Rattled that one off quite quickly

Please replace wrong with unlikely.

Alright CA, I don't agree that you've shown that the quotes fall short, but I'm happy to agree to disagree.

Before we conclude this I would add a few things though.

Firstly, I'm not trying to say that being a Christian equates to condoning rape. I'm merely saying that the Bible condones it on multiple occasions. Many Christians, as you have just done yourself, go to great lengths to reason around that as they try to reconcile their own subjective/modern morals, with their belief that the outdated iron age morals professed in the Bible are absolute.

Secondly, although it doesn't equate to condoning rape, Christians as a group certainly have a bad track record when it comes to sexism, i.e. viewing women as inferior and/or subject to men. Even today females cannot become priests or bishops to mention just one example of this. Positions taken in the past on abuse within a marriage would be another. I realize though that there are many individual Christians that don't share these views.

Okay Oscar,

I'm pretty sure that agreeing to disagree was all that would have been accomplished. My argument was more about the efficacy of your interpretation of "Gilbeah's Crime" than specifically about the larger topic of rape within the context of Scripture. So, if you'll permit me a concluding statement as well. Seems fair you got the opening, right?

I never thought that you were stating Christians condone rape, and understood that your argument was about Biblical interpretation. So fear not about that.

As to this statement

"Many Christians, as you have just done yourself, go to great lengths to reason around that as they try to reconcile their own subjective/modern morals, with their belief that the outdated iron age morals professed in the Bible are absolute."

I'd say, in response, that what I've done is examine an example of literature to evaluate another person's literary critique of it. It is no more "going to great lengths" than I would have done with any other literary work. Indeed I have gone to much greater lengths with many other non-biblical works. All I really did here was to examine the story and give my reasons for coming to an opposite view. The textual evidence that I cited did seem to back up my assertions, which is what any literary analysis should entail. I can only say that it is assumed that any person will have biases when approaching any text. What is really pertinent is looking more deeply into the text, and related ones, to shed light on its meaning. It appears to me that your desire to show Biblical text as outdated iron age morals has lead you to some insupportable conclusions when looking at the text in greater depth. For instance, I certainly question whether military convention that spans all (or nearly all) cultures equates to legal interpretation. Again, as I said, the meaning of use seems to be up to the reader. Even so, I’d say some data on how widespread rape was among these particular armies would be needed to support your stance. Otherwise it seems neutral as I conceded it was. Neither condoning nor expressly forbidding a certain act does not constitute condoning it.

As to the second statement, it's really another argument unto itself; isn't it? I'll have to acknowledge the claim for what it is and decline getting into a totally separate debate.

Classic blunder sorry,

I didn't sum up the argument;

of the six citations we both brought to the discussion on rape we have:

Genesis including a divine intervention to prevent it.
Judges ending with a general outcry against it.
the Prophet Hosea looking back on it twice (once as depravity and again as sin)
The prophet Zechariah warning it will happen to Jerusalem but God will avenge it.

and

an ambiguous law that doesn't state it's okay, but some soldiers (go figure) interpret as permission.

It's still not exactly damning of our iron age morality.

"Even so, I’d say some data on how widespread rape was among these particular armies would be needed to support your stance."

IMO the long history of war rape is so well known that frankly I don't feel inclined to provide such additional data to back that statement. I suggest you read up on it on your own accord. Here's a small quote from the Wikipedia page on war rape though: "Rape has accompanied warfare in virtually every known historical era."

As to you declining to engage in the "separate debate", well it is not entirely separate, but if you and I were to discuss it I wouldn't be surprised to find us agreeing to disagree again. So yeah, we might as well not.

"IMO the long history of war rape is so well known that frankly I don't feel inclined to provide such additional data to back that statement. I suggest you read up on it on your own accord. Here's a small quote from the Wikipedia page on war rape though: 'Rape has accompanied warfare in virtually every known historical era.' "

Exactly, it is such a wide-spread problem that it spans millennia and is present in nearly every culture. Yet in the iron age, we see the Law saying spoils of war are fair game, and the Prophets (who are supposed to relay God's Will) warning that rape, however, is depravity, sin, and subjects the rapist to the vengeance of God. It still looks pretty good for the iron age barbarians.

Your quote from Matthew has Christ saying that nothing will be taken from the Law and the Prophets. It says nothing of longstanding military conventions.