(June 24, 2015 at 6:38 pm)Homeless Nutter Wrote:

(June 24, 2015 at 6:32 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I don't have the same understanding as Randy in regards to the OT, but I think what he's saying is that God was putting Himself down at the level of the people/culture of the time in order to integrate Himself slowly.

Yup, as I said - he's a coward. Or rather - would be if he wasn't simply  made up by the raping barbarians, in order to justify their actions.

It's not about being a coward. What Randy is saying is that people wouldn't follow His commands on morality if it just got thrown on them all at once. It had to be done slowly, over time... otherwise it would never have worked at all. This was for our benefit, not His.

^I don't necessarily agree that this is what took place, btw, but I can understand the concept Randy is presenting here. Can't you?

(June 24, 2015 at 6:37 pm)Homeless Nutter Wrote:

(June 24, 2015 at 6:17 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: [...]

I believe the charge of "condoning" has been answered, and those controversialist who wish to continue making the accusation simply demonstrate themselves to be incapable of reasoning and lacking in goodwill. Further discussion with people of that sort is not a good use of time.

And you still haven't answered the question - is there such a thing as marital rape in your fancy book. Or is it true, that according to the authors once a woman is married, she belongs to her husband and has no right to refuse him sex (unless she's on her period, or otherwise "unclean" - and even then it seems to be the husband's decision)? 
Come on, spit it out: as far as your god is concerned - you can rape your wife to your heart's content.

Post 1861.

Quote:And why exactly can't a raped woman be considered marriage material? All it would take is a passage in the bible, saying that rape is not considered sex and raped woman is pure in the eyes of the lord. But I suppose your god is too much of a coward to want to piss off barbaric shepherds like that, isn't he?

Virginity was important in ancient cultures. Still is in some circles today.

Unfortunately, a woman who has been raped is no longer a virgin.

(June 24, 2015 at 6:32 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I don't have the same understanding as Randy in regards to the OT, but I think what he's saying is that God was putting Himself down at the level of the people/culture of the time in order to integrate Himself slowly.

Which is really strange given that he is the supposed source of objective morality. And why is God constrained by the current understanding of the people, anyway? He wasn't powerful enough to think of a way of communicating his objective morality? He had to water it down for them?

The thing is, God had no problem giving short, concise moral statements like "thou shall not kill," but when it comes to forcefully penetrating women, he's strangely convoluted and ambiguous. Despite the early Israelites' culture, I imagine that if he started smiting rapists left and right, they would have gotten the message.

Instead of getting a picture of a perfect, objective morality, we get people like Randy tripping over themselves to justify imbalanced and ethically flawed punishments. Some God indeed.

(June 24, 2015 at 6:40 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Yes. As I said previously, God met the Israelites where they were at and began to form them into a better people. This process took time.

Judging by your "morality" - the process is still ongoing. You have a looong way to go before catching up with actually decent and moral people. Good luck...

(June 24, 2015 at 6:40 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(June 24, 2015 at 6:32 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I don't have the same understanding as Randy in regards to the OT, but I think what he's saying is that God was putting Himself down at the level of the people/culture of the time in order to integrate Himself slowly.

Yes. As I said previously, God met the Israelites where they were at and began to form them into a better people. This process took time.

^Everyone, look at this.

I'm not asking that you agree with Randy on the OT. I don't. But I understand what he is saying. Just try to understand what he is saying. You don't have to agree.

(June 24, 2015 at 6:40 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Yes. As I said previously, God met the Israelites where they were at and began to form them into a better people. This process took time.

So God was too inept to do it quickly?

Again, some God indeed.

(June 24, 2015 at 6:46 pm)Faith No More Wrote:

(June 24, 2015 at 6:32 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I don't have the same understanding as Randy in regards to the OT, but I think what he's saying is that God was putting Himself down at the level of the people/culture of the time in order to integrate Himself slowly.

Which is really strange given that he is the supposed source of objective morality.  And why is God constrained by the current understanding of the people, anyway?  He wasn't powerful enough to think of a way of communicating his objective morality?  He had to water it down for them?

The thing is, God had no problem giving short, concise moral statements like "thou shall not kill," but when it comes to forcefully penetrating women, he's strangely convoluted and ambiguous.  Despite the early Israelites' culture, I imagine that if he started smiting rapists left and right, they would have gotten the message.  

Instead of getting a picture of a perfect, objective morality, we get people like Randy tripping over themselves to justify imbalanced and ethically flawed punishments.  Some God indeed.

What Randy is saying is that people wouldn't follow His commands on morality if it just got thrown on them all at once. It had to be done slowly, over time... otherwise it would never have worked at all. This was for our benefit, not His.

^I don't necessarily agree that this is what took place, btw, but I can understand the concept Randy is presenting here. Can't you?

(June 24, 2015 at 6:46 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: ^Everyone, look at this.

I'm not asking that you agree with Randy on the OT. I don't. But I understand what he is saying. Just try to understand what he is saying. You don't have to agree.

Oh, I understand his position perfectly.

That's why I just had a little vomit rise in my throat.

(June 24, 2015 at 6:46 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: [...]
Virginity was important in ancient cultures. Still is in some circles today.
[...]

So f-ing what? Worshiping idols was important in ancient cultures and god took no time putting an end to that.

(June 24, 2015 at 6:46 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: [...]
Unfortunately, a woman who has been raped is no longer a virgin.

Really? And yet someone like Moses, who killed thousands of women and children was NOT considered a murderer. Is it because bible was concocted by men and not women? Of course it is.

(June 24, 2015 at 6:41 pm)LostLocke Wrote:

(June 24, 2015 at 6:35 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Yes. Because no one else would marry her. She would forced into a life of destitution and/or prostitution. Marriage was for her benefit.

If their true concern is for her financial well being, it would make far more sense to have a law that says a woman's rapist must provide for her, instead of forcing her to spend the rest of her life with her attacker.
If no one will marry her because she is now "spoiled goods" (which would probably be the same if she had consensual sex before marriage), then that's just backasswards thinking. There's nothing inherently 'wrong' or 'dirty' about a woman who's been raped, and the men who wrote that law or wouldn't marry her just need to get the fuck over themselves.

Again, you need to think this through.

Let's say the man who claimed the girl as a spoil of war was in his mid 20's maybe 30. Suppose the girls was 15 or 16. Lifespans were shorter and women outlive men for genetic (and reasons of war and occupations). So this guy dies 20 years later leaving this now 35-year-old woman with no children and no income.

Destitution.

BUT if he was taken her into his home, cared for her (maybe even loved her), provided for her needs, PROVIDED HER WITH CHILDREN, then what happens after he dies?

Her kids care for her in her old age.

God's plan is better for her.

But what seems to be lost in all this breathless outrage is this: if the man WANTS the girl, he can't just rape her and move on. He HAS to marry her first. Which means he really needs to ask himself whether he wants to be married before he drops drawers with this girl.

The marriage requirement PREVENTED some women from being "raped" altogether. Some guys simply won the battle and went home without having raped anyone OR taking a female prize.