Calling Perry Out (and any others who want to participate)

by OnTheWayOut 150 Replies latest members adult

  • OnTheWayOut
    OnTheWayOut

    Here's your big chance, Perry. You can post what you view as absolute proof and logic and then ignore everything contrary if you like and feel like you won a huge debate. On a thread by Foolsparadise called "If God had no creator then why do men have a creator?" you said a few things and tried to pick a fight with me. (I will grant that I taunted you, so let's not argue over who threw the first stone. I will gladly take the blame.)

    I will do my best to make absolutely no comments on anything you say for at least 12 hours, giving you the upper hand completely. (Others are free to comment, though.)

    Here's what I need answers to:

    This was part of my post:

    Why cant the universe be eternal to?'

    Because known evidence and existing physical laws falsify this.


    Hilarious. Perry accepts "known evidence and existing physical laws" to defend his beliefs.

    Your response later was:

    Yes, Rational people have a habit of doing that.

    What I want to know is, what do you accept as known evidence that conforms to existing physical laws to accept your belief in the God of the Christians, the truthfulness of the Bible, and the claimed miracles of Jesus?

    Okay, next- My comment is in the box with your answer to follow:

    I dismiss the God of the Bible for my own reasons.

    Your reasons are very public and have been successfully refuted many times on this board. Yet, for instance you still insist on calling God things like an enabler of rapists.

    Isn't it simply true that you would accept any far fetched idea about the creation of the universe rather than accept a moral God who judges sin?

    Just because you have stated something on here, or someone else has, has it been "successfully refuted" on this board? So the rest of humanity simply has to read old JWD/JWN posts and they can come to realize that they should be fundamentalist Christians? Not even the entire board of regular readers has done that. Do you really believe that?

    And, you look for inconsistencies so here's the one I find in your comment: You are disturbed by my saying that God commanded rape (among other things) which is way beyond being an enabler- the one who commands it. Then you immediately follow your objection with God being "moral." Let's remember who God commanded the rape of- girls of other nations that watched Israelites kill their parents and their siblings. How in the world can you call that moral?

    Oh, to answer the question: I don't accept any far fetched idea about the creation of the universe, but I suppose I would rather accept most of them before I accept the mythology of the Bible about the Rape Commander. I would rather remove morality from the story than love and worship the immoral one that tells us He's moral.


    Okay- it's all yours.

  • Terry
    Terry

    Pankration is a time honored sport.

    Excellent choice!

  • Perry
    Perry

    Where did God command Rape?

  • OnTheWayOut
    OnTheWayOut

    Not a comment, just an answer per your request: Where did God command Rape?

    One example is Numbers 31:1-54.

    I know you are going to say it doesn't say "The Lord commanded them to rape the virgins." But explain it any other rational way.
    The soldiers were commanded by God to keep the woman children (little girls) for themselves !

    It is also possible that more rape took place: In addition, they were commanded to kill every woman that has known a man by lying with him. How would these soldiers in those days know if the girls are virgin or not? Simply- they verify it by raping them and if the Jews discovered that they are non-virgins then they kill them as they commanded by God. I grant that one is speculation, perhaps they just probed their vagina in some way they thought would tell them or tortured them until they told the truth.

    Another is Deuteronomy 20: 10-14

    2 Samuel 12:11-14 is an example of God's callous attitude toward rape, announcing a punishment of bringing wives to another man.

    Here is one of my favorites:
    Deuteronomy 21:10-14

    "When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion."

  • thetrueone
    thetrueone

    There are many insistences of god's chosen people encouraging rape, particularly if you weren't an Israelite

    and within their own culture as well.

    There was no mention of god popping up and saying this was all wrong.

    http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm

  • Perry
    Perry

    One example is Numbers 31:1-54.
    I know you are going to say it doesn't say "The Lord commanded them to rape the virgins." But explain it any other rational way.

    On The Way Out,

    You are right I would. Your charges are demonstrateably false. Please read ALL of the cited material below and explain to me which parts you don't understand. (Taken from Christian Think-Tank)

    First of all, let’s look at the specific text they are referring to, in Numbers 31:

    Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Take full vengeance for the sons of Israel on the Midianites; afterward you will be gathered to your people.” And Moses spoke to the people, saying, “Arm men from among you for the war, that they may go against Midian, to execute the Lord’s vengeance on Midian. “A thousand from each tribe of all the tribes of Israel you shall send to the war.” So there were furnished from the thousands of Israel, a thousand from each tribe, twelve thousand armed for war. And Moses sent them, a thousand from each tribe, to the war, and Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, to the war with them, and the holy vessels and the trumpets for the alarm in his hand. So they made war against Midian, just as the Lord had commanded Moses, and they killed every male. And they killed the kings of Midian along with the rest of their slain: Evi and Rekem and Zur and Hur and Reba, the five kings of Midian; they also killed Balaam the son of Beor with the sword. And the sons of Israel captured the women of Midian and their little ones; and all their cattle and all their flocks and all their goods, they plundered. Then they burned all their cities where they lived and all their camps with fire. And they took all the spoil and all the prey, both of man and of beast. And they brought the captives and the prey and the spoil to Moses, and to Eleazar the priest and to the congregation of the sons of Israel, to the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by the Jordan opposite Jericho.

    And Moses and Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the congregation went out to meet them outside the camp. And Moses was angry with the officers of the army, the captains of thousands and the captains of hundreds, who had come from service in the war. And Moses said to them, “Have you spared all the women? “Behold, these caused the sons of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, so the plague was among the congregation of the Lord. “Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. “But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves. “And you, camp outside the camp seven days; whoever has killed any person, and whoever has touched any slain, purify yourselves, you and your captives, on the third day and on the seventh day. “And you shall purify for yourselves every garment and every article of leather and all the work of goats’ hair, and all articles of wood.”

    And the division of the ‘booty’:

    Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “You and Eleazar the priest and the heads of the fathers’ households of the congregation, take a count of the booty that was captured, both of man and of animal; and divide the booty between the warriors who went out to battle and all the congregation. “And levy a tax for the Lord from the men of war who went out to battle, one in five hundred of the persons and of the cattle and of the donkeys and of the sheep; take it from their half and give it to Eleazar the priest, as an offering to the Lord. “And from the sons of Israel’s half, you shall take one drawn out of every fifty of the persons, of the cattle, of the donkeys and of the sheep, from all the animals, and give them to the Levites who keep charge of the tabernacle of the Lord.” And Moses and Eleazar the priest did just as the Lord had commanded Moses.Now the booty that remained from the spoil which the men of war had plundered was 675,000 sheep, and 72,000 cattle, and 61,000 donkeys, and of human beings, of the women who had not known man intimately, all the persons were 32,000. And the half, the portion of those who went out to war, was as follows: the number of sheep was 337,500, and the Lord’s levy of the sheep was 675, and the cattle were 36,000, from which the Lord’s levy was 72. And the donkeys were 30,500, from which the Lord’s levy was 61. And the human beings were 16,000, from whom the Lord’s levy was 32 persons. And Moses gave the levy which was the Lord’s offering to Eleazar the priest, just as the Lord had commanded Moses. (Num 31.26ff)

    ……………….

    Now, first let me dispose of a couple of the historical mistakes made by the objections mentioned above, and then we can get on to analyzing the severity of the actual event.

    First of all, there was no ‘test for virginity’ needed/used. In spite of the elaborate/miraculous one created by the later rabbi’s (ingenious, but altogether unnecessary) using the Urim and Thummim (!), the ‘test for virginity’ in the ANE was a simple visual one:

    • Was the female pre-pubescent?
    • Was the female wearing any attire, jewelry, or adornments required for/associated with virginity for that culture?
    • Was the female wearing any attire, jewelry, or adornments required for/associated with non-virginity for that culture (e.g., veil indicating married status)?

