God and rape.

[apocolypticremedy999]

I ran into a debate with an atheist about God and rape being sure that God condemns rape. If he is good he would, and I'm sure he does, however he brought this passage against me and I wasn't quite able to make complete sense of it even though I still do not believe that God is in any way ok with rape:

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; 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. -- Deuteronomy 22:28-29

What could God mean when he says that "if a man lay hold" on a woman who is a virgin. Surely it could not mean rape, correct? Such a thing should be punishable by death. What could this mean?

Also, there was then also this verse;

“But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. 26 But you shall do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no offense punishable by death. For this case is like that of a man attacking and murdering his neighbor, 27 because he met her in the open country, and though the betrothed young woman cried for help there was no one to rescue her. -Deuteronomy 22:25-27

The thing about this one is; why would God allow a married woman to be raped against her will with no one to rescue her? Why wouldn't he himself rescue her himself? Why would he allow such an injustice? I couldn't feel comfortable with a God that would allow my wife to be raped forcibly, esp if both I and my wife were people of sincere faith. That would totally break my heart. The only thing that I think would make such a thing ok is if the wife were in the wrong somehow, but of course I couldn't see any wrong that she could do that could justify such a horrendous act without her deserving to die herself.

I don't want to question God's good nature, but I must understand such things, because I am adamantly against rape. Is there something more to this that must be understood?

 

[Justaman0000]

The first passage that you gave is probably an instance of rape. The money paid would be just like a fine someone would pay today. And to man up to his crime, he is forced to take care of the woman that he raped. This is because her virginity was taken from her, no other man in those days would probably marry her.
As for the second passage, just because you are faithful to God doesn't mean nothing bad is going to happen to you. In fact its been quit the opposite for every follower I've known. The real test is if you would stay faithful through the evil things that happen to you.

 

[apocolypticremedy999]

The first passage that you gave is probably an instance of rape. The money paid would be just like a fine someone would pay today. And to man up to his crime, he is forced to take care of the woman that he raped. This is because her virginity was taken from her, no other man in those days would probably marry her.
As for the second passage, just because you are faithful to God doesn't mean nothing bad is going to happen to you. In fact its been quit the opposite for every follower I've known. The real test is if you would stay faithful through the evil things that happen to you.

I know that bad things can happen to the faithful, believe me, I've had more than my share of persecution and hardship, but when it comes to someone's sexual purity, that's just something that should not be defiled.

The only time I could see a reason to justify God's allowance of rape is for women or anyone for that matter that can't see the sanctity in sexual abstinence and not degrading your body as a piece of dog meat for dogs that can't even truly appreciate or respect a woman's body outside of sexual lust as if they're sex objects to drool and pant after like the dogs that they are, and maybe being treated as such and nothing more by such dogs will teach them a lesson on why it's wrong to put that on display for the pleasure of dogs, esp when this world is full of em, and esp when that's something sacred that should only be saved for a special someone. Or of course, there's the heathen women out there who don't truly deserve to be respected either way as they hate God and I couldn't care less what God does or does not do with em. Otherwise, I can't see a reason to defile someone's purity/sexuality merely for someone elses mere pleasure. Something like that is supposed to be sacred and only shared intimately within the confines of marriage and fidelity, and if someone is yet undefiled and/or untouched if you will as a virgin, how wrong is it for that virgin to be forced to be defiled and the seal to be broken if you will against her will? I mean, unless she is a woman who is bound to desecrate such a sacred thing as a harlot would one way or another, that's totally wrong and should never be allowed. As long as that virgin has her heart in the right place and knows not to give such a thing to be defiled by just anyone, their purity should be saved and kept sacred just like it should, and that person should not be treated as a mere sex object for someone elses pleasure against their will. I just can't agree with something like that, even if God himself were to justify it.

As for a married woman, that's another no no that I just can't agree with. A woman who is bound in an intimate relationship with another in faithfulness, esp when that woman is a woman of faith and knows to keep her sexuality between only her and her husband and to remain faithful to him should never be forced to sex with another man against her will. Like if I were married to a woman whom God allowed such a horrendous thing to happen to, I would be so heartbroken and I must admit, my relationship with God would indeed be compromised.

I'm ok with remaining faithful to the Lord through hardship and persecution, but when it comes to ones virginity and sexual purity, that's just where it goes too far.
Nvm, the fact that such an experience could corrupt someone, of course, it could only do so if one was not truly sincere about remaining pure in the first place, but if they are indeed sincere about such a thing, God should never allow such a sacred thing to be desecrated, after all, he does expect sexual purity from us, does he not? If we are willing to do so, how could he then allow us to be treated as objects for someone elses pleasure?

