Missing Mosaic Laws...

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,641
✟476,748.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
So I've brought it up a few times in various threads that were only slightly on topic, but where are the laws against rape and molestation?

Leviticus 18 has a long list of people you aren't supposed to have sex with, and it even mentions no homosexual sex, but nowhere in the OT does it say, "Don't have sex with people that don't want it" or "Don't have sex with children".

If the Mosaic Laws were really handed down directly by God to Moses, then shouldn't the worst possible sins get mentioned? It goes into detail about restitution for theft and damage of property, but no mention of rape. Why is that?

Now I know someone is going to say, "Well what about Deuteronomy 22?".

Well those are laws against adultery that give a pass to the woman if she was raped. It doesn't condemn raping women for the sake of the rape. The man is getting the same punishment whether he forced the woman or not. And they also only protect betrothed virgins. No protection for children, widows, divorced women, un-betrothed women, wives (by their husbands) etc...

So why the omission? If it's important enough to detail what to do if your ox destroys property, shouldn't it be important enough to say, "Hey, no raping the ladies!" and "Hands off the little girls!"?

Now don't get me wrong. This isn't a nail in the coffin for God's existence. And I'm not even judging bronze-age people for not thinking to include it. But if the laws were truly divinely inspired, then they wouldn't have glaring omissions like this. If they were man made, then this is what we would expect: that their laws weren't much different from other contemporary cultures. So it would only raise the question of whether we should take every law and rule laid out in the Bible completely literally and whether every law and rule laid out in the Bible as applying to modern times as well as ancient times.
 

(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 14, 2015
6,132
3,089
✟405,713.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Would you consider rape to be "sexual immorality"? If a woman or child is raped, would you assume that that woman or child is not married to the rapist? The mosaic laws are pretty clear on sexual immorality and premarital sex.
 
Upvote 0

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,641
✟476,748.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Would you consider rape to be "sexual immorality"?
Yes. That's why I pointed out the section about sexual morality and pointed out the absence of any such law.
If a woman or child is raped, would you assume that that woman or child is not married to the rapist?
No, absolutely not. You can rape your wife, and if you're suggesting that you can't, that's a terrible position to take.
The mosaic laws are pretty clear on sexual immorality and premarital sex.
No, there is no law against premarital sex for men. There's no law against prostitution even. You can't be a temple prostitute. And you can't make Israelite girls prostitutes, but there is no law against visiting them. There is no law against premarital sex for men. Case in point, remember the famous story about the two women who went before Solomon to argue about the true mother of the baby? They were both harlots. If prostitution were illegal, they would have been arrested on the spot. Since prostitution was legal, single men had to be visiting them.

But feel free to show me the "No such until marriage you men" law. There is, of course, a law against women having premarital sex.
 
Upvote 0

golgotha61

World Christian in Progress
Supporter
Jul 19, 2011
752
48
Ohio
✟79,112.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No, there is no law against premarital sex for men. There's no law against prostitution even. You can't be a temple prostitute. And you can't make Israelite girls prostitutes, but there is no law against visiting them. There is no law against premarital sex for men. Case in point, remember the famous story about the two women who went before Solomon to argue about the true mother of the baby? They were both harlots. If prostitution were illegal, they would have been arrested on the spot. Since prostitution was legal, single men had to be visiting them.

But feel free to show me the "No such until marriage you men" law. There is, of course, a law against women having premarital sex.


According to the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, the Hebrew word in Exodus 20:14 (7th commandment) for adultery is (nāʾap). This word represents sexual intercourse with the wife or the betrothed of another man. However, the word (zānâ) represents illicit heterosexual intercourse. It is used generally in reference to women but it is used in Exodus 34:16 and Numbers 25:1 in reference to men.

Nāʾap is the word that is used primarily for men in relation to sexual relations with married or betrothed women. Zānâ is a derivative of nāʾap and it is used as a law of conduct for men and women in reference to illicit heterosexual intercourse.

As far as prostitution goes, I think that OT Scripture is decidedly against prostitution in its treatment of the behavior. Especially since the laws that God gave Israel were to differentiate them from the cult religions of the pagan cultures from whom Israel adopted the cult prostitutes and greatly angered God.

The penalties for breaking these rules were not the same since adultery in relation to marriage and betrothal resulted in family rupture and was punishable by death. Family is of the utmost importance to God’s plan for mankind. The penalty for men having relations with unwed or un-betrothed women was a monetary fine and usually marriage if the father of the woman was willing cf Ex. 22:16-17. So, there was a penalty for the man to engage in premarital sex, it is just that the severity of punishment was not equal since God views the offenses unequal in damage done to His purpose for Israel and for mankind.
 
Upvote 0

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,641
✟476,748.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
However, the word (zānâ) represents illicit heterosexual intercourse. It is used generally in reference to women but it is used in Exodus 34:16 and Numbers 25:1 in reference to men.
The Exodus quote has nothing to do with actual intercourse. And the Numbers quote might just be because of who they were "whoring" themselves after since "no Moabite shall ever enter the assembly of God".
As far as prostitution goes, I think that OT Scripture is decidedly against prostitution in its treatment of the behavior. Especially since the laws that God gave Israel were to differentiate them from the cult religions of the pagan cultures from whom Israel adopted the cult prostitutes and greatly angered God.
Well, that depends on what you mean by "decidedly against". I'm certainly not claiming that prostitutes were respected members of their community, only that there is no law against it, and it was practiced by foreign women and patronized by Israelite men without punishment. Here is a Jewish website on this matter. It was illegal for Israelite girls to become prostitutes, it was not illegal for Israelite men to visit prostitutes, even if they were married.
The penalties for breaking these rules were not the same since adultery in relation to marriage and betrothal resulted in family rupture and was punishable by death. Family is of the utmost importance to God’s plan for mankind. The penalty for men having relations with unwed or un-betrothed women was a monetary fine and usually marriage if the father of the woman was willing cf Ex. 22:16-17. So, there was a penalty for the man to engage in premarital sex, it is just that the severity of punishment was not equal since God views the offenses unequal in damage done to His purpose for Israel and for mankind.
The penalty for men having relations with unwed or un-betrothed virgins was a monetary fine. Not just "women". This verse is echoed in Deuteronomy that I pointed out. This was because it made it harder for the fathers to find a suitor for the girls once they were no longer virgins. This was to keep the girls from having to be spinsters who could never find a husband. Again, this law is not about premarital sex. An unmarried man is free to visit a prostitute, and is free to have relations with a girl who is not a virgin.

Any thoughts on the actual OP, the fact that there is no law against rape? Or is attempting to link it to fornication, which again there is no law against it for men, the closest thing there is to such a law. Because, as I pointed out to Jason, wives are raped by their husbands, so fornication, if it were a law, is not a law against rape.
 
Upvote 0

golgotha61

World Christian in Progress
Supporter
Jul 19, 2011
752
48
Ohio
✟79,112.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The Exodus quote has nothing to do with actual intercourse. And the Numbers quote might just be because of who they were "whoring" themselves after since "no Moabite shall ever enter the assembly of God".


The Exodus quote refers to intercourse in reference to the pagan Gods and is still fornication as per definition of zānâ according to The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Granted, it does not refer to man with woman intercourse but is included as condemning men for the act even if it is meant as a metaphor. The Numbers quote stands as it is written without the necessity for reinterpretation. It refers itself to the act of human intercourse by men with women and the man is held in contempt for the act, there is no need and is unwarranted to speculate any other reading than is clearly contained in the text. The “who” is irrelevant since it is the act that is in question and it is condemned in this case.


Well, that depends on what you mean by "decidedly against". I'm certainly not claiming that prostitutes were respected members of their community, only that there is no law against it, and it was practiced by foreign women and patronized by Israelite men without punishment. Here is a Jewish website on this matter. It was illegal for Israelite girls to become prostitutes, it was not illegal for Israelite men to visit prostitutes, even if they were married.


