>>Technically, its not quite rape>>
My dictionary says that rape is non-consensual sexual intercourse.
I disagree -- rape is the correct word.
LL
>From: "Shuan Rose" <shuanr@boo.net>
>To: "John W Burgeson" <burgytwo@juno.com>, <asa@calvin.edu>
>Subject: RE: Challenge #2
>Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 20:03:48 -0400
>
> Hi, Burgy,
>I vote for #4 &5. BTW, I think humanity is still immature( witness the
>Palestine, Kashmir, Bosnia, Rwanda, and 911, not to mention Enron).I see
>God
>as preferring to persuade, rather thjan force(although he will club you
>from
>time to time), so I don't think it denigrates God. I wait with interest the
>explanations of those who buy #1. Maybe the women are sinners, and deserve
>to be forced into concubinage?(Technically, its not quite rape)
>Off to scope out some good looking enemy babes,
>
>Shuan
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
>Behalf Of John W Burgeson
>Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 5:56 PM
>To: asa@calvin.edu
>Subject: Challenge #2
>
>
>Bob Rogland keeps bugging me (off line) to respond to challenges 2 and
>3. I did promise to do so -- and so here are my comments on #2.
>
>This is the scripture (NIV). In it, Moses (presumably) is
>speaking/writing:
>
> DT 21:10 When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your
>God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice
>among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may
>take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her
>head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when
>captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and
>mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and
>she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go
>wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since
>you have dishonored her.
>
>The Bible is, many say, a book of ethics. Is there any person here,
>however, who would say that the advice above ought to be given today to
>our soldiers who fight abroad? If not, why not?
>
>The advice given above assumes that women are property. Is this an
>ethical stance anyone here would take today? Should women be regarded as
>property? If not, why not? Could Moses be wrong here?
>
>The advice given above says to a young man that it is OK to capture a
>young woman, forcibly rape her, and then, if she does not satisfy, turn
>her loose. There is no indication that he has any particular
>responsibility for her after that. I read recently that several states in
>Mexico follow the advice above. The usual fate of the women so treated is
>prostitution. I suppose that was the fate of those captured, raped and
>turned loose in biblical times also.
>
>What are the options for this particular section? I see five; there may
>be others:
>
>1. One can accept it as the very word of God, spoken/written through
>Moses, and, therefore, conclude that God sees women as property (at least
>in the time of Moses) and rape is no big deal.
>
>2. The section may have been the perception of Moses, and Moses could
>have misapprehended God.
>
>3. The section could be in error -- a late addition to the inspired text.
>
>4. One may see it as God doing the best he could with an immature
>humanity.
>
>5. One may read it as a record of how ancient people apprehended God,
>doing the best they could, but very much caught up in a male-dominated
>society where women were, in some sense, subhuman.
>
>These are the five options I can think of. They are not entirely separate
>from one another, #1 and #4 might be spliced. #3 seems farfetched. #2 and
>#5 sort of go together. #4 alone sort of denigrates God.
>
>I am left with #2 plus #5 as the most reasonable position. Now that
>upsets some people here; I know that. They see me denigrating holy
>scripture by taking that (tentative) position. I don't see that at all --
>I see it as simply asking questions about the text, and reading it for
>what it seems to be. Just as Psalm 137 is perfectly clear when read as a
>mournful lament of people in exile, this section makes sense if read as
>Moses giving instructions to his people, not "from the mouth of God," but
>simply as best he could do so, given his obvious belief that women are
>inferior and of little consequence.
>
> I note also a few verses that follow in the speech Moses makes which
>are
>interesting:
>
> DT 22:5 A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's
>clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this.
>
>I wonder when he quit detesting this. Or maybe he still does?
>
> DT 22:11 Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together.
>
>No reasons given. maybe the tribes around them did this?
>
> DT 22:12 Make tassels on the four corners of the cloak you wear.
>
>Anyone here still wear a cloak? Or put tassels on his coat?
>
> DT 22:13 If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes
>her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, "I married this
>woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,"
>15 then the girl's father and mother shall bring proof that she was a
>virgin to the town elders at the gate. 16 The girl's father will say to
>the elders, "I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes
>her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, `I did not find your daughter
>to be a virgin.' But here is the proof of my daughter's virginity." Then
>her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and
>the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a
>hundred shekels of silver and give them to the girl's father, because
>this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to
>be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.
>
>I always wondered what proof the parents can bring? This part makes no
>sense.
>
> DT 22:20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's
>virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her
>father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death.
>She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while
>still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you.
>
>Getting married in the time of Moses could be a risky thing.
>
> DT 22:28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be
>married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay the girl's
>father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has
>violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
>
>This seems to be primarily a male-oriented list. What do females say
>about this? The raped girl gets nothing -- she is property -- her daddy
>gets the 50 shekels. I presently have one (of 4) unmarried daughter. If
>she were to be violated by some cretin, I would not be terribly
>interested in seeing him marry her, nor would I accept his money. Is
>there any father of a daughter here that would think differently?
>
>Conclusion: Is scripture inspired? I affirm that it is. Does every
>command of Moses come from God? I have trouble affirming that. Should all
>the commands of Moses be used for ethical decisions today? I surely hope
>not. Some do make sense; others do not. We all pick and choose. But then
>I've said that before.
>
>Peace.
>
>John Burgeson (Burgy)
>
>http://www.burgy.50megs.com
> (science/theology, quantum mechanics, baseball, ethics,
> humor, cars, philosophy, ethics and much more)
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 13 2002 - 18:44:59 EDT