Pick and Choose Fundamentalism

i dont believe he can do wrong.

cheers for the thumbs up percy

although i know he would never do this, for me, he would have to turn his back on mankind and revoke his promise of everlasting life and repairing all the damage done by mankind over the past 6,000 years.

i dont know where you get all this stuff from, but its obviously not the biblecan you provide any references to the torture, rape & sex slaves???

bible prophecies would stop being fulfilled...that hasnt happened which gives evidence of Gods purpose still in progress. my guess would be that jesus jr would show miracles, the same way he did in the past, to prove he had come from God.

according to you perhaps.lol

hi Devilsadvocate,Im looking at those verses and i dont see what you are seeing. this verse is telling slave owners that if they beat their slaves and cause death, they were to be punished for it. We have similar laws ourselves...if you bludgeon someone to death its murder and you'll be charged but if you get into a fight with someone, its only an assault charge. what has this got to do with rape???
It seems to me that female slaves were protected under this law because they COULD NOT be used for sex and nothing more. If the man found the girl pleasing, she was to become his wife with ALL marital rights that went along with that. this account says nothing about these women being brought into the camp to be raped. Read the rest of the account and you'll see that these women were made the wives of the soldiers. this account does not say anything about rape either. Look at verse 18"And preserve alive for yourselves all the little ones among the women who have not known the act of lying with a male"
These women were spared for the purpose of marriage, not to be raped. these are laws pertaining to a man who commits an act of rape. Its not telling the Isrealite men to rape women! Its about punishment for those who do. Obviously it was against the law, not for it.and Wars happened, and the isrealite soldiers did kill people, but in those days, the Isrealites were the target of many attacks by the surrounding nations. Would it be right for God to say that they could not defend themselves and their inheritance?

there are many but this isnt the thread for them as it will go way off topic.but there have been prophecy threads in the recent past...cant remember where... or perhaps you can start a new thread on that topic.

you assume they raped them because it fits with your warped view of God.
The account says they made them their 'WIVES' You did not mention one scripture that command the men to rape anyone. The accounts were all talking about slaves and making the captive women, wives.In the culture of the day, slavery was a normal everyday event. Slaves in those days were much like hired workers except that the slave was considered to legally belong to the owner. Marriage imposed the same 'ownership' rights upon a woman to her husband. And the owner of the slaves were required to provide materially for the slaves. Some people would even choose to become someones slave in order to repay a debt that he could not afford to pay. It has never been ok and God never said it was ok.He has been putting up with all that humans do, but he has never condoned it. He has allowed us to use our free will and we have abused it.
His laws to love your neighbor should have been enough to know that all acts that are unloving are not acceptable, but it seems that the law to love is too hard for us. In dealing with the Isrealite nation, he gave them his laws but they continually went against them.People are the problem, not God.He has wiped out whole nations of people in the past because of their behavior and cruelty toward each other...the Canaanites for example, Sodom and Gommorrah are another example.Dont ever think that the God of the bible is pleased with what he sees...

quote:

---

Gen 5:5-6 "he saw that the badness of man was abundant in the earth and every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only bad all the time. 6amd he felt regrets that he had made men in the earth, and he felt hurt at his heart"

​

Psalm78:40"How often they would rebel against him in the wilderness,
They would make him feel hurt in the desert!
41And again and again they would put God to the test,
And they pained even the Holy One of Israel"

​

Isiah 63:10 "But they themselves rebelled and made his holy spirit feel hurt. He now was changed into an enemy of theirs; he himself warred against them"

​

Ps. 11:5 "Anyone loving violence His soul certainly hates."

​

Isaiah 55:9 "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so my ways are higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."

---

We have only ourselves to blame for our behavior, no one else...its our community, our society, our nations that act in such ways. Pretty soon God will be calling everyone to account and the madness will stop. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

i've adequately shown how those scriptures in no way command rape. Slavery was an invention by mankind, not God. He put regulations on it for his people because without regulations of some sort, humans would abuse it...and abuse it they certainly did.I agree that he did command that the canaanites be killed, just as our governments command their armies to kill civilians from enemy nations.

