View Full Version : God Allows Rape
All around the world it is men who rape women and deny them their rights; throughout the pages of the Bible it is men who deny women their rights and approve of rape. The men who wrote the Bible say that God inspired it.
It is men who rape and deny women their rights.
It is the male authored Bible that promotes rape and denies women their rights.
Men say the Bible was inspired by God.
The conclusions one can come to is either men 'made-up' a male god to conform to their desires to dominate women, or Yahweh is a male-biased god who created women to be used by men.
Rose
All around the world it is men who rape women and deny them their rights; throughout the pages of the Bible it is men who deny women their rights and approve of rape. The men who wrote the Bible say that God inspired it.
It is men who rape and deny women their rights.
It is the male authored Bible that promotes rape and denies women their rights.
Men say the Bible was inspired by God.
The conclusions one can come to is either men 'made-up' a male god to conform to their desires to dominate women, or Yahweh is a male-biased god who created women to be used by men.
Rose
Men has been raping women millions of years ago and whether God existed or not. So please STOP blaming God! The title of the thread should be Men allow raping of Women! Why is there a deliberate atempt to discredit God. Soldiers raped in times of war and it happened in every war whether God exists or not and the military commanders allowed it fior morale reasons. So STOP blaming God! Where is the law of an eye for an eye? If someone rape my wife, don't you think that I will want to rape that fellow's wife in revenge? Is this fair or not fair? If the law said that rapist will be raped in return, will that be a deterrent to future wanna be rapist? What I am saying is that rape can be used for good and for bad. In some Musliom countries, rape has been used as a legal punishmnet for adultery and yet rape carries a death sentence And in modern western law adultery is allowed but not rape. Do animals committed rape, obviously YES!.It is in fact, rape is a natural practice among almost all animals including some primitive human tribes in the jungles.
The conclusion is that rape is a natural process in the animal world since time immemorial. So STOP blaming God!
Gid Blessed.:pray:
Men has been raping women millions of years ago and whether God existed or not. So please STOP blaming God! The title of the thread should be Men allow raping of Women! Why is there a deliberate attempt to discredit God. Soldiers raped in times of war and it happened in every war whether God exists or not and the military commanders allowed it fior morale reasons. So STOP blaming God!
What do you mean stop blaming God? It is men who say that God inspired the Bible which promotes and allows men to rape women! Of course it is men who rape women for all sorts of sick reasons, and that is why I say the Bible was written by men who made up a god that promotes and allows women to be raped!
Men rape women, and they wrote a book called the Bible that has a Bronze Age tribal war god that condones their sick behavior.
Where is the law of an eye for an eye? If someone rape my wife, don't you think that I will want to rape that fellow's wife in revenge? Is this fair or not fair? If the law said that rapist will be raped in return, will that be a deterrent to future wanna be rapist? What I am saying is that rape can be used for good and for bad. In some Musliom countries, rape has been used as a legal punishmnet for adultery and yet rape carries a death sentence And in modern western law adultery is allowed but not rape. Do animals committed rape, obviously YES!.It is in fact, rape is a natural practice among almost all animals including some primitive human tribes in the jungles.
The conclusion is that rape is a natural process in the animal world since time immemorial. So STOP blaming God!
Gid Blessed.:pray:
You sure sound like a nice person...saying that if someone raped your wife instead of punishing the rapist you would punish the rapist's innocent wife by raping her! Sounds pretty sick to me. :mad: But, I guess that's what the god of the Bible does all the time...he punishes innocent people for the sake of the guilty.
Rape doesn't apply to animals, so quite comparing humans to animals, unless you think of yourself as an animal!
If you want me to stop blaming God for promoting rape, then stop blaming God for writing the Bible. :p Follow my lead and call it a man made book. :winking0071:
Rose
Richard Amiel McGough
04-06-2012, 10:27 PM
If someone rape my wife, don't you think that I will want to rape that fellow's wife in revenge? Is this fair or not fair? If the law said that rapist will be raped in return, will that be a deterrent to future wanna be rapist?
That's the sickest thing I've heard in a long time. Raping the wife of a rapist is not punishing the rapist. It's punishing his innocent wife! Have you no moral sense at all? I wonder how many Christians would agree with you.
What I am saying is that rape can be used for good and for bad.
Rape can be used for good? :doh:
So STOP blaming God!
God set up laws allowing rape.
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 her.
And worse, God passed women around like party treats to punish kings that displeased him. First he gave Saul's wives to David, and then took David's wives and gave them to Absalom to be screwed on the rooftops!
2 Samuel 12:11 Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.
If it was such a crime for David to take Bathsheba, then why was it not a crime for the poor women who were passed from Saul, to David and from David to Absalom? Did they have any choice in getting screwed? Nope. They were used by God to punish David. It is a true horror to behold. It is primitive male dominance displayed through sexual violence. It's how primitive men showed dominance over other men by raping their womem. You are right, men have been doing despicable things like that forever. But here we see God "punishing" men by having their wives screwed by others. In this, he is acting just like a primitive and barbaric man.
[QUOTE=Rose;42923]
You sure sound like a nice person...saying that if someone raped your wife instead of punishing the rapist you would punish the rapist's innocent wife by raping her! Sounds pretty sick to me. :mad:
Then what do you think I should do? Shall I say to the rapist,"You are forgiven son, please don't do it again ok? God Blessed you."? You bet I will chop his penis into pieces so that he will never rape again! Better to go to heaven without a penis than to get his whole body burn in hell.
But, I guess that's what the god of the Bible does all the time...he punishes innocent people for the sake of the guilty.
How do you know they are innocent? If your children did something heinous, are you partially responsible?....Have you failed as a parent? Have you heard the phrase, "Like father, like son".
Rape doesn't apply to animals, so quite comparing humans to animals, unless you think of yourself as an animal!
There are many instances of rape in animal behavior. If rape doesn't apply to animals, does sex also apply to animals? Are we not animals supposedly evolved from an ape?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociobiological_theories_of_rape
Excerpt:
It has long been noted that behavior resembling rape in humans is widespread in other animals, including ducks and geese, bottlenose dolphins[1], and chimpanzees.[2] Indeed in orangutans, close human relatives, copulations of this nature may account for up to half of all observed matings.[3] Such behaviours, referred to as ‘forced copulations’, involve an animal being approached and sexually penetrated whilst it struggles or attempts to escape. These observations of forced sex among animals are not controversial. What is controversial is the interpretation of these observations and the extension of theories based on them to humans. 'Thornhill introduces this theory by describing the sexual behavior of scorpion flies. In which the male may gain sex from the female either by presenting a gift of food during courtship or without a nuptial offering, in which case force is necessary to restrain her.'
If you want me to stop blaming God for promoting rape, then stop blaming God for writing the Bible. :p Follow my lead and call it a man made book. :winking0071:
Rest assured, I will continue to counter-attack as long as God is innocently accused! I suspect Rose and RAM have a hidden agenda to their God-bashing and attempts to discredit God.
God forgive them for they know not what they are doing.:pray:
[QUOTE=RAM;42924]That's the sickest thing I've heard in a long time. Raping the wife of a rapist is not punishing the rapist. It's punishing his innocent wife! Have you no moral sense at all? I wonder how many Christians would agree with you.
If you are in that case, what would you do? Do you say to the rapist, "It's ok son, just don't do it again, God Blessed."
Rape can be used for good? :doh:
Why not? Military commanders approved their soldiers of raping their enemies forcing the enemy to surrender and reducing further casualties and sufferings. Some Muslim countries used rape as a legal punishment for adultery. Rape is a norm in some primitive tribes. Non-violent "rape" are still practice in some countries such as forced marriages, chid marriages etc. Does people sometimes used evil against evil for the sake of good?...rob Peter to pay Paul?
God set up laws allowing rape.
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 her.
Doesn't sound like rape to me...raping own wife? No mention of the woman resisting the marriage. Please don't blame God. If there is no love, why carry on the relationship? Might as well divorced and re-marry? Isn't this what some modern people do?
And worse, God passed women around like party treats to punish kings that displeased him. First he gave Saul's wives to David, and then took David's wives and gave them to Absalom to be screwed on the rooftops!
2 Samuel 12:11 Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.
If it was such a crime for David to take Bathsheba, then why was it not a crime for the poor women who were passed from Saul, to David and from David to Absalom? Did they have any choice in getting screwed? Nope. They were used by God to punish David. It is a true horror to behold. It is primitive male dominance displayed through sexual violence. It's how primitive men showed dominance over other men by raping their womem. You are right, men have been doing despicable things like that forever. But here we see God "punishing" men by having their wives screwed by others. In this, he is acting just like a primitive and barbaric man.
Didn't Israel's enemies did those abominable things to captured Israel's women? Don't you think it is fair, an eye for an eye? Would that deterred future Israel's enemies from committing those abominable things again? Didn't God punished David, Saul and Absalom and shamed them? Didn't God forgave people when they repent or do you wish that God punished them forever?
God Bless us all.:pray:
Rest assured, I will continue to counter-attack as long as God is innocently accused! I suspect Rose and RAM have a hidden agenda to their God-bashing and attempts to discredit God.
God forgive them for they know not what they are doing.:pray:
My agenda if far from being hidden Cheow, though I would phrase it differently than you...I would say that I am trying to discredit the Bible as the word of God by showing its male bias. :p
Rose
Richard Amiel McGough
04-07-2012, 01:37 PM
That's the sickest thing I've heard in a long time. Raping the wife of a rapist is not punishing the rapist. It's punishing his innocent wife! Have you no moral sense at all? I wonder how many Christians would agree with you.
If you are in that case, what would you do? Do you say to the rapist, "It's ok son, just don't do it again, God Blessed."
You are right CWH. The wives of all rapists should be raped. You are the true exemplar of Christian morals!
Rape can be used for good? :doh:
Why not? Military commanders approved their soldiers of raping their enemies forcing the enemy to surrender and reducing further casualties and sufferings. Some Muslim countries used rape as a legal punishment for adultery. Rape is a norm in some primitive tribes. Non-violent "rape" are still practice in some countries such as forced marriages, chid marriages etc. Does people sometimes used evil against evil for the sake of good?...rob Peter to pay Paul?
Who could deny the great morals you have learned from the Bible?
:doh: :sFun_banghead2: :dizzy:
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 her.
Doesn't sound like rape to me...raping own wife? No mention of the woman resisting the marriage. Please don't blame God. If there is no love, why carry on the relationship? Might as well divorced and re-marry? Isn't this what some modern people do?
The word you highlighted as "wife" is a mistranslation. The word means simply "woman." The woman was captured in war. She witnessed the soldiers kill her mom, dad, sisters, and brothers. Now she is taken and used sexually, and if the soldier doesn't like her ass, he tosses her out.
Modern people do not take female captives of war after committing genocide. That's called "war crimes." Modern people reject the kind of morality attributed to God in the Bible.
Didn't Israel's enemies did those abominable things to captured Israel's women? Don't you think it is fair, an eye for an eye? Would that deterred future Israel's enemies from committing those abominable things again? Didn't God punished David, Saul and Absalom and shamed them? Didn't God forgave people when they repent or do you wish that God punished them forever?
Glad you brought that up! Every child knows that two wrongs don't make a right. That's why the "eye for an eye" law is primitive, barbaric, and fundamentally immoral. But it's taught in the Bible. Therefore, the Bible is fundamentally immoral.
And no, David did not receive punishment for his crimes! God broke his own laws! God punished the poor women that He Himself passed from Saul to David to Absalom. It is an absolute abomination to pass those woman around as sex toys! Yet God did it, and Christians declare it to be good. This shows how religion corrupts the minds and the morals of people who believe it.
David M
04-07-2012, 04:16 PM
Glad you brought that up! Every child knows that two wrongs don't make a right. That's why the "eye for an eye" law is primitive, barbaric, and fundamentally immoral. But it's taught in the Bible. Therefore, the Bible is fundamentally immoral
Richard
It is called JUSTICE! Maybe you can criticize the administrators of the justice if the punishment that is given out does not fit the crime, but an "eye for an eye" is just. As you know, God set up cities of refuge where in an extreme case of an accidental killing, a person could flee and escape getting killed.
If a person steals and gets caught, the person must give back what they stole and repay the same again. If the victim of crime wants the perpetrator to be let off from their punishment, the victim is exercising mercy.
I would like to see what your form your justice would take Richard. What do you propose? What makes you think your proposals will work and why they are better than an "eye for an eye"?
You accuse God of being immoral and you do not want to acknowledge where God has shown justice or where God has shown mercy. Instead of blaming God, you should be blaming mankind. It is the free choice mankind has had that has brought all the trouble on the world. Blame mankind for all the wrong choices that mankind has made.
Individaully, we are all responsible for our own actions. That is why I have to blame myself instead of blaming God. I am responsible for my actions and if commit a crime against my neighbor, I have to expect the consequences. An "eye for an eye" is simple and basic. All modern-day law has done is complicate the law and dilute the punishment and that is why we have such a high crime rate and prisons are full to capacity and it is costing us fortunes to keep criminals locked up in prison.
Going back to the simple system of an "eye for an eye" ought to be put back into practice and then see what happens to the crime rate. The justice of such a law should be taught in the education system. This might deter youngsters from committing crimes.
To "love thy neighbor as thyself" is showing respect and equality. An "eye for an eye" is a sort of corollary to "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Put this another way; "have done to you, what you have done to others", I think sums up an "eye for an eye." I cannot see the injustice in this. However, Richard, we bow to your superior thought and wait for your superior law and justice system to be presented to us.
David
Richard Amiel McGough
04-07-2012, 04:43 PM
Richard
It is called JUSTICE! Maybe you can criticize the administrators of the justice if the punishment that is given out does not fit the crime, but an "eye for an eye" is just. As you know, God set up cities of refuge where in an extreme case of an accidental killing, a person could flee and escape getting killed.
If a person steals and gets caught, the person must pay back what they stole repay as repay as much again. If the victim of crime wants the perpetrator to be let off from their punishment, the victim is exercising mercy.
Hey there David,
I see no "JUSTICE" in the eye for an eye law. It is primitive and barbaric. It does not restore the eye that was destroyed, so how is it just? It only creates more suffering in the world.
And you don't really believe it is just, do you? I mean, would you want to see it put in practice as the law in America? Suppose you hit a pedestrian and are found guilty of negligent driving. Would you feel it was JUST for your spinal cord to be severed to make you a paraplegic like the person you hit? That's insane.
And worse, there are many situations where it could not be applied at all. For example, suppose someone raped your wife. Should his wife be raped??? CWH says yes. :doh: And worse, that's exactly how God behaved when he took David's wives and gave them to be screwed on the rooftop by Absalom.
2 Samuel 12:11 Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun. 12 For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.
Where is God's compassion on those poor women? He passed them around like party treats from Saul to David to Absalom. God was punishing David by having another man screw his wives! That's the primitive morality of an "eye for an eye" coupled with the barbaric male dominance sexual display. They got screwed by all three men! Did they have any choice? Is this justice?
I would like to see what your form of Justice is Richard. What do you propose? What makes you think your proposals will work and why they are better?
