Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9179 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,169 Year: 5,426/9,624 Month: 451/323 Week: 91/204 Day: 7/26 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biblical atrocities... ????
John
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 65 (27301)
12-19-2002 12:18 AM


First off I think this passage is out of context as far as applying to the heading rape.
The oldest copies of the OT is a Greek translation of the Hebrew (now lost) known as the septuagint. Below is a translation of Lev. 19:20 put out by Online Bible - Home (Highly recommended software!)
20 And if any one lie carnally with a woman, and she should be a home-servant kept for a man, and she has not been ransomed, and her freedom has not been given to her, they shall be visited with punishment; but they shall not die, because she was not set at liberty.
Notice that both are to be punished, not one or the other. The KJV actually renders this as "scourge"
quote:
-So I think this has to do with sleeping with a slave girl who belongs to someone else, has not been freed from their slavery or is otherwise married or pledged to someone else.
Thank you for highlighting the ownership of humans as if they were chattel.
quote:
-They cannot be put to death for this crime because the woman is a slave. So this doesn't have directly to do with rape. Unless you have an objection.
Think funkie. Slave == no rights, no say in the issue. Yet is to be punished the same whether she consents-- emotionally, because physically there was no choice-- or not. Her consent is not even considered. It isn't an issue. Notice that the focus is on what the MAN DOES TO THE WOMAN?
quote:
-Also worth noting is that rape is not condoned, God doesn't say go ahead and rape young virgins.
Not here anyway.
quote:
What were you getting at with Numbers 31 ?
Numbers 31 is the story of conquest and the division of the spoils, which includes women and children. If you think the women were taken as chaste and platonic helpers, you are very naive.
9 And they made a prey of the women of Madian
11 And they took all their plunder, and all their spoils, both man and beast.
15 And Moses said to them, Why have ye saved every female alive?
17 Now then slay every male in all the spoil, slay every woman, who has known the lying with man.
18 And as for all the captivity of women, who have not known the lying with man, save ye them alive.
25 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying,
26 Take the sum of the spoils of the captivity both of man and beast,
35 And persons of women who had not known lying with man, all the souls, thirty-two thousand.
Really, funkie, this is pretty blatant.
quote:
Would you rather that they left them behind after they had killed all the men? In this particular point in time there were much more savage foes than the Israelites, who would definately take advantage of these defenceless women and children. Probably helped add to the gene pool too, avoiding deformities and all.
Can you really stand yourself? This is pretty twisted. First, kill all of the sons, brothers and husbands in the whole town, then justify it by saying there are other people who would "take advantage of these defenceless women and children." You mean take advantage like the Isrealites did? Very sick, Funk. And the clencher, yes Funk, kidnapping virgins to take for wives would definitely add to the gene pool? Does this make it not rape? Or should I be very afraid of you?
quote:
Considering the culture I think this is pretty honourable. The women are provided for, they are given time to grieve their loss and offered a new beggining. If things don't work out then she is free, cannot be sold or treated as a slave. Again we see that God wants to provide for the children and the widowed.
Ok. Lets see. First:
11 and shouldest see among the spoil a woman beautiful in countenance, and shouldest desire her, and take her to thyself for a wife,
Do you notice the taking part funkie? Do you notice that the woman is a 'spoil'? Do you know what rape is?
14 And it shall be if thou do not delight in her, thou shalt send her out free; and she shall not by any means be sold for money, thou shalt not treat her contemptuously, because thou hast humbled her.
Kidnap. Bang her. Decide you don't like her. Kick her out. Forget about it. Kick her out into a country and among a people she doesn't know. Guess what, funk, this is a death sentence or the start of a good job in the whorehouse.
quote:
Okay for one thing this kind of crime can never really be attoned for, the pain and suffering of this woman and her family is something that a man cannot reverse.
Agreed.
quote:
However he is now responsible for that girl, he has defiled her. The silver to the father is something like a dowry, considering his daughter is defiled and would likely not be married off otherwise. In this culture what would you do if you were not married and your father and mother died, you would be in a terrible position. So to kill the man for this crime would solve nothing. Better that he marry her and never be able to cut her loose. In this way he makes some atonement to the family and to the young woman.
Ask a rape victim if this would be satifactory. This works perfectly well if you don't care what the victim feels, and if you think in terms of valuing women for the babies they make and controlling them so they only make YOUR babies.
quote:
In this particular case John I believe that this is speaking of Sisera's army.
Deborah, a prophetess, is singing a song about this event, and includes a matter of fact reference to the taking of captives.
quote:
-Umm what? Samson chose a Philistine woman for a wife, his parents understandably would rather he married an Israelite woman. However he wanted this Philistine woman, which turned out to be his undoing. What was your problem here? Sorry not sure.
You so easily miss things like:
Take her for me, for she is right in my eyes.
Control, power, taking--- that sort of thing.
quote:
Still is not commanded by God, or condoned. It seems to be just history.
Behold my daughter a virgin, and the man’s concubine: I will bring them out, and humble ye them, and do to them that which is good in your eyes; but to this man do not this folly.
25 But the men would not consent to hearken to him; so the man laid hold of his concubine, and brought her out to them; and they knew her, and abused her all night till the morning, and let her go when the morning dawned.
26 And the woman came toward morning, and fell down at the door of the house where her husband was, until it was light.
27 And her husband rose up in the morning, and opened the doors of the house, and went forth to go on his journey; and, behold, the woman his concubine had fallen down by the doors of the house, and her hands were on the threshold.
28 And he said to her, Rise, and let us go; and she answered not, for she was dead: and he took her upon his ass, and went to his place.
29 And he took his sword, and laid hold of his concubine, and divided her into twelve parts, and sent them to every coast of Israel.
You have a man offering his daughter and another woman to be raped.
The potential rapists didn't want the deal so the man, the Isrealite, through the concubine out anyway. They raped her until down, she crawled back and died on a doorstep, was thrown on an ass and chopped into pieces.
Its just history? Why record this? What the hell place does this have in a morality tale? Well, my guess is that it is meant to make the Isrealite fear their neighbors. But half of this nightmare was committed by an Isrealite and God makes not one peep about it. How many 'neutral' stories of graphic rape could I write before you started to think I might not should hang out with your daughter? Why didn't God say something? It was acceptable behavior at the time for the people.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-19-2002 5:28 AM John has replied
 Message 10 by Mr. Davies, posted 12-19-2002 10:43 PM John has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 65 (27356)
12-19-2002 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by funkmasterfreaky
12-19-2002 5:28 AM


quote:
Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
I'm sure it's not new but I tend to believe that the O.T intends to show the corruptness of man.
Funk, God shows the corruptness of man BY NOT COMPLAINING ABOUT IT ?????
quote:
This is one of the reasons why the History books show some of mans real lows. Even amongst God's people.
No kidding.
quote:
Next it shows the faithfulness of the Almighty, even though his people seem to turn from him every second generation, when they choose to call out in humbleness and repent God is faithful to them and brings up people to deliver them.
This is not relevant to the topic. Perhaps this is one intent of the OT. However, God TELLS his people why they are going to be punished-- what they did in turning away from him-- and it doesn't ever involve God having a problem with slaughter and slaving except in a few cases where God gets pissed that they DIDN'T kill every man, woman and child.
quote:
The third thing is when looking at the law especially is the time. It's a different time, (the more things change the more they stay the same eh) try and take into context the people who this law was delivered to.
So your argument is that kidnapping, rape, slaughter, and slaving is OK because of the time in which they lived? Well, funk, if God's law is eternal, that makes it ok now too doesn't it?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-19-2002 5:28 AM funkmasterfreaky has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-19-2002 11:09 AM John has replied
 Message 34 by gene90, posted 01-01-2003 8:18 PM John has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 65 (27364)
12-19-2002 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by funkmasterfreaky
12-19-2002 11:09 AM


quote:
Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
Romans 3
25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement,[1] through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished--

What is this supposed to be?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-19-2002 11:09 AM funkmasterfreaky has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Mr. Davies, posted 12-19-2002 12:41 PM John has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 65 (27378)
12-19-2002 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Mr. Davies
12-19-2002 12:41 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Davies:
That is supposed to mean that god sent Christ down to die for our sins. Somehow, that is supposed to make everything ok.
Yeah. That's the part I don't get. How exactly is this supposed to make it ok? And how does this address the OT reign of terror?
quote:
Why death means squat to a god is beyond me.
I know what you mean. When you know you are going to come back, death kinda loses it kick.
quote:
Even if Jesus spent three days in Hell for the sins of humanity, so what?
One day for God is like a thousand years. Maybe each day of those thousand years is also a thousand; and so on and so forth.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Mr. Davies, posted 12-19-2002 12:41 PM Mr. Davies has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by gene90, posted 01-01-2003 8:07 PM John has replied
 Message 33 by gene90, posted 01-01-2003 8:08 PM John has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 65 (27433)
12-19-2002 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Mr. Davies
12-19-2002 10:43 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Davies:
What children or widows are you referring to?
Yes, good point. Maybe what funk meant was that God wanted to provide for the young nubile virgins by giving them to his soldiers as presents?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Mr. Davies, posted 12-19-2002 10:43 PM Mr. Davies has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 65 (28049)
12-29-2002 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by funkmasterfreaky
12-27-2002 7:59 PM


quote:
Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
I'd like for this topic to continue, as it is something I can actually discuss.
Hey funk,
The thrust of Chara's post, where this Psalm was introduced, seems to be that God is just because he intended to set thing right eventually with Christ.
1) I don't see how this Psalm relates.
2) It is odd to push justice so far into the future, relative to the unjustly treated persons in the OT, that it becomes insignificant.
3) I have a really bad cold and am not feeling terribly bright today.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-27-2002 7:59 PM funkmasterfreaky has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 65 (28389)
01-04-2003 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by gene90
01-01-2003 8:07 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
quote:
I know what you mean. When you know you are going to come back, death kinda loses it kick.
Then why is it wrong for God to kill anyone?

