by pennycandy 51 Replies latest watchtower bible
If you want to find things you don't like about the Bible, I guess you don't look very deep. Lilly
Actually, the deeper you dig into the bible, the more disgusting and vile it becomes.
People can spin it any way they want, but it doesn't change the fact that violence, rape, penalty of death, and other filthy events are used as examples on how to live your life. I for one
would much rather live a positive life, with positive examples to learn from.
One thing we really must learn now that we are out of the WT is to read the complete context of scriptures in order to get the understanding of them. By pulling out that one verse it seems like this action was condoned by God or all his people as the normal thing to do, but it absolutely was not.
Interesting that you assume that I did not read the account in context, just the verse(s) in question. Your assumption is incorrect.
It was one of the more heinous examples (among many) in the bible of how certain "privileged" men (he was a priest, after all) regarded the women they owned. That this atrocity sparked a war that led to the slaughter of tens of thousands of Israelites is even more bizarre than the original crime that was alleged to have occurred. Perhaps someone was looking to start a war and get rid of his cheating concubine at the same time??
Obviously you and I will have to agree to disagree regarding the authenticity, accuracy and the inherent value of the book known as the bible. The more I read it, the more disgusted I am that I ever held it in such reverential regard, cultural considerations of the time notwithstanding.
scully,
I agree, we will have to disagree. The whole point of that chapter in Judges was to show that this rape and murder was heinous. Just because you keep wanting to believe that God condoned it in some way just because it is recorded in the Bible, does not make your belief true. It was recorded as a terrible act commited by a wicked man. Lilly
Just because you keep wanting to believe that God condoned it in some way just because it is recorded in the Bible, does not make your belief true.
LOL
How can I believe that god condoned the incident, when I don't believe in god?
Nowhere did I say that god condoned it. Nowhere have I said that god has anything to do with anything in the bible.
What was that you were saying about me taking things out of context?
Penny, are you an atheist?
No, I'm a Christian. But I don't want to be an ignorant one. I don't want to be uneducated and scared of the other side of the issue like I was as a JW. I just want to give myself a rounder view.
lil
You are interpreting the scriptures according to our modern day views.
Yup! Woman are not property and have rights.
I would like to point out too that this verse is not actually saying this scenario took place. The law was strict to be a deterant to the wrong behavior. As far as young girls being married very young, that was also the norm back then
Sorry Llly, you are the first person I have ever met who has argued that 'rape', or 'seduction' or 'coitus without familial approval' did not happen because there was a strict law. You must know this claim was, has and never will be credible. Why make it then? That's not a rhetorical question, I'd like an explanation of why you answer up in an illogical fashion you must KNOW is illogical to defend a book? Areyou prehaps mistaking 'god' for the book?
And chasity of virgins was much more valuable, then it is in our modern day culture.
The RIGHTS of virgins are more valuable in modern day culture.
The value of virgins has always been high; on certain occasions during the Isaelite's ethnic cleansing of Israel (the Mosaic one not the current one), the soldiers were commanded to kill everyone or thing APART from virgin girls. As you point out, these would have been very young; most 14 year-olds were married.
Now, I understand you're a believer, which is fine. But what about actually standing up for your Holy Book rather than using a clever argument? Or better still, being realisitic about its limits? Believing in god and the Bible's inerrancy are two different things you know!
With your degree of Biblical knowledge you must know of the above instances. I don't think you are stupid; you would not believe that these children, having seen their families hacked to death in front of them by soldiers, would then willingy become the sex slaves of the very same men. Yet under the Mosaic Law they could be so treated - although you might object to 'sex slave', I am sure a girl taken as spoils of war and then raped by the man who killed her family would feel that 'concubine' was a little too fluffy-sounding to cover the despair and fear they felt.
Only with the most careful and selective reading can you avoid coming to the obvious conclusion that (according to the Bible) god's appointed man on the sport, without being told afterwards it was bad or being censured in ANY way, authorised what in 'modern day culture' would be seen as a war crimes, rape, kidnapping, and human trafficing.
I am curious; when I read this I think; "Well, that pretty much shows this portion of the Bible is a history book about a violent unpleasent people who justified their territorial greed (and lust) by saying their invasion was sanctioned by god."
To think god would sanction such things requires belief in a monster I do not find credible; if I had more belief in god I'd actually regarded it as blasphemous and sick that anyone could think god would do that, instead of accepting the Bible is not inspired of god.
How do you justify your interpretation?
lovelylil:
You have twisted everything I said.
I think I've merely tried to unravel it.
The laws in ancient times were different than they are today, and those living back then new exactly what the law was and the consequences of breaking those laws. You may not agree with them, but that is how life was then.
That's my point. The laws were different and the consequences severe because those laws were created by a nomadic/pastoral/warrior tribe three thousand years ago. Had they been created by an omniscient compassionate deity, I would expect them to be a bit more civilised.
You totally missed the point of the example of the "rape" which was not a rape at all in the sense of the word today. It simply meant if a man had sex with someone not promised to him in marriage, he would have to pay the consequences.
There was no concept of "rape" in the sense that we use the word today. Women didn't have the right to consent to or refuse sex. They were considered the property of their fathers or their husbands. Again, not what one would expect from a god who cares about women.
Anyway, enough time was already spent on this. If you want to find things you don't like about the Bible, I guess you don't look very deep.
We don't have to look very deep to find some very unlikable things in the bible.
Richard Dawkins on God:
“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
But those were different times, eh Lilly?
Abaddon,
You are misunderstanding what I said. Some posters here were angry about the "rape" account and were writing their views in a way that looked like they were saying that the Bible or God condoned the rape and murder of the two women based on the fact that the account is recorded in the Bible. That account is in the Bible for the total opposite reason. It was to show a wicked persons selfishness and revenge. That is why the man gave up the two women, to save himself. Yes, that person was supposed to be a follower of God but obviously by his actions, he was not. Just because the Israelites were supposed to be "God's people" did not mean they were incapable of sinning. Same as today, God's people sin because it is inherant in our nature. We cannot blame God for that sin.
Derek,
I would only respond to your questions if I felt like banging my head into a brick wall. Most people who know me know I am a pretty well balanced type of Christian. I do not believe I have all the truth, nor that anyone does. I do not believe than anyone can truly interpret all scriputure accurately all the time. And I don't believe that if other people decide not to be a Christian, that God will either burn them in hell forever, or wipe them off the face of the earth. I've said many times the Christian path is not for everyone. I only responded on this thread because I did not want people thinking that the bible or God either supported or condoned rape in any way. And if you don't read the context of the scripture that was quoted, it would look that way.
That being said I could care one iota what a person like Dawkins has to say. He is totally infatuated with his own intelligence and does not have one humble bone in his entire body. He views all people having any form of religious inclination with total disgust and would love to see all of them wiped off the face of the earth. He is no better than your average self righteous fundamentalist preacher, nor muslim who also would like those who do not share their view annihilated. He is a total hate monger, just like the ones he says are under a "delusion" because they have a belief in a higher power. To listen to him, he seems like he would like some to bow down to him as the higher power. Maybe he is the one under a delusion called "infatuation with one's self". Lilly
I am with lonelysheep on this one... read that book...
