hezekiah jones

Originally posted by Old Man
... the suggestion that a wife can be "raped" by her husband ... is so antithetical to biblical morality that it is suprising the proponents of that law were not struck down by thunderbolts ...

Although it wouldn't be surprising to see such a revolting statement at the numerous bigoted and hateful "Christian" websites that infest the internet, it's not something one would expect to find here.

On the other hand it's highly instructive that this so-called "biblical morality" embraces the view that husbands have a god-given right to sexually assault their wives apparently under any circumstances. Nice god, nice religion you've got there, buddy.

I must say Old Man's assertion here is the most disgusting thing I have ever read on these boards.

Christian

Lobstrosity,

On rights … your argument that Deut 22:28-29 does not involve a right is predicated on the idea that the woman could not reject the marriage. That is speculation. The text does not say whether she could reject the marriage or not. In fact the idea that she could would be consistent with the preceding 3 verses where the rapist is to be killed but not the victim … the whole point of the laws in this chapter is compensating the victim and punishing the transgressor.

Since scripture is silent on the point, I suggest that the woman COULD reject the marriage. Therefore (perhaps?) this meets whatever all the criteria are for your personal definition of a “right.”

My complaint was that your analogy is tainted with evil that is simply not found in the actual situation. It is skewed in so many ways that the actual situation is not that it is not an accurate analogy. Two people having an evil act (rape, torture, whatever) done to them is certainly more evil than one person having that evil act done to them. Society getting together to do an evil act against a child is more evil than one person doing an evil act against a child. And all of this in the part of your analogy before the law in question even comes into play. It’s a lousy analogy.

I do not believe the number of people affected is a criteria for determining the rightness or wrongness of an act. But I do think that designing an analogy which greatly increases the number of people affected (before the law even comes into play) is adding emotionalism which detracts from the point. A good analogy isolates the point in question. The analogy you suggest obscures it.

Deut 22:28-29 is consistent with the idea that rape is always wrong. This law IS punishing rape in the historical context it was enacted in, whether you admit that or not.

Also, this is not an absolute moral law in and of itself. I keep saying that because it is true. The laws given to Israel by Moses are consistent with absolute moral standards. They reflect absolute moral standards in a way that ancient Israel could understand. But they are not absolute moral standards themselves.

“Rape is wrong” is an absolute moral standard. Something that is always true. “You must kill the rapist but not the victim” (Deut 22:25-27) reflects the absolute moral standard, but it is given in a way relevant to the specific historical context. Such a law would not necessarily be the best way to reflect the absolute moral standard in our current culture. Guidance on how to enforce a particular absolute moral standard has to be specific to the culture to be relevant. “Rape is wrong” is a good thing to know, but it doesn’t tell you what you should do when you uncover such a evil act. The specific actions you should do when you uncover an evil act (evil according to an absolute moral standard) IS culturally dependant. That does not imply that the moral standard itself is culturally dependant.

Hopefully that is a little more clear for you. Probably not, but I can hope. That’s something we Christians do.

Respectfully,

Christian

Bumble Bee Tuna

Christian,

The point is that God could have made a better law. The fact that he doesn't tells me he wasn't the greatest chap around.
I suppose you are right, though, this law made it even easier for the males in control of society to have even more power over women, so I guess it truly was a "good" law in their eyes.

-B

Christian

Bill,

Deut 22:28-29 is not an absolute moral law. You seem to be operating under the assumption that if God is an absolutely moral Being then everything He says must be an absolute moral law. Not so.

Of course culture and context are moot when it comes to an absolute moral law. But when it comes to specific instructions for putting absolute moral laws into action culture and context are very relevant. There is a difference.

A - Absolute moral law (for example "Stealing is wrong.")

B - Legal law putting the absolute moral law into practice (for example, if someone is convicted of embezzlement in the state of Minnesota the max punishment they can receive is a $10,000 fine and 12 years in prison. The least punishment they can receive is a $2,000 fine and 1 year in prison.) <i>note: this is a hypothetical example, I have no idea what the actual corresponding law would be.</i>

Please take a close and careful look at A and B. I humbly suggest that there really is a difference between the two. A is something that is always true regardless of context. B is something that reflects an absolute standard (A) but that is only true in a specific context.

There is A. And there is B. They are different. The scriptural laws we have examined so far on this thread are merely "B" types of law.

Therefore, it is no indictment against God's absolute moral standards that you can imagine laws that would make more sense in your own current cultural context. This IS a different culture, and the absolute standards behind these laws result in somewhat different laws today.

Two points:

- The man is being punished. That would not be the case in our current culture. That was the case in ancient Israel given that culture.

