| Chapter 22 | |
| Summary: | Moses' speech continues:"If you see another man's ox or sheep go astray, you are not to pretend as if you did not see it, but you must take them back to its owner. If you do not know the owner, then you shall bring it back to your own house until the owner comes looking for it and you are able to return it to him. The same applies to donkeys, clothing, or any lost item that belongs to someone else that you have found. You are not to keep them for yourself. If you see someone's donkey or ox fall down by the way, you are also not to pretend as if you didn't see it happen, but you are to help him lift it up again. |
| Notes: | 1.) Meaning the bloodstained sheets from when the woman's hymen was broken during intercourse. |
| Thoughts: | This chapter begins on what appears to be a fairly positive note, but goes downhill awfully fast. Moses starts out telling the Israelites that if they see another man's ox or sheep go astray that they are not to ignore it, but are to return it to its owner. If they don't know who owns it, they are to take the animal back to their house until the owner comes looking for the animal. Moses adds that this applies to donkeys, clothing, and anything other lost item. Also if someone's donkey or ox falls under the load it's carrying, again you're not to ignore this, but you are to go help the animal get back up. Moses then strikes out at transvestites calling it an "abomination" to wear clothes meant for the other sex. Why God would be so bothered by people's fashions to declare it an "abomination" just for wearing a piece of clothing intended for the opposite sex is beyond me. In the bronze age days of flowing tunics, who would even really know whether a garment was a man's or a woman's? Next Moses states that if you find a bird's nest with both a mother bird and either its young or its eggs, you can keep the eggs and the young, but you must set the mother bird free. Following that, Moses states that when building a house you must put up a guardrail on the roof to ensure that no one falls off. Moses then spits out a few brief but strange laws:
If a man suspects that his wife was not a virgin when they were married, the woman's parents must bring their "tokens of virginity" (meaning the bloodstained bedsheets) to the elders of the city. The woman's father is to present the stained bedsheets to the elders as proof of his daughter's virginity. Obviously the problem is that not every woman bleeds from her first experience of sexual intercourse, and sometimes her hymen isn't even broken immediately either. Stained sheets only serve as proof that her hymen was broken, not of her virginity. Now what happens when a man falsely accuses his wife of not being a virgin on their wedding night? Well he gets a couple of lashes with a whip, he has to pay 100 shekels of silver to his father in law for shaming his wife and her family, and he's not allowed to divorce his wife. Now what happens if the woman can't prove her virginity? Well, she gets dragged out to her father's house and gets stoned to death by the men of the city for "being a whore" and shaming her father. Under these laws, it's very possible and quite likely that many women were stoned to death because they were unable to prove their innocence. Perhaps their "token" was stolen, perhaps it was lost, perhaps it was destroyed accidentally in a fire, perhaps the woman simply didn't bleed during her first sexual experience, and perhaps her husband was unable to perform himself. There are a plethora of reasons why a woman could wrongfully die because of her husband's accusations, yet we're to believe that such a flawed law was mandated by the supreme. all knowing, all powerful, "loving", and "merciful" "creator of the universe" which basically puts a woman's life down to a gamble as to whether she bled properly on a bed sheet. Next, Moses states that if a man sleeps with an already married woman, then they are both to be killed. This law obviously doesn't operate the other way around - if a married man sleeps with an unmarried woman, he simply has just taken on another wife. If you've been reading along since the beginning (or at least since the book of Numbers) you should recognize the next three laws as points that were discussed in my "Apologist Rebuttal" to the events of Numbers: Chapter 31 concerning the topic of rape. The apologist claimed that "rape was (and still is) abhorrent to God", citing Deuteronomy 22:23-28, and putting special emphasis on Deuteronomy 22:25. However, we see that this chapter paints quite a different picture of rape than what the apologist was suggesting. What Moses says, is that when a woman who is a virgin and engaged to another man is raped in the city, then both the woman and the rapist are to be brought out to the outskirts of town and are to be stoned to death. Moses states that it's the woman's fault that she was raped because she didn't cry out loud enough to stop her rape from happening. This law is not condemning rape, according to Moses the woman is condemned for not preventing her own rape, and the rapist because he took away the woman's fiancee's "right" to consummate his marriage. Moses then explains that if a woman who is a virgin and engaged to another man is raped out in the countryside, then only her rapist is to be put to death, for Moses reasons that it's impossible to determine whether she screamed for help or not out in the fields, so it must be assumed that she did cry for help but that nobody heard her. Again, unlike what the apologist was trying to lead us to believe, this law applies only to virgin women who are engaged to be married. When the apologist cited Deuteronomy 22:23-28, he stopped short of verse 29 which explains what happens to a virgin who is raped and isn't engaged to be married. Moses says that the rapist is to pay the victim's father 50 shekels of silver, and that the victim is to become the rapist's wife(!) and he cannot divorce her because he has devalued her by taking her virginity. It's easy to see why the apologist didn't include this verse in their referencing, but the irony is that the apologist was attempting to defend Numbers: Chapter 31 by claiming that it was being "taken out of context" by not reading also Numbers: Chapter 25, when clearly we see that Deuteronomy 22:29 completes Moses' overall point that he was making in Deuteronomy 22:23-28. These verses aren't concerned with rape, more than they are concerned with robbing a man of his right to deflower the woman he's engaged to. In other words, the verses are more about vindicating the male fiancee's right to take his wife's virginity, not that a woman's virginity was taken without her consent, otherwise a raped virgin without a fiancee wouldn't be forced to marry her rapist. Finally, Moses ends the chapter by stating that a man is not to take his father's wife nor dishonor his father's bed. |
Showing posts with label rape. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rape. Show all posts
Saturday, February 13, 2010
DEUTERONOMY: Chapter 22
DEUTERONOMY: Chapter 21
| Chapter 21 | |
| Summary: | Moses' speech continues:"If a man is found slain in the land which the Lord your God has given you to possess, his body lying in the field, and it is not known who has slain him, then the elders and judges shall measure from the body to the nearest city. The elders of that city shall take a heifer that has never been yoked or worked in a field, and bring the animal down into a valley with running water that is neither plowed or sown, and they shall break the heifer's neck there in the valley. |
| Thoughts: | Moses begins this chapter by stating that if the body of a murdered man is found lying in a field and it's not known who killed him, then the elders and judges of the land are to go to the nearest city and find the elders of that city. The city's elders are to take a heifer that has never been yoked or worked in the fields, and after bringing it down to a virgin stream in the valley, somehow breaking the cow's neck and decapitating it will allow the priests to bless the dead body (the man's, not the cow's) and absolve the people of Israel from the guilt of the death of an innocent man. This is probably another one of those "eye for an eye" type lines of thought, where in lieu of being able to kill a human being with capital punishment, that the Israelites have to kill something to appease their bloodthirsty God. Next up, Moses states that if and when the Israelites win a war against their enemies - as long as they're not enemies that live in the "promised land" - and if there's a pretty girl amongst the prisoners they've taken, then you can bring her into your house, have her shave her head and pare her nails, and then mourn for the next month in your house for her dead parents that you've killed. After the month is up, you can then have sex with her and you'll be her husband. If afterward you don't like your new wife, you can let her go free, but you're not allowed to sell her into slavery, because you've humiliated her. Basically, Moses is saying that if there's a pretty girl amongst the prisoners of war, you can bring her home against her will, rape her, and she gets the "privilege" of becoming your wife. Then if you later discover that you just don't like her, feel free to boot her out the door, just be sure not to sell her into slavery. How one can justify the blatant misogyny and complete disrespect of women that Moses is advocating is completely beyond me. Moses then shifts the topic to polygamy - something I discussed at length recently with a Christian "reader" of this blog. Moses says that if a man has two wives - one that he loves and one that he hates, and has sons with both of them, with the firstborn son belonging to the hated wife, he is not allowed to give the "firstborn birthright" to the firstborn son of his favored wife, just because he hates his firstborn son's mother. The birthright still goes to the oldest son, as Moses reasons that this son is the "beginning of his [father's] strength". All should work as intended unless the boy sells his birthright for a bowl of soup. Next, Moses addresses what to do with your unruly son. If your son is stubborn and rebellious and doesn't respond to being punished, then the mother and father must bring him out to the elders of the city and tell them that their son is stubborn and rebellious (and for good measure, add in that he's also a glutton and a drunk). All of the men of the city then are to stone the child to death, so that you can purge the nation of Israel from evil and frighten other children into obeying. Yes, the best way according to the bible to deal with unruly children is to kill them brutally with stones, so that you can set an example for other children and control them with fear. Finally, Moses states that if your preferred method of execution is hanging, then you have to remove the dead person's body from the tree you hanged him upon and bury them before the day is through, because a hanged body will apparently defile the "promised land" if left up for too long. |
Friday, February 12, 2010
DEUTERONOMY: Chapter 20
| Chapter 20 | |
| Summary: | Moses' speech continues:"When you go out to battle against your enemies and see horses, chariots, and people that outnumber you, do not be afraid of them, for the Lord your God is with you, who brought you out of the land of Egypt. When you go to battle, the priest shall approach and speak to the people, telling them not to be faint of heart, nor be afraid because of the strength of the enemy. For the Lord your God will go with you, to fight against your enemies and to save you from defeat. |
| Thoughts: | Moses begins this chapter by stating that even if the Israelites seem outnumbered by the amount of horses, chariots, or enemy soldiers on the battlefield, that they are not to be afraid because God will protect the Israelites. Before going out to battle, a priest will tell them this same thing. The officers of the armies will then address the troops and ask them if anyone has just built a house that hasn't been "dedicated", planted a vineyard that they haven't eaten from, or become engaged to a woman they have yet to marry, and then allow those applicable to return home to dedicate their homes, tend to their vineyard, or marry their bride to prevent someone else from doing so if they were to die in battle. Moses then says that the officers should then ask if there are any men that are afraid to fight, and if so, that they are to be sent home in order to prevent them from spreading their fears to other soldiers. Upon weeding these people out, the officers are then to appoint captains to lead the remaining troops. Next Moses explains the proper protocol for conquering cities outside of the "promised land". First, offer them a "peace treaty", and if they accept then enslave them all. If they don't accept becoming enslaved, then they've "declared war" then the Israelites are to kill every male with the edge of their swords. But the women and young girls the soldiers may keep for themselves along with the spoils of the city. When conquering the cities within the "promised land" however, the women and children must be slaughtered - along with the cattle and anything else that breathes - because those pesky women and children will apparently teach the Israelites all of their abominable customs. I guess the persuasive power of infants and children is too much of a risk to keep them alive as slaves, so the only option is to slaughter them all. At least the Midianites weren't all destroyed, Moses allowed the soldiers to keep all of the girls who were virgins for themselves. No matter how you attempt to spin this, no matter what "context" you believe this should be viewed in, there is simply no way you can justify killing "everything that breathes" - especially when included amongst this are infants and young children - as moral. Moses ends the chapter by stating that when the Israelites are invading a city, that they are not to destroy any trees that bear fruit. They can build fortresses using trees that do not bear fruit until the fighting is done, but are not to harm any fruit bearing trees. |
Monday, October 26, 2009
NUMBERS: An Apologist Rebuttal
In Numbers Chapter 31 we read about two verses that are absolutely appalling, where Moses tells his army to kill every male child and every non-virgin woman, but that the soldiers could keep the virgin girls for themselves.
The verses in question are Numbers 31:17-18:
The verses in question are Numbers 31:17-18:
31:17 "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.I find both of these verses completely beyond any rational justification, so I was curious as to how biblical apologists attempt to defend these two verses. I have chosen to address why I strongly disagree with these arguments below:
31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."
