Rape not in the Ten Commandments

[Xon]

#7 is the closest thing to a prohibition against rape, but the application of that rule would really depend on whoever was judging the case.

Nope, historially #8 (stealing) covers rape, but only in a limited way. Women where property of thier family, and a girl's virginity was a sign she wasn't used goods. By raping someone's daughter, you where stealing the marketable value for her hand in marriage.

And it looks like that's just how it's interpretated - according to the bible, you can rape any unmarried girl you want as long as you marry her afterwards - no sin in sight.

Historically this makes sense, as abhorrent as it is to modern morals.

[Liberty]

You know, there are no actual real unquestionable proofs of Jesus existence either.
Also, the same reasoning can be applied to the rest of the bible. It may just be a fantasy book (the genesis certainly is not realistic) written by some kind of old-times clown. We'll never know.

Historians, classicists, and archaeologists can look at the history recorded in the Bible and compare it to other sources and see if it is correct. And while much of the Bible is pure myth (the miracles of Jesus, the first five books of the Bible, etc), there are things that can be verified. King David existed, for instance (he was a tribal chief who united Judah under one rule), and much of the story the Bible tells in the book of Kings is archaeologically and historical verified, though much embellished.

Unless you believe we can't actually not know anything at all, you can't dismiss the Bible as only a fantasy book.

[Kanastrous]

I am very well aware of the fact that there is no unquestionable proof of Jesus' existence, but it does not follow that we should accept everything the Gospels tell us either true or untrue as long as there is no good proof of his non-existance, either.

What would constitute acceptable proof of Jesus' non-existence?

[Darth Wong]

You know, there are no actual real unquestionable proofs of Jesus existence either.
Also, the same reasoning can be applied to the rest of the bible. It may just be a fantasy book (the genesis certainly is not realistic) written by some kind of old-times clown. We'll never know.

Historians, classicists, and archaeologists can look at the history recorded in the Bible and compare it to other sources and see if it is correct. And while much of the Bible is pure myth (the miracles of Jesus, the first five books of the Bible, etc), there are things that can be verified. King David existed, for instance (he was a tribal chief who united Judah under one rule), and much of the story the Bible tells in the book of Kings is archaeologically and historical verified, though much embellished.

Unless you believe we can't actually not know anything at all, you can't dismiss the Bible as only a fantasy book.

No, but you can point out that it's less historical than Michael Bay's "Pearl Harbor".

[someone_else]

Declaring defeat before even trying to find out the historicity of different parts of the Gospels is not rational, and if historians usually did that, we could just say that we don't know much about ancient history for certain and stop at that. Even archaeological evidence has to interpreted before it can tell us something.

That is the book's setting, while I was talking about the book's "main plot".
Ivanhoe or The Betrothed have a decently realistic historical setting from whom you could get some interesting info on history, but the main plot and the charachters were rather fictional (but some borrowed names of real people).
I have not seen one single proof that the "main plot" really happened (and neither do you, I suppose), so either you believe it to be true by faith or it is just a fantasy historical novel.

You know, there are no actual real unquestionable proofs of Jesus existence either.
Also, the same reasoning can be applied to the rest of the bible. It may just be a fantasy book (the genesis certainly is not realistic) written by some kind of old-times clown. We'll never know.

Historians, classicists, and archaeologists can look at the history recorded in the Bible and compare it to other sources and see if it is correct. And while much of the Bible is pure myth (the miracles of Jesus, the first five books of the Bible, etc), there are things that can be verified. King David existed, for instance (he was a tribal chief who united Judah under one rule), and much of the story the Bible tells in the book of Kings is archaeologically and historical verified, though much embellished.

As I said above, that is the "setting" of the book. The interesting thing would be to find proofs of the "plot" of the book (the fantasy part). For example, are there proofs that David did that thing against Goliath before becoming King? (there are proofs that it is doable to kill a man with a sling and a rock from close range, but you have to be rather good and lucky to hit the head, even the current champion of sling shooting tried multiple times before scoring a hit on the minuscule target).
Anyway, we already know history from more reliable means than a single book full of internal inconsistencies. Let me note that anything in it that does not conform to our current knowledge is tagged as myth, not the other way around.
Still, I remeber a rather interesting TV program about the truth behind the myths in the bible, where they speculated on tactics and instruments that the jews could have used to succeed without God's intervention in about the same way as described in the book.

