What Was God's Rationale In This Instance?

[Nihilist Virus]

Oop-sey! Well then, let's change one little ol' letter then, "Don't you mean to say, 'Please acknowledge that in 600+ laws there is not one which unambiguously and unequivocally commAnds rape. Thanks.'?"

And maybe I'm stupid. Like, really stupid! But, I'm kind of having a hard time seeing that if we just take, say, the 10 commandments alone and REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY look at the implications, just how this can 'allow' rape to remain still as some kind of authorized action. And that's just with the first 10 commandments, without ADDING then ALL of those prohibitions against various abuses on other human beings to these first 10 from the other 600 Laws and the summation of the Shema.

I mean, I guess it's time for me to go back to school and learn how to read since so many voices-- here, there and yonder-- seem to think that rape was just passable with God ... here, there and yonder. I mean, I just gotta be wrong! Right?!

The Bible says to not boil a goat in its mother's milk. So specifics are not the issue here. You can't argue that the Bible is vague and leaves us to figure it out. There's no commandment against rape because rape was just what they did.

 

[Halbhh]

The Bible says to not boil a goat in its mother's milk. So specifics are not the issue here. You can't argue that the Bible is vague and leaves us to figure it out. There's no commandment against rape because rape was just what they did.

After this mortal life ends (as it will for all of us), you and I will face a Day when we are held responsible, or forgiven, for what we have done that breaks this rule, everything from disparaging words to ignoring someone in need, just every last unkind, wrong thing we've done.

Matthew 7:12 In everything, then, do to others as you would have them do to you. For this is the essence of the Law and the Prophets.

But there is a way out of that debt:
John 3:17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The Bible says to not boil a goat in its mother's milk. Yet it won't specifically say to not force another person to have sex with you? I think we both know why.

What part of "don't covet" DON'T you understand, NV?

Let's look at it this way: rape CAN'T be the same as accidentally walking over one of those abandoned well sites and falling in ........................ in fact, I just can't see how a perpetrator could do dastardly deeds and then say, "Oh, golly gee, how did I ever get here?!" No, coveting is involved in the act of a dastardly deed, and I'd think one knows when one has coveted.

So then, not coveting another man's wife or daughter (and according to the Bible, sister, if one is a Canaanite) pretty much precludes all of that kind of thing within Israel itself.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

After this mortal life ends (as it will for all of us), you and I will face a Day when we are held responsible, or forgiven, for what we have done that breaks this rule, everything from disparaging words to ignoring someone in need, just every last unkind, wrong thing we've done.

Matthew 7:12 In everything, then, do to others as you would have them do to you. For this is the essence of the Law and the Prophets.

But there is a way out of that debt:
John 3:17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him.

You've given me inadequate answers, and then you've mocked me. As an apologist, I expect you to either have good answers or agape love. Preferably both, of course. But you clearly have neither so I see no use for discussion with you.

 

[Halbhh]

You've given me inadequate answers, and then you've mocked me. As an apologist, I expect you to either have good answers or agape love. Preferably both, of course. But you clearly have neither so I see no use for discussion with you.

If you can find any mocking anywhere I've written, please point it out so that I can rectify it and apologize for it! I'm not aware of any mocking thing about any person I've written here, and the ones from long ago in the past (long before I came to CF) I've repented about. We are only held responsible for what we intentionally do wrong, by our understanding.

Saying an idea is wrong, or flawed, or a guess is not mocking a person.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

If you can find any mocking anywhere I've written, please point it out so that I can rectify it and apologize for it! I'm not aware of any mocking thing about any person I've written here, and the ones from long ago in the past (long before I came to CF) I've repented about. We are only held responsible for what we intentionally do wrong, by our understanding.

Saying an idea is wrong, or flawed, or a guess is not mocking a person.

The rules of the site do not allow for you to give sarcastic ratings or "likes" on posts. You gave such a rating. I'm not crying or fleeing to a safe space. I'm just informing you that you aren't giving me answers and I don't see the evidence of a loving god inside you, so I see no point in this discussion.

 

[Halbhh]

The rules of the site do not allow for you to give sarcastic ratings or "likes" on posts. You gave such a rating. I'm not crying or fleeing to a safe space. I'm just informing you that you aren't giving me answers and I don't see the evidence of a loving god inside you, so I see no point in this discussion.

On what post please? -- I don't want any of my ratings to be misunderstood.

