You Can't Explain Away These Verses

[debrand]

edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com/2010/12/11/spoils-of-war-an-examination-of-the-treatment-of-captive-women-in-deuteronomy-2110-14/

I found an article that tries to justify Deuteronomy 21:10-14 .

“When you go out to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hand, and you take them captive, and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and desire her and would take her for your wife, then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and trim her nails. She shall put off the clothes of her captivity, remain in your house, and mourn her father and her mother a full month; after that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. And it shall be, if you have no delight in her, then you shall set her free, but you certainly shall not sell her for money; you shall not treat her brutally, because you have humbled her.â€

There was to be self-control (waiting a full month of mourning after returning home before consummation of the marriage was accepted) on the part of the soldiers, as well as respect for the young woman who had been captured. Her humanity and dignity was to be fully protected from the beginning, as there was to be no dehumanizing traumatic treatment. Furthermore, there were strict limitations on the behavior of the man who wished for a captive concubine (wife) after he had married her. A man could not have such a wife and then sell her later on, or mistreat her. She was to remain protected by the laws of Israel once she had been married.

First, the passage says nothing about gang rape of captive women. It only states how the man who wishes her for his own property is to treat her. We can't know what happened to her immediately upon capture. The Biblical god does not say that women are NOT to be raped on the battlefield. Considering that he told his people what type of material to wear, he could have included that little rule, dont' you think?

So, the young woman, after probably witnessing the destruction of her loved ones and home, is brought to this stranger's home. He might have been the one who ran a sword into her mother or brother's throat. For a month she is generously allowed to grieve. :roll: It doesn't matter if she has PTSD, or if she hates the man or finds him disgusting. The all knowing Old Testament god doesn't give a damn. Her captor can take her as a wife, have sex with her(probably rape her) and if he gets sick of her, let her go. But we are supposed to think that this verse is kind because he can't sell her to another man because he 'humbled' (raped) her.

Why couldn't god have simply commanded the Hebrews to let the captive women go free?

It should be noted additionally that this passage notes the consummation of the relationship as forming a marriage between the soldier and his captive prisoner of war, which provided protection to the young woman (presumably of foreign birth) under biblical law. A man could not sleep with a young woman, even a captive, and then sell her for profit. Let us consider that this was a common practice in the antebellum American South–for men to sleep with their slaves, not realizing that under biblical law those slaves were now married to him and protected from mistreatment and cruelty as well as sale by virtue of being humbled so, and then to profit from their sale downriver. Such actions demonstrate that most slave owning societies, even those composed of nominal Christians, have failed to obey the Bible’s very strict limitations on the conduct of people with others. Captive women were clearly considered as human beings, and their treatment was strictly regulated by God’s law. Human beings were not to be treated and exploited as chattel property without concern for their dignity.

what the hell? Since when is rape considered protecting someone's dignity? The very act of owning someone devalues them in the owner's eyes.

The fact that the Bible accounts for this meant that even in warfare a soldier in a godly army was to remain fully in control of his lusts and passions and not to let his baser nature get the better of him–he was to remember at all times that even his enemies were human beings and should be treated with dignity, even when those enemies were defenseless and unable to protect themselves. Clearly, such a command reflects a very high standard of conduct that soldiers were called to uphold, and a clear sign that God’s standard was to be applicable to all people, even where there was great hostility present. It is a lesson that we should not forget today.

I wonder how the writer would feel if modern soldiers acted on this 'godly' behavior. Would he/she encourage their sons to bring home a concubine or two? Does the person not realize that they are defending rape?

I honestly don't understand how someone can be a biblical literalist.

[debrand]

Because I didn't want my thread to be misinterpreted as being against Christianity in general, I wanted to assure everyone that it isn't. I know many loving Christians who feel that their faith had helped them. They certainly don't advocate rape of captives. :shock: My only point is that I don't see how anyone can try to defend certain biblical verses and still be a good human being.

