How many 5 years olds... - Page 6 - Religion, God, and Theology

And why you say its certain death is a mystery. They could have family in another town. They could attempt to live on their own. (OMG... women living without husbands?!?!?!) They could have moved to another town/city and attempted to find work/new husband/whatever.

Not likely in the ANE. Historically what you are saying is absurd.

Quote

05-03-2010 , 03:20 PM

#127

kurto

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 17,634

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jibninjas

Wait, God commended that these people be conquered and the women were allowed to be taken as wives. There is a big difference.

There's not a big difference because "taken as wives" means dragging the women home and forcing them to have your children.

Quote:

Once a city has been conquered. What do you feel the moral thing to do with the women is? Kill them? Leave them there? What are the options here?

Let them go seems the most obvious. They could take them with them and allow them to join their society without forcing them to marry people against their will.

I'm still having trouble believing we're having this discussion. Just transplant this to today. Think of one of your married friends. Can you think of a scenario where some invading army comes over, murders their family and forces them through coercion to have sex with them and be wedded to the men who murdered her family... Hey, what are the options here? How is this not rape in your mind. I'm genuinely puzzled.

Quote

05-03-2010 , 03:35 PM

#128

kurto

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 17,634

by the way... this discussion is really making my point.

My brother spent one night trying to convince me that slavery was alright because its in the Old Testament.

Now, I'm discussing with Jib about why its okay that conquering armies forced women (whose families they've just killed) into marriage.

Quote:

When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

By the way- correct me if I'm wrong... here God commands the people to go to a city. If the city submits, then all will be slaves. (slavery good!) If they refuse, they are to conquer the city. Once conquered, they are to kill all the men. (certainly barbaric)

The cattle, women and children are all seen as the spoils (in this version) which the conquerer may enjoy.

Another quick quote- this is from "Woman In Judiasm" paper on a University of Toronta site.

Quote:

Deut. 21:10-14 provides as follows:

When you go forth to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God has delivered them into your hands, and you have taken them captive,
And you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and desire her, and take her for a wife -
Then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and do her nails,
And she shall remove the garment of her captivity from her, and remain in your house and weep for her father and mother a for month, and after that you may approach her and have intercourse with her, and she shall be your wife.
And if you do not want her, you shall send her out on her own; you shall not sell her at all for money, you shall not treat her as a slave, because you "violated" her.
We shall focus on the expression "violated her," 'initah in Hebrew, from the root 'anah. It is in the translation of this word that an attitudinal difference between the Targumim becomes apparent. In 2 Samuel 13;11-14, the story of Amnon and Tamar, the root 'anah is used twice: "do not violate me," and then "he overpowered her, he violated her, and he lay with her." If we understand "and he lay with her" to mean "and he had intercourse with her," we may understand from the juxtaposition of the two concepts that 'anah can be considered sexual violence. That is, in this instance the use of 'anah together with "had intercourse" seems to imply actual rape.

This seems to be the case as well in Gen.34:2, the story of Dinah and Shechem. There the text says: "He [Shechem] took her, and he lay with [had intercourse] with her and he violated her [vaye'anehah]." 'Anah alone would not mean necessarily rape, but simply sexual violence of some sort. Rape is again implied here by the use of 'anah and "had intercourse" together.

The idea of rape may also be expressed with other terminology. In Deuteronomy 22:25, 28 we find the verb "had intercourse" used with the verbs "took hold of," "grabbed", to imply the idea of forced intercourse i.e. rape. The verb 'anah is used alone in Lamentations 5:11, Ezekiel 22:10, and Judges 19:25, and from the context in these instances seems to imply rape.

Quote

05-03-2010 , 03:48 PM

#129

MelchyBeau

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 6,043

why even go to the old testament for validating rape? You can find justification for marrital rape in the new testament.

Ephesians 5:22-23
22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.

Quote

05-03-2010 , 03:50 PM

#130

Splendour

banned

Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 18,896

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arouet

Splendour, the point that is trying to come out here is that the justice such as in this example seems more likely to have been conceived by men, rather than by an all-loving and just deity.

I disagree if you find a world changing reformation coming out of one people and they say they owe it to God then its likely its God.

http://creationwiki.org/Biblical_sci..._foreknowledge

If its not God then I prefer panspermia not reductionism:

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

Quote

05-03-2010 , 03:51 PM

#131

xxmagicianxx

adept

Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 1,105

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splendour

From "The Case for Faith" an interview of Norman Geisler by Lee Strobel

"The prophet Elisha was walking down the road toward Bethel when he was confronted by some little children who teased him by making fun of his baldness. "Go on up, you baldhead!" they taunted. He reacted by cursing them in the name of God. Then, in a stunning act of retribution, 2 bears suddenly emerged from the woods and mauled 42 of them.

