Freethought & Rationalism Archive

sugarhitman · 01-17-2008, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by makerowner

The idea that Deut. 22:28-9 refers to consensual sex is ridiculous. All the preceding rules are about rape, so don't you think that if this one wasn't, it would say so? The phrase "because he hath humbled her" is especially revealing. The word 'humbled' translates the Hebrew `anah elsewhere translated as 'afflict' and 'force'. The NLT, NIV, ESV, NASB, and RSV all translate it as 'violated'.
Are there any Biblical scholars who claim that this verse doesn't refer to rape?

In verse 24 in a clear case of adultery the phrase "He humbled his neighbor' wife" does not in any way refer to rape. Niether does it in verse 29. To humble a woman is to take her virginity. :wave:

sugarhitman · 01-17-2008, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

5. The rape of women whether slave or free was condemned. The raping of slaves by their masters in America was prevalent.
"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." Deut. 22:25-26

In addition to all your other Biblical errors: there was no law against rape.

There WAS a law against adultery, however: and raping a married or betrothed woman would be adultery. Did you miss the word "betrothed" in the quote you provided?

Incidentally, raping a betrothed handmaid was a misdemeanour, not punishable by death (just give a ram to the priest as an offering and you'll be OK). This is because handmaids were sex-slaves anyhow, consent was not generally required. Non-betrothed handmaids were fair game, of course: no problem there, and the Bible contains examples of them being given to guests by their masters for explicitly sexual purposes.

Was Tamar betrothed when she was raped by her brother? No. She also said that rape was not a thing done in Israel. Why did she say that if there was no law against it? And how can it be considered a bad thing if their law would have supported it? The fact is Jewish law was against it. Get over it. :wave:

Jack the Bodiless · 01-17-2008, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

In addition to all your other Biblical errors: there was no law against rape.

There WAS a law against adultery, however: and raping a married or betrothed woman would be adultery. Did you miss the word "betrothed" in the quote you provided?

Incidentally, raping a betrothed handmaid was a misdemeanour, not punishable by death (just give a ram to the priest as an offering and you'll be OK). This is because handmaids were sex-slaves anyhow, consent was not generally required. Non-betrothed handmaids were fair game, of course: no problem there, and the Bible contains examples of them being given to guests by their masters for explicitly sexual purposes.

Was Tamar betrothed when she was raped by her brother? No. She also said that rape was not a thing done in Israel. Why did she say that if there was no law against it? And how can it be considered a bad thing if their law would have supported it? The fact is Jewish law was against it. Get over it. :wave:

The facts of that case don't support your argument. Note that Tamar did NOT say that it was "against the law" (and the simple fact of the matter is that there IS no such law), and her brother wasn't punished by the authorities for what he had done: because, even though it was "not nice", it WASN'T illegal. IIRC, he died in an illegal "revenge killing" much later.

There is no such law. That's why you can't provide the actual law. Get over it. :wave:

sugarhitman · 01-17-2008, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ahdenai

why limit this to the OT? The new testament is a confused mess on the topic, with plenty of explicit material supporting slavery, and at best some vague statements that can be stretched into anti-slavery views. I'm particularly saddened by the second quote below, which to me seems to mean that a christian slave should work extra-hard for a christian master.

Ephesians: Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart

1 Timothy: Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit.

"Servents, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in sigleness of your heart, as unto Christ...And you masters DO THE SAME UNTO THEM (SLAVES) FORBEARING THREATENING: KNOWING THAT YOUR MASTER ALSO IS IN HEAVEN; NIETHER IS THERE RESPECT OF PERSONS WITH HIM." EPHESIANS

Remember Jesus told the diciples that they were not to rule each other as the Gentiles do. But to serve one another. Christian masters are to serve their christian slaves as slaves their masters. :wave:

sugarhitman · 01-17-2008, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Was Tamar betrothed when she was raped by her brother? No. She also said that rape was not a thing done in Israel. Why did she say that if there was no law against it? And how can it be considered a bad thing if their law would have supported it? The fact is Jewish law was against it. Get over it. :wave:

The facts of that case don't support your argument. Note that Tamar did NOT say that it was "against the law" (and the simple fact of the matter is that there IS no such law), and her brother wasn't punished by the authorities for what he had done: because, even though it was "not nice", it WASN'T illegal. IIRC, he died in an illegal "revenge killing" much later.

