4/23/09

Atheism, the Bible, Rape and EvilBible.com, part 3 of 6

Please note that this series has been republished beginning here.

30 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  2. No, Mariano. You're the one who does not get it:

    Deuteronomy 2121:10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive,

    21:11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;

    21:12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;
    Where is her permission implied, please?

    21:13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.

    I want you to tell me just where in hell her permission is even implied before the guy "goes in unto her"!

    21:14 And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.
    Yeah, after she's been taken as a captive, after she can't see her family anymore, after the guy has "went in unto her" without her consent (remember, no consent is implied here)...and besides, think about it: How did the guy "humble" her in the first place?

    This is nothing but spin-doctoring on your part.

    ReplyDelete
  3. >I want you to tell me just where in hell her permission is even implied before the guy "goes in unto her"!

    I reply: NONE of the ancient Rabbis or later Church Fathers understood it to mean a woman may be forced to have sex against her will. Jewish Tradition is very consistant on this matter. A husband may NOT EVER force his wife to have sex against her will.

    AT BEST(& you New Atheist Chuckleheads don't know this because you are ALWAYS rationalizing your ignorance of religion) SOME RABBIS thought this verse was the exception to the rule against FORNICATING with Gentile women or marrying Gentile Women. They didn't like it.

    But nobody understood it to be Divine Permission to Rape anymore then the Church Father thought "If your right eye offends thee pluck it out" to command self-mutilation (which is a sin).

    ReplyDelete
  4. >Yeah, after she's been taken as a captive, after she can't see her family anymore, after the guy has "went in unto her" without her consent (remember, no consent is implied here)...and besides, think about it: How did the guy "humble" her in the first place?

    >This is nothing but spin-doctoring on your part.


    I reply: Yet according to Josephus (Antiquities IV) if a man takes a Captive Woman for a wife to bear him children HE MUST BE considerate of her wishes.

    So even as far back as the first century where the armies of the surrounding pagan nations would rape captives & take them as sex slaves it is clear their Jewish contemporaries did not hold that view or understand Deuteronomy 21 in that manner.

    What we have here is spin-doctoring from an obvious uneducated teenager who knows nothing of the science of interpreting ancient documents or the cultural anthropology of the near east.

    Here is the deal. If I lost my faith & belief in God tomorrow I would conclude that any person who claimed the Bible authorizes rape is an incredulous buffoon.

    Clearly there is a species of uneducated/anti-intellectual popular atheism (fed by the likes of Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris etc) that is no better than the proverbial Flat Earth Fundamentalist. I long of the Atheists of yesteryear who AT LEAST tried to be logical & informed about religious matters. These New Atheists are about as useful to the cause of Reason as teats on a bull.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm talking about the Old Testament here, not the "first century" AD.

    Yeah, the OT really respected the rights of women. Other than the use of Tu Quoque I see nothing new there.

    So the guy was not permitted to touch her for 30 days? So what? How "kind" is it to have knocked off her family in the first place?

    Again, does the woman involved have any choice in this? Can she refuse to be taken in the first place? Ben, you only talk about: A husband may NOT EVER force his wife to have sex against her will....what about her choice to not live with the person in the first place? Any truly compassionate (which I admit is lacking in those times) society would have arranged to try to help out the widows and children regardless of whether they took them in as "wives" or not.

    The rest is just blah-blah-blah and name-calling from you.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Whoops. Forgot a link that may be relevent:

    http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2008/12/pound-of-silver.html

    ReplyDelete
  7. And yet, not one single rape has been mentioned nor even hintedActually, rape was more than hinted at. It was implied directly.

    Anyone familiar with Christian apologetics knows it's common to infer quite a bit despite what's written explicitly. it seems to me a bit hypocritical to ignore the implications when it suits you.

    ReplyDelete
  8. >I'm talking about the Old Testament here, not the "first century" AD.

    I reply: So HOW ancient Jews & later Christians TRADITIONALLY INTERPRETED this text is clearly irrelevant to you? Well that is NOT an intellectually valid or rational approach. It’s not convincing either. It just shows you are willfully reading into the text what YOU WANT it to mean. How is that honest? You don’t even have to believe in God to see that is just silly.

    >Yeah, the OT really respected the rights of women. Other than the use of Tu Quoque I see nothing new there.

    I reply: Moving the goal posts I see. You CAN’T answer my rebuttal from history so you throw out half a dozen NEW charges. As a Catholic I get this from the fundie readers of Chick Comics. I see the New Atheists are no better.

    It’s simple, show me the Church Fathers & Rabbis who agrees with your clams. Put up or shut up.

    Also off the top of my head there is the fact OT Judaism does not teach “equality” with women but it does teach “equity”.

    But that is clearly too sophisticated for you.

    >So the guy was not permitted to touch her for 30 days? So what? How "kind" is it to have knocked off her family in the first place?

    I reply: I’m sure there are plenty of German & Japanese orphans who could say the same thing about the allied troops who slew their parents. But you are assuming here the Israelites where waging an unjust war.

    Also this law by definition proscribes battlefield rape.

    >Again, does the woman involved have any choice in this?

    I reply: Josephus says so. Clearly she does not have to marry him. That is Tradition.

    >Can she refuse to be taken in the first place?

    I reply: No because she was captured fair & square. German Civilians couldn’t refuse being detained by allied troops.

    >Ben, you only talk about: A husband may NOT EVER force his wife to have sex against her will....what about her choice to not live with the person in the first place?

    I Reply: Jewish Tradition also says an adult woman cannot be forced to marry anyone against her will. Even thought in theory an underage woman can be forced by her father to marry against her will Rabbi Judah the Prince taught if you marry your underage daughter or son off to someone to satisfy their lust your name will be blotted from the Book of Life by God.

    Modern commentators have remarked this text seems to be more about war time romance rather then rape.

