War Crimes in the Bible

@philokalia said
If you wanted to impress posters, you might want to consider being extra charitable to posters of minority positions and trying to wade into the debate in some more balanced way -- and, of course, one that was free of petty insults.

At least Ghost of a Duke hasn't called sonship a stinky drunken leper or anything like that.

@philokalia said
You are insulting someone's wisdom while... insulting someone. There isn't much content to your post, it's just a personal attack on a poster with a minority position.

So... You are insulting a user who is outnumbered for not being "wise," while you are not showing any maturity or walking any kind of "high path."

If you wanted to impress posters, you mi ...[text shortened]... ade into the debate in some more balanced way -- and, of course, one that was free of petty insults.

Any derision towards sonship was in regards to his apparent perception of woman and recent interactions with them.

And his position towards rape (in this thread) and suicide (in another thread) is much more than a 'minority position.'

When sonship recently laid a whole heap of petty insults in my direction, from Leper to person with alcohol on his breath, was that an example of 'him', as a Christian, walking the high path? And where were you then to challenge his insults? (And if your defence is that you didn't see them, how about for parity's sake, condemning them now? )

As an aside, sonship comments about the 'divine remedy' fully deserves petty insults. Indeed, I showed considerable restraint...

Romans1009 posted about 20,000 times in 6 months in 2018. Probably 4,000-5,000 of them were insults. And yet Philokalia singled him out as "the best high volume poster" on the Spirituality Forum.

@fmf said
Romans1009 posted about 20,000 times in 6 months in 2018. Probably 4,000-5,000 of them were insults. And yet Philokalia singled him out as "the best high volume poster" on the Spirituality Forum.

In fairness sir, only non-believers should be reprimanded for insulting people.

@sonship
It is good you have confessed to being a rape apologist.
That is the first step.
Now you should spend some time considering why most people consider this a negative personality trait.
Is being a rape apologist in harmony with your Christian values ?
Is being a rape apologist the way you wish Christians and non-Christians to perceive as a model for how a good Christian should behave ?
Do you feel that, in order to be a good Christian, you are required to be a rape apologist ?

@Duchess64

Sonship shows no empathy for women or girls who are raped or threatened with rape.

While Duchess64 labors to make this personal for some dubious added impact, I am not sure if Duchess64 is clear yet ... that the law of Moses was that the captive POW women were not to be raped.

"When you go to battle against your enemies, and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take them away captive, and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and have a desire for her and would take her as a wife for yourself ..."

Please notice that the instruction is to the man who desires to marry the woman. It is a foregone conclusion that violating her casually is out of the question.

Continuing.

" ... and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and have desire for her AND WOULD TAKE HER AS A WIFE FOR YOURSELF, then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and trim her nails.

She shall also remove the cloths of her captivity and shall remain in your house, and mourn her father and mother A FULL MONTH ..."

Now that this situation is not good for many a woman is not ignored by me. Let's be fair, the heat of irresponsible lust is quenched by God commanding a month for reflection, consideration, as the POW woman mourns and considers her future. And the Israelite soldier considers his responsibility to the law of God and the woman.

Cont.

" ... and mourn her father and mother a full month; and after that you may go in to her and be her HUSBAND and she shall be your WIFE,

It shall be, if you are not pleased with her, then you shall let her go wherever she wishes, but you shall CERTAINLY NOT SELL HER FOR MONEY, you shall not mistreat her, because you have humbled her. " (Deut. 21:10-14)

Are we clear yet ?
No captive women sex slaves.
No rape of captive POW women.

Now I am still looking into the complaint of forced marriage.

In light of Deuteronomy's command I present a challenge. The POW woman must be married and not violated in rape or sex slavery.

(I am studying the forced marriage matter).

There are many ancient creation accounts. That is how the world started ... etc.

Someone please produce another ancient sacred document on the fundamentals of the world's origin which like Genesis specify UP FRONT and right away that MARRIAGE is to be between one man and one woman.


Genesis 2:24,25

"Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be one flesh."

Is there another cosmogony from ancient times as clearly laying out the Creator's or creators' ordination of marriage consisting of A man and A woman as the basic unit of each new family life ?

@sonship said

Now I am still looking into the complaint of forced marriage.

So you keep saying.

Invariably sonship, whenever you say you are looking into something that is the last we ever hear of it.

@Ghost-of-a-Duke

Its complicated. Whole books have been written on these matters, which I have not read.

I'm not quick to portray that I know everything that needs to be known about it.

In the meantime -

Although rape was a common feature in ancient Near Eastern warfare, Israelite soldiers were prohibited from raping women contrary to what some crassly argue. Sex was permitted only within the bounds of marital commitment, a repeated theme laid out in the Mosaic law. Rape in warfare wasn't a grand exception to the requirement of sexual fidelity.

As with Deuteronomy 21:10-14, the scenario is the same - namely, a soldier's taking of a wife. Rather than being outcasts or the low woman on the totem pole, women captured in war could become integrated into Israelite society through marriage. Understandably, it was far less likely that men would have been as readily integrated into Israel's life and ways.

[ Dr. Paul Copan, Is God a Moral Monster? - Making Sense of the Old Testament God, BakerBooks, pg. 120,121 ]

@sonship

Would you agree that Genesis 24:50-51 and Genesis 29:15-19 speak approvingly of fathers who forced their daughters to marry men they had just met without asking their opinion?

"Laban and Bethuel answered, “This is from the Lord; we can say nothing to you one way or the other. Here is Rebekah; take her and go, and let her become the wife of your master’s son, as the Lord has directed.”

"Now Laban had two daughters. The older daughter was named Leah, and the younger one was Rachel. There was no sparkle in Leah’s eyes,[a] but Rachel had a beautiful figure and a lovely face. Since Jacob was in love with Rachel, he told her father, “I’ll work for you for seven years if you’ll give me Rachel, your younger daughter, as my wife.”

“Agreed!” Laban replied. “I’d rather give her to you than to anyone else. Stay and work with me.”

@Ghost-of-a-Duke

Would you agree that Genesis 24:50-51 and Genesis 29:15-19 speak approvingly of fathers who forced their daughters to marry men they had just met without asking their opinion?

Laban is not spoken of approvingly in the Bible, IMO.

In the case of Rebekah in Genesis 24 she was ASKED if she was WILLING to go and marry the mysterious lover. She was wooed with presents and the tale and wanted to go back with Abraham's servant to marry Issac.

She agreed.

"And they called Rebekah and said to her, Will you go with this man? and she said, I will go." (Gen. 24:58)

She could have refused.
Genesis chapter 29:

"Now Laban had two daughters. The older daughter was named Leah, and the younger one was Rachel. There was no sparkle in Leah’s eyes,[a] but Rachel had a beautiful figure and a lovely face. Since Jacob was in love with Rachel, he told her father, “I’ll work for you for seven years if you’ll give me

In this case I agree that Jacob was tricked into marrying Leah.
Laban, in whom Jacob met his match, outsmarted him and took advantage of his great yearning for Rachel to get his employment for as long as he could.

Now this he said was the custom of the land. that is to marry off the oldest girl first. He couldn't say, this was the law of God. This was also before the giving of the law.

So I'll give you that Leah seems to say nothing about it.
There is nothing in subsequent chapters which indicates that she did not love Jacob. So I have to conclude that she wanted to marry him, though it was done in such a way.

So Jacob ended up with two wives - Leah and Rachel.
There is no question that Rachel was his favorite. And it was for Rachel that he originally labored for decades to secure her hand in marriage.

INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH ... when he died he requested that LEAH be buried with him in the cave of Macpelah. His favorite love of his life, Rachel, was not buried with him, but the unfavored FIRST woman he seems to have considered God's will for him as his one wife.

God had ordained one man for one woman in creation of man. And I would be willing to bet that though Jacob had TWO wives and his favorite was his second one, he realized that God's will was that Leah under divine providence was his wife according to the will of God.

To your point though - I don't see Leah as being forced to marry Jacob. And I think Rachel was a willing second bride.

Now, you might look to David's behavior for him committing statutory rape and rather (conveniently contrived) marriage of Bathsheba. But we all should know God was displeased and punished him.

Remember there is a difference in what the Bible TEACHES as to have been the ordination of God and what it RECORDS has some person/s as having done.

@sonship

You gonna tackle this?

Forcing a young girl to marry her rapist is a 'remedy'? For whom? It's certainly not a remedy for the victim.

@sonship said

So I'll give you that Leah seems to say nothing about it.
There is nothing in subsequent chapters which indicates that she did not love Jacob. So I have to conclude that she wanted to marry him, though it was done in such a way.

By her silence, you 'have to conclude' she wanted to marry him?

Really?

@Duchess64

The subject is War Crimes in the Bible.
Were there war crimes in the Bible?
Yes.

Did the Israelites commit war crimes in the Bible?
Yes.

Now Duchess64 could you please show me where rape is commanded by the Law from Mt. Sinai by which Israel was to live.

I have shown you where the command that the captive women were not to be raped or made sex slaves in Deuteronomy 12:10-14

Where specifically is the divine command from God to rape in all of the commandments given to Moses ?

My argument as I see it is not that the Israelites, who broke the laws of God, never committed war crimes.