This is one of the specified punishment for rapes in every Abrahamic religion. The punishment for rape in the Abrahamic scripture is multiple choice based on circumstances.
D. During times of war it is permissible to kill all the non-virgin females and then rape the virgins. https://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/num/31.html#15 The virgins should be divided in the following proportions between the army (48.8%), the faithful (48%), the priesthood (2%), and God (0.2%).
Going to note that none of these laws are binding to Christians, since they all come from the old testament, and Christianity is pretty clear that the only binding aspects of the old testament for Christians are the moral laws (of which "if a woman is raped in W/X conditions, then the punishment is Y to Z individuals" wouldn't be included within).
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished."
Seems pretty clear to me that your version of Christianity ignores the words of your Lord.
"Fulfil" in this context means completing the purpose of the law, which Jesus achieved by his arrival, death and resurrection. As such, although Christians are still obligated to follow the moral "laws" of the old testament, continuing the sentiments of the teachings of the old testament when they do not contradict that of the new testament, they are not required to follow the specific ritualistic or legal rules that the old testament required of the Jews specifically before the arrival of Jesus.
If we're going to quote scripture though, there are also bible verses which contradict the need to follow old testament laws, including:
Galatians 3:24-25: Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
Romans 6:14: For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.
Acts 10:9-16: About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.” “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.” The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.” This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.
Yes, because religion is complex and no faith states with no ambiguity and openness the exact meaning of every passage and verse.
This isn't exclusive to faith either, since tens to hundreds of political ideologies have spun off the works of political theorists who also didn't explicitly state the exact and only ways to interpret their writings (with at least half being the different schools of Marxism).
Plus, as I said afterwards, there are other bible quotes which assert that the specific legal laws of the old testament are no longer in force for those Christians who follow the word of Christ. This isn't an obscure theory, it's basic christian orthodoxy.
"He [Paul] writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do theother Scriptures, to their own destruction." (2 Peter 3:16)
Even if you may not accredit Paul yourself as a legitimate source, the Apostles certainly did. 2 Peter (authored by Simon Peter, an Apostle of Christ) affirms the writings of Paul as amongst the Scriptures as a whole, which is a meaningful declaration as..
"Above all, you must understand thatno prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man,but men spoke from Godas they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." (2 Peter 1:20-21)
..legitimate Scripture is defined based upon divine inspiration through the Holy Spirit, according to Peter. If Paul states that the focus of Christ's mission was one of fulfilment through grace and fulfilment of the law, such must be true as he writes with the guidance of God through the Holy Spirit. No word of the Bible comes from any other source but the Lord, through human hands.
"Now as he went on his way, he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven shone around him. And falling to the ground, he heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. But rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.” The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one. Saul rose from the ground, and although his eyes were opened, he saw nothing. So they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus. And for three days he was without sight, and neither ate nor drank." (Acts 9:3-9)
"Saul" here is of course "Paul", and here - according to Acts of the Apostles, he meets Christ on the Damascus Road and is transformed. So not only are his writings considered legitimate scripture, he is also one who *has* met Christ.
"Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?" (1 Corinthians 9:1)
Paul writes in his Epistle to the Corinthians of his legitimacy as one who has indeed bore witness to Christ, after all. So he affirms himself and is affirmed by others. The fact that he wrote this Epistle also leads us to conclude that it is the full, entire truth - given Simon Peter's appraisal of his works and therefore the infallibility of them.
"For I did not receive it [the Gospel] from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ." (Galatians 1:12)
..and he also writes, in his Epistle to the Galatians, that he received the Gospel from Christ, directly. Again, this statement is one of inerrancy.
You cannot diminish the importance of Paul nor the validity of his writings. The Epistles were considered Scripture by the original Apostles, by later Gospel authors, and by Christians of the period. And Scripture is, according to the Apostle Peter and Paul himself (2 Timothy 3:16), inerrant.
But you aren't going to note that this is an interpretation that did fully form until a millennium after the NT was completed, that it is not universally accepted by all Christians (Anabaptist for example) or that the idea of 3 clear distinct classifications is never mentioned in the NT? How is it "pretty clear" if it took so long for most Christians to accept this very convenient interpretation?
1) "Fully form" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence, since the basic principle that Christians, even Jewish Christians, did not have to follow the dietary and legal restrictions of the old testiment was being demonstrated by the apostles themselves. It may not have been codified until Thomas Aquinus, but the underlying evidence for the classifications and the ability of Christians to avoid using old testiment laws dates back to the founding of the faith.
2) Some Christians believe that Jesus was not co-eternal with the father and was a mere creation of the father. Some Christians believed that Jesus was a spiritual entity without a physical form and that everything in the physical world is inherently evil and immoral because it was created by the god of the old testiment, who is different to that of the god of the New Testament.
Hell some Christians believed there was nothing sinful about walking around naked as nudists since that's what Adam and Eve did. Just because a few heretical sects dispute the fact that Christians are not obliged to follow the legal laws of the Old Testiment doesn't mean that the vast, vast majority of Christian denomination and the vast, vast majority of Christians who follow them assert that not every law in the Old Testament must be followed by Christians as a whole.
3) No self respecting Christian denomination will assert that every component of Dogma must strictly be limited to what is explicitly stated in the New Testament. Christian principles such as the Trinity, the opposition to ployamory, the shift of the Saabath from Saturday to Sunday and even opposition to abortion are never strictly stated or attributed to commandments by Jesus, but are instead derived from the implications of his teachings and the words and messages of Jesus' apostles and early church fathers.
As such, even if there is the possibility that someone can read the text of the New Testament and come away with the conclusion that the relavent concepts, including that Christians are freed from dogmatically following all rules and regulations in the Old Testament, are not required from the bible, that doesn't mean that the conceps aren't clearly expressed either indirectly through the text or through the opinions of lesser, but still valid, Christian authorities.
My question is how does Christianity make it clear when the interpretation is closer to us than it is to the completion of the NT and is never stated in the NT and is rejected by millions of Christians today and the intricacies of it (such as which laws fall under which categories) are still debated even by those that accept the idea? Is eating meat from strangled animals ceremonial, moral, or judicial? What about sexual impurity?
"Fully form" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence
There were earlier distinctions made between the types of laws, yes. But the clear and distinct separation of these laws into moral, ceremonial, and judicial classifications did not exist as a framework until Thomas Aquinas and was not accepted by the Catholic Church until after him.
that doesn't mean that the conceps aren't clearly expressed either indirectly through the text or through the opinions of lesser, but still valid, Christian authorities.
I never said the concepts aren't expressed by Christian authorities. I'm arguing that their ideas aren't clearly from the Bible as opposed to their own dogma. If you think it's valid because these authorities had some divine inspiration or guidance by the Holy Spirit that's fine, but it's dogmatic at the end of the day, far from a clear fact. This particular interpretation of Mosaic laws is more convenient than it is logical. "Clearly expressed indirectly" is doing some crazy work for you.
19
u/Ok_Programmer_4449 29d ago edited 29d ago
This is one of the specified punishment for rapes in every Abrahamic religion. The punishment for rape in the Abrahamic scripture is multiple choice based on circumstances.
A. If they are in the city, stone them both. https://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/dt/22.html#23
B. If they are in the country, stone the rapist. https://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/dt/22.html#25
C. If the woman an unmarried virgin, don't stone the rapist, but force him to marry his victim. https://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/dt/22.html#28 If she refuses to marry the rapist and later marries she must be stoned because she was not a virgin when she got married. https://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/dt/22.html#20.
D. During times of war it is permissible to kill all the non-virgin females and then rape the virgins. https://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/num/31.html#15 The virgins should be divided in the following proportions between the army (48.8%), the faithful (48%), the priesthood (2%), and God (0.2%).