Rape In The Bible

Simple question. Is rape explicitly justified in the bible?

UK Atheist

1 Like

Numbers 31:17-18,40-41

17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

40 And the persons were sixteen thousand; of which the Lord’s tribute was thirty and two persons.

41 And Moses gave the tribute, which was the Lord’s heave offering, unto Eleazar the priest, as the Lord commanded Moses.

**Deuteronomy 22:22-29 **

Raping an unmarried woman in verse 28 is treated the same as consensually seducing an unmarried woman in Numbers 22:16

22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;

24 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.

25 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.

26 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:

27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.

28 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;

29 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.

Exodus 22:16-17

16 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.

17 If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.

It’s all about who the woman belongs to, a father or husband etc get compensated, the woman gets to be married to her rapist.


Thanks. I agree it’s fairly damning but would you say those are more about women as property or is the bible literally condoning rape? My problem is that I have a theist in my FB group who is really good at twisting his way out of logical arguments and won’t admit that some things that I would unhesitatingly classify as condoning rape, are actually so. I’m sure you know the type I mean.

UK Atheist

It’s implicit in two places that I could see, the sex trafficking (it can’t be viewed as anything else) of virginal female children from ethnic cleansing wars, and where it implied not crying out indicated consent on the part of the woman. Beyond that wherever consent is not the primary concern it is condoning rape.

The only way out of a logical argument is by being irrational?

Those passages condone, and in at least one place explicitly endorse non-consensual sex with underage female prisoners of war as long they are virgins, if he doesn;t think they are rape, then ask him if he considers sex without explicit consent to be rape? If says he does not, then ask him he’d be ok with another man raping and sodomising him, as he failed to convince anyone he’d put up a sufficient fight?

Personally I’d just stop engaging with the guy, as he is happy to endorse rape by pretending it is not rape, I couldn’t care less what his motives are.

I’ve seen a range of attitudes from people who do this, but being an misogynist isn’t a crime per se sadly. Ask if he would ever have sex without explicit consent, ask him how he’d feel if he had an underage daughter who was trafficked in an ethnic cleansing war because she was a virgin?


When I went on a Christian forum to do debates, there was at least one of those idiots who was trying to justify it.

1 Like

As I said, I try not to engage with people if they don’t accept that without explicit consent it is rape. Also the “you’re misinterpreting the text brigade”, they can fuck right off as well, if it specifically says X, and they’re claiming it says Y, then they’re the one doing the dishonest misinterpreting of the text. Also why does a deity with limitless knowledge to create a message, and limitless power to communicate it, need any interpretation at all? Check fucking mate…

I’d rather fire up the PS and do some gaming than listen to some cunt try and claim that:

17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Does not involve sex trafficking and rape of children, fuck right off, it means what it fucking says it means or else it means fuck all to anyone. “Oh I think it’s a metaphor for we should all join hands and sing kumbaya my lord”, they can all fuck right off as well.

I have no patience with that sort of bs.


I’ve talked to JWs on the street that also did this. They said “those were other times”, and tried to make the excuse that the women would in the end be better off by getting married than stay unmarried, even if they were forced to marry their rapist. My reply was that since their god is all-knowing, it would have known beforehand that the rules of society would change, so why didn’t it just set it up right in the first place instead of forcing all these horrible rules upon people, rules that it would have just pulled out of its godly ass. In short, the shitty god surely created a shitty world with shitty rules.


Yeah a familiar piece of bs, though of course a deity passing on perfect morality might have simply said no sex without explicit consent, and no sex with children, and no sex with prisoners, and don’t have any slaves ever, but to be fair according to the goat herders guide to the galaxy, he needed those first 4 out of 10 commandments to outline the saccharine worship he expected from his new pets.

You can’t expect every little problem explained after all, even a from a deity that has literally limitless knowledge and power.

I bet they loved that…


“We’ll have to come back to you on that”, meaning that they’d have to talk with their elders to come up with an answer excuse.


OK, a question … my theist is refsuing to admit that the bible condones non-consensual sex (rape).

Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

So, you read something that basically says, kill all the men but take all the women and children to use as your own what do you think the fate of those women (and children) was likely to be? In other words, what do those words effectively encourage you to do with them? A follow up question… if, like me, you feel that those words do sex (at least for the women), would you say that was non-consensual or not?

I realise it was a different age, a patriarchy where women had few rights at all (better today but there’s still a lot of it around) and that the real problem for Christians is marrying the morality of a culture thousands of years out of synch with ours, but I don’t feel that invalidates the questions especially when there are theists who try to justify the bible as a moral tome.

UK Atheist

He’s demonstrably wrong, not much else to say. To reiterate:

Your theists friend is wrong, or a liar, or both. I’d stop discussing it with him myself, what’s the point.

1 Like