"Rape" in the Bible

[POI]

The current definition of "rape" would <include> a lack of, or complete absence of, consent. The current definition of "consent" would involve permission for something to happen or agreement to do something.

Alternatively, where women are concerned (in the Bible), I do not recall a woman's consent to be deemed necessary or required? Biblical Hebrew did not have a single legal or technical term that exactly corresponds to the current understanding for the term "rape", which nowadays focuses more-so on a lack of consent in various forms. Such forms involving lack of consent would include: fear - (as a lack of a verbal "no" is not necessarily consent, especially if the person is afraid to resist verbally or physically due to a specific set of circumstances), age - (as it relates to an age of true accountability), slumber - (as it relates to advancement while their partner is asleep), unconsciousness, intoxication, etc... You get the gist... The Hebrew Bible uses several different verbs and descriptive phrases to refer to "forced sexual assault", but not the modern definition of "rape". The Biblical concept of sexual violation was viewed primarily through the lens of family honor, economic consequences, and/or social disgrace, but not the woman's violation of autonomy?

Today, it is mere common knowledge that if a woman does not grant consent to sex, (as explained above), it most certainly can be considered "rape".

I trust we can all reference the Biblical verse(s) which would be deemed (condoned 'rape') in the modern world? Such situational 'rape' would include 1) the spoils of war and/or 2) the bonds of "marriage" as it directly relates to the spoils of war and/or even maybe without. In essence, as stated above, commanded Biblical circumstances existed where a lack of a verbal 'no' does not necessarily grant consent.

For debate:

1. Why would an all-knowing god omit clear and specific instruction regarding a woman's consent? Meaning, did God purposefully omit this criterion because it is not necessary/required? If consent is necessary/required, why omit this instruction, as these commands instead suggest that the woman's consent is instead not required?
2. Does the Bible's lack of the modern term for 'rape' further demonstrate that a claimed all-knowing god had no part in this ancient collection of writings?
3. How do Christians today appeal to the statement, "rape is wrong", when the Bible itself does not directly express its direct abolition, but instead looks to (condone/permit) 'rape'?

[1213]

...
1. Why would an all-knowing god omit clear and specific instruction regarding a woman's consent? Meaning, did God purposefully omit this criterion because it is not necessary/required? If consent is necessary/required, why omit this instruction, as these commands instead suggest that the woman's consent is instead not required?

I assume it is because, "love your neighbor" is enough for a person that is not in corrupt state. And for a person in corrupt state, nothing would be clear enough.

In my opinion Tacitus said wisely, when he said: "The more corrupt the state, the more laws". The two laws in the Bible are enough to cover also the rape issue.

Jesus said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the first and great commandment. A second likewise is this, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments."
Matt. 22:37-40
Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery," "You shall not murder," "You shall not steal," "You shall not give false testimony," "You shall not covet,"{TR adds "You shall not give false testimony,"} and whatever other commandments there are, are all summed up in this saying, namely, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Love doesn't harm a neighbor. Love therefore is the fulfillment of the law.
Romans 13:8-10

2. Does the Bible's lack of the modern term for 'rape' further demonstrate that a claimed all-knowing god had no part in this ancient collection of writings?

No, it demonstrates that it was spoken to reasonable people.

[JehovahsWitness]

I assume it is because, "love your neighbor" is enough for a person that is not in corrupt state. And for a person in corrupt state, nothing would be clear enough.

I agree. Also, to emphasis consent shifts the responsibility from the perpetrator to the victim, as if an act of aggression is permissible unless the victim voices his or her objection; This is a type of "victim blaming". The woman shouldn't have live under threat of rape, the freedom from which exists only when she voices objection. The above national law was in place to place the obligation on the men (or any would-be aggressor) to control his behaviour or face the consequences.





RELATED POSTS

Can the expression "spare for yourselfs" be understood to be a euphemism for "have sex with"?
viewtopic.php?p=814434#p814434

Where Israelite soldiers permitted to rape their captives?
viewtopic.php?p=356474#p356474

Why does numbers specifically single out young virgin girls?
viewtopic.php?p=814419#p814419

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

did the Mosaic law support sex slavery?
viewtopic.php?p=815539#p815539

Did the Mosaic Law prohibit sex outside of marriage?
viewtopic.php?p=404057#p404057

Could a Hebrew soldier rape a captive slave with immunity?
viewtopic.php?p=1073044#p1073044

What future could a young captive girl expect?
viewtopic.php?p=815772#p815772

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

WOMEN, SLAVERY and ...WAR CAPTIVES

[POI]

You are probably ignoring me, be I'll give it another college try...