    >Any truly compassionate (which I admit is lacking in those times) society would have arranged to try to help out the widows and children regardless of whether they took them in as "wives" or not.

    I reply: Giving them the opportunity to be taken into Israelite society which was FAR MORE civilized & equitable toward women than pagan society (which had rape, ritual incest, bestiality, temple prostitution & inhuman child sacrifice). Besides the woman can’t be forced to marry or have sex with the man. Tradition is very clear. You are divorcing the Bible from history & that convinces nobody who takes the Bible seriously.

    >The rest is just blah-blah-blah and name-calling from you.

    I reply: It’s not my fault you are making pathologically stupid arguments. You are like the Atheist equivalent of a Young Earth Fiat Creationist telling someone like Richard Dawkins “Evolution must be false because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics” or similar such ignorant nonsense & you are about half as smart.

    >ttp://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2008/12/pound-of-silver.html

    I reply: Ah yes the New Atheist equivalent of "nswers in Genesis"& even less convincing.

    Another New Atheist writes:
    >>And yet, not one single rape has been mentioned nor even hintedActually, rape was more than hinted at. It was implied directly.

    I reply: Rather it hints the woman is shamed because she was captured in war. Not because she is going to be raped in 30 days time. The ignorance of Near East cultural Anthropology is amazing.

    >Anyone familiar with Christian apologetics knows it's common to infer quite a bit despite what's written explicitly.


    I reply: Rather irresponsible popular Atheists read into texts divorced from history the meaning they would like. Inference has always been historically part of historic bible interpretation. I know Jesus does not literally want me to pluck out my eye if I sin by looking at something forbidden.

    > it seems to me a bit hypocritical to ignore the implications when it suits you.
    I reply: Yes it is but we Christians are not the hypocrites here. It’s the A-historical popular Atheists who are using arguments an educated Atheist would balk using.


    I could deny God tommorow & I would still find this charge stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  9. BenYachov said...

    >I'm talking about the Old Testament here, not the "first century" AD.
    I reply: So HOW ancient Jews & later Christians TRADITIONALLY INTERPRETED this text is clearly irrelevant to you? 
    I'm just looking for interpretations as close as possible to the time that's written about. You say how it's "traditionally intepreted" but you don't actually describe it. You haven't answered the questions of: is the woman taken care of in some fashion even if she refuses the soldier's "offer" of marriage. Why should she have to marry someone who was responsible for wiping out her people in the first place?

    Well that is NOT an intellectually valid or rational approach. It’s not convincing either. It just shows you are willfully reading into the text what YOU WANT it to mean. How is that honest? You don’t even have to believe in God to see that is just silly. 
    Arrogrant prattle of yours ignored.

    Yeah, the OT really respected the rights of women. Other than the use of Tu Quoque I see nothing new there.I reply: Moving the goal posts I see. 
    Lie on your part. I'm trying to show that the woman didn't really have any choice in taking the guy as her husband from the plain reading of your holy texts.

    You CAN’T answer my rebuttal from history so you throw out half a dozen NEW charges. As a Catholic I get this from the fundie readers of Chick Comics. I see the New Atheists are no better. 
    Keep dreaming. All I see from you and your fellow apologists is just dodging on the plain intentions of "scripture". Nowhere does the bible imply that the woman has any choice in this, that she can refuse the marriage "offer" and still be taken care of in some fashion. The bible just talks about it from the male's poiont of view.

    It’s simple, show me the Church Fathers & Rabbis who agrees with your clams. Put up or shut up.According to what I was able to find...


    This shows that women were often treated as property in the OT, or at least not as well treated as men were.

    Look up "rape" on that page.

    For another example:
    "If any woman abstains from doing the work she ought to do [to serve her husband], one should force her to do it, even with a whip."

    (Maimonides, Laws of Interpersonal relations 21:10)
    Yeah, I'm going to find a lot of support among those guys.

    From what else I could findRape of captive women by soldiers has been the inevitable consequence of military action throughout history, as has been highlighted by recents events in Croatia. Can Deut. 21: 10ff be considered anti-rape legislation for soldiers at war? The answer is: not as it was eventually developed.

    Biblically, it seems the captive woman, by virtue of being a captive, has no choice but to go home with her captor. He is only allowed to have intercourse with her after a period of thirty days during which time she stays in his house. Clearly,
    immediate rape is not allowed. It can be understood that biblically we may be looking at anti-rape legislation for soldiers at war.Yet they, like you consider this to be "anti-rape"? Huh?

    So it's not immediate. That's not a hell of a lot of difference to me.

    We see actual anti-rape legislation for soldiers directly after battle in the Yerushalmi in Makkot 2: 6 - no intercourse is allowed with the captive unless all the rituals demanded biblically have been performed.

    However, this changes in the Bavli. The Bavli does not understand this section of Deuteronomy in the same way as the Yerushalmi. Rather we see in Kiddushin 21b the general agreement that a soldier is allowed one act of intercourse with a captive, but not on the battlefield. Whether he is allowed to have intercourse with her again before he brings her home is a matter of divided opinion. As the Bavli allows the soldier this one act of intercourse, what was biblical anti-rape legislation for soldiers after a battle can no longer be perceived as such.

    The Yerushalmi and the Bavli clearly disagree on this issue. As the Bavli is the authoritative Talmud halakhically, it is the Bavli's position that prevails. Thus Deut. 24: 10ff cannot be understood as anti-rape under current halakhah.
    The authors go on to justify this:
    A biblical imperative is sacrosanct, but the sages were unhappy with the situation of a heathen captive woman attached to an Israelite soldier. According to the Bavli sages in Kiddushin 21b, the permission offered to the soldier in this case is an accommodation to lust. The captive woman then becomes the vehicle for the satisfaction of his evil inclination. In bHullin 109b it is explained that the Torah forbids a man a non-Jewess, but permits him the captive woman. Not only is she the vehicle by which he releases his lust, she is not even his first choice. The captive woman can be described as a consolation prize.

    As these women were heathens and by definition sexually desirable, the sages felt threatened by the possibility that the captive women's sexual power might entice men away from Judaism. This attitude can be seen in the way the laws applicable to the captive woman were developed.

    Other than the compassion displayed by Maimonides, there was very little if any sympathy expended on the plight of the captive. The sages' major concern, given the inviolability of the biblical permission, was the conversion of the woman to Judaism. If that could not be done, then the absolute minimum was her conversion away from heathenism. Once the captive woman's heathenism could be obliterated, the effect of having a diverse and larger genetic pool could be accepted as beneficial.
    Their tail end conclusion is baffling. I can only assume that they're figuring that non-immediate rape was better than immediate rape or something.


    Also off the top of my head there is the fact OT Judaism does not teach “equality” with women but it does teach “equity”. 
    Doesn't look like it to me.

    But that is clearly too sophisticated for you. 
    But the plain reading and inferences of your holy text is too unpalatable for you, so you have to go scurrying around to find out what "tradition" says, even though "tradition" seems to be relatively quiet on this front also. As we've just seen, "tradition" doesn't seem to treat women very well either.

    So the guy was not permitted to touch her for 30 days? So what? How "kind" is it to have knocked off her family in the first place?I reply: I’m sure there are plenty of German & Japanese orphans who could say the same thing about the allied troops who slew their parents. But you are assuming here the Israelites where waging an unjust war. 
    Yes, there are. I never said that the modern wars were "just", did I? That's why I brought up the usage of Tu Quoque earlier. And let's see, why were they having this war again? For that matter, why did they have most of their wars? How many were in self-defense, and how many were because "god" was offended by the practices of the people living there? The ancient Isrealites were not really much better.


    Again, does the woman involved have any choice in this?I reply: Josephus says so. Clearly she does not have to marry him. That is Tradition. 
    Quote please. It sure doesn't say that she doesn't have to marry him in the bible. As well, if she refuses, is she still taken care in some way by the community?

    ReplyDelete
  10. "fucking fundie fucktards"
    The influx of genius here is overwhelming. I just may have to give up this theism thing; the arguments against are just too well considered.

    I'll assume the quoted genius is the author of the above anon diatribes as well.

    So I'm wondering: Given the atheist world view, what makes rape "morally" wrong? If anything, it would propagate the spread of the more aggressive and cunning animals' DNA. Where does one get one's moral ought (other than the jungle) in this situation?

    Ah, that's right, from Dawkins. I forgot. We just "dance" to our DNA in his world view - which is just another way of saying "all things are permissible", given that you can spin some sort of evolutionary story around it.

    ReplyDelete
  11. It’s ironic but I’ve been reading the Pearl Elman article you linked to for some weeks now & you clearly left out some stuff. Indeed you have badly misrepresented this article, VERY BADLY.

    It would have helped if you read the beginning summery to learn the author’s purpose in writing it.

    http://www.utoronto.ca/wjudaism/journal/vol1n1/v1n1.htm
    “anti-rape legislation is a pressing issue. Deuteronomy 21:10-14 contains what appears to be an ancient form of anti-rape legislation. The author examines the way in which the biblical provision was interpreted by post-biblical commentaries and halakhic sources. The Talmud Yerushalmi and the Talmud Bavli disagree on various issues concerning the captive woman, including the timing and the location of intercourse between the captor and the captive. The Yerushalmi clearly was against the rape of a captive woman at war, while the Bavli was primarily concerned with the threat of theological pollution posed by a foreign woman.”END QUOTE

    Clearly her intention was not to prove the Bible taught rape or that Judaism condoned rape.

    For example the statement The Yerushalmi and the Bavli clearly disagree on this issue. As the Bavli is the authoritative Talmud halakhically, it is the Bavli's position that prevails. Thus Deut. 24: 10ff cannot be understood as anti-rape under current halakhah.” DOES NOT MEAN Elman is claiming the biblical text condones rape or that the halakhah condones rape but rather the author Ms. Elman is offering the opinion that this text (i.e. Deut 21) is not specifically anti-rape legislation. Seduction Laws (old laws which jailed men who falsely used the promise of marriage in order to seduce a woman) are not specifically anti-rape legislation but it does not logically follow such laws or the Law in general condone rape.

    Elman is making a very careful analysis here.

    For example When was Intercourse with the Captive to take Place?

    QUOTE” Clearly, the Yerushalmi, Bavli, and Midrashei Halakhah did not understand the law in the same way. The Yerushalmi allows intercourse only after a thirty day period, and then conversion. The two Midrashei Halakhah allow intercourse only after conversion. The Bavli allows intercourse, but only once, before the captor is required to accept responsibility.

    The Bavli goes on to say that a captive woman must be taken only for the warrior himself and not for someone else, and he must not oppress her (yelahatsenah) on the battlefield. The sages derive this teaching from the precise sequence recorded in Deut. 21: 11,12: you desire her, and you want to take her as a wife, then you shall bring her to your home, but you must not oppress her on the battlefield (bKiddushin 22a).The root lahatz is also used biblically to describe incidents of oppression (Exod. 3: 9, Jud. 4: 3 and others). From the sexual context of the discussion in the Bavli, and the fact that one act of intercourse is actually permitted, the 'oppression' could be understood to be intercourse. If intercourse is meant, it is difficult to know exactly what the Bavli sages intended by this admonition. Did they consider the one permitted act of intercourse to be an act of oppression? If they did, does the prohibition against it mean that intercourse occurs not on the battlefield, but only after the warrior takes her home and the proper waiting time has passed, or, conversely, does it mean that intercourse occurs not on the battlefield per se, but somewhere private near by, but still before she is converted ? A private place seems to be indicated, based on the case of priests: they as priests cannot take the captive woman home but they are permitted one act of intercourse.

