Christianity and Rape

[Choobus]

What is the correct response for a "good Christian" who has been raped? Should one follow the doctrine of "an eye for an eye" and seek revenge (presumably by having the rapist raped). Or should one "turn the other cheek" (which I suppose would be to turn around and get assfucked). Also, should one forgive the rapist if he repents?

[DMofD&D]

I'll bet they'd turn the other cheek and forgive the rapist if he repents. Although, they do "love thine enemy" so they may forgive the rapist anyway.

[bobfritzelpuff]

"love thine enemy"
You can't rape the willing.

[truthmonger]

Even when I was a christian cult member I never really understood the whole “turn the other cheek” business. If you defend yourself against some asshole who is trying to hurt you, you are doing everybody a favor. You protect yourself, you teach an asshole a lesson so he can learn from his mistakes, and you prevent some other person out there from getting harmed in the future by the asshole who is gradually learning not to be an asshole. Why didn’t Jesus think of that? Because he never existed!

[DMofD&D]

You can't rape the willing
Christians see premarital sex as a sin. Therefore anybody who tries to have sex with the christian other than the christians wife/husband would be commiting rape as the christian would be unwilling to have sex with the rapist as it goes against the christians religion. Sorry if that's a long sentence.

[Choobus]

You can't rape the willing
Christians see premarital sex as a sin. Therefore anybody who tries to have sex with the christian other than the christians wife/husband would be commiting rape as the christian would be unwilling to have sex with the rapist as it goes against the christians religion. Sorry if that's a long sentence.
Can a married Christian rape his wife? Exactly where does the bible stand on anal sex?

also, a slight aside: Is there a judean precursor to various thinghs i have learned about o0n this site, namely the dirty sanchez and the cleveland steamer? (perhaps a dirty Joeseph and a bethlehem steamer?)

[z3n]

Well in this case I’m sure that a “good” Chrsitiant would turn to the Bible. So lets see what Deuteronomy 22 has to say on the matter:

(28) If a man encounters a young woman, a virgin who is not engaged, takes hold of her and rapes her, and they are discovered, (29) the man who raped her must give the young woman's father 50 silver [shekels], and she must become his wife because he violated her. He cannot divorce her as long as he lives.

Mmmmm……

[DMofD&D]

Now there's a way to get da girls.

[valleyshrew]

They should marry the rapist if it was in a town, if it wasn't in a town, the rapist should be stoned to death. If an unengaged virgin is raped, she must marry her rapist and they can never divorce, according to Jewish law.

[z3n]

Which is in the Bible....

[Eskarina]

I'm not sure on how to approach certain old testament rules, but I go by Christ's example as best as I can without being stupid. If I were raped I would endevour to prevent the assault, obviously, and not "turn the other cheek" in the sense of letting him do it again. The old eye for an eye thing was replaced with Christ's forgiveness theme. If the rapist repented I would do my best to forgive him. That does not, however. mean that I would not insist on him serving the appropriate jail time. This, of course, is from the sterile perspective of a Christian who has never been raped so I cannot say for certain how I would react.

[lesserpanda]

Eskarina, would you forgive him/her if he/she did not repent?

(ah, Deuteronomy...solace to the troubled. I know I sure want to be married to my rapist! See, this is what I love about the Bible...Women, we're just so valued!)

[z3n]

I'm not sure on how to approach certain old testament rules, but I go by Christ's example as best as I can without being stupid.
I’ll let that one go because I wouldn’t want to be stereotypical (http://ravingatheist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=19327#p19327).

The old eye for an eye thing was replaced with Christ's forgiveness theme.
"Don't assume that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill”. (Mt. 5:17)

[GaryM]

Not quite on-topic, but here is a recent story about a rapist offering to marry his victim: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4512145.stm

[Paradox]

Not quite on-topic, but here is a recent story about a rapist offering to marry his victim: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4512145.stm
this is fine, as long as the victims father gets his well deserved 50 shekels.

[Eskarina]

Eskarina, would you forgive him/her if he/she did not repent?