Prostitution is presented pejoratively in Scripture and the web site is correct as it represents the biblical treatment of the practice. There are laws against it in relation to what you mention (Hebrew daughters cf Lev 19:29, and priests could not marry a prostitute cf Lev 21:7). Except in the case of Hosea who God commanded to marry a prostitute.


The penalty for men having relations with unwed or un-betrothed virgins was a monetary fine. Not just "women". This verse is echoed in Deuteronomy that I pointed out. This was because it made it harder for the fathers to find a suitor for the girls once they were no longer virgins. This was to keep the girls from having to be spinsters who could never find a husband. Again, this law is not about premarital sex. An unmarried man is free to visit a prostitute, and is free to have relations with a girl who is not a virgin.


Well yes, virgins are women and if there is an unwed woman in the Hebrew culture, she was expected to be a virgin. If she were not a virgin, then she either was a widow or a prostitute. Either a prostitute by profession or by unlawful sexual behavior. The law was not necessarily meant to keep girls from being spinsters as much as it was meant to promote the family unit, which was one of God’s primary concerns. If the men were permitted to practice extramarital sex and the culture called for virginity to be a prerequisite for marriage, God’s concern was for family creation and the need was for men to marry the virgin they had extramarital sex with which would curtail a reckless treatment of sexual activity.


Any thoughts on the actual OP, the fact that there is no law against rape? Or is attempting to link it to fornication, which again there is no law against it for men, the closest thing there is to such a law. Because, as I pointed out to Jason, wives are raped by their husbands, so fornication, if it were a law, is not a law against rape.


There is a law against rape in regards to the virgin. Addressing the OP: The laws that are contained in the Pentateuch were designed by God to separate Israel from the pagan cultures in several areas; Social, familial, religious, and governmental. Most of them were constructed specifically for Israel and were not extended to the pagans or the Gentiles of the future. However, the main concern was the act of and the focus of worship. This is where God is more specific in how Israel was to be different than the pagans.

If you are concerned with how to deal with biblical law and ethics, Christ specifically addressed clarification on some of those issues with marriage and divorce which again demonstrate God’s concern for the family unit.

In the Epistles, the biblical laws are restructured and refined for application to the Gentile nations. Of course Christ gives the Kingdom way of living in the beatitudes and His various teachings on Kingdom living cf Matt 5-7. As an example of how to treat a wife, Paul calls for men to love their wives in ways that are not contained in the OT cf Eph 5:25-29. This would address the problem of rape against a wife.
 
Upvote 0

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,641
✟476,748.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Prostitution is presented pejoratively in Scripture and the web site is correct as it represents the biblical treatment of the practice. There are laws against it in relation to what you mention (Hebrew daughters cf Lev 19:29, and priests could not marry a prostitute cf Lev 21:7). Except in the case of Hosea who God commanded to marry a prostitute.
Right, so visiting prostitutes was completely legal, therefore fornication was completely legal. Looked down on? Maybe. I'm sure the women were looked down on. But no law against it. Solomon had a plethora of concubines, so it seems to me that men were admired for having sex with lots of women. At the very least, the holiest of men were granted sex with lots of women for their devotion to God, so...

Well yes, virgins are women and if there is an unwed woman in the Hebrew culture, she was expected to be a virgin. If she were not a virgin, then she either was a widow or a prostitute. Either a prostitute by profession or by unlawful sexual behavior.
Or divorced. They divorced plenty back then. And again, married women need protection from rape too, so most of women in their society was not protected by any law. And since those virgins that were protected had clauses about when they were held responsible too, those aren't laws about rape.

There is a law against rape in regards to the virgin.
Where? The one that says she has to marry her rapist if the father says so in Exodus and Deuteronomy? Or the one in Deuteronomy that says she isn't responsible for adultery if she was raped and she can prove it?