    If, on the other hand, the sages did not consider the first act of intercourse an oppressive act, what exactly do they intend by the term lahatz? Possibly, even though they permit one act of intercourse, the sages are prohibiting rape on the battlefield. If that is so, the exact parameters of that prohibition remain unclear.This possible prohibition against rape seems to address only warriors who are in the process of taking a captive home as a wife. It can be construed that rape is not allowed on the battlefield because presumably, the warrior will be able to have intercourse with her after they are married. Priests are not allowed to marry captives, but are allowed one act of intercourse. If this is a prohibition against rape, does it extend to priests also? This does not seem to be addressed.Midrash Hagadol and Midrash Tannaim also state, with respect to the biblical requirement "you shall bring her to your house," that the warrior should not oppress her on the battlefield. They seem to understand this in the same way as the Bavli, but the issue of men who are not allowed to take the captive home, i.e., priests, is again not addressed.

    Maimonides, Hilkhot Melakhim 8: 3ff, seems to interpret the passage discussed in the following way: a warrior is allowed one act of intercourse which must be in a private place. It seems a priest is allowed this act without any responsibility as he is not allowed to marry her. This opinion is quoted by Nahmanides in his commentary on Deuteronomy. He states that the simple meaning of the Bible is to prohibit intercourse until after the entire conversion procedure is complete, and that the Yerushalmi agrees with the simple meaning. He explains that the Bavli Kiddushin prohibition against oppression on the battlefield means that the soldier takes her home, has intercourse with her once, and then cannot have intercourse again with her until the entire conversion procedure is complete. Nahmanides, like the other commentators, does not address the issue of the priests and the captive woman.END QUOTE

    Sorry buddy but I have been reading this article for a couple of weeks now. Elman says at the beginning of this article that the hebrew word “Anah” alone would not mean necessarily rape, but simply sexual violence of some sort. She never really defines what the difference is between “rape” vs “sexual violence” if any. Her ambiguity is less than helpful.

    Also you cite her conclusion “Other than the compassion displayed by Maimonides, there was very little if any sympathy expended on the plight of the captive.” But ignore the fact she ADMITED the Bavli said the warrior must not oppress the woman on the battle field & went on to explain that could very well mean not to rape her.

    Also I might add from my own learnings the Jerusalem Talmud (i.e. the Yerushalmi) is older than the Babylonian Talmud (i.e. the Bavli) & represents the ANCIENT tradition of the Jews (which the Bavli later changed) and according to Elman it understood Deut. 21 to be specifically anti-rape legislation.

    Still all this means is that the early Jerusalem Talmud disagrees with the later Bavri wither this is verse is specifically anti-rape legislation. It does not logically follow that either is teaching a man may rape a woman. Especially in light of what the Bavri says elsewhere.


    >> Josephus says so. Clearly she does not have to marry him. That is Tradition.

    >Quote please. It sure doesn't say that she doesn't have to marry him in the bible. As well, if she refuses, is she still taken care in some way by the community?

    I reply: Hello, this VERY article (which you clearly didn’t read carefully) says so at the end of the second to last paragraph of third section titled “The Biblical and Post-Biblical Attitudes to the Captive Woman”.

    QUOTE “Josephus in his discussion of the captive woman (Antiquities IV: 258 [5]) mentions that when a man takes a woman in order to have children by her, he should be considerate of her wishes. The fact that he mentions this directly in relation to the captive woman is significant.”

    Finally thought it is an interesting article in general Elman focuses too much on the Talmudic commentary of this specific Biblical text divorced from the rest of Jewish Law & it’s implications. Jewish Scholar Rachel Baile whose book WOMEN AND JEWISH law is must read, points out in Kiddushin 2a in regards to marriage which is in the Bavi clearly states “a woman is acquired, only with her consent and not without it.”

    Also Chapter 5 of the same book deals with Laws of Sex within marriage & shows a man may not demand sex from his wife but she may demand it from him & Chapter 10 deals with rape in Jewish Law. Biale cites dozens & dozens of Rabbis from the Bavri to Maimonides who clearly condemn all rape within marriage even thought the concept of rape in marriage was alien to English Common Law & is only realized in modern times.

    Since Elman citing many Rabbis sees Deut 21 as dealing with marriage those laws would apply.

    Also Rabbi Steinsaltz who produced the definitive English translation of the Talmud to date said of the Halakhah summaries found at the bottom of the Tractates in the Gemera said QUOTE “it should be noted that the summery of the Halakhah presented here is not meant to serve as a reference source for actual religious practice but to introduce the reader to halakhic conclusions drawn from the Talmudic text," (The Talmud, Steinsaltz Edition Vol 18 Tractate Sanhedrin Part 4 page X).”END QUOTE

    So taking the WHOLE of the Jewish Law & in spite of Elman narrow analysis it is clear to me you cannot force a woman to have sex with you against her will or to marry her against her will. Also taken at face value it is clear the earliest Jewish sources (going back to actual bible times) understood Deut 21 to be anti-rape legislation even if later ones down played it or discarded it (sort of gives new meaning to Jesus raging on the Pharisees for nullifying the word of God with “Traditions of Men” instead of authentic tradition 2 Thes 2:15) because they feared heathen women marrying Jewish men.

    BTW you left out Elman’s whole discussion about how the Bavri discouraged Jewish men from getting a wife in this manner since it might produce an evil & rebellious son. So no matter how you cut it (Elman’s questionable unstated distinctions between rape vs sexual violence) it still seems clear to me the Bible doesn’t condone rape.

    >Keep dreaming. All I see from you and your fellow apologists is just dodging on the plain intentions of "scripture".