It is possible for someone to imagine a rating means something other than what is intended, and even for that I'd change it if I can find such a misunderstood rating.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

What part of "don't covet" DON'T you understand, NV?

Right, don't covet your neighbor's wife, or any of his possessions. Wives were basically possessions.

In today's society we understand that a husband does not own his wife. He cannot rape her. If she does not want to have sex with him, then she shouldn't have to. Do you think that this notion was present among the ancient Israelites?

You guys keep deliberately dodging issues like this. A plain reading of the Bible shows that if you were to rape a woman who is NOT "claimed" (i.e. a single woman) then you are supposed to marry her. It's up to her to cancel the marriage if she wants to, and you cannot refuse, and you cannot ever divorce her. But there are no safeguards in place to prevent the woman from being raped every day of her life if she does accept him as a husband. And it seems as though she would've been strong-armed into accepting such an arrangement because her father would not be able to get another shot at a good dowry (since the raped woman is not a virgin).

The "defense" of this is that this is "just how it was back then." For some reason God was unable or unwilling to instill a culture that values women regardless of the status of their vagina. Long story short, there are absolutely no safeguards in place to prevent a man from raping an "unclaimed" woman, paying the fine and the dowry, and then raping her at his whim as she lives her miserable existence.

And this is how it worked for Israelite women. Prisoners of war would be lucky to have it that "good." The fact that the two of you continue to deny this is just sad.

Let's look at it this way: rape CAN'T be the same as accidentally walking over one of those abandoned well sites and falling in ........................ in fact, I just can't see how a perpetrator could do dastardly deeds and then say, "Oh, golly gee, how did I ever get here?!" No, coveting is involved in the act of a dastardly deed, and I'd think one knows when one has coveted.

Did they consider it coveting when it was your wife?

Yes, I get it, in the scenario above that I invented, the man is sinning when he covets the single lady and rapes her. But in a book where every little minuscule transgression is punished with death, raping a virgin is punished by a fine and a shotgun wedding? Sure, the man is at fault... what good does that do for the rape victim? This is institutionalized sex trafficking. The slap on the wrist for the man is not going to stop him.

So then, not coveting another man's wife or daughter (and according to the Bible, sister, if one is a Canaanite) pretty much precludes all of that kind of thing within Israel itself.

An omniscient deity apparently cannot close up obvious loopholes and provide safeguards for vulnerable women.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Right, don't covet your neighbor's wife, or any of his possessions. Wives were basically possessions.

In today's society we understand that a husband does not own his wife. He cannot rape her. If she does not want to have sex with him, then she shouldn't have to. Do you think that this notion was present among the ancient Israelites?

You guys keep deliberately dodging issues like this. A plain reading of the Bible shows that if you were to rape a woman who is NOT "claimed" (i.e. a single woman) then you are supposed to marry her. It's up to her to cancel the marriage if she wants to, and you cannot refuse, and you cannot ever divorce her. But there are no safeguards in place to prevent the woman from being raped every day of her life if she does accept him as a husband. And it seems as though she would've been strong-armed into accepting such an arrangement because her father would not be able to get another shot at a good dowry (since the raped woman is not a virgin).

The "defense" of this is that this is "just how it was back then." For some reason God was unable or unwilling to instill a culture that values women regardless of the status of their vagina. Long story short, there are absolutely no safeguards in place to prevent a man from raping an "unclaimed" woman, paying the fine and the dowry, and then raping her at his whim as she lives her miserable existence.

And this is how it worked for Israelite women. Prisoners of war would be lucky to have it that "good." The fact that the two of you continue to deny this is just sad.



Did they consider it coveting when it was your wife?

Yes, I get it, in the scenario above that I invented, the man is sinning when he covets the single lady and rapes her. But in a book where every little minuscule transgression is punished with death, raping a virgin is punished by a fine and a shotgun wedding? Sure, the man is at fault... what good does that do for the rape victim? This is institutionalized sex trafficking. The slap on the wrist for the man is not going to stop him.



An omniscient deity apparently cannot close up obvious loopholes and provide safeguards for vulnerable women.

So, tell me, these entities in Israel that you designate as ... "single ladies," were they by chance someone else's daughter?

I mean, you make it sound like there was some kind of Vegas style bar and club for single ladies in Old Israel, with Kool And the Gang playing in the background:

 

[Nihilist Virus]

So, tell me, these entities in Israel that you designate as ... "single ladies," were they by chance someone else's daughter?

