Is marital rape scripturally defensible?

[Arsenios]

I can see now (that there are) other men
(who) cannot be aroused
by a non responsive woman.

A disturbing fact is that there are those who CAN...

Marriage, with its crowns of martyrdom in denial of self, is blessed of God, and its course thereby leads (or at least can lead) to the Marriage of the Lamb... eg Salvation and Life Eternal in this life...

Arsenios

 

[RBBI]

Christian Life in Christ is NOT ABOUT whatever it might be that YOU WANT...

It is about living a Christ-obedient Life, doing the will of Christ-God, and not YOUR OWN will or desire...

The only way to disciple the Will of God is to DENY self-will...

Arsenios

Amen. The fact is, that applies to marriage as well. HaShem made covenants (marriage) in the OT; lack of faith is why almost no one realizes He is no respecter of persons and would love to do the same today. Peace

 

[lifeisgood]

I believe there is a difference between covenant and a contract.
Sometimes we do not know the difference.

A covenant cannot be broken no matter what.
A contract can.

In a covenant BOTH parties honors the terms of the covenant to stay together - no matter what.
In a contract BOTH parties can agree to break it and separate.

God made a covenant with a people - Israel. He will not break His covenant with His chosen people - in spite of Israel's rebellion.
Israel made a contract with God and have broken it.

Very simplistic, I know, but that is the way I understand it.

 

[Interplanner]

I believe there is a difference between covenant and a contract.
Sometimes we do not know the difference.

A covenant cannot be broken no matter what.
A contract can.

In a covenant BOTH parties honors the terms of the covenant to stay together - no matter what.
In a contract BOTH parties can agree to break it and separate.

God made a covenant with a people - Israel. He will not break His covenant with His chosen people - in spite of Israel's rebellion.
Israel made a contract with God and have broken it.

Very simplistic, I know, but that is the way I understand it.

What is the contract Israel made, or where is it?

I respect your point, I just want to see if you are talking about Gal 3:17 or not, which is the actual replacement theology problem.

You said God will not break his covenant. I wouldn't say this out loud. People in the audience might be aware of the two desolations of Jerusalem/Israel that have taken place. Or they might be aware of the depth of atheism among modern Jews who have created the nation.

God's redemptive covenant, of which the land of Israel was only a picture, never was with Israel. It was with the Seed--that is, Christ. He was also made to be a 'covenant for the nations' which was how everything began when the Abraham narrative starts. Which is why the first preaching of the Gospel (Acts 2, 3, 13) is for all nations.

God never had two programs going, although the promise of the land and the worship system was a very strong picture or typological aid. This is why the appeal all through Acts to Israel is that they become the missionaries God wanted to create ever since Gen 12 or even Gen 3.

 

[Interplanner]

Getting back to the OP:
I hardly find the original question worth consideration since in Islam it takes 4 male witnesses to verify a rape. We should be assessing what that means from the 'peaceful' religion.

One look at I Cor 7 and you can see that the OP question is moot.

 

[lifeisgood]

What is the contract Israel made, or where is it?

Yes, we can keep the LAW when at Sinai.

 

[lifeisgood]

I respect your point, I just want to see if you are talking about Gal 3:17 or not, which is the actual replacement theology problem.

No not speaking of Gal. 3:17.
I do not believe in replacement theology more than I believe that I am not typing right now.

You said God will not break his covenant. I wouldn't say this out loud. People in the audience might be aware of the two desolations of Jerusalem/Israel that have taken place. Or they might be aware of the depth of atheism among modern Jews who have created the nation.

Hebrew 6:13 --- For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself.

God has swore by His holiness (Ps. 89).

God's redemptive covenant, of which the land of Israel was only a picture, never was with Israel. It was with the Seed--that is, Christ. He was also made to be a 'covenant for the nations' which was how everything began when the Abraham narrative starts. Which is why the first preaching of the Gospel (Acts 2, 3, 13) is for all nations.

However, God chose these people to go and preach His redemptive covenant and the people He chose to do such work has broken their 'we can do it' in Sinai.

God never had two programs going, although the promise of the land and the worship system was a very strong picture or typological aid. This is why the appeal all through Acts to Israel is that they become the missionaries God wanted to create ever since Gen 12 or even Gen 3.

Agreed.

 

[Interplanner]

I see half a point there...they sound overconfident, even arrogant, but they didn't collaborate or negotiate anything which is what contracting is about. There is no 2nd or 3rd round that I know of. There is not even the conception that they are an equal party that I know of.

The replacements that I'm talking about are in Gal 3:17 when Israel switches who the promises are made to. I believe he is referring to the Judaism he grew up in. At risk is the mission of the Gospel which is by nature for all nations.

 

[Rusha]

Getting back to the OP:
I hardly find the original question worth consideration since in Islam it takes 4 male witnesses to verify a rape. We should be assessing what that means from the 'peaceful' religion.

One look at I Cor 7 and you can see that the OP question is moot.

Oh ... so your standard for marital rape is "well, it's not as bad as Islam" ....

lain:

 

[Interplanner]

No not speaking of Gal. 3:17.
I do not believe in replacement theology more than I believe that I am not typing right now.



Hebrew 6:13 --- For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself.

God has swore by His holiness (Ps. 89).



However, God chose these people to go and preach His redemptive covenant and the people He chose to do such work has broken their 'we can do it' in Sinai.



Read Gal 3:17 closely. A person can't accept both that kind of replacement and the modern complaint at the same time, because the modern complaint is what Judaism (not Paul) believed was correct in Gal 3:17. And Hebrews does say the old covenant was replaced.

It is Judaism that originates the idea of two programs which is why dispensationalism and its futurism are so similar to Judaism conceptually.



Agreed.

A person can't accept the replacement referred to in Gal 3:17 and the modern futurist complaint at the same time.

Judaism originated the idea of two programs, which is why dispensationalism and its futurism sound so similar conceptually, even though they may look very different externally.

 

[Interplanner]

Oh ... so your standard for marital rape is "well, it's not as bad as Islam" ....

lain:

No, the standard is I Cor 7 where there is a mutual obligation. Then, if that obligation is viewed as rape per modern campus & PC language, we are out of words for what Islam is saying.

My concern is the use of the word 'rape' to attack something promised earlier. Do we really need attorneys to handle hand-holding?

Unfortunately the socialists of the Frankfurt School want to destroy the West sexually, and have since the 30s. One way is to ridicule our youth for not being active sexually as early as possible and calling that restraint a mental illness. In reality, couples find out that sex is only 2% of what needs to be worked out. The proper care and feeding of the other 98% usually makes sex the icing on the cake it is supposed to be, not the center.

In a marriage, it is far more productive for a partner to say "I just don't enjoy sex" than to claim or accuse rape. There seems to be something today against a partner saying how they feel. As though there never are any problems to be worked out, or help to get, or counsel to seek.

 

[Rusha]

No, the standard is I Cor 7 where there is a mutual obligation. Then, if that obligation is viewed as rape per modern campus & PC language, we are out of words for what Islam is saying.

My concern is the use of the word 'rape' to attack something promised earlier. Do we really need attorneys to handle hand-holding?

Unfortunately the socialists of the Frankfurt School want to destroy the West sexually, and have since the 30s. One way is to ridicule our youth for not being active sexually as early as possible and calling that restraint a mental illness. In reality, couples find out that sex is only 2% of what needs to be worked out. The proper care and feeding of the other 98% usually makes sex the icing on the cake it is supposed to be, not the center.

In a marriage, it is far more productive for a partner to say "I just don't enjoy sex" than to claim or accuse rape. There seems to be something today against a partner saying how they feel. As though there never are any problems to be worked out, or help to get, or counsel to seek.

You do understand that rape is forcing sex AGAINST another person's will, correct?

 

[Interplanner]

Who are we talking about? Are there vows? What is the history?

Surfing is fun. Eating chocolate is fun. Sex is fun. Metaphors are exchanged freely. So when a person is not enjoying sex, there is 100 other things involved than whether the word 'rape' is forced activity. What causes disphoria (inability to enjoy anything)? Is the sex that is being refused fun? Or is it harsh or hurried? There are many, many degrees to communication before we get to your question.

I'm sure you will find people to agree quickly to you; I don't do that. I hope that is not why you are here at TOL instead of talking to a marital counselor. Communication is work because meaning is delicate. Simplifying it makes trouble and misery down the line.

The way Scriptural marriage is, you would never have got to this question.

 

[ok doser]

You believe...

i stopped it right there because it's an incoming tard-alert signal

if a husband forces sex on his wife it's not rape

and a direct hit! :first:

Actually, there is no such thing as a "non-Godly marriage."

there is to anna

according to anna, homosexuals can "marry"

"I don't feel like it," means she is not aroused. That is a good enough reason to say no.

no

it isn't

 

[ok doser]

think we have had enough if this topic! Anyone who thinks rape is EVER justified is a moron

good thing nobody is saying that rape is EVER justified, eh?

You know absolutely zero about rape...

whereas you're an expert?

 

[genuineoriginal]

GO, ok doser, and Crucible, is your general idea this......that in marriage your body is no longer your own so rape in marriage is a contradiction and can't exist?

My point is that sex is to be legal inside of a marriage and illegal outside of the marriage, according to the Bible.

The traditional definition of rape is "A carnal knowledge of a woman not one's wife by force or against her will."

Therefore, marital rape is not rape and should never be prosecuted as rape.

The verses that speak about believing your body is no longer your own is speaking about what you should do in a marriage and why you should do it.

 

[genuineoriginal]

If a wife does refuse and the husband does force it, what is that called?

Something other than rape.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Correction: According to the Mosaic Law, menstruation is a time at which the husband is to avoid having sexual contact with his wife. Last I checked, we don't live under the Jewish Law.

Sorry, but I am not referring to "Jewish" Law, I am speaking about the Law of God given through Moses to the children of Israel.
Also, Jewish women are not the only women that menstruate, so abstaining from sex during menstruation is a universal principle that God put into His Law.

Nonetheless, it remains true that it's not a good reason for the wife to say "no."

It is a time that God said the couple should abstain from sex, so it is a good reason.

 

[genuineoriginal]

"I don't feel like it," means she is not aroused. That is a good enough reason to say no. Why should sex be obligatory when she is not aroused?

1 Corinthians 7:2-6 2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. 3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. 4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. 5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. 6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.​

According to these verses, the reason a woman should agree to have sex with her husband is to help her husband so he will not be tempted to go outside the marriage and fornicate.

But, as the verse says, doing this is a suggestion, not a commandment.

 

[genuineoriginal]

think we have had enough if this topic! Anyone who thinks rape is EVER justified is a moron

That is the topic of a different thread.