Protector of pedophiles (page 2)

SixofNine

there is no profit in impugning meanings

I guess I have to disagree, at least a bit. I think it is important to try and figure out just what the writer is trying to convey. That isn't always very clear. But when the weight of the words, combined with what one knows about the attitudes of the times, makes something "look" like abuse of girls, I don't have alot of respect for anyone who chooses to ignore how something "looks" in order to prop up a theology that, it seems to me, is entirely negative.

This ain't a court of law, so it is up to each of us to decide what we will believe about the bible, but the issue is bigger than any ever argued in any court.

Utopian Reformist

Six:

I think you made my point! I agree. We must try to figure out the "weight" of those words. Now, all you need is additional evidence to substantiate the claim.

Are there any other scriptural accounts where "approved" servants are able to engage in relations with young women (pubescent/pre-pubescent)? I don't remember any offhand. Is there some type of historical document or reference you can point to that sheds more background on this particular account and the customs of sexual relations in ancient isreal?

How about some scientific evidence of middle-aged men and young girl marriages? Anything archaeological on this issue? I will accept it if you can find it and leverage with history and the scriptures to make the point.

Remember, I am not denying the possibility, just the probability in this individual account.

Utopian Reformist

Six:

Hopefully, my postings were not misleading. I am not a proponent of any particular theology at present. Given 15 years of WTBS life, I have probably had all of the theology and theocracy I can take, for the rest of my life.

I just want to determine as quickly and as accurately as possible whether or not there is any support for believing in anything anymore. I need answers today because of my situation. Alan knows what I am talking about.

waiting

From different books I've read, some historical, some based on those time periods - but not historical.....the female age of marriage was anytime after she started her periods because then she was considered a woman because she was capable of providing a child.

Since the average life span was much shorter back then, if I remember correctly, that would make sense in a shepherding/warrior/slave kind of way.

The *average* female starts her menstrual cycle anywhere from 11-13 nowadays. At that time, because of the hard lives in the desert, I would assume children would mature mentally faster. Physically, probably about the same.

So a *girl* would become a *woman* around the age of 12 making her of marriage material. I don't believe there was any actual law saying that she couldn't be given in marriage a tad earlier either. It wasn't her choice anyway - but that of her father's.

I believe some Mormon men still marry very young girls - on a tv program I watched, a man's 5th wife was 15. Even at the turn of the century in the usa, it wasn't uncommon for a girl of 15/16 to get married.

So, it doesn't seem unreasonable that the dual words of virgin women/virgin girls was used in the biblical account.

Now as to how the male soldiers *knew* without a doubt that a girl was a virgin - that would take manual, most likely digital, insertion of fingers to do so by the male soldiers. Then I guess if they found that the girl didn't have her virginity (can't remember the proper name)intact physically, they most likely either stabbed her or cut her head off.

If a girl was taken off as a slave, particularily before the Mosaic Law was written down, it was pretty much whatever the owner wanted to do - the owner could do. Remember the concubine that was raped by the men of one tribe till the point she died? She came home to her owner, and died on his doorstop. He was so enraged that he cut her up in pieces and sent a piece of her to each tribe.

So........it can't be proven that the virgin girls were taken so that men could have sex with them. But it was probable, and it was probable that they worked those girls to the bone because they could. I'm sure some masters were fair with their slaves, especially if the slaves were good, intelligent, and pretty.

Guess if the girl was dumb, ugly, and had a bad attitude, her days could be severely cut short - literally. Well, unless the owner wanted to exclusively for sex and babies. If she literally delivered well, she might live a slave's life.

waiting

Afterthought,

Why would we consider what these tribes did with their slaves any differently than what other peoples did with their slaves? In the usa, there was no laws saying what a master could/could not do with his slaves - and this was after 2,000 or more years of enlightenment.

In other countries, I believe it was the same way. When Indians took women from other tribes, these women were, for the most part, slaves. They could be taken as wives, or they could be beaten to death, etc. It was totally up to the owner and not to laws of the land.

waiting

Utopian Reformist

Waiting:

Hi and nice to exchange with you again! Thank you for raising some very, very, very reasonable and logical explanations. Possession is 9/10's of the law, and it stands to reason that men will get away with anything they can. So why not the worst, especially when there is nothing to stop them from doing so?

I just hope that wasn't the case. It leaves me with some frightnening thoughts.

waiting

Hey UR,

I'm at work, so I can't look up things - just my Pepsi break time. I've just finished reading a fascinating book called "The Red Tent" based on the experience of Dinah.

It puts the pre-Israelites into perspective as a group of people. Simple shepherds - no better or worse than their neighbors. Remember, before the law - there was no law. People stood on their own common decency - or fell because lack thereof.

The book is written from a woman's viewpoint -Dinah's. It was also written by a Jewish woman who has written several other books about the Jewish faith - pro-Jewish btw. So, I gathered she was pretty reasonable in her delivery.

So many things I never thought about.....but fascinating. It's not worded as strongly as Norm's post - but the point is pretty much the same.....do what you want with women. If you love them -fine. If you beat them to death - that's ok too because she's your property.

Raises some real questions, eh?

waiting

Stacey

Waiting, I just finished that book also, "The Red Tent". I thought it was an excellent fiction book. I was hooked and read it in just a couple of days.

A friend told me about it, and since it was based on biblical times I was worried it would have some sort of slant that I would not like. But I actually was impressed with the viewpoint of the book.

I would recommend this story to anyone. Very good reading.

I am so glad that things are not that way anymore, and I'm not "owned" by anyone but myself. Whew.

Stacey

SixofNine

...and it stands to reason that men will get away with anything they can. So why not the worst, especially when there is nothing to stop them from doing so?

Where Bible reading is concerned, I've come to the conclusion that your statement is more profound than you probably even realize.

The bible is full of really bad behaviour by men who are supposedly either "freinds" of God, or favourites of God. Now I wonder, who really "inspired" the writing? Could it have been such influential men?

Stacey,

I am so glad that things are not that way anymore, and I'm not "owned" by anyone but myself. Whew.

Does that mean you are free on friday?

Utopian Reformist

This thread has been extremely helpful and at the same time, its also been a very heavy burden of thought. To imagine the selfishness, the evil motives behind ancient men to invent concepts and authorities and explanations.

And after such inventions, they inject the minds of other humans under their domination and control. Who really is SATAN?

This is incredible, heavy stuff. I am "frying" over this posting.

Protector of pedophiles

Share this