Is it Rape or Not

Good point. I believe that he could, I just don't believe that he does, control everything. I think he has better things to do than be involved in the (decreasing) number of hairs on my head. Word.

Timeless, as far as I'm aware, means "doesn't change with the passage of time." I'm no dictionary, though. I'm not familiar with any instance that "timeless" hasn't been used to indicate something that has always remained the same.If it's your belief that God occasionally shifts morals, I guess I can't argue with that. You can basically make up a God that does anything at all.

First of all, I don't think he is giving them permission to rape. But he is codifying the rape, in a way, by or modern definiiton of rape. But if the law was given to the ancients, then it has to conform to their culture or it wouldn't work. This was typical practice in that culture and I think the given law is a step in the right direction. Because that is not what I mean. I'm just saying that he could use his magic powers in that way, not that he actually is. Him not being able to do that was part of an argument you were making that I didn't agree with, but we're pretty far removed from it now.

You never looked it up?

quote:

---

timeless: 1. without beginning or end; eternal; everlasting.
2. referring or restricted to no particular time

---

Its not like he is flip-flopping them all over the place. The point in this thread was that these laws were a gradual improvement, or a humanizing, of that ancient culture. IIRC, the argument was made, that, that wasn't possible because god can't change, or something. I think its pretty obvious from looking at the bible as a whole that god does change.

Looks like you are on the same tajectory as Faith. At first Faith says these are just descibing events, not that god approved or anything. Well these are "thus sayeth the lord" like commands.Is the Bible the Word of God or not?The Numbers reference is one of many btw.Here is another.... These folks are not even necessarily evil people just in the way.Replay for effect..... Notice who is being attributed with the "giving". Does "enjoy" include marriage proposals.Maybe they had a BC style Dating Game between the women, ahhh.... newly freed from prior commitments and relationships, and the swaggering warrior hunks.Do you beleive this is from God? Only an issue if you really think these are God's thoughts or inspired words. I don't question God I question if this are God's thoughts and commands.BTW there more references.

Personally, I don't believe that the everything in the Bible is literally the Word of God. I honestly don't know. I think that it could be from god and, for the purpose of discussing, I could take the position that it is.These are laws for an ancient culture. They seem to be an improvement to not having these laws. They could have been given to the people by god. They look very harsh when taken in the context of our culture, though. I don't think that means that they couldn't have come from god because they were received at a time when they did make sense. It wouldn't have worked to give them laws that make sense to our culture. I'm sure it was pretty brutal back then and the laws that were given were brutal too. That doesn't mean they couldn't have, or didn't, come from God.

Sorry if i put you into a box.

You supplied the box and I put myself in it for the sake of argument. There's no reason to apologize. I just wanted to give us something to discuss, so I took the opposing position. I don't wholly disagree with that opposing position so I'm not uncomfortable taking it, but I don't really totally agree with it either.

quote:

---

First of all, I don't think he is giving them permission to rape.

---

Then you have to explain why the passage from Deuteronomy doesn't give such permission. It doesn't say that the woman can refuse mmarriage. And sex within marriage was expected. So unless you can show me somewhere which says that a wife can refuse to have sex then I will stick with the view that Deuteronomy 21 does amount to permission to rape captive "wives".

quote:

---

ut if the law was given to the ancients, then it has to conform to their culture or it wouldn't work. This was typical practice in that culture and I think the given law is a step in the right direction.

---

And I'll reply that we have to ask if it's a step far enough. Would it be impossible to actually put in strictures against rape ? Or against forcible marriage of captives ? Or to give them SOMETHING if they get rejected instead of permittign the husband to kick them out with nothing ? Not to mention the question of how things could get so bad. If God was out to improve human morals, why wait so long and let things get so bad ? Or are you going to say that God couldn't do any better ?

quote:

---

Because that is not what I mean. I'm just saying that he could use his magic powers in that way, not that he actually is. Him not being able to do that was part of an argument you were making that I didn't agree with, but we're pretty far removed from it now.

---

If God wouldn't do it, even if it was possible - and you haven't made a case that it is - then it's a moot point.

quote:

---

They could have been inspired by god

---

They supposedly represent direct commands from God. And if God was even partly responsible they are not entirely the product of an ancient culture. Your calim only makes sense if you assume that God is a fictional character since that is the only way that the words could be bothe enirely God's and entirely created by an ancient Israelite.

quote:

---

I'd rather my handle describe my beliefs, not the positions I take.

---

In that case your handle should describe that it is acceptable to hop between mutually exclusive positions - without notification - in the middle of an ongoing discussion. It is certainly not conducive to productive discussion, serving only to confuse the issues.

Hi Catholic Scientist This strikes me as a very odd line of thinking. Was it beyond God's power to require his people to have a liberal democracy, or a notion of human rights and decency? You seem to be saying that God was limited in the content of his commands by the historical context of the people he was commandng - but I was under the impression that God was limitless.He could have said, NO KILLING OR RAPING OF CHILDREN, YOU NAUGHTY ISREALITES. The fact that he didn't is something of a failure on God's part, isn't it?Or is it that the atheists are holding God to too high a standard? This is the position that you have faith seem to be adopting here.Edited by mick, : No reason given.

As I have said many times so far, He DID SAY no raping of children or anybody else.Sorry, but when God orders killing, no matter who the victims, that's judgment, and it may terrify us, but then it should terrify us. That's how God deals with sin, and He does deal with sin by whole nations, not just individuals, to judge by the many incidents in the OT.The very idea of human rights comes to us from the Bible.But there's no way you are going to plant a modern society in the midst of a nomadic desert culture.That doesn't mean the laws were in any way inferior. I have never said they were. CS seems to read it differently.

Faith how many times do you have say this to convince yourself.Rape - forced sex without consent.The passages considered here involves rape because the captive women had no choice, voice or option.Your fantasy that these captive children would be eager to cuddle up to the guy that just killed their family defies common sense and understanding of human beings - are you completely without empathy!You used terms like “after a cooling off period” and “allowing marriage with a fair degree of consideration of the feelings on both sides”. Good lard this is deceitful language.Let's look at the instruction for captive virgin children... What do you suppose compulsion means? There is rape! Where is the consideration of feelings of the women here?Can you imagine being a women and being released with nothing, after you youthful bloom has past no property and no family as they have killed and you are completely destitute.Call it Holy Rape if you prefer. But a Rose-is-a-RoseMore Murder Rape and Pillage and Plunder.... Repeat "Enjoy the spoils of your enemies"....Now if rape does occur and the women is a Hebrew here is what the law is: The woman has no say in this affair, she get raped and now she gets to marry the aggressor!!! This is the law for a Hebrew woman what do you think would happen for a women or child of the enemy.Can you explain for the audience were the "consideration of the feelings" are? I get it she can't be divorced no matter what. Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

I've always thought that it would be nice to marry my rapist, if I was raped.Imagine the wedding night!But anyway, it is so terriffic that God made that His law!The REAL crime isn't rape, but the fact that our secular legal system has abandoned this particular law of God.It would solve so many problems, wouldn't it?Alas, it must be our fallen natures that leads us away from doing the right thing by not forcing women to marry their rapists with no chance of ever divorcing.It's a shame, really, and part of the reason many will burn in hell.

From msg 189 Because it is only rape by our modern definition and it didn’t explicitly permit ”rape’. It gave the implication that rapes, by our definition, were going to occur but they were acceptable situations in those times. Also, as Faith has pointed out, rape was condemned in other parts of the law so that could be applied to this situation to say that rape was not permitted. I can admit, though, that some of the women referred to in the passage would have been raped. But I do not see it as god giving the Israelites permission to rape them, in the context of those times. By today’s standards, it is considered rape. I had an Indian friend in college who was entering an arranged marriage. Does that mean he was going to be raping his wife? Do you think the women of those times considered it rape?But anyways, I can see why you view that Deuteronomy 21 does amount to permission to rape captive "wives". I don’t know if that demeans god or not. Its hard to say with it applied in a modern context, but I’m leaning toward it being demeaning. I just don’t think its really demeaning for the times in which it was given. But you’re questioning god’s motives. How can we know why he did things the way he did? I think anything would be possible and there’s nothing that god couldn’t do. It is your subjective opinion that god let things get too bad or that he should have done it another way. You can’t judge god. You have no idea what he’s planning or doing or why he’s doing it. Well it gets to the point that what was ok for those times isn’t ok for our times, because god’s morality should be unchanging. I don’t think god has been without change. We cannot say that he isn’t capable of changing. The point might not be moot.From msg 190 What’s with making it an absolute claim by putting the word ”entirely’ in there? It could very well be the product of the ancient culture that was inspired by god. I think the culture influenced the inspiration. That makes it less applicable to modern culture. If you want to take the ancient inspiration into modern culture and say that it couldn’t have been the word of god then I’d say you’ve taken the word out of context and aren’t applying it accurately. Its like a strawman. I’m trying to maintain the position that it IS the word of god. If I make mistakes or find that I cannot hold the position well, then please forgive my unacceptable behavior.I think my handle does describe that. There are position that are(seem) mutually exclusive to Catholics and Scientists that I can take. Transubstantiation, for example. Now, about hopping mid-discussion, without notification, that’s not really fair. But at the beginning of this thread, I made it obvious that I was taking a position that I didn’t wholly agree with. I’m not trying to hop, I’m trying to stick to my position but its not always that easy. But it does give me something to type about. I’m not going to come here to just agree with positions. If I have to take a position that I don’t totally agree with in order to have a debate, then I will. Also, I consider it productive, to me at least, because I don’t know what parts of the Bible are the Word of God and what parts are not. A discussion like this one can help me decide when I get to discuss both sides of the issue.