    Because virginity was generally associated with legal proof for blood-inheritance issues in ancient cultures (e.g., land, property, kinship, relationships), virginity itself was often marked by some type of clothing (e.g., the robe of Tamar in 2 Sam 13) or by cosmetic means (cf. the Hindu ‘pre-marriage dot’); as was more typically non-virginal married status (e.g., veils, headwear, jewelry, or certain hairstyles). Of course, non-virginal unmarried status (e.g., temple prostitutes and secular prostitutes) were also indicated by special markings or adornments (e.g. jewelry, dress—cf. Proverbs 7.10; Hos 2.4-5).

    For example, the erotic art of the ANE shows a consistent difference in hairstyles between women and sacred prostitutes:

    “In fact, the physical characteristics of the women on the [erotic] plaques are totally different from those of other female representations in Mesopotamian and Syrian art. As with the clay figurines, they are frequently naked and their hair is loose—none of these traits is to be found in statues or seals that represent women...These groups [associations of cultic prostitutes] were defined by a generic name [the ‘separated ones’], while their specific names of individual associations hinted at their garments, which were particularly luxurious, or odd, their coiffure, or to their general appearance, which distinguished them from other women.” [OT:CANE:2526]

    Some of these patterns varied by culture/age:

    “Once married, women were not veiled in Babylonia. Legal texts imply that married women were veiled in Assyria.” [OT:DLAM:135]

    “The bride was covered with a veil that the groom removed. Married women were not veiled in Babylonia but seem to have had a special headgear; legal texts, however, suggest that married women were veiled in Assyria.” [OT:CANE:489]

    In other words, the process of identifying the females who were (a) not married and (b) not prostitutes, either sacred or secular, would have been relatively straightforward—at the precision level required by the event.

    Secondly, the accusation that these girls were for “sex slave” purposes contradicts what we know about the culture and about the event. [But at least one of the writers above--to their credit--added the word ‘presumably’, realizing that the text doesn’t actually say anything about it…]

    1. Most girls were married soon/immediately after they began menstruating in the ANE (circa 12 years of age), and since infant and child mortality was so high, the average age of the girls spared would have been around 5 years of age or slightly lower (life expectancy wasn’t a straight line, with childhood risks so high). Of all the horrible things ascribed to Israel in the OT, pedophilia is the one conspicuous omission. That these little kids would have been even considered as ‘sex slaves’ seems quite incongruent with their ages.

    And, at this tender age, they would not have been very useful as ‘slaves’ at all! Children raised in Israelite households were ‘put to work’ around this age, sometimes doing light chores to help the mother for up to four hours per day by the age of 7 or 8 [OT:FAI:27], but 5 is still a bit young. Instead, the Israelite families would have had to feed, clothe, train, care, protect, and shelter them for several years before they could make much contribution to the family’s existence and survival. [Also note that ‘slavery’ in the ANE/OT generally means something quite different from “New World” slavery, which we normally associate with the world ‘slavery’, and most of what is called that in popular literature should not be so termed. See qnoslave.html for the discussion and documentation.]

    2. Unlike the Greeks and Romans, the ANE was not very ‘into’ using slaves/captives for sexual purposes, even though scholars earlier taught this:

    “During the pinnacle of Sumerian culture, female slaves outnumbered male. Their owners used them primarily for spinning and weaving. Saggs maintains that their owners also used them for sex, but there is little actual evidence to support such a claim” [OT:EML:69]

    3. And the Hebrews were different in this regard ANYWAY:

    “This fidelity and exclusivity [demands on the wife] did not apply to the husband. Except among the Hebrews, where a husband’s infidelity was disparaged in the centuries after 800 BC, a double standard prevailed, and husbands were routinely expected to have sex not only with their wives, but with slavewomen and prostitutes.” [WS:AHTO:39; note: I would disagree with the remark about ‘after 800 bc’ because that dating presupposes a very late date for the composition of the narratives under discussion…If the narrative events occurred closer to the purposed times, then this ‘disparagement’ applied earlier in Israel as well as later.]