Addressing the OP: The laws that are contained in the Pentateuch were designed by God to separate Israel from the pagan cultures in several areas; Social, familial, religious, and governmental. Most of them were constructed specifically for Israel and were not extended to the pagans or the Gentiles of the future. However, the main concern was the act of and the focus of worship. This is where God is more specific in how Israel was to be different than the pagans.
And those laws are all well and good. "Don't steal" has nothing more to do with holiness than "Don't rape" does. There were plenty of laws that were just normal secular-style laws that plenty of other cultures had in common with the Israelites. There were laws about being generally moral, about being generous, about damaging the property of others. But no law against rape or molestation.

If you are concerned with how to deal with biblical law and ethics, Christ specifically addressed clarification on some of those issues with marriage and divorce which again demonstrate God’s concern for the family unit.

In the Epistles, the biblical laws are restructured and refined for application to the Gentile nations. Of course Christ gives the Kingdom way of living in the beatitudes and His various teachings on Kingdom living cf Matt 5-7. As an example of how to treat a wife, Paul calls for men to love their wives in ways that are not contained in the OT cf Eph 5:25-29. This would address the problem of rape against a wife.
No, I'm wondering why we should believe that Mosaic Law was directly handed down by God if He overlooked rape and child molestation despite all the numerous fine details of much lesser sins.

Does the NT do a better job of explaining morality and define more things as immoral than the OT did? You bet. But that's just how morality works. It gets refined over time. People do that all the time on their own without a need for religion to tell them to.
 
Upvote 0

golgotha61

World Christian in Progress
Supporter
Jul 19, 2011
752
48
Ohio
✟79,112.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Right, so visiting prostitutes was completely legal, therefore fornication was completely legal. Looked down on? Maybe. I'm sure the women were looked down on. But no law against it. Solomon had a plethora of concubines, so it seems to me that men were admired for having sex with lots of women. At the very least, the holiest of men were granted sex with lots of women for their devotion to God, so...


Legal in the view of the absence of casuistic or case law or even apodictic law, no and I will explain below. But since God’s charges against Israel were often metaphorically connected to “prostitution,” the act of relations with a prostitute were not sanctioned by God, only tolerated. The men were also included in the pejorative view and not just the women.

God defined marriage as one man and one woman in which the act of sexual intercourse was becoming one flesh. Adultery was a sin and if a married man had sexual relations with someone other than his first wife, he was guilty of adultery. The law was broken and just because the Israelites didn’t punish the offender as they should have, doesn’t make the act legal.

In the case of the single man, sex with a prostitute was also punishable but was ignored. Who was the prostitute? Was she divorced? Was she a ruined virgin? If she was divorced, the law is still broken because God never intended that divorce would be practiced and if one had relations with such a person, then adultery was still committed but the Israelites declined to treat it as the sin that it was.

If the woman was a ruined virgin, it means that she was raped or consensually involved in the act and the civil act of marriage was not completed. If she was raped, she and the rapist had still become one flesh and if another man had relations with her, then he was an adulterer. The sexual union is the determiner of becoming joined as one flesh and if one joins with another who is one flesh with someone else, the act of adultery is on those who engage in the act. The original plan for man and woman to become one was initiated in the act of sexual intercourse and it was the signifier of becoming one flesh/husband and wife.

Just because the nation of Israel did not determine these specific acts as sins of adultery does not negate the fact that they were adultery. That is why these details are revisited in the NT as God brings mankind closer to the completion of His plan for us. The sin is on Israel for not holding itself to the original standards of sin that God outlined and allowing the sins to grow until she was cast into the era of dispersion.