Apologetics Press.OrgURL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/586The Killings of Numbers 31 by A.P. Staff The first five books of the Bible are full of stories of the conquest of Caanan. But one story that sometimes stands out in the minds of skeptics is the one found in Numbers 31, where God seemingly gives no reason for killing defenseless women and male children.Actually, it is Moses who calls for the killing of defenseless women and male children. This chapter does not state that this is explicitly a commandment or judgment from God, although it could be argued that when God commanded the Israelites to "vex the Midianites" in Numbers Chapter 25, perhaps he meant instead to "commit genocide upon the Midianites". Secondly, the problem I as a skeptic have, is not that God "gives no reason" (most of people realize why Moses commanded the killings) it's that I simply don't find this a moral or ethical justification for rape and murder. In addition, it has been suggested that the young girls mentioned in the account were spared so that the Israelite men could rape them.If this were not the case, there would be no reason to ensure that the girls were virgins ("have not known a man by lying with him"). What other possible reason could there be to make a stipulation that a person's life was dependent on their virginity and that soldiers were to "keep [the girls] alive for [them]selves"? Such accusations are baseless, however, as is evident when they are viewed in light of other related passages.They are not baseless. The argument is based on the facts that 1) Moses laid out a stipulation for the girls' survival - their virginity, and 2) that the soldiers were told that they were to keep the virgin girls for themselves. The most widely questioned section of Numbers 31 is verses 17-18: “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women-children, that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.”Agreed. This is the basis of my topic as well. To understand this passage, one must realize that Numbers 25 is the “prequel” to the events recorded in Numbers 31. Numbers 25 tells how the Midianites, specifically the women, led the Israelites astray into worshiping the Baal or Peor.This is incorrect. According to the first three verses of Numbers 25 it was the Moabites not the Midianites who "led the Israelites astray" into "worshiping Baal of Peor". Numbers 25:1-3 reads as follows: 25:1 "And Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab.Strangely, the rest of the chapter shifts its attention to the Midianites without explanation. It's a popular assumption among theologians that there's a possibility that the chapter is actually two separate stories merged together. The Lord’s anger burned against Israel, and He struck them with a plague. The plague ended when Phinehas, the grandson of Aaron, killed an Israelite man and the Midianite woman he brought into his family (Numbers 25:6-9). The relations with Midianite women were in direct violation of God’s commands in Deuteronomy 7:3-4: “[N]either shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For he will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of Jehovah be kindled against you, and he will destroy thee quickly.”This argument has two problems, the first being that Deuteronomy appears sequentially in the bible after the the book of Numbers. While it's a possibility that the bible could be out of sequence, or that this law was somehow known to the Israelites prior to the events in Numbers 25 there is no basis to support either explanation. Secondly, Moses' own wife Zipporah was a Midianite herself (see Exodus Chapter 2) and therefore Moses would in violation of this law himself. Therefore why did Phinehas not thrust a spear through Moses and Zipporah as well? As a result of these events, God instructed the Israelites to “Vex the Midianites, and smite them; for they vex you with their wiles, wherewith they have beguiled you in the matter of Peor, and in the matter of Cozbi, the daughter of the prince of Midian, their sister, who was slain on the day of the plague in the matter of Peor” (Numbers 25:17-18).I addressed this point in my thoughts on Numbers 25, and God is shifting the blame here. We're villainizing the Midianite women to partially excuse and soften the "sins" committed by the Israelites, because for some reason the Israelites apparently have no minds of their own and will do anything women from other cultures tell them too, even when it violates their own laws. When, in Numbers 31, the army brought back the women, it was in direct violation to God’s order in Numbers 25 to destroy the Midianites, who would lead the Israelites into apostasy.The apologist here is completely forgetting that we're also dealing with not just women but children. Even if we were to accept the apologist's point at face value, the virgin girls that Moses tells the soldiers to "keep for themselves" would also be a "direct violation to God’s order in Numbers 25". But how can we explain the destruction of the young boys? Why were they not spared along with the young girls?God does not seem very concerned about the deaths of male children as evidenced by the story of the Egyptian plagues in Exodus Chapter 11. Skeptics read of events such as the conquest of Canaan, and contend that no God could be so cruel as to call for the destruction of an entire nation.No, you're completely missing the point. If we can assume for the sake of argument that god(s) exist, then there is absolutely no argument why such a god couldn't exhibit cruelty - even if he himself claims to be "merciful". All sorts of tyrannical rulers have had inflated egos and distorted self images, and many of the people being ruled by them go along with the charade in a variant sort of Stockholm Syndrome. One only needs to examine 1930's Germany to see that Hitler had overwhelming public support despite the tyranny of his regime. The problem is that I simply don't agree that the god of the bible is either "loving" or "merciful" when those attributes are in direct contradiction to his depiction in the bible. I have no problem with saying that God is cruel, I have more of a problem defining him as "loving" and "merciful". The mere idea of the God of heaven ordering the death of women and innocent children so outraged infidel Thomas Paine...I had to interrupt here due to the humor I find in this apologist calling one of the Founding Fathers of the United States (who many evangelical christians claim founded this country on christianity) an "infidel". ...that he said such a scenario was sufficient evidence in and of itself to cause him to reject the divine origin of the Bible (1795, p. 90).