Correspondence, part 2

(this is a part of a continuing post.  If you haven't, I suggest that you start reading from a post entitled "dancing with atheism."  And I'm continuing to post exchanges with my friend, so if you're somewhat confused, you should read previous entries first.)

Remember the strange passage about marriage, rape, slavery and shaving woman's head and cleansing for some period of time and stuff?  Here, I found it:

Deuteronomy 21:11-13

If you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife.


The above quote is bizarre, but this quote is just immoral:

 

Deuteronomy 22:28-29

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
(but if you read verses before, it tells you that a man raping a married woman is a sin punishable by death - stoning to be exact).

I suppose people can take a view that God has a rather "progressive will" for human beings, and argue that such treatment for women were actually ahead of its time. Obviously, I would disagree with this view, and contend that it reflects moral bankruptcy and extreme insensitivity on the part of the arguers. Rape was equally traumatizing and vicious back then as it is now, whether you're married or not.  Since God had such influence over the behavior of man to the point where they would mutilate their genitals for God (God, you want me to do what to where?), I would contend that he could've commanded better laws about raping virgins.

Never mind that God doesn't even bother to intervene - to me, this is a rationalization of rape (of virgins). Yes, rape is a violation, but it's okay as long as you marry her and pay her father.  It makes perfect sense that a group of chauvinistic, barbaric men in the ancient world would write such a command but a benign, sagacious, almighty God surely wouldn't have inspired anyone to write something so brutal and barbaric.

"I mean those were man made laws; it doesn't state anywhere that God said that is how it has to be done.  Rather, people possibly falsely interpreting what God was saying, to fit their lifestyle?"

If the bible contains 'contaminated' stories and commands, then why should it be considered as a holy & sacred text?  To what extent should it be considered as a holy text?  Then how are those parts of the bible different than Rick Warren's purpose driven life? To what extent has it been changed?

Plus, we have nothing but assumptions - it is our assumption of a benign God that makes us ponder "perhaps, the verses about rape has been influenced by man." But if God is truly mysterious, perhaps the command about love has been fabricated by man, but the verses about rape were truly his words? (I know this sounds ridiculous, but from a logical stand point, why not?)

From a personal point of view, Christians always bring this argument whenever they see a verse that they don't like.  This is cherry picking. 

"perhaps, God is capable of making mistakes?"

According to 2 Samuel 22:31 and Psalm 18:30, God is perfect. So according to that logic, he has nothing to learn, and he makes no mistakes.  Unless, of course, those two verses were fabricated to "fit" their lifestyle as you have suggested. 

I'm curious to how you interpreted how God handled his "creation" when he brought the flood that wiped out everyone except, Noah and his family. After the flood happened God, as I have read it, realized he may have too far in his own anger. And decided afterwards to let his creations be and to not kill no matter what his "creations" do. Let them make mistakes, do what they want and not wipe them off the face of the Earth.

...speaking of which, God really doesn't seem to learn from his "mistakes" does he? He had to cast out Adam and Eve from Garden of Evil (because man sinned), wipe out nearly all life forms through a flood (because man sinned), destroy Sodom and Gomorrah (because man sinned), kill all amalekites (because man sinned), and finally, send his only Son and sacrifice him (which I still believe is odd, barbaric, and immoral act).  And since the vicarious redemption, there is no more sulfur from the sky or a deluge. Now, if he knew that human beings were going to be so sinful, why didn't he send down Jesus Christ to begin with, instead of wiping humanity out in a flood? 

Oh and he just says that he won't kill everyone with a flood.  He still either orders or commits a genocide here and there after the flood (amalekites, Sodom & Gomorrah).  So I would definitely disagree with your statement, "let them make mistakes, do what they want and not wipe them off the face of the Earth."

Before, I thought that Noah's Ark actually could've been scientifically possible - the bible doesn't talk about rain but it talks about water above the sky and on the ground - perhaps the earth we used to know it was different from the earth we've inherited.  Perhaps, what we know as the oceans were actually surrounding the earth, above the atmosphere.  Perhaps, it blocked out all the uv rays, and created a green house effect all over the earth, where the temperature would've been equal whether you were in Antarctica or Libya.

But I later found out that science has better answers (and evidence) for all this.  If water were surrounding the earth, the pressure would be too high, and the earth would be unfit to support humans.  And, even if you say that all the ice caps in the world melted and there were no more water in the atmosphere (it all rained down), it still wouldn't be enough to cover all the land in the world.

God, again in my mind, is giving freedom of choice even though he knows the outcome.

 If he wanted a perfect world, then I guess he could've or should've just made a bunch of robots with predetermined attitudes, thoughts etc.

I'm not asking for a perfect world. I'm just pointing out that God could have at least been more compassionate and could've WRITTEN about condemning issues such as gender inequality and slavery. He doesn't even do that. Instead, bible is filled with stories of mass killings (noah's ark), genocides (amalekites), stoning, what to do after raping virgins, etc.

If a man fails to live up to God's expectations, that's one thing, but to have God commanding genocide - that's completely different.

[and I wrote about the free-will "paradox" in a different post.  If I had to name one thing that shook my faith the most during the years, it's the free-will paradox).