    4. Even if we allow the age range to be older, to include girls capable of bearing children, the probability is that it was not sex-motivated, but population/economics-motivated, as Carol Meyers points out [“The Roots of Restriction: Women in Early Israel”, Biblical Archaeologist, vol 41):

    “Beyond this, however, the intensified need for female participation in working out the Mosaic revolution in the early Israelite period can be seen in the Bible. Looking again at Numbers 31, an exception to the total purge of the Midianite population is to be noted. In addition to the metal objects which were exempt from utter destruction, so too were the “young girls who have not known man by lying with him” (Num 31:18). These captives, however, were not immediately brought into the Israelite camp. Instead, they and their captors were kept outside the camp for seven days in a kind of quarantine period. (Note that the usual incubation period for the kinds of infectious diseases which could conceivably have existed in this situation is two or three to six days [Eickhoff 1977].) Afterward, they thoroughly washed themselves and all their clothing before they entered the camp. This incident is hardly an expression of lascivious male behavior; rather, it reflects the desperate need for women of childbearing age, a need so extreme that the utter destruction of the Midianite foes—and the prevention of death by plague—as required by the law of the herem could be waived in the interest of sparing the young women. The Israelites weighed the life-death balance, and the need for females of childbearing age took precedence.”

    [But note that the traditional rabbinic interpretation of the passage is that all females which were capable of bearing children were killed—not just those who actually were non-virginal. This would drive the average age quite low, although the Hebrew text offers only limited support at best for their interpretation.]

    [I should also point out that the “for yourselves” phrase (31.18) is NOT actually referring to “for your pleasure”, but is a reference to the opposite condition of “for YHWH” which applied to all people or property which was theoretically supposed to be destroyed in such combat situations. The herem (or ‘ban’) specifically indicated that all enemy people or property which was ‘delivered over to YHWH’ was to be killed/destroyed. By referring to ‘for yourselves’, then, in this passage, means simply ‘do not kill them’. This can also be seen in that this ‘booty’ was not ‘for themselves’ actually, but was distributed to others within the community.]

    Third, the accusation that the Midianites were singled out for destruction “because the Midianites worshiped a deity named Baal Peor” is not at all present in the text (actually, NO reason is given in this passage). In fact, the reason for the warfare is explicitly given in 25.16ff as the unprovoked hostility and treachery of Moab/Midian (which we will look at in detail below):

    “The LORD said to Moses, 17 “Treat the Midianites as enemies and kill them, 18 because they treated you as enemies when they deceived you in the affair of Peor and their sister Cozbi, the daughter of a Midianite leader, the woman who was killed when the plague came as a result of Peor.”

    The reasons are stated in this passage as (1) hostilities taken by the Midianites; and (2) deception of Israel by them, in the ‘affair of Peor’. Nothing at all is said about treating them as enemies because they worshipped a different god…

    So, at least we should see that some of the accusation elements above are contra-indicated by the data. There was no need for ‘virginity testing’; rape and sexual slavery is not in the passage at all; and the reason for the combat is not ‘disagreement over religious terminology’…

    Rest of Article

  • Perry
    Perry

    Another is Deuteronomy 20: 10-14

    On The Way Out,

    There is no rape here either:

    Deuteronomy 20

    10 When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it.
    11 And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee.
    12 And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it:
    13 And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:
    14 But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.

  • Perry
    Perry

    2 Samuel 12:11-14 is an example of God's callous attitude toward rape, announcing a punishment of bringing wives to another man

    OTWO,

    Looks like this is more of a Royal marriage than a rape.

    What about when God gives 10 women to be raped to punish David for sleeping with Bathsheba? I understand about the culture but for God to treat an individual womans' body as a man's possession speaks volumes, about how he hates/devalues women?