(p. 95 on Google Books)Upon finding a copy of Thomas Paine's book "Age of Reason" on Google Books, I have failed to see where this apparent "fact" (the above reference corresponds to page 95 on the Google Books document) is derived from. For the sake of argument, I would agree that using the reason that "God is cruel" would not be a valid argument for not believing in the "divine origin" of the bible. There are much more compelling and stronger arguments for reaching the conclusion that the bible is man-made. However, insinuating that "the infidel" Thomas Paine does not believe in the bible's authenticity simply because he doesn't like the way God acts, is using a strawman argument to make Thomas Paine's argument seem ridiculous. It doesn't surprise me to see an apologist stoop to such a ridiculous argument and resort to name calling to further villainize their opposition. In fact, he condemned the Bible for its alleged moral atrocities,I would have to agree with our Founding Father on this point. and even went so far as to blame the Bible for virtually every moral injustice ever committed. He wrote:(p. 190 on Google Books)Claiming that Paine was blaming "the bible" for "virtually every moral injustice ever committed" is quite a bit of a stretch. In the above quote he is neither singling out the bible, nor is he encompassing "virtually every moral injustice". In the above quote he is speaking of the moral injustices specifically that plagued Europe, which mostly were fueled by religious atrocities. However, to allege that the God of the Bible is some sort of “monster” for ordering Israel to destroy the inhabitants of Canaan exhibits an ignorance of biblical teaching.To justify the killing of children except for the female virgins, which we can keep for ourselves against their will, exhibits a complete lack of an understanding of morality. Those inhabitants were destroyed because of their wickedness (Deuteronomy 9:4; 18:9-14). They were so evil that their Creator no longer could abide their corruption.Yes, because we know that according to the bible everything is measured in absolutes - this entire nation over here is entirely good, and that nation over there is entirely bad. No bad people live in the good nation, and no good people live in the bad nation. This is an asinine outlook that has no semblance to reality. That they had numerous opportunities to repent is evident from the prophetic books (Nineveh did repent, for example, and for a time stayed the day of destruction).I find this to be a weak argument that God and/or the Israelites had any cares as to whether any of the surrounding tribes "repented" or not. God's commandments as they appear in the bible condoning slavery, mass killings, and beatings never are excepted with a line that says "unless they repent". Complaining about Jehovah’s order to destroy innocent children is a vain gesture when one realizes that the children were spared an even worse fate of being reared as slaves under the domination of sin.And just who says that death is a better fate than slavery? If one were to put up a poll and give an entire nation a choice of either euthanasia or a life in slavery, how many do you truly believe would choose to be killed to spare themselves from a life of slavery? Instead of having to endure the scourge of a life of immorality and wickedness, these innocents were ushered early into the bliss of Paradise.If it was such a blessing to be "ushered early into the bliss of Paradise" why not kill the virgin girls as well, or is it more of a blessing to marry them off to rapists? If the male children had been allowed to mature, they most likely would have followed the pagan ways of their forefathers, and eventually would have taken vengeance on the Israelites."Most likely"? If they were allowed to live amongst the Israelites, what chance would they even have at being exposed to the "pagan ways" of their fathers? So it's morally ethical to kill people on the assumption of what "possibly" could happen? Killing the males not only prevented them from falling into the same abominable sins as their parents, but also kept Israel from having to battle them later.How can we be certain that their parents were "abominable sinners" and not apostates in their own "pagan ways"? We're simply supposed to believe in biblical absolutes, I suppose, in order to justify our preventative killing of children who *might* grow up to be our enemies. Man hardly can blame God and His Word for the awful consequences of sin;Sure we can, just the same as we can blame any leader, dictator, ruler, or king for the consequences of their unjust and sadistic laws. When we hear about a woman being stoned to death in the Middle East for the "crime" of being a rape victim, we certainly can blame the people who made this law and those that enforce it. rather, he has only himself to blame (Romans 3:23; 5:12).Children are not to blame for where they were born and who they were born to. A parent who warns a child of the consequences of disobedience, threatens an appropriate punishment,The problem with this analogy is using an "appropriate punishment". and then is true to his word at the event of infraction, generally is considered to be a firm-but-loving parent by clear-thinking people.The problem here is that the analogy is flawed and does not fit with the context of the story. A more appropriate analogy would be: A parent who was warned about the consequences of committing a crime, was made aware of the criminal penalty, and then when commits a crime, is greeted with the police breaking down his door and shooting his entire family - except for his virgin pre-teen daughter whom the police chief takes home with him to make her his wife. Yet, critics ask us to view God as some type of ogre for following the same course of action.Again, the apologist analogy is not the same course of action - nor is it even close - to the one God has taken. The discrepancy is not with the Almighty, but with His cowering critics.I would argue that the discrepancy is actually with the apologist who can't make a proper analogy. The allegation that the Israelite men spared the young girls in order to rape them is nothing but baseless supposition predicated upon a lack of biblical knowledge.Because obviously there's absolutely nothing telling in Moses' statement that only the virgin girls would be allowed to live. In the custom of the time, marriages were conducted at a young age. Therefore, the reference to the young girls who had not “known man by lying with him” would indicate that they were very young, likely under the age of twelve.This assumption is reaching. The way it is written is that it simply means "a virgin". If God wanted only twelve year old girls and younger to be spared, he surely could have stated that. These girls were too young to be able to lead the men of Israel away from Jehovah; therefore, these girls were allowed to live.Virginity has nothing to do with a woman's ability to manipulate people, nor to a degree, would her age. As to raping them, it is more logical to assume that they wanted these girls for servants.It is not logical to assume that the Israelites wanted these girls "for servants", when they specifically were spared on the basis of their virginity and not their age, or another more reasonable factor. Secondly, foreign "servants" were not by any means servants, they were slaves. In Leviticus 25:44-46 the following verses make it clear God's laws on enslaving surrounding "heathen" nations: 25:44 "Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.Trying to soften the image of slavery into "servitude" also contradicts what Exodus 21:20-21 has to say about how you can beat your slaves: 21:20 "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.So, it is perfectly okay to beat your slaves to death as long as they don't die right away in a day or two after the beating. You won't receive any punishment because they're "your money" (your property). Third, why weren't these female children "spared an even worse fate of being reared as slaves" and instead of allowing "these innocents" to be "ushered early into the bliss of Paradise"? This would be similar to Joshua 9, where Joshua allowed the Gibeonites to live in compelled servitude to the Israelites.Joshua Chapter 9 makes a very bad case for attempting to downplay slavery as "servitude", as evidenced in Joshua 9:23. 