Pick and Choose Fundamentalism

im sure it wasntbut we aren't talking about roman slaves

im glad you bought this up because i think whats missing in this discussion is exactly how God would choose to have us live and be governed.Mankind is the originator of slavery, not God. God does not control our decisions, our governments, our rulers and he doesnt decide how our societies function. We do. We have done so since A&E chose independence. From the beginning of mankinds inception we've been governing ourselves, inventing out own cultural norms and promoting our own ideas.When God chose to lead the Isrealites, they already had an established culture with its norms and practices. He gave them his laws, but he was working with a nation of people who already had their own ways of doing things. Before the mosaic law, marriages were being arranged by the parents and that was acceptable normal cutlrue. God did not take away the Isrealites culture unless it directly violated his standards. Slavery was an established societal norm that was beneficial to both slaves and owners. To slaves it provided a means of sustenance and to owners it provided a means of labor.Now God could have done away with it, but would the people have accepted that?? perhaps not. So rather then completely abolish all that they knew as normal and acceptable, he placed regulations on the things that could easily be abused so that there would at least be some form of stability to the practice. The fact is that we have been independent of God since A&E left the garden of eden. This independence means that we have been governing ourselves and God has allowed this becuase his sovereignty is at stake. The challenge that was raised in the garden of Eden is weather or not mankind is better off on their own. God is allowing time for mankind to rule independently to establish who's rulership is best.
When the matter is finalised, then God will establish his own rulership on the earth thru Jesus Christ and the Kingdom. have a look at Jesus reply to the pharasees question about divorce. : Mt 19:3-6 "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife on every sort of ground?" Christ showed that God purposed for man to leave his father and his mother and stick to his wife, the two becoming one flesh. Then Jesus said "what God has yoked together let no man put apart."
Then they asked: "Why, then, did Moses prescribe giving a certificate of dismissal and divorcing her?" and he said in verse 7-8: "Moses, out of regard for your hardheartedness, made the concession to you of divorcing your wives, but such has not been the case from the beginning."So God has been 'accomodating' humans. As you can see from Jesus words, Gods standard was that no divorce should take place, however he allowed divorce due to the 'hard heartedness' of the people.We are imperfect and God sees that and accommodates it. He does not require perfection, only repentance.

they didnt fleethey got a little help.

because whether we like it or not, this is still his world, the people in it are still his creation and some of them WANT his rulershiphis purpose for us hasnt changed, he still wants a garden of eden and the human family to live in perfect peace and harmony under the right conditions.His purpose to bring this all about has been in progress for almost 7,000 years and its still in progress...he promised a messiah, he chose a nation to live under his laws so we knew what his standards were, the messiah came and opened the way for all nations to come to know him, thru christianity he has been gathering people to live by his rulership under the banner of his kingdom and soon that kingdom will take action against its enemies.so God has never abandoned mankind even though we've abandoned him. He's been slowly working to bring us back into his fold and soon the realisation of his kingdom will be seen by all.

thats not what the record of events shows...Moses wrote about the promise to send a messiah and 2,000 years later the messiah appeared...so why shouldnt the rest of the promise happen? no it doesnt say that. It says that 6000 years ago God created mankind. The earth was an existing creation in the universe.
The bible gives us the history of 'mankind' not the 'universe' No, he didnt know they would fail. He allowed them free will and encouraged them to do the opposite of what they chose. well i agree with you on that one. But the illogical errors are a result of mans doctrines. God never said he'd 'send himself' he did say he would send his 'son'that son was Jesus christ who also claimed to be the 'Son of God'and his diciples also called him the 'Son of God' You dont think that has anything to do with the fact that they rejected the messiah thus causing God to reject them? Anyway, if he wasnt the messiah, then he bares not responsibility for their plight. thats right, because he has been collecting them together as a group who worship him out of love and who obey his principles because they have the word of God written on their hearts. Its not about numbers. There is not going to be a mass conversion to Christianity. But there will be a great number of christians who Jesus will judge as worthy, and a great number of christians who will not have his approval. 2,000 years is a very short period of time to God. 1,ooo years to us is like 1 day to him. Actually, the bible says we are still in Gods 7th day of rest. When the 8th day begins, then all will be revealed. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

So, rape originally meant to carry off by force, and to abduct.
The hebrew scriptures were written much earlier then the latin translations, so back then the meaning of 'rape' was not as it later became known. then those translators are not painting an accurate picture are they because you've already shown that 'abducting' and 'carry off by force' (not sexual activities) is rape. It would be more accurate to describe the custom of making a captive woman a wife, rather then simply that captive women are to be raped. Yes, they were carried off, but no, they were not sexually raped.if 'rape' means 'carry off by force and abduction' then that is exactly what the bible account shows the soldiers to be doing. we werent talking about slaves, we were talking about captive women being raped by soldiers.I already showed you the mosaic law about rape. It was a crime as serious as murder and a man who raped a woman was to be put to death. Deuteronomy 22:25-26Soldiers were not permitted to have sex during battle campaigns. The mosaic law stated this at Deuteronomy 23:9-14
this ruled out the isrealites soldiers raping captives the way other nations did.Also the law stated that if a soldier found a captive woman attractive, he could take her to his home and marry her, but only after she had mourned for a month. After that he could marry her and have sex with her. Deuteronomy 21:10-13 if a man wanted to have sex with his slave girl, he had to make her a concubine, which was a secondary wife. He could not just have sex without making her into a wife. This fell into the area of polygomy and it gave certain rights to the slave girl that her children would recieve their share of the inheritance. So again, slave girls were protect by law and given rights. Men could not just take them for sex, Isrealite men had to abide by the laws pertaining to sexual activities, one being 'You must not commit adutery/fornication' i know that the modern definition is different to the ancient definition....you showed me that. i have king james version which reads
"thou shalt let her go whither she will"Or in other words...if she is willing. no i'm not an advocate of arranged marriages.but im also not going to deny the rights of other people to choose. Isn't that what human rights are about...the right to person choice and personal preference? Some cultures want that choice and who are we to tell them they cant have it? Why is our way any better?look at our societies, young girls pregnant and without a husband to look after them, millions of aborted babies every year because the girl didnt feel she was ready to settle down or the father didnt feel he was ready for a full time job.At least those cultures taking an active role in ensuring their kids are doing the right thing by each other. Amen to christianity then.