(ah, Deuteronomy...solace to the troubled. I know I sure want to be married to my rapist! See, this is what I love about the Bible...Women, we're just so valued!)
It would be difficult but I would try. It's... complicated. I would try to forgive the person, but forgiveness is dependant on the desire to be forgiven. Repentance, of course, does not have to be conversion to the Christian faith, but merely being sorry for what he has done.

[Eskarina]

I'm not sure on how to approach certain old testament rules, but I go by Christ's example as best as I can without being stupid.
I’ll let that one go because I wouldn’t want to be stereotypical (http://ravingatheist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=19327#p19327).

The old eye for an eye thing was replaced with Christ's forgiveness theme.
"Don't assume that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill”. (Mt. 5:17)
I'm sorry that you harbour such feelings of resentment towards me. I hope that one day you'll figure out that just because I'm a Christian doesn't mean I'm ignorant and stupid. Again I will note that what I said was that those who assume Christians are stupid tend to be atheists not that atheists tend to think Christians are stupid, whether they do or not.

He didn't destroy the Law, rather he changed those parts that required changing. By this I mean that the "eye for an eye" was changed to forgive, whereas "thou shalt not steal" remains.

[alaspooryorick]

Back in the day when I went to church camp, there was a girl who had been raped when she was twelve or thirteen. If I recall correctly, the general feeling was it was such a horrible situation (which it is), that was beyond her control (which it was), and that she should tell someone, although she was pretty much keeping it secret from her family in shame. I don't recall anyone getting terribly preachy about forgiveness.

I stand by Dostoevsky (or rather Ivan Karamazov) on this point. The victim, if they wish to forgive the rapist, may do so. It is after all their trauma, their pain, and their life. I don't think I would "forgive" and forget, but then again, I don't feel it necessary to apply Christian teachings to my personal actions. But no one else has the right to forgive a rapist/murderer/etc. for crimes done unto another person, even if that victim chooses to do so.

[z3n]

I'm sorry that you harbour such feelings of resentment towards me. I hope that one day you'll figure out that just because I'm a Christian doesn't mean I'm ignorant and stupid.
And why is it that you keep thinking that because I can’t seem to recall anywhere that I called you stupid? You wouldn’t be stereotyping me would you, thinking that I resent you just because you’re religious?

NOTE: My first comment in that post was meant to be an ironic showing of how yes, maybe some atheists are the way that you think that they are but not all.

He didn't destroy the Law, rather he changed those parts that required changing. By this I mean that the "eye for an eye" was changed to forgive, whereas "thou shalt not steal" remains.
Says who? I don’t suppose you have a listing of all the laws that Jesus supposedly changed and which ones he didn’t.

[PanAtheist]

I hope that one day you'll figure out that just because I'm a Christian doesn't mean I'm ignorant and stupid.
If you are being a "Christian", you are *being* recklessly ignorant and stupid.
And you know this, I know this, and we all know this.

You have a paddle, you are chucking it overboard, and you are rapidly paddling up shit creek with your bare hands!

[PanAtheist]

Back in the day when I went to church camp, there was a girl who had been raped when she was twelve or thirteen. If I recall correctly, the general feeling was it was such a horrible situation (which it is), that was beyond her control (which it was), and that she should tell someone, although she was pretty much keeping it secret from her family in shame.
I hear of people being "ashamed" of being violated (and being the victim of any violence).
I think this is a telling indicator of just how screwed up our culture is.
Embarrassed? Of course! Ashamed? How inappropriate is that?!


The victim, if they wish to forgive the rapist, may do so. It is after all their trauma, their pain, and their life .... But no one else has the right to forgive a rapist/murderer/etc. for crimes done unto another person.
I like this - and I generally shun thinking in terms of forgiveness and lack thereof.

[Eskarina]

I'm sorry that you harbour such feelings of resentment towards me. I hope that one day you'll figure out that just because I'm a Christian doesn't mean I'm ignorant and stupid.
And why is it that you keep thinking that because I can’t seem to recall anywhere that I called you stupid? You wouldn’t be stereotyping me would you, thinking that I resent you just because you’re religious?

NOTE: My first comment in that post was meant to be an ironic showing of how yes, maybe some atheists are the way that you think that they are but not all.

