Rape in the Bible

[John V]

If we're going to play the wouldn't-it-have-been-better game, then... wouldn't it have been better for God not to have created those people in the first place?

Better for whom?

It was better for them to have existed from Israel's position, as Israel took the lands which those people cultivated, rather than wilderness. They also got additional wives, which are necessary for a polygamous society in which most all men are expected to marry.

It would have been better for the wicked who hated god to never have existed.

So, who should God reward, his chosen people or his enemies?

Yet Lot was the one person God saw as being 'righteous enough' to spare (along with his family). Considering that this happened right after Lot offered his daughters up to be gang raped, it looks a lot like God was indeed condoning this. In fact, it looks like God was saying, "I like your style. Come with me so you can continue in your perversions."

Considering that Lot's wife was destroyed and Lot ended up living in caves in the hills, I'd have to disagree. It seems more likely to me that God was angry with Lot as well, but at least spared his life for Abraham's sake.

---

I am pretty certain that this site is not parody. Apparently, the writer believes that rape is not unlawful for a husband but not a wise thing to do. The woman who refuses to have sex is sinful.

http://www.deepstrength.wordpress.com/20...pe-or-not/

Actually he comes to the final conclusion that "forcing sex on the spouse is a sin."