Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And still not a single verse where God directly says "I am the Lord and rape is good!" What is clear is that God intended man and woman to unite through marriage so your position certainly doesn't match God's intention. Mine does.
So, you are saying that prophesies are not of God?
And still not a single verse where God directly says "I am the Lord and rape is good!" What is clear is that God intended man and woman to unite through marriage so your position certainly doesn't match God's intention. Mine does.
What happens to the woman who gets raped that is not betrothed? The verse stated the man would be put to death for violating his neighbour' s wife but what happens if she is not spoken for? That you would demand that the Bible to say that rape is good in order for you to accept any criticism of what happened to the captured women then why is the Bible stating that rape of any female or male is wrong? And why did the wishes of the woman not matter at all in all those verses? And why did he tell them to kill all the women and children if the women were not virgins, did they not count since their husbands were to be killed? Your justification seems a little to loose nor do you show that your claim of your God's intention is what is written.
"If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife."
We get angry when rape victims are arrested in UAE or Saudi Arabia however it seems like they are using the OT words the way the words were intended. And any claim that Jesus made these rules go away indicates that God does change his mind and just maybe some of the OT stuff was not what we are willing to do today.
And still not a single verse where God directly says "I am the Lord and rape is good!" What is clear is that God intended man and woman to unite through marriage so your position certainly doesn't match God's intention. Mine does.
So that god saying he was giving David's WIVES to his neighbors for sex...that is not RAPE???
So that god saying he was giving David's WIVES to his neighbors for sex...that is not RAPE???
Allowing is not approving. God merely is stating that He is going to allow these bad things to happen to David. Still waiting on your verse where God directly says He approves of RAPE.
Allowing is not approving. God merely is stating that He is going to allow these bad things to happen to David. Still waiting on your verse where God directly says He approves of RAPE.
You know if you somehow were aware that my daughter was about to be raped and were in a position to prevent it and didn't, I would not be impressed at all about your little verbal tap dance in a vain attempt to say you'd be better than someone who actually technically approved of my daughter being raped. I just wouldn't be persuaded by such an argument. Perhaps you have never heard of the concept that allowing a wrong IS endorsement and approval of the wrong. Or the concept of "sins of omission". I'd deck you either way.
In any event the objection here is not so much to allowing David to be humiliated by having strangers have sex with his wives, although that is certainly sick in its own right. It is more about allowing that to happen to these women, as well as the notion that they are mere chattel such that whoever owns them or can seize them is entitled to have their way with them.
Of course by your lights god would have it his way coming and going: David would be humiliated and punished, the women's plight is of no consequence, and then god also gets to punish the rapists because he "didn't approve". Quite the insatiable appetite for violence there. How admirable!
Yeah that's all you are doing. Guessing and judging WITHOUT I repeat WITHOUT all the facts. It's funny that I constantly get accused of being obsessed with homosexuality and yet here you dangle the bait out for me to go down that road again. Cultural context is very important. Women didn't have independence for much of human history. They NEEDED a husband for survival so it would actually be more cruel to leave them unmarried to either starve to them or become a prostitute.
No, the trouble is when you try to overlay your biased ideas of morality and claim that the Bible is immoral without having all the facts. One day, you and other atheists will be ashamed for unfairly attacking Christians and God's word.
Sure I can because morality is not black and white. A person's heart and intent also are factors that determine if one's actions are immoral or sinful. If someone was murdering your family, do you think it is immoral to gun them down? And yet you would apparently claim that God is immoral for destroying the people who were threatening his people. What's the difference? There's a huge difference between killing someone out of malice, anger and evil heart vs killing someone only as a last reluctant resort of self defense or self preservation.
Jeff, if you are correct and there is a God and I have to face him about this post I will be able to look him in the face and tell him that I attacked neither him or the Bible. What I did attack are your comments trying to justify your own interpretation of what was supposedly done. If you can justify having a virgin being taken for sex or even as a wife with no say in it but her mother or married sister being murdered as the better option than anything you could think of I will disagree with you.
On the other hand it is you that takes a couple verses from the Bible and dismiss those people who tell you that you are taking the homosexual verses out of context and yet nowhere does the Bible have God tsaying that two people of the same gender cannot marry. You oppose two adults who love one another from marrying because it goes against God's plan but you can justify a woman being forced to marry the man who just killed her entire family.
I will have to take your word for it that the women and children in a village were trying to murder those who were attacking them. Yes I would defend my wife but this is just another of your wild and somewhat silly ways of justifying something totally unrelated.
I must add as well, how is killing a woman who was raped considered being kind to her? And Jeff, as you know the Bible much better than I do, does it actually say do not rape women who are not betrothed? As I asked before that one verse appears to only address the devaluing of a man's property if a married woman was raped or is where the payment to the father and the victim being married off to 5he rapists comes in effect.
Yes it is true that I do not understand the context, he made the universe, created people, set up all kinds of laws and rules but for something like rape or the everyday treatment of females he just went along with what everyone was doing regardless if he approved or not. And no 8 am not saying God did wrong, mostly as I do not believe that he even exists, but trying very hard how you cannot even question it.
I must add as well, how is killing a woman who was raped considered being kind to her? And Jeff, as you know the Bible much better than I do, does it actually say do not rape women who are not betrothed? As I asked before that one verse appears to only address the devaluing of a man's property if a married woman was raped or is where the payment to the father and the victim being married off to 5he rapists comes in effect.
Yes it is true that I do not understand the context, he made the universe, created people, set up all kinds of laws and rules but for something like rape or the everyday treatment of females he just went along with what everyone was doing regardless if he approved or not. And no 8 am not saying God did wrong, mostly as I do not believe that he even exists, but trying very hard how you cannot even question it.
The vast majority of believers are told NOT to question anything, so there is nothing to understand about it. They are following orders.
You know if you somehow were aware that my daughter was about to be raped and were in a position to prevent it and didn't, I would not be impressed at all about your little verbal tap dance in a vain attempt to say you'd be better than someone who actually technically approved of my daughter being raped. I just wouldn't be persuaded by such an argument. Perhaps you have never heard of the concept that allowing a wrong IS endorsement and approval of the wrong. Or the concept of "sins of omission". I'd deck you either way.
The problem with your argument is that you equate God on a human standard and that's apples to oranges. We are not equal to God. The creation and creator are not the same. God's operations are on a universal eternal scale that goes well beyond our limited human understanding. Even so, I can grasp that there would be consequences to God meddling with human's free will and that's what you are asking here.
God didn't force these women to be raped. These are all events that took place because of sinful man's free will of choice. If you think a moral God must stop all rapes. What's next? Stop all bank robberies? Stop all crimes? Eventually you will have God forcing you to drive the speed limit and free will has been eliminated. God operates on a individual level with those who desire a personal relationship with Him. He will end all evil and sinful man's freedom will eventually in one big final scourge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
In any event the objection here is not so much to allowing David to be humiliated by having strangers have sex with his wives, although that is certainly sick in its own right. It is more about allowing that to happen to these women, as well as the notion that they are mere chattel such that whoever owns them or can seize them is entitled to have their way with them.
Of course by your lights god would have it his way coming and going: David would be humiliated and punished, the women's plight is of no consequence, and then god also gets to punish the rapists because he "didn't approve". Quite the insatiable appetite for violence there. How admirable!
[/quote]
No, the real question is why should we expect God to keep on blessing and protecting us personally if we betray Him? That's what David did. God gave him everything, and yet he had a man murdered so he could sleep with the guy's wife. That's a terrible betrayal of respecting God's laws. As a result, that sin set off a chain reaction that led to David's son betraying him and taking his wives. If you sin, you pay the consequences. Demanding God to always remove those consequences is asking God to go against His own nature.
Also, the passage still doesn't say that these women were raped. They may have freely desired Absalom. But as typical, atheists will refuse to consider cultural context and read in the most foul negative interpretation due to their hatred of God's Word.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