I assume it is because, "love your neighbor" is enough for a person that is not in corrupt state. And for a person in corrupt state, nothing would be clear enough.

I agree.

Then your line of reasoning makes no sense. The Bible lays out many moral laws. Many of which would be completely redundant to the "golden rule". Which, by the way, the 'golden rule' was sighted in the OT here:

(Leviticus 19:18) 18 You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against any of your people, but you shall love your neighbour as yourself: I am the Lord.

**********************************

Since 'god' is in the business of laying out redundant rules, WHY LEAVE OUT one of the most important ones today, (i.e.) "rape- as defined in lack of consent"?

Also, to emphasis consent shifts the responsibility from the perpetrator to the victim, as if an act of aggression is permissible unless the victim voices his or her objection; This is a type of "victim blaming".

The point here is missed. If you read my OP explanation, you would be aware it heavily relates to 1) the spoils of war, as well as 2) the acts of later "marriage", as it relates to the spoils of war. Apparently, god commands the 'rape', as we define it today. If god had not commanded any such thing, then yes, you would have the logical liberty in stating such a topic is under the 'golden rule'; as it was never mentioned specifically However, since the Bible god went out of his way to state what is okay, then 'rape', as we define it today, is a-okay by god's standard.

The woman shouldn't have live under threat of rape, the freedom from which exists only when she voices objection. The above national law was in place to place the obligation on the men (or any would-be aggressor) to control his behaviour or face the consequences.

Well, in the Bible, "God" commanded to it in places. God condones the 'rape', as we define it today.

****************************

For debate:

1. Why would an all-knowing god omit clear and specific instruction regarding a woman's consent? Meaning, did God purposefully omit this criterion because it is not necessary/required? If consent is necessary/required, why omit this instruction, as these commands instead suggest that the woman's consent is instead not required?
2. Does the Bible's lack of the modern term for 'rape' further demonstrate that a claimed all-knowing god had no part in this ancient collection of writings?
3. How do Christians today appeal to the statement, "rape is wrong", when the Bible itself does not directly express its direct abolition, but instead looks to (condone/permit) 'rape'?

[1213]

...as if an act of aggression is permissible unless the victim voices his or her objection; This is a type of "victim blaming". The woman shouldn't have live under threat of rape, the freedom from which exists only when she voices objection. ...

Thanks, I agree with you that men has the responsibility and there is no excuses. However, I think woman has also responsibility to voice her objection. Otherwise people might think she accepted it.

[bjs1]

The current definition of "rape" would <include> a lack of, or complete absence of, consent. The current definition of "consent" would involve permission for something to happen or agreement to do something.

Alternatively, where women are concerned (in the Bible), I do not recall a woman's consent to be deemed necessary or required? Biblical Hebrew did not have a single legal or technical term that exactly corresponds to the current understanding for the term "rape", which nowadays focuses more-so on a lack of consent in various forms. Such forms involving lack of consent would include: fear - (as a lack of a verbal "no" is not necessarily consent, especially if the person is afraid to resist verbally or physically due to a specific set of circumstances), age - (as it relates to an age of true accountability), slumber - (as it relates to advancement while their partner is asleep), unconsciousness, intoxication, etc... You get the gist... The Hebrew Bible uses several different verbs and descriptive phrases to refer to "forced sexual assault", but not the modern definition of "rape". The Biblical concept of sexual violation was viewed primarily through the lens of family honor, economic consequences, and/or social disgrace, but not the woman's violation of autonomy?

Today, it is mere common knowledge that if a woman does not grant consent to sex, (as explained above), it most certainly can be considered "rape".

I trust we can all reference the Biblical verse(s) which would be deemed (condoned 'rape') in the modern world? Such situational 'rape' would include 1) the spoils of war and/or 2) the bonds of "marriage" as it directly relates to the spoils of war and/or even maybe without. In essence, as stated above, commanded Biblical circumstances existed where a lack of a verbal 'no' does not necessarily grant consent.

For debate:

1. Why would an all-knowing god omit clear and specific instruction regarding a woman's consent? Meaning, did God purposefully omit this criterion because it is not necessary/required? If consent is necessary/required, why omit this instruction, as these commands instead suggest that the woman's consent is instead not required?
2. Does the Bible's lack of the modern term for 'rape' further demonstrate that a claimed all-knowing god had no part in this ancient collection of writings?
3. How do Christians today appeal to the statement, "rape is wrong", when the Bible itself does not directly express its direct abolition, but instead looks to (condone/permit) 'rape'?

1213’s reasoning in post 2 is solid. To have sex with someone without his/her consent obviously violates the command to love that person.