Now Dr. Geisler you insisted that God is not capricious asks Strobel.

Geisler: "The presupposition of your question is wrong. These were not small children."

Geisler goes on to say "Unfortunately the King James Version has a misleading translation there. Scholars have established that the original Hebrew is best translated "young men". The NIV renders the word "youths". As best we can tell this was a violent mob of dangerous teenagers, comparable to a modern street gang. The life of the prophet was in danger by the sheer number of them - if 42 were mauled, who knows how many were threatening him in total?"

Strobel: "Threatening him? Give me a break. They were just making fun of his baldness."

Geisler: "When you understand the context, you'll see that this was much more serious than that. Commentators have noted that their taunts were intended to challenge Elisha's claim to be a prophet. Essentially they were saying, "If you're a man of God, why don't you go up to heaven like the prophet Elijah did?" Apparently they were mocking the earlier work of God in taking Elijah to heaven. They were contemptuous in their disbelief over what God had done through both of these prophets. And their remarks about Elisha being bald were most likely a reference to the fact that lepers in those days shaved their heads. So they were assailing Elisha - a man of dignity and authority as a prophet of God - as a destable and despicable outcast. They were casting a slur on not only his character, but on God's, since he was God's representative."

Strobel: "Still wasn't this a minor offense?"

Geisler: "Not in the context of those days." and "They were, in effect, attacking him and God. This was a peremptory strike to put fear in the hearts of anyone else who would do this, because this could be a dangerous precedent. If a menacing mob of teenagers got away with this and God didn't come to the defense of his prophet, just think of the negative effect that would have on society. It could open the door to further attacks on prophets and consequently a disregard for the urgent message they were trying to bring from God.

In fact as one commentator said, "Instead of demonstrating unleashed cruelty, the bear attack shows God trying repeatedly to bring his people back to himself through smaller judgments until the people's sin is too great and judgment must come full force...The disastrous fall of Samaria would have been avoided had the people repented after the bear attack.

Last of all I'd sayonce agian that we have to consider the sovereignty of God. It wasn't Elisha who took their lives; it was the God who created them who let the bears loose. And if he created life, he has every right to take it away. The attack of this gang on the prophet revealed their true attitudes toward God, and its always a perilous path that leads to destruction when you defiantly curse and stubbornly oppose God."

Geisler goes on to cite the passage from 1 Kings 20:14-15 that shows that one of the words used to describe the youths is used to describe men in the Army.

Pure gold. Love how you go from some young people saying "go up baldie" to violent street gang terrorizing an entire city while threatening the life of Elisha and directly attacking god. A preemptory strike. LOL. So much facepalm in this quote.

Quote

05-03-2010 , 03:55 PM

#132

batair

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 16,802

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jibninjas

Once a city has been conquered. What do you feel the moral thing to do with the women is? Kill them? Leave them there? What are the options here?

Just because there are worse choices or even if there were no choices doesn't mean its not rape.

Basically your not saying it isn't rape but that rape was the best option.

Quote

05-03-2010 , 03:57 PM

#133

Splendour

banned

Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 18,896

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxmagicianxx

Its a reconstituted thread.

I just liked Geisler's explanation better then my own so I showed it.

Quote

05-03-2010 , 03:59 PM

#134

xxmagicianxx

adept

Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 1,105

I'm sorry, I wasn't making fun of you and I didn't mean to offend, it just had me rolling.

Quote

05-03-2010 , 06:15 PM

#135

Arouet

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 6,433

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splendour

L. Ron Hubbard presented "world changing reformation" as well and owes it to aliens.

Do you think it was from aliens?

Quote

05-03-2010 , 06:28 PM

#136

Splendour

banned

Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 18,896

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arouet

L. Ron Hubbard presented "world changing reformation" as well and owes it to aliens.

Do you think it was from aliens?

I don't know Hubbard at all. Isn't he the founder of Scientology?

I just saw an interesting documentary on ancient astronauts the other day. It mentioned the Annunaki, the Zuni, certain African Tribes and other groups who talk about Sky Gods/People. Even China has an ancient alien tradition. Someone from the sky on a dragon who gave them language and built the Great Wall of China. The show presented the idea that the dragon was an outer space craft.

I've wondered if God could be an alien before and find that more convincing than the reductionist view.

Its not unheard of for serious bible scholars to consider the possibility of an ancient alien connection.

http://www.history.com/shows/ancient-aliens

Quote

05-03-2010 , 07:53 PM

#137

Arouet

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 6,433

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splendour

I don't know Hubbard at all. Isn't he the founder of Scientology?

Yes, exactly. Now, Hubbard crafted an incredibly detailed religion. He was also unquestionably an incredibly bright individual with gifted creative writing skills.

Now, what do you think is more likely: he was revealed this religion by aliens? Or, he made it all up?