The Bible Condones Rape

[Question.Everything]

one has to read the bible like any other complex collections of texts - with discernment, reference to other information that can shed light on it, in dialog with others doing the same, and so forth.

This says "Blah blah blah, I haven't answered your question." how does one distinguish between what is condonation and what is condemnation? What is the % where something becomes "most" of the time?

I've read the Bible. Multiple times. I believed in it for years.

It's not a simplistic set of abstract timeless clear commands and isolated statements. If that's problematic for your thesis so be it.

No, what's problematic for my thesis is that you're not explaining yourself.

god chooses to go with the messy approach

Doesn't really seem perfect here.

IMO that's because that's the only effective way of putting us right. You can't fix up dysfunctional people by doing everything for them.

We are God's children...all of us. He's supposed to be perfect; why are we born "dysfuctional"? How does a perfect parent bear a dysfunctional child?

but you can't come in with your reading of a text and berate people for having a different approach.

yaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaadhominem
aawn

 

[aiki]

Again, where does God tell us that this is a mere 'utterance' or 'hyperbole'?

There are places in Scripture where it is said that such-and-such a nation was wiped out man, woman, and child by the Israelites but then, a few chapters later, we read of these same people alive and well. Obviously, hyperbole has been used in this instance. This kind of hyperbole is well-documented among the war accounts of pagan nations still in existence from that time. An awareness of the literary customs of the time is all you need to properly understand what is written, which is what those who were alive at the time of the first writing of these things would have had. They would not have read Isaiah 13 as you are attempting to do.

So God doesn't command rape, he only describes that (under his ultimate power) rape will befall the cities that oppose him. Right.

I know I'm right. I have no vested interest, as you seem to have, in twisting the verses in Isaiah 13 to make God look like He approves of rape. You cannot show me a single explicit divine command in the passage you cited nor in the immediate context from which the passage is drawn. Certainly, God never commands rape.

Do you have any record that God doesn't approve of these specific actions? My evidence that he does approve is his own words (if you believe that the Bible is a document inspired by God).

Does a reporter who reports a rape necessarily approve of it? I don't think so. Neither does the mere description of rape in the prophecy of Isaiah automatically mean it is divinely approved. This is a clear logical fallacy.

According to Israelite law, a man who raped a betrothed woman was to be put to death. (Deuteronomy 22:25-27) If a man raped a virgin woman who was not betrothed, he would have to pay a sum of money as recompense to her father, marry her and support her as his wife all the rest of her days. (A woman in that time who was unmarried but had been "deflowered" would have been shunned as a marriage prospect. This law ensured that such a woman would not be left a spinster, unsupported and scraping for life's necessities as she aged.) Clearly, the law given to Israel by God did not approve of rape.

Selah.

 

[ebia]

This says "Blah blah blah, I haven't answered your question." how does one distinguish between what is condonation and what is condemnation? What is the % where something becomes "most" of the time?

not every question has a simple straightforward answer.

I've read the Bible. Multiple times. I believed in it for years.

I'm asking you to re-look at it as neutrally as you can. It should then be pretty obviously that it's far more an ongoing story of what God is doing than it is instruction. The framework is a meta-narrative. The bulk of the texts are narrative. All the bits that aren't actually narrative are embedded in that narrative.

It's a (sub)Christian culture that's tried to read it as an instruction manual.

We are God's children...all of us. He's supposed to be perfect; why are we born "dysfuctional"? How does a perfect parent bear a dysfunctional child?

that's what Genesis 3-11 seeks to explain.

 

[Nanopants]

The OP does have a good point. It seems obvious to me that we, as the readers, have a choice to make in how we interpret the text.

If we believe that the text is inspired by God we can assume that the scripture is perfect and that God explicitly willed for specific atrocities to occur, or we can assume that the prophet Isaiah falsely interpreted this vision as if it were the explicit will of God. In my own opinion, the latter case is the most realistic faith-based perspective considering that Isaiah (being only human) was not one of those who received the fuller revelation of who God is.

That being said, Isaiah (along with the rest of the OT prophets) had a pretty good excuse for seeing God as a terror and genocidal destroyer of men, women and children. What's ours?