    I think I have some good news for you about this passage, friend--it has nothing at all to do with "rape"...nor does it remotely teach that a woman's body is a man's possession...and, although there are some cultural issues associated with this passage, even when those are taken into account we still won't be able to conclude fairly that God committed some atrocity here...

    Let's look at the passage and the dynamics in it, and hopefully you will agree...

    After David committed the treachery with Uriah and Bathsheba, God spoke to David through Nathan thus:

    Then Nathan said to David, "You are the man! This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. 8 I gave your master's house to you, and your master's wives into your arms. I gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more. 9 Why did you despise the word of the LORD by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own. You killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. 10 Now, therefore, the sword will never depart from your house, because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your own.'...11 "This is what the LORD says: 'Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity upon you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.'" (2 Sam 12.7ff)

    The FIRST thing to notice in this text is that David had been given Saul's wives (verse 8)--but what does THAT mean?

    Here we have to go into the ANE cultural and historical background some, to see the significance of this statement.

    a. Most royal marriages and concubinage (for both princes and princesses) were national affairs, not personal affairs of the king:
    "Marriage was a tool of diplomacy throughout the ancient Near East. Towns, city-states, tribes or nations who wished to ally themselves with a rule or come under his protection sealed the treaty with a marriage of a daughter of their chief family to the suzerain or his son. This was an act of loyalty on the part of the vassal, who would then have a personal stake in preserving the dynasty. For instance, Zimri-Lim, the kind of Mari during the eighteenth century B.C., successfully placed his daughters in the harems of nearby kingdoms and married several foreign wives himself to increase his power and the stability of his realm Similarly Pharaoh Thutmose IV (1425-1412 B.C.) arranged a marriage with a daughter of the Mitannian king to demonstrate good relations and end a series of wars with that middle Euphrates kingdom." [BBCOT: at 2 Sam 5.13]

    b. Royal succession was normally occasioned by a king's death (making his family widows and orphans), and care and protection of the royal 'harem' would be a responsibly of the new ruler.

    "Since royal marriages were a reflection of the power of a monarch and represented political and economic alliances made in the name of the state, it would have been necessary, at the succession, for the harem of the former king to become the responsibility of the new monarch. In this way there was continuity of treaty obligations." [BBCOT:in loc.]

    c. For example, in this case--in which David 'inherited' Saul's wives--it was an act of kindness toward the family of the deceased king:

    "After the death of Ishbosheth (2 Sam 4:5-7) and David's rise to kingship, it would have been expected that he would extend his protection Saul's family, including his harem. Thus it is possible that the brief reference to David's marriage to Ahinoam in 1 Samuel 25:43 is a reference to his taking Saul's wife Ahinoam (1 Sam 14:50)" [BBCOT: in loc.]

    So, upon the death (or abdication or overthrow) of a king, the successor bore responsibility for continuing the all-important political marriages and care of the royal harem.

    Now, the fulfillment of this judgment on David is in chapter 16:

    "Then Absalom said to Ahithophel, "Give us your counsel; what shall we do?" 21 Ahithophel said to Absalom, "Go in to your father's concubines, the ones he has left to look after the house; and all Israel will hear that you have made yourself odious to your father, and the hands of all who are with you will be strengthened." 22 So they pitched a tent for Absalom upon the roof; and Absalom went in to his father's concubines in the sight of all Israel.' [NRSV]

    Let's look at various aspects of the text/context:

    a. The concubines left behind by David might have been from leading Jerusalemite families (likely volunteers), and therefore 'safe' with Absalom (who was in league with those families):
    "It is possible that the concubines left behind were those that David had taken into his harem from the leading Jebusite families of Jerusalem (see 5.13) or from some of the families that were supporting Absalom in Hebron." [BBCOT: at 2 Sam 15.16]
    b. The actual event itself was equivalent to a royal wedding, and not a 'rape' by any means:
    "The tent was, most likely, the bridal tent (cf. Ps 19:5[4]; Joel 2:16), and the whole proceedings were, more or less, equivalent to a royal wedding (so Stolz, 262) but with wider implications." [WBC, in.loc...note also that David wed Saul's widow Ahinoam]

