I am afraid that my personal schedule and how much free time it allows is not up for discussion.
Of course, I do not need any time to look up any rationalizations since I have been alerting you to the fact that I have already written on the subject since July 25, 2009 while your last mention of Deuteronomy 22 was in August 12, 2009. You would not have had to bring that up 18 days later if you would have only considered the information that I presented to you from the start.
I understand quite well:
Tactic 1): I provide information, you ignore it, you ask for information, I provide it again, you ignore it, you charge that I am not providing information, I provide it again and you ignore it, etc.
Tactic 2): You essentially ask, “What about this?,” I respond, you ignore it and ask “What about this?,” I respond, you ignore it and ask, “What about this?...What about this?...,” etc. which merely ads to the confusion, misunderstanding and pile red herring upon red herring.
What I cannot figure out is whether people think that believers take the Bible too literally or rationalize it too much. I suppose that people will just pick up whatever club is handy at the time in order to beat us over our metaphorical heads. Besides, I was not rationalizing anything (as if there is something wrong with that) I was merely reading beyond your preferred parameters and also considering the original language.
I am very surprised that you purport to have read, at least some portions of, 2nd Samuel and think that the retribution was “not because he took someone else’s wife” when the entire point of the chapter, Samuel’s parable and God’s condemnation is precisely because he took someone else’s wife.
You reference verse 8 when it is in the very next verse where David is being condemned because he “struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own.”
Beyond not considering grammatical context you also, or so it seems to me, do not consider historical and cultural context. When a new king began to reign everyone in the kingdom—male, female, farmer, soldier, wife, husband, etc.—was now under his rule.
You read that God gave “gave David Saul’s wives” and read into the text that He meant for them to be David’s wives. Moreover, you think this because you do not read for context, or so it seems, and you cannot, apparently, imaging what else it means. Yet, Saul’s wives, his concubines, had the job of taking care of the palace (2nd Samuel chapters 15, 16 and 20).
Also, you appear to not be able to imagine otherwise because you may not be aware of the fact that it was against the law for Israeli kings to have more than one wife, “Nor shall he multiply wives to himself” (Deuteronomy 17:15, 17). The fact that some, such as David, did so in another matter—they were violating the law.
You are clearly angry at your own misunderstandings and not with the actual contents, concepts and contexts of the Bible.
By the way, I do play catch with other people’s wives when I play softball—nothing more.
Lastly, I wonder upon what premise do you condemn rape?
It's not the fact that he took someone else's wife, but the manner by which he did, that angered God. You miss the point that the OT God does not seem to mind if someone just "takes" someone else's wife, but how it is done.
And then the "just" punishment for David is to have his other wives raped by his neighbor! It doesn't get much better than that...
When a new king began to reign everyone in the kingdom—male, female, farmer, soldier, wife, husband, etc.—was now under his rule
I guess that makes it right. That's the society the OT God seems to like. Why are we not imitating Biblical societies then?
You read that God gave “gave David Saul’s wives” and read into the text that He meant for them to be David’s wives. Moreover, you think this because you do not read for context, or so it seems, and you cannot, apparently, imaging what else it means. Yet, Saul’s wives, his concubines, had the job of taking care of the palace (2nd Samuel chapters 15, 16 and 20).
He left them behind. Did you miss that part? "So the king went out and all his household with him. But the king left ten concubines to keep the house" (2 Sam 15;16)
But also, conveniently, you leave out 2 Sam 5:13 which says "Meanwhile David took more concubines and wives from Jerusalem, after he came from Hebron; and more sons and daughters were born to David."
it was against the law for Israeli kings to have more than one wife
The OT is full of Israel's kings with more than one wife.
You are clearly angry at your own misunderstandings
I am not angry at all. And unlike you I am not reading another poster's mind (which is against FR Religion Forum rules, fyi).
Lastly, I wonder upon what premise do you condemn rape?
Violence, harm, cruelty, inflicting pain, demeaning, not something anyone sane wants done to him/her, counterproductive, antisocial, etc., etc.