 

[Question.Everything]

or we can assume that the prophet Isaiah falsely interpreted this vision as if it were the explicit will of God. In my own opinion, the latter case is the most realistic faith-based perspective considering that Isaiah (being only human) was not one of those who received the fuller revelation of who God is.

If we have supposed "prophets" falsely interpreting critically important messages from God and recording them as The Law...how can you rationally come to believe any of it is true?

Faith shouldn't mean a "a complete abandonment of rationality".

The Bible is either God's book or it's not.

 

[Nanopants]

If we have supposed "prophets" falsely interpreting critically important messages from God and recording them as The Law...how can you rationally come to believe any of it is true?

Faith shouldn't mean a "a complete abandonment of rationality".

The Bible is either God's book or it's not.

I think that's a bit of a stretch, and an unreasonable constraint on the value of the scriptures. Neither the bible nor Christian tradition claim to be written by God. What is claimed is that it was written by people who were inspired by God. If there is an element of truth behind the texts, how can it reasonably be expected to be any more perfect than the people who wrote it?

That being said, either the authors were completely delusional, or at least some of them were genuinely affected by a common metaphysical experience. The expectation that everything in the Bible ought to be neatly preprocessed and packaged like some kind of self-help guide book speaks more about our mental conditioning to be "consumers" than anything else.

 

[Sketcher]

Let's get this quick factoid out of the way: the Bible is the word of God. If God doesn't want something in the Bible, he'll make it that way...it's his book. God allowed this to be a message not only to the people of that time, but to everybody that lives now.

Trying to "rally troops" by telling them that slaying and rape awaits them is not the most peaceful and loving way of going about things. Putting it in the "good book" to all humanity is even less peaceful.

Do you know what sins the people in question were guilty of? What makes you think they weren't deserving of disaster after building up a reputation for themselves of doing the exact same things?

So God doesn't command rape, he only describes that (under his ultimate power) rape will befall the cities that oppose him. Right.

Do you have any record that God doesn't approve of these specific actions? My evidence that he does approve is his own words (if you believe that the Bible is a document inspired by God).

If you had read the whole Bible, you would know where God describes rape as a sin which he disapproves of. If you cannot or will not recognize that, then you either don't know the Bible, or there are about a hundred ways you can better use your time.

 

[aiki]

The OP does have a good point. It seems obvious to me that we, as the readers, have a choice to make in how we interpret the text.

What does it mean to interpret? Does it mean to superimpose our own ideas and philosophy upon what we read or hear? Is this what a language intepreter does? Does he impose his own thoughts and preferences upon what he interprets? Obviously, if he was caught doing this, he would be quickly replaced as an interpreter. No, interpretation is, essentially, to state as accurately as possible in one's own words what the writer or speaker we are interpeting has communicated. The goal isn't to find a hidden or new, subjective meaning, but to restate with the highest fidelity possible the words of another.

THe choice, then, in how we interpret the biblical text is whether or not we will interpret accurately.

If we believe that the text is inspired by God we can assume that the scripture is perfect and that God explicitly willed for specific atrocities to occur,

Whoa! This is a glaring non-sequitur. The divine inspiration of the Bible does not necessarily imply divine approval of all that it contains. The Bible is full of descriptions of the wickedness of people. No rational person would suggest that the mere appearance of these things in Scripture means God approves of them. Likewise, Isaiah describes, via a prophetic vision imparted to him by God, what the fall of Babylon will be like. But this divinely-imparted description doesn't automatically equate to divine approval any more than a person describing a murder they happened to witness automatically means they approved of it.

In what manner is the Scripture perfect? It speaks of incest, and murder, and rape. Are these things therefore divinely approved? Obviously not.

or we can assume that the prophet Isaiah falsely interpreted this vision as if it were the explicit will of God. In my own opinion, the latter case is the most realistic faith-based perspective considering that Isaiah (being only human) was not one of those who received the fuller revelation of who God is.