I am not sure why post 4 insists that it is important to state that “rape – as defined in lack of consent”. The Bible does not define most sins. Theft, adultery, murder, and coveting are not defined.

The Bible instructs Christians to love their neighbor as themselves. It then gives some specific examples of how to do that. The list of specific examples is not intended to be exhaustive, and detailed definitions of specific sins are not provided. Instead, more general commands are given and must be applied through the lens of Jesus Christ's love.

Some people look for loopholes that allow immoral behavior, such as saying, “The Bible doesn’t actually say that rape is a lack of consent.” Such a person cares nothing for God and would almost certainly violate more detailed laws if they were written down.

[POI]

The current definition of "rape" would <include> a lack of, or complete absence of, consent. The current definition of "consent" would involve permission for something to happen or agreement to do something.

Alternatively, where women are concerned (in the Bible), I do not recall a woman's consent to be deemed necessary or required? Biblical Hebrew did not have a single legal or technical term that exactly corresponds to the current understanding for the term "rape", which nowadays focuses more-so on a lack of consent in various forms. Such forms involving lack of consent would include: fear - (as a lack of a verbal "no" is not necessarily consent, especially if the person is afraid to resist verbally or physically due to a specific set of circumstances), age - (as it relates to an age of true accountability), slumber - (as it relates to advancement while their partner is asleep), unconsciousness, intoxication, etc... You get the gist... The Hebrew Bible uses several different verbs and descriptive phrases to refer to "forced sexual assault", but not the modern definition of "rape". The Biblical concept of sexual violation was viewed primarily through the lens of family honor, economic consequences, and/or social disgrace, but not the woman's violation of autonomy?

Today, it is mere common knowledge that if a woman does not grant consent to sex, (as explained above), it most certainly can be considered "rape".

I trust we can all reference the Biblical verse(s) which would be deemed (condoned 'rape') in the modern world? Such situational 'rape' would include 1) the spoils of war and/or 2) the bonds of "marriage" as it directly relates to the spoils of war and/or even maybe without. In essence, as stated above, commanded Biblical circumstances existed where a lack of a verbal 'no' does not necessarily grant consent.

For debate:

1. Why would an all-knowing god omit clear and specific instruction regarding a woman's consent? Meaning, did God purposefully omit this criterion because it is not necessary/required? If consent is necessary/required, why omit this instruction, as these commands instead suggest that the woman's consent is instead not required?
2. Does the Bible's lack of the modern term for 'rape' further demonstrate that a claimed all-knowing god had no part in this ancient collection of writings?
3. How do Christians today appeal to the statement, "rape is wrong", when the Bible itself does not directly express its direct abolition, but instead looks to (condone/permit) 'rape'?

1213’s reasoning in post 2 is solid.

FYI, I no longer read 1213's responses. I explained why in another thread.

To have sex with someone without his/her consent obviously violates the command to love that person.

The 'golden rule' was issued in Leviticus, sure. And I already responded to this argument, answering JW in post #4. And ironically, she sometimes avoids my responses, but she never told me why.

I am not sure why post 4 insists that it is important to state that “rape – as defined in lack of consent”.

Because this is a default, common knowledge element to 'rape', in which the ancients never even considered. But an all-knowing god would. Which begs the question, why did this all-knowing god omit such a command? As also stated in the OP, the ancients were instead concerned with 'sexual assault', as it relates to 1) family honor, 2) economic consequences, and/or 3) social disgrace, but not 4) the woman's violation of autonomy. This means the Bible weighs in on this topic in places, but completely omits the woman's rights? Why? Well, if we read the Bible, maybe it is because the woman lacks certain 'rights'? I raise an example, when the Bible speaks about the 'spoils of war.'

As I also told JW, if the Bible never mentioned 'sexual assault' at all, then yes, appeal to the 'golden rule' as a default. However, it seems god is only concerned with topics 1), 2), and 3), but nothing about 4).

The Bible does not define most sins. Theft, adultery, murder, and coveting are not defined.

Hmm? Then how do we know if we are truly committing a sin? (Common sense) or (common knowledge) maybe?.?.?.? Is a woman's lack in consent considered 'rape', or not? According to your Bible god, it is not! Do you agree? What does your own 'god-given' moral compass tell you here? Hmm?

I'll fast-forward a bit... The Bible mentions the 'spoils of war'. According to your god, a woman's consent is neither necessary nor required. Sorry bjs1, "rape", (as common knowledge would define the term today), is condoned/allowed in your believed upon ancient book. Which, again, how the heck can Christian's appeal to the Bible. when they often times claim, 'rape is wrong!'?

