We began part 1 by considering the issue of a, sadly, typical trend amongst atheists who are generally given to lack of skepticism. They seem to think that skepticism amounts to typing an anti-theistic slogan into a search engine, copying the first hyperlink that appears, posting it as a comment to a blog and saying, “Answer that believer!”
It is of the utmost importance to repeat that when considering any and every atheist condemnation of any action they are expressing personal opinions about the act(s) they are condemning. They are merely telling you their personal preferences in the form of morality borrowed from the Judeo-Christian worldview. They are piling unfounded assertion, upon unfounded assertion, upon unfounded assertion, and building a tel of arguments from outrage, arguments from personal incredulity, arguments for embarrassment, etc.
Let us come to the first quote which is from Judges 21:10-24 let us glean the relevant portions:
So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead_”This is what you are to do,” they said. “Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin.” Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.
The Israelite assembly sent a peace delegation to the little remnant of Benjamin who were living at the rock of Rimmon. Then the men of Benjamin returned to their homes, and the four hundred women of Jabesh-gilead who were spared were given to them as wives. But there were not enough women for all of them_
They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, “Go and hide in the vineyards. When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife! And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, ‘Please be understanding. Let them have your daughters, for we didn’t find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.’” So the men of Benjamin did as they were told. They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance.
The title to this section was “Murder, rape, and pillage at Jabesh-gilead” and the commentary that followed stated,
Obviously these women were repeatedly raped. These sick bastards killed and raped an entire town and then wanted more virgins, so they hid beside the road to kidnap and rape some more. How can anyone see this as anything but evil?
Besides pointing out the unfounded assertions and the emotive arguments from fill in the blank it is noteworthy that on the general atheist view the commentary is deeply erroneous and should have made it clear that what is meant by “How can anyone see this as anything but evil?” is that we today can (epistemically but not ontologically) call evil but that which was not evil back when it occurred since morality had not evolved to where it is today and is yet evolving.
Thus, those actions may have been perfectly moral and yet, today, we choose to call them “evil.” Moreover, it is important to point out that these sorts of actions occurred before then and have been occurring ever since onto this very day. Morality may “evolve” yet, ethics, the actual ethos, does not since “morality” describes what is and “ethics” prescribe what should be. With regards to morality it is typically of people living in first world countries that were established upon Judeo-Christian principles who can even imagine claiming that such actions are now “evil” and must break with typical evolution inspired atheist concept of evolving morality who can claim that is was “evil” even when it occurred.
This is not only a valid logical and biological point but it does bring to mind that those of us who live in unimaginable comfortable first world countries have as our greatest concern whether to get cinnamon or cocoa power sprinkled on our Starbucks double-mocha-latte-foamy-soymilk-coffee.
We simply cannot imagine life in the ancient Middle-East (or the modern Middle-East in some respects). Try to even imagine virginity being something that was important, cherished, protected, even virtuous or, God forbid not, holy. Nay, to us virginity is what is given up at the drop of a hat, at the earliest possible age, often with our parent’s they’re gonna do it anyway encouragement. And, of course, who could even image affirming that God has power over life and death.
So, to the text and the question; where was the rape?Do not get sidetracked with the other issues involved; where was the rape?
We were urged to believe that “Obviously these women were repeatedly raped” but did you discern even one single rape?
We were told to believe that they “raped an entire town” but did you discern even one single rape?
Were I to grant the claim I would image that what evilbible.com has in mind is a syllogism that runs thusly:
1) The virgin’s relatives were “murdered.”2) They were taken by those who “murdered” their relatives.
3) Thus, even if they marry those who “murdered” their relatives they are essentially being raped (I am further imagining that marriage is something to which the virgins would be forced-another unfounded assertion).
But what else could the text mean? Indeed! That is just the point and the answer is threefold:
1) What the text means is not to be determined by your, mine or the author of evilbible.com’s ability to imagine what it means.2) What the text means is not to be determined in the same way that we determine the meaning of any text-context: historical, cultural, grammatical, immediate, greater, etc. Basic hermeneutics: exegesis versus eisegesis / isogesis, etc.
3) Such determining knowledge would have alerted the author of evilbible.com of the actual content of the Bible. However, this would not have made for an exciting website name such as “Evil Bible” or an enticing page entitled “Rape in the Bible.” Moreover, this would not make for a convenient one stop shop for, sadly, typical pseudo-skeptical atheists who consider scholarship to be cutting and pasting hyperlinks.
Setting asides the, rightly, emotive nature of this event it must be noted that the virgins, having had their relatives “murdered,” required an abode and were provided one. “But, but it was by the very same ‘sick bastards’ who ‘murdered’ their relatives!” Indeed I can also feel the emotion and empathy and yet, the fact is that the virgins, having had their relatives “murdered,” required an abode and were provided one. It may not be pleasing to the emotions but it is logical and, according to life in the ancient Middle-East, expected. We will come to the specific details as to how such arrangements were carried out.
Let us consider that the text said nothing of rape. Yet, we were urged to believe that not only where they raped but that it was obvious and repeatedly. This actually brings us to the most troubling aspect of this issue; it is not that the Bible commanded, allowed for, or excused rape. It is that in claiming that it was obvious and repetitive rape that we get a very, very, very troubling window into the troubled mind of evilbible.com’s author who reads the texts and inserts into it their own fantasies of obvious and repetitive rape. We should not insert the concept of rape into the text just because an evilbible.com’s author has some very, very, very troubled thoughts.
What evilbible.com’s author fails to note is threefold:
1) The text said nothing of rape.2) The text did not even imply rape because_
3) There were detailed regulations as to how to deal with such a situation.
Let us consider the facts of the matter:To begin with, we may note Deuteronomy 20:10 states, “When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace.”
Evilbible.com’s author also fails to note that Jeremiah 18:8 states,
if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it.
So much for the popular but fallacious claim that there is a contradiction between God’s unchanging nature and God relenting.
Assuming that a peaceful pact is rejected and war ensues-once it is over, they were to remain outside the camp seven days,
whoever has killed any person, and whoever has touched any slain, purify yourselves and your captives on the third day and on the seventh day. Purify every garment, everything made of leather, everything woven of goat’s hair, and everything made of wood (Numbers 31:19-20).
This ensures the health of soldier and war captives-a quarantine.The regulations pertaining to the virgins are as follows; the men were to:Provide them with housing.Allow them one month to mourn.Then they may get married.And if they later divorce, they were to go free and not be mistreated (see Deuteronomy 21:10-14).No rape at all anywhere. Rather, cleansing after a war, the provision of a home, time to mourn, marriage and, if need be, freedom and protection from mistreatment.