9:23 "Now therefore ye are cursed, and there shall none of you be freed from being bondmen, and hewers of wood and drawers of water for the house of my God." Moreover, it would have been sinful for the Israelite men to rape the Midianite girls because rape was (and still is) abhorrent to God (Deuteronomy 22:23-28, esp. 25).Deuteronomy 22:23-28 treats rape a lot differently then the apologist would like us to believe. Verses 23 through 27 deal solely with a woman who is engaged to be married, which the Midianite girls obviously wouldn't be - at least to any suitor that is alive that is. Verses 23-24 state that both the rapist and the engaged to be married, virgin, rape victim must be punished by mean of being stoned to death if the rape occurs in the city and the victim didn't cry loud enough: 22:23 "If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;This has more to do with the "crime" of depriving a husband of his right to consummate his marriage than it does with punishing rapists, which is why the victim is to be stoned to death along with her rapist. Verses 25-27 deal with a woman being raped out in the field where only the rapist is to be killed, simply because there wouldn't be a way to judge whether the woman screamed out or not, thereby proving whether the sex was consensual or not: 22:25 "But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.Verses 28 and 29 deal with rape in the sense in which it would apply more closely to the Midianite girls, assuming they were to be given the rights of an Israeli woman. Not surprisingly the apologist doesn't include verse 29 in his references which clearly states how to handle a rapist and his victim if the victim is not engaged to be married to anyone: 22:28 "If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;Yes, this is what the bible says about a woman who is not engaged to anyone who gets raped - she gets the privilege of becoming her attacker's wife, and her attacker simply has to pay 50 shekels to her father. That's quite a different point of view on rape than what the apologist was attempting to portray these verses to mean. The simple answer to the questions surrounding Numbers 31 is that God ordered the Midianites to be killed in Numbers 25:17-18. When the army did not carry out this order at the time of the Midianite defeat, it was carried out in a delayed fashion when the army returned with the captives.This is an attempt to shift the question into why were the prisoners of war killed, and away from what the real question is - how do we justify the killing of innocent children? As to Moses allowing the young girls to remain alive, that was a judgment call from the man with God’s authority over the Israelites.A "judgment call" that hinges on whether a woman has retained her virginity or not. God is the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and all-righteous “I Am” Who is over all things—These are baseless attributes that the bible contradicts in many chapters. I've dealt with many arguments in previous chapters about problems with God's "omniscience" and "omnipresence" and therefore I'd rather not side track from the main point of this rebuttal. so He may do whatever He wishes,This argument from apologists always bugs me. With this baseless argument we can justify God's mass genocides, his demands to Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac, and all sorts of immoral acts "just because he's God and he can do what he wants". This is not a logical argument at all. [He may do whatever He wishes,] so long as it is not in violation of His character.And what may I ask is a violation of "his character"? If he has limits on his actions, that would also shoot a gaping hole in the claim of God being omnipotent. However, God does everything for a reason. Sometimes that reason may be unclear to us.The better argument would be that the "reason" has probably been lost due to the change of the human culture of the bronze age human authors of the bible. In the case of the destruction of people like the Canaanites, God’s reasoning had to do with His justice.More likely "God's reasoning" probably served as a fictional rationalization story to justify the ancient Hebrew's military conquests of other lands. Deuteronomy 32:3-4 records: “For I will proclaim the name of Jehovah: Ascribe ye greatness unto our God. The Rock, his work is perfect; For all his ways are justice: A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, Just and right is he” (emp. added).Just because the bible gives God certain attributes doesn't mean that contradictions are impossible - in fact, there are quite a number of contradictions about God's attributes throughout the bible. Men may not always understand God’s justice, or His reasons for exercising it as He does.Not understanding someone's reasoning does not justify their actions. I have no idea why Germany embraced the Nazi Party and antisemitism over seventy years ago, that doesn't justify what happened simply because I don't understand why people went along with it - their actions were still immoral. As Job 4:17 asked: “Shall mortal man be more just than God? Shall a man be more pure than his Maker?” (emp. added).If the bible is to be the means by which to measure God's morality, then yes, I would argue that many - and in fact most - mortal men are far more moral than the character of God in the bible. The fact is, God does condone killing—in the name of justice (whether it be justice in regard to one person, or a whole nation).Most moral people can agree that condoning killing and raping children is not what defines "justice". Even in modern times, the death penalty is an acceptable means of administering justice (Romans 13:1-7; cf. Genesis 9:6).Speaking from personal opinion, I do not find the death penalty to be "an acceptable means of administering justice". There are flaws in our justice system because humans cannot be perfect in our judgment, and allowing the possibility of even one innocent person to be executed due to our very human flaws of occasionally making mistakes - even if it is a rare occurrence - is a position I cannot support. While God is all loving,I find it impossible to classify God as he is presented in the bible as "all loving" for a plethora of reasons. He also is a God of justice, and He will execute that justice in the most propitious manner—including by means of death.I certainly wouldn't call immolating priests for using the wrong fire when lighting incense, then threatening the surviving family members not to grieve over their deaths, on the threat of killing them as well very "propitious" or "just". REFERENCES |
Sunday, October 25, 2009
NUMBERS: Chapter 31
| Chapter 31 | |
| Summary: | God speaks to Moses telling him to seek vengeance upon the Midianites, and in turn Moses speaks to the people of Israel and tells them to arm themselves for war against the land of Midian. Moses commands that each tribe of Israel conscripts 1,000 soldiers to send to war. Moses sent them to war - a thousand from every tribe - led by Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, carrying "holy instruments" and trumpets. The Israelites battled the Midianites and slew all of the males. They slew the five kings of Midian - Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba - as well as Balaam the prophet who they slew with the sword. The Israelites took all of the Midianite women and children captive; took the spoils of their cattle, flocks, and goods; and burnt their cities and castles to the ground. The Israelite soldiers brought the captives and their war spoils before Moses and Eleazar, and before the congregation of the people of Israel camped on the plains of Moab by the Jordan River near Jericho. Moses however was angry with the officers of the army which emerged from battle. Moses asked them why they had let the Midianite women live, stating that these are the very women that followed Balaam's advice and committed trespass against God in the matter of Peor and caused God to send a plague amongst the Israelites*. Moses tells them: 31:17 "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him."Moses