Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thanks noland, I just read it and it states: "The Lord has made everything for it's purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble."
The only problem I have is that I don't have the slightest idea what it means. As I've stated before I've read the entire Bible and not only is it a huge undertaking to read such a large book, it's also equally difficult to understand it. I suspect part of the problem is that it's been translated from another language which Bluesbabe brought up and also the english language at the time of the King James Version of the Bible is very different from what we speak today. I also think that literature in general and the concepts of fiction, nonfiction, allegory and metaphor are also completely different today in a modern society in which almost everyone can read and write versus a time almost two thousand years ago in which almost everyone was illiterate and only a small percentage of the population could read and write and they were generally affiliated with some sort of religious organization. Before the invention of the printing press centuries later the common man could only communicate verbally.
Despite the obvious difficulties of understanding writings from those days I do think that the basic message in many biblical writings are fairly clear in certain passages such as the ones I mentioned. I also think it's very obvious that the loving and forgiving God that so many Christians want to believe in is contradicted by a great deal of the barbaric behavior of the God of the Old Testament and if this God were a real living entity I think he would be a cruel monster. Consider this thought, if there really is a God he wouldn't be influenced by the advancements and changes in human behavior, he would be stable and constant. God as he's described in the Bible is anything but constant. His behavior and manner of justice seem to change from the Old Testament to the New Testament which I believe is further evidence that this God is actually a manifestation of human imagination and his progress from the God who drown the entire human race to the touchy feely God that many believe in today is just a representation of how human beings have changed over the centuries and the God they invented has also changed.
Here are the OT rules on rape (and how they are interpreted in Judaism):
If a man and a woman have illicit sex in the city, both must be stoned. (Comment: the assumption is that if a woman is being raped, she will cry for help, and in the city, she will be heard and assisted. Of course, this does not cover rape at knife-point or with the help of drugs.)
If a man and a woman have illicit sex in a field (i.e. in a remote place), and the woman is engaged or married to someone else, and she claims that she had been raped, then the man is put to death, but not the woman. (Comment: the idea here being that in a remote place, there is no one around to come to the woman's aid.)
If a man rapes a woman who is not betrothed, he must pay her father 50 shekels of silver and he must marry her, and he may not divorce her, ever. (Comment: what this is interpreted to mean, in Judaism, is that the man must assume all the obligations of the marriage, but may not enjoy any of its privileges. Basically, he must support the woman for the rest of his life. She has no obligation to do anything. She does not have to have sex with him (but may if she wants to), does not have to cook, clean, work, etc. If she wants to be set free, he must comply and give her a divorce, but he may not divorce her of his own accord.)
In war time, generally after a battle, a warrior may rape a woman from the enemy people once. After that, he must let her go. He may not rape her again, and he may not marry her by force or enslave her. She may marry him or become his concubine if she wants to. However, on certain occasions in the OT, this rule was apparently bent or ignored altogether.
I loved the comments Redisca though I can't find support for this:
Quote:
In war time, generally after a battle, a warrior may rape a woman from the enemy people once. After that, he must let her go. He may not rape her again, and he may not marry her by force or enslave her.
Actually, now that I've checked the source, my statement wasn't entirely accurate. So let me correct myself: If a man sees a woman among war captives following a battle and wants to marry her, he can take her into his house. She must shave her head and clip her nails, but her captor may not keep her tied up or in chains. He must then give her a month to mourn her family. After that, he can marry her (there is no provision for consent in the text, so this would encompass rape). If one does not like her after that, he must let her go. She may not be prostituted or sold. It seems also the way this text would be interpreted in Judaism ("thou shall not make merchandise of her)" is that she cannot be enslaved either. She is either to be a wife or let go.
The fate of the women and children in this situation is unclear but it sounds like they can be used in any fashion they want and are described as though they're nothing but a commodity and have no value as human beings.
Women in these cultures - and even later in classical Greece - where regarded a little better than slaves. This was not just a biblical thing. Only very recently in history have the status of women improved, and that's only in some parts of the world.
Women in these cultures - and even later in classical Greece - where regarded a little better than slaves. This was not just a biblical thing. Only very recently in history have the status of women improved, and that's only in some parts of the world.
I completely agree with your statement. It wasn't until 1920 that women in the US were even allowed to vote. In places like Saudi Arabia they're not even allowed to get a driver's license and something as mundane as hanging out at a shopping mall with your friends doesn't happen. A woman is completely dependent on a man's authority to do anything. The attitude towards women at the time that the Bible was written is of course a reflection of society in those times and because I don't believe the Bible really is the word of God it doesn't surprise me that the men who actually wrote the Bible didn't consider men and women to be equal. It isn't fair to single out the Christian religion for this attitude, it's been a part of all religions and societies for all of recorded history. I hope someday the world will finally get out of the dark ages and recognize the equality of men and women.
There is nothing about rape in the Ten Commandments and I can't recall any specific passages that says that it's wrong. Of course it mentions adultery and fornication but here is a passage that describes how women were treated by the direction of the Lord:
Deuteronomy 20:13-14 "13 And When the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:
14But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies which the Lord thy God hath given thee."
So what is one to make of such a brutal statement like this which is coming directly from God? There are a great many rapes and atrocities described in the Bible. The fate of the women and children in this situation is unclear but it sounds like they can be used in any fashion they want and are described as though they're nothing but a commodity and have no value as human beings.
I know someone is going to start talking about how the Old Testament is alot different than the New Testament and you're going to try to explain it away but Genesis is in the Old Testament and there's sure alot of Christians who take every word of it literally. Wouldn't it be consistent to do the same thing with these particular passages and all of the others like them? Afterall, this is supposed to be the word of God and God specifically ordered all of these horrific actions.
My basic question is really about how rape is regarded and whether or not it's a sin especially in light of the passages I've stated.
You should read "The Sins Of Scripture: Exposing The Texts of Hate To Reveal The God of Love".
I'm not familiar with it. Could you explain it in a little more detail? Thanks.
It is a book written by an Episcopal Priest who exposes discriminatory messages in The Bible and discusses what he thinks The Bible would really say if it were truly inspired by God. I hope this description makes sense. If not, here is the page from Barnes And Noble about the book. It also has an excerpt from the book. The Sins of Scripture, John Shelby Spong, Book - Barnes & Noble
crayfish, Thanks, that sounds interesting and I see that the author is not an outsider but a man with a 40 year history in the church.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