    "Gunn (King David, 116) has pointed out that Absalom's take-over of David's concubines may have been a formal act, while von Rad (The Problem of the Hexateuch, 184) calls it "a symbolic action intended to gain the confidence of the people for Absalom." [WBC, in. loc.]

    c. Since marrying a father's wife was forbidden in Israelite law, the whole incident may well have been staged as a 'statement' that David was dead (instead of some outrageously offensive crime in front of his new citizenry!):
    "This cohabitation in our context may have served as an indication that as far as Absalom was concerned--David was dead. Was it a deliberate deception to give the impression to the people in general that David was actually dead (cf. Budde, 278)? According to Lev 18:8; 20:11; Deut 22:30 [MT 23:1]; 27:20 it was forbidden for a son to take his father's wife, at least while the father was alive (cf. also Gen 35:22; 49:3-4). If so, the deception (?) may have strengthened the resolve of Absalom's supporters since this final humiliation of David was a deliberately public act, at least according to the narrator."
    d. Members of the royal harem were all upper-class figures, representing important political alliances, both foreign and domestic. These women often had important duties in the administration, in most of the surrounding cultures of the ANE. For example, in Ebla a couple of millennia earlier:
    "The royal harem was structured like its equivalents in Old Babylonian Mari. It included DAM EN, "women of the king', who lived in their own building and who were assisted by a group of officials...These women were sometimes placed in charge of important sectors of palace work, especially the manufacture of textiles.' [OT:CANE:1224, note that the ten concubines were left "in charge of the palace", an administrative task--not "just" housekeeping!]

    For a new ruler, BEFORE Israel actually 'came to power', to publicly and violently rape "high-brow" daughters of leading families of his constituency and of his international allies would be unthinkable and diplomatic suicide! Absalom was not 'politically naïve'-his rise to power as described in chapter 15 shows an exceptionally crafty and smooth individual.

    e. The whole point of the action was to 'enter the harem' (hence the tent) in front of the citizenry. The harem (in all the ANE) was off-limits to anyone except the king (and pre-pubescent princes). By visually entering the tent (in which the mini-harem was), the damage was done: the throne usurped, the predecessor declared 'dead and gone', claims to any of the posterity that might have resulted from any sexual activity (assuming there was any-there need not have been any for this event to be totally effective in the historical situation and context) with the new wives/concubines clearly established, and the responsibilities of care for the national alliances (represented by the newly assumed royal marriages) undertaken.

    f. That this event was understood as a marriage--instead of a rape--is also supported by David's actions upon his return and after the death of Absalom: the women were placed in a separate harem-house, provided for, and treated as royal widows:

    "David went to his palace in Jerusalem, and the king took the ten concubines he had left to mind the palace and put them in a guarded place; he provided for them, but he did not cohabit with them. They remained in seclusion until the day they died, in living widowhood. (2 Sam 20.3, JPS)
    This does NOT mean they were placed or confined in a prison of sorts. Rather, the 'seclusion' was from the "active/living harem" and the 'confinement' was into "living widowhood". Keil & Delitzsch comment on this verse:
    "As soon as David returned to his palace at Jerusalem, he brought the ten concubines whom he had left behind, and with whom Absalom had lain, into a place of safety, and took care of them, without going in unto them anymore...Thus they were shut up into living widowhood" (in loc.)

    What this nets out to is this:

    1. the event being described looks like a royal wedding (and not like a rape)

    2. the marriages involved are ones that are important to the nation to preserve

    3. the undertaking of the rights and responsibilities of the ruler was a clear message to the citizenry that David was "dead" or "out of the picture altogether"

    4. there is no hint of rape, and the entire context of who these women were argues against there being ANY brutality, ANY violation, and ANY disgrace

    5. These marriages (and wives) were not David's "possession" in any sense of the word-they were more like 'national assets' (like a king would be). Their status was high, their importance was significant, and the king had to treat them with diplomacy and care.

