God will sort it out...

[Sue U]

Well considering the people of the ancient Middle East, who cut off hands for stealing; stoned to death adulteress; enslaved other tribes for being other tribes,

Ancient Middle East? Haven't you kept up with current events?

[loCAtek]

Sue U true, it wasn't hard to gather such data on ME justice,

[Crackpot]

He could have just as easily said sorry no I'm not going to and wouldv'e lost nothing

Could he really? His father ordered him to take his brother's widow as his wife. Could he have refused without earning his father's wrath and being cast out, completely disinherited?

Yeah I realized last night that I was combining Onan and Judah My mistake.

Let's also not forget that Onan's brother, Er, had been struck dead for being wicked in the eyes of God. Onan might have believed that God did not intend for Er's line to continue and so might have been afraid to impregnate Tamar. Onan might have also had reason to suspect Judah's motives in commanding him to marry Tamar and have children with her. He might have had an insight into Judah's deceitful nature, later demonstrated by the way in which he tricked Tamar to leave his house without marrying his youngest son after Onan died, because he feared his only remaining son would die like his brothers. Onan might have believed that Judah was willing to take chances with his life if God did not really want him to marry his brother's widow and give birth to his heirs. His decision to "spill his seed" might have been made out fear of dying, rather than out of greed for his brother's inheritance.

Not so much tas it states that he was irked that he would be producing heirs for his brothers inheritence and not inheriting it himself.

Deception and intrigue permeated this entire family. Onan deceived Judah and Tamar, Judah deceived Tamar and maybe Onan, Tamar deceived Judah. All of them acted out of selfishness to some degree or another. But Onan paid for it with his life, while Judah and Tamar were rewarded with heirs.

Tamr acted out of Deiet because it was the only way to secure her position in the family. At the time the family was society and without a famiy you wereout onyour own with no "social safty net" whatsover. In short she did what she had to in order to get what was owed her Though Judah did repent he seemed to get off lightly in comparison at least in contrast to Onan (we have no clue what Er did)

And this story is yet one more example of how the Davidic line (and therefore that of Jesus) is filled with some rather fucked up familial relationships.

No disagreement there. Which is one of the more intrigung things about The Bible compared to the other histories of the time it's not whitewashed much to the contrary it's filled with people doing the wrong things much like today.

I've read some covertly racist christians describe the dysfunctional history in the Bible describe rhe reason God "chose" the Jews was because his glory shines through due to their extraordinary disobedience. The answer is much much more simple: Our species as a whole is just that fucked up regardless of race creed or color.

[Crackpot]

One would hope that a supreme being would deal in more absolutes, ...

Or it could possibly point to the fact that absolutes aren't all that common and you must take everything into account when judging a situation instead of using a brain dead binary reaction to any given sitmulus.

(It frequently amuses me and bewilders me how people (Gob for example) will go on long tirades at the the simplistic belief systems of some believers and then go on to complain that God should have made it all clear and simple.)

Well, if all morality is relative and situational, then nothing is right or wrong. And in that case, what does god exist for? To me god provides something we as humans can strive to emulate; the situation, at least in some cases, does not provide an excuse for immoral behavior, even though it may well be the reason for it. And FWIW, I cannot comprehend a situation where it would be morally defensible to take a woman prisoner, lock her up for a month,and then rape her, can you.

That is not what I said.

And even if it was. your conlusion is still faulty considering that if a judgement has to be made by the sum of all facts that in itself hinges on the idea of right and wrong.

[Big RR]

Well CP, I believe there are some immutable truths which are not subject to the facts at hand. Rape is either right or it is wrong, there is no middle ground, whether you are raping a woman after holding her captive for a month (as in the biblical passage cited by stoat and sue) or raping her to keep from being the bride of a devil's servant (as in the play dark of the moon). And i do not think the factual situation can change that inherent wrongness of the action--right and wrong does not depend on the facts in all situations.

[Sue U]

BigRR, would you say that arranged marriages constitute rape?

[Big RR]

Sue--I would think it would depend on whether the woman freely consented to the sexual act or not (indeed, IMHO the same would be true of sexual acts within any relationship, including traditional, (non-arranged) marriages). So, if the woman in the biblical example consented to being held captive for a month and then freely consented to sex with her captor, I would not think it is rape. If the woman does not consent (or is incapable of freely making the decision) I see it as rape, if she does, then it is not.

[Sue U]

So if a woman were instructed from birth to accept an arranged marriage as an institution of her culture, would her acquiescence to such a relationship be rape? Would you consider consent to be "freely given" if she were subjected to such psychological conditioning?

Of course, the whole point of the Deuteronomic passage I cited was to discourage the then-common practice of taking of "war brides." If you have to have the woman sitting around your tent/mud hut weeping and wailing for a month, with no hair, no make-up, no trappings of beauty, while the rest of your family is inconvenienced and resentful, just how lust-inspiring do you think she's going to be to the would be husband?

[Gob]

Sue, a woman entering into an arranged marriage is no more accepting an institution of her culture, than anyone from the UK, Aus or USA, when we court and marry, are they?

[Sue U]

Perhaps, Gob; I'm trying to get Big RR's view on that, so that I know what he means by "freely consenting."

[rubato]

So if a woman were instructed from birth to accept an arranged marriage as an institution of her culture, would her acquiescence to such a relationship be rape? Would you consider consent to be "freely given" if she were subjected to such psychological conditioning?

Of course, the whole point of the Deuteronomic passage I cited was to discourage the then-common practice of taking of "war brides." If you have to have the woman sitting around your tent/mud hut weeping and wailing for a month, with no hair, no make-up, no trappings of beauty, while the rest of your family is inconvenienced and resentful, just how lust-inspiring do you think she's going to be to the would be husband?

I know four women who had arranged marriages. All are from India and two are Sikhs. In arranged marriages the woman is given the right of vetoing a choice just as the man is. 3 of the marriages appear to be very successful and loving unions after more than two decades in one case and one decade in the others. Based on the outcomes I realized I had to re-think my own prejudices about this custom but it should be said that all four of these women are educated professionals and things might be very different in a different educational class. In one case the woman has chosen not to talk about her husband and I never wished to intrude into her privacy by asking; but it is clear that the union means less to her than the others.

My own prejudices aside; a cultural practice persists because on some level it works. Arranged marriage seems to work for a lot of people, more than I would have guessed.

yrs,
rubato

[thestoat]

I suppose if both sides have the power of veto then an arranged marriage is very much like blind date on steroids. The problem comes when the woman (or man) does not get the power of veto. Then arranged marriages become forced marriages.

ONE WOMAN DESCRIBES ESCAPING FORCED MARRIAGE

"My background is quite modern. No-one had been through it in my family. I was the eldest daughter. I was going to college. I wanted to be a teacher.

One day I came home and my mum was on the phone. She put the phone down and she goes 'they've got someone for you to get married to'. I was like, "me?".

I was awoken by someone pulling me by my hair. And I felt something cold on my face, like a rifle.

A torch flashed in my face and all I saw was three men. The husband, his brother and another man.

I was going to scream. He said: "You make a sound, and I'll kill your mother." I remember physically shaking.

Don't think you have to do it because that's exactly what I thought.

They have to find the guts and the courage to speak up and ask for help."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-12669909

[Big RR]

Perhaps, Gob; I'm trying to get Big RR's view on that, so that I know what he means by "freely consenting."

Sue--generally I think that people will tend to be the products of their environment and upbringing but IMHO can still make choices; but if a woman is so "conditioned" that she cannot make a decision freely (and I don't know if this would ever happen) then she would be akin to a child or mental defective who could not give consent.

As for the biblical passage, I don't thin it was intended to apply only to war "brides" but to the the freedom soldiers had to rape and pillage; this is an improvement in that one cannot rape a captive immediately or take them as a slave afterwards, but it hardly justifies the conduct or makes the non consensual sexual contact any less rape.