This is one area that I just cannot be ok with.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

The only time I could see a reason to justify God's allowance of ...

Allow me to relieve you of a burden, Apoc. You do NOT have to justify anything God allows.

You make some interesting implied contradictions in your posting. You say 'sexual purity' is something that should not be defiled. You expect God should prevent it in all cases (at least within your criteria). Does it occur to you that you are presuming to impose a 'law' upon the Universe on the order of physical laws - like "Two bodies cannot occupy the same space-time"? How it is God is subject to your preferences in the matter?

You compared your wife to 'heathen women'. Knowing of mankind's sinful nature, and how when compared to God's righteousness, no one on Earth even scores a percentage, how is it your wife is so much holier than a heathen woman to justify the disparity in treatment?

Yes, it's your wife. I have ex-wives, but I wouldn't want any of them attacked in any manner, including rape. On the other hand, none of them are so perfect that God is overawed, either.

You have introduced the very old question of evil in the rather misleading style of "If God is 'good', why does He allow [insert horrible event here]?. There are several errors of assumption in the question.

One, probably foremost is the clause "If God is good ..." Stop right there. God is good. End of discussion. The unsaid part of this question is "If God is good according to my standards ..." or "If God is good ... to my satisfaction ..." Since when does God answer to human standards or satisfaction? So start working on understanding God's standards and God's will.

Second, the question implies that since God didn't stop it, God allowed it; that means it's God's fault. No. It was the rapist's fault.

God gave mankind some basic instructions on how to live in the world. Everything from basic hygiene to growing crops to respecting others to proper eating. Man has rejected those basic rules and now the world doesn't work like it's supposed to. People get diseases, famine, assaults and attacks on the weak and gout. People want to blame it all on God for their rejection; but it's not His fault.

Which is not to say that every injury or loss is the direct result of a specific sin of the victim. A drunk driver runs over a child. The sin is the action of the driver, not the child. Did an innocent suffer? Yes. But it is not God's doing! It is the responsibility of the driving who ignored God's natural law and operated a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol.

This list goes on and I don't have time or space.

Just for the record, I don't want anything to happen to your wife either.

The Mosaic Law established some - to our minds - bizarre standards. For instance, that passage in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is the 'You broke it, you bought it' rule. If a man had relations with an unmarried woman, that was tantamount to a marriage contract. The man in question was thereafter responsible for the woman's upkeep for life. Not only that, but he could not divorce her, at all.

That sounds pretty rough, for our time. However, as Justaman pointed out, the marriage market for non-virgin women was pretty slim in those days. This way, the victim was provided for. And the community was small enough and familiar enough for the man involved to be held to account.

 

[apocolypticremedy999]

Allow me to relieve you of a burden, Apoc. You do NOT have to justify anything God allows.

You make some interesting implied contradictions in your posting. You say 'sexual purity' is something that should not be defiled. You expect God should prevent it in all cases (at least within your criteria). Does it occur to you that you are presuming to impose a 'law' upon the Universe on the order of physical laws - like "Two bodies cannot occupy the same space-time"? How it is God is subject to your preferences in the matter?

You compared your wife to 'heathen women'. Knowing of mankind's sinful nature, and how when compared to God's righteousness, no one on Earth even scores a percentage, how is it your wife is so much holier than a heathen woman to justify the disparity in treatment?

Yes, it's your wife. I have ex-wives, but I wouldn't want any of them attacked in any manner, including rape. On the other hand, none of them are so perfect that God is overawed, either.

You have introduced the very old question of evil in the rather misleading style of "If God is 'good', why does He allow [insert horrible event here]?. There are several errors of assumption in the question.

One, probably foremost is the clause "If God is good ..." Stop right there. God is good. End of discussion. The unsaid part of this question is "If God is good according to my standards ..." or "If God is good ... to my satisfaction ..." Since when does God answer to human standards or satisfaction? So start working on understanding God's standards and God's will.

Second, the question implies that since God didn't stop it, God allowed it; that means it's God's fault. No. It was the rapist's fault.

God gave mankind some basic instructions on how to live in the world. Everything from basic hygiene to growing crops to respecting others to proper eating. Man has rejected those basic rules and now the world doesn't work like it's supposed to. People get diseases, famine, assaults and attacks on the weak and gout. People want to blame it all on God for their rejection; but it's not His fault.

Which is not to say that every injury or loss is the direct result of a specific sin of the victim. A drunk driver runs over a child. The sin is the action of the driver, not the child. Did an innocent suffer? Yes. But it is not God's doing! It is the responsibility of the driving who ignored God's natural law and operated a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol.

This list goes on and I don't have time or space.

Just for the record, I don't want anything to happen to your wife either.

The Mosaic Law established some - to our minds - bizarre standards. For instance, that passage in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is the 'You broke it, you bought it' rule. If a man had relations with an unmarried woman, that was tantamount to a marriage contract. The man in question was thereafter responsible for the woman's upkeep for life. Not only that, but he could not divorce her, at all.

That sounds pretty rough, for our time. However, as Justaman pointed out, the marriage market for non-virgin women was pretty slim in those days. This way, the victim was provided for. And the community was small enough and familiar enough for the man involved to be held to account.

I just can't understand why he would allow them to get raped in the first place, unless they had an important lesson to learn about the importance of sexual abstinence and maintaining the sanctity of one's body. I just thought that one's sexual purity was too much to allow to be desecrated like that. Like, if I had a daughter whom I truly loved and knew had her heart in the right place and was sincere about saving her virginity either for God or for one special person that she could commit the rest of her life to and yet God allowed her to be taken and defiled against her own will, that's some serious stuff man. I'd prefer her to be killed, because at least I'd know she would be prepared for heaven and the afterlife as a pure soul, undefiled by outer elements of corruption.

Also the difference between a heathen wife and a faithful wife is obvious, a heathen wife may have lesson to learn. She may not totally have her heart in the right place or understand the importance of preserving her womanhood and beauty of her body for me as her husband, but may prefer to show off her ladylike form/attributes to those around her, which might deserve rape to teach her a lesson, a faithful wife however would understand the importance of such things and would work to please both God and her husband by covering herself up and she would have her heart in the right place.

You know, what happened to the importance of self-preservation? That's what's so wrong about rape, esp when it comes to a virgin who sincerely has it in her to preserve her femininity and virginity for either God and/or someone important.

 

[apocolypticremedy999]

I really doubt that the same God could consider even a lustful thought within one's heart as an act of adultery, (a crime that was punishable by death), could not more strictly condemn rape.

I don't think we're understanding the scriptures good enough. I think that to consider Deaut. 22:28-29 an instance of rape must be a misconeption, for adultery was a heinous crime that was punishable by death, and we see that Christ considers so much as a thought of lust for another within one's heart an act of adultery, therefore I think that rape must have fit in with adultery and God must have punished it by death, just as such a heinous crime as rape (the act of disregarding one's own free will and the lack of respect for one's own wishes by forcing one against their will for someone's selfish pleasure) should be handled and dealt with in such an appropriate manner.

Also, let's not forget the story of Dinah and Jacob's sons her brothers, who mercilessly slew the men who raped their sister, Dinah and had also wanted to take her for the wife of the man who raped her. We can see that such a heinous act was not tolerated by such men of God.

Now Dinah, the daughter Leah had borne to Jacob, went out to visit the women of the land. 2 When Shechem son of Hamor the Hivite, the ruler of that area, saw her, he took her and violated her. 3 His heart was drawn to Dinah daughter of Jacob, and he loved the girl and spoke tenderly to her. 4 And Shechem said to his father Hamor, “Get me this girl as my wife.” 5 When Jacob heard that his daughter Dinah had been defiled, his sons were in the fields with his livestock; so he kept quiet about it until they came home. 6...They were filled with grief and fury, because Shechem had done a disgraceful thing in Israel by lying with Jacob’s daughter—a thing that should not be done. 8 But Hamor said to them, “My son Shechem has his heart set on your daughter. Please give her to him as his wife. 9 ... 11 Then Shechem said to Dinah’s father and brothers, “Let me find favor in your eyes, and I will give you whatever you ask. 12 Make the price for the bride and the gift I am to bring as great as you like, and I’ll pay whatever you ask me. Only give me the girl as my wife.” 13 Because their sister Dinah had been defiled, Jacob’s sons replied deceitfully as they spoke to Shechem and his father Hamor. 14 They said to them, “We can’t do such a thing; we can’t give our sister to a man who is not circumcised. That would be a disgrace to us. 15 We will give our consent to you on one condition only: that you become like us by circumcising all your males. 16 Then we will give you our daughters and take your daughters for ourselves. We’ll settle among you and become one people with you. 17 But if you will not agree to be circumcised, we’ll take our sister and go.” 18 Their proposal seemed good to Hamor and his son Shechem. 19 The young man, who was the most honored of all his father’s household, lost no time in doing what they said, because he was delighted with Jacob’s daughter. 20 So Hamor and his son Shechem went to the gate of their city to speak to their fellow townsmen. 21 “These men are friendly toward us,” they said. “Let them live in our land and trade in it; the land has plenty of room for them. We can marry their daughters and they can marry ours. 22 But the men will consent to live with us as one people only on the condition that our males be circumcised, as they themselves are. 23 24 All the men who went out of the city gate agreed with Hamor and his son Shechem, and every male in the city was circumcised. 25 Three days later, while all of them were still in pain, two of Jacob’s sons, Simeon and Levi, Dinah’s brothers, took their swords and attacked the unsuspecting city, killing every male. 26 They put Hamor and his son Shechem to the sword and took Dinah from Shechem’s house and left. 27 The sons of Jacob came upon the dead bodies and looted the city where their sister had been defiled. 28 They seized their flocks and herds and donkeys and everything else of theirs in the city and out in the fields. 29 They carried off all their wealth and all their women and children, taking as plunder everything in the houses. 30 Then Jacob said to Simeon and Levi, “You have brought trouble on me by making me a stench to the Canaanites and Perizzites, the people living in this land. We are few in number, and if they join forces against me and attack me, I and my household will be destroyed.” 31 But they replied, “Should he have treated our sister like a prostitute?” -Genesis 34

Jacob's sons may have given their father a bad name in the land by killing all the men in the land more than just the man who raped his daughter, and it makes sense that their vengeful overkill if you will, would indeed caused the other people in the land who might have been associates of the men who were killed by the swords of Jacob's sons to have held him in contempt for such a thing, esp since there were men who may not have been involved in the rape of their sister who fell victim, but other than that, it seems they did the right thing, esp as the Bible makes it a point to say that the the thing that the man did to their sister was a shameful thing that ought not to be done. Plus, in Genesis 35, we read that God instilled fear in all the lands around Jacob and his sons anyways. It is evident that God was with them in this to say the least.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

I just can't understand why ...

No, you don't. At all. But you still think God has to listen to you and change the way He does things. You see, horrible things do occur in spite of what you want. So, why do they happen?

Here's the problem, Apoc. Either God does allow women to be raped, for reasons way past your understanding, OR, God would, but doesn't have the ability to prevent such things. So enlighten us all: Is God wrong in how He does things, or is He powerless to stop them?

I don't think we're understanding the scriptures good enough.

That's true enough. I suggest you start with you.

 

[apocolypticremedy999]

No, you don't. At all. But you still think God has to listen to you and change the way He does things. You see, horrible things do occur in spite of what you want. So, why do they happen?

Here's the problem, Apoc. Either God does allow women to be raped, for reasons way past your understanding, OR, God would, but doesn't have the ability to prevent such things. So enlighten us all: Is God wrong in how He does things, or is He powerless to stop them?

I would prob say neither, although I do think God WOULD be wrong if he allowed a pure woman with a pure heart and a desire to either save her virginity for God and/or that one special person because it involved the defilement of the flesh. It is true our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, and just as much as it would be wrong for us to corrupt our temples with worldly substances like cigarettes and nicotine, it would be wrong for God to allow our temples to be invaded by unwelcome strangers and intruders who do not know how to have any respect for our temples if indeed our hearts were pure and in the right place and had it in us to surrender our temples unto him that we might dwell in us and that none should take his place, which is why I cannot believe that that is truly what the scriptures are truly implying, even though it might seem that way.

We must understand that God is good, but we must also understand what is good and what is right, and therefore we should ask ourselves, is rape indeed something he could allow for any good reason to just anyone?
Yes, it is true that God does allow some women to be raped, even some children, but on what premise? On what basis? Would he allow it on just any woman? Even a virgin with a truly pure heart who knows to keep her temple pure and holy, so that she might preserve it for God and/or a special someone that she can commit the rest of her life to before giving her virginity up? You must ask yourself, would that truly be right? Again, it is part of our duty and obligation as Christians and children of God to know what is good, pure, and holy just as it is to trust that our Lord is good in all things, but are we truly doing so if we can believe that our Lord could do something that we should know it wrong? Wouldn't that be the same thing as thinking God is bad for something like what he did with his perfect servant; Job? Perhaps that is part of the test.

