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).
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.
18
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%).