Morality without Bible Doctrine

[Willum]

Jillette Penn said famously:

The question I get asked by religious people all the time is, without God, what’s to stop me from raping all I want? And my answer is: I do rape all I want. And the amount I want is zero. And I do murder all I want, and the amount I want is zero.

Without a guiding book from God, he still wants zero.

I propose we ask the priests and rabbi of the people who follow the morality of the Bible a similar question.
The Bible has no exclusions for the rape of children, or pedophilia.

It is safe to say I think, that the majority of humanity believes pedophilia is wrong. Yet the problem of religious folks, particularly religious leaders, being pedophiles seems to be a characteristic stain.

It appears that when asked why, without God, what’s to stop the religious community from raping all the children it wants? It can answer: We do rape all I want. And the amount I want is as many as I can. We do rape all the children we want, and even incredible controversy and scrutiny doesn't stop them. It is a taint on the religions for centuries.

Examining the Bible for flaws, we find that bacon is a sin, mixed fabrics are a sin, ripped clothes are a sin, and many other seemingly innocent things are a sin: So we know great consideration has gone into it.

But God in his infinite wisdom forgot to make a Commandment against pedophilia. No sin is mentioned anywhere else.

It is an incredible loophole in Judeo-Christianity, one that seems to be exploited by those who do not have a natural human instinct to forbear.

So the balance of the question is: Why in Abrahamic doctrine and dogma, is the behaviour not proscribed, or is it actually allowed by this all-benevolent God?

[JehovahsWitness]

Well until recently, menstruation was the moment a woman became an "adult". But as women are written about as if they are property in the Abrahamic faiths it is not surprising that there is nothing particularly wrong with child brides and pre-menstruation rape. There isn't much exploitation needed, the Bible makes it clear that it is OK.

Are you suggesting the bible contains any explicit or implicit allowance for sexual contact with prepubesent children?

Yes, women and even "women children" were given to soldiers of the Israelites. And it is implicit in the way women are regarded throughout the Abrahamic text. But numbers 31 has a good example.

17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

I'm unsure how the language plays a role in these passages, ...

If you are unsure about the language how are you going to use the language to build a solid linguistic arguement to support your position. While it seems plain that the Israelite soldiers were not to kill prepubescent girls, is there anything conclusive in the language that implies they were thereafter exempt from the national laws that govern sexual behaviour? If so what specifically?

I'm not so interested in answers based on your feelings, hunches or guesses, but if you can refer to the Hebrew language used or scriptural or cultural context, I'm happy to read it.



JW

[Filthy Tugboat]

Well until recently, menstruation was the moment a woman became an "adult". But as women are written about as if they are property in the Abrahamic faiths it is not surprising that there is nothing particularly wrong with child brides and pre-menstruation rape. There isn't much exploitation needed, the Bible makes it clear that it is OK.

Are you suggesting the bible contains any explicit or implicit allowance for sexual contact with prepubesent children?

Yes, women and even "women children" were given to soldiers of the Israelites. And it is implicit in the way women are regarded throughout the Abrahamic text. But numbers 31 has a good example.

17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

I'm unsure how the language plays a role in these passages, ...

If you are unsure about the language how are you going to use the language to build a solid linguistic arguement to support your position. While it seems plain that the Israelite soldiers were not to kill prepubescent girls, is there anything conclusive in the language that implies they were thereafter exempt from the national laws that govern sexual behaviour? If so what specifically?

I'm not so interested in answers based on your feelings, hunches or guesses, but if you can refer to the Hebrew language used or scriptural or cultural context, I'm happy to read it.



JW

How about we go with history. Why, historically speaking did soldiers keep captured women for themselves? Why, culturally speaking did they have to be virgins? The answers are very obvious, I just thought I would give you the opportunity to defend it with the linguistic history or other, if you don't care to then I rest my case, it is very plain that the Israelites were okay with rape and paedophilia, at least in post war context. from this text alone..

[JehovahsWitness]

How about we go with history.

Why? Is that because if you go by the actual documents under discussion you are unable to support your arguement? We are discussing a particular peoples at a particular point in time that fortunately had a written code we can examine, and a rich cultural history with clues as to their morals and social norms, feel free to reference these specifics as they alone are relevant.

If you are attempting to suggest that a particular interpretation of available facts is imposed by vague generalities, you 'will be making a huge leap in logic which amounts to a prosecuting lawyer saying since throughout history, jealous husbands have indeed killed their wives lover, the accused must also be guilty, after all..."look at history". Weak argumentation to say the very least.



JW


RELATED POSTS (see below)
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 227#957227


.

[JehovahsWitness]

Continued from post #13 by JehovahsWitness

NUMBERS 31:17, 18

Now you should kill every male among the children and kill every woman who has had sexual relations with a man. But you may keep alive all the young girls who have not had sexual relations with a man.

