The law sentences rapists to death or punishes them in some other way. Deuteronomy 21:10-14 describes the capture and forced marriage of the enemy’s women. The coercion to marry was in accordance with the hard morality of the time (think of the rape of the Sabine women for example).
Well, first off, Deuteronomy is conveying the system of laws that were in place. That they were included in the Bible is neither a mark of approval or condemnation. As to this passage, This is not condoning the act; this is stating what would come about as a punishment for it. He forcibly took her virginity, and as such must care for her for the remainder of his life.
This one doesn’t actually deal with rape, at least not in my reading. It has to do with premarital sex. The “does not call” out implies that she was a willing participant.
Again, laws of the society, neither condemned nor approved. This one also does not strictly speak of rape, though in our society it would likely be considered rape, and likely so. During the time this was written, however, when a woman was taken as a spoil of war, they generally could only look forward to rape and slavery. This is actually presenting them with a superior arrangement. If a captor fancies a woman from the conquered city they can take them as their wife. They are then obligated to give them a mourning period during which you cannot approach them or seek relations with them. If you chose to divorce her (also allowed at the time) you were forbidden from selling her into slavery or treating her as a personal slave, and she essentially became a free woman, able to marry again. So, while not a perfect arrangement, it was definitely better than being sold into slavery and actually forcibly raped.
Again, laws of the time, neither condemned nor approved of morally. This passage is actually also forbidding you from killing the woman and children, and makes no mention of rape.
umm… I’m sorry?
Explanation is a far cry from justification. As to your statement about God “allowing” it in his book, Why wouldn’t it be included if the death of the Egyptian firstborn was included? Or The murder of children by King Herod? It is included because it had a major affect on the development of the Jews. You are assuming that just because something is in the Bible that it is good or to be followed; this couldn’t be further form the truth. There are more examples of people doing the wrong thing in the Bible than there are of them doing the right thing. Heck, within the first few chapters, humanity has completely and knowingly reject God, and then proceeded to commit its first murder. Neither of these things would be called good, but they are in there because they are important to the development of humanity.
I never once said OK, I said better. Being stabbed in the arm is better than being shot in the face, but that doesn’t make it good.
There were a few recent articles by Jimmy Akin in the National Catholic Register addressing these very same passages that concern you:
Admittedly, I’ve always been curious about this one.
If you believe that rape is objectively defined, then you believe it’s not culturally defined.
First off, great posts and explanations on this board ProdglArchitect
Leaving aside the fact that the CCC classifies rape, fornication, and homosexual acts as grave matters (and thus, mortal sins), I would only say that it’s a strange sort of moral God that would condone heterosexual rape as a trade-off for the greater immorality of homosexual rape.
I agree. I do not think the explanation given was correct or that Lot’s action was right or justified. Two wrongs do not make a right.
No, context is important. A poster in the beginning of this thread was explaining the difference between describing what the peoples` laws were and what Gods commandments are.
