Old Man

The word "rape" used to refer primarily to sexual relations outside of marriage. Thus the bible understands that a women can be "raped" even though she gives her consent. The law still comprehends that in respect of underage children.

So the word "rapist" is inherently ambiguous as to the issue of consent of will.

Another difficulty is to show why a woman's consent should be determanitive of any issue of morality. For instance, what happens if a man offers a woman $1million to sleep with him and the woman consents. The man then fails to give the woman the money. Was she raped? She did consent.

The most ludicrous proposition that modern legal systems have put forward of late (apart from the suggestion that a wife can be "raped" by her husband - which is so antithetial to biblical morality that it is suprising the proponents of that law were not struck down by thunderbolts), is the concept that a prostitute can be raped, even after she has entered into a contract for services.

Ultimately, there is a great deal more to morality than the issue of a woman's consent, but many women these days think the whole of the moral law consists of "consent". I beg to disagree.

The bible suggests that while consent may be part of the moral law, it is not the end of the moral law, and in some situations, not even relevant: eg when a woman allows a man to seduce her, the bible demands she marries the man, and her consent is irrelevant. And that is a far more common occurance then rape by force.

Queen of Swords

Originally posted by Old Man
The word "rape" used to refer primarily to sexual relations outside of marriage. Thus the bible understands that a women can be "raped" even though she gives her consent.

Firstly, can you provide evidence for this statement?

Secondly, what word is used to mean non-consensual sex?

The law still comprehends that in respect of underage children.

Which law would this be? God's law?

So the word "rapist" is inherently ambiguous as to the issue of consent of will.

Do you make any distinction between men who rape women and men who have sex with women?

Another difficulty is to show why a woman's consent should be determanitive of any issue of morality. For instance...

For instance, what happens if a woman is raped, but then the rapist marries her? He made an honest woman out of her, didn't he? So why blame him for the rape? Even if her consent was never given, a family was created, and if the man was sufficiently forceful as to rape her, he's certainly tough enough to keep her in her place during their marriage.

Do you think this kind of moral law should be enacted today?

The most ludicrous proposition that modern legal systems have put forward of late (apart from the suggestion that a wife can be "raped" by her husband

Are you saying that once a man marries a woman, he should be able to have sex with her at any time regardless of whether she wants it or not?

What if he is an adulterer or is infected with some STD? What if he is abusive towards her?

Or is this an alternative universe where only men have libidos and therefore rights?

- why is so antithetial to biblical morality that it is suprising the proponents of that law were not struck down by thunderbolts), is the concept that a prostitute can be raped, even after she has entered into a contract for services.

I'm just curious - is it rape if a prostitute is going back home and is suddenly accosted by a gang of strangers to whom she has not "entered into a contract"?

Ultimately, there is a great deal more to morality than the issue of a woman's consent, but many women these days think the whole of the moral law consists of "consent". I beg to disagree.

You can beg all you want, but that doesn't hide the fact that you evaded the question I posed. Can you not answer it?

The bible suggests that while consent may be part of the moral law, it is not the end of the moral law, and in some situations, not even relevant: eg when a woman allows a man to seduce her, the bible demands she marries the man, and her consent is irrelevant. And that is a far more common occurance then rape by force.

Whether it is common or not (your evasion is what's not even relevant), do rapists make good husbands? If they perhaps make worse husbands than men who respect women enough to ask their consent, why does god insist that women marry them? And if they make good husbands (after the initial rape), could we see some evidence for that?

Old Man

From m-w.com

Main Entry: 3rape
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 : an act or instance of robbing or despoiling or carrying away a person by force

Thus mere despoiling of a virgin was orginally classified as "rape".

If one regards sexual relations outside of marriage as "unlawful", then such sexual relations are "rape" if rape is defined as unlawful sexual relations.

Ultimately "rape" is a legal term. Its like "murder". It carries a gloss that connotes unlawfulness. But not every act of killing is morally culpable, and neither is "rape" necessarily so if the law is defined perversely.

In the bible, the word commonly used is "force":

Eg: 2 Samuel 13:14, Judges 20:5, Deuteronomy 22:25

Modern law of statutory rape.

They can amount to same thing if "rape" is defined as unlawful sexual intercourse, and legality is defined by primary reference to the subsistence of an existing marriage covenant.

Historically, this was always the primary reference point. Over the past few years, with the effective nulliification of the marriage contract by governments everywhere, the focus has shifted in legal circles to the issue of a woman's consent. The bible would regard that shift as perverse, and adopts the existence of a marriage covenant as the primary means for ascertaining legality.