That said... why are we sidetracking this discussion to talk of the bible's historical facts?
I know, I started it with that unclear sentence.

What would constitute acceptable proof of Jesus' non-existence?

that's a rather hard thing to find indeed...
Wasn't science based on the principle "either you have proofs or it does not exist/work"?
If you spin it the other way around ("it exists/works until disproven") you will have an hard time shooting down bullshitters. Wong wrote something about this somewhere in the site. Logical fallacies maybe? don't remember.

[Darth Wong]

that's a rather hard thing to find indeed...
Wasn't science based on the principle "either you have proofs or it does not exist/work"?

Sort of. The scientific method is based on the idea of creating testable models of the observable universe. Any theory which performs poorly relative to that goal is scientifically nonsensical.

Given the enormous success of this method relative to all prior methods of understanding the universe, it is widely accepted that if something is scientifically nonsensical, it is probably false. Religious people just don't like it when that is applied to their faith.

[Marcus Aurelius]

that's a rather hard thing to find indeed...
Wasn't science based on the principle "either you have proofs or it does not exist/work"?

Sort of. The scientific method is based on the idea of creating testable models of the observable universe. Any theory which performs poorly relative to that goal is scientifically nonsensical.

Given the enormous success of this method relative to all prior methods of understanding the universe, it is widely accepted that if something is scientifically nonsensical, it is probably false. Religious people just don't like it when that is applied to their faith.

But alas, you can not test the historicity of Jesus in any scientific way. All you can say that since the resurrection and the more spectacular miracles are not testable and go against our scientific understanding of physics and biology, it is not rational to believe in their historicity. Some of the smaller miracles can be explained by suggestion, which is a well-know phenomenon even today. For example conversion disorders (e.g. hysterical blindness) can be cured by powerful enough suggestion.

In any case, apart from those larger miracles science can tell us almost nothing about the historicity of Jesus or whether he actually said the things the Gospels say he did. Instead we have to resort to research methods of history, which are not as objective as science, although they are still rational (or at least they can be). There of course can not be any conclusive proof about the non-existence of Jesus after such a long time has passed, but it is possible that evidence that makes Jesus' historicity seem unlikely may be found.

[Darth Wong]

that's a rather hard thing to find indeed...
Wasn't science based on the principle "either you have proofs or it does not exist/work"?

Sort of. The scientific method is based on the idea of creating testable models of the observable universe. Any theory which performs poorly relative to that goal is scientifically nonsensical.

Given the enormous success of this method relative to all prior methods of understanding the universe, it is widely accepted that if something is scientifically nonsensical, it is probably false. Religious people just don't like it when that is applied to their faith.

But alas, you can not test the historicity of Jesus in any scientific way.

That depends on just how vague your definition of "Jesus" is. If it includes all of the miracles he was said to perform and the predictions he made, then it's quite easy to test. The miracles are all scientifically nonsensical, and he did, after all, predict that he would come back soon (so soon that his followers discouraged marriage because it would be a waste of time) and change the world. Didn't happen, so that's a fail too.

All you can say that since the resurrection and the more spectacular miracles are not testable and go against our scientific understanding of physics and biology, it is not rational to believe in their historicity. Some of the smaller miracles can be explained by suggestion, which is a well-know phenomenon even today. For example conversion disorders (e.g. hysterical blindness) can be cured by powerful enough suggestion.

He also made predictions about the powers of true believers, which can be tested.

In any case, apart from those larger miracles science can tell us almost nothing about the historicity of Jesus or whether he actually said the things the Gospels say he did. Instead we have to resort to research methods of history, which are not as objective as science, although they are still rational (or at least they can be). There of course can not be any conclusive proof about the non-existence of Jesus after such a long time has passed, but it is possible that evidence that makes Jesus' historicity seem unlikely may be found.

That's a huge double-standard. We confidently proclaim that stories about the Olympian gods are mythical rather than historical for one overriding reason: they describe acts which are scientifically absurd. We certainly don't demand that anyone prove they did not happen before making such proclamations. So why is there a different standard for Christianity?

