God Advocates Rape

[_Yoda]

Hey again, DCM

Ha!

Seriously, though. How do you reconcile something like this? I'd really like to know.

- VRDRC

Okay, I'll forget, for a moment, that I am at the MDB and give it a go!

First, I do not believe it is possible to reconcile rape. Period! I also do not believe God advocates rape! (Yes, I am aware of the passages you speak of)

Having said that, I will freely admit that there are many things I struggle with (Mostly in the Old Testament) that can be found within these several books we call Sacred Scripture. If you offered me examples of folks who did not have some questions/struggles, I would offer you someone that was not being 100% truthful.

So, to me it's not about reconciling anyhting.

It is my position (maybe belief is a better choice of words?) that the New Testament is the clear foundation of my belief. It is, after all, the new covenant. The new promise. The Good News For All!

Do I have questions? You bet I do!
Perhaps, someday, we all might get some answers.
In the meantime, I am completely fine with God being God and realizing the absolute certainty that I am not!

Peace,
Ceeboo

That is basically how I resolved this as well. It is also interesting to note that there is no polygamy in the New Testament, either.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hey again, DCM

Ha!

Seriously, though. How do you reconcile something like this? I'd really like to know.

- VRDRC

Okay, I'll forget, for a moment, that I am at the MDB and give it a go!

First, I do not believe it is possible to reconcile rape. Period! I also do not believe God advocates rape! (Yes, I am aware of the passages you speak of)

Having said that, I will freely admit that there are many things I struggle with (Mostly in the Old Testament) that can be found within these several books we call Sacred Scripture. If you offered me examples of folks who did not have some questions/struggles, I would offer you someone that was not being 100% truthful.

So, to me it's not about reconciling anyhting.

It is my position (maybe belief is a better choice of words?) that the New Testament is the clear foundation of my belief. It is, after all, the new covenant. The new promise. The Good News For All!

Do I have questions? You bet I do!
Perhaps, someday, we all might get some answers.
In the meantime, I am completely fine with God being God and realizing the absolute certainty that I am not!

Peace,
Ceeboo

I really appreciate your honesty. :) I'm sick of Internet arguments. I just want to understand people. Thank you again for being honest. :)

- VRDRC

[_Yoda]

I think that in order to really evaluate the scripture that Cam brought to our attention, the entire group of scriptures, rather than just the one verse, needs to be examined:

 25 ¶But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and alie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:

 26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, aeven so is this matter:

 27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.

 28 ¶If a man find a damsel that is a avirgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

 29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his awife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

The rapist of a betrothed woman was sentenced to death. An unbetrothed woman who had been raped would be considered unfit to marry in that culture. Therefore, the rapist was required to give the woman financial security, and never divorce her. What is meant by "he hath humbled her" is that he has made her unworthy to marry. That is why the rapist was required to marry her.

I am not a fan of this type of culture, but that is the culture that existed during that time frame.

[_Ceeboo]

I really appreciate your honesty. :)

I appreciate you saying so.

I'm sick of Internet arguments.

Me too!

I just want to understand people.

Yea, so do I.
That's why I frequent a heavily flavored Mormon, Ex-Mormon, and Atheist board while I am not any of the three!

Thank you again for being honest. :)

You're very welcome.
And thank you for the warm reply as I appreciate that!

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Yoda]

How did you come to this conclusion?

I suspect it has to do with the woman's lack of consent to the marriage or to sex at any time. From the woman's point of view, if a man rapes you, he gets to continue to rape you for the rest of your lives.

What existed during that time frame was a very brutal tribal culture. The women never had consent as far as who they were to marry. Marriages were arranged. Take note that when looking at the full scripture that I quoted that a betrothed woman who was raped was sentenced to death. The betrothed woman who was raped was already betrothed to be married, and could continue with the marriage.

The unbetrothed woman who was raped was no longer a virgin, therefore unfit to become betrothed. Therefore, in order for the woman to have financial security and an opportunity to marry, the man who "humbled" her, or lied with her was required to marry her. He also did not have the option to ever "put her away" or divorce her, no matter what the circumstances were, including adultery on her part.

[_Yoda]

I'm sick of Internet arguments.

Hey, Cam, I hope that you didn't view my additional comments as arguments. I found the whole discussion interesting, and just wanted to share some information that I had found after exploring the full scripture.

[_sock puppet]

I think that in order to really evaluate the scripture that Cam brought to our attention, the entire group of scriptures, rather than just the one verse, needs to be examined:

 25 ¶But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and alie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:

 26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, aeven so is this matter:

 27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.

 28 ¶If a man find a damsel that is a avirgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

 29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his awife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

The rapist of a betrothed woman was sentenced to death. An unbetrothed woman who had been raped would be considered unfit to marry in that culture. Therefore, the rapist was required to give the woman financial security, and never divorce her. What is meant by "he hath humbled her" is that he has made her unworthy to marry. That is why the rapist was required to marry her.

I am not a fan of this type of culture, but that is the culture that existed during that time frame.

So god genuflects the cultural mores or god sets the rules?

[_Sethbag]

Discuss...

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

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

Notice God is not in favor of the rape - he only advocates the marriage.

This isn't so much pro-Rape as it is pro-Family.

/gag

[_harmony]

So god genuflects the cultural mores or god sets the rules?

More likely, men did and do. The higher up the religious food chain one goes, the less likely it is to encounter God.

[_Yoda]

So god genuflects the cultural mores or god sets the rules?

He works within the walls of cultural mores. That is why polygamy was prevelant in the Old Testament but not the New Testament.