QUESTION What kind of future could a captive slave girl expect under Jewish law?

• A child slave would become a household servant or a companion to any other children; The foreign born slave, like any Israelite girl, had the same rights in regard to the protection of her person and was essentially considered as a member of a man's household.

What rules regulated non-native slaves?

• Sex outside marriage was systematically sanctioned under Jewish law and all foreigners, whether slave or Freeman were guanteed equal protection by their constitution. Sex slavery and prostitution was illegal. Once a part of the new nation slaves would enjoy the same basic rights and protections as any other citizen. However, since they had no independent inheritance, they would be viewed as a permanent part of their adopted household. Otherwise the same regulations regarding marriage, financial security and protection against brutality applied. Once a female slave reached puberty*, it was expected her master find her a husband as was the case for any of his daughters (who were also considered the patriarchs "property" until they married. If a man wanted to have sex with his slave he had to marry her ie make her his bride (see Deuteronomy 21: 10 - 14) . A slave that married a Hebrew man automatically became a free woman, and was considered his wife or concubine (secondary wife). If a slave was given to the man's sons her children stood to inherit the entire estate.

* Although the law did allow soldiers to keep young girls alive to eventually take them as their wives, there is no biblical basis to believe they broke with cultural norms and actually married these children before puberty. The minimum one month clause found at Deuteronomy is with regard to [adult]females (ishshah) rather than female children (ishshah taf)


Further Reading
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/artic ... riage-laws

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 14 by JehovahsWitness]


INDEX SEX SLAVES/Pedophilia


Is pedophilia prohibited in scripture? [ this thread]
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 98#p956998

Were the Hebrews allowed to keep sex slaves?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 73#p814373

Was HAGAR a sex slave?
viewtopic.php?p=1022163#p1022163

Can the expression "spare for yourselves" (Num 31:18) be understood to be a euphemism for "have sex with"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 34#p814434

Why spare only the virgin girls?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 19#p814419

Did war captives have any rights under the Mosaic law?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 72#p815772

Biblical what was the status of a concubine?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 60#p780360
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 53#p780653

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

WOMEN, SLAVERY and ...., CHILD ABUSE

.

[Filthy Tugboat]

[Replying to post 14 by JehovahsWitness]

Just because you, meaning the Israelite soldier, take someone as your wife says nothing of consent and nothing of their age. I do tend to prefer the KJV because my understanding is that it tends to be a more accurate, word for word translation where they are specifically called "women children".

Do you really think all of the women children gave consent to be married? Do you really think that sex didn't happen after the marriage of these "women children"? And do you really think that these passages, even if this is not a correct translation, has no effect on the world and those that believe this book to be the word of God? That a paedophile would not use these stories to justify raping children?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 16 by Filthy Tugboat]

QUESTION Is there any cultural, contextual or scriptural basis to assume that child captives were married off immediately?


♦ANSWER No, indeed no passages commands or stipulates or regulates for immediate marriage of child captives. While the absence of any mention of imposed delay has lead some to assume that any children taken in war were immediately married off, this reading contradicts cultural, contextual or scriptural indications to the contrary

• The Hebrew did not have a culture of marrying minors. As with most ancient cultures the wives primary role was to produce children. The ancient Hebrews viewed the prompt production of an heir and many children not only as a sign of prosperity but as a blessing from God. The Abrahamic promise, for example was intimately linked with the multiplication of his descendents. Rebecca's blessing (Genesis 24:60) fittingly illustratess why being barren was viewed as the ultimate curse. Marrying a child and thus delaying, perhaps for years any hope of having a child with her was thus not part of Hebrew culture. In view of the above, there is little surprise why we find no indication in scripture that any brides mentioned in patriarchal marriages (whether slave or freewomen) were children.
  
  Furthermore, supporting educating and training a child with no immediate hope of her adding anything significant in the way of her carrying out laborious tasks, after having already laid a bride price for her, the child marriage offered little in the way of financial incentive for the husband. Why should he pay for that privilege when her father would have been obligated to do it for free? Of course no bride price would have been paid for a war captive but this information helps us see that a child bride would have been an anomaly under both the Paririachal and the Mosaic systems.
  
  No temple prostitutes (Lev 19:29). While virginity was valued as a way to ensure moral excellence and clarity of tribal inheritance, unlike surrounding pagan nations, sex played no role in the worship of the Jews. Thus while other nations consecrated young boys and girls to become "sacred" sex objects in their temples, the Jews had no tradition of using children for sex. Indeed engaging the services of a temple prostitute became a crime under the Mosaic law. While every society has perverts who are sexually attracted to children, the fact that the seduction of a virgin was a punishable offence under Hebrew law (Exodus 22:16-17; Deuteronomy 22:29), is a clear indication such perceptions were not institutionalize into Hebrew law and culture.