[Marcus Aurelius]

He also made predictions about the powers of true believers, which can be tested.

True, but that is not relevant to the historicity of Jesus as a person, which is of course separate from the historicity of his actions and words as they are described in the Gospels. No serious critical Bible scholar denies the fact some parts of the Gospels are later embellishments and interpolations and that the sequence of events is more or less random or religiously motivated rather than historical. Highly conservative and fundamentalist scholars of course do deny it, but we are not talking about them here, since their view is obviously irrational to start with.

That's a huge double-standard. We confidently proclaim that stories about the Olympian gods are mythical rather than historical for one overriding reason: they describe acts which are scientifically absurd. We certainly don't demand that anyone prove they did not happen before making such proclamations. So why is there a different standard for Christianity?

Well, the difference is that once you take out the miracles there is absolutely nothing extraordinary in the life of Jesus. There were many prophets and Messiah candidates in Palestine and even in the pagan parts of the Roman world at the time and their historicity is usually noy disputed, stories of miracles or not.The hellenists usually called them philosophers even if they had mystical and occult techings. Apollonius of Tyana is a classic example. Then of course there was John the Baptist, whose existance and life is well confirmed by Josephus, who writes about him fairly extensively (much more than about Jesus). Ironically, most 2nd and early 3rd century Christian apologists called Christianity a "philosophy" in their public writings rather than a religion, but that may have just been catering to their learned audiences.

What is extraordinary is that the early Jewish Jesus movement or sect transformed into a major religion. Some conservative scholars hold that as a proof that there really was something quite extraordinary in the life of Brian Jesus, but of course that is not a valid conclusion unless all other reasonable causes are eliminated.

[Darth Wong]

Yes, but when people speak of the "historicity" of Jesus, they usually mean that his life story is largely based on fact, not just that there was some guy who bore an incredibly vague resemblance to certain superficial facts about the Jesus story. They don't need every detail to be correct, but there's some kind of line in the sand that one draws where the divergence between reality and story is so large that it can no longer be considered history.

[Thanas]

It's worth noting that Moses actually ordered his men to rape all of the virgins of a conquered tribe at one point.

That part is mostly considered a reaction to Assyrian war curses written as an ideological counterpoint. At the time they were written Israel was not free and indeed pretty much subject to the will of the Assyrians. Most of the "war rules" in the bible are a reaction to that and, hard as it may be to believe, rather moderate in comparison to the Assyrian war curses.

Yes, but when people speak of the "historicity" of Jesus, they usually mean that his life story is largely based on fact, not just that there was some guy who bore an incredibly vague resemblance to certain superficial facts about the Jesus story. They don't need every detail to be correct, but there's some kind of line in the sand that one draws where the divergence between reality and story is so large that it can no longer be considered history.

Yeah, we had a huge thread about that discussion already three times. For example, see the Ruben coliseum thread.

[Omeganian]

In most of the ancient world, when a woman was raped, the victim was usually considered the one she belonged to, and he was the one to be compensated (for example, by allowing him to have his way with a woman owned by the rapist). In the Bible, the point was that no one in a society of that time will want to marry a woman who was raped - so the rapist was the one to provide everything for her till death do they part (can't divorce!). Morality from modern point of view - debatable. The underlying principle of putting the woman in the center - an improvement.

[Elfdart]

It's worth noting that Moses actually ordered his men to rape all of the virgins of a conquered tribe at one point.

It was also a regular feature of ancient Israel's wars against the various -ites (Amalekites, Jebusites, Moabites, et al) for virgins to be taken alive while, as Betty Bowers put it, anyone who had a penis or had seen one was to be killed. It was not only accepted among the ancient Hebrews, it was the will of their god, Jehovah. So not only is rape not condemned (except as damage to another man's property), Jehovah himself demands it.

[Marcus Aurelius]

In most of the ancient world, when a woman was raped, the victim was usually considered the one she belonged to, and he was the one to be compensated (for example, by allowing him to have his way with a woman owned by the rapist). In the Bible, the point was that no one in a society of that time will want to marry a woman who was raped - so the rapist was the one to provide everything for her till death do they part (can't divorce!). Morality from modern point of view - debatable. The underlying principle of putting the woman in the center - an improvement.