He didn't destroy the Law, rather he changed those parts that required changing. By this I mean that the "eye for an eye" was changed to forgive, whereas "thou shalt not steal" remains.
Says who? I don’t suppose you have a listing of all the laws that Jesus supposedly changed and which ones he didn’t.
My judgements on your opinions of me come from the words that I read on my screen. Please forgive me if I misinterpreted them.

I make my decisions daily as to what still applies from the old testament and what doesn't. I don't think it's solely up to me to know for sure what is right and what is wrong, but I can do no more or no less than to decide and hope that I chose correctly. You make decisions on right and wrong too. Yours are just personally and societally based rather than having any link to biblical teachings.

[Sensitised]

My question is, why did god decide to make such cruddy laws in the first place? If 'an eye for an eye' sucked so much, couldn't god just have not made it? It all seems a bit inefficient to me.

[Eskarina]

My question is, why did god decide to make such cruddy laws in the first place? If 'an eye for an eye' sucked so much, couldn't god just have not made it? It all seems a bit inefficient to me.
~~~~~~~~~~
JUST A NOTE before I get into answering any more questions or responding to anymore comments:

Firstly, I don't know everything. I do not, and will never have all the answers. I'm only human, and only young. I do what I can, but please don't base all of your opinions about Christianity on my words.
~~~~~~~~~~

I'm not sure. I guess they worked back then or something. I don't know a whole lot about other societies in biblical times, but I'm pretty sure that a lot of the laws where along the lines of "an eye for an eye" (correct me if I'm wrong). The Israelites just wrote their laws into their holy book. I mean, I'm of the school that believes the Bible was inspired by God, but I'm pretty sure that God is okay with me using a chemical product to kill mildew on my tent, rather than the prescribed cleansing and burning rituals in the Old Testament. However, back then it was probably one of the best ways to get rid of the stuff. Likewise, I don't think that it was wrong for me to have surgery on my back to prevent disfigurement and eventual paralysis. I really don't think God minded, but back in OT days, cutting someone open and doing surgery was more likely to cause death than prevent it.

[bobfritzelpuff]

So, out of curiosity:

You accept that some things in the old testament do not apply anymore, because now we know more: i.e., we know enough to cut people open to save their lives, or to make a chemical to clean a tent.

Do you, then, believe that god created Earth in seven days and that humankind started with Adam and Eve? Or do you see that those do not apply, that those were conclusions drawn from ancient peoples who had no knowledge of evolution, had no evidence of dinosaurs, etc.?

I know that you beleive in jesus and god, but do you disbelieve evolution because of it? How can you disbelieve evolution (or other theorys contrary to the book of genisis), yet believe in chemicals and surgery?

[envision]

They should marry the rapist if it was in a town, if it wasn't in a town, the rapist should be stoned to death. If an unengaged virgin is raped, she must marry her rapist and they can never divorce, according to Jewish law.
Comes from Deutoronomy 22:25-27 Read the whole text to understand it cuz what your saying there is a bit deviant from the actual text. Also one should understand the social context surroudning this text. People did not marry for love in that time. Marriages were all pre-arranged, and a daughter brought a dowry or payment or some kind of financial gift to the father in return for giving his daughter in marriage. However in that time a woman that was not a virign was worth little or nothing. It was socially unaccpetable to marry a woman who was not a virgin. So the man would be required to marry the woman because chances are no one else would. Also marriage for a woman in that time was extremely crucial. A woman's only way of ever becoming independent from her family was through marriage. Women had no means of supporting themselves in that time. And again for a woman to remain unmarried was shameful for herself and her family. The importance of family honor is something lost in today's society especially in western culture. But to really understand whats going on here you must understand the emphasize and importance that was put on the honor of ones family in this time.

