Can anyone come up with a justification on why God allowed rape on virgin women in the bible? Read Duet ch 22 near the bottom.
He was told to keep her as his wife afterward because he had "humbled" her. No punishment for the rapist.
Could anyone come up with a moral reason for God to allow this?
I came up with one. But you first.
Because religions are written and interpreted by men. Religion is regularly made a tool of power: to justify power, to define power, to give powers, and to bind the enthralled to he who wields power with Divine ordinance etc.
Sex is a primary urge in the male human, and often individual women prefer to pick their partners (or to grow to adulthood before doing it), and this can be troublesome to a desirous man with power. So, religion is made to serve his desire easily enough.
Not regularly - that is what it is all about, if it was the word of a god then it would be a male chauvinistic violent pig of a god
The only reason I qualified that statement is because, in theory, and in practice occasionally, albeit not for long, some religions are at least initially devised to create social order and give a common framework to a society, providing some important answers, a series of rituals to mark time and tradition, and to bind people as part of a larger community including rules that are underpinned by supernatural consequences. It's the priests or shaman that corrupt it, or not. At least that's what I've seen/read, etc., and come to understand.
I think that was primitive religion rather than the organised religions since writing became the in-thing.
When the Roman government official Paul re-wrote the christian religion to make it a trading religion he did it as a means of getting trade across borders etc - basically to do what diplomacy does today - nothing to do with religion at all at base. He was just copying the idea from the eastern trade routes like the silk road where Buddhism provided all the safe stops along the way
Paul was not a Roman government official at all. Check your information.
I think you will find he was a tax collector. No more official than that.
Nope. Still wrong.
Prior to his conversion to the Christian faith, Paul (Saul) was a "rising star" in the Jewish religious establishment, carrying letters of introduction and recommendation to allow him to rout out the Christians in certain areas. After his conversion, he was a missionary who practiced tentmaking as a trade to support himself.
You are probably thinking of either Zacchaeus or Matthew (one of the twelve disciples), both of whom actually were tax-collectors. But even so, they were not Roman government officials by any stretch of the imagination. Throughout the Roman Empire, tax-collecting was like purchasing a franchise, not like being employed by anyone. Tax-collectors were independent businessmen who purchased from the Roman government the right to collect taxes, and they had to turn over a fixed amount of their take to the Roman government.
Paul was not one of them.
I like how these guys swallow any sort of history book except the bible, just because it makes big claims from a God who is against them.
a Flood, a coming judgment, just too much for them to handle.
If you take the stance that the bible is God's word, you'd have to find a moral justification for the rape allowance.
So I've done just that.
Perhaps women just don't like being loved for being intimacy objects. They would rather her intelligence or charitable deeds be respected, rather than meeting a biological need for respect. But if she can't do something as honest as that, how do her other acts prove she is respectable? Maybe the issue is that she doesn't like to have to do SOMETHING FOR THE MALE to get respect. Maybe THAT'S why God allowed men to rape such women, to "humble" her.
No, horny men with power wrote verses to justify rape (polygamy) and whatever else, corrupting the purpose of religion so they could get a piece without having to answer to angry family and neighbors. "Look, God said I could," as they point to the passage in the latest edition of the book.
If you read the Old Testament, you'll find lots of situations where horrible acts are advocated - genocide, rape, child sacrifice...
Remember Jesus came along and said God was all about love, not hate. I can never understand why, bearing in mind Jesus' teachings, fundamentalist Christians persist in swallowing the Old Testament whole instead of re-interpreting it with his philosophy in mind.
Cause he doesn't care I guess. Frankly I can to some extent understand male christians, but female chrstians are beyond my understanding - so much gender hate is in the babble...
ediggity is correct.
Just more hate speech fuel against your own ambiguity.
Until you actually understand Hebrew translations, you might want to join the other Mickey Mouse clubhouse folk.
Whatever her name was, truly messed you up.
So...women should be prepared to be raped if they fail to service mens biological needs? And that would be just and right because it's woman's ego preventing her from putting out?