to be fairwas the bible writer thinking in terms of the modern definition when he wrote the accounts about the soldiers? there was and is...actually there are threeshaghal - rape as in the warning given at Deut 28:30anah - rape, afflict, humiliate, and oppress as at Jugdes 19kavash - rape, but also subdue & subject as in Ester 7:8Now to be sure, i checked the transliterated hebrew bible to see if any of these words were used in the account in Deutoronomy 21 about the soldiers....and NO.none of these words are used in the account about the soldiers.
The only word used is ’i meaning 'wife' so now all married women were raped??the context of the account is not about rape at all...its about making captive women 'wives' Women knew that if they were being raped they had to scream out so that someone would hear. In the case of the woman who was not heard in the city, it was taken as evidence in her participation rather then her being raped because if she had screamed out like she was supposed to, someone would have heard her and that would have been a defense to prove she was raped.anyway, i think we've done this to death nowI cant agree with you that the command in the mosaic law was to rape the women...thats what other nations did, the isrealites were not allowed to do itGod certainly did not command it

advocate?im merely correcting your accusation that the Isrealite God commanded the soldiers to rape the captives.Its completely false. I've shown you that the mosaic law condemned sexual misconduct on all levels.
I've shown you that the mosaic law required the death penalty to all rapists and i've also shown that the soldiers of Isreal were not permitted by law to have sex during military campaigns...not even with their wives.I've also shown you that the hebrew words for 'rape' are not used in the passages about the soldiers.I have tried to explain that the captive women were given rights and respect, but you've skimmed over those aspects of the account.I am in no way advocating anything...im trying to correct your wrong accusation that the God of the bible is somehow evil because the soldiers made the captive women their wives.Call me what you like, it makes no differnce to me. I only wish you would stop accusing God of commanding men to rape the women. Its not true.

If you are looking for an honest answer, then you should be looking at what word the writer used. Thats imperative to gaining a correct understanding. You refuse to do that and you dont seem to care what words they used because you've already decided it was rape. Doesnt matter that it wasnt.The fact is, the writer did not use the word for rape. which means he was not referring to the act of rape. Pretty logical really. But you go on believing your fairylie.I prefer the truth. you are talking about ancient times when people thought very differently to us. Women were not liberated and free to make their own decisions. They were property, men put them in that position and they had no choice. They accepted it and it was a normal part of life for them. When a man wanted to marry a woman, he didn't ask the woman, he asked the womans father.I dont agree with it, but im not going to sit here and argue over why ancient cultures practiced certain traditions.All i know is that they did not think the same way we do and therefore to judge them by modern standards is unreasonable. How can you judge a primitive tribe by a modern set of values???

i can see what you are saying and by the way you've put it, it certainly seems plausible that God did not carry out his pronouncement on Adam.But if Adam had the opportunity to live forever, then God did carry out his pronouncement by allowing Adam to grow old and die.The angels live forever because God allows them to live...Adam & Eve could have been permitted to live forever also, but they werent because God did not allow them to. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

i'll admit that if i read the account on face value, i'd come to the same conclusion as everyone elseBut when you weight it up in the context of the times, it becomes apparent that the Cananites chose to war against Gods people rather then allow them access to the land the was given to them as an inheritence. So if you 'choose' war then thats what you get.While its true that God commanded that the Cananites, their cities and all of their children were to be destroyed, it doesnt mean that he acted in unrighteousness or wickedness. He actually saved those cananites who requested it such as Rahab and her whole family and the cities of the Gibeonites.So on one hand God has decreed that the Cananites be destroyed, but on the other hand he has rescued the ones who wanted to be rescued. The rest didnt want to be rescued, they wanted to fight and because of that they all died.Who really is to blame?

the tree of life was in the garden just as the tree of knowledge of good and bad was. Both those trees represented something. The tree of life represented exactly that, Life. God prevented them from eating from that tree in order that they may not live indefinitely.Gen 2:9 "...he made to grow out of the ground every tree desirable to one's sight and good for food and also the tree of life in the middle of the garden...Gen 3:22 "...and now in order that he may not put his hand out and actually take [fruit] also from the tree of life and eat and live to time indefinite...""so along with the tree of knowledge and all the other fruit trees, was the 'tree of life' It was available to be eaten from, but God prevented Adam from eating from it by removing him from the garden.Had he allowed them to eat from it, they could have lived indefinitely.

if I was a cannanite and I knew of the isrealites and their God, I would definitely ask to join them rather then war with them.If an opposing army invaded my country today, I would stay out of their way. If my country chose to fight them, i think I would flee to neutral territory.

to the contrary, the bible tells us NOT to fight our enemies.if we really trust in God, then we will not get involved in the wars of our countries and patiently wait for him to correct all matters. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

he has the ultimate authorityand life is a gift, its not a right. The cannanites who chose to war with Isreal showed a complete lack of respect for Gods ownership of the land they inhabited. They knew the land was an inheritance for the Isrealites, they refused to hand it over therefore they had taken something that did not belong to them.God corrected matters. He is the ultimate authority and the one who has the final say.