In any case, under biblical law, the modern "rape" charge was unsustainable in most cases, for unless there was evidence of viiolence, or rape by a stranger, or other external evidence, no man could be convicted by only one witness.

Thus the vast majority of modern rape cases only involve a woman's word against the man, and so would not have come within biblical law.

I think you are misreading the situation. The father always had power to refuse consent to the marriage, and in the case of violent rape, or if his daughter begged him not to permit marriage, it is unlikely he would have given his consent to any marriage taking place. After all, he was entitled to the bride price anyhow.

As I said, I think you are misreading the situation if you believe that violent rapists commonly got their wives that way.

Certainly adultery should be made a criminal offence, possibly punishable by death, at the instigation of the husband.

I am saying it is not a matter for the criminal law.

God made man the head of the family, not a criminal court, with an increasingly arbitrary set of laws. Of old, the wife's only legal remedy against her husband was cruelty, and whilst that is probably an appropriate limit to the interference of the criminal law in the family, it cannot be a ground of a woman divorcing a man.

I am not going to further discuss prostitutes. The bible commands they be stoned to death.

We are dealing with the definitions of words. A person who uses the word "rape" has already prejudged the issue, just like a person who uses the word murder. There is no point in arguing with someone who insists on using the word "rape" without breaking it down into its constitutent parts.


The bible does not indulge in such speculations, and is not interested in them. The main thing is to ensure that a woman who is one in flesh with a man, is married to that man, unless there are circumstances that would cause the woman's father to consider it inequitable for his daughter to be married to the man.

(I've said all I have to say on this matter and will not be corresponding further).

Queen of Swords

Originally posted by Old Man
Thus mere despoiling of a virgin was orginally classified as "rape".

Again, what's your evidence that the bible defines "rape" as "sex with a woman outside of marriage" as opposed to "consensual sex with a woman"?

Ultimately "rape" is a legal term. Its like "murder". It carries a gloss that connotes unlawfulness. But not every act of killing is morally culpable, and neither is "rape" necessarily so if the law is defined perversely.

As the law in the bible does?

In the bible, the word commonly used is "force":

Eg: 2 Samuel 13:14, Judges 20:5, Deuteronomy 22:25

Does this word refer to forcible nonconsensual sex outside of marriage or to consensual sex outside of marriage?

Modern law of statutory rape.

Ah, not God's law. Does the bible have anything to say about the rape of underage children? Should a man marry them if he rapes them?

They can amount to same thing if "rape" is defined as unlawful sexual intercourse, and legality is defined by primary reference to the subsistence of an existing marriage covenant.

Why is the consent of a woman not a factor in any of this? Does a woman have no say in who has sex with her? Should she have any say in this?

... the focus has shifted in legal circles to the issue of a woman's consent. The bible would regard that shift as perverse, and adopts the existence of a marriage covenant as the primary means for ascertaining legality.

Why would that shift be regarded as "perverse" and why do you say that the bible "would" do so? Does the bible not do so now? Could you provide evidence (bible verses) to show that the issue of women's consent is "perverse"?

In any case, under biblical law, the modern "rape" charge was unsustainable in most cases, for unless there was evidence of viiolence, or rape by a stranger, or other external evidence, no man could be convicted by only one witness.

In other words, if the rapist was careful not to be observed, he could get away with it. Could you provide bible verses that say external evidence may be used to convict a rapist?

Thus the vast majority of modern rape cases only involve a woman's word against the man, and so would not have come within biblical law.

Do you have any evidence for this claim - that modern rape cases only involve one woman's claim against one man? That means no circumstantial evidence, no other women pressing charges, etc.

I think you are misreading the situation. The father always had power to refuse consent to the marriage,

And what would happen to his daughter if he refused consent? Would some other, better man be prepared to take on the used goods? Where in the Old Testament are men told not to discriminate against women merely because they have been raped?

And why should the father be the one to give consent? Is he sleeping with the rapist?

As I said, I think you are misreading the situation if you believe that violent rapists commonly got their wives that way.

All right, how commonly did violent rapists get their wives that way? And if even one violent rapist got his wife that way, is that right or acceptable?

Certainly adultery should be made a criminal offence, possibly punishable by death, at the instigation of the husband.

Consensual sex = execution. Nonconsensual sex = marriage. Interesting alternative universe.

I am saying it is not a matter for the criminal law.

Please do not evade my question.

A yes or no will do.