I mean, you make it sound like there was some kind of Vegas style bar and club for single ladies in Old Israel, with Kool And the Gang playing in the background:

This isn't a joke. A lifetime of hardship and rape isn't funny to me.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

This isn't a joke. A lifetime of hardship and rape isn't funny to me.

And it's not funny to me that you don't answer my singular, very, very, very simple question: were these supposed "single ladies" in Israel you're talking about ........................ someone's daughter?

If so, then they're NOT to be coveted. End of story.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

And it's not funny to me that you don't answer my singular, very, very, very simple question: were these supposed "single ladies" in Israel you're talking about ........................ someone's daughter?

If so, then they're NOT to be coveted. End of story.

I did address that. Re-read.

 

[drich0150]

Numbers 31:17-18 (underlined area specifically)

'17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.'

As the title suggests, what was God's focus in this particular case? I have struggled to find a logical rationale/conclusion, but thus far, draw a blank - in support of an asserted 'loving Yahweh'...?

Seems as though the author of this narrative 'commands' that the taking of virgins was permissible.

Thus, I now ask, what was God's rationale?

it would seem God is using these girls as slaves for his people but they had to be young enough not to carry over any indoctrinated beliefs that may have been issued at or just before sexual maturity.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Right, don't covet your neighbor's wife, or any of his possessions. Wives were basically possessions.

In today's society we understand that a husband does not own his wife. He cannot rape her. If she does not want to have sex with him, then she shouldn't have to. Do you think that this notion was present among the ancient Israelites?

You guys keep deliberately dodging issues like this. A plain reading of the Bible shows that if you were to rape a woman who is NOT "claimed" (i.e. a single woman) then you are supposed to marry her. It's up to her to cancel the marriage if she wants to, and you cannot refuse, and you cannot ever divorce her. But there are no safeguards in place to prevent the woman from being raped every day of her life if she does accept him as a husband. And it seems as though she would've been strong-armed into accepting such an arrangement because her father would not be able to get another shot at a good dowry (since the raped woman is not a virgin).

The "defense" of this is that this is "just how it was back then." For some reason God was unable or unwilling to instill a culture that values women regardless of the status of their vagina. Long story short, there are absolutely no safeguards in place to prevent a man from raping an "unclaimed" woman, paying the fine and the dowry, and then raping her at his whim as she lives her miserable existence.

And this is how it worked for Israelite women. Prisoners of war would be lucky to have it that "good." The fact that the two of you continue to deny this is just sad.



Did they consider it coveting when it was your wife?

Yes, I get it, in the scenario above that I invented, the man is sinning when he covets the single lady and rapes her. But in a book where every little minuscule transgression is punished with death, raping a virgin is punished by a fine and a shotgun wedding? Sure, the man is at fault... what good does that do for the rape victim? This is institutionalized sex trafficking. The slap on the wrist for the man is not going to stop him.



An omniscient deity apparently cannot close up obvious loopholes and provide safeguards for vulnerable women.

I hate to say this, NV, but it seems you're ignoring various inter-textual connections, insinuations and context that exist in the O.T. Law.

Since I know this is all new to you, I'm just going to give you the benefit of the doubt that this oversight of yours isn't intentional.

I mean, c'mon! Think about it all! Tell me if the following statements sound right to you:

1) You must love the Lord your God with all of your heart, soul, mind and body,....but its ok to rape your wife.

2) You "shall love the Lord your God, and keep His charge, His statutes, His judgments, and His commandments always," but its ok to rape your wife.

3) If he takes another [second] wife, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marriage rights....but he can still rape both of them if the mood strikes him. That's ok!

4) You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, but you can covet both position and power over your wife's well-being, and rape her. That's ok.

5) “You shall neither mistreat a stranger nor oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt," but you can mistreat and oppress, even rape, your wife. That's ok.

6) “You shall not pervert justice due the stranger or the fatherless, nor take a widow’s garment as a pledge," but you can rape your wife. That's ok!

7) "‘Cursed is the one who perverts the justice due the stranger, the fatherless, and widow," but those who rape their wives......well, they'll still be blessed!

8) “You shall not oppress a hired servant who is poor and needy, whether one of your brethren or one of the aliens who is in your land within your gates" but you can rape your wife. That's ok.

9) "Therefore you shall not oppress one another, but you shall fear your God; for I am the Lord your God" but....you all know, you can still oppress, even rape, your own wife. That's ok.​

UH, BUT NO! THAT'S NOT WHAT "THE BIBLE SAYS!" SO, NO, IT WASN'T OK !!!