    I reply: Yet even Elman admits the early sources (Josephus, the Mishnah & the Jerusalem Talmud) understood it to be anti-rape legislation even if the Babylonian Talmud downplayed or discarded that later on(while not condoning rape) but of course even Elman says “Maimonides interprets her stay in his house for a month in a way that is sympathetic to the captive. He explains that she needs the month to mourn her losses and that during this month she may decide that she wants to marry him.”

    So you have failed to back up your claim when the whole of the evidence is taken into account.
    Also you have not carefully read the article.

    Now for some lose ends.

    >This[Talkreason web link] shows that women were often treated as property in the OT, or at least not as well treated as men were.

    I reply: Yes Talkreason is an anti-religious website run by Jewish Atheist Mark Perakh who is a professor emeritus of Mathematics and statistical mechanics at California State University, Fullerton in Fullerton, California according to the Wikipedia. However it is clear the man has no professional understanding of ancient near east studies or of Jewish studies. He is no better than Dawkins who like him thinks because he is a scientist he is an automatic expert in everything.

    Rachel Biale OTOH has a BA and MA in Jewish History from UCLA and her MSW from Yeshiva University. So I would trust her analysis & criticism more than the likes of Perskh.

    >Look up "rape" on that page.

    I reply: Yeh the guy is a nutball. He thinks the Bible taught ancient Israelites to practice child sacrifice. He really is no better than the Evil Bible people. He is some fringe person no respectable near east scholar would take seriously.

    >If any woman abstains from doing the work she ought to do [to serve her husband], one should force her to do it, even with a whip."
    (Maimonides, Laws of Interpersonal relations 21:10)

    I reply: Yes he said that but he also taught rape in marriage was a sin & he taught the Captive women’s desires should be taken into account.

    I reply: Anyway you clearly haven’t made your case in fact the evidence you provided clearly suggests the opposite of your claim in my judgment.

    >But the plain reading and inferences of your holy text is too unpalatable for you, so you have to go scurrying around to find out what "tradition" says, even though "tradition" seems to be relatively quiet on this front also.

    I reply: Even Elman says "Thus although there is no specific mention of rape in Deuteronomy 21:14, the word 'initah implies that the woman's consent (if any) to intercourse was due to her circumstances."

    Meaning she might not have considered marrying him if he did not take her prisoner & carry her off in the 1st place. Thus it's not a "plain" meaning of the text at all.

    >Nowhere does the bible imply that the woman has any choice in this,

    I reply: Doesn't have to. I am Catholic so I reject Sola Scriptura but even the Protestants admit some tradition & reject solo scriptura..

    >Lie on your part. I'm trying to show that the woman didn't really have any choice in taking the guy as her husband from the plain reading of your holy texts.

    I reply: The lie is yours. A pagan warrior would simply violate her on the field of battle & leave her to die. The Torah commands responsiblity.

    >'m just looking for interpretations as close as possible to the time that's written about.

    I reply: Which would be the Mishnah, Josephus & the Jerusalem Talmud which as Elman says understood this to be anti-rape legislation.

    >You say how it's "traditionally intepreted" but you don't actually describe it.

    I reply: There are responsible scholarly books on the subject if you where really interested I would recommend some. But you are an Atheist & so far have expressed little desire to learn about theology or the history of doctrine.

    >You haven't answered the questions of: is the woman taken care of in some fashion even if she refuses the soldier's "offer" of marriage.

    I reply: I don't know I am narrowly looking at the charge the Bible authorizes rape. Moving the goal posts & muliplying tangents is still a cheap dishonest tactic.

    >Why should she have to marry someone who was responsible for wiping out her people in the first place?

    I reply: If I believe Josephus as cited by Elman clearly she doesn't have to marry him.


    >And let's see, why were they having this war again? For that matter, why did they have most of their wars? How many were in self-defense, and how many were because "god" was offended by the practices of the people living there? The ancient Isrealites were not really much better.


    I reply: This proves you didn't read Elman because she discusses the difference between compulsory wars(i.e God Commended) vs non-compulsory wars in the very article you cited. Captive Women could only be taken in non-compulsory wars.

    But that is off topic as are most of your new charges. Bottom line you have failed to prove the Bible allows rape. Failed.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Biale's book is great stuff.

    Some additional thoughts from Biale. Judaism teaches that a Jewish man & a single Jewish woman can contract a legally valid marriage if they both a) agree to be married b) have sex to seal the agreement.

    This is called "marriage threw intercourse" & thought it might contract a legal marriage the Rabbis came to believe it was an immoral way to contract a marriage.

    On Fornication vs Rape.
    The Rabbis make a distinction between a Seducer vs a Violator. A Seducer is still considered to have "violated/shamed" a woman he seduces since he is seen as having forced her by overcoming her will by tempting her to lust & passion.


    Also according to Rachel Biale's book WOMAN AND THE JEWISH LAW if a man forces himself on a woman but she during the sex act consents & professes to have enjoyed it the man is still guilty of violating her.

    We hear how rape victims are told by insensitive scum "You enjoyed it" or "If it's inevitable lie back & enjoy it." (see AGAINST OUR WILL by Brownmiller).

    Well in the Jerusalem Talmud a woman tells her Rabbi "I was Raped" & the Rabbi said "Well it was a pleasure to you in the end right?". The woman who was quite bright replied "If I stuck my finger in honey & forced it in your mouth on Yom Kipor(a fast day) it would be a pleasure to you in the end". The Rabbi said "I accept this".

    Thus even the lame excuse "She enjoyed it"(which is BS anyway) still made the man a violator & the woman a victim.

    These ancient jewish people all read the OT so where is Dan Barkar's biblical rape culture?

    ReplyDelete
  13. In all your nattering about how "misrepresented" her article, you've left out somethings. The fact that I did note that she considered it "anti-rape" material, even though for some reason the verses under discussion she admits only prohibit (as I bolded: immediate rape).

