Posted on 07/31/2010 6:26:07 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
Lev 18:6,7 states, None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD The nakedness of thy father or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
Thus sex with “thy father” is outlawed, as the parallel command of Dt. 22:30 also euphemistically disallows, and the only missing detail here is that of the added emphasis upon the mother, but which does not negate the father, and that the daughter is not specifically commanded (or elsewhere in this chapter, save v. 23), though these were the initiators in Gn. 19, and it is hardly tenable that these commands only apply to the males, and if sex with "thy father" only applies to the son then it would be redundant of v. 22. In addition the only recorded instances of this type of union is negatively portrayed, while sexual relations outside marriage is never sanctioned either, and non-virgin unmarried daughters would typically face a real problem, as well a loss of dowry.
Thus we have zero positive and only negative statements that the Bible sanctions and does not condemn father-daughter incestuous relations, and those that seek legal loopholes must restrict “thy father” to only males, and rely upon extrapolating sanction out of a lack of comparable detail, and a drunken man unknowingly committing incest, resulting in future grief for Israel. Which wicked imaginations are not new, (Prov. 6:18) and such are not worthy of entertaining as viable.
You aimed the accusation at the Christians, on the basis of daniel1212's remarks; but what you failed to notice was that he wasn't trying to tar atheists by mentioning Hitler; he was recounting one of the atheist techniques to try to tie Hitler to Christians.
Cheers!
Not necessarily...but the point is *YOUR* logical error, in thinking that a verse which says "Don't do your father, don't do your mother" still allows incest.
Since most people in the Western world disapprove of incest; and since most in the also hold that the Bible forbids it; I begin to wonder why you are so anxious to spread the meme that the Bible really allows father-daughter incest.
It's not like there's going to be a large underground audience waiting for this, as there might be for libertarians who wish to ease narcotics laws...
Cheers!
It's only intellectually dishonest to use such a broad brush, and to deny learned commentary from within the scholarly tradition of a faith when it is against you, but to rely upon the same scholarly commentary as disposative when it makes a point you wish to advance.
BTW, show me where the Bible says that genocide and slavery are generally enjoined as an overarching principle; and show me the Jewish commentators (such as, say, Maimonides) who say that it is recommended to Jews at all times and places to rape and enslave, or to commit genocide on an ongoing, open-ended basis.
Cheers!
I think it's better to reply to kos mainly for the sake of the lurkers, as he likes to change definitions, move the goalposts, and other similar things not in keeping with good faith disputation
BTW, kosta -- where in the Bible is rape recommended?
Cheers!
Your unsolicited (and overdue) reiterpretations are tiresome. Read the first sentence of his #211. It says:
"Your [meaning mine] insistent denials and commitment to impute immorality here are akin to atheists who contend Hitler was a Christian."
The remark was about me, the content of the remark was to liken me to atheists making false accusations—which is labeling. Comparing someone to a group or to individuals generally viewed in a negative light is not dealing with issues but hoping to score a point on character assassination.
Wrong as usual. The problem is that it says "mothers don't do your son," "sons' don't do you mothers, don't do your sisters, don't do your aunts", etc. but it doesn't say "fathers don't do your daughters." Again, father-daughter incest is the most common form of incest in human history to this day. Leaving it out in a chapter that deals with every other type of incestuous combinations cannot be an omission. It should top the list.
Since most people in the Western world disapprove of incest; and since most in the also hold that the Bible forbids it;
Your statement seem detached from reality. The Western world may officially disapprove of it, and just because the Bible prohibits something never stopped everyone from doing it, but father-daughter incests is still number one incestuous offense being committed in the world, including the Western world. So, I don't know what your point is. My guess is there isn't one. What else is new?
I begin to wonder why you are so anxious to spread the meme that the Bible really allows father-daughter incest.
Don't strain that neuron too much. May not have a spare. I am not spreading any memes to that effect. Simply put, it doesn't prohibit it.
It's not like there's going to be a large underground audience waiting for this, as there might be for libertarians who wish to ease narcotics laws...
Wow. Thanks for your unsolicited and completely off target comments.
I don't recall saying it is "recommended"; I would say condoned or even called for, definitely. But you weill just have to look that up. Otherwise you will have to ask silly questions all your life.
Now read the last seven words of the quoted sentence from #211.
atheists who contend Hitler was a Christian.
*THAT* is attempting to condemn by association.
Pointing out your arguments resemble that in attitude, is not attempting to get people to hiss at you merely by reputation: it is a comment directly on the argument you are attempting to make.
Cheers!
I guess for you (as for Bill Clinton), it depends on what the meaning of the word 'any' is.
Your statement seem detached from reality. The Western world may officially disapprove of it, and just because the Bible prohibits something never stopped everyone from doing it, but father-daughter incests is still number one incestuous offense being committed in the world, including the Western world. So, I don't know what your point is. My guess is there isn't one. What else is new?
You say this as though you are proud of father-daughter incest.
And without sources, either. What are the absolute numbers? How do they compare to the number of people who never commit nor suffer incest? Or, for that matter, to step-father/step-daughter sex, or "mom's new boyfriend with the mother and the daughter" relations?
People run red lights too, nor are red lights mentioned in the Bible; and they are manifestly a cultural construct. But this is no reason to get rid of traffic lights.
Cheers!
You wrote in post #205 --
What may be rape to some, may be "pleasure" or even a "right" to others.
and in post #209 --
I would gladly analyze the arguments for sanctioned rape and discuss them with a reasonable man, which i wish you were by God's grace,
<snip>
To your bible-sanctioned slavery is 'defensible' and so is probably bible-sanctioned rape
I took sanctioned to mean "enjoined" or "recommended" rather than "allowed".
Which fits close enough with your "condoned or even called for, definitely".
Cheers!
Bible commentators, and the Church, have condemned all incest from time immemorial; and you admit that the Western tradition condemns it too.
But somehow, finding that after a universal prohibition on any incest (Leviticus 18:6), finding that one type not spelled out, somehow means it is condoned?
Are you trying to suggest that you have personal acquaintances who have suffered through this, and you are trying to take it out on God and/or the Church for not doing more about it?
Cheers!
Bible commentators, and the Church, have condemned all incest from time immemorial; and you admit that the Western tradition condemns it too.
But somehow, finding that after a universal prohibition on any incest (Leviticus 18:6), finding that one type not spelled out, somehow means it is condoned? And that somehow, incest is Christianity's *fault* ...?
Are you trying to suggest that you have personal acquaintances who have suffered through this, and you are trying to take it out on God and/or the Church for not doing more about it?
Cheers!
I will have to be rather brief, but in looking for approval of rape, not simply as a case of judgment, one cannot use examples of relationships like Abraham and Sarah, who would find pleasure with her husband in their old age, (Gn. 18:12) or Issac and Rebekah who were found “sporting with each other, (Gn. 26:8), or Solomon with his rapturous romance with the Shulamite women, or use Lot's desperate offer of his daughters, much less the New Testament command for the women to submit to her husband. So what is typically asserted is that forced marriage constituted rape, or that the taking the virgins of defeated enemies was violent rape, though warrant for the latter is only in the mind of such accusers.
We begin in the book of Judges, which covers Israel's spiritual declension, often resulting in the subjugation of Israel by his enemies and many sinful things. This book is largely narrative, and what Divine direction is given in Judges is usually to deliver them when they somewhat repent and seek Him, and does not manifest moral progression. One aspect that is evident in Judges is that of men going beyond what direction God gives, (Jdg. 11:30) or that of incomplete obedience, (Jdg. 16:10) while as in other parts of the Bible, merely recording actions cannot, by themselves confer sanction, or the standard of morality which the Bible doctrinally teaches, although God can make all things work out for good.
In Judges 21 we find a story which is the complicated result of rape, by men from the tribe of Benjamin who rape and abuse to death an unfaithful concubine, which was a type of second wife, of a Levite, who is no model of virtue himself and who gave her in substitution for himself, as they demanded to know sexually. (Jdg. 19) His gruesome response resulted in most all of Israel executing Divine judgment upon the tribe of Benjamin, after they refused to deliver up the guilty men. On the third attempt they finally defeat their brethren, and kill of that tribe except for 600 who fled and hid in a strategic refuge. (Jdg. 21) They also made a promise not to give any of their wives to the children of Benjamin, which aspect was presumptuous, as was treating them as if they were Canaanites in seeking their utter destruction after God placed them into their hands.
Realizing the import of their actions, and without yet receiving further Divine direction, they kill all that did not go to war with them — as they had already vowed — these being the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead, except for virgins, and whom they gave to the residue of the tribe of Benjamin. However, these did not suffice, and so they contrive a plan to forcibly take wives of the daughters of Shiloh at a yearly festival, and have their fathers be content in the interest of saving the tribe Benjamin. (Jdg. 21).
These wive-appropriating actions themselves are said to constitute repeated Divinely sanctioned rape, but the only type of “rape” would be that of forced marriages, which will be dealt with below. And outside the war itself, rather than Divine direction or approval for what followed, what is shown in this case is that men acted according to their own moral reasoning, with the chapter and books ending with this summation, “In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.” (Jdg 21:25; contra Dt., 12:8)
Another is Numbers 31:7-18, in which we see that “the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods.: (v. 9) And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle. And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. (Numbers 31:14-18)
Here the 1st assertion that is usually made is that the very slaughter itself was unjust, which my interchange with Bennett deals with, in which issue one must hold
1. that God, the author of life, in His omniscience and power, has no right to execute judgment upon the wicked (and temple prostitution by men and women was just one aspect of it, while virgins and children were most likely the more innocent), and who had engaged in such of a long term.
2. and or that killing the innocent could not be an act of mercy, which prevented them from perpetuating the terminal immorality of their fathers, and (most believe) took them to heaven, with momentary pain resulting in an eternity of comfort (not that all realize the same degree of eternal rewards, or that God could not somehow provide a means but which the innocent infants could not cognizably choose between good and evil.)
3. or that the manner of judgment was immoral, but that a Sodom-type nuking would be. Yet i fail to see much distinction, and torture was never ordained as part of Israelite warfare.
4. that God could have made some other way of dealing with the innocent. Yet but leaving them without parents or husbands would actually be injurious, and Israel was not equipped to be a giant social agency, nor it is likely others were, so the innocent instead received deliverance.
5. or that attributing this to God is intellectually dishonest, as if man did it then it would be condemned, but which is really position #1 and #2, that God cannot act consist with justice and mercy in a way which man cannot, due to His own unique Divine attributes.
6. that attributing this to God cannot be allowed, because Islam, etc, does so. But by which logic all genuine claims must by rejected is counterfeit ones exist, and that the God of their Bible did not first unmistakeably manifest His reality and Moses as His spokesman, in clear contrast to the god of Islam.
The 2nd assertion is that taking wives from among the captives meant wholesale violent rape took place, but which is a case of reading perverse imaginations into the text, as not only is fornication never sanctioned, but this aspect of warfare is dealt with in Dt. 21:10-14, which requires an Israelite who desires a women among the captives to give here a full month of mourning for her parents, as well as other preparations, before taking her to be his wife. And then she was to go free wherever she wanted to go, if her husband did not love her and no longer desired here.
A 3rd assertion is that forced marriage is itself rape, but accepting that the judgment upon the wicked is just, the question is that of viable alternatives for those that remained. What should be done with the women and children? Having single women with no income floating around was not good or cultural, and while some may have become slaves, Israel was instructed to buy slaves, (Lv. 25:44-46) but could choose wives from among the captives. This would insure care as well as posterity for the women, and freedom to leave and remarry if her husband did want her. It was indeed a man's world, in which women were to obey the men as the leaders, and children were to as well, but this does not mean it sanctioned abuse, and the Bible promotes caring relationships.
A somewhat similar case is that of Dt. 20:10-14 in which women and children of enemy cities outside Canaan, who choose to war rather than make peace with Israel, were spared along with the little ones, and the forced marriage aspect is the only thing that can be used as a charge of rape, and the preceding comments on that apply here.
Another attempt to attribute sanction to rape is in Dt. 22:28-30, in which if man forced a virgin who was not betrothed (contracted in marriage, but not yet consummated) into having sexual relations, then he must marry her, and pay a significant dowry. And in this case, as with a man falsely charging that his wife lied about being a virgin, he could never divorce her. And if the victim was betrothed but not consenting then the man was to be killed. (Dt. 22:25,26) And if both were consenting then both were to be stoned. Thus rather than sanctioning rape, it penalizes it.
Of course, objections are raised against the women having to marry the man who forced her, though in (Ex. 22:16,17) her father could disallow that, and unlike today's society, singleness was rarely an option, and a non-virgin would have a harder time finding a husband in a society where virginity and marriage was the priority. In addition, and more unlike most societies today, internal evidence shows that the tribal family unity was much stronger and cohesive, and societal accountability would be much higher, and with stricter laws long term lawlessness would be prevented, and rebellious sons were not even to make to adulthood. Thus the man who violated the women against her will would not be some habitual park mugger, and would be held accountable for his treatment to the women.
Another purported rape is that of Dt. 22:23-24, but which is actually consensual adultery. Though the criteria seems weak in a day when cries for help can go unheeded, this was akin to not calling 911 presuming they repeatedly were able to, and the intent of the law would allow aspects that prevented such to be considered. Also, 2 or 3 eye-witnesses were required for conviction of capital crimes, with false witnesses incurring the penalty their false testimony incurred upon the victim. (Dt. 17:6; 19:15-21; Jn. 8:4,17,18)
Seeking more, 2 Samuel 12:11-14 is invoked as a case of sanctioned rapes, but which is actually one of ordained judgment, due to David's adultery and murder, and in which his insurrectionist son engages in sexual relations with David's wives, based upon the wicked counsel of a traitor. (2Sa_16:21-22) The wives were a type pf victim, though being able to bear children to the king was a coveted position, but the charge here is really that since God brought judgment by allowing Absalom to actually act contrary to His law, then this constitutes sanction of rape as being moral, but contextually it is just the opposite, showing it as evil, just as Dt. 28:30 and Zech. 14:1-2 do. God's judgment in allowing evil is just, but that does make the evil to be something good in itself. And the consequences of sin do not simply affect ourselves but the innocent as well, which is part of the subject of Theodicy.
Moving back, it is charged that Exodus 21:7-11 sanctions sex slaves, but which is actually a case in which a female Israelite servant* becomes the wife of the master, and if she were contracted to be married to her son, then she was to be treated as a daughter, and as his son's wife if she was not treated as a wife just as much as another wife (including having sexual relations, and thus children, which were coveted then), then she was to go out free without money. *Israelite brethren were not to be treated as slaves but as hired servants, (Lv. 25:39,40) and would easily apply to females.
No doubt the command for wives to submit to their husbands in everything (Eph. 5:22-24) would be used by some to sanction rape, but obedience to man is always conditional upon obedience to God, (Ex. 1:16,17,21; Acts 4:19; 5:29) and the man is to sacrificially love his wife (always singular in the New Testament) as Christ loved the church. (Eph. 5:25) While a women may endure abuse, this does not sanction it.
In dealing with this issue however, it should become evident that while in the Bible there are surely universal, immutable laws in which certain things are always and everywhere unconditionally wrong, such as idolatry or adultery, there can be a moral accommodation to the nature of man and society, always in lower sense, while a higher degree of morality, or fuller application of it, is called for as enabled. The case of Moses allowing a broader criteria for divorce (perhaps not in Dt. 24:1 as the word for “uncleanness” most often has a sexual connotation, but in Dt. 21:15; 22:13) is stated by Jesus to be contrary in principal to Gn. 2:24, (Mt. 19:3-9) while the aforementioned requirement of the manner which husbands they are to love their wives more fully articulates the manner of love which is to be behind such “cleaving.” And far more qualified men that who have dealt with this, and i have more to do now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.