is an explicit statement that rape is always immoral. And of course, if we do a little digging, we're bound to come up with something like that...right?

Rape , by definition is immoral yes.


A few comments on this verse. First of all, if the woman is raped and does not scream loud enough and she is in a populated area, she is to be killed. This was because it would be presumed that she willingly had sex with the man, and they had some strange idea that having sex for fun is bad and people who do it outside the context of marriage should be killed. Obviously this cannot be a law that was cooked up by a moral being, yet the Bible is claiming these are the words of an infinitely moral God. How can that possibly be?

First of all sex is an intimate part of a special relationship that's private and sacred and kept in faithfulness and love. Adultery is an attack against the holy and sacred bond of man and woman in marriage. Jesus says:


Mathew 19

4And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

5And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

6Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.


Now man can have more than one wife and here is why. It has to do with the nature of the woman. Woman was created for man, and is the glory of man.. And man was created for God, and is the glory of God..Now man is the master of a woman, but not in the sense that you would think of like a slave being abused. But rather as the leader and authority. Jesus's disciples called him master too.


John 13:13
Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am

Now you really need to understand more about the nature of the woman. These verses can give us a better understanding:



Ephesians 5

20Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;

21Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

22Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

23For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

24Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

25Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

26That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

27That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

28So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

29For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

30For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

31For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

32This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

33Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

You see he is using the relationship with a man and his wife as an allegory to Christ and his church! And what's more, she was created in that image. Now this righteousness and love towards the wife that Paul speaks of is the same love that God expected in the old Testament. And Paul would know, he was a pharisee amoung pharisees. He was a Jew, and he was well acquainted with what the bible taught . Now it's true that there were many evil men towards wifes and likewise evil women towards husbands in the old testament and the new for sure ( I mean the time periods). But there are also examples of love and dedication such as Jacob who worked 14 years to get the wife he desired and cherished. Or Abraham who loved his wife and bought a piece of land to bury her and honor her when she died. And surely others. And you forget that God told children to honor their mothers, do you think then that he would expect women to be treated as objects? No way.

Their were men with hard hearts towards their wifes, just as Jesus said:


Mathew 19

7They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

8He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

If women were not special creations to God, then the idea of a private and sacred fellowship between man and woman would be meaningless. Didn't God also say, love your neighbor as your self? Women are surely our neighbors also.

Now Paul also speaks of how women should act and be treated. This will shed more light on things:


1 Peter 3

1Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

2While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.

3Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

4But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.

5For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:

6Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.

7Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.


You see? This is how the Bible teaches we should treat women. We should honor them with our strength as to a weaker vessel, this being also an allegory of Christs love for his bride, the church. Does God despise his bride? No! And he created women as something very dear and special to him.

In the book of Genesis, when God created Eve, Adam said of her:


Genesis 2

23And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

24Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Now remember what Christ said conscerning this last verse:


5And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

6Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

So you see, just as woman was born of man, the bride of Christ, that is his church and body of believers were born of him by his word which is spirit. It says of him:


1 Corinthians 15:45
And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

It is by his Spirit that we are made into new creatures.


2 Corinthians 5:17
Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

Now, Christians are children of God, are are held together in the bond of fellowship. But Christ is also our master, and we are his servants. But it's as Jesus said:


Mathew 6

24No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.

Now just as Christ is our master, and we are to be set apart (holy) and faithful to him, in the same way is the woman to have one husband and master also. This is the natural order, and it is an allegory of Christs love for his church. To remind you again:


28So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

29For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
30For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

31For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

32This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

I hope that's understood.

Now, the verses you pointed out in Deuteronomy 22 do, in fact contain a judgment against rape:


25But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.

26But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:

Now from what you've said you seem to be making an objection because the woman who screams in the field and isn't heard gets stoned even though she was raped. But that's not true! Pay close attention.


23If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;

24Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

You see in this verse it's talking about the woman being in the city. In the city if she cried out then people would hear her.


25But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.

26But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:

27For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.