    So bloody what? Later rape (or in this case, forced marriage) still amounts to the same thing.

    I reply: This proves you didn't read Elman because she discusses the difference between compulsory wars(i.e God Commended) vs non-compulsory wars in the very article you cited. Captive Women could only be taken in non-compulsory wars.I don't care about "compulsory" wars vs. "non-compulsory wars". It's tangential to the issue. Who cares under what circumstance that women were allowed to be taken? I'm talking about the fact that they were bloody taken period!Besides, I did make reference to wars in my last post.

    But that is off topic as are most of your new charges. Bottom line you have failed to prove the Bible allows rape. Failed.Dodge all you want.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Whoops. It should read: "In all your nattering about how I "misrepresented" her article, you've left out something."

    That's all I'm up for now.

    ReplyDelete
  15. >The fact that I did note that she considered it "anti-rape" material, even though for some reason the verses under discussion she admits only prohibit (as I bolded: immediate rape).

    I reply: QUOTE“Josephus in his discussion of the captive woman (Antiquities IV: 258 [5]) mentions that when a man takes a woman in order to have children by her, he should be considerate of her wishes. The fact that he mentions this directly in relation to the captive woman is significant.”END QUOTE

    You didn't know Elman mentioned Josephus who clearly said the man must seek the woman's consent later on & taken at face value it is clear the early Jewish Tradition strictly demanded no sex for 30 days even if they disagree wuther she had to convert to Judaism. before or after.

    >So bloody what? Later rape (or in this case, forced marriage) still amounts to the same thing.

    I reply: From the Bavri (which Elman did not consider) Kiddushin 2a “a woman is acquired, only with her consent and not without it."

    >I don't care about "compulsory" wars vs. "non-compulsory wars". It's tangential to the issue.

    I reply: Good because either you prove the Bible supported by tradition commands rape or you concede you don't know enough to comment with any authority.

    I've defended the Talmud from the smears of White Supremacists( the "brights" among them might quote self-hating Atheist Jews like Israel Shahak or Perakh for their charges Judaism & thus Jews are evil) who have made claims like the Talmud teaches men may have sex with 3 year olds.

    The "Bible teaches Rape" charge is in the same intellectual sphere.

    Let me give you some advice as I return to reading Biale's book on WOMEN AND THE JEWISH LAW.(it was very helpful in answering the Child molesting charge. Also Biale is some kind of liberal reformed Jew so you can't say her work is fundamentalist Jewish propoganda so don't even try).

    The Rape thingy isn't going to get you anywhere since elsewhere in other sections of the Bavri not brought up by Elman, Biale documents dozens of Rabbis who CLEARLY teach that it is forbidden to even force your wife to have sex. Plus it is forbidden to force a women you are not married too to have sex. There are far far more of them then are mentioned in the Elman article.

    If you are going to play the "evilbible" game you would do better bringing up verse not "re-interpreted"(your meme) by the Fathers or the Rabbis.

    Like the slaughter of the Canaanites. I don't deny God ordered their deaths & neither do either the Rabbis or the Church Fathers.

    There you could make a plausible argument of an "evilbible".

    But so far this "Bible teaches rape" thingy is getting you nowhere. At best the Bavri Rabbis thought Deut 21 was the exception to the rule against fornication with heathen women.

    Kiddushin 2a “a woman is acquired[in marriage], only with her consent and not without it."

    Not working for ya.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Finally some more pearls of wisdom from the Elman article which Anonymous thinks helps his charge that the Bible teaches Rape. But as I have shown doesn't work for him.

    QUOTE" 6. On the Conversion of Captive Women

    It would seem that the sages were greatly concerned with the theological threat posed by an unconverted woman. The post-biblical sources all forbid an Israelite man marrying a non-Israelite woman.

    However, there seems to be divided opinion as to the captive woman's choices. Some sources conclude she was converted by force; others state that she could opt to accept the seven Noahide commandments. If she exercised the latter option, the Israelite was forbidden to marry her, and she became a resident alien. If she refused even the Noahide commandments after staying with the man for a year, she was killed."END QUOTE this is the conclusion of section six.

    In third paragraph is states:
    QUOTE"Midrash Hagadol states that if she doesn't want to convert after thirty days, she is given twelve months' time for consideration (megalgel alehah).[9] If she doesn't want to convert after that, she accepts upon herself the seven Noahide commandments and becomes like all resident aliens. If she doesn't want to accept the seven commandments after the twelve month period, she is killed. This commentary adds a completely new perspective on the issue of conversion: it would seem that according to the Midrash Hagadol, conversion is not mandatory, but neither is heathenism allowed."END QUOTE

    Thus the early Jerusalem Talmud which is the earlier Tradition & is closer to Bible Times is more civil.

    Thus this makes the last two sentences of the whole essay all the more meaningful.

    Legislating behaviour is no guarantee that it will be followed, but it does demonstrate the intention of the legislators.The Yerushalmi clearly was against rape of captive women by soldiers at war. In light of recent events in Bosnia, it must be appreciated how ethically and morally forward this thinking was.So it seems Elman agrees with my analysis.

    Bottom line the Bible doesn't teach Rape & early Tradition supports that. Deal with it.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Been doing more research.

    In Rachel Biale’s book WOMEN AND THE JEWISH LAW page 252 Tractate Eruvin teaches that a man may not abuse the mitzvah of having sexual relations for the sake of onah and procreation to force his wife to have sex against her will. It is believed by Rabbi Rami ben Hama citing Rav Assi that Proverbs 19:2 “he that hasteth with his feet sinneth” is a sexual metaphor about a man who forces his wife into marital acts. The part of the same verse that says “Also, without consent the soul is not good” is a similar metaphor.