You accept that some things in the old testament do not apply anymore, because now we know more: i.e., we know enough to cut people open to save their lives, or to make a chemical to clean a tent.
They no longer apply because in the bible God makes two covenants or agreements with his people as his plan to bring them redemption. The first covenant which is INCLUDED in the old testatment it is not the ENTIRE old testament is known as the Pentateuch. Which is the first five books of the bible. And again each book is not entirely dedicated to these laws, so what no longer applies is the requirements or laws which were given to God's people in the first covenant. The point of the covenant was God gave his people a way that they could be brought together because God is perfect and people are not and thus imperfect people could not be with a perfect God. With the attonement from Christ's blood the covenant of the Penatateuch has been replaced. So essentially it is the laws in the old covenant that are no longer requiered for Christians to live under. This in no way means Christians can no longer accept or believe the old testament it merely means they are no longer under the former covenants reqiurements.

Back to the original question that was asked. What would be the Christain thing to do if one was raped?
I think a Christian that has been raped would need to seek a point of healing and I think after/ if they ever reach that point of healing then the obvious christian doctrine would be for them to forgive the person that has wronged them. But the question begs to be asked. What is forgivness? I dont think I have the answer but I think having a real graps on the implications that forgivness comes with would help to recognize what it can do.

[Little Earth Stamper]

I have difficulty with the idea that Christ changed the Old Testament laws, replacing them with his own.

Basically, my problem stems from the passage z3n cited; If we read further, we find that Matthew 5:18-19 states

I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. (19) Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
The vexing part is that, immediately after saying this, he goes on to explain how laws from both Deuteronomy and Leviticus should be changed or ignored.

Nobody has really been able to explain this to me.

[Philboid Studge]

I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
Maybe the preterists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism) are right. I.e., everything was accomplished in 70 A.D.

(NB: That Wikipedia entry includes this disclaimer: 'This article or section is currently being developed or reviewed. Some statements may be disputed or dubious.')

[The Judge]

Can a married Christian rape his wife? Exactly where does the bible stand on anal sex?
1.) Any married man can rape his wife - xian or not. It was only mid last century I think that here in the UK laws were passed which made rape possible within marriage. This is in answer to the pervasive and arrogant patriarchy that is xian dogma which deemed it impossible for a married woman to be raped by her husband because she consented to serve him in her marriage vows. The fact that she may not want to have sex with him at the time however never even crossed these neanderthals' minds.

2.) Certain xian schools actually advocated heterosexual anal sex as a legitimate means of birth control. N.B. These are clerical views as opposed to "devine" views.

Gay bummers are unfortunately still hated by the church which is a shame cos not only does it perpetuate medieval stigma and stereotypes, it means that the church is missing out on the whol gay scene (good decor, funky interiors, a dress sense, lovely costumes etc. darling...) ;)

[envision]

I have difficulty with the idea that Christ changed the Old Testament laws, replacing them with his own.

Basically, my problem stems from the passage z3n cited
Jesus states "I have not come to abolish the law or the prophets" and he further states "will by any means disappear from the law until everything is accomplished." I think it is rather clear that he is saying he has come to fullfill the messanic prophecies found throughout the old testament and that the law will remain fully in place until everything is accomplished. When he says "everything is accomplished" it makes clear sense that he is directing that towards his purpose on earth which is to establish the second covenant so of course the first covenant would remain in place until the second is fully established.

Little Earth Stamper]The vexing part is that, immediately after saying this, he goes on to explain how laws from both Deuteronomy and Leviticus should be changed or ignored.
He does not go on to explain how laws from either book should be changed or ignored he goes on to deliver the beatitudes which are very much in accordance with the laws.

[Evil_Mage_Ra]

2.) Certain xian schools actually advocated heterosexual anal sex as a legitimate means of birth control. N.B. These are clerical views as opposed to "devine" views.
My Lutheran high school actually addressed that. The theology teacher's view was that anal sex was immoral because unlike vaginal sex, there was no "natural lubricant". Obviously this caused much snickering among his class.

[Paradox]

2.) Certain xian schools actually advocated heterosexual anal sex as a legitimate means of birth control. N.B. These are clerical views as opposed to "devine" views.
Im calling bullshit on this claim. While i did hear that it became more common amongst christian teens who joined abstinence programs, this wasnt because the school advocated it, it was because the teens didnt think it was sex, so therefore it was alright. I doubt you could find any christian schools that have advocated anal sex.

[peepnklown]

god knew she was going to be raped and allowed it to happen (or couldn’t change it) so basically god is a sadist and a voyeur.