But in this one the woman is in the field and no one could hear her cry. So she was not worthy of death. She would have ran back to the village and told her father or someone what happened immediately. And they wouldn't have stoned him or made him marry her.


Nobody cares about the woman, but defiling another man's property is considered a serious offense.

Actually, you would be surprised to know that one of the reasons why the man is forced to marry a woman he raped, is for the very reason that God cares about her.



Leviticus 21

7They shall not take a wife that is a whore, or profane; neither shall they take a woman put away from her husband: for he is holy unto his God. ..

...13And he shall take a wife in her virginity.

14A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, or an harlot, these shall he not take: but he shall take a virgin of his own people to wife.

15Neither shall he profane his seed among his people: for I the LORD do sanctify him.

It was against the law for any Israelite to take a wife that had been raped. This is because of the special relationship between a man and a woman which is an allegory of Christ's private and sacred love for his church. For a woman to become defiled is to impart in some other relationship outside of the special love of her husband. It is unfaithfulness and defilement from the sacred fellowship.

Men, as they should be expected to today were the leaders of the home. It was their responsibility to take care of the family and be a leader.



Genesis 3:17-19

17And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

18Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

19In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.


1 Timothy 5:8

8But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

If nobody provided the needs that a woman needed through a husband, then she is in big trouble! But God does care about women and widows too. For instance, if a woman's husband died, it was the next of kin's duty to be her husband and carry on her brothers name. But this wasn't the only reason. It was also to take care of the womans needs. It was the next of kin's duty, since she had become part of the family through her marriage, and because it was the relatives duty to help carry on the name of his kin.


Deuteronomy 25

5"When brothers live together and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the deceased shall not be married outside the family to a strange man. (G)Her husband's brother shall go in to her and take her to himself as wife and perform the duty of a husband's brother to her.

6"It shall be that the firstborn whom she bears shall assume the name of his dead brother, so that (H)his name will not be blotted out from Israel.

7"(I)But if the man does not desire to take his brother's wife, then his brother's wife shall go up to the gate to the elders and say, 'My husband's brother refuses to establish a name for his brother in Israel; he is not willing to perform the duty of a husband's brother to me.'

8"Then the elders of his city shall summon him and speak to him. And if he persists and says, 'I do not desire to take her,'

9(J)then his brother's wife shall come to him in the sight of the elders, and pull his sandal off his foot and (K)spit in his face; and she shall declare, 'Thus it is done to the man who does not build up his brother's house.'

10"In Israel his name shall be called, 'The house of him whose sandal is removed.'


Psalm 68:5
A father of the fatherless, and a judge of the widows, is God in his holy habitation.


How come God doesn't come out and say "Thou shalt not rape"? In his list of Ten Commandments, he considers it important to prohibit breaking the Sabbath or coveting your neighbor's donkey, but he doesn't consider it important to prohibit sexual abuse? How come?

Why does it need to be in the Ten commandments? " Do not molest children" isn't in the ten commandments either. These things are so vile and disgusting that everyone knows they're wrong. The ten commandments actually does cover it. Part of rape is coveting, and another part is adultery.


Exodus 20

14"(R)You shall not commit adultery.

17"(V)You shall not covet your neighbor's house; (W)you shall not covet your neighbor's wife or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor."


The fact that the Bible does not condemn rape (or slavery for that matter) is one of the most obvious reasons, to me, that it could not have possibly been penned by a moral genius of any sort.

God doesn't condone slavery the kind you may be familiar with. The Israelites weren't allowed to go roaming around and catch unsuspecting people like white men did in Africa and make them slaves. The slaves in Israel were paid wages, and they were to be treated kindly, and not as some scum that has no rights of his own. Only when they captured people in war did they forcibly make them slaves, and even then they had to provide for them. They weren't to mercilessly beat them or be cruel. Your understanding of slavery is probably much much different then what it meant back then. back then a servant worked for a number of years, and then he was free to go, unless he chose to become a slave for life.


In the same chapter I quoted above, actually right before the passage I quoted, is the bit where it says that a woman is to be stoned to death if on her wedding night her husband discovers she has already had her cherry popped.

But it's not as if back then women were being stoned left and right because their hymen broke before marriage. If it broke before they were to be married, then the blood was to be put on some fabric and shown to the priest. Also, women back then were not active in the same way some women are today, and their hymens would break much less than with women in today's society,


Sex was basically the purpose of marriage in Israelite culture. You didn't ask your wife's permission to have sex. You owned her. Marriage and the virginity commandments were just a way to make the sexual relationship exclusive, so that if the woman got pregnant the man could be assured that he was the father. If the woman was not a virgin when she was married or if she committed adultery during the marriage, the man would not be assured that he was the father. That's why they considered it such a heinous crime.

This is not true, as I have now shown above. Marriage was and is a gift from God meant to be special and full of Love and kindness and faithfulness. And women were to submit to their husbands as they should in all things including sex. But surely if a righteous man's wife did not want to have sex, he would not force her. The only thing you got right is that marriage is meant to be exclusive.Your assertion that is was that way merely because he wouldn't know he was the father is false and makes no sense. If the man had sex with a virgin when they become married, and she chooses to sneak off and have sexual intercourse and get pregnant then he could not be the Father then and he wouldn't know it. Marrying a virgin is no safeguard against such a thing and your assumption is simply that.


In fact, if a man had his eye on a virgin that he wanted to be his, all he had to do apparently was rape her, pay 50 shekels of silver to her father, and badda-bing badda-boom she's required to marry him.

Actually that's not true. They could stone him if they wanted to. It's up to the Father. And remember that now that they're married he has to live with and support a wife that in all likeliness hates him to the core so it wouldn't be a very enticing idea for most people. Not to mention he's now accountable to the woman's family who probably hate him too.



In fact, according to the chapter immediately preceding the one I quoted in the original post, a man in battle is allowed to take a woman captive to marry her and essentially rape her.If he doesn't like his new rape toy, he can let her go, and the only reason he can't sell her for money is because he screwed her. Isn't it amazing how much barbaric sexism the Bible can cram into just a few pages?

Your understanding is flawed. You have been raised up in a secular culture and these faulty presuppositions about the nature of woman and marriage etc. have permeated your mind, giving you a false understanding. It's important to recognize your presuppositions. You have this presupposition that it's wrong for a man to have authority over a woman or that it's wrong for a Father to decide who his daughter should marry. But you're wrong, not them. These customs are exactly in line with who God created man to be, and woman to be. The culture today teaches women and others have certain "unalienable" rights which they claim in error, being full of rebellion and self willed.

What do you think is better, to be killed in battle or be taken care of by a husband? If anything, this is an act of mercy, and anyone who has been captured in war against an evil nation has no right demanding they be set free, or they be given freedom to do as they will. They are captives subject to the best desires of their captors. But the consequence of being captured into marriage doesn't even come close to the righteous judgment that might be brought upon such wicked nations as the Israelites encountered and suffered. If anything it is an act of mercy.

You speak about things you do not understand. You don't see as you ought to see because of the intentions of your heart. Let this be a lesson to you. Yes, the bible is firmly against rape, and your presuppositions are invalid and should be recognized and dealt with.

[Oneironaut]

Rape , by definition is immoral yes.
So why does your God fail to mention that fact? Why does he advocate rape instead?


First of all sex is an intimate part of a special relationship that's private and sacred and kept in faithfulness and love. Adultery is an attack against the holy and sacred bond of man and woman in marriage. Jesus says:




Now man can have more than one wife and here is why. It has to do with the nature of the woman. Woman was created for man, and is the glory of man..
Women and men are equal, and it's sexist bigots like yourself who are holding back women in this world. You should be ashamed of yourself. Women are not playthings for you and your penis. They are not subservient to you. They are not your property. Get that straight. They are human beings and they deserve just as much respect as you do.