God made man the head of the family, not the a criminal court. Of old, the wife's only legal remedy against her husband was cruelty, and whilst that is probably an appropriate limit to the interference of the criminal law in the family, it cannot be a ground of a woman divorcing a man.

Please do not evade my question.

Under these circumstances, does a wife have any right to refuse sex to her husband, even if she knows that he will infect her with HIV, for example, or if he has been beating her to a pulp?

A yes or no will suffice.

I am not going to further discuss prostitutes. The bible commands they be stoned to death.

And Jesus said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Would you prefer to forgive prostitutes or to stone them?

We are dealing with the definitions of words. A person who uses the word "rape" has already prejudged the issue,

A person who uses the words "women's libido" has already prejudged the issue.

just like a person who uses the word murder. There is no point in arguing with someone who insists on using the word "rape" without breaking it down into its constitutent parts.

There is no point in arguing with someone who insists on using the term "women's libido" without breaking it down into its constituent parts.

The bible does not indulge in such speculations, and is not interested in them.

And the bible appointed you to speak for it on the subject, did it?

Face it, you can't answer my question. Nor, apparently, are you prepared to try.

The main thing is to ensure that a woman who is one in flesh with a man, is married to that man,

Whether she wants to or not. He had sex with her, one way or another, so she has to marry him whether she likes it or not.

unless there are circumstances that would cause the woman's father to consider it inequitable for his daughter to be married to the man.

Because the person closest to the husband, the person who will have to submit to his sexual advances, bear his children and put up with any abuse he hands out, is of course the father. I wonder what happens to women who aren't lucky enough to have caring considerate fathers.

(I've said all I have to say on this matter and will not be corresponding further).

Don't you mean "I've said all the bible has to say"?

Anyway, what a shame. I was looking forward to see more interesting evasions of the question. Let me state it for you one last time, OK?

I love that you could never answer this.

Bill Snedden

Ah, so the murder of children in a culture in which murdering children is acceptable is morally permissible as long as there's a "sufficient" remedy?

Perhaps you should consider the logical end of your "defense"...

You might also explain why historical context is germane when discussing the absolute morality of an immutable deity...

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Kosh

Now we know whose wife cheated on him....

Clutch

Nothing I love better than seeing the most childish sort of "situational ethics" trotted out to rationalize the bestial and vicious laws promulgated by the OT god.

Apparently the (very, very tiny) parts of the brain in which this reasoning occurs is simply not connected to the (equally tiny) parts that lead to triumphalist blather about the objectivity and absoluteness of Christian morality.

Christian, Old Man, thank you for reminding why I bother to demolish shoddy theist argument after shoddy theist argument on these boards; why I write letters to the editor; why I vote for candidates who promote secular values. It's not a waste of time. It's a fight against pathological moral degeneracy.

EspressoSnail

QueenofSwords I don't think you will get those answers from him. People like him make me want to hate men... but I know not every guy is like that. *sighs* Thank whatever that every guy is not like him.

Christian

B,

Several points here. First, I'm not describing what God could or could not have done. I'm simply describing what He did do.

Secondly, God's pupose in giving the Mosaic Law was not to institute perfect justice. His main purpose was to set the stage for Christ and point toward Him and His work. God's perfect justice will be instituted at the final judgment. Until then His pleasure is to work through fallable people who screw a lot of things up.

Thirdly, perfect justice is not possible through any human legal system. That's something that requires and omniscient and omnipotent judge. The shadow and form of perfect justice is found in the law, but the law does not bring about perfect justice.

In short, I'm not making the argument you describe. Your statement presupposes that God was trying to bring about perfect justice on earth by instituting the Mosaic Law. If that was what God was trying to do, then I would agree with you and note that He had in fact failed. But scripture is pretty clear that God's purpose in giving the law was something entirely different.

At the time and situation it was given in, this was a good law. You might imagine that you could devise a better law to deal with this moral problem. But the point of the Law was not to solve all Israel's moral problems. Following the law certainly would have resulting in fewer moral problems (although it's hard to tell, there's only one example of a person following the law perfectly.)

Respectfully,

Christian

doc58

Christian,

You said, "First, I'm not describing what God could or could not have done. I'm simply describing what He did do. "
and
"Your statement presupposes that God was trying to bring about perfect justice on earth by instituting the Mosaic Law. "

God wasn't trying to bring about anything because #1, any God probably doesn't exist and certainly not the God of the Bible and #2 if a good God exists, He never would have made such bad law.