oh breece i did answer gon.o.cide if you'll backa little and they did not rape the woman they took them as wives. there's a difference.
p.s. sorry i forgot about this thread:(
forgot to copy my response first:(
I did tell you about G.enocide a couple replies back. and they did not r.ape the women they took them as wives.
p.s. i forgot about this thread actually sorry:(
If they're taking surviving women as ives, how is that wiping them out?
Furthermore, I advise you to re-read some of the verses on the link I posted (on this thread). Some of them specifically mention r.ape.
No probs :) I'm going to bed now.
nice cite. it's to bad that what it is saying is the punishment for ra.pe not justifying it.
Judges 21:10-24 ESV / 5 helpful votes
So the congregation sent 12,000 of their bravest men there and commanded them, “Go and strike the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead with the edge of the sword; also the women and the little ones. This is what you shall do: every male and every woman that has lain with a male you shall devote to destruction.” And they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead 400 young virgins who had not known a man by lying with him, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan. Then the whole congregation sent word to the people of Benjamin who were at the rock of Rimmon and proclaimed peace to them. And Benjamin returned at that time. And they gave them the women whom they had saved alive of the women of Jabesh-gilead, but they were not enough for them. ...
They warred against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses, and killed every male. They killed the kings of Midian with the rest of their slain, Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba, the five kings of Midian. And they also killed Balaam the son of Beor with the sword. And the people of Israel took captive the women of Midian and their little ones, and they took as plunder all their cattle, their flocks, and all their goods. All their cities in the places where they lived, and all their encampments, they burned with fire, and took all the spoil and all the plunder, both of man and of beast. ...
Deuteronomy 20:10-14 ESV / 10 helpful votes
“When you draw near to a city to fight against it, offer terms of peace to it. And if it responds to you peaceably and it opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall do forced labor for you and shall serve you. But if it makes no peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it. And when the Lord your God gives it into your hand, you shall put all its males to the sword, but the women and the little ones, the livestock, and everything else in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as plunder for yourselves. And you shall enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the Lord your God has given you.
“If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.
“If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor's wife. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.
Not only does this prove that they did not wipe them out as you said, but also it gives some insight into r.ape.
Furthermore if "taking the women as spoils" is your version of marrying them, that's pretty f---ed up.
Also if a woman is r.aped in a city, but no one hears her, she gets stoned to death on top of being r.aped.
And if she is r.aped otherwise, she is forced to marry her r.apist. That's not a horrible traumitizing experience that would probably make most people commit s.uicide...
Sorry, breece, but I think concerning the rape in the city thing, it just means if she let it happen then she's partly to blame. If she doesn't cry out. .... Gonna get outa bed now :)
nice argument there but once again you're misunderstanding scripture. 1st qoute of scripture = punishment for rape.
dueteronomy= making wives
nice argument there but once again you're misunderstanding scripture. 1st qoute of scripture = punishment for r.ape.
dueteronomy= making wives
packerbacker: Do you follow the doctrines of Jesus?
You claim that you don't follow anybody's doctrines. All your beliefs and teachings come straight from the Bible. Good!
I do have one problem with this, though. Lets say you were studying the world (parralled to the Bible) and that you don't study any work from any predecessor of that field of science. You would inevitably rediscover things that were discovered by people before you. Would take the credit for discovering these things? Or would you give it to those who discovered it before you? Or maybe you would chose neither. I don't know. I just think that credit should go to where credit is due.
Take, for example, the trinity. This is a doctrine. It was first taught several years after the ressurection of Jesus. I can't remember specifics, but there was a huge argument between some big honchos in the early church. One group of people thought that Jesus was just a man, others thought that the HS was a seperate entity or even non-existant. And there was a group that thought that God, HS, and Jesus were all the same, yet seperate.
that's funny that you call that a doctrine.when i say doctrines i mean man's added teachings...:) and the thing with science that is science not the Bible commentary:)
You completely ignored at least 3/4 of my post.
Let me break it down to you, I'm going to number my points, if you don't reply to each of them in similar numerical fashion, I will assume you've conceded that point.
1. If they are marrying the woman that survive, how is that wiping them all out like you suggested previously?
2. How does "taking women as spoils" and "gave them the women, but they were not enough for them" tell you that they were "marrying" them.
This sounds like they're being treated as s.exual property, given to men to satisfy their needs. That is r.ape, not consenting marriage.
3. If a woman is r.aped in a city, she is stoned to death as well. If a woman is r.aped elsewhere, she is forced to marry her r.apist.
How is that fair or moral? How is being forced to marry the person that violently and psychologically assaulted you moral at all?
Do you doubt what r.ape is? Do I need to give you links about what r.ape does to someone? It's not pretty. At all.
1. it is wiping them out because the women become israelites thus the other tribe is wiped out because they no longer belong to them.
2. this is not r.ape. it means go take wives for yourself.
3. whoever said anything about fair and moral? besides this is punishment for the man because he has to be humiliated that he has to be married to whom he r.aped.
i know what r.ape is.
Breece: I commented on the city and ra.pe thing before. Did you see it? PB: give us evidence on number 2. Your connection was off.
nope my connection is just fine:)
1. Why couldn't they do the same with the men and just adopt them as israelites too?
2. I disagree. A woman is not something to be taken as spoils, that form of marriage is no less than institutionalized r.ape.
3. OH, poor guy has to live with the woman HE R.APED. I feel so bad for him! He must feel so horrible like "MAYN, now I gotta live with dis -----".
No, just no. It is infinitely worse for the woman who got r.aped. People commit s.uicide over r.ape. Being forced to spend the rest of your life with the person who r.aped you?
No, just no. It is far more punishing for the woman.
If you know what r.ape is then you should find the idea of being of forced to live with your r.apist the most disgustingly immoral thing ever. If you don't, you don't know what r.ape is.
oh i know what r.ape is you just don't have the same views as me. if you beleived the WHOLE Bible like me you would understand.
Didn't respond to the first 2 points :P
I do accept that I don't believe what you do.
I think the real disconnect is that I'm asking you for justification of God's actions, when you aren't God.
In my opinion, there is no justification for those actions, which is why I choose to believe that they were not actually God's, but rather that he was used as a reason by the men of that time period who did commit the atrocities.
Ah well, I think we're doomed to fundamentally disagree.
and this was my ignorant self when i first arrivedXD
Um... how is forcibly taking a woman as your wife not r.ape?
like i said, look above, this was my ignorant self when i first arrived, i was just going through my old threads. I agree with you SDD;)