There is no such law. That's why you can't provide the actual law. Get over it. :wave:

So then why was rape not accepted in Israel? Why wasn't it done? Being a Princess I am sure Tamar knew what she was talking about, and was not ignorant of what was accepted and not accepted in Israel. If their law did not forbid this then why was it not accepted? :wave:

Ulrich · 01-17-2008, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Quote:

Originally Posted by makerowner

The idea that Deut. 22:28-9 refers to consensual sex is ridiculous. All the preceding rules are about rape, so don't you think that if this one wasn't, it would say so? The phrase "because he hath humbled her" is especially revealing. The word 'humbled' translates the Hebrew `anah elsewhere translated as 'afflict' and 'force'. The NLT, NIV, ESV, NASB, and RSV all translate it as 'violated'.
Are there any Biblical scholars who claim that this verse doesn't refer to rape?

In verse 24 in a clear case of adultery the phrase "He humbled his neighbor' wife" does not in any way refer to rape. Niether does it in verse 29. To humble a woman is to take her virginity. :wave:

Regardless, this passage in no way deals with slavery. Perhaps you can respond to those arguments that refute your assertion that the Bible does not condone slavery, rather than zeroing in on the derail.

Edit: My apologies, it appears on refresh as if you have subsequently done so. Please continue.

chapka · 01-17-2008, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

So then why was rape not accepted in Israel?

First, explain why you feel "this thing" Tamar is talking about is rape, specifically.

At the time she said this, her brother was trying to convince her to have sex with him. He didn't rape her until she refused. Why don't you think that this verse refers to (a) premarital sex or (b) incest?

Jack the Bodiless · 01-17-2008, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

So then why was rape not accepted in Israel? Why wasn't it done? Being a Princess I am sure Tamar knew what she was talking about, and was not ignorant of what was accepted and not accepted in Israel. If their law did not forbid this then why was it not accepted?

But rape WAS accepted, and WAS done, in Israel! The Bible makes this clear.

It's just that the victims were generally "handmaids", or women from rival tribes taken as "war booty" (or minors, where the father was quickly paid compensation and the girl was forced to marry her rapist). Not princesses! It was impolite to treat a princess like you'd treat a handmaid or a female slave! That was just "not done", a major breach of etiquette!

...But not actually illegal. Because there was no specific law against it.

Ulrich · 01-17-2008, 10:09 AM

Good Observation Chapka, here are the relevant passages, in context:

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2 Samuel 13

11 But when she took it to him to eat, he grabbed her and said, "Come to bed with me, my sister."

12 "Don't, my brother!" she said to him. "Don't force me. Such a thing should not be done in Israel! Don't do this wicked thing. 13 What about me? Where could I get rid of my disgrace? And what about you? You would be like one of the wicked fools in Israel. Please speak to the king; he will not keep me from being married to you." 14 But he refused to listen to her, and since he was stronger than she, he raped her.

Tamar is objecting to the proposal that she sleep with her brother, forced or not, it could just as easily be the incest to which she is referring when she says "Such a thing should not be done in Israel!", especially in light of the folowing verse:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leviticus 18:9

Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.

rkzenrage · 01-17-2008, 10:16 AM

Rape of slaves that were taken as booty from war was acceptable, this is most clearly stated before the genocide of the Canaanites.
As for "Western Slavery", those slaves were purchased from an existing slave system in Africa run by African Muslims. Many have this image of Europeans going to Africa and throwing nets over unsuspecting tribes.
The slave trade was in place and booming within the African tribes, the Westerners just bought into it with new money.
Not that it was ok... just to clarify and eliminate the idea that Europe and the US "started anything".

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-17-2008, 10:16 AM	#30
rkzenrage Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Central, FL. Posts: 189	Rape of slaves that were taken as booty from war was acceptable, this is most clearly stated before the genocide of the Canaanites. As for "Western Slavery", those slaves were purchased from an existing slave system in Africa run by African Muslims. Many have this image of Europeans going to Africa and throwing nets over unsuspecting tribes. The slave trade was in place and booming within the African tribes, the Westerners just bought into it with new money. Not that it was ok... just to clarify and eliminate the idea that Europe and the US "started anything".

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.