Divorce of course was quite possible in the ancient Jewish tribes, that is divorce initiated by the man. Divorce is still allowed today. 'Till death do they part' is a Christian addition and as I wrote earlier, mostly a Pauline theological invention even if some sayings of Jesus can be interpreted in that way.

The rest of your points are valid, but they have already been mentioned at least by Spoonist and Liberty, so even if third time is a charm, it would be nice if people read the entire thread before replying. It is also debatable if it really means "putting the woman in the center". It may as well be seen as a continuation of the patriarchal tradition that women are bound to the man who takes their virginity.

[Omeganian]

In most of the ancient world, when a woman was raped, the victim was usually considered the one she belonged to, and he was the one to be compensated (for example, by allowing him to have his way with a woman owned by the rapist). In the Bible, the point was that no one in a society of that time will want to marry a woman who was raped - so the rapist was the one to provide everything for her till death do they part (can't divorce!). Morality from modern point of view - debatable. The underlying principle of putting the woman in the center - an improvement.

Divorce of course was quite possible in the ancient Jewish tribes, that is divorce initiated by the man. Divorce is still allowed today.

It was allowed back then. But not in this case.

[Spoonist]

In most of the ancient world, when a woman was raped, the victim was usually considered the one she belonged to, and he was the one to be compensated (for example, by allowing him to have his way with a woman owned by the rapist). In the Bible, the point was that no one in a society of that time will want to marry a woman who was raped - so the rapist was the one to provide everything for her till death do they part (can't divorce!). Morality from modern point of view - debatable. The underlying principle of putting the woman in the center - an improvement.

Divorce of course was quite possible in the ancient Jewish tribes, that is divorce initiated by the man. Divorce is still allowed today.

It was allowed back then. But not in this case.

>Marcus Aurelius
I think that Omeganian was refering to Deu 22:28-29where if you rape an unpledged virgin where she can not get help you are forced to pay the virgin price and marry the girl without the option of divorce. Which means a living hell for the rest of the girl's life.
>Omeganian
People "married" non-virgins all the time, because that is cheaper. All those wars produced lots of widows. But marrying a virgin was more status. Like having a brand new car instead of a used one.

What you should note though that this is the un-pledged exception. The general rule from Deu 22 is that 'adulterers' should be put to death. So that if the girl was pledged to be married and raped where she could not get help, the rapist should be put to death and the girl would be innocent and would still be pledged. But probably the virgin price would be defaulted.

The "underlying principle of putting the woman in the center" didn't happen until islam where the women's rights where actually enforced during their good years. So while it was a step up from an ancient eastern point of view it was actually a step down from an ancient north/western point of view. Like the celts/norse etc where archeology is interpreted as women having more of a social standing.

The rest of your points are valid, but they have already been mentioned at least by Spoonist and Liberty, so even if third time is a charm, it would be nice if people read the entire thread before replying.

I think it was
Spoonist (by off-hand comment)
Jaevric (by implication)
Serafina (by exclusion)
Liberty (explicitly)
Xon (explicitly)
Omeganian (explicitly)

So it would be the fourth explicit and the sixth by deduction. Where Liberty just had missed my off-hand comment, but where Xon and Omeganian clearly hadn't read the whole topic before posting.

[Omeganian]

People "married" non-virgins all the time, because that is cheaper. All those wars produced lots of widows. But marrying a virgin was more status. Like having a brand new car instead of a used one.

You sure that a widow, a divorced woman, and a raped one all have the same status in that respect?

[Spoonist]

People "married" non-virgins all the time, because that is cheaper. All those wars produced lots of widows. But marrying a virgin was more status. Like having a brand new car instead of a used one.

You sure that a widow, a divorced woman, and a raped one all have the same status in that respect?

Of course not. The younger the better. So the spoiled ex-virgin would be quite a catch after you waited a couple of months to see if she got pregnant or not. You'd get a young girl for a bargain price that would be real value for your money. Now you would probably have to sell her to a different community...
I mean there was even a market for pregnant young girls, with the understanding that the new husband would claim the child as his own as part of the bargain. That way a poor old guy could get a new young wife.
You are mixing in a modern context on top of the ancient one. You have to consider polygamy as well as a rural life.

[Marcus Aurelius]

I think that Omeganian was refering to Deu 22:28-29where if you rape an unpledged virgin where she can not get help you are forced to pay the virgin price and marry the girl without the option of divorce. Which means a living hell for the rest of the girl's life.

Quite right, it forgot about that detail. There is an even more interesting ban for divorce in the same chapter:

13If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, "I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity," 15 then the girl's father and mother shall bring proof that she was a virgin to the town elders at the gate. 16 The girl's father will say to the elders, "I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, 'I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.' But here is the proof of my daughter's virginity." Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the girl's father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.

So basically, for punishment the man must not divorce a woman he dislikes and the women must spend rest of her life with a man who doesn't care for her. A really good recipe for a successful marriage as well...

[Darth Wong]

In most of the ancient world, when a woman was raped, the victim was usually considered the one she belonged to, and he was the one to be compensated (for example, by allowing him to have his way with a woman owned by the rapist). In the Bible, the point was that no one in a society of that time will want to marry a woman who was raped - so the rapist was the one to provide everything for her till death do they part (can't divorce!). Morality from modern point of view - debatable. The underlying principle of putting the woman in the center - an improvement.

The thing is, the modern point of view is the only one applicable to this particular debate, which revolves around the applicability of the Old Testament to morality today (you may want to review the original stated reason for bringing this up). This means that it's irrelevant whether one can argue that the Old Testament is not out of line relative to its era.

[Stravo]

In most of the ancient world, when a woman was raped, the victim was usually considered the one she belonged to, and he was the one to be compensated (for example, by allowing him to have his way with a woman owned by the rapist). In the Bible, the point was that no one in a society of that time will want to marry a woman who was raped - so the rapist was the one to provide everything for her till death do they part (can't divorce!). Morality from modern point of view - debatable. The underlying principle of putting the woman in the center - an improvement.

The thing is, the modern point of view is the only one applicable to this particular debate, which revolves around the applicability of the Old Testament to morality today (you may want to review the original stated reason for bringing this up). This means that it's irrelevant whether one can argue that the Old Testament is not out of line relative to its era.

To add to Mike's point This is what I am addressing. The whole notion from the religious right jackasses that these 10 commandments as they stand now - not through the lense of the past, not in comparison to other ancient societies, not in anyway shape or form open to interpretation - is the basis for US legal system and morality in general.

This is not an analysis of the 10 commandments themselves but a critique of the people who blindly cling to these 10 rules as some sort of be and end all of morality.

[Spoonist]

I would also take that one step further. That is if you consider most concepts of morality today & our laws to be valid, then you can not combine that with a view that the biblical laws are valid today.

Also that placing the decalogue in a court of law or governement building is an implicit acknowledgement of the other laws in context, (Deuteronomy), and is thus contrary to what most should consider what is morally right & legal. Now if they had any brains they should have tried to enter a message that everyone can agree on, regardless of belief. Like "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself". That would have been much harder to remove. But I think they want the conflict and the controversy because that gathers media and thus votes.

[Thanas]

There are a few nice quotes by Jefferson and John Quincy Adams one can throw at these fundies to show that the ten commandments were not in any way the basis of the US legal system.

However, if I were to play the devils advocate, I could easily make the argument that rape is covered within the ten commandments, even today. One can easily take the commandment "though shalt not steal" and interpret stealing as "the taking of things or rights against the will of the person who owns them". As, in a modern interpretation, it is definitely the right of the women to define who gets to sleep with her or not, taking away that right might fall under a wide definition of stealing.

Of course that would require taking the bible as a modern legal text, which it is definitely not and as I said above, flies directly in the face of several quotes of the founding fathers.

[Elfdart]

You could do the same with the one against coveting if you interpreted it that way.

[someone_else]

He also made predictions about the powers of true believers, which can be tested.

Unless you find a reliable way to find "true believers", it's impossible to get any decent result.
The vast majority of the people so puffed-up to show up at your "I want only true believers", will be fundies that misinterpret everything so badly that go actively against any reasonable interpretation of the book. All the others will simply ignore your call.