Some background for slavery

Originally posted by vivify
Complete bull. The punishment for not being a virgin at the time of marriage (for a woman) is death by stoning. That's hardly "condoning" premarital sex.

However, the punishment for rape--a word specifically used by the bible--is merely a fine.

Care to give a reference for that? I've just gone through Leviticus and cannot find any rule which says that. These are the verses which are closest:

And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free.
Leviticus 19:20

Implying that if she were not a slave she would be put to death, but she was betrothed and in the ancient world betrothal was as binding as marriage.

And if a man shall take his sister, his father’s daughter, or his mother’s daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people: he hath uncovered his sister’s nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity.
Leviticus20:17

The penalty for sibling incest is shunning not death.

And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.
Leviticus21:9

This is the closest, but a higher standard of behaviour seems to have been expected from the families of priests. Also you'll note the penalty is burning not stoning.
From slightly earlier in the chapter we have:

They [the priests] shall not take a wife that is a whore, or profane; neither shall they take a woman put away from her husband: for he is holy unto his God.
Leviticus21:7

I'd regard this as evidence that women were not automatically executed for pre-marital sex. However, if they were betrothed it is a different matter, because in the ancient world betrothal was as binding as marriage. So I think you have your offences confused.

All quotes from the Authorized King James' Version on www.biblegateway.com

Originally posted by DeepThought
Care to give a reference for that?

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2022:13-21

Deuteronomy 22:20-21:

"20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death."

Originally posted by vivify
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2022:13-21

Deuteronomy 22:20-21:

"20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death."

Thankyou. The passage seems to indicate what happens when there is a dispute. It cannot possibly apply if, for example, the woman was previously married. This only seems to apply when the expectation is that she is a virgin, in the modern sense, at the time of marriage. The penalty is not for pre-marital sex, per say, but for having pre-marital sex and then marrying without mentioning it - although I accept things won't have gone well for her if she admitted to any of this in the meantime. Also it is only triggered if her husband "hates" her. As a side observation, faking the "tokens of virginity" isn't that hard. However, just under that there is this text:

If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die: but unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter: for he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

Deuteronomy 22:23 - 29

So the man is executed as well if they are in the city. If they are not in the city then she is regarded as innocent, and the man is executed for forcing her to have sex. The fine only applies if she is not already betrothed, and although they are forced to marry she is not executed for pre-marital sex.

Besides, none of this alters my basic point that when they talk about rape in ancient documents they are not automatically talking about forced sex, they are talking about sex without the consent of the father.

Take a break.

Dr. Paul Copan - Is God a Moral Monster?
(Takes on Richard Dawkins' criticisms )

Very good IMO.
Starts around 4:40 (skip his bad puns)

YouTube

Originally posted by DeepThought
This only seems to apply when the expectation is that she is a virgin, in the modern sense, at the time of marriage. The penalty is not for pre-marital sex, per say, but for having pre-marital sex and then marrying without mentioning it

Wrong. The rest of the passage says " She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you."

Premarital sex is considered "outrageous" and "evil"...when women do it. So it's not failing to meet the expectation of virginity that's the problem, it's the woman not abiding by the double - standard of "purity" and having premarital sex that gets her killed.

Originally posted by vivify
Wrong. The rest of the passage says " She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you."

Premarital sex is considered "outrageous" and "evil"...when women do it. So it's not failing to meet the expectation of virginity that's the problem, it's the woman not abiding by the double - standard of "purity" and having premarital sex that gets her killed.

Then why are they not executed when caught in flagrante? You also have not demonstrated that rape is condoned by the Old Testament. The only case where there is a fine is where she is not already betrothed.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Then why are they not executed when caught in flagrante? You also have not demonstrated that rape is condoned by the Old Testament. The only case where there is a fine is where she is not already betrothed.

You can have sex with your female slaves, if they like it or not.

That's rape. period.

Also, while a woman might consent to the sex outside of marriage for which
the guy then has to pay a fine and then marry her, there is absolutely no
requirement that she does consent.

And in practice there are many documented examples where this was the case.
Up to and including royalty. There were various displaced/on the run royal princess's
who got raped by their 'hosts' and then had to marry them in a power grab by their
now husbands. This is entirely uncontroversial history.

1) If they are caught during the act, a woman in that situation could simply claim rape. A better option than being stoned to death.

2) I never said the bible condones rape.

Originally posted by vivify
You're shifting the topic from forced slavery to those who willingly agree to become slaves. In that case, they aren't really slaves, they are indentured servants. This isn't what we have a problem with, and it's a cheap tactic to try and ease the conversation over to a more palatable form of slavery, just to defend your bible, when your bible clearly condones actual slavery, meaning forced servitude.

Excuse me.

I have a f*****g great big problem with "indentured servitude" thank you very much.

Because it's a fancy way of saying slavery.

When people get caught doing it today with imported immigrants we convict them
for crimes that amount to slavery, which is what it will rightly get called in the media.

And even if you are going to twist the meaning of the words so that it can not be
called slavery...

It's still absolutely morally wrong which is the point.

Originally posted by googlefudge
You can have sex with your female slaves, if they like it or not.

That's rape. period.

Also, while a woman might consent to the sex outside of marriage for which
the guy then has to pay a fine and then marry her, there is absolutely no
requirement that she does consent.

And in practice there are many documented examples where this was the ca ...[text shortened]... to marry them in a power grab by their
now husbands. This is entirely uncontroversial history.

I don't own any slaves.

Once again, there are two separate offences, one of sex without consent, which is what rape was defined as and still is, and one of forced sex. In the modern world consent lies with the woman alone so the offences are identical, that wasn't the case in the ancient world. With a female slave consent lay with the master. So it was technically impossible for him to rape her. However, it was possible for him to force her which depending on the society may or may not have been illegal, depending on what the slavery rules were (See Tacitus on Germany to see an example of a different system of slavery, he does not talk about sex with slaves though). If the slave was happy to have sex I do not think you can construct a rape out of it in either the modern or ancient sense of the term.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Then why are they not executed when caught in flagrante? You also have not demonstrated that rape is condoned by the Old Testament. The only case where there is a fine is where she is not already betrothed.

1) If they are caught during the act, a woman in that situation could simply claim rape. A better option than being stoned to death. 

2) I never said the bible condones rape.

Originally posted by vivify
1) If they are caught during the act, a woman in that situation could simply claim rape. A better option than being stoned to death. 

2) I never said the bible condones rape.

Why then did you refer to my earlier post as "complete bull"? The word "complete" naturally caused me to think you disagreed with the entire post. It seems it was only the last sentence you disagreed with. My point was that if someone is going to read the condoning of rape into the verses in the Old Testament we looked at they may as well read the condoning of pre-marital sex into them - where condone means "not automatically executed for" - although I'll grant you I could have expressed that better.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Why then did you refer to my earlier post as "complete bull"? The word "complete" naturally caused me to think you disagreed with the entire post. It seems it was only the last sentence you disagreed with. My point was that if someone is going to read the condoning of rape into the verses in the Old Testament we looked at they may as well read the con ...[text shortened]... s "not automatically executed for" - although I'll grant you I could have expressed that better.

You said that enter the bible appears to be condoning rape, it's actually condoning premarital sex. Since women are stoned to death for premarital sex in the bible, I said it was "bull", since your incorrect explanation was designed to make the bible seem less evil concerning rape.

Originally posted by vivify
You said that enter the bible appears to be condoning rape, it's actually condoning premarital sex. Since women are stoned to death for premarital sex in the bible, I said it was "bull", since your incorrect explanation was designed to make the bible seem less evil concerning rape.

I'm detecting some inconsistency here. On the one hand you are saying that you are not claiming the Bible condones rape, but on the other hand you are saying it is evil concerning rape. Which is it? Also is it just the last sentence of that earlier post you disagree with or do you disagree with the rest of it as well?

Originally posted by DeepThought
I'm detecting some inconsistency here. On the one hand you are saying that you are not claiming the Bible condones rape, but on the other hand you are saying it is evil concerning rape. Which is it? Also is it just the last sentence of that earlier post you disagree with or do you disagree with the rest of it as well?

The Bible's punishment for raping an unmarried girl is so slack, that it's immoral. If I was a judge who didn't condone rape, but merely made rapists pay a fine, wouldn't you think I was an evil judge, especially if the victim was someone you loved?

And since your entire post in question was built around your incorrect belief that the bible condones premarital sex, the entire post ended up being part of a larger overall fallacious point.