* * * *

A couple of weeks ago, someone posted that the Bible makes no mention of child sexual abuse. Well that bothered me because while I know that it is awful and it does happen: what's with the omission? So I set out to find it.

I ended up stumbling on it just right now actually as I was doing my daily Bible study. Deuteronomy 23:18 mentions the "price of a dog". I had no idea what that meant.

I looked it up in my other versions and it just said the same thing. However when I looked it up in my Hebrew Interlinear version, I hit pay dirt.

Price of a dog = catamite.

Whoot! Seek and ye shall find. :)

I'm not surprised really considering the type of religious celebrations back then. The people of that day had wild, alcohol-feuled, noisy parties, complete with loud music, in their worship of their idols. Why? So no one would hear the screams of the babies as they burned them alive on the altar.

So, basically it's not being called "child sexual abuse" and the child victim is considered an abomination?

Abuse of children (anyone for that matter) is an abomination and a disgusting practice no matter where it takes place, but it is not referred to as child sexual abuse here.

"Price of a dog" is probably a euphemism. Another example of a Biblical euphemism is "fatal accident". When directly translated, the ancient Hebrew word for fatal accident is "a healing". I wouldn't call accidental death a healing but they did back then.

No one's asking you to accept the Bible, chaz. I'm just letting you guys know that just because you read on the Internet somewhere that child rape is not mentioned in the Bible, doesn't make it so. And by the way, that scripture references another one. So now I found two.

So, what is the word in ancient hebrew for "fatal accident" I am interested to know. Were the ancient scriptures truly written in ancient hebrew? Aramaic? Greek? I guess it depends on which version you write of. Not challenging that they were written in those languages,
CG, my queston is whos words are they? I've had RC priests tell me they are the word of man!

I know my stances may have you believe I'm an athiest, I am not, but I follow no mans words blindly.

No small wonder you can 'find anything' in there!

Interlinear Bibles are the type that have the original writing directly above the direct translation. They're twice as big (and twice as expensive. Yikes!) and they're usually written by anthropologists versed in ancient etymologies.

My particular Hebrew Interlinear, only covers the first 5 books, because I couldn't afford the really big one. But even this one's like an encyclopedia.

No idol worship was tolerated in the Law of Moses. All prophets, priests, prostitutes, witches, sorcerers, and catamites for an idol were to be destroyed.

This scripture is consistent with that line of thought. It is not referring to "business" prostitution.

Under the topic "dog" I found: morally unclean people are referred to as dogs. The law that God gave to Israel said: "No should not introduce the hire of a harlot nor the pricce of a dog (pederast; anyone who practices anal intercourse with a boy)...

Under the topic "harlot": Funds received from harlotry or pederastry were not permitted as contributions to the temple of Yahweh.

Under the topic vow: Degenerate vows were prohibited in Israel: You should not enter in with a rent of a hire or the price of a dog (probably pederast, catamite) In the house of Jehovah your God for any vow." Such services were often a source of income for pagan temples.

Salvat universal dictionary: "sexual perversion, consistant with the selection of boys as objects to satisfy sexual impulses. Deuteronomy 23:17, 18 condemns some aspects of this practice. In this passage God condemns a temple prostitute (cadamite, a boy kept for sexual perversion.)

If I hadn't read those comments here at HT, I probably never would have found out some of this stuff. So I give you guys my thanks. Looks like I have some more research to do at the Library

and see if anyone explains this passage

"But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Racha, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."
"RACHA"?

In the case of Racha. Another translation goes: However, I say to you that everyone who continues wrathful with his brother will be accountable to the court of justice; but whoever addresses his brother with an unspeakable word of contempt will be accountable to the Supreme Court; whereas whoever says, 'You despicable fool!' will be liable to the fiery Gehenna."

Under unspeakable word of attempt there is a reference to Racha Gr. Rhaka or Reqa, an Aramaic word of contempt.

For more information use a dictionary or encyclopedia.

For Racha it says: empty headed, air headed. An abusive term that Jews used at the time of Christ.

I stopped looking when the publishers took out Thee and Thou language. Before that just reading was poetry the way the words sounded.

How can anyone treat a book that calls violated children "abominations" as a moral authority? Why would anyone choose to follow a god that condemns and banishes victims?

And the whole idea that a raped little boy should be referred to as "the price of a dog" makes no sense at all even with all the versions that have been shown here.

Now, where does the bible speak out AGAINST child rape? Nowhere. Surprise! Not.

Like I said, the previous posters tried to say that child rape was not mentioned in the Bible. So that's not true. If someone wants to post silly things about the Bible because it uses a round about way to mention it, I get the feeling that even if the Bible did say child rape directly, it wouldn't matter because she would just find something else to pick at.

Really? Someone was trying to say Racha meant that? Wow. That's really really off.

"Urinating against a wall" is a derogatory term. Kinda like a good-for-nothing man. In the Bible people only say something like that when they're really, really pissed. lol

Like take King David. After his men risked their lives to protect the flocks of Nabal (meaning "Stupid". Hopefully not his real name), Nabal screamed at them in abusive language when they asked for provisions. When David heard about it, he took his sword and said, "So may God do to the enemies of David and so may he add to it if I shall let anyone of all who are his that urinates against the wall remain until the morning."

He basically used the same foul language back at him. But he was just referring to all the males in the household. No homosexuality was implied here.

I went through this thread and re-read everything. I admit I am not a bible scholar but nothing I've read here seems to address the point about why the book that outlines the Christian moral code says to shun victims of sexual abuse like this.

Please help me understand.

I'm not surprised really considering the type of religious celebrations back then. The people of that day had wild, alcohol-feuled, noisy parties, complete with loud music, in their worship of their idols. Why? So no one would hear the screams of the babies as they burned them alive on the altar."

"No idol worship was tolerated in the Law of Moses. All prophets, priests, prostitutes, witches, sorcerers, and catamites for an idol were to be destroyed.

This scripture is consistent with that line of thought. It is not referring to "business" prostitution.

* * * *

The idea that God does not help or care about victims of rape according to the Hebrew Scriptures is also a fallacy. However, instead of posting the answer here, it would probably be more beneficial to let you read it on your own.

Fleshing out "abominations"

Aw man. I was having fun...

I guess I didn't understand you were answering Chaz because he was asking you why a god would condemn a person who had been victimized and the answer you gave seems to be about a god being more concerned with idol worship than abuse of children and women. From reading what you wrote it appears that this god dealt with that idol worship by banishing rape victims and accepting into the temple the rapist as long as they didn't do it at the temple. Is that what these verses say is the right way to behave?

This seems confusing to me but perhaps is just a sign that the bible was written by men at a particular time and place and these things don't apply today????

I will try and read some of the verses you referred to. Thanks.

At that time, God was acting in accord with his promise to Abraham, that by means of his descendents all the world would be blessed. In order for that promise to come true all other forms of worship had to be absolutely suppressed. No one could practice these religions. If someone did, they would be killed.

Does that mean that God had no plan to show mercy to those who were perhaps forced into it? Think of the babies that were burned alive. They had no chance either. Are they really just forgotten?

Jesus offered hope for all those sleeping in death when he ressurrected Lazarus. He said "all those sleeping in memorial tombs will hear his voice." Not some. All.

While on Earth, Jesus ressurected many people from death. Some were children and not all of them were Jews. He set the pattern for the future.

However, Jesus would not have been available to make those miracles had God not written those original laws in place, protecting the line of Abraham from idol worship.

So those killed in that effort still have hope for a much better life than they had.

(John 5:28)

Just think about it, if you put all this time and energy into biology, physics, anatomy and like books, you could have been a heart surgeon by now!...

Sorry, that was my first thought when I read it :)

Imagine if our soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan took the guidance or command from the god written about in Deuteronomy! Thankfully they don't, mostly.

You seem to be saying in your last post that it is okay, more than okay, even admirable, that god chose to reduce idol worship by attacking individual human beings who had already been victimized. The suffering expeienced by those people was necessary you say for idol worship to be ended? Why?

Would it not have made more sense for god to directly say that people who worship other gods will not be allowed in my places of worship, and by the way, stop raping children and women? Why on earth (or in heaven) would a rational god not do this and do it clearly so there was no mistaking the message? "Child rape is wrong." Simple. Clear.

Or he/she could have used the good old "Thou shalt not..." formula. The words were already there. God just needed to tack on "rape anyone".

God could have made 11 commandments. Or even added it on to the one about not coveting thy neighbour's wife; simply add "or any child".

Instead you seem to be saying that your god decided it made sense to cater to the powerful, further victimize the powerless, be vague about the main goal (being idol worship), and that it is all okay because the victims will get their reward in heaven.

This still makes no sense to me. I will read the Deuteronomy passages. Maybe that will help but so far I don't have much hope.

I think you're right. In some respects morality is much more evolved today in the western world. Not in every way, but in this one, certainly.

And I would have been so ignorant of God...

Frankly, I prefer the knowlege of God to the knowlege of man any day.

The thought that God could allow the killing of children does offend many people, so they choose not to listen to him, based on that. However, because God is the Judge of all the Earth he is free to decide the fate and punishment of those who break his laws.

Soldiers who take a life, cannot give it back. If God takes a life, he is free to give it back.

If you had read what I had posted earlier, you would understand precisely the feelings God has to those who abuse children and women, but because you did not read you remain ignorant and you post those ignorant things.

Are you referring to the Deuteronomy passages or something you posted yourself? I read everything you posted here, Clumsy, (at least twice) and I don't see anything about your god's feelings towards those who abuse children. I will get to the Deuteronomy passages later. Do they explain this?

And thanks for calling me and my posts "ignorant". I already told you I was no bible scholar, but I am curious.

I've always wondered what sometimes people are told when it comes to the Bible and... I think I have my answer.

Racha means f**? Urinating against a wall = submissive gay? God doesn't care/is murderously angry against rape victims? Is this what people are telling you guys?

It's an indictment on churches that people are so clueless when it comes to this. They're supposed to be teaching these things. I wonder how God feels about that, when people are saying these things about him, because those who are supposed to be the leaders are not teaching what they're supposed to.

And are actually guilty of many of the things that he outright condemns.

When you read those passages, please make a note of who punishes the one raping a woman and who punishes the one who takes advantage of a boy in anyway.

I found that very interesting.

In the previous verse to the one discussed here (vs. 17) male temple prostitutes was one word. Female temple prostitute was another. The prostitute Rahab was another entirely. Clearly, the phrase mentioned at vs. 18 was something different from all of these. All my resources point to unanimously to the same conclusion, unless of course, you've found another one labrea.

Sound kind of like an arrogant personal attack.

let such be driven away, as if they had killed their children, since they beforehand have lost what should procure them; for evident it is, that while their soul is become effeminate, they have withal transfused that effeminacy to their body also."
There are numerous references to the word Qadesh or Kadesh and Qadesha to make clear what they are.

As for attention, I can't tell you how much I read that phrase, price of a dog, and skipped over it.

We all have a lot to learn.

I'm sorry.

I did a quick google search and found various definitions. None claimed that the "dogs" were children. They all show the translation to mean male prostitutes. I also asked a colleague who is a biblical archaeologist and knows ancient Hebrew. He disagrees with much of Clumsy’s posts/interpretations.

It depends on where you get your information from I guess?

They're not my interpretations you guys, I got it from the reference works I bought from a university book sale. There's only five sentences I've been able to glean too.

So I'm very interested in what he has to say.

I haven't yet been to the library.

I'll post them here for anyone like myself who is not familiar with them:

Exodus, Chapter 22

21 Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.

22 Ye shall not afflict any widow, or fatherless child.

23 If thou afflict them in any wise, and they cry at all unto me, I will surely hear their cry;

24 And my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless.

Deuteronomy, Ch 22

23. If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed to an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;

24. Then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he has humbled his neighbour's wife: so you shall put away evil from among you.

25. But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.

26. But to the damsel you shall do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man rises against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:

27. For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.

I read in Exodus that god commands people not to "afflict" widows or fatherless children on pain of being killed. What does "afflict" mean? I suppose it can be defined broadly to include anything from "annoy" to "kill", and you can perhaps assume that it prohibits annoying or sexually abusing widows and fatherless children but it doesn't help women who are not widows and children who have fathers.

In Deuteronomy, god seems to say raping engaged women is wrong and the rapist will be stoned to death, but if it happened in a city then the woman must also be stoned to death if no one heard her cries and rescued her.

Other passages of Deuteronomy that you didn't recommend say that if a man rapes a virgin who isn't betrothed, if he has 50 shekels he has just bought a wife and can never divorce her. That certainly doesn't seem very compasionate towards the victim. (Rape her once, pay 50 shekels and you get to rape her as often as you like forevermore.)

Deuteronomy Ch 22, Verse 23 says that if a married woman is raped she shall be put to death with her rapist as "both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shall you put away evil from Israel. "

Maybe other versions of the bible show a more caring and compassionate god but, Clumsy, these verses don't show me that your god put much effort into forbidding sexual abuse. They don't even begin to cover forbidding the sexual abuse of most of the population. Can we assume that anyone god left out is okay to abuse? Is it always open season on children with fathers, married women, unmarried women?

I know I seem confrontational about this but I am really trying to uinderstand and I'm getting frustrated by biblical passages that the faithful seem to say mean more than the words used allow them to mean.

Where do I find some biblical proscription of rape of anyone? Where is the language that clearly says god tells all people that rape is always wrong and they will not benefit from it?

Widows and fatherless children were the most vulnerable. God took it personal if one of them were afflicted in any way. He would deal with those people himself. It is the same for anyone who takes advantage of the most vulnerable people sexually. Does that really need to be spelled out for every occasion of "affliction"?

As for the woman in the city who screamed, she would be rescued because someone would have heard. If she didn't scream, that would indicate consent. In the "country" or "field", it was much less likely anyone would have been there to help.

The compassion shown upon such victims was true.

As for the woman who was not engaged, the man had to marry her or be killed because no one could humiliate a daughter of Israel with impunity. Her staying with him, though certainly not pleasant, prevented her from the humiliation of not only being raped, but also that of being destitute and childless as it was unlikely that after such a scandal she would be able to marry at all.

Thanks for that labrea. I don't own Antiquities but the Library does.

That's appalling. She must live with her rapist so that she doesn't starve to death. What kind of choice is that? Here we have another example of punishing the victim!

I don't remember what biblical passage I was studying at one time, but it said something to the effect that the rapist had to pay a fine to her father because, in effect, the rapist had damaged the father's "property" and it would now not be worth much of anything on the marriage market--presumably meaning the father could not receive a "bride price" from a prospective bridegroom. That's not the language used in the Bible, but the intent was that God was not recognizing any right (to privacy or safety) for the woman herself. He was compassionating with the father for being stuck with "damaged goods"--a non-virginal daughter.

No matter how you spin it, the Bible--the OT, in particular--is patriarchal and women's rights is a concept it does not even begin to understand, much less address.

Kate

As for rights, I do remember that women could purchase and own property, slaves, and be prophetesses. Even if they were married.

If you know God despises women so much, please explain why the man was punished at all if he was a rapist.

The Bible explains quite well that the man is the head of the woman in marraige from Genesis to Revelation. So there's no disputing that. But the idea that the Bible gives women no rights at all is not true.

I know this doesn't solve the debate, but am thinking of these verses.

Exodus 34:5-9 (New International Version)

5 Then the LORD came down in the cloud and stood there with him and proclaimed his name, the LORD. 6 And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, "The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, 7 maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation."

Yah, that helps, doesn't it? I have often wondered if this means hey, don't be a creep, because if