- The text is silent on whether she is able to refuse. I refine my argument to say that she could refuse the marriage if she wanted to.

You are changing the subject, but I'll again respond to this line of question.

The purpose of the Mosaic Law was NOT to institute perfect justice on earth. Your standard seems to be "if anything immoral can happen within the boundaries of the laws given then those laws are unjust." That would be true IF God was trying to establish perfect justice on earth through the Mosaic Law. That was not His purpose.

In short, NO, this is not the justice of an omipotent omnibenevolent deity. (<i>side note ... what exactly do you mean by "omnibenevolent" anyway. That term sounds like it might have connotations that are not true of God as I understand Him.</i>)

Justice (as in flawless justice) is what will occur at the great judgment. Justice is reflected in the Mosaic Law, but the Mosaic Law itself is not perfect justice. True justice requires an onmiscient omnipotent Judge.

Disagree. See the discussion above. The ethics are not situational. How we are to go about practicing those ethics depends in part on the situation. A practical application is something different than an absolute moral standard.

There is A. And there is B. A and B are different concepts. B is based on A, but B is not A.

Really? Have you read the entire 22d chapter of Deut? Rape was a capital offense in ancient Israel. You took the offenders outside the city and stoned them to death. Few courts today take rape quite that seriously, especially in the western world. The only reason the rapist was not stoned to death in the Deut 22:28-29 law was so that he could recompense the girl and the girl's family for what he had taken from her.

Again, I have changed my argument to allow for the woman to refuse the marriage. The effects upon her were precisely the point! This is the only Mosaic law about rape where the rapist doesn't get stoned to death. The reason that is the case is so that the effects upon the girl (and her family) could be somewhat compensated for.

You can only reach the "logical end" you have outlined by way of false premises.

True of any culture, including our own. So cultural context should be considered for the naturalistic explaination, but not for the "absolute moral standard enacted within a specific set of circumstances" explaination?

There is A. And there is B. They really are two different things. Cultural context is irrelevant to A. Cultural context greatly impacts what form B takes.

An omnipotent, omniscient diety will do better. It will be too late for many at that point.

Respectfully,

Christian

Jack the Bodiless

Incorrect. Rape was NOT a capital offense in ancient Israel. ADULTERY was a capital offense in ancient Israel. Rape never carries the death penalty unless it is ADULTEROUS rape. It applies only to the rape of married or betrothed women. Hence the likelihood that the victim herself will be put to death (for adultery).

There was no "punishment" for non-adulterous rape. There is no recognition of the difference between rape and seduction: the bride-price must be paid to the father in both cases, but that's it.

Even adulterous rape wasn't always punishable by death. The rape of a betrothed handmaiden was punishable by the scourging of the victim (a prospect which will titillate Old Man, I'm sure), while the rapist only needs to offer a sacrificial ram to the priest. This lesser penalty is presumably because submission to rape is one of the functions of a handmaid: they were sex objects (there are numerous examples in the Bible of handmaids being offered for sexual purposes by their owners).

A very, very sick system. Invented by men, for men. And morally degenerate men, at that.

Old Man defends it because he's a pervert, like those who devised this. Don't sink to his level, Christian.

DMB

The apologetics in this thread remind me of those frequently put forward in defence of the legal position of women under islam. It is claimed (although disputed by some) that Muhammad greatly improved the position of women by outlawing female infanticide and giving women various important legal rights. Supposing that that was true, we might regard it as a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, the koran is the final word of god on everything, and so no improvement on a position that leaves women with no equality before the law is possible.

We therefore see the disgusting contemporary spectacle of women being sentenced to death by stoning because they have been judged guilty of zinna (often translated in the Western press as "adultery", but actually referring to any kind of illicit sexual intercourse -- very much in Old Man's world view). Even rape victims can fall into this category. If they complain of rape, they are admitting that intercourse took place. If they become pregnant, there is physical evidence of unlawful intercourse. The male involved usually gets off, for lack of evidence. A woman's evidence is worth only half that of a man (even an Old Man).

I suggest that Old Man is so clearly discontented with Western justice and human rights that he would do well to convert to islam and move to one of the countries where the shari'a is in force.

Invader Tak

Maybe, but I think Old Man would curl up and die without something to bitch about.

Butters

So if I steal the plans for the next terrorist attack, that is moraly wrong?

Clutch

Where are the Christians here, when it comes to skewering the hate-filled buffoonery of Old Man and the pathetic rationalizations of Christian?

Surely they have the strongest obligation of anyone to repudiate such pernicious claims when offered under the auspices of Christian doctrine.

Carrie

See my new thread, which will expand on this topic.

It's called, "Christians will give me lots of shit for this one."