Ok. Thanks for explaining. I often find it difficult to stomach the OT because of all the violence.

Plunder in the ancient world was how soldiers got paid. The government didn't pay them for their service; their "take" was whatever money, animals, gold, silver, clothes, they could find. Plunder was part of warfare economy (hey, the dead don't need it any more anyway). So when the Israelites went to war, they took their pay from the conquered in food, clothes, money—whatever they could find.

> killing of everything but young virgins?

This particular text to which you are referring (Numbers 31.18) has absolutely nothing to do with rape. The Israelites were making war against the Midianites, who were guilty of seducing the men of Israel, both in sexual ways and in idolatry (idolatry was the more serious offense). When they went to war, they were to kill the offenders, which would include the soldiers, government officials, young men (who would soon become soldiers), and the women who had seduced their men into idolatry. The young virgins were obviously innocent, so they were spared. And if any of the Israelite men wanted to take one of those young women as his wife, he could bring her back to his home. She would go through a 30-day purification and mourning process (Dt. 21.10-14), and she could become his wife. It was against Israelite law for a Gentile female POW to be used as a sex object. In light of the highly sensitive nature of sexual purity in Israel and for Israel's soldiers, specific protocols had to be followed. Rape was most certainly excluded as an extracurricular activity in Israelite warfare.

So the upshot is that God had forbidden rape—a far cry from the misunderstanding that God allows it, let alone commands it.

Then what about the times in the OT where men were encouraged to take the plunder in series, killing of everything but young virgins?

> However using your logic it seems as if you’re treading the line “If God says it’s ok, then it’s ok.”

That's actually not what I'm saying, so I'm glad you brought that up, because I don't want to be misunderstood. I'm saying instead that if God is the best of everything, so to speak, then we should find how to connect with that. And if God is the best of everything, God would never say anything that was less than excellent and good and also the best.

> If God told you to rape someone would that be ok?

Therefore God would never say such a thing. No, rape is wrong. It's unconscionable. God would never tell anyone to rape anyone.

What you’re saying makes sense. I’ll think about it some more. I’m bi so it’s just weird (and hurtful) being the person who is always treated like the mistake in society. However using your logic it seems as if you’re treading the line “If God says it’s ok, then it’s ok.”

If God told you to rape someone would that be ok?

Since you're asking a Christian, I'm guessing you know. All things are to conform to the nature of God, to His holiness, righteousness, love, justice, and wisdom. One day He will reconcile all things to Himself (Col. 1.20), and bring all things into conformity with Him through His Son (Rom. 8.29; Eph. 1.11). In the Bible we are told that there are love relationships that conform to His holiness, and there are love relationships that do not. And since there are love relationships that conform to God's nature, that is what we are to pursue.

We are never told why. By the same token, we are never told why adultery, lying, stealing, or anger are wrong, either. We can only speculate as to the why. But we are not to make the mistake of thinking that just because two people love each other and don't perceive any harm doesn't make it a good idea.

Right now, as everyone knows, we are in the middle of a global pandemic. There is a camp screaming for increased isolation (so we don't do any more harm) fighting against a camp screaming for increased socialization (so we don't do any more harm). Obviously "harm" can't be the only criteria in play. Doctors are saying more exposure would give us more immunity and cause the virus to decrease; other doctors are saying less exposure would delete interaction and cause the virus to decrease. Obviously "medical science" isn't leading us without contradiction. It's never so simple.

Nor is it so simple with same sex relationships. Of course people love each other deeply in same-sex relationships. But so do they in other relationships that make us wince. We think they don't do any harm, but often psychologists and doctors tell us a different story (actually, we have some doctors saying it's healthy and others saying monogamous heterosexuality is more healthy). Some sociologists tell us that a child is most stable in monogamous heterosexual homes, while gay advocates claim that's because the our cultural system is rigged. Obviously "medical science" isn't leading us without contradiction. "Love" and "no harm" aren't flawless either, though they are both high values in every society and in relationships in general. We simply have to look deeper, think more thoroughly, and be wiser, which is one of the ultimate challenges of life.

Since I'm a Christian, I look to the character of God as a standard. He is, after all, the ideal concept, the being of which there can be no greater. And if that's true, then He's a worthy, deeper, more thorough, wiser truth than anything on Earth. If it's true there is a God (and I obviously believe there is), that has great import on all of life (as it has great import if there is no God). But if God exists, then He is definitely that deeper, more thorough, wiser reality into which I must tap to understand life, benefit from it, and live it well.

Ok I agree with your point that harm and love shouldn’t be the criteria for what is right and what is wrong. Then tell me, what should be?

Being weird doesn't make something wrong, but neither are "harm" or "love" adequate criteria for wrong and right. We imprison criminals, to their harm (separate from families, loss of job and income). But that harm is to serve justice, so we consider that harm to be a good thing.

"Love" can't be a criteria for "right" and "good," either. You objected to my illustration of pedophilia, but what if they love each other? What if the 9-yr-old says she's in love with the 60-year-old man? Well, I think all of us would say, "No, that's not right. We can't allow that. You're too young to know that, and it's just not RIGHT." We don't allow love to be the criteria when we have other reasons to object to the relationship.

So that's what I'm saying. There's more in the mix. We can't just go with, "What's wrong with loving someone else when it doesn't do any harm?" There's more to it.

I mean if you really think about it, why the heck not? Its not any of my business. Yea it’s weird but when has something being weird made something wrong?

> Yea but incest could come with possible complications (for instance if a child was born, to that incestuous couple, that child may be born with problems).

Possibly, but not necessarily. My only point is that we can't just use "harm" as the criteria.

> Also, please do not compare lgbt to pedophilia.

I didn't compare it to pedophilia. My point is that we can't just use "love" as the criteria. Pedophilia is an example, not a comparative.

> Children cannot make the full and competent decision about love.

But what about a sexual, consensual loving relation between a man and his mother? Is that OK?