And man was created for God, and is the glory of God..Now man is the master of a woman, but not in the sense that you would think of like a slave being abused. But rather as the leader and authority. Jesus's disciples called him master too.
Jesus is also called a shepherd, and Christians call themselves sheep in his flock. I find that extremely amusing. They don't get mad when I call them sheep. You are a sheep. The Lord is your shepherd. Baaah. Enjoy bowing down to an imaginary dictator of the universe that was thought up by barbaric rapists and not forming your own morality by thinking for yourself.

Now you really need to understand more about the nature of the woman. These verses can give us a better understanding:
No, those verses give us more bigoted barbaric nonsense. I frequently use them against Christians in debates, and usually they are profusely apologizing for the verses, insisting that they were written by followers of Christ who did not grasp his whole message. Women are not subservient to men, you sexist asshole! Get that through your thick fucking skull. Just because you have a penis and testicles doesn't make you better than the half of the human population that has vaginas, nor does it entitle you to more authority or respect.

It really makes me furious that this kind of woman hating nonsense survives into the 21st century. What about this verse, which say almost the exact same thing about slaves?

Ephesians 6:5

Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ.

The Bible is urging slaves to be subservient to their masters, as they are subservient unto Christ. Are you now going to say that slavery is okay too, just because the Bible says so?

I really hope you come to your senses, drop this mythological nonsense, and learn to realize that your gender, your race, your nationality, your sexual orientation, nothing about the circumstances of your birth that you had no choice in, makes you superior to others who happened to be born differently. Men, women, hermaphrodites, whites, blacks, gays, straights, bisexuals, transgenders, Americans, Chinese, Russians, we're all human and we're all equal and we deserve to be treated with equal respect and equal rights.

By the way, where do hermaphrodites fit into your scheme of morality? Surely God must be making them for a reason, but he didn't spell out one for them in the Bible. Are hermaphrodites slaves to men like women are, or are women slaves to them because they have magical phalluses of authority like men?

[Oneironaut]

Religion is BS dude. You aren't convincing people who want to believe in it. You aren't changing anyones views. It just starts flaming. Although for me it was a fun little read.
You're absolutely right, now that I think about it. I came to try to present an argument that Christians just won't swallow. It's so plainly obvious that their holy book is a bunch of immoral bullshit, but all they do is tout a lot of the immoral bullshit as true morality and make bad excuses for the stuff that is obviously immoral even to their gullible brains, like God supporting rape and slavery. I hope I have made some fence-sitters think clearly about the issue, but I have no hope for the true believing Christian. Most of them are stuck in their mental cages forever. It's sad really.

[natureisawesome]

That was so full of nonsense and hatred I'm not even going to answer that.

[Hardcore Newbie]

Women are not subservient to men, you sexist asshole! Get that through your thick fucking skull. Just because you have a penis and testicles doesn't make you better than the half of the human population that has vaginas, nor does it entitle you to more authority or respect.Common Dude, there's a better way to do it than that.

[Hardcore Newbie]

Actually, you would be surprised to know that one of the reasons why the man is forced to marry a woman he raped, is for the very reason that God cares about her.
You're right, I would be surprised, because it makes no sense whatsoever.

So if I want a girl, all I have to do is rape her? I don't even have to buy her dinner!


It was against the law for any Israelite to take a wife that had been raped. This is because of the special relationship between a man and a woman which is an allegory of Christ's private and sacred love for his church. For a woman to become defiled is to impart in some other relationship outside of the special love of her husband. It is unfaithfulness and defilement from the sacred fellowship.
When a woman "becomes defiled" against her will, that should impart any obligation on her.


If nobody provided the needs that a woman needed through a husband, then she is in big trouble! Wouldn't that be for HER to decide?



Why does it need to be in the Ten commandments? " Do not molest children" isn't in the ten commandments either. These things are so vile and disgusting that everyone knows they're wrong. The ten commandments actually does cover it. Part of rape is coveting, and another part is adultery.
Instead, the commandments teach about not working on "sundays".


