Oh, that's not it at all. It's that I won't believe what the text doesn't teach. The text is the authority, not what someone reads into it or what someone wants to assume it says. The text says nothing about rape. If we are going with what the text says, then we have to go with what the text says, and the text doesn't say anything about rape, nor even implies it, nor endorses it.

It sounds like you are not able/want to believe the terrible things that are in the bible because it may undermine your worldview of an omni-benevolent diety. I've been in that exact same position.

> It also doesn't forbid rape.

God didn't have to forbid rape. He had already forbidden illicit sexual encounters and all expressions of sexual immorality and adultery. Rape was part of that mix. The people knew it was forbidden.

> Especially since rape of these virgins probably was rather common in actuality.

It was common in actuality, and that's what made the Israelite laws so distinct and unique. Israelite law forbade rape. the law states that the Israelite man can take this woman as a wife, but only after removing her beauty (she shaves her head and cuts her nails, making herself ugly) and providing a cooling off period of one month during which the woman can mourn the loss of her family and the man can think over whether he really wants to marry a foreign woman with stubbly hair. If he still wants her, he cannot simply violate her. He must marry her.

> I think it is pretty clear that those women likely were being raped

You just can't insert your opinion on the text. The text says nothing about rape, and everything we know about Israelite culture and Israelite law says the women were not being raped.

It also doesn't forbid rape. You'd think that God could have taken a clear stance so people would know it is forbidden. Especially since rape of these virgins probably was rather common in actuality.

I think it is pretty clear that those women likely were being raped, and i think God by omission acted worse than you would have done yourself. Because i think you explicitly would have forbidden rape if you thought it likely that rape would happen.

Yeah. More knowledge often raises more questions than it answers. The smarter we get the dumber we realize we are; the more we know, the more we realize we don't know. While deceit could have been going on, the conquered populations probably wouldn't know the criteria by which some would be killed and others taken away.

Thank you, but is indeed interesting! Although it does raise in my mind the question of how easy it would be to forge your virginity. If you knew that they were killing non-virgins, you quickly take off your veil, let down your hair, and grab a marker to put the virgin markings on your body? If you were a virgin and didn't want to become a slave or prisoner of war, you put your hair up and grab a veil and put different markings on your body?

I'm not doubting your claim, I just have more questions now.

You've really missed what this text is about.

> Or, technically, after that you can "go in unto her" (this means f***ing), and then she is your wife. Because that's how you became a wife.

You become a wife at a marriage ceremony, not at point of penetration. The text is about marriage, not about sex. It is teaching that the captives can be brought back and become members of the covenant community through marriage. That's what the text is about. Of course sex follows that, but that isn't the point.

> thank you for honorably conceding that the story does not even hint at the slightest element of consent.

Nor does the text imply lack of consent. It doesn't go one way, but it doesn't go the other either. You end up with no case to support "God is OK with rape."

> Okay, now you're making things up again.

Not a bit. Dr. Sprinkle explains: "[Dt. 21.10-14] describes a case where, after an Israelite victory over an enemy city, an Israelite man sees a beautiful foreign captive and is attracted to her. Rather than following the common practice among the nations in war—namely, killing the men and raping the women—the law states that the Israelite man can take this woman as a wife, but only after removing her beauty (she shaves her head and cuts her nails, making herself ugly) and providing a cooling off period of one month during which the woman can mourn the loss of her family and the man can think over whether he really wants to marry a foreign woman with stubbly hair. If he still wants her, he cannot simply violate her. He must marry her.

"But if after marriage he is not pleased with her, the text says he cannot treat her as a slave and sell her to someone else. Instead she has all the rights of a freeborn wife. If he no longer wants her as a wife, he must 'let her go wherever she wishes.' The expression 'let her go wherever she wishes' must imply 'divorce her.' The piel of slh is commonly used for divorce (Dt. 22.19, 29; 24.1,3; Jer. 3.1). So if he is unwilling to treat her as a wife, God commands that he divorce her.