Doesn't sound like a very sound moral justification to me. Try that one in a court of law.
well it wasn't G-d ofcourse, it was the patriarch who put it down as G-d's work.
Hi there. I got your book. It's not yet there!
When did you order it?
I didn't see it come across my 'desk'.
8 days in total, i think.
The god thing of the bible also gives men the right to rape baby girls.
It's all there in the "good" book.
Why would this biblical god thing reward his killers with BABY GIRLS? It's all there to be read in the "bible."
it is simple ..religious books are not word of god but word of man who lived during those eras..
Have you even read all of Deuteronomy? Every verse in there is about how you should be stoned or die if you participate in inappropriate sexual acts. It doesn't say what you wrote at all.
I certainly hoped we wouldn't have to hear your pathetic idea of a 'moral reason'.
The verse is congruent with Exodus 22: 16-17, If a man entices a maid that is not betrothed , and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.
How is this even close to what the OP is talking about? This verse says that if a dude sleeps with a girl who is not married, then he better try to make it right by asking her father for marriage, and if the dad refuses he must pay.
Because it's not rape. He is misinterperting the verse.
And 'enticing' her is supposed to 'humble' her?
I think RAPE humbles her, my friend.
Those were two separate laws.
Why then a few verses earlier (Deut 22:25-26) does he say that if a man forces himself on a woman he should be stoned to death and no fault should be found with the woman?
That was talking about a MARRIED woman. "every" word of God is pure...pay close attention to them.
You are absolutely right but too bad he entrusted those words with fallable men. Plus There is always going to be a few interpertation problems when fixing 5000 year old words into modern language.
How else was he supposed to get his word put out? If it had to be through men, common sense says he can 'make sure' it is properly penned and translated and preserved, despite man's fallibility. Yes, if God didn't have anything to say or didn't want what he said to be CLEAR, he would've just left it up to man to figure it out from loose translations, rather than God making sure a perfect translation was made and the meaning literal, leaving no room for other interpretations: symbolic and metaphorical. And he'd make sure his Spirit beared witness to that book so people would know what translation to trust.
I agree, the only way to interpert the bible is through the witness of the Holy Spirit, this is why he made it that way, so people couldn't rely souly on logic and common sense. There has to be faith in the translation process. a few verses such as;
"God has chosen the weak things of the world to confound the wise," or,
"Surely your turning of things upside down will be estemed as the potters clay," or
lean not unto thy own understanding but trust in the Lord with all your heart..."
these illustrate the fact that true understanding of the scriptures comes by revelation through fasting and prayer, and not nessicarily a theological degree.
Why is it that you only study fictional works?
It is obvious to a student of "life" that you lack a well rounded education.
To one who has been a scholar in the field of religious history, I find what you have to offer is religiously trite and extremely bigoted.
You have nothing of import to offer....just an opinion.
It is a common liberal tactic to attack the character of those with whom you disagree, when you havn't a leg to stand on.
Oh, and congratulations on being so smart, and superior to me. I feel so inadiquate being in your presence.
It's almost as if I should be denied my God given right to freedom of speech when clearly you know it all.
Naw, I respect that right.
You go right ahead and play with the "truths" you find in fiction.
We who have done our homework can seperate the "wheat from the chaff."
You provide an occassional good chuckle. :-)
I don't have to "Play with the truth" when it has already been given to me from the source of all truths. You see there are few, if any, people who understand any part of the philosophies formulated by me which, right or wrong, answer, to my great disappointment, the reason for our existence.
Oh Ok, then we are on the same page. I think if he read the whole chapter he would understand a lot better.
Yeah, you only have headaches when we want something.
Your right to make men suffer?
All because you don't like to have to DO something to earn MAN'S respect: put out. It's all about respect allright, as you women say. The problem is, I've figured it out more in detail what you mean by respect: that you don't want to have to earn HIS.
