Sexual Violence Against Women Promoted in Scripture

[Bob May]

Rose said, Hi Bob,

An allegory takes abstract ideas and personifies them, but that is not whats happening in Bible. The stories we read about in Scripture are based on actual events whether on not each element or detail is correct. In these stories we read of the moral atrocities that the Hebrew soldiers committed, clearly stating that God commanded women to be raped and families to be slaughtered. If one is going to take such liberties as to interpret these stories in a symbolic manner and change them from horrendous immoral acts to something more pleasing to our senses, then the whole of Scripture can be changed to say whatever one pleases it to say.


This is exactly what I am saying. The bible takes abstract ideas and personifies them as Amorites, Philistines, virgins, wars, etc., etc. So the actual events and places may be real but the details of rape and mass murder and killing babies are patterns that mirror internal changes in our minds as a result of changing our entire outlook of reality. God did not sanction any of these things.
Have you never heard the phrase God who calls those things that be not as though they were? This would apply to the allegories in the OT.

More later,
Bob

[CWH]

[QUOTE][QUOTE=Rose;41856]

All you are doing Cheow is making excuses for Yahweh's blatant immorality and human rights violations. Yes, it's obvious that the men desired the beautiful virgin women for wives, but did you ever stop and think if the women wanted to be the wives of the men who just slaughtered their families? The definition of rape is to take by force, and you can be sure those women did not willingly become wives of men who just slaughtered their families! Have you no compassion or empathy Cheow!

Such things happened in WW2 as well in which women were forced to have sex with their enemies who have killed their parents, families. Of course, they have resentments but what could they do? Refused and get themselves, friends and other families killed as well? Life must go on.
The definition of rape is sex by force but there were practices that were considered acceptable and norms in olden days that we modern people would classify as rape such as forced marriages, blind marriages, child marriages, bride kidnappings, concubines etc. As I said before those passages are not considered as rapes, if not why talked about marriage, wives and husbands in those passages. How about prostituition? Can we classify as rape since most prostitutes are unwilling sexual partners forced by dire circumstances and the lure of money. I don't support rape but why did soldiers raped and rapes in wars are even allowed by their military commanders?...or should we spare an empathic thought that these young soldiers were forced by natural urge to procreate and "get anyone to pass on their genes" (whether rape or marriage) before their untimely death?

What are you talking about? Of course those women were being raped! Read the verses: it says that the men hid and waited in the vineyards till the young virgins came to dance and then they jumped out and captured them and "took" them as wives. All a man had to do in biblical time to be married was to have sex with a woman and then she became his wife, and just because a woman is called a wife does not mean she was not raped.
Your words totally blow my mind! How can you make excuses for men raping women? That is such a gross violation of human rights and you are supporting it. So, I suppose you would apply the same moral standard to soldiers who rape women today?

Those were not rapes, you can't use modern definition and apply it in general for ancient times. What about forced marriages, blind marriages, child marriages, bride kidnappings, were they rapes as well? Bride kidnappings were a widespread practice and even norm in olden days in Asia, Middle East and many parts of the world. A few tribes still practice that in modern times. See wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_kidnapping

14 And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled [fucked] her.

The above passages shows that this is not rape. Does a rapist have the right to "sell her for money"? In fact, merciful God provided a commandment in which wife are not to be sold as merchandise.

It's plain and simple Cheow...the Bible promotes and condones all manner of human rights violations, including sexual violations against women, and you make excuses why it's all okay because the men needed wives! Pretty pathetic if you ask me.

Same I will say of you, you are making excuses to put the Christian God in a bad light, why don't you say about the Muslim God, the Hindu God and so on of which some commandments that seems sexually discriminative of women are worse than that portray in the Bible. Where is the love of God with all your heart, soul and might? If men needed wives, does women needed husbands as well?....sounds bias. It's plain and simple that both needs each other for companion and procreation as stated in Genesis.


Love God with all you heart, soul and might.