"This command to divorce has a humanitarian purpose of preventing the sexual abuse of captive women. One who desires a beautiful captive woman cannot rape her and leave her. That man must marry her to have her. And if he no longer wants her as a wife he cannot sell her as a slave, which morally would be tantamount to rape and abandonment. She must be treated with dignity as a full-fledged wife and returned to freedom if not treated as a wife.

"The text does not condone the man's choice of no longer accepting this woman as his wife. His reasons may well be morally unjustified. But if for whatever reasons he rejects her as wife, the text prescribes divorce and release as preferable to her continued subjugation."

No unjustified claims, just good research. Walton & Matthews show that a few other ancient cultures had similar laws to protect the women: "The Mari texts also provide clothing and a job to captive women. The rights extended to the former captive after she has married are similar to those of Israelite women and are designed to demonstrate that there is no reduction of her status if a divorce occurs. Similar concerns are reflected in the Middle Assyrian Laws that requires former captives who are now married to dress like all Assyrian women of that class."

Dr. Paul Copan adds, "the law served as a protective measure for the woman POW. She was the one who benefited from this legislation. The law defended her rights and personhood. For one thing, she wasn’t raped, which was common practice in other ancient Near Eastern cultures. The would-be Israelite husband couldn’t simply marry—let alone have sex with—her immediately. No, she was to be treated as a full-fledged wife. Unlike many Las Vegas weddings or the phenomenon on mail-order brides, the matter of marriage in Israel was not entered into lightly (motivated by, say, lust). That point is strongly reinforced in this passage."

So you see, it's not unjustified claims at all.

> and then you can take her as your wife.

Or, technically, after that you can "go in unto her" (this means f***ing), and then she is your wife. Because that's how you became a wife.
But still, thank you for honorably conceding that the story does not even hint at the slightest element of consent.

> And if she doesn't please you, she is to be protected even from the kind of abuse that would result in being tossed off.

Okay, now you're making things up again. It only says if YOU don't want her, then YOU must let her go wherever she wants. As if a foreign war orphan who may not even speak your language is going to have a lot of options in that regard.

> She has legal recourse

How? What is her recourse? What, specifically, can a despoiled and divorced foreigner war orphan, who may not even speak hebrew, do in order to get her legal protection? And, while we're on the subject, how does she know she can do this?

We'll call this "unjustified claim #1", so you can keep the claims straight.

> so that she is treated charitably

Unjustified claim #2.

> and with dignity

Unjustified claim #3.

> afforded to any Israelite citizen.

She's a full citizen? Unjustified claim #4.

OK, that helps. Now I know what you were talking about. But I still think your premise is a little confused. I also say God is good by definition, but he's also good by observation, and if anyone has all the facts, as they evaluate God's character by his actions they will agree because it would conform exactly to our purest definition of justice.

It is not only alright but expected of me to evaluate the actions of God. I do believe, as you say, that I can judge the character of God.

Reading the OT in particular with a critical eye, I can see that God is extremely loving and good by normal definitions (not necessarily by modern definitions, which have become skewed since the days of Kierkegaard and Hegel). I can easily define God as good by classical definitions of the term and by observation of his actions in history.

Some people say that God is good by definition. This means that we have no right to judge him as good or bad, but instead we must base our idea of what is good by what God does. IIRC, there is some bible text evidence to support this, and I've definitely heard it sprinkled in a few sermons.

What you are claiming runs counter to that idea. If God had decided to order rapes, then you would judge God as morally reprehensible. This means that you believe (and I happen to agree) that you can judge the character of God (though I happen to think he's fictional).

I think that if you read through the old testament in particular with a critical eye, trying to judge God just as you would if he commanded rape, you will see that he isn't very loving or good by normal definitions. Perhaps you think a modified definition is necessary and that's tenable, but given what you've said, you can't define God to be good.