So, NO! I didn't miss your words. I didn't misunderstand them. And if anything, I take offense that you just attempt to keep pummeling this issue again and again and again. For the Israelites, raping their wives WAS WRONG and they knew this, except for those men like today who are morally inept and can't feel or think straight (and we know some of them didn't, as the Bible "tells us so!")



And if you want to hash it out over Deuteronomy chapter 22:22-29, then make a thread. I'm just not sure how, all things considered----and I WILL consider all things that I can in the contexts----chapter 22 will escape the impinging insinuation that should have bled over from other laws, such as I've shown above through contra-distinction with the issue [crime] of raping one's own wife.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I hate to say this, NV, but it seems you're ignoring various inter-textual connections, insinuations and context that exist in the O.T. Law.

Since I know this is all new to you, I'm just going to give you the benefit of the doubt that this oversight of yours isn't intentional.

I mean, c'mon! Think about it all! Tell me if the following statements sound right to you:

1) You must love the Lord your God with all of your heart, soul, mind and body,....but its ok to rape your wife.

2) You "shall love the Lord your God, and keep His charge, His statutes, His judgments, and His commandments always," but its ok to rape your wife.

3) If he takes another [second] wife, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marriage rights....but he can still rape both of them if the mood strikes him. That's ok!

4) You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, but you can covet both position and power over your wife's well-being, and rape her. That's ok.

5) “You shall neither mistreat a stranger nor oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt," but you can mistreat and oppress, even rape, your wife. That's ok.

6) “You shall not pervert justice due the stranger or the fatherless, nor take a widow’s garment as a pledge," but you can rape your wife. That's ok!

7) "‘Cursed is the one who perverts the justice due the stranger, the fatherless, and widow," but those who rape their wives......well, they'll still be blessed!

8) “You shall not oppress a hired servant who is poor and needy, whether one of your brethren or one of the aliens who is in your land within your gates" but you can rape your wife. That's ok.

9) "Therefore you shall not oppress one another, but you shall fear your God; for I am the Lord your God" but....you all know, you can still oppress, even rape, your own wife. That's ok.​

UH, BUT NO! THAT'S NOT WHAT "THE BIBLE SAYS!" SO, NO, IT WASN'T OK !!!

So, NO! I didn't miss your words. I didn't misunderstand them. And if anything, I take offense that you just attempt to keep pummeling this issue again and again and again. For the Israelites, raping their wives WAS WRONG and they knew this, except for those men like today who are morally inept and can't feel or think straight (and we know some of them didn't, as the Bible "tells us so!")



And if you want to hash it out over Deuteronomy chapter 22:22-29, then make a thread. I'm just not sure how, all things considered----and I WILL consider all things that I can in the contexts----chapter 22 will escape the impinging insinuation that should have bled over from other laws, such as I've shown above through contra-distinction with the issue [crime] of raping one's own wife.

Of all people, you are about as anachronistic as humanly possible. Again, they had no word for rape. I asked you why that is. No response. As for raping one's wife, even as late as the 1970s this was considered a silly idea and it would be really hard to convict a husband for doing it. Let me copy/paste Wikipedia:

Marital rape in United States law, also known as spousal rape, is non-consensual sex in which the perpetrator is the victim's spouse. It is a form of partner rape, of domestic violence, and of sexual abuse. Today, marital rape is illegal in all 50 US states, though the details of the offence vary by state.

The traditional definition of rape in the United States is the forced sexual intercourse by a male with a "female not his wife", making it clear that the statutes did not apply to married couples. The 1962 Model Penal Code repeated the marital rape exemption, stating:

A male who has sexual intercourse with a female not his wife is guilty of rape if: ....[1]
Reforms of marital rape laws in the United States began in the mid-1970s with the criminalization of marital rape.

So when you come at me with what you think is a list of sarcastic questions, such as

"You must love the Lord your God with all of your heart, soul, mind and body,....but its ok to rape your wife"

then my serious answer is yes. I believe that was their implication. I believe that they were not as advanced morally as America during the civil rights movement. But guess what. I don't expect them to be, either, unless there really is an omniscient deity dictating perfect, eternal laws to them. And if it wasn't obvious to our grandparents that marital rape is wrong, then I don't think it was obvious to these people from thousands of years ago. So God should have set it straight for them. He didn't. Why?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Of all people, you are about as anachronistic as humanly possible. Again, they had no word for rape. I asked you why that is. No response.