We must understand that our bodies are indeed sacred temples, just as the Lord said, and therefore he could not give our temples over to be defiled. It would be just as wrong as us whoring our own selves and giving our own selves to be defiled to sexual immorality or any other corrupting element, such as drugs and alcohol for example. The only way he could do so would be perhaps if we didn't have our own hearts in the right place. For instance, I described a woman who doesn't have enough respect for her body who might put it on display by showing off her lady-like form like women today her might where short shorts or wear tops that reveal a lot of cleavage, these are women who might not understand the importance of preserving their bodies for greater purposes as God meant them, which would either be for him and/or her husband. We see this as we read passages like 1 Corinthians 11:5-6, which reads;

'But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head--it is the same as having her head shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.' -1 Corinthians 11:5-6

We know that men were commanded to leave their heads uncovered, esp during a time of prophesying or praying, acknowledging their inferiority to Christ as their Lord and his Lordship over them, also in that man is the glory of God, however we see here that women were not to uncover their heads even in prayer, for unlike men, the hair of a woman is her glory, as it is written;

'Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering.' -1 Corinthians 11:15-16

The only time woman were to be permitted to uncover their heads was in the presence of their husbands.

And if women were to even cover their heads in public, even during prayer or prophecy, how much more were they expected to wear unrevealing proper attire in the same aspect?

'I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or costly attire, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness' -1 Timothy 2:9-10

This goes to show how the Lord regards our bodies and that they are sacred to him and he demands that either we preserve them for the service of the Lord and/or a spouse, but we are not to put them on display for others' lustful pleasure. If this is so, why would he allow our bodies to be treated as mere objects for someone elses pleasure and be defiled in such a service to the Lord. It is evident that God desires the purity of our bodies to be kept sacred and desires for them not to be defiled, therefore, why would God want out bodies to be defiled for no good reason? That would be a direct contradiction.

In conclusion, though you are right that God expects us to be uncompromising in our faith in his good nature, however it is true that God will not only test our faith in such, but also our knowledge of right and wrong, which is an area you seem to have fallen short since you seem to fail to understand the sanctity in ones virginity for the Lord and the preservation of our temples, esp for him.

I think yours is a misconception of the scriptures.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Apoc, you should be a politician. Many words, no meaning.

Take it a step at a time, and try to pay attention to reality here.

1. Does rape happen? Yes or No?

2. Does God - in His sovereignty - allow rape to happen even when you don't like it? Yes or No?

 

[apocolypticremedy999]

Apoc, you should be a politician. Many words, no meaning.

Take it a step at a time, and try to pay attention to reality here.

1. Does rape happen? Yes or No?

2. Does God - in His sovereignty - allow rape to happen even when you don't like it? Yes or No?

Oh, you got me. I'm sorry if you didn't get the meaning in my words, my meaning should have been very clear.

Yes, rape does happen, but my point was WHEN God might let it happen and that I'm not convinced that he would just let it happen to anyone at any time, esp when it comes to someone who has their heart in the right place, respect for their bodies, and the desire to preserve their bodies for the Lord and/or a spouse. My point was also that I think rape was considered a greater crime in God's eyes much like adultery than we might be acknowledging and thus to imply that the passage from Deuteronomy might be regarding an instance of rape could be a misconception.

Since God is good and rape is so bad, esp when it comes to pure virgins who are so because they are preserving their temples for God and/or a spouse, I think it's best we look at these passages at different angles.

 

[graceandpeace]

The idea that God intentionally, directly causes or allows horrific things to happen to someone "to teach them a lesson" is anti-Christian. Such an idea is frightening & contradicts the hope of the Gospel.

The reality is bad things happen. To people we perceive as "good," & to people who seem "evil." Some people steal. Some rape. Some kill. It's just the way it is in this broken world.

 

[apocolypticremedy999]

The idea that God intentionally, directly causes or allows horrific things to happen to someone "to teach them a lesson" is anti-Christian. Such an idea is frightening & contradicts the hope of the Gospel.

The reality is bad things happen. To people we perceive as "good," & to people who seem "evil." Some people steal. Some rape. Some kill. It's just the way it is in this broken world.

Yes, but all kinds of people can come to Christ, including rape victims, the point I'm trying to make is why God would let them get raped in the first place, because I refuse to believe God would allow a woman, or anyone for that matter, with a pure heart and is destined to value her body and preserve it for a greater purpose than to just put it "on the market" if you will for carnal passion like a harlot to just be defiled. Why expect us to remain pure if he could let us be defiled and contaminated by outside filthy elements when it is in us to do so? After all, don't we know how strict God is about laws concerning sexual abstinence and overall cleanliness? In fact, he was strict about such a thing that he commanded males who so much as had a minor discharge of sperm do wash themselves and be unclean for an allotted time. What good would such regulations be if our cleanliness weren't important enough to preserve from defilement when we are yet truly clean?

I believe that there may be women out there who don't understand the value in preserving their bodies for something greater than putting it on display as a piece of dog bait and/or may not see what is wrong with giving yourself to sex before marriage and it may just take someone who would disregard her own wishes by treating her as an object for their own pleasure for her to understand such a thing, and so I'm saying this might be a reason for which God might allow one to be raped, which would be a good one even though there is never a good reason for anyone to rape anyone, it is wrong either way, but it's better than allowing one with a pure heart in which there is the value in self-preservation and more self-respect than to harlot one's body to be treated as a sex object and defiled despite their purity. It's not good to allow a pure soul, that which is clean, to be defiled and made dirty against its will when it was in them to remain clean. We should know as Christians that such a thing cannot be good in that it is our duty and obligation as Christians to know what is good and pure, and from this we should understand that it could not be in God to do such a thing, and so we must keep these things considered when reading passages like Deut. 22:28-29 despite the fact that they could seem to insinuate an instance of rape to the ignorant one who knows little between right and wrong, after all, it could just be God putting your knowledge and judgment of righteousness to the test, because God does not only test our faith in his good nature, but also our knowledge of good and evil and how well we know that which is good.

 

[graceandpeace]

Why would God allow someone to get in a car accident? To get mugged? To get sick? To get burned by their morning coffee? These sorts of questions are all asking the same thing, & the only answer there is, in varying degrees, is "stuff happens." The world is broken, & the Christian prays "Thy kingdom come."

In any case, rape doesn't make someone "impure," & the only guilty party is the rapist, not the woman or girl, whether she was a virgin or a prostitute. No one "deserves" to be raped. God has nothing to do with rapists as far as causing evil to happen to someone. As stated before, such an idea contradicts the Gospel message.

 

[apocolypticremedy999]

Why would God allow someone to get in a car accident? To get mugged? To get sick? To get burned by their morning coffee? These sorts of questions are all asking the same thing, & the only answer there is, in varying degrees, is "stuff happens." The world is broken, & the Christian prays "Thy kingdom come."

In any case, rape doesn't make someone "impure," & the only guilty party is the rapist, not the woman or girl, whether she was a virgin or a prostitute. No one "deserves" to be raped. God has nothing to do with rapists as far as causing evil to happen to someone. As stated before, such an idea contradicts the Gospel message.

So you're saying rape can happen to anyone? Even the purest virgin who took a vow of celibacy to preserve herself for the kingdom? So God who is in control could just sit and do nothing as some dog comes along and just defiles her and treats her her and her sexual organs as an object for his pleasure? That doesn't come across to you as wrong? Where are your values?

Also, I'm not necessarily saying that being a victim of rape can make someone impure, but it means that they're defiled. It means that they're contaminated. Do you need the definition of defile?

de·file

1 [dih-fahyl]
verb (used with object), de·filed, de·fil·ing.

1. to make foul, dirty, or unclean; pollute; taint; debase.

2. to violate the chastity of.

3. to make impure for ceremonial use; desecrate.

4. to sully, as a person's reputation.

There are indeed people who deserve to be raped, and they are those who do not preserve the sanctity of their bodies as God meant for them, but put them on display as objects of lust, disregarding the degradation in such a thing. They are those who don't understand the bad aspects of sexuality and the selfishness in it. Saying that no one deserves to get raped is just as absurd as saying no one deserves to die or become injured. This is not necessarily to say rape is a good thing or that it can serve a good purpose so much as it is to say there are good reasons for God to allow someone to be raped, although I don't think letting one with a pure heart to be defiled in such a way is one of them, therefore I can't believe that the good God that we serve would allow such a thing.

Lastly, I never said God causes evil. I don't know where you gathered such a conclusion. What I was saying was that God is in control and there is nothing that happens without his allowance, and he doesn't need to allow that which is pure to be defiled.

