View Full Version : Sexual Violence Against Women Promoted in Scripture
Once a person becomes sensitized to the male bias of the Bible its footprints are obvious everywhere one looks. From the get-go in Genesis we read that it was a woman (Eve) who was the one made responsible for being deceived, thus bringing down the curse of sin upon all humans, then immediately following she is cursed by having the male rule over her…sure sounds like a script written by a man to me.
One glaring aspect of the Bible that seems to be overlooked by many is the perspective, from which it is written, especially in the area of sexuality. It becomes abundantly obvious who wrote the Bible when one focuses on that angle. Case in point: rape is a crime committed against women that does not have a male counterpart; men rape women because of their uncontrollable sexual lust, and complete disregard for women giving no thought, or caring whatsoever of how it feels to be sexually violated. This exclusively male mindset of sexual violence is exemplified in the Bible with the supposed creator of the universe, Yahweh commanding such deeds be done. On numerous occasions one finds Yahweh commanding that the virgins of a conquered people be given to the Hebrew soldiers as booty. These women who have just watched their families slaughtered before their very eyes are now given by the command of God to the soldiers to be taken as wives against their will and raped. There is no hint of compassion, empathy, or thought of the anguish these women would be going through, which is exactly what one would expect from a rapist, but not from a loving God. Throughout Scripture the sexual desires, and feelings of lust in men are made abundantly clear and catered to, but what is absent from its pages are the sexual desires and feelings of women. The examples below are just a few of many scattered throughout the Bible which exemplifies the total male perspective from which the Bible was written, condoning the sexual violation of women without any regard for their feelings because they are considered no more than property.
Num.31:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying…15-18 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves….30-35) And of the children of Israel's half, thou shalt take one portion of fifty, of the persons, of the beeves, of the asses, and of the flocks, of all manner of beasts, and give them unto the Levites, which keep the charge of the tabernacle of the LORD. And Moses and Eleazar the priest did as the LORD commanded Moses…And thirty and two thousand persons in all, of women that had not known man by lying with him.
Deuteronomy 21:10-11 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;…
Judges 21:11-12 And this is the thing that ye shall do, Ye shall utterly destroy every male, and every woman that hath lain by man. And they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh-Gilead four hundred young virgins, that had known no man by lying with any male: and they brought them unto the camp to Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan…..14) And Benjamin came again at that time; and they gave them wives which they had saved alive of the women of Jabesh-Gilead: and yet so they sufficed them not….20) Therefore they commanded the children of Benjamin, saying, Go and lie in wait in the vineyards; And see, and, behold, if the daughters of Shiloh come out to dance in dances, then come ye out of the vineyards, and catch you every man his wife of the daughters of Shiloh, and go to the land of Benjamin.
It's one thing to speak of an abstract "Mind from which all reality originated", and quite another to speak of the masculine warrior god portrayed in the Bible as being the creator of all reality who would not only allow such brutality against women, but who himself would command it! Any book like the Bible that could be, and has been used to negatively affect the lives of half the human population (females) could in no way be inspired by a moral god. Because of the way the Bible is written it has been used by men as a weapon to control and destroy the lives of countless women...if such a god did inspired the Bible he would be deemed a moral monster by today's standards. It’s time to wake up and take a second look at a book that has been held as a moral standard since its inception.
Everyday I read with horror accounts of the trafficking of girls and women in the Sex Trade, if one were to take a poll on how people feel about these egregious violations of human rights I’m sure it would be close to 100% (except of course those who are profiting from, and participating in this crime) saying this is a horrible crime against all humanity, adversely affecting women and men alike. What I feel is so sad is that many of the same Christians who abhor the idea of the sexual abuse of women through the Sex Trade, fail to see its glaring presence in the Bible. Until Christians can openly acknowledge that the Bible does indeed promote the sexual abuse of women with the express approval of and promotion by its author, they will never be free from its bondage. Throughout history women have never enjoyed the same freedom as men because of the domineering and aggressive nature of many men, with this in mind it becomes very apparent that the Bible reads like an historical account of how men think and their corresponding actions mapped onto a tribal war god.
In my own life, through all the years I was a Christian there was a constant anguish I felt every time I would encounter a troubling passage in Scripture that violated human rights because I believed so strongly in God, yet here in the Bible were words that seemed to reveal a side of him that went against my deepest feelings as a woman…all I knew to do was try and convince myself that somehow these words were a wrong interpretation of God’s perfect ways. Fortunately I am totally free from that burden now, after realizing through intense study that the Bible is not a book revealing the creator of the universe, but rather a book expressing mans ideas of who they think the creator of the universe is, and since it was men who wrote the Bible, their expression of God is quite masculine which is reflected everywhere within its pages.
Rose
David M
03-03-2012, 02:56 AM
It looks like I shall have to be the first to respond to Rose's thread. I feel sorry for Rose who appears to be bitter towards God and I think some of this has spilled over to Richard agreeing with Rose's point of view. This is evident from some of the other threads posted by Richard challenging God.
Technically, God has no gender, maybe instead of the word He we should always say His name instead of 'He' or 'it' which appears disrespectful when we comment about someone in their presence to another person and we do not refer to them by name.
So why did not God create woman first? I suggest God is regarded as male since in sexual terms between man and a woman, the man passes something to the woman. Man gives and the woman receives. This is the way it is between God and man. God gives and man receives. We can see this everytime somthing is mentioned as coming from Heaven; it is God who is doing the providing.
Regarding the fall in the Garden. The commandment was given to Adam and we infer that Adam passed on the command to Eve. Eve was the one deceived, but Adam ate knowingly, therefore Adam’s sin was the greater. Eve was deceived, Adam was not. We are not told Adam was deceived by Eve.
One of the consequences is that the man has the greater responsibility when it comes to preaching and spreading the truth of God’s message; this we see in the pattern that was established in the worship of God and the law given to Moses when the Children of Israel were in the wilderness after being led out of Egypt and in which God saved them from their bondage in Eygpt.
Though Mary the mother of Jesus is not to be venerated, woman as the child-bearing sex is very important to God. God does respect women and we have seen how God has used women to the good to fulfil his purpose. Women characters might be fewer in the Bible, but they are often portrayed as playing a crucial role and appearing greater than men at times. What about Ruth for example? There is a whole book of the Bible with Ruth’s name to it.
On a lighter note for a moment; I listened to a series given by the late Prof. Neiman and in passing he said that the woman is the only female of the species that feels pain during child birth. The reason for the pain is because the child’s head is too large to pass through the birth canal. The explanation Prof. Neiman gave was (and it is better the way he puts it) the woman wanted to have knowledge to know good and evil and so to accommodate the extra knowledge God made the head bigger and that is why Eve suffered the pain of child-birth because the baby's head was made bigger.
I have responded to Richard’s thread dealing with the episode in Numbers 31 dealing with the time when the Children of Israel (C of I)took captive the women for the men to take as wives. I explained how this episode is not as barbaric as Rose is trying to make out. The women were not raped, they were taken as wives, they were allowed a period to mourn, they were allowed to go free if for some reason she separated from her husband. Considering that God told the C of I to utterly destroy the people in the land to which He led them, knowing that the people of the land would corrupt His people with idolatry if they did not, the C of I did not obey God and they suffered the consequences. In this episode, the women brought their idolatry with them; I am surprised that the women were not killed along with the men. One thing we do not always appreciate is that God is working to a plan and a timescale. It is like a game of chess; God is working several moves ahead and we do not see the reasons why God does or allows things to happen until we see a later move and then that explains the moves of the past. Hence, I suggest Rose is being short-sighted because she is becoming blinkered and focussing her attention on the negative aspects and blaming God for what is in the first instance was man’s disobedience to God's commands. God has to work around this to bring about his purpose.
Regarding the rape of men by women, we know it happens today, it might not happen as often as the rape of women by men, but it happens. The fact that there is not a mention of the rape of a man by a woman in the Bible is not an excuse to lay blame on the Bible. The Bible does mention the intended rape of men by men and we conclude that in the time of Sodom and Gomorrah the rape of men was common.
Gen 19:5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know (have sex with) them.
The fact that the rape of men takes place in society today ought to serve as another warning that the times in which we live are all signs leading to the necessity for Christ to return and take over from the rule of man that has gone on long enough and man’s rule only leads to self-destruction
I have kept this short by not inserting a lot of scriptural references that I have given in other threads. The goodness and severity of God is I expect a topic covered elsewhere. I just wanted to balance the argument and trust that Rose, might one day change her mind again and see God in a better light than she is doing at the moment.
Rose should stop blaming God for men’s mistakes and men’s disobedience. We cannot say it pleased God to let certain things happen any more than God delighted in animal sacrifices to cover a men’s sin. God can and does mean it when says He does not want to see anyone perish, but that all might be saved. The fault lies with man and man chooses to disobey rather than obey; hence disobedient men and women will perish. If God was not just and He weeds out the sinful from the righteous and allows anyone and everyone into the kingdom, we will have a new world as bad as it is now. God be praised that he has given us all the opportunity to be saved and respond to His invitation to be in the kingdom that He will establish through His Son. God is always at work fulfilling His purpose and that we should be thankful for.
David
It looks like I shall have to be the first to respond to Rose's thread. I feel sorry for Rose who appears to be bitter towards God and I think some of this has spilled over to Richard agreeing with Rose's point of view. This is evident from some of the other threads posted by Richard challenging God.
Technically, God has no gender, maybe instead of the word He we should always say His name instead of 'He' or 'it' which appears disrespectful when we comment about someone in their presence to another person and we do not refer to them by name.
Hi David,
I appreciate your taking the time to respond, but you got my premise TOTALLY WRONG. I am not bitter towards God, because I DO NOT BELIEVE there is a god named Yahweh who inspired the Bible! The whole point of my article was to show that given the nature of the god promoted to be creator of the universe and author of the Bible, it is obvious that this god was constructed in the minds of Bronze Age men. If there is a divine mind that is responsible for creating the universe it most certainly IS NOT Yahweh, so once again let me reiterate I cannot be bitter against something in which I do not believe!
It is pretty obvious that the authors of the Bible created Yahweh to be masculine, first off because he is always referred to in terms like Father, and Husband. Secondly, many of Yahweh's attributes are masculine...he doesn't give birth like the goddesses do, he speaks things into existence. When Mary was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit she became pregnant with the male seed. All of his qualities are always spoken of as being male, that is why it is so apparent that Yahweh is indeed male and not gender neutral.
So why did not God create woman first? I suggest God is regarded as male since in sexual terms between man and a woman, the man passes something to the woman. Man gives and the woman receives. This is the way it is between God and man. God gives and man receives. We can see this everytime somthing is mentioned as coming from Heaven; it is God who is doing the providing.
Regarding the fall in the Garden. The commandment was given to Adam and we infer that Adam passed on the command to Eve. Eve was the one deceived, but Adam ate knowingly, therefore Adam’s sin was the greater. Eve was deceived, Adam was not. We are not told Adam was deceived by Eve.
The reason the authors of the Bible chose to have man created first in the Garden Story, was because men wrote the story and thought they were superior to women. If you notice the whole Bible is written from the male perspective, and the masculine mind-set of Bronze Age man was one of male domination and superiority, women were considered property. Have you ever wondered why Eve was taken from the rib of man instead of both being created, and then the woman giving birth to offspring? It is because creating woman from man gives the male the superior dominate position, which is just another clue as to the authorship of the Bible.
One of the consequences is that the man has the greater responsibility when it comes to preaching and spreading the truth of God’s message; this we see in the pattern that was established in the worship of God and the law given to Moses when the Children of Israel were in the wilderness after being led out of Egypt and in which God saved them from their bondage in Eygpt.
Once again, the only reason men are given greater responsibility in Scripture is because Scripture was written by men whose mind-set was one of male superiority in dealing with the masculine god, Yahweh they created. The male perspective of life is everywhere one looks in the Bible from male headship to ownership of women to different standards being applied to women and the list could go on and on...
Though Mary the mother of Jesus is not to be venerated, woman as the child-bearing sex is very important to God. God does respect women and we have seen how God has used women to the good to fulfil his purpose. Women characters might be fewer in the Bible, but they are often portrayed as playing a crucial role and appearing greater than men at times. What about Ruth for example? There is a whole book of the Bible with Ruth’s name to it.
God respects women only so far as the male writers of the Bible allowed him to, which wasn't very much! Throughout most of Scripture the role of women was for breeding purposes only, far different from the many varied roles of men, such as leader, provider, protector and carrier of the progeny (seed). Women were stripped of everything except being the fertile soil to plant the mans seed in.
I have responded to Richard’s thread dealing with the episode in Numbers 31 dealing with the time when the Children of Israel (C of I)took captive the women for the men to take as wives. I explained how this episode is not as barbaric as Rose is trying to make out. The women were not raped, they were taken as wives, they were allowed a period to mourn, they were allowed to go free if for some reason she separated from her husband. Considering that God told the C of I to utterly destroy the people in the land to which He led them, knowing that the people of the land would corrupt His people with idolatry if they did not, the C of I did not obey God and they suffered the consequences. In this episode, the women brought their idolatry with them; I am surprised that the women were not killed along with the men. One thing we do not always appreciate is that God is working to a plan and a timescale. It is like a game of chess; God is working several moves ahead and we do not see the reasons why God does or allows things to happen until we see a later move and then that explains the moves of the past. Hence, I suggest Rose is being short-sighted because she is becoming blinkered and focussing her attention on the negative aspects and blaming God for what is in the first instance was man’s disobedience to God's commands. God has to work around this to bring about his purpose.
Not as barbaric as what? :eek: Let me bring this a little closer to home so maybe you can get an inkling of how horrendous this really is. Imagine for a moment that you have a sixteen year old daughter who has just witnessed the slaughter of you, her mother and any male siblings she may have, after which she is taken by the invaders and given to one of the male soldiers as a wife...Oh, but of course she is given a period of time to mourn the deaths of you and all the rest of her family members! How do you think your daughter is going to feel about having sexual relations with the man who participated in killing her whole family?
Women had feelings three thousand years ago the same as they have today, we are not heartless individuals who have no deep feelings for our families. You really believe that a woman is just going to forget about what happened to her family and happily have sex with the man responsible? There is not one case in the entire Bible where the opposite scenario is found, there are no women soldiers who slaughter entire families except for the virgin males and then take them as husbands...everything is always written from the male point of view. Men want and desire beautiful young virgin women and they are willing to get them at any cost.
I have kept this short by not inserting a lot of scriptural references that I have given in other threads. The goodness and severity of God is I expect a topic covered elsewhere. I just wanted to balance the argument and trust that Rose, might one day change her mind again and see God in a better light than she is doing at the moment.
Rose should stop blaming God for men’s mistakes and men’s disobedience. We cannot say it pleased God to let certain things happen any more than God delighted in animal sacrifices to cover a men’s sin. God can and does mean it when says He does not want to see anyone perish, but that all might be saved. The fault lies with man and man chooses to disobey rather than obey; hence disobedient men and women will perish. If God was not just and He weeds out the sinful from the righteous and allows anyone and everyone into the kingdom, we will have a new world as bad as it is now. God be praised that he has given us all the opportunity to be saved and respond to His invitation to be in the kingdom that He will establish through His Son. God is always at work fulfilling His purpose and that we should be thankful for.
David
Once again, I am not blaming a god in which I do not believe. I am merely pointing out that given the fact that the Bible is written entirely from a male perspective it is easy to see that the god portrayed in its pages is constructed from a totally male mind-set. The Bible is no more that a history of masculine thinking down through the ages, the sad thing is that people still believe this book contains the musings of a real god instead of the ideas of ancient man.
All the best,
Rose
Once a person becomes sensitized to the male bias of the Bible its footprints are obvious everywhere one looks. From the get-go in Genesis we read that it was a woman (Eve) who was the one made responsible for being deceived, thus bringing down the curse of sin upon all humans, then immediately following she is cursed by having the male rule over her…sure sounds like a script written by a man to me.
One glaring aspect of the Bible that seems to be overlooked by many is the perspective, from which it is written, especially in the area of sexuality. It becomes abundantly obvious who wrote the Bible when one focuses on that angle. Case in point: rape is a crime committed against women that does not have a male counterpart; men rape women because of their uncontrollable sexual lust, and complete disregard for women giving no thought, or caring whatsoever of how it feels to be sexually violated. This exclusively male mindset of sexual violence is exemplified in the Bible with the supposed creator of the universe, Yahweh commanding such deeds be done. On numerous occasions one finds Yahweh commanding that the virgins of a conquered people be given to the Hebrew soldiers as booty. These women who have just watched their families slaughtered before their very eyes are now given by the command of God to the soldiers to be taken as wives against their will and raped. There is no hint of compassion, empathy, or thought of the anguish these women would be going through, which is exactly what one would expect from a rapist, but not from a loving God. Throughout Scripture the sexual desires, and feelings of lust in men are made abundantly clear and catered to, but what is absent from its pages are the sexual desires and feelings of women. The examples below are just a few of many scattered throughout the Bible which exemplifies the total male perspective from which the Bible was written, condoning the sexual violation of women without any regard for their feelings because they are considered no more than property.
Num.31:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying…15-18 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves….30-35) And of the children of Israel's half, thou shalt take one portion of fifty, of the persons, of the beeves, of the asses, and of the flocks, of all manner of beasts, and give them unto the Levites, which keep the charge of the tabernacle of the LORD. And Moses and Eleazar the priest did as the LORD commanded Moses…And thirty and two thousand persons in all, of women that had not known man by lying with him.
Deuteronomy 21:10-11 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;…
Judges 21:11-12 And this is the thing that ye shall do, Ye shall utterly destroy every male, and every woman that hath lain by man. And they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh-Gilead four hundred young virgins, that had known no man by lying with any male: and they brought them unto the camp to Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan…..14) And Benjamin came again at that time; and they gave them wives which they had saved alive of the women of Jabesh-Gilead: and yet so they sufficed them not….20) Therefore they commanded the children of Benjamin, saying, Go and lie in wait in the vineyards; And see, and, behold, if the daughters of Shiloh come out to dance in dances, then come ye out of the vineyards, and catch you every man his wife of the daughters of Shiloh, and go to the land of Benjamin.
It's one thing to speak of an abstract "Mind from which all reality originated", and quite another to speak of the masculine warrior god portrayed in the Bible as being the creator of all reality who would not only allow such brutality against women, but who himself would command it! Any book like the Bible that could be, and has been used to negatively affect the lives of half the human population (females) could in no way be inspired by a moral god. Because of the way the Bible is written it has been used by men as a weapon to control and destroy the lives of countless women...if such a god did inspired the Bible he would be deemed a moral monster by today's standards. It’s time to wake up and take a second look at a book that has been held as a moral standard since its inception.
Everyday I read with horror accounts of the trafficking of girls and women in the Sex Trade, if one were to take a poll on how people feel about these egregious violations of human rights I’m sure it would be close to 100% (except of course those who are profiting from, and participating in this crime) saying this is a horrible crime against all humanity, adversely affecting women and men alike. What I feel is so sad is that many of the same Christians who abhor the idea of the sexual abuse of women through the Sex Trade, fail to see its glaring presence in the Bible. Until Christians can openly acknowledge that the Bible does indeed promote the sexual abuse of women with the express approval of and promotion by its author, they will never be free from its bondage. Throughout history women have never enjoyed the same freedom as men because of the domineering and aggressive nature of many men, with this in mind it becomes very apparent that the Bible reads like an historical account of how men think and their corresponding actions mapped onto a tribal war god.
In my own life, through all the years I was a Christian there was a constant anguish I felt every time I would encounter a troubling passage in Scripture that violated human rights because I believed so strongly in God, yet here in the Bible were words that seemed to reveal a side of him that went against my deepest feelings as a woman…all I knew to do was try and convince myself that somehow these words were a wrong interpretation of God’s perfect ways. Fortunately I am totally free from that burden now, after realizing through intense study that the Bible is not a book revealing the creator of the universe, but rather a book expressing mans ideas of who they think the creator of the universe is, and since it was men who wrote the Bible, their expression of God is quite masculine which is reflected everywhere within its pages.
Rose
Rose is being biased here. If the Bible was written by men so were the Koran, Sutras, Hinduism, Confucianism, Taoism etc. were almost all written by men. The Koran seems to be more discriminatory of women compared to the Bible yet many Muslim women seems to accept it. The other religions such as Buddhism, Confusion, Taoism seem to be kinder and less violent than Christianity and yet they were written by men. Why are there double standards among religions written by men? If the Bible were to be written by women, will it be any better? Are women less evil than men? Certainly no; both are equally evil. If the Bible were to be written by women based on equal perspectives as written by men according to Rose, we will read more disturbing (and somewhat foolish/hilarious) scriptures:
Just an example imagining women dominant world:
Num.31:1 And the LORD spake unto Ms Moses, saying…15-18 And Ms Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the men alive? Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore kill every women among the little ones, and kill every man that hath known woman by lying with her. But all the men children, that have not known a woman by lying with her, keep alive for yourselves….30-35) And of the children of Israel's half, thou shalt take one portion of fifty, of the persons, of the beeves, of the asses, and of the flocks, of all manner of beasts, and give them unto the Levites, which keep the charge of the tabernacle of the LORD. And Ms Moses and Ms Eleazar the priestess did as the LORD commanded Ms Moses…And thirty and two thousand persons in all, of men that had not known woman by lying with her.
Deuteronomy 21:10-11 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a handsome man, and hast a desire unto him, that thou wouldest have him to thy husband;…
Judges 21:11-12 And this is the thing that ye shall do, Ye shall utterly destroy every female, and every man that hath lain by woman. And they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh-Gilead four hundred young virgin men, that had known no woman by lying with any female: and they brought them unto the camp to Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan…..14) And Ms Benjamin came again at that time; and they gave them husbands which they had saved alive of the men of Jabesh-Gilead: and yet so they sufficed them not….20) Therefore they commanded the children of Benjamin, saying, Go and lie in wait in the vineyards; And see, and, behold, if the men of Shiloh come out to dance in dances, then come ye out of the vineyards, and catch you every woman her husband of the men of Shiloh, and go to the land of Benjamin.
How was that? I guess the men have nothing to lose being "raped" by the women :D. The women will be having a hard time "raping" so many men :winking0071:. Luckily the scriptures were written by men. I guess God was really wise.
God Blessings to all. :pray:
Rose is being biased here. If the Bible was written by men so were the Koran, Sutras, Hinduism, Confucianism, Taoism etc. were almost all written by men. The Koran seems to be more discriminatory of women compared to the Bible yet many Muslim women seems to accept it. The other religions such as Buddhism, Confusion, Taoism seem to be kinder and less violent than Christianity and yet they were written by men. Why are there double standards among religions written by men? If the Bible were to be written by women, will it be any better? Are women less evil than men? Certainly no; both are equally evil. If the Bible were to be written by women based on equal perspectives as written by men according to Rose, we will read more disturbing (and somewhat foolish/hilarious) scriptures:
God Blessings to all. :pray:
Hi Cheow,
Oh course I'm being biased! I can't be any other way, I'm a woman and I think like a woman :winking0071: which is precisely the point...women think like women and men think like men. :lol: And that is why the Bible is biased toward the male because it was written by MEN!
Any yes, you are exactly right! The Bible was written by men, and so was the Koran, the Sutras and every other holy book on the planet...
As I have said to you many times before, it's not a matter of men being more evil than women, or if the Bible would be better if it were written by women...the POINT IS that the Bible was written by male humans, who constructed a god from their own male ideas PERIOD!
Again, men think like men and women think like women, and that is why the Bible only contains the male perspective, because that is the only perspective men have, and all of the biblical authors were men.
All the best,
Rose
Richard Amiel McGough
03-03-2012, 12:12 PM
It looks like I shall have to be the first to respond to Rose's thread. I feel sorry for Rose who appears to be bitter towards God and I think some of this has spilled over to Richard agreeing with Rose's point of view. This is evident from some of the other threads posted by Richard challenging God.
Good morning David,
I'm glad you took time to respond, but I'm sorry to see that you have completely missed the point of Rose's post. She did not write a single word that suggested she is "bitter towards God" and I have never written a post "challenging God." Both Rose and I have been talking about what the Bible says about God. It is not "challenging God" to speak truth about what the Bible actually states!
Now don't worry, I don't take any personal offense, but you should know that it is exceedingly rude and small-minded for you to suggest that I am not thinking for myself, but rather being influenced by Rose. I am a man. I think for myself. Rose and I independently broke free from the false Christian dogmas about the Bible. We took very different paths but came to the same conclusions. Rose, being a woman, is very sensitive to the male bias in the Bible. You read her post so you know that these problems bothered her deeply throughout her walk as a Christian. She said "through all the years I was a Christian there was a constant anguish I felt every time I would encounter a troubling passage in Scripture that violated human rights because I believed so strongly in God." It seems like you just brush off the authenticity of her anguish over these issues. Your answers do not really address any of her concerns. You are just preaching to the choir that already believes to try to cover up the horrors in the Bible. Your explanations seem like a bandaide covering gangrene to me.
If you ever want anyone but a fellow believer to accept your arguments, you would do well to begin by admitting that there are things in the Bible that are truly horrific. If you can't do that, then you will never convince anyone that you are open to the truth (and that's mighty ironic for a person who claims to be Christian!).
Technically, God has no gender, maybe instead of the word He we should always say His name instead of 'He' or 'it' which appears disrespectful when we comment about someone in their presence to another person and we do not refer to them by name.
The Bible consistently refers to God with the male pronoun and says "he" is "father." You don't get much more "male" than that.
But the "gender" of God is not the real issues. The issue, which folks never seem to "get" despite the fact that Rose has repeated herself a hundred times, is that the BIBLE bears clear signs of a strong MALE BIAS. This comes out in many ways throughout the Bible from the story of the fall to Paul's statements that women should be silent and that they would be "saved" though giving birth to children. Your explanations look like a textbook example of straining at gnats while swalling a camel.
So why did not God create woman first? I suggest God is regarded as male since in sexual terms between man and a woman, the man passes something to the woman. Man gives and the woman receives. This is the way it is between God and man. God gives and man receives. We can see this everytime somthing is mentioned as coming from Heaven; it is God who is doing the providing.
Throughout Scripture believers are likened to a female in relation to God as male. The church is the "bride" or "wife" of Christ, etc. I wrote a lot about this in the Bible Wheel book. I thought it was very meaningful, and I still think so. Unfortunately, the meaning is based on a cultural metaphor of male dominance over women which was not only acceptable, but "self-evidently correct" to most people throughout history. But the times they are achangin! Humanity is evolving and people are awakening to the fact that women should not be subject to men in anything. All humans are EQUAL! It's no different than the emancipation of the slaves - another evil practice endorsed by God in the Bible.
The fact that many Christains reject EQUAL RIGHTS for all humans and attempt to justify the sexism in the Bible shows that their religion is retarding their mental, moral, and spiritual growth. If ever there were a "red flag" that something is wrong with Christianity, this should be it.
Though Mary the mother of Jesus is not to be venerated, woman as the child-bearing sex is very important to God. God does respect women and we have seen how God has used women to the good to fulfil his purpose. Women characters might be fewer in the Bible, but they are often portrayed as playing a crucial role and appearing greater than men at times. What about Ruth for example? There is a whole book of the Bible with Ruth’s name to it.
I can't believe that you miss the irony of reducing women to "the child-bearing sex" in your response to Rose. Have you no sense of the reality of the anguish that the Bible has caused women over the millennia?
The fact that God "used women" in the Bible does nothing to answer the overwhelming male bias displayed in the Bible.
The cause of the problem is very simple to see. The Bible was written by men at a time when society was entirely sexist. But the times have changed, so now the primitive morality taught in the Bible are seen as abominable and absolutely unacceptible.
How is it that you can dismiss the authentic anguish that sensative souls feel when they read such things in the Bible? You act like the Bible is just a game and all you need to do is make up excuses to "explain" why it doesn't really mean what it says. But then in the same breath you say that the Bible is supposed to be a moral guide? If it were a guide, it would be correcting us on morality, not we it!
On a lighter note for a moment; I listened to a series given by the late Prof. Neiman and in passing he said that the woman is the only female of the species that feels pain during child birth. The reason for the pain is because the child’s head is too large to pass through the birth canal. The explanation Prof. Neiman gave was (and it is better the way he puts it) the woman wanted to have knowledge to know good and evil and so to accommodate the extra knowledge God made the head bigger and that is why Eve suffered the pain of child-birth because the baby's head was made bigger.
The scientific absurdity of that statement needs no further comment. How anyone could suggest such an idea as an authentic description of human morphology is beyond me.
I have responded to Richard’s thread dealing with the episode in Numbers 31 dealing with the time when the Children of Israel (C of I)took captive the women for the men to take as wives. I explained how this episode is not as barbaric as Rose is trying to make out. The women were not raped, they were taken as wives, they were allowed a period to mourn, they were allowed to go free if for some reason she separated from her husband.
Oh how very merciful! God ordained that the virgins would be given a whole month to mourn the slaugher of everyone they ever loved before they are forced to submit and spread their legs to the very men who murdered their moms, dads, brothers, sisters, cousins and neighbors. Are you really telling me that you think it is "not barbaric" to force a captured woman to bear children to the enemy? When folks give explanations like this, it only convinces me that the Bible corrupts both the minds and the morals of those who claim it is the inerrant and infallible Word of God.
And worse ... your assertion that ""they were allowed to go free if for some reason she separated from her husband" completely misrepresents what the LAW OF GOD actually states. It says nothing about the WOMAN having any rights at all! On the contrary, it is all BIASED towards the MALE. If HE finds no "pleasure" in her, he has to let her go because he had sex with her. Remember, she was a VIRGIN and now she is a used woman - worthless in the sexual economy of the ancient world:
Deuteronomy 21:10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, 11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; 12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; 13 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. 14 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 [fucked] her.
I am mystified that you cannot admit the horror implied by these laws.
Where is your LOVE man? What is stopping your human heart from feeling and having compassion on others?
Considering that God told the C of I to utterly destroy the people in the land to which He led them, knowing that the people of the land would corrupt His people with idolatry if they did not, the C of I did not obey God and they suffered the consequences. In this episode, the women brought their idolatry with them; I am surprised that the women were not killed along with the men. One thing we do not always appreciate is that God is working to a plan and a timescale. It is like a game of chess; God is working several moves ahead and we do not see the reasons why God does or allows things to happen until we see a later move and then that explains the moves of the past. Hence, I suggest Rose is being short-sighted because she is becoming blinkered and focussing her attention on the negative aspects and blaming God for what is in the first instance was man’s disobedience to God's commands. God has to work around this to bring about his purpose.
Yeah - a "game of chess" played out in the splattered blood and guts of real people with real feelings, family, hopes and dreams. A "game of chess" played out in geonocidal murder, rape, and the domination of women.
And why don't you see the inconsistency? If God wanted them killed because they would "corrupt his people with idolatry" why did he command that 32,000 idolatrous virgins should be distributed to his people? That makes no sense at all.
As for "man's disobedience" being the cause of all these "negative aspects" - this is another typical flaw I see in attempts to justify the actos attributed to God in the Bible. You seem to have forgotten that God is sovereigh and that He Himself set up the whole scene from the Garden on. He didn't have to order the murder of anyone. He had an infinity of other choices he could have made ... I mean, he is supposed to be ALMIGHTY GOD you know! So why does he seem so enamoured by VIOLENCE???? He could have driven out the people any number of ways. He didn't have to CORRUPT HIS PEOPLE by commanding them to be genocidal baby killers and rapists of virgins.
I have kept this short by not inserting a lot of scriptural references that I have given in other threads. The goodness and severity of God is I expect a topic covered elsewhere. I just wanted to balance the argument and trust that Rose, might one day change her mind again and see God in a better light than she is doing at the moment.
In general, there is no need to insert a lot of Scriptures since we all know what the Bible says. I only feel a need to insert them when it is evident that they are being ignorned.
Rose should stop blaming God for men’s mistakes and men’s disobedience. We cannot say it pleased God to let certain things happen any more than God delighted in animal sacrifices to cover a men’s sin. God can and does mean it when says He does not want to see anyone perish, but that all might be saved. The fault lies with man and man chooses to disobey rather than obey; hence disobedient men and women will perish. If God was not just and He weeds out the sinful from the righteous and allows anyone and everyone into the kingdom, we will have a new world as bad as it is now. God be praised that he has given us all the opportunity to be saved and respond to His invitation to be in the kingdom that He will establish through His Son. God is always at work fulfilling His purpose and that we should be thankful for.
David
Again, Rose and I are not "blaming God." We are saying that the things attributed to God in the Bible are morally abominable.
God did not "let certain things happen." HE COMMANDED THEM and instituted them in his law.
You underestimate the power of God to redeem people when you say "if God ... allows anyone and everyone into the kingdom, we will have a new world as bad as it is now." That answer trivializes the Gospel as if all a person needs to do is "believe in Jesus" to be "saved" from an eternal hell. If God can save a single sinner, there is no reason he could not save all. And if he is anything like a human parent, he would do all that is needed to save each and every one.
I would very much enjoy discussing this further with you, but I don't think we will get anywhere until you open yourself to understand how horrific the Bible can seem to people with caring, loving, and living human hearts.
Normal, healthy, human morality is infinitely greater than much of what is taught in the Bible.
All the best,
Richard
Richard Amiel McGough
03-03-2012, 01:27 PM
Rose is being biased here. If the Bible was written by men so were the Koran, Sutras, Hinduism, Confucianism, Taoism etc. were almost all written by men. The Koran seems to be more discriminatory of women compared to the Bible yet many Muslim women seems to accept it. The other religions such as Buddhism, Confusion, Taoism seem to be kinder and less violent than Christianity and yet they were written by men. Why are there double standards among religions written by men? If the Bible were to be written by women, will it be any better? Are women less evil than men? Certainly no; both are equally evil.
Hey there Cheow,
Why do you continue to ignore the point of Rose's post? It's been explained many times. The fact that the Bible has a male bias proves that it cannot be the "inerrant and infallible Word of God." That's the point. And since you admit that the Bible has a male bias, it appears you are admitting this point. Or do you believe that the Eternal God inspired a document with a male bias? If so, then how is God any better than men?
If the Bible were to be written by women based on equal perspectives as written by men according to Rose, we will read more disturbing (and somewhat foolish/hilarious) scriptures:
Just an example imagining women dominant world:
Num.31:1 And the LORD spake unto Ms Moses, saying…15-18 And Ms Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the men alive? Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore kill every women among the little ones, and kill every man that hath known woman by lying with her. But all the men children, that have not known a woman by lying with her, keep alive for yourselves….30-35) And of the children of Israel's half, thou shalt take one portion of fifty, of the persons, of the beeves, of the asses, and of the flocks, of all manner of beasts, and give them unto the Levites, which keep the charge of the tabernacle of the LORD. And Ms Moses and Ms Eleazar the priestess did as the LORD commanded Ms Moses…And thirty and two thousand persons in all, of men that had not known woman by lying with her.
Deuteronomy 21:10-11 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a handsome man, and hast a desire unto him, that thou wouldest have him to thy husband;…
Judges 21:11-12 And this is the thing that ye shall do, Ye shall utterly destroy every female, and every man that hath lain by woman. And they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh-Gilead four hundred young virgin men, that had known no woman by lying with any female: and they brought them unto the camp to Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan…..14) And Ms Benjamin came again at that time; and they gave them husbands which they had saved alive of the men of Jabesh-Gilead: and yet so they sufficed them not….20) Therefore they commanded the children of Benjamin, saying, Go and lie in wait in the vineyards; And see, and, behold, if the men of Shiloh come out to dance in dances, then come ye out of the vineyards, and catch you every woman her husband of the men of Shiloh, and go to the land of Benjamin.
How was that? I guess the men have nothing to lose being "raped" by the women :D. The women will be having a hard time "raping" so many men :winking0071:. Luckily the scriptures were written by men. I guess God was really wise.
Your examples are absurd. They only show that you have no idea what Rose has been talking about. Replacing women for men does not make those verses moral! They would be immoral no matter if it put women over men or vice versa.
The point is that the Bible teaches immorality as if it were the very Law of God.
All the best,
Richard
Richard Amiel McGough
03-03-2012, 01:35 PM
Hi Cheow,
Oh course I'm being biased! I can't be any other way, I'm a woman and I think like a woman :winking0071: which is precisely the point...women think like women and men think like men. :lol: And that is why the Bible is biased toward the male because it was written by MEN!
Any yes, you are exactly right! The Bible was written by men, and so was the Koran, the Sutras and every other holy book on the planet...
As I have said to you many times before, it's not a matter of men being more evil than women, or if the Bible would be better if it were written by women...the POINT IS that the Bible was written by male humans, who constructed a god from their own male ideas PERIOD!
Again, men think like men and women think like women, and that is why the Bible only contains the male perspective, because that is the only perspective men have, and all of the biblical authors were men.
All the best,
Rose
Hello my dear, :flowers:
I agree that men and women tend to think differently, but I wouldn't say that you are biased because of that. It just makes you more sensative to the horrors of what the Bible teaches about women. I can see the same moral abominations in the Bible and I'm not a woman (as you well know). :winking0071:
If you have any bias, I would say you are biased towards the truth, albeit through a woman's eyes. But there still is only one truth. The Bible says what it says. No one can do anything about that.
Contrary to Cheow's parody, the Bible would be filled with love and hugs and flowers if it were written by women.
Love you!
Richard
[QUOTE=RAM;41843]Hey there Cheow,
Why do you continue to ignore the point of Rose's post? It's been explained many times. The fact that the Bible has a male bias proves that it cannot be the "inerrant and infallible Word of God." That's the point. And since you admit that the Bible has a male bias, it appears you are admitting this point. Or do you believe that the Eternal God inspired a document with a male bias? If so, then how is God any better than men?
Same as I would ask of you, why do you always single the Bible? why not other religions, some much more violent against women. Sounds like a bias. You have yet to answer that some religions all written by men shows a kinder and less violent types in contrast to the Bible and Koran. Why the double standards written by men?
And why does Rose always bring up this subject as if we do not already know? I knew about these atrocities in the Bible decades ago and all have been answered which I have already highlighted in one of my posts:
1. There are laws which must be upheld by a just God. If breaking of God's commandments means death, then such punishment must be uphold. If the law says that drug traffickers must be hanged, then justice and integrity of the law must be done to uphold it.
2. Eye for an eye. The enemies of God may have done the same to Israel's men by killing them and raping their women, so now was pay-back time. This will ensure that God's enemies would think twice about doing such atrocities again. This brings up my views of the rape of Nanking; would Chinese soldiers do the same to Japanese women if they were able to capture Tokyo in WW2? Young women then were forced to sleep with their enemies who have killed their parents, husband, siblings and children. I guessed they have no other choice if they were to survive or to save their own relatives and others. Anyway, life must move on. It boosted the morale of the soldiers but demoralized their enemies.
3. The dire war situation would ensure that Israel's men would have their generations even when they were killed in war. Isn't it worse if young Israeli men died in the war without their genes being passed on? Isn't that one of the reasons why soldiers raped in war? War situations are different from peaceful times; in war guns rule, in peace law rules.
4. God's command in Genesis to multiply to fill the earth may be one of the reason why young virgins were spared to be wives so that God's people would multiply. Mixing of blood between evil people and God's people may ensure a breed of less evil people. This is a form of ethnic cleansing for the better.
5. There may be other reasons that we may not have known for His ways and thoughts are higher than us.
Your examples are absurd. They only show that you have no idea what Rose has been talking about. Replacing women for men does not make those verses moral! They would be immoral no matter if it put women over men or vice versa.
My point is that women are created for child rearing which is why they have breasts and the birth canal. To put women in other natural roles would be a misfit and unwise; same goes with men. Such misfits will caused more problems imagining men taking over the natural roles of women and women taking over the natural role of men. It's like putting a cat to look after the house or rearing dogs to produce milk. A really wise God indeed!
The point is that the Bible teaches immorality as if it were the very Law of God.
I think there are exceptions to the rule; is killing always bad? You and I would have killed Hitler, if given the chance. Is immorality always wrong? You may say that prostituition is immoral but what if it is done to support her children who will otherwise die of starvation or illness?
God's wisdom is amazing, may we have some. :pray:
[QUOTE]
3. The dire war situation would ensure that Israel's men would have their generations even when they were killed in war. Isn't it worse if young Israeli men died in the war without their genes being passed on? Isn't that one of the reasons why soldiers raped in war? War situations are different from peaceful times; in war guns rule, in peace law rules.
God's wisdom is amazing, may we have some. :pray:
Hi Cheow,
I have one question for you...If it was permissible under God's moral law for Hebrew soldiers to rape women in times of war to pass on their genes, is it still permissible under God's moral law for soldiers to do that, or do you think God's moral laws have changed? Just askin' :confused:
All the best,
Rose
[QUOTE=CWH;41849]
Hi Cheow,
I have one question for you...If it was permissible under God's moral law for Hebrew soldiers to rape women in times of war to pass on their genes, is it still permissible under God's moral law for soldiers to do that, or do you think God's moral laws have changed? Just askin' :confused:
All the best,
Rose
I have said before rape is not in the minds of the Israelis, if it is so might as well keep mature and married women, young men and children for sex.
It was not rape that God ordered but marriage. In olden times, they were allowed to have many wives. If rape is in their minds, it makes no sense to talk about marrying the women to be their wives that they "raped":
Deuteronomy 21:10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, 11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; 13 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. 14 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 [fucked] her.
Judges 21:11-12 And this is the thing that ye shall do, Ye shall utterly destroy every male, and every woman that hath lain by man. And they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh-Gilead four hundred young virgins, that had known no man by lying with any male: and they brought them unto the camp to Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan…..14) And Benjamin came again at that time; and they gave them wives which they had saved alive of the women of Jabesh-Gilead: and yet so they sufficed them not….20) Therefore they commanded the children of Benjamin, saying, Go and lie in wait in the vineyards; And see, and, behold, if the daughters of Shiloh come out to dance in dances, then come ye out of the vineyards, and catch you every man his wife of the daughters of Shiloh, and go to the land of Benjamin.
There is nothing in those 2 passages that talked about the captured women being raped but given as wives. Where in the Bible is it stated that those women were raped by the Israelites? In fact there is no need to raped them as it is so easy to divorce them at will...."married, use and discard":winking0071: This is clearly stated in verse 14:
14 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 [fucked] her.
Onr may think that this was cruel on the part of the men who "married, use and discard" the women at will, But we must understand this was war time where survuival is unpredictable at any time and such practices were practised also in modern times whereby if a man is killed in war, the wife has the right to marry another person and if that person is also killed in war, the woman can continue to re-marry another and so on. Isn't it cruel not to let the woman marry another man for security, procreation or companionship if her husband was killed in war? Same goes with the husband whose wife was killed in war. Remember, this is wartime.
Hope this helps.
God Blessings to all.:pray:
[QUOTE=Rose;41850]
I have said before rape is not in the minds of the Israelis, if it is so might as well keep mature and married women, young men and children for sex.
It was not rape that God ordered but marriage. In olden times, they were allowed to have many wives. If rape is in their minds, it makes no sense to talk about marrying the women to be their wives that they "raped":
Deuteronomy 21:10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, 11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; 13 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. 14 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 [fucked] her.
All you are doing Cheow is making excuses for Yahweh's blatant immorality and human rights violations. Yes, it's obvious that the men desired the beautiful virgin women for wives, but did you ever stop and think if the women wanted to be the wives of the men who just slaughtered their families? The definition of rape is to take by force, and you can be sure those women did not willingly become wives of men who just slaughtered their families! Have you no compassion or empathy Cheow!
Judges 21:11-12 And this is the thing that ye shall do, Ye shall utterly destroy every male, and every woman that hath lain by man. And they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh-Gilead four hundred young virgins, that had known no man by lying with any male: and they brought them unto the camp to Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan…..14) And Benjamin came again at that time; and they gave them wives which they had saved alive of the women of Jabesh-Gilead: and yet so they sufficed them not….20) Therefore they commanded the children of Benjamin, saying, Go and lie in wait in the vineyards; And see, and, behold, if the daughters of Shiloh come out to dance in dances, then come ye out of the vineyards, and catch you every man his wife of the daughters of Shiloh, and go to the land of Benjamin.
There is nothing in those 2 passages that talked about the captured women being raped but given as wives. Where in the Bible is it stated that those women were raped by the Israelites? In fact there is no need to raped them as it is so easy to divorce them at will...."married, use and discard":winking0071: This is clearly stated in verse 14:
14 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 [fucked] her.
What are you talking about? Of course those women were being raped! Read the verses: it says that the men hid and waited in the vineyards till the young virgins came to dance and then they jumped out and captured them and "took" them as wives. All a man had to do in biblical time to be married was to have sex with a woman and then she became his wife, and just because a woman is called a wife does not mean she was not raped.
Your words totally blow my mind! How can you make excuses for men raping women? That is such a gross violation of human rights and you are supporting it. So, I suppose you would apply the same moral standard to soldiers who rape women today?
Onr may think that this was cruel on the part of the men who "married, use and discard" the women at will, But we must understand this was war time where survuival is unpredictable at any time and such practices were practised also in modern times whereby if a man is killed in war, the wife has the right to marry another person and if that person is also killed in war, the woman can continue to re-marry another and so on. Isn't it cruel not to let the woman marry another man for security, procreation or companionship if her husband was killed in war? Same goes with the husband whose wife was killed in war. Remember, this is wartime.
Hope this helps.
God Blessings to all.:pray:
It's plain and simple Cheow...the Bible promotes and condones all manner of human rights violations, including sexual violations against women, and you make excuses why it's all okay because the men needed wives! Pretty pathetic if you ask me. :thumbsdown:
Rose
Charisma
03-04-2012, 06:06 PM
Hi Rose,
In this post I'm addressing only Deuteronomy 21.
The case of the Benjamites is somewhat different, in that all those being taken into marriage were of Israel, and yet, like in Numbers 31, the deepest issue is the necessary management of the effects of idolatrous practices in the era before the blood of Christ had been shed. (You do understand that, don't you?) (God will have no truck with idolatry. He made this abundantly clear in Deuteronomy 13.)
Deuteronomy 21:10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, 11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; 12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; {pare: or, suffer to grow: Heb. make, or, dress} 13 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.
This is not sexual violence. This is God telling a man how to behave himself appropriately - by holding back in the first instance. This isn't rape either.
Being a victim of a war, a woman could indeed have been raped by soldiers, but Yahweh forbids this, thereby assaying to prevent rape (a form of fornication - idolatry in practice). He - more than we - understands how women are made, and what is good for a woman.
I don't understand how can you object to the order which God brings to the scenario He thus acknowledged to Moses, except that you willingly ignore all other information in scripture which cover His provisions for a woman's most fulfilled role, and, her real spiritual needs; in this case, to be provided for with intimate love and shelter, food and clothes, and, brought into and under the blessings of the commonwealth of Israel.
You object to these blessings for a woman now bereft of paternal protection and provision? You think you sound reasonable in this?
I mean, isn't a man who genuinely fancies a woman, more likely to care for her as his own flesh? .... as Rahab, also from an idolatrous culture, was given a fresh start under Yahweh's provisions, enabled to become a respectable wife and mother? What is wrong with this outcome?
By these Yahweh shows Himself righteous - more righteous than unrestrained natural men and women. God is seriously protecting His investment!
Deuteronomy 16:20
That which is altogether just shalt thou follow, that thou mayest live, and inherit the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
The thing which catches my eye and heart in Deuteronomy 21 is that God knows He has made man/men to be God-like. That was the original plan. God has put in males a capability and instinct to search for a special 'one woman' on whom to set his love/heart; whom to win for himself. The privilege of being the 'one' on whom God had set His heart seems frequently to have been lost on Israel, but the principle remains.
Ezekiel 16:1 Again the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, 2 Son of man, cause Jerusalem to know her abominations, 3 And say, Thus saith the Lord GOD unto Jerusalem; Thy birth and thy nativity of the land of Canaan; thy father [was] an Amorite, and thy mother an Hittite. {birth: Heb. cutting out, or, habitation} 4 And [as for] thy nativity, in the day thou wast born thy navel was not cut, neither wast thou washed in water to supple [thee]; thou wast not salted at all, nor swaddled at all. {to supple...: or, when I looked upon thee} 5 None eye pitied thee, to do any of these unto thee, to have compassion upon thee; but thou wast cast out in the open field, to the lothing of thy person, in the day that thou wast born. 6 And when I passed by thee, and saw thee polluted in thine own blood, I said unto thee [when thou wast] in thy blood, Live; yea, I said unto thee [when thou wast] in thy blood, Live. {polluted: or, trodden under foot}
7 I have caused thee to multiply as the bud of the field, and thou hast increased and waxen great, and thou art come to excellent ornaments: [thy] breasts are fashioned, and thine hair is grown, whereas thou [wast] naked and bare. {caused...: Heb. made thee a million} {excellent...: Heb. ornament of ornaments} 8 Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time [was] the time of love; and I spread my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness: yea, I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord GOD, and thou becamest mine. 9 Then washed I thee with water; yea, I throughly washed away thy blood from thee, and I anointed thee with oil. {blood: Heb. bloods} 10 I clothed thee also with broidered work, and shod thee with badgers' skin, and I girded thee about with fine linen, and I covered thee with silk. 11 I decked thee also with ornaments, and I put bracelets upon thy hands, and a chain on thy neck. 12 And I put a jewel on thy forehead, and earrings in thine ears, and a beautiful crown upon thine head. {forehead: Heb. nose} 13 Thus wast thou decked with gold and silver; and thy raiment [was of] fine linen, and silk, and broidered work; thou didst eat fine flour, and honey, and oil: and thou wast exceeding beautiful, and thou didst prosper into a kingdom. 14 And thy renown went forth among the heathen for thy beauty: for it [was] perfect through my comeliness, which I had put upon thee, saith the Lord GOD.
1 John 4:19
We love him, because he first loved us.
Real sexual violence is defined by the idolatries described Leviticus 18 (below), Leviticus 19:29 Do not prostitute thy daughter, to cause her to be a whore; lest the land fall to whoredom, and the land become full of wickedness. {prostitute: Heb. profane} and, 2 Samuel 13:14 Howbeit he [Amnon] would not hearken unto her [Tamar his sister's] voice: but, being stronger than she, forced her, and lay with her.
Matthew 5:28
But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
He whose eyes/heart have wandered has done [I]sexual violence to his marriage by betraying the intimacy of the faithful wife who surrendered to his desire. (Of course this applies just as much to the woman who allows herself to be captivated by a man other than her husband, although in some cases the other man is the more responsible party. Nevertheless, hopefully, a faithful wife can find the 'no' she should proffer.)
Leviticus 18
3 After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances...
5 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I [am] the LORD.
6 None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover [their] nakedness: I [am] the LORD. {near...: Heb. remainder of his flesh} 7 The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. 8 The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it thy father's nakedness. [I]9 The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, [whether she be] born at home, or born abroad, [even] their nakedness thou shalt not uncover. 10 The nakedness of thy son's daughter, or of thy daughter's daughter, [even] their nakedness thou shalt not uncover: for theirs thine own nakedness. [I]11 The nakedness of thy father's wife's daughter, begotten of thy father, she thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. [I]12 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's sister: she thy father's near kinswoman. [I]13 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister: for she thy mother's near kinswoman. [I]14 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife: she thine aunt. [I]15 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter in law: she thy son's wife; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. [I]16 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife: it thy brother's nakedness. [I]
17 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son's daughter, or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness; [for] they [are] her near kinswomen: it wickedness. [I]18 Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex [her], to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life [time]. {a wife...: or, one wife to another} 19 Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness. 20 Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife, to defile thyself with her. 21 And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through [the fire] to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I [am] the LORD. {Molech: Gr. Moloch} 22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it abomination. [I]23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it confusion.
Universally, a child (whether male or female) is already 'one with' its parents. This applies to the woman who is a prisoner of war as much as a daughter of Abraham in Israel, and, to males. The woman is freed from oneness with parents to become one with a husband, just as a man is free to leave his father and his mother, that he may 'cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh' (Gen 2 end and Matthew 19:5, 6).
Thus adult women (in Israel) were theoretically [I]protected by 'one with their man' status, and children, by 'one with their parents' status. If not part of Israel, all were prey to the outworkings of idolatry, neither protected by parents, (age - reference to Molech), nor gender.
1 Kings 14:24
And there were also sodomites in the land: [and] they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel.
Thanks to Adam's disobedience, us girls.... us descendants of Eve.... were awarded four new operating instructions by which to experience our greatest fulfilment: Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. {to thy...: or, subject to thy husband}
No matter how these are sliced, the advantage falls to the woman whose husband has taken Christ as his Head, whom she can genuinely reverence and experience being cherished and nourished by him (as he does his own body).... nevertheless, remembering that she is as fallen as Adam, both, are going to feel the pains of our first birth while it is challenged to produce godlier behaviour, through the provisions of the New Covenant.
1 Peter 2:20 For what glory , if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer [for it], ye take it patiently, this [is] acceptable with God. 21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: 22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: 23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed [himself] to him that judgeth righteously... 3:1 Likewise, ye wives, in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; [I]2 While they behold your chaste conversation [coupled] with fear. 3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward [adorning] of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; 4 But [let it be] the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, [even the ornament] of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. 5 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: 6 Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.
The more that women try to be like men, the further they are from being God-like; just as the more that men abdicate their leadership responsibilities under God, the further they are from being God-like. It's little wonder people are unhappy, or, that what happiness they find in their disobedience from God's newer operating instructions, serves to magnify to them the disadvantages of ungodliness.
God brings sanctions to bear on those who reject Christ's death on the cross for us all - by which [B]all that is wrong can be addressed.
It's disingenuous or misguided to complain against God's reactions to mankind's failures, when there would be none if we'd obeyed Him in the first place.
Can't you see that the problem doesn't lie with God originally; it lies with mankind's [I]heart being continuously now in rejection of Him?
Hi Rose,
In this post I'm addressing only Deuteronomy 21.
The case of the Benjamites is somewhat different, in that all those being taken into marriage were of Israel, and yet, like in Numbers 31, the deepest issue is the necessary management of the effects of idolatrous practices in the era before the blood of Christ had been shed. (You do understand that, don't you?) (God will have no truck with idolatry. He made this abundantly clear in Deuteronomy 13.)
Deuteronomy 21:10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, 11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; 12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; {pare: or, suffer to grow: Heb. make, or, dress} 13 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.
This is not sexual violence. This is God telling a man how to behave himself appropriately - by holding back in the first instance. This isn't rape either.
Being a victim of a war, a woman could indeed have been raped by soldiers, but Yahweh forbids this, thereby assaying to prevent rape (a form of fornication - idolatry in practice). He - more than we - understands how women are made, and what is good for a woman.
Hi Charisma,
Thank you for taking time to respond to my post. :yo:
What do you mean it isn't sexual violence, or rape? It most certainly is! Just because a man desires a beautiful woman does not mean he can capture her and take her for his wife against her will...that is the definition of rape. What would you call it if a man took your daughter against her will because he desired her? I'm pretty sure you would call it kidnapping and rape. So let me ask you: what is the difference between your daughter and the women that were captured by the Hebrew soldiers?
Has the definition of morality changed from Old Testament times to modern times?
I don't understand how can you object to the order which God brings to the scenario He thus acknowledged to Moses, except that you willingly ignore all other information in scripture which cover His provisions for a woman's most fulfilled role, and, her real spiritual needs; in this case, to be provided for with intimate love and shelter, food and clothes, and, brought into and under the blessings of the commonwealth of Israel.
You object to these blessings for a woman now bereft of paternal protection and provision? You think you sound reasonable in this?
I mean, isn't a man who genuinely fancies a woman, more likely to care for her as his own flesh? .... as Rahab, also from an idolatrous culture, was given a fresh start under Yahweh's provisions, enabled to become a respectable wife and mother? What is wrong with this outcome?
By these Yahweh shows Himself righteous - more righteous than unrestrained natural men and women. God is seriously protecting His investment!
What you call intimate love was nothing more that LUST on the part of those soldiers, they saw beautiful women whom they desired and Yahweh allowed them to fulfill their desires at the expense of women. How could a man have intimate love for a woman that he doesn't even know and he has just slaughtered her entire family? You forgot to quote verse 14 where it says: "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."
So, what we have is a soldier who lusts after a beautiful woman that he has just taken captive after slaughtering her family, after he screws her he decides that he no longer has any desire for her, so he is commanded to let her go. Now she is considered used "goods" so she has to become a prostitute to support herself...and you think there is nothing wrong with this? And you even call Yahweh righteous!
How can your heart be that hardened not to see how wrong this is, and have no compassion, or empathy for your own gender?
Real sexual violence is defined by the idolatries described Leviticus 18 (below), Leviticus 19:29 Do not prostitute thy daughter, to cause her to be a whore; lest the land fall to whoredom, and the land become full of wickedness. {prostitute: Heb. profane} and, 2 Samuel 13:14 Howbeit he [Amnon] would not hearken unto her [Tamar his sister's] voice: but, being stronger than she, forced her, and lay with her.
It's funny that you should quote Lev 19:29 where it says "Do not prostitute thy daughter", because that is exactly what "righteous" Lot tried to do in Sodom when he offered up his two daughters to the angry mob and told them to do with them what was right in their own eyes, without a single reprimand from Yahweh!
All the best,
Rose
David M
03-05-2012, 03:32 AM
Hello Rose,
thanks for clarifying your position in relation to God. I do not know what the ratio is of men to women charaters in the Bible, there is undeniably a greater number of men than women. Women might be outnumbered by a lot but this is not showing bias. Men and women have different roles; God designed male and female to have different roles. God has given the man different responsibilities to that of the woman. Having defined the roles and the responsibilities and the rules (law) God judges accordingly. If you stand before Jesus at the judgement seat will you accuse him of being biassed towards men?
As I read everyone one's comments I see grains of truth in all, I might agree with some more than others but examining everything in the light of truth, the conclusions I make should not be biassed. If I am biassed then I will correct that where it is correctly pointed out.
Rose, I can agree with you that the women were taken as wives without having their say and we can say they were unwilling. Do we know whether these women had the right to refuse to have sex with their husband once married? Do we know for sure what would happen to them if they did? Perhaps this is covered by the expression; "finding no delight in her". Divorce is a separate subject though we know it was not intentioned that a man should divorce his wife for anything other than adultery and that unless the partner died, remarrying was also considered adultery. Remember what Jesus said on the subject; Matt 19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. Even as Moses suffered (allowed) this to happen, God was also suffering this to happen. Don't forget that God is bringing about his purpose despite what mankind does. By rights God should rule with a rod of iron and exercise justice straightaway and we would all be dead by now, fore we have all sinned and the wages of sin is death. God in His mercy is allowing us to let our lives run their course and He will sift the rigtheuos from the reprobates at he the end.
Richard agreed with me that there could be other reasons apart from sex that a man might divorce his wife. We have to examine every question and possibility before we reach a conclusion. I expect you are right in that a few were taken as wife and had sex unwillingly and that could be regarded as rape. It is probably a much lower order than you are making out. What you are doing is exaggerating your claims so as to bias your argument in your favor and alas in this thread I am in agreement with Cheow and Charisma having read their posts following mine.
This story of the 32,000 virgins I can say you are biassing toward accusing God as immoral for allowing it. You are failing to look at any positive aspects to this episode. It was when replying to Richard on this subject I read the whole story including the way the spoils of war (including these virgins) were divided up and you find they were not all given to the soldiers. When you take everything into account, you should not hold such a biassed stance. The lot of these virgins you might say;"was not a happy one", but these girls were spared from slaughter. Would you have preferred the virgins to be killed along with their parents? The people they were taken from were idolatrous and an abomination to God. These girls might have been young, but not young enough not to have been influenced by their parents and peers in idolatrous practices. By comparison, life in Isralite families was a soft touch.
Despite everything you level against God at the moment, God has not withdrawn his offer to you. You still have time to change your reasoning and maybe if you remove your bias you will come to see God as the merciful god he is. If others can see God as acting justly in this episode involving the virgins, then there has to be reasons for reaching that conclusion and at the moment Rose, you are not conceeding that God is showing and measure of justice and mercy.
All the best
David
David M
03-05-2012, 03:40 AM
Hi Richard.
It is not a case of me missing the point of Rose's topic completely re 'Sexual Violence Against Women Promoted in Scripture', I was addressing some of the points raised in the body of the post and adding a few more points for discussion. If Rose mentioned male rape as one example, I responded to that point. I do not expect you to respond to every single point I make and I appreciate and wonder how you manage to respond to so many posts in the way you do; it looks like it is a full-time job writing as much as you do.
Sorry if you think it was rude of me to suggest you have been influenced by Rose, I appreciate you not taking offence, and I will not take offence by you considering I am "small-minded" and I cannot appreciate the horrors that went on. One thing you can say of the Bible (and God's people) is that it is a "warts and all" book. This is not like the nations (Egypt for one)who attempted to remove all trace of their defeats and failing as a nation. God's word has lots of horrors and at times it has vile language, yet even these horrible episodes teach us something; either the inhumanity of mankind or of the justice and mercy of God. It is a pity you do not see that God is showing any degree of these attributes in these horrible episodes.
Quoted by RAM
Normal, healthy, human morality is infinitely greater than much of what is taught in the Bible
Isaiah 55:9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. I can see that God's ways are definitely higher than your's Richard even when I read into the gruesome accounts of war written of in the Bible. God has caused them to be written of a purpose, they are there to teach lessons. Are we learning the lessons we should?