    Also Rabbi IKA ben Hinena agrees with this interpretation. A husband forcing a wife to have sex against her will is committing a sinful act & also if he has sex twice in a row with her. In the Gemara, Raba says having sex twice in a row will grant male children but the argument is settled by pointing out that will only occur only if she consents otherwise her passion will not be there and child born of such a union will be wicked.

    Rashi, Rabad, Avraham Ben Duvid & Maimonides all agree rape in marriage is a sin.

    Thus according to ancient Jewish doctrine marital rape is a sin. This is the Halakhah & in 1982 the Israeli Supreme Court used this Halakhah to convict a man of raping his own wife.

    Thus even if it could be proved a Captive woman can be forced to marry a man against her will or convert to Judaism it is clear she can’t be made to have sex with him.

    Which leads to what Rachel Biale writes on pages 88-89 about the two types of “rebellious women“ which is part of her analysis of Tractate Ketubot. A “rebellious woman” is a Jewish wife who refuses to have sex with her husband. Now Type One is one who wants to have sex with her husband but refuses in order torment, manipulate, or punish him for some type of perceived wrong. Or to get him to give her gifts. Such a woman can be punished by a Bet Din(court) & if she is obstinate in her refusal to have sex the husband is urged to divorce her. In some case the Rabbis may compel the husband to divorce her against his will since the Commandment to Procreate cannot be observed. The woman will be given a Get & be fined her divorce settlement (i.e Ketubah).

    The Second Type of rebellious woman is one who refuses to have sex with her husband because she says “he is repulsive to me”. Meaning to put it crudely he doesn’t “do it” for her in the making her swoon category. He can be compelled to divorce her & she doesn’t lose her Ketubah. There is much argument between the Rabbis how to keep this from being abused so as to keep a woman from forcing a divorce.

    Still during all this a wife cannot be forced to have sex with her husband.

    ReplyDelete
  18. To hear an opposing point of view the Jewish Emncylopedia seem to disagree with some of the claims made by Elman.


    http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=37&letter=W&search=War

    One who takes possession of a female captive during war may not cast her off; but, if she be willing to accept the Jewish religion, her captor must keep her in his house for three months, this being the accepted interpretation of "yeraḥ yamim" (Deut. xxi. 13), and then marry her. If at the end of the three months he did not wish to marry her, he must not sell her into slavery, but must send her away free. Should she be unwilling to accept the Jewish faith, he may continue to keep her for twelve months and use peaceful persuasion; but if at the end of that period she is still steadfast in her determination, he must send her away free. At no time may the captor employ compulsory measures to force her into the Jewish faith. If he belongs to the family of Aaron, he can not marry her, as the Jewish law prohibits a Kohen from marrying a proselyte (Yeb. 48b; Kid. 21b et seq.; Maimonides, "Yad," Melakim, viii. 2-7).

    Bibliography: Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible, s.v. War;
    Spitzer, Heer und Wehrgesetz der Alten Israeliten, Griechen und Römer, ch. xix., Vinkovcze, 1879

    Just putting it out there.

    ReplyDelete
  19. That's a relief at least if this checks out; I'll read more of this on my own time to check this out more.

    It's just too bad that all the defense had to come from extra-biblical sources.

    Mind you, as I've been reminded elsewhere recently (long story), none of this has any relevence as to the existence of the judeo-christian god in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Nuts. I forgot to say, with all the extra-biblical sources, what are we supposed to assume is the basis for those traditions? At least with the bible (or Torah), it's alleged to have come from "god".

    ReplyDelete
  21. >It's just too bad that all the defense had to come from extra-biblical sources.

    I reply: As a Catholic I reject "Sola Scriptura". That having been said Christian Charity compleles me to think that even the most ardent but reasonable Sola Scriptura Protestant knows better than to divorce the Bible from History or it's historic understanding.

    That is what the Atheists at EvilBible & their fellow travellers are doing.

    ReplyDelete
  22. oooh

    ""I reply: As a Catholic I reject "Sola Scriptura". That having been said Christian Charity compels me to think that even the most ardent but reasonable Sola Scriptura Protestant knows better than to divorce the Bible from History or it's historic understanding.""

    So god is absolute in morality, but we must understand the bible with moral relativism.

    Such incompetence for a deity in writing the inerrant word, that the message must be interpreted by linguistic gymnastics. Could have made the message to man in 400 words, but decided he needed 16 million words instead.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Hi Everybody (a different Anonymous)

    I appreciate that I'm joining this debate a little late but I have a few points that puzzle me.

    Firstly, BenYachov points out that 'traditional' interpretation of the passages rules that they don't imply rape. This is all good and well for the scholar but most of the Bible readers do not have this insight. They will read it as they see it. Winners can take the women. Even if it's not rape it's kidnapping which, last time I looked was still both illegal and immoral. If the Bible, as it is read by millions, needs to be 'interpreted' by learned men and if it is the true word of God, why did the writer not make this clearer?
    Why does the passage not say:
    "As per the law they offered the women safe and secure shelter with the possibility of matrimony at a later date if this suited both parties equally". No ambiguity there..
    Also, in a court of law if you suggested that you took a woman without her will and 'went in' to her during this period of captivity (however long afterwards) I think they would probably consider it rape and that all right-minded Christians would be appalled as with the recent highly publicised case.

    ReplyDelete
  24. @anon

    They will read it as they see it.
    What do they actually read? A translation. A translation of texts written many centuries ago. By people with different culture, different mentality.
    Passeges from text written a couple of centries ago might be hard to understand, so it should be suprise to anyone.
    Bible translations are getting better: they borrow best phrases from each other, modern language is wider and wider used, new manuscripts are discovered and so on.
    Maybe discussed passage was clear back then or the law was first established with spoken tradition and written down after some time not precisely enough so spoken commentary was passed from generation to generation and also written down at some moment.
    To sum it up: people speake many different languages and laguages change with time and so does the culture which give the context.

    What bugs me here is why people analyze every jota of Jewish law rather than focusing on God's universal message, the message of Love?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city. (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)


    Definition of "ravished"
    rav·ish (rāv'ĭsh)
    tr.v. rav·ished, rav·ish·ing, rav·ish·es

    To seize and carry away by force.

    To force (another) to have sexual intercourse; rape.

    To overwhelm with emotion; enrapture. See Synonyms at enrapture.


    [Middle English ravisshen, from Old French ravir, raviss-, from Vulgar Latin *rapīre, from Latin rapere, to seize; see rep- in Indo-European roots.]
    rav'ish·er n.

    The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
    Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
    Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

    I REALLY doubt it was the third one tht GOD HIMSELF is referring to.

    For such a "divinly written" text,it seems like there's a lot of gray areas. Maybe he shouldn't have confused everybody's languages at Babylon, hmm?

    BenYachov, I must admit that I respect yu for putting up such a fight and standing by your believes, even if I don't agree. But certainly you see that you are CONSTANTLY employing a double standard here!

    You attack the author of that page of evilbible for inferring what many others would infer--that GOD is condoning rape, slavery and murder (War does not justify murder, especially if you weren't provoked, which Deutoronomy 21:10 basically exemplifies). This of course s egardless of the biblical proof they give.

    At the same time you defend your statements using the ideas and opinions of Jewish scholars and Rabbis and what not based on what the INFERRED from... well, you don't really giveout much proof. And OF COURSE Jewish Rabbi's and Christian Priests won't say that thier God condones murder, rape, war or slavery! They wouldn't be able to keep thier strong following up for very long if they did that! Its like how realestate agents sell houses that look perfect on the outside but leave out the fact that the place is frequently hit by Tornados and Earhquakes and what have you. Not many people would like to live there,I'm afraid...at least if they had a choice.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Here I thought this thread was dead.


    >So god is absolute in morality, but we must understand the bible with moral relativism.

    I reply: The above is an incoherent & ambiguous statement. We must interpret the Bible according to the Tradition. What does that have to do with believe the concepts of right & wrong are relative?

    >Such incompetence for a deity in writing the inerrant word, that the message must be interpreted by linguistic gymnastics. Could have made the message to man in 400 words, but decided he needed 16 million words instead.

    I reply: You assuming here (without Biblical/logical/philosophical proof) that Scripture was meant to be perspicuous. Historic Christians & Jews simply didn't make that assumption. So why should I?

    ReplyDelete
  27. >Winners can take the women. Even if it's not rape it's kidnapping which, last time I looked was still both illegal and immoral.

    I reply: How do you know it's kidnapping according to the ancient rules of war? Even in modern rules of war suspicious civilians can be detained and refugees can be forcibly moved or interned by an occupying army for humanitarian reasons. If they are treated in a human way.

    >If the Bible, as it is read by millions, needs to be 'interpreted' by learned men and if it is the true word of God, why did the writer not make this clearer?

    I reply: Your assuming the Bible was meant to be the sole rule of faith without tradition. I don't make that assumption. Your assuming it was meant to be read & interpreted privately. Historically that is simply not the case.

    >Why does the passage not say etc:

    I reply: Why does it need too? Tradition already provides for it's true meaning. I believe the Rule of Faith is Scripture & Tradition not scripture alone.

    >Also, in a court of law if you suggested that you took a woman without her will and 'went in' to her during this period of captivity (however long afterwards) I think they would probably consider it rape and that all right-minded Christians would be appalled as with the recent highly publicised case.

    I reply: Well if an WW2 Allied Soldier took a German woman who had been lawfully involuntarily evacuated back to base & she married him of her own free will I don't see how a court would see it as rape.

    ReplyDelete
  28. >Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city. (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)


    >Definition of "ravished"
    rav·ish (rāv'ĭsh)
    tr.v. rav·ished, rav·ish·ing, rav·ish·es


    I reply: You left out verse 3 " Then the LORD will go out and fight against those nations, as he fights in the day of battle.etc". So what is your point? The prophesy says enemy nations will attack Israel (& rape their women) & God will avenge them by attacking them. How is that a command authorizing rape? Foretelling evil is not the same as commanding it. Plus I would be more impressed if you cited the Hebrew instead of the English translation. This is just weak with all due respect.

    ReplyDelete
  29. >But certainly you see that you are CONSTANTLY employing a double standard here!

    I reply: No I've been 100% consistent. I deny the Bible is perspicuous, categorically. I deny Sola Scriptura & interpretation without Tradition. Historically this is how Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, other eastern Churches, & Orthodox Jews have interpreted the scripture. Why should I interpret scripture any other way?

    >You attack the author of that page of evilbible for inferring what many others would infer--that GOD is condoning rape, slavery and murder (War does not justify murder, especially if you weren't provoked, which Deutoronomy 21:10 basically exemplifies). This of course s egardless of the biblical proof they give.

    I reply: Rather I attack him for his willful ignorance of the history of authentic Biblical interpretation. Also you are again assuming the Bible MUST be perspicuous. It's not. Funny, I take it you might be an Atheist/Agnostic yet you seem to firmly believe in the Protestant doctrines of Perspicuity & Sola Scriptura more so than your average Protestant. Isn't that a little weird? It's like a Deist or Pantheist believing in Transubstantiation or Papal Infallibility. Why?

    If I denied the existence of God tomorrow my low opinion of EvilBible's brain dead tripe wouldn't change. It's garbage. Intelligent persons, Atheist or Christian should regard it as such.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Thanks man it's funny watching people on here trying to tell you that you're the one that doesn't get lol evilbible is a terrible site I don't know any educated atheist that uses it only fundies.

    ReplyDelete