Possibly killing ones parents
Well, okay, the author screws up here and elsewhere. Not the best site to point to. In the future I’ll probably link to individual articles by Farrell Till.
In Biblical times, rape was considered to be a crime of property–theft of a Hebrew man’s right to control the sexuality of his wife and unmarried daughters. “Rape” as we know it did not exist.
Please note that I’m not saying they weren’t full of shit on the issue.
I think what Lynn may be thinking of is this:
There are those who do not consider this rape.The technical term for such commentators is contemptible fuckwits who would be well-served by a vigorous ass-kicking, delivered one should hope by Xena, or possibly that blonde vampire slayer chick. Actually any strong woman would do.
As so often in the OT, the precepts have to be seen against the background of a very nasty bronze/iron age reality; generally, victors in war could (and did) do anything they wanted to captives. Imposing rules on the process is, basically, a step up from having no rules; at least according to this, you weren’t allowed to simply rape the person on the spot and sell her for a slave or prostitute if you didn’t like her.
Naturally, sanctioning the rape and forced marriage of war captives sounds harsh, immoral and pimitive to us, but the alternative at the time wasn’t a modern, liberal system of human rights for captives - it was rape, murder and/or slavery.
(Of course that raises the question of whether these rules were ever actually obeyed. There is no evidence either way but my guess is that they were more hopeful than anything, like most pre-modern or even modern attempts to reign in wartime violence to acceptable minimums).
Doesn’t defending these things as being normal in their historical/cultural context simply concde the point that the books of the Bible are human creations, not Divine ones. Wouldn’t God be able to rise above historical/cultural context?
I’m not sure how to respond to this, but that’s never stopped me before.
The first thing that occurs to me is that, of course, the Hebrew conquest fo Canaan about as historical as Herakles’ conquest of the Amazons; both that narrative and that of the Exodus were written long after the time they purport to chronicle and serve as a unifying myth for the Canaanite tribes who evolved into the Jewish people. Thus there’s hardly any point in debating whether the Israelites acted morally or immorally in their conquest of Canaan; it’s kind of like debating whether Herakles was an asshole who does not deserve to be glorified by Kevin Sorbo.
But some people take these stories as literally true. That, I think, is perilous, and does require that others point out that the values expressed in some parts of the cycle are repugnant and deserve only scorn (just as the values expressed in other parts of the cycle are praiseworthy and merit emulation). So yes, I will point out that the strictures and commands in the verses I quoted are pretty much equivalent to rape by civilized standards.
Stop being smarter and more concise than me, Dio. It’s annoying.
Well, of course they are human creations. I’m not a theist.
I’m merely pointing out that it makes no sense to charge the OT with immorality. In its way, it was an attempt to redress existing immorality; naturally, it is not as morally, ethically or philosophically evolved as the current consensus - which is in no small part derived from it, but which, by virtue of greater sophistication, transcends it.
Rather than saying the Bible should be condemned as “immoral,” I would just say that it’s all but impossible to argue for it as a reliable moral guide.
Those who believe in the literal truth of the Bible are probably unreachable by such tactics.
Certainly, the verses are equivalent to rape by modern, civilized standards. Anyone who literally attempted to apply them today would be guilty, no question.
For the vast majority of believers who are not literalists, I suspect your attack would fall flat, for the reasons outlined. The Bible is not encouraging rape; rather, it is attempting, in a hesitant and limited way, to grope towards the notion that the losers in war have some rights - you may rape, but only by following the rules, which impose all sorts of safeguards. Still horrible, but less so that the situation that would, without the OT, be in place.
Sure there is. It’s called cherry-picking. 
Yes, but I enjoy making such persons uncomfortable, and for some stupid reason punching them is illegal.
For one, it does not speak with one “voice”, but with many. That does not mean that there are no useful lessons to be derived from an intelligent, critical reading of the text.
Way I look at it is that it forms a starting-point in time for the analysis of Western morality. It is in its own way the partial, encapsulated account of a people groping towards the notion of morality - starting with very primitive beginnings, a nomadic tribe’s duties towards a rather nasty tribal diety.
You’re not thinking this through-we’re not asking whether certain actions are legal or not, we’re asking if you can justify these actions using the Bible.
I’m pretty sure you can use the bible to justify punching somebody. First, assume they’re an idolator…
Fool of a Took, blah blah blah.
OT : this is a beautiful line. Mind if I make a sig out of it ?
Feel free. It’s not like 14% of my wisecracks aren’t stolen in the first place.
It’s not the stealing of quotes that bugs me-it’s the fact that you make up 38.7% of your statistics.
That is a filthy lie. I make up well over 56% of my statistics.
The usual threats. I think it’s ravenous otters this week.