Inasmuch as your first option rests on a logical fallacy, I don't see that this second option is necessary or reasonable. Besides, no serious biblical scholar would champion the view you've offered here. If we cannot believe Isaiah was properly speaking for God, how can we believe the apostles were? Choosing to believe one over the other is essentially an arbitrary act for both rely upon the same things for their authority.

That being said, Isaiah (along with the rest of the OT prophets) had a pretty good excuse for seeing God as a terror and genocidal destroyer of men, women and children. What's ours?

Nonsense. Only someone with a vested interest in portraying God as a terror and genocidal destroyer of men would make such an assertion. Besides, God is responsible for giving and taking all human life. How He does this is entirely His prerogative. Whether God chooses to take a human's life in war or in sleep in the middle of the night, He does precisely what it is His right as God to do. And God is as often seen to extend mercy and compassion in the OT as He is judgment. It is a serious distortion of the facts to suggest that God is entirely ruthless, cold and destructive in the OT.

Selah.

 

[Nanopants]

What does it mean to interpret? Does it mean to superimpose our own ideas and philosophy upon what we read or hear? Is this what a language intepreter does? Does he impose his own thoughts and preferences upon what he interprets? Obviously, if he was caught doing this, he would be quickly replaced as an interpreter. No, interpretation is, essentially, to state as accurately as possible in one's own words what the writer or speaker we are interpeting has communicated. The goal isn't to find a hidden or new, subjective meaning, but to restate with the highest fidelity possible the words of another.

THe choice, then, in how we interpret the biblical text is whether or not we will interpret accurately.

Whoa! This is a glaring non-sequitur. The divine inspiration of the Bible does not necessarily imply divine approval of all that it contains. The Bible is full of descriptions of the wickedness of people. No rational person would suggest that the mere appearance of these things in Scripture means God approves of them. Likewise, Isaiah describes, via a prophetic vision imparted to him by God, what the fall of Babylon will be like. But this divinely-imparted description doesn't automatically equate to divine approval any more than a person describing a murder they happened to witness automatically means they approved of it.

In what manner is the Scripture perfect? It speaks of incest, and murder, and rape. Are these things therefore divinely approved? Obviously not.

Your point which I've emphasized here is exactly what I'm saying. It's fascinating that you seem to be arguing my case as if you're disagreeing with me.

How is it that my assertion here does not logically follow? The degree to which we believe that God approves/disapproves of certain violent activities is contingent upon how we define 'divine inspiration' is it not?

Inasmuch as your first option rests on a logical fallacy, I don't see that this second option is necessary or reasonable. Besides, no serious biblical scholar would champion the view you've offered here.

Is that not a sweeping generalization? Generally, it's not a good idea to attempt to point out a logical fallacy, and then proceed to employ a logical fallacy.

If we cannot believe Isaiah was properly speaking for God, how can we believe the apostles were? Choosing to believe one over the other is essentially an arbitrary act for both rely upon the same things for their authority.

The list of violence that was to be unleashed on the heathen and even God's own people by the Jews and by God himself according to the OT is dumbfounding. Are you sure that you haven't turned a blind eye to it like most believers?

And yet, after it is all said and done, we have this:

"And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more." (John 8:11)

If we assume that the OT prophets spoke for God perfectly, how is it that we can believe that Christ is the image of God: that He reflects the true nature of God? Either God has had at least two contradictory natures (as if He had a change of heart), or something else is going on here. I've heard the theology, but it's nothing more than a complicated framework of logical acrobatics where the simplest answer, in my view, is the best. In my interpretation, the difference that we can clearly observe does not rest in the nature of God, neither in a change of covenants, but in the mind of believers: it is the difference between being in darkness and being brought into the light. Christ was revealed, everything is explained, and the works of darkness are exposed.

Nonsense. Only someone with a vested interest in portraying God as a terror and genocidal destroyer of men would make such an assertion. Besides, God is responsible for giving and taking all human life. How He does this is entirely His prerogative. Whether God chooses to take a human's life in war or in sleep in the middle of the night, He does precisely what it is His right as God to do. And God is as often seen to extend mercy and compassion in the OT as He is judgment. It is a serious distortion of the facts to suggest that God is entirely ruthless, cold and destructive in the OT.

Selah.