Solomon was not within God’s plan when he accumulated the concubines and multiple wives and in fact, he was in violation of God’s command cf Deu 17:17. Solomon garnered these wives as a means of acquiring national advantages in the Ancient Near East (ANE). In the ANE it was customary to seal the deal with a lesser king by the greater king (Solomon) marrying the lesser king’s daughter. This was not sanctioned by God and was sin which Solomon would indeed suffer for in his later years. God allowed this polygamy the same way that He allowed divorce but Jesus reminded Israel that it was because of the hardness of man’s heart that He allowed the practice and not because God sanctioned the practice of divorce or polygamy cf Matt 19:8.

Or divorced. They divorced plenty back then. And again, married women need protection from rape too, so most of women in their society was not protected by any law. And since those virgins that were protected had clauses about when they were held responsible too, those aren't laws about rape.

As I have already pointed out, divorce was not God’s plan and it only existed because of man’s hardness of heart. So, any marriage to a divorced woman would be acts of adultery. Christ addresses the problem in Matt 19 as well. The law and intent was always there in the OT laws but man’s determination to be autonomous led him away from God’s intent and Christ brought it back into focus.

Rape: The legal texts show that rape was the equivalent to murder (Deut 22:26) and as seducing a woman physically (Deut 22:25-27) or psychologically (Deut 22:28-29; Exod 22:16) into sexual intercourse. In those same verses, the legal texts value the consent and value of the woman’s voice. In the case of the wife: The act of rape is what is judged and is not viewed as punishable by death because of the object of the crime. It is the crime itself that is abhorrent which means that the husband should treat his wife with the same concern for her value as God’s created being and this is why the NT expands on the idea of the husband treating the wife the same way he treats his own body.

No, I'm wondering why we should believe that Mosaic Law was directly handed down by God if He overlooked rape and child molestation despite all the numerous fine details of much lesser sins.

As demonstrated, finer details are provided in the NT by Christ and the authors of the epistles and it was also determined that these finer details were provided as a reminder that the original intent of the law was ignored. Finer detail is only provided as one violates the original spirit and intent of the law. For example, when Christ taught about loving your neighbor as yourself the next question was “who is my neighbor?” (Luke 10:29). However, rape was not overlooked and even though the laws that we have looked at only name the virgin they would also take into consideration the wife. This is because, since it is the act that is judged, it follows that the same respect is due for the wife’s desire for or against sexual advances.

Child molestation: This would be included in the laws concerning incest (Lev 18:6). Now again, the details of what molestation are and what the details of the act of sexual intercourse are can be seen as synonymous. In other words, the details of the entire act of sexual intercourse would be the same as what a child molester would do to a child while engaged in the act. This would be not necessarily limited to completion of the sexual act, but rather would include any or all parts of the details of the act.

This is of course in keeping with man’s desire to get away with sin by not committing what he would call the act of intercourse. Something like what a famous person claimed that oral sex was not sex or what the definition of “is” is. See the point? We know right from wrong but we seem to think that if we participate in partial sin that we are absolved from the act itself but this is not how God views sin.

Does the NT do a better job of explaining morality and define more things as immoral than the OT did? You bet. But that's just how morality works. It gets refined over time. People do that all the time on their own without a need for religion to tell them to.


The NT reboots the laws of the OT and reminds us of what the original intent was in God’s plan for mankind. Your assumption that the more detail that is in the law is a sign of evolving morality, but it is just the opposite. We make laws more detailed because we are trying to deny our sins by only committing parts of the sin in question. We deny the intent of the law and demand that details be provided so that we can get close to sin but just miss the judgment for going too far. This is why Christ defined adultery as “looking at a woman” with adulteress intent. The heart is the originator of sin and the body is the tool for its completion. In reality, the plethora of laws that accumulate over time define the culture in decline and not an evolutionary ascending culture.
 
Upvote 0

(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 14, 2015
6,132
3,089
✟405,713.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Yes. That's why I pointed out the section about sexual morality and pointed out the absence of any such law.

No, absolutely not. You can rape your wife, and if you're suggesting that you can't, that's a terrible position to take.