 

[Hawkiz]

So you're saying rape can happen to anyone? Yes.Even the purest virgin who took a vow of celibacy to preserve herself for the kingdom? Yes.So God who is in control could just sit and do nothing as some dog comes along and just defiles her and treats her her and her sexual organs as an object for his pleasure? You are still operating on the presumption that God is 'doing nothing'.That doesn't come across to you as wrong? Yes, rape is wrong, sinful and evil. It still doesn't mean that God is doing nothing with it. All things work as part of His plan...even our most horrendous sufferings work for His GoodWhere are your values? Our values are with the Work that Christ does to draw us closer to Him.

Also, I'm not necessarily saying that being a victim of rape can make someone impure, but it means that they're defiled. It means that they're contaminated. Do you need the definition of defile?

de·file

1 [dih-fahyl]
verb (used with object), de·filed, de·fil·ing.

1. to make foul, dirty, or unclean; pollute; taint; debase.

2. to violate the chastity of.

3. to make impure for ceremonial use; desecrate.

4. to sully, as a person's reputation.

There are indeed people who deserve to be raped,Wait! Please tell me that I didn't just read that you think there are people who deserve to be raped?!?! Where are YOUR values? and they are those who do not preserve the sanctity of their bodies as God meant for them, but put them on display as objects of lust, disregarding the degradation in such a thing. They are those who don't understand the bad aspects of sexuality and the selfishness in it. Saying that no one deserves to get raped is just as absurd as saying no one deserves to die or become injured. This is not necessarily to say rape is a good thing or that it can serve a good purpose so much as it is to say there are good reasons for God to allow someone to be raped, although I don't think letting one with a pure heart to be defiled in such a way is one of them, therefore I can't believe that the good God that we serve would allow such a thing. You almost got there...and then you imposed YOUR way onto GOD'S way and derailed your own train. "I can't believe" is a 'you' problem, not a God problem.

Lastly, I never said God causes evil. I don't know where you gathered such a conclusion. What I was saying was that God is in control and there is nothing that happens without his allowance, and he doesn't need to allow that which is pure to be defiled.

And again, you start this sentence so well...and end it by trying to tell God what He does or doesn't need to do in order to accomplish salvation for the world...
I think we all recognize that we have personal struggles with HOW God brings about His will being done...this issue is clearly yours. My advice? Rather than argue with God on the matter, pray that He makes you an instrument of His peace: for rape prevention; for rape victims (although you ought to really pray hard before you go telling anyone that they got what they deserved because they were an object of lust for someone else...; and finally, pray that He makes you an instrument of His peace for the rapist. I don't know what you being His instrument in this area would look like, but praying about it is the only way to find out!

Peace in Christ

 

[Hawkiz]

Sorry that my in comment colors didn't take properly and make my response difficult to read. I blame the IPad

 

[Hawkiz]

Why would God allow someone to get in a car accident? To get mugged? To get sick? To get burned by their morning coffee? These sorts of questions are all asking the same thing, & the only answer there is, in varying degrees, is "stuff happens." The world is broken, & the Christian prays "Thy kingdom come."

In any case, rape doesn't make someone "impure," & the only guilty party is the rapist, not the woman or girl, whether she was a virgin or a prostitute. No one "deserves" to be raped. God has nothing to do with rapists as far as causing evil to happen to someone. As stated before, such an idea contradicts the Gospel message.

Agree 100%!!! Our sufferings in this world are not something we can blame God for! I am praying that he sees that he is doing this, and that he is going against God by doing so. I further pray that I can forgive him for his claim that "some people deserve to get raped.' I am really struggling to get past that. Please pray for me that I can do so.


Peace in Christ

 

[NannaNae]

I ran into a debate with an atheist about God and rape being sure that God condemns rape. If he is good he would, and I'm sure he does, however he brought this passage against me and I wasn't quite able to make complete sense of it even though I still do not believe that God is in any way ok with rape:

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; 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. -- Deuteronomy 22:28-29

What could God mean when he says that "if a man lay hold" on a woman who is a virgin. Surely it could not mean rape, correct? Such a thing should be punishable by death. What could this mean?

Also, there was then also this verse;

“But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. 26 But you shall do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no offense punishable by death. For this case is like that of a man attacking and murdering his neighbor, 27 because he met her in the open country, and though the betrothed young woman cried for help there was no one to rescue her. -Deuteronomy 22:25-27

The thing about this one is; why would God allow a married woman to be raped against her will with no one to rescue her? Why wouldn't he himself rescue her himself? Why would he allow such an injustice? I couldn't feel comfortable with a God that would allow my wife to be raped forcibly, esp if both I and my wife were people of sincere faith. That would totally break my heart. The only thing that I think would make such a thing ok is if the wife were in the wrong somehow, but of course I couldn't see any wrong that she could do that could justify such a horrendous act without her deserving to die herself.

I don't want to question God's good nature, but I must understand such things, because I am adamantly against rape. Is there something more to this that must be understood?

do we think he even has the right to protect every woman , every wife, every child on this planet ? I mean it took some angels 3 weeks of fighting powers in high places to even get a massage in to a one of his .. I just am convinced we don't understand that stuff at all..
we are only his to protect when he is our lord , not every woman or every virgin or every child or every parent of every child has made him their lord, , and not every land and every people and every nation and every tribe and every area has made him lord and given him rights to protect them..

we think we better have good and fair laws if the men around us are lawless.( 97 % of all men walk without any punishment at all, not even a payment or support ) so much for civilized..... even then the good and fair laws won't stand long with lawless in power over the land. child molester and rapist walk because they are the lawyers and judges and powerful.

so it comes back to yet again so does he even have the right to protect us in our homes and in our lands and in our cities , states and nations.. is the real question , I think .

 

[jzyehoshua]

I ran into a debate with an atheist about God and rape being sure that God condemns rape. If he is good he would, and I'm sure he does, however he brought this passage against me and I wasn't quite able to make complete sense of it even though I still do not believe that God is in any way ok with rape:

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; 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. -- Deuteronomy 22:28-29

What could God mean when he says that "if a man lay hold" on a woman who is a virgin. Surely it could not mean rape, correct? Such a thing should be punishable by death. What could this mean?

Also, there was then also this verse;

“But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. 26 But you shall do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no offense punishable by death. For this case is like that of a man attacking and murdering his neighbor, 27 because he met her in the open country, and though the betrothed young woman cried for help there was no one to rescue her. -Deuteronomy 22:25-27

The thing about this one is; why would God allow a married woman to be raped against her will with no one to rescue her? Why wouldn't he himself rescue her himself? Why would he allow such an injustice? I couldn't feel comfortable with a God that would allow my wife to be raped forcibly, esp if both I and my wife were people of sincere faith. That would totally break my heart. The only thing that I think would make such a thing ok is if the wife were in the wrong somehow, but of course I couldn't see any wrong that she could do that could justify such a horrendous act without her deserving to die herself.

I don't want to question God's good nature, but I must understand such things, because I am adamantly against rape. Is there something more to this that must be understood?

The first seemingly refers to consensual sex or there wouldn't be the second passage which apparently does refer to rape and required the death penalty for the rapist. Verse 25 uses the phrase "force her" which isn't found in verses 28-29. (KJV)

The second question is essentially a take on Epicurus' Trilemma and why evil occurs in the world as a general rule. As far as I'm concerned this is Satan's world system which is why all who live godly will suffer persecution. The whole reason for God bringing in new heavens and a new Earth is to get rid of all the corruption and evil caused by evil in this life. The whole reason for salvation is to make people new people who won't perpetuate such evil towards others.

 

[apocolypticremedy999]

do we think he even has the right to protect every woman , every wife, every child on this planet ? I mean it took some angels 3 weeks of fighting powers in high places to even get a massage in to a one of his .. I just am convinced we don't understand that stuff at all..
we are only his to protect when he is our lord , not every woman or every virgin or every child or every parent of every child has made him their lord, , and not every land and every people and every nation and every tribe and every area has made him lord and given him rights to protect them..

we think we better have good and fair laws if the men around us are lawless.( 97 % of all men walk without any punishment at all, not even a payment or support ) so much for civilized..... even then the good and fair laws won't stand long with lawless in power over the land. child molester and rapist walk because they are the lawyers and judges and powerful.

so it comes back to yet again so does he even have the right to protect us in our homes and in our lands and in our cities , states and nations.. is the real question , I think .

What kinda question is that? Does God have a right to protect his creation? As if God would be wrong to do so.

God has every right to protect anyone he wants in as much as he has a right to refuse to protect anyone he wants in that he is good and is Almighty. Who can protect thousands of people at a time in different places? Only God can!

Would you prefer a mere man to protect mankind? Who is man to do such a thing?

I would love to know your reasoning for this peculiar question.