I did not assert that the Bible suggests God is entirely ruthless. Furthermore, it requires a certain lack in moral integrity to simultaneously esteem multiple contradictory standards of morality. It seems to me that such a person must have a vested interest in primarily saving his own behind, seeing that he believes God is capable of such things. But we know that such a person will lose his life, and will not save it (Mat 16:25).

 

[Question.Everything]

If there is an element of truth behind the texts, how can it reasonably be expected to be any more perfect than the people who wrote it?

Because it's divinely inspired. Meaning something more than human was the cause for the texts to come into being. The Bible should be perfect if it is truth.

 

[Question.Everything]

I'll respond to more specific points shortly, but I want to point out one more thing:

More than once I've heard, "Just because it is written in the Bible doesn't mean God approved of it. It was describing what went on back then."

So what is the Bible? Is it meant to be a news headline for the Bronze Age? How does that have any relevance now? We act nothing like the people of the Bronze Age and it's a good thing.

And even if the OT did happen to be a "tabloid" -where you never really know if you're getting the correct story-, why would Isaiah's pump up speech contain foreshadowing of the slaughter of children and rape? This is God's prophet? How? Why would God not give his soldiers more guidance and teach them compassion? What is the message to be learned by us?

 

[Nanopants]

Because it's divinely inspired. Meaning something more than human was the cause for the texts to come into being. The Bible should be perfect if it is truth.

If the Bible were truth itself, then how could it describe the truth, unless it speaks only of itself? If that is the case then it points to nothing that is anything more significant than a book.

 

[Nanopants]

So what is the Bible? Is it meant to be a news headline for the Bronze Age? How does that have any relevance now? We act nothing like the people of the Bronze Age and it's a good thing.

It is a collection of ancient manuscripts which were written over a period of several millennia. It ought to be treated accordingly.

 

[drich0150]

I'll respond to more specific points shortly, but I want to point out one more thing:

More than once I've heard, "Just because it is written in the Bible doesn't mean God approved of it. It was describing what went on back then."

You are aware that the bible represents 2 religions right? OT Judaism and Christianity. The bible isn't just about the Christian position. The OT establishes the absolute nature of sin, punishment and points to the need of salvation/savior.

So what is the Bible?

It is a collection of 66 different books. These books contain the law, history, letters, hymns, prophesy, and sayings. all contributing and pointing to the nature of God out lining His laws establishing an economy of Righteousness. (Sin and punishment) and finally after we know and understand the wrath of God, we see the love and sacrifice He made to provide us an ultimate sin sacrifice.

Is it meant to be a news headline for the Bronze Age?

It was meant not only as a headline or a historical text for the Jews it was also to be taken as a warning to other nations and or tribes who would threaten the Jews.

How does that have any relevance now?

Again it points to the wrath and absolute nature of sin, and the price we are all expected to pay.

We act nothing like the people of the Bronze Age and it's a good thing.

We are exactly the same, and it is not a good thing.
You only think your better, at heart you are still the same as well.

And even if the OT did happen to be a "tabloid" -where you never really know if you're getting the correct story-, why would Isaiah's pump up speech contain foreshadowing of the slaughter of children and rape?

Why did we pump up each other after 9/11/01 and before the beginning of the war in march of 03?

This is God's prophet? How? Why would God not give his soldiers more guidance and teach them compassion? What is the message to be learned by us?[/

It appears that the message you should be gathering from this is that God is not the passive old man you think Him to be.

God is a God of wrath anger and vengeance. This is what the OT teaches. This is the God you should fear, this is the God you should look to know. Otherwise you will not understand what the sacrifice of Christ really is. What His blood bought you. God has not changed, what has is the blood that bought those of us in this life enough mercy to live out our lives how we see fit, so that we may choose where we wish to spend eternity.

 

[Nanopants]

God is a God of wrath anger and vengeance. This is what the OT teaches. This is the God you should fear, this is the God you should look to know. Otherwise you will not understand what the sacrifice of Christ really is. What His blood bought you. God has not changed, what has is the blood that bought those of us in this life enough mercy to live out our lives how we see fit, so that we may choose where we wish to spend eternity.