[Rose]

Such things happened in WW2 as well in which women were forced to have sex with their enemies who have killed their parents, families. Of course, they have resentments but what could they do? Refused and get themselves, friends and other families killed as well? Life must go on.
The definition of rape is sex by force but there were practices that were considered acceptable and norms in olden days that we modern people would classify as rape such as forced marriages, blind marriages, child marriages, bride kidnappings, concubines etc. As I said before those passages are not considered as rapes, if not why talked about marriage, wives and husbands in those passages. How about prostituition? Can we classify as rape since most prostitutes are unwilling sexual partners forced by dire circumstances and the lure of money. I don't support rape but why did soldiers raped and rapes in wars are even allowed by their military commanders?...or should we spare an empathic thought that these young soldiers were forced by natural urge to procreate and "get anyone to pass on their genes" (whether rape or marriage) before their untimely death?


Those were not rapes, you can't use modern definition and apply it in general for ancient times. What about forced marriages, blind marriages, child marriages, bride kidnappings, were they rapes as well? Bride kidnappings were a widespread practice and even norm in olden days in Asia, Middle East and many parts of the world. A few tribes still practice that in modern times. See wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_kidnapping


The above passages shows that this is not rape. Does a rapist have the right to "sell her for money"? In fact, merciful God provided a commandment in which wife are not to be sold as merchandise.

Of course it was rape! Morality doesn't change with the times. Rape is forcing a woman to have sex who doesn't want it and that is a violation of a woman's human rights. Women had the same feelings three thousand years ago as they do today! Just because a man lusts after a woman and desires to have sex with her doesn't mean she wants that, you are acting like women back then had no feelings. It was men who made up the rules and defined the laws, it was men who lusted after young virgin women, so they took what they wanted...it's just that simple. Women were treated as property and it was condoned by God.

The main point that I keep making over and over again is the fact that the Bible says God commanded the slaughter of the virgins families and then gave the virgins to the men who slaughtered her family.

You, Cheow sound like a hard hearted man with no compassion for a woman's feelings, yet you have empathy for the supposed urges of a man to pass on his genes...I'm sorry to say but that sounds pretty pathetic.

Same I will say of you, you are making excuses to put the Christian God in a bad light, why don't you say about the Muslim God, the Hindu God and so on of which some commandments that seems sexually discriminative of women are worse than that portray in the Bible. Where is the love of God with all your heart, soul and might? If men needed wives, does women needed husbands as well?....sounds bias. It's plain and simple that both needs each other for companion and procreation as stated in Genesis.


Love God with all you heart, soul and might.

Yes, men need wives and women need husbands, but they each should be able to choose who they want to marry not be taken by force. Forcing someone to marry you or have sex with you is always wrong no matter what religion or people promote it.

I thought you believed that God created men and women equal? Well, there is sure no equality in forcing someone into a marriage no matter what the reason. Why did God allow men to fulfill their desires by marrying the women they lusted after without giving any feeling to whether the woman wanted to marry or not. It's all about men and what they want because women were treated as property with the approval of the god created in the minds of men.

Once again I will ask you the question that no one has yet answered. How would you feel if your daughter was taken by a Muslim and forced to convert and marry the man who kidnapped her?

All the best,
Rose

[Bob May]

Hi Rose,

Hi Bob,

An allegory takes abstract ideas and personifies them, but that is not whats happening in Bible. The stories we read about in Scripture are based on actual events whether on not each element or detail is correct.

The entire bible is about abstract ideas personified. And they are personified all throughout the Old Testament using allegory and throughout the New Testament and within ourselves by living out that allegory. The Jordan river is the border of the promised land in the Old Testament and Jesus was baptised there in physical reality as a demonstration that that promised land or Kingdom of Heaven was now available to mankind. That is just one example.

In these stories we read of the moral atrocities that the Hebrew soldiers committed, clearly stating that God commanded women to be raped and families to be slaughtered.

So, if you take those stories as having happened in the "Actual" physical world you are mixing the allegory with "actuality." It was not until Jesus came that the allegories and the physical reality became one. That is what I mean by living allegory. He walked the same places that were included symbolically in the Old Testament allegories. But he showed the error of taking those commandments literally.

You cannot keep the law without breaking the law. Jesus demonstrated this to the Pharisees. They broke the Sabbath by keeping the law of circumcision as a common place thing.
So a person looking to keep the law would choose the "weightier matters" (mercy and judgement) and follow them. Joseph was mindful to put Mary away privately instead of have her stoned to death. Because he was a "just man."
Jesus healed on the Sabbath because compassion was greater than the law of not working on the Sabbath.

So, if the law says Thou shalt not kill, commit adultery, covet, steal etc., etc., who would be doing the raping and stealing and mass murder???

We both know that God did not command it because it is not in His nature to command such a thing. That goes against both His law and His essence as shown by the life and character of Jesus.
Your way out of this conundrum is to say that the OT was written by bronze age scribes. My way out of this conundrum is to believe what the bible says about itself,..that it is allegorical.
I don't have to disregard any of the bible. You do, but don't know where to draw the line. If this part is wrong, what other parts are also wrong???

If one is going to take such liberties as to interpret these stories in a symbolic manner and change them from horrendous immoral acts to something more pleasing to our senses, then the whole of Scripture can be changed to say whatever one pleases it to say.

It is not taking liberties with scripture to take it allegorical. Scripture plainly says that it was written symbolically. Allegory is something that is "alleged" to have happened. It is a story that has a more important story hidden within itself. The difference between a parable and the entire story of Israel and the Patriarchs is manily one of length. So lets look at it as an Epic allegory. Because that is what it is.

To not read it in such a way is taking liberties with scripture. It says these things were figures and shadows of things to come. Our coming back to life because of Jesus coming to free us from death is the story hidden within the epic story of the Old Testament.
God used a certain Geographical area of the world as a "set" and an entire people to demonstrate the epic drama. All of the topography of rivers and mountains and lowlands and peoples and types of trees and metals and minerals etc., all have a meaning.
It cannot be changed to say whatever we want it to say because each of those elements has a meaning which is demonstrated over and over within scripture.

A mountain is a high place in consciousness. A wilderness is a place of testing, teaching and provision by God. Moses means drawn from water, Simeon means hearing. Jacob means following after God and the supplanter. Israel means power with man and God etc., etc.
These are not things you are unfamiliar with having studied scripture as much as you have.

If what you say it true, and each element of the biblical stories must be looked at in extreme detail to try and discern the correct spiritual meaning, then I think 99.9% of all the people who read the Bible get it wrong!

Not only do 99% of the people get it wrong, less than 99% of the people that I know even pick up a bible at all. And of the ones that do read the bible only a small percentage of those read a decent translation or look for any alternative translations or Hebrew or Greek definitions of words when reading.

If the plain meaning is not what God intended, then he should have had the Bible written in such a manner that the proper interpretation could be easily understood by those who read it.

The proper interpretation is only possible by revelation, but the same subject matter that is covered by the Old Testament is more openly stated in the New. But even there our minds have to be open to revelation to understand it to the depths we need to understand it.

Mt 22:36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
Mt 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Mt 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
Mt 22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Mt 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

The proper understanding of these few verses would get us through all of the internal battles and wars that are depicted in the Old Testament. We may not know we are going through those battles at the time we are going through them but we can, after the fact, sometimes see that they apply to our personal experiences in hindsight.

All the best,
Bob

[CWH]

[QUOTE]

Of course it was rape! Morality doesn't change with the times. Rape is forcing a woman to have sex who doesn't want it and that is a violation of a woman's human rights. Women had the same feelings three thousand years ago as they do today! Just because a man lusts after a woman and desires to have sex with her doesn't mean she wants that, you are acting like women back then had no feelings. It was men who made up the rules and defined the laws, it was men who lusted after young virgin women, so they took what they wanted...it's just that simple. Women were treated as property and it was condoned by God.

The main point that I keep making over and over again is the fact that the Bible says God commanded the slaughter of the virgins families and then gave the virgins to the men who slaughtered her family.

You, Cheow sound like a hard hearted man with no compassion for a woman's feelings, yet you have empathy for the supposed urges of a man to pass on his genes...I'm sorry to say but that sounds pretty pathetic.

What if you have unmarried sons fighting in a war with hardly any chance of survival, would you approve that they quickly get married or sleep with any they can find?.....or do you refer they die as heroes without children? That sounds hard hearted. That's what God did by ensuring that the Israelite young men have wives with the 32,000 virgins. What if the men slaughtered their evil families, their families would die anyway from their sin and from their other enemies. Their death I believe does not go in vain as God may have forgiven their sin already.

Yes, men need wives and women need husbands, but they each should be able to choose who they want to marry not be taken by force. Forcing someone to marry you or have sex with you is always wrong no matter what religion or people promote it.

Don't be deluded with such concept....choosing whoever they want to marry does not necessary ensure a happy marriage life ever after. Look at the divorce rates in US! My parents were arranged marriaged and yet they lived happily as couples till death. I am not saying that choosing who to marry is no good but that it does not guarantee a happy marriage; it depends on the right chemistry. Such arranged marriages and forced marriages were common in olden days in Asia.

I thought you believed that God created men and women equal? Well, there is sure no equality in forcing someone into a marriage no matter what the reason. Why did God allow men to fulfill their desires by marrying the women they lusted after without giving any feeling to whether the woman wanted to marry or not. It's all about men and what they want because women were treated as property with the approval of the god created in the minds of men.

When did I say that God created men equal? I said that men and women can NEVER be equal anatomiocally, physically, psychologically. God probably created men with sex on their minds for the purpose of procreation. Women were created to help the men procreate and look after the children. That was the commandment for men and women to fill the earth. I son't nelieve that women were treated as property as the passages suggest "Not to treat them as merchandise":
14 And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled [fucked] her

Once again I will ask you the question that no one has yet answered. How would you feel if your daughter was taken by a Muslim and forced to convert and marry the man who kidnapped her?

Of course, I will be very sad and will try to rescue her but in the even that I can't, I will leave that to God, perhaps it is a blessing in disguise. Now my question, how would you feel if your young unmarried sons were to die in a war childless?


God Blessings to all.

[Rose]

Hi Rose,



We both know that God did not command it because it is not in His nature to command such a thing. That goes against both His law and His essence as shown by the life and character of Jesus.
Your way out of this conundrum is to say that the OT was written by bronze age scribes. My way out of this conundrum is to believe what the bible says about itself,..that it is allegorical.
I don't have to disregard any of the bible. You do, but don't know where to draw the line. If this part is wrong, what other parts are also wrong???


All the best,
Bob

Hi Bob,

That is preciously the problem. The Old Testament depicts Yahweh as a vengeful, cruel monster who commands families to be slaughtered and girls to be raped! So, how do I know that it is not his nature? It seems the scribes who penned the Old Testament thought it was Yahweh's nature, because the picture they painted of him was that of a tribal war god.

Now, we know that when Jesus came along he updated God's image to be much more of a loving father type, but he was unwilling to let go of the Old Testament image of God, so we are stuck with a two-faced God. It can be quite a conundrum if one tries to reconcile the two by picking an choosing which face of God they want, but then the question arises, what compels you to believe the God of the Bible is actually a real entity? Why is the biblical God real and not Allah? I could just as easily allegorize the Koran and make Allah to be a god of total loving-kindness...what's the difference?

There is so much conflict between what the Bible says, and what my heart and intuition tells me that I see no reason to try and salvage its god. The only reason I believed in the biblical god in the first place was because I was born in a country that held the Bible to be the Word of God, if I would have been born in a Muslim country I would have believed in the Koran.

For me the bottom line remains that I no longer feel the need to try and "clean up" Yahweh to make him fit my heartfelt and intuitive ideas of a divine being. I am free to draw from the Bible whatever wisdom it contains without the moral atrocities that cause me anguish.

Thanks for sharing you views with me,
Rose

[Rose]

What if you have unmarried sons fighting in a war with hardly any chance of survival, would you approve that they quickly get married or sleep with any they can find?.....or do you prefer they die as heroes without children? That sounds hard hearted. That's what God did by ensuring that the Israelite young men have wives with the 32,000 virgins. What if the men slaughtered their evil families, their families would die anyway from their sin and from their other enemies. Their death I believe does not go in vain as God may have forgiven their sin already.

Of course I prefer they die without children, if having children means raping a woman. You seem to think it's all about men having children without any regard for the woman, just because a man wants children does not give him the right to force a woman to bear children for him! Women have feelings, and rights too you know...all you seem to be focusing on is the male who is lusting after virgins and wanting to get his sexual urges fulfilled.

Don't be deluded with such concept....choosing whoever they want to marry does not necessary ensure a happy marriage life ever after. Look at the divorce rates in US! My parents were arranged marriaged and yet they lived happily as couples till death. I am not saying that choosing who to marry is no good but that it does not guarantee a happy marriage; it depends on the right chemistry. Such arranged marriages and forced marriages were common in olden days in Asia.

Who said anything about living happily ever after? Whether or not one lives happily ever after doesn't mean they shouldn't have the right to choose whom they wish to marry. You seem to think it's okay for the man to choose to marry the virgin he is lusting after, so why shouldn't the woman have an equal right to choose the man she wishes to marry? You have a very one sided, male biased slant on the idea of marriage.

When did I say that God created men equal? I said that men and women can NEVER be equal anatomiocally, physically, psychologically. God probably created men with sex on their minds for the purpose of procreation. Women were created to help the men procreate and look after the children. That was the commandment for men and women to fill the earth. I don't believe that women were treated as property as the passages suggest "Not to treat them as merchandise":
14 And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled [fucked] her

Wow! I didn't expect that, but I guess I should have guessed since all you have focused on in your posts is defending a mans right to have sex with any virgin he lusts after, because as you said women were just created to help men procreate and then look after the their children.

What do you mean women weren't treated as property? The verse below says if a man rapes a virgin he has to pay her father fifty shekels! Sounds a lot like paying for merchandise to me.

Deut.22:28-29 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

Of course, I will be very sad and will try to rescue her but in the even that I can't, I will leave that to God, perhaps it is a blessing in disguise. Now my question, how would you feel if your young unmarried sons were to die in a war childless?


God Blessings to all.

Once again, you have knocked my socks off with your heartless answer, I am sure glad I am not your daughter. Now to answer your question. I would much rather my son die childless then to force himself on a woman who has no desire for him. Unlike you Cheow, I can imagine myself as being the woman who is the victim of some mans lust, and let me tell you it's a horrible place to be. Men who force themselves upon the women they lust after are getting their desires fulfilled, unlike the victims who only suffer the traumatic consequences, but I guess you don't care about that as long as the man gets his desires fulfilled, because that all that matters to your male god.

All the best,
Rose

[CWH]

[

QUOTE=Rose;41903]Of course I prefer they die without children, if having children means raping a woman. You seem to think it's all about men having children without any regard for the woman, just because a man wants children does not give him the right to force a woman to bear children for him! Women have feelings, and rights too you know...all you seem to be focusing on is the male who is lusting after virgins and wanting to get his sexual urges fulfilled.

It is not rape, and I am not talking about rape. Both men and women have feelings and the natural urge to reproduce. If men have lusts, does women have lusts also? Well a good example were Lot's daughters who even have incest with her father; desperate needs require desperate solutions. To encourage them to die childless is might as well don't let them be born in the first place. One of the first commandment of God in Genesis is for human to reproduce and fill the earth and to subdue the animals in His creation. Not to do so is breaking this commandment.

Who said anything about living happily ever after? Whether or not one lives happily ever after doesn't mean they shouldn't have the right to choose whom they wish to marry. You seem to think it's okay for the man to choose to marry the virgin he is lusting after, so why shouldn't the woman have an equal right to choose the man she wishes to marry? You have a very one sided, male biased slant on the idea of marriage.

Does many people in ancient days have that right to choose who to marry? Obviously No. You need to read the Bible with ancient cultures in context whereby forced marriages, arrange marriages, bride kidnappings and even child marriages were the acceptable norms of the day.

Wow! I didn't expect that, but I guess I should have guessed since all you have focused on in your posts is defending a mans right to have sex with any virgin he lusts after, because as you said women were just created to help men procreate and then look after the their children.

What do you mean women weren't treated as property? The verse below says if a man rapes a virgin he has to pay her father fifty shekels! Sounds a lot like paying for merchandise to me.

Deut.22:28-29 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

The keywords are "she shall be his wife and may not put her away all his days meaning wife till death.
The other keywords are "If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;" sounds like consensual sex and not rape as per se. Why didn't the damsel struggled or resisted the so call "rapist"?