[CanadianHippie]

The kind of person who would defend these verses are the kinds of people who insist that rape either isn't in the bible, or not possible in marriage, or both. They are also of DougPhillipsTool category in that they are so blind to what really happened historically that they think all men were perfect gentlemen back then and all women were submissive, stay at home wives who happily put out every time their headship got a stiffy.

[CanadianHippie]

In other words they live a life of willful ignorance.

[debrand]

The kind of person who would defend these verses are the kinds of people who insist that rape either isn't in the bible, or not possible in marriage, or both. They are also of DougPhillipsTool category in that they are so blind to what really happened historically that they think all men were perfect gentlemen back then and all women were submissive, stay at home wives who happily put out every time their headship got a stiffy.

Yep. I suppose the captive woman, in their mind, was overjoyed to be taken by a godly soldier who allowed her an entire month to be sad. Although anyone with half a brain would realize that the verses meant that the women involved were rape victims, I don't think that the writer of the article considers it rape. That really is troubling and just more reason why living in a world run by these 'Christian' men would be terrifying for women.

[CanadianHippie]

It's the same mindset that kept marital rape legal for so long. They are married so the man has a right to sex! I am looking forward to the day when such a mindset is extinct. It's unfortunately not just Christian or men that believe this. I've been disturbed but women, even self proclaimed feminists of the atheist persuasion insist that a woman just needs to "take one for the team" because that's what a "good wife does so her husband doesn't have to find someone to fool around with someone else."

[bananacat]

If the woman is a concubine, it's impossible for any sex to not be rape. A concubine is not a wife. She is a slave. She can't ever refuse consent, so she can't ever give consent in any meaningful way. In the very best case the woman would "agree" to sex but it would be extremely coercive. In many cases it was outright rape but that never mattered because the woman was property, not an actual person. Although to be fair, they didn't treat women from their own tribe much better.

[Vex]

Sadly, I think Hippie is right - this guy probably believes rape between husbands and wives does not exist. What if a soldier in Iraq saw a pretty, unmarried girl and killed her family, took her back to the army base, waited a month and then had sex with her against her will? Nobody would defend that, not even the fundies.

Well, maybe some of the fundies.

[gardenvarietycitizen]

In other words they live a life of willful ignorance.

Pretty much.

I think most people who are not fully to the edge on the fundie spectrum will have other writings, other interpretations, the words and interpretations of previous sages, etc, to explain away how those verses can be in there but "we don't interpret them that way today" and similar. As much as people like to claim that religion is unchanging and doesn't (shouldn't!) adapt to local mores, people do adapt it, even if they don't like to talk about those verses to outsiders because yeah it's uncomfortable. (Of course you can certainly find people who do want to take them literally and brag about how they would rape women captured in war and kill foreign babies or whatever it is because they're religion all the way 100%, they don't care about your liberal Western sensibilities, or whatever it is, but I suspect even those people if pushed to the edge would pause.)

What bugs me though on a slight tangent is that so many people are willing to see the nuance and accept that there are so many binding "interpretations" other than just the raw main scriptures for their OWN religion, but won't stop to consider that other religions also have the same rationalizations.

Case in point: Any number of foaming at the mouth "Culture War" websites in the US taking verses from the Koran literally and saying it proves all Muslims are bloodthirsty, etc.

[jenny_islander]

I was taught that it was an example of, "Look, I can't stop you people committing evil altogether; the best I can do is warn you about consequences and set limits. So here's the minimum I want you to do if you are going to go raiding and kidnapping and taking slaves." This led to the question of why promise the Jews a land somebody else was living in at all, which raises issues of why God picked a bunch of nomads who were going to have to settle down if they wanted to develop a civilization centered around a Holy Book and in the meantime were going to raid here and there because that's what nomads do, and why Palestine instead of the Ethiopian Highlands or something, and on it went. The takeaway was that people who treat the Bible as a checklist of easy answers to clearly defined questions are not actually reading the thing.

[Deleted07]

This and many other verses are my problem with The Bible and many religions based on it, and why I do not consider them the true word of God in my opinion. (If he exists - which I'm still on the fence about myself.)