One of the ten commandments is no adultry. So… yes. You may not have consensual sex outside of your marriage—thereby controlling your personal choices and your body.
Edit: i am ignorant to the historical differences of adultry compared to the modern definition of the word and its applications.
That was Moses. And under that old law consent had nothing to do with it. An unmarried thirteen year old raped by her father is guilty of sex outside of marriage and the punishment was death by stoning.
I think Jesus did say something about this sort of thing, according to the King James Bible anyway. Let those without sin, cast the first stone.
Adultery is still a thing in the bible but yes, they did make exceptions for rape. It was compared to murder in that obviously the murder victim is not guilty of murder.
Still adultery otherwise persists in the bible, and Jesus did not disagree with it. I generally would say the bibles not the worst when you read it as most religious texts are meant for improving people but yeah, that parts not great. A lot of the parts involving women being treated as property are pretty fucked, though that is mostly Old Testament as Jesus was pretty chill about women.
That’s my point. If you look how this law (the commandment against adultery) was actually used, it was about having sex before marriage. It didn’t matter if it was consensual or not.
If a woman (or child) lost her virginity before marriage the father would lose the bride price (dowry but from the male family to the female’s). Therefore, being found “unpure” by the Rabbi on your wedding night (to be not a virgin) would get you stoned (break the commandment).
Even if you lost your hymen through a non-sexual act. Or even if your father had raped you.
Controlling by someone else’s body and personal choices is what Jesus would do, right?
One of the ten commandments is no adultry. So… yes. You may not have consensual sex outside of your marriage—thereby controlling your personal choices and your body.
Edit: i am ignorant to the historical differences of adultry compared to the modern definition of the word and its applications.
That was Moses. And under that old law consent had nothing to do with it. An unmarried thirteen year old raped by her father is guilty of sex outside of marriage and the punishment was death by stoning.
I think Jesus did say something about this sort of thing, according to the King James Bible anyway. Let those without sin, cast the first stone.
Adultery is still a thing in the bible but yes, they did make exceptions for rape. It was compared to murder in that obviously the murder victim is not guilty of murder.
Still adultery otherwise persists in the bible, and Jesus did not disagree with it. I generally would say the bibles not the worst when you read it as most religious texts are meant for improving people but yeah, that parts not great. A lot of the parts involving women being treated as property are pretty fucked, though that is mostly Old Testament as Jesus was pretty chill about women.
Pretty sure rape isn’t consensual.
That’s my point. If you look how this law (the commandment against adultery) was actually used, it was about having sex before marriage. It didn’t matter if it was consensual or not.
If a woman (or child) lost her virginity before marriage the father would lose the bride price (dowry but from the male family to the female’s). Therefore, being found “unpure” by the Rabbi on your wedding night (to be not a virgin) would get you stoned (break the commandment).
Even if you lost your hymen through a non-sexual act. Or even if your father had raped you.
Ah, you’re saying that it isnt as simple as the modern book definition of adultry.
I apologize for my ignorance.
No worries.
It was less about being faithful than making sure property wasn’t passed down to illegitimate children.
And the mechanism for doing that was scaring women shitless by stoning offenders to death unfortunately.
That is like saying that stopping someone from murdering homeless people else is having control over their body.
You’re going to need a better false equivalency than that.