And if that is the case, then Christ is not the image of God, God's will was ultimately to save us from himself, which is then the epitome of love and righteousness. I'm sorry, but that's a tarnished image of the grace of God; it's like man saying to his wife: "I'm not going to hit you now, and that should prove that I love you."

 

[aiki]

If we believe that the text is inspired by God we can assume that the scripture is perfect and that God explicitly willed for specific atrocities to occur,

This may not be what you believe but it as an option you put forward as a kind of irrational alternative justifying your own view. But this option above seems to ignore a third option which is that God can inspire the text of the Bible without approving of everything it contains. If we believe the Bible is inspired but does not necessarily approve of everything it describes, then we don't need to approach Isaiah 13 in the manner you suggest.

How is it that my assertion here does not logically follow? The degree to which we believe that God approves/disapproves of certain violent activities is contingent upon how we define 'divine inspiration' is it not?

God, through Isaiah, describes the events of Babylon's fall. But, as I already pointed out, providing a description of something doesn't necessarily equate to approval of it. Thus, if I regard what Isaiah wrote strictly as a description, my point seems to hold regardless of the definition of divine inspiration one adopts. What definition are you working from?

Is that not a sweeping generalization? Generally, it's not a good idea to attempt to point out a logical fallacy, and then proceed to employ a logical fallacy.

LOL! The curse of exuberance, I suppose. Let me rephrase: Of the many excellent biblical scholars that I know of, none hold the view that you do. This doesn't make you necessarily wrong, but it does give reason not to readily embrace your view.

The list of violence that was to be unleashed on the heathen and even God's own people by the Jews and by God himself according to the OT is dumbfounding. Are you sure that you haven't turned a blind eye to it like most believers?

All of the OT judgments pale in comparison to the Final Judgment awaiting those who have not escaped God's wrath through faith in Christ as their Saviour.

As I have noted, war accounts in OT times - particularly ones recounting victory - engaged in obvious hyperbole as a common literary device. Its important to read the OT with this in mind.

If we assume that the OT prophets spoke for God perfectly, how is it that we can believe that Christ is the image of God: that He reflects the true nature of God?

I don't see how one precludes the other. Please explain.

Either God has had at least two contradictory natures (as if He had a change of heart), or something else is going on here.

Or perhaps you have obtained a skewed picture of God in the OT.

I've heard the theology, but it's nothing more than a complicated framework of logical acrobatics where the simplest answer, in my view, is the best.

Be careful your "simple" answer isn't also simplistic. In this case, I think it is.

I did not assert that the Bible suggests God is entirely ruthless. However, it requires a certain lack in moral integrity to simultaneously esteem multiple contradictory standards of morality.

Or a better understanding of Scripture than you presently possess.

It seems to me that such a person must have a vested interest in primarily saving his own behind, seeing that he believes God is capable of such things. But we know that such a person will lose his life, and will not save it (Mat 16:25).

Oh dear, a veiled threat. Things are getting serious, are they? I'm not sure how Matthew 16:25 applies to my believing the record of Scripture...

Selah.

 

[razeontherock]

Isaiah 13: 15-16 puts it plainly:

15Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword.
16Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.

Now I've tried to read into the "context" of this story to see if there's any way to disregard what's actually happening here, but I'm not seeing anything.

Why would God command that children be dashed to pieces and women be raped? No matter what they're guilty of, how is this a demonstration of love?

Hopefully you have understood this is not a demonstration of Love. G-d is Love, but He also has wrath. A poster here Brinny, said something that was part of my tagline for quite some time: God is not a benign marshmallow of sentimentality.

 

[razeontherock]

So what is the Bible? How does it have any relevance now?

why would Isaiah's pump up speech contain foreshadowing of the slaughter of children and rape? This is God's prophet? What is the message to be learned by us?

These are GREAT questions! Especially that last one ... read it with that in mind and amazing things can happen. Hopefully we can delve into some of these specifics ...

 

[aiki]

So what is the Bible? Is it meant to be a news headline for the Bronze Age? How does that have any relevance now? We act nothing like the people of the Bronze Age and it's a good thing.