The Bible instructs Christians to love their neighbor as themselves. It then gives some specific examples of how to do that. The list of specific examples is not intended to be exhaustive, and detailed definitions of specific sins are not provided.

Nice try., but the Bible condones "war brides". Again, if your god never condoned/allowed the taking of "war brides", then sure, go with the 'golden rule' accordingly. It's just too bad, for you, that 'rape' - (as defined by common knowledge), is specifically on the <allowed exceptions list or menu> as compared to the 'golden rule.'

Instead, more general commands are given and must be applied through the lens of Jesus Christ's love.

Does Jesus agree with the commands in the OT, or not? (yes or no)? Either answer is troublesome for you...

Some people look for loopholes that allow immoral behavior, such as saying, “The Bible doesn’t actually say that rape is a lack of consent.” Such a person cares nothing for God and would almost certainly violate more detailed laws if they were written down.

LOL! It's a little more than a 'loophole'. It's a gigantic gaping hole. You are just crashing out because you know your book condones 'rape.'

For debate:

1. Why would an all-knowing god omit clear and specific instruction regarding a woman's consent? Meaning, did God purposefully omit this criterion because it is not necessary/required? If consent is necessary/required, why omit this instruction, as these commands instead suggest that the woman's consent is instead not required?
2. Does the Bible's lack of the modern term for 'rape' further demonstrate that a claimed all-knowing god had no part in this ancient collection of writings?
3. How do Christians today appeal to the statement, "rape is wrong", when the Bible itself does not directly express its direct abolition, but instead looks to (condone/permit) 'rape'?

[JehovahsWitness]

I am not sure why post 4 insists that it is important to state that “rape – as defined in lack of consent”. The Bible does not define most sins. Theft, adultery, murder, and coveting are not defined

I agree; the Mosaic law in particular is not built on definitions but on behaviours. The reason Jesus chose love of God and Neighbour as the greatest of them all of them is exactly for that reason, they are two affirmative (rather than prohibitive) laws which present principles. Rather like the Declaration of Independence relates to the constitution, the law of love provides the basis upon which all the other laws are built. That is not to say that the notion of consent was foreign to the Mosaic law , but ultimately the specific laws focused on the perpetrators responsibility for his ACTIONS (and compensation for the victim) rather then the motives and the feelings of either.

[POI]

Likely another completely ignored post....

the Mosaic law in particular is not built on definitions but on behaviours.

The Mosaic law, as commanded by your believed upon god, supports 'war brides.' Let me ask you an honest question JW... Were the consent(s) of these "war brides" either necessary or required? Since this question will likely be met with silence, I'll have to answer on your behalf. The answer is NO. Their consent was NOT necessary nor required. Which means, using common knowledge or common sense, these captives were 'raped'. These direct actions were condoned by the god you and bjs1 worship.

The reason Jesus chose love of God and Neighbour as the greatest of them all of them is exactly for that reason,

I already tackled this 'apologetic' twist. These commands were already expressed in the OT. And yet, taking 'virgin war brides' was clearly on the (exceptions list).

******************

For debate:

1. Why would an all-knowing god omit clear and specific instruction regarding a woman's consent? Meaning, did God purposefully omit this criterion because it is not necessary/required? If consent is necessary/required, why omit this instruction, as these commands instead suggest that the woman's consent is instead not required?
2. Does the Bible's lack of the modern term for 'rape' further demonstrate that a claimed all-knowing god had no part in this ancient collection of writings?
3. How do Christians today appeal to the statement, "rape is wrong", when the Bible itself does not directly express its direct abolition, but instead looks to (condone/permit) 'rape'?

[POI]

Christians, the silence in this thread is deafening...

Common sense implies that 'rape' would include the topic of consent. See the OP for details. And yet, Bible passages discard this particular criterion completely. I've responded to a couple of lame excuses as to why this particular command is missing, but that's all. Bible passage(s) look to directly fly in the face of consent. The Bible goes out of its way to mention why violating a woman sexually is "wrong" but excludes consent. A woman's consent was apparently neither necessary nor required, when reading these Bible passage(s).

For debate:

1. Why would an all-knowing god omit clear and specific instruction regarding a woman's consent? Meaning, did God purposefully omit this criterion because it is not necessary/required? If consent is necessary/required, why omit this instruction, as these commands instead suggest that the woman's consent is instead not required?
2. Does the Bible's lack of the modern term for 'rape' further demonstrate that a claimed all-knowing god had no part in this ancient collection of writings?
3. How do Christians today appeal to the statement, "rape is wrong", when the Bible itself does not directly express its direct abolition, but instead looks to (condone/permit) 'rape'?