You fail to comprehend the context of these scriptures, you are miss applying what it meant to be an isrealite slave, and fail to take the ancient cultures into consideration.the slavery that existed in Israel was vastly different from the tyrannical forms of slavery that have existed throughout historySlavery existed long before the mosiac Law so you cant blame God for it. He kindly regulated slavery amongst the Isrealites so that slaves had some rights and when the Israelites followed his laws, slaves fared pretty well. they were free from working on the sabbath like other isrealites for instance.(Exodus 20:10)Now regarding your contention that isrealite soldiers were commanded to rape women, you are wrong.
Isrealite soldiers were not permitted to have sexual relations with anyone when they were in battle. 1Sa 21:5 shows this to be the case. As does Deut 23:9 which is the law prohibiting sexual intercourse for soldiers in battle.So Gods law is quite different to what you are claiming.Your view is distorted and very extreme. Its not based on an accurate understanding of the culture of the peoples back then or the scriptures you are miss-quoting. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

selling children as sex slaves - No. Thats your own interpretation which is incorrect.
Deutoronomy 19:29 "Do not profane your daughter by making her a prostitute, in order that the land may not commit prostitution and the land actually be filled with loose morals"the isrealites were given laws outlawing immoral sexual relations. There was a case of gang rape in the isrealite city of Gibeah that resulted in the death of the girl. When the other tribes of Isreal heard of what happened they attacked the city and nearly wiped out the entire tribe of Benjamin. So to claim that they permitted, and God commanded, rape is absurd.You called the cannanite children innocent in Msg 209 and perhaps they were...however it was their parents who chose to stand and fight, so who really is to blame??? They could have left the land and taken their children with them for safety, but they didnt.
This doesnt mean that God wanted the innocent children to die, but the war had begun and the cannanites made a bad decision. Its not God who is to blame and it does not mean that he approves of the slaughter of innocent children. The cannanites chose to fight him and he passed judgement on them and all who belonged to them....the only ones who God allowed to live were those who requested mercy and joined the isrealites (Rahab the harlot and 1 city of cannanites)_____________________________________________________________Here are the mosaic laws concerning the treatment of slaves:hebrew slaves were to be set free after 6 years
Exodus 21:2 "In case you should buy a Hebrew slave, he will be a slave six years, but in the seventh he will go out as one set free without charge"the freed slaves were to be given some of the owners assets
Deuteronomy 15:13"And in case you should send him out from you as one set free, you must not send him out empty-handed. 14You should surely equip him with something from your flock and your threshing floor and your oil and winepress."this shows that slaves were paid for their service the same way a hired laborer was paid to the point where a slave could become wealthy enough to buy himself out of the slavery
Leviticus 25:49 "...Or if his own hand has become wealthy, he must also buy himself back. 50 And he must reckon with his purchaser from the year he sold himself to him"Female slaves were protected especially and if the owner failed to comply in respect to her entitlements, she was legally allowed to go free without the payment of a redemption price as shown at Exodus 21:77
"And in case a man should sell his daughter as a slave girl, she will not go out in the way that the slave men go out. 8If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master so that he does not designate her as a concubine but causes her to be redeemed, he will not be entitled to sell her to a foreign people in his treacherously dealing with her. 9And if it should be to his son that he designates her, he is to do to her according to the due right of daughters. 10If he should take another wife for himself, her sustenance, her clothing and her marriage due are not to be diminished. 11If he will not render these three things to her, then she must go out for nothing, without money."The Law protected slaves from brutalities. A slave was to be set free if mistreatment by the owner resulted in the loss of a tooth or an eye.
Exodus 21:26 "And in case a man should strike the eye of his slave man or the eye of his slave girl and he really ruins it, he is to send him away as one set free in compensation for his eye. 27And if it should be the tooth of his slave man or the tooth of his slave girl that he knocks out, he is to send him away as one set free in compensation for his tooth."I know you're having trouble with this law, but you must recognize the difference between hitting out in anger (humans have a tendency to do) and bludgeoning someone to death with intent on killing him. This law is the only way to provide an owner the benefit of the doubt that he did not intend on murdering his slave.
If the slave died, the owner was to be put to death for murder.Exodus 20:20"And in case a man strikes his slave man or his slave girl with a stick and that one actually dies under his hand, that one is to be avenged without fail. 21However, if he lingers for a day or two days, he is not to be avenged, because he is his money"Male slaves, both hebrew or foreigners could join in the worship and festivals of the isrealites. Slaves of Priests could even eat of the holy things of the temple. This was prohibited to free Isrealites and to hired laborers, yet slaves of priests could.Exodus 12:43 "This is the statute of the passover: No foreigner may eat of it. 44But where there is any slave man purchased with money, you must circumcise him. Then first he may share in eating it. 45A settler and a hired laborer may not eat of it." You keep calling it rape but how can it be when the women became a wife and was given the same legal status as free isrealite women? Perhaps you are not taking into consideration the status of women in general in ancient times. Women were given away in marriage all the time. They did not choose partners, their parents did. All women were told who they would marry and All women accepted this tradition. This was a cultural norm and the customary practice in all those nations. Im sure they accepted this (just as they accepted polygamy) because to be a single woman in those days was a detriment...the best outcome for a captive woman was to become a wife and to obtain a legal status and the protection that came with being a wife.In the case of the following scripture the woman was permitted time to grieve for her family before the man was permitted to marry her and have sexual relations with her. If she agreed to leave him because they really didnt like each other, then he had to permit her to leave freely.
Deut 21: 11and if you have seen among the captives a woman beautiful in form, and you have got attached to her and taken her for your wife, 12you must then bring her into the midst of your house....and dwell in your house and weep for her father and her mother a whole lunar month; and after that you should have relations with her...and she must become your wife. 14And it must occur that if you have found no delight in her, you must then send her away, agreeably to her own soul; but you must by no means sell her for money. You must not deal tyrannically with her after you have humiliated her." the humiliting spoken of her is with regard to sexual relations because Gods view was that if a man took a womans virginity, he had to honor it, (hence why rapists had to marry their victim) but if, like in this case, the two did not like each other ( i say two because she had a say in what happened to her also as is seen by the words "agreeably to her own soul") then the man had to do the right thing by her because he had taken her virginity. This has nothing to do with rape at all. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

i'm sure some southerners treated their slaves in a kind manner, whereas we know many did not.this does not mean that Gods regulations on slavery failed. It means that people (who inherently fail) failed to apply the principles of Gods regulations.The fact is that slavery under Gods regulations is fair and merciful when applied. He can only give mankind his standards, he cant force us to apply them.See my post No. 299 for details on Gods regulations that made slavery fair and merciful. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

You are claiming those verses to be commands to rape girls. I'm showing that the mosiac laws outlawed all such wrong conduct. Rape was against the mosiac law, so how is it you claim that it commands rape???it doesnt. NO> you are not reading it correctly and you are not considering the culture of the people. It was perfectly normal to sell yourself or a family member into slavery in those days. Many did it as a way to pay debts and look after their families.
In the case of a girl being sold, the buyer could not do anything to her...Isrealites were bound by the mosiac law which forbid immoral sex. So to read this verse and say that the man could 'do what ever he wanted including rape' is completely inaccurate.If the man liked the girl, he could make her his wife. That is not rape, it does not constitute rape and it was perfectly acceptable in such societies. Women accepted it and even welcomed it. Its still done today in middle eastern cultures. Indian & Chinese cultures still arrange marriages for their daughters. It doesnt constitute rape. so you ignored the part that read...
"and if she agrees" and "you must not deal tyrannically with her" and "you must allow her to leave freely" and "you must not sell her to a stranger" so now you are the judge of all ancient cultures, and modern cultures, who believe arranged marriages are a good thing.
these types of marriages seemed to have worked quite well for billions of people for a very long time. sorry, my mistake, i was thinking of a mosaic law that demanded a man who took a girls virginity must marry her, however ,this law was not with regard to rape.the point is that Gods view of rape is as something detestable. If a man raped a woman, the Mosaic law demanded that he be put to death.Deuteronomy 22:25"If, however, it is in the field that the man found the girl who was engaged, and the man grabbed hold of her and lay down with her, the man who lay down with her must also die by himself, 26and to the girl you must do nothing. The girl has no sin deserving of death, because just as when a man rises up against his fellowman and indeed murders him, even a soul, so it is with this caseSo its quite impossible for your interpretation to be correct.Do you know what the hebrew word for 'rape' is and have you checked to see if that word is used in the passages about the soldiers taking the virgins to their home???

please dont get me wrong, i in no way believe slavery was a good thing and would never wish it on anyone.It must be understood in the context of the times though. For some people, slavery was the only way to survive. It meant having a roof over ones head and food on the table.We of modern times remember slavery in terms of the african slave trade which was completely different to the slavery mentioned in the bible..... for instance, people 'chose' to be slaves in those days. The africans had no choice, they were brutalized and forced. That is not the type of slavery mentioned in the bible.Slavery in the bible meant employment, they were a part of the owners household, they often were allowed to marry the owners sons, they became part of the family...most importantly, their time as a slave was limited to 6 years, in the 7th they were to be set free. Slaves could also become wealthy along side their owners.I certainly dont link the african slave trade to the slavery that existed in ancient isreal. They are completely different kettles of fish.BTW, i am a slavei have 3 kids and a hubby!!