Is it Rape or Not

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

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

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

Even in this day and age, it is very hard to prove rape. How do you know that those who were "forced" to marry their husband did not really like them after all. Do you have statistics? How many of these victims were sent out 1%, 5% 50%? Even if there were indeed some who were sent out, the fact that their lives were spared showed that mercy was shown to them. Do not murder does not preclude: "eliminate the wicked among you--foreigners and Israelites alike". Ironically, you asked for proof. Yet you feel free to to say: "study shows the Hebrews absorbed common phrases"? What's this double standard, or are we to bicker about details of proof?
Anyway, I'm not disputing your assertion. I could even go as far as they even absorbed and even exceeded the wickedness of these people. That's why God had to punish them severely. One rule--elimination of who is bad, regardless of who it was--was applied in this case, agree? I'm not God, so I'll just make an educated guess. (1)Death by the sword is less painful than death by famine. (2) He is the Sovereign, so he can delegate capital punishment to his subjects. Is it worse than painting him as a cruel monster?

You win handsdown! You showed your sharp and logical mind by using the word B***But, let me just continue for a bit more. Even losers are given their last say, right? Time has a way of healing all wounds. Do you have the records that these "forced wives" did not learn to love their "murderous husbands" after say 2,10, 15 years after? I demand a concrete proof, just as you demand God from giving an accounting to you of every move He did.Oh, "empathy" from people who questions One that gives them their daily bread. What a nice word! The next word to that is: EMPTY.