No, there is no law against premarital sex for men. There's no law against prostitution even. You can't be a temple prostitute. And you can't make Israelite girls prostitutes, but there is no law against visiting them. There is no law against premarital sex for men. Case in point, remember the famous story about the two women who went before Solomon to argue about the true mother of the baby? They were both harlots. If prostitution were illegal, they would have been arrested on the spot. Since prostitution was legal, single men had to be visiting them.

But feel free to show me the "No such until marriage you men" law. There is, of course, a law against women having premarital sex.
How would you define "adultery"?
 
Upvote 0

(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 14, 2015
6,132
3,089
✟405,713.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The Exodus quote has nothing to do with actual intercourse. And the Numbers quote might just be because of who they were "whoring" themselves after since "no Moabite shall ever enter the assembly of God".

Well, that depends on what you mean by "decidedly against". I'm certainly not claiming that prostitutes were respected members of their community, only that there is no law against it, and it was practiced by foreign women and patronized by Israelite men without punishment. Here is a Jewish website on this matter. It was illegal for Israelite girls to become prostitutes, it was not illegal for Israelite men to visit prostitutes, even if they were married.

The penalty for men having relations with unwed or un-betrothed virgins was a monetary fine. Not just "women". This verse is echoed in Deuteronomy that I pointed out. This was because it made it harder for the fathers to find a suitor for the girls once they were no longer virgins. This was to keep the girls from having to be spinsters who could never find a husband. Again, this law is not about premarital sex. An unmarried man is free to visit a prostitute, and is free to have relations with a girl who is not a virgin.

Any thoughts on the actual OP, the fact that there is no law against rape? Or is attempting to link it to fornication, which again there is no law against it for men, the closest thing there is to such a law. Because, as I pointed out to Jason, wives are raped by their husbands, so fornication, if it were a law, is not a law against rape.
Are you aware about the laws about fornication?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,641
✟476,748.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
How would you define "adultery"?
The OT defines it as any man having relations with a married woman. My personal definition is much stricter, and irrelevant.
Are you aware about the laws about fornication?
I am aware of girls being stoned for not being able to prove they were virgins on their wedding night, and I am aware of the law that says a man has to marry an unbetrothed virgin if he deflowers her.
 
Upvote 0

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,641
✟476,748.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Child molestation: This would be included in the laws concerning incest (Lev 18:6). Now again, the details of what molestation are and what the details of the act of sexual intercourse are can be seen as synonymous. In other words, the details of the entire act of sexual intercourse would be the same as what a child molester would do to a child while engaged in the act. This would be not necessarily limited to completion of the sexual act, but rather would include any or all parts of the details of the act.

I don't have time right now to go through your entire post, though I will when I get back from work. So I'll just respond to the worst part that I quoted above. Preventing incest does not prevent child molestation. You don't have to molest your own children to be a child molester. This is a very twisted defense of the lack of a law just like ignoring wives being raped by their husbands.

I'll leave you with this example of something that was completely legal under Mosaic law that you can use in all the other aspects of the argument as well.

A foreigner in Israelite lands has a 5-year-old daughter. This foreigner prostitutes her to Israelite men. She is no longer a virgin. One married Israelite man decides he doesn't want to pay for sex, so he forces her against her will when she is alone.

Please show me the verse or verses that explain what charges are to be brought against this man and what punishment is ascribed under the law.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

danny ski

Newbie
Jan 13, 2013
1,867
506
✟34,912.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Private
I don't have time right now to go through your entire post, though I will when I get back from work. So I'll just respond to the worst part that I quoted above. Preventing incest does not prevent child molestation. You don't have to molest your own children to be a child molester. This is a very twisted defense of the lack of a law just like ignoring wives being raped by their husbands.

I'll leave you with this example of something that was completely legal under Mosaic law that you can use in all the other aspects of the argument as well.

A foreigner in Israelite lands has a 5-year-old daughter. This foreigner prostitutes her to Israelite men. She is no longer a virgin. One Israelite man decides he doesn't want to pay for sex, so he forces her against her will when she is alone.