...why would they need one if they already had moral and legal concepts in place that logically PRECEDE the said act. Again, just as above where I pointed out that one of those concepts in the O.T. is "covetousness," but here you come at me with a demand for me manufacture some reason 'why' the Israelites have to no world for 'rape.' Do you think all languages today, even, have exactly the same equivalencies of vocabulary and meanings? They don't.

As for raping one's wife, even as late as the 1970s this was considered a silly idea and it would be really hard to convict a husband for doing it. Let me copy/paste Wikipedia:

Marital rape in United States law, also known as spousal rape, is non-consensual sex in which the perpetrator is the victim's spouse. It is a form of partner rape, of domestic violence, and of sexual abuse. Today, marital rape is illegal in all 50 US states, though the details of the offence vary by state.

The traditional definition of rape in the United States is the forced sexual intercourse by a male with a "female not his wife", making it clear that the statutes did not apply to married couples. The 1962 Model Penal Code repeated the marital rape exemption, stating:

A male who has sexual intercourse with a female not his wife is guilty of rape if: ....[1]
Reforms of marital rape laws in the United States began in the mid-1970s with the criminalization of marital rape.

What does this have to do with anything! We're not discussing here whether or not rape happened in Israel. I'm sure it did, but we're discussing the structure of the O.T. Law and if there was really the pure VOID of concept regarding rape in marriage specifically that you so espouse there was. So, excuse me while I duck; there's a red-herring that just flew over my head from your direction!

So when you come at me with what you think is a list of sarcastic questions, such as

"You must love the Lord your God with all of your heart, soul, mind and body,....but its ok to rape your wife"

then my serious answer is yes. I believe that was their implication. I believe that they were not as advanced morally as America during the civil rights movement. But guess what. I don't expect them to be, either, unless there really is an omniscient deity dictating perfect, eternal laws to them. And if it wasn't obvious to our grandparents that marital rape is wrong, then I don't think it was obvious to these people from thousands of years ago. So God should have set it straight for them. He didn't. Why?

Then that mistake is on you! And I won't let that pass. Sure, we can agree that the O.T. Law was by no means as comprehensive as today's American Law, but let's not act as if the Bible has nothing in it.

 

[Moral Orel]

And if you want to hash it out over Deuteronomy chapter 22:22-29

You and I did that once through PMs... and you forfeited. I remember you making a Rocky reference to the effect of, "We all know Apollo is going to lose in the end, but let's watch the whole movie anyways". You told me you had some other business to attend to and never came back.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You and I did that once through PMs... and you forfeited. I remember you making a Rocky reference to the effect of, "We all know Apollo is going to lose in the end, but let's watch the whole movie anyways". You told me you had some other business to attend to and never came back.

I'll have to dig that discussion out, if I can find it. Moreover, I've slept since then. And what a great snooze it has been!

But since you remember it, and you may remember the various sources we both brought to the table for discussion, then maybe you'd like to dredge all of that up and hand it over to NV as a new starting point?

Of course, in my asking this of you, I'm also going to ask that you keep in mind all of what I've told NV above. Because..............now ALL of that (and then some) comes into play as well, despite the red-herrings and other diversions that skeptics seem to like to throw at Christians along the way in assessing these things.

 

[Moral Orel]

But since you remember it, and you may remember the various sources we both brought to the table for discussion, then maybe you'd like to dredge all of that up and hand it over to NV as a new starting point?

For @Nihilist Virus ? Okay, here's something we discussed...

...why would they need one if they already had moral and legal concepts in place that logically PRECEDE the said act. Again, just as above where I pointed out that one of those concepts in the O.T. is "covetousness," but here you come at me with a demand for me manufacture some reason 'why' the Israelites have to no world for 'rape.'

If covetousness was illegal, then prostitution would have been illegal, but it wasn't. They didn't have a word for "rape" because consent didn't belong to women, it belonged to their fathers and then their husbands after they were sold. The few laws that exist which might touch on the subject of rape are framed in such a way that they are about destruction of property, not harm caused to a woman. Remember, those laws only protect specific types of women, not all, and who it chooses to protect is indicative of why they deemed those acts wrong.

 

[Moral Orel]

The Bible says to not boil a goat in its mother's milk. So specifics are not the issue here. You can't argue that the Bible is vague and leaves us to figure it out. There's no commandment against rape because rape was just what they did.

Like I said in the post just above this one, specific women were protected from rape under the law. Only women who, by being raped, cost a man something are protected by the law.