G
Giants
Guest
Since long before you were suckered into believing that atheists couldnât believe in Objective Truth.Since when did you start to believe in Objective Truth?
- Status
J
jinc1019
Guest
Being stabbed in the arm is better than being shot in the face. You are right. But wouldnât it be better to avoid the shooting completely? If God is the one establishing these laws, why allow for it at all? Why not just prohibit it completely? Thatâs the obvious point.
I understand that the code of laws was essential to preserving Jewish identity, and I have no problem with the laws prohibiting eating shellfish, for instance, or even the vast majority of Jewish laws because they serve that purpose. But, how does saying that a woman who doesnât scream out for help when being raped in a crowded area is somehow contributing toward the creation or sustentation of a distinct Jewish identity? It doesnât.
Events happen in the Old Testament that are depictions of horrible thingsâŚhorrible things that needed to happen in order for the Jewish people to survive. I understand that and I can accept that. I believe the U.S. dropping the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima was a horrible thing, but one that was necessary to prevent innocent lives from being lost. So in that same category (kind of), various horrible things need to happen for humanity to advance. I agree with that I donât intend on saying otherwise. But you are equating MEANINGFUL and IMPORTANT events with laws that allow for the UNNCESSARY and UNMEANINGFUL rape of innocent women who did nothing more wrong than simply not call out for help, which isnât even wrong at all!
You are equating two entirely different sets of problems to establish your point when the criteria for both should be entirely different.
J
jinc1019
Guest
Thank you for the articles. This is precisely why I posted with this question. I havenât read them yet, but it was what I was looking for.
J
jinc1019
Guest
I am not saying Old Testament view of rape is worse than other religions, it may very well be much better. I also understand rape was not generally condoned in most situations, but there are some situations where the woman being raped is mistreated by the Jewish law based on Christian morality.
The example mentioned above, where women are punished for not crying out when being raped in a city is the main example.
Also, yes, there are situations in the Bible where God actually seems to say that rape can occur in war. I showed one such passage above. Now you say that the Jewish men had to marry them first, but look at the rest of the passageâŚIt commands that once a man is done with her and divorces her, he must let her go. Why? Why even mention that if it is just a normal Jewish marriage? Because it isnât a normal Jewish marriage. The woman is being taken as a slave, is forced to marry, and therefore is a victim of rape should they have sex. Just because they are married doesnât mean the slave wife isnât being raped.
J
jinc1019
Guest
To answer your questionâŚIf your friend forced his wife to have sex with him against her will, yes, she was raped. I donât think arranged marriages are morally right either, for the obvious reason that women are treated as property, but AT LEAST in an arranged marriage, the womanâs family have the right to choose the suitor. In this case, a Jewish man after battle just picks the woman he is attracted toâŚthat is not the same at all.
J
jinc1019
Guest
Excellent question. Godâs laws donât change, but they do evolve. This is the point of the Sermon on the Mount.
J
jinc1019
Guest
For anyone in the future, or present, who happens to stumble upon this thread, please do yourself a great favor and read the Jimmy Akin articles posted earlierâŚI think they are excellent and deal with all of these issues masterfully, although not perfectly.
I believe that this thread can be closed, given that the Jimmy Akin articles really do a nice job of answering all of the questions I had.
I believe that this thread can be closed, given that the Jimmy Akin articles really do a nice job of answering all of the questions I had.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
jinc,
In the beginning it was not soâŚwhile the OT speaks of laws of compromise and are a record of compromise, it is a record of failure, as you know. The New Covenant is revealed and fulfills the Old Covenant and we can look to the past as evidence of failure without that fulfillment and know that while these laws existed, in the beginning it was not so.
By one manâs disobedience we were made sinners and by one manâs obedience we were made righteous. Righteousness did not prevail from Adam forward until Christ.,
C
CrimsonThorn
Guest
Objective Truth = God
G
Giants
Guest
Nope, 'fraid not.Objective Truth = God
M
Mike_from_NJ
Guest
I see in the first of those Jimmy Akin articles that he uses the classic notion that he had to work around the existing culture. I continued to be baffled the use of this argument. In the very same bible, we see time and time again how God shaped the Hebrew culture and gave it very demanding restrictions. It told them what to eat, what to wear, how death is justifiable for working on a Saturday or insulting a bald man.
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
God wasnât the one establishing these laws, humans were. Deuteronomy, as Iâve stated, is a collection of the laws the Israelite held at the time. It is important, because it was the first set of laws derived from the ten commandments.
As for prohibiting it completely, it was. If it hadnât been, there wouldnât have been punishments for it, as these laws suggest. It is prohibited in the United States and other countries, but still happens with alarming frequency. What is contained in the Laws of Deuteronomy is what to do when it does happen, just as US law contains provision for the punishments that accompany rape.
If you read my previous posts, I point out that that particular law is not actually dealing with rape, but with pre-marital relations. The not calling out indicates that she was a willing participant, which is why she was at fault. Unfortunately, the laws were much harsher towards women than men.
Refer to the last portion.
I donât believe I am. You are asking about supposed affirmations of rape in the Bible, citing several verses to support your opinion. I am adding relative context and information that is absolutely necessary to understand these verses.
As to your not calling this set of laws a necessary or important event, imagine a society where laws are based entirely in the human element. They are subject to change because humanity is subject to change. They can shift or flux to fit the whims of the leader. This set of laws, on the other hand, is one based on the Ten Commandments; the first which was based on them.
Think of that, the first set of laws which derives from the absolute Truth of Godâs Law. The first set of laws which is not founded on human whims, but rather on the Divine world of the Almighty. If you donât consider that important enough to include in the history books (of which the Bible is one, in addition to be a religious text) I donât know how to continue this discussion with you, because our base points of reference are very different.
One last thing; the reason that you donât see rape expressly forbidden, but rather only see the response to it, was that there was not need to include an express statement about it in the law. As I have said, this set of laws was based on the Ten Commandments, and each of the Israelites, from a very young age, would have learned the Ten Commandments as they learned about the history of their people. Knowledge of the Ten Commandments would have been as common to them as knowledge of addition and subtraction is to us. Since rape is covered under the clause âThou shall not commit adultery,â there was no need to include it in the laws books; it was simply understood.
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
You are misrepresenting his argument. Mr. Akin does not claim that God worked âaroundâ the existing culture. The Bible is a mixture of historic and religious texts, and as such has inclusions that relate to the culture of the time, as is the case with the laws included in Deuteronomy. Those laws are the first set of laws based on the Ten Commandments; the walls are human, but the foundation is divine. God was not âworking aroundâ human culture; human culture was âworking aroundâ Godâs laws.
As to the rest of your arguemnt, God giving restrictions doesnât mean the society is going to accept them. God has given our society restriction, but we continue to see those ignored wholesale throughout the world. Itâs not so much âWorking aroundâ the culture, as hoping the culture will do what you tell it. Free will and all, have to love it >_>
S
Sarcelle
Guest
I also have trouble understanding this exception to rape.
Rapists, seldom stop with one victim. If he rapes more than one woman will he have to marry them all?
M
Mike_from_NJ
Guest
These ae Jimmy Akinâs words from the article in question:
Because of where the hearts of men were and their âstage of national developmentâ (aka the existing culture) God decided that he wonât give rape the same level of punishment that picking up sticks on the Sabbath gets. He can comes this close to killing Moses because his son wasnât circumcised in a timely manner, yet rape means losing a few shekels and forever sleeping with the woman you violently assaulted.
No argument here. There are plenty of laws that people ignore. But itâs those laws that reflect the character of the society and the people running it.
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
This statement ignores the fact that the laws in Deuteronomy were developed by men, not God. God gave us his laws, they are the Ten Commandments. Men then developed laws based on them. An excellent example of the difference is with the issue of Divorce. It was allowed in the Old Testament because Moses decided to allow it; but when God came to Earth, He reaffirmed his original intent and set it into law.
This does a good job of explaining the difference, and applies to most of the complaints youâve levied.
Divorce
Is saying that God was working to steer the Israelites properly. He gave them the Law, and allowed them to pick which ones they would follow, as he has allowed all of us to. (Again, free will, gotta love it) He appointed Moses as the leader of the Israelites, and allowed Moses to write the human set of laws which derived from the Ten Commandments. When Christ came, though, there was no moreâ merely-humanâ interpretation, no lens of human weakness, and no veil of original sin to see the Law through; only Godâs full intention, and full Truth, which is why Jesus abolished the practice of Divorce.
Iâm sorry, I donât understand the purpose of the second sentence. Could you please explain how it relates to the discussion? Thank you.
B
Bookcat
Guest
V
VeritasLuxMea
Guest
If Godâs laws are âevolvingâ then how do we know they will not âevolveâ again tomorrow? This does sound like relativism. Itâs all about when/where you are rather than any eternal rule.
M
Mike_from_NJ
Guest
Letâs take the Quran. According to its law, a womanâs word is half that of a man and women get half the inheritance of a man. It speaks poorly of Muhammad, of Allah, and of any society that abides by such a rule. In the same way, it reflects poorly on any society which has a law forcing a woman to marry her rapist.
So with that letâs take the God of the Bible. In 2 Samuel 6:6-7, God kills a man for touching the Arc of Covenant as an oxen pulling the cart carrying it stumbled. Now if we take your position (something weâll continue to disagree on) that the laws in Dueteronomy do not come from God, then God is silent on the matter of rape. Involuntary grabbing his Arc means instant death. Not getting your newbornâs foreskin off in time means death. Making fun of a bald man means death. Violent assault on a maiden means the loss of 30 sheckels and the obligation to have multiple children with her. His choice of what to make into commandments (Festival of Weeks, donât seethe a kid in his motherâs milk, etc.) and what he does not (no to rape, no to slavery, etc.) speaks incredibly poorly of such a character.
A
AndyT_81
Guest
Mike from NJ,
Mike, you need to understand the culture better. The raped woman was no longer âmarriagableâ and therefore, after her parents died (remember the short life expectancy) she couldnât just start waiting tables or go off to university. Her options if the rapist was simply executed were probably a life of prostitution (until her looks left her) and/or destitution in a culture with no public welfare system (i.e. an early death). Therefore executing the rapist would be a worse case scenario for the woman in that culture, as difficult as it is to accept.
- Status