Once again, you have knocked my socks off with your heartless answer, I am sure glad I am not your daughter. Now to answer your question. I would much rather my son die childless then to force himself on a woman who has no desire for him. Unlike you Cheow, I can imagine myself as being the woman who is the victim of some mans lust, and let me tell you it's a horrible place to be. Men who force themselves upon the women they lust after are getting their desires fulfilled, unlike the victims who only suffer the traumatic consequences, but I guess you don't care about that as long as the man gets his desires fulfilled, because that all that matters to your male god.

I am heartless? To deprive of your children male or female from child bearing is equally heartless. Taking into consideration the harsh war situations during those times in the OT and the desperate urge to sustain the Israelite's generations, desperate solutions are needed. Its like if you are the only woman in the world, would men forced themselves on you so as to ensure that the human race will not go extinct? Based on the situation of those times, God allowed the Israelites to marry the evil generations of the 32,000 women captives so that the generations thereafter will be less evil and at the same time sustained the generations of the Israelites. I just wonder why didn't those women resisted and killed themselves rather than to submit themselves to be married to those who killed their families? Perhaps there was pardon of their sins and guarantee of salvation if they married the Israelites.

God Blessed.

[Rose]

It is not rape, and I am not talking about rape. Both men and women have feelings and the natural urge to reproduce. If men have lusts, does women have lusts also? Well a good example were Lot's daughters who even have incest with her father; desperate needs require desperate solutions. To encourage them to die childless is might as well don't let them be born in the first place. One of the first commandment of God in Genesis is for human to reproduce and fill the earth and to subdue the animals in His creation. Not to do so is breaking this commandment.

Speaking of Lot's daughters, it was "righteous" Lot who offered his two daughters to the angry mob at Sodom to do with as was right in their own eyes, instead of the two men who were abiding under his roof. Sounds like he should have been the one turned into a pillar of salt instead of his wife who only looked back at the burning city.

No one is encouraging anyone to die childless! What I am saying is that men should not be forcing themselves on women, if a man wishes to marry and have children it should be with a woman who wants to be his wife.

The keywords are "she shall be his wife and may not put her away all his days meaning wife till death.
The other keywords are "If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;" sounds like consensual sex and not rape as per se. Why didn't the damsel struggled or resisted the so call "rapist"?

The key words in Deut.22:28 is "lay hold" which in Hebrew is taphas meaning to catch, take hold of, or seize which can be translated as "Rape". It's truly is amazing the effort you are exerting, to try and justify men fulfilling their lusts by raping women! Has morality changed? It seems like you are saying that raping women was okay during biblical times, but is wrong in modern times?

I am heartless? To deprive of your children male or female from child bearing is equally heartless. Taking into consideration the harsh war situations during those times in the OT and the desperate urge to sustain the Israelite's generations, desperate solutions are needed. Its like if you are the only woman in the world, would men forced themselves on you so as to ensure that the human race will not go extinct? Based on the situation of those times, God allowed the Israelites to marry the evil generations of the 32,000 women captives so that the generations thereafter will be less evil and at the same time sustained the generations of the Israelites. I just wonder why didn't those women resisted and killed themselves rather than to submit themselves to be married to those who killed their families? Perhaps there was pardon of their sins and guarantee of salvation if they married the Israelites.

God Blessed.

No one is depriving anyone the opportunity of marrying and bearing children, it's just that if a man wants to have a family it shouldn't be started by raping a woman! Children should come from a loving relationship between a man and woman, not from sexual violence. Why is God promoting sexual violence against women, and encouraging men to lust after women and have their sexual desires fulfilled at the expense of the woman? Kinda screwed up values wouldn't you say?

All the best,
Rose

[David M]

Hello Rose

Hi David,
Over, and over again as I have pointed out how the Bible treats women unequally and unfairly, which is totally in keeping with a book written by men, from the male mindset of the time that women were property.

The Scriptures were written by men who were inspired to write these things down. I will just refer to 2 Timothy 3:16 as to the purpose of scripture (including the N.T. writings).
I have read the posts of everyone following your reply to me and as an observer, I can see elements of Truth in each post. There is a lot I disagree with the same as you do, but I am trying to get to the truth through all of this and while I do not always have an immediate answer to every question raised I am prepared to think about each question and to search out an anwer that is essentially based on God's word.

When you say the Bible treats women unequally and unfairly, can you think of any situation where that statement is untrue? Can you not think of one situation where women have been treated equally and fairly. I expect if you look, you will find one. Also you will probably find examples where men have been treated unequally and unfairly.

The Bible tells us that woman is subordinate to the man, their is a heirarchy, but this does not mean that the woman is inferior to the man or less worthy than man. In the purpose of God we are all individually responsible for our actions and we shall have to answer for ourselves at our Day of Judgement. It will not matter in what period or culture we lived, we are responsible for our own actions. Those who acted under instruction of God (invidually or nationally) I expect will stand blameless, but where they were not under instruction, they are responsible for their actions.

This topic is really about the morality of God and the story of the 32,000 virgins is one aspect we can study the morality of God. While it is easy to get side-tracked by other comments introduced I shall stay on topic as best I can. What I am looking for in all of this is to understand why God instructs His people to act as He tells them. The answer is not clear cut and as I tried to explain to Richard and I probably did not explain very well. God is dealing with many situations at a time which have been brought about by man having free will. For example, God instructed His people to clear the promised land of all its inhabitants because they were all practicing idolatry. This may sound harsh, but God is doing what is best for His people. Idolatry is an abomination to God and why not? You do not believe in God so why would I not expect you to agree with idolatry, if that is what you want to do. God has clearly stated that the practice of idolatry by anyone is an abomination to Him. I am not going to find excuses for the people that practiced it (at any time in history). Even God's chosen nation who should have been glowing examples of how to live according to His laws, when left to their own devices went back to practicing idolatry (the golden calf for example). Throughout their history, the Nation of Israel, we see were fickle, often following the practices of their king and we read of the kings who did right in the sight of God and those who did wrong.

God is true to his promise, concerning His chosen race. This is what he declared; "I will bless them that bless thee and curse them that curse thee." I do not intend to make this a topic of discussion here but to make the point that it was the same for God's people; if they obeyed God they would be blessed (rewarded with good) and it they did not obey, they would be punished (rewarded wth evil). We see how God does eventually punish His people for their disobedience and scattered them throughout the world and for a long time they ceased to be a nation. God has been true to His promise and has now regathered hHis poeple and they are once more a nation. I do not want anyone reading this to comment here, I am merely pointing out how God has kept to his promise, while at the same time, bringing about His purpose and allowing for the times when man has gone against His instructions and the consequences that naturally follow. We can look at specific examples; King David for one. King David was guilty of adultery and murder both punishable by death. God spared David from the immediate punishement of death, and David sincerely repented, and continued to be a "friend of God". This gives me great hope and I can see the mercy of God which I trust He will extend to me. The fact is we are in no position to judge better than God, who knows all the circumstances and the intent of each individual's heart. What I tried to convey to Richard is that it looks like God is playing a game of chess. God is having to plan His next move on what man does. God knows the end from the beginning, He will win, for He will set up the moves so that man although he thinks he has freedom (and he has) man's moves will be based on his thought processes and although man makes a move, God already has His next move decided. This is how we can see God "ruling in the kingdoms of men". I have seen this happening as it is happening now which further supports my belief in God and what God is doing is right and ultimately His purpose (the big picture) will be fulfilled.

Having said all that, I appreciate we have to understand why God is acting in the way He does in these micro-circumstances of which was are condsidering one. I do not think we see as clearly as God the way forward. The world would be a far different place if God intervened as we expect he should from our point of view. Our judgement is imperfect and it is impossible for us to control ourselves let alone control the world. No governement of man has proved that man is in control. Again, we cannot expect others to control our own behaviour of which we have choice. That is why whatever we think of God's actions; right or wrong, we have to look to our own actions first. I shall continue to look for the justice and right judgement to God's actions including the one we are discussing now. I can see why God does has done some things the way He hs and I am still looking for reasons He has done other things the way He has. Because of the big picture, I will not let my not understanding of every situation, be a reason for disbelieving everything else I understand and believe to be true.

It doesn't matter how few women were taken and raped (though it's not as rare as you imply), even one woman would be outrages since it was commanded of Yahweh! And why did Yahweh allow the men to divorce women because of the hardness of their harts and not allow women to divorce men? Once again a double standard biased toward the male.

I have to agree with the comments of Steve and others; God did not command the Israelites to rape the women. You are interpreting what took place as rape. I expect some indivinuals did rape (everyone is free to act as they want) and if it was found that some soldiers committed rape they would be punished under the law. The fact that we do not have all the detail does not mean we should ignore this. That is why, whether something is mentioned or not, we have to explore every possible act and intention and whay might have taken place and gone unreported. We have to put forward every question and give every possible answer to come to a correct decision. God has caused to be written enough that we should know about.

Where is your heart man? To make the glib statement "at least these girls were spared from slaughter", what How can you have no compassion or empathy? Imagine it was your daughter, wouldn't you rather her be killed with you then to be taken captive by the men who killed her family and raped her! Why do you think the Jewish community at Masada all killed themselves rather than be taken captive by the Roman soldiers? Because the Roman soldiers would have done to them exactly what their ancestors did to the people they captured!

You can say my statement is glib and that I have no compassion or empathy , I do not expect others to entirely agree with your opinion; the same way as they do not agree with your totally biassed opinion of what took place concerning the 32,000 virgins. As I said, the original instruction was to utterly destroy the people living in the land promised to the Children of Israel. If they had obeyed the situation we are talking about now would never have took place. The killing of all the people in the land they were to posess does sound harsh. I also believe in the infinite mercy of God to save the innocent from etenal death. I leave all judgemet to God and will not limit God to who He allows to be in the kingdom. All I am told is that as God will judge the good and the bad, and there will be many who will not live to see the kingdom of God which is coming. We must first have regard to our own actions and let "the dead bury the dead" as Jesus said.
I shall ask is this question; what would have happened to these 32,000 virgins if the slaughter had not taken place? My answer is; I expect they would have practiced idolatry the same as their parents and peers. In this way, they would have come under the same judgement as anyone else that practiced idolatry. As they were spared and had the opportunity to live with the Israelites they had the opportunity to lead a much better life; the same as God's people had the opportunity to lead a better life and be blessed for so doing. In practice, God's people did not always lead the better life they were supposed to.
Another point, while accepting the Children of Israel did not lead the pefect lives they were supposed to, on a whole, the nation was better for practicing the laws given to them by God. Consider the children of these women saved, their childred would have had a much better life and better prospects for the future, than if they had been born into the idolatrous society in which they had lived. Considering it was the practice to offer infants as a sacrifice to these false gods, I cannot see what advantage these women had by remaining alive to participate in idolatry. How you can say that by being taken captive into a society that gave these women better prospects, it was not compassionate. I do empathise with people, but you are saying I should have empathy with those who practice idolatry and whether they be virgins or otherwise makes no difference. Because they are sexual virgins does not make them idolatrous virgins. These women were given the opportunity to assimilate into a better society overall and that has to begood. I understand their anguish and hurt and pain at seeing their family slaughtered, but in time, and as the old adage goes, "time heals", maybe they would come to understand the error of their parents and peers and their nation as a whole. As I say, I am trying to get a fair balance and make sense of all this.

In all the verses I have quoted concerning the sexual violence against women, I have seen no justice or mercy displayed on the part of Yahweh. What I see in verse after verse, is Yahweh conceding to the lustful desires of men! It's time to open your eyes and see the Bible for what it is...right now it's hard for you to see it, because the implications are too much to handle.

All the best,
Rose

Sorry Rose, I can only see you are making gross assumptions again as others are seeing you making. It is true that men have lustful desires; the same as women have lustful desires but more so in men than women perhaps. We generalize but we should not forget that individually we are accountable for our own actions over which we should exercise control and that is not to say this is easier said than done. It is extremely difficult and thanks be to Jesus for proving it can be done and through Jesus, the Christ, we can be given the victory, just as Jesus was victorious in defeating the devil that was his nature, but which he overcame.
Again Rose, you are accusing me of being blind and not being able to handle the truth. That I can level the same against you and so I let others reading this decide who is nearer to understanding the Truth of God's word. I know you are not accusing me of evil doing, all I am doing is having a good good conversation based on my understanding of God's word which I have gained over many years and it does not matter if I am accused of less than evil doings, for the same sentiment applies as stated in the following quote;
1 Peter 3:16 Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.

I can handle it!!

All the best to you Rose.

David


.