View Full Version : Q&A: Gloria Steinem on ending rape in war
An excellent interview of Gloria Steinem by Lauren Wolfe (here) (http://www.womenundersiegeproject.org/blog/entry/qa-gloria-steinem-on-rape-in-war-and-what-we-need-to-do-to-stop-it).
Lauren Wolfe: What are some of the reasons rape is so prevalent in war?
http://action.womensmediacenter.com/page/-/siege/img/about-gloria-steinem.jpg Gloria Steinem
Gloria Steinem: First, it’s important to note that rape and war didn’t always go together. For instance, European colonists wrote astonished letters home about how “even these savages”—by which they meant the residents of this continent they were invading—didn’t rape, not even their women prisoners. But those were wars of self-defense. If you’re going to get groups of men to risk their humanity, health, and lives in wars of offense, the traditional way is not to pay them a lot, but to addict them to the “cult of masculinity.” You have to convince them they’re not “real men” unless they kill and conquer. And, at its most basic, “masculine” means not being “feminine.” On a continuum, it means controlling women, conquering women, raping women, even with objects: bottles and broom handles in “peacetime” here, and gun barrels and knives in Bosnia (http://Womenundersiegeproject.org/conflicts/profile/bosnia) or Congo (http://Womenundersiegeproject.org/conflicts/profile/democratic-republic-of-congo). There’s a reason why it’s a truism that rape is not sex, it’s violence.
It’s also true that men may rape in groups out of social pressure to prove their “masculinity”—in peacetime, too—but gang mentality is a way of life in war. Military officers sometimes order men to rape as proof of loyalty and shared culpability. Some men express regret and say they wouldn’t have raped without group pressure. Also the group hatred war requires means humiliating enemies by raping “their” women, implanting sperm, taking over their means of reproduction, wiping out the enemy race or ethnicity. Cultures that put all “honor” in the purity of “their” women—and keep women weak—are actually setting them up as targets.
Even in peacetime, the “cult of masculinity” is so powerful that men commit crimes in which they have absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose: “senseless” killings like those in schools and post offices, serial murders, domestic violence, stalking, killing their wives and children and then killing themselves. They’re not hate crimes because they don’t hate the people they kill—but those people symbolize their lack of control, and so are killing the “masculinity” on which their whole sense of self depends. In interviews, such men often describe themselves as victims because they believe they should have been allowed to have control. I think we should call such crimes “supremacy crimes.” (continued (http://Lauren%20Wolfe:%20What%20are%20some%20of%20the%20r easons%20rape%20is%20so%20prevalent%20in%20war?%20 Gloria%20Steinem%20%20Gloria%20Steinem%20%20Gloria %20Steinem:%20First,%20it%E2%80%99s%20important%20 to%20note%20that%20rape%20and%20war%20didn%E2%80%9 9t%20always%20go%20together.%20For%20instance,%20E uropean%20colonists%20wrote%20astonished%20letters %20home%20about%20how%20%E2%80%9Ceven%20these%20sa vages%E2%80%9D%E2%80%94by%20which%20they%20meant%2 0the%20residents%20of%20this%20continent%20they%20 were%20invading%E2%80%94didn%E2%80%99t%20rape,%20n ot%20even%20their%20women%20prisoners.%20But%20tho se%20were%20wars%20of%20self-defense.%20If%20you%E2%80%99re%20going%20to%20get% 20groups%20of%20men%20to%20risk%20their%20humanity ,%20health,%20and%20lives%20in%20wars%20of%20offen se,%20the%20traditional%20way%20is%20not%20to%20pa y%20them%20a%20lot,%20but%20to%20addict%20them%20t o%20the%20%E2%80%9Ccult%20of%20masculinity.%E2%80% 9D%20You%20have%20to%20convince%20them%20they%E2%8 0%99re%20not%20%E2%80%9Creal%20men%E2%80%9D%20unle ss%20they%20kill%20and%20conquer.%20And,%20at%20it s%20most%20basic,%20%E2%80%9Cmasculine%E2%80%9D%20 means%20not%20being%20%E2%80%9Cfeminine.%E2%80%9D% 20On%20a%20continuum,%20it%20means%20controlling%2 0women,%20conquering%20women,%20raping%20women,%20 even%20with%20objects:%20bottles%20and%20broom%20h andles%20in%20%E2%80%9Cpeacetime%E2%80%9D%20here,% 20and%20gun%20barrels%20and%20knives%20in%20Bosnia %20or%20Congo.%20There%E2%80%99s%20a%20reason%20wh y%20it%E2%80%99s%20a%20truism%20that%20rape%20is%2 0not%20sex,%20it%E2%80%99s%20violence.%20%20It%E2% 80%99s%20also%20true%20that%20men%20may%20rape%20i n%20groups%20out%20of%20social%20pressure%20to%20p rove%20their%20%E2%80%9Cmasculinity%E2%80%9D%E2%80 %94in%20peacetime,%20too%E2%80%94but%20gang%20ment ality%20is%20a%20way%20of%20life%20in%20war.%20Mil itary%20officers%20sometimes%20order%20men%20to%20 rape%20as%20proof%20of%20loyalty%20and%20shared%20 culpability.%20Some%20men%20express%20regret%20and %20say%20they%20wouldn%E2%80%99t%20have%20raped%20 without%20group%20pressure.%20Also%20the%20group%2 0hatred%20war%20requires%20means%20humiliating%20e nemies%20by%20raping%20%E2%80%9Ctheir%E2%80%9D%20w omen,%20implanting%20sperm,%20taking%20over%20thei r%20means%20of%20reproduction,%20wiping%20out%20th e%20enemy%20race%20or%20ethnicity.%20Cultures%20th at%20put%20all%20%E2%80%9Chonor%E2%80%9D%20in%20th e%20purity%20of%20%E2%80%9Ctheir%E2%80%9D%20women% E2%80%94and%20keep%20women%20weak%E2%80%94are%20ac tually%20setting%20them%20up%20as%20targets.%20%20 Even%20in%20peacetime,%20the%20%E2%80%9Ccult%20of% 20masculinity%E2%80%9D%20is%20so%20powerful%20that %20men%20commit%20crimes%20in%20which%20they%20hav e%20absolutely%20nothing%20to%20gain%20and%20every thing%20to%20lose:%20%E2%80%9Csenseless%E2%80%9D%2 0killings%20like%20those%20in%20schools%20and%20po st%20offices,%20serial%20murders,%20domestic%20vio lence,%20stalking,%20killing%20their%20wives%20and %20children%20and%20then%20killing%20themselves.%2 0They%E2%80%99re%20not%20hate%20crimes%20because%2 0they%20don%E2%80%99t%20hate%20the%20people%20they %20kill%E2%80%94but%20those%20people%20symbolize%2 0their%20lack%20of%20control,%20and%20so%20are%20k illing%20the%20%E2%80%9Cmasculinity%E2%80%9D%20on% 20which%20their%20whole%20sense%20of%20self%20depe nds.%20In%20interviews,%20such%20men%20often%20des cribe%20themselves%20as%20victims%20because%20they %20believe%20they%20should%20have%20been%20allowed %20to%20have%20control.%20I%20think%20we%20should% 20call%20such%20crimes%20%E2%80%9Csupremacy%20crim es.%E2%80%9D))
David M
08-06-2012, 03:02 AM
Hello Rose
I do not want to drag up the conversation we have had, but I will make this comment concerning the 32,000 virgins that were taken by the Israelites.
If "rape in war" is done in these days as in the Congo and other places, it shows that the Israelites following the instruction of God were not barbaric by comparison to what men will do when left to their own devices whether under instruction from their commanding officers or not in the times we are living. The Israelite soldiers did not rape in times of war. The Israelites were under instruction to kill the reprobate people living in the land, and the instruction not to take pleasure in violence towards the women who were to be killed did not have to be given, because that was not part of their remit. The Israelites were not perfect and they did not obey God's instruction to the letter, but nevertheless, they were not as cruel as you would make out.
Concerning the 32,000 virgins that were taken, though you call it rape when they were later married to the Israelite soldiers, they were treaty with civility and protected as wives.
That's all I want to say on the matter.
All the best,
David
An excellent interview of Gloria Steinem by Lauren Wolfe (here) (http://www.womenundersiegeproject.org/blog/entry/qa-gloria-steinem-on-rape-in-war-and-what-we-need-to-do-to-stop-it).
There are many reasons why soldiers rape. Male superiority is one thing but from records of soldiers in WW2, we knew that the Russian soldiers rape German women after they occupied Germany at the end of WW2 was mainly as a revenge against the German soldiers raping the Russian women. And their female soldier colleagues even encouraged them. There were also incidents in which soldiers raped so that they could at least have their "generations" in case they died during the war. They also raped as a form of ethnic cleansing in which the babies born were of Russian and German blood and thus unlikely to rebel against the Russian occupiers when they grown up.
Just for the reverse, do female soldiers rape men? They do for the reasons of having children. The were some recorded incidents in Cambodia during the killing fields in which female Khmer Rouge soldiers raped their male captives before killing them or forced their male captives to marry or have sex with them.
Women raping men impossible? See for yourself:
http://www.google.com.sg/#hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=men+raped+by+women&oq=men+raped+by+women&gs_l=hp.12...2265.11812.0.13796.18.18.0.0.0.0.110. 1298.16j2.18.0...0.0...1c.B39sSbxB86E&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=c4f533d1bad20ce6&biw=1128&bih=698
God Blessed.:pray:
There are many reasons why soldiers rape. Male superiority is one thing but from records of soldiers in WW2, we knew that the Russian soldiers rape German women after they occupied Germany at the end of WW2 was mainly as a revenge against the German soldiers raping the Russian women. And their female soldier colleagues even encouraged them. There were also incidents in which soldiers raped so that they could at least have their "generations" in case they died during the war. They also raped as a form of ethnic cleansing in which the babies born were of Russian and German blood and thus unlikely to rebel against the Russian occupiers when they grown up.
Of course there are many "reasons" that men rape women, but all of them are barbaric and unjustified! Instead of trying to come up with reasons why men rape women, you should be raising your voice to condemn rape in any way, shape or form. Rape is NEVER, Never, never justified and the men of the world should rise up with one voice and condemn the barbaric practice of rape. Rape is an affront to the human race that is perpetrated against your mothers, wives, sisters, daughters and your fellow female humans, it does nothing but degrade societies in which men allow these practices to continue without condemnation. Rape could practically be wiped out in a heartbeat if the male leadership of the world (including religious leadership) spoke with one voice and condemned rape as a barbaric practice of uncivilized men.
Just for the reverse, do female soldiers rape men? They do for the reasons of having children. The were some recorded incidents in Cambodia during the killing fields in which female Khmer Rouge soldiers raped their male captives before killing them or forced their male captives to marry or have sex with them.
Women raping men impossible? See for yourself:
http://www.google.com.sg/#hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=men+raped+by+women&oq=men+raped+by+women&gs_l=hp.12...2265.11812.0.13796.18.18.0.0.0.0.110. 1298.16j2.18.0...0.0...1c.B39sSbxB86E&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=c4f533d1bad20ce6&biw=1128&bih=698
God Blessed.:pray:
Did you even read the articles you quoted? The only way a woman can rape a man is by seduction, and that is only considered rape if the male is underage. Penetration cannot occur unless a man has an erection which can only happen through arousal, so there is no way a woman can force a man to have intercourse with her unless he is willing. Of course males rape other males all the time, because the male doing the raping is aroused.
Rose
Hello Rose
I do not want to drag up the conversation we have had, but I will make this comment concerning the 32,000 virgins that were taken by the Israelites.
If "rape in war" is done in these days as in the Congo and other places, it shows that the Israelites following the instruction of God were not barbaric by comparison to what men will do when left to their own devices whether under instruction from their commanding officers or not in the times we are living. The Israelite soldiers did not rape in times of war. The Israelites were under instruction to kill the reprobate people living in the land, and the instruction not to take pleasure in violence towards the women who were to be killed did not have to be given, because that was not part of their remit. The Israelites were not perfect and they did not obey God's instruction to the letter, but nevertheless, they were not as cruel as you would make out.
Concerning the 32,000 virgins that were taken, though you call it rape when they were later married to the Israelite soldiers, they were treaty with civility and protected as wives.
That's all I want to say on the matter.
All the best,
David
Hello David, :yo:
Instead of focusing on trying to give reasons and justify the Israelite's who raped women and treated them like property, your focus should be on condemning the barbaric practice of rape wherever it is found. Like I said to Cheow, if the men of the world would stand up in support of the other half of the human population, and condemn the barbaric practice of rape it could practically be eliminated.
Rarely does one see religious leaders speaking out against biblical rape, instead they set about to try and justify it...how pathetic is that? Rape is a barbaric macho male thing that makes men feel powerful, but in reality it is nothing but uncivilized behavior that is common only to the male human animal. It doesn't matter where one finds rape, whether it be in the pages of a religious book, or in a woman"s home it should be denounced in the strongest terms possible! It does nothing but degrade the male mindset, that is why it is so wrong not to call the biblical sexual violation of women what it is...EVIL.
Stop with the justification and call that which is evil...WRONG, quit trying to make it appear honorable by saying "they were treated with civility and protected as wives". The bottom line is those women DID NOT want to be the wives of those men, they were force into a relationship they DID NOT want! How would you like to be forced to have sex with someone who just killed your entire family? Those women were real people with real feelings just like you or me, so quit trying to dismiss the reality of the matter. Try and put yourself into another persons shoes, you might be surprised. :winking0071:
Take care,
Rose
David M
08-06-2012, 05:45 PM
Hello David, :yo:
Instead of focusing on trying to give reasons and justify the Israelite's who raped women and treated them like property, your focus should be on condemning the barbaric practice of rape wherever it is found. Like I said to Cheow, if the men of the world would stand up in support of the other half of the human population, and condemn the barbaric practice of rape it could practically be eliminated.
Rarely does one see religious leaders speaking out against biblical rape, instead they set about to try and justify it...how pathetic is that? Rape is a barbaric macho male thing that makes men feel powerful, but in reality it is nothing but uncivilized behavior that is common only to the male human animal. It doesn't matter where one finds rape, whether it be in the pages of a religious book, or in a woman"s home it should be denounced in the strongest terms possible! It does nothing but degrade the male mindset, that is why it is so wrong not to call the biblical sexual violation of women what it is...EVIL.
Stop with the justification and call that which is evil...WRONG, quit trying to make it appear honorable by saying "they were treated with civility and protected as wives". The bottom line is those women DID NOT want to be the wives of those men, they were force into a relationship they DID NOT want! How would you like to be forced to have sex with someone who just killed your entire family? Those women were real people with real feelings just like you or me, so quit trying to dismiss the reality of the matter. Try and put yourself into another persons shoes, you might be surprised. :winking0071:
Take care,
Rose
Good morning Rose
I condemn rape wherever it is done and I support any cause that will help eliminate it, but seeing what is taking place in the world, I do not think there is enough time and there is not enough will to eradicate the problem as with many other problems man has caused, time is running out.
In the context of marriage of the 32,000 virgins, it was not rape. If I make it appear honorable, it is to counteract your claim that the women did not accept their situation and that they were forced to have sex if they did not want to. You were not there so you cannot say for definite what took place. I concede that a small percentage might have been raped as in a large group of people there are always rebels, but that does not have to go for the majority. I think what I say has equal value to anything you say to the contrary.
Did Absalom rape David's wives or did David's wives go willingly with Absalom? I think the motives of David's wives was such that their loyalty went with whoever had the power and influence. The wives of King David probably felt safer and better off by going with Absalom.
These situations are never as clear cut as we might think they are. Of course there would be some of the 32, 000 virgins who would have objected and then they could be divorced. Maybe by your definition a few felt that they were raped after the ritual of marriage, but I suggest that the majority felt better off (eventually) than if they their families had been at war with any other nation than the Israelites.
Look at the nations who want to annihilate Israel today. Do you think those nations will show any remorse for killing all of Israel that are composed of men, women, children and babies? Mankind shows how brutal it can be in all generations. Had Israel not gone on the offensive with God fighting for them, they would have been killed by the inhabitants of the land they were entering. If you have to make a decision as to which people are best fitted to enjoy the land, why not consider Israel the better race. Would the Canaanites have shown more mercy to the Hebrews than the Hebrews showed to the Canaanites? I do not think so.
Until you admit the Canaanites were reprobates and you start to blame man for all of men's problems, instead of God, I will keep reminding readers of your posts that God is not the one to blame. Blaming the people who wrote of the biblegod is not enough. You are promoting the God of the Bible as evil. The Bible says of God; (Jer 9:24) I am the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the LORD. It is about time you tell of the positive aspects of God and talk about His love to those who also show lovingkindness, wisdom and righteousness to their fellow man and who believe in God and His Son.
Whether you believe it or not, the Bible shows God as offering us eternal life and what is bad with that? When God has the power to raise to life those who are acceptable and will restore all things and reverse the process of man destroying the earth, then that is good news to promote instead of claiming God is unjust and wicked, when you cannot or do not want to understanding that God is just and is true to His word. God tells us that man will be judged by his works and it is about time that just as you ask me to recognize rape as the brutal act it is, I ask you to start recognizing reprobates as the evil people they were and blame them first before blaming God for their destruction.
Again, whether you believe it or not, God will set up a kingdom and grant the faithful eternal life on earth in which there will be no evil or injustice no death and no pain and so who else can make you that offer? Reject the offer, if you want to, but do not prevent the young innocent children from coming to God by spreading the message to them that God is evil and He does not exist or that there is nothing to look forward to. You blame God for killing innocent children and yet your rejection of the God of the Bible is effectively killing children by leading children away from God and not teaching them of God's goodness and why it is necessary that we obey God's instruction and love one another and love God as expressed in the two great commandments.
You will not see it this way, but this is what I fear you are doing, because I do not see anything from you written in a positive way about God, but only negative things. We might think the Bible is speaking to someone else like Jesus did when he spoke against the Pharisees, but in reality the Bible is speaking to us today. The same message that was given to God's chosen people millennia ago is the same message we can learn from today.
All the best,
David
Of course there are many "reasons" that men rape women, but all of them are barbaric and unjustified! Instead of trying to come up with reasons why men rape women, you should be raising your voice to condemn rape in any way, shape or form. Rape is NEVER, Never, never justified and the men of the world should rise up with one voice and condemn the barbaric practice of rape. Rape is an affront to the human race that is perpetrated against your mothers, wives, sisters, daughters and your fellow female humans, it does nothing but degrade societies in which men allow these practices to continue without condemnation. Rape could practically be wiped out in a heartbeat if the male leadership of the world (including religious leadership) spoke with one voice and condemned rape as a barbaric practice of uncivilized men.
Did you even read the articles you quoted? The only way a woman can rape a man is by seduction, and that is only considered rape if the male is underage. Penetration cannot occur unless a man has an erection which can only happen through arousal, so there is no way a woman can force a man to have intercourse with her unless he is willing. Of course males rape other males all the time, because the male doing the raping is aroused.
Rose
Of course, I don't support rape of all kinds. But is it possible to get rid of rape? As long as there is lust of the flesh, it is humanly impossible. Therefore, to get rid of rape is to get rid of lust....pornography, sex toys, nudity, homosexuality, prostituition, fornication, promiscuity, adultery, one-night stand etc. Possible?.....
I have also shows that not only men rape women, there are cases where women rape men and some can be equally brutal as in the case of Cambodian female Khmer Rouge soldiers pointing a gun at their male captives and forcing them to have sex with them. The male captives were likely killed after that. Women raping male is very humiliating from the male victim's perspective. If someone pointing a gun at you and forcing you to rape men and boys or be killed, would you do it? There are of course other types of rapes..... men to men, women to women. You must get rid of LUST first before you can get rid of rape.
May God help us get rid of lust and lead us not into temptations.:pray:
Good morning Rose
I condemn rape wherever it is done and I support any cause that will help eliminate it, but seeing what is taking place in the world, I do not think there is enough time and there is not enough will to eradicate the problem as with many other problems man has caused, time is running out.
In the context of marriage of the 32,000 virgins, it was not rape. If I make it appear honorable, it is to counteract your claim that the women did not accept their situation and that they were forced to have sex if they did not want to. You were not there so you cannot say for definite what took place. I concede that a small percentage might have been raped as in a large group of people there are always rebels, but that does not have to go for the majority. I think what I say has equal value to anything you say to the contrary.
Did Absalom rape David's wives or did David's wives go willingly with Absalom? I think the motives of David's wives was such that their loyalty went with whoever had the power and influence. The wives of King David probably felt safer and better off by going with Absalom.
These situations are never as clear cut as we might think they are. Of course there would be some of the 32, 000 virgins who would have objected and then they could be divorced. Maybe by your definition a few felt that they were raped after the ritual of marriage, but I suggest that the majority felt better off (eventually) than if they their families had been at war with any other nation than the Israelites.
Hi David,
In the case of the 32,000 virgins it was a clear command from Yahweh carried out by Moses. Those women were not given a choice, but were given to the Hebrew soldiers by orders from Moses. These women had no say in the matter and that is the definition of rape, so there is no way you can say it was not rape. It was men who used the women like war booty without ever even considering the feelings of the women, because women were considered property. Anyone knows that if those women were given a choice they would have chosen freedom.
I am astonished at the way you speak of women's feelings, there is not a woman on the planet who wants to be passed around from man to man to be screwed. Don't you have a wife or a daughter? Would your wife or daughter want to be given to another man to be raped, because you committed some offense in God's eyes. Women have feelings just like you, they are not alien beings that want to have sex with the men who just murdered their families.
It's time for believers like yourself to stand up and condemn the atrocities that are contained in the Bible. Whether one believes in God or not, does not change what is wrong, and rape is WRONG. Men are the ones who need to speak out and condemn rape wherever it is found, and that means even in the Bible.
Look at the nations who want to annihilate Israel today. Do you think those nations will show any remorse for killing all of Israel that are composed of men, women, children and babies? Mankind shows how brutal it can be in all generations. Had Israel not gone on the offensive with God fighting for them, they would have been killed by the inhabitants of the land they were entering. If you have to make a decision as to which people are best fitted to enjoy the land, why not consider Israel the better race. Would the Canaanites have shown more mercy to the Hebrews than the Hebrews showed to the Canaanites? I do not think so.
Until you admit the Canaanites were reprobates and you start to blame man for all of men's problems, instead of God, I will keep reminding readers of your posts that God is not the one to blame. Blaming the people who wrote of the biblegod is not enough. You are promoting the God of the Bible as evil. The Bible says of God; (Jer 9:24) I am the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the LORD. It is about time you tell of the positive aspects of God and talk about His love to those who also show lovingkindness, wisdom and righteousness to their fellow man and who believe in God and His Son.
The Canaanites could very well have been reprobates, but then so were the Hebrews. The Canaanites offered their children to Moloch and the Hebrews slaughtered the Canaanite children by Yahweh's command...what's the difference? It is accounts like this and all the others in the Bible that has led me to the conclusion that the biblegod does not exist. It is not me who is promoting the biblegod as evil, but rather it is the authors who portray Yahweh in a very evil light. I am only responding to what is written in the pages of Scripture.
Whether you believe it or not, the Bible shows God as offering us eternal life and what is bad with that? When God has the power to raise to life those who are acceptable and will restore all things and reverse the process of man destroying the earth, then that is good news to promote instead of claiming God is unjust and wicked, when you cannot or do not want to understanding that God is just and is true to His word. God tells us that man will be judged by his works and it is about time that just as you ask me to recognize rape as the brutal act it is, I ask you to start recognizing reprobates as the evil people they were and blame them first before blaming God for their destruction.
Again, whether you believe it or not, God will set up a kingdom and grant the faithful eternal life on earth in which there will be no evil or injustice no death and no pain and so who else can make you that offer? Reject the offer, if you want to, but do not prevent the young innocent children from coming to God by spreading the message to them that God is evil and He does not exist or that there is nothing to look forward to. You blame God for killing innocent children and yet your rejection of the God of the Bible is effectively killing children by leading children away from God and not teaching them of God's goodness and why it is necessary that we obey God's instruction and love one another and love God as expressed in the two great commandments.
You will not see it this way, but this is what I fear you are doing, because I do not see anything from you written in a positive way about God, but only negative things. We might think the Bible is speaking to someone else like Jesus did when he spoke against the Pharisees, but in reality the Bible is speaking to us today. The same message that was given to God's chosen people millennia ago is the same message we can learn from today.
All the best,
David
There are many positive things written in the Bible, and I have said so many times, but there are also just as many or more negatives. I am no longer willing to blind my eyes to the bad and that is why I can no longer believe that the biblegod is the creator of the universe. As I have said many times before, there is no way a male-biased tribal warrior god could be the intelligence behind the cosmos.
If the Bible is speaking to you today, then it is telling you it is okay to treat women as property, okay to kill a woman's family and give her to the soldiers, and okay to have slaves because that's what the Bible teaches and Jesus never went against any teaching contained in the Bible.
Take care,
Rose
Of course, I don't support rape of all kinds. But is it possible to get rid of rape? As long as there is lust of the flesh, it is humanly impossible. Therefore, to get rid of rape is to get rid of lust....pornography, sex toys, nudity, homosexuality, prostituition, fornication, promiscuity, adultery, one-night stand etc. Possible?.....
I have also shows that not only men rape women, there are cases where women rape men and some can be equally brutal as in the case of Cambodian female Khmer Rouge soldiers pointing a gun at their male captives and forcing them to have sex with them. The male captives were likely killed after that. Women raping male is very humiliating from the male victim's perspective. If someone pointing a gun at you and forcing you to rape men and boys or be killed, would you do it? There are of course other types of rapes..... men to men, women to women. You must get rid of LUST first before you can get rid of rape.
May God help us get rid of lust and lead us not into temptations.:pray:
The question remains unanswered. Why is it that rarely does on hear any Christian teacher stand up and condemn the horrendous accounts of rape recorded in the Bible? If rape is wrong when it occurs outside of the Bible then it is wrong when it occurs inside the Bible. Rape is a violation of a woman's human rights and should be condemned, yet I have never in all my reading and study ever found one Christian man stand up and say it was WRONG for Moses to command that all the Midianites be slaughtered EXCEPT for the virgin girls, and then distribute them among the male soldiers. The reason they can't say it is wrong is because Yahweh ordered Moses to do it!
If the Midianites were so wicked and perverse, why save the virgins and give them to the men for child bearing? It makes no sense! Rape is ALWAYS, Always, always wrong, even when God commands it in the Bible, and it's about time people start standing up a speaking TRUTH.
Rose
[QUOTE=Rose;48223]The question remains unanswered. Why is it that rarely does on hear any Christian teacher stand up and condemn the horrendous accounts of rape recorded in the Bible? If rape is wrong when it occurs outside of the Bible then it is wrong when it occurs inside the Bible. Rape is a violation of a woman's human rights and should be condemned, yet I have never in all my reading and study ever found one Christian man stand up and say it was WRONG for Moses to command that all the Midianites be slaughtered EXCEPT for the virgin girls, and then distribute them among the male soldiers. The reason they can't say it is wrong is because Yahweh ordered Moses to do it!
Because there is no rape. It doesn't follow the known behavior of a rapist; a rapist will just screw and go, screw and go. No rapist will wait one month for the grieving process to finish and follow customary marriage rites and declare the woman as his wife and him as his husband before screwing the woman. After that the Israelites will leave them as they were unlikely to survive through the wars so that could remarry again. The virgin girls were in fact willing partners as none bothered to resist the presumed "rape" or commit suicide or run away. I repeat NONE.
If the Midianites were so wicked and perverse, why save the virgins and give them to the men for child bearing? It makes no sense! Rape is ALWAYS, Always, always wrong, even when God commands it in the Bible, and it's about time people start standing up a speaking TRUTH.
Or do you want all the virgin girls to be killed? Those virgin girls have not committed any sexual sin unlike their parents or the Midianite men, women and even children. God wanted to preserve some of the seeds of the Midianites and merged them with the seeds of the Hebrews and the offsprings will become Israelites so that they will be considered as God's children. Such merger will result in a generation of less wicked people and following the better Hebrew customs instead of the Midianite's evil perverse customs.
God Bless His people.:pray:
Richard Amiel McGough
08-07-2012, 07:34 PM
!
Because there is no rape. It doesn't follow the known behavior of a rapist; a rapist will just screw and go, screw and go. No rapist will wait one month for the grieving process to finish and follow customary marriage rites and declare the woman as his wife and him as his husband before screwing the woman. After that the Israelites will leave them as they were unlikely to survive through the wars so that could remarry again. The virgin girls were in fact willing partners as none bothered to resist the presumed "rape" or commit suicide or run away. I repeat NONE.
Your assertion that there was no rape because the soldiers had to wait 30 days is absurd. Rape is defined as forced sex. There is absolutely no reason to assume that the 32,000 women who were captured as "war booty" (pun intended) would EVER willingly "marry" and have sex with the soldiers who murdered every person they ever loved. If you can't see this, then you know nothing of reality.
They would have had no problem "surviving" if the Israelites had not murdered every person they ever loved. Your justification of the atrocities in the Bible only proves yet again how your religion corrupts both the minds and the morals of those who adhere to it.