The Bible contains many different kinds literature. Why must it be only "headline news of the Bronze Age"?

I am not as confident that we act nothing like the people of the Bronze Age. One could argue that in some respects we are worse, not better. For example, more people have died as a result of war, and various oppressive regimes, in the last 200 years than in all of prior recorded history. This doesn't seem like an advancement of humanity to me...

And even if the OT did happen to be a "tabloid" -where you never really know if you're getting the correct story-, why would Isaiah's pump up speech contain foreshadowing of the slaughter of children and rape?

Nothing in Isaiah 13 suggests its purpose was to pump up Israelite soldiers. In fact, it is the Medes (vs. 17) who "come from a far country" (vs. 5) that Isaiah mentions as the instrument of God's judgment upon Babylon, not the Israelites.

This is God's prophet? How? Why would God not give his soldiers more guidance and teach them compassion? What is the message to be learned by us?

Your question here is predicated upon the idea that Isaiah 13 was directed to Israelite soldiers, which it wasn't. Problem solved.

Selah.

 

[Nanopants]

This may not be what you believe but it as an option you put forward as a kind of irrational alternative justifying your own view. But this option above seems to ignore a third option which is that God can inspire the text of the Bible without approving of everything it contains. If we believe the Bible is inspired but does not necessarily approve of everything it describes, then we don't need to approach Isaiah 13 in the manner you suggest.

God, through Isaiah, describes the events of Babylon's fall. But, as I already pointed out, providing a description of something doesn't necessarily equate to approval of it. Thus, if I regard what Isaiah wrote strictly as a description, my point seems to hold regardless of the definition of divine inspiration one adopts. What definition are you working from?

I don't assume that the definition can be be known, unless we ourselves experience what the prophets experienced. That being said, there is a set of possibilities which we can choose from, none of which can be disproven seeing that we're dealing with metaphysics. However, in my own experience, there have been times when I saw God as being a merciless terror and times when I wholeheartedly believed the words of John in that God is love.

I found the underlying factor between these extremes to have been my faith in Christ: it wasn't until I began to believe wholeheartedly in the words of Christ and to follow His voice above every other that my perspective radically changed. That being said, I can intuitively understand how those who predated Christ could have misinterpreted the nature of God. The definition of 'divine inspiration' with regard to the entirety of the scripture which I prefer is then that of a progressive revelation: the same nature of God was continually interacting with humanity up until the point that it was most clearly revealed through Christ in the flesh.

All of the OT judgments pale in comparison to the Final Judgment awaiting those who have not escaped God's wrath through faith in Christ as their Saviour.

Do you honestly believe that the love of God is coercive? Don't misunderstand me, I don't believe that God can be misconstrued as being perpetually kind and sweet and gentle, but His wrath makes sense when you understand His nature, which is neither coercive nor sadistic.

As I have noted, war accounts in OT times - particularly ones recounting victory - engaged in obvious hyperbole as a common literary device. Its important to read the OT with this in mind.

I don't see how one precludes the other. Please explain.

Or perhaps you have obtained a skewed picture of God in the OT.

Be careful your "simple" answer isn't also simplistic. In this case, I think it is.

Here's a more blatant example for you:

"Then I will walk contrary unto you also in fury; and I, even I, will chastise you seven times for your sins. And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat." (Lev 26:28,29)

Do you believe that the nature behind such a message is the nature of Christ?

Oh dear, a veiled threat. Things are getting serious, are they? I'm not sure how Matthew 16:25 applies to my believing the record of Scripture...

I'll admit, I have a chip on my shoulder because of Baptist theology. I was once a baptist as a child, and I still remember very vividly how the leadership had all the small children (roughly 5 years of age or so) shut behind closed doors where we had the fear of God shoved down our throats. It's people like that which I believe will find judgement instead of mercy.

The reference should have nothing to do with you, unless you're seeking to save yourself out of fear of torment. We are instructed that there is no fear for us in the love of God as love drives out fear (1 John 4:18). Christ commanded us to be not afraid (which appears 7 times in the Gospels and in Acts). The question is, will we believe Him, or will we fall backward to the words of Moses and the OT prophets as the foundation of our faith?