adds that they are to keep all of the virgin female children ("that have not known a man by lying with him") for themselves. Moses instructs that anyone who had killed a person in battle or had touched a dead body must reside outside of the camp for seven days, purifying themselves and their captives on the third and seventh days. Also to be purified are all garments and anything made from leather, goat's hair, or wood. Eleazar then spoke to the soldiers, speaking an ordinance of the law of which God gave to Moses. He tells the soldiers that every metal that can withstand fire - gold, silver, brass, iron, tin, and lead - shall be passed through fire to purify it, and then further purified with the "water of separation". Anything that cannot withstand the flames must be purified with the water alone. He finishes by telling them to wash their clothes on the seventh day, and they shall then be "clean" and allowed to return to the camp. God then speaks to Moses telling him and Eleazar to take a total of all of the spoils the soldiers had looted - both people and animal - and divide them into two parts. Half is to go to the soldiers, and half is to go to the rest of the people of Israel. He tells Moses further, that the half belonging to the soldiers is to be taxed - where one out of every 500 captive, ox, donkey, and sheep is to "belong to God" and is to be given to Eleazar for a "heave offering". Out of the half belonging to the people of Israel, one portion out of fifty (2 percent) is to be given to the Levites who keep charge of the tabernacle. Moses and Eleazar did as God commanded, and the total booty was:
Moses and Eleazar took the jewelry from the military leaders and found its value to be worth 16,750 shekels. Moses and Eleazar took the gold to the tabernacle for a memorial for the people of Israel before God. |
| Notes: | 1.) According to Numbers Chapter 25 it was the Moabite women not the Midianite women who were responisble for the incident at Mount Peor. 2.) It is unclear whether the 32 virgins became human sacrifices, or were given to the Levites to rape. |
| Thoughts: | Apparently God isn't through with the Midianites after their last encounter with the people of Israel in Chapter 25 and tells Moses that he wants to seek revenge on them. He tells Moses to mobilize an army to attack the Midianites in their home land. Moses gathers 1,000 troops from each tribe and sends them to war, appointing Phinehas (Eleazar's son who brutally killed an Israelite for bringing a Midianite woman into the camp, impaling them both together with a spear) to lead the armies with his "holy instruments" and trumpets. The Israelites triumphed in battle and slew all of the males, including the five kings of Midian, and even the prophet Balaam - although the fate of his talking donkey is uncertain. The Israelites took all of the Midianite women and children captive and looted their cattle, flocks, and goods before burning their cities and castles to the ground. The Israelite soldiers returned to camp and were met by Moses and Eleazar in the plains of Moab. Moses however was furious with the officers of the army when he found that they had let the Midianite women live stating that they had "commit[ted] trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor", causing a plague amongst the Israelites. This is not corroborated by the story in Numbers Chapter 25 as it appears in the bible. The bible clearly implicates the Moabite women in the "matter of Peor", and the "cause" of the plague is not specified at all - only that Phineas' slaying of a Midianite woman caused the plague to stop - after killing 24,000 Israelites. It's also not explained as to how or whether Balaam encouraged the women to "commit trespass" to begin with. Moses follows this up with perhaps one of the most vile and immoral verses contained in the bible: 31:17 "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him."The verse that follows actually more repulsive and disgusting: 31:18 "But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.."What Moses is saying here is for the soldier to kill every woman and male child - except for the virgin girls which the soldiers can keep for themselves. Yes, this is the same Moses whom the bible describes as the "meekest man on earth", stating that it's okay to murder women and children prisoners of war, unless you find some virgin girls amongst the bunch, then you can keep them for yourself as sex partners against their will. These two verse are so appalling and inexcusable that I had to go searching for some apologetic answers to them, to which I will be following up and rebutting in the following post. There is simply no way to excuse these two verses as anything but barbaric, disgusting, and immoral, there is just no context in which that behavior can be justified - period. Moses then makes every soldier who killed in battle or touched a corpse reside outside of the camp for a week to purify themselves, reminding them that they'd have to purify themselves and their captives (i.e. the virgin girls they were allowed to Eleazar then addresses the soldiers, telling them that any metal that they looted that can withstand fire will have to be passed through flames to purify it, and then further be purified with the bizarre "water of separation" ritual described in Numbers Chapter 19. Anything that can't withstand flame will simply have to be washed in the "water of separation" alone. He finished up by telling the soldiers to wash their clothes on the seventh day of their exile, and that they'll be "clean" and allowed to return to the camp after that. God then tells Moses and Eleazar to count up all of the spoils that the soldiers looted from the Midianites and to divide them up in half. One half is to go to the soldiers who did the looting, and the other is to go to the people of Israel, but before Moses ponies out the riches, God wants his cut. He taxes the soldiers cut a mere .20% - where one out of every 500 ox, donkey, sheep, or virgin is to "belong to God" - or more aptly, is given to Eleazar for a "heave offering". Out of the people's half, a 2% tax is levied upon them with the spoils going to the Levites. The bible gives us the totals of each half's take (675,000 sheep; 72,000 oxen; 61,000 donkeys; and 32,000 virgin girls) and what percentages are "God's portion" - where curiously it isn't explained what happens to the virgins in "God's portion". Priests are forbidden from marrying foreign women, so they couldn't have become Eleazar's concubines, so either they were just passed off for others to rape or they might have been human sacrifices(?) - the bible isn't clear here. The military leaders then decide to present Moses and Eleazar with a donation to the tabernacle of some of the gold jewelry they had looted, pointing out that not a single soldier was lost or killed in battle. Moses and Eleazar happily took the 16,750 shekels worth of gold and stashed it inside the tabernacle for a memorial for the people of Israel before God. |
Thursday, March 12, 2009
GENESIS: Chapters 34 & 35
| Chapter 34 | ||
