Is it Rape or Not

In the "Bible: Word from God or Not" thread Message 1The treatment of virgins in the following passage from Numbers came up This passage was defended as not constituting rape since Deuteronomy 21 details the law in this respect. Not wanting to take the topic off course I thought it best to suggest a new topic.The question is, does this passage describe rape?If this is rape, how does one who believes the Bible is the "Word of God" reconcile this issue? Does the process described in Deuteronomy change this act to something else?Definition of Rape from Answers.com I would guess this would go into "Bible Study" or "Faith and Believe" forum. Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Rape is not explcitly stated but it seems to be a likely fate.However, I find the supposed defence rather more disturbing. The passage in question states that an Israelite can forcibly marry one of the captives. Presumably the idea is that there can be no rape in marriage even if the bride is forced into marriage and then forced into sexual activity. And the only penalty for divorce here is that the man can no longer sell his ex-wife as a slave - a financial penalty of course, but hardly a benefit for the woman who could simply be expelled with nothing and could even be worse off than if she were kept as a slave.So the passage from Deutronomy is both disturbing because it does condone what I would consider rape and because the person proposing it also apparently condones those acts.

Ofcourse it does! It may not be explicitly stated but it's certainly implied.Deuteronomy 21 confirms this: "...and be her husband and she shall be your wife." No word about conscent here. Just shave her head and keep her captive for a month and then you can rape her all you like!Also: "If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes" (emphasis mine) Again, note the lack of conscent. What happens if 'she's not pleased with him' ? ..err.. nothing.....tough!Simply put, Yhwh is a war god who rewards his faithful with rape and pillage.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

quote:

---

The question is, does this passage describe rape?

---

As we understand it today, yes.But remember, females were property back then, not much different from cows or one's house.

Sure it was what we would call rape.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I need to stop forgetting about these passages whenever buzsaw starts ranting about how Islam is a murderous religion grown by rape and pillaging.Hmm....

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

These startling passages remind me of Dawkins' comment that the god of the old testament is a character that no decent person would want anything to do with.

Or Iano ? I wonder if he'd say that it isn't rape if the woman is "unrighteous".

I have spent years making the argument that the god(s) of the old testament condoned, and sometimes encouraged, genocide, incest, rape, etc. Haven't had much luck...But specifically, I have pointed this little passage out before. The following explanation is what I got from fundamentalists. The word rape is not specifically used here, so we can safely assume that it's not rape. They were probably forced to do dishes, wash dirty clothings, and cook to repent their sins in their former lives. In other words, these were acts of mercy by the conquering army.

That is one of the weaker excuses I have ever heard of.Why the need for them to be virgins then?
Why kill the little boys and pregnant women?The indication by the reason for their exclusion from the genocide is ENTIRELY based on sexual purity!

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

But all women (and men) are unrighteous! So now what?

And yet I continue to see this excuse come up everytime I point to this passage. I don't know... something about their virginity... actually, I never understood the whole men attracted to virgins thingy. Little boys annd pregnant women can't do dirty dishes, wash dirty clothes, AND cook. Like I said, the fundies' excuse is there is no word like rape or sex in the passage.Added by edit.Anyway, I'm gonna sit back and watch how the fundy inhabitants of this forum explain this passage.Edited by gasby, : No reason given.

Is not Deuteronomy a later book so was this process in effect yet?Actually I don't have time right now to look up the exact verses but in Numbers just a little further down the page there is some explicit text about using these "persons" as a "heave" sacrifice aka burnt offering. But keep in mind these persons were unrighteous.

The object was to kill the males that would grow up to be future threats as well as pregnant women (wives of husbands killed that were likely to instill hatred in their kids).While we see such acts as abhorrent today, they did not seem so at the time. Just as a change of ruler (see the acts of David) meant that children of the previous ruler needed to be killed off seems really terrible today. At the time though it was a reasoned state behavior.Today we call such behavior rape. At the time it was simple expediency.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion