The God Of Sex

It would help if you put your understanding of what Peter Jones says into your own words so I can see what you find "eye opening" about it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, if she didn't scream there would have been no way to prove it wasn't consensual. It's a choice between stoning the two of them to death or stoning him alone.

Oh I'm sure Jones is not making an equation between our laws and OT laws in his discussion of sex as God's creation; I was responding only to your complaint that the woman would "have to" scream to prove rape as if that was such an unfair imposition on her. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

We're talking about OT times. Doing that to his victim would get the rapist even worse punishment. This is going on in the open "field" somewhere, in a culture where everybody knows everybody else, not a dark alley in an anonymous city, or even the victim's home in the suburbs. Get your context straight.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

If she didn't scream she'd be stoned for adultery.I didn't bring this up. As usual I'm responding to some weird attack on the OT. Look it up yourself.And, would it kill you to be minimally polite?:Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Nice justification for abuse.

Phat, I really did want to know what you consider to be an "eye opener" about this book. I'm familiar with Peter Jones, have a lot of his books, including this one though I haven't read it because it is still in storage after moving last Fall.I suspect it isn't much about Old Testament law as others on the thread are claiming, but I really don't know. I read the part of it you linked but didn't really get much out of it, should probably read it again though you could spare me by just telling me what you get out of it.By the way, it is not right for a Christian to call Christians "homophobic." That is Political Correctness, in other words a term from Cultural Marxism designed for character assassination and otherwise meaningless. Homosexual acts are sin according to the Bible so if we obey God we don't treat them as normal sexual options, but that doesn't deserve the ridiculous epithet "homophobia." In iother words, it's a species of sin, and since we are all sinners in one way or another it certainly does not justify any kind of mistreatment of homosexuals as people.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The discussion about rape in the OT is just the usual attempt to malign Christian belief, lacking all sense of cultural context etc., and I didn't take it seriously enough to check out the references. But afterward I did go look up some of the references to rape in the Bible and see that I got some facts wrong: if the woman is raped in the CITY she's expected to cry out because she could be heard there, but in the country nobody could hear her. In that case the man is punished for raping her but I didn't find out how the facts were established. I should just not answer these accusations at all I guess.Here's a reference though I haven't read it thoroughly.
What does the Bible say about rape? | GotQuestions.orgEdited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

We're talking ancient Israel here, not a modern city. Not much likelihood of a party with loud music. Given the culture of the times there is a lot of focus on justice for the rape victim.And the context is that she'd more likely be heard where there are lots of people around than in the country where there aren't. Given no loud music.And no woman would be alone at a party in ancient Israel 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.

Considering the patriarchal nature of the society, the raped woman is given quite a bit of protection and justice. Not in a way a modern person would like, but in terms of her situation within that culture. For instance we abhor the idea that her rapist has to marry her, which is the judgment in the case of the rape of a virgin who is not betrothed, but it provides her with support and protection for the rest of her life, whereas sending her back to her parents would leave her as a despised woman open to all kinds of abuse by others. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

it's simply a matter of being able to prove it was rape and not adultery. It helps to have proof you know.

It was the law, probably enforced by the community too, and even if she was mistreated it was better than being a defiled single woman in that patriarchal society since no one else would marry her and often even her parents would reject her. But there is no particular reason to think she was mistreated in the marriage. As a matter of fact there are two famous rapes in the Old Testament described as motivated by passionate love of the woman: the rape of Jacob's daughter Dinah, by a man who wanted to marry her; and the rape of David's daughter Tamar by her half-brother Amnon, whose love turned to hatred afterward so she was not rescued from her defiled condition and went to live with another brother.Applying our current views of these things to that ancient culture just doesn't work.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The laws we're talking about do seem to have the woman's welfare in mind within those patriarchal parameters. If she was betrothed the rapist would be stoned to death and it was expected that her betrothed husband would marry her, there is no hint that he wouldn't. And if she was not betrothed the rapist would be required to marry her and take care of her. Nobody is arguing that men owning women is a model for justice, it is the cultural context in which justice is being sought and within that context the law aims to provide for her what the society would take away from her if she was raped, that is, the protection of a man and the acceptable status of marriage. Those rules wouldn't apply today but the principle of providing protection and justice for the woman is there and that's the part that holds over to the present.

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?

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.