    In other words, the historical data would argue that this incident was not, in fact, a case of public rape of ten women.

  • Perry
    Perry

    Here is one of my favorites:
    Deuteronomy 21:10-14

    "When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion."

    mmm, no rape here either -

    M.G. Kline, considered one of the leading Old Testament theologians of the last century, wrote regarding God's ruling in Deuteronomy 21:10-14:

    This first of three stipulations concerned with the authority of the head of the household (cf. vv. 15-21) deals with the limits of the husband's authority over his wife. The case of a captive woman (vv. 10,11; cf. 20:14; contrast 7:3) is used as a case in point for establishing the rights of the wife, perhaps because the principle would obviously apply, a fortiori in the case of an Israelite wife. On the purificatory acts of verses 12b, 13a, which signified removal from captive-slave status, compare Leviticus 14:8; Numbers 8:7.

    On the month's mourning, see Numbers 20:29 and Deuteronomy 34:8. This period would provide for the achieving of inward composure for beginning a new life, as well as for an appropriate expression of filial piety. 14. Thou shalt not sell her. A wife might not be reduced to slave status, not even the wife who had been raised from slave status… then thou shalt let her go whither she will. The severance of the marriage relationship is mentioned here only incidentally to the statement of the main principle that a man's authority did not extend to the right of reducing his wife to a slave. This dissolution of the marriage would have to be accomplished according to the laws of divorce in the theocracy (cf. Deuteronomy 24:1-4). Not that divorce was mandatory, but the granting of freedom in case the man should determine to divorce his wife according to the permission granted by Moses, because of the hardness of their hearts (cf. Matthew 19:8). (Wycliffe Bible Commentary [Oliphants Ltd.: London, 1963), p. 184)

    The late chief rabbi of the British Empire, Chief Rabbi J. H. Hertz noted regarding this passage:

    "A female war-captive was not to be made a concubine till after an interval of a month. The bitter moments of the captive's first grief had to be respected. She must not subsequently be sold or treated as a slave. 12. bring her home. This law inculcates thoughtfulness and forbearance under circumstances in which the warrior, elated by victory, might deem himself at liberty to act as he pleased (Driver). ‘After the countless rapes of conquered women with which recent history has made us so painfully familiar, it is like hearing soft music to read of the warrior's duty to the enemy woman, of the necessary marriage with its set ritual and its due delay. And the Legislator proceeds to trace the course of the husband's duty in the event of the conquered alien woman failing to bring him the expected delight. ‘Then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not deal with her as a slave, because thou hast humbled her'" (Zangwill)… 13. she shall be thy wife. And enjoy the full rights and duties of a Jewish wife; Exodus xxi, 10.14. no delight in her, i.e. no longer any delight in her. The Rabbis deemed such a marriage a concession to human weakness, as a preventive against worse manifestations of the unbridled passions of man...humbled her. Dishonored her." (Pentateuch & Haftorahs, edited by Dr. J H Hertz [The Soncino Press Limited: London, 1960], p. 840)

    Thus, we can clearly see that the Holy Bible dignified even captive gentile women by elevating them to the same status as that of married Israelite women.

  • misocup
    misocup

    This thread is nauseating.

    Of course it was rape! But the fact that the male children and the non-virgin women were killed (as if that's not bad enough) tells the story! It's so bloody obvious you'd have to be an idiot to think the virginal women children were not meant for sex, or slavery, or both. The female survivors of this holocaust would be so traumatized, there would never be consensual sex.

    What a bunch of monkeys. I can almost see them running to conflict, arms waving, erect penis, screaming oo oo ah ah. Yeah, God wants them to.

    EvilBible? Indeed. But comanded? My ass. Men's excuse for bad behavior, and lack of self control. It's just men claiming God said it was alright. Funny that "God's" people didn't know the first thing about human rights.

    But that's typical of most religions, real enlightenment happens outside of, and in spite of them.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit