Is it Rape or Not

As I would define it , yes.

quote:

---

But all the women children,

---

The little girls

quote:

---

that have not known a man by lying with him,

---

That are virgins

quote:

---

keep alive for yourselves.

---

Are getting screwed.I think sex is implied, but I suppose not necessarily. If you were keeping them for yourself, maybe you wouldn’t care to have sex with them, but in the context of ”knowing a man’, sex is definitely implied.A lot of men have raped a lot of women a lot of times throughout history. Sometimes, the culture in which the rapes were taking place did not consider it rape. According to our culture, it was rape. Not today, but it depends on how you define rape. Our definition, no. Some definitions in other ancient cultures, yes.I don’t think we should project our morality onto these ancient cultures and then use that to make god to look like a bad guy. A lot of bad shit happened, it’s the nature of reality, it must be necessary. As far as men raping the spoils of war: I don’t think we can really say what or how god could have or should have or would have done things. I mean, really? We’re going to throw a bunch of omni- words onto god and then try to say how things should go? And then use that to make god look bad, or say he doesn’t exist. Is that what’s going on here? Or are we actually going to use this to show how parts of the Old Testament cannot be the literal word of god? I think Faith is doing a fine job reconciling it. It makes sense after a war/genocide, during the ancient culture of the Old Testament, to keep alive some of the younger women as breeding stock to strengthen you own culture. I think the young men would not be needed and have potential cause for problems with rejecting your culture. Also, you’d ensure the thinning out of their genes if you only kept females. Sure, its brutal, but I can think of a lot of other more brutal things that most likely happened throughout history.Basically, Deuteronomy is, like the OP says, detailing the law of god. Can we call this an improvement, or a humanizing as Faith puts it, to the previous culture? I think so. I can imagine it being worse before this law was detailed.If we want to call god omnipotent, and say he could have done things a lot better, then we start questioning god’s motives. I don’t think we can really say what/how god should have done things, or say that he’s bad because of the way things did go down. Taking the Old Testament and applying it to our culture and then saying that it cannot be the word of god is not making a good argument, IMHO.

Well, personally, I think it was the product of Israelite culture but I also think it could be commands from god. So, I'll take the position that it was commands from god.But you can't throw omni- words onto god and then say this passage makes him a bad guy. We should discuss whether or not these are commands from god, whether or not an omni-god would make such a command. Not whether or not this makes god good or bad, because we just have no idea. I'm not really interested if its god's resposibility for the actions or if he could have prevented them or is condoning them. Thats getting into questioning his motives, which I don't think we are capable of discussing without it all being opinion.We can agree that these things did happen, so they must have happened. We are disagreeing that, if these are commands from god, then ... what? What position are you taking?

/nod Only because of the expectations they have from god, because of the omni- words that are attached to him. I don't see why it matters if god is responsible for the actions or not. I mean, god could have made everything last thursday for all practical purposes. How can we say what god should have done, or how he should have done it, or that the way he did do it was wrong? And we got there. That's the final message. It didn't happen over night, or last week. It took a long time, and through some of those time, some bad things happened.Now, look at what you wrote: Think about how rejected the law would have been if there was no transistion and it was immediately changed to what we think is morally correct, no forced marriages, etc. It would never work. Now, we can say that an omnipotent god could have forced them to accept it, but then we get into questioning god's motives again. And could get into last thurdayism again. He did things the way he did them. I don't think we can judge the way things were done, especially by applying our modern morality onto laws given to an ancient culture. I don't think we have that right. Things have to be the way they are. We can't judge the reasons why they have to be that way. Its just the nature of reality, there's no reason to blame god, or say that these things make him bad. Especially if he gave us free will. His omnipotence doesn't make him responsible, even if he could have prevented something bad. Again, he could have made everything last thursday, if he wanted to do it that way. He did it the way it happened for some reason, presumably, and I don't think we can honestly question and judge that reason, god's motives. Well, I think the literalists look at the Bible as one whole story. Like Faith said, it was a gradual humanizing of those ancient people. Picking one verse out of context and saying the whole thing can't be word of god is a bad argument, IMHO. Or, saying that god could have done it a better way so this couldn't have been the way god did it is another bad argument.

Alright, assuming they ARE commands from god.They can be used to help us determine god's nature. But, the data is as revealed to an ancient culture. We can't apply them directly to modern culture to demean god's nature. They need to be kept in context, IMO.Also, I don't think we can say that becaues god has some omni- ability, then he must use it. Or that if god had this omni- ability, he would have done something this way instead of the way it did happen. And that because he did it the way it happened, then his nature must be....whatever.Does that make sense?

No, some of the posts were specifically attacking god, not just questioning the passages, but I don't care, lets drop this. I don't see the passages as commanding rape. I see what we are calling rape as the default action and the passages are laying down laws on how the rapes should go down. But they are not specifically saying, rape these little girls. Thats going to happen whether god commands it or not. The laws are an small improvement, a gradual step towards removing the rape altogether by putting limitations on how the rapes should happen. Can you not humanize a species that is fully physically human? I think you can. I don't think it matters how bad the actions were, it doesn't really matter for the purpose of the discussion.

Whatever. Whether or not god is responsible doesn't really matter that much to the discussion, I don't think. Is that the only line from the post you care to reply to?

Its easy to call my position ridiculous when you change it to one that is ridiculous. Whoa, slow down, buddy. When did I start defending that type of god? Does the Bible describe God as that?Also, I've already typed about saying 'well, if god was really omni-X then he'd do this.'So, I'm not doing any backbending. No, I don't. And like I've already typed, God could have just made everything in any way in an instant. But he did not. Things happened the way they did. It seems to be that way, doesn't it?Does this make god bad or non-existant? I don't think so. How can we honestly judge his motives? That's the way he did it, we can't argue that he could've done it another way, or that he should've done it another way if he really was omni-something because we just don't know. Belief, or disbelief, in god comes before this judgement, not as a result of it. I don't know if he does or not, or if the Bible says he does or not (off the top of my head).

How does that become 'infinite mercy and justice'? Well, honestly, I agree with you there but I don't see that it is neccessary that it didn't come from god, or that it is obvious that it is nothing more than godless history. /nod Why not? It could very well be consistent with that God, just that he chose a more evolutionary path at getting to where we are, rather than just poofing into existance already good and perfect, you know, kinda like the way he created life, in general. Well, you are right there. I just don't think it rules out god. Maybe to maintain parsimony, but, who cares about that

What makes you think God's morality is timeless?This, as well as the contrast between the NT and OT, and that the 10 commandments were handed down at some point in time, certainly suggest that God's morality is NOT timeless. Really!?I'd say the latest laws/rules tump the earlier ones. But we need to get over this timeless morality thing first. Is that somewhere in the Bible?

Sorry Faith,I just saw this reply and have a reply in thought but no time to type it. I'll get back to the forums tomarrow.

thats putting a limit on God's abilities.

It really depends on the definition of rape. How we define it today, certainly some rapes happened. They could have been very obedient and not raped the Midianites, that is a possibility. I just don’t think it is very probable. Also, the in the context on not ”knowing a man’, sex seems implied. Now, knowing a man could be referring to marriage and not necessarily sex, but it just doesn’t read like that to me. Not necessarily, but I’ll take your word for it. I can see how you can assume that the Midianites were not being raped but you’re filling in the holes in the story with the best possible scenarios to fit your preconceived notions about what must be the case in order for this to be the Word of God. Other people on this thread are filling in the holes with the worst possible scenarios in order to make this look like its not the word of god.Your saying the Midianite women were sluts, in more words, to begin with, and were dressing up and trying to win over a man from the conquering army. At least there were laws that said the men had to wait a month before marrying them, and that they women were not necessarily going to be raped.Others are saying that the Midianite prepubescent girls are going to be forced into horrible marriages where they are nightly raped, perhaps violently. And that these laws from god on how to do this are an atrocity.I think both extremes are wrong. They are both exegeIsis and dishonest, IMHO. Well, I think you are trying to be honest, but you do have an agenda to fulfill. That this is the Word of God. I think you’ll honestly pursue that agenda, but really, to me it seems like you aren’t being honest with yourself, no offense. There’s some reason he didn’t just lead them out of the practices overnight. What’s the implication of it being gradual? I think that’s a good interpretation for maintaining that this is the word of god. It all depends on how you want to read it. Some of the people on this thread prefer a different way. Thanks for offering your interpretation, I think it’s a good one in that it all adds up and is consistent. Honestly though, I think you being a little too easy on it in order to keep it good.

Would you use quotes so its easier to follow the discussion? I have to click back upthread to remember what we are talking about. Here's where we are: to which I replied

quote:

---

thats putting a limit on God's abilities.

---

Which doesn't even make much sense now that I go back and read it. Who said he doesn't change? I don't think that all that omni- stuff means that his morality must be absolute and unchanging. I also don't know why we have to assume that he is always the same. I'd say clearly he has changed.

You don't know this. You're trying to make it look bad to make god look bad, or to make this look like it isn't the word of god. Thats the exegeisis I was talking about two posts up.

If God is omnipotent and not preventing something is condoning it then no, it does not demean God. I mean, there are a lot worse things that have happened throughout history, you're saying that becuase they happened and becuase God is omniotent, then God is not only allowing them, but practically actively participating in them, so he is a bad guy.I've already said in this thread that I don't agree with this type of argument. That's limiting God's abilities. You're saying that he is not capable of choosing to do less while not being responsible. If he is omnipotent, then he is capable of it. That's why we can't throw omni- words onto god and then argue what he should do, and how that makes him bad according to our judgement. They're bullshit arguments. These are fine quotes but I don't think they work when talking about god.