Why no commandment against rape?

[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.

Hardcore Newbie Reviewed by Hardcore Newbie on 08-28-2007. Why no commandment against rape? 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. A few comments on this verse. Rating: 5