| Summary: | Leah's daughter* Dinah went out to visit some of the neighborhood girls. When Shechem, son of King Hamor the Hivite, saw Dinah he decides to rape her. He fell deeply in love with her afterward and tried to win her affection. Shechem then pleaded with his father King Hamor to help him acquire Dinah's hand in marriage*. Word soon reached Jacob*, but since his sons were out in the fields working, he did nothing until their return. Meanwhile King Hamor went to speak with Jacob, arriving just as Jacob's sons returned from the fields. Hamor told Jacob that Shechem was in love with Dinah and asked for Jacob's permission for them to marry. He continued on to invite Jacob's family to live amongst them and intermarry their sons and daughters between them. Shechem then addressed Jacob and his sons, begging them to let him marry Dinah, offering to pay whatever dowry they requested. The brothers then lied to Hamor and Shechem telling them that due to family customs - that Shechem was not circumcised - they could not allow their sister to marry Shechem, however if King Hamor would get every male in his kingdom circumcised, that they would happily intermarry and become one people. King Hamor and his son Shechem wasted no time in convincing the men of the kingdom to undergo circumcision, and soon after had the entire male population circumcised. However, three days later when the men's wounds were sore and sensitive to every move they made, Jacob's sons Simeon and Levi entered the city and slaughtered every man there, including Hamor and Shechem. They rescued Dinah from Shechem's house and later all of Jacob's sons returned to the city to plunder it in retaliation for their sister's dishonor. They confiscated everything and took the women and children as their slaves. Jacob then scolded Levi and Simeon denouncing their actions and exclaiming that they themselves were too few to fight off the Canaanites and Perizzites seeking revenge. Levi and Simeon questioned their father's scolding by claiming that Dinah was treated as a prostitute. | |
| Notes: | 1.) Interesting to note that Dinah is mentioned as lineage from Leah, instead of Jacob (Israel). 2.) Unlike Jacob and Leah's technical non-consensual sex that married them, Shechem's raping Dinah did not consummate a marriage for some reason. 3.) Still yet to be referred to as Israel since being renamed in Chapter 32. | |
| Thoughts: | What constitutes marriage in biblical times can be difficult to follow. Jacob had non-consensual sex with Leah (he thought he was sleeping with Rachel) and was then considered married back in Chapter 29. Perhaps because Jacob's dowry was paid in full (by working for his Uncle Laban for seven years) a rape is not considered to have happened, and probably even more so that women raping men probably "didn't count" as rape either - such as Lot's daughters and their misadventures with their father in Chapter 19. However, we see that - at least according to Jacob's sons - raping a girl entitles the victim's family to slaughter an entire city, plunder the wealth, and to enslave the surviving women and children. God doles out no punishment to Simeon or Levi, nor towards Jacob (who has still yet to be called by his new name of Israel), even though Jacob seems a bit angry with his sons for endangering them to the rest of the Canaanite and Perizzite people. | |
| Chapter 35 | ||
| Summary: | God tells Jacob to move on and settle in Bethel, and to also build an altar to worship "the God that appeared to (him)" when he fled from Esau. Jacob instructed all those in his household to destroy their idols that they had brought with them, and to wash themselves and put on fresh clothes. They gave all of their idols and earrings to Jacob, who buried them beneath an oak tree near Shechem. As they started off again, the terror of God was upon all the cities they journeyed through, and they were not attacked. Finally they arrived in Luz (also called Bethel) in Canaan. Jacob erected an altar and named it "The altar to the God of Bethel". Soon after, Rebekah's old nurse Deborah died and was buried beneath the oak tree in the valley below Bethel, which has been since called "The Oak of Weeping". Upon Jacob's arrival at Bethel, God appeared to him once again and blessed him. He tells Jacob that he will no longer be called Jacob* (meaning "Grabber") but Israel (meaning "One who prevails from God"). God repeats his vows to Jacob to make him a great nation with many descendants, with many kings amongst those descendants. He continues on to tell Jacob/Israel that he will pass on the land to him that he had given to Abraham and Isaac as well. Jacob builds a stone pillar at the place where God appeared to him, pours wine over it as an offering to God, and then anoints it with olive oil. Leaving Bethel, Jacob and his household traveled on toward Ephrath (later Bethlehem), but Rachel's pains of childbirth began before they got there. After a difficult delivery she delivered a son, and with her dying breath named him "Ben-oni" (meaning "Son of my sorrow"); but his father called him "Benjamin" (meaning "Son of my right hand"). Rachel was then buried near the road to Ephrath, and Jacob set up a monument of stones upon her grave. Israel/Jacob journeyed on and camped beyond the Tower of Eder. While he was there, his son Reuben slept with Bilhah (Rachel's slave, and his father's concubine), and someone later told Israel about it. For good measure and a recap, the chapter lists the twelve sons of Israel:
| |
| Notes: | 1.) It is unclear as to why this has to be repeated again, as it is certainly clear that Jacob recognized the Man from Chapter 32 as God, as he names the place where they wrestle "Peniel" (meaning "The Face of God"). 2.) This is not a typo. The bible lists Isaac's actual age at death as 180 years old. | |
| Thoughts: | Another chapter that seems to be a bit disorganized and messy. There's a lot of confusing interchangeable names (Bethel and Luz are the same town, as are Jacob and Israel the same person), a list thrown towards the end of the chapter (which lists the names of the sons that we should already know had we've been reading since Chapter 29 with the birth of Leah's first four sons), God giving Jacob his new name of Israel for the second time, and the mention of Rebekah's slave Deborah's death (to whom we were never introduced) for seemingly little reason. Rachel dies during childbirth bearing Jacob's/Israel's final son Benjamin (who also got a second name from his dying mom, "Ben-oni" - but apparently Jacob/Israel didn't care enough for it, renaming him "Benjamin") while Reuben (Jacob's/Israel's oldest son) gets it on with Rachel's slave-girl Bilhah. Isaac finally kicks the bucket at a nice round age of 180 and is buried by Jacob/Israel and his brother Esau. | |
Friday, March 6, 2009
GENESIS: Chapters 18 & 19
| Chapter 18 | ||
| Summary: | Abraham sat at the opening of his tent when he saw three men approaching him. He sprang to his feet to welcome them and insisted that they stop to rest while he fetched them some food and some water to soak their feet. Abraham ran back to his tent telling Sarah to make some cakes using her best flour, and then ran of to one of his shepherds telling him to slaughter the fattest calf he could find. He brought the three men some milk, cheese, and fresh veal and sat beside them as they ate. The three men asked him, "Where is your wife, Sarah?" To which Abraham replied that she was in the tent*. God then tells Abraham (God had taken the form of one of these three men - the other two being angels - to visit with Abraham) that he will give him and Sarah a son next year, which made Sarah who was overhearing the conversation laugh. God asked why Sarah was laughing and proclaimed that nothing was impossible for God, and repeated that Sarah and Abraham would be given a son next year. Sarah out of fear claimed that she didn't laugh, but God called her out on her lie. The three men then rose and began heading off toward the city of Sodom, with Abraham in tow. God debates on whether he should tell Abraham his plan, and then informs Abraham that he is headed to the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah - as he has heard that the people there are utterly evil - and that he wants to know if those reports are true or not. While the two angels headed towards Sodom, God hangs back for a while with Abraham.
