The God Of Sex

So, given the culture of the time, what do you think would be a better judgment of the case? Sell her into slavery? Leave her to prostitution?

at least with prostitution she'd be getting paid rather than being a captive of her rapist.

The whole point of having the rapist marry her was to be sure she was protected and provided for since her prospects and even her safety had been destroyed by the rape, so I assume that is in fact what happened in such cases, and I'd guess she was better provided for than she would have been as a prostitute, and better protected because marriage conferred respect she wouldn't have had as a prostitute. I think you are imposing a modern idea you have about "rapists" on to this ancient culture. I'd read it more as a passion that could have possessed a lot of men in that culture and not the kind of violent hatred of women we might expect today. Meaning that he might have treated her well as her husband, or many of them would have. But that's my guess just as yours is also a guess.ABE: I think it's even possibly such a man might go to great lengths to make it up to her out of guilt. Possible. The man who raped Dinah loved her passionately. Perhaps there is a story somewhere in the OT that I don't remember that would shed light on this possibility.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No, he didn't, otherwise he wouldn't have raped her.

Are you familiar with the story?

so because her prospects and safety were destroyed she's sentenced to be the captive of the man who did the destroying? Again why would you assume a rapist, who's already violated social norms would suddenly turn out to be a good husband?edit: it feels awfully weird to be a man and having to explain to a woman that rape is bad.Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.

We're all sinners. If he raped her out of passion rather than hatred or love of dominance he might treat her well to make up for it. Yes it sounds ridiculously unfair to us but the law clearly aimed to do right by the woman whether it makes sense to us or not; that's why it's necessary to try to understand just how different things were in those days. Women really had NO choice whatever so they were dependent on providence and the good will of others for their well being. They didn't have much say in who they married, it was negotiated by parents and the man who wanted them, so even being forced to marry a man who raped them could be felt as a blessing. Assuming, anyway, as I do, that he was driven by passion rather than a violent or misogynistic nature.ABE: Of course rape is bad but you are so culture-bound you can't see how different it was from what it is now, so you can't even see that the law that required the rapist to marry her was intended for her good in a bad situation in a culture where she had no better options, and even in some cases a very good thing since she couldn't choose her husband anyway.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Rape is violence, again I shouldn't have to be explaining this to you. how is making her the captive of her rapist doing right by her? why do you rail against homosexuality (amongst other things)? you're so culture bound to view it as a bad thing when in a thousand years God'll think it's no big deal.

OK, since you insist, but in that sort of society everything that happens to a woman could even be considered a form of violence since she is absolutely deprived of choice about anything that matters. I thought I'd explained this over and over by now. Nobody else would marry her after she was raped and there were no other options in such a society. She might even be subjected to further violence, but certainly the stigma would make her an outcast. ABE: AND again, I think you are imposing a modern idea of rapists on the situation and she might in fact be treated well by her husband. I do not rail against homosexuality, I defy you to find one quote from me railing against homosexuality. God does not change. God defines sin, not the culture. He defines homosexual acts as sin. I do not rail against anybody's sins. Ever.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Whether or not a raped a woman is given "quite a bit of protection and justice" from the point of view of the patriarchal Hebrew society described by much of the OT narrative depends entirely on comparison to, first, other patriarchal societies of the time; and second, to other societies that were not structured on the patriarchal system.Compared to the laws of other patriarchal societies of the ancient Near East, I can find very little evidence that the Mosaic Law gave substantially more protection and justice to the rape survivor. For instance, the Mosaic Laws surrounding rape of a virgin -- betrothed or unbetrothed -- are quite similar to those described by the Code of Hammurabi. So using other patriarchal societies -- like, say, ancient Babylon -- as the points of comparison with OT law, there seems precious little justification for the notion that Mosaic Law offered "quite a bit" of protection and justice to the survivor.What is quite clear, instead, is that Mosaic Law stridently supports and perpetuates the viciously patriarchal social organizations of the cultures in the region. Women -- rape survivors included -- are routinely viewed as property of other males. So there is a focus in Mosaic Law on ensuring that the property owner of an unbetrothed virgin -- namely, her father -- receives compensation for the violation of his property: because the rapist must marry the woman, he must pay the father a certain sum of money. OT law -- and particularly Mosaic Law -- thus upholds the ideology of women as property, effectively reducing survivors of rape to little more than objects of currency.Further, when compared to non-patriarchal societies -- of course -- Mosaic Law is no giver of protection and justice to women.That's one reason why PaulK's contention that "Of course following some parts of the Bible - even when they relate to sex - would make things worse" is perfectly correct. It also means that applying an ancient text -- that glorifies patriarchal violence -- to human affairs, whether now or in the past, is a surefire way to cause a change in culture for the worse instead of better.Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.

I don't think I claimed that the Mosaic laws were appreciably better than Hammurabi's did I? I would expect they would be but I haven't made the comparison and I'm aware that there are many similarities. When you say it didn't give "substantially more" protection, however, I do wonder if you are admitting it did give SOME greater protection.Of course laws in a nation that isn't as strictly patriarchal as those of that time would be different. But I'd like to see you invent a law that would change the patriarchal form of the society itself. Good luck with that. Laws are designed to make the best of the cultural situation they govern.Also, good luck finding a nonpatriarchal society before very modern times anyway. It's the form culture and government took as a result of the curse of the Fall, women being made subject to men. It is really only because of Christ that there is any lessening of that curse in the world today and in some places it's still horrifically bad.Just as an aside, on the point that laws are designed to fit the culture, I'm reminded of Franklin's answer to an inquirer about the form of government they had given us, "A Republic, if you can keep it." There are no guarantees. And John Adams described that Constitutional government they gave us as fit "only for the government of a moral and religious people; it is entirely inadequate for the government of any other." Which of course leads me to speculate that since we've clearly gone beyond being a moral and religious people in the sense he meant it, and the republican form of government itself may not be keepable by our sort today, we're probably due for an oppressive tyrant. No I don't think Trump qualifies but I'm sure one will show up as needed. Probably on a global scale. A "vicious patriarchy" might even be preferable in that context. If Christ's influence is lost, as it has been in recent decades. there's nothing to stop a reversion to the conditions of the Fall. We've got human trafficking on an immense scale these days just as one sign of that trend.I Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Faith,The law on rape, like any other biblical law, is perfectly coherent with the cultural context where it was written. One can understand that ancient Israel and surrounding peoples where patriarchal and saw women as property. But this only goes to show how these laws were human creation and not divine.An omniscient and all benevolent god would have done a much better job. He would have come up with laws that would cause admiration as much then as now as in a million years time. But all we can see is horrible mundane laws coherent with those old times.Now, what is it about sexuality that has Abrahamic religions, if not all religions, so obsessed? Edited by Paboss, : Typo

God always works within the existing culture, and as far as I know He didn't ask you how He should craft His laws. And I see no obsession.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This does sound like a biblical literalist’s method of introducing an aspect of moral relativism in order to excuse God’s actions...Is rape to be a sinful act?

It never ceases to amaze me how easy it is for some to turn an innocent truth, such as pointing to God's wisdom in not giving people more than they can handle, into something evil. It really is astonishing.I don't even get the question about rape being a sinful act. How could there be such a question at all.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.