Quoted by RAM
You underestimate the power of God to redeem people
You are making assumptions about me because you misunderstand what I say, but then we all do that to some extent in the course of these posts. I do not underestimate the power of God to redeem people, that is why I think there is still hope for you and Rose, but God expects us to come to Him on His terms, not ours.
Let's keep on chatting.
All the best
David
Hello Rose,
thanks for clarifying your position in relation to God. I do not know what the ratio is of men to women charaters in the Bible, there is undeniably a greater number of men than women. Women might be outnumbered by a lot but this is not showing bias. Men and women have different roles; God designed male and female to have different roles. God has given the man different responsibilities to that of the woman. Having defined the roles and the responsibilities and the rules (law) God judges accordingly. If you stand before Jesus at the judgement seat will you accuse him of being biassed towards men?
As I read everyone one's comments I see grains of truth in all, I might agree with some more than others but examining everything in the light of truth, the conclusions I make should not be biassed. If I am biassed then I will correct that where it is correctly pointed out.
Hi David,
Thanks for taking time to respond :yo:
Men outnumbering women has nothing to do with my conclusions on the Bible being biased toward the male. You are right that men and women have different roles as far as bearing and raising children, but that is not what I'm talking about. The bias I am speaking of is where women are specifically targeted because of their gender and treated unequally. Over, and over again as I have pointed out how the Bible treats women unequally and unfairly, which is totally in keeping with a book written by men, from the male mindset of the time that women were property.
Rose, I can agree with you that the women were taken as wives without having their say and we can say they were unwilling. Do we know whether these women had the right to refuse to have sex with their husband once married? Do we know for sure what would happen to them if they did? Perhaps this is covered by the expression; "finding no delight in her". Divorce is a separate subject though we know it was not intentioned that a man should divorce his wife for anything other than adultery and that unless the partner died, remarrying was also considered adultery. Remember what Jesus said on the subject; Matt 19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. Even as Moses suffered (allowed) this to happen, God was also suffering this to happen. Don't forget that God is bringing about his purpose despite what mankind does. By rights God should rule with a rod of iron and exercise justice straightaway and we would all be dead by now, fore we have all sinned and the wages of sin is death. God in His mercy is allowing us to let our lives run their course and He will sift the rigtheuos from the reprobates at he the end.
Richard agreed with me that there could be other reasons apart from sex that a man might divorce his wife. We have to examine every question and possibility before we reach a conclusion. I expect you are right in that a few were taken as wife and had sex unwillingly and that could be regarded as rape. It is probably a much lower order than you are making out. What you are doing is exaggerating your claims so as to bias your argument in your favor and alas in this thread I am in agreement with Cheow and Charisma having read their posts following mine.
It doesn't matter how few women were taken and raped (though it's not as rare as you imply), even one woman would be outrages since it was commanded of Yahweh! And why did Yahweh allow the men to divorce women because of the hardness of their harts and not allow women to divorce men? Once again a double standard biased toward the male.
This story of the 32,000 virgins I can say you are biassing toward accusing God as immoral for allowing it. You are failing to look at any positive aspects to this episode. It was when replying to Richard on this subject I read the whole story including the way the spoils of war (including these virgins) were divided up and you find they were not all given to the soldiers. When you take everything into account, you should not hold such a biassed stance. The lot of these virgins you might say;"was not a happy one", but these girls were spared from slaughter. Would you have preferred the virgins to be killed along with their parents? The people they were taken from were idolatrous and an abomination to God. These girls might have been young, but not young enough not to have been influenced by their parents and peers in idolatrous practices. By comparison, life in Isralite families was a soft touch.
Where is your heart man? To make the glib statement "at least these girls were spared from slaughter", what :eek: How can you have no compassion or empathy? Imagine it was your daughter, wouldn't you rather her be killed with you then to be taken captive by the men who killed her family and raped her! Why do you think the Jewish community at Masada all killed themselves rather than be taken captive by the Roman soldiers? Because the Roman soldiers would have done to them exactly what their ancestors did to the people they captured!
Despite everything you level against God at the moment, God has not withdrawn his offer to you. You still have time to change your reasoning and maybe if you remove your bias you will come to see God as the merciful god he is. If others can see God as acting justly in this episode involving the virgins, then there has to be reasons for reaching that conclusion and at the moment Rose, you are not conceeding that God is showing and measure of justice and mercy.
All the best
David
In all the verses I have quoted concerning the sexual violence against women, I have seen no justice or mercy displayed on the part of Yahweh. What I see in verse after verse, is Yahweh conceding to the lustful desires of men! It's time to open your eyes and see the Bible for what it is...right now it's hard for you to see it, because the implications are too much to handle.
All the best,
Rose
Bob May
03-05-2012, 10:37 AM
Hi rose and all,
I don't agree with all that is said below. The importance of the chapter to the discussion and problem with the Old Testament laws, wars, rapes and etc., are covered in the realization that these interactions between people and places and various tribes etc, are allegorical.
If the rapes were never sanctioned by God there is no problem.
If the wars related in the Old Testament did not happen, there is also no problem.
Jesus said that Moses wrote of him. He also said that the law and prophets prophecied until John. Those prophecies and the writings of Moses also speak of us and our relationship with Jesus that was foretold to come. The fulfillment of the promises.
For us to change from what we are as natural men to being formed in his image is a long ride. There are internal struggles that we will have to go through. These are wars.
In the Qabalah there are ten Sephiroth. Each Sephirah is positive (or male) to that which is below and negative (or female) to that which is above. This does not mean evil or good. It is merely a matter of polarity. All ten sephiroth are aspects of one God.
Same goes for Adam and Eve. Spirt and soul. Thought and emotion. The institution of marriage is a picture of proper flow. The Spirit bears witness with our spirit that we are sons of God. God's Spirit, our spirit our soul (mind.)
So, just as in the overall of Creation, after the split of our spirit and soul, there are male (thoughts) and female (emotions) that unite and bear fruit (children)
Some of those thoughts are incompatible with our growing into Christ. Some of the emotional energy is still valuable after doing away with those thoughts.
That is the taking of wives of the peoples who have been destroyed by these "wars."
We see this in meditation or pschoanalysis. We have complexes. Thoughts from our past that center around certain emotions. Many times, all we have to do is come to the awareness of where these events from our past came from and the complex is broken apart. That same energy that we felt as a lump in our solar plexus releases. That energy can now be used in other ways that are beneficial rather than detrimental to our spiritual growth.
Rape can be looked at as the taking by force of something that should be done by Spirit.
Zech 4:6 "...Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the LORD of hosts."
Moses striking the Rock is a good example.
To get the deeper meaning out of these wars, slaughters and such related in the Old Testament would entail looking at each and every element of each individual story in question. Who were the Israelites fighting? Where were they fighting? What were the names of each and every individual concern in the specific story? what were the specific Kings names etc., etc.
Israelites were thoughts overcoming with God. But our spiritual thoughts are not always correct in our approach to problems, so that also has to be taken into account.
Jesus showed us the way in the New Testament and Paul and the other writers put details to our journey.
It is the more direct approach to understanding the what is being accomplished in us, in my opinion/understanding.
All the best,
Bob
Spiritual Interpretation of Scripture
Chapter - Scriptural Symbols
Spiritual significance of Scripture is often revealed in the metaphysical interpretation of names of people of places, mountains, seas, and rivers we find in the Bible. The historical sense of the Bible is often not correct and is rarely of much important. The spiritual sense of Scripture is the important one, and it shows forth the laws and principles of harmonious existence.
Spiritual ideas and moral lessons have been interpreted as men, events and movements, and these must now be re-interpreted in order to unravel the mystery of the Bible and make Scripture practical in destroying its superstitions and mysteries.
People have considered their place of worship almost as important as the God they worshipped. The Holy Temple in Jerusalem was considered of such importance that Jew from all over the Holy Lands made pilgrimages there every year. The Temple, however, rightly understood, is a symbol of the spiritual universe or body and is attained not by means of a pilgrimage from one place to another, but by an expansion of consciousness, which then includes within itself the secret of immortality or life eternal achieved here and now.
Jesus showed forth this truth about the Temple when he said, "Ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. . . But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth."
Again, he said, "Destroy this temple and in three days I will rise it up." The material sense of Temple localizes and finitizes it; the spiritual sense reveals the infinite and immortal Temple of your life, your body, your experience of good.
This true view of Temple likewise spiritualizes your understanding of worship. Thinking of church as material, as having edifices and rules, materializes and finitizes and localizes worship, whereas, the spiritual sense of church reveals the unlimited, unfettered prayer uttered within your own being.
Following this line of thought, we find a Holy City, which, being interpreted, becomes divine Consciousness or Christ Consciousness and this is now understood as the consciousness of you and of me.
We likewise find in all Scripture and upper and a lower land, indicating heaven and earth, or states and stages of consciousness and symbolizing Spirit and body.
There is always a connecting river and a bordering sea. The river is the individual path from sense to Soul, from the lower land to the upper, the bordering sea is either the troubled waters of material existence or the quiet waters of the Soul. Always there are smaller bodies of water to be crossed on the journey -- the Sea of Galilee. Dead Sea, Black Sea, the Jordan -- all symbolic of the one crossing from danger to safety, from matter to Spirit.
Within our own consciousness we find these places, rivers, temples and mountains-not outside of us in a book as it may appear. It is within our own consciousness that the rivers are to be crossed, the transition made from the localized and finite conditions to the infinite and omnipotent good.
In reading Scripture, remember that the people and events are to be understood as states and stages of your development and unfoldment, as spiritual consciousness.
The tendency to translate spiritual ides of good into symbolic names of places is to be found in the naming of cities of the United States: Salem, Providence, New Haven, Newark, New Canaan, Bethlehem, Corpus Christi, Sacramento, and many others. No doubt the early settlers were expecting to find peace in Salem, security in Providence, a haven in New Haven, a new existence in Bethlehem, and so on down the long list of symbolic names. People are always believing that they are going to find their peace, joy, health or wealth in some person or place--and that is one reason for so many disappointments.
There is no such thing as a heaven, harmony, to be found in person, place or thing. If we do not find our good in our own consciousness, we will not find it externalized, and if we do find it within our own being, we will find it wherever we may geographically find ourselves. No circumstance or condition can be experienced unless it first be found within our own consciousness.
"Except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it." Unless the Consciousness of God speaks through us, it would not be the voice of God heard.
You remember that John the Baptist said he was not the Light, but that he bore witness to the Light. In every instance your interest must not be centered in or on the messenger, but rather in the voice of God and its message. You are always attuned, receptive to the ideas unfolding within you. Do not be enticed even by words of wisdom because the Spirit of God speaks in a spiritual tongue and interprets itself to the listener spiritually.
"Ye are the light of the world." That is your only reason for existing. Anything less would not be worthy of God's revelation of His own being.
God must play some part in our experience in order for us to receive the inflow of God. When we turn to God, let us try to rest, to let down the barrier of self to the degree that we acknowledge the divine Presence, the God Presence.
There is no individual with more God Presence than another, yet there is a greater degree of awareness of the Presence in one than in another. Why turn to somebody else instead of the Kingdom within ourselves? Only because we have not given the time, attention, thought, prayer and consecration to the bringing forth of that Presence that some others have. Therefore, in our unlimited state, we may turn to another and there find the divine Grace. Finding it in some one else ultimately leads to finding it in our own being--because that Grace is the very Self of you and of me.
One of the puzzling things that faces every student of the Bible is the God of the Old Testament, the God of vengeance, the God that rewards and punishes. In the light of Christian revelation, it is agreed that that concept of God is an erroneous one--that there has never been such a God.
To accept that statement literally would be to wipe out all of the experiences of the Hebrew prophets, and it would not be wise to make such a statement. To me, the God of the Hebrew Testament was a blank puzzle for many years, and I could get nowhere in trying to fathom that God; yet at no time could I feel that something false or fictitious was being presented.
The same puzzle presented itself to me in the study of the three-faced Hindu God. How could these people that had such great light, such great wisdom, be so terribly wrong as to present a three- headed God: God the Creator, the Preserver and the Destroyer.
Now we have the answer, we know that the Hebrews and the Hindus both were right, because through the revelation of the spiritual sense of the Bible, we know that the destruction referred to was not the destruction of person, place or thin, but the destruction of the belief about the universe. Truth is a destroyer, but the only thing it has ever destroyed is error, and error never existed as a reality.
We understand that God is a divine Consciousness, infinite Consciousness and, therefore, contains within Itself its allness of being. We understand that nothing exists outside of God, that is outside of infinite Consciousness. It must be true, then, that God must destroy even a possibility of false concept. Within this infinite Consciousness which I am, there exists that which will destroy every illusory sense or concept. That is why we understand now that sin and disease do not exist as realities. They exist only as beliefs or false concepts, and it makes it simple for us to be healed of these errors, whether they are of health, morals or supply, when we realize that in the infinite Consciousness we call God, there is that destructive influence ever ready to remove whatever is unlike God-not to remove person, place or thing, but to remove every false concept of person, place or thing. The infinite Consciousness we call God is constituted of every quality of good, which includes always a force and power that is destructive to everything unlike its own being. This is an important thing at this particular time, because right now we are reaping hatreds due to the war, conditions national and international, racial and religious. We, though, do not have to be reformer. We have the realization within our own being, the Consciousness called God, and it has within Itself all that is necessary to destroy any qualities unlike good.
We do not have to be personal saviours to any one, because this infinite spiritual Consciousness, which is individualized has within Itself all that would be the Saviour, as well as all that is necessary to destroy all that is unlike good. We are never called upon to be personal saviours or punishers of evil doers. We can easily rest in the realization that God is the Mind, Soul and Consciousness of individual being. In this Consciousness is all that is necessary for the manifestation of the harmony of God being, as well as the destruction of everything that is unlike its own nature. That is why all through the Bible in the recorded healings, some in the Old Testament and many in the New, it is not in any way indicated that it is necessary to use suggestion or hypnotism in healing. It is not necessary to transfer thought from one individual who my be the practitioner, to another individual called a patient. The truth of being realized in individual consciousness is the law unto those who ask for help. We do not have to project our thought outward to a person, or even make them understand some truth.
The metaphysician has no interest in truth as an abstract theory, but only as it is proved a practical way of life. The Word must become flesh; it must be embodied as our own being, it must make for us a joyous existence, a successful one, a happy one. The rule for all of this is laid down in the Scriptures of the world. We have seen how universal is Truth--in Oriental Scriptures, the Old and New Testaments, Emerson, Whitman-- wherever we turn we find the same Truth, but we have not found it made practical in our own experience until the advent of metaphysical teachings within the last century.
Our turning to the Scriptures to find a solution to the problems in our individual experience is an example which may enable others to do the same. There is no way whereby we can save the world. This is entirely an individual experience. One of the sad parts of this is that at times we cannot bring our own families into it, as they can accept it only as they are ready. We can, though, be the Light of the world: we can show forth, through our demonstration, that which will encourage others to seek the same way. That is as far as we can go. We can only show it forth and thereby encourage them to take the next step.
One of the points that has retarded our own healing work has been the inability to recognize the fact that it is not necessary to reach a person with our mental thoughts; it is not necessary to get a treatment across to a patient. It is necessary only to reach the depths of our own being, to have a realization within our own consciousness, and that is the point from this moment on we are going to remember. Healing has nothing to do with the other fellow; it has to do with our state of consciousness only. In these years that lie just ahead of us, that is the work that will have to be done to set the pace for the entire healing world.
How do we spiritualize our own thinking so as to be the Light of the world? We have been taught that Truth cannot be known by the human sense; Truth cannot be intellectually discerned. Truth is a spiritual quality, and it must be spiritually discerned. It must enter our awareness through spiritual sense, through spiritual consciousness. This spiritual sense is attained in two ways: one, by the reading of spiritual or inspirational literature, which, of course, includes practicing the truth learned, second, by contact with those whose thought is in the same direction. Spiritual consciousness is contagious: it is impossible to be in the presence of those who are making even the slightest degree of effort towards this awareness, without imbibing some of it from them. The greatest step is found in the word "receptivity," "Speak, Lord; for thy servant heareth." "Be still and know." "I will listen for Thy voice." Always it is be still; always it is listen; always the indication is to become receptive, open consciousness to the inflow. It is as if, just outside of our hearing ear, is an infinite reservoir of spiritual good, and by opening the ear, listening, we open consciousness for an inflow of the Word, the divine Spirit.
We have advanced to a state where our interest is in God and the things of God, where we must pray without ceasing; our lives must be a dedication. We are no longer living for ourselves, and that is not an understatement. It would be impossible to follow the line of work we have been doing if our interest was just self-interest. We have gone beyond that. We have come to a place of self-effacement where we are living not for our own good: our demonstration is only incidental to the work that we are carrying on. "Ye are the light of the world." There is not an individual on earth who is not here as part of a divine plan. Every one has his own particular mission; every one here is to serve some particular part of God's purpose. As humans, we do not fulfill that mission--no human ever fulfilled a spiritual mission--but in the forgetting of our humanhood, divinity is revealed, the divine plan is revealed.
The public ministry of healing is only one avenue. Right where you are is holy ground -- "the place whereon thou standest is holy ground" -- and that is the place from which to show forth the Christ of your being. Any further steps that have to be taken, will be taken by the Christ of your being. You will not have to plan it humanly.
Constant realization of the letter of truth is necessary so that we do not get lost in the bypaths of blind faith or superstition. It is much too easy to roll off the path into a blind faith, a superstitious faith. We must keep balanced; we must have a reason for our faith. This is not contradictory to the idea that we must be spiritually illumined, but rather, having a reason for our faith makes it possible to receive greater illumination.
To fall into a careless attitude of leaving it to God, without realizing that this God we are leaving it to is the reality of our own being, would be fatal to our ultimate demonstration. There is no God outside of our own being: God is the Mind of the individual, the Life, Soul and Spirit. Therefore, God is that which constitutes the individual. This being true, when we take the attitude, I can rest. I can relax, knowing that God is on the field, it is because we know that we are referring to our human sense of self that we can relax, knowing that the divine of us is on the field, knowing that the "I" of us is the law unto our own being, knowing that I and the Father being one, all that the Father hath is mine. Then we can relax and can even say, "Leave it to God." It is only when we fail to remind ourselves frequently of the true nature of God--of our oneness with God--that we are apt to relapse into the fatal belief of some power outside of our own being. We dare not accept the New Testament as our guide, inspiration or textbook without accepting Jesus' revelation that, "I and my Father are one."
The Bible has not been so clear on the nature of error as the metaphysical writings that have been given to us for our study. It took deep spiritual insight to find that the evils and errors, the sins of the Old Testament, were not realities but negative qualities of thought. The literal study of the Bible does not reveal that, and that is why the churches have never taught it. All of them accept evil, error, as real.
Error has been proved to be no more real than our own concept of it, so taking the Bible together with the metaphysical writings of today, we take another step in the realization of the letter of truth, because through this letter of truth, we are led to the Spirit.
You cannot accept intellectually the nothingness of error. In our study, we must understand the statement that error or disease is not real. We must gain some degree of realization of the nothingness of error. Words will not do it. The study of the literal sense of the Bible will not reveal the absolute Truth that there is but one Power. No matter how many times the Bible speaks of God as all, there are just as many references showing that evil has terrific power, and many times sufficient power to overcome good. But spiritual insight has revealed that the so-called evil powers were not powers but only beliefs, false concepts, ignorance. That leaves us, then, with the great task of getting used to the idea that there is but one Power and that that which is called evil is not power. As we accept this and apply it, ultimately we gain, through our sense of receptivity, a realization of that truth; and all the errors in the world are seen to be illusions, and we wonder that we ever feared them, or hated them, and in some instances, loved them.
Richard Amiel McGough
03-05-2012, 11:26 AM
One thing you can say of the Bible (and God's people) is that it is a "warts and all" book. This is not like the nations (Egypt for one)who attempted to remove all trace of their defeats and failing as a nation. God's word has lots of horrors and at times it has vile language, yet even these horrible episodes teach us something; either the inhumanity of mankind or of the justice and mercy of God. It is a pity you do not see that God is showing any degree of these attributes in these horrible episodes.
That doesn't help because the "warts" we are talking about are the horrible things the Bible attributes to God.
Isaiah 55:9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. I can see that God's ways are definitely higher than your's Richard even when I read into the gruesome accounts of war written of in the Bible. God has caused them to be written of a purpose, they are there to teach lessons. Are we learning the lessons we should?
Say what? You can't "see" any such thing. I would never command genocide and institutionalize rape of women as "war booty." I would never condemn my own child to eternal hell for the "crime" of thinking independently. Why do you make such baseless claims? The morality of the Bible is primitive and much of it is and should be rejected by all humans with authentic morality. Can you find anything in the Bible that is higher than the morality I aspire to?
Why does the Bible attribute things to God that are universally rejected as immoral? How can you say that his ways are "higher" when they obviously are so much lower?
You seem to forget that God didn't have to command his people to murder everyone in the promised land. He had an infinity of other possible choices. Why then did he choose to fill teh world with violence and command his people to be brutal bloody baby killers? I've asked this question a does times and no one dares to touch it. WHY IS GOD SO ENAMOURED WITH VIOLENCE? He didn't have to do things that way. Why does God choose violence when there are so many other possible solutions?
You are making assumptions about me because you misunderstand what I say, but then we all do that to some extent in the course of these posts. I do not underestimate the power of God to redeem people, that is why I think there is still hope for you and Rose, but God expects us to come to Him on His terms, not ours.
Let's keep on chatting.
All the best
David
Yes, we all make assumptions - we have no choice. That's why we need to keep talking so we can clear things up and come to a mutual understanding.
You say that "God expects us to come to him on his terms, not ours." That's another example of something that is much worse than normal human morality. I don't demand my children to come to me on my terms. Loving parents want their children to come to them freely on their own terms. They delight in diversity and freedom. Loving parents would not rule over their children like dictators who enforce their authority with threats of horrific punishment. This is the problem with the Christian world view. It is modeled on the worst human social institution of an autocrat with absolute (and arbitrary) authority over the lives of all his subjects. He commands worship, and all who refuse are tortured to death. This is the view presented by Christians. They say "God loves you so much that if you refuse his commands he will condemn you forever to torture in the flames of hell!"
I do hope this conversation will continue. We are dealing with essential issues.
Richard
Hi rose and all,
I don't agree with all that is said below. The importance of the chapter to the discussion and problem with the Old Testament laws, wars, rapes and etc., are covered in the realization that these interactions between people and places and various tribes etc, are allegorical.
If the rapes were never sanctioned by God there is no problem.
If the wars related in the Old Testament did not happen, there is also no problem.
Hi Bob, :yo:
An allegory takes abstract ideas and personifies them, but that is not whats happening in Bible. The stories we read about in Scripture are based on actual events whether on not each element or detail is correct. In these stories we read of the moral atrocities that the Hebrew soldiers committed, clearly stating that God commanded women to be raped and families to be slaughtered. If one is going to take such liberties as to interpret these stories in a symbolic manner and change them from horrendous immoral acts to something more pleasing to our senses, then the whole of Scripture can be changed to say whatever one pleases it to say.
To get the deeper meaning out of these wars, slaughters and such related in the Old Testament would entail looking at each and every element of each individual story in question. Who were the Israelites fighting? Where were they fighting? What were the names of each and every individual concern in the specific story? what were the specific Kings names etc., etc.
Israelites were thoughts overcoming with God. But our spiritual thoughts are not always correct in our approach to problems, so that also has to be taken into account.
Jesus showed us the way in the New Testament and Paul and the other writers put details to our journey.
It is the more direct approach to understanding the what is being accomplished in us, in my opinion/understanding.
All the best,
Bob
If what you say it true, and each element of the biblical stories must be looked at in extreme detail to try and discern the correct spiritual meaning, then I think 99.9% of all the people who read the Bible get it wrong! If the plain meaning is not what God intended, then he should have had the Bible written in such a manner that the proper interpretation could be easily understood by those who read it.
Thanks for chatting,
Rose
Bob May
03-05-2012, 08:24 PM
Rose said, Hi Bob, :yo:
An allegory takes abstract ideas and personifies them, but that is not whats happening in Bible. The stories we read about in Scripture are based on actual events whether on not each element or detail is correct. In these stories we read of the moral atrocities that the Hebrew soldiers committed, clearly stating that God commanded women to be raped and families to be slaughtered. If one is going to take such liberties as to interpret these stories in a symbolic manner and change them from horrendous immoral acts to something more pleasing to our senses, then the whole of Scripture can be changed to say whatever one pleases it to say.
This is exactly what I am saying. The bible takes abstract ideas and personifies them as Amorites, Philistines, virgins, wars, etc., etc. So the actual events and places may be real but the details of rape and mass murder and killing babies are patterns that mirror internal changes in our minds as a result of changing our entire outlook of reality. God did not sanction any of these things.
Have you never heard the phrase God who calls those things that be not as though they were? This would apply to the allegories in the OT.
More later,
Bob
[QUOTE=Rose;41856][QUOTE=CWH;41854]
All you are doing Cheow is making excuses for Yahweh's blatant immorality and human rights violations. Yes, it's obvious that the men desired the beautiful virgin women for wives, but did you ever stop and think if the women wanted to be the wives of the men who just slaughtered their families? The definition of rape is to take by force, and you can be sure those women did not willingly become wives of men who just slaughtered their families! Have you no compassion or empathy Cheow!
Such things happened in WW2 as well in which women were forced to have sex with their enemies who have killed their parents, families. Of course, they have resentments but what could they do? Refused and get themselves, friends and other families killed as well? Life must go on.
The definition of rape is sex by force but there were practices that were considered acceptable and norms in olden days that we modern people would classify as rape such as forced marriages, blind marriages, child marriages, bride kidnappings, concubines etc. As I said before those passages are not considered as rapes, if not why talked about marriage, wives and husbands in those passages. How about prostituition? Can we classify as rape since most prostitutes are unwilling sexual partners forced by dire circumstances and the lure of money. I don't support rape but why did soldiers raped and rapes in wars are even allowed by their military commanders?...or should we spare an empathic thought that these young soldiers were forced by natural urge to procreate and "get anyone to pass on their genes" (whether rape or marriage) before their untimely death?
What are you talking about? Of course those women were being raped! Read the verses: it says that the men hid and waited in the vineyards till the young virgins came to dance and then they jumped out and captured them and "took" them as wives. All a man had to do in biblical time to be married was to have sex with a woman and then she became his wife, and just because a woman is called a wife does not mean she was not raped.
Your words totally blow my mind! How can you make excuses for men raping women? That is such a gross violation of human rights and you are supporting it. So, I suppose you would apply the same moral standard to soldiers who rape women today?
Those were not rapes, you can't use modern definition and apply it in general for ancient times. What about forced marriages, blind marriages, child marriages, bride kidnappings, were they rapes as well? Bride kidnappings were a widespread practice and even norm in olden days in Asia, Middle East and many parts of the world. A few tribes still practice that in modern times. See wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_kidnapping
14 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 [fucked] her.
The above passages shows that this is not rape. Does a rapist have the right to "sell her for money"? In fact, merciful God provided a commandment in which wife are not to be sold as merchandise.
It's plain and simple Cheow...the Bible promotes and condones all manner of human rights violations, including sexual violations against women, and you make excuses why it's all okay because the men needed wives! Pretty pathetic if you ask me. :thumbsdown:
Same I will say of you, you are making excuses to put the Christian God in a bad light, why don't you say about the Muslim God, the Hindu God and so on of which some commandments that seems sexually discriminative of women are worse than that portray in the Bible. Where is the love of God with all your heart, soul and might? If men needed wives, does women needed husbands as well?....sounds bias. It's plain and simple that both needs each other for companion and procreation as stated in Genesis.
Love God with all you heart, soul and might. :pray:
Such things happened in WW2 as well in which women were forced to have sex with their enemies who have killed their parents, families. Of course, they have resentments but what could they do? Refused and get themselves, friends and other families killed as well? Life must go on.
The definition of rape is sex by force but there were practices that were considered acceptable and norms in olden days that we modern people would classify as rape such as forced marriages, blind marriages, child marriages, bride kidnappings, concubines etc. As I said before those passages are not considered as rapes, if not why talked about marriage, wives and husbands in those passages. How about prostituition? Can we classify as rape since most prostitutes are unwilling sexual partners forced by dire circumstances and the lure of money. I don't support rape but why did soldiers raped and rapes in wars are even allowed by their military commanders?...or should we spare an empathic thought that these young soldiers were forced by natural urge to procreate and "get anyone to pass on their genes" (whether rape or marriage) before their untimely death?
Those were not rapes, you can't use modern definition and apply it in general for ancient times. What about forced marriages, blind marriages, child marriages, bride kidnappings, were they rapes as well? Bride kidnappings were a widespread practice and even norm in olden days in Asia, Middle East and many parts of the world. A few tribes still practice that in modern times. See wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_kidnapping
The above passages shows that this is not rape. Does a rapist have the right to "sell her for money"? In fact, merciful God provided a commandment in which wife are not to be sold as merchandise.
Of course it was rape! Morality doesn't change with the times. Rape is forcing a woman to have sex who doesn't want it and that is a violation of a woman's human rights. Women had the same feelings three thousand years ago as they do today! Just because a man lusts after a woman and desires to have sex with her doesn't mean she wants that, you are acting like women back then had no feelings. It was men who made up the rules and defined the laws, it was men who lusted after young virgin women, so they took what they wanted...it's just that simple. Women were treated as property and it was condoned by God.
The main point that I keep making over and over again is the fact that the Bible says God commanded the slaughter of the virgins families and then gave the virgins to the men who slaughtered her family.
You, Cheow sound like a hard hearted man with no compassion for a woman's feelings, yet you have empathy for the supposed urges of a man to pass on his genes...I'm sorry to say but that sounds pretty pathetic.
Same I will say of you, you are making excuses to put the Christian God in a bad light, why don't you say about the Muslim God, the Hindu God and so on of which some commandments that seems sexually discriminative of women are worse than that portray in the Bible. Where is the love of God with all your heart, soul and might? If men needed wives, does women needed husbands as well?....sounds bias. It's plain and simple that both needs each other for companion and procreation as stated in Genesis.
Love God with all you heart, soul and might. :pray:
Yes, men need wives and women need husbands, but they each should be able to choose who they want to marry not be taken by force. Forcing someone to marry you or have sex with you is always wrong no matter what religion or people promote it.
I thought you believed that God created men and women equal? Well, there is sure no equality in forcing someone into a marriage no matter what the reason. Why did God allow men to fulfill their desires by marrying the women they lusted after without giving any feeling to whether the woman wanted to marry or not. It's all about men and what they want because women were treated as property with the approval of the god created in the minds of men.
Once again I will ask you the question that no one has yet answered. How would you feel if your daughter was taken by a Muslim and forced to convert and marry the man who kidnapped her?
All the best,
Rose
Bob May
03-06-2012, 04:11 AM
Hi Rose,
Hi Bob, :yo:
An allegory takes abstract ideas and personifies them, but that is not whats happening in Bible. The stories we read about in Scripture are based on actual events whether on not each element or detail is correct.
The entire bible is about abstract ideas personified. And they are personified all throughout the Old Testament using allegory and throughout the New Testament and within ourselves by living out that allegory. The Jordan river is the border of the promised land in the Old Testament and Jesus was baptised there in physical reality as a demonstration that that promised land or Kingdom of Heaven was now available to mankind. That is just one example.
In these stories we read of the moral atrocities that the Hebrew soldiers committed, clearly stating that God commanded women to be raped and families to be slaughtered.
So, if you take those stories as having happened in the "Actual" physical world you are mixing the allegory with "actuality." It was not until Jesus came that the allegories and the physical reality became one. That is what I mean by living allegory. He walked the same places that were included symbolically in the Old Testament allegories. But he showed the error of taking those commandments literally.
You cannot keep the law without breaking the law. Jesus demonstrated this to the Pharisees. They broke the Sabbath by keeping the law of circumcision as a common place thing.
So a person looking to keep the law would choose the "weightier matters" (mercy and judgement) and follow them. Joseph was mindful to put Mary away privately instead of have her stoned to death. Because he was a "just man."
Jesus healed on the Sabbath because compassion was greater than the law of not working on the Sabbath.
So, if the law says Thou shalt not kill, commit adultery, covet, steal etc., etc., who would be doing the raping and stealing and mass murder???
We both know that God did not command it because it is not in His nature to command such a thing. That goes against both His law and His essence as shown by the life and character of Jesus.
Your way out of this conundrum is to say that the OT was written by bronze age scribes. My way out of this conundrum is to believe what the bible says about itself,..that it is allegorical.
I don't have to disregard any of the bible. You do, but don't know where to draw the line. If this part is wrong, what other parts are also wrong???
If one is going to take such liberties as to interpret these stories in a symbolic manner and change them from horrendous immoral acts to something more pleasing to our senses, then the whole of Scripture can be changed to say whatever one pleases it to say.
It is not taking liberties with scripture to take it allegorical. Scripture plainly says that it was written symbolically. Allegory is something that is "alleged" to have happened. It is a story that has a more important story hidden within itself. The difference between a parable and the entire story of Israel and the Patriarchs is manily one of length. So lets look at it as an Epic allegory. Because that is what it is.
To not read it in such a way is taking liberties with scripture. It says these things were figures and shadows of things to come. Our coming back to life because of Jesus coming to free us from death is the story hidden within the epic story of the Old Testament.
God used a certain Geographical area of the world as a "set" and an entire people to demonstrate the epic drama. All of the topography of rivers and mountains and lowlands and peoples and types of trees and metals and minerals etc., all have a meaning.
It cannot be changed to say whatever we want it to say because each of those elements has a meaning which is demonstrated over and over within scripture.
A mountain is a high place in consciousness. A wilderness is a place of testing, teaching and provision by God. Moses means drawn from water, Simeon means hearing. Jacob means following after God and the supplanter. Israel means power with man and God etc., etc.
These are not things you are unfamiliar with having studied scripture as much as you have.
If what you say it true, and each element of the biblical stories must be looked at in extreme detail to try and discern the correct spiritual meaning, then I think 99.9% of all the people who read the Bible get it wrong!
Not only do 99% of the people get it wrong, less than 99% of the people that I know even pick up a bible at all. And of the ones that do read the bible only a small percentage of those read a decent translation or look for any alternative translations or Hebrew or Greek definitions of words when reading.
If the plain meaning is not what God intended, then he should have had the Bible written in such a manner that the proper interpretation could be easily understood by those who read it.
The proper interpretation is only possible by revelation, but the same subject matter that is covered by the Old Testament is more openly stated in the New. But even there our minds have to be open to revelation to understand it to the depths we need to understand it.
Mt 22:36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
Mt 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Mt 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
Mt 22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Mt 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
The proper understanding of these few verses would get us through all of the internal battles and wars that are depicted in the Old Testament. We may not know we are going through those battles at the time we are going through them but we can, after the fact, sometimes see that they apply to our personal experiences in hindsight.
All the best,
Bob
[QUOTE=Rose;41896]Of course it was rape! Morality doesn't change with the times. Rape is forcing a woman to have sex who doesn't want it and that is a violation of a woman's human rights. Women had the same feelings three thousand years ago as they do today! Just because a man lusts after a woman and desires to have sex with her doesn't mean she wants that, you are acting like women back then had no feelings. It was men who made up the rules and defined the laws, it was men who lusted after young virgin women, so they took what they wanted...it's just that simple. Women were treated as property and it was condoned by God.
The main point that I keep making over and over again is the fact that the Bible says God commanded the slaughter of the virgins families and then gave the virgins to the men who slaughtered her family.
You, Cheow sound like a hard hearted man with no compassion for a woman's feelings, yet you have empathy for the supposed urges of a man to pass on his genes...I'm sorry to say but that sounds pretty pathetic.
What if you have unmarried sons fighting in a war with hardly any chance of survival, would you approve that they quickly get married or sleep with any they can find?.....or do you refer they die as heroes without children? That sounds hard hearted. That's what God did by ensuring that the Israelite young men have wives with the 32,000 virgins. What if the men slaughtered their evil families, their families would die anyway from their sin and from their other enemies. Their death I believe does not go in vain as God may have forgiven their sin already.
Yes, men need wives and women need husbands, but they each should be able to choose who they want to marry not be taken by force. Forcing someone to marry you or have sex with you is always wrong no matter what religion or people promote it.
Don't be deluded with such concept....choosing whoever they want to marry does not necessary ensure a happy marriage life ever after. Look at the divorce rates in US! My parents were arranged marriaged and yet they lived happily as couples till death. I am not saying that choosing who to marry is no good but that it does not guarantee a happy marriage; it depends on the right chemistry. Such arranged marriages and forced marriages were common in olden days in Asia.
I thought you believed that God created men and women equal? Well, there is sure no equality in forcing someone into a marriage no matter what the reason. Why did God allow men to fulfill their desires by marrying the women they lusted after without giving any feeling to whether the woman wanted to marry or not. It's all about men and what they want because women were treated as property with the approval of the god created in the minds of men.
When did I say that God created men equal? I said that men and women can NEVER be equal anatomiocally, physically, psychologically. God probably created men with sex on their minds for the purpose of procreation. Women were created to help the men procreate and look after the children. That was the commandment for men and women to fill the earth. I son't nelieve that women were treated as property as the passages suggest "Not to treat them as merchandise":
14 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 [fucked] her
Once again I will ask you the question that no one has yet answered. How would you feel if your daughter was taken by a Muslim and forced to convert and marry the man who kidnapped her?
Of course, I will be very sad and will try to rescue her but in the even that I can't, I will leave that to God, perhaps it is a blessing in disguise. Now my question, how would you feel if your young unmarried sons were to die in a war childless?
God Blessings to all.
Hi Rose,
We both know that God did not command it because it is not in His nature to command such a thing. That goes against both His law and His essence as shown by the life and character of Jesus.
Your way out of this conundrum is to say that the OT was written by bronze age scribes. My way out of this conundrum is to believe what the bible says about itself,..that it is allegorical.
I don't have to disregard any of the bible. You do, but don't know where to draw the line. If this part is wrong, what other parts are also wrong???
All the best,
Bob
Hi Bob,
That is preciously the problem. The Old Testament depicts Yahweh as a vengeful, cruel monster who commands families to be slaughtered and girls to be raped! So, how do I know that it is not his nature? It seems the scribes who penned the Old Testament thought it was Yahweh's nature, because the picture they painted of him was that of a tribal war god.
Now, we know that when Jesus came along he updated God's image to be much more of a loving father type, but he was unwilling to let go of the Old Testament image of God, so we are stuck with a two-faced God. It can be quite a conundrum if one tries to reconcile the two by picking an choosing which face of God they want, but then the question arises, what compels you to believe the God of the Bible is actually a real entity? Why is the biblical God real and not Allah? I could just as easily allegorize the Koran and make Allah to be a god of total loving-kindness...what's the difference?
There is so much conflict between what the Bible says, and what my heart and intuition tells me that I see no reason to try and salvage its god. The only reason I believed in the biblical god in the first place was because I was born in a country that held the Bible to be the Word of God, if I would have been born in a Muslim country I would have believed in the Koran.
For me the bottom line remains that I no longer feel the need to try and "clean up" Yahweh to make him fit my heartfelt and intuitive ideas of a divine being. I am free to draw from the Bible whatever wisdom it contains without the moral atrocities that cause me anguish.
Thanks for sharing you views with me,
Rose
What if you have unmarried sons fighting in a war with hardly any chance of survival, would you approve that they quickly get married or sleep with any they can find?.....or do you prefer they die as heroes without children? That sounds hard hearted. That's what God did by ensuring that the Israelite young men have wives with the 32,000 virgins. What if the men slaughtered their evil families, their families would die anyway from their sin and from their other enemies. Their death I believe does not go in vain as God may have forgiven their sin already.
Of course I prefer they die without children, if having children means raping a woman. You seem to think it's all about men having children without any regard for the woman, just because a man wants children does not give him the right to force a woman to bear children for him! Women have feelings, and rights too you know...all you seem to be focusing on is the male who is lusting after virgins and wanting to get his sexual urges fulfilled.
Don't be deluded with such concept....choosing whoever they want to marry does not necessary ensure a happy marriage life ever after. Look at the divorce rates in US! My parents were arranged marriaged and yet they lived happily as couples till death. I am not saying that choosing who to marry is no good but that it does not guarantee a happy marriage; it depends on the right chemistry. Such arranged marriages and forced marriages were common in olden days in Asia.
Who said anything about living happily ever after? Whether or not one lives happily ever after doesn't mean they shouldn't have the right to choose whom they wish to marry. You seem to think it's okay for the man to choose to marry the virgin he is lusting after, so why shouldn't the woman have an equal right to choose the man she wishes to marry? You have a very one sided, male biased slant on the idea of marriage.
When did I say that God created men equal? I said that men and women can NEVER be equal anatomiocally, physically, psychologically. God probably created men with sex on their minds for the purpose of procreation. Women were created to help the men procreate and look after the children. That was the commandment for men and women to fill the earth. I don't believe that women were treated as property as the passages suggest "Not to treat them as merchandise":
14 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 [fucked] her
Wow! I didn't expect that, but I guess I should have guessed since all you have focused on in your posts is defending a mans right to have sex with any virgin he lusts after, because as you said women were just created to help men procreate and then look after the their children.
What do you mean women weren't treated as property? The verse below says if a man rapes a virgin he has to pay her father fifty shekels! Sounds a lot like paying for merchandise to me.
Deut.22:28-29 If 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.
Of course, I will be very sad and will try to rescue her but in the even that I can't, I will leave that to God, perhaps it is a blessing in disguise. Now my question, how would you feel if your young unmarried sons were to die in a war childless?
God Blessings to all.
Once again, you have knocked my socks off with your heartless answer, I am sure glad I am not your daughter. Now to answer your question. I would much rather my son die childless then to force himself on a woman who has no desire for him. Unlike you Cheow, I can imagine myself as being the woman who is the victim of some mans lust, and let me tell you it's a horrible place to be. Men who force themselves upon the women they lust after are getting their desires fulfilled, unlike the victims who only suffer the traumatic consequences, but I guess you don't care about that as long as the man gets his desires fulfilled, because that all that matters to your male god.
All the best,
Rose
[
QUOTE=Rose;41903]Of course I prefer they die without children, if having children means raping a woman. You seem to think it's all about men having children without any regard for the woman, just because a man wants children does not give him the right to force a woman to bear children for him! Women have feelings, and rights too you know...all you seem to be focusing on is the male who is lusting after virgins and wanting to get his sexual urges fulfilled.
It is not rape, and I am not talking about rape. Both men and women have feelings and the natural urge to reproduce. If men have lusts, does women have lusts also? Well a good example were Lot's daughters who even have incest with her father; desperate needs require desperate solutions. To encourage them to die childless is might as well don't let them be born in the first place. One of the first commandment of God in Genesis is for human to reproduce and fill the earth and to subdue the animals in His creation. Not to do so is breaking this commandment.
Who said anything about living happily ever after? Whether or not one lives happily ever after doesn't mean they shouldn't have the right to choose whom they wish to marry. You seem to think it's okay for the man to choose to marry the virgin he is lusting after, so why shouldn't the woman have an equal right to choose the man she wishes to marry? You have a very one sided, male biased slant on the idea of marriage.
Does many people in ancient days have that right to choose who to marry? Obviously No. You need to read the Bible with ancient cultures in context whereby forced marriages, arrange marriages, bride kidnappings and even child marriages were the acceptable norms of the day.
Wow! I didn't expect that, but I guess I should have guessed since all you have focused on in your posts is defending a mans right to have sex with any virgin he lusts after, because as you said women were just created to help men procreate and then look after the their children.
What do you mean women weren't treated as property? The verse below says if a man rapes a virgin he has to pay her father fifty shekels! Sounds a lot like paying for merchandise to me.
Deut.22:28-29 If 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.
The keywords are "she shall be his wife and may not put her away all his days meaning wife till death.
The other keywords are "If 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;" sounds like consensual sex and not rape as per se. Why didn't the damsel struggled or resisted the so call "rapist"?
Once again, you have knocked my socks off with your heartless answer, I am sure glad I am not your daughter. Now to answer your question. I would much rather my son die childless then to force himself on a woman who has no desire for him. Unlike you Cheow, I can imagine myself as being the woman who is the victim of some mans lust, and let me tell you it's a horrible place to be. Men who force themselves upon the women they lust after are getting their desires fulfilled, unlike the victims who only suffer the traumatic consequences, but I guess you don't care about that as long as the man gets his desires fulfilled, because that all that matters to your male god.
I am heartless? To deprive of your children male or female from child bearing is equally heartless. Taking into consideration the harsh war situations during those times in the OT and the desperate urge to sustain the Israelite's generations, desperate solutions are needed. Its like if you are the only woman in the world, would men forced themselves on you so as to ensure that the human race will not go extinct? Based on the situation of those times, God allowed the Israelites to marry the evil generations of the 32,000 women captives so that the generations thereafter will be less evil and at the same time sustained the generations of the Israelites. I just wonder why didn't those women resisted and killed themselves rather than to submit themselves to be married to those who killed their families? Perhaps there was pardon of their sins and guarantee of salvation if they married the Israelites.
God Blessed. :pray:
It is not rape, and I am not talking about rape. Both men and women have feelings and the natural urge to reproduce. If men have lusts, does women have lusts also? Well a good example were Lot's daughters who even have incest with her father; desperate needs require desperate solutions. To encourage them to die childless is might as well don't let them be born in the first place. One of the first commandment of God in Genesis is for human to reproduce and fill the earth and to subdue the animals in His creation. Not to do so is breaking this commandment.
Speaking of Lot's daughters, it was "righteous" Lot who offered his two daughters to the angry mob at Sodom to do with as was right in their own eyes, instead of the two men who were abiding under his roof. :eek: Sounds like he should have been the one turned into a pillar of salt instead of his wife who only looked back at the burning city.
No one is encouraging anyone to die childless! What I am saying is that men should not be forcing themselves on women, if a man wishes to marry and have children it should be with a woman who wants to be his wife.
The keywords are "she shall be his wife and may not put her away all his days meaning wife till death.
The other keywords are "If 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;" sounds like consensual sex and not rape as per se. Why didn't the damsel struggled or resisted the so call "rapist"?
The key words in Deut.22:28 is "lay hold" which in Hebrew is taphas meaning to catch, take hold of, or seize which can be translated as "Rape". It's truly is amazing the effort you are exerting, to try and justify men fulfilling their lusts by raping women! Has morality changed? It seems like you are saying that raping women was okay during biblical times, but is wrong in modern times?
I am heartless? To deprive of your children male or female from child bearing is equally heartless. Taking into consideration the harsh war situations during those times in the OT and the desperate urge to sustain the Israelite's generations, desperate solutions are needed. Its like if you are the only woman in the world, would men forced themselves on you so as to ensure that the human race will not go extinct? Based on the situation of those times, God allowed the Israelites to marry the evil generations of the 32,000 women captives so that the generations thereafter will be less evil and at the same time sustained the generations of the Israelites. I just wonder why didn't those women resisted and killed themselves rather than to submit themselves to be married to those who killed their families? Perhaps there was pardon of their sins and guarantee of salvation if they married the Israelites.
God Blessed. :pray:
No one is depriving anyone the opportunity of marrying and bearing children, it's just that if a man wants to have a family it shouldn't be started by raping a woman! Children should come from a loving relationship between a man and woman, not from sexual violence. Why is God promoting sexual violence against women, and encouraging men to lust after women and have their sexual desires fulfilled at the expense of the woman? Kinda screwed up values wouldn't you say?
All the best,
Rose
David M
03-07-2012, 04:43 AM
Hello Rose
Hi David,
Over, and over again as I have pointed out how the Bible treats women unequally and unfairly, which is totally in keeping with a book written by men, from the male mindset of the time that women were property.
The Scriptures were written by men who were inspired to write these things down. I will just refer to 2 Timothy 3:16 as to the purpose of scripture (including the N.T. writings).
I have read the posts of everyone following your reply to me and as an observer, I can see elements of Truth in each post. There is a lot I disagree with the same as you do, but I am trying to get to the truth through all of this and while I do not always have an immediate answer to every question raised I am prepared to think about each question and to search out an anwer that is essentially based on God's word.
When you say the Bible treats women unequally and unfairly, can you think of any situation where that statement is untrue? Can you not think of one situation where women have been treated equally and fairly. I expect if you look, you will find one. Also you will probably find examples where men have been treated unequally and unfairly.
The Bible tells us that woman is subordinate to the man, their is a heirarchy, but this does not mean that the woman is inferior to the man or less worthy than man. In the purpose of God we are all individually responsible for our actions and we shall have to answer for ourselves at our Day of Judgement. It will not matter in what period or culture we lived, we are responsible for our own actions. Those who acted under instruction of God (invidually or nationally) I expect will stand blameless, but where they were not under instruction, they are responsible for their actions.
This topic is really about the morality of God and the story of the 32,000 virgins is one aspect we can study the morality of God. While it is easy to get side-tracked by other comments introduced I shall stay on topic as best I can. What I am looking for in all of this is to understand why God instructs His people to act as He tells them. The answer is not clear cut and as I tried to explain to Richard and I probably did not explain very well. God is dealing with many situations at a time which have been brought about by man having free will. For example, God instructed His people to clear the promised land of all its inhabitants because they were all practicing idolatry. This may sound harsh, but God is doing what is best for His people. Idolatry is an abomination to God and why not? You do not believe in God so why would I not expect you to agree with idolatry, if that is what you want to do. God has clearly stated that the practice of idolatry by anyone is an abomination to Him. I am not going to find excuses for the people that practiced it (at any time in history). Even God's chosen nation who should have been glowing examples of how to live according to His laws, when left to their own devices went back to practicing idolatry (the golden calf for example). Throughout their history, the Nation of Israel, we see were fickle, often following the practices of their king and we read of the kings who did right in the sight of God and those who did wrong.
God is true to his promise, concerning His chosen race. This is what he declared; "I will bless them that bless thee and curse them that curse thee." I do not intend to make this a topic of discussion here but to make the point that it was the same for God's people; if they obeyed God they would be blessed (rewarded with good) and it they did not obey, they would be punished (rewarded wth evil). We see how God does eventually punish His people for their disobedience and scattered them throughout the world and for a long time they ceased to be a nation. God has been true to His promise and has now regathered hHis poeple and they are once more a nation. I do not want anyone reading this to comment here, I am merely pointing out how God has kept to his promise, while at the same time, bringing about His purpose and allowing for the times when man has gone against His instructions and the consequences that naturally follow. We can look at specific examples; King David for one. King David was guilty of adultery and murder both punishable by death. God spared David from the immediate punishement of death, and David sincerely repented, and continued to be a "friend of God". This gives me great hope and I can see the mercy of God which I trust He will extend to me. The fact is we are in no position to judge better than God, who knows all the circumstances and the intent of each individual's heart. What I tried to convey to Richard is that it looks like God is playing a game of chess. God is having to plan His next move on what man does. God knows the end from the beginning, He will win, for He will set up the moves so that man although he thinks he has freedom (and he has) man's moves will be based on his thought processes and although man makes a move, God already has His next move decided. This is how we can see God "ruling in the kingdoms of men". I have seen this happening as it is happening now which further supports my belief in God and what God is doing is right and ultimately His purpose (the big picture) will be fulfilled.
Having said all that, I appreciate we have to understand why God is acting in the way He does in these micro-circumstances of which was are condsidering one. I do not think we see as clearly as God the way forward. The world would be a far different place if God intervened as we expect he should from our point of view. Our judgement is imperfect and it is impossible for us to control ourselves let alone control the world. No governement of man has proved that man is in control. Again, we cannot expect others to control our own behaviour of which we have choice. That is why whatever we think of God's actions; right or wrong, we have to look to our own actions first. I shall continue to look for the justice and right judgement to God's actions including the one we are discussing now. I can see why God does has done some things the way He hs and I am still looking for reasons He has done other things the way He has. Because of the big picture, I will not let my not understanding of every situation, be a reason for disbelieving everything else I understand and believe to be true.
It doesn't matter how few women were taken and raped (though it's not as rare as you imply), even one woman would be outrages since it was commanded of Yahweh! And why did Yahweh allow the men to divorce women because of the hardness of their harts and not allow women to divorce men? Once again a double standard biased toward the male.
I have to agree with the comments of Steve and others; God did not command the Israelites to rape the women. You are interpreting what took place as rape. I expect some indivinuals did rape (everyone is free to act as they want) and if it was found that some soldiers committed rape they would be punished under the law. The fact that we do not have all the detail does not mean we should ignore this. That is why, whether something is mentioned or not, we have to explore every possible act and intention and whay might have taken place and gone unreported. We have to put forward every question and give every possible answer to come to a correct decision. God has caused to be written enough that we should know about.
Where is your heart man? To make the glib statement "at least these girls were spared from slaughter", what :eek: How can you have no compassion or empathy? Imagine it was your daughter, wouldn't you rather her be killed with you then to be taken captive by the men who killed her family and raped her! Why do you think the Jewish community at Masada all killed themselves rather than be taken captive by the Roman soldiers? Because the Roman soldiers would have done to them exactly what their ancestors did to the people they captured!
You can say my statement is glib and that I have no compassion or empathy , I do not expect others to entirely agree with your opinion; the same way as they do not agree with your totally biassed opinion of what took place concerning the 32,000 virgins. As I said, the original instruction was to utterly destroy the people living in the land promised to the Children of Israel. If they had obeyed the situation we are talking about now would never have took place. The killing of all the people in the land they were to posess does sound harsh. I also believe in the infinite mercy of God to save the innocent from etenal death. I leave all judgemet to God and will not limit God to who He allows to be in the kingdom. All I am told is that as God will judge the good and the bad, and there will be many who will not live to see the kingdom of God which is coming. We must first have regard to our own actions and let "the dead bury the dead" as Jesus said.
I shall ask is this question; what would have happened to these 32,000 virgins if the slaughter had not taken place? My answer is; I expect they would have practiced idolatry the same as their parents and peers. In this way, they would have come under the same judgement as anyone else that practiced idolatry. As they were spared and had the opportunity to live with the Israelites they had the opportunity to lead a much better life; the same as God's people had the opportunity to lead a better life and be blessed for so doing. In practice, God's people did not always lead the better life they were supposed to.
Another point, while accepting the Children of Israel did not lead the pefect lives they were supposed to, on a whole, the nation was better for practicing the laws given to them by God. Consider the children of these women saved, their childred would have had a much better life and better prospects for the future, than if they had been born into the idolatrous society in which they had lived. Considering it was the practice to offer infants as a sacrifice to these false gods, I cannot see what advantage these women had by remaining alive to participate in idolatry. How you can say that by being taken captive into a society that gave these women better prospects, it was not compassionate. I do empathise with people, but you are saying I should have empathy with those who practice idolatry and whether they be virgins or otherwise makes no difference. Because they are sexual virgins does not make them idolatrous virgins. These women were given the opportunity to assimilate into a better society overall and that has to begood. I understand their anguish and hurt and pain at seeing their family slaughtered, but in time, and as the old adage goes, "time heals", maybe they would come to understand the error of their parents and peers and their nation as a whole. As I say, I am trying to get a fair balance and make sense of all this.
In all the verses I have quoted concerning the sexual violence against women, I have seen no justice or mercy displayed on the part of Yahweh. What I see in verse after verse, is Yahweh conceding to the lustful desires of men! It's time to open your eyes and see the Bible for what it is...right now it's hard for you to see it, because the implications are too much to handle.
All the best,
Rose
Sorry Rose, I can only see you are making gross assumptions again as others are seeing you making. It is true that men have lustful desires; the same as women have lustful desires but more so in men than women perhaps. We generalize but we should not forget that individually we are accountable for our own actions over which we should exercise control and that is not to say this is easier said than done. It is extremely difficult and thanks be to Jesus for proving it can be done and through Jesus, the Christ, we can be given the victory, just as Jesus was victorious in defeating the devil that was his nature, but which he overcame.
Again Rose, you are accusing me of being blind and not being able to handle the truth. That I can level the same against you and so I let others reading this decide who is nearer to understanding the Truth of God's word. I know you are not accusing me of evil doing, all I am doing is having a good good conversation based on my understanding of God's word which I have gained over many years and it does not matter if I am accused of less than evil doings, for the same sentiment applies as stated in the following quote;
1 Peter 3:16 Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.
I can handle it!!
All the best to you Rose.
David
.
David M
03-07-2012, 06:07 AM
Hello Richard
That doesn't help because the "warts" we are talking about are the horrible things the Bible attributes to God.
I can see from what I have written, "the warts and all", I should have said only relates to God's chosen nation; not to the inspired scriptures. One could have expected God's chosen nation to be spoken of in a wonderful terms and presentes us with what a perfect society should be like. One would think that they should have been better examples. We cannot accuse God of hiding anything. God wants us to learn from everything He has caused to be written whether by inspiration before, at or after the event. God has written all that we need to know, including getting to the bottom of we should learn and understand from this episoed involving the 32,000 virgins. God has recorded these events for our learning, I will look for the lessons before I stand in moral judgement of God about which I might not have all the facts or understand them if I do.
Say what? You can't "see" any such thing. I would never command genocide and institutionalize rape of women as "war booty." I would never condemn my own child to eternal hell for the "crime" of thinking independently. Why do you make such baseless claims? The morality of the Bible is primitive and much of it is and should be rejected by all humans with authentic morality. Can you find anything in the Bible that is higher than the morality I aspire to?
I have responded to Rose and I have to agree with others, this is not institutional rape in the episode we are considering. Once we examine every fact and question and possible answer and reason, I trust we might all reach the same conclusion. I expect you have or will read my response to Rose's last reply to me, so I will let this point rest for now.
Why does the Bible attribute things to God that are universally rejected as immoral? How can you say that his ways are "higher" when they obviously are so much lower?
What do you mean by "universally"? I do not agree with your statement, therefore I am not part of the universalism you are claiming here or that I recognise.
You seem to forget that God didn't have to command his people to murder everyone in the promised land. He had an infinity of other possible choices. Why then did he choose to fill teh world with violence and command his people to be brutal bloody baby killers? I've asked this question a does times and no one dares to touch it. WHY IS GOD SO ENAMOURED WITH VIOLENCE? He didn't have to do things that way. Why does God choose violence when there are so many other possible solutions?
Richard, please tell us of the alternative choices God had. Maybe you are thinking God could have brought a plague on all the people and killed them that way. Maybe God could have caused a localised flood and drowned them all. If God had cleared the land this way, are you agreeing this was morally acceptable? Are we now just having to come to terms with the reason God chose not to do it this way? The fact that another way was chosen, is teaching us a lot, especially the consequence of not folllowing God's instructions to the letter. It is the consequences of people's rebellion and not following instruction that God is having to deal with.
Yes, we all make assumptions - we have no choice. That's why we need to keep talking so we can clear things up and come to a mutual understanding.
That is why everyone should put forward all their questions and everyone should contribute their answers and put forward every possible reason and fact to be taken into account before a conclusion can be found. We all have different levels of understanding based on our years of studying God's word and it should benefit us all by contributing to and reading these threads.
You say that "God expects us to come to him on his terms, not ours." That's another example of something that is much worse than normal human morality. I don't demand my children to come to me on my terms. Loving parents want their children to come to them freely on their own terms. They delight in diversity and freedom. Loving parents would not rule over their children like dictators who enforce their authority with threats of horrific punishment. This is the problem with the Christian world view. It is modeled on the worst human social institution of an autocrat with absolute (and arbitrary) authority over the lives of all his subjects. He commands worship, and all who refuse are tortured to death. This is the view presented by Christians. They say "God loves you so much that if you refuse his commands he will condemn you forever to torture in the flames of hell!"
Do you never give your children rules Richard? Are you going to let your children run riot all the time? What sort of society can you expect if you do not set rules and boundaries for your children?Jesus as you know said; "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." We really must understand the implication of what Jesus is saying here and how it is to apply to our lives. Is this not setting the terms?
At least by your outrageous claim that God tortures everyone who does not worhip him, you make your opinion abundantly clear. The notion is outrageous as to be incredible and I trust others will see this for themselves as I do. I shall leave others to comment if they want.
I do hope this conversation will continue. We are dealing with essential issues.
I agree, we are dealing with essential issues. This episode we are discussing here has been brought up in other threads and so I do not want to appear to be going over the same old ground in what I say. I shall try to stay on topic as much as possible and not get side-tracked too much. If I miss responding to any of your replies it is either because we have come to a natural end, or I have not got round to replying and have been concentrating on other threads and taken too long to come back to the thread to add anything of further value. It is difficult to stay on topic without bringing in other essential issues, and I am sure that as we have been doing, we shall be covering the same ground in threads to come, so the conversations will continue; if not in this thread.
All the best to you Richard
David
Richard Amiel McGough
03-07-2012, 09:31 AM
Hello Richard
I can see from what I have written, "the warts and all", I should have said only relates to God's chosen nation; not to the inspired scriptures. One could have expected God's chosen nation to be spoken of in a wonderful terms and presentes us with what a perfect society should be like. One would think that they should have been better examples. We cannot accuse God of hiding anything. God wants us to learn from everything He has caused to be written whether by inspiration before, at or after the event. God has written all that we need to know, including getting to the bottom of we should learn and understand from this episoed involving the 32,000 virgins. God has recorded these events for our learning, I will look for the lessons before I stand in moral judgement of God about which I might not have all the facts or understand them if I do.
Hey there David,
Your "warts and all" comment doesn't make sense because we are not talking about bad things the Israelites did.
We are talking about bad things the Bible says God did.
You say "I will look for the lessons before I stand in moral judgement of God." That is a big mistake. We are not talking about "judging God" but rather judging what a book (the Bible) says about God. It appears that you have chosen to believe whatever the Bible says. If the Bible says up is down and good is bad, you will either believe it or find a way to "interpret" it so that you don't have to admit it is wrong. How then can you know if the Bible is true? You do not judge it like you do everything else in life. If you can't admit errors it contains, then you have no way to judge if it is true or false or if it was designed by evil men seeking to control your mind. We know that wicked men have used the Bible for thousands of years to control the minds of others.
I have responded to Rose and I have to agree with others, this is not institutional rape in the episode we are considering. Once we examine every fact and question and possible answer and reason, I trust we might all reach the same conclusion. I expect you have or will read my response to Rose's last reply to me, so I will let this point rest for now.
I'll review your posts. I must have missed something because I have seen nothing that mitigates the fact that the virgins were raped and forced to bear children to the very men who murdered their mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters and every person they ever loved.
What do you mean by "universally"? I do not agree with your statement, therefore I am not part of the universalism you are claiming here or that I recognise.
You are correct. Not all people reject genocide and rape. I stand corrected.
I should have said "Why does the Bible attribute things to God that are universally rejected as immoral by all moral people? "
Richard, please tell us of the alternative choices God had. Maybe you are thinking God could have brought a plague on all the people and killed them that way. Maybe God could have caused a localised flood and drowned them all. If God had cleared the land this way, are you agreeing this was morally acceptable? Are we now just having to come to terms with the reason God chose not to do it this way? The fact that another way was chosen, is teaching us a lot, especially the consequence of not folllowing God's instructions to the letter. It is the consequences of people's rebellion and not following instruction that God is having to deal with.
What alternatives did God have? That's easy! He could have opened their eyes to see the truth and taught them in the ways of love and righteousness. A very simple thing for a Sovereign God to do. Mere humans do things like that all the time. Open up a university. Elevate them from the primitive conditions that God put them in. Very simple stuff. How is it that you can't even imagine real goodness coming from God? This is what religion does to people. It shrinks their minds until they can't even imagine what a truly good God would be like.
Do you never give your children rules Richard? Are you going to let your children run riot all the time? What sort of society can you expect if you do not set rules and boundaries for your children?Jesus as you know said; "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." We really must understand the implication of what Jesus is saying here and how it is to apply to our lives. Is this not setting the terms?
Yes, of course there are rules. But I don't punish them for "coming to me on their own terms." That's a very strange concept that is common in Christian interpretations - the idea that it is wrong to be what we are, that it is wrong to be independent, free, and unique. That we all have to "come to God on his terms" or go to hell.
At least by your outrageous claim that God tortures everyone who does not worhip him, you make your opinion abundantly clear. The notion is outrageous as to be incredible and I trust others will see this for themselves as I do. I shall leave others to comment if they want.
Hey, that wasn't my claim! That's the claim of traditional Christianity.
It appears you are an annihilationist, is that correct?
Great chatting,
Richard
Richard Amiel McGough
03-07-2012, 10:34 AM
When you say the Bible treats women unequally and unfairly, can you think of any situation where that statement is untrue? Can you not think of one situation where women have been treated equally and fairly. I expect if you look, you will find one. Also you will probably find examples where men have been treated unequally and unfairly.
That wouldn't help. A few examples of fairness would not refute all the examples of unfairness that prove the Bible does not accurately reflect the heart and mind of the true God.
This topic is really about the morality of God and the story of the 32,000 virgins is one aspect we can study the morality of God. While it is easy to get side-tracked by other comments introduced I shall stay on topic as best I can. What I am looking for in all of this is to understand why God instructs His people to act as He tells them. The answer is not clear cut and as I tried to explain to Richard and I probably did not explain very well. God is dealing with many situations at a time which have been brought about by man having free will. For example, God instructed His people to clear the promised land of all its inhabitants because they were all practicing idolatry. This may sound harsh, but God is doing what is best for His people.
I'm glad you are trying to stay on topic. Most Christians do everything they can to avoid this topic altogether.
As mentioned in an earlier post, it seems utterly wicked to order people to be genocidal murderers, no matter what your "reason" might be. It perverts, corrupts, and brutalizes a people to force them to murder thousands of men, women, and children. And the incorporation of 32,000 pagan virgins directly contradicts the reason for the genocide (idolatry) since those women would introduce their idolatry into the heart of Israel. Indeed, this is the reason Solomon fell - "his wives turned away his heart after other gods" (1 Kings 11:4). So now we see God allowing the soldiers to marry pagan women? This also explicitly contradicts God's command to not take their daughters as wives:
Deuteronomy 7:1 whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; 2 And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them: 3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. 4 For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly. 5 But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire.
All I see is confusion, contradiction, and the vile morality of a primitive, sexist, warlike people. Can you give me any reason why anyone would choose to believe these are the words of the true God?
All the best,
Richard
Bob May
03-07-2012, 10:54 AM
Hi Rose,
Hi Bob,
That is preciously the problem. The Old Testament depicts Yahweh as a vengeful, cruel monster who commands families to be slaughtered and girls to be raped! So, how do I know that it is not his nature? It seems the scribes who penned the Old Testament thought it was Yahweh's nature, because the picture they painted of him was that of a tribal war god.
The depiction in the Old Testament of a wrathful God mirrors our own perception of a wrathful God. We are all held in bondage to a fear of death until we are not. Why is that? Because we have this idea that we reap what we sow and we must be perfect in order to escape that wrath. Nothing that defiles shall enter heaven, be ye perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect etc.
This is reality for us and the reason that I started the thread "our interpretation of reality is reality."
If you think that I am wrong just try to convert a hell fire and damnation Christian to the idea that God does not hold our sin against us. We all start out as hell fire and damnation Christians because that speaks to our habit as human beings in physical bodies. We live in a world of cause and effect. We see it all around us. It computes.
God wants these things to puzzle us so that we will look deeper. Look at David. One of the worst sinners in the OT and yet he had a realization of God's Grace. "Blessed is the man who's sin is not counted against him." etc,.
So there arte those who did not judge by appearances in the OT (Most notably Abraham, the Father of that way of percieving the world) and we are their spiritual offspring. These found "Favour" or "Grace with God."
The awarenesses/consciousness opening in these specific people is a picture of our awareness changing. It is available to all right now. This moving from one dimension to the next, the awareness of Grace, colors EVERYTHING. Only a person who is very immature in this awareness (and sadly this happens in chuches quite often) can be talked into moving back into the Old awareness or "Under the Law."
Now, we know that when Jesus came along he updated God's image to be much more of a loving father type, but he was unwilling to let go of the Old Testament image of God, so we are stuck with a two-faced God. It can be quite a conundrum if one tries to reconcile the two by picking an choosing which face of God they want,...
Jesus was not unwilling to let go of the OT view of God.
When approached by those who took their pride or boasted in the law, he hit them with the law harder that they were doing to themselves. The law is black and white, not shades of grey. If you water it down it will not do what it is supposed to do which is lead us to Christ. It leads us to Christ by being all or nothing. If we break one law, we are guilty of all.
We all have to come to the conclusion that we cannot and have not and never will KEEP THE LAW.
So, the illusion of Law and a wrathful Father has to give way to a deeper truer understanding of God's true nature.
... but then the question arises, what compels you to believe the God of the Bible is actually a real entity? Why is the biblical God real and not Allah? I could just as easily allegorize the Koran and make Allah to be a god of total loving-kindness...what's the difference?
In a word, the Holy Spirit compels me. I've been visited by the angel Gabriel, the very next day I was pulled up into and ocean of blue/white liquid lightning that I would describe as to a continuous orgasm of pure joy and ecstacy. These two experiences were on consecutive days. Years later, again on two consecutive days I witnessed Jesus and my teacher standing directly in front of me (about 3 feet) looking into each other's eyes with respect and love holding hands as if they were shaking hands. (I went home immediately and opened my bible to where I knew I had last found myself in scripture years before and the very next chapter I read "He saw his God when he fled from his brother's face." Whis was exactly whast had just happened to me.) This experience was very similar to the transfiguration with my teacher represesenting the law and prophets. The very next day, while having conversation with my wife and good friend, the Coat of Many Colors fell on me.
Much later I saw that Joseph's description of the Pharoah's dream fit perfectly with these four experiences as a whole.
Ge 41:32 And for that the dream was doubled unto Pharaoh twice; it is because the thing is established by God, and God will shortly bring it to pass.
The visions given to me were doubled to me twice. And what shortly came to pass is the estabishment of the realization that we are "Sons and heirs with Christ"
I am pointing out a deeper level of reading scripture here than merely allegorical. It is when we find ourselves in the bible and the bible speaks to us directly... Paul refers to this as the "Oracles of God"
The very first thing that Jesus did after being baptised and coming out of the wilderness was to find himself in scripture and point it out to those in the synagogue.
So you can play at trying to make something in the Koran make sense by, as you say allegorizing it, but you will probably fail miserably. You will not be able to make it speak to your present situation.
And besides that I am allegorizing anything. I didn't make this up. The OT is Allegory.
This is the reason I cringe when people talk about tossing any part of the OT. Who knows which part is going to speak to that person at any given time.
There is so much conflict between what the Bible says, and what my heart and intuition tells me that I see no reason to try and salvage its god. The only reason I believed in the biblical god in the first place was because I was born in a country that held the Bible to be the Word of God, if I would have been born in a Muslim country I would have believed in the Koran.
There is conflict in your heart because you want to believe in a loving, Gracious Father and don't see him in the OT. You are not supposed to "salvage" the God of war and punishment in the OT you are supposed to be conflicted by the discrepancies and come to a decision.
You are confusing yourself with words. We define ourselves with our words both spoken and thought. This to a degree we cannot even comprehend.
Try Silence for a while. Be still and feel after God is perhaps you may find Him. I believe Paul said something like that.
Just, in silent prayer or meditation, reach up and pull on God with all of you energies. You are an artist. You are a feeler like me. Use that talent and stop confusing yourself with words.
For me the bottom line remains that I no longer feel the need to try and "clean up" Yahweh to make him fit my heartfelt and intuitive ideas of a divine being. I am free to draw from the Bible whatever wisdom it contains without the moral atrocities that cause me anguish.
Then go with your intuition and stop focusing on supposed atrocities. We will not live long enough to understand every word or story in scripture. It is not in any way expected of us or necessary. If that were so what chance would the illiterate or slow readers like me have??? None.
We are supposed to grow in our awareness/consciousnes of who and what God is. Jesus demonstrated it and made it available by God's direction and now it is up to us to allow ourselves to come to a realisation of what is now available.
Thanks for sharing you views with me,
Rose
My pleasure Rose, I hope I have been of some help,
Bob
Howdy Rose,
Originally Posted by Rose
Now, we know that when Jesus came along he updated God's image to be much more of a loving father type, but he was unwilling to let go of the Old Testament image of God, so we are stuck with a two-faced God. It can be quite a conundrum if one tries to reconcile the two by picking an choosing which face of God they want,...
Originally Posted by Rose
For me the bottom line remains that I no longer feel the need to try and "clean up" Yahweh to make him fit my heartfelt and intuitive ideas of a divine being. I am free to draw from the Bible whatever wisdom it contains without the moral atrocities that cause me anguish.
Gil > You don't have to ,Yahweh is dead .
Originally Posted by Rose
... but then the question arises, what compels you to believe the God of the Bible is actually a real entity? Why is the biblical God real and not Allah? I could just as easily allegorize the Koran and make Allah to be a god of total loving-kindness...what's the difference?
Gil > The world has been way more so in the past than now, attuned to the Gods.
There were plenty to go around then and there are still many around.
In the past they were tribal, national Gods of the Group, Mass as a whole and only effected the individual through a trickle down effect. The Organisms which were the whole Body of the mass, were more like ant nests or bee hives. The Whole was what was important and individuality was almost none existent.
Individuality was a long time coming.
What separates the Father of Jesus Christ as being the true God, was the ability of the Father to raise up his Son at the resurrection.
I've said it before but without the resurrection there is no Christianity.
Mohamed's body of flesh as well as all the founders of any man made religion's bodies are still in the grave. Only was Jesus Christ transfigured from a dead body to one made alive that was not still within the grave.
It is through Faith that the Gospel given to Paul was of Jesus Christ and that the witness of his disciples/apostles was indeed true. The Grave was empty.
Allah and the Great Spirit of the Indians may also be true relative to God in his natural relationship.
The followers of Allah are still into works.
Jesus Christ was the mouth piece of his Father. He spoke about Life , how to live it more abundantly and the way that man may attain eternal life.
Christianity holds to a dynamic relationship with God the Father.
The relationship of earthly religions is a static relationship. Bound by Laws, rules ,codes of conduct, ethics and morality as seen by man to make their God happy.
Christianity is Love based toward those of the BOC, and to all peoples as much as possible.
Other religions demand conversion.
You must not understand the Pauline BOC ,that requires Faith only without all the trappings of mans doctrines, traditions and work orientation. The BOC alludes to change. From the beast that primitive man was as he rose out of darkness and from his God of war, hate, jealousy and had the ear marks of a male chovenist pig on top of it all to the new man in Christ that is being transformed into the image and likeness of the Spirit of a loving God. One that has in fact given all of us the life we have within us and the hope of a continuing life when we drop these flesh bodies.
Gil :pop2:
--------------
Howdy Rose,
Gil > You don't have to ,Yahweh is dead .
Gil > The world has been way more so in the past than now, attuned to the Gods.
There were plenty to go around then and there are still many around.
In the past they were tribal, national Gods of the Group, Mass as a whole and only effected the individual through a trickle down effect. The Organisms which were the whole Body of the mass, were more like ant nests or bee hives. The Whole was what was important and individuality was almost none existent.
Individuality was a long time coming.
What separates the Father of Jesus Christ as being the true God, was the ability of the Father to raise up his Son at the resurrection.
I've said it before but without the resurrection there is no Christianity.
Mohamed's body of flesh as well as all the founders of any man made religion's bodies are still in the grave. Only was Jesus Christ transfigured from a dead body to one made alive that was not still within the grave.
It is through Faith that the Gospel given to Paul was of Jesus Christ and that the witness of his disciples/apostles was indeed true. The Grave was empty.
Allah and the Great Spirit of the Indians may also be true relative to God in his natural relationship.
The followers of Allah are still into works.
Jesus Christ was the mouth piece of his Father. He spoke about Life , how to live it more abundantly and the way that man may attain eternal life.
Christianity holds to a dynamic relationship with God the Father.
The relationship of earthly religions is a static relationship. Bound by Laws, rules ,codes of conduct, ethics and morality as seen by man to make their God happy.
Christianity is Love based toward those of the BOC, and to all peoples as much as possible.
Other religions demand conversion.
You must not understand the Pauline BOC ,that requires Faith only without all the trappings of mans doctrines, traditions and work orientation. The BOC alludes to change. From the beast that primitive man was as he rose out of darkness and from his God of war, hate, jealousy and had the ear marks of a male chovenist pig on top of it all to the new man in Christ that is being transformed into the image and likeness of the Spirit of a loving God. One that has in fact given all of us the life we have within us and the hope of a continuing life when we drop these flesh bodies.
Gil :pop2:
--------------
Hi Gil, :yo:
You said Yahweh is dead, but that is one of the problems with Christianity, its foundation is built on the rotting carcass of Yahweh. Jesus tried to turn the tribal war god of the Old Testament into a loving father figure, and it just doesn't work!
All the best,
Rose
Hello Rose
The Scriptures were written by men who were inspired to write these things down. I will just refer to 2 Timothy 3:16 as to the purpose of scripture (including the N.T. writings).
I have read the posts of everyone following your reply to me and as an observer, I can see elements of Truth in each post. There is a lot I disagree with the same as you do, but I am trying to get to the truth through all of this and while I do not always have an immediate answer to every question raised I am prepared to think about each question and to search out an answer that is essentially based on God's word.
When you say the Bible treats women unequally and unfairly, can you think of any situation where that statement is untrue? Can you not think of one situation where women have been treated equally and fairly. I expect if you look, you will find one. Also you will probably find examples where men have been treated unequally and unfairly.
Hi David,
Yes, the Scriptures were inspired by men, but where I differ from you is in where these men got their inspiration from. You say it is from a god named Yahweh, and I say it is an invention of their own male minds. The Bible is far too biased toward the male to come from a gender neutral god.
The Bible is filled with human rights violations for both male and female, but women have tended to suffer the most.
The Bible tells us that woman is subordinate to the man, their is a heirarchy, but this does not mean that the woman is inferior to the man or less worthy than man. In the purpose of God we are all individually responsible for our actions and we shall have to answer for ourselves at our Day of Judgement. It will not matter in what period or culture we lived, we are responsible for our own actions. Those who acted under instruction of God (invidually or nationally) I expect will stand blameless, but where they were not under instruction, they are responsible for their actions.
This topic is really about the morality of God and the story of the 32,000 virgins is one aspect we can study the morality of God. While it is easy to get side-tracked by other comments introduced I shall stay on topic as best I can. What I am looking for in all of this is to understand why God instructs His people to act as He tells them. The answer is not clear cut and as I tried to explain to Richard and I probably did not explain very well. God is dealing with many situations at a time which have been brought about by man having free will. For example, God instructed His people to clear the promised land of all its inhabitants because they were all practicing idolatry. This may sound harsh, but God is doing what is best for His people. Idolatry is an abomination to God and why not? You do not believe in God so why would I not expect you to agree with idolatry, if that is what you want to do. God has clearly stated that the practice of idolatry by anyone is an abomination to Him. I am not going to find excuses for the people that practiced it (at any time in history). Even God's chosen nation who should have been glowing examples of how to live according to His laws, when left to their own devices went back to practicing idolatry (the golden calf for example). Throughout their history, the Nation of Israel, we see were fickle, often following the practices of their king and we read of the kings who did right in the sight of God and those who did wrong.
Women were subordinate to men just like slaves were. The only worth women had was their virginity and ability to bear children and if they lost that then they lost their value!
The reason that idolatry was an abomination to God is because the men who desired power and wanted others to be subject to themselves, created a god after their image and likeness who commanded that everyone worship only himself.
I have to agree with the comments of Steve and others; God did not command the Israelites to rape the women. You are interpreting what took place as rape. I expect some indivinuals did rape (everyone is free to act as they want) and if it was found that some soldiers committed rape they would be punished under the law. The fact that we do not have all the detail does not mean we should ignore this. That is why, whether something is mentioned or not, we have to explore every possible act and intention and whay might have taken place and gone unreported. We have to put forward every question and give every possible answer to come to a correct decision. God has caused to be written enough that we should know about.
Of course it was rape, how can you say otherwise! Imagine a 13 year old girl who just witnessed her family being slaughtered by the very Hebrew soldier that she is being given to for a wife. Do you really think she would willingly bear his children? If it's not willing it's rape! That is what I mean about having to harden your heart in order to justify the horrendous actions of God.
You can say my statement is glib and that I have no compassion or empathy , I do not expect others to entirely agree with your opinion; the same way as they do not agree with your totally biassed opinion of what took place concerning the 32,000 virgins. As I said, the original instruction was to utterly destroy the people living in the land promised to the Children of Israel. If they had obeyed the situation we are talking about now would never have took place. The killing of all the people in the land they were to posess does sound harsh. I also believe in the infinite mercy of God to save the innocent from etenal death. I leave all judgemet to God and will not limit God to who He allows to be in the kingdom. All I am told is that as God will judge the good and the bad, and there will be many who will not live to see the kingdom of God which is coming. We must first have regard to our own actions and let "the dead bury the dead" as Jesus said.
I shall ask is this question; what would have happened to these 32,000 virgins if the slaughter had not taken place? My answer is; I expect they would have practiced idolatry the same as their parents and peers. In this way, they would have come under the same judgement as anyone else that practiced idolatry. As they were spared and had the opportunity to live with the Israelites they had the opportunity to lead a much better life; the same as God's people had the opportunity to lead a better life and be blessed for so doing. In practice, God's people did not always lead the better life they were supposed to.
That's what's so confusing...on one hand God commands that all the idol worshiping pagans be slaughtered and on the other hand he says it's okay to keep the virgin women for themselves. :confused:
So why does God have such a big ego that he can't stand for people to worship anything, or anyone other than himself? Is God such a megalomaniac that he is willing to have women and children slaughtered who don't worship him? Well, that's what it seems like.
Another point, while accepting the Children of Israel did not lead the perfect lives they were supposed to, on a whole, the nation was better for practicing the laws given to them by God. Consider the children of these women saved, their childred would have had a much better life and better prospects for the future, than if they had been born into the idolatrous society in which they had lived. Considering it was the practice to offer infants as a sacrifice to these false gods, I cannot see what advantage these women had by remaining alive to participate in idolatry. How you can say that by being taken captive into a society that gave these women better prospects, it was not compassionate. I do empathise with people, but you are saying I should have empathy with those who practice idolatry and whether they be virgins or otherwise makes no difference. Because they are sexual virgins does not make them idolatrous virgins. These women were given the opportunity to assimilate into a better society overall and that has to begood. I understand their anguish and hurt and pain at seeing their family slaughtered, but in time, and as the old adage goes, "time heals", maybe they would come to understand the error of their parents and peers and their nation as a whole. As I say, I am trying to get a fair balance and make sense of all this.
Do you really think that time is going to make the fact that her family was slaughtered and she was raped go away?
Sorry Rose, I can only see you are making gross assumptions again as others are seeing you making. It is true that men have lustful desires; the same as women have lustful desires but more so in men than women perhaps. We generalize but we should not forget that individually we are accountable for our own actions over which we should exercise control and that is not to say this is easier said than done. It is extremely difficult and thanks be to Jesus for proving it can be done and through Jesus, the Christ, we can be given the victory, just as Jesus was victorious in defeating the devil that was his nature, but which he overcame.
Again Rose, you are accusing me of being blind and not being able to handle the truth. That I can level the same against you and so I let others reading this decide who is nearer to understanding the Truth of God's word. I know you are not accusing me of evil doing, all I am doing is having a good good conversation based on my understanding of God's word which I have gained over many years and it does not matter if I am accused of less than evil doings, for the same sentiment applies as stated in the following quote;
1 Peter 3:16 Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.
I can handle it!!
All the best to you Rose.
David
.
You know that any Christian reading this is going to side with you...they have to! As long as a person is locked inside their religious box there is no way to see any other perspective, so the only choice they are left with is defending an image that Bronze Age man called "God" no matter how horrific he may be! :eek:
One thing about truth is that it will remain standing when everything else has fallen...:thumb:
All the best,
Rose
David M
03-08-2012, 12:47 AM
Hello Rose
Hi David,
Yes, the Scriptures were inspired by men, but where I differ from you is in where these men got their inspiration from. You say it is from a god named Yahweh, and I say it is an invention of their own male minds. The Bible is far too biased toward the male to come from a gender neutral god.
There is a big problem and gulf between us if you do not believe God has inspired the Scriptures from which we have our Bibles today. I would not waste my time trying to make sense of this if I had not already seen enough evidence to support the existence of God and that what God has revealed is true. I would not waste my time studying a book that was not inspired by God and is a work of fiction by man. There is too much harmony within the scriptures to make it a work of man considering the many books written over the centuries it took to write. This is one reason why I believe and wil continue to look for the answers to satisfactorily explain the episode of the 32,000 virgins that is main hub of this post.
The Bible is filled with human rights violations for both male and female, but women have tended to suffer the most.
Maybe you are right, women might have suffered more, but do yo have any statistics to back up what you say? I will agree with you here, but on other matters I will continue to disagree.
Women were subordinate to men just like slaves were. The only worth women had was their virginity and ability to bear children and if they lost that then they lost their value!
I agree, women can be considered so and treated badly by man, but you should not say, women are treated any less than man by God. Again I say, everyone is accountable as individuals. God is saving women as much as He is saving men. God has saved men and women down the ages. There could be many women, who though not mentioned in the Bible, have been saved. We do not know, it would not surprise me if women who are generally the less aggressive than men and have motherly instincts instead of the war-like aggression of men, would be judged more acceptable and more women made it to the kingdom. There is a lot of speculation in all this and we are in no position to judge. We cannot judge individuals based on what the nation they belonged to did. We have to separate individual responsibility from national responsibility.
The reason that idolatry was an abomination to God is because the men who desired power and wanted others to be subject to themselves, created a god after their image and likeness who commanded that everyone worship only himself.
It is not always men-based, what about Diana of the Ephesians and other godesses? I agree, it is largely male orientated but woman practiced idolatry and supported it, and that is why Solomon's wives became a snare to Solomon turning him away from God.
Of course it was rape, how can you say otherwise! Imagine a 13 year old girl who just witnessed her family being slaughtered by the very Hebrew soldier that she is being given to for a wife. Do you really think she would willingly bear his children? If it's not willing it's rape! That is what I mean about having to harden your heart in order to justify the horrendous actions of God.
I have argued it is not mass rape as you want to intransigently keep calling it. I know that in any group not everyone acts the same. There are always a few rebels who do not conform and I accept that some soldiers might have disobeyed and did as you say. That was not their brief.
We heard of the attrocities committed by both British and American soldiers in Iraq which each govenment of the respective countries did not condone the actions once they came to light. There are always rebels and corrupt individuals in any group, even Jesus took one on knowingly. We must understand all the lessons to be learnt from what we read in the Bible. This is why there has not been a cover up and God has put this on record, so we have to try and see what it is God is really telling us. We should not impress our individual imperfect human thinking on these matters, that is why no one of us is going to come up with the right answer, but collectively, if we listen to all the arguments, we might.
That's what's so confusing...on one hand God commands that all the idol worshiping pagans be slaughtered and on the other hand he says it's okay to keep the virgin women for themselves. :confused:
God gave the command knowing what was in the best interest for His people. The people chose not to obey His instruction and therefore the consequences followed of which this episode is one . If the Israelites had followed the instruction to the letter, we would not be talking about this episode of the 32,000 virgins. You have to blame man in the first instance for disobedience.
So why does God have such a big ego that he can't stand for people to worship anything, or anyone other than himself? Is God such a megalomaniac that he is willing to have women and children slaughtered who don't worship him? Well, that's what it seems like.
You are bringing God down to human level in your reasoning and this is wrong. God the creator expects recognition and worship. I can see you do not want to give God credit for the beauty He has created on this planet and you will not recognize the destruction and evil man has brought on himself (given the freedom God gave man to do it) is all of man's making. You have a choice Rose and I can see which path you are taking.
Do you really think that time is going to make the fact that her family was slaughtered and she was raped go away?
A month is a relatively short time, but yes in time, though I have to consider that many might not be able to forget of forgive. It is difficult for any of us on this forum to get into the mind of the people of that time. Their culture and way of thinking would be a lot different to ours. Brutal armed combat was the style of the day. We see the tribal warfare that goes on in Africa today, though in these times the tribes manage to get guns. I am not sure of all the facts, but you will find accounts of genocide that has taken place in Africa in the last decade or so that largely went unreported at the time. I know there are Jews who cannot forget the holocaust and remain bitter against the Germans, but in all these situations we cannot tar people with the same brush. I do not have the statistics, all I can say is; with a large group of people you have a wide spectrum to choose from.
You know that any Christian reading this is going to side with you...they have to! As long as a person is locked inside their religious box there is no way to see any other perspective, so the only choice they are left with is defending an image that Bronze Age man called "God" no matter how horrific he may be! :eek:
I disagree with lots of (so-called) Christians over doctrines so I do not expect (so-called) Christians to agree with my understanding. Getting outside our locked boxes is difficult, I do try and I can see other people's point of view, and I reach my own conclusions. Maybe the gap between our difference of thought is reducing slightly. I am trying somehow to find a way to make you think outside your box. That is why when in my box I am considering what you are saying. This is why I am trying to look at this by trying to raise all possible questions and consider all possible answers. We have to take this in bite size chunks instead of trying to eat the whole cake in one mouthful.
One thing about truth is that it will remain standing when everything else has fallen...:thumb:
We can agree on this Rose.
Well, we have some agreement between us, but not enough at present to prevent us from ending up at stalemate which is what I expect will happen soon.
All the best,
David
David M
03-08-2012, 02:42 AM
Hi Richard
Hey there David,
You say "I will look for the lessons before I stand in moral judgement of God." That is a big mistake. We are not talking about "judging God" but rather judging what a book (the Bible) says about God. It appears that you have chosen to believe whatever the Bible says. If the Bible says up is down and good is bad, you will either believe it or find a way to "interpret" it so that you don't have to admit it is wrong. How then can you know if the Bible is true? You do not judge it like you do everything else in life. If you can't admit errors it contains, then you have no way to judge if it is true or false or if it was designed by evil men seeking to control your mind. We know that wicked men have used the Bible for thousands of years to control the minds of others.
I won't assume you are thinking the same as Rose, but as she does not believe the Scriptures have been inspired by God, we have a big problem and gulf between us. There is not much point discussing anything in the Bible if we do not agree from this perspective that the Bible we have today has come from the inspired writings of God. You and I are always going to be at loggerheads because we cannot agree on this fundamental principle that the Bible is the inspired word of God. We have no common ground on which to base our argument. My only reason to continue to discuss this is that you might get to understand more than you know now, and my trying to answer your questions might help someone else following this thread come to understand God's word better. The danger is that we will reach an impass where neither of us is going to concede any change of thought so as to move the discussion on.
I will argue my understanding of scripture using scripture to provide the answers; I will not quote the works of man. It is difficult enough arguing from the scriptures so why should I even consider referring to anything that is a fabrication of man. I know that the Scriptures (the Bible) have been perverted by man for man's own selfishness and greed. This is the reason we have so many so-called Christian religions today and on this we agree.
What alternatives did God have? That's easy! He could have opened their eyes to see the truth and taught them in the ways of love and righteousness. A very simple thing for a Sovereign God to do. Mere humans do things like that all the time. Open up a university. Elevate them from the primitive conditions that God put them in. Very simple stuff. How is it that you can't even imagine real goodness coming from God? This is what religion does to people. It shrinks their minds until they can't even imagine what a truly good God would be like.
The alternative you give is what God is doing now. God is telling us this in His word now, but who listens? We have the example of Jesus to follow, but does this make any difference? People are rejecting the teaching of Jesus, so we can hardly expect those people to accept the lessons to be learnt from the Old Testament. The culture and mentality of the period we are considering is far different to that in which we live now. I do not know what I would have thought if I had lived in those times. I have to understand it from the perspective that God has revealed it to me through His word. The stories of wars and fightings would have been known and passed from one generation to another. Nations would have heard about the fightings of other nations. In fact, the stories of God fighting for Israel had gone before them. This is the level at which God is dealing; not 21st centuary intellectual thinking and all the problems that brings with it.
Talking of "opening their eyes", the Jews have a veil over their eyes even now, which is why they did not recognize Jesus when they crucified him and why the Jews still do not recognize Jesus today and remain fixed to their ancient scriptures. The time is coming when the veil will be lifted, for there has to come a time when the Jews will have to be saved from a situation in which there is no way out for them. When Jesus returns to save them after their cries to God for help have been heard and God answers them, then they will come to see (the veil being lifted) that Jesus was the one they crucified all those years ago. This is part of the big picture few are seeing at the moment.
Yes, of course there are rules. But I don't punish them for "coming to me on their own terms." That's a very strange concept that is common in Christian interpretations - the idea that it is wrong to be what we are, that it is wrong to be independent, free, and unique. That we all have to "come to God on his terms" or go to hell.
God's punishment is for disobedience; not for coming up with their a set of their own terms. You use a strange turn of phrase "coming to me on their own terms"; this is not the same as coming to you on your terms. Have you never had to correct your child for disobeying you? It does not matter to God if we are wrong and and we want to do our own thing, that is our choice, it just means that at the time of judgement, those who do their own thing will not make the grade. If you want to go to the grave, that is your choice.
Your arguments appear to be based on purely human reasoning which is imperfect. You do not accept God's thoughts are far superior to your own, and that God has a far more complex situation to deal with than you can begin to imagine in bringing about His purpose. God is teaching us lessons in all that He has caused to be written, and if you are not even prepared to look for the lessons, I see little point in continuing. The Old Testament and the Law of Moses as Paul writes was a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. The Old Testament and Law of Moses whilst superceded, is important to understand the New Testament. Human nature has not changed in 6,000 years which is surprising if support Evolution (but let us not go there now). Human nature is the same now as it was then, so there are lessons to be learnt from the Old Testament.
You sound as intransigent as Rose in not entertaining that you are not 100% correct in saying this was mass rape. Others have put forward questions in this thread that should be considered; for example what if the girls did not want to marry and have sex, why can you not see that this could be the same as "finding no delight in her". These phrases leave a lot open for speculation and which we can only surmize. Therefore, none of us can be 100% certain of what we think; only certain about those things that are said without any ambiguity like God saying "He is One and there is no one beside him", but then we cannot even agree on such an unambiguous statement.
It appears you are an annihilationist, is that correct?
No, if anything I have to abide by the teaching of Jesus and be a pacifist. I have to overcome any inate desire to want to do or support violence.
Regarding wars and fighting in the Bible, I am reading the same as you and hearing what God wants to tell me. Not having given this episode of the 32,000 virgins any attention in the past, I am studying it now and drawing my own conclusions from what I read. I should not be thought of as an annihilatist just because I quote what the Bible says.
Let's hope we do not reach an impass too soon.
All the best Richard.
David
David M
03-08-2012, 04:56 AM
Hi Richard
That wouldn't help. A few examples of fairness would not refute all the examples of unfairness that prove the Bible does not accurately reflect the heart and mind of the true God.
It probably does not help until you can see one example of fairness. You are open minded only to a degree that you are blinded by your intransigence to consider anything that is not fitting in with your way of thinking. I am conceding that some rape could have taken place even if that was not the brief given to the soldiers. I am not seeing the Israelites through rose-colored spectacles (no reference to Rose intended). Human nature being what it is, we have to allow for some rebels and non-conformists and those who set out to do evil. Some things can remain hard to explain away, but having no good explanation does not have to exclude obvious cases of fairness. One case of fairness does not paint the completely black image of the Bible or God as you are doing. If the Bible is the work of man and not written under the inspiration of God, then I am wasting my time studying the Bible and arguing/discussing on this forum. Fortunately, I am convinced the Bible is the inspired word of God and that the harmony throughout is one evidence for believing it. It is this harmony I have to search for if I have difficulty over a few passages; this is not an excuse to dismiss the rest. I will wait till my study brings me to a conclusion which is in harmony.
I'm glad you are trying to stay on topic. Most Christians do everything they can to avoid this topic altogether.
Unfortunately, most Christians are anything but... The God of the Bible and the Jesus of the Bible is not known and misunderstood by most. I am not saying that the contributors to this forum are not true Christians, just that the majority proclaiming to be Christians are not. It is the same when you ask anyone why they claim to be of one religion or another, it is generally because they associate themselves with the religion of their parents or to their culture. Most do not study the religion for themselves. The majority of so-called Christians will therefore not be able to debate these matters based on the Bible.
As mentioned in an earlier post, it seems utterly wicked to order people to be genocidal murderers, no matter what your "reason" might be.
Humanly speaking it does sound wicked, I agree, but I have to look for reasons above human thinking. We have to look for the bigger picture not the microscale we are looking at. It is wicked in one sense for the people on the receiving end and yet is for the benefit of the people who are instructed to carry out slaughter. You have to ask questions like, what would have become of the people practicing idolatry? Are you a universalist who will say that these people should be allowed into the kingdom of God to come? God has said that such people he hates and they will not enter into His Glory that will one day fill the earth. These idolatrous nations are reprobates and God gives up on. Why flog a dead horse, so to speak?
It perverts, corrupts, and brutalizes a people to force them to murder thousands of men, women, and children.
That is your opinion and not fact. The Israelites were operating under orders, they were not free to go and murder anyone they chose to, and if they had, they would have been severly punished. They were punished as we know for their times of disobedience. God corrects through punishment, God did not spare the rod when it came to correcting His people.
The Jews were reminded to keep certain feasts such as the passover and we know what a brutal time that appears to be. The plagues were hard lessons for the Egyptians and the Israelites were told to keep the feast of the Passover for a memorial of how God delivered them from Egypt. God was not teaching His people to be violent and brutal as you are suggesting. However, it was expedient that the people learnt to obey, even to the extent of destroying of the people in the Promised Land to get rid of all idolatry. They did not do what God commanded and they did not utterly destroy the people, but saved some. I expect you will argue that was a noble thing for the Israelites to do. I say you have to examine the motives of why they did it and then it would not appear so noble. We are witnessing the consequences of their failing to act according to God's command. As I explained to Rose, we are living in a different age now, and God was dealing with a people whose thinking and culture were on a different level to ours. God could have cleared the land for them but you would say that was immoral of God, and now you want God to teach the people the way He is teaching us now. I doubt that way would have worked in the way you think it should in that age. As it was, had God's people obeyed His instruction and cleared the land by a series of wars of which we might not have never had any detail, that would have been the end of the matter. As it is, we are discussing so called attrocities because the people failed in their task and had been disobedient in the first place. In the end, the question has to come down to where you lay the blame for what we are now discussing now, and the anwer has to be; the blame rests on Israel. God is dealing with a complex situation about which you or I have no chance of sorting out had we lived then to sort it out. How do you keep in control all the nations? History shows what a complex situation this all is, and yet God declares He rules in the kingdoms of men. This bigger picture is not being recognized and God is not credited for staying in control to bring about His purpose. It might sound brutally harsh of me, but God is saving the few people from all generations (by comparison to the billions ever lived) who will be faithful to Him and who believe. Those, who do not, will simply perish. This is a consistent message from God from Genesis to Revelation. You have to make your choice in which camp you want to be. If you want to make hurdles for yourself and remain blind to the lessons God is teaching us, that is your choice.
And the incorporation of 32,000 pagan virgins directly contradicts the reason for the genocide (idolatry) since those women would introduce their idolatry into the heart of Israel.Indeed, this is the reason Solomon fell - "his wives turned away his heart after other gods" (1 Kings 11:4). So now we see God allowing the soldiers to marry pagan women? This also explicitly contradicts God's command to not take their daughters as wives:
Deuteronomy 7:1 whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; 2 And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them: 3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. 4 For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly. 5 But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire.
You are making a sweeping assumption though I agree you could be partly right. We have more than one agenda to think of. I forget who mentioned the fact that there was a crisis due to the shortage of women. I was not aware of this and for the moment, I hear what is said, though I am in position to agree or disagree. This shows that there might be more to this story than first meets the eye. I have pointed out how the spoils of war were divided and not all 32,000 virgins were given over to the soldiers. You keep on assuming these girls were pounced on and raped without any regard to any other way taking place. Just because God ordered His people to slaugter as they did, does not automatically make them brutal towards these girls who were saved. As I tried to explain to Rose, you have to consider what would become of these girls and their children if they had lived normally in their own country and people. They lived in jeopardy of their children being offered as child sacrifices. Now are you saying the Israelites are a worse people than these, to whom slaughter of other people would not have been on their conscience?
Yes, the girls could have been a snare, but they were young enough perhaps to be taught God's ways by the Israelites. This is part way to going towards your solution. Maybe these girls were not practicing idolaters in the way Solomon's wives were. Once again, we surmize a lot as we have to given that the facts are sketchy and we have to fill in the blanks. That is why with so much of the Bible to read, we can often fill in the blanks by reading of other accounts that either relate to or bear a similarity to the events we are considering. I would not give up so easily and wrest scripture as you appear to be doing.
All I see is confusion, contradiction, and the vile morality of a primitive, sexist, warlike people. Can you give me any reason why anyone would choose to believe these are the words of the true God?
What you are saying best describes the nations surrounding Israel at that time. What's so different today we might argue? With the exception of Israel, no other nation had God as their leader and what I have mentioned elsewhere to you is that the nation was only chosen because of Abraham. The people later rebelled and wanted a king who they could see, hence Saul was chosen. OK, we are talking now in the time of Moses even before the time of the Judges to follow and the kings to follow after them, but even now, we see Abraham's descendants not much better than the nations around them and how easily Israel was influenced by the nations around them. The example of the Golden Calf which the people made when Moses went away from them for a while shows the influence that was still among them. It was only by giving God's chosen race a law, and a framework to live by would they be examples and witnesses for God. The Nation of Israel has always been a witness for God, good times and bad. I have mentioned "the warts" and God does not portray His chosen people in a good light, God is exposing their weakness and their failings (their warts). As individuals, the Israelites were no better than anyone else. God was instructing them through His law and some of the laws regarding health were millenia before their time. Our hospitals have been failing basic hygiene methods that were written into their laws.
This is why there are lessons to be learnt from all that God has caused to be written and it does not matter if you do not want to find the lessons, because others can. To those who search and knock the door is opened and to them the truth will be revealed. To them will all the promises of the kingdom to come be granted. Do not give up searching for the lessons.
All the best,
David
Hello Rose
There is a big problem and gulf between us if you do not believe God has inspired the Scriptures from which we have our Bibles today. I would not waste my time trying to make sense of this if I had not already seen enough evidence to support the existence of God and that what God has revealed is true. I would not waste my time studying a book that was not inspired by God and is a work of fiction by man. There is too much harmony within the scriptures to make it a work of man considering the many books written over the centuries it took to write. This is one reason why I believe and wil continue to look for the answers to satisfactorily explain the episode of the 32,000 virgins that is main hub of this post.
Good morning to you on this International Woman's Day :yo:
I would very much like to know what you consider evidence for the existence of God? It seems to me that the Bible does more harm then good when it comes to evidence for God. It's pages are filled with contradictions, errors and falsehoods not to mention the horrendous human rights violations commanded by Yahweh, like the 32,000 virgins!
I am so pleased to hear that you want to search for truth in the matter of the 32,000 virgins, because that amongst many other moral atrocities is what led me to the place I am today. When I decided to search out the truth in these matters instead of pushing them under the rug, my eyes were opened to the fact that the Bible is a book written by men about the male warrior god, Yahweh they formed in their own minds.
Maybe you are right, women might have suffered more, but do yo have any statistics to back up what you say? I will agree with you here, but on other matters I will continue to disagree.
I agree, women can be considered so and treated badly by man, but you should not say, women are treated any less than man by God. Again I say, everyone is accountable as individuals. God is saving women as much as He is saving men. God has saved men and women down the ages. There could be many women, who though not mentioned in the Bible, have been saved. We do not know, it would not surprise me if women who are generally the less aggressive than men and have motherly instincts instead of the war-like aggression of men, would be judged more acceptable and more women made it to the kingdom. There is a lot of speculation in all this and we are in no position to judge. We cannot judge individuals based on what the nation they belonged to did. We have to separate individual responsibility from national responsibility.
The reason I say the women are treated as less valuable than men by God, is because that's what the Bible says that God says! That is what I've been writing about in all my posts. The Bible is a totally male biased book, everywhere one looks within its pages one finds women treated as sexual property and denied the same human rights afforded to men...all this is either commanded, or condoned by God!
[QUOTE=David M;41939]I have argued it is not mass rape as you want to intransigently keep calling it. I know that in any group not everyone acts the same. There are always a few rebels who do not conform and I accept that some soldiers might have disobeyed and did as you say. That was not their brief.
We heard of the attrocities committed by both British and American soldiers in Iraq which each govenment of the respective countries did not condone the actions once they came to light. There are always rebels and corrupt individuals in any group, even Jesus took one on knowingly. We must understand all the lessons to be learnt from what we read in the Bible. This is why there has not been a cover up and God has put this on record, so we have to try and see what it is God is really telling us. We should not impress our individual imperfect human thinking on these matters, that is why no one of us is going to come up with the right answer, but collectively, if we listen to all the arguments, we might.
God gave the command knowing what was in the best interest for His people. The people chose not to obey His instruction and therefore the consequences followed of which this episode is one . If the Israelites had followed the instruction to the letter, we would not be talking about this episode of the 32,000 virgins. You have to blame man in the first instance for disobedience.
You have argued that it is not mass rape, but you are wrong! Anyone who is taken against their will and forced to be the wife of another is a victim of rape! Not one of those 32,000 virgins who were taken by the Hebrew soldiers after their families were slaughter would have done so willingly! That is RAPE!
The Israelite's may have thought that Yahweh's command to take the virgins was in their best interest, but it sure wasn't in the best interest of those poor women!
You are bringing God down to human level in your reasoning and this is wrong. God the creator expects recognition and worship. I can see you do not want to give God credit for the beauty He has created on this planet and you will not recognize the destruction and evil man has brought on himself (given the freedom God gave man to do it) is all of man's making. You have a choice Rose and I can see which path you are taking.
A month is a relatively short time, but yes in time, though I have to consider that many might not be able to forget of forgive. It is difficult for any of us on this forum to get into the mind of the people of that time. Their culture and way of thinking would be a lot different to ours. Brutal armed combat was the style of the day. We see the tribal warfare that goes on in Africa today, though in these times the tribes manage to get guns. I am not sure of all the facts, but you will find accounts of genocide that has taken place in Africa in the last decade or so that largely went unreported at the time. I know there are Jews who cannot forget the holocaust and remain bitter against the Germans, but in all these situations we cannot tar people with the same brush. I do not have the statistics, all I can say is; with a large group of people you have a wide spectrum to choose from.
Of course I am bringing God down to my own reasoning, because that is the only reasoning we humans have! There is no way a human can think any other way than human. When people throw the statement around that "God's ways are higher than our ways" it's just an excuse and justification for God's bad behavior. That has been on of my big problems with the Bible ever since I became a Christian about 30 years ago; I would try to compare my moral judgment against what I would read in the Bible and I always came out on top...my morals were always better than God's.
I disagree with lots of (so-called) Christians over doctrines so I do not expect (so-called) Christians to agree with my understanding. Getting outside our locked boxes is difficult, I do try and I can see other people's point of view, and I reach my own conclusions. Maybe the gap between our difference of thought is reducing slightly. I am trying somehow to find a way to make you think outside your box. That is why when in my box I am considering what you are saying. This is why I am trying to look at this by trying to raise all possible questions and consider all possible answers. We have to take this in bite size chunks instead of trying to eat the whole cake in one mouthful.
We can agree on this Rose.
Well, we have some agreement between us, but not enough at present to prevent us from ending up at stalemate which is what I expect will happen soon.
All the best,
David
I do appreciate your sincere effort to think outside your box, it's very hard though when you're still inside the box. It was only when I freed myself from the bondage of what other people thought, and thought for myself that I was able to actually think outside the box, because the box was no longer there!
All the best,
Rose
Richard Amiel McGough
03-08-2012, 10:19 AM
Hi Richard
I won't assume you are thinking the same as Rose, but as she does not believe the Scriptures have been inspired by God, we have a big problem and gulf between us. There is not much point discussing anything in the Bible if we do not agree from this perspective that the Bible we have today has come from the inspired writings of God. You and I are always going to be at loggerheads because we cannot agree on this fundamental principle that the Bible is the inspired word of God. We have no common ground on which to base our argument. My only reason to continue to discuss this is that you might get to understand more than you know now, and my trying to answer your questions might help someone else following this thread come to understand God's word better. The danger is that we will reach an impass where neither of us is going to concede any change of thought so as to move the discussion on.
I will argue my understanding of scripture using scripture to provide the answers; I will not quote the works of man. It is difficult enough arguing from the scriptures so why should I even consider referring to anything that is a fabrication of man. I know that the Scriptures (the Bible) have been perverted by man for man's own selfishness and greed. This is the reason we have so many so-called Christian religions today and on this we agree.
Hey there David, :yo:
You position makes no sense to me at all. We can discuss the Bible without making any unfounded and ill-defined assumptions like "it is the inspired word of God." What does that even mean? Is it true for the Catholic Bible? Is it true for the Greek Orthodox Bible? If not, why not? And what about the demonstrable errors in transmission? We don't even know what the original documents said in some cases. And besides all that, folks who totally agree that the Bible is the "inspired Word of God" often fail to come to any kind of agreement of what it really means.
If folks must begin by believing the Bible is the "inspired Word of God" before they can find explanations for the blatant immorality and primitive brutality of Yahweh, then I see no hope for your religion. It's time to admit that secular morality greatly surpasses that of the Bible.
What alternatives did God have? That's easy! He could have opened their eyes to see the truth and taught them in the ways of love and righteousness. A very simple thing for a Sovereign God to do. Mere humans do things like that all the time. Open up a university. Elevate them from the primitive conditions that God put them in. Very simple stuff. How is it that you can't even imagine real goodness coming from God? This is what religion does to people. It shrinks their minds until they can't even imagine what a truly good God would be like
The alternative you give is what God is doing now. God is telling us this in His word now, but who listens? We have the example of Jesus to follow, but does this make any difference? People are rejecting the teaching of Jesus, so we can hardly expect those people to accept the lessons to be learnt from the Old Testament. The culture and mentality of the period we are considering is far different to that in which we live now. I do not know what I would have thought if I had lived in those times. I have to understand it from the perspective that God has revealed it to me through His word. The stories of wars and fightings would have been known and passed from one generation to another. Nations would have heard about the fightings of other nations. In fact, the stories of God fighting for Israel had gone before them. This is the level at which God is dealing; not 21st centuary intellectual thinking and all the problems that brings with it.
Yes, everyone knows that Jesus is a lot nicer than Yahweh, but that's not the point. We can't have Yahweh going about acting like a Bronze age tribal war god who commands genocide and the capture of virgins and all that! It's just not right! It is immoral. You explanation that things were "far different" back then is the most absurd thing a Christian could ever say in this context because the primary Christian assertion is that GOD DOESN'T CHANGE and MORALITY DOES NOT CHANGE! This is what your dogma about the Bible does to you. It forces you to be completely inconsistent and to say things that directly contradict the primary teachings of Christianity. It's so very strange that you don't see this when you are writing your posts and that I need to point it out to you. This is what happens when you try to defend something that is logically incoherent.
Your arguments appear to be based on purely human reasoning which is imperfect. You do not accept God's thoughts are far superior to your own, and that God has a far more complex situation to deal with than you can begin to imagine in bringing about His purpose. God is teaching us lessons in all that He has caused to be written, and if you are not even prepared to look for the lessons, I see little point in continuing.
Neither you nor I have any other kind of "reasoning" than "human reasoning." Or what? Can you show me some other form? I think not. It is a meaningless cliche Christians use when their arguments have been defeated by logic and facts.
I never said that God's thoughts were not superior to mine. I said that the immoral things in the Bible attributed to God cannot be accurate representations of God's thoughts. That's a very different thing.
I am more than prepared to "look at the lessons." I hope you don't quit, because very few Christians are willing to deal with what the Bible actually says.
But I understand why you might want to quit. The case against the morality of Yahweh appears to be airtight.
The Old Testament and the Law of Moses as Paul writes was a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. The Old Testament and Law of Moses whilst superceded, is important to understand the New Testament. Human nature has not changed in 6,000 years which is surprising if support Evolution (but let us not go there now). Human nature is the same now as it was then, so there are lessons to be learnt from the Old Testament.
Young Earth Creationism? You've got to be kidding! :doh:
You sound as intransigent as Rose in not entertaining that you are not 100% correct in saying this was mass rape. Others have put forward questions in this thread that should be considered; for example what if the girls did not want to marry and have sex, why can you not see that this could be the same as "finding no delight in her". These phrases leave a lot open for speculation and which we can only surmize. Therefore, none of us can be 100% certain of what we think; only certain about those things that are said without any ambiguity like God saying "He is One and there is no one beside him", but then we cannot even agree on such an unambiguous statement.
I'm not intransigent at all. I simply look and speak what I see. Your suggestion that the woman might have been allowed to say "no" and that this would have been the reason for finding "no delight" in her is a good attempt to force the text to fit modern sensibilities. Unfortunately, we know it is false because the text speaks of the lack of delight coming after they had sex! And we know this is true because the reason he had to let her go without selling her was because he had "HUMBLED" her, which means he had sex with her. Now these are the most basic facts that any fair-minded well-informed Bible student would know. How is it possible that you failed to see what is plainly written? The answer is simple. You have been blinded by your false dogma of Biblical inerrancy. You cannot accurately interpret anything in the Bible if it appears to contradict your dogma. The fact that you could make that suggestion shows that you are trying to "fix" the Bible because you see that it is teaching immorality. Think of what this means! It proves that your morals are higher than those of the Bible, and that rather than being a guide to morality, your dogma of Biblical inerrancy is corrupting your mind and causing you to pervert judgment! This is the inevitable consequence of holding a false doctrine about the Bible. It corrupts both the mind and the morals of those who adhere to it.
It appears you are an annihilationist, is that correct?
No, if anything I have to abide by the teaching of Jesus and be a pacifist. I have to overcome any inate desire to want to do or support violence.
Regarding wars and fighting in the Bible, I am reading the same as you and hearing what God wants to tell me. Not having given this episode of the 32,000 virgins any attention in the past, I am studying it now and drawing my own conclusions from what I read. I should not be thought of as an annihilatist just because I quote what the Bible says.
I was asking about your view of hell. You rejected the idea that God would torment sinners forever, so I assumed you were an annihilationist. What is your view of the eternal destiny of unbelievers?
Let's hope we do not reach an impass too soon.
All the best Richard.
David
I see no reason for any "impasse" - I am open to anything that can be established with logic and facts, as well as speculative intuitions and everything.
Great chatting!
Richard
[QUOTE=Rose;41919]Speaking of Lot's daughters, it was "righteous" Lot who offered his two daughters to the angry mob at Sodom to do with as was right in their own eyes, instead of the two men who were abiding under his roof. :eek: Sounds like he should have been the one turned into a pillar of salt instead of his wife who only looked back at the burning city.
In ancient Hebrew custom, guests were treated like VIP, And the host of the house would ensure that the guests were treated with utmost respect, comfort and friendliness. If President Obama were to visit your house and there is a homosexual mob outside the house forcing themselves to have sex with him, what do you do? Offer alternatives so that President Obama will have time to escape from the house or that his bodyguards will have time to withstand the mob till rescue arrived. Obviously, homosexuals are not interested in women and not surprising no harm was done to Lot's daughters; it was just a ploy to divert their attention and buy time. They were much more interested in Lot's asshole if he was much younger that his daughters.
Lot's wife was turned into "a pillar of salt" whatever that means had nothing to do with discrimination of women. The angels did warned anyone (male or female) not to look back at the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah or they would suffer the consequences of the effects from the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. It's like someone warning you not to stare directly at the sun or you will be blinded permanently and if you did, who are you to blame?
No one is encouraging anyone to die childless! What I am saying is that men should not be forcing themselves on women, if a man wishes to marry and have children it should be with a woman who wants to be his wife.
If no woman wants to be his wife knowing that they will likely be widowed or there is little time to find a wife like during war time, what will he do? Look I am not taking about rape here, look at the differences in the three passages and it does sounds like consensual sex ( the key woud is scream):
Deuteronomy 22:23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.
Note : Did not scream for help imply consensual sex.
*25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, 27 for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.
Note: "the woman screamed but there was no one to rescue her" suggest forceful sex i.e. rape.
*28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
Note: no mention of screamed for help imply consensual sex which was initially forceful but the virgin finally accepted. Questions in doubt are:
1. Why didn't the woman screamed for help or resisted?
2. Why did the woman agreed to marry the so call "rapist"?
3. What if she refused to marry?...will the "rapist" go scotch free?
4. Why didn't the father punished physically and severely the so call "rapist" and yet agreed to the marriage?
5. Why was the punishment for rape so cheap, fifty shekels of silver? A very rich opportunistic rapist might as well rape a virgin woman every day. And the incidences of rapes would have been chaotic but however such incidences never seemed to be happening in the OT times....why? The situation in the OT seemed rather disciplined.
The key words in Deut.22:28 is "lay hold" which in Hebrew is taphas meaning to catch, take hold of, or seize which can be translated as "Rape". It's truly is amazing the effort you are exerting, to try and justify men fulfilling their lusts by raping women! Has morality changed? It seems like you are saying that raping women was okay during biblical times, but is wrong in modern times?
Cultural sexual norms of the ancient Middle Eastern world needs to be considered before declaring whether such behaviors were acceptable or not. Some sexual practice can be disgusting from modern people's point of view such as child sex and yet it was practice in a few primitive tribes. I do know of a sexual practice by a tribe in Vietnam or Southern China in which a men could have sex with any woman and if she is impregnated (by any man) then a suitor will marry her. This is to ensure that she is fertile and marriageable before marriage. It has nothing to do with male lust or superiority as this tribe is maternalistic i.e, the woman runs the family. I do know of a tribal culture in ?Nepal whereby a female can marry several husbands and they live peacefully together in the same household.
No one is depriving anyone the opportunity of marrying and bearing children, it's just that if a man wants to have a family it shouldn't be started by raping a woman! Children should come from a loving relationship between a man and woman, not from sexual violence. Why is God promoting sexual violence against women, and encouraging men to lust after women and have their sexual desires fulfilled at the expense of the woman? Kinda screwed up values wouldn't you say?
There was no sexual violence and God was not promoting sexual violence; just wrong interpretation of the Bible. If God wants, He might as well create Free Sex in the minds of men and women like those promoted by hippies and we will then see a chaotic worldwide explosion filled with HIVs and venereal diseases beyond control leading to human extinction. Is human morals better than God? A non-promiscuous faithful husband and wife relationship is still the best bet that will ensure human survival. What a wise God!
Wise God indeed! :pray:
David and all,
David >
I will argue my understanding of scripture using scripture to provide the answers; I will not quote the works of man. It is difficult enough arguing from the scriptures so why should I even consider referring to anything that is a fabrication of man. I know that the Scriptures (the Bible) have been perverted by man for man's own selfishness and greed. This is the reason we have so many so-called Christian religions today and on this we agree.
Gil >
Why consider.
Your understanding of scripture is also a work of man. Are they not your own thoughts and conclusions. How are they that different from another mans thoughts and conclusions written within their works.
It all boils down to experience and knowledge attained by each one of us. We are all
as we are. Each has had there own individual experiences, each has a educational base through which all that he/she has accumulated through out their own lifetime. Each had read or been taught in whatever schools of thought that they may have been made acquainted with. Each has learned through the oral tradition, from all those he/she has ever been in contact with.
What does that Leave? Each of us are as snowflakes, no two are exactly alike.
We are all true believers unto ourselves.
You , I and all on this forum are products of their own environment.
Thanks to the internet, we are all expanding in our own ways. Taking in new knowledge, changing our minds at times or reinforcing that which we already Know.
The question I guess is whether the Bible was the inspired work of God.
Some say no , some say yes. Even the yes answer need not be the same.
The Spirit that be the true God allowed man ( the generations of the First Adam, who in the end became the children of Israel ) to tell their own story. They began at the beginning by telling us that the Father of all their generations screwed up. He had fallen away from God the Creator.
They gave us a blow by blow account of their travels, their being synthesized by other cultures, as can be seen in their changing ideas ,concepts of the Spirit God of their nation.
They showed us the good, the bad and the ugly of all their great ones, They told us what they had done and what they should have done.
They didn't try an pull any punches and for the most part told us how it was to live under a fallen Spirit. A God that was half man and half divine. An Elohim called Jehovah.
They told of their blessings and curses, how they continually placed themselves under the bondage of one nation/kingdom or another through their conquests of war.
The Spirit of the Elohim fallen man would speak to them, and so to The Spirit of the True God Elohim would speak to them. For the most part through their prophets.
You can hear them if you listen.
How their Spiritual brother Cain would come to their aid at the Egyptian/Sinai exodus.
There he gave flesh man a set of Laws that only a true God or his son could follow.
They recognized that their end was in sight , when it was almost to late, ( their Nation had been scattered through out the other nations, and only a small remnant remained in their beloved Jerusalem where their temple stood.
If ever a Messiah, promised to come was needed ,it was then.
If they would not have given a blow by blow account of their life as a prodigal son, that had gone astray from the true God of Life itself , how would we have been able to understand the return to the paradise of the Father.
The New Testament is about the promised seed to come, his role as Messiah and the Christ.
It tells how life may again be as it was before the fall.
If the BOC is but a toe hold gained that man in the flesh may live in a better world, then the lessons of the Testaments may be added to your knowledge base as a true believer.
Faith doesn't come cheap , it to has a price. A price that some are not willing to pay.
Man was not created to walk on top of the fence, but to know and understand what lays on both sides. Then may man move forward into the future.
So was the Bible inspired by God. Yes. God told his inspirational story of hope in the old Testament through the scarlet thread that would lead to the Christ and man would tell his story, allowed by God to show us how it was to be without him.
Gil :pop2:
In ancient Hebrew custom, guests were treated like VIP, And the host of the house would ensure that the guests were treated with utmost respect, comfort and friendliness. If President Obama were to visit your house and there is a homosexual mob outside the house forcing themselves to have sex with him, what do you do? Offer alternatives so that President Obama will have time to escape from the house or that his bodyguards will have time to withstand the mob till rescue arrived. Obviously, homosexuals are not interested in women and not surprising no harm was done to Lot's daughters; it was just a ploy to divert their attention and buy time. They were much more interested in Lot's asshole if he was much younger that his daughters.
I know I wouldn't offer up my daughters to be raped by an angry mob!:eek: So, are you saying that the life of a man of importance is worth more than a woman's life? Sure sounds that way...
You said the men of Sodom weren't interested in Lots daughters, well what about the case in Judges 19 where the master of the house gave his concubine to the angry mob of men who wanted his male house guest, yet they still took the woman and raped her to death!:eek: And did we read even one word of condemnation or reprimand given to the man who threw his woman out to be raped to death? NO!
If no woman wants to be his wife knowing that they will likely be widowed or there is little time to find a wife like during war time, what will he do?
If a man cannot find a woman who wants to be his wife then he must go childless, just as a woman who could not find a husband would have to go childless. No person EVER has a right to force themselves on another just because they want children!
*28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
Note: no mention of screamed for help imply consensual sex which was initially forceful but the virgin finally accepted. Questions in doubt are:
1. Why didn't the woman screamed for help or resisted?
2. Why did the woman agreed to marry the so call "rapist"?
3. What if she refused to marry?...will the "rapist" go scotch free?
4. Why didn't the father punished physically and severely the so call "rapist" and yet agreed to the marriage?
5. Why was the punishment for rape so cheap, fifty shekels of silver? A very rich opportunistic rapist might as well rape a virgin woman every day. And the incidences of rapes would have been chaotic but however such incidences never seemed to be happening in the OT times....why? The situation in the OT seemed rather disciplined.
It doesn't matter if the woman screamed or not, the man still raped her. She had no say in the matter of marriage, why do you think the man paid her father 50 shekels, because she was the property of her father and because the man raped her, her value decreased to nothing! Instead of punishing the man physically the father wanted money for his daughter that the rapist just devalued. Back in those time 50 shekels of silver was a lot of money. In Gen.27:38 Josephs brothers sold him for 30 shekels silver, so I guess a human life was worth between 30-50 shekels.
Cultural sexual norms of the ancient Middle Eastern world needs to be considered before declaring whether such behaviors were acceptable or not. Some sexual practice can be disgusting from modern people's point of view such as child sex and yet it was practice in a few primitive tribes. I do know of a sexual practice by a tribe in Vietnam or Southern China in which a men could have sex with any woman and if she is impregnated (by any man) then a suitor will marry her. This is to ensure that she is fertile and marriageable before marriage. It has nothing to do with male lust or superiority as this tribe is maternalistic i.e, the woman runs the family. I do know of a tribal culture in ?Nepal whereby a female can marry several husbands and they live peacefully together in the same household.
What does the disgusting customs of primitive people have to do with God commanding the rape of women in the Bible. Just because men in Vietnam or China have no regard for a woman's human rights means nothing. You continue to act like women are just property for men to have sex with and have children by.
There was no sexual violence and God was not promoting sexual violence; just wrong interpretation of the Bible. If God wants, He might as well create Free Sex in the minds of men and women like those promoted by hippies and we will then see a chaotic worldwide explosion filled with HIVs and venereal diseases beyond control leading to human extinction. Is human morals better than God? A non-promiscuous faithful husband and wife relationship is still the best bet that will ensure human survival. What a wise God!
Wise God indeed! :pray:
Well, if you want to close your eyes to what the Bible really says there is nothing I can do about it. It is just more proof of how the Bible corrupts peoples morals and hardens their hearts. If you don't think raping women is sexual violence there is nothing I can do to help you, you are a lost soul.
Are human morals better than God's? Absolutely! My morals are a hundred times better than what is presented in the Bible as God's morals!
Rose
David M
03-09-2012, 03:26 AM
Hello Gil
Gil >
Why consider.
Your understanding of scripture is also a work of man. Are they not your own thoughts and conclusions. How are they that different from another mans thoughts and conclusions written within their works.
I agree; my conclusions are the work of me (a man), but I shall quote the Bible by way of supporting what I say. The Bible I believe is the inspired word of God and God does not lie. I am not going to quote from works of man claiming to be the inspired word of God which they are clearly not. It does not matter if my conclusions agree with others or not; as you say, all the conclusions we make are the work of men.
I am not saying anyone should agree with my conclusions. People must make up their own minds. You know how the Bereans were commended for comparing what people were telling them with what was written in the Scriptures. I urge everyone to compare what is said with what the Bible says; particularly concerning essential doctrines. Jesus accused the Pharisees for teaching as doctrine the commandments of men. This is why it is essential that no one takes my word or that of anyone else without comparing what they hear or read with what the Bible says.
I trust this makes my position clear.
David
David M
03-09-2012, 04:30 AM
I do appreciate your sincere effort to think outside your box, it's very hard though when you're still inside the box. It was only when I freed myself from the bondage of what other people thought, and thought for myself that I was able to actually think outside the box, because the box was no longer there!
All the best,
Rose
Hello Rose,
I expect Richard will read this, so hello Richard. I am thinking we have to go back to some basic understanding of the times. These have been partly explained by others but I think we shall get nowhere discussing this one incident of the 32,000 virgins until we see the wider picture of the culture of those times in which God was dealing with. I feel we have reached an impass on the matter of rape. I agree that some rape could have taken place, but with the association you are making of being taken captive by force with that of forced rape, and until you give some ground on this, we have reached the end of the road. However, I feel we should go back to basics and examine some early scriptural references to help us understand the morals of the time which were clearly different from the morals of you and me, but when we look at the wider world around us today, I wonder whether the world's morals have changed all that much. I will put some thought into what scriptural references we should consider.
For the moment, while I was looking up some references, I wanted to bring out the story or Sarah and Hagar. One of the points of this story is that God has to deal with situations arising from people taking matters into their own hands, thinking that what they were doing was what God intended.
In the two cases where Lot offered his daughters to the homosexuals demanding Lot released his male guest to them and the time the man in Judges 19 offered his concubine are two very different circumstances with different outcomes. In the second case the supposed homosexuals were clearly not just homosexual. When you read all the events that followed on from this you see what a terrible mess resulted, and how thousands were killed on both sides; those who went to war with the Benjamites and the Benjamites.
The concluding verse of Judges 21 and the Book of Judges says; Judges21:25 .... every man did that which was right in his own eyes.
This is fundamentally what is at the heart of many of the incidents we read about and give rise to the moral dilemma we have. I will expand on this in another post getting back to some fundamentals.
In the case of Abraham and Sarah they took matters into their own hands thinking they were acting as God intended. As we know Sarah said that Abraham could take her handmaid Hagar and have sex with her to produce an heir. As a result of this, we see what consequences this brought and how history in the making was changed. We can only surmize what might have been if Sarah and Abraham had not taken matters into their own hand and did that which was right in their sight.
The main point I wanted to bring to Rose's attention here is; we have a story involving two women. It was Sarah who offered her handmaid to her husband. When a child was born to Hagar, Sarah became jealous. Abraham, lets Sarah decide what should be done to Hagar. Sarah deals harshly with Hagar and she is banished to the wilderness. I won't go into what God does for Hagar to correct the situation, but only to say that God had to deal with the result and God used the outcome in the fulfilling of His purpose.
The point I want to make from this is; we have a woman/woman situation and a woman dealing harshly with another woman and possibly a woman ignoring the rights of another woman. We can argue whether Hagar consented or not. We can formulate our own opinions from this. Did Hagar consent, thinking she was doing God's will? Was Hagar submissive purely as servant without the right to refuse?
So Rose, presented with this story of Hagar and Sarah, can you say that Sarah (a woman) is any better or worse than a man in her treatment of a woman?
The majority of stories involving women might weigh heavily against men, but as we should know, we cannot tar everyone with the same brush. The Bible is not hiding anything and is presenting us with all manner of situations. This woman on woman story might be one of a kind, but one story is enough to balance scripture and to get a message out.
Just food for thought.
All the best,
David
Howdy David,
Thanks for the response.
David> I trust this makes my position clear.
Gil > Clear as a bell David.
David > I urge everyone to compare what is said with what the Bible says; particularly concerning essential doctrines.
Gil > As you mentioned earlier that Christianity has been fragmented into many hundreds of denominations, each with there own doctrines since the split from Catholicism , which essential doctrines do you refer to?
As they all differ in one respect or another.
Gil :pop2:
Hello Rose,
I expect Richard will read this, so hello Richard. I am thinking we have to go back to some basic understanding of the times. These have been partly explained by others but I think we shall get nowhere discussing this one incident of the 32,000 virgins until we see the wider picture of the culture of those times in which God was dealing with. I feel we have reached an impass on the matter of rape. I agree that some rape could have taken place, but with the association you are making of being taken captive by force with that of forced rape, and until you give some ground on this, we have reached the end of the road. However, I feel we should go back to basics and examine some early scriptural references to help us understand the morals of the time which were clearly different from the morals of you and me, but when we look at the wider world around us today, I wonder whether the world's morals have changed all that much. I will put some thought into what scriptural references we should consider.
Good morning David, I am so glad you are continuing this conversation...:yo:
The fact that you agree that some rape took place is enough to convict Moses on orders from Yahweh to have committed immoral acts, which were never condemned, nor reprimanded. It's pretty cut and dried...guilty of sexual violations against women!
How can you say morals have changed? Does that mean sexual violations against women were not immoral back in the time of Moses, but are today? Is the God you hold to be the creator of the universe two faced, did he have one set of morals for Bronze Age man and another set for now? In my book raping women, and slaughtering women and children is always WRONG!
For the moment, while I was looking up some references, I wanted to bring out the story or Sarah and Hagar. One of the points of this story is that God has to deal with situations arising from people taking matters into their own hands, thinking that what they were doing was what God intended.
In the two cases where Lot offered his daughters to the homosexuals demanding Lot released his male guest to them and the time the man in Judges 19 offered his concubine are two very different circumstances with different outcomes. In the second case the supposed homosexuals were clearly not just homosexual. When you read all the events that followed on from this you see what a terrible mess resulted, and how thousands were killed on both sides; those who went to war with the Benjamites and the Benjamites.
The concluding verse of Judges 21 and the Book of Judges says; Judges21:25 .... every man did that which was right in his own eyes.
This is fundamentally what is at the heart of many of the incidents we read about and give rise to the moral dilemma we have. I will expand on this in another post getting back to some fundamentals.
In the case of Abraham and Sarah they took matters into their own hands thinking they were acting as God intended. As we know Sarah said that Abraham could take her handmaid Hagar and have sex with her to produce an heir. As a result of this, we see what consequences this brought and how history in the making was changed. We can only surmize what might have been if Sarah and Abraham had not taken matters into their own hand and did that which was right in their sight.
The main point I wanted to bring to Rose's attention here is; we have a story involving two women. It was Sarah who offered her handmaid to her husband. When a child was born to Hagar, Sarah became jealous. Abraham, lets Sarah decide what should be done to Hagar. Sarah deals harshly with Hagar and she is banished to the wilderness. I won't go into what God does for Hagar to correct the situation, but only to say that God had to deal with the result and God used the outcome in the fulfilling of His purpose.
The point I want to make from this is; we have a woman/woman situation and a woman dealing harshly with another woman and possibly a woman ignoring the rights of another woman. We can argue whether Hagar consented or not. We can formulate our own opinions from this. Did Hagar consent, thinking she was doing God's will? Was Hagar submissive purely as servant without the right to refuse?
The problem with the stories you presented is not the fact that men and women took matters into their own hands, but the fact that they were neither condemned, nor reprimanded for doing such things.
Like the case in Judges 19, nary a word was spoken against the man who gave his woman to be raped to death!
Also, in the case of Lot offering his daughters to be raped by the mob, not a single solitary word was uttered against his atrocious behavior, yet when Lots wife looked back she was turned into a pillar of salt!
Even with the horrible behavior of Sarah sending Hagar away, she was never reprimanded for that, yet when she doubted God it was a horrible thing.
So Rose, presented with this story of Hagar and Sarah, can you say that Sarah (a woman) is any better or worse than a man in her treatment of a woman?
The majority of stories involving women might weigh heavily against men, but as we should know, we cannot tar everyone with the same brush. The Bible is not hiding anything and is presenting us with all manner of situations. This woman on woman story might be one of a kind, but one story is enough to balance scripture and to get a message out.
Just food for thought.
All the best,
David
My purpose has never been to paint men as bad and women as good, rather I have been trying to show that by the very nature of how the Bible was written it shows that it is the work of men. The bias towards men and against women is so great in Scripture, that it is utterly impossible for it to have been inspired by the God it claims to have created the universe.
The laws and rules given in the Bible which are claimed to be from God, parallel far to closely with the rules and laws in all societies governed by men to not raise some eyebrows as to their origin.
As always, nice chatting :thumb:
Rose
Richard Amiel McGough
03-09-2012, 05:28 PM
Hello Rose,
I expect Richard will read this, so hello Richard. I am thinking we have to go back to some basic understanding of the times. These have been partly explained by others but I think we shall get nowhere discussing this one incident of the 32,000 virgins until we see the wider picture of the culture of those times in which God was dealing with. I feel we have reached an impass on the matter of rape. I agree that some rape could have taken place, but with the association you are making of being taken captive by force with that of forced rape, and until you give some ground on this, we have reached the end of the road. However, I feel we should go back to basics and examine some early scriptural references to help us understand the morals of the time which were clearly different from the morals of you and me, but when we look at the wider world around us today, I wonder whether the world's morals have changed all that much. I will put some thought into what scriptural references we should consider.
Good afternoon David, :yo:
I think we need to clear up the reason for the use of the word "rape" in relation to the distribution of the 32,000 virgins. Your comment that you "agree that some rape could have taken place" indicates we are still talking past each other. We are not talking about some incidental acts of rape that could have happened here or there between some soldiers and some captive women. We are talking about God sanctioning the capture of virgins and their distribution to the soldiers to be wives. The Torah states that the soldiers could have sex with the virgins and then discard them if they "found no delight" in them. Is there any reason to think that the virgins who just witnessed the murder of everyone they loved would willingly have had sex with the soldiers who did it? THIS IS WHY IT IS CALLED RAPE. Do you agree? If not, why not? Is there any reason we should think that those captured virgins would willingly bear children to the very people who murdered everyone they loved? We need to find some agreement on this basic point.
Your reference to "the morals of the time which were clearly different from the morals of you and me" indicates another fundamental misunderstanding. The immoral actions of individuals recorded in the Bible are completely irrelevant to the issues we are discussing. We are talking about the MORALS OF GOD as presented in the Bible. The Bible presents God as commanding, participating in, and tacitly approving immoral activities such as genocide, kidnapping, and rape (Numbers 31, Judges 19-21). These are the issues.
For the moment, while I was looking up some references, I wanted to bring out the story or Sarah and Hagar. One of the points of this story is that God has to deal with situations arising from people taking matters into their own hands, thinking that what they were doing was what God intended.
This too is completely irrelevant to the issues at hand. We are not talking about immoral actions of humans in the Bible. We are talking about the things that God commanded, instituted in his law, and tacitly approved by being silent.
This conversation would be a lot easier if we could at least agree upon the points we are discussing.
In the two cases where Lot offered his daughters to the homosexuals demanding Lot released his male guest to them and the time the man in Judges 19 offered his concubine are two very different circumstances with different outcomes. In the second case the supposed homosexuals were clearly not just homosexual. When you read all the events that followed on from this you see what a terrible mess resulted, and how thousands were killed on both sides; those who went to war with the Benjamites and the Benjamites.
The concluding verse of Judges 21 and the Book of Judges says; Judges21:25 .... every man did that which was right in his own eyes.
This is fundamentally what is at the heart of many of the incidents we read about and give rise to the moral dilemma we have. I will expand on this in another post getting back to some fundamentals.
Again, the problem is not that some men were immoral. The problem is that God actively participated in the immorality. Case in point - God himself enabled the tribes to kill every man, woman, and child of the Benjaminites, except for the 600 soldiers who then needed wives. But the tribes had agreed not to give any other their daughters for wives to Benjamin, so they killed every man, woman, and child of Jabeshgilead and kidnapped 400 virgins. But that wasn't enough, so the kidnapped another 200 that were on the way to celebrate a festival of the LORD! And God was there participating in all of this, sometimes directly and other times tacitly. But it all reflects on the morality of God.
In the case of Abraham and Sarah they took matters into their own hands thinking they were acting as God intended. As we know Sarah said that Abraham could take her handmaid Hagar and have sex with her to produce an heir. As a result of this, we see what consequences this brought and how history in the making was changed. We can only surmize what might have been if Sarah and Abraham had not taken matters into their own hand and did that which was right in their sight.
Again, the fact that folks took matters in their own hands has nothing to do with any of the moral issues we are discussing. We are talking about the morality that is attributed to God.
The main point I wanted to bring to Rose's attention here is; we have a story involving two women. It was Sarah who offered her handmaid to her husband. When a child was born to Hagar, Sarah became jealous. Abraham, lets Sarah decide what should be done to Hagar. Sarah deals harshly with Hagar and she is banished to the wilderness. I won't go into what God does for Hagar to correct the situation, but only to say that God had to deal with the result and God used the outcome in the fulfilling of His purpose.
That's all fine. But it has nothing to do with the moral abominations attributed to God in the Bible. That is the issue. Why have you not answered my last post explaining all this. I fell like you are avoiding the facts I have presented.
The point I want to make from this is; we have a woman/woman situation and a woman dealing harshly with another woman and possibly a woman ignoring the rights of another woman. We can argue whether Hagar consented or not. We can formulate our own opinions from this. Did Hagar consent, thinking she was doing God's will? Was Hagar submissive purely as servant without the right to refuse?
Who knows? And since no one knows, no one should try to build a case on ignorance.
So Rose, presented with this story of Hagar and Sarah, can you say that Sarah (a woman) is any better or worse than a man in her treatment of a woman?
Again, this shows that you are missing the point. We are not talking about the morality of humans.
I would be very interested in you would answer my previous post.
Richard
Richard Amiel McGough
03-09-2012, 05:35 PM
How can you say morals have changed? Does that mean sexual violations against women were not immoral back in the time of Moses, but are today? Is the God you hold to be the creator of the universe two faced, did he have one set of morals for Bronze Age man and another set for now? In my book raping women, and slaughtering women and children is always WRONG!
That's exactly correct. God is shown as actively participating in the lives of Israel. He spoke through prophets. He caused famines (2 Sam 21:1). Why was he silent about the moral atrocities recorded in the Bible? How can we think that the Bible is a moral guide if it doesn't speak out against grossly immoral activities?
The problem with the stories you presented is not the fact that men and women took matters into their own hands, but the fact that they were neither condemned, nor reprimanded for doing such things.
Like the case in Judges 19, nary a word was spoken against the man who gave his woman to be raped to death!
Also, in the case of Lot offering his daughters to be raped by the mob, not a single solitary word was uttered against his atrocious behavior, yet when Lots wife looked back she was turned into a pillar of salt!
Even with the horrible behavior of Sarah sending Hagar away, she was never reprimanded for that, yet when she doubted God it was a horrible thing.
Indeed - Lot is repeatedly called "righteous" even though he offered his daughters to be raped and then impregnated both of them himself!
It seems clear to me that the Bible could say ANYTHING and it would be declared "righteous" by those who think it is the Word of God.
My purpose has never been to paint men as bad and women as good, rather I have been trying to show that by the very nature of how the Bible was written it shows that it is the work of men. The bias towards men and against women is so great in Scripture, that it is utterly impossible for it to have been inspired by the God it claims to have created the universe.
The laws and rules given in the Bible which are claimed to be from God, parallel far to closely with the rules and laws in all societies governed by men to not raise some eyebrows as to their origin.
Apparently, that needs to be repeated yet again, since no one seems willing to deal with what you are saying. So here it is:
Rose is trying to show that the male bias in the Bible shows it was written by men and not God. Why is this so hard to understand? Why can't anyone address her point?
All the best,
Richard
David M
03-10-2012, 06:15 AM
Hello Gil
Howdy David
Gil > As you mentioned earlier that Christianity has been fragmented into many hundreds of denominations, each with there own doctrines since the split from Catholicism , which essential doctrines do you refer to?
As they all differ in one respect or another.
Gil :pop2:
I won't go into all the doctrines that I differ on from mainstream Christendom. I have much in common with a lot of other Christian denominations but there is usually one point or more of disagreement I have with them.
Some of the points of disagreement I have are the following:
1. Death and Hell
2. The nature of Jesus
3. The Kingdom of God on earth
4. The Devil and Satan
5. Baptism
That is enough to be going on with.
Regards
David
David M
03-10-2012, 07:05 AM
Hello Richard
Good afternoon David, :yo:
I think we need to clear up the reason for the use of the word "rape" in relation to the distribution of the 32,000 virgins. Your comment that you "agree that some rape could have taken place" indicates we are still talking past each other. We are not talking about some incidental acts of rape that could have happened here or there between some soldiers and some captive women. We are talking about God sanctioning the capture of virgins and their distribution to the soldiers to be wives. The Torah states that the soldiers could have sex with the virgins and then discard them if they "found no delight" in them. Is there any reason to think that the virgins who just witnessed the murder of everyone they loved would willingly have had sex with the soldiers who did it? THIS IS WHY IT IS CALLED RAPE. Do you agree? If not, why not? Is there any reason we should think that those captured virgins would willingly bear children to the very people who murdered everyone they loved? We need to find some agreement on this basic point.
I do not think these matters are as black or white as you make out. If we could go back and interview the virgins at the time they were taken captive or after they had assimilated into the culture of the Israelites, we might know better about their feelings and what they thought of events. All I have tried to do is present a different point of view that is less categorical than you are stating. It was not mass rape in the normal sense we see when soldiers enter villages and immediately rape the women. I have answered why I consider this was not mass rape and explained how the phrase "having no delight in her" could be more than sexual reasons and even if you only consider the sexual context, you do not know how widespread this was. Allowance was made for that eventuality. That is why I say you are and Rose are partly right and that your are not totally correct. I think we have to move on.
Your reference to "the morals of the time which were clearly different from the morals of you and me" indicates another fundamental misunderstanding. The immoral actions of individuals recorded in the Bible are completely irrelevant to the issues we are discussing. We are talking about the MORALS OF GOD as presented in the Bible. The Bible presents God as commanding, participating in, and tacitly approving immoral activities such as genocide, kidnapping, and rape (Numbers 31, Judges 19-21). These are the issues.
Each case you cite needs to be discussed on its own merits.
This too is completely irrelevant to the issues at hand. We are not talking about immoral actions of humans in the Bible. We are talking about the things that God commanded, instituted in his law, and tacitly approved by being silent.
If you think it is irrelevant, OK. I am trying to add relevancy to Rose's thread.
This conversation would be a lot easier if we could at least agree upon the points we are discussing
Exactly.
Again, the problem is not that some men were immoral. The problem is that God actively participated in the immorality. Case in point - God himself enabled the tribes to kill every man, woman, and child of the Benjaminites, except for the 600 soldiers who then needed wives. But the tribes had agreed not to give any other their daughters for wives to Benjamin, so they killed every man, woman, and child of Jabeshgilead and kidnapped 400 virgins. But that wasn't enough, so the kidnapped another 200 that were on the way to celebrate a festival of the LORD! And God was there participating in all of this, sometimes directly and other times tacitly. But it all reflects on the morality of God.
Again, I suggest you start a specific thread on the morality of God. You may need to deal with one aspect at a time, or we will get bogged down with too many side trails.
Again, the fact that folks took matters in their own hands has nothing to do with any of the moral issues we are discussing. We are talking about the morality that is attributed to God.
Start another thread then, because I am dealing with the topic of which the example I have given is relevant. I would not have wasted my time otherwise.
That's all fine. But it has nothing to do with the moral abominations attributed to God in the Bible. That is the issue. Why have you not answered my last post explaining all this. I fell like you are avoiding the facts I have presented.
I think I have answered elsewhere, we keep going over the same ground. As I said above, I do not think I have had all my questions answered, but that does not matter, there will be opportunity again as these matters come up again.
Who knows? And since no one knows, no one should try to build a case on ignorance.
Fair comment, who does know? That is why I say you cannot be so categorical in your statments.
Again, this shows that you are missing the point. We are not talking about the morality of humans.
But this is relevant to this thread dealing with Violence in the Bible towards women. You will have to start a separate thread if you want to deal exclusively with the morality of God.
I would be very interested in you would answer my previous post
I thought I had. I have not always had my questions answered. There are too many threads going on with the same issues being introduced. In some of them I expressed by understanding. I am now addressing comments made by Rose in this thread. I am trying to stay on topic[/QUOTE]
Maybe I have to abandon this thread and concentrate on another one. I am already contributing to some of Rose's other threads.
I will chat with you in another thread.
All the best
David
Richard Amiel McGough
03-10-2012, 10:26 AM
I do not think these matters are as black or white as you make out. If we could go back and interview the virgins at the time they were taken captive or after they had assimilated into the culture of the Israelites, we might know better about their feelings and what they thought of events. All I have tried to do is present a different point of view that is less categorical than you are stating. It was not mass rape in the normal sense we see when soldiers enter villages and immediately rape the women. I have answered why I consider this was not mass rape and explained how the phrase "having no delight in her" could be more than sexual reasons and even if you only consider the sexual context, you do not know how widespread this was. Allowance was made for that eventuality. That is why I say you are and Rose are partly right and that your are not totally correct. I think we have to move on.
Good morning David, :tea:
I was only trying to bring the conversation into focus. Neither Rose nor I have ever suggested that anything like a "mass rape" occurred, so why are you writing post after post refuting something that was never said?
Now as you mentioned in a previous post, "human nature" has not changed in thousands of years, so I can state quite categorically that the kidnapped virgins who witnessed the total annihilation of their people by the Israelites would not willingly have sex with them and bear their children! Indeed, this is so fundamental to human nature I am mystified why I need to repeat it so many times.
And a big post I wrote answering many of your points has itself remained unanswered (Post #42 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2878-Sexual-Violence-Against-Women-Promoted-in-Scripture&p=41943#post41943)).
If you think it is irrelevant, OK. I am trying to add relevancy to Rose's thread.
Relevancy is fine. But your comments seemed more designed to avoid the big issues and hide them under many words. I say this because you have not really dealt with the central points that have been presented over and over again.
Again, I suggest you start a specific thread on the morality of God. You may need to deal with one aspect at a time, or we will get bogged down with too many side trails.
When Rose says that the Bible promotes sexual violence against women, she is talking about the Bible as a book supposedly inspired by God. She is not talking about the fact that it records some crimes against women committed by some individuals. This should be totally obvious because if the Bible really were written by God, then it could record the same crimes against women but then it would also CORRECT THEM and declare them to be wrong! Get it??? If the Bible were written by God, it could record all the wicked things that humans did, and then explain in no uncertain terms why those wicked things are wrong. But that's not what we see in the Bible, is it? Many wicked things are tacitly approved by God, and other wicked things are explicitly commanded.
I think I have answered elsewhere, we keep going over the same ground. As I said above, I do not think I have had all my questions answered, but that does not matter, there will be opportunity again as these matters come up again.
If I have failed to answer a question, you should bring my attention to it. That's why I've been trying to do. For example, my previous post received no answer at all. And you have claimed that you answered the rape of the 32,000 virgins but I don't think that is accurate at all because you were "refuting" something that I never said! Namely, that there was a "mass rape" - that's never been my point.
Who knows? And since no one knows, no one should try to build a case on ignorance.
Fair comment, who does know? That is why I say you cannot be so categorical in your statments.
I'm not "categorical" about everything. My "categorical" comments refer to things that we can know, such as the fact that no women would willingly bear children to the men that murdered everyone she ever loved.
Again, this shows that you are missing the point. We are not talking about the morality of humans.
But this is relevant to this thread dealing with Violence in the Bible towards women. You will have to start a separate thread if you want to deal exclusively with the morality of God.
Yes, it's is relevant in a tangential sort of way. But as explained above, the problem is not that the Bible records immoral actions of some humans, but rather that God often seems to tacitly approve, or even command, some of those actions. That's the only issue of any importance. If the Bible recorded the same immorality of humans but showed that God corrected and admonished them, then there would be no problem, would there?
I would be very interested in you would answer my previous post
I thought I had. I have not always had my questions answered. There are too many threads going on with the same issues being introduced. In some of them I expressed by understanding. I am now addressing comments made by Rose in this thread. I am trying to stay on topic
I was talking about Post #42 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2878-Sexual-Violence-Against-Women-Promoted-in-Scripture&p=41943#post41943) - you never answered that one.
I know there are lot's of threads on this topic right now, and things can get a little mixed up.
Maybe I have to abandon this thread and concentrate on another one. I am already contributing to some of Rose's other threads.
I will chat with you in another thread.
All the best
David
Sounds good.
All the very best to you too,
Richard
Richard Amiel McGough
03-10-2012, 11:37 AM
I won't go into all the doctrines that I differ on from mainstream Christendom. I have much in common with a lot of other Christian denominations but there is usually one point or more of disagreement I have with them.
Some of the points of disagreement I have are the following:
1. Death and Hell
2. The nature of Jesus
3. The Kingdom of God on earth
4. The Devil and Satan
5. Baptism
That is enough to be going on with.
Regards
David
Wow - that's quite a list for someone who says "I won't go into all the doctrines that I differ on from mainstream Christendom."
What's left? The only point of agreement seems to be that the Bible is the Word of God, but then everyone disagrees about almost everything it says! That pretty much says it all. The Bible is worthless as a guide. Everyone just makes up whatever they want. The differences are as stark as night and day. Some say Jesus is God, others so no. Some say baptism in water is necessary for salvation, others say no. And on it goes ... The Holey Babel of Contrary Doctrines.
[QUOTE=Rose;41951]I know I wouldn't offer up my daughters to be raped by an angry mob!:eek: So, are you saying that the life of a man of importance is worth more than a woman's life? Sure sounds that way...
Supposed President Obama visited your house and the mob outside demanded and forcing themselves to have sex with him, would you do a very heroic act by offering yourself, children and husband as a last resort so as to distract them and provide time for your beloved President to escape or be rescued? You know very well they are not interested in all the "holes" except Obama's so as to create world's headline, "President Obama raped by mobs!". They will most likely leave you and your family unharmed.
You said the men of Sodom weren't interested in Lots daughters, well what about the case in Judges 19 where the master of the house gave his concubine to the angry mob of men who wanted his male house guest, yet they still took the woman and raped her to death!:eek: And did we read even one word of condemnation or reprimand given to the man who threw his woman out to be raped to death? NO!
When we read Judge 19, the concubine was unfaithful to the husband and thus by right deserved death in those days but the husband did not do that out of mercy. Perhaps the husband still harbored that rage in him and eventually decided as a last resort to punish the concubine by throwing her out to the mob to be raped and at the same time saved all the rest. This is a very heroic act on the part of the concubine and perhaps the husband (which I believe God will pardon her sin and her husband) but unfortunately resulted in her death. Her death brought a good thing and that was the destruction of all the evil-doers of that town. Would you like to live in a town whereby the main pre-occupation of the residents is sex, sex, sex and nothing but perverse sex?
What would you do if you are faced with such a serious situation? Have one raped as a last resort to save all others or get all be raped?
Judge 19:
Now a Levite who lived in a remote area in the hill country of Ephraim took a concubine from Bethlehem in Judah. 2 But she was unfaithful to him. She left him and went back to her parents’ home in Bethlehem, Judah. After she had been there four months, 3 her husband went to her to persuade her to return. He had with him his servant and two donkeys. She took him into her parents’ home, and when her father saw him, he gladly welcomed him. 4 His father-in-law, the woman’s father, prevailed on him to stay; so he remained with him three days, eating and drinking, and sleeping there.
If a man cannot find a woman who wants to be his wife then he must go childless, just as a woman who could not find a husband would have to go childless. No person EVER has a right to force themselves on another just because they want children!
Fine, but how about taking common accepted ancient cultures and context at those times....forced marriages, child marriages, arranged marriages, bride kidnapping, are'nt those the same as forcing themselves on another to want children? In ancient Jewish custom, all grown up children are expected to get married.
I
t doesn't matter if the woman screamed or not, the man still raped her. She had no say in the matter of marriage, why do you think the man paid her father 50 shekels, because she was the property of her father and because the man raped her, her value decreased to nothing! Instead of punishing the man physically the father wanted money for his daughter that the rapist just devalued. Back in those time 50 shekels of silver was a lot of money. In Gen.27:38 Josephs brothers sold him for 30 shekels silver, so I guess a human life was worth between 30-50 shekels.
My question srtill stands, why didn't she scream or resisted like the other case? Silence means consent. The man paid 50 shekiels as dowry (in fact that was the sum of a marriage dowry in those days) to a proposed marriage which the father accepted. The father and the girl could have rejected that 50 shekiels if they wanted to and the man would have been stoned to death. What if the father was rich and doesn't need the money or what happened if the man cannot afford to pay? Please see wiki on Ancient Jewish marriages:
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/life/Relationships/Spouses_and_Partners/About_Marriage/Ancient_Jewish_Marriage.shtml
Excerpt:
The last step in the reform of the mohar institution was made by Simeon ben Shatach, head of the Pharisees, who were the ruling party in the state during the reign of the Maccabean queen, Salome Alexandra (76-67 B.C.E.). He declared that the mohar, which was ordinarily 200 silver dinars (50 shekels) for a girl, and 100 for a widow, should merely be written in the ketubah, the marriage deed, as a lien of the wife on the estate of her husband, to be paid to her only if he divorced her, or at his death!
What does the disgusting customs of primitive people have to do with God commanding the rape of women in the Bible. Just because men in Vietnam or China have no regard for a woman's human rights means nothing. You continue to act like women are just property for men to have sex with and have children by.
I quoted all the disgusting customs of primitive people to show that they have nothing to do with disregard for women rights but that it is based on acceptable sexual and social norms. They may looked like rapes but they are not. I even know from wiki of a primitive tribe in ?Africa in which "rape" was a sexual norm before marriage and from another in which adolescent males were allowed to have sex with matured women prior to their marriages in order to gain sexual experience.
Well, if you want to close your eyes to what the Bible really says there is nothing I can do about it. It is just more proof of how the Bible corrupts peoples morals and hardens their hearts. If you don't think raping women is sexual violence there is nothing I can do to help you, you are a lost soul.
Same as I would say to you that if you want to disregard or ignore the sexual norms and practices of ancient people of the Middle East and declare some of those practices as rapes is up to you.
Are human morals better than God's? Absolutely! My morals are a hundred times better than what is presented in the Bible as God's morals!
Yes, human morals are better than God :winking0071:... Free sex, promiscuity, adultery, homosexuality, lesbianism, pornography, nudity, molest, rape, divorce, prostituition, abortion, pedophilia, bestiality, wife swapping etc. etc. If you can't see these happenings, I am afraid you are also a lost soul.
God Blessed. :pray:
David M
03-11-2012, 02:10 AM
Hey there David, :yo:
You position makes no sense to me at all. We can discuss the Bible without making any unfounded and ill-defined assumptions like "it is the inspired word of God." What does that even mean? Is it true for the Catholic Bible? Is it true for the Greek Orthodox Bible? If not, why not? And what about the demonstrable errors in transmission? We don't even know what the original documents said in some cases. And besides all that, folks who totally agree that the Bible is the "inspired Word of God" often fail to come to any kind of agreement of what it really means.
I am not going to believe some parts of the Bible and not other parts once I have come to trust it and believe the message to be true.
2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: I accept this as true statement, not that this is proof by itself.
If folks must begin by believing the Bible is the "inspired Word of God" before they can find explanations for the blatant immorality and primitive brutality of Yahweh, then I see no hope for your religion. It's time to admit that secular morality greatly surpasses that of the Bible.
It is not as you paint the picture. Secular morality has nothing to boast about and is as low as it is possible to get. I have posted something about this to Rose elsewhere.
Yes, everyone knows that Jesus is a lot nicer than Yahweh, but that's not the point. We can't have Yahweh going about acting like a Bronze age tribal war god who commands genocide and the capture of virgins and all that! It's just not right! It is immoral. You explanation that things were "far different" back then is the most absurd thing a Christian could ever say in this context because the primary Christian assertion is that GOD DOESN'T CHANGE and MORALITY DOES NOT CHANGE! This is what your dogma about the Bible does to you. It forces you to be completely inconsistent and to say things that directly contradict the primary teachings of Christianity. It's so very strange that you don't see this when you are writing your posts and that I need to point it out to you. This is what happens when you try to defend something that is logically incoherent.
I do not see the morality of God changing, It is the same from Gensis to Revelation. I am amazed that you cannot see it. God's judgement will come on the earth again, millions or reprobates will be killed, what are you going to say then?
Neither you nor I have any other kind of "reasoning" than "human reasoning." Or what? Can you show me some other form? I think not. It is a meaningless cliche Christians use when their arguments have been defeated by logic and facts.
Yes we reasoning humanly, but it is the substance on which we base our reasoning that is different.
I never said that God's thoughts were not superior to mine. I said that the immoral things in the Bible attributed to God cannot be accurate representations of God's thoughts. That's a very different thing
God has revealed Himself in the Bible. What humans attribute to God might not be what God attributes to himself. It is faulty human reasoning to say that God is immoral.
I am more than prepared to "look at the lessons." I hope you don't quit, because very few Christians are willing to deal with what the Bible actually says.
I will keep bashing away, but I do not want to keep repeating myself as I feel I am doing with so many threads dealing with this same topic of the morality of God and the 32,000 virgins
But I understand why you might want to quit. The case against the morality of Yahweh appears to be airtight.
It is not airtight, that is your conclusion. It could be equally airtight but opposit to what you say.
Young Earth Creationism? You've got to be kidding! :doh: I am not kidding, but then you are defining me as a Young Earth Creationist withoutfully knowing what I believe.
I'm not intransigent at all. I simply look and speak what I see. Your suggestion that the woman might have been allowed to say "no" and that this would have been the reason for finding "no delight" in her is a good attempt to force the text to fit modern sensibilities. Unfortunately, we know it is false because the text speaks of the lack of delight coming after they had sex! And we know this is true because the reason he had to let her go without selling her was because he had "HUMBLED" her, which means he had sex with her. Now these are the most basic facts that any fair-minded well-informed Bible student would know. How is it possible that you failed to see what is plainly written? The answer is simple. You have been blinded by your false dogma of Biblical inerrancy. You cannot accurately interpret anything in the Bible if it appears to contradict your dogma. The fact that you could make that suggestion shows that you are trying to "fix" the Bible because you see that it is teaching immorality. Think of what this means! It proves that your morals are higher than those of the Bible, and that rather than being a guide to morality, your dogma of Biblical inerrancy is corrupting your mind and causing you to pervert judgment! This is the inevitable consequence of holding a false doctrine about the Bible. It corrupts both the mind and the morals of those who adhere to it.
God's morals are higher than yours. I wonder how you would handle the situation? You are powerless to do anything therefore you are not in position to say what God should have done. You are using flawed human reasoning.
I was asking about your view of hell. You rejected the idea that God would torment sinners forever, so I assumed you were an annihilationist. What is your view of the eternal destiny of unbelievers? They simply die and that is the end.
I see no reason for any "impasse" - I am open to anything that can be established with logic and facts, as well as speculative intuitions and everything.
Ok we can keep on chatting. Sorry I have had to rush this reply I have to go out for the day. Will be back on the forum this evening.
Great chatting!
David
Richard Amiel McGough
03-11-2012, 09:49 AM
Hey there David, :yo:
You position makes no sense to me at all. We can discuss the Bible without making any unfounded and ill-defined assumptions like "it is the inspired word of God." What does that even mean? Is it true for the Catholic Bible? Is it true for the Greek Orthodox Bible? If not, why not? And what about the demonstrable errors in transmission? We don't even know what the original documents said in some cases. And besides all that, folks who totally agree that the Bible is the "inspired Word of God" often fail to come to any kind of agreement of what it really means.
I am not going to believe some parts of the Bible and not other parts once I have come to trust it and believe the message to be true.
2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: I accept this as true statement, not that this is proof by itself.
Hey there David,
I appreciate your comments, but I think there are two fundamental logical flaws in your answer. First, quoting that verse as proof that Scripture is inspired is circular reasoning, technically known as Petitio Principii (Begging the Question). Second, it is absurd to claim that all of something is true merely because part of it is true. For example, anyone can say 1 + 1 = 2. Does that mean that all their words are true? Of course not.
Furthermore, you did not answer my question. Why do you choose to believe the Bible in the first place? And how did you choose which Bible to believe (Protestant vs. Catholic vs. Greek Orthodox)?
And most importantly, the Bible no where states what books it contains, so you must rely upon mere humans to give you a book that you have chosen to believe to be "of God." How is that any different than the Book of Mormon or the Koran?
It is not as you paint the picture. Secular morality has nothing to boast about and is as low as it is possible to get. I have posted something about this to Rose elsewhere.
You say that Universal Love and The Golden Rule are "about as low as possible"? That's the morality I was referring to when I said "secular." I call it "secular" because it is based on human nature rather than religious dogma.
I do not see the morality of God changing, It is the same from Gensis to Revelation. I am amazed that you cannot see it. God's judgement will come on the earth again, millions or reprobates will be killed, what are you going to say then?
And I am amazed that you think genocide and rape exemplifies God's morality.
You are not dealing with what the Bible actually states. Why does God present himself as indistinguishable from a Bronze age tribal war god? Is he just trying to confuse us?
The Bible is filled with things that we know cannot be true about God. For example, what rational being would afflict Israel with a three year famine because of the actions of a former king and then lift it only when they murder seven of his sons (2 Sam 21)? That's neither wise nor rational. And it's certainly not kind or good. It's simply insane. It cannot be the actions of the true God. The Bible is filled with this kind of insanity attributed to God. You can't see it because you have blinded yourself by your presumption that the Bible is the "Word of God."
Yes we reasoning humanly, but it is the substance on which we base our reasoning that is different.
That makes no more sense than your first comment. The "substance" we use in our reasoning is identical. The only difference is that you cannot admit what the Bible really says because it contradicts your presumption that the Bible is the Word of God.
God has revealed Himself in the Bible. What humans attribute to God might not be what God attributes to himself. It is faulty human reasoning to say that God is immoral.
I am not talking about what we humans attribute to God. I am talking about what the BIBLE attributes to God. How is it possible that you fail to understand this? I've repeated it a million times already.
I will keep bashing away, but I do not want to keep repeating myself as I feel I am doing with so many threads dealing with this same topic of the morality of God and the 32,000 virgins
Great! :thumb:
But I understand why you might want to quit. The case against the morality of Yahweh appears to be airtight
It is not airtight, that is your conclusion. It could be equally airtight but opposit to what you say.
I hope you stick around until we get this point settled.
I am not kidding, but then you are defining me as a Young Earth Creationist withoutfully knowing what I believe.
I got the impression that you were defining yourself as a YEC in your comment.
God's morals are higher than yours. I wonder how you would handle the situation? You are powerless to do anything therefore you are not in position to say what God should have done. You are using flawed human reasoning.
No, they are not. God's morals, as presented in the Bible, are abominable.
And I am not powerless. Sure, my power is much less than "omnipotent" but then again, so is the power of the God you are trying to defend, else he would be here defending himself! Or better, he would have written a book that didn't make him look like a primitive Bronze age tribal war god!
I was asking about your view of hell. You rejected the idea that God would torment sinners forever, so I assumed you were an annihilationist. What is your view of the eternal destiny of unbelievers?
They simply die and that is the end.
And that's the meaning of the religious doctrine called "annihilationism."
Ok we can keep on chatting. Sorry I have had to rush this reply I have to go out for the day. Will be back on the forum this evening.
Great chatting!
David
Great!
All the best,
Richard
David M
03-14-2012, 06:28 AM
Hello Richard
Hey there David,
I appreciate your comments, but I think there are two fundamental logical flaws in your answer. First, quoting that verse as proof that Scripture is inspired is circular reasoning, technically known as Petitio Principii (Begging the Question). Second, it is absurd to claim that all of something is true merely because part of it is true. For example, anyone can say 1 + 1 = 2. Does that mean that all their words are true? Of course not.
I did say; "not that this is proof by itself"; I simply quoted that verse to let the Bible explain itself. I can agree with your other statement because that applies to anything said or written.
Furthermore, you did not answer my question. Why do you choose to believe the Bible in the first place? And how did you choose which Bible to believe (Protestant vs. Catholic vs. Greek Orthodox)?
My belief has come from years of study and listening to what people say and forming my opinion. I have settled on the Bible. I do not rely on any one translation and compare the different translations. I will reject those which I have been given evidence of to show tampering with the word in order to conform to a particular doctrine that is not in harmony with the reset of scripture. I have explained elsewhere that there is not just one reason why I believe, though the real test for proving God is as God has declared. Who else can tell you a thing before it happens. What God promises happens. I have yet to find a failed promise or prophecy. No one else can tell you the future such that the things spoken of came true. I am repeating what I have said elsewhere in this forum.
And most importantly, the Bible no where states what books it contains, so you must rely upon mere humans to give you a book that you have chosen to believe to be "of God." How is that any different than the Book of Mormon or the Koran?
I look for harmony amongst the books contained in the Bible. The books not selected by the compilers were left out for a reason. I am only concerned with the books in the Bible ad that they are in harmony, otherwise you would have a case, which I know you have not got; only you think you have.
You say that Universal Love and The Golden Rule are "about as low as possible"? That's the morality I was referring to when I said "secular." I call it "secular" because it is based on human nature rather than religious dogma.
I was not referring to Universal Love or The Golden Rule; as you say I was. I was referring to secular morality, but if you say secular morality comprises of Universal Love and The Golden Rule I do not know what you are talking about.
And I am amazed that you think genocide and rape exemplifies God's morality.
If it were done arbitrarily without just cause, I would agree with you. God says; "venegeance belongeth to me" and God will avenge the wrong done to His people. As far as I can find out, God's vengeance is just. Could God have been more more merciful, perhaps, but would have being more merciful to pagans practicing idolatry (who would not be willing change their ways) been a just thing to do? It is a hard act to do; balancing justice and mercy and I am in no position to judge God for doing what God can do and I cannot. I am not saying that genocide and rape exemplifies God's morality. It neither exemplifies nor diminishes. You fail to see any wrong/evil needing to be radically removed like a cancer is removed. The world has moved on from the the culture we are considering. God is not taking vengeance for His people today who were scattered and were not a nation. God will come to their rescue again now that they are a nation once more. we can expect great carnage to come. Without God's interference, we witness genocide and rape going on in recent wars and yet you do not blame man. You will blame God for not intervening or punishing the perpetrators. InFrom what you say, God is damned if He does and damned if He does not. You say on occassions; "you cannot have it both ways" and here you are damning God both ways.
You are not dealing with what the Bible actually states. Why does God present himself as indistinguishable from a Bronze age tribal war god? Is he just trying to confuse us?
You are confusing yourself and that is your problem and my helping you to find a reason does not appear to be working.
The Bible is filled with things that we know cannot be true about God. For example, what rational being would afflict Israel with a three year famine because of the actions of a former king and then lift it only when they murder seven of his sons (2 Sam 21)? That's neither wise nor rational. And it's certainly not kind or good. It's simply insane. It cannot be the actions of the true God. The Bible is filled with this kind of insanity attributed to God. You can't see it because you have blinded yourself by your presumption that the Bible is the "Word of God."
We have dealt with this elsewhere, so please excuse me for not having time to repeat my answer here which is in another thread.
That makes no more sense than your first comment. The "substance" we use in our reasoning is identical. The only difference is that you cannot admit what the Bible really says because it contradicts your presumption that the Bible is the Word of God.
The substance I use is the word of God which you do not accept, therefore the substance we use cannot be identical. You do not use scripture to answer scripture. I am not making a presumption and it is not correct for you to infer to others reading this that I am. It is your presumption that I am presuming. Let others be the judge.
I am not talking about what we humans attribute to God. I am talking about what the BIBLE attributes to God. How is it possible that you fail to understand this? I've repeated it a million times already.
Repeating it a miilions times does not make it correct; carry on repeating it another miilion times; that is insanity, repeating an action and expecting a different result. I will stick with what I accept to be correct unless you can convince me of error. I am waiting for you to say something different.
Great! :thumb:
I hope you stick around until we get this point settled
I do not want to go insane.
I got the impression that you were defining yourself as a YEC in your comment
Maybe a bit of both. I do not like labels; I am seeking truth, not association with any sect or persuasion.
No, they are not. God's morals, as presented in the Bible, are abominable.
I just wanted to refute this statement, otherwise it looks like I am condoning it.
And I am not powerless. Sure, my power is much less than "omnipotent" but then again, so is the power of the God you are trying to defend, else he would be here defending himself! Or better, he would have written a book that didn't make him look like a primitive Bronze age tribal war god!.
What power do you have to solve the world's problems? You are not saying you can, so you are not an idiot to make such a claim.
Again, you want to say what God should do, and so I will say it again; when you can make your own planet you can do things your way. You cannot dictate what God does when you do not have the wisdom to judge correctly. We have to get away from this or we shall become insane for repeating ourselves and going round in circles. I cannot say anything to change your mind as you have not produced any new evidence to make me change my mind. I think we have to move on from this thread and tackle it again in another thread where we are having the same argument or wait for a new thread and appraoch it differently.
And that's the meaning of the religious doctrine called "annihilationism."
The Bible says we go back to dust at death; OK, this is annhilation. I do not give myself the label of annhilationist, I just accept the plain simple teaching of scripture.
Till next time,
David
Richard Amiel McGough
03-14-2012, 11:19 AM
I did say; "not that this is proof by itself"; I simply quoted that verse to let the Bible explain itself. I can agree with your other statement because that applies to anything said or written.
I understand that you did not take it as "proof by itself." But the truth is that it is not "proof" in any way at all. Paul was talking about the OT at best, and even then we don't know what books he included in the canon.
As for your other statement that you must accept everything in the Bible if you accept anything - that is false. You can simpy accept the Bible as a human document, NOT inspired by God, but containing lots of truth like any other book. Your choice to believe it is entirely "inspired" and therefore "inerrant and infallible" is obviously false since it contains many errors.
Furthermore, you did not answer my question. Why do you choose to believe the Bible in the first place? And how did you choose which Bible to believe (Protestant vs. Catholic vs. Greek Orthodox)?
My belief has come from years of study and listening to what people say and forming my opinion. I have settled on the Bible. I do not rely on any one translation and compare the different translations. I will reject those which I have been given evidence of to show tampering with the word in order to conform to a particular doctrine that is not in harmony with the reset of scripture. I have explained elsewhere that there is not just one reason why I believe, though the real test for proving God is as God has declared. Who else can tell you a thing before it happens. What God promises happens. I have yet to find a failed promise or prophecy. No one else can tell you the future such that the things spoken of came true. I am repeating what I have said elsewhere in this forum.
I'm surprised you are making such claims. If prophecies really were fulfilled, the high-powered apologists would be making use of them. But the fact is that very few, if any, can be conclusively proven to have been fulfilled.
I think we should discuss prophecies. It would be great if you started a thread listing three prophecies that can be proven.
Also, concerning Scripture: You have not explained how you know which books should be in the Bible. Why do you not accept the Catholic or Greek Orthodox Bibles with the apocrypha? Why are you following one particular human tradition (Protestant vs. Catholic, etc.) and claiming it is from God?
And most importantly, the Bible no where states what books it contains, so you must rely upon mere humans to give you a book that you have chosen to believe to be "of God." How is that any different than the Book of Mormon or the Koran?
I look for harmony amongst the books contained in the Bible. The books not selected by the compilers were left out for a reason. I am only concerned with the books in the Bible ad that they are in harmony, otherwise you would have a case, which I know you have not got; only you think you have.
Ah ... the "harmony" argument. That has a special place in my heart because it was the primary argument Harold Camping used to justify all his lunatic doctrines. He asserted that we could know with great certainty that his doctrines were true because they were the only doctrines that "harmonized" everything in the Bible. He was, of course, radically insane. His "harmonies" were nothing but tortuous exercises in transparently fallacious word-twisting.
The problem with "harmony" is that one man's harmony is another man's cacophony. There needs to be an objective standard, else it's all just a private mind-game with no objective validity.
You say that Universal Love and The Golden Rule are "about as low as possible"? That's the morality I was referring to when I said "secular." I call it "secular" because it is based on human nature rather than religious dogma.
I was not referring to Universal Love or The Golden Rule; as you say I was. I was referring to secular morality, but if you say secular morality comprises of Universal Love and The Golden Rule I do not know what you are talking about.
That is the common morality of the world, independent of any religion. Secular means "of the world, independent of religion."
The Golden Rule is found in all cultures, independent of religion. Likewise, Love is found in all cultures, independent of religion.
Religion often destroys Love for All and the Golden Rule.
And I am amazed that you think genocide and rape exemplifies God's morality.
If it were done arbitrarily without just cause, I would agree with you. God says; "venegeance belongeth to me" and God will avenge the wrong done to His people. As far as I can find out, God's vengeance is just. Could God have been more more merciful, perhaps, but would have being more merciful to pagans practicing idolatry (who would not be willing change their ways) been a just thing to do? It is a hard act to do; balancing justice and mercy and I am in no position to judge God for doing what God can do and I cannot. I am not saying that genocide and rape exemplifies God's morality. It neither exemplifies nor diminishes. You fail to see any wrong/evil needing to be radically removed like a cancer is removed. The world has moved on from the the culture we are considering. God is not taking vengeance for His people today who were scattered and were not a nation. God will come to their rescue again now that they are a nation once more. we can expect great carnage to come. Without God's interference, we witness genocide and rape going on in recent wars and yet you do not blame man. You will blame God for not intervening or punishing the perpetrators. InFrom what you say, God is damned if He does and damned if He does not. You say on occassions; "you cannot have it both ways" and here you are damning God both ways.
You touch a point of great irony. The supposed reason for killing everyone in the flood was to stop all the sin. But killing them fixed nothing. In no time God had to rain down fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah. And history is filled with the similar stories. Meanwhile, God is absolutely absent from the scene - like a dysfunctional parent. We have been entirely on our own.
Where did you get the idea that I don't "blame man" for war crimes? I most certainly do!
You are not dealing with what the Bible actually states. Why does God present himself as indistinguishable from a Bronze age tribal war god? Is he just trying to confuse us?
You are confusing yourself and that is your problem and my helping you to find a reason does not appear to be working.
It's "not working" because you have not actually given any reason for me to think I am wrong on this point. You are simply avoiding what the Bible actually states, which is exceedingly ironic given your stated belief in said book.
If you think I am wrong to say that the Bible presents God like a Bronze age tribal war god, you will need to explain your reasons. Here are mine:
1) Yahweh demands blood sacrifices, like most other Bronze-age tribal war gods.
2) Yahweh commands genocide and kidnapping of virgins like Bronze-age tribal war gods.
3) Yahweh afflicts his people with plagues, famines, and storms when he is angry.
4) Yahweh exults in victory in war and over the gods of other tribes.
5) etc. ...
The Bible is filled with things that we know cannot be true about God. For example, what rational being would afflict Israel with a three year famine because of the actions of a former king and then lift it only when they murder seven of his sons (2 Sam 21)? That's neither wise nor rational. And it's certainly not kind or good. It's simply insane. It cannot be the actions of the true God. The Bible is filled with this kind of insanity attributed to God. You can't see it because you have blinded yourself by your presumption that the Bible is the "Word of God."
We have dealt with this elsewhere, so please excuse me for not having time to repeat my answer here which is in another thread.
Well, I don't know what post you are talking about. I certainly don't think we have every resolved anything relating to 2 Sam 21, let alone the general irrationality of the OT God.
That makes no more sense than your first comment. The "substance" we use in our reasoning is identical. The only difference is that you cannot admit what the Bible really says because it contradicts your presumption that the Bible is the Word of God.
The substance I use is the word of God which you do not accept, therefore the substance we use cannot be identical. You do not use scripture to answer scripture. I am not making a presumption and it is not correct for you to infer to others reading this that I am. It is your presumption that I am presuming. Let others be the judge.
We are both using the same "substance" (the Bible). You simply have a presumption about the "substance" that I do not share, that it is the "inspired Word of God." If that is not a "presumption" then what is it?
I do not want to go insane.
Then you shouldn't have joined this forum! :lol:
Maybe a bit of both. I do not like labels; I am seeking truth, not association with any sect or persuasion.
Yes, YEC is a "label" but it fits every person who believes that the earth is on the order of 10,000 years old. If the label fits, wear it!
What power do you have to solve the world's problems? You are not saying you can, so you are not an idiot to make such a claim.
Again, you want to say what God should do, and so I will say it again; when you can make your own planet you can do things your way. You cannot dictate what God does when you do not have the wisdom to judge correctly. We have to get away from this or we shall become insane for repeating ourselves and going round in circles. I cannot say anything to change your mind as you have not produced any new evidence to make me change my mind. I think we have to move on from this thread and tackle it again in another thread where we are having the same argument or wait for a new thread and appraoch it differently.
You are correct, I cannot dictate what GOD does. But I most certainly can evaluate the validity of a book manifestly written and handed down by humans as the "Word of God," be it the Koran, the book of Mormon, or the various versions of the Bible. Indeed, I have no choice but to make such judgments. And when I judge the Bible - using the same standards I would use for any other book - I find two things: 1) It is extremely superior to the Koran and the book of Mormon, 2) It is extremely inferior to what I would expect from an omniscient God.
The Bible says we go back to dust at death; OK, this is annhilation. I do not give myself the label of annhilationist, I just accept the plain simple teaching of scripture.
That teaching is not so "plain" as you might think. The Bible says "to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord."
Till next time,
David
You're one mighty Word Warrior my friend! It's been a pleasure.
Richard
Richard Amiel McGough
03-19-2012, 09:30 AM
Are human morals better than God's? Absolutely! My morals are a hundred times better than what is presented in the Bible as God's morals!
Yes, human morals are better than God :winking0071:... Free sex, promiscuity, adultery, homosexuality, lesbianism, pornography, nudity, molest, rape, divorce, prostituition, abortion, pedophilia, bestiality, wife swapping etc. etc. If you can't see these happenings, I am afraid you are also a lost soul.
I find this comment fascinating. When I said that human morals are better than God's, I was talking about morals like justice, goodness, kindness, mercy, and all the other morals that were violated if the Bible stories about God are true.
And what does Cheow think of when he hears the word morality? SEX SEX SEX! That's it! His whole list of "human morals" is nothing but sex, sex, sex and more sex. Here's the list he gave with my annotations:
Free sex (SEX), promiscuity (SEX), adultery (SEX), homosexuality (SEX), lesbianism (SEX), pornography (SEX), nudity (SEX), molest (SEX), rape (SEX), divorce, prostituition (SEX), abortion, pedophilia (SEX), bestiality (SEX), wife swapping (SEX) etc. etc.
It seems like the Christian obsession with sex has completely swamped out the meaning of "morality" altogether.
David M
04-03-2012, 03:41 AM
I find this comment fascinating. When I said that human morals are better than God's, I was talking about morals like justice, goodness, kindness, mercy, and all the other morals that were violated if the Bible stories about God are true.
And what does Cheow think of when he hears the word morality? SEX SEX SEX! That's it! His whole list of "human morals" is nothing but sex, sex, sex and more sex. Here's the list he gave with my annotations:
Free sex (SEX), promiscuity (SEX), adultery (SEX), homosexuality (SEX), lesbianism (SEX), pornography (SEX), nudity (SEX), molest (SEX), rape (SEX), divorce, prostituition (SEX), abortion, pedophilia (SEX), bestiality (SEX), wife swapping (SEX) etc. etc.
It seems like the Christian obsession with sex has completely swamped out the meaning of "morality" altogether.
Hi Richard
I was going to post something else to do with God's morals, but then thought that this is not in keeping with this thread, so I will post elsewhere as the relevant opportunity arises. The title of this thread is; 'Sexual Violence Against Women Promoted in Scripture', so please do not change the subject to do with the general morals about God. Why should not Cheow refer mainly to sexual acts involving women? These can be cited as crimes against women.
These threads are being hijacked to promote topics that are not what the thread is about. These threads are being used to promote a personal agenda, and whether you deny it or not, other people can see what is happening. If you do not see you are showing a personal agenda here, then they are sidetrails at best and ought to be avoided, otherwise, it appears as if you are diverting on purpose from the argument under discussion.
David
Richard Amiel McGough
04-03-2012, 01:35 PM
These threads are being hijacked to promote topics that are not what the thread is about. These threads are being used to promote a personal agenda, and whether you deny it or not, other people can see what is happening. If you do not see you are showing a personal agenda here, then they are sidetrails at best and ought to be avoided, otherwise, it appears as if you are diverting on purpose from the argument under discussion.
There was no "hijacking" - there was a natural flow to the conversation. CWH had introduced the question "Is human morals better than God?" in post #43 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2878-Sexual-Violence-Against-Women-Promoted-in-Scripture&p=41945#post41945):
There was no sexual violence and God was not promoting sexual violence; just wrong interpretation of the Bible. If God wants, He might as well create Free Sex in the minds of men and women like those promoted by hippies and we will then see a chaotic worldwide explosion filled with HIVs and venereal diseases beyond control leading to human extinction. Is human morals better than God? A non-promiscuous faithful husband and wife relationship is still the best bet that will ensure human survival. What a wise God!
When CWH asked that question, I thought he was talking about "morals" in general, not specifically the morality of sexuality. So I responded by saying:
Are human morals better than God's? Absolutely! My morals are a hundred times better than what is presented in the Bible as God's morals!
That's when CWH responded with his long list of sexual sins -
Yes, human morals are better than God :winking0071:... Free sex, promiscuity, adultery, homosexuality, lesbianism, pornography, nudity, molest, rape, divorce, prostituition, abortion, pedophilia, bestiality, wife swapping etc. etc. If you can't see these happenings, I am afraid you are also a lost soul.
Again, CWH spoke in general terms of "human morals" so I thought he and I were talking about the same thing. But now I see that he could have been fixated on the topic of "sexual sins" because of the topic of this thread. So I accept your criticism as a possibility, though it doesn't make much sense to me because the context had shifted to a discussion about "human morals" vs. "God's morals."
Also, there is a fundamentally irrational aspect to CWH's response - those sins are not "human morals" at all in as much as they are rejected by many humans as immoral.
All the best,
Richard
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.