Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8904 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-18-2019 6:38 PM
16 online now:
Phat (AdminPhat), Theodoric (2 members, 14 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 849,791 Year: 4,828/19,786 Month: 950/873 Week: 306/376 Day: 99/57 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2122
23
242526Next
Author Topic:   Pick and Choose Fundamentalism
Brian
Member (Idle past 3063 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 331 of 384 (516244)
07-24-2009 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 329 by ICANT
07-24-2009 7:00 AM


Re: Double standards?
Seems like they got run out of Egypt according to this account.

The problem is that there are two different accounts of the Exodus woven together in the Bible.

Perosnally, I think that your reference could be to the request to pharaoh by the elders and Moses to have a 3 day festival in the desert dedicated to Yahweh.

At Ex. 3:18
"The elders of Israel will listen to you. Then you and the elders are to go to the king of Egypt and say to him, 'The LORD, the God of the Hebrews, has met with us. Let us take a three-day journey into the desert to offer sacrifices to the LORD our God.'

They have to ask pharaoh if they (the Elders and Moses) to make a three day journey to offer sacrifices. Now if this was permission to leave for the promised land it would take a lot longer than 3 days.

It is then reinforced at Exodus 5:1

Afterward Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and said, "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'Let my people go, so that they may hold a festival to me in the desert.' "

Again they are only asking to go worship Yahweh in the desert.

And in 5:3

Then they said, "The God of the Hebrews has met with us. Now let us take a three-day journey into the desert to offer sacrifices to the LORD our God, or he may strike us with plagues or with the sword."

In Exodus 10:10-11

Pharaoh said, "The LORD be with youif I let you go, along with your women and children! Clearly you are bent on evil. No! Have only the men go; and worship the LORD, since that's what you have been asking for."

And I think that this could fit in perfectly with 12:31.

I think that pharaoh gave Moses and Aaron permission to take every Israelite into the desert for 3 days to worship and AFTER they had left I think the pharaoh realised he had been conned, and this is why he sent his armies after the Israelites.

This hypothesis would account for the obvious contradictions in the texts.

If we look at Exodus 11:2 we see that the people were to have enough tome to ask their neighbours for gold and silver:

Tell the people that men and women alike are to ask their neighbors for articles of silver and gold.

Then 12:35-36 seems to support this relaxed approach:

The Israelites did as Moses instructed and asked the Egyptians for articles of silver and gold and for clothing. The LORD had made the Egyptians favorably disposed toward the people, and they gave them what they asked for; so they plundered the Egyptians.

So, they appear to have taken their time in preparing to leave.

They even had time to arm themselves and to go collect the bones of Joseph:

Exod 13:18-19

So God led the people around by the desert road toward the Red Sea. The Israelites went up out of Egypt armed for battle.
Moses took the bones of Joseph with him because Joseph had made the sons of Israel swear an oath. He had said, "God will surely come to your aid, and then you must carry my bones up with you from this place."

Over against these narratives are the ones that claim the Israelites left in a hurry.

12:39 for example apparently the Israelites didn't have time bake bread:

With the dough they had brought from Egypt, they baked cakes of unleavened bread. The dough was without yeast because they had been driven out of Egypt and did not have time to prepare food for themselves.

So, according to this tradition the Israelites were driven out.

However, there is a different tradition woven into the account that conflicts with this image.

At Exodus 14:5 we find:

When the king of Egypt was told that the people had fled, Pharaoh and his officials changed their minds about them and said, "What have we done? We have let the Israelites go and have lost their services!"

This tradition tells us that the Israelites had fled, and without pharaoh's knowledge!

The titles 'pharaoh' in 12:31 and 'King of Egypt' 14:5 is just one clue that these are different traditions.

I sat one day in the library and unpicked the two accounts, but that was a while ago and I have no idea where it is now.

But, as far as this argument goes, Exodus 14 tells us that the Israelites fled from Egypt.

And, to be pedantic, I would imagine that the Israelites did flee from pharaoh's armies.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 329 by ICANT, posted 07-24-2009 7:00 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 334 by ICANT, posted 07-24-2009 4:59 PM Brian has not yet responded

    
Mothership
Junior Member (Idle past 3395 days)
Posts: 9
From: Ohio, USA
Joined: 07-20-2009


Message 332 of 384 (516248)
07-24-2009 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 321 by Peg
07-24-2009 3:31 AM


Re: Double standards?
Peg said:

"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.
.........................

So your answer is YES God accomodates humans.

So if we are just "hard hearted" enough we can manipulate god.

Interesting.

Edited by Mothership, : No reason given.

Edited by Mothership, : corrected typos


This message is a reply to:
 Message 321 by Peg, posted 07-24-2009 3:31 AM Peg has not yet responded

    
Brian
Member (Idle past 3063 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 333 of 384 (516252)
07-24-2009 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 330 by Peg
07-24-2009 8:18 AM


Re: Never going to happen
thats not what the record of events shows...

Yes it is.

For the last 2000 years, Christians have been expecting the Jesus to return soon, He hasnt.

Moses wrote about the promise to send a messiah and 2,000 years later the messiah appeared...

Where did Moses wrote about the Messiah?

Many prophets wrote about this, but the Messiah clearly hasnt been yet.

so why shouldnt the rest of the promise happen?

None of the promise has happened, so why should any of it?

no it doesnt say that. It says that 6000 years ago God created mankind. The earth was an existing creation in the universe.