You know that's what you're doing, making men suffer. That's why you got to surround yourself with girlfriends and therapists who can assure you you're doing nothing wrong. The therapist will then tell you that your man's biological urges are an insecurity HE needs to fix. God slaps you and him in the face with a clever wink from omniscience: the-rapist (therapist)
Rape was ordered long ago for people like you.
Men can always find other avenues for releasing their hormone issues, and raping a women is not an option.
It's not about making anyone suffer? Give it a break.
Men do not suffer if they don't get sex. If they do, it's only to their own pathetic ego. Thus, so what.
What you just said PROVES my point.
Who's the egotistical one?
The man who actually has a legitimate biological need...
Or the woman who's only need is egotistical: to not have to earn respect by meeting his need?
Sounds like bait and I'm not biting. You're one who likes to play on words and twist to suit your own personal agenda, instead of addressing the facts of the situation.
Therefore, I will leave it simple for you to understand.
Right to life and right to choice/right to choose is given to each person on this planet.
Right to life - You are in control.
Right to choose- You are in control of what happens in your life.
Man and/or Woman, are equal. Period.
One may not infringe upon another person's individual rights. Period.
Woman chooses to not have sex with a man, regardless of reason, it is her RIGHT to make that CHOICE.
The man will have to find some other way to release his hormones. PERIOD!
Got it! Good! Have a great day!
Be a man, for yourself. Chicks like that and will want to do dirty things to you. It has NOTHING to do with anyone "having to DO something" to earn someone's respect.
The only "suffering" a real man, a confident, kind, compassionate man has to endure, is that of sore muscles and some fingernail damage in rows along his back.
Chicks offer it up if you are worthy of respect for who you ARE, not who you are proving yourself to be for them or whatever twisted thing you have in your head as how it is supposed to work. If women aren't trying to get with you, you need to figure out what's wrong with yourself, not what's wrong with them.
Then, you've just proven "god" doesn't exist or isn't perfect as claimed.
..of course "it" doesn't Cags, but scripture in the bible tells "believers" that "his" killers are rewarded with little girls to do with as they pls.
quark affirmed 'god' exists by engaging a self disputed probability. Thus making his pure and oh so perfect science fallible in himself.
I believe all sex is rape to a woman. She just likes to 'allow' the rape. I think this is the hidden mystery of women, revealed.
This is why women have an 'emotional' need for 'respect' before sex... at least that's the actual reason she has that need, anyway.
Isn't it against policy to have two threads by the same OP on the same subject or am I wrong?
You are obsessed with all these forums on rape and rapists.
I have a chill up my spine.
There will be no further comments from me.
by Grace Marguerite Williams 5 years ago
Religions have inculcated people that the feminine principle is evil as a result of the Adam and Eve mythology. Religions, especially patriarchical religions, have indoctrinated people that women were to controlled and subjugated to male authority. All aspects of women's power,...
by sadia101 12 months ago
What is the first thing that comes to your mind when you hear MUSLIMS?Now days it seems like the media loves one group, and talks about it all the time which is the adheres of Islam that are called Muslims. The average person who watches TV gets bombarded with this images, ideas, perspectives...
by Castlepaloma 3 years ago
All religion is founded on sex, and many people do not understand this ultimate love between a man and women. Yet GOD has no penis or a vagina, because God has both in one. So where is there a religion on Earth that presents men and women as exact equals.There are 5 Inspiring Religions That Worship...
by John Chartier 8 years ago
I started a 4 year Bible school, I am not sure where it is leading me, but I felt the need to do some writing along the way... if you are interested feel free to follow along....enough about me....Here is what I found very interesting, I have struggled with organized religions for a long time,...
by Link10103 4 years ago
I can understand the positives of putting your faith in such and such religion, which is why I do not think religion as a whole should be completely eradicated, however in this day and age I honestly wouldn't mind if it was.My question is this: why does religion NEED to exist? If you say "So...
by pisean282311 7 years ago
Ok..being atheist , you dont believe in any intelligent supreme being ...my question is, you began atheist because of your observiation , experience and what role has religion played in making you atheist?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|