NOGO

What is really unfortunate, Ed, is that you do not see the absurdity of this statement.

No matter how things were arranged the guy raped the girl. If this were a crime the guy would have been punished as rapists are punished in our current society.

The fact that the people who wrote the Bible believed that you can fix everything by having these people marry is a testimony to the dilapidate morality they lived by.

Man rapes woman.
Marry them.
Rape is gone.

If rape was a serious sin in ancient Israel then punishment for the man and not marriage would he the law.

Ed

The fact that it says you cannot sell her for money means that she should not be treated like a slave. If she was just a slave then he could sell her for money.

nogo: "you shall not mistreat her BECAUSE you have humbled her"

"Mistreat" here refers to the act of selling her.
"humbled her" is a polite way of saying rape.
Therefore, because she has lost her virginity she is not to be sold. She has paid for her freedom with her virginity.

So this sentence says that you cannot sell her BECAUSE you have raped her.

</strong>[/QUOTE]

No, you cannot sell her because she is not to be treated like a slave. I believe that "Humbled her" in this case refers to the killing of her family.

Ed

No, the verse says that he CANNOT sell her because she is NOT a slave. If she had been a slave then he could have sold her.

Quote:

nogo: "you shall not mistreat her BECAUSE you have humbled her" "Mistreat" here refers to the act of selling her. "humbled her" is a polite way of saying rape. Therefore, because she has lost her virginity she is not to be sold. She has paid for her freedom with her virginity. So this sentence says that you cannot sell her BECAUSE you have raped her.

I disagree. Mistreat her refers to any bad thing that he could do to her including selling or raping her. And although in many cases "humbled" does refer to rape, I believe in this case it refers to the killing of her family members.

Bree

Ed: Why don't you check with the original Scripture, and then get back to us? "Humbled" is naught but a translation - go back to the root and let us know what you find.

Ed

As I said above in an earlier post, apparently God's law regarding incest was not being enforced at the time because she said that King David would let them get married. So in this case "humbled" does mean rape, but as I demonstrated in an earlier thread where I quoted from Strong's Concordance that it can also mean "deal harshly with".

Ed

They seem quite similar to me.

Quote:

20 `And if this thing hath been truth -- tokens of virginity have not been found for the damsel -- 21 then they have brought out the damsel unto the opening of her father's house, and stoned her have the men of her city with stones, and she hath died, for she hath done folly in Israel, to go a-whoring [in] her father's house; and thou hast put away the evil thing out of thy midst.

lp: Another example of Yahweh's morality. I want to know if you consider this moral, Ed?[/quote]

Since Israel was God's representative on earth its people were held to a much higher standard than other peoples. And committing adultery causes tremendous social problems.

Quote:

22 `When a man is found lying with a woman, married to a husband, then they have died even both of them, the man who is lying with the woman, also the woman; and thou hast put away the evil thing out of Israel.

nogo: Yahweh's morality.[/quote]

See above.

Quote:

nogo: 23 `When there is a damsel, a virgin, betrothed to a man, and a man hath found her in a city, and lain with her; 24 then ye have brought them both out unto the gate of that city, and stoned them with stones, and they have died: -- the damsel, because that she hath not cried, [being] in a city; and the man, because that he hath humbled his neighbour's wife; and thou hast put away the evil thing out of thy midst.

nogo: Notice the word "humble" used again as rape.[/quote]

No, this was not rape, this was consensual adultery because she didn't cry out in a city, where there would be people to rescue her.

Quote:

nogo: 28 `When a man findeth a damsel, a virgin who is not betrothed, and hath caught her, and lain with her, and they have been found, 29 then hath the man who is lying with her given to the father of the damsel fifty silverlings, and to him she is for a wife; because that he hath humbled her, he is not able to send her away all his days.

nogo: Notice that there is no divorce possible because he has humbled her.
The man pays her father 50 silverlings and is forced to marry the girl.[/quote]

This was not rape either, because it says "they were found out" this means that they were both hiding their behavior this was consensual fornication.

Quote:

nogo: Lev 19 20 Now if a man lies carnally with a woman who is a slave acquired for another man, but who has in no way been redeemed nor given her freedom, there shall be punishment; they shall not, however, be put to death, because she was not free.

Laws for slaves are different. Slaves are simply not important for Yahweh. What is interesting is also the place where this law is stated. It is in the middle of miscellaneous laws on cattle, trees, etc.

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p> [/QUOTE]

If they were not important, then why did he require them to be freed in the year of Jubilee?

