God Advocates Rape

[_Sethbag]

How did you come to this conclusion?

I suspect it has to do with the woman's lack of consent to the marriage or to sex at any time. From the woman's point of view, if a man rapes you, he gets to continue to rape you for the rest of your lives.

Apparently there are innate social urges and customs that may change their outward manifestation over time, but never disappear. Back then guys would practice carpe vaginum to stake their claim to the woman they wanted. Nowadays we call "shotgun!" to claim the front seat when riding with friends in a car. I mean, why shouldn't I get to ride in the front? I said shotgun!

[_sock puppet]

So god genuflects the cultural mores or god sets the rules?

He works within the walls of cultural mores. That is why polygamy was prevelant in the Old Testament but not the New Testament.

That sort of indicts Mormon polygamy, which was certainly outside the walls of the cultural mores of 19th Century America.

[_Yoda]

So god genuflects the cultural mores or god sets the rules?

He works within the walls of cultural mores. That is why polygamy was prevelant in the Old Testament but not the New Testament.

That sort of indicts Mormon polygamy, which was certainly outside the walls of the cultural mores of 19th Century America.

Exactly. That is why I don't think that God condoned polygamy. Joseph Smith lied. He said that polygamy needed to be reintated so he could have affairs.

[_sock puppet]

So god genuflects the cultural mores or god sets the rules?

He works within the walls of cultural mores. That is why polygamy was prevelant in the Old Testament but not the New Testament.

That sort of indicts Mormon polygamy, which was certainly outside the walls of the cultural mores of 19th Century America.

Exactly. That is why I don't think that God condoned polygamy. Joseph Smith lied. He said that polygamy needed to be reintated so he could have affairs.

I think so too.

On the issue of Mormon polygamy, I think BY fares much better than JSJr. Rather than it being secretive, cloak and dagger, with lying denials when asked about--as JSJr had done--BY opened it up to plain view. I think BY believed JSJr that god had commanded polygamy.

So, with JSJr, you have a man inclined towards promiscuous behavior (Fanny Alger for one having pre-dated the supposed revelation) using 'god commanded me' against his wife's will, and doing it secretively and denying when asked (as late as 5/26/1844--just a month and a day before his murder).

With BY, you have a man who believed this 'practice' was commanded by god to JSJr, but BY in his 'practice' of it did so openly.

[_Res Ipsa]

What existed during that time frame was a very brutal tribal culture. The women never had consent as far as who they were to marry. Marriages were arranged. Take note that when looking at the full scripture that I quoted that a betrothed woman who was raped was sentenced to death. The betrothed woman who was raped was already betrothed to be married, and could continue with the marriage.

The unbetrothed woman who was raped was no longer a virgin, therefore unfit to become betrothed. Therefore, in order for the woman to have financial security and an opportunity to marry, the man who "humbled" her, or lied with her was required to marry her. He also did not have the option to ever "put her away" or divorce her, no matter what the circumstances were, including adultery on her part.

I think I understand your point, but if it's god actually creating the rules, then "brutal tribal culture" doesn't seem like much of an excuse. To me, it seems circular. God could have just as easily said that a man who raped a virgin was to be put to death, that the virgin was blameless, and that she was eligible to be married. So, your additional information makes perfect sense to me if, in fact, the culture created the god and not the other way around.

[_Yoda]

What existed during that time frame was a very brutal tribal culture. The women never had consent as far as who they were to marry. Marriages were arranged. Take note that when looking at the full scripture that I quoted that a betrothed woman who was raped was sentenced to death. The betrothed woman who was raped was already betrothed to be married, and could continue with the marriage.

The unbetrothed woman who was raped was no longer a virgin, therefore unfit to become betrothed. Therefore, in order for the woman to have financial security and an opportunity to marry, the man who "humbled" her, or lied with her was required to marry her. He also did not have the option to ever "put her away" or divorce her, no matter what the circumstances were, including adultery on her part.

I think I understand your point, but if it's god actually creating the rules, then "brutal tribal culture" doesn't seem like much of an excuse. To me, it seems circular. God could have just as easily said that a man who raped a virgin was to be put to death, that the virgin was blameless, and that she was eligible to be married. So, your additional information makes perfect sense to me if, in fact, the culture created the god and not the other way around.

I think that all cultures create God in their own image.

[_Chap]

What existed during that time frame was a very brutal tribal culture. The women never had consent as far as who they were to marry. Marriages were arranged. Take note that when looking at the full scripture that I quoted that a betrothed woman who was raped was sentenced to death. The betrothed woman who was raped was already betrothed to be married, and could continue with the marriage.