But it's not as if back then women were being stoned left and right because their hymen broke before marriage. If it broke before they were to be married, then the blood was to be put on some fabric and shown to the priest. Also, women back then were not active in the same way some women are today, and their hymens would break much less than with women in today's society
And since the priest sees it, then it's all good?

Why not, you know, let the woman take legal action against the man for violating her, regardless if she shows the blood to a priest or not?


This is not true, as I have now shown above. Marriage was and is a gift from God meant to be special and full of Love and kindness and faithfulness. And women were to submit to their husbands as they should in all things including sex. But surely if a righteous man's wife did not want to have sex, he would not force her.But a man that rapes a woman, and has now been forced to marry, of course he is the respectful type of man that would consider her feelings, as he is a righteous man that would make sure not to do anything to her against her will. Oh, wait...


Actually that's not true. They could stone him if they wanted to. It's up to the Father. And remember that now that they're married he has to live with and support a wife that in all likeliness hates him to the core so it wouldn't be a very enticing idea for most people. Not to mention he's now accountable to the woman's family who probably hate him too.
How about not suggesting they get married in the first place?


Your understanding is flawed. You have been raised up in a secular culture and these faulty presuppositions about the nature of woman and marriage etc. have permeated your mind, giving you a false understanding. It's important to recognize your presuppositions. You have this presupposition that it's wrong for a man to have authority over a woman or that it's wrong for a Father to decide who his daughter should marry. But you're wrong, not them. These customs are exactly in line with who God created man to be, and woman to be. The culture today teaches women and others have certain "unalienable" rights which they claim in error, being full of rebellion and self willed.
And exactly why people with *real* morals do not adhere to those of the bible. People (and even most Bible thumpers) wouldn't suggest any of these things.


What do you think is better, to be killed in battle or be taken care of by a husband? If anything, this is an act of mercy, and anyone who has been captured in war against an evil nation has no right demanding they be set free, or they be given freedom to do as they will. They are captives subject to the best desires of their captors. But the consequence of being captured into marriage doesn't even come close to the righteous judgment that might be brought upon such wicked nations as the Israelites encountered and suffered. If anything it is an act of mercy.
Civilians have no rights if their country is under attack, apparantly.


You speak about things you do not understand. You don't see as you ought to see because of the intentions of your heart. Let this be a lesson to you. Yes, the bible is firmly against rape, and your presuppositions are invalid and should be recognized and dealt with.For a book so against rape, they sure do have a lot of clauses prohibiting women to make choices of their own after said incident? What if a woman doesn't want to be subjected to these rules.... I guess she didn't fight hard enough.

[slipknotpsycho]

You're right, I would be surprised, because it makes no sense whatsoever.

So if I want a girl, all I have to do is rape her? I don't even have to buy her dinner!


When a woman "becomes defiled" against her will, that should impart any obligation on her.

Wouldn't that be for HER to decide?



Instead, the commandments teach about not working on "sundays".


And since the priest sees it, then it's all good?

Why not, you know, let the woman take legal action against the man for violating her, regardless if she shows the blood to a priest or not?

But a man that rapes a woman, and has now been forced to marry, of course he is the respectful type of man that would consider her feelings, as he is a righteous man that would make sure not to do anything to her against her will. Oh, wait...


How about not suggesting they get married in the first place?


And exactly why people with *real* morals do not adhere to those of the bible. People (and even most Bible thumpers) wouldn't suggest any of these things.


Civilians have no rights if their country is under attack, apparantly.

For a book so against rape, they sure do have a lot of clauses prohibiting women to make choices of their own after said incident? What if a woman doesn't want to be subjected to these rules.... I guess she didn't fight hard enough.

man, i dunno what ot even say to that.. lol i wanna say 'pwned' but it's just so immature...

aww, to hell with it...

PWNED!

[Psycho4Bud]

This one is CLOSED and I'll state it again.........RESPECT! If you can't debate without personal attacks on other members please don't debate issues.

Have a good one!:jointsmile: