What Was God's Rationale In This Instance?

[2PhiloVoid]

Just the Bible... OOOOHHH!!! *rimshot*

Sorry. I couldn't resist.

No, but seriously. I hardly read any fiction at all. For fiction, I just watch movies and t.v. shows.

 

[cvanwey]

If he forces her, rapes her, then for him the outcome just above in post #256.

That would be like me telling you, if you continue to lie, steal, cheat, other, you will burn in hell. Everyone sins, right? Up until the point of your death, right? However, please demonstrate one of the 600+ Biblical laws which states anything about 'rape' regardless? Please understand, the loophole for the men, of this era, was that once they have 'married' a women, they basically received carte blanche to her body. Meaning, physical relations with her is not considered 'rape', because they are now 'married'. Her consent was not required. Hence, why I state, some sham marriages. Why can I state this with relative confidence, because I've read Biblical verses.

Take, for instance, some of the verses you have provided. If the verse also had the text added, in red, you may have a legitimate claim. But you don't. Just wishful thinking...

"After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, .....then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. "14 If you are not pleased with her, or if she is not pleased with him, let her go wherever she wishes."

or if she instead refuses him, then he can not keep her

This is dishonest... Nowhere do such Biblical verses state that the woman has the same choice as a man. If the man decides to release her, then she has 'some' rights.. You are adding your own wishful conclusion.

For her: freedom, equality under the law, and even food if and when needed, from then on. Good Himself commands these and that his people love her as one of their own.

But only if the man is tired of her, or no longer likes her. Again, what if she dislikes him, and he still likes her?

You will be hard-pressed to find a Biblical verse to support this scenario. Instead, you will be making up your own wishful conclusion.

 

[Halbhh]

I'm willing to answer about 1 -2 questions [readers will find earlier we have already answered the OP question]. You are able to look up things if you sincerely want to know more.

However, please demonstrate one of the 600+ Biblical laws which states anything about 'rape' regardless?

25 “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."
Deuteronomy chapter 22

That's capital punishment -- execution. The rapist is publicly executed.

Is that clear?

Please understand, the loophole for the men, of this era, was that once they have 'married' a women, they basically received carte blanche to her body. Meaning, physical relations with her is not considered 'rape', because they are now 'married'. Her consent was not required. .... Why can I state this with relative confidence, because I've read Biblical verses.

13 “If any man takes a wife and goes in to her and then hates her 14 and [showing he wants rid of her, wishes to avoid being stuck with her and avoid being responsible for her support for the rest of his life and so he:] accuses her of misconduct and brings a bad name upon her, saying, ‘I took this woman, and when I came near her, I did not find in her evidence of virginity,’ 15 then the father of the young woman and her mother shall take and bring out the evidence of her virginity to the elders of the city in the gate. 16 And the father of the young woman shall say to the elders, ‘I gave my daughter to this man to marry, and he hates her; 17 and behold, he has accused her of misconduct, saying, “I did not find in your daughter evidence of virginity.” And yet this is the evidence of my daughter’s virginity.’ And they shall spread the cloak before the elders of the city. 18 Then the elders of that city shall take the man and whip him, 19 and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the father of the young woman, because he has brought a bad name upon a virgin of Israel. And she shall be his wife. He may not divorce her all his days."

Public whipping -- not really something you'd want to experience.

What's the significance of the fact that he cannot divorce her for the rest of his life, precisely?

It means he has to support -- feed and clothe and house her in his house her for the rest of their lives. From now until death. The normal ways to have a divorce, no matter what reasons, are now removed.

No matter how painful or burdensome she is to him.

For the rest of his life.

 

[Halbhh]

Why would they be punished for rape when there is no commandment which condemns rape?

See post #263 just above.

The real problem for anyone in all of history, including those from other nations, and also Israel from before the laws were given is the same crucial problem.

The kicker -- Romans 2:6 God "will repay each one according to his deeds."

Basically, those hurting others are going to get what they deserve, if they don't truly repent (not just lip service, but true change), and it's not going to be pleasant.

We learn that the unrepentant (those who did not humble themselves fully in true repentance, so that they are utterly changed) -- they will all die the "second death" (the real one), and it will not be pleasant in those moments when that death is happening....

 

[cvanwey]

Which one? The one where "Right Authorizes Might"?

Posts 205 and 209. You know... The ones I've asked you to address on multiple occasions, and you didn't.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Posts 205 and 209. You know... The ones I've asked you to address on multiple occasions, and you didn't.

I find it amazing that your singular issue OP threads quickly grow several tentacles. I saw the movie back in the late 70's, and it scarred me to death as a child, so now anything that seems to resemble it frightens me ...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, morality does seem relative. I've tried to point that out, even in this topic. Back then, women were considered possessions, way less-than-men, and/or virtually sub-human. But my gripe isn't so much about how (I) FEEL this is wrong.... MY gripe is the REASONS that "God" gives for these conclusions... (i.e.)

- "The woman sinned first" <- Seems illogical, which has nothing to do with 'morality'.

- "The woman came from a man" <- Well, this appears false, in the way the Bible describes.

In this case, if you look at my two points about Numbers 31, they don't really deal in morality either... (i.e.)

1. "God told me so". Well, really? Are we sure? Anyone can claim God told them this, that, other... And when we examine the premise and details, do they add up? Doesn't appear so...

2. Kill even the little ones, but keep the virgins? Basic biology here.

"Morality" isn't my personal concern here... My beef is that this claimed "God" gets things wrong. Which either means this claimed God is inept, or, the person whom claimed God's hand is delusional/lying/other and God is nowhere to be found in this story line.

Thus, which one of these paths do you wish to take? Because I cannot think of a third option quite frankly.

I have to ask you....

Will there ever come a time AGAIN, in the future, where women and men are considered unequal BECAUSE of claims that are now proven false? Such as 'women being created from men', (or) because a woman did something 'incorrect' before the man followed the same 'incorrect path'?

I'm trying to keep 'morality' out of it, as much as possible. I'm sorry if you feel 'atheists' have some type of an 'upper hand', in regards to 'morals' on some 'common sense' level.

When I state 'common sense', it is more for the reasons in my two points.



False, as post #1 indicates. I've truly given this chapter a fare shake. And cannot reconcile any logical conclusions, in favor of this supposed Yahweh character. Nor have you, in all your apparent study, been able to provide what seems to be anything close to a proper rationale.

What it 'comes down to', for me, is I'm now here, raising topics to Christian apologists like you. As stated prior, this chapter alone seems to demonstrate a pretty large flaw or two. If examined without bias, seems to suggest either an inept God, or a story in where God has no place within it; even though the very same book states that it does.

And after some type of 'resolution' has been concluded, for this topic; I may decide to post yet another verse/chapter demonstrating another occurrence on how.... even if there exists some creating agent/agents/etc, it might appear more and more likely that the claims of this particular flavor of a God may not hold true in reality...



I have to ask you @2PhiloVoid .... If morals ARE objective, what IS God's stance on taking virgins in warfare? Does He change His mind?



Well, I hope, as stated from above, you now know why I have concluded that this chapter is 'wrong'

And on a side note, it's fare to state that yourself, myself, and @Nihilist Virus ALL agree that murdering children, but sparing female virgins, post war, seems 'wrong.' But maybe now I'm 'wrong'?

Here's a brain-stumper for you.

How would Israelite men abuse, deride, and general run roughshod over their wives--even foreign wives who assimilate----AND still fulfill the requirements of THE SHEMA (as just one little tiny thing that can be brought up at least as one tiny bump in the road to the act of throwing allegations at ancient Israelite men, particularly when it comes to making the assertion that they were all sociopaths who could not help but respond to some singular sense of 'following the Lord).

Then, there's some of this other stuff to consider as a further starting point:

Women and Violence in the Hebrew Bible

So, if my wife is resistant to me for just any reason, it's ok if I smack her in the face because, well ..."Honey, I'm just showing my love for both you and the Lord," right? NOT!!!!!


******************

On the converse side of things, when we look at God as He is represented in the Bible, it isn't a stretch to realize that if such a being as He exists, then the principle "Right Authorizes Might" is in fact correct and, sometimes drastically, applied. And the world will just never live it down, will it? Of course, those on the losing side of the spiritual spectrum won't like that, will they? (e.g. Psalm 2, Book of Revelation; and the Fall of Jerusalem, both times as but a few more examples).

 

[cvanwey]

I find it amazing that your singular issue OP threads quickly grow several tentacles. I saw the movie back in the late 70's, and it scarred me to death as a child, so now anything that seems to resemble it frightens me ...

As I'm sure you are aware, I, as many others here, follow the course of the thread through it's momentum. Sometimes others raise various views, which spark other concerns, which may also be relevant to the same topic. Again, I'm following the momentum.

You are free to address them, or sit back, accordingly. Of course, if you so choose to engage, it would be nice to at least answer your poster's questions. If not, you simply grow even 'more tentacles' within this singular thread.

 

[cvanwey]

Here's a brain-stumper for you.

How would Israelite men abuse, deride, and general run roughshod over their wives--even foreign wives who assimilate----AND still fulfill the requirements of THE SHEMA (as just one little tiny thing that can be brought up at least as one tiny bump in the road to the act of throwing allegations at ancient Israelite men, particularly when it comes to making the assertion that they were all sociopaths who could not help but respond to some singular sense of 'following the Lord).

Then, there's some of this other stuff to consider as a further starting point:

Women and Violence in the Hebrew Bible

So, if my wife is resistant to me for just any reason, it's ok if I smack her in the face because, well ..."Honey, I'm just showing my love for both you and the Lord," right? NOT!!!!!


******************

On the converse side of things, when we look at God as He is represented in the Bible, it isn't a stretch to realize that if such a being as He exists, then the principle "Right Authorizes Might" is in fact correct and, sometimes drastically, applied. And the world will just never live it down, will it? Of course, those on the losing side of the spiritual spectrum won't like that, will they? (e.g. Psalm 2, Book of Revelation; and the Fall of Jerusalem, both times as but a few more examples).

Dear @2PhiloVoid

I honestly do not see virtually any connection between your response, and the prior points raised... I read the provided article as well....

Let me again summarize my points, in a way to remove all seeming distractors. The reason I'm doing this, is because we have gone around and around, and I'm now trying to draw conclusions.

1. God deems woman < man. Seems His rationale is because:

A. The woman sinned first - (why would the order of sin matter?)
B. The woman was 'made' from the man. - (Not true, unless all of science is mistaken)

Thus, my question in red.....

If it would appear that women are lesser to men, for (two) reasons which are not correct in reality, why should I then assume the Bible is actually God given, verse man made?

2. Numbers 31 is a claim that God told group A to kill group B, to exterminate a people. But the rationale does not appear to add up:

It would appear that God is either inept, or, the person whom claimed God's hand is delusional/lying/other, and God is nowhere to be found in this story line? Which one is it?

*********

I'll stop here for now...

 

[Halbhh]

Here's a brain-stumper for you.

How would Israelite men abuse, deride, and general run roughshod over their wives--even foreign wives who assimilate----AND still fulfill the requirements of THE SHEMA (as just one little tiny thing that can be brought up at least as one tiny bump in the road to the act of throwing allegations at ancient Israelite men, particularly when it comes to making the assertion that they were all sociopaths who could not help but respond to some singular sense of 'following the Lord).

Then, there's some of this other stuff to consider as a further starting point:

Women and Violence in the Hebrew Bible

So, if my wife is resistant to me for just any reason, it's ok if I smack her in the face because, well ..."Honey, I'm just showing my love for both you and the Lord," right? NOT!!!!!


******************

On the converse side of things, when we look at God as He is represented in the Bible, it isn't a stretch to realize that if such a being as He exists, then the principle "Right Authorizes Might" is in fact correct and, sometimes drastically, applied. And the world will just never live it down, will it? Of course, those on the losing side of the spiritual spectrum won't like that, will they? (e.g. Psalm 2, Book of Revelation; and the Fall of Jerusalem, both times as but a few more examples).

Better we that are willing to actually discuss in good faith talk with each other.... .

I'm thinking we can look over the thread and gather up some useful insights and points. Got any posts in particular you'd like to highlight for me?

It's a good point that what men do they will face God to be held accountable for, and I'm sure there are going to be some more useful points.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

See post #263 just above.

I already knew about those verses. Rape is condemned when it is a woman who is betrothed to another man because women were considered property. When a woman "belongs to" (married) or "is claimed by" (betrothed) a man, then another man may not rape her. That in no way is saying that rape is condemned.


The other verse you cited has absolutely nothing to do with rape, but it does further establish how women were treated as property. Before she is the property of the man she is marrying, she is her father's property.

The real problem for anyone in all of history, including those from other nations, and also Israel from before the laws were given is the same crucial problem.

The kicker -- Romans 2:6 God "will repay each one according to his deeds."

Basically, those hurting others are going to get what they deserve, if they don't truly repent (not just lip service, but true change), and it's not going to be pleasant.

We learn that the unrepentant (those who did not humble themselves fully in true repentance, so that they are utterly changed) -- they will all die the "second death" (the real one), and it will not be pleasant in those moments when that death is happening....

So I'm still waiting for you to show me where rape is unambiguously and unequivocally condemned in the Bible.

 

[Halbhh]

I already knew about those verses. Rape is condemned when it is a woman who is betrothed to another man because women were considered property. When a woman "belongs to" (married) or "is claimed by" (betrothed) a man, then another man may not rape her. That in no way is saying that rape is condemned.


The other verse you cited has absolutely nothing to do with rape, but it does further establish how women were treated as property. Before she is the property of the man she is marrying, she is her father's property.



So I'm still waiting for you to show me where rape is unambiguously and unequivocally condemned in the Bible.

"I'm still waiting for you to show me where rape is unambiguously and unequivocally condemned in the Bible."

'in the Bible ' -- !?

Ok. We need a summary of the law, really. There is someone competent to do that.

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.

New International Version
"...for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."

New Living Translation
“... This is the essence of all that is taught in the law and the prophets."

English Standard Version
“.... for this is the Law and the Prophets."

Jesus the Christ (someone who knows all of these things better than any of us here) says it's the Law, as a whole, in true essence. The entire Law in its essence.

So, since He -- Jesus Christ -- is the Judge....

....then....you'd can expect His definition is the one that matters.

Not anyone else's.

So what does that mean for us then?

Here's the outcome we read of us breaking this Law in serious ways, for any that don't fully repent in a true way (such as through Christ), leading to total change:

Without repentance: Romans 2:6 God "will repay each one according to his deeds."

You see, the words mean just what they say.

Every rapist that doesn't utterly repent will definitely get the eternal (permanent) punishment -- they will perish in the Lake of Fire since they broke Matthew 7:12 above in a serious way.

It's why we need a Redeemer to rescue us from all of our wrongdoing we've already done! Christ is the way for us to repent and be forgiven all the hundreds of ways we've broken Matthew 7:12 in our lives.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

"I'm still waiting for you to show me where rape is unambiguously and unequivocally condemned in the Bible."

'in the Bible ' -- !?

Ok. We need a summary of the law, really. There is someone competent to do that.

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.

New International Version
"...for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."

New Living Translation
“... This is the essence of all that is taught in the law and the prophets."

English Standard Version
“.... for this is the Law and the Prophets."

Jesus the Christ (someone who knows all of these things better than any of us here) says it's the Law, as a whole, in true essence. The entire Law in its essence.

So, since He -- Jesus Christ -- is the Judge....

....then....you'd can expect His definition is the one that matters.

Not anyone else's.

So what does that mean for us then?

Here's the outcome we read of us breaking this Law in serious ways, for any that don't fully repent in a true way (such as through Christ), leading to total change:

Without repentance: Romans 2:6 God "will repay each one according to his deeds."

You see, the words mean just what they say.

Every rapist that doesn't utterly repent will definitely get the eternal (permanent) punishment -- they will perish in the Lake of Fire since they broke Matthew 7:12 above in a serious way.

It's why we need a Redeemer to rescue us from all of our wrongdoing we've already done! Christ is the way for us to repent and be forgiven all the hundreds of ways we've broken Matthew 7:12 in our lives.

I'm still waiting for you to show me where rape is unambiguously and unequivocally condemned in the Bible.

 

[Halbhh]

To see rape is unambiguously and unequivocally condemned in the Bible, read Christ's words, quoted just above in post #279, with listening.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

To see rape is unambiguously and unequivocally condemned in the Bible, read Christ's words, quoted just above in post #279, with listening.

Please acknowledge that in 600+ laws there is not one which unambiguously and unequivocally condemns rape. Thanks.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Please acknowledge that in 600+ laws there is not one which unambiguously and unequivocally condemns rape. Thanks.

Don't you mean to say, "Please acknowledge that in 600+ laws there is not one which unambiguously and unequivocally commends rape. Thanks."?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Don't you mean to say, "Please acknowledge that in 600+ laws there is not one which unambiguously and unequivocally commends rape. Thanks."?

That's silly. Laws do not give commendations.

 

[Halbhh]

Please acknowledge that in 600+ laws there is not one which unambiguously and unequivocally condemns rape. Thanks.

That would be a false thing for me to say, since I'm aware of the biblical answer I have given above.

I've answered how rape is outlawed above in post #279.

The answer comes from Christian faith in Jesus Christ.


It's the same faith that makes us believe any of what the Bible says.

It you yourself rely in the discussion on something from the Bible, as the OP does, to ask a question....

Then that same source is where we expect any answer, and so I pointed out a key answer above that closes the question.

No one could ever interpret the Law better than the "Teacher" Jesus, the Christ.

We also pointed out that unrepentant (thus unforgiven ) rapists will face God's wrath on the day of judgement.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That's silly. Laws do not give commendations.

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?!

 

[Nihilist Virus]

That would be a false thing for me to say, since I'm aware of the biblical answer I have given above.

I've answered how rape is outlawed above in post #279.

The answer comes from Christian faith in Jesus Christ.


It's the same faith that makes us believe any of what the Bible says.

It you yourself rely in the discussion on something from the Bible, as the OP does, to ask a question....

Then that same source is where we expect any answer, and so I pointed out a key answer above that closes the question.

No one could ever interpret the Law better than the "Teacher" Jesus, the Christ.

We also pointed out that unrepentant (thus unforgiven ) rapists will face God's wrath on the day of judgement.

Your answers are inadequate.