The unbetrothed woman who was raped was no longer a virgin, therefore unfit to become betrothed. Therefore, in order for the woman to have financial security and an opportunity to marry, the man who "humbled" her, or lied with her was required to marry her. He also did not have the option to ever "put her away" or divorce her, no matter what the circumstances were, including adultery on her part.

I think I understand your point, but if it's god actually creating the rules, then "brutal tribal culture" doesn't seem like much of an excuse. To me, it seems circular. God could have just as easily said that a man who raped a virgin was to be put to death, that the virgin was blameless, and that she was eligible to be married. So, your additional information makes perfect sense to me if, in fact, the culture created the god and not the other way around.

I think that all cultures create God in their own image.

Yes indeed. Deities of all kinds are simply imaginary constructs into which people have habitually invested huge moral capital, sometimes to no very good effect.

[_Ceeboo]

Hey Chap

Deities of all kinds are simply imaginary constructs

Would this be similar to an evolutionists imaginary construct of life spontaneously forming from non living material?

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_huckelberry]

What existed during that time frame was a very brutal tribal culture. The women never had consent as far as who they were to marry. Marriages were arranged. Take note that when looking at the full scripture that I quoted that a betrothed woman who was raped was sentenced to death. The betrothed woman who was raped was already betrothed to be married, and could continue with the marriage.

The unbetrothed woman who was raped was no longer a virgin, therefore unfit to become betrothed. Therefore, in order for the woman to have financial security and an opportunity to marry, the man who "humbled" her, or lied with her was required to marry her. He also did not have the option to ever "put her away" or divorce her, no matter what the circumstances were, including adultery on her part.

I think I understand your point, but if it's god actually creating the rules, then "brutal tribal culture" doesn't seem like much of an excuse. To me, it seems circular. God could have just as easily said that a man who raped a virgin was to be put to death, that the virgin was blameless, and that she was eligible to be married. So, your additional information makes perfect sense to me if, in fact, the culture created the god and not the other way around.

Brad, I think your objection makes sense if Gods role is perpetual rule maker. I do not think God does that. Instead I believe God asks us to make rules and asks us to do so faithfully. Humans are to make the adjustment you mention. It is worth noting that generally Bible influenced cultures have done this over time.

The picture of God I just spoke of probably did not come from Mormonism.I think it is in the Bible but is not necessarily the picture in view in all parts of the Bible. I can think of God writing the ten commandments but I do not picture him writing the whole legal social structure in the Torah. I am completely unable to read the first five books books of the Bible without seeing tribal traditions and stories cobbled together. That is literally what is there.

I think Liz comments about the specific law in question are helpful. Trying to understand why it exists, I am reminded of the sense that group survival took precedent over individual rights in that time and place. Marriage was to ensure social peace and harmony and produce children. Producing enough children to survive was a perpetual serious undertaking. Like it or not one was understand they were obligated to do their part. People did not choose partners they made babies fulfilling social obligation.I do not think this was a Biblical thing but is just they way things were in all sorts of cultures at that time. Population maintenance was critical to social power and survival.

When I look at the time place social sense of the law my objection to it is partially answered. I do not like the particular sense of feminine purity that is in view. I think it plays out today in the honor killing that occurs in that culture to this day. In saying culture, I mean place and people,more than followers of Torah.

[_Chap]

Hey Chap

Deities of all kinds are simply imaginary constructs

Would this be similar to an evolutionists imaginary construct of life spontaneously forming from non living material?

Peace,
Ceeboo

No. Deities go back to the most primitive level of human imaginings, from long before people began to ask that question so basic to science "How can we know whether that is true or not?". Very few people who believe in a deity even today ever engage in a serious and open-ended reflection on whether they have good grounds for that belief.

Scientific hypotheses are, by their very nature, there to be tested, if necessary to destruction. The modern form of the hypothesis that living systems on this planet have their ultimate origins in non-living matter arose from many years of fierce argument between different views of what life was about. If biologists become convinced for good testable reasons that this simply could not have happened, then they will abandon that hypothesis and try another.

And of course the vast majority of the material that paleontologists examine in the course of tracing the course of evolution consists of the remains of living matter. The beginnings of that living matter are not germane to how the world got (for example) vertebrates or flying insects from the first multi-cellular groupings, once those groupings came into existence long after the first life appeared.