20 Feb 19
@deepthought saidNo, but it could be out there.
Are you aware of any archeological evidence specific to the destruction of the Midianites?
I've only read specifically about the conquest of Canaan and the Babylonian conquest of Israel.
I'm sure there's some material out there.
And if it isn't, it may honestly be because no one has gotten around to it. It's not the most high profile case around.
And i also think that no one in Christianity is eager to prove this, and no one in atheism feels a need to disprove it as it is a story that people often cite to argue against Christianity.
It's not really at the top of anyone's list.
20 Feb 19
@caissad4 saidIt doesn't endorse rape, though.
@sonship
A culture and religion which endorses rape. And you worship that piece of crap ??
In my holy book that makes you a worse piece of crap.
C'mon apologist, say this is okay.
Of course, in some indirect way which assumes that any firm of sex within an arranged marriage is unwanted, maybe.
But I don't think people even thought remotely in those sorts of terms back then, right.
@philokalia saidTrivializing rape is not that far off from endorsing rape. Right.
It doesn't endorse rape, though.
Of course, in some indirect way which assumes that any firm of sex within an arranged marriage is unwanted, maybe.
But I don't think people even thought remotely in those sorts of terms back then, right.
I thought you held this holy book as being direct from your god ?
The penalties for crimes come from your god ? Right.
Or perhaps, just perhaps, much of this holy book is a manmade, not divine, construct.
20 Feb 19
Where does it say that the Midianite women were violated, and that this is a good thing?
It says in Numbers 31:18:
But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
Which implies that any unmarried woman was kept alive, likely to be a house servant or to subsequently become a first wife or concubine (as polygamy was permitted at this time).
Nothing about it implies violation.
Of course, we can assume that it occurred just as we can assume that, in the year 980 BC, there was a murder in Jerusalem... Yet, both of such instances would have been condemned by Jewish law, would it not have?
But, following the internal logic of Judaism that you may not subscribe to, none of these women were to be violated. They were to be married, or to be kept as servants, right?
I know its' a hard topic -- and that is why we have to be very thorough with the content.
20 Feb 19
@philokalia saidI don't think you can rely strongly on a plausibility argument regarding the existence of evidence for an event recorded in a text whose historicity is disputed.
No, but it could be out there.
I've only read specifically about the conquest of Canaan and the Babylonian conquest of Israel.
I'm sure there's some material out there.
And if it isn't, it may honestly be because no one has gotten around to it. It's not the most high profile case around.
And i also think that no one in Christianity is eager to prove this, an ...[text shortened]... at people often cite to argue against Christianity.
It's not really at the top of anyone's list.
@sonship saidBoth Kate Blanchard and Scholz note that there are several passages in the Book of Isaiah, Book of Jeremiah, and Book of Ezekiel that utilize rape metaphors. Blanchard expressed outrage over this fact, writing "The translations of these shining examples of victim-blaming are clear enough, despite the old-fashioned language: I'm angry and you're going to suffer for it. You deserve to be raped because of your sexual exploits. You're a sl*t and it was just a matter of time till you suffered the consequences. Let this be a lesson to you and to all other uppity women." Scholz discussed four passages—Isaiah 3:16-17, Jeremiah 13:22 and 26, Ezekiel 16, and Ezekiel 23. Regarding Jeremiah, Scholz wrote, "The poem proclaims that the woman brought this fate upon herself and she is to be blamed for it, while the prophet sides with the sexually violent perpetrators, viewing the attack as deserved and God as justifying it. Rape poetics endorses 'masculine authoritarianism' and the 'dehumanization of women,' perhaps especially when the subject is God.
@caissad4
A culture and religion which endorses rape. And you worship that piece of crap ??
In my holy book that makes you a worse piece of crap.
C'mon apologist, say this is okay.
And you all get annoyed if I have to call someone "twisto-brain".
You're TWISTED with bigotry in your reading comprehension of the Holy Bible.
God making provision ...[text shortened]... e between what the Bible records as having happened and what it TEACHES as a way of conduct.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_the_Hebrew_Bible
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Both Kate Blanchard and Scholz note that there are several passages in the Book of Isaiah, Book of Jeremiah, and Book of Ezekiel that utilize rape metaphors. Blanchard expressed outrage over this fact, writing "The translations of these shining examples of victim-blaming are clear enough, despite the old-fashioned language: I'm angry and you're going to suffer for it. You deserve to be raped because of your sexual exploits.
Ask Blanchard and Scholtz how they feel about the book of Hosea. There God expresses His undying love for faithless Israel by commanding the prophet to marry a prostitute.
There are cases when someone went looking to end up in trouble. The passages sited did not say EVERY case of rape was so, I'm pretty sure. Have yet to examine them.
That's they're exaggeration and less than reliable exegesis speaking perhaps with bias toward some kind of feminism.
Was it like the metaphorical "wife" was not warned ?
Spend some time on Deuteronomy 28:15-68. More than ample heads up was given to Israel that forsaking Yahweh for idols and other gods would mean absolute, no uncertain VICTIM-hood - victimization.