In an exchange sounding more like a Marx Brothers routine than a divinely written passage, Abraham haggles further lowering the number incrementally from 45, to 40, to 30, to 20, to 10, each time with God answering that he would spare the city if he found the said amount of godly people. God then went on his way to Sodom while Abraham returned to his tent. | |
| Notes: | 1.) It's unclear whether or not by this point if (or when for that matter) Abraham recognized the three men as being God accompanied by two angels. Abraham's nonchalant manner seems to imply he may have understood by this point, but the meal offering seems bizarre in this context. | |
| Thoughts: | There's a lot of strange things going on in this chapter that are puzzling. As noted above in my footnotes, exactly when does Abraham realize that the three men he sees walking towards him are in fact God accompanied by a pair of angels? If he does recognize them from the onset, why does he choose to feed them and fetch some water for their feet? If he doesn't catch on right away does he figure it out when God asks where Sarah is? If not, why doesn't he inquire as to how this man knows his wife's name? What about Sarah's reaction considering she overheard at least part of this conversation, if not all of it? As far as has been shown in Genesis so far Sarah has never spoken to God directly, so how did she figure out who these "men" really were? The other troubling thing is again we have another paradox with God not being omniscient and omnipresent as he is physically scoping out the city of Sodom to figure out whether the reports(?) he's heard about the wickedness of the people is true or not. The "Marx Brothers" routine also poses a problem in the context of the flood story when we have to assume that at least one - if not many - infant and/or child existed during the time, and Abraham makes an outstanding point as to what would be the purpose (and the fairness) of treating the "godly" (or innocent) the same as the "wicked" (or the guilty)? To take things to an even more literal level, God also stated that Noah was the only righteous person alive. So did he not spare some of the wicked by sparing Noah's wife, Ham, Shem, and Japheth - thereby treating some of the wicked the same as Noah, the only godly one? | |
| Chapter 19 | ||
| Summary: | The two angels arrived at the gates of Sodom that evening and Lot was sitting there while they arrived. When he saw them he stood up to welcome them and invited them to stay the night with him at his home. Although the angels declined, Lot persisted until they agreed and made a great feast for them when they arrived. When the meal was over and they were preparing to retire for the night they found that Lot's house had been surrounded by all the men of the city - young and old alike. The Sodomites shouted to Lot demanding that he bring out his two guests, as they wished to rape them (the angels).
The Sodomites refused to be swayed and threatened to do worse to Lot than with the two house guests. As they lunged at Lot and started to break down the door, the angels pulled him into the house, bolted the door behind him, and blinded the Sodomites to prevent them from finding the door. The angels instructed Lot to get his family out of the city as they explained to Lot their intentions to destroy the city as commanded by God. Lot rushed out to warn his daughter's fiancees, but the young men didn't believe him. At dawn the angels became urgent towards Lot to take his family and flee, and when he hesitated they grabbed the hands of Lot, his wife, and his daughters and rushed them to safety telling them to flee for their lives. The angels told them to flee to the mountains and to not look back towards the city. Lot protested fearing disaster in the mountains and pointed to a small village off in the distance, begging for the angels to let him go there instead. The angels agreed to let Lot and his family escape to the village, which from that point on was named Zoar, meaning "Little City").  God then rained down fire and flaming tar upon the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, utterly destroying them along with other cities in the plains, eliminating all life - people, plants, and animals alike. Lot's wife was apparently unable to resist the temptation of looking back towards the city and in retaliation, God turned her into a pillar of salt. Abraham awoke early in the morning and rushed out towards the place where he had spoken to God previously and looking across the plains, witnessed columns of smoke and fumes where the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah once stood. Afterwards Lot left Zoar fearing the inhabitants there and fled to live in a cave with his two daughters. Lot's oldest daughter complained to her sister that there wasn't a man anywhere in the area that their father would let them marry, while adding that their father would also be too old for having children soon, and hatched a plan to get their father drunk and rape him so that (hopefully) their blood line would continue. So they proceeded to get their father drunk enough to have sex with the older daughter and not remember the experience, while the younger girl did the same the following night.  Both girls became pregnant and gave birth to their father's sons - Moab, the son of the eldest daughter became the ancestor of the Moabites, while Benammi, the son of the younger daughter became the ancestor of the Ammonites. | |
| Thoughts: | There's no question that there is quite a lot to digest here in this chapter. On perhaps suggestion from and the relation to Abraham, we are lead to believe that Lot is the only true virtuous man in the entire city of Sodom. He invites and insists that our angelic travelers stay the night with him and prepares an enormous feast for them in celebration. However, while it is the author's intention to make Lot look honorable and godly by protecting his angelic company, the ball gets dropped completely when we read that he's willing to offer up his own virgin daughters to the sex crazed mob outside. His own daughters. Who are unmarried. Virgins. To every man in Sodom. To do what ever they want to them. Now I can just hear the religious apologists chiming in here, with "You have to understand that things were very different back in biblical times, and that things like beating pregnant women, men being misogynist pigs, women being considered property, and having (as well as beating) slaves was perfectly acceptable 3,000 years ago." Quite frankly, despite the fact that I find all of the above mentioned pretty sick, I think any rational person has to draw the line at a father offering his two virgin daughters to a pack of sex-crazy rapists. Perhaps you can theorize that maybe Lot offered his daughters up for a free-for-all as perhaps he knew that the townsfolk outside were only interested in raping men, but still - God turns Lot's wife into a pillar of salt for simply looking back at the destruction of the cities, and completely disregards Lot's deplorable solicitation of the virginities of both of his daughters to a pack of rapists? Back to Lot's wife, I find it awfully strange that neither Lot or his daughters turned back after noticing that mom was no longer running beside them and possibly become turned into pillars of salt themselves. Finally the chapter winds down with a bit of rape, incest, and drunkenness on behalf of Lot's daughters who somehow manage the near impossible task of getting a man drunk enough to sustain an erection, be able to ejaculate, and not remember anything in the morning - two nights in a row! | |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)