- Oct 28, 2006
- 24,590
- 11,476
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
There's nothing in the O.T. about "prostitution" that would have legal transferability BETWEEN laws? Really? Nothing? Nothing at all?For @Nihilist Virus ? Okay, here's something we discussed...
If covetousness was illegal, then prostitution would have been illegal, but it wasn't.
So, precursor concepts aren't enough in your book, I take it? You actually have to be told, "Don't specifically do such and such"? Just telling someone, "Don't even think about doing X!!!" ... isn't enough?They didn't have a word for "rape" because consent didn't belong to women, it belonged to their fathers and then their husbands after they were sold.
...and you'll need to provide your sources for this. I'm not taking it on 'faith' here, Moral! Nor am I taking on faith that the remnants of the "written Torah" that we have left to us to day was, by all historical necessity, ALL that there was by which the Israelites made legal decisions, as if the written was all they had and they were too stupid to do anything better than look at each law and each case with the same superficiality that many today apply when reading the bible by way of simplistic "proof-texting."The few laws that exist which might touch on the subject of rape are framed in such a way that they are about destruction of property, not harm caused to a woman. Remember, those laws only protect specific types of women, not all, and who it chooses to protect is indicative of why they deemed those acts wrong.
As I said to NV, I can stomach the supposed deficiency we all feel with the fact that comparatively, the O.T. Law doesn't seem to be comprehensive in the way that, say, Modern American Law attempts to be (if it indeed can...)
...but what I won't put up with is the constant hand-waiving that goes on which assumes ipso-facto that the Israelites were as "simple" as we like to take them to have been.
Last edited:
Upvote
0