While there are numerous reasons to conclude a delay in marrying a child war captive was a given, there is little or no reasoning outside assumption, to argue the contrary.

CONCLUSION There are clear historical, scriptural and cultural indicators that the Hebrews had no acceptance of prepubesent marriage. Thus to assume a reading of numbers 31 that contradicts the social norms, ancient customs and existing laws, is contextually questionable.

JW


RELATED POSTS


Is pedophilia prohibited in scripture? [ this thread]
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 98#p956998

What kind of future could a captive slave girl expect under Jewish law?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 27#p957227

[Filthy Tugboat]

[Replying to post 17 by JehovahsWitness]

The only challenge issued to the claims I made is that children not being able to procreate is the reason that war captives would not be wed until the time they can, and in fact you go on to claim that they would be costly if they were. But how would they be any more costly as captives than as brides? Hebrew men were permitted multiple wives so how could marrying them before child bearing age have any compromise on the other wives who could and would be providing children? If the women children were given to the men, what were the men to do with them before they became adults?

We agree that it would be bad if they were simply used for the purpose of sex without marriage but if they were married you haven't offered any meaningful challenge as to whether or not they would be married off and raped by their captors. Simply allowing for soldiers to possess "women children" is issue enough for most to confidently assert that many of these "women children" would in fact be raped at least, possibly married to their captors, even if it is not written in law, this happens in today's time, it is a certainty that it happened back then too.

Are we in agreement that owning and marrying captives has no consideration in law for the captives' consent?

Here's some sources on the subject, I do understand that it is a large issue and there are many men who did not have sex with children but it is obvious that it didn't really matter, women and their consent or their age was just unimportant in Israelite society, Same reason rapists were expected to marry their victims without any concern for the victims consent. Fathers could sell their daughters and in fact did so in order for marriage as a standard.

“Grooms could marry at the age of 18-20 (or older) with a young girl, twelve years old, who had “reached puberty.�… The ideal was to marry off girls while still minors, since they constituted an economic burden…� (Rubin, N. (2008). Time and Life Cycle in Talmud and Midrash. Brighton, Massachusetts: Academic Studies Press. p. 16)

“There is less evidence regarding female age at marriage . As noted , the overwhelming impression given in the legal sources is that fathers betrothed their daughters while they were still minors .�
SOURCE: Michael L. Satlow in ‘Jewish Marriage in Antiquity’,pg.107

“Conversely, if a girl is three years and one day, she can be betrothed by sexual intercourse.� He continues writing, “Obviously, the Mishnah does not say that a woman should be betrothed at the age of three or hat this is a standard age to do so. It is, rather, mentioned as the minimal age.� (Teugels, L. M. (2004). Bible and Midras: The Story of ‘The Wooing of Rebekah’ (Gen. 24). Peeters, Bondgenotenlaan. pp. 218-220)

https://discover-the-truth.com/2013/11/ ... arriage-2/

That last website goes into the linguistics. I will happily admit that I have no intellectual capacity to debate Hebrew linguistics but I will defer to scholars and articles with scholastic sources an I believe that website has good footing, I will happily bow out if you can find some reasonable grounds to discredit these sources and quotes though. It reads plainly in an English translation that these "women children" captives would be subject to at minimum rape and some into forced marriage (lifetime of rape). Scholars seem to posit that the Hebrew is even more specific suggesting that they would absolutely be used for sexual gratification of the soldiers, probably without marriage. I know soldiers of this day and age from every country and every religion and culture rape people on a pretty regular basis both in their own military and certainly in the countries they are occupying. I doubt it would be better back in the day.

[JehovahsWitness]

. Simply allowing for soldiers to possess "women children" is issue enough for most to confidently assert that many of these "women children" would in fact be raped at least...

Emphasis MINE

Are you suggesting that military service rendered soldiers except from the laws that prohibited raping a single girl? Or that the law sanctioned the rape of virgins of any nationality? Or that the same laws that protected native born free women did not protect a child war captive?

LEVITICUS 24:22


New Living Translation
"This same standard applies both to native-born Israelites and to the foreigners living among you. I am the LORD your God." - NLT

JW

[Filthy Tugboat]

[Replying to post 19 by JehovahsWitness]

I did add a substantial source list and a little concluding paragraph with the new information I learnt in mind.

But yes, I do believe that soldiers were given better treatment than other Israelites including privileges of rape and prime picking for forced marriage, I also would claim that Moses encouraged this even if he did try to make laws against it, he gave the power of decision and the power over the "women children" to his soldiers. My money is, if these stories were actually historically accurate a great many thousands of women and children were raped by the Israelites with little done to stop them by their God or religious leaders or law makers.