I’ve been wondering about this for a while, is there anything in the Bible that mentions rape, specifically condemns it? I’m not trying to argue that rape isn’t wrong, I just want to know what the Bible says about it.
Anyone know?
The bible more or less endorses mass murder by a God that prefers one race to another, and commands genocide of the offending race, so…
Who cares?
I suppose you are not supposed to covet your neighbour’s wife, so that could be considered a rape non-recommendation? Who knows?
I don’t know the answer to your question. I’m sure you could find a passage in there somewhere condemning everything.
judges 21 verse ten and so forth
Cite?
Got Google? Enter Bible Judges chapter 21 start at verse 10. This is an endorsement to kill the men and any woman who has lain with a man. Take the 400 virgins and give them to the tribe of Benjamin. Whoa, not enough, hide in the fields and take them as they pass by.
For the law against rape, see Deuteronomy 22:25-29.
Not surprisingly, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Start at Chapter 20 and read until the end of the book. That’ll put this incident into perspective.
To sum it up: there had been a war between the tribe of Benjamin and the other tribes. Things got out of hand, and the tribe of Benjamin was nearly exterminated. There were no women of Benjamin left alive, and the other tribes had previously sworn that they would never let any guys from Benjamin marry their daughters. Everyone now felt pretty guilty about this, but in those days oaths were unbreakable, so it seemed like the tribe of Benjamin would die out. However, it turned out that there was this city that had broken another oath, and (you guessed it) the punishment for breaking the oath was death. So the other Isrealites went in and killed everone, sparing the 400 virgins who they gave to the Benjamin survivors. This wasn’t enough to repopulate the tribe with, so they arranged to allow the rest of the Benjamin men to kidnap women to make into their wives, the idea being that the fathers weren’t technically consenting to the marriages. Basically, they’re splitting hairs to sidestep the oath.
All in all, it’s a really stupid incident that doesn’t speak well of the ancient Isrealites.
"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. "
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
And if you think that’s not sufficient punishment look at it is context. In those days men would rarely if ever marry a non-virgin. A woman could not survive on her own and one day her father would die. She had to become someone’s responsibility and in this way the perpetrator of the crime became responsible for her. He could not divorce her even if she refused to have sex with him and she could essentially make his life a living hell if she wished.
Not the ideal solution perhaps, but the best that was possible under the circumstances. Jails were non-existent and killing the rapist would leave the girl with no support at all when her parents died.
So to answer the OP, insofar as rape is punishable by a fine and an obligatory marriage that could never be terminated, yes rape is specifically condemned.
There are other bits on Deuteronomy about raping women who are engaged or married, but they could be interpreted as condemning the use of another man’s property as much as rape.
Thanks, Diceman. That quote made no sense, but of course you didn’t write it. It’s in the bible. To the posts before that, I will not pick up a bible or google passages either. It would make me feel filthy to look for something in that horrendous book. It would make me feel filthy to look at a bible. That’s why I asked for a cite.
Save the religious intolerance and abuse for GD, mmmkay?
Oh, man. That was neither religious intolerance nor abuse, obviously. It was just a factual statement of what I, personally, can or cannot stand looking at. I won’t elaborate.
I will not argue with you. The Mods have been notified and we will abide by their decision.
I think that it can be both, Not in Anger. It can be a factual statement of your intolerance for what others of another faith consider to be scared texts. (Intolerance in this case means that you cannot tolerate (stand) looking at the Bible.
If the Bible is not sacred in your opinion, then why not just look at a it as being just another book? What is it that is special about the Bible that provokes you so much?
This post is not meant as a criticism of you or your viewpoint.
Hmm. I just asked for a cite because, I, personally, can’t look at a bible. So I asked for the reference so I wouldn’t have to, so I could respond to the question I was asked. I can’t imagine what the controversy about that would be. If there were one, which I can’t believe, THAT would be religious intolerance.
I condemn rape. Like I said, I have no idea whether the bible does. The question interests me, for strict sociology of knowledge reasons.
I guess the second quote explains the first one quite nicely.
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.
Not in Anger, you may want to look at the forum descriptions. General Questions is for factual questions and answers thereto. Unless I’ve missed it, no one’s asked you for your opinion on the Bible, so you are not giving a factual answer to a question.
Further, Great Debates is the proper forum for, you guessed it, debates on issues of contention, including religious issues, as the forum description states:
Yup, Northern Piper. The question of what the bible endorses or condemns? Hell, I couldn’t think of a question more incapable of a factual answer. It has been, in my opinion, a matter of controversy for quite some time. So, the thread should be moved to GD.
Skammer, yes, the second quote explains the first.
Well, no. The Man with a Golden Gun asked a question that does have a factual answer: what does the Bible say about rape? It shouldn’t be moved because you came along and started offering your irrelevant personal opinions.
Not In Anger is just trying to provoke people. His comments were unnecessary and irrelevant. Just do what they told you to do in kindergarten and ignore him. It makes his day when you argue with him…