Kinda missed that we were talking about Jesus didn't yah? Christ dies and then gets to be God. How many slaughtered pagans do you think get that deal? How many slaughtered believers, for that matter, get that deal?
Lets put it in perspective Gene. If I knew for certain that I'd be walking three days later, I'd be quite happy to jump in front of a train, especially if I knew that it was to save the rest of humanity from a horrible fate. That isn't much of a sacrifice really. That is the point at issue back in post #8, as far as this comment goes.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
[This message has been edited by John, 01-04-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by gene90, posted 01-01-2003 8:07 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by gene90, posted 01-09-2003 7:20 PM John has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 65 (28391)
01-04-2003 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by gene90
01-01-2003 8:18 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
We had this discussion already. It was about mixed fiber clothing and Levitical law. Do you remember? You know, higher law usurping Levitical law. That whole "Love thy neighbor as thyself" kind of usurps the OT laws about enslavement, rape, and killing now doesn't it? It doesn't *necessarily* mean a law was repealed.
Interesting that a law can be 'usurped' but still not 'repealed.' God sounds a bit schizophrenic.
quote:
I see these as limitations aimed at incrementally improving the Israelites' rather sad history of human rights.
Right. If I am not mistaken, God was in charge from Day one. God makes the world and people and is advising from Adam right on down the line. This just doesn't make sense. You seem to imply that God just stepped in to fix the mess, when in fact he was part and parcel to making the mess. Just read the OT. God did a lot of talking in the OT.
quote:
If God gave Moses the US Bill of Rights and Constitution as it is today, do you think the Israelites would have been able to live it? No, they couldn't even keep to worshipping one God.
Why not? The Bill of Rights and Constitution are icons of simplicity compared to Leviticus. What is so complicated that people couldn't follow it? People may not have thought of it, but what is so difficult to follow? Nothing. Especially when the might of almighty God is enforcing the laws.
quote:
By the way, I want to see your Scriptural references to these OT laws being eternal.
There is no indication that they were intended otherwise, until a disgruntled sect decided to rewrite things.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by gene90, posted 01-01-2003 8:18 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 01-04-2003 3:28 AM John has replied
 Message 60 by gene90, posted 01-09-2003 7:27 PM John has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 65 (28406)
01-04-2003 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by funkmasterfreaky
01-04-2003 3:28 AM


quote:
Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
The law was only given to the Israelites. For the the Israelites.

Then, as I have asked before, why not ditch the OT?
The tricky bit, as shilo points out, is that Christians very selectively apply the various laws. This practice makes a farce of the whole Bible.
Of course, the farce is necessary since Christ states that not one jot or tiddle shall pass from the law. It makes a very strange marriage
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 01-04-2003 3:28 AM funkmasterfreaky has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by shilohproject, posted 01-05-2003 1:36 PM John has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 65 (28864)
01-11-2003 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by shilohproject
01-05-2003 1:36 PM


quote:
Originally posted by shilohproject:
I have often thought that we fool ourselves when we speak of the so-called "Judeo-Christion" tradition. There is no such thing, except for that which we've created in order to justify certain inconsistant application of the OT, usually to rule over certain people or conduct deemed unsuitable by the majority.
I am very happy, suprised but happy, to find someone in agreement with me on this.
quote:
Christianity is a competing belief system to Judeism, not a complimentary one.
Yes indeed. Christianity was a Jewish cult and a type of rebellion. Anyone doubting that can check the Talmud. It was not a smooth, happy transition as most christians portray it.
quote:
In this instance, grace/forgiveness prevails over punishment/justice; this is a new thing brought to the region by a new speaker, speaking a new messege.
Quite right. It is a NEW concept-- new to the religion/region at least.
quote:
Another way to view this may be "out with the old, in with the new." If so, it would explain many of the obvious problems between the story of the OT and the gospel of the NT.
I agree. Your interpretation is possible, though I happen to think the phrase is propaganda inserted to help woo Jews to the faith.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by shilohproject, posted 01-05-2003 1:36 PM shilohproject has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024