Ed

Huh? That is what a republic is, government by law. How is it undemocratic? If among those unchanging laws is representative government and the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, then NOT having unchanging laws is what is undemocratic. Just saying that the US was never a judeo-christian republic doesnt make it so. The overwhelming majority of the founding fathers were Christians and the foundation of our human rights is based on the judeo-christian concept that all men are created equally in God's image.

Quote:

Ed: No, that was a specific command for a specific nation, ancient Israel, at a specific time. However, if the women were brought here and married voluntarily, that would be fine.

nogo: Deut 21:14 speaks in general not a specific event. I have shown above that the woman was enslaved and raped. If you have nothing else to add but to repeat this nonsense then I guess the discussion is over.[/quote]

No, Christians are not commanded to wage war and take captives as part of a theocracy. We are commanded to make disciples of Christ and gather regularly in groups that hold each other accountable(churches). These laws deal specifically with the old hebrew theocracy not with believers after the coming of Christ, but we can learn general moral principles from them.

Quote:

NG: Ed you failed to answer my previous post. I must insist that you do. Ed: I did, see above.

nogo: Only in your dreams.
You have admitted that the primary reason for the Amalekite massacre was an event that took place 400 years before. Even with just this you have a huge problem in that people are made guilty by the mere fact they are descendents of people that committed a crime. Jesus says "fill up in the guilt of you fathers". Mt23:32

You have not begun to answer this point.

[ November 28, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p> [/QUOTE]

No, they were already guilty of rebellion against God from their birth, it was just the timing of their death that was tied to their ancestors attack on Israel. But as I stated earlier from what we know about God in other parts of the bible, the amelekites probably had comemorated the victory over the years so most of the were guilty of the attack by association and approval of it.

Ed

We dont know, maybe some kind of spiritual DNA.

Quote:

jtb: Three problems: 1. If Adam and Eve were not "created selfish", then HOW did these unselfish people choose to rebel?

They had the free will to become selfish.

Quote:

jtb: 2. WHY did God then make the "selfishness gene" which allowed A&E's descendants to inherit? Or did A&E re-engineer their own genome to create this gene? Did they eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good, Evil and Advanced Genetic Engineering Technology?

None of the above, it was a natural consequence of their rebellion.

Quote:

jtb: 3. WHY did God let this gene continue to operate, condemning millions to misery on Earth followed by eternal torment in Hell?

No, they are condemned by their own sins.

Quote:

stb: This is a fundamental principle, people should not be punished for other's sins. Can you please state whether you agree or not ????? Ed: Where did you obtain this fundamental principle?

Well, it IS specifically mentioned in the Bible. Though, of course, the Bible contradicts itself bigtime on this issue.[/quote]

No the apparent contradiction is easily explained by the fact that the scriptures teach that while God does not directly punish anyone for someone elses sins, a parent's sins CAN result in its consequences impacting their children.

Quote:

Ed: The only way that they were punished for others sins is the timing of their death, they all deserved death at birth for the overarching reason that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God", and the "wages of sin is death".

jtb: Therefore leaving you with no moral compass. OK, we've already established that.[/quote]

How?

Quote:

Ed: From Genesis to Revelation the reason for any death in this world is the reason I stated above. But the reason for the timing for their death is the reason mentioned in the specific passage you quoted.

jtb: So you've finally admitted that NOGO was right? Hallelujah![/quote]

I have never denied that he was partly right, see above about the timing of their deaths.

Quote:

Ed: They are accomplices in the rebellion against God not necessarily in the specific attack on Israel though Israel was God's chosen representative on earth. Actually you are correct we are all accomplices in the rebellion against God from the fall of Man onward. Only Jesus Christ can take away that guilt from us.

jtb: ...Nope, this brief flash of common sense was shortlived. Even if I inherited the "Original Sin gene" created by Adam and Eve's genetic enginnering in Eden (which must have had excellent lab facilities not mentioned in Genesis), that doesn't make me an accomplice. I have no guilt for Jesus to "take away": only a genetic defect to be fixed.

Try harder, Ed. [/QUOTE]

No, you are guilty of your own sins and rebellion against God.

scumble

It's been a while since I checked II - but I'm surprised this thread has gone on so long, or maybe not.

I think the most amusing thing emerging from the discussion is the idea that Christians actually have a rational basis for morality. Following blindly what's written in a very ancient text is hardly what I'd call rational. If one is wise, one realises that that there is not much to confirm that anything written down and collected in the Bible. Essentially, the people who wrote the texts down are unknown and the reliability of their accounts is open to question.

All this quoting of scripture is a bit fatuous, since the whole thing should be taken with a pinch of salt. In fact, I find it far more interesting to take the Bible as it is without related baggage.

Darkblade

Hilarious!!! :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy