@sonship saidDeeuteronomy 21: 10-11:
@vivify
Where do I read in the Bible a teaching that rape is "acceptable" to God?
"When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. "
Let me guess: because she's forced to marry her captor, it's not rape, right?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
@vivify said" . . . and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and have desire for her and would take her as a wife for yourself . . . "
Deeuteronomy 21: 10-11:
"When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. "
Let me guess: because she's forced to marry her captor, it's not rape, right?
Compared to the common ancient practices the following directive are aimed at protecting the woman's dignity and discourage hasty lustful exploitation.
" . . . then you shall bring her home to your house,
and she shall shave her head and trim her nails.
She shall remove the cloths of her captivity and shall remain in your house, and mourn her father and mother a full month . . ."
Don't you think having to support a POW woman in mourning who has taken the demeanor not of a beauty queen but a woman in grieving for a FULL MONTH would quell the passions of the soldier? He has time to think about whether he really wants marriage for 30 some days.
He couldn't marry her right away, let alone have sex with her.
He could not lightly oppress her. Rather he had to support her while she
was allowed to mourn her parents.
" . . . and after that you may go into her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. It shall be, if you are not pleased with her, then you shall let her go wherever she wishes; but you must certainly not sell her for money, you shall not mistreat her, because you have humbled her." (21:10-14)
God did not accept rape as most other Near Eastern cultures would have allowed.
The separation process allowed for moral reflection of the soldier who was first infatuated with her beauty. And the woman herself had time to reflect on HER situation as she made a clean break from her past circumstances. This allowed time for the man to change his mind and the woman to consider her future options.
The sanctity of marriage under the law of Moses is indicated in the solemn phrase which should not be taken for granted - "if you are not pleased with her." If the soldier changed his mind she had to be set free not mistreated.
Sex with the POW was only permitted in the bounds of a marital commitment.
I am willing to look further into whether she HAD to married her capture.
As an Israelite wife she could fully integrate into the theocratic society.
In conjunction with the law there were appointed judges to attend to difficult
moral cases. "You shall appoint for yourself judges and officers in all your cities which Jehovah your God is giving you, according to your tribes and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment. You shall not distort justice; you shall not respect persons . . . Righteousness, and only righteousness, shall you pursue, in order that you may live and possess the land which Jehovah your God is giving you." (See Duet. 16:18-20)
I think wise judges considered the plight of POW women if they feared God.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
@BigDoggProblem
I suspect you are much more familiar with entertainment wrestling than with the Bible, but this criticism of OT apologetics is kind of general.
Why not give us your most striking specific example in the OT of what you mean?
I don't know what you were told about that instance but I'd like to take a look at it.
In the example discussed above more evidently "unacceptable" to God appears the case with the law's instructions for POW women.
@sonship saidHave you not been paying any attention to the thread, sonship?
@BigDoggProblem
I suspect you are much more familiar with entertainment wrestling than with the Bible, but this criticism of OT apologetics is kind of general.
Why not give us your most striking specific example in the OT of what you mean?
I don't know what you were told about that instance but I'd like to take a look at it.
In the example discussed ab ...[text shortened]... ve more evidently "unacceptable" to God appears the case with the law's instructions for POW women.
Or are you just being deliberately obnoxious in asking for examples, when there are at least two excellent ones in this very thread?
Do you think it was a coincidence that I should happen to make such a comment, at the point that I did?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
@BigDoggProblem
I take this to mean you have an example or examples already mentioned in the thread.
I'll check above then if you don't wish to remind me specifically.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
I noticed Dogg that you didn't make any comments until late.
So WHICH example would you want refer to as your topmost instance of badly defended would-be crimes of God in the OT?
Are you going to commit to having your preference?
If you mean the case I discussed in Deut. 21 what problems do you see with my reply?
@sonship saidThen I would agree with your position.
@medullah
For my purposes I mean "pro-life" in that a fetus is a human being.
Most people I meet expressing outrage that ANE cultures sacrificing living children to gods who God commanded Israel to displace and judge, seem to be pro-choice.
The millions of human beings murdered before birth for convenience somehow doesn't bother them. But the dispersion and judgment of the Canaanite cities calls for selective outrage.
I can't condone murder.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
@bigdoggproblem saidWhat is funny above in which post where someone makes a defense of the moral practices of the OT?
Reading some of the 'defenses' of the 'moral' practices of the OT, remind me of Bobby 'The Brain' Heenan defending the actions of 'heel' wrestlers on old WWF programming.
Except that 'The Brain' was being funny on purpose.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
@medullah
I came to the Old Testament through first having my confidence in the morality of Jesus Christ solidified. He manifested the highest level of morality on earth in human history to me. I was persuaded that Christ was impeccably good - gloriously good.
I read first the Gospels (reluctantly at first). Then I noticed that Jesus took the Old Testament seriously. So then I began to read the Old Testament.
I figured that if ANYONE in the world was qualified to point out wrong doing of God in the OT it would be Jesus. But Jesus referred to the God of all the Scripture as His Father.
He called Him "Righteous Father" and portrayed His Father as PERFECT.
Not everything in the Old Testament is easy to take. But I have to consider all its contents through the lens of the Son of God teaching that His Father ever was and always will be from eternity to eternity Righteous.
@sonship
I find the OT harder to get my head around because of the nuances of the law covenant. Fortunately we aren't under the law any more, which was concluded when Jesus issued in a New Covenant which came into force with his execution.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
@medullah
An important part of the New Covenant is that He resurrected and became the life giving Spirit to enable is to walk not in lawlessness but fulfilling the righteous requirement of the law. "the last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45)
He justified us that He could impart HIMSELF into us and live in us by "a life giving Spirit". The law with this Spirit is to spontaneously live righteously.
"There is now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has freed man in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and of death.
For that which the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending His own Son in the likeness of the flesh of sin and concerning sin, condemned sin in the flesh.
That the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the spirit." (Rom. 8:1-4)
The new covenant is not "You are freely justified to on living as you did before."
A crucial bequest of the new testament is that Christ has become a living law of divine life by which we now must learn to walk. So learning to walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit in our regenerated human spirit the righteous requirement of the law is fulfilled.
Romans chapter 8 is completely dedicated to this after Romans chapter 7 has outlined the self condemnation the natural man is under trying to live up to the laws demands.
The justification through death has been covered in earlier chapters.
Now in chapter 8 the Christ within as the law of life in the Spirit empowers the believers to learn to be conformed to the image of the Firstborn Son of God.
This is part of the reigning in life Paul alluded to was coming in chapter 5.
"And the law entered in alongside that the offense might abound; but where sin abounded, grace has SUPERABOUNDED, in order that just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign in righteousness unto eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." (Rom. 5:20,21)