It disturbs me when I hear or read people say that the Bible condemns homosexuals and is silent on the issue of rape. I recently saw an event celebrating the recent publication of "Yes Means Yes" in Cambridge, MA which, sadly, I will have to miss. It got me thinking, though, why even the word rape isn't mentioned anywhere - as if the modern usage of the word didn't exist back then. I've since read on the internet about why this could be, and found that at least three ancient words have been translated to "sodomy". This, of course, presents some confusion.
The first one refers to male temple prostitution (there is a female variant of this word that is also translated as prostitute).
The second has an unfortunate homosexual connotation which is anal penetration, described as unclean and is performed far more often by heterosexual men with female partners, the last refers to sexual intimidation and violence by aggressive men against both male and female victims (and not always in the case of war, as the example of Sodom illustrates).
This last one almost certainly refers to rape. Unfortunately, in most cases, the violation of men (while having nothing to do with homosexuality) is what is condemned because it brought them down "to the level of women" - a rather harsh indictment of ancient patriarchal cultures and a sign of how far we've come (even if we still have far to go).
In the Old Testament, it is also true that slavery was tolerated, even though we know it is a practice that God finds detestable. Likewise, the word used for rape in the ancient world, found in the example of Sodom and translated as sodomy, is also detestable and must be viewed in the modern light, regardless of the gender of the victim (and is on the short list with idolatry, adultery, and murder among those things which He detests the most). Check out these three web sites for yourself.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: The Bible silent on rape?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/11703
"In the Old Testament, it is also true that slavery was tolerated, even though we know it is a practice that God finds detestable."
Not to derail the discussion, but I found it interesting that you say we know that God finds slavery detestable. Where are you getting that from?
Yeah, God is...apparently pretty cool with slavery, if you read the Bible.
And the Bible does talk about rape. If an unbetrothed virgin is raped, she has to marry the rapist, because it's not that she was assaulted, of course, it's that her virginity, which should belong to her husband, was stolen from her father, and the best way to fix that is to make the thief her husband.
Slavery in the Bible isn't the same system as slavery in the US was. There was no such thing as a slave for life -- Exodus 21 gives the details of how to treat slaves, and one of the rules is that they should only be slaves for six years. Another is that if a master strikes a slave and causes extreme injury (the examples given are losing an eye and losing a tooth), then the slave should be set free. The children of slaves were not automatically slaves. Biblical slavery was more like what we'd consider indentured servitude -- someone could offer themselves as a slave for a period of time to settle a debt.
So? It's still slavery. Foreign slaves served for life. And killing a slave isn't murder.
"Yeah, God is...apparently pretty cool with slavery, if you read the Bible."
Also just fine with genocide... providing he's either committing it or ordering it committed (both of which he did a LOT)...
In the book of Genesis, Jacob's daughter Dinah was raped by Shecham the son of Hamor. When Dinah's brothers heard about the brutal crime they actually deceived the Shechamites to become circumcised and they later killed them because of the rape. Genesis 34:1-31. I am just giving you a narrow version of the story, however it is a very interesting one, in your spare time read it....
Peace and Blessings
Not sure, but my history teacher said (we were learning about civil war era and how slave owners were like "Sucks for you guys, Bible says slaves, that means we're golden" (Obv. not like that, but...makes more sense to me that way)...tangent, anyway. Apparently, its indentured servants, which is like people who owe money and work to pay it off. I can't reference that, because it was a sort of random comment he gave.
Rape is cheese to the Bible's macaroni. See here.We have Moses prescribing rape of virgin female children, multiple references to rape victims as spoils that God gives to those he happens to favor (or the enemies of someone who has pissed him off), death to the victim (well, only if she happens to be another guy's property) if no one heard her cries, etc.. Then, of course, we learn from the story of Lot that it's perfectly okay to offer up your daughters for a gang rape to prevent the same fate from happening to your male guests (see this brilliant cartoon), and in Judges 19 we learn that some Levite asshole's wife/cocubine actually is pushed out of the house by her husband to be gang-raped by an angry mob so that he doesn't have to.
There is an upside to having been a Sunday school teacher - you get to know all the good stuff.
I remain unimpressed by your apologetics for the Biblical god. He's the biggest asshole in all fiction. I'll join rhowan in asking the question how you happen to know that god exists, let alone what he finds detestable. If you for some reason decided that the Bible counts as evidence for any of those things (in which case I have to really question your judgment), I still don't understand where you're getting it from. There is no condemnation of slavery in the Bible, including the New Testament. In fact, Ephesians 6:5 and 1 Timothy 6:1-2 actually encourage slaves to obey their masters and remain slaves.
Maybe not the biggest asshole in all fiction. I mean... most of Ayn Rand's characters can at least compete in assholishness, if not in body count.
True. And, speaking of rape, if I recall correctly, in The Fountainhead Roark breaks into Dominique's bedroom and rapes her and she likes it (surprise, surprise).
Addressing Concerned Marsupial's comment first: In the ancient world, for a man to allow himself to be gang raped by other men was a fate worse than death in many cultures. Given that women were little more than property in these societies, it is not at all surprising that they were considered expendable under the circumstances mentioned. It is the ultimate condemnation of ancient society. God never told Lot or the Levite priest to send out the women. They chose to save their honor and hides in a way most dishonorable by our standards. I don't exactly look up to their example.
On the issue of human slavery: If I recall, the Apostle Paul mentions in one passage that it is not right for believers to buy and sell slaves, but apparently condones ownership of slaves for those who already have them at the time they come to believe. I think there is also something in there about how they must be humanely treated (not exactly a statement on human dignity since he never calls for abolition by any stretch of the imagination), but that's as far as Paul goes.
Here's the thing. God only seems to require as much change as he knows mankind will accept. Had he made prohibition of slavery and equality for women the 11th and 12th Commandments, He would have been rejected out of hand at the time. In Jesus' day, Paul only hinted that believers should not be involved with the slave trade. Paul the Apostle was a zealot for his faith who seized and had killed a number of early Christ believers before mysteriously becoming one himself.
It took a revelation of God through John Newton, a slave ship captain of the late 1700's who later became a minister and penned "Amazing Grace", to begin the fight to end the slave trade in Britain. He went to his grave haunted by the ghosts of 20,000 African slaves who died en-route to the New World in his ships. But human society was ready to understand the concept of inalienable human rights, even if most did not accept them. The spiritual cost of engaging in the slave trade was laid bare in John Newton, whose testimony gave William Wilberforce and the abolitionists force for their moral argument (though it was actually a war measure against the French that brought the British slave trade to a de-facto end). Trust me, John Newton was no hero, and no punishment was too great for his crimes - and he damn well knew it.
Nobody killed God the moment the last Book of the Bible was written or when the Temple at Jerusalem was razed by the Romans (much as some of you would like to). He continues to speaks to us throughout post-Biblical history through, ironically, the worst of transgressors at times. He continues to prod us towards better character as societies are ready to understand new concepts of human respect and dignity (usually before they are willing to accept those concepts in practice, however).
I'm not saying all things are found in the Bible. I can't help but think that mankind (emphasis on the man) is the limiting factor in our continuing evolution towards a more divine understanding of the sanctity of human freedom. As we understand more of how we should treat one another and gain in the knowledge of good and evil, I think more is expected of us. It seems unfathomable to me that God would expect, much less condone, a return to practicing slavery or relegating women to the status of property - now that we know better. And it is because of people like abolitionists, and feminists, socialists, and other civil and human rights activists (society's curmudgeons), that we do know better. Like it or not, activists like you may, in fact, be serving God's purpose. :-)
You've got some of the facts of the John Newton story confused: http://www.snopes.com/religion/amazing.asp
True. Unlike Paul's miraculous conversion due to the apparition of Christ on the road to Damascus, John Newton only truly understood the gravity of what he had done after he had come to a greater understanding of the sanctity of human life and dignity. This occurred decades later when he had seen and done many things in his life, sought some kind of meaning from it, and eventually found the knowledge of God through serving in ministry. The insights he gained exposed the gravity of his sins to his own heart, and he then began the process of putting the old John Newton, slave ship captain, to death by turning to what he saw as his only hope of salvation. The movie, "Amazing Grace", did not explicitly state this, but implied that Newton had come to an understanding of his sins late in life. I suppose better late than never.
Thank you for the link, BTW. It provides a dose of reality of how conversion works for the rest of us, as the first step in a lifelong journey to put the old self to death and take on a new nature through the guidance (and in the case of John Newton, the patience) of the Creator's indwelling spirit.
http://www.snopes.com/religion/amazing.asp
I've got this one bookmarked in FireFox now.
The Bible is easy to cherry-pick. You can find arguments to support almost any position if you look hard enough and think about it long enough.
Isn't it interesting, though, that everyone thinks that they have figured out what God really meant when the Bible was written and that all those other people were wrong. So, slave-owners and abolitionists could both praise God and condemn each other. Very user-friendly.
The ability of believers and apologists to delude themselves never ceases to amaze. Paragraphs of arguments amounting to the same fluff all over again. Isn't the easiest, simplest and best answer simply this:
There is no supernatural god who oversees this world. We were not created to worship him or to do his will. We exist because life is determined. We die because death is equally determined. And, in between, we live and hopefully, treat people and the world with the respect they all deserve.
It is said that we are all star stuff, made of the building blocks of the machinery of the universe, that we are the universe made manifest seeking to discover and understand itself. Who is to say that there isn't a God in the machine? Or an artist painting our elegant universe with string theory.
I think there are two things wrong with biblical interpretations.
First, the bible was written in a specific time period, much different from the one we live in. Thus, the bible should really be interpreted in the context of the times it was written.
Secondly, the bible cautions against using parts of it to further one's own agenda. Interestingly enough, this seems to be the purpose for which it is most widely used.
"First, the bible was written in a specific time period, much different from the one we live in. Thus, the bible should really be interpreted in the context of the times it was written."
Exactly. It's so out of context that I don't think it should be considered "holy" or a code for living. I mean, even the "Ten Commandments" are directed mostly against unenforceable thought-crime.
Not to mention that parts of it have been changed from its original version to support the hegemony of ruling classes.
Wiccaman,
You just SO hit the nail on the head with that comment. If I'm cherry-picking from the Bible, it is out of a desire to take that which is applicable to our era and leave behind those detestable things borne out of ancient customs and practices. Much must be reinterpreted in light of the understanding of the value of human dignity we hold today - and detestable practices must be interpreted in the context of the times in which they were practiced.
The problem with coupling (no pun intended) the terms "Bible" and "rape" is that rape doesn't really exist, at least not a crime, in the ancient Biblical context. It's more about women as property than anything. If you rape a woman, you've defiled another man's property and that's why you should be punished. If you rape a woman who has no family (i.e. men) to protect her, like a slave or an orphan or something, it's not rape at all, but simply taking what's there to take.
A bit harsh, but a rather accurate assessment of the status of women in virtually all of the societies of the ancient world. The Bible is virtually silent on rape, when it comes to women (who were often viewed more as possessions than people), but is labeled as sodomy when it comes to the rape of men (by other men). It is our greater understanding today that makes us responsible for applying the same standards of recrimination to the rape of women as to men.
As well as the three web sites mentioned in your blog, your readers may be interested in seeing www.GaysAndSlaves.com. Among other things, the site points out that the Sodom incident was really attempted same-sex gang rape.
Agreed. This incident had nothing to do with homosexuality. It was an attempt by dominant male thugs to humiliate the two strangers through sexual intimidation and violence, a bullying practice perhaps more common in an ancient era that didn't have the same degree of homophobia we have today (which places the "homo" stigma on the perpetrator).
Yeah, here's the thing about the Judeo-Christian God that always bothered me:
Why would God-- omniscient and omnipotent-- condone all of these horrible things and condemn some wonderful things? The fact that he impregnated a 13-year-old girl without even asking her consent- although she does consent, 'let it be,' whatever that's worth from a fucking CHILD-- with his son/self is enough to make me a non-believer. A truly just God (the only kind popular logic allows) would not act this way.
Probably because uh he doesn't exist and the Bible is just a book written by ancient fuckwads.
/rant