Or do you want all the virgin girls to be killed? Those virgin girls have not committed any sexual sin unlike their parents or the Midianite men, women and even children. God wanted to preserve some of the seeds of the Midianites and merged them with the seeds of the Hebrews and the offsprings will become Israelites so that they will be considered as God's children. Such merger will result in a generation of less wicked people and following the better Hebrew customs instead of the Midianite's evil perverse customs.
There you go again! Sex = Sin = Sex! Look what your religion has done to you.
The baby boys hadn't committed any "sex sins" either, but they were slaughtered without mercy. Your logic is pathetic. You make God look like an idiot.
!
Because there is no rape. It doesn't follow the known behavior of a rapist; a rapist will just screw and go, screw and go. No rapist will wait one month for the grieving process to finish and follow customary marriage rites and declare the woman as his wife and him as his husband before screwing the woman. After that the Israelites will leave them as they were unlikely to survive through the wars so that could remarry again. The virgin girls were in fact willing partners as none bothered to resist the presumed "rape" or commit suicide or run away. I repeat NONE.
Or do you want all the virgin girls to be killed? Those virgin girls have not committed any sexual sin unlike their parents or the Midianite men, women and even children. God wanted to preserve some of the seeds of the Midianites and merged them with the seeds of the Hebrews and the offsprings will become Israelites so that they will be considered as God's children. Such merger will result in a generation of less wicked people and following the better Hebrew customs instead of the Midianite's evil perverse customs.
God Bless His people.:pray:
None of what you say changes the fact that anytime a woman is forced to partake in a sexual relationship against her will it is considered rape (even in marriage). It doesn't matter that men make up rules whereby they claim women as their property and do with them as they wish, women are still equal human beings with rights, and if they are taken for wives without their approval then it is rape. Just because a man (like you) says it's not rape matters not, you can give all the reasons in the world to try and justify rape, but in the end all that really matters is whether or not the women had a choice in the matter.
Rose
[QUOTE=Rose;48230]None of what you say changes the fact that anytime a woman is forced to partake in a sexual relationship against her will it is considered rape (even in marriage). It doesn't matter that men make up rules whereby they claim women as their property and do with them as they wish, women are still equal human beings with rights, and if they are taken for wives without their approval then it is rape. Just because a man (like you) says it's not rape matters not, you can give all the reasons in the world to try and justify rape, but in the end all that really matters is whether or not the women had a choice in the matter.
The virgin girls were willing partners as none, I repeat NONE resisted the presumed rape as there were no mention of resistance, suicide and running away. They seemed so compliant. Will a judge declare rape when the sexual partners are conscious and willing and there are no signs of resistance or violence against sex?
God Bless.:pray:
The virgin girls were willing partners as none, I repeat NONE resisted the presumed rape as there were no mention of resistance, suicide and running away. They seemed so compliant. Will a judge declare rape when the sexual partners are conscious and willing and there are no signs of resistance or violence against sex?
God Bless.:pray:
What in the world are you talking about? There is not one word mentioned about the 32,000 virgin girls being willing, or not...absolutely nothing is said in the text except that Moses orders by God's command the killing of every man, woman and child except the virgin girls which are to be kept alive for the soldiers.
Num.31:17-18 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
How can you say they seem so compliant when there is not one word said about them? I hate to say this Cheow, but you sound like a "woman hater" who seems to think it's okay to rape women. What is wrong with you? Anytime a sexual relationship is forced on a woman whether it be in a marriage or not it is rape. Women have rights over their own bodies, men don't own women's bodies and have no automatic right to have sex without the consent of the woman.
Rose
What in the world are you talking about? There is not one word mentioned about the 32,000 virgin girls being willing, or not...absolutely nothing is said in the text except that Moses orders by God's command the killing of every man, woman and child except the virgin girls which are to be kept alive for the soldiers.
Num.31:17-18 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
Neither is there a word mentioned about forcing and raping in the passage. "Keep alive for yourself" does not mean rape. The main reason to me why every men and women and children were killed except for the virgin women were because they were defiled by sexual means. Moab is in the region of Sodom and Gommorah and I think the Moabites were influenced or were the descendants of the evil and perverse people of Sodom and Gommorah with their perverse and sexual sins and culture. The children born were likely from perverse sexual intercourse such as through temple prostitutes, adulteries, fornications, incests etc. There were of course other sin such as praying to idols and child sacrifices which I believe the mature women and children also participated.
How can you say they seem so compliant when there is not one word said about them? I hate to say this Cheow, but you sound like a "woman hater" who seems to think it's okay to rape women. What is wrong with you? Anytime a sexual relationship is forced on a woman whether it be in a marriage or not it is rape. Women have rights over their own bodies, men don't own women's bodies and have no automatic right to have sex without the consent of the woman.
I hate to say this Rose, you seem to us (not only me) in this forum to be a bitter woman who hated men. I do understand that you claimed to be ill-treated by your first husband and please forgive me if I am wrong a rape victim. I have asked that sensitive question that remains unanswered and I will apologized if I am wrong. That is probably why you are strongly against and jumpy over male superiority over women and rape. I have said before and you are not accepting it that to get rid of rape is to get rid of lust first. Temptations to lust is everywhere....pornography, nudity, prostituition, adulteries, promiscuities, homosexualities, molests and even looking at pretty scantily clad women and men etc. which is why it is impossible to get rid of lust humanly. Lust after the flesh(male and female as well) and lust for power are the main reasons why people rape. Instead of fighting for women's right (which I do support) and against rape it is far better to fight against LUST which is the cause of the rapes and the perceived male "superiority" over women.
May God Bless Us.:pray:
sylvius
08-08-2012, 02:23 AM
What in the world are you talking about? There is not one word mentioned about the 32,000 virgin girls being willing, or not...absolutely nothing is said in the text except that Moses orders by God's command the killing of every man, woman and child except the virgin girls which are to be kept alive for the soldiers.
Num.31:17-18 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
One fine explanation by Rabbi Ginsburgh:
http://www.rabbiginsburgh.com/
Constructing kingdom from nothing
Jul 19th, 2012 by admin
Constructing the kingdom of Israel
Following the incident in which Pinchas avenged God’s Name by swiftly killing Zimri and the Midianite princess who seduced him, God told Moses to take revenge on the Midianite nation for sending their daughters to seduce the Jewish men. Pinchas was chosen to lead the Jewish army to war and he returned victorious after killing all the adult males. The Jewish army returned with the war booty, including all the women and children and they brought them before Moses. But when Moses saw that they had taken the adult women into captivity, he rebuked the soldiers, because these very women had been the instruments of seduction that caused the plague in which so many Jews had died. The only captives to be kept alive were the “the baby women,” i.e. females under three years old, who were not yet capable of having marital relations.
The numerical value of the phrase “the baby women” (הַטַּף בַּנָּשִׁים) is 496, which is also the gematria of the word “kingdom” (מַלְכוּת), referring to the feminine sefirah of kingdom. The Arizal[1] explains that the sefirah of kingdom is constructed out of judgments (gevurot), the same judgments whose pristine state is symbolized by the baby women of Midian
The Zohar[2] describes how in order to be rectified and compassionate, female judgments need to be sweetened by reconstructing them with male loving-kindness. A woman who marries a Jew connects to his innate attribute of compassion and loving-kindness and her judgment is thus sweetened. This was the reason why only the baby girls who could not have had any interaction with non-Jewish males were spared.
The Zohar teaches us that kingdom can either be constructed from judgment and might, or from loving-kindness. Although we could understand this to mean that a government can either rule by force or with compassion, this case of the Midianite girls teaches us that kingdom being constructed from might actually means that the feminine judgments must be taken captive while still in their pure state of being, before they are even capable of marital relations. A woman who marries a Jewish male (whether she is a Jew from birth or a convert) is affected by his innate attribute of loving-kindness and her judgments are sweetened; likewise for these young Midianite girls. Once they had converted they could marry a Jewish man, as the Or Hachayim explains.[3] In this way, all their harsh judgments are sweetened at their source. It is specifically the sweetened state of the Midianite chaotic and unruly judgments that is needed to construct the redemptive and rectified society we yearn for in thekingdom of Mashiach.
Constructing the kingdom of my soul
Translating this idea into the psychological realm, we can understand that once we are victorious in our battle against the evil powers of the soul that wish to seduce us away from serving the Almighty, we must take captive the “baby girl” inside us (this is true for men and women alike). The “baby girl” represents the primal and pristine state of nothingness that is the raw material of pure judgment. Once we have returned to this formless state of judgment, our innate Jewish quality of kindness comes to the fore and forms the raw material into an ability to contribute with loving-kindness to our community.
.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ................................................
[1] Eitz Chaim sha’ar 34. Ta’amei hamitzvot, Beha’alotcha.
[2] Zohar Chadash, Matot.
[3] Or Hachayim, Matot, on the phrase “Let them live for you.”
Neither is there a word mentioned about forcing and raping in the passage. "Keep alive for yourself" does not mean rape. The main reason to me why every men and women and children were killed except for the virgin women were because they were defiled by sexual means. Moab is in the region of Sodom and Gommorah and I think the Moabites were influenced or were the descendants of the evil and perverse people of Sodom and Gommorah with their perverse and sexual sins and culture. The children born were likely from perverse sexual intercourse such as through temple prostitutes, adulteries, fornications, incests etc. There were of course other sin such as praying to idols and child sacrifices which I believe the mature women and children also participated.
Your logic is very flawed. The passage says: " that have not known a man by lying with him,keep alive for yourselves.", these girls are being defined by the fact that they have not slept with a man which is the only kind of female a man could keep for himself. Your logic also does not explain why the baby boys were killed, they were not sexually defiled and could have been kept as male slaves just like you say the girls were.
The one glaring fact remains that no one can explain away, is that ONLY the girls who had not slept with a man were kept alive, and given specifically to the male soldiers, not to the Hebrew families as slaves...only willful blindness keeps you from acknowledging that. Also, there is the account in Judges 21, where the male soldiers were specifically sent to Jabesh-Gilead to get wives by killing all the inhabitants except the virgin girls...then when there wasn't enough virgin girls to meet their needs they when to Shiloh and kidnapped more virgin girls. Usually when someone is kidnapped it's AGAINST their will! It's time to take the blinders off Cheow!
I hate to say this Rose, you seem to us (not only me) in this forum to be a bitter woman who hated men. I do understand that you claimed to be ill-treated by your first husband and please forgive me if I am wrong a rape victim. I have asked that sensitive question that remains unanswered and I will apologized if I am wrong. That is probably why you are strongly against and jumpy over male superiority over women and rape. I have said before and you are not accepting it that to get rid of rape is to get rid of lust first. Temptations to lust is everywhere....pornography, nudity, prostituition, adulteries, promiscuities, homosexualities, molests and even looking at pretty scantily clad women and men etc. which is why it is impossible to get rid of lust humanly. Lust after the flesh(male and female as well) and lust for power are the main reasons why people rape. Instead of fighting for women's right (which I do support) and against rape it is far better to fight against LUST which is the cause of the rapes and the perceived male "superiority" over women.
May God Bless Us.:pray:
Yes, I do hate men who rape women, and I'm willing to stand up and speak out against it wherever it is found...even in the Bible. What you call bitter is nothing more than me standing up for equal human rights and speaking the truth. No, I am not a rape victim, but I am human and know that anytime sexual relations are forced upon a woman against her will it is considered rape. Even in a marriage, every human being has the right to say what is done to their own bodies and whether or not they want to have sexual relations with another person. Unlike what the Bible teaches, when a woman gets married she is not owned by the man. Women's rights (including sexual rights) are human rights, and it's about time men like you realize that.
The only way human rights violations will stop is when men of all political and religious persuasions start speaking out against rape, war, and violence of all kinds; even when it's found in the pages of their "holy books"!
Take care,
Rose
Rose
sylvius
08-08-2012, 10:37 AM
The passage says: " that have not known a man by lying with him,[COLOR=#000000]keep alive for yourselves.",
It says:
"and all the baby women that have not known a man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves.",
All the lame reasons that have been introduced in this thread to try and justify the taking of the 32,000 virgins for purposes other than "sex" can be shown invalid by connecting a linguistically parallel passage in Judges 21. The term "that hath known man by lying with him" is unique to Num.31:17 and Judges 21:12, giving great insight into the motives behind taking and keeping only the virgins and slaughtering everyone else.
Yahweh commanded the Hebrew’s to slaughter all the men, women and children in a city called Jabesh-Gilead, EXCEPT the virgins for the sole purpose of giving them to the men as wives. In this case the ONLY reason for utterly destroying the inhabitants of Jabesh-Gilead was because the Benjamites needed wives. The reason the Benjamites needed wives is because all of their tribe had been killed by the other Hebrew tribes in a previous conflict, except for 600 men who hid in the mountains, thus escaping death. Also earlier in the story the Bible tells us that all the tribes of Israel had sworn to not give of their daughters to the tribe of Benjamin for wives, because they had cut off the tribe of Benjamin, so the only tribal members who had not sworn the oath were the inhabitants of Jabesh-Gilead…and guess what? They got chosen to be the ones to furnish the Benjamites with wives at the expense of their own lives.
But, a problem arises when only 400 virgins are captured at the slaughter of Jabesh-Gilead, and the Benjamites needed 600 women for wives, so then they were commanded to go kidnap 200 more virgins from Shiloh; all of this of course was under the direct command from Yahweh. I’m not sure why at first it’s said that they can only take wives from Jabesh-Gilead, because they had not sworn an oath, but then when they didn’t have enough there it was okay to take virgins from another place called Shiloh?
Judge 21:10-12 And the congregation sent thither twelve thousand men of the valiantest, and commanded them, saying, Go and smite the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead with the edge of the sword, with the women and the children. And this is the thing that ye shall do, Ye shall utterly destroy every male, and every woman that hath lain by man. And they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh-Gilead four hundred young virgins, that had known no man by lying with any male: and they brought them unto the camp to Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan…..14) And Benjamin came again at that time; and they gave them wives which they had saved alive of the women of Jabesh-Gilead: and yet so they sufficed them not….20) Therefore they commanded the children of Benjamin, saying, Go and lie in wait in the vineyards; And see, and, behold, if the daughters of Shiloh come out to dance in dances, then come ye out of the vineyards, and catch (chataph) you every man his wife of the daughters of Shiloh, and go to the land of Benjamin.
Num.31:17-18 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
This story is a perfect example of how men in biblical times saw nothing wrong with taking the women they wanted, because women were considered property! No mention is ever made of women’s rights, only the fact that if men wanted women they were free to take them by any means necessary (with Yahweh's approval) which included killing off whole cities to take their women. If nothing else, these stories show the Bible to be a perfect reflection of how men viewed women in ancient cultures, including of course the teachings of Paul in the New Testament, which sadly continues into modern times.
Rose
sylvius
08-08-2012, 12:29 PM
This story is a perfect example of how men in biblical times saw nothing wrong with taking the women they wanted, because women were considered property! No mention is ever made of women’s rights, only the fact that if men wanted women they were free to take them by any means necessary (with Yahweh's approval) which included killing off whole cities to take their women. If nothing else, these stories show the Bible to be a perfect reflection of how men viewed women in ancient cultures, including of course the teachings of Paul in the New Testament, which sadly continues into modern times.
Rose
How then could Pinchas (Phinehas) be rght in killing both the Israelite man and Midianite princess?
Numbers 25:8,
He went after the Israelite man into the chamber and drove [it through] both of them; the Israelite man, and the woman through her stomach, and the plague ceased from the children of Israel.
http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Rose http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=48248#post48248)
The passage says: " that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.",
It says:
"and all the baby women that have not known a man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves.",
I'm not sure what your point is, but the Hebrew word in Numbers 31 is taph which means child, the word for baby or infant would be `owlel or yanaq.
How then could Pinchas (Phinehas) be rght in killing both the Israelite man and Midianite princess?
Numbers 25:8,
He went after the Israelite man into the chamber and drove [it through] both of them; the Israelite man, and the woman through her stomach, and the plague ceased from the children of Israel.
Again, I'm not sure what your point is, please elaborate.
Rose
sylvius
08-08-2012, 09:54 PM
I'm not sure what your point is, but the Hebrew word in Numbers 31 is taph which means child, the word for baby or infant would be `owlel or yanaq.
with that I did refer to what Rabbi Ginsburgh did write:
http://www.rabbiginsburgh.com/
Constructing kingdom from nothing
Jul 19th, 2012 by admin
(...)
The numerical value of the phrase “the baby women” (הַטַּף בַּנָּשִׁים) is 496, which is also the gematria of the word “kingdom” (מַלְכוּת), referring to the feminine sefirah of kingdom. The Arizal[1] explains that the sefirah of kingdom is constructed out of judgments (gevurot), the same judgments whose pristine state is symbolized by the baby women of Midian
(...)
Constructing the kingdom of my soul
Translating this idea into the psychological realm, we can understand that once we are victorious in our battle against the evil powers of the soul that wish to seduce us away from serving the Almighty, we must take captive the “baby girl” inside us (this is true for men and women alike).
Again, I'm not sure what your point is, please elaborate.
Rose
If it were true that the biblical message is that men may rape to their heart's content
any women thy like, even baby-women, why then Pinchas was praised abundantly for his deed of killing both Zimri and Kozbi, even granted an eternal priesthood? and a covenant of peace?
Your logic is very flawed. The passage says: " that have not known a man by lying with him,keep alive for yourselves.", these girls are being defined by the fact that they have not slept with a man which is the only kind of female a man could keep for himself. Your logic also does not explain why the baby boys were killed, they were not sexually defiled and could have been kept as male slaves just like you say the girls were.
How do you know the boys were not sexually defiled?..... Pedophilia? How do you know if they were born from incest, extra-marital affairs, temple protitutes etc.? The boys probably participated in pagan rituals as well even when they were infants as prayer offerings to their pagan gods. We do not really know what were the customs that were practised in those times. The girls were more "pure" in the sense that they have not known a man by lying with them". Perhaps, I say perhaps, the boys "have known a man by sleeping with them" as Sodom and Gommorah which is in the region of Moab were well known for sodomy.
The one glaring fact remains that no one can explain away, is that ONLY the girls who had not slept with a man were kept alive, and given specifically to the male soldiers, not to the Hebrew families as slaves...only willful blindness keeps you from acknowledging that. Also, there is the account in Judges 21, where the male soldiers were specifically sent to Jabesh-Gilead to get wives by killing all the inhabitants except the virgin girls...then when there wasn't enough virgin girls to meet their needs they when to Shiloh and kidnapped more virgin girls. Usually when someone is kidnapped it's AGAINST their will! It's time to take the blinders off Cheow!
I can understand why they want to keep virgin girls... so that they can marry them. But why would they want to keep "baby" girls around 3 years old?.....child sex? Must be out of their minds! Most likely for their sons born from the merger of Midianites virgin women and Israelite men and for those Israelite men who managed to survive through the decades of wars.
Yes, I do hate men who rape women, and I'm willing to stand up and speak out against it wherever it is found...even in the Bible. What you call bitter is nothing more than me standing up for equal human rights and speaking the truth. No, I am not a rape victim, but I am human and know that anytime sexual relations are forced upon a woman against her will it is considered rape. Even in a marriage, every human being has the right to say what is done to their own bodies and whether or not they want to have sexual relations with another person. Unlike what the Bible teaches, when a woman gets married she is not owned by the man. Women's rights (including sexual rights) are human rights, and it's about time men like you realize that.
Thanks for the confirmation that you are not a rape victim, sorry for my wrong suspicion. I don't believe in equal male and female human rights but equal human rights in the sense that both male and female works together in their own natural ways and ability that they are endorsed for the common goal for the good of mankind and society. To me, equal human rights means that it doesn't matter if male or female is the "boss" but as long as they work to ensure for the betterment of mankind and society.
The only way human rights violations will stop is when men of all political and religious persuasions start speaking out against rape, war, and violence of all kinds; even when it's found in the pages of their "holy books"!
This is a very flawed concept for we all know that even if politician, religious leaders speak out against rape and violence of all kinds, it will not stop rape and violence which people have been going on for thousand and thousand of years. But we all know that the cause of violence and rape is Money and Lust and to solve these problems is to get rid of the love of Money and Lust. Everybody knows that Money is the cause of most evils such as robberies, murders, greed, gamblings, wars, poverty etc. and Lust is the cause of rape, adulteries, fornications, prostituition, incest, pornography, pedophilia, homosexuality, molestations, nudity etc. To get rid of violence and rape is to get of the love of Money and Lust. Humanly possible?...... It is thus better to fight against love of Money and Lust than to to fight for equal human rights.
God Bless. :pray:
How do you know the boys were not sexually defiled?..... Pedophilia? How do you know if they were born from incest, extra-marital affairs, temple protitutes etc.? The boys probably participated in pagan rituals as well even when they were infants as prayer offerings to their pagan gods. We do not really know what were the customs that were practised in those times. The girls were more "pure" in the sense that they have not known a man by lying with them". Perhaps, I say perhaps, the boys "have known a man by sleeping with them" as Sodom and Gommorah which is in the region of Moab were well known for sodomy.
I don't have to make up "what if's" because the text in Judges 21 clearly says that the reason the Hebrew soldiers slaughtered the entire city of Jabesh-gilead, except for the virgins was for the sole purpose of taking wives. Then when they still didn't have enough women they went and kidnapped 200 more virgins from Shiloh. It doesn't get anymore explicit than that. When a woman is kidnapped for sex that is called RAPE!
I can understand why they want to keep virgin girls... so that they can marry them. But why would they want to keep "baby" girls around 3 years old?.....child sex? Must be out of their minds! Most likely for their sons born from the merger of Midianites virgin women and Israelite men and for those Israelite men who managed to survive through the decades of wars.
Where do you get the idea that all the virgins that were captured were around 3 years old? The text of Numbers 31 uses the word taph which means children not babies. The ages of children can range up to around 13. No matter how much you try to justify the kidnapping of virgin girls for wives it is still IMMORAL and WRONG! It is and will always be a violation of a woman's human rights.
This is a very flawed concept for we all know that even if politician, religious leaders speak out against rape and violence of all kinds, it will not stop rape and violence which people have been going on for thousand and thousand of years. But we all know that the cause of violence and rape is Money and Lust and to solve these problems is to get rid of the love of Money and Lust. Everybody knows that Money is the cause of most evils such as robberies, murders, greed, gamblings, wars, poverty etc. and Lust is the cause of rape, adulteries, fornications, prostituition, incest, pornography, pedophilia, homosexuality, molestations, nudity etc. To get rid of violence and rape is to get of the love of Money and Lust. Humanly possible?...... It is thus better to fight against love of Money and Lust than to to fight for equal human rights.
God Bless. :pray:
Don't you think that if everyone respected and fought for the human rights of others, there would be no need to fight against the love of money and lust?
Take care,
Rose
David M
08-11-2012, 01:47 AM
Good morning Rose
Hi David,
In the case of the 32,000 virgins it was a clear command from Yahweh carried out by Moses.
You are forgetting that the instruction was to given to kill everyone and spare none. Harsh as that was, it was a prescriptive measure to eradicate those reprobates from the land so that the Israelites would not be snared. The fact is; the Israelites did not follow instruction and spared the women and children; I thought you might applaud their act of disobedience in sparing these people. Faced with the fact that these people had not been killed, then God permitted those not tainted (the virgins) to be spared, and so the remainder of the women and children were put to death. Neither of us were there to say exactly what was said and explained to the virgins that were saved, but it is not without reasonable speculation that the virgins would have come to know the reason why they had not been killed. They were harsh times, but the virgins had been spared and whilst they suffered the loss of their families, how do we not know,they were not grateful for their lives being spared?
Those women were not given a choice, but were given to the Hebrew soldiers by orders from Moses. These women had no say in the matter and that is the definition of rape, so there is no way you can say it was not rape. It was men who used the women like war booty without ever even considering the feelings of the women, because women were considered property. Anyone knows that if those women were given a choice they would have chosen freedom.
Not all the virgins were given to the soldiers to be married, so first of all, you must accurately portray what happened. Of those that were given to the soldiers, the women might not have been willing and if they had refused to have sex with their arranged husband, then that would have given the soldier no delight and so he would have divorced her. What you or I say is not going to be true in every case and there will always be the exception, so that in part, whatever we say is likely to have some truth in it. What you say regarding men's warfare, in general, I would agree with you, but you cannot apply this generality in every case and with the 32,000 virgins you make general statements that cannot be supported and the written evidence suggests you are not correct. These 32, 000 virgins were treated with respect, to say differently is to ignore what is written.
I am astonished at the way you speak of women's feelings, there is not a woman on the planet who wants to be passed around from man to man to be screwed. Don't you have a wife or a daughter? Would your wife or daughter want to be given to another man to be raped, because you committed some offense in God's eyes. Women have feelings just like you, they are not alien beings that want to have sex with the men who just murdered their families.
If you are astonished at the way I speak, it is because you are denying certain facts about women. The culture of that day might have been a lot different to as it is to day (in general), but even today, we can find examples to support what we say. In some cultures women are equally as promiscuous as men and this is a shame, because children born as a result are never certain who their true farther is.
Also, we can think that women who were taken as wives and concubines by the kings is deplorable, yet the women who became wives and concubines were treated well and most would have considered it an honor to be accepted by the king. We have to get this into perspective. Of course women, were not always treated with respect and this is a failing of man and has nothing to do with the way God treats women.
You are correct in part and I expect that many women at first would not have wanted to marry soldiers who had been responsible for killing their families, but as with examples that can be cited in the last two world wars, reconciliation does take place with some people. A soldier operating under instruction does not make them savages. Soldiers operating under instruction can make very good fathers and I expect those who are married and have children look after their wives and children. Why do you not concede that Israelite soldiers would have made good husbands and looked after their wives. Whilst some of those virgins who were given in marriage might have objected in the first instance when they knew what was going to happen, in time, they would come to see just how fortunate they were considering the alternatives that could have happened.
It's time for believers like yourself to stand up and condemn the atrocities that are contained in the Bible. Whether one believes in God or not, does not change what is wrong, and rape is WRONG. Men are the ones who need to speak out and condemn rape wherever it is found, and that means even in the Bible.
I will condemn the atrocities of men as recorded in the Bible which are attributable to men when not acting as God's instrument of punishment on a nation. Rape is wrong, we have nothing to disagree with, only the incidents you regard as rape and I do not.
The Canaanites could very well have been reprobates, but then so were the Hebrews.
There is no doubt about it, the Canaanites were reprobates and I see you are reluctant to concede the inevitable though I sense you concede a little. What you say about the Hebrews means; either your definition of the word "reprobate" is different to the definition I am using, or else, you have forgotten the Bible you once studied.
According to one definition found in the dictionary, reprobate means; cast off by God and not worth saving That was the case with the Canaanites, but as to the Hebrews, this was not the case. Yes, the Hebrews had their faults and they were not completely blameless and God did punish them, but God said he would never cast them off completely. (Jer 30:11) For I am with thee, saith the LORD, to save thee: though I make a full end of all nations whither I have scattered thee, yet will I not make a full end of thee: but I will correct thee in measure, and will not leave thee altogether unpunished.
The Canaanites offered their children to Moloch and the Hebrews slaughtered the Canaanite children by Yahweh's command...what's the difference?
I am not surprised you want to ask me the question and you do not try to attempt to understand this for yourself. The Canaanite's mindset was that they worshiped gods that did not exist (only they thought the gods existed). The true God does not ask us to sacrifice our children to Him. The Canaanite children were killed only because they would have grown up in the same environment as their parents to have been taught by their parents to do the same thing. It is the same as curing cancer (as has been said by others on many occasions), the whole of the cancer has to be removed or else it can come back. The severe punishment of God that came on the Canaanites and their children was the blame of the parents (not God). God has given instructions to man and has warned man of the consequences for disobedience. God knows what is acceptable behavior and just as you can say to me that offering children to gods is unacceptable behavior, so God was correct to punish that unacceptable behavior in the Canaanite nation. Provided God keeps His word, God cannot be blamed. Show me one case where God has not kept to His word other than where God has been merciful or has listened to the prayers made in intercession for the people, and whereby God has not executed the judgment that would otherwise be due.
It is accounts like this and all the others in the Bible that has led me to the conclusion that the biblegod does not exist. It is not me who is promoting the biblegod as evil, but rather it is the authors who portray Yahweh in a very evil light. I am only responding to what is written in the pages of Scripture.
It is your "biblegod" that does not exist. The God of the Bible has to be understood correctly and that is what many fail to recognize. God says;"I create evil" and that has to be understood in the correct context, otherwise God is a God who is just; the fact that you do not agree with God's justice does not make God unjust or evil. As I have already quoted and it is worth quoting again so we get the balance of God correct, God says; (Jer 9:24) But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the LORD. This is what we need to know and understand and whilst (Rose) you never talk about the lovingkindness of God, or the judgments that He rightly executes, your balance of God is totally one-sided. This is the way you present God, it is not a failing of the Bible which is the inspired word of God and not a man-made work of fiction, as you claim it to be. I would ask you to write something positive about God from what you know the Bible says about God or the biblegod that has been written about.
There are many positive things written in the Bible, and I have said so many times, but there are also just as many or more negatives. I am no longer willing to blind my eyes to the bad and that is why I can no longer believe that the biblegod is the creator of the universe. As I have said many times before, there is no way a male-biased tribal warrior god could be the intelligence behind the cosmos.
If you have said many positive things about God on this forum, then I have not read them, so please point me to some of your past posts. I do not blind my eyes to the terrible events in the Bible and I understand the justice and judgment of God which is the difference between us. All I can see is you applying the negative filters in your mind and unfortunately, unless you recognize that, nothing about the way you see these things will change. I see the positive as well as the negative in the Bible, and I do not block out parts of it. I balance the Bible to make sense of it, and because I can, I am accused of twisting words, when in fact it is my accusers who deliberately blind themselves to alternative explanations that are plausible and rational.
If the Bible is speaking to you today, then it is telling you it is okay to treat women as property, okay to kill a woman's family and give her to the soldiers, and okay to have slaves because that's what the Bible teaches and Jesus never went against any teaching contained in the Bible.
The Bible does not say that we are free to do any of these things. What is recorded in the Bible is God's execution of judgment on people who were reprobates and this only applies to God and it is not man's judgment to make. God made the judgment and that is why I can explain it in this way. When it comes to a life and death judgment on any individual, it is not mine to make. I have not set the rules, I have not set the instructions. I read the instructions God has given man, and I can see when and where man has not obeyed the instructions. It does not surprise me or shock me that God has judged people to be reprobates and not worth saving. I am thankful to God that I was not amongst those who got destroyed and I am doing my best not to be included amongst those who will be destroyed when God's judgment is poured out on the nations making up this evil world.
God is merciful and is extending the opportunity to those who will not be blind and deaf to His message. He has on the table the offer of eternal life and that is up to you and I to take up God's offer. I see nothing bad in God for making this offer and I see nothing bad in God destroying all those who do not believe in Him and who do not want to accept what God is offering. For the majority, God is fair and He allows everyone to live by time and chance and to live out their lifespan. You have the freedom to pick and choose what you want to keep and discard and so we should see nothing wrong in God exercising the same choice to pick and choose who He will save.
All the best,
David
Good morning Rose
You are forgetting that the instruction was to given to kill everyone and spare none. Harsh as that was, it was a prescriptive measure to eradicate those reprobates from the land so that the Israelites would not be snared. The fact is; the Israelites did not follow instruction and spared the women and children; I thought you might applaud their act of disobedience in sparing these people. Faced with the fact that these people had not been killed, then God permitted those not tainted (the virgins) to be spared, and so the remainder of the women and children were put to death. Neither of us were there to say exactly what was said and explained to the virgins that were saved, but it is not without reasonable speculation that the virgins would have come to know the reason why they had not been killed. They were harsh times, but the virgins had been spared and whilst they suffered the loss of their families, how do we not know,they were not grateful for their lives being spared?
Not all the virgins were given to the soldiers to be married, so first of all, you must accurately portray what happened. Of those that were given to the soldiers, the women might not have been willing and if they had refused to have sex with their arranged husband, then that would have given the soldier no delight and so he would have divorced her. What you or I say is not going to be true in every case and there will always be the exception, so that in part, whatever we say is likely to have some truth in it. What you say regarding men's warfare, in general, I would agree with you, but you cannot apply this generality in every case and with the 32,000 virgins you make general statements that cannot be supported and the written evidence suggests you are not correct. These 32, 000 virgins were treated with respect, to say differently is to ignore what is written.
Hello David, :yo:
First off, in the case of Number 31 there were no explicit instructions given for everyone to be killed, that is the reason the soldiers brought back all the women and children.
Num.31:7 And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males...And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods...And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle. And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?...But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
Ah yes, your benevolent biblegod spared the virgin women so they could be raped by the soldiers. I don't care how harsh the times were, because that has nothing to do with the way the biblegod consistently violated women's human rights.
If you are astonished at the way I speak, it is because you are denying certain facts about women. The culture of that day might have been a lot different to as it is to day (in general), but even today, we can find examples to support what we say. In some cultures women are equally as promiscuous as men and this is a shame, because children born as a result are never certain who their true farther is.
Also, we can think that women who were taken as wives and concubines by the kings is deplorable, yet the women who became wives and concubines were treated well and most would have considered it an honor to be accepted by the king. We have to get this into perspective. Of course women, were not always treated with respect and this is a failing of man and has nothing to do with the way God treats women.
There you go again, making excuses for the biblegod's bias and unequal treatment of women instead of condemning his actions. Women have always been equal to men even though men have seldom treated them that way, and it has always been WRONG to violate a woman's human rights no matter what time in history people lived!
How do you know the women were treated well? They most certainly would have been foreigners, and the men who married them were responsible for the deaths of their families...have you no understanding of peoples feelings in those areas?
You are correct in part and I expect that many women at first would not have wanted to marry soldiers who had been responsible for killing their families, but as with examples that can be cited in the last two world wars, reconciliation does take place with some people. A soldier operating under instruction does not make them savages. Soldiers operating under instruction can make very good fathers and I expect those who are married and have children look after their wives and children. Why do you not concede that Israelite soldiers would have made good husbands and looked after their wives. Whilst some of those virgins who were given in marriage might have objected in the first instance when they knew what was going to happen, in time, they would come to see just how fortunate they were considering the alternatives that could have happened.
I will condemn the atrocities of men as recorded in the Bible which are attributable to men when not acting as God's instrument of punishment on a nation. Rape is wrong, we have nothing to disagree with, only the incidents you regard as rape and I do not.
Statistics in modern times shows that there is a high number soldiers who come back from war that participate in acts of domestic violence, so war does turn many men into savages. How could it not? To be able to slaughter women and children who have done you no harm has to harden anyone's heart.
Anytime a woman human rights are violated and she is taken against her will to be the wife of her captor, that is RAPE! You seem to have a very low opinion of women's human rights, because you are always defending and never condemning the many accounts of women's human rights being abused in the Bible.
There is no doubt about it, the Canaanites were reprobates and I see you are reluctant to concede the inevitable though I sense you concede a little. What you say about the Hebrews means; either your definition of the word "reprobate" is different to the definition I am using, or else, you have forgotten the Bible you once studied.
According to one definition found in the dictionary, reprobate means; cast off by God and not worth saving That was the case with the Canaanites, but as to the Hebrews, this was not the case. Yes, the Hebrews had their faults and they were not completely blameless and God did punish them, but God said he would never cast them off completely. (Jer 30:11) For I am with thee, saith the LORD, to save thee: though I make a full end of all nations whither I have scattered thee, yet will I not make a full end of thee: but I will correct thee in measure, and will not leave thee altogether unpunished.
Whether or not someone is a reprobate does not justify the violation of their human rights by rape. On numerous occasions the biblegod explicitly orders and allows women to be specifically kidnapped for the purpose of sex, that is called RAPE.
I am not surprised you want to ask me the question and you do not try to attempt to understand this for yourself. The Canaanite's mindset was that they worshiped gods that did not exist (only they thought the gods existed). The true God does not ask us to sacrifice our children to Him. The Canaanite children were killed only because they would have grown up in the same environment as their parents to have been taught by their parents to do the same thing. It is the same as curing cancer (as has been said by others on many occasions), the whole of the cancer has to be removed or else it can come back. The severe punishment of God that came on the Canaanites and their children was the blame of the parents (not God). God has given instructions to man and has warned man of the consequences for disobedience. God knows what is acceptable behavior and just as you can say to me that offering children to gods is unacceptable behavior, so God was correct to punish that unacceptable behavior in the Canaanite nation. Provided God keeps His word, God cannot be blamed. Show me one case where God has not kept to His word other than where God has been merciful or has listened to the prayers made in intercession for the people, and whereby God has not executed the judgment that would otherwise be due.
Once again, you are justifying the killing of the Canaanite children by the Hebrews. Your God can do no wrong no matter what is recorded in the Bible, whether it be the slaughter of children or the rape of women!
It is your "biblegod" that does not exist. The God of the Bible has to be understood correctly and that is what many fail to recognize. God says;"I create evil" and that has to be understood in the correct context, otherwise God is a God who is just; the fact that you do not agree with God's justice does not make God unjust or evil. As I have already quoted and it is worth quoting again so we get the balance of God correct, God says; (Jer 9:24) But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the LORD. This is what we need to know and understand and whilst (Rose) you never talk about the lovingkindness of God, or the judgments that He rightly executes, your balance of God is totally one-sided. This is the way you present God, it is not a failing of the Bible which is the inspired word of God and not a man-made work of fiction, as you claim it to be. I would ask you to write something positive about God from what you know the Bible says about God or the biblegod that has been written about.
All the best,
David
Throughout the entire Bible women's human rights are violated over and over again by the explicit command of your God! The reason I am one-sided on women's human rights is because the Bible is one-sided when it come to male-bias and violating women's human rights. Not one time in the entire Bible does Jesus, Paul or anyone else condemn the practice of women being considered the property of the male.
Take care,
Rose
Richard Amiel McGough
08-11-2012, 10:01 AM
You are forgetting that the instruction was to given to kill everyone and spare none. Harsh as that was, it was a prescriptive measure to eradicate those reprobates from the land so that the Israelites would not be snared. The fact is; the Israelites did not follow instruction and spared the women and children; I thought you might applaud their act of disobedience in sparing these people. Faced with the fact that these people had not been killed, then God permitted those not tainted (the virgins) to be spared, and so the remainder of the women and children were put to death. Neither of us were there to say exactly what was said and explained to the virgins that were saved, but it is not without reasonable speculation that the virgins would have come to know the reason why they had not been killed. They were harsh times, but the virgins had been spared and whilst they suffered the loss of their families, how do we not know,they were not grateful for their lives being spared?
Good morning David,
There are many logical, factual, and moral problems with your justification of the moral abominations attributed to God in the Bible.
1) it was a prescriptive measure to eradicate those reprobates from the land so that the Israelites would not be snared.
That doesn't work because the incorporation of 32,000 Midianite women most certainly would have corrupted the Israelites with their pagan ways, just like Solomon's many wives. If you try to argue against this point, then you have no justification for the killing of the baby boys.
2) God permitted those not tainted (the virgins) to be spared
Your statement blows my mind. You speak of God as if he was just a bystander who "permitted" his personal spokesman to command something contrary to his will. Your argument fails because God gave his tacit approval of everything that Moses commanded, as is confirmed by the fact that he himself gave the command to distribute the virgins to the soldiers. If anything happened contrary to God's will, he could have corrected it then and there when he as talking to Moses. He said nothing against what Moses commanded so he was implicitly approving the command to kill everyone but the virgins.
And the idea that the female virgins were the only ones not "tainted" is obviously fallacious because the if they were not tainted then neither were the virgin boys.
3) it is not without reasonable speculation that the virgins would have come to know the reason why they had not been killed
Yes, the virgins knew perfectly why they were not killed and it certainly is "not without reasonable speculation" that they were utterly horrified by the knowledge that they were spared so that they could be sex-slaves to the very soldiers that had just slaughtered every person they ever loved.
David, please consider what you are actually doing when you attempt to justify the moral abominations of the Bible. You will never convince any moral person of anything other than the fact that the Bible tends to corrupt both the mind and the morals of those who believe it. Can you not see the great irony here? By justifying the Bible, you only prove that it destroys good morals and rationality.
4) how do we not know,they were not grateful for their lives being spared?
It's easy to know how they would have felt. Just ask any woman in a war zone who was captured and raped by the soldiers who killed every person she ever loved. The fact that you can't see this stuns me. What has your religion done to your humanity? From my perspective, these conversations confirm absolutely that I was correct in my rejection of Biblical Christianity.
Not all the virgins were given to the soldiers to be married, so first of all, you must accurately portray what happened. Of those that were given to the soldiers, the women might not have been willing and if they had refused to have sex with their arranged husband, then that would have given the soldier no delight and so he would have divorced her. What you or I say is not going to be true in every case and there will always be the exception, so that in part, whatever we say is likely to have some truth in it. What you say regarding men's warfare, in general, I would agree with you, but you cannot apply this generality in every case and with the 32,000 virgins you make general statements that cannot be supported and the written evidence suggests you are not correct. These 32, 000 virgins were treated with respect, to say differently is to ignore what is written.
1) Not all the virgins were given to the soldiers to be married, so first of all, you must accurately portray what happened.
Half of the women were given to the soldiers. That is sufficient to establish all the points Rose and I have been making. There was no need to specify this point. Adding unnecessary words makes for bloated posts.
2) if they had refused to have sex with their arranged husband, then that would have given the soldier no delight and so he would have divorced her
Yes, that's what the "Holy Law" commands. After a man has used and abused a woman and stolen her virginity he was free to cast her out like a soiled rag if she didn't "please" him. And you are good with that? Again, I am continually stunned by how the Bible corrupts good morals.
3) These 32, 000 virgins were treated with respect, to say differently is to ignore what is written.
There is not one word that indicates the captives were "treated with respect." You are making things up. If they were "treated with respect" they would have been freed. If they were treated with respect they would not have been raped and then tossed out if they failed to "delight" the rapist who murdered everyone they ever loved. Your comments reveal a total lack of human compassion. But on the upside, at least you are obeying God's command to "show no mercy."
I will condemn the atrocities of men as recorded in the Bible which are attributable to men when not acting as God's instrument of punishment on a nation. Rape is wrong, we have nothing to disagree with, only the incidents you regard as rape and I do not.
Genocide is absolutely immoral. But Christians can't admit this simple fact because God commanded it in the Bible. This came up in the debate between Hektor Avalos and Keith Darrel called "Is the Bible a Moral Guide for Today." The Christian asserted that without God there could be no absolute morality. The great irony is that the ATHEIST was able to declare that genocide is absolutely immoral whereas the CHRISTIAN refused because God commanded it. This proves yet again the vanity and logical incoherence of the Christian beliefs. The Bible corrupts good morals. It does not establish them.
There is no doubt about it, the Canaanites were reprobates and I see you are reluctant to concede the inevitable though I sense you concede a little. What you say about the Hebrews means; either your definition of the word "reprobate" is different to the definition I am using, or else, you have forgotten the Bible you once studied.
According to one definition found in the dictionary, reprobate means; cast off by God and not worth saving That was the case with the Canaanites, but as to the Hebrews, this was not the case. Yes, the Hebrews had their faults and they were not completely blameless and God did punish them, but God said he would never cast them off completely. (Jer 30:11) For I am with thee, saith the LORD, to save thee: though I make a full end of all nations whither I have scattered thee, yet will I not make a full end of thee: but I will correct thee in measure, and will not leave thee altogether unpunished.
"Not worth saving." So that's how you see a whole nation of people, including innocent babies? Such a view is morally corrupt.
And from a Biblical perspective, the Canaanites were no different than the Israelites. Indeed, the Israelites were worse because they had the Law of God and yet behaved worse than the Canaanites.
I am not surprised you want to ask me the question and you do not try to attempt to understand this for yourself. The Canaanite's mindset was that they worshiped gods that did not exist (only they thought the gods existed). The true God does not ask us to sacrifice our children to Him. The Canaanite children were killed only because they would have grown up in the same environment as their parents to have been taught by their parents to do the same thing. It is the same as curing cancer (as has been said by others on many occasions), the whole of the cancer has to be removed or else it can come back. The severe punishment of God that came on the Canaanites and their children was the blame of the parents (not God). God has given instructions to man and has warned man of the consequences for disobedience. God knows what is acceptable behavior and just as you can say to me that offering children to gods is unacceptable behavior, so God was correct to punish that unacceptable behavior in the Canaanite nation. Provided God keeps His word, God cannot be blamed. Show me one case where God has not kept to His word other than where God has been merciful or has listened to the prayers made in intercession for the people, and whereby God has not executed the judgment that would otherwise be due.
Yes, the Canaanites were sooooooo verrrrry bad because they were killing some of their children, so God sent in the Israelites to do it for them! :doh:
Your attempt to demonize the Canaanites can never justify the genocide. Sorry.
It is your "biblegod" that does not exist. The God of the Bible has to be understood correctly and that is what many fail to recognize. God says;"I create evil" and that has to be understood in the correct context, otherwise God is a God who is just; the fact that you do not agree with God's justice does not make God unjust or evil. As I have already quoted and it is worth quoting again so we get the balance of God correct, God says; (Jer 9:24) But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the LORD. This is what we need to know and understand and whilst (Rose) you never talk about the lovingkindness of God, or the judgments that He rightly executes, your balance of God is totally one-sided. This is the way you present God, it is not a failing of the Bible which is the inspired word of God and not a man-made work of fiction, as you claim it to be. I would ask you to write something positive about God from what you know the Bible says about God or the biblegod that has been written about.
I think it would be great to have a balanced discussion of the biblegod, but that's impossible as long as you refuse to admit that the Bible says many things about him that are both irrational and immoral.
If you have said many positive things about God on this forum, then I have not read them, so please point me to some of your past posts. I do not blind my eyes to the terrible events in the Bible and I understand the justice and judgment of God which is the difference between us. All I can see is you applying the negative filters in your mind and unfortunately, unless you recognize that, nothing about the way you see these things will change. I see the positive as well as the negative in the Bible, and I do not block out parts of it. I balance the Bible to make sense of it, and because I can, I am accused of twisting words, when in fact it is my accusers who deliberately blind themselves to alternative explanations that are plausible and rational.
You can surf around the old versions of my website and you will see nothing but exuberant praise of God beyond all limits:
biblewheel.com 2.0 (2009 - 2011) (http://biblewheel.com/default.asp)
biblewheel.com 1.0 (2001 - 2009) (http://biblewheel.com/original.asp)
Well, we are off to the mountains for the day.
Talk more soon,
Richard
Richard Amiel McGough
08-11-2012, 10:10 AM
There is no doubt about it, the Canaanites were reprobates and I see you are reluctant to concede the inevitable though I sense you concede a little. What you say about the Hebrews means; either your definition of the word "reprobate" is different to the definition I am using, or else, you have forgotten the Bible you once studied.
According to one definition found in the dictionary, reprobate means; cast off by God and not worth saving That was the case with the Canaanites, but as to the Hebrews, this was not the case. Yes, the Hebrews had their faults and they were not completely blameless and God did punish them, but God said he would never cast them off completely. (Jer 30:11) For I am with thee, saith the LORD, to save thee: though I make a full end of all nations whither I have scattered thee, yet will I not make a full end of thee: but I will correct thee in measure, and will not leave thee altogether unpunished.
"Not worth saving"? That is perhaps the most "unchristian" comment I could imagine. And it directly contradicts the fact that the 32,000 virgins were "saved" for use by the Israelites.
If the Midianites were all "reprobates" then so were the 32,000 virgins, unless you want to argue that merely losing their virginity made them reprobate. But that would mean that the baby boys were not "reprobates." You argument fails.
David M
08-13-2012, 12:58 AM
"Not worth saving"? That is perhaps the most "unchristian" comment I could imagine. And it directly contradicts the fact that the 32,000 virgins were "saved" for use by the Israelites.
If the Midianites were all "reprobates" then so were the 32,000 virgins, unless you want to argue that merely losing their virginity made them reprobate. But that would mean that the baby boys were not "reprobates." You argument fails.
Good morning Richard
I am not going over your last post to my reply to Rose. Much of what you say is not backed up by scripture so I am not going to respond to your humanist thinking that you have now adopted.
Regarding reprobates, the word occurs several times in the New Testament. The most appropriate reference to consider is that of Paul which occurs between Romans 1:18 reading through to the end of chapter 2 and instead of posting the whole of this section, I will leave this for others to follow up.
Romans 1:
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Paul has summed up the situation very well and so I will leave it at that.
Have a good day in the mountains.
David
Richard Amiel McGough
08-13-2012, 10:29 AM
Good morning Richard
I am not going over your last post to my reply to Rose. Much of what you say is not backed up by scripture so I am not going to respond to your humanist thinking that you have now adopted.
Regarding reprobates, the word occurs several times in the New Testament. The most appropriate reference to consider is that of Paul which occurs between Romans 1:18 reading through to the end of chapter 2 and instead of posting the whole of this section, I will leave this for others to follow up.
Romans 1:
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Paul has summed up the situation very well and so I will leave it at that.
Have a good day in the mountains.
David
Hey there David,
First, I find it fascinating that you frequently refuse to answer my points and choose instead to simply reject them under the pretense that they are "not backed up by scripture" and based on "humanist thinking." Such empty assertions mean nothing and are nothing but an admission that you can't refute what I wrote.
Second, your point about "reprobates" doesn't work unless you are asserting that babies can be reprobate and that every man, woman, and child of the Midianites were reprobate except the 32,000 sexy virgins. That ain't gonna fly. I already explained why, but you ignored my answer.
Have a nice day! :yo:
Richard
David M
08-14-2012, 02:15 AM
Good morning David,
There are many logical, factual, and moral problems with your justification of the moral abominations attributed to God in the Bible.
1) it was a prescriptive measure to eradicate those reprobates from the land so that the Israelites would not be snared.
That doesn't work because the incorporation of 32,000 Midianite women most certainly would have corrupted the Israelites with their pagan ways, just like Solomon's many wives. If you try to argue against this point, then you have no justification for the killing of the baby boys.
2) God permitted those not tainted (the virgins) to be spared
Your statement blows my mind. You speak of God as if he was just a bystander who "permitted" his personal spokesman to command something contrary to his will. Your argument fails because God gave his tacit approval of everything that Moses commanded, as is confirmed by the fact that he himself gave the command to distribute the virgins to the soldiers. If anything happened contrary to God's will, he could have corrected it then and there when he as talking to Moses. He said nothing against what Moses commanded so he was implicitly approving the command to kill everyone but the virgins.
Moses did not make up his own commands. God gave the people commands through Moses. The command was that ALL the Midianites should be killed and none spared. Had that instruction be followed, we would not being having a discussion about what happened next. ALL the problems that followed are as a consequence of man's disobedience. God had to deal with consequence of man's disobedience just as man also had to live with the consequences of his disobedience. We can argue the rights and wrongs of dealing with the consequences, but it is man who is to blame first and foremost.
And the idea that the female virgins were the only ones not "tainted" is obviously fallacious because the if they were not tainted then neither were the virgin boys.
I was using the expression "tainted" as this was the expression used in another post on this subject. A female virgin has a physical condition to prove virginity whereas a male virgin does not.
3) it is not without reasonable speculation that the virgins would have come to know the reason why they had not been killed
Yes, the virgins knew perfectly why they were not killed and it certainly is "not without reasonable speculation" that they were utterly horrified by the knowledge that they were spared so that they could be sex-slaves to the very soldiers that had just slaughtered every person they ever loved.
You continue to you use the expression "sex slaves" which I disagree with and have already given you reasons why I disagree in posts dealing with this subject. I shall continue to make my statements in the same way as you make your statements; I am past arguing on the statements you make.
David, please consider what you are actually doing when you attempt to justify the moral abominations of the Bible. You will never convince any moral person of anything other than the fact that the Bible tends to corrupt both the mind and the morals of those who believe it. Can you not see the great irony here? By justifying the Bible, you only prove that it destroys good morals and rationality.
I am considering these things and I am doing so in a rational way and taking into account ALL that the Bible (God) has told us concerning Himself and what he requires of men and women. I see it is humans who are at fault in the first instance and God is dealing with the disobedience of men and women. Blame disobedient men and women before blaming God for dealing with the problems their disobedience brings.
4) how do we not know,they were not grateful for their lives being spared?
It's easy to know how they would have felt. Just ask any woman in a war zone who was captured and raped by the soldiers who killed every person she ever loved. The fact that you can't see this stuns me. What has your religion done to your humanity? From my perspective, these conversations confirm absolutely that I was correct in my rejection of Biblical Christianity.
I agree that the women would also have felt the way you say, but I was not answering or asking that question. You are changing the subject of the statement I made. Unless the remainder of their lives was lived in utter misery (and we have to speak generally as there is always the exception) then being alive is better than being dead. You are not able to go back and ask these women so as you would say; "the point in moot"
1) Not all the virgins were given to the soldiers to be married, so first of all, you must accurately portray what happened.
Half of the women were given to the soldiers. That is sufficient to establish all the points Rose and I have been making. There was no need to specify this point. Adding unnecessary words makes for bloated posts.
Then please use the word "some" instead of conveying the idea of "all" and you do not have to bloat the post.
2) if they had refused to have sex with their arranged husband, then that would have given the soldier no delight and so he would have divorced her
Yes, that's what the "Holy Law" commands. After a man has used and abused a woman and stolen her virginity he was free to cast her out like a soiled rag if she didn't "please" him. And you are good with that? Again, I am continually stunned by how the Bible corrupts good morals.
"Used and abused" and "cast off like a soiled rag" are your expressions which has no foundation in the Bible. I am not good with your expressions and I am good that virgins were given a period to morn and that they were treated as wives.
3) These 32, 000 virgins were treated with respect, to say differently is to ignore what is written.
There is not one word that indicates the captives were "treated with respect." You are making things up. If they were "treated with respect" they would have been freed. If they were treated with respect they would not have been raped and then tossed out if they failed to "delight" the rapist who murdered everyone they ever loved. Your comments reveal a total lack of human compassion. But on the upside, at least you are obeying God's command to "show no mercy."
Freeing 32,000 virgins would not have done them any favors. You have to ask what would happen to them to understand the absurdity of the suggestion. Once again you use expressions that are unfounded. Please quote scripture that supports your turn of phrase. It is God who showed mercy to the virgins, I am commenting on what I read and understand.
Genocide is absolutely immoral. But Christians can't admit this simple fact because God commanded it in the Bible. This came up in the debate between Hektor Avalos and Keith Darrel called "Is the Bible a Moral Guide for Today." The Christian asserted that without God there could be no absolute morality. The great irony is that the ATHEIST was able to declare that genocide is absolutely immoral whereas the CHRISTIAN refused because God commanded it. This proves yet again the vanity and logical incoherence of the Christian beliefs. The Bible corrupts good morals. It does not establish them.
Genocide carried out by man not under instruction be God is immoral. Many atrocities have been carried out by man in the name of religion supposedly carrying out God's will, and in these cases it is wrong. It is on the basis that God saves those who worth saving and therefore those who God does not save are not worth saving; hence the expression reprobates. We can learn from these records not to do the same as those who were not saved.
"Not worth saving." So that's how you see a whole nation of people, including innocent babies? Such a view is morally corrupt.
You accuse me of being morally corrupt for understanding the basis on which God called for genocide of a corrupt nation. Your failure to recognize a corrupt nation equally "astounds me".
And from a Biblical perspective, the Canaanites were no different than the Israelites. Indeed, the Israelites were worse because they had the Law of God and yet behaved worse than the Canaanites.
Individually, if an Israelite did as the Canaanite they were worse as they should have known better. God made this pronouncement on anyone in the land and it is evident from this example that turning a blind eye was equally bad;
(Leviticus 20:2)
2 Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones.
3 And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed unto Molech, to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name.
4 And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the man, when he giveth of his seed unto Molech, and kill him not:
5 Then I will set my face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him, to commit whoredom with Molech, from among their people.
Yes, the Canaanites were sooooooo verrrrry bad because they were killing some of their children, so God sent in the Israelites to do it for them! :doh:
God also sent his Angel before them, the Israelites did not have to do much other than to believe and have faith and they could not even do that. Yet God had given a law to the His people and that did make them better than the nations around them, but when they failed to observe the law individually or as a nation, they were punished by God. It is only because of the fulfillment of God's promises that the nation of Israel has survived or else from the times when they were corrupted, God could easily have wiped them out as He did with other nations.
Your attempt to demonize the Canaanites can never justify the genocide. Sorry.
I do not demonize the Canaanites, I am going on what the Bible says about them. I am thankful to God that He saves those who are pleasing to Him and that is the camp I prefer to be in. We are all under the sentence of death because we have all sinned and sooner or later we shall all die. I thank God that death does not have to be the end, and that God has given us a way out. I accept that God is wiser than man and is working out His purpose; it is a pity that so many refuse to accept God's terms, but then if that was the case, things would be very different to as things are the way God predicted which is another reason for believing God's word is true. You can turn a blind eye to the abominations of men and say that God is immoral for killing people who have rejected Him, but that is what you are doing when you do not concede that God is acting in accordance with the rules He has laid down for man, knowing it is in man's best interest that men follow God's rules.
I think it would be great to have a balanced discussion of the biblegod, but that's impossible as long as you refuse to admit that the Bible says many things about him that are both irrational and immoral.
It is impossible so long as you cannot rationalize the actions of God and continue to consider them immoral (by man's standard). You are avoiding a lot of scripture that shows God is just in what He does.
You can surf around the old versions of my website and you will see nothing but exuberant praise of God beyond all limits:
biblewheel.com 2.0 (2009 - 2011) (http://biblewheel.com/default.asp)
biblewheel.com 1.0 (2001 - 2009) (http://biblewheel.com/original.asp)
I was asking Rose for direction to some posts in which she has said good things about God. Since I have joined this forum from the beginning of this year, I have not read one positive comment from Rose (or from you now that I think about it). We all know that your understanding of God has changed over recent years and what you wrote years ago is not what you believe now. Maybe for the record, you should state now what you believe is "good" about the God of the Bible.
Well, we are off to the mountains for the day.
Let's hope you get closer to God the higher you climb; have a good trip.
David
David M
08-14-2012, 02:35 AM
Hey there David,
First, I find it fascinating that you frequently refuse to answer my points and choose instead to simply reject them under the pretense that they are "not backed up by scripture" and based on "humanist thinking." Such empty assertions mean nothing and are nothing but an admission that you can't refute what I wrote.
Second, your point about "reprobates" doesn't work unless you are asserting that babies can be reprobate and that every man, woman, and child of the Midianites were reprobate except the 32,000 sexy virgins. That ain't gonna fly. I already explained why, but you ignored my answer.
Have a nice day! :yo:
Richard
Good morning Richard
I am not refusing to answer your points. I have just before this reply responded to your earlier response to my post. I have given scriptures to back up what I say or from where I draw my conclusions such as that given by citing Romans chapters one and two. The lessons should be obvious to anyone reading those chapters.
I am not making any pretense. You are making assertions against God which are not backed up by what God has said about Himself. If you are speculating (as I sometimes speculate) then that is OK, just say you are speculating, otherwise, as I have said, I will reason with you based on what is written in the Bible. If you say that God is immoral, then show me in the Bible that God is immoral. I can show you many instances where God is acting according to as He has spoken and has warned people in advance of the consequence of their actions. To be punished by God for disobedience to Him is not immoral. Turning a blind eye to God is no excuse for not knowing. To preempt one response this will generate from you, I will add the following quotation;
(Deut 5)
9 Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me,
10 And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments.
All the best,
David
Moses did not make up his own commands. God gave the people commands through Moses. The command was that ALL the Midianites should be killed and none spared. Had that instruction be followed, we would not being having a discussion about what happened next. ALL the problems that followed are as a consequence of man's disobedience. God had to deal with consequence of man's disobedience just as man also had to live with the consequences of his disobedience. We can argue the rights and wrongs of dealing with the consequences, but it is man who is to blame first and foremost.
Hi David,
In Numbers 31 the Lord tells Moses to avenge the children of Israel by going to war with the Midianites which they did killing all the males. God never said in this particular incident to kill everyone, which was obvious since Moses allowed the soldiers to keep the virgins just like it says they can in Deuteronomy 21.
Deuteronomy 21:10-14 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.
If as you say all the problem arose from man's disobedience in not killing all the Midianites, then why was it when the biblegod flooded the world killing every living thing except what was on the ark along with righteous Noah and his family that wickedness continued through Noah? Killing is not the answer.
I was asking Rose for direction to some posts in which she has said good things about God. Since I have joined this forum from the beginning of this year, I have not read one positive comment from Rose (or from you now that I think about it). We all know that your understanding of God has changed over recent years and what you wrote years ago is not what you believe now. Maybe for the record, you should state now what you believe is "good" about the God of the Bible.
Let's hope you get closer to God the higher you climb; have a good trip.
David
Up until 2010 and somewhat beyond all my posts were of a positive nature, now it's time to start balancing things out and look at the dark side of the Bible. Once a person finds out the God they once believed in is a mass murderer and total misogynist it kinda changes their perspective on things, which is exactly what happened to me. All the good found in the Bible is for naught as far as I'm concerned, because you can't call a mass murderer good no matter how many good things they have done! The way I look at the Bible now is that it is a good historical record of the primitive male mindset.
Take care,
Rose
David M
08-14-2012, 03:57 PM
Hello Rose
Hi David,
In Numbers 31 the Lord tells Moses to avenge the children of Israel by going to war with the Midianites which they did killing all the males. God never said in this particular incident to kill everyone, which was obvious since Moses allowed the soldiers to keep the virgins just like it says they can in Deuteronomy 21.
Deuteronomy 21:10-14 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.
Thanks for pointing out the slight error, with discussing the Canaanites, I was forgetting we are still in the time of Moses before the people went into the land to occupy it. We are now dealing with the Midianites and whatever the initial instruction was, it was not obeyed. In this case Moses was wroth for what had been carried out; (Num 31:14 ) And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle. From the question asked by Moses, it appears that all the women and children whould have been killed. (Verse 15) And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? 16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
What resulted was a compromise and the virgins were saved and the virgins were kept. Compared to the idolatrous nations we should note the lengths the Israelites went to purify themselves after the battle. (verse 19) And do ye abide without the camp seven days: whosoever hath killed any person, and whosoever hath touched any slain, purify both yourselves and your captives on the third day, and on the seventh day.20 And purify all your raiment, and all that is made of skins, and all work of goats' hair, and all things made of wood. 21 And Eleazar the priest said unto the men of war which went to the battle, This is the ordinance of the law which the LORD commanded Moses; These laws were given to the people for a reason, and keeping pure and spotless is the lesson that applies to all God's people in every generation. Unfortunately, the Israelites did not do all according to God's law and they were not the good examples they should have been and God did not leave them unpunished for the disobedience.
If as you say all the problem arose from man's disobedience in not killing all the Midianites, then why was it when the biblegod flooded the world killing every living thing except what was on the ark along with righteous Noah and his family that wickedness continued through Noah? Killing is not the answer.
We have already gone over this point elsewhere. Killing is not the total answer and God was not eradicating man's potential to sin. God destroyed the people in the flood only when down to the last man worth saving. Noah was not perfect, but God saved him, because Noah was righteous in God's eyes and that is the lesson we have to learn. God saves the righteous, but those who are not righteous and who hate God, God gives up on them and they are reprobates in His sight and He does not save them. So whether they die sooner or later makes no difference, the fact that they died sooner in the flood and when God ordered the land to be cleared of the reprobate nations, was to reduce the problem. Israel were snared sooner because they did not clear the land of all the people;they could still have been influenced by those idolatrous nations that were outside the land and it would have taken longer. The Israelites were not good at keeping God's law and God punished them. It is good if everyone could keep God's laws, but since God's laws are rejected, it is not surprising we have all the problems we do and this is of man's making; not God's.
Up until 2010 and somewhat beyond all my posts were of a positive nature, now it's time to start balancing things out and look at the dark side of the Bible. Once a person finds out the God they once believed in is a mass murderer and total misogynist it kinda changes their perspective on things, which is exactly what happened to me. All the good found in the Bible is for naught as far as I'm concerned, because you can't call a mass murderer good no matter how many good things they have done! The way I look at the Bible now is that it is a good historical record of the primitive male mindset.
Take care,
Rose
The Bible is not by any means the reflection of a primitive mindset. To say this is to ignore a lot of the Bible. The hygiene laws given to Moses were way ahead of their time.
Your perspective has changed but has swung too far in the opposite direction. You came to realize there is more to know about God that is not told by the main Christian churches. That is why, the God of the Bible and the real Jesus is not known by the majority of Christendom. I do not ignore the fact that God killed people in mass and I have to understand why and learn from it. It was not for naught that it is written; (Heb 10:31) It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
Those who do not hate God and who seek after righteousness, have nothing to fear. There are abundant examples in the Bible where God saves the righteous. Do you want to be righteous? It should be no surprise when God does not save the unrighteous. It is very simple test to apply to all the characters mentioned in the Bible and we can learn the lessons (good and bad) concerning those who were righteous and those who were not.
Why should God save any people who hate Him?
Exodus
5 for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; 6 And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
It is abundantly evident that God shows mercy to those that love Him and that love extends to doing as God has commanded.
We have a set of choices:
Love God or hate God.
Obey God or disobey God
Choose eternal life or choose eternal death
Serve God or serve mammon.
It is very clear that we have to choose one or the other, we cannot have both. I know what my choice is. The same principles apply to us today as in the message God gave to the Hebrews; the land is unimportant compared to the principles involved here. In one sense, for us today the land represents the kingdom of God and unless we heed God's words we cannot expect to dwell in the kingdom.
Deuteronomy 30
16 In that I command thee this day to love the LORD thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the LORD thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it.
17 But if thine heart turn away, so that thou wilt not hear, but shalt be drawn away, and worship other gods, and serve them;
18 I denounce unto you this day, that ye shall surely perish, and that ye shall not prolong your days upon the land, whither thou passest over Jordan to go to possess it.
19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
20 That thou mayest love the LORD thy God, and that thou mayest obey his voice, and that thou mayest cleave unto him: for he is thy life, and the length of thy days: that thou mayest dwell in the land which the LORD sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them.
All the best,
David
[QUOTE=Rose;48385]Hi David,
In Numbers 31 the Lord tells Moses to avenge the children of Israel by going to war with the Midianites which they did killing all the males. God never said in this particular incident to kill everyone, which was obvious since Moses allowed the soldiers to keep the virgins just like it says they can in Deuteronomy 21.
Deuteronomy 21:10-14 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.
Does this sounds like rape?...mourned for one month for the woman.... customary rites to become the Jewish tribe in order to marry a Jewish husband and becomes his wife. The husband can leave her as he wish so that she will not become a widow of dead soldier and can remarry again as a free woman. The husband can not sell her or make money out of her. Ever wonder why there were so many virgin women?..... because most of the Midianite men were homosexuals who were more interested in males just like their counterparts in Sodom and Gomorrah.
If as you say all the problem arose from man's disobedience in not killing all the Midianites, then why was it when the biblegod flooded the world killing every living thing except what was on the ark along with righteous Noah and his family that wickedness continued through Noah? Killing is not the answer.
In Genesis 8, God already knew that the killing of all wickedness with the great flood except righteous Noah and his family will not solve the problem as the evilness will still grew eventually but the rate of evilness will be slower and under control.
21 And the Lord smelled a sweet savour; and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.
22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.
Up until 2010 and somewhat beyond all my posts were of a positive nature, now it's time to start balancing things out and look at the dark side of the Bible. Once a person finds out the God they once believed in is a mass murderer and total misogynist it kinda changes their perspective on things, which is exactly what happened to me. All the good found in the Bible is for naught as far as I'm concerned, because you can't call a mass murderer good no matter how many good things they have done! The way I look at the Bible now is that it is a good historical record of the primitive male mindset.
Neither can you call a good man good if he did nothing to rid the world of evil and injustice or is indifference to the evil and injustice that is growing in the world making no effort to make this world a better place to live in.
May God Bless the righteous. :pray:
Richard Amiel McGough
08-15-2012, 02:07 PM
Good morning David,
It looks like we pretty much disagree about everything. I wish there were some foundation of agreement for us to build upon. But to get that, you need to respond to the points that I'm really trying to make rather than offering solutions which consist of little more than "the Bible says it and I believe it."
So I'll just tell you what I think, but I wish you would choose to engage my arguments more and try to understand why reasonable people find the mere assertion that "the Bible is God's Word" and therefore "true" unsatisfactory and unconvincing.
Good morning David,
There are many logical, factual, and moral problems with your justification of the moral abominations attributed to God in the Bible.
1) it was a prescriptive measure to eradicate those reprobates from the land so that the Israelites would not be snared.
That doesn't work because the incorporation of 32,000 Midianite women most certainly would have corrupted the Israelites with their pagan ways, just like Solomon's many wives. If you try to argue against this point, then you have no justification for the killing of the baby boys.
2) God permitted those not tainted (the virgins) to be spared
Your statement blows my mind. You speak of God as if he was just a bystander who "permitted" his personal spokesman to command something contrary to his will. Your argument fails because God gave his tacit approval of everything that Moses commanded, as is confirmed by the fact that he himself gave the command to distribute the virgins to the soldiers. If anything happened contrary to God's will, he could have corrected it then and there when he as talking to Moses. He said nothing against what Moses commanded so he was implicitly approving the command to kill everyone but the virgins.
Moses did not make up his own commands. God gave the people commands through Moses. The command was that ALL the Midianites should be killed and none spared. Had that instruction be followed, we would not being having a discussion about what happened next. ALL the problems that followed are as a consequence of man's disobedience. God had to deal with consequence of man's disobedience just as man also had to live with the consequences of his disobedience. We can argue the rights and wrongs of dealing with the consequences, but it is man who is to blame first and foremost.
Your solution does not work for at least four reasons:
1) Contrary to your assertion, God did NOT give any explicit order that "ALL the Midianites should be killed."
2) If it was God's intent to have them all killed, then he would not have explicitly allows the 32,000 virgins to be saved.
3) The events that followed were under the direct command of God. He did not have to "deal with man's disobedience." If he wanted everyone killed, he could have simply commanded it.
4) Contrary to your assertion, it was GOD HIMSELF who started all the bloodshed when he commanded Moses to slaughter the Midianite men, women, and babies. This moral abomination was commanded by God.
And it is particularly telling that you did not even attempt to answer my first point. If the Midianites were reprobates, then why would you want to incorporate 32,000 virgin reprobates into Israel?
And the idea that the female virgins were the only ones not "tainted" is obviously fallacious because the if they were not tainted then neither were the virgin boys.
I was using the expression "tainted" as this was the expression used in another post on this subject. A female virgin has a physical condition to prove virginity whereas a male virgin does not.
And what does the lack of virginity have to do with being worthy of death? Absolutely nothing. That was my point. You did not answer it. And it is false to assert that you could know if a woman was a virgin by looking at her.
3) it is not without reasonable speculation that the virgins would have come to know the reason why they had not been killed
Yes, the virgins knew perfectly why they were not killed and it certainly is "not without reasonable speculation" that they were utterly horrified by the knowledge that they were spared so that they could be sex-slaves to the very soldiers that had just slaughtered every person they ever loved.
You continue to you use the expression "sex slaves" which I disagree with and have already given you reasons why I disagree in posts dealing with this subject. I shall continue to make my statements in the same way as you make your statements; I am past arguing on the statements you make.
You are not "arguing with the statements I make" - and that's the problem! You merely make you assertions and when I show why they don't work, you ignore the reasons I gave and just repeat your fallacious assertions. Case in point: You focused only on the term "sex slave" and totally ignored my refutation of your assertion that it was "not without reasonable speculation that the virgins would have come to know the reason why they had not been killed." They knew perfectly well why they were not killed. They were distributed to the Israelites to serve in whatever capacity the Israelites desired, and the text makes it clear that one of the primary desires was to take them for "wives" which in this context it is "not without reasonable speculation" to conclude it was for sex. This is obvious because the only criteria was SEXUAL.
David, please consider what you are actually doing when you attempt to justify the moral abominations of the Bible. You will never convince any moral person of anything other than the fact that the Bible tends to corrupt both the mind and the morals of those who believe it. Can you not see the great irony here? By justifying the Bible, you only prove that it destroys good morals and rationality.
I am considering these things and I am doing so in a rational way and taking into account ALL that the Bible (God) has told us concerning Himself and what he requires of men and women. I see it is humans who are at fault in the first instance and God is dealing with the disobedience of men and women. Blame disobedient men and women before blaming God for dealing with the problems their disobedience brings.
Your attempt to justify God by blaming humans doesn't work because no matter how wicked people were, it would not justify God commanding his people to be mass murderers. And you have not written a word to justify the saving of the virgins.
You assume without reason that the Bible is an accurate record of what "God" has said. That's why the Bible corrupts the minds and morals of those who choose to believe it. If you begin with the assumption that the Quran is the Word of God, then anything it says about Allah must be true no matter how many reasons we have to reject it.
4) how do we not know,they were not grateful for their lives being spared?
It's easy to know how they would have felt. Just ask any woman in a war zone who was captured and raped by the soldiers who killed every person she ever loved. The fact that you can't see this stuns me. What has your religion done to your humanity? From my perspective, these conversations confirm absolutely that I was correct in my rejection of Biblical Christianity.
I agree that the women would also have felt the way you say, but I was not answering or asking that question. You are changing the subject of the statement I made. Unless the remainder of their lives was lived in utter misery (and we have to speak generally as there is always the exception) then being alive is better than being dead. You are not able to go back and ask these women so as you would say; "the point in moot"
I understand your point. Survivors of Hitler's death camps were probably glad to be alive though they might have felt like they wished they were dead when imprisoned. But it only helps people see the depth of depravity taught in the Bible if we need to compare the biblegod with Hitler.
1) Not all the virgins were given to the soldiers to be married, so first of all, you must accurately portray what happened.
Half of the women were given to the soldiers. That is sufficient to establish all the points Rose and I have been making. There was no need to specify this point. Adding unnecessary words makes for bloated posts.
Then please use the word "some" instead of conveying the idea of "all" and you do not have to bloat the post.
The word "some" would not be accurate. We know what we are talking about. There is no need to quibble over such minutia.
"Used and abused" and "cast off like a soiled rag" are your expressions which has no foundation in the Bible. I am not good with your expressions and I am good that virgins were given a period to morn and that they were treated as wives.
Yes, and my expressions accurately represent the horror of the law that allowed soldiers to capture a virgin in war, have sex with her, and then discard her if she did not please him. You cannot refute these facts.
3) These 32, 000 virgins were treated with respect, to say differently is to ignore what is written.
There is not one word that indicates the captives were "treated with respect." You are making things up. If they were "treated with respect" they would have been freed. If they were treated with respect they would not have been raped and then tossed out if they failed to "delight" the rapist who murdered everyone they ever loved. Your comments reveal a total lack of human compassion. But on the upside, at least you are obeying God's command to "show no mercy."
Freeing 32,000 virgins would not have done them any favors. You have to ask what would happen to them to understand the absurdity of the suggestion. Once again you use expressions that are unfounded. Please quote scripture that supports your turn of phrase. It is God who showed mercy to the virgins, I am commenting on what I read and understand.
After murdering every person they ever loved, it is ludicrous to speak of "doing them any favors."
There is NOTHING in the text that suggests God showed any "mercy" to the 32,000 virgins who were classed along with the sheep and oxen.
Genocide carried out by man not under instruction be God is immoral.
So genocide is NOT IMMORAL! This totally destroys the Christian argument that there are moral absolutes, and that we could not have any moral absolutes without God.
:doh:
You accuse me of being morally corrupt for understanding the basis on which God called for genocide of a corrupt nation. Your failure to recognize a corrupt nation equally "astounds me".
The idea of killing babies because the parents were bad is immoral. Simple as that. If Christians can't understand this, I have no choice but to conclude that their sense of morality has been corrupted by the Bible.
Individually, if an Israelite did as the Canaanite they were worse as they should have known better. God made this pronouncement on anyone in the land and it is evident from this example that turning a blind eye was equally bad;
(Leviticus 20:2)
2 Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones.
3 And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed unto Molech, to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name.
4 And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the man, when he giveth of his seed unto Molech, and kill him not:
5 Then I will set my face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him, to commit whoredom with Molech, from among their people.
So you are saying that God was unjust. He punished the Canaanites but not Israel even though they committed the same crimes.
God also sent his Angel before them, the Israelites did not have to do much other than to believe and have faith and they could not even do that. Yet God had given a law to the His people and that did make them better than the nations around them, but when they failed to observe the law individually or as a nation, they were punished by God. It is only because of the fulfillment of God's promises that the nation of Israel has survived or else from the times when they were corrupted, God could easily have wiped them out as He did with other nations.
Yes, God could just kill everyone. But he didn't do that. He showed favoritism - especially for the adulterous murderous king David who is supposed to be a "type" of Christ.
So why is God so enamored with VIOLENCE? He seems like a demented freak. He is ALMIGHTY GOD! He could do whatever he chose. Why did he choose to create a world in which to justify is constant command to murder babies? What's he really all about? Why does he delight in chopping up babies and destroying families and commanding his people to steal not only their land, but their possessions too? Can't you see how horrible the Bible really is when you read it?
I think it would be great to have a balanced discussion of the biblegod, but that's impossible as long as you refuse to admit that the Bible says many things about him that are both irrational and immoral.
It is impossible so long as you cannot rationalize the actions of God and continue to consider them immoral (by man's standard). You are avoiding a lot of scripture that shows God is just in what He does.
"Rationalize the actions of God" <---- that says it all. It would be an exercise in extremely irrational "rationalization" to justify the biblegod. I would have to call evil good and good evil.
And your idea that genocide is only immoral by "man's standard" shows yet again how the Bible corrupts good morals. Genocide is WRONG David. There's no ifs, ands, or buts about it.
I am not aware of "ignoring" any Scriptures. The mere fact that a Scripture says "God is just" does not mean it is so. You need to read the whole Bible with open eyes and an open mind. Then you will see that the Bible is not what you think it is. I have proof, and I have proven it. You cannot refute me on this point. You are merely believing the Bible because that's what you want to do. It is simply impossible to justify the moral abominations and irrationality attributed to God in the Bible.
I was asking Rose for direction to some posts in which she has said good things about God. Since I have joined this forum from the beginning of this year, I have not read one positive comment from Rose (or from you now that I think about it). We all know that your understanding of God has changed over recent years and what you wrote years ago is not what you believe now. Maybe for the record, you should state now what you believe is "good" about the God of the Bible.
Sounds like a great idea! I'll give it some thought and start a thread.
Let's hope you get closer to God the higher you climb; have a good trip.
David
:signthankspin:
Deuteronomy 21:10-14 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.
Does this sounds like rape?...mourned for one month for the woman.... customary rites to become the Jewish tribe in order to marry a Jewish husband and becomes his wife. The husband can leave her as he wish so that she will not become a widow of dead soldier and can remarry again as a free woman. The husband can not sell her or make money out of her. Ever wonder why there were so many virgin women?..... because most of the Midianite men were homosexuals who were more interested in males just like their counterparts in Sodom and Gomorrah.
Grow a heart Cheow! Of course it sounds like rape. There is not one word in the entire passage that asks if the woman wants to be the mans wife. IF the man sees a beautiful woman that HE desires and HE wants for HIS wife, HE can have her...that my friend is rape. Women have human rights too, even though the biblegod denies them.
In Genesis 8, God already knew that the killing of all wickedness with the great flood except righteous Noah and his family will not solve the problem as the evilness will still grew eventually but the rate of evilness will be slower and under control.
21 And the Lord smelled a sweet savour; and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.
22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.
Neither can you call a good man good if he did nothing to rid the world of evil and injustice or is indifference to the evil and injustice that is growing in the world making no effort to make this world a better place to live in.
May God Bless the righteous. :pray:
If God already knew killing everyone wouldn't solve the problem of evil why did he do it...just for the fun of it?
Rose
[QUOTE=Rose;48405]Grow a heart Cheow! Of course it sounds like rape. There is not one word in the entire passage that asks if the woman wants to be the mans wife. IF the man sees a beautiful woman that HE desires and HE wants for HIS wife, HE can have her...that my friend is rape. Women have human rights too, even though the biblegod denies them.
Where is the evicdence of rape? Did the girls struggled to defend themselves against rape? Did they committed suicide instead of rape? Did the Israelite men forced themselves on to them? If there were no evidence, the judge will just throw out your accusations. They were willing partners knowing that they were considered as part of God's people in which they themselves and their generations will be saved if they believed in the Hebrew God rather than their pagan gods. And if their loved ones who have been killed repented of their sins, they will also be saved. There were many forced marriages or blind marriages and child marriages in the olden days and they were not considered as rapes.
If God already knew killing everyone wouldn't solve the problem of evil why did he do it...just for the fun of it?
I have already said that the purpose is not to eradicate sin but to reduce the rate of sin so that when the critical mass of people who have ever lived on earth has been reached, the harvest to separate the good from the bad will begin during judgement day. It is easy to create robots that has no free will and they will be very obedient and will do exactly what was programmed but with robots that have free-will in which they can make decision and goes against what was programmed. it is not easy to control them. Free-will robots have a distinct advantage over totally programmed robots. They have the free-will to do good or to go against the program and do evil. Which robots do you want to be? Obviously, the free-will robots that do good and yet knowing what is good and what is evil. And what would you do if the free-will robots decided to go against your program and do evil. Obviously, try to repair the defective program (caused by an evil computer virus) and if the defective program is beyond repair, destroy them totally and make good use of their good spare parts instead of allowing them to infect and cause defects in other good robots.
If God were to be strict and eradicate all sin, no men would be alive not even Noah's and his family. Noah's and his family were so far among the best and least sinful of all and that was why they were saved so that the generations that came from them will be less sinful and less evil. But as time goes by, evil will increase and then God will return to control the evilness again. Whoever persevere and remain righteous will be saved. I believe this to be a continuing process....Earth is a farmland for righteous souls for the kingdom of heaven. It is like a prospective pearl hunter looking for fine pearls. Do you want to be that fine pearl? What's the point of looking for diseased oysters that can only produce poor quality pearls? Jesus said, "You are the salt of the world but if the salt has lost its saltiness, what good is it for except to be trampled underfoot by men".
God Bless the righteous. :pray:
Where is the evicdence of rape? Did the girls struggled to defend themselves against rape? Did they committed suicide instead of rape? Did the Israelite men forced themselves on to them? If there were no evidence, the judge will just throw out your accusations. They were willing partners knowing that they were considered as part of God's people in which they themselves and their generations will be saved if they believed in the Hebrew God rather than their pagan gods. And if their loved ones who have been killed repented of their sins, they will also be saved. There were many forced marriages or blind marriages and child marriages in the olden days and they were not considered as rapes.
I fear your heart is so hardened there is no hope for you.
If God were to be strict and eradicate all sin, no men would be alive not even Noah's and his family. Noah's and his family were so far among the best and least sinful of all and that was why they were saved so that the generations that came from them will be less sinful and less evil. But as time goes by, evil will increase and then God will return to control the evilness again. Whoever persevere and remain righteous will be saved. I believe this to be a continuing process....Earth is a farmland for righteous souls for the kingdom of heaven. It is like a prospective pearl hunter looking for fine pearls. Do you want to be that fine pearl? What's the point of looking for diseased oysters that can only produce poor quality pearls? Jesus said, "You are the salt of the world but if the salt has lost its saltiness, what good is it for except to be trampled underfoot by men".
God Bless the righteous. :pray:
So, I guess your biblegod is not omnipotent after all, since he is unable to create sinless beings, or eradicate sin once it has been introduced into humanity. And while we are on the subject, where did sin come from anyway? In the beginning was God, and he was good, and everything he created was good...so, how did sin come from good if God was all good?
Take care,
Rose
I fear your heart is so hardened there is no hope for you.
No judge in the world will ever agree with you your definition of rape! Everyone is innocent unless proven guilty.
So, I guess your biblegod is not omnipotent after all, since he is unable to create sinless beings, or eradicate sin once it has been introduced into humanity. And while we are on the subject, where did sin come from anyway? In the beginning was God, and he was good, and everything he created was good...so, how did sin come from good if God was all good?
This is the fourth time I am putting out this parable, have you ever read or meditate on this parable of the wheats and the tares?
Matthew 13:24-30
24 Another parable he put before them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field; 25 but while men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26 So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also. 27 And the servants of the householder came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then has it weeds?' 28 He said to them, `An enemy has done this.' The servants said to him, `Then do you want us to go and gather them?' 29 But he said, `No; lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest; and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.'"
God Blessed.:pray:
How do you know the boys were not sexually defiled?..... Pedophilia? How do you know if they were born from incest, extra-marital affairs, temple protitutes etc.? The boys probably participated in pagan rituals as well even when they were infants as prayer offerings to their pagan gods. We do not really know what were the customs that were practised in those times. The girls were more "pure" in the sense that they have not known a man by lying with them". Perhaps, I say perhaps, the boys "have known a man by sleeping with them" as Sodom and Gommorah which is in the region of Moab were well known for sodomy.
I can understand why they want to keep virgin girls... so that they can marry them. But why would they want to keep "baby" girls around 3 years old?.....child sex? Must be out of their minds! Most likely for their sons born from the merger of Midianites virgin women and Israelite men and for those Israelite men who managed to survive through the decades of wars.
Thanks for the confirmation that you are not a rape victim, sorry for my wrong suspicion. I don't believe in equal male and female human rights but equal human rights in the sense that both male and female works together in their own natural ways and ability that they are endorsed for the common goal for the good of mankind and society. To me, equal human rights means that it doesn't matter if male or female is the "boss" but as long as they work to ensure for the betterment of mankind and society.
This is a very flawed concept for we all know that even if politician, religious leaders speak out against rape and violence of all kinds, it will not stop rape and violence which people have been going on for thousand and thousand of years. But we all know that the cause of violence and rape is Money and Lust and to solve these problems is to get rid of the love of Money and Lust. Everybody knows that Money is the cause of most evils such as robberies, murders, greed, gamblings, wars, poverty etc. and Lust is the cause of rape, adulteries, fornications, prostituition, incest, pornography, pedophilia, homosexuality, molestations, nudity etc. To get rid of violence and rape is to get of the love of Money and Lust. Humanly possible?...... It is thus better to fight against love of Money and Lust than to to fight for equal human rights.
God Bless. :pray:
Young boys were sexually exploited and some became temple prostitutes, same with some women. This is in the belief that the Midianite's and Canaanite's God Molech or Baal will grant them good fertility and abundance of farm produce. Men and Boys were encouraged to musterbate so that their semen(seeds) that landed on the soil will help them to produce crops in abundance as based on the religion of Baal or Molech. They were also encouraged to have anal sex as they believe that will encourage fertility and manhood; therefore I believe boys were already defiled sexually since young. Beasts were also defiled in the same manner for the same reasons. Children were also sacrificed into the fire in the worship of their God Molech and Baal in the belief that such sacrifices will enhance the fertility of the land. And they would also ate the flesh of the dead. This is what I gather from the evil rituals of the religion of Molech and Baal. That also explains why there were many female virgins as the men would be more interested in boys and men in the worship of their Gods Molech and Baal. No wonder God punished them and destroyed all except the virgin girls and women as many of them were undefiled. There were also phallus worship and orgies. And no wonder there were so many virgin girls who were being rescued by the israelite soldiers and no wonder many of the men of Canaan and Moab including Sodom and Gommorrah were homosexuals.
For more details, please refer:
http://www.bible-history.com/resource/ff_baal.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ba%CA%BFal
http://rockhawk.com/homosexuals_in_history.htm
God Bless the righteous.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.