My form of justice would begin with modern civilized jurisprudence! I wouldn't go back to a barbaric law like an eye for an eye! Why do you think there is no civilized nation that follows that law?
And what about Jesus? I thought he was teaching true morality when he said:
Matthew 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. 41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. 42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
What's going on? I thought everyone agreed that the teaching of Jesus was the highest morality. But here we see he is contrasting his morality with that of the Old Testament! And why did he use that circuitous language "ye have heard that it hath been said" when he was talking about the eternal law of God given in the Torah in which not a jot or tittle would pass? It's all very confused.
You accuse God of being immoral
That's not true. I accuse the Bible of teaching that God is immoral. Like when he commanded genocide, and participated in the killing of every man, woman, and child of the tribe of Benjamin with full knowledge that the Israelites would then kill every man, woman, and child of the town of Jabesh-Gilead with the express purpose of kidnapping 400 virgins as "wives" for the remaining soldiers of Benjamin!
You accuse God of being immoral and you do not want to acknowledge where God has shown justice or where God has shown mercy.
I have never refused to acknowledge that God shows mercy in the Bible.
But his mercy to David was entirely unjust. David should have been killed, but he went free, and it was his innocent son that was killed! That is mercy to the guilty and injustice to the innocent. It is a double perversion of justice attributed to God in the Bible.
Instead of blaming God, you should be blaming mankind. It is the free choice mankind has had that has brought all the trouble on the world. Blame mankind for all the wrong choices. In Rose's book and I would here agree, men are probably more to blame for all the wrong choices made than women.
You have totally, completely, and absolutely, missed the entire point. If we were talking about the sins of humans, there would be no problem. But that's not what we are talking about. We are talking about unjust acts and moral abominations that the BIBLE attributes to GOD. Got it?
Individaully, we are all responsible for our own actions. That is why I have to blame myself instead of blaming God. I am responsible for my actions and if commit a crime against my neighbor I have to expect the consequences. An "eye for an eye" is simple and basic. All modern law has done is complicate the law and dilute the punishment and that is why we have such a high crime rate and prisons are full to capacity and we are paying fortunes to keep criminals locked up in prison.
Going back to the simple system of an "eye for an eye" ought to be put back into practice and then see what happens to the crime rate. As part of the justice given out to criminals, they can be taught why this law is just.
I agree there are many problems with modern laws. But that's because humans are involved. It wouldn't be better if we went back to an "eye for an eye" I can assure you of that! For example, what if the person was found innocent after the law removed his eye? As it is, we can let him out of jail. Under your system, it would be impossible to to give him back his eye.
All the best,
Richard
My agenda if far from being hidden Cheow, though I would phrase it differently than you...I would say that I am trying to discredit the Bible as the word of God by showing its male bias. :p
Rose
Then don't use the word Bible, use the word all religions since all religions were written with male bias as seems to you and the cited abominations. Since all writings in all religions were inspired by God or gods we need to accept them as true. Of course, some religious passages may be adulterated by human scribes but I believe on the whole most were not. This is evidenced by the Dead Sea scrolls which shows little changes in the words or teachings of the Bible that we have today for the last 2,000 years. Would Jesus and the apostles referenced to the passages in the Ot if it has been adulterated?
Even if the Bible and all relgions show male bias, so what? The equality of male and female has been improving throughout the years as human progressed but has yet to reach the ideal state. Same as human technologies and knowledge, I have no doubt that equality between men and women will continue to improve. But will it reached a perfect state by human hands, I doubt so as long as evil remains in this world. The main cause of sufferings, inequality, wickedness are due to evil such as greed, lust, cruelty, deception etc.
God is our refuge. :pray:
Then don't use the word Bible, use the word all religions since all religions were written with male bias as seems to you and the cited abominations. Since all writings in all religions were inspired by God or gods we need to accept them as true. Of course, some religious passages may be adulterated by human scribes but I believe on the whole most were not. This is evidenced by the Dead Sea scrolls which shows little changes in the words or teachings of the Bible that we have today for the last 2,000 years.
So, are you saying that every religion is true because you think they are inspired by their own gods? All religions were made up by men, who created gods to fit their own image. Just because ancient texts have been found that show minimal changes does not mean the god those texts are speaking of is real.
Would Jesus and the apostles referenced to the passages in the Ot if it has been adulterated?
What does Jesus referencing the Old Testament have to do with the validity of Yahweh? Like I've said many times before, I think the male, Bronze Age tribal war god, Yahweh was created in the minds of men, and Jesus was just another man who believed in that made up god.
Even if the Bible and all relgions show male bias, so what? The equality of male and female has been improving throughout the years as human progressed but has yet to reach the ideal state. Same as human technologies and knowledge, I have no doubt that equality between men and women will continue to improve. But will it reached a perfect state by human hands, I doubt so as long as evil remains in this world. The main cause of sufferings, inequality, wickedness are due to evil such as greed, lust, cruelty, deception etc.
God is our refuge. :pray:
Yes, equality between men and women has slowly continued to improve, but no credit can be given to the Bible for that, it is solely because women have continued to fight for equality. Fundamentalist men still think they should rule over women and that women should not teach a man, thanks to the apostle Paul.
Aside from natural disasters and diseases, most human suffering can be laid at the feet of men...god is just an excuse men created to justify their cruel behavior. The cure for human suffering is compassion, if humans started showing each other compassion instead of killing and raping each other like the Bible is full of, the world would be a much better place.
All the best,
Rose
David M
04-08-2012, 07:24 AM
Hello Richard
I see we are diametrically opposed. This is evident from most or your replies to my statements and therefore it is not worth me reasserting them. It is interesting to read your replies and see what arguments you throw up and so, I will answer the questions you have raised.
Hey there David,
I see no "JUSTICE" in the eye for an eye law. It is primitive and barbaric. It does not restore the eye that was destroyed, so how is it just? It only creates more suffering in the world.
You see no justice, because you do not look hard enough for how justice is applied. The principle is not about restoring the eye (as I think you know). An eye that has been deliberately poked out by malice cannot be restored. The one who committed the malice should ,by right, forfeit their own eye and realize the suffering they have inflicted on another person. It is not barbaric; only you love to make your wild statements to provoke and appear to want to have the last word. Once your statement has proven to be false and of no value, you should drop it and think of something else to say.
Before we go too far into this; The "eye for an eye" phrase is not found in the OT, and so this could be a made-up law of the Israelites. If you find a reference, please refer to the verse. I still maintain, the law if applied correctly and mercifully, could be better than some of the law we have now and that this law has its merits.
And you don't really believe it is just, do you? I mean, would you want to see it put in practice as the law in America? Suppose you hit a pedestrian and are found guilty of negligent driving. Would you feel it was JUST for your spinal cord to be severed to make you a paraplegic like the person you hit? That's insane.
And worse, there are many situations where it could not be applied at all. For example, suppose someone raped your wife. Should his wife be raped??? CWH says yes. :doh: And worse, that's exactly how God behaved when he took David's wives and gave them to be screwed on the rooftop by Absalom.
2 Samuel 12:11 Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun. 12 For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.
Where is God's compassion on those poor women? He passed them around like party treats from Saul to David to Absalom. God was punishing David by having another man screw his wives! That's the primitive morality of an "eye for an eye" coupled with the barbaric male dominance sexual display. They got screwed by all three men! Did they have any choice? Is this justice? Some things are insane.
I can see your thinking and this is where true wisdom ought to be applied. Each case has to be taken on its merits. The law attempts to try and write every possible eventuality into the law and will refer to past trials to see what judgement was made, and the law ruled on so it can be applied elsewhere.
Accidents will happen, and as I said (but have to repeat myself) the cities of refuge were set up. You can present all the complications of modern-day living, but you still have to decide between what is accidental and what is premeditated. Just consider the straight forward premeditated crimes to begin with. Inflicting the same punishment on the prepetrator as the crime, ought to make would-be criminals think twice.
My form of justice would begin with modern civilized jurisprudence! I wouldn't go back to a barbaric law like an eye for an eye! Why do you think there is no civilized nation that follows that law?
Again, you use the word "barbaric" as if repeating the word is going to strengthen your argument. Jurisprudence has led to the mismash of laws that have been made and are not controlling the present-day situation. Of course, it is working to a degree, but if the law is not working as effectively as it should, maybe a simpler and more effective law should be reverted to.
And what about Jesus? I thought he was teaching true morality when he said:
Matthew 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. 41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. 42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.?
This is the ideal which victims should take. Anyone who believes that God will give each and every person their just rewards, can be content to leave all judgment in God's hands. This is not going to work in a society that disobeys God's laws and so God deals with it His way. If we are victims of crime, I said (but again have to repeat myself), the victim can exercise mercy and let the perpetrator of the crime off the punishment that is due to them. Mercy can be exercised and where mercy is shown, it is not a "barbaric" law as you claim"
What's going on? I thought everyone agreed that the teaching of Jesus was the highest morality. But here we see he is contrasting his morality with that of the Old Testament! And why did he use that circuitous language "ye have heard that it hath been said" when he was talking about the eternal law of God given in the Torah in which not a jot or tittle would pass? It's all very confused.
Maybe, you need time to sort this out. I am not saying an "eye for an eye" is a perfect law to meet every situation, but in some instances, it is vey good justice. I think the law of Moses says something different when something is stolen and would need to find the relevant laws. "an eye for an eye" is not a phrase that appears in the OT (as far as I can find). Maybe, that was how the law was intepreted and implemented. I have said, it is not perfect, but could be better than what we have now. I think Jesus knew enough of what was contained in the inspired scriptures, not to be confused.
That's not true. I accuse the Bible of teaching that God is immoral. Like when he commanded genocide, and participated in the killing of every man, woman, and child of the tribe of Benjamin with full knowledge that the Israelites would then kill every man, woman, and child of the town of Jabesh-Gilead with the express purpose of kidnapping 400 virgins as "wives" for the remaining soldiers of Benjamin!
We have gone over this elsewhere so I am not going over this again here. It is your opinion, we will leave it at that.
I have never refused to acknowledge that God shows mercy in the Bible.
Good, I am pleased to hear it. You believe God can be merciful, but you have thrown away your belief in God. If not, maybe you should rewrite the Bible and leave out anything you see is not written by the imaginations of men and see what is left. It might make for a short read.
But his mercy to David was entirely unjust. David should have been killed, but he went free, and it was his innocent son that was killed! That is mercy to the guilty and injustice to the innocent. It is a double perversion of justice attributed to God in the Bible.
To you it is unjust, like the workers who arrive at the eleveth hour and get paid a full day's wage. David was shown great mercy, and that is what we all need to be shown in the day of judgement. As to the wives Absolom used to humiltate his father David, this goes to show that David suffered the consequence of his actions and his rulership of his own household was diminished. The action of Absolom and his father's wives are of Absalom's doing and that is where the blame lies for that action. God punished David openely and David paid the price of his actions. The death of the infant is tradgic but has to be got into perspective. David took the blame and admitted his guilt. David repented and the sincerity of that repetance is what counted with God.
You have totally, completely, and absolutely, missed the entire point. If we were talking about the sins of humans, there would be no problem. But that's not what we are talking about. We are talking about unjust acts and moral abominations that the BIBLE attributes to GOD. Got it?
I have not missed the point you were making, you keep saying I do. We are diametrically opposed; plain and simple. Anything I say is seen by you as the opposite to what you claim. I am not missing your point, merely giving you an alternative point of view and saying that you should blame man and not God. The root cause is man; not God.
I agree there are many problems with modern laws. But that's because humans are involved. It wouldn't be better if we went back to an "eye for an eye" I can assure you of that! For example, what if the person was found innocent after the law removed his eye? As it is, we can let him out of jail. Under your system, it would be impossible to to give him back his eye.
All the best,
Richard
I know there is the possibilty of misjustice being applied and hence the abolishment of the death penalty. It would be better if we could teach society to live better in the first place, but then this is not working. Criminals these days are getting away too lighthly and the sentences do not match the crime and the sentences are no deterrent. We have an impossible situation to combat and yet this is what Christ will have the power to do when he returns. Jesus will show mankind how to rule with power and in righteousness. It will be interesting to compare the judgement and justice of Jesus with jurisprudence of RAM.
I wish you well.
David
Richard Amiel McGough
04-08-2012, 12:22 PM
Hello Richard
I see we are diametrically opposed. This is evident from most or your replies to my statements and therefore it is not worth me reasserting them. It is interesting to read your replies and see what arguments you throw up and so, I will answer the questions you have raised.
Hi David,
Yes, we certainly have "diametrically opposed views" in this case. I am glad you took the time to respond. We both may learn something.
You see no justice, because you do not look hard enough for how justice is applied. The principle is not about restoring the eye (as I think you know). An eye that has been deliberately poked out by malice cannot be restored. The one who committed the malice should ,by right, forfeit their own eye and realize the suffering they have inflicted on another person. It is not barbaric; only you love to make your wild statements to provoke and appear to want to have the last word. Once your statement has proven to be false and of no value, you should drop it and think of something else to say.
I agree that an "eye for an eye," like the Hindu concept of Karma where a people suffer all the effects (for good or for ill) of there actions, has a profound justice about it. But that kind of justice cannot be imposed through the actions of humans and it is fraught with many problems because unlike God or Karma, humans can never have sufficient knowledge to enact it with true justice. In practice, it is a horrid law that magnifies the suffering of the world.
If you show me wrong on any point, I will admit it. If you think I have failed to do so, you need only bring it to my attention (rub my nose in it) and I will have to answer if I want to retain any credibility.
Before we go too far into this; The "eye for an eye" phrase is not found in the OT, and so this could be a made-up law of the Israelites. If you find a reference, please refer to the verse. I still maintain, the law if applied correctly and mercifully, could be better than some of the law we have now and that this law has its merits.
Actually, the phrase is found three times in the OT, only it says "eye for eye" rather than "eye for an eye" which is probably why you missed it:
Exodus 21:24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
Leviticus 24:19 'If a man causes disfigurement of his neighbor, as he has done, so shall it be done to him -- 20 'fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he has caused disfigurement of a man, so shall it be done to him.
Deuteronomy 19:21 "Your eye shall not pity: life shall be for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.
It is interesting that you said "the law if applied correctly and mercifully, could be better than some of the law we have now and that this law has its merits" given that the law explicitly states "your eye shall not pity."
And you don't really believe it is just, do you? I mean, would you want to see it put in practice as the law in America? Suppose you hit a pedestrian and are found guilty of negligent driving. Would you feel it was JUST for your spinal cord to be severed to make you a paraplegic like the person you hit? That's insane.
And worse, there are many situations where it could not be applied at all. For example, suppose someone raped your wife. Should his wife be raped??? CWH says yes. :doh: And worse, that's exactly how God behaved when he took David's wives and gave them to be screwed on the rooftop by Absalom.
2 Samuel 12:11 Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun. 12 For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.
Where is God's compassion on those poor women? He passed them around like party treats from Saul to David to Absalom. God was punishing David by having another man screw his wives! That's the primitive morality of an "eye for an eye" coupled with the barbaric male dominance sexual display. They got screwed by all three men! Did they have any choice? Is this justice? Some things are insane.
I can see your thinking and this is where true wisdom ought to be applied. Each case has to be taken on its merits. The law attempts to try and write every possible eventuality into the law and will refer to past trials to see what judgement was made, and the law ruled on so it can be applied elsewhere.
Accidents will happen, and as I said (but have to repeat myself) the cities of refuge were set up. You can present all the complications of modern-day living, but you still have to decide between what is accidental and what is premeditated. Just consider the straight forward premeditated crimes to begin with. Inflicting the same punishment on the prepetrator as the crime, ought to make would-be criminals think twice.
The cities of refuge make no sense to me. Why should a murderer be allowed to live if he is lucky enough to escape to a city of refuge, whereas killing him is allowed if he does not? If the man was guilty, should he not be punished? If not guilty, should he not go free?
Establishing laws for punishing criminals is very complex and difficult. The efficacy of deterrents like the death penalty has not been proven. On the contrary, most professional criminologists do not believe it is effective (source (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-about-deterrence-and-death-penalty)):
A recent survey of the most leading criminologists in the country from found that the overwhelming majority did not believe that the death penalty is a proven deterrent to homicide. Eighty-eight percent of the country’s top criminologists do not believe the death penalty acts as a deterrent to homicide, according to a new study published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology and authored by Professor Michael Radelet, Chair of the Department of Sociology at the University of Colorado-Boulder, and Traci Lacock, also at Boulder.
Similarly, 87% of the expert criminologists believe that abolition of the death penalty would not have any significant effect on murder rates. In addition, 75% of the respondents agree that 'debates about the death penalty distract Congress and state legislatures from focusing on real solutions to crime problems.'
I agree that "much wisdom ought to be applied" and that's the problem. We are talking about the law of the omniscient God ... but it just happens to look like the Law of Hammurabi which predates the Torah and also had the "eye for an eye" law (source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi)).
And what about the fact that God passed the wives of Saul to David, and then from David to Absalom as punishment? This would be like Obama screwing the wives of Osama Bin Laden to humiliate him after capturing him. It is totally insane. No one would approve of such actions. And where is God's mercy on those poor women who were trapped first in the harem of Saul, then of David, and then of Absalom? Why did God inflict such pain and suffering on them by decreeing that they would be screwed on the rooftop? Where is the justice in that? It looks like the typical primitive display male dominance through sexual violence against the women of an enemy. And beyond all that, why didn't God prohibit the keeping of harems in the first place? The moral problems with the Bible are legion.
My form of justice would begin with modern civilized jurisprudence! I wouldn't go back to a barbaric law like an eye for an eye! Why do you think there is no civilized nation that follows that law?
Again, you use the word "barbaric" as if repeating the word is going to strengthen your argument. Jurisprudence has led to the mismash of laws that have been made and are not controlling the present-day situation. Of course, it is working to a degree, but if the law is not working as effectively as it should, maybe a simpler and more effective law should be reverted to.
We all use words to express our opinions, and it is my opinion that the "eye for an eye" law is barbaric. I do not intend my statement of opinion to replace reasoned argument.
I agree that jurisprudence has led to a mishmash of incoherent laws. But that can't be avoided because we are always learning and growing and the people who write the laws have their own biases and opinions. It's very difficult to write good laws. And it takes decades or even centuries to remove old laws that never should have been on the books in the first place.
But I very much doubt that we could live with ourselves if we had to watch people being disfigured by the state as punishment for crimes. And I doubt it would be much of a deterrent - there were plenty of thieves under the Taliban despite the fact that they chopped off their hands. Just think for a minute - it is barbaric beyond all belief to mutilate any human as punishment for a crime!
This is the point you did not answer: Why do you think there is no civilized nation that follows the law of an eye for an eye?
This is the ideal which victims should take. Anyone who believes that God will give each and every person their just rewards, can be content to leave all judgment in God's hands. This is not going to work in a society that disobeys God's laws and so God deals with it His way. If we are victims of crime, I said (but again have to repeat myself), the victim can exercise mercy and let the perpetrator of the crime off the punishment that is due to them. Mercy can be exercised and where mercy is shown, it is not a "barbaric" law as you claim"
I agree that it is a higher moral ideal for victims to "turn the other cheek." That's a good answer.
What's going on? I thought everyone agreed that the teaching of Jesus was the highest morality. But here we see he is contrasting his morality with that of the Old Testament! And why did he use that circuitous language "ye have heard that it hath been said" when he was talking about the eternal law of God given in the Torah in which not a jot or tittle would pass? It's all very confused.
Maybe, you need time to sort this out. I am not saying an "eye for an eye" is a perfect law to meet every situation, but in some instances, it is vey good justice. I think the law of Moses says something different when something is stolen and would need to find the relevant laws. "an eye for an eye" is not a phrase that appears in the OT (as far as I can find). Maybe, that was how the law was intepreted and implemented. I have said, it is not perfect, but could be better than what we have now. I think Jesus knew enough of what was contained in the inspired scriptures, not to be confused.
I agree, the law is not perfect. And that's the problem - we cannot use the Bible as a moral guide if its laws are less than perfect, i.e. morally inferior.
Let me ask again: Could you really abide the practice of this law in the modern age, where criminals are deliberately mutilated by the government? Really?
I have never refused to acknowledge that God shows mercy in the Bible.
Good, I am pleased to hear it. You believe God can be merciful, but you have thrown away your belief in God. If not, maybe you should rewrite the Bible and leave out anything you see is not written by the imaginations of men and see what is left. It might make for a short read.
Yes, I agree completely that the Bible frequently presents God as showing mercy in the Bible. But the Bible also shows God doing things that I cannot believe the true God would do. Hence, I cannot believe in the God of the Bible.
But why would I want to rewrite the Bible? The Koran constantly speaks of the mercy of Allah. Indeed, the most common Arabic phrase used by Muslims is "Bismillah ir-rachman ir-rachim" which means "in the name of Allah, the merciful and the beneficent." The mere fact that a book says its god is merciful does not give me any reason to believe it's really the "Word of God."
But his mercy to David was entirely unjust. David should have been killed, but he went free, and it was his innocent son that was killed! That is mercy to the guilty and injustice to the innocent. It is a double perversion of justice attributed to God in the Bible.
To you it is unjust, like the workers who arrive at the eleveth hour and get paid a full day's wage. David was shown great mercy, and that is what we all need to be shown in the day of judgement. As to the wives Absolom used to humiltate his father David, this goes to show that David suffered the consequence of his actions and his rulership of his own household was diminished. The action of Absolom and his father's wives are of Absalom's doing and that is where the blame lies for that action. God punished David openely and David paid the price of his actions. The death of the infant is tradgic but has to be got into perspective. David took the blame and admitted his guilt. David repented and the sincerity of that repetance is what counted with God.
No, it is not unjust "to me" - it is objectively unjust. If other people must suffer the consequences of their crimes, why not David? And why did David's innocent son have to die? And why did his wives have to be publicly humiliated in the more fundamental form by being screwed on the rooftop?
And how can you say that it was God punished David but Absalom is responsible?
Instead of blaming God, you should be blaming mankind. It is the free choice mankind has had that has brought all the trouble on the world. Blame mankind for all the wrong choices. In Rose's book and I would here agree, men are probably more to blame for all the wrong choices made than women.
You have totally, completely, and absolutely, missed the entire point. If we were talking about the sins of humans, there would be no problem. But that's not what we are talking about. We are talking about unjust acts and moral abominations that the BIBLE attributes to GOD. Got it?
I have not missed the point you were making, you keep saying I do. We are diametrically opposed; plain and simple. Anything I say is seen by you as the opposite to what you claim. I am not missing your point, merely giving you an alternative point of view and saying that you should blame man and not God. The root cause is man; not God.
It appears that you are continuing to miss the point. It has nothing to do with any disagreement between us. It is the POINT that you are missing when you say "Instead of blaming God, you should be blaming mankind." My point has absolutely nothing to do with sins that people have committed. The Bible could be filled from beginning to end with the sins of mankind and I wouldn't have a word to say against it. The problem is that GOD HIMSELF HAS INSTITUTED UNJUST LAWS AND COMMANDS. I understand that we differ on this point, and that's fine. But it is entirely erroneous to say that the issue is centered on human sin. That's simply not the point, and as long as you fail to see this, you will be missing the point.
I know there is the possibilty of misjustice being applied and hence the abolishment of the death penalty. It would be better if we could teach society to live better in the first place, but then this is not working. Criminals these days are getting away too lighthly and the sentences do not match the crime and the sentences are no deterrent. We have an impossible situation to combat and yet this is what Christ will have the power to do when he returns. Jesus will show mankind how to rule with power and in righteousness. It will be interesting to compare the judgement and justice of Jesus with jurisprudence of RAM.
I wish you well.
David
We have a lot of agreement on those points. Human jurisprudence is very flawed. And we even agree largely about the solution - a change of heart and mind. We differ only in how that solution will be implemented. I believe it will come through the continual advancement of secular humanity, like what we've seen in the last few centuries. The world is constantly improving. I live like a king compared to folks just a hundred years ago, and I have almost no fear of disease, and I am fed very well, and educated, and have almost no fear of violence (unlike most of human history) and on and on the improvements wrought by secular humanity through science and education is the only hope we have.
Thanks for working with me on these difficult issues.
All the very best to you, :yo:
Richard
All around the world it is men who rape women and deny them their rights; throughout the pages of the Bible it is men who deny women their rights and approve of rape. The men who wrote the Bible say that God inspired it.
It is men who rape and deny women their rights.
It is the male authored Bible that promotes rape and denies women their rights.
Men say the Bible was inspired by God.
The conclusions one can come to is either men 'made-up' a male god to conform to their desires to dominate women, or Yahweh is a male-biased god who created women to be used by men.
Rose
In keeping with the title of this Thread I would like to focus on point #2 "It is the male authored Bible that promotes rape and denies women their rights."
I chose the verses in 2Samuel to epitomize the status of women as the property of men, which Yahweh uses as weapons to punish men. The men themselves are not directly punished for their sins, but rather women are used to inflict a sort of perverted "punishment" upon them by allowing the men to rape the women.
In the example below it is Saul who has transgressed the laws of Yahweh, so as punishment his wives are given to David to be raped (the reason I use the word rape is because anytime a woman is sexually used against her will it is considered rape). As time goes on David sees a woman named Bathsheba whom he desires and commits adultery with. Bathsheba is the wife of Uriah who is the captain of his army, so David sends Uriah to the front lines to have him killed, so he can marry her. Now, Yahweh is none to happy about this bad behavior of David especially since he gave David Saul's wives, so as punishment he takes the wives of Saul that he gave to David and gives them to Davids son Absalom to rape upon his housetop! Once again, Yahweh's perverted punishment is inflicted on the innocent women who have been used as property and raped. David even gets to keep the woman he committed adultery with, yet his innocent baby is killed!
It seems like the men are getting rewarded and the women screwed, or is this what God calls justice!
2Sam.12:7-11 And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives (Saul’s) into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things. Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon. Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives (formerly Saul’s) before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.
2 Sam.16:21-22 And Ahithophel said unto Absalom, Go in unto thy father's concubines, which he hath left to keep the house; and all Israel shall hear that thou art abhorred of thy father: then shall the hands of all that are with thee be strong. So they spread Absalom a tent upon the top of the house; and Absalom went in unto his father's concubines in the sight of all Israel.
Not only does God allow rape, he COMMANDS it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Rose
David M
04-26-2012, 05:37 AM
When you compare the capture of the 32,000 virgins and compare their situation of that which was reported as happening in the Congo war, one begins to see why the capture of the women was humane compared to that of the Congo. Here are two reports.
Christian Science Monitor:
"In the Congo, sexual violence has become so common that the eastern provinces are sometimes called the Ground Zero of rape. Tens of thousands of women have been raped by armed combatants seeking to destroy communities by assaulting the women. In the Congo it has become common to say rape is a weapon of war"
The New York Times:
"I've never reported on a war more barbaric than Congo's, it haunts me. I've seen women who have been mutilated, children who have been forced to eat their parent's flesh, girls who have been subjected to rapes that have destroyed their insides"
God did use the Israelites as a weapon of war but never used tactics like this. Wars have always continued down the ages, and God has brought punishment on some nations, including His chosen race Israel.
The two articles just illustrate how evil men can be and that is happening in the world today. Would we want God to put a stop to this? God will! God will punish the nations severly for what they hav done. Man is 6,000 years has not improved his nature. When we read of what is happening in the Congo and think that is bad, we should also imagine the depravity of the people in the time leading up to the Flood and God's judgment on those people and how God used Israel to destroy the Canaanites, though Israel did not follow God's instructions to the letter.
When we see events as described happening in the Congo and this is the tip of the iceberg of all wars and injustices and attrocities taking place in the world, what hope is there that mankind can teach itself to stop this. Good people have tried, God has tried and yet mankind can be the most evil. I was going to say beyond imagination, but the worst we can ever imagine, that is what man can do. That is why it is good if we do not give in to our imaginations and do such things ourselves. We might not do such horrible things as described above, yet we do give in to our imaginations. Sometimes we ignore the consequence to others and just do what we want to do. In that respect, we are selfish. We do that is pleasing to our eyes. It is no different from when Eve ate of the forbidden fruit. She saw it was pleasant to the eye, she desired to eat it and thought it would do her no harm or that any harm would come from eating it. How mistaken she was in her thinking.
Since man is incapable of controlling himself, I am pleased to know that God will put matter right. God has let man rule long enough and as God declared; unless the days be shortened, no flesh shall be saved. In many respects the world is on a disaster course. Things will get a lot worse before they get better. The result of what will be a third world war will cause havoc around the world. Out of all that destruction and chaos will come a new world order with Christ (the man) showing us how to rule and how that ruling in righteousness is the only way to rule. Man will eventually learn, and the hard way, but for those who believe and want to be saved by God, it is reassuring to know that God will do this and will restore the earth to it former glory and all the evil and horrors we see taking place in the world today, will one day, be a thing of the past.
David
Roberto
04-26-2012, 07:07 AM
Hey there David,
And worse, that's exactly how God behaved when he took David's wives and gave them to be screwed on the rooftop by Absalom.
2 Samuel 12:11 Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun. 12 For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.
Where is God's compassion on those poor women? He passed them around like party treats from Saul to David to Absalom. God was punishing David by having another man screw his wives! That's the primitive morality of an "eye for an eye" coupled with the barbaric male dominance sexual display. They got screwed by all three men! Did they have any choice? Is this justice?
My form of justice would begin with modern civilized jurisprudence! I wouldn't go back to a barbaric law like an eye for an eye! Why do you think there is no civilized nation that follows that law?
I was shocked in the way you put it, so i read it myself again that passage, and its about the punishment of David for killing Uria and taking his wife.
As i read it, it is just a way God puts what He knows is going to happen(He can calculate the future)
Sin creates sin, Jesus was'nt born yet you know.
David's sin just makes the men's free will to burst to the worst. God just sees mans free will long before they act on it, and the punishment by God there, was just God seeing the future of what Absolom would do. That's how i see it, but you made it look different, i guess we see same thing differently.
Your form of justice as you say is formed by Jesus changing the world to be better, if you have a good form of justice, it is God to give the glory, not you.
And if you read about David giving himself a death-punishment, before Natan the prophet said the man you gave the death-punishment is you, God was more merciful than David.
If you lived at that time, i guess you would be like Absalom, seeing others sin, just makes you want do greater sin, or if you see, hounor in doing good, you would only do good to get the hounor.
Jesus could'nt change the hearts of the pharisees because they wanted their own hounor. So people not believing in Jesus today dosent shock me, i know my human heart desires hounor, but as i'm not perfect, i believe in the perfect Jesus, giving Him the Hounor. Not even sure if i write hounor correctly :/
I think the time before Noah, was human evolution with no interacting from God after Adam, untill He picked Noah, after Noah, God interacted with his decendents, and Abraham became a man whom God wanted to interact with, and after that with Moses and his people, i guess it was a time God needed to interact with a group of people who will if God don't interact will be a fallen race, just like before Noah. But until the fullfillment of the plan of giving us Jesus, God interacted with symbolics that shows Jesus before He came, and the so called prophecies about Him spread out through scriptures, is correct, it's not just cherry picking, if it looks like Jesus, it problably is, if the prophecies were open and direct for all to know it's Jesus when He came, they would have never crucified Him, and no unrightouess death for our sins, and the God would still have to interact like He did in the OT.
I guess God can explain it better, but that's my little clue of God.
When you compare the capture of the 32,000 virgins and compare their situation of that which was reported as happening in the Congo war, one begins to see why the capture of the women was humane compared to that of the Congo. Here are two reports.
Christian Science Monitor:
"In the Congo, sexual violence has become so common that the eastern provinces are sometimes called the Ground Zero of rape. Tens of thousands of women have been raped by armed combatants seeking to destroy communities by assaulting the women. In the Congo it has become common to say rape is a weapon of war"
The New York Times:
"I've never reported on a war more barbaric than Congo's, it haunts me. I've seen women who have been mutilated, children who have been forced to eat their parent's flesh, girls who have been subjected to rapes that have destroyed their insides"
God did use the Israelites as a weapon of war but never used tactics like this. Wars have always continued down the ages, and God has brought punishment on some nations, including His chosen race Israel.
The two articles just illustrate how evil men can be and that is happening in the world today. Would we want God to put a stop to this? God will! God will punish the nations severly for what they hav done. Man is 6,000 years has not improved his nature. When we read of what is happening in the Congo and think that is bad, we should also imagine the depravity of the people in the time leading up to the Flood and God's judgment on those people and how God used Israel to destroy the Canaanites, though Israel did not follow God's instructions to the letter.
When we see events as described happening in the Congo and this is the tip of the iceberg of all wars and injustices and attrocities taking place in the world, what hope is there that mankind can teach itself to stop this. Good people have tried, God has tried and yet mankind can be the most evil. I was going to say beyond imagination, but the worst we can ever imagine, that is what man can do. That is why it is good if we do not give in to our imaginations and do such things ourselves. We might not do such horrible things as described above, yet we do give in to our imaginations. Sometimes we ignore the consequence to others and just do what we want to do. In that respect, we are selfish. We do that is pleasing to our eyes. It is no different from when Eve ate of the forbidden fruit. She saw it was pleasant to the eye, she desired to eat it and thought it would do her no harm or that any harm would come from eating it. How mistaken she was in her thinking.
Since man is incapable of controlling himself, I am pleased to know that God will put matter right. God has let man rule long enough and as God declared; unless the days be shortened, no flesh shall be saved. In many respects the world is on a disaster course. Things will get a lot worse before they get better. The result of what will be a third world war will cause havoc around the world. Out of all that destruction and chaos will come a new world order with Christ (the man) showing us how to rule and how that ruling in righteousness is the only way to rule. Man will eventually learn, and the hard way, but for those who believe and want to be saved by God, it is reassuring to know that God will do this and will restore the earth to it former glory and all the evil and horrors we see taking place in the world today, will one day, be a thing of the past.
David
Here are some videos why Congolese soldiers raped and the atrocious rapes in Congo. The videos saddens me and they show how evil and wicked and horrible men can be , can't imagine what it's like during Noah's time. Hope Rose will love them:winking0071:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbZIK9Ce0yM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYUsMD3BbZg&feature=related
May God forgive them.:pray:
Here are some videos why Congolese soldiers raped and the atrocious rapes in Congo. The videos saddens me and they show how evil and wicked and horrible men can be , can't imagine what it's like during Noah's time. Hope Rose will love them:winking0071:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbZIK9Ce0yM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYUsMD3BbZg&feature=related
May God forgive them.:pray:
I'm not sure why you posted those videos, because they only prove that any god like Yahweh who would command the rape of women is truly a pathetic moral monster! It sickens my stomach to think that the Hebrew soldiers were just like the men portrayed in the videos and the commander who ordered them to rape was Yahweh!
Rose
I'm not sure why you posted those videos, because they only prove that any god like Yahweh who would command the rape of women is truly a pathetic moral monster! It sickens my stomach to think that the Hebrew soldiers were just like the men portrayed in the videos and the commander who ordered them to rape was Yahweh!
Rose
Precisely, to stimulate your obsession! The 32,000 virgins were not raped but were married to the Israelites soldiers and there are many proofs that they were given in marriage and were not forcefully raped. Have you seen any of the Congolese soldiers marrying their rape victims? I know it will opened an old can of worms and I don't wish to discuss with someone who is obsessed with God ordering the rapes.
Does it sounds like rapes with all those words such as wife, bring her home, husband, not sell her, make merchandise of her....? These are not the behaviors of rapists as seen in the videos!
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 her.
God Blessings to all/:pray:
Richard Amiel McGough
04-26-2012, 12:18 PM
Here are some videos why Congolese soldiers raped and the atrocious rapes in Congo. The videos saddens me and they show how evil and wicked and horrible men can be , can't imagine what it's like during Noah's time. Hope Rose will love them:winking0071:
Yes, those videos show how wicked and horrible men can be ... just like the men who committed the genocidal atrocities in the Bible.
What do you mean when you say you "hope Rose will love them"? That sounds very sick and perverted. Was it meant as some kind of joke?
Richard Amiel McGough
04-26-2012, 12:49 PM
Precisely, to stimulate your obsession! The 32,000 virgins were not raped but were married to the Israelites soldiers and there are many proofs that they were given in marriage and were not forcefully raped. Have you seen any of the Congolese soldiers marrying their rape victims? I know it will opened an old can of worms and I don't wish to discuss with someone who is obsessed with God ordering the rapes.
How can you continue to push the lie that the 32,000 virgins would freely choose to marry the brutal, wicked men that just slaughtered everyone they knew and loved? How can you be so heartless? Do you really think that those women in would willingly marry and have sex with the soldiers who just murdered their moms, dads, brothers, sisters, cousins, and everyone else they knew and loved? Your comments horrify me.
And what about God's Holy Law that says the soldiers could screw the women, and if they weren't delighted by them, could just toss them out like a used rag?
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 her [screwed her].
How could any moral person give such a law? It let the Israeli soldiers capture a woman in war, kill her whole family, screw her, and the toss her out like a used rag? This is the most immoral law that I have ever seen.
Does it sounds like rapes with all those words such as wife, bring her home, husband, not sell her, make merchandise of her....? These are not the behaviors of rapists as seen in the videos!
You conveniently left out the part that says the soldiers can screw the women and then "let them go."
But you are correct, the kind of rape allowed in the Bible is not as graphic as what we saw in the videos, though it is connected with genocide. And that's the problem with God commanding his people to become mass murderers and baby killers. That is PRECISELY what brutalizes the human soul, and it leads to the kind of behavior we see in those videos. That's why the commands in the Bible were so totally wicked and evil. God brutalized the souls of the Israelis, and so it is very likely that they acted like the rapists in the videos.
It's pretty pathetic if the only way you can make God look good is by comparing him with the men in those videos.
[QUOTE=RAM;43517]How can you continue to push the lie that the 32,000 virgins would freely choose to marry the brutal, wicked men that just slaughtered everyone they knew and loved? How can you be so heartless? Do you really think that those women in would willingly marry and have sex with the soldiers who just murdered their moms, dads, brothers, sisters, cousins, and everyone else they knew and loved? Your comments horrify me.
There is no lie, if it is not marriage, then why were the words, husband and wife mentioned? Have you ever thought if God were to tell them that He killed them because of evil but will resurrect them a few thousand years later and if they married into God's people they including their loved ones will be pardon and their descendants will become God's people and thus they will be guaranteed a part of God's inheritance. God was kind to give them a full month's of mourning and perhaps to consider. If the 32,000 virgins were not willing to marry the Israelites they could have refused or killed themselves, why didn't they? or was there something for them to gain by obeying God's command to marry the Israelites? Obviously, God had no intention to keep them as old virgins till menopaused.:lol:
And what about God's Holy Law that says the soldiers could screw the women, and if they weren't delighted by them, could just toss them out like a used rag?
[INDENT]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 her [screwed her].
This is a false logic, nothing in those passages said "they were tossed like rags" but were told to let them go without making any monetary profits from them, that's was kind in which no evil people would have done that. Based on ancient Jewish law, when the marriage is suddenly terminated, the men had to gave their ex-wives some monetary compensation. I am fascinated by the word "humbled" which seems to suggest additional meanings like "tamed", disciplined", "calmed" besides "screwed her". You don't humbled your wife when you "screwed her" do you?....or was the wife so "wild" during sex that one have to humble her? :lol: Humbled seems to suggest disciplining an arrogant people through marrying God's righteous people.
But you are correct, the kind of rape allowed in the Bible is not as graphic as what we saw in the videos, though it is connected with genocide. And that's the problem with God commanding his people to become mass murderers and baby killers. That is PRECISELY what brutalizes the human soul, and it leads to the kind of behavior we see in those videos. That's why the commands in the Bible were so totally wicked and evil. God brutalized the souls of the Israelis, and so it is very likely that they acted like the rapists in the videos.
It's pretty pathetic if the only way you can make God look good is by comparing him with the men in those videos.
No, I was trying to make people visualize how terrible human war can be and when there is lawlessness human hearts can be very wicked and evil. It was said in Genesis that men's heart was continuously evil, was God justified then to destroy all humans on earth with a flood? It stated that it grieved God deeply to do so, does that sounds like a totally evil and wicked God? A cold hearted killer and rapist as seen in the videos will not grieved or regret deeply when he murdered or raped.
Genesis 5:
5 The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. 6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the Lord said, 'I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.
May God continue His Blessings on us. :pray:
highflyertoo
04-27-2012, 08:33 AM
[QUOTE]
There is no lie, if it is not marriage, then why were the words, husband and wife mentioned? Have you ever thought if God were to tell them that He killed them because of evil but will resurrect them a few thousand years later and if they married into God's people they including their loved ones will be pardon and their descendants will become God's people and thus they will be guaranteed a part of God's inheritance. God was kind to give them a full month's of mourning and perhaps to consider. If the 32,000 virgins were not willing to marry the Israelites they could have refused or killed themselves, why didn't they? or was there something for them to gain by obeying God's command to marry the Israelites? Obviously, God had no intention to keep them as old virgins till menopaused.:lol:
This is a false logic, nothing in those passages said "they were tossed like rags" but were told to let them go without making any monetary profits from them, that's was kind in which no evil people would have done that. Based on ancient Jewish law, when the marriage is suddenly terminated, the men had to gave their ex-wives some monetary compensation. I am fascinated by the word "humbled" which seems to suggest additional meanings like "tamed", disciplined", "calmed" besides "screwed her". You don't humbled your wife when you "screwed her" do you?....or was the wife so "wild" during sex that one have to humble her? :lol: Humbled seems to suggest disciplining an arrogant people through marrying God's righteous people.
No, I was trying to make people visualize how terrible human war can be and when there is lawlessness human hearts can be very wicked and evil. It was said in Genesis that men's heart was continuously evil, was God justified then to destroy all humans on earth with a flood? It stated that it grieved God deeply to do so, does that sounds like a totally evil and wicked God? A cold hearted killer and rapist as seen in the videos will not grieved or regret deeply when he murdered or raped.
Genesis 5:
5 The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. 6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the Lord said, 'I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.
May God continue His Blessings on us. :pray:
So the (stolen virgin women/booty) foreign women weren't divorced,only let go,because they didn't have an Israeli marriage ceremony in the first place?
I am so apalled at the violence that God's choosen people were allowed to inflict on other peoples by order of the Priests/Prophets.
Richard Amiel McGough
04-27-2012, 09:13 AM
So the (stolen virgin women/booty) foreign women weren't divorced,only let go,because they didn't have an Israeli marriage ceremony in the first place?
I am so apalled at the violence that God's choosen people were allowed to inflict on other peoples by order of the Priests/Prophets.
Hey there highflyertoo, :yo:
Welcome to our forum!
:welcome:
Your comment shows how contrary the Bible is to popular Christian ethics which treats divorce and sex outside of marriage as if they were some horrible crimes. God had no problem giving a law that allowed a man to take a woman, sexually use her, and let her go if she didn't "delight" him. You won't see that preached from the pulpit any time soon.
I too am appalled by the violence commanded by God in the OT. But I'm even more appalled by the efforts of Christians to justify such wickedness. But they have no choice because they are committed to the dogma that the Bible is the "inerrant and infallible Word of God."
Again, welcome to our forum. I look forward to your contributions to our discussions.
Richard
[QUOTE=CWH;43524]
So the (stolen virgin women/booty) foreign women weren't divorced,only let go,because they didn't have an Israeli marriage ceremony in the first place?
I am so apalled at the violence that God's choosen people were allowed to inflict on other peoples by order of the Priests/Prophets.
Hi, highflyertoo
Welcome to the forum!:welcome: Looking forward to your contributions.
If the "stolen" virgin women were not married , please explain why the words of husband and wife is mentioned. If they were let go, didn't that constitute divorce? I was told in ancient Jewish tradition, if the men wanted divorce they can just say so in public or write a letter of divorce. Please also help RAM to explain why humbled was used, do you humble your wife/girlfriend during sex? I see no violence or rape at all in this passage:
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 her
Doesn't violence happened between men? Doesn't human law punished criminals severely? So what is the difference between human punishing criminals severely and God punishing evil sinners severely? Both has the intention to serve justice and rehabilitate criminals and evil doers. Rest assured that God will not punish good righteous God-fearing people. If you want to avoid God punishments, just Love God with all your heart, soul and strength And Love thy neighbor as yourself.
God Blessings to all! :pray:
highflyertoo
04-27-2012, 07:43 PM
Hey there highflyertoo, :yo:
Welcome to our forum!
:welcome:
Your comment shows how contrary the Bible is to popular Christian ethics which treats divorce and sex outside of marriage as if they were some horrible crimes. God had no problem giving a law that allowed a man to take a woman, sexually use her, and let her go if she didn't "delight" him. You won't see that preached from the pulpit any time soon.
I too am appalled by the violence commanded by God in the OT. But I'm even more appalled by the efforts of Christians to justify such wickedness. But they have no choice because they are committed to the dogma that the Bible is the "inerrant and infallible Word of God."
Again, welcome to our forum. I look forward to your contributions to our discussions.
Richard
Hello RAM.There are many things in the scriptures that I have been questioning for a long time as they have severly bothered me how one person is slain by the Lord while the other is not for similar sins.
I have and are in part a religious nutcase,and have been the second if not worst outright blasphemer of all time against God and his Heavenly Host.(And I am not happy about blaspheming Holy Lord God and his Holy Host).
I was right into Prophecy and believe I have had some dreams of the future.... I am 44 years old and don't get why God would make people for perdition when the Devil is allowed to walk around free after all the evil he did before going into the garden to deceive Eve who ''didn't know'' about sin to commit the so called sin of eating the forbdden fruit.
Hope you and I and the current believers can discuss some things inparticular about the End Times Prophecies.
highflyertoo
04-27-2012, 07:56 PM
[QUOTE=highflyertoo;43537]
Hi, highflyertoo
Welcome to the forum!:welcome: Looking forward to your contributions.
If the "stolen" virgin women were not married , please explain why the words of husband and wife is mentioned. If they were let go, didn't that constitute divorce? I was told in ancient Jewish tradition, if the men wanted divorce they can just say so in public or write a letter of divorce. Please also help RAM to explain why humbled was used, do you humble your wife/girlfriend during sex? I see no violence or rape at all in this passage:
Doesn't violence happened between men? Doesn't human law punished criminals severely? So what is the difference between human punishing criminals severely and God punishing evil sinners severely? Both has the intention to serve justice and rehabilitate criminals and evil doers. Rest assured that God will not punish good righteous God-fearing people. If you want to avoid God punishments, just Love God with all your heart, soul and strength And Love thy neighbor as yourself.
God Blessings to all! :pray:
Hello CWH.
Are you saying the Soldier showed his sorrow to the ''stolen virgin'' after hacking her Mother and Father to bits and pieces by forcing his penis in her vagina? Please remember how the Man was approved by God to go into her,and then after that to let her go is she didn't be subservient to his traditions and ownership. He the soldier was in fact being her Baal (Master or Lord).
I think my above post was in response to the word Humble rather than Humbled.
So Humbled is to humiliate . I think that wraps it up then.
You have yet to answer the questions why are the words husband and wife mentioned if it is not marriage. There is a possibility that the virgins were willingly married to the men if not why didn't they protest and got killed, why didn't they ran away, why didn't they commit suicide, why didn't they refused the marriage, why didn't they disfigured or maimed or self injured themselves to prevent the marriage, why didn't fight they retaliate or discard/kill the babies of their "rapists", why didn't they destroy their virginity before marriage?....or was there a gain by marrying the Israelites seeing they were not so evil compared to their Canaanite men. Were they convinced that the Canaanite men were evil and sinful and God had to kill them with the promise that they will be pardoned and resurrected in the future if they repent? Was there a promise of pardon and heavenly reward for them and their descendants if they married and bore children of the Israelites? The other issue of letting them go was so that they could remarry or carry on with their renewed life was perhaps so that they will not become widowed as these Israelite men need to go to wars against God's enemies soon and were not expected to return and live long to see their children and family.
Humbled means humiliated, fine. They were humbled after they slept with their Israelite husbands because they were once arrogant non-God fearing people and now they have assimilated into the Jewish family as part of God's people and they and their children will now be eligible to receive part of God's inheritance and promise.
May God Bless us all. :pray:
Hey there highflyertoo, :yo:
Welcome to our forum!
:welcome:
Your comment shows how contrary the Bible is to popular Christian ethics which treats divorce and sex outside of marriage as if they were some horrible crimes. God had no problem giving a law that allowed a man to take a woman, sexually use her, and let her go if she didn't "delight" him. You won't see that preached from the pulpit any time soon.
I too am appalled by the violence commanded by God in the OT. But I'm even more appalled by the efforts of Christians to justify such wickedness. But they have no choice because they are committed to the dogma that the Bible is the "inerrant and infallible Word of God."
Again, welcome to our forum. I look forward to your contributions to our discussions.
Richard
So RAM agrees that it is moral to divorce and have sex outside marriage. Brilliant!
Let me explain to you that divorce and sex outside marriage is not a horrible crime but it is to be avoided as it has something to do with morality. I know it is not strongly enforced as the country's law do not consider them as crime, Imagine how the society will become if everybody divorce and remarry and divorce and remarry multiple times; it will become a mockery of marriage, might as well fornicate, why marry? Divorce tends to affect children psychologically and they may become anti-social as evidenced in children of broken marriages. Imagine everyone have sex outside marriage, will society becomes promiscuious?
Where is your sense of morality RAM?
Blessings of God to all.:pray:
highflyertoo
04-28-2012, 12:00 AM
You have yet to answer the questions why are the words husband and wife mentioned if it is not marriage. There is a possibility that the virgins were willingly married to the men if not why didn't they protest and got killed, why didn't they ran away, why didn't they commit suicide, why didn't they refused the marriage, why didn't they disfigured or maimed or self injured themselves to prevent the marriage, why didn't fight they retaliate or discard/kill the babies of their "rapists", why didn't they destroy their virginity before marriage?....or was there a gain by marrying the Israelites seeing they were not so evil compared to their Canaanite men. Were they convinced that the Canaanite men were evil and sinful and God had to kill them with the promise that they will be pardoned and resurrected in the future if they repent? Was there a promise of pardon and heavenly reward for them and their descendants if they married and bore children of the Israelites? The other issue of letting them go was so that they could remarry or carry on with their renewed life was perhaps so that they will not become widowed as these Israelite men need to go to wars against God's enemies soon and were not expected to return and live long to see their children and family.
Humbled means humiliated, fine. They were humbled after they slept with their Israelite husbands because they were once arrogant non-God fearing people and now they have assimilated into the Jewish family as part of God's people and they and their children will now be eligible to receive part of God's inheritance and promise.
May God Bless us all. :pray:
Please remember this all happened immediately after a month of the ''traumatized young virgin women foreigners'' being stolen or later to be noticed, taken as Trophy Wives
The humiliation/rape came by way of the Israeli man forcefully laying with her,and so that rape deed made her according to law his wife..... There wasn't a marriage ceremony where she was lead by her Father down the isle in all her splendor.... Her head was shaven and her feminine nails had been pared to mourn her mother and father who had been killed and then thrown into heaps and then BURNED.
And how did the Soldiers know who were the virgins? Did they ask the surviors,and ask the virgins to go to the right,while the others Women ,Men and Children were sent to the left and hacked to death and burnt... Sounds similar to Hitlers Death Camps.
Please remember this all happened immediately after a month of the ''traumatized young virgin women foreigners'' being stolen or later to be noticed, taken as Trophy Wives
The humiliation/rape came by way of the Israeli man forcefully laying with her,and so that rape deed made her according to law his wife..... There wasn't a marriage ceremony where she was lead by her Father down the isle in all her splendor.... Her head was shaven and her feminine nails had been pared to mourn her mother and father who had been killed and then thrown into heaps and then BURNED.
And how did the Soldiers know who were the virgins? Did they ask the surviors,and ask the virgins to go to the right,while the others Women ,Men and Children were sent to the left and hacked to death and burnt... Sounds similar to Hitlers Death Camps.
I don't know what you are trying to prove, you are adding words that are not in the passage. See the one highlighted in red that you have added into the paasage to make God looks bad :eek: :
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 Trophy 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 who had been killed and then thrown into heaps and then BURNED.a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her forcefully and rape her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy Trophy 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 her by humiliating her through rape.
Did they ask the surviors,and ask the virgins to go to the right,while the others Women ,Men and Children were sent to the left and hacked to death and burnt.
Where is this sentence in the passage?
May God forgive those who know not what they are doing. :pray:
highflyertoo
04-28-2012, 04:29 AM
I don't know what you are trying to prove, you are adding words that are not in the passage. See the one highlighted in red that you have added into the paasage to make God looks bad :eek: :
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 Trophy 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 who had been killed and then thrown into heaps and then BURNED.a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her forcefully and rape her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy Trophy 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 her by humiliating her through rape.
Where is this sentence in the passage?
May God forgive those who know not what they are doing. :pray:
Hey,I am discussing the likely events that happened when the Israelis went to war against their enemies.
Now you haven't told me how they the Soldiers would know the young women were virgins... Please tell me.
Could you tell me if the same proceedure was used to marry Israeli women.
Hey,I am discussing the likely events that happened when the Israelis went to war against their enemies.
Now you haven't told me how they the Soldiers would know the young women were virgins... Please tell me.
Could you tell me if the same proceedure was used to marry Israeli women.
I don't know what were the rights of Trophy wife or how was the Jewish procedure of marrying a Trophy wife, please enlighten us.
You don't expect them to chexk for every hymen do you? I have asked this question of testing virginity before and RAM answered well:
Originally Posted by Cheow Wee Hock
I have some curious thoughts:
1. How do they know the girls were virgins? Were they to check every hymen?
2. What if some of them have never slept with men but lost their virginity through accidents?
3. If their purpose was procreation, was the killing of all women who have slept with men necessary? Once their husbands were killed, that would make them free to re-marry again isn't it?
Many Blessings.
RAM:I think Glenn Miller's explanation on this point was correct. The "test" for virginity was probably just a visual judgment based on age, clothing/jewelry that was worn only by married women, and whether or not the woman had children with her. It seems exceedingly unlikely that there could be any other test. But your questions bring up another exceedingly significant subject that belongs in this thread. It is the "law" that says a woman must be stoned to death if her new husband "hates" her and accusers her of not being a virgin when they were married and she is unable to PROVE she was a virgin. And what was the "proof"? Here is the LAW:
Deuteronomy 22:13 If any man takes a wife, and goes in to her, and detests her, 14 "and charges her with shameful conduct, and brings a bad name on her, and says, 'I took this woman, and when I came to her I found she was not a virgin,' 15 "then the father and mother of the young woman shall take and bring out the evidence of the young woman's virginity to the elders of the city at the gate. 16 "And the young woman's father shall say to the elders, 'I gave my daughter to this man as wife, and he detests her. 17 'Now he has charged her with shameful conduct, saying, "I found your daughter was not a virgin," and yet these are the evidences of my daughter's virginity.' And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. 18 "Then the elders of that city shall take that man and punish him; 19 "and they shall fine him one hundred shekels of silver and give them to the father of the young woman, because he has brought a bad name on a virgin of Israel. And she shall be his wife; he cannot divorce her all his days. 20 "But if the thing is true, and evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman, 21 "then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has done a disgraceful thing in Israel, to play the harlot in her father's house. So you shall put away the evil from among you.
It appears that the "cloth" that is spread before the elders is the sheet from the marriage bed that is supposed to have a little blood from the broken hymen. Therefore, if a girl happens to have had some (probably unknown) accident that broke her hymen and does not bleed on her wedding night, and her husband then believes she is a whore and hates her, then the innocent girl would be MURDERED according to this "law of God." It seems to me this law is both absurd and grossly immoral.
All the best,
Richard
God Bllessed.:pray:
highflyertoo
04-28-2012, 06:14 AM
I don't know what were the rights of Trophy wife or how was the Jewish procedure of marrying a Trophy wife, please enlighten us.
You don't expect them to chexk for every hymen do you? I have asked this question of testing virginity before and RAM answered well:
God Bllessed.:pray:
But you said they were ungodly people. So how ungodly were these people? Did the Fathers rape their daughters as part of their ungodly religion? If so then there would be no wedding jewelry upon the young women who would appear as virgins.
Another thing is why would the Soldiers want foreign women to be their wives?Weren't the holy Jewish women not fair enough for all those thousands of Soldiers waiting to spread their seed?
As the scriptures say, the women who were taken as ''booty/spoils of war'' who they the soldiers forced themselves upon them first without there being a LOVING WEDDING CEREMONY.
I ask again, when a Jewish man wanted to marry a Jewish woman,did he get her to shave her head and pare her nails and then had sexual intercourse and then said to the public,behold my wife?
If you believe it's right for people to kill someones parents and family and then have forced sex with the ''booty prize'' woman and then declare she's your wife, then you are in need of desperate help right this minute.
But you said they were ungodly people. So how ungodly were these people? Did the Fathers rape their daughters as part of their ungodly religion? If so then there would be no wedding jewelry upon the young women who would appear as virgins.
Another thing is why would the Soldiers want foreign women to be their wives?Weren't the holy Jewish women not fair enough for all those thousands of Soldiers waiting to spread their seed?
As the scriptures say, the women who were taken as ''booty/spoils of war'' who they the soldiers forced themselves upon them first without there being a LOVING WEDDING CEREMONY.
I ask again, when a Jewish man wanted to marry a Jewish woman,did he get her to shave her head and pare her nails and then had sexual intercourse and then said to the public,behold my wife?
If you believe it's right for people to kill someones parents and family and then have forced sex with the ''booty prize'' woman and then declare she's your wife, then you are in need of desperate help right this minute.
Good morning Highflyer :yo:
So glad to see another person who is letting their compassion and empathy allowing them to see and speak the truth. :thumb: You are so right, anyone who tries to justify killing and rape in the name of God is desperately in need of help!
What we see over and over again throughout the pages of Scripture is horrific, and yet there are those who stand up and say "no wrong was done" because God can do no wrong...how pathetic is that?
Men acted worse than animals, saying that their actions were commanded by the God they created in their own image and likeness. Once a persons eyes are opened to the abominations contained in the Bible there is no going back to believing it can be the word of God.
All the best,
Rose
[QUOTE=highflyertoo;43555]But you said they were ungodly people. So how ungodly were these people? Did the Fathers rape their daughters as part of their ungodly religion? If so then there would be no wedding jewelry upon the young women who would appear as virgins.
There are many articles justifying the killings of the Canaanites in Google, why don' t you read them?
http://www.google.com.sg/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=were+the+canaanites+evil&gbv=2&oq=evil+Canaanite&aq=1b&aqi=g-v1g-b1&aql=&gs_nf=1&gs_l=hp.1.1.0i15j0i8.2898.8115.0.12475.14.14.0.0.0 .0.116.928.13j1.14.0.NFy_Gn5_Trw
Just to quote one of them:
"The 'new atheists' call God’s commands to kill the Canaanites 'genocide,' but a closer look at the horror of the Canaanites’ sinfulness, exhibited in rampant idolatry, incest, adultery, child sacrifice, homosexuality, and bestiality, reveals that God’s reason for commanding their death was not genocide but capital punishment."
Another thing is why would the Soldiers want foreign women to be their wives? Weren't the holy Jewish women not fair enough for all those thousands of Soldiers waiting to spread their seed?
Obviously, they were far from their land fighting against God's enemies and they would not expect to survive another day. Better to spread their seed fast before they expired. Besides the foreign women who have not slept with men were considered "pure" as they were not polluted by the evil Canaanite men.
As the scriptures say, the women who were taken as ''booty/spoils of war'' who they the soldiers forced themselves upon them first without there being a LOVING WEDDING CEREMONY.
Show me a passage in the OT that says, "they the soldiers forced themselves upon them first". You will not find a single passage on this.
I ask again, when a Jewish man wanted to marry a Jewish woman,did he get her to shave her head and pare her nails and then had sexual intercourse and then said to the public,behold my wife?
The shaving of head and paring of nails have nothing to do with sex but to renounce her former foreigner's life. Show me a passage that says that custom of shaving of head and paring of nails is related to sex. Please do your homework. See commentary:
http://bible.cc/deuteronomy/21-12.htm
Barnes' Notes on the Bible
The shaving the head (a customary sign of purification, Leviticus 14:8; Numbers 8:7), and the putting away "the garment of her captivity," were designed to signify the translation of the woman from the state of a pagan and a slave to that of a wife among the covenant-people. Consistency required that she should "pare" (dress, compare 2 Samuel 19:24), not "suffer to grow," her nails; and thus, so far as possible, lay aside everything belonging to her condition as an alien.
If you believe it's right for people to kill someones parents and family and then have forced sex with the ''booty prize'' woman and then declare she's your wife, then you are in need of desperate help right this minute.
Again as I said there is no forced sex. Show me a verse in OT which says that the soldier have forced sex with the booty prize women. You will find none.
God Blessings to you and all.:pray:
Richard Amiel McGough
04-28-2012, 08:52 AM
Hello RAM.There are many things in the scriptures that I have been questioning for a long time as they have severly bothered me how one person is slain by the Lord while the other is not for similar sins.
I have and are in part a religious nutcase,and have been the second if not worst outright blasphemer of all time against God and his Heavenly Host.(And I am not happy about blaspheming Holy Lord God and his Holy Host).
I was right into Prophecy and believe I have had some dreams of the future.... I am 44 years old and don't get why God would make people for perdition when the Devil is allowed to walk around free after all the evil he did before going into the garden to deceive Eve who ''didn't know'' about sin to commit the so called sin of eating the forbdden fruit.
Hope you and I and the current believers can discuss some things inparticular about the End Times Prophecies.
Good morning highflyertoo, :tea:
It's great that you are questioning things. There is a reason religions generally discourage critical thought ...
Christians usually say that "one person is slain by the Lord while the other is not for similar sins" because God is showing mercy to certain people. But why does God show mercy to one criminal but not another? In any other context everyone would agree such actions are the definition of injustice. How did Uriah's family feel when they saw that God allowed David to murder him without any penalty from the "law" that everyone else had to obey or suffer punishment? I know how I would have felt.
It would be interesting to learn more about the view of prophecy you held. You are now a full member so you can start your own thread if you feel so inclined.
I had a lot of experiences like dreams, synchronicities, and "answered prayers" during the two decades I was a Christian. But most of that kind of thing depends critically upon "interpretation" and assumptions based on beliefs. If a Christian and a Muslim have an identical experience, one will say it was because of Jesus, the other Allah. Such things are really like a Rorschach ink blot that folks project their beliefs onto.
Great chatting,
Richard
Richard Amiel McGough
04-28-2012, 09:21 AM
There is no lie, if it is not marriage, then why were the words, husband and wife mentioned?
Hey there CWH, :yo:
You are reading an English translation. The word "wife" is not actually mentioned in the Hebrew. It literally says "his woman." And he is called her "baal" which means lord or ruler. This exemplifies again the explicit sexism of the Bible. Men are called the "lord" over their women. And this was not just in the OT. Peter said that Christian women should emulate Sarah and call their husbands lord:
1 Peter 3:5 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.
See that? Christian women are supposed to be in subjection to their husbands, obeying them, and calling them "lord." This sexism is fundamental to Christianity. Indeed, it is as fundamental as the very relationship between God, Christ, and man:
1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
Men are over women in the same way as Christ is over men! :eek:
Captured women were put in subjection to those who murdered their moms, dads, family, and friends.
Have you ever thought if God were to tell them that He killed them because of evil but will resurrect them a few thousand years later and if they married into God's people they including their loved ones will be pardon and their descendants will become God's people and thus they will be guaranteed a part of God's inheritance. God was kind to give them a full month's of mourning and perhaps to consider. If the 32,000 virgins were not willing to marry the Israelites they could have refused or killed themselves, why didn't they? or was there something for them to gain by obeying God's command to marry the Israelites? Obviously, God had no intention to keep them as old virgins till menopaused.:lol:
If that's how God does things, why did he fail to mention it anywhere in the Bible? And if it's not in the Bible, why do you feel free to make it up and suggest it is what God will do?
You don't know how many of the 32,000 virgins committed suicide or were killed trying to escape. But one thing is clear - they were women captured in war and put in subjugation to the soldiers that murdered everyone they ever loved. Religion has corrupted your sense of morals if you cannot see how wrong this is.
There is no end to the irony of Christians justifying genocide even as they claim that we would have no morals if not for the God of the Bible. :dizzy:
This is a false logic, nothing in those passages said "they were tossed like rags" but were told to let them go without making any monetary profits from them, that's was kind in which no evil people would have done that. Based on ancient Jewish law, when the marriage is suddenly terminated, the men had to gave their ex-wives some monetary compensation. I am fascinated by the word "humbled" which seems to suggest additional meanings like "tamed", disciplined", "calmed" besides "screwed her". You don't humbled your wife when you "screwed her" do you?....or was the wife so "wild" during sex that one have to humble her? :lol: Humbled seems to suggest disciplining an arrogant people through marrying God's righteous people.
The word "humbled" in this context means "screwed" as in "having had sexual intercourse with." It's easy to prove. I'll leave that as an exercise for the student since I have little time this morning.
And when you seem ignorant of the oppressive nature of patriarchy. The captive women were on the bottom of the social scale. First, they were war booty. Then they had thief virginity taken away, so if they were let go they would be seen as "used goods" in a society that prized virginity. You have no idea how difficult it would have been. Where is your empathy?
No, I was trying to make people visualize how terrible human war can be and when there is lawlessness human hearts can be very wicked and evil. It was said in Genesis that men's heart was continuously evil, was God justified then to destroy all humans on earth with a flood? It stated that it grieved God deeply to do so, does that sounds like a totally evil and wicked God? A cold hearted killer and rapist as seen in the videos will not grieved or regret deeply when he murdered or raped.
Genesis 5:
5 The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. 6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the Lord said, 'I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.
May God continue His Blessings on us. :pray:
Yes, it sounds like a totally evil and wicked God because he constantly chooses VIOLENCE as if it were the best solution. He commands genocide and rape of the captive virgins. This makes him indistinguishable from a brutal Bronze age tribal war god. Why would God choose to act like that? Is he not free to show us a better way?
Richard Amiel McGough
04-28-2012, 09:28 AM
"The 'new atheists' call God’s commands to kill the Canaanites 'genocide,' but a closer look at the horror of the Canaanites’ sinfulness, exhibited in rampant idolatry, incest, adultery, child sacrifice, homosexuality, and bestiality, reveals that God’s reason for commanding their death was not genocide but capital punishment."
This displays the utter absurdity of the apologetic attempt to justify murder. They speak of the "horror of the Canaanite's sinfulness" when the Canaanites killed a few of their own children but see nothing wrong with God commanding the Israelites to murder ALL of their children!
If God wanted to punish the Canaanites, why didn't he do it himself? To order his people to slice and dice women and children BRUTALIZES them and turns them in to the kind of monsters we saw in the videos. Why would God want to brutalize his own people that way? It makes no sense at all.
Obviously, they were far from their land fighting against God's enemies and they would not expect to survive another day. Better to spread their seed fast before they expired. Besides the foreign women who have not slept with men were considered "pure" as they were not polluted by the evil Canaanite men.
When attempting to justify genocide, it is always smart to dehumanize those you want to murder. Otherwise, people will sense the moral outrage. This is what Hitler did - he dehumanized the Jews. How is the Christian justification of the genocide of the Canaanites any different?
highflyertoo
04-28-2012, 05:29 PM
Good morning to you RAM and Rose.
The weird thing about the Canaanites is Noah said they would be a servant of Ham's brothers. How could this be possible when God instructed to rid the land of the Canaanites by slaughter in the land of Israel?
I think the Canaanites would have to remain somewhat alive to back Noah's drunken outburst... Genesis 9:20-27 http://quod.lib.umich.edu/k/kjv/browse.html
Hey there CWH, :yo:
[QUOTE]You are reading an English translation. The word "wife" is not actually mentioned in the Hebrew. It literally says "his woman." And he is called her "baal" which means lord or ruler. This exemplifies again the explicit sexism of the Bible. Men are called the "lord" over their women. And this was not just in the OT. Peter said that Christian women should emulate Sarah and call their husbands lord:
1 Peter 3:5 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.
Whether wife or woman it doesn't matter ,it means the same thing. So was Eve called Woman and yet we all know she was the wife of Adam.
See that? Christian women are supposed to be in subjection to their husbands, obeying them, and calling them "lord." This sexism is fundamental to Christianity. Indeed, it is as fundamental as the very relationship between God, Christ, and man:
1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
Men are over women in the same way as Christ is over men! :eek:
So is the government over its citizens and the law over above any one in the country, boss over his employees. In human society there is always hierarchy of rank in order for it to function effectively; it's a matte of fact.
Captured women were put in subjection to those who murdered their moms, dads, family, and friends.
Captured people whether women or men are always put into subjection by their victors.
If that's how God does things, why did he fail to mention it anywhere in the Bible? And if it's not in the Bible, why do you feel free to make it up and suggest it is what God will do?
It's the nature of God to hide things and for men to find out, which is why Jesu talks allegorically and used parables.
You don't know how many of the 32,000 virgins committed suicide or were killed trying to escape. But one thing is clear - they were women captured in war and put in subjugation to the soldiers that murdered everyone they ever loved. Religion has corrupted your sense of morals if you cannot see how wrong this is.
How about those who justified the killing of Osama, Saddam, Pol Pot, Hitler are their senses also been corrupted?
There is no end to the irony of Christians justifying genocide even as they claim that we would have no morals if not for the God of the Bible. :dizzy:
I justify the killing of evil men but not good men. I believe you agree with me.
The word "humbled" in this context means "screwed" as in "having had sexual intercourse with." It's easy to prove. I'll leave that as an exercise for the student since I have little time this morning.
Check any English dictionary, "humbled" has never mean "screwed". So one have humbled his wife and the wife have humbled her husband after sex sex....Brilliant! "Hey, Darling, can you humble me tonight?".
And when you seem ignorant of the oppressive nature of patriarchy. The captive women were on the bottom of the social scale. First, they were war booty. Then they had thief virginity taken away, so if they were let go they would be seen as "used goods" in a society that prized virginity. You have no idea how difficult it would have been. Where is your empathy?
They let them go so that they would not become widowed. Whether some compensation were given or not is not recorded. Anyway, those women have become part of God's family whose sin were pardoned. In fact, the words say if they have no more delight in her, they may let them go for free but they could still keep her if they wanted to.
Yes, it sounds like a totally evil and wicked God because he constantly chooses VIOLENCE as if it were the best solution. He commands genocide and rape of the captive virgins. This makes him indistinguishable from a brutal Bronze age tribal war god. Why would God choose to act like that? Is he not free to show us a better way?
I have asked, what would you do if you were God? Save everybody and polluted the world with people and pollution, Stop the wombs of evil women but allow the sperms of their evil men to spread....Brilliant!
God Blessed us:pray:.
[QUOTE=RAM;43562]This displays the utter absurdity of the apologetic attempt to justify murder. They speak of the "horror of the Canaanite's sinfulness" when the Canaanites killed a few of their own children but see nothing wrong with God commanding the Israelites to murder ALL of their children!
How did you know that the Canaanites killed a few of their own children? How about the chlldren of their captured booty?
If God wanted to punish the Canaanites, why didn't he do it himself? To order his people to slice and dice women and children BRUTALIZES them and turns them in to the kind of monsters we saw in the videos. Why would God want to brutalize his own people that way? It makes no sense at all.
Neither does it make sense for the US government to sent young soldiers to Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, Iraq to be killed or injured? Why can't the US government did it themselves by sending nuclear missiles or drones at those countries and save thousands of young lives and limbs? Answer this question and you will understand why God did not do it Himself. I am surprise you don't understand all these political and military strategies.
When attempting to justify genocide, it is always smart to dehumanize those you want to murder. Otherwise, people will sense the moral outrage. This is what Hitler did - he dehumanized the Jews. How is the Christian justification of the genocide of the Canaanites any different?
You are getting to the point, congrats, but is there a difference in killing evil men compared to killing righteous men? Do you want evil men killed or good men killed?
May God Blessed the ignorant. :pray:
Richard Amiel McGough
04-29-2012, 05:40 PM
See that? Christian women are supposed to be in subjection to their husbands, obeying them, and calling them "lord." This sexism is fundamental to Christianity. Indeed, it is as fundamental as the very relationship between God, Christ, and man:
1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
Men are over women in the same way as Christ is over men! :eek:
So is the government over its citizens and the law over above any one in the country, boss over his employees. In human society there is always hierarchy of rank in order for it to function effectively; it's a matte of fact.
So you are fine with the idea that men should rule over women, and women must be in subjection to men, obey them, and call them lord? I pity your wife.
And as for governments - it is not the same at all. Men and women are equal under the law in the USA, and that's how it should be in all governments. You are showing (again) how religion retards moral and social progress!
Captured people whether women or men are always put into subjection by their victors.
Yes, and so the women were like slaves not "wives" as you like to imagine.
If that's how God does things, why did he fail to mention it anywhere in the Bible? And if it's not in the Bible, why do you feel free to make it up and suggest it is what God will do?
It's the nature of God to hide things and for men to find out, which is why Jesu talks allegorically and used parables.
Finding something that is there is not the same as inventing something from your imagination.
You don't know how many of the 32,000 virgins committed suicide or were killed trying to escape. But one thing is clear - they were women captured in war and put in subjugation to the soldiers that murdered everyone they ever loved. Religion has corrupted your sense of morals if you cannot see how wrong this is.
How about those who justified the killing of Osama, Saddam, Pol Pot, Hitler are their senses also been corrupted?
You are hiding from what I said by changing the subject.
There is no end to the irony of Christians justifying genocide even as they claim that we would have no morals if not for the God of the Bible. :dizzy:
I justify the killing of evil men but not good men. I believe you agree with me.
I was not talking about killing evil men. Again, you are hiding from what I said by changed the subject.
The word "humbled" in this context means "screwed" as in "having had sexual intercourse with." It's easy to prove. I'll leave that as an exercise for the student since I have little time this morning.
Check any English dictionary, "humbled" has never mean "screwed". So one have humbled his wife and the wife have humbled her husband after sex sex....Brilliant! "Hey, Darling, can you humble me tonight?".
You really need to learn the basic principles of Bible study. The Bible was not written in English. The Hebrew word translated as "humbled" is עִנָּה (Strong's 6031). Duane L. Christensen explained it's meaning in his entry on Deuteronomy 21:14 in the Word Biblical Commentary:
The piel verbal form עִנָּה, which is translated here as 'you have humbled her,' carries the sense of 'doing violence to' in sexual matters (cf. 22:24, 29).
The verses he cited make the truth of his claim perfectly obvious (note that they come from the same general context in Deuteronomy):
Deuteronomy 22:23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her [have sex with her]; 24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
Deuteronomy 22:28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her [have sex with her], and they be found; 29 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.
My interpretation stands. The word "humbled" means "screwed" or "had sexual intercourse with" in these contexts. It is totally obvious to anyone who can read even the English translation and it is supported by the scholars.
Your mimicry of my use of "brilliant" is making you look really stupid since you don't know what you are talking about.
Yes, it sounds like a totally evil and wicked God because he constantly chooses VIOLENCE as if it were the best solution. He commands genocide and rape of the captive virgins. This makes him indistinguishable from a brutal Bronze age tribal war god. Why would God choose to act like that? Is he not free to show us a better way?
I have asked, what would you do if you were God? Save everybody and polluted the world with people and pollution, Stop the wombs of evil women but allow the sperms of their evil men to spread....Brilliant!
Again, your use of "brilliant" is idiotic. And you didn't answer my question. Why would God choose to act like a brutal Bronze age tribal war god? There are ten thousand things an Almighty God could have done rather than commanding more violence or letting the "sperms of their evil men to spread." For example, he could have just closed the wombs of the women that would have been impregnated by that sperm. Or he could have given some intelligent laws instead of the stupid, cruel, and immoral ones that we see in the Bible. But you can't see that because you are committed to the truth of things that are false. Good luck with that, Cheow.
highflyertoo
04-29-2012, 06:41 PM
Hello CWH.
You said evil men deserve to be destroyed. Does that apply to everyone?
Do the Killing Laws that Moses gave still stand to this day to be enforced unto to this day? And if it's true that the Laws Moses gave do stand to this day,are people to be stoned to death and or the Gentiles have war made against them so their Mother's and Father's are slaughtered and the remaining virgins made into sex slaves? And are the Jewish people ''KILLED'' who refuse to comply with Mosaic Law as commanded by the Living Sovereign Almighty God who is the RIDER OF THE CLOUDS,ROCK OF AGES,THE ONE WHO WAS AND WHO IS AND WHO IS TO COME FOREVER AND EVER MORE ?
Hello CWH.
You said evil men deserve to be destroyed. Does that apply to everyone?
Do the Killing Laws that Moses gave still stand to this day to be enforced unto to this day? And if it's true that the Laws Moses gave do stand to this day,are people to be stoned to death and or the Gentiles have war made against them so their Mother's and Father's are slaughtered and the remaining virgins made into sex slaves? And are the Jewish people ''KILLED'' who refuse to comply with Mosaic Law as commanded by the Living Sovereign Almighty God who is the RIDER OF THE CLOUDS,ROCK OF AGES,THE ONE WHO WAS AND WHO IS AND WHO IS TO COME FOREVER AND EVER MORE ?
That is why we should "insure" ourselves by doing what is right, Love God with all your hear soul and might and Love your neighbor as yourself. God hate evil but love righteousness; that is what the Bible is all about... the eventual victory of good over evil. Just like life insurance, can you be very sure that you won't die, days, months, years from now? Can you be very sure that you will not see God when you die? People who have Near Death Experience will tell you that there is life after death and there are stories of Re-incarnation. Their stories are difficult to disprove scientifically.
God Blessings to all.:pray:
Richard Amiel McGough
04-29-2012, 08:22 PM
That is why we should "insure" ourselves by doing what is right, Love God with all your hear soul and might and Love your neighbor as yourself. God hate evil but love righteousness; that is what the Bible is all about... the eventual victory of good over evil. Just like life insurance, can you be very sure that you won't die, days, months, years from now? Can you be very sure that you will not see God when you die? People who have Near Death Experience will tell you that there is life after death and there are stories of Re-incarnation. Their stories are difficult to disprove scientifically.
God Blessings to all.:pray:
How can a false belief give any "insurance" about anything?
In another thread (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3008-The-quot-Already-Not-Yet-quot-Interpretation-of-Eschatology&p=43567#post43567), you said "It doesn't matter if God is Allah or what as long as you love God with all your heart, soul and strength and love your neighbor as yourself, you will be saved." Are you saying that all sincere Muslims, Mormons, Hindus, and anyone else who believes in any god is thereby saved? It seems like you are saying that Christianity doesn't matter at all. And if Christianity doesn't matter, why do you quote the Bible? Your comments make no sense to me at all. What do you do with this passage?
Acts 4:10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. 11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. 12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
Is there or is there not another name by which men can be saved?
You really don't sound like a Bible believing Christian to me. I guess there's hope for you after all! :p
highflyertoo
04-29-2012, 08:25 PM
That is why we should "insure" ourselves by doing what is right, Love God with all your hear soul and might and Love your neighbor as yourself. God hate evil but love righteousness; that is what the Bible is all about... the eventual victory of good over evil. Just like life insurance, can you be very sure that you won't die, days, months, years from now? Can you be very sure that you will not see God when you die? People who have Near Death Experience will tell you that there is life after death and there are stories of Re-incarnation. Their stories are difficult to disprove scientifically.
God Blessings to all.:pray:
And what do you mean by doing right?And what God are you specifically refering to,to do the right by?
How can the Canaanites be held accountable when they thought they were serving their gods in a righteous manner?
You said it may be that the God existing could be Allah, what if it's the Canaanites gods that exist when you go to the spirit world? Are you going to ask them for forgiveness because you don't want your soul snuffed out as you so enthuastically praised the soldiers for slaughtering the pagans,who by the way had never been given the oportunity to know and learn there was a God of the Hebrews.
So how can you truly know you are doing right?Does your conscious lie to you or tell you the truth? Are you exempt from being deceived?
Richard Amiel McGough
04-29-2012, 08:54 PM
You said it may be that the God existing could be Allah, what if it's the Canaanites gods that exist when you go to the spirit world? Are you going to ask them for forgiveness because you don't want your soul snuffed out as you so enthuastically praised the soldiers for slaughtering the pagans,who by the way had never been given the oportunity to know and learn there was a God of the Hebrews.
Excellent points! :thumb:
How can a false belief give any "insurance" about anything?
In another thread (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3008-The-quot-Already-Not-Yet-quot-Interpretation-of-Eschatology&p=43567#post43567), you said "It doesn't matter if God is Allah or what as long as you love God with all your heart, soul and strength and love your neighbor as yourself, you will be saved." Are you saying that all sincere Muslims, Mormons, Hindus, and anyone else who believes in any god is thereby saved? It seems like you are saying that Christianity doesn't matter at all. And if Christianity doesn't matter, why do you quote the Bible? Your comments make no sense to me at all. What do you do with this passage?
Acts 4:10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. 11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. 12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
Is there or is there not another name by which men can be saved?
You really don't sound like a Bible believing Christian to me. I guess there's hope for you after all! :p
Listen carefully, I said that whatever god people refers to is indirectly referring to our God because there can only be one Creator God. Why do you think there are common beliefs among every religion that there is a heaven and there is a hell and to do good? Their god's name may be different but they seems to believe some same fundamental beliefs in Christianity. Whether they'll be judged or forgiven for believing in other gods which indirectly refers to our Christian God is not for me to say.
God Blessed our souls.:pray:
Richard Amiel McGough
04-29-2012, 09:17 PM
Listen carefully, I said that whatever god people refers to is indirectly referring to our God because there can only be one Creator God. Why do you think there are common beliefs among every religion that there is a heaven and there is a hell and to do good? Their god's name may be different but they seems to believe some same fundamental beliefs in Christianity. Whether they'll be judged or forgiven for believing in other gods which indirectly refers to our Christian God is not for me to say.
God Blessed our souls.:pray:
But you are directly contradicting the Bible:
Psalm 96:5 For all the gods of the nations are idols: but the LORD made the heavens.
You say the "gods of the nations" all refer to the true God, whereas the Bible says they all refer to idols!
[QUOTE=highflyertoo;43592]And what do you mean by doing right?And what God are you specifically refering to,to do the right by?I seems to be repeating myself; Love God with all your heart soul and might and Love your neighbor as yourself.
How can the Canaanites be held accountable when they thought they were serving their gods in a righteous manner?
People always think what they themselves do is always right. Does sacrificing children, incest, prostituiting priests, bestiality, adultery, child sex etc. the norm right? Suppose you go into a town in the US and all of them practice such things, what do you do?
You said it may be that the God existing could be Allah, what if it's the Canaanites gods that exist when you go to the spirit world? Are you going to ask them for forgiveness because you don't want your soul snuffed out as you so enthuastically praised the soldiers for slaughtering the pagans,who by the way had never been given the oportunity to know and learn there was a God of the Hebrews.
I have said before that God will forgive them for their evil if they repent. Because they were so evil, God allowed them to be killed so that the evil will not spread. It's like the Americans killing the Nazi for trying to exterminate the Jews. It's good over evil and such heroic act should be praised, isn't it?
So how can you truly know you are doing right?Does your conscious lie to you or tell you the truth? Are you exempt from being deceived?
The same question goes to you.
God Blessed.:pray:
But you are directly contradicting the Bible:
Psalm 96:5 For all the gods of the nations are idols: but the LORD made the heavens.
You say the "gods of the nations" all refer to the true God, whereas the Bible says they all refer to idols!
Think about this, some religions prayed to graven images and idols made by hands, Buddha, Hinduism, pagans etc. yet God did not seemed to punish or destroy them why? The reason is because they were not under any covenant with God and they were not that evil compared to the Canaanites whereas there was a covenant between the Jews, the descendants of Abraham and God. The gods of the nations belong to those idols made by hands but were not under the covenant of God.
It is the human brains that come out with their own religions whether good or bad just like human brains can devised thoughts good and evil.It is God that created the human brains and therefore whatever thoughts they devised about god indirectly refers to our God who made the human brain. Understand?
God Blessinsg to all.:pray:
So you are fine with the idea that men should rule over women, and women must be in subjection to men, obey them, and call them lord? I pity your wife.
And as for governments - it is not the same at all. Men and women are equal under the law in the USA, and that's how it should be in all governments. You are showing (again) how religion retards moral and social progress!
Yes, and so the women were like slaves not "wives" as you like to imagine.
Finding something that is there is not the same as inventing something from your imagination.
You are hiding from what I said by changing the subject.
I was not talking about killing evil men. Again, you are hiding from what I said by changed the subject.
You really need to learn the basic principles of Bible study. The Bible was not written in English. The Hebrew word translated as "humbled" is עִנָּה (Strong's 6031). Duane L. Christensen explained it's meaning in his entry on Deuteronomy 21:14 in the Word Biblical Commentary:
The piel verbal form עִנָּה, which is translated here as 'you have humbled her,' carries the sense of 'doing violence to' in sexual matters (cf. 22:24, 29).
The verses he cited make the truth of his claim perfectly obvious (note that they come from the same general context in Deuteronomy):
Deuteronomy 22:23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her [have sex with her]; 24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
Deuteronomy 22:28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her [have sex with her], and they be found; 29 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.
My interpretation stands. The word "humbled" means "screwed" or "had sexual intercourse with" in these contexts. It is totally obvious to anyone who can read even the English translation and it is supported by the scholars.
Your mimicry of my use of "brilliant" is making you look really stupid since you don't know what you are talking about.
Again, your use of "brilliant" is idiotic. And you didn't answer my question. Why would God choose to act like a brutal Bronze age tribal war god? There are ten thousand things an Almighty God could have done rather than commanding more violence or letting the "sperms of their evil men to spread." For example, he could have just closed the wombs of the women that would have been impregnated by that sperm. Or he could have given some intelligent laws instead of the stupid, cruel, and immoral ones that we see in the Bible. But you can't see that because you are committed to the truth of things that are false. Good luck with that, Cheow.
I am surprised you don't understand male behaviour; if the wives wombs were closed, it will only forced the men to look for other women that would bear them children and that will lead to rapes, adultery, prostituition, mistress, polygamy, divorce and remarry etc. To be fair and equal so that there is no male bias (Rose's favorite obsessive topic) God should castrate the men as well. But consider again, killing all evil people will drastically reduced evil in the world but good parents does not always bear good children, this call for continuous refinement to get rid of any remnant evil people just like continuous refinement to achieve fine gold. Since you said there are a thousand things an Almighty God can do rather than commanding more violence, why not tell us what some of these thousand things that God can do an I can tell you that killing of evil people is one of the best method to rid the world of evil. Closing the womb and castration of evil women and men are obviously out as it goes against human rights and God's command to fill the earth.
May God removed all evil in this world. :pray:
I am surprised you don't understand male behaviour; if the wives wombs were closed, it will only forced the men to look for other women that would bear them children and that will lead to rapes, adultery, prostituition, mistress, polygamy, divorce and remarry etc. To be fair and equal so that there is no male bias (Rose's favorite obsessive topic) God should castrate the men as well. But consider again, killing all evil people will drastically reduced evil in the world but good parents does not always bear good children, this call for continuous refinement to get rid of any remnant evil people just like continuous refinement to achieve fine gold. Since you said there are a thousand things an Almighty God can do rather than commanding more violence, why not tell us what some of these thousand things that God can do an I can tell you that killing of evil people is one of the best method to rid the world of evil. Closing the womb and castration of evil women and men are obviously out as it goes against human rights and God's command to fill the earth.
May God removed all evil in this world. :pray:
According to the Bible God already tried killing everyone on the planet with a Flood...it didn't work! Then God killed everyone in the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah...it didn't work! After that God decided to use his "chosen people" as the killers and utterly destroy every last man, woman and child in the "Promised Land"...it didn't work! Also then he had them kill all the Midianites, the Ammorites, the Jabesh-gileadites and on and on it goes...it didn't work, the world is still full of bad people.
I think Yahweh better come up with a new plan...Oh, that's right! He did change his mind, and gave his son as a human sacrifice, so he doesn't have to go around killing people on earth any more - now he just tortures unbelievers in Hell for eternity. :eek:
Rose
Richard Amiel McGough
04-30-2012, 08:36 AM
According to the Bible God already tried killing everyone on the planet with a Flood...it didn't work! Then God killed everyone in the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah...it didn't work! After that God decided to use his "chosen people" as the killers and utterly destroy every last man, woman and child in the "Promised Land"...it didn't work! Also then he had them kill all the Midianites, the Ammorites, the Jabesh-gileadites and on and on it goes...it didn't work, the world is still full of bad people.
I think Yahweh better come up with a new plan...Oh, that's right! He did change his mind, and gave his son as a human sacrifice, so he doesn't have to go around killing people on earth any more - now he just tortures unbelievers in Hell for eternity. :eek:
Rose
Very well stated. :thumb:
According to the Bible God already tried killing everyone on the planet with a Flood...it didn't work! Then God killed everyone in the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah...it didn't work! After that God decided to use his "chosen people" as the killers and utterly destroy every last man, woman and child in the "Promised Land"...it didn't work! Also then he had them kill all the Midianites, the Ammorites, the Jabesh-gileadites and on and on it goes...it didn't work, the world is still full of bad people.
I think Yahweh better come up with a new plan...Oh, that's right! He did change his mind, and gave his son as a human sacrifice, so he doesn't have to go around killing people on earth any more - now he just tortures unbelievers in Hell for eternity. :eek:
Rose
And when God left for 2,000 years to let man handle his own affairs, have evilness been reduced? Obviously No.
Obviously it didn't work because man's evil was so strong due to Satan"s influence but however God managed to control the rate of growth of evil at manageable level.
God already have a plan but you just don't accept it that's all. Let evil men grows together and destroy them all together at a later time:
Matthew 13:24-31
Another Parable put he forth to them, saying. The Kingdom of Heaven is like a man which sowed good seed in his field; but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the weeds also. So the servants of the householder came and said to him. Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field! From whence then has it weeds? He said to them. An enemy has done this. The servants said to him. Will you then that we go and gather them up? But he said. Nay; lest, while you gather up the weeds, you root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together, until the harvest; and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather you together, first the weeds, and bind them in: bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.
May God gather us into His barn.:pray:
Richard Amiel McGough
04-30-2012, 11:27 AM
And when God left for 2,000 years to let man handle his own affairs, have evilness been reduced? Obviously No.
That's not obvious at all. On the contrary, it is we humans who have acted to reduce the evil that God ordained in the Bible. We now give women equal rights, whereas the Bible puts them in subjugation to men. The United Nations has outlawed infanticide, genocide, and slavery whereas God commanded those things things in the Bible. Most modern civilizations are infinitely better than the primitive and brutal civilizations that existed in Bible times.
Richard Amiel McGough
04-30-2012, 12:50 PM
Hi CWH,
I'm posting this again because you did not answer.
The word "humbled" in this context means "screwed" as in "having had sexual intercourse with." It's easy to prove. I'll leave that as an exercise for the student since I have little time this morning.
Check any English dictionary, "humbled" has never mean "screwed". So one have humbled his wife and the wife have humbled her husband after sex sex....Brilliant! "Hey, Darling, can you humble me tonight?".
You really need to learn the basic principles of Bible study. The Bible was not written in English. The Hebrew word translated as "humbled" is עִנָּה (Strong's 6031). Duane L. Christensen explained it's meaning in his entry on Deuteronomy 21:14 in the Word Biblical Commentary:
The piel verbal form עִנָּה, which is translated here as 'you have humbled her,' carries the sense of 'doing violence to' in sexual matters (cf. 22:24, 29).
The verses he cited make the truth of his claim perfectly obvious (note that they come from the same general context in Deuteronomy):
Deuteronomy 22:23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her [have sex with her]; 24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
Deuteronomy 22:28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her [have sex with her], and they be found; 29 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.
My interpretation stands. The word "humbled" means "screwed" or "had sexual intercourse with" in these contexts. It is totally obvious to anyone who can read even the English translation and it is supported by the scholars.
That's not obvious at all. On the contrary, it is we humans who have acted to reduce the evil that God ordained in the Bible. We now give women equal rights, whereas the Bible puts them in subjugation to men. The United Nations has outlawed infanticide, genocide, and slavery whereas God commanded those things things in the Bible. Most modern civilizations are infinitely better than the primitive and brutal civilizations that existed in Bible times.
Yeah, let's hope the United Nations will outlaw abortions, wars, adultery, gambling, fornication, prostituition, poverty, greed, disrespect, stealing, lust, pollution, pornography, narcotics etc.
In Jesus Name. :pray:
Hi CWH,
I'm posting this again because you did not answer.
You really need to learn the basic principles of Bible study. The Bible was not written in English. The Hebrew word translated as "humbled" is עִנָּה (Strong's 6031). Duane L. Christensen explained it's meaning in his entry on Deuteronomy 21:14 in the Word Biblical Commentary:
The piel verbal form עִנָּה, which is translated here as 'you have humbled her,' carries the sense of 'doing violence to' in sexual matters (cf. 22:24, 29).
The verses he cited make the truth of his claim perfectly obvious (note that they come from the same general context in Deuteronomy):
Deuteronomy 22:23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her [have sex with her]; 24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
Deuteronomy 22:28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her [have sex with her], and they be found; 29 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.
My interpretation stands. The word "humbled" means "screwed" or "had sexual intercourse with" in these contexts. It is totally obvious to anyone who can read even the English translation and it is supported by the scholars.
I did not answer? I did in this thread, I think you are having myopia, let me write in bigger font in my previous reply:
04-27-2012, 08:04 PM #29 CWH
Senior Member
Join Date
Nov 2008
Location
Not from this world...from the other side
Posts
2,337
You have yet to answer the questions why are the words husband and wife mentioned if it is not marriage. There is a possibility that the virgins were willingly married to the men if not why didn't they protest and got killed, why didn't they ran away, why didn't they commit suicide, why didn't they refused the marriage, why didn't they disfigured or maimed or self injured themselves to prevent the marriage, why didn't fight they retaliate or discard/kill the babies of their "rapists", why didn't they destroy their virginity before marriage?....or was there a gain by marrying the Israelites seeing they were not so evil compared to their Canaanite men. Were they convinced that the Canaanite men were evil and sinful and God had to kill them with the promise that they will be pardoned and resurrected in the future if they repent? Was there a promise of pardon and heavenly reward for them and their descendants if they married and bore children of the Israelites? The other issue of letting them go was so that they could remarry or carry on with their renewed life was perhaps so that they will not become widowed as these Israelite men need to go to wars against God's enemies soon and were not expected to return and live long to see their children and family.
Humbled means humiliated, fine. They were humbled after they slept with their Israelite husbands because they were once arrogant non-God fearing people and now they have assimilated into the Jewish family as part of God's people and they and their children will now be eligible to receive part of God's inheritance and promise.
May God Bless us all.
May God humble us for we are proud in our own eyes.:pray:
Richard Amiel McGough
04-30-2012, 03:52 PM
Hi CWH,
I'm posting this again because you did not answer.
You really need to learn the basic principles of Bible study. The Bible was not written in English. The Hebrew word translated as "humbled" is עִנָּה (Strong's 6031). Duane L. Christensen explained it's meaning in his entry on Deuteronomy 21:14 in the Word Biblical Commentary:
The piel verbal form עִנָּה, which is translated here as 'you have humbled her,' carries the sense of 'doing violence to' in sexual matters (cf. 22:24, 29).
The verses he cited make the truth of his claim perfectly obvious (note that they come from the same general context in Deuteronomy):
Deuteronomy 22:23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her [have sex with her]; 24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
Deuteronomy 22:28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her [have sex with her], and they be found; 29 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.
My interpretation stands. The word "humbled" means "screwed" or "had sexual intercourse with" in these contexts. It is totally obvious to anyone who can read even the English translation and it is supported by the scholars.
I did not answer? I did in this thread, I think you are having myopia, let me write in bigger font in my previous reply:
04-27-2012, 08:04 PM #29 CWH
Senior Member
Join Date
Nov 2008
Location
Not from this world...from the other side
Posts
2,337
You have yet to answer the questions why are the words husband and wife mentioned if it is not marriage. There is a possibility that the virgins were willingly married to the men if not why didn't they protest and got killed, why didn't they ran away, why didn't they commit suicide, why didn't they refused the marriage, why didn't they disfigured or maimed or self injured themselves to prevent the marriage, why didn't fight they retaliate or discard/kill the babies of their "rapists", why didn't they destroy their virginity before marriage?....or was there a gain by marrying the Israelites seeing they were not so evil compared to their Canaanite men. Were they convinced that the Canaanite men were evil and sinful and God had to kill them with the promise that they will be pardoned and resurrected in the future if they repent? Was there a promise of pardon and heavenly reward for them and their descendants if they married and bore children of the Israelites? The other issue of letting them go was so that they could remarry or carry on with their renewed life was perhaps so that they will not become widowed as these Israelite men need to go to wars against God's enemies soon and were not expected to return and live long to see their children and family.
Humbled means humiliated, fine. They were humbled after they slept with their Israelite husbands because they were once arrogant non-God fearing people and now they have assimilated into the Jewish family as part of God's people and they and their children will now be eligible to receive part of God's inheritance and promise.
May God Bless us all.
May God humble us for we are proud in our own eyes.:pray:
That post of yours that you quoted was not not an answer to my post. It was written much earlier, and I answered your question about the words husband and wife in post #39 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2983-God-Allows-Rape&p=43561#post43561).
It looks like you are avoiding the truth because you are embarrassed about being wrong. You said:
Check any English dictionary, "humbled" has never mean "screwed". So one have humbled his wife and the wife have humbled her husband after sex sex....Brilliant! "Hey, Darling, can you humble me tonight?".
So I explained your error, but you have not yet admitted it. Why not? If I am shown to be wrong about something, I am happy to admit it.
And your mimicry of my use of the word "Brilliant" makes you look like anything but that.
Richard Amiel McGough
05-02-2012, 10:37 AM
Hi CWH,
I'm posting this again because you did not answer.
The word "humbled" in this context means "screwed" as in "having had sexual intercourse with." It's easy to prove. I'll leave that as an exercise for the student since I have little time this morning.
Check any English dictionary, "humbled" has never mean "screwed". So one have humbled his wife and the wife have humbled her husband after sex sex....Brilliant! "Hey, Darling, can you humble me tonight?".
You really need to learn the basic principles of Bible study. The Bible was not written in English. The Hebrew word translated as "humbled" is עִנָּה (Strong's 6031). Duane L. Christensen explained it's meaning in his entry on Deuteronomy 21:14 in the Word Biblical Commentary:
The piel verbal form עִנָּה, which is translated here as 'you have humbled her,' carries the sense of 'doing violence to' in sexual matters (cf. 22:24, 29).
The verses he cited make the truth of his claim perfectly obvious (note that they come from the same general context in Deuteronomy):
Deuteronomy 22:23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her [have sex with her]; 24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
Deuteronomy 22:28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her [have sex with her], and they be found; 29 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.
My interpretation stands. The word "humbled" means "screwed" or "had sexual intercourse with" in these contexts. It is totally obvious to anyone who can read even the English translation and it is supported by the scholars.
CWH,
I'm still waiting for you to reply to this post. It came to mind again this morning because I happened to be reading Judges and found another example of "humbled" being used to refer to violent sexual intercourse (rape):
Judges 19:24 Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. 25 But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go.
Will you now admit the error in your assertion that "humbled" never means "screwed" in the Bible?
All the best,
Richard
CWH,
I'm still waiting for you to reply to this post. It came to mind again this morning because I happened to be reading Judges and found another example of "humbled" being used to refer to violent sexual intercourse (rape):
Judges 19:24 Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. 25 But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go.
Will you now admit the error in your assertion that "humbled" never means "screwed" in the Bible?
All the best,
Richard
I have already said that humbled means sex but something more than sex. Looks like I may have to write it in big font again. If I humbled someone in normal talk, I mean I have made an arrogant person to realize his arrogance or snobbery or error so that he repent or amend his ways. Amendment can come in many ways such as obeying God or asking God for forgiveness, repentance, doing righteous things etc. The simple fact is that if it is rape why is it that the Hebrew word for rape is not used but Hebrew word for humble instead? Therefore Judge 19:24 as stated above seems to described that the two women i.e. his daughter and concubine were not of good characters and were brought out to be punished hoping that they would be humbled and repent of their ways. It also shows the evil characters of those homosexuals or rather I would say bisexual men who abused the concubine instead out of anger that their demand for homosexual sex was not granted. But think why abused (violent sex) her the whole night? If someone kindly offer you a woman to sleep with, why abuse her?...unless you are angry or a pervert.
God Blessed.:pray:
Richard Amiel McGough
05-02-2012, 11:54 AM
I have already said that humbled means sex but something more than sex. Looks like I may have to write it in big font again. If I humbled someone in normal talk, I mean I have made an arrogant person to realize his arrogance or snobbery or error so that he repent or amend his ways. Amendment can come in many ways such as obeying God or asking God for forgiveness, repentance, doing righteous things etc. The simple fact is that if it is rape why is it that the Hebrew word for rape is not used but Hebrew word for humble instead? Therefore Judge 19:24 as stated above seems to described that the two women i.e. his daughter and concubine were not of good characters and were brought out to be punished hoping that they would be humbled and repent of their ways. It also shows the evil characters of those homosexuals or rather I would say bisexual men who abused the concubine instead out of anger that their demand for homosexual sex was not granted. But think why abused (violent sex) her the whole night? If someone kindly offer you a woman to sleep with, why abuse her?...unless you are angry or a pervert.
God Blessed.:pray:
You don't need to write in big font. The meaning of "humbled" in "normal talk" has nothing to do with our discussion because we were talking about the meaning of that word in those specific Bible verses. That is what you denied. I'm glad you are admitting you were wrong.
There is no word in biblical Hebrew for "rape" specifically. They used other words and relied on the context to indicate the correct understanding. It's like the word "know" which can mean "know" in the normal sense in some contexts, or "have sex with" in other contexts, like Gen 4:1 "Adam knew Eve, his wife." This is pretty basic stuff, man.
Your suggestion that the rape of the concubine was to punish her in hope that she would be "humbled and repent" is not only absurd, but disgusting. Your sense of morality seems totally warped to me.
You don't need to write in big font. The meaning of "humbled" in "normal talk" has nothing to do with our discussion because we were talking about the meaning of that word in those specific Bible verses. That is what you denied. I'm glad you are admitting you were wrong.
There is no word in biblical Hebrew for "rape" specifically. They used other words and relied on the context to indicate the correct understanding. It's like the word "know" which can mean "know" in the normal sense in some contexts, or "have sex with" in other contexts, like Gen 4:1 "Adam knew Eve, his wife." This is pretty basic stuff, man.
Your suggestion that the rape of the concubine was to punish her in hope that she would be "humbled and repent" is not only absurd, but disgusting. Your sense of morality seems totally warped to me.
I don't think I am wrong. This is what I said in the previous post,
Humbled means humiliated, fine. They were humbled after they slept with their Israelite husbands because they were once arrogant non-God fearing people and now they have assimilated into the Jewish family as part of God's people and they and their children will now be eligible to receive part of God's inheritance and promise.
Even if there is no rape word in Hebrew why can't sex in Hebrew be used be used instead of the Hebrew word for humbled? I'll let the readers decide. "Hey Darling, let's humble tonight; let's knew each other tonight".
God Blessings to all:pray:.
Richard Amiel McGough
05-02-2012, 12:17 PM
I don't think I am wrong.
:doh:
This is what I said in the previous post,
Humbled means humiliated, fine. They were humbled after they slept with their Israelite husbands because they were once arrogant non-God fearing people and now they have assimilated into the Jewish family as part of God's people and they and their children will now be eligible to receive part of God's inheritance and promise.
Even if there is no rape word in Hebrew why can't sex in Hebrew be used be used instead of the Hebrew word for humbled? I'll let the readers decide. "Hey Darling, let's humble tonight; let's knew each other tonight".
God Blessings to all:pray:.
:dizzy:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.