by OnTheWayOut 150 Replies latest members adult
"It may difficult for us to get past our own culture, but history is what it is. The simple fact is that rape, then as now holds a connotation that includes a) violence and b) non-marriage. Unless someone can show conclusively that God ordered violent penetrations of unmarried women, then a rape was not ordered."
Graps popcorn, prepare to watch Perry get mopped again...
There is absolutely no way either you or Washington can claim with a straight face that battlefield rape was commanded by God becuase it wasn't specfically prohibited.
Neither of us said anything about battlefield rape being commanded by God. And rape is licensed in the deuteronomical law, not commanded.
Secondly, we are talking about arranged marriage, get it?
No, we are not talking about arranged marriage. I'm not at least, neither was Washington in his article that I quoted. What is described in Deuteronomy 21 is a forced marriage. "Virtually all marriages" before the modern era were NOT forced marriages, tho indeed it was widely practiced and still is practiced throughout the world (which the UN regards as a human rights abuse). And yes, marital rape does exist, particularly in cases of forced marriage.
"On a side note, how many would be in favor of Leolaia getting paid a consultant's fee?"
Aye. I'll chip in a C-note.
Neither of us said anything about battlefield rape being commanded by God.
But that is the charge levied against God here on this thread "God commands Rape", and is why I addressed it ...to show your reference was irrelevant to the purpose of this topic.
And rape is licensed in the deuteronomical law, not commanded.
Really? Where is the sexual violence toward unmarried women licensed? Why would you withold such evidence in a subject as important as this until now?
No, we are not talking about arranged marriage. I'm not at least, neither was Washington in his article that I quoted.
Yall arent? Why not? That is what the scriptures cited are about.
What is described in Deuteronomy 21 is a forced marriage. "Virtually all marriages" before the modern era were NOT forced marriages,
Just emotive word games Leolaia. Virtually all marriages throughout history were arranged custodially. In many cases, against the wishes of either the male or the female (forced) . This is well documented.
In this case there was a) presumably no custodian, them having been lawfully executed b) they became a ward of the state and delivered to the citizenry as a lawful wife with full recognition, rights etc.
In any event, the definition of "rape" has changed. In the context under discussion, it normally evokes images of violence to a non-spousal woman (usually a single event, or for a short time period) in the heat of pitched battle or shortly thereafter.
At least that image has been permanently dispelled I hope.
If you want to call an arranged marriage, that bestows a lifetime of care, full legal authority of a citizen and a lawful wife, coupled with legal aspects including property ownership, inheritence (personally and through the children) a rape, you go right ahead and march yourself down that road.
I don't speak for Leolaia. I was the one who said "rape commander." We already addressed your answer:
Thirdly, I already addressed how you would dismiss all scriptures that don't directly say that "The Lord commanded them to rape." ..... We agree that you never read such a thing. Will you at least admit that God didn't stop them or command them to stop, that He overlooked the rape in His name?
This is priceless, though:
There is absolutely no way either you or Washington can claim with a straight face that battlefield rape was commanded by God becuase it wasn't specfically prohibited.
Like a politician or like WTS, you slip a new word in- "battlefield." Maybe the subject went there, but you attack Leolaia for veering from the original post topic when you do the same. I never said that God commanded battlefield rape. I suggested the possibility, but admitted it was not necessarily the way they determined virginity.
This is even more priceless:
Secondly, we are talking about arranged marriage, get it? Up until recently in human history, virtually ALL MARRIAGES were arranged. If we were to take your definition of rape at face value, then virtually all young women who entered an arranged marriage, which they may or may not have been agreeable to, experienced rape at the moment of consumation. Again, this is ludicrous.
I will grant that many girls entered an arranged marriage not so enthusiastically about it, but we are not talking about an Israelite marrying an Israelite because Mom and Dad arranged it. We are talking about the victors of battle killing their family, then giving these girls a choice of consent to sex and a bogus marriage or else death. (I don't really believe they had that choice but Perry does, so I will let it go. Personally, I think they would have been raped and not allowed to die.) Heck, they could even get rid of some of these girls later in some scriptures. That is rape, my friend. Maybe not to the ANE but to God as you know Him, that is rape.
Move on to the other questions as I have already given up on convincing you of this.
Will you at least admit that God didn't stop them or command them to stop, that He overlooked the rape in His name?
OTWO,
Each of your examples of suposed rape have been addressed, and can't be construed as such. Here are the facts:
1. There was no rape in any of your examples, by any stretch in some of your examples, and can't be viewed as such with a knowledge of ANE customs in others.
2. There is no proof of ANY battlefield rape of any kind. Quite beyond dispute - is the notion that God commanded rape.
3. The laws pertaining to acquiring a foreign wife were quite clear, and included a lifetime of care, property rights, citizen rights etc. , all things inconsistent with common notions of Rape.
And now I'd like to just give a little insight about God from the standpoint of a 4th genertaion Jehovah's Witness, Regular Pioneer and now born again Christian. First, I want to address a few of the comments about Jehovah and Jesus made by a few posters earlier. It made me think of an exchange that Jesus once had with Philip and Thomas.
Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way , the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. If ye had known me , ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, shew us the Father?
For any that think that there is some kind of diffference between Jesus and Jehovah, this is simply not supported in scripture. God has dealt with man in dispensations, different ways during different time periods. Prior to Jesus (God) presenting himself as a Lamb to be slaughtered in our place (not in Adam's place) , he, as the eternal Son, begotton (not started) from the father (God is timeless), of the same essence of the Father, dealt with man from more of a standpoint of justice. Mercy was still there though, especially through faith.
We are now living under Grace, God is no longer the enemy of man, and man is no longer the enemy of God, believer or not. Soon God will fight a battle of epic proportions not against us, but against Satan and the antichrist. We are all caught in the middle....believer and unbeliever alike. Winds of change are in the air. The dispensation of Grace will soon end and Jesus will assume his rightful throne. Justice will again rule, but this time with global blesssings.
At the beginning of the new dispensation, Jesus starts to look like Jehovah, in the previous dispensation:
And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come. But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us. And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading......But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
I just want to say that just as the fleshly man Jesus was fully man, he yet also posessed the "fullness of the godhead". He could speak as both God and man truthfully. I know that as Witnesses we threw around religious sounding terms like "give us your holy spirit" etc, but now as a born again Christian, actually posessing the Holy Spirit, I can testify that we didn't have a clue as to what we were talking about.
In an infintesimal way, I can imagine the essence of Jehovah himself, in the flesh of the man Jesus, with the personality of the Son telling Philip, "Hey Philip don't you recoginize from my goodness yet, I'm Jehovah little buddy....your daddy."
Having the Holy Spirit inside a person is like looking at the finest looking girl (or boy) you have ever seen when you are 17 years old, biting into a fresh juicy pineapple for the very first time, and being suspended in that special place between awake and asleep all rolled into one. The level of sheer GOODNESS EXPERIENCED from God in the Holy Spirit is beyond description. Until you have the Holy Spirit in you, as you and through you, there is simply no way to ever be completely sure of anything.
This is how I know that God did not command the rape of women. I can taste the goodness of the Lord right now.... I know he didn' t do it.
It is nice to be challenged on serious allegations such as these just to make sure with my mind, but I already knew. God is good.
I had the privledge of leading a former sister and Regular Pioneer to Christ a few days ago. She made her formal confession last night. Now I am praying that the Holy Spirit confirms her citizenship into the adopted family of God, sooner rather than later. If you are a confessed Christian and unsure about your status. Please ask God to confirm it to you. YOU CAN KNOW. Ask for it. Then get on with the business of God and enjoy his victories through you, as you.
If you are an unbeliever, know that God is not your enemy, we are ALL under Grace. If you make the decision to accept the Lord Jesus Christ as your personal Savior, your Lord ... this is not idolatry. He is God and is the only way to get to the Father. He is the only way to get anywhere.
John 15:5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: ......without me ye can do nothing.
I am quite sure this will sound holier than thou to some, it is not meant to be. Know that I am the biggest sinner here I'm sure by far.
Blessings to all.
So, there's a big difference between a God that "allowed" and "commanded" or "sanctioned" the act to the women being raped?
I tend to doubt that.
Let's try that in different sentences...."I allow you to rape captive women." "I command you to rape captive women." "I sanction the rape of captive women."
Hm...rape with impunity seems to be a common denominator there regardless of the word used.
Why are you bringing Jesus into this? He had amazingly little to say on the subject of sex of any sort, period.
The fact is, we live in THIS culture and just not heeding a refusal by a woman to have sexual contact in current Western culture is deemed rape. Date rape is rape, rape with violence is rape, it's all rape if there is no consent or ability to consent to the act.
The difference is that we don't view women as property anymore, so our definition of what is rape is more sophisticated and pertains to women as persons who have the right to refuse a man. That's the underlying point to me. The Jews viewed women as property, which was no different than any other people of that time. There was no superior moral teaching in that respect to the Gentiles or other Semitic tribes of the time.
Whatever they called this act that was sanctioned by God in the days of the Ancient Jews would not hold up in a modern court as a defense against rape, simply because they did not deem it rape.
It's just interesting to me that men are capable of making a more compassionate and just law now, as far as the treatment of women is concerned, than God was at that time.
What that tells me is that as a guide for living every aspect of my life, that part of the Bible, while interesting, is worthless.
Thanks for trying to help me understand you better, Perry.
I am done with you on this thread, others feel free to continue calling Perry out.
He's avoided my other questions refusing to listen to anything, even elevating God for His wonderful treatment of these young virgins.
It's like calling out this guy:
then virtually all young women who entered an arranged marriage, which they may or may not have been agreeable to, experienced rape at the moment of consumation. Again, this is ludicrous.
Perry is just stunning
This is just a side thought, I am still done calling out Perry.
And now I'd like to just give a little insight about God from the standpoint of a 4th genertaion Jehovah's Witness, Regular Pioneer and now born again Christian.
Is that supposed to be a resume? You want acknowledgement for "insight" based on 4th gen. JW and a pioneer JW?
Okay, here it is. 