Please show me the verse or verses that explain what charges are to be brought against this man and what punishment is ascribed under the law.
Don't really have time to go into this, but, Judaism 101- not everything is written down in the Torah.
 
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
40
California
✟156,979.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
So I've brought it up a few times in various threads that were only slightly on topic, but where are the laws against rape and molestation?

Leviticus 18 has a long list of people you aren't supposed to have sex with, and it even mentions no homosexual sex, but nowhere in the OT does it say, "Don't have sex with people that don't want it" or "Don't have sex with children".

If the Mosaic Laws were really handed down directly by God to Moses, then shouldn't the worst possible sins get mentioned? It goes into detail about restitution for theft and damage of property, but no mention of rape. Why is that?

Now I know someone is going to say, "Well what about Deuteronomy 22?".

Well those are laws against adultery that give a pass to the woman if she was raped. It doesn't condemn raping women for the sake of the rape. The man is getting the same punishment whether he forced the woman or not. And they also only protect betrothed virgins. No protection for children, widows, divorced women, un-betrothed women, wives (by their husbands) etc...

So why the omission? If it's important enough to detail what to do if your ox destroys property, shouldn't it be important enough to say, "Hey, no raping the ladies!" and "Hands off the little girls!"?

Now don't get me wrong. This isn't a nail in the coffin for God's existence. And I'm not even judging bronze-age people for not thinking to include it. But if the laws were truly divinely inspired, then they wouldn't have glaring omissions like this. If they were man made, then this is what we would expect: that their laws weren't much different from other contemporary cultures. So it would only raise the question of whether we should take every law and rule laid out in the Bible completely literally and whether every law and rule laid out in the Bible as applying to modern times as well as ancient times.

The ancient Jews did not even have a word for rape. I think that succinctly sums it all up.
 
Upvote 0

golgotha61

World Christian in Progress
Supporter
Jul 19, 2011
752
48
Ohio
✟79,112.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I don't have time right now to go through your entire post, though I will when I get back from work. So I'll just respond to the worst part that I quoted above. Preventing incest does not prevent child molestation. You don't have to molest your own children to be a child molester. This is a very twisted defense of the lack of a law just like ignoring wives being raped by their husbands.

I did not limit child molestation to the act of incest and if you re-read the post, you should be able to apply the laws of adultery to this child molestation scenario. The laws of incest represent the detailing that you craved but there is more. Remember, adultery is applicable to all heterosexual activities that are not practiced within the confines of the husband and wife. Once the male and female perform the sex act, they are now one in the eyes of God. Also, I explained the case of rape and it would apply here as well. Perhaps you should read all of the post before you object to its content.

I'll leave you with this example of something that was completely legal under Mosaic law that you can use in all the other aspects of the argument as well.

A foreigner in Israelite lands has a 5-year-old daughter. This foreigner prostitutes her to Israelite men. She is no longer a virgin. One married Israelite man decides he doesn't want to pay for sex, so he forces her against her will when she is alone.

Please show me the verse or verses that explain what charges are to be brought against this man and what punishment is ascribed under the law.

Show me where this event is presented in the biblical narratives. I will deal with actual events and parts of the biblical narratives, not made up stories to create a false narrative or in the worst case scenario, a strawman argument.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
40
California
✟156,979.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I will deal with actual events and parts of the biblical narratives, not made up stories to create a false narrative or in the worst case scenario, a strawman argument.

How about angels of the LORD being threatened with gang rape and tacitly agreeing to have virgins take their place? Far as I can tell, those angels went back to heaven when they were done inspecting Sodom.
 
  • Like
Reactions: muichimotsu
Upvote 0

golgotha61

World Christian in Progress
Supporter
Jul 19, 2011
752
48
Ohio
✟79,112.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
How about angels of the LORD being threatened with gang rape and tacitly agreeing to have virgins take their place? Far as I can tell, those angels went back to heaven when they were done inspecting Sodom.

What is the address of this account?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums