Is it Rape or Not

Hello ^.^ I’d say that nothing is beyond god’s power. But if you want to say that god was capable of doing it differently and then question why he did it the way he did, then you’re getting into things that we are unable to know. How can we honestly question god’s motives? We have no idea why he did it the way he did, if he must have done it that way, or if another way would have been better or not. Well, as Faith has pointed out, he did say that in other parts of the law. I don’t think that it is necessarily a failure on gods part to not include that in the Deuteronomy passage in the OP, but I don't know. I guess you could call it too high a standard. I think that you are projecting your modern morality onto god and saying that he must follow what you deem moral. And further than that, you are projecting your morality onto laws that he gave to a very different an ancient culture.

quote:

---

Because it is only rape by our modern definition and it didn’t explicitly permit ”rape’. It gave the implication that rapes, by our definition, were going to occur but they were acceptable situations in those times

---

I find it hard to imagine how it could be expected to be more explicit. And even if it was considered "acceptable" in those times that is hardly an endorsement.

quote:

---

I had an Indian friend in college who was entering an arranged marriage. Does that mean he was going to be raping his wife?

---

That is not the same situation. An arranged marriage is agreed between two families and usually the people to be married do have the opportunity to refuse. Of course there are cases where arranged marriages have been forced - and I understand that there are cases of rape amongst those.

quote:

---

But anyways, I can see why you view that Deuteronomy 21 does amount to permission to rape captive "wives". I don’t know if that demeans god or not. Its hard to say with it applied in a modern context, but I’m leaning toward it being demeaning.

---

If the Bible demeans God then it is hardly my fault - I didn't write it.

quote:

---

But you’re questioning god’s motives. How can we know why he did things the way he did?

---

I'm questioning whether we should attribute it to God at all. You'd be happy to deny that God would do something if you objected to it - and if it didn't cause problems for your religious beleifs. But as soon as it comes to your religious beliefs it "becomes you can't question me, uh I mean God"As for the rest of your argument there seems to be a lot of attempts at obfuscation.You deal with the issue of repsonsiiblity by trying to quote a completely different point which isn't even one I've raised.You object to me clarifying the point by inserting "entirely"You try to maintian the psotion that the passages in question ARE the "word of GOd" by adopting contrary views on what it MEANS to be the "word of God" - apparently it doesn't matter to you whether God is fictional or real.And you actually think that obfuscatign the issues will help you come to valid conclusions. It won't. You'll only confuse yourself.

It only seems demeaning when taken out of context and applied to our modern morality. Well I still think that it could be the Word of God. That's not true. That's because you changed the issue. I was saying it could be from both god and the isrealites. You said it couldn't be both entirely from god and entirely from the israelites. I agree with you but that doesn't disprove my point. How else can I do it? I could just abandon the position altogether, but then the discussion ends. At least we're moving in a direction. So what contrary view on what it means to be the word of god did I adopt?I think it does matter if god is fictional or real. Its just that, in the Old Testament, sometimes he acts like a fiction character and sometimes he acts like a real one. If he is real, and the bible is his word, how can one explain when he is acting like a fictional character, or when he is 'giving permission to rape'?You could conclude that he isn't real or that it isn't his word. I believe that he is real and I think the bible, in genereal, is his word. Just not necessarily every single word. So when I come to a questionable passage, I'm not going to just dump it out of the word of god pile. But I'm also not going to be dishonest with myself in what I believe could be the word of god. Well its not intentional and I don't feel confused.

quote:

---

It only seems demeaning when taken out of context and applied to our modern morality.

---

But the context isn't an issue and if you subscribe to the idea of an absolute morality you can't rely on a distinction between modern and ancient morality.

quote:

---

That's because you changed the issue.

---

No, I didn't. I clarified it. If it's even in part the work of an Israelite then it isn't truly God's word.

quote:

---

I was saying it could be from both god and the isrealites. You said it couldn't be both entirely from god and entirely from the israelites. I agree with you but that doesn't disprove my point.

---

So your point relies on it being - in some unspecified part - less than God's word. But you haven't made any real argument on that basis. So really I was right to suggest that you would reject it as being the word of God if it wasn't for your religious beleifs - because you are certainly less than confortable with the idea that it is.

quote:

---

I think it does matter if god is fictional or real. Its just that, in the Old Testament, sometimes he acts like a fiction character and sometimes he acts like a real one. If he is real, and the bible is his word, how can one explain when he is acting like a fictional character, or when he is 'giving permission to rape'?

---

Then you admit that at least in part the Bible is fiction and that it fictionalises God. Isn't it interesting how the Christians here - the fundamentalists too - are not really happy with the Bible as it is ?

CS before we go any further please supply a definition of rape.Concepts such as rape and murder are somewhat timeless IMHO. All that is missing in the descriptions provided are the pornographic details.Also your comment acceptability for "those times" indicates these are words of men not God. Nothing extaordinary here folks just the prevailing culture.Sigh... As I pointed out here Message 193 and several times prior the events described are rape - forced sexual relationships without consent. Let us not stray too far from the text.This is getting tedious but I refuse to allow God to be defamed. and And now the instruction for handling this delicate affair... Keyword c-o-m-p-u-l-s-i-o-n. Some here want us to go to extrabiblical (and delusional) speculation that these are somehow sexless marriages or these captives realized they have found "a good man" and the sex was consensual. Something I have a hard time believing that a guy that could run down a 8-year old boy and hack him in two would be respective of the feelings of his new captive bride.I can see the 1500 BC addition of Woman’s Day magazine front cover copy"How I got over witnessing my husband hacking my family and learned to appreciate his sensitive side" CS, since we are discussing the OT can you provide relevant scripture?Let me share with you what I found discussing rape in general. Now I am just speculating but I would guess this liberal law does not apply to a captive child. Remember this is if you get caught. If there are no witnesses I doubt the women’s testimony counts for much.Your parallels about arranged marriages being rape. Yes if the women has no say it would be rape. Ask most women how they feel about this. Most cultures that have strict arranged marriages do so for religious reasons.

Hi Iceage,
Nice post. I see you are older than me. We have a huge time gap. Did you exist before God created man? Oh, poor me--just a vilified Governor of Judea. Oh, there goes my cheek & tongue again--the latter trying to push the former. Ha ha ha!Now about some serious questions re. Numbers 31:17-18; and Deut 21. Did God condone rape? Well, let this poor guy share his analysis.First the background. God is love, he is just, merciful, but he is also practical. If we read the Scriptures--way back into Genesis-- before the above citations, God was already determined to exterminate the Canaanites and other surrounding countries. ( Some scientists after discovering the horrible things being done by these people even questioned: 'why did not God destroy these people earlier'? They were amazed, aghast, offended by what they discovered: children burned as sacrifices, rampant sexual urges, cruelty, etc. )With that background, we begin to understand how God wanted his justice done and balance it with mercy. So, Numbers 31:17-18 He ordered the killings of everyone except virgins whom the Israelites found beautiful. But, why virgins only. Well, they were to teach his people how he values cleanliness (symbolized by these virgins)But, did you notice though his merciful provisions in Deut 21? The poor victim was to be allowed time to mourn, etc. And, the Israelite who took her as a wife must not maltreat her. Sounds to me a nice way of balancing Godly justice and mercy.In addition to the above background, it is wrong to judge God as cruel for "condoning rape". Here are additional reasons:1.Our Roman lawyers--the "source" of our modern laws said that its always wrong to judge laws in another time period. The effectivity, sense of justice, and utility of a law has to be judge in accord w/ the environment at that time2. God could have made that provision as a practical and merciful solution for an army's natural sense of "to the victor belongs the booty".3. God's laws on the wars conducted by his people would even have been viewed by some--even on today's standard--as too soft for the enemy, and put his people to disadvantage. ( Have you heard about the cruelty of the Assyrians, for example? )Just a thought from an old Roman governor,
Pilate_judas

I'm curious about this part. By today's standard, would you say that it is not uncommon for an invading army to kill every man, woman, child, toddler, and baby? I guess what I'm trying to say is should the U.S. Army have killed every Iraqi man, woman, child, toddler, and baby when it invaded Iraq? I can understand that the men and women were committing sin and therefore must be punished. But what about the 2 year olds and the 1 year olds? Were the 2 year old toddlers raping the 1 year olds? I know this is a little off-topic, but aside from the virgins there were also the little boys that barely knew how to walk. I'm sorry for being dense, but I simply don't understand how it was merciful on god's part to have the killing of those little toddlers and babies. I can understand that the 5 year olds could commit sins, but what about the 2 year olds and the 1 year olds?

---

Place yourself on the map at http://www.frappr.com/evc

​

The thread about this map can be found here.

You forget that to the warped fundy mind these children are not innocent, they are rancid with sin just as the rest of us are!It is easy to think like a fundy.Brian.Edited by Brian, : spelling

Hard realities of war, eh? Thousands of old men and women, 1 year old babies boiled or evaporated during the Hiroshima, Nagasaki bombing, published torture of prisoners in Iraq, the napalm burning of children in Vietnam, the rape of women in the Phil by off duty soldiers. Yes, I guess, God's "article of wars" were much kinder. I don't know about you. But, which is more cruel leave them orphans and let these babies fend for themselves, or kill them along w/ their parents? Anyway, somewhere in that most admired and vilified book it says God will resurrect many. Justice to those babies, eh?Edited by pilate_judas, : For clarity

Hello? Is anybody home? Those horrific acts (beside the iraq prison thing) were during the conflicts themselves. The people of Canaan were exterminated AFTER they lost the war. Perhaps we should commit acts of mercy by killing the today's orphans? There are millions of orphans around the world, and most aren't living comfortably. We should do them a favor and put them out of their misery?

---

Place yourself on the map at http://www.frappr.com/evc

​

The thread about this map can be found here.

quote:

---

...the Israelite who took her as a wife must not maltreat her. Sounds to me a nice way of balancing Godly justice and mercy.

---

You mean the provision where he can't sell her as a slave, so if he tires of her, he can turn her out with nothing instead ? It's far from clear that slavery would always be the worse of the two fates.

Ya Sure sounds warm and fuzzy. Let retain that thought and see where this love and mercy shines thru in the following discussion. The primitive vision of god as a described in the OT, an alpha-warrior primate, did command rape. If you describe rape as "unconsented sex" there is no other conclusion. The fact that it was "codified" and allowed for a mourning period still does not change the issue - it was force "marriage" with no rights of the female partner.Furthermore if the Canaanites were as wicked as you try to claim how young to suppose a virgin girl was in the situation described. I believe we have forced marriage probably prepubescent. Please explain the Love and Mercy here. Proof is required here, reference one scientist that is amazed or aghast. I have read the accounts by theologians (ie those with a bias) to described the Canaanites as wicked and unworthy of breathing air. Sounds more like a classic case of demonization of the enemy, a very effect propaganda tool.The command “Do not Murder” must contain fine print that says but spite the bastards, the women, the little ones and the unborn if they meet a certain threshold of wickedness. In this case Love your enemy with the pointy end of sword.Also, study shows the Hebrews absorbed common phrases, literary idioms, myths and even concepts and practices of the Canaanites and surrounding pagan religions. So be careful in making the Canaanites too wicked.And furthermore if the Canaanites were so wicked why didn't god the warrior god just bring down a plague, famine or do some supernatural badass stuff and do these people himself? Why would your god require his people to the undertake these scriptural uplifting and purifying experiences of running a pregnant women thru with a sword or running down and hacking little boys but sparing any virgin girls that catch your fancy? Balance of justice and mercy? How is "keep the young virgin girls for yourselves" mercy or justice. It is booty and enticement to get men to go to war. Please stop the whitewashing. I am not judging God! Far be it. I just do not commit blasphemy to attribute common run-of-mill Bronze Age code of ethics to God. Those who practice biblical idolatry are forced to do that. I think it is wrong to attribute "condoning rape" to God. Again I am not judging anyone. I am just claiming that these commands attributed to God in the OT were not from God but were common practices of warring tribes of that era.However note the concepts of mercy, love and kindness are not relative to some age or time. Genocide and rape in 20th century BC was still genocide and rape, just more accepted and common. You certainly have a smallish vision of God. Your vision is like God is some efficient manager and he has to compromise or worry about being practical. Why do you think God has to be practical in human terms? If you look at the scale of the earth, the only rock we know of that contains life, compared to immensity of the cosmos, do think that was practical?Also how can complete genocide be considered “too soft”? The acts described by today’s standard are war crimes and genocide.Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

Got a reference for this? 'Some' scientists isn't really very convincing. Any names and any evidence to support ANYTHING in the quote? Why did they have to become orphans?Why did God command the Israelites to kill women when they conquered certain cities? Surely this God of 'love' could come up with a better plan?I have always said that Yahweh is a sandwich short of a picnic, no wonder the other gods in the Canaanite pantheon take the piss out of Him!Brian.Edited by Brian, : formatting

Just when was there a clear boundary of "during" and "after" the war. Yes, you can do that if you are part of the US military and there is a pretext of war. It's common practice but usually hidden, or if difficult to hide justified by "free media" . The Bible is more honest. Everything was exposed.Edited by pilate_judas, : No reason given.

This thread is very thought provoking but there should be a couple of things remebered.1) When Jesus died the Old Testament became more of a history book than anything else as the old laws no longer apply.2) All women were 'forced' into marriage at that point in history. Their Fathers would choose their husbands, alot of times before they were even born so the forced marriage point is mute. Unless we are to think almost every child from that era in human history was a product of rape....