Yes, 6 days before He created Man. So, 6000 years and 6 days.

But to even clain that mankind is only 6000 years old is perverse.

The bible gives us the history of 'mankind' not the 'universe'

It gives a history, not accurate of course, but it also tells of the creation of the stars and heavens.

No, he didnt know they would fail.

You know, you would go to any lengths to maintain his fantasy, even to the very point of denying that God is omniscient.

Are you really saying that there is something that God does not know?

He allowed them free will and encouraged them to do the opposite of what they chose.

There is no such thing as free will.

If God didnt want them to eat the fruit why didnt He stick the tree on another continent, or better still, not even create the tree.

Anyway, they didnt even know they were doing anything wrong, since they had no knowledge of good or evil.

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'

Well, much to the amusement of us atheists here, we have been reading the exchange between the Christians regarding this doctrine. You lot cannot even agree what the Bible says about this, so what chance do we have? All this does is to reinfirce the point that Christianity is a real mess.

You dont think that has anything to do with the fact that they rejected the messiah thus causing God to reject them?

They didnt reject their messiah, he hasnt been born yet. If the Messiah had been born then Israels enemies would have been swept from her, and Gods throne would be set up in Jerusalem. Jesus acheived nothing, not a king, not a messiah, not much really.

Anyway, if he wasnt the messiah, then he bares not responsibility for their plight.

I wasnt blaming Jesus, just pointing out one reason why He was no messiah.

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.

Yes, a short time to God, begs the question why God would talk to us using His time and not ours. Yet another error.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by Peg, posted 07-24-2009 8:18 AM Peg has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 334 of 384 (516354)
07-24-2009 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 331 by Brian
07-24-2009 10:14 AM


Re: 3 day journey
Hi Brian,

Brian writes:

Perosnally, I think that your reference could be to the request to pharaoh by the elders and Moses to have a 3 day festival in the desert dedicated to Yahweh.

No doubt about it. That is what Moses had requested.

Brian writes:

I think that pharaoh gave Moses and Aaron permission to take every Israelite into the desert for 3 days to worship and AFTER they had left I think the pharaoh realised he had been conned, and this is why he sent his armies after the Israelites.

You were doing OK until you started to think.

So what was the reason for Exodus 12:31?

12:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt saying,

12:2 This month shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be the first month of the year to you.

12:3 Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying, In the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to the house of their fathers, a lamb for an house:

12:4 And if the household be too little for the lamb, let him and his neighbor next unto his house take it according to the number of the souls; every man according to his eating shall make your count for the lamb.

12:5 Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year: ye shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goats:

12:6 And ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month: and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening.

12:7 And they shall take of the blood, and strike it on the two side posts and on the upper door post of the houses, wherein they shall eat it.

12:8 And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire, and unleavened bread; and with bitter herbs they shall eat it.

12:9 Eat not of it raw, nor sodden at all with water, but roast with fire; his head with his legs, and with the purtenance thereof.

12:10 And ye shall let nothing of it remain until the morning; and that which remaineth of it until the morning ye shall burn with fire.

12:11 And thus shall ye eat it; with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and ye shall eat it in haste: it is the LORD's passover.

12:12 For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the LORD.
12:21 Then Moses called for all the elders of Israel, and said unto them, Draw out and take you a lamb according to your families, and kill the passover.

12:22 And ye shall take a bunch of hyssop, and dip it in the blood that is in the basin, and strike the lintel and the two side posts with the blood that is in the basin; and none of you shall go out at the door of his house until the morning.

12:23 For the LORD will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when he seeth the blood upon the lintel, and on the two side posts, the LORD will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you.

12:28 And the children of Israel went away, and did as the LORD had commanded Moses and Aaron, so did they.

12:29 And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle.

The people had from 3:22 to borrow things or at least ask to borrow things from the Egyptians.

According to 12:2, 3, 6, The children of Israel had a minimum of 4 days and a possibility of 14 days notice of their departure date.

Exodus 12:11 tells us they were to be fully clothed with their shoes on, staff in hand. Which meant be ready to go.

Verse 29 tells us that at midnight every family and beast in Egypt lost their firstborn, from Pharaoh on down.

The only ones spared was those that had the blood applied to the door posts. 12:22, 23.

12:30 And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead.

12:31 And he called for Moses and Aaron by night, and said, Rise up, and get you forth from among my people, both ye and the children of Israel; and go, serve the LORD, as ye have said.

12:32 Also take your flocks and your herds, as ye have said, and be gone; and bless me also.

At midnight Pharoah's firstborn died.

He went and found Moses and Aaron and said take your flocks and herds and be gone.

Why would he say, take your flocks and your herds, and be gone, If they were to be gone only 3 days? He had decided that it was better for Egypt if they were gone permanently.

Brian writes:

This hypothesis would account for the obvious contradictions in the texts.

The onlly contradictions are the ones you have manafactured in your mind while thinking, instead of examining the scriptures.

Brian writes:

They even had time to arm themselves and to go collect the bones of Joseph:

They had a long time to get ready for the journey. Close to 400 years.

But on the immediate timeframe they had at least a couple of months and maybe more. So no they did not have to go dig up his bones they had them packed and ready to go from Joseph's death.

Brian writes:

At Exodus 14:5 we find:
When the king of Egypt was told that the people had fled, Pharaoh and his officials changed their minds about them and said, "What have we done? We have let the Israelites go and have lost their services!"

This tradition tells us that the Israelites had fled, and without pharaoh's knowledge!

The word fled, Hebrew (barach) definition:
1) to go through, flee, run away, chase, drive away, put to flight, reach, shoot (extend), hurry away

Compare too: Exodus 14:27:

14:27 And Moses stretched forth his hand over the sea, and the sea returned to his strength when the morning appeared; and the Egyptians fled against it; and the LORD overthrew the Egyptians in the midst of the sea.

The word fled, Hebrew (nuwc) definition:
1) to flee, escape

You are saying the Israelites nuwc. When that is not what the writer said.

The writer did know the difference because he use one in verse 5 and just 22 verses later he used the other.

Brian writes:

The titles 'pharaoh' in 12:31 and 'King of Egypt' 14:5 is just one clue that these are different traditions.

Exodus 12:31 Pharaoh, Hebrew (Par`oh) definition:
1) the common title of the king of Egypt

Exodus 14:5 'King of Egypt', Hebrew (melek) definition:
1) king

Also in verse 5 notice whose changed their mind. The head honcho, Pharaoh and his officials.

They had several days to get over the death of the firstborn and looked at the labor force they were losing and decided to go get them back.

Which turned out to be as bad a disaster as the firstborn of every family dying.

Brian writes:

But, as far as this argument goes, Exodus 14 tells us that the Israelites fled from Egypt.

Only in your mind not in the text.

Brian writes:

And, to be pedantic, I would imagine that the Israelites did flee from pharaoh's armies.

They had flocks, cattle, children, men and women. At best a sustained speed of 2 miles per hr. So yes they were really fleeing, that is the reason they railed on Moses and said:

14:10 And when Pharaoh drew nigh, the children of Israel lifted up their eyes, and, behold, the Egyptians marched after them; and they were sore afraid: and the children of Israel cried out unto the LORD.

14:11 And they said unto Moses, Because there were no graves in Egypt, hast thou taken us away to die in the wilderness? wherefore hast thou dealt thus with us, to carry us forth out of Egypt?

14:12 Is not this the word that we did tell thee in Egypt, saying, Let us alone, that we may serve the Egyptians? For it had been better for us to serve the Egyptians, than that we should die in the wilderness.

When they saw the Egyptians they really put it in high gear. Opp's they were camped at the red sea.

Now you just ignore all the evidence and go on believing all those little lies you have told yourself over the years.

But there are no contradictions.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 331 by Brian, posted 07-24-2009 10:14 AM Brian has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 335 by Mothership, posted 07-25-2009 12:33 AM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Mothership
Junior Member (Idle past 3395 days)
Posts: 9
From: Ohio, USA
Joined: 07-20-2009


Message 335 of 384 (516439)
07-25-2009 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 334 by ICANT
07-24-2009 4:59 PM


Re: 3 day journey
Speaking of Moses and the Israelites in this context makes one wonder about the incongruity of the Israelites fleeing their slave masters in Egypt and then turning around and enslaving the people whose land they are taking away.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by ICANT, posted 07-24-2009 4:59 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1205 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 336 of 384 (516483)
07-25-2009 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 307 by Peg
07-23-2009 5:28 AM


Re: Double standards?
Peg writes:

You are claiming those verses to be commands to rape girls.

The word "rape" is originally derived from the Latin word'rapio' meaning 'to abduct or seize by force' (and from also where we get the words 'raptor', rapture', 'rapacious' and 'rapine') and later 14th century Anglo-French word, to 'seize, carry off by force, abduct'. It was not applied in a sexual context until the late 15th century after most of the early English translations of the Bible had already been written and therefore it is not a word that you will find in the KJV which began its creation in 1604. However, many of today's modern English versions such as the NIV use it occasionally to describe the events that transpired in the passages I had given earlier.

Most literal translations try to equate a near 1 to 1, English word for Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic or Latin (in later translations) word when possible. However, a translator is not always going to replace a whole sentence describing the carrying away of virgin women prisoners to there camps to be 'betrothed' and have sexual relations with them (i.e. take away there virginity/rape) with just the single word 'rape'.

Besides it has only been within the past 100 years or so that modern society has placed an extremely negative connotation and made the topic of the sexual raping of women (that is having sex with them without there consent) a politically and socially sensitive subject with clear condemnation for the act. Not to say that this did not occur before in some parts of our diverse cultures before this, but it was not legislated against and was condoned (allowed) in many cultures.

Here is the definition of rape in Merriam-Webster's:

Merriam-Webster writes:

1 : an act or instance of robbing or despoiling or carrying away a person by force
2 : unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent compare sexual assault, statutory rape

Therefore based on the etymology and current usage of the word 'rape' I described above, both definitions 1 and 2 apply in these passages:

Numbers 31 writes:

And Jehovah speaketh unto Moses, saying,

Moses is speaking on the behalf of the god of the Hebrews. Therefore this is a COMMANDMENT from GOD.

Numbers 31 cont. writes:

Execute the vengeance of the sons of Israel against the Midianites -- afterwards thou art gathered unto thy people.'... And they war against Midian, as Jehovah hath commanded Moses, and slay every male;

God commands ethnocide as a form of retribution and revenge.

Numbers 31 cont. writes:

And the sons of Israel take captive the women of Midian, and their infants; and all their cattle, and all their substance, and all their wealth they have plundered...

Israelites disobey the Hebrew god and take prisioners (including baby males).

Numbers 31 cont. writes:

And Moses saith unto them, `Have ye kept alive every female?

Moses gets angry.

Numbers 31 cont. writes:

`And now, slay ye every male among the infants, yea, every woman known of man by the lying of a male ye have slain;

God/Moses orders infanticide (killing innocent babies and children just because they are male)

Numbers 31 cont. writes:

and all the infants among the women, who have not known the lying of a male, ye have kept alive for yourselves...

They only keep the virgin women and girls (young and old).

Numbers 31 cont. writes:

and of human beings -- of the women who have not known the lying of a male -- all the persons [are] two and thirty thousand.

ditto. Why virgins? Use your imagination. What did the Israelite soldiers do once they brought these virgins back to their camps?

Do you still disagree that the definition of rape does not apply in these circumstances? Whether the culture of the time condoned such actions at the time is really irrelevant since God commanded such actions to occur. Or are you going to continue to convince yourself that he did not command these acts to occur?

It is also interesting to note that the Jewish law, the Mishnah (literally means copy or repetition and refers to the oral laws and practices complementing the Torah and part of the Talmud Oral Torah), states the following about the practice of marriage in the OT:

Rabbi Joseph bar Hiyyah c. 333 writes:

Come and take note: A girl three years and one day old is betrothed by intercourse. And if a Levir has had intercourse with her, he has acquired her. And one can be liable on her account because of the law prohibiting intercourse with a married woman. And she imparts uncleanness to him who has intercourse with her when she is menstruating, to convey uncleanness to the lower as to the upper layer [of what lies beneath]. If she was married to a priest, she may eat food in the status of priestly rations. If one of those who are unfit for marriage with her had intercourse with her, he has rendered her unfit to marry into the priesthood. If any of those who are forbidden in the Torah to have intercourse with her had intercourse with her, he is put to death on her account, but she is free of responsibility [M.Nid. 5:4]. [Sanhedrin 7/55B]

My point here is that the Mosaic Law is no more equitable or free than any of the other rules and regulations of antiquity. The Hebrew Talmud and Torah are no better or worse than the rest. All the forms of regulating human behavior at this time; Hebrew, Greek, Roman, Persian, Babylonian, Chinese, etc form the basis from which we have evolved our present day forms of moral standards. It is a form of revisionist history to say otherwise. Go read the Code of Hammurabi and other legal codes of that day and then tell me the Torah is so much better.

Peg writes:

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???

Where? You showed that the Mosaic law forbade prostitution (selling your body for money and sustenance) not rape and sex slavery. Those are not the same things. Where does the Mosaic law state that slaves (much less free women) have a choice in whether or not they can choose to have sex with there masters?

Rape was against the mosiac law, so how is it you claim that it commands rape???

Show me where it says this.

Rape and prostitution is not the same thing. Prostitution is consensual (though the two parties enter into it for different reasons), rape is not.

Peg writes:

Me writes:

So therefore did not God allow that a man could sell his daughter as a slave to another man in Exodus 21? And could that man do whatever he wish with that girl i.e. force sex (rape)? Have sex, etc? And did she have the right to leave her master? IS THAT NOT SEX SLAVERY? YES OR NO?


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.

What does considering the culture have to do with it (BTW the amount of material I have provided in this debate debunks your outlandish claim that I do not consider the cultural framework of Hebrew society at that period of time)? It is either right or wrong in context of todays moral standards. The problem I have is not the historicity of the account but your condoning and justifying of these practices on the part of your god.

Peg writes:

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.

BS, where does it say in the Bible that slave masters could not have sex with their slaves?

So to read this verse and say that the man could 'do what ever he wanted including rape' is completely inaccurate.

Rape in this situation would be inevitable as the women had no choice in the matter, unless you disagree with the modern definition of the word rape.

Peg writes:

If the man liked the girl, he could make her his wife.


Do you really think that these young girls (girls in this time period and even now in some parts of the world could be married at very young ages sometimes as young as 11 and 12 once they would start menstruating) were sold off for non-sexual reasons? Are you this nave?

Also explain the following passage and tell me how this does not constitute God condoning rape? God even commands that the rapist marry the victim. Disgusting. There are no words to describe this. And if you justify it you are complicit in allowing rape to occur:

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 writes:

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.


Peg writes:

. That is not rape, it does not constitute rape and it was perfectly acceptable in such societies.

Who cares whether it was acceptable back then. The problem isnt about them doing it back then (its in the past and we cant do anything to change past events), it is about YOU justifying the practice and saying it is acceptable. Evidently it is acceptable by you (and your god) to sell your children into slavery for sexual and non-sexual reasons along with having rape victims marry there rapists, infanticide, ethnocide and other atrocities commanded and condoned by god. It is YOU (and people with similar mindsets) that I have a problem with, not the non-existent Hebrew deity of the OT.

Peg writes:

Women accepted it and even welcomed it.

They accepted it because they had no choice! They grew up in that culture and had no idea what the alternative was. Does that make it right? Does it make it right for parents to physically abuse there children because they dont know any better?

Logic and rationality are lost on you Peg.

I have visited over 20 countries (including several countries of the Middle East), traveled to Central America to work with Christian medical missionaries in the rural remote Merendone mountain region near San Pedro Sula in Honduras and handing out medical supplies and other basic sustenance of living to the inprovished near Mazatln, Mexico, as well as minoring in history and humanities (completed college-level Greek/Roman Humanities, Old Testament Bible, Cultural Anthropology, Sociology, Psychology and World Religion courses). Dont lecture me on what other cultures do and do not believe. I have been there and seen it first hand.

Peg writes:

Its still done today in middle eastern cultures. Indian & Chinese cultures still arrange marriages for their daughters. It doesnt constitute rape.


And that makes it right? Most modern societies have agreed upon universal rights for all human beings. Look up the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (drafted and adopted by 48 countries, 8 countries of the Soviet Blok abstained from voting, of the United Nations in 1948) along with the freedoms and rights outlined in the Unites States Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Right.

Peg writes:

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"

I guess you are using the New World Translation of the JW and where does the Bible say and if she agrees when referring to slave women, please give exact references?

Here is the litteral Hebrew-English translation of Deuteronomy 21:13-14:

Litteral Hebrew to English translation writes:

andyou-see inthecaptive woman-of lovely-of shape andyou-are-attached inher andyou-take toyou towoman andyou-cbringher to midst-of household-ofyou andshe-mshave head-ofher andshe-does nails-ofher andshe-ctakes-off garment-of captivity-ofher fromonher andshe-dwells inhouse-ofyou andshe-laments father-ofher and mother-ofher month-of days andafter so you-shall-come toher andyou-possessher andshe-becomes toyou towoman andhe-becomes if not you-delight inher andyou-mdismissher tosoul-ofher andto-sell not you-shall-sellher inthesilver not you-shall-smake-a-chattel inher inasmuch-as which you-mhumiliatedher


Deuteronomy 21:13-14 writes:

And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.

Again where does it say the woman has any choice in the matter? From the passages I have read it is all up to the man not the woman as was part of the middle eastern custom (and still is in many parts of the ME and other places in the world where sexual equality has yet to become a reality).

Peg writes:

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.

No, I am an advocate of equal rights for all human beings and therefore disagree with the concept of arranged marriages as being equitable to either party.

So you are ok with arranged marriages where the girls/woman (and sometimes the young boys) had no say in who they married? Do you not believe in universal human rights?

Peg writes:

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.

But the one I described specifically states this situation as rape:

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 writes:

a man find a damsel [that is] a virgin, which is
not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay
with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty [shekels] of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he
may not put her away all his days.

Peg writes:

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, 26 and 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 case

This has more to do with Gods wrath at the man perpetuating an act against a women who was engaged to marry than it had to do with his anger at the sexual act itself. In other words, it was the breaking of the marriage bond itself which was being condemned. Read the verse in context with the one previous in which if the woman does not scream out when being raped in the city she is to be punished to death as well.

Peg writes:

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???

There is no one-for-one translation of the English word rape to a notional Hebrew word meaning rape (hence why you will not find the word rape in the KJV of the Bible) as the act of rape was not condemned but rather condoned depending on the circumstance (with the exception of the situation described above about breaking the promise of engagement). Read my earlier etymological discussion of the word and it should make sense.

The closest word for this act is the Hebrew word: ushkb (litteral) or Shakab (phonetically) meaning to lie (of sexual relations), copulation, etc. There are no negative connotations with this word though, as there are with the English word rape.

However, we can infer what was allowed through the spirit of the Mosaic law and the acceptable customs of that period.
Women at that time (and in some parts of the world still to this day) were considered not much more than chattel (property) and at most second-class citizens. That is why the majority of these laws of antiquity are written to free males (and most often to property holding males). This why these laws rarely took into account the feelings and desires of those of the female sex and men were held to a higher standard than women.

However, this does not excuse this culture (or any culture) from what is accepted by modern society as equitable and fair treatment. We cannot change the past but we can change the future as long we recognize the wrongs that have been previously committed and correct our present and future behavior.

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.


For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan
This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by Peg, posted 07-23-2009 5:28 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 337 by Peg, posted 07-26-2009 8:21 AM DevilsAdvocate has responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3033 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 337 of 384 (516564)
07-26-2009 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 336 by DevilsAdvocate
07-25-2009 12:48 PM


Re: Double standards?
DevilsAdvocate writes:

The word "rape" is originally derived from the Latin word'rapio' meaning 'to abduct or seize by force' (and from also where we get the words 'raptor', rapture', 'rapacious' and 'rapine') and later 14th century Anglo-French word, to 'seize, carry off by force, abduct'. It was not applied in a sexual context until the late 15th century after most of the early English translations of the Bible had already been written

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.

DevilsAdvocate writes:

Most literal translations try to equate a near 1 to 1, English word for Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic or Latin (in later translations) word when possible. However, a translator is not always going to replace a whole sentence describing the carrying away of virgin women prisoners to there camps to be 'betrothed' and have sexual relations with them (i.e. take away there virginity/rape) with just the single word 'rape'.

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.

DevilsAdvocate writes:

Where? You showed that the Mosaic law forbade prostitution (selling your body for money and sustenance) not rape and sex slavery. Those are not the same things. Where does the Mosaic law state that slaves (much less free women) have a choice in whether or not they can choose to have sex with there masters?

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 22:25-26

Soldiers 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

DevilsAdvocate writes:

BS, where does it say in the Bible that slave masters could not have sex with their slaves?

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'

DevilsAdvocate writes:

Rape in this situation would be inevitable as the women had no choice in the matter, unless you disagree with the modern definition of the word rape.

i know that the modern definition is different to the ancient definition....you showed me that.

DevilsAdvocate writes:

I guess you are using the New World Translation of the JW and where does the Bible say and if she agrees when referring to slave women, please give exact references?
Deuteronomy 21:13-14:

i have king james version which reads
"thou shalt let her go whither she will"

Or in other words...if she is willing.

DevilsAdvocate writes:

No, I am an advocate of equal rights for all human beings and therefore disagree with the concept of arranged marriages as being equitable to either party.

So you are ok with arranged marriages where the girls/woman (and sometimes the young boys) had no say in who they married? Do you not believe in universal human rights?

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.

DevilsAdvocate writes:

However, this does not excuse this culture (or any culture) from what is accepted by modern society as equitable and fair treatment. We cannot change the past but we can change the future as long we recognize the wrongs that have been previously committed and correct our present and future behavior.

Amen to christianity then.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 336 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-25-2009 12:48 PM DevilsAdvocate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 338 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-26-2009 12:42 PM Peg has responded

    
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1205 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 338 of 384 (516614)
07-26-2009 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 337 by Peg
07-26-2009 8:21 AM


Re: Double standards?
Peg writes:

Me writes:

The word "rape" is originally derived from the Latin word'rapio' meaning 'to abduct or seize by force' (and from also where we get the words 'raptor', rapture', 'rapacious' and 'rapine') and later 14th century Anglo-French word, to 'seize, carry off by force, abduct'. It was not applied in a sexual context until the late 15th century after most of the early English translations of the Bible had already been written

So, rape originally meant to carry off by force, and to abduct.

Yes, but I am using the modern definition of the word rape (that is for one to force sexual intercourse on an unwilling participant) to illustrate my point.

Rape writes:

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.

There was no Hebrew word for our modern definition of rape.

Peg writes:

Me writes:

Most literal translations try to equate a near 1 to 1, English word for Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic or Latin (in later translations) word when possible. However, a translator is not always going to replace a whole sentence describing the carrying away of virgin women prisoners to there camps to be 'betrothed' and have sexual relations with them (i.e. take away there virginity/rape) with just the single word 'rape'.

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.

Huh, in the historical context of the word 'rape' they are correct and in the modern definition of the word 'rape' it can be implied based on the context of the passage. That is these virgin women and girls were forcibly 'married' and required to perform there sexual 'duties'. Rape, that is forced sexual intercourse' was inevitable.

Peg writes:

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.

What is the difference? Either way they had no choice, either to become wives or to be forced to have sex with there oppressors.

Yes, they were carried off, but no, they were not sexually raped.

I have no clue how you can not equate these two. Having personally experienced the results of rape (no not me but someone close to me) and being a Sexual Assault Victim Advocate I find your justification of these acts appalling. It is beyond naive.

Again I wish you would answer my question of what would you do if a man kidnapped your daughter, forced her to marry him, and forced her to have sex with him. Is this rape?

Peg writes:

if 'rape' means 'carry off by force and abduction' then that is exactly what the bible account shows the soldiers to be doing.

You yourself said they were forced to marry these soldiers. What happens after they are 'married'. Do you really think these women and girls were willing participants in the massacre of there society, husbands, fathers, sons, and then willingly had sex with there oppressors? Use your brain Peg.

Myself writes:

Where? You showed that the Mosaic law forbade prostitution (selling your body for money and sustenance) not rape and sex slavery. Those are not the same things. Where does the Mosaic law state that slaves (much less free women) have a choice in whether or not they can choose to have sex with there masters?

we werent talking about slaves, we were talking about captive women being raped by soldiers.[/qs]

Really, what is the difference? In the culture of the day (and nearly up to the 21st century) women were considered at most second class citizens.

Deuteronomy 21:10-14 writes:

When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion.

How can one grant someone freedom if they are already free?

You really can't keep this straight in your own head can you.

Peg writes:

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.

Except when the engaged women is raped in the city and nobody here her cry out as described in the previous verse.

Notice nothing is said about non-engaged women being raped.

Do you read anything I write?

Peg writes:

Soldiers were not permitted to have sex during battle campaigns. The mosaic law stated this at Deuteronomy 23:9-14

This mentions nothing of the sort:

Deuteronomy 23:9-14 writes:

When you are encamped against your enemies, keep away from everything impure. If one of your men is unclean because of a nocturnal emission, he is to go outside the camp and stay there. But as evening approaches he is to wash himself, and at sunset he may return to the camp.

Designate a place outside the camp where you can go to relieve yourself. As part of your equipment have something to dig with, and when you relieve yourself, dig a hole and cover up your excrement. For the Lord your God moves about in your camp to protect you and to deliver your enemies to you. Your camp must be holy, so that he will not see among you anything indecent and turn away from you.

Where does it mention having sex aka raping with captive women? Evidently it is ok to take captive women as slaves so I do not see where you can draw from this that raping and pillaging is against god's law. Besides this is talking about the encampments not the battle field.

Peg writes:

if a man wanted to have sex with his slave girl, he had to make her a concubine, which was a secondary wife.

And that makes it right? As long as you 'marry' her?

Marriage in middle eastern affairs were relatively simple affairs with a wedding feast with the families involved and commenced by copulation on the night of the wedding hence where we get the term "sealing the act". There were no exchanging of rings, etc. And I would imagine marriages with slaves were really commenced with virtually no type of ceremony. Again did the women really have a choice? And if not, does that no constitute rape?

Peg writes:

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'

Again the slave women had no choice in the matter.

PEg writes:

no i'm not an advocate of arranged marriages.

Wow, by your justification for these traditions you could have fooled me. There is a difference between understanding the culture and condoning it.

Peg writes:

but im also not going to deny the rights of other people to choose.

Do people have a right to beat there children with an iron rod? Or enslave other people?

Isn't that what human rights are about...the right to person choice and personal preference?

Except when it deprives the rights and freedoms of other people.

Peg writes:

Some cultures want that choice and who are we to tell them they cant have it? Why is our way any better?

So I guess we should not have abolished slavery, oppose apartheid and other forms of racial discrimination, discourage torture, oppose Sharia law's diabolical forms of discirimination against women, etc.

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.


For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan
This message is a reply to:
 Message 337 by Peg, posted 07-26-2009 8:21 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 339 by Peg, posted 07-27-2009 5:28 AM DevilsAdvocate has responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3033 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 339 of 384 (516721)
07-27-2009 5:28 AM
Reply to: Message 338 by DevilsAdvocate
07-26-2009 12:42 PM


Re: Double standards?
DevilsAdvocate writes:

Yes, but I am using the modern definition of the word rape (that is for one to force sexual intercourse on an unwilling participant) to illustrate my point.

to be fair

was the bible writer thinking in terms of the modern definition when he wrote the accounts about the soldiers?

DevilsAdvocate writes:

There was no Hebrew word for our modern definition of rape.


there was and is...actually there are three

shaghal - rape as in the warning given at Deut 28:30

anah - rape, afflict, humiliate, and oppress as at Jugdes 19

kavash - rape, but also subdue & subject as in Ester 7:8

Now 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'

DevilsAdvocate writes:

Huh, in the historical context of the word 'rape' they are correct and in the modern definition of the word 'rape' it can be implied based on the context of the passage. That is these virgin women and girls were forcibly 'married' and required to perform there sexual 'duties'. Rape, that is forced sexual intercourse' was inevitable.

so now all married women were raped??

the context of the account is not about rape at all...its about making captive women 'wives'

DevilsAdvocate writes:

Except when the engaged women is raped in the city and nobody here her cry out as described in the previous verse.

Notice nothing is said about non-engaged women being raped.

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 now

I 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 it

God certainly did not command it


This message is a reply to:
 Message 338 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-26-2009 12:42 PM DevilsAdvocate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 340 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-27-2009 8:46 AM Peg has not yet responded

    
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1205 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 340 of 384 (516736)
07-27-2009 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 339 by Peg
07-27-2009 5:28 AM


Re: Double standards?
Peg writes:

was the bible writer thinking in terms of the modern definition when he wrote the accounts about the soldiers?

That was my whole point Peg! Do you not read my posts at all? What part of

myself writes:

It was not applied in a sexual context until the late 15th century after most of the early English translations of the Bible had already been written and therefore it is not a word that you will find in the KJV which began its creation in 1604.

do you not understand?

Peg writes:

none of these words are used in the account about the soldiers.
The only word used is i meaning 'wife'

We can go down this rabbit hole as far as you like Peg. So do you condone the kidnapping of women to make wives than? Do you think it is right to do this?

Peg writes:

I 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 it

I never said the Mosaic Law commanded the rape of women. I said that God commmanded and condoned multiple attrocities to occur, some of them being the rape, pillage, enslavement, ethnocide and infanticide. Rape is just the tip of the iceburg and probably the weakest one of these to literally prove (though anyone with enough common sense can deduce that it did occur based on these passages).

So I guess killing innocent children, slavery, ethnicide is ok with God than? Is that what you are saying?

Or are you going to deny than any of these things occurred. Why not just pluasibly deny anything bad every happened in the Bible and live in complete ignorance.

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.


For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan
This message is a reply to:
 Message 339 by Peg, posted 07-27-2009 5:28 AM Peg has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 341 by Taz, posted 07-30-2009 7:52 PM DevilsAdvocate has responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 341 of 384 (517288)
07-30-2009 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 340 by DevilsAdvocate
07-27-2009 8:46 AM


Re: Double standards?
DevilsAdvocate, I'm surprised you still got some hair on your head (I'm assuming you hadn't already pulled them all out).

I'm a social servant. I read a lot of police reports. One came to mind. It went something like this: The offender was escorted out of his vehicle and placed onto the ground. The offender broke his wrist and nose on his way down.

Well, I also looked at the video. WOW, I thought to myself. They yanked this drunk out of his car and slammed him onto the ground, breaking his nose and wrist in the process.

I almost lost my hair trying to argue with those officers that while technically they were correct in their report, they failed to paint an accurate picture of what happened.

The same thing is happening here in this very thread with Peg! The fathers, brothers, sisters, and mothers of these young women and girls were slaughtered by the Israelites. The Israelites then were commanded to carry off these virgin women and girls to make wives out of them.

Any clear thinking mind would KNOW these were acts of forceful marriages. What happens after forceful marriage? It's FORCEFUL SEX. What's another word for FORCEFUL SEX? RAPE!

Somehow, Peg keeps insisting that carrying these young women and girls off to make wives out of them weren't rape. But THERE'S ONLY ONE LOGICAL CONCLUSION. I mean, what were the Israelite men going to do? Put these virgins on a pedestal and never touched them again?

GOOD GOD!

Added by edit.

Am I the only one that feels like the twightlight zone featuring Peg?

Edited by Taz, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 340 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-27-2009 8:46 AM DevilsAdvocate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 342 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-30-2009 9:41 PM Taz has not yet responded

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1205 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 342 of 384 (517294)
07-30-2009 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 341 by Taz
07-30-2009 7:52 PM


Re: Double standards?
Taz,

I totally agree. What is even more appaling is that Peg is a mother of three.

You would think if anyone would be advocating female rights it would be a mother. I am not sure if Peg has a daughter or all sons but either way I would think that Peg of all people would see how despicable and sick these acts were. Her condonence and justification of this behavior is almost unforgivable and I have lost ALL respect I once had of her.

Peg,

My aim is not to personally attack you, rather I am trying to make you think about what you are saying and hope to bring out some of your humanity.

I just have a really hard time grasping why you are going so far out of your way to advocate a lifestyle of enslavement, forced marriage, rape, pillaging, murder of innocent children and other attrocities.

Not to say the Isrealites in any way were any worse than any other people of that day and age. At that time attrocities such as slavery, ethnicide, infanticide, rape, murder, pillaging, etc especially against opposing societies was common practice and can be found in the annals of the Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks, etc. The Isrealites were in no way any better than the rest of these civilizations as attested to by there own history in the OT. However just because it was a common occurance and acceptable at that time, does not mean we should say it is acceptable because it happened 2000 years ago. If it is wrong today, it was wrong 2000 years ago.

During my training as a Sexual Assault Victims Intervention Advocate (SAVI) I attended a week long workshop (and continue to attend SAVI training and workshops) in which rape and abuse victims (both male and female, young and old) gave riviting, emotional accounts of the attrocities and injustices done against them by there perpetrators. It was very moving and emotional and it really showed that anyone, ANYONE can become a victim. It was quite unnerving to view many of the horrendous pictures and read several accounts of the sexual victimization done against both adults, children and even babies. I learned alot about humanity, both the good and the bad, from this training.

I have also personally experienced the devastating affects of rape w/ a person very, very dear to me. It shook not only their world but mine and my family's as well. It is hard to judge the all the devestating effects this one act caused or how many lives it nearly destroyed. I also befriended a person several years ago in my church who I thought was a normal, decent human being, father of three including two girls, youth pastor, Navy retiree but who ended up being evil incarnate, a child molester and wife beater. That too shook my world and I became very bitter against anyone who either conducted such action, allowed it to occur, or just turned the other way.

This training and other experiences awoke in me a sense of vitriol and disdain against any type of sexual predator present or past.

RAPE, CHILD MOLESTATION, SLAVERY, ETHNICIDE, INFANTICIDE, HUMAN TRAFFICING, ETC ARE WRONG! WHETHER THEY HAPPENED TODAY OR 3000 YEARS AGO!

I really cannot understand how a mother and wife can advocate the forced marriage and rape of other women and children. To me this is totally incomprehensible and staggering.

I hope this sinks in.

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.


For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan
This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by Taz, posted 07-30-2009 7:52 PM Taz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 343 by Peg, posted 07-30-2009 10:30 PM DevilsAdvocate has responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3033 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 343 of 384 (517298)
07-30-2009 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 342 by DevilsAdvocate
07-30-2009 9:41 PM


Re: Double standards?
DevilsAdvocate writes:

I just have a really hard time grasping why you are going so far out of your way to advocate a lifestyle of enslavement, forced marriage, rape, pillaging, murder of innocent children and other attrocities.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 342 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-30-2009 9:41 PM DevilsAdvocate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 344 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-30-2009 10:41 PM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 345 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-30-2009 10:46 PM Peg has responded
 Message 346 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-30-2009 10:49 PM Peg has not yet responded

    
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1205 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 344 of 384 (517299)
07-30-2009 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 343 by Peg
07-30-2009 10:30 PM


Re: Double standards?
Peg,

What would you do if a man kidnapped your daughter, forced her to 'marry' him and have sex with him?

Would you sit idly by and do nothing?

Because that is EXACTLY what occurred in the Bible! Except the Isrealites also killed the parents and all the male children and babies as commanded by God!

So are you ok with God ordering the slaughter of children and babies?


For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan
This message is a reply to:
 Message 343 by Peg, posted 07-30-2009 10:30 PM Peg has not yet responded

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1205 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 345 of 384 (517300)
07-30-2009 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 343 by Peg
07-30-2009 10:30 PM


Re: Double standards?
Peg writes:

I've also shown you that the hebrew words for 'rape' are not used in the passages about the soldiers.

Who cares whether they used the word rape or not. The end result is the same. They murdered all the males including children and babies. Murdered all the non-virgin women. And kidnapped the virgin women and girls to take as wives.

Are you that stupid to think that these women and girls wanted to become wives of the very people that slaughtered there families and took everything they had away from them.

Do you honestly think they were willing in wanting to have sex with the very people that victimized them?


For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan
This message is a reply to:
 Message 343 by Peg, posted 07-30-2009 10:30 PM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 347 by Peg, posted 07-30-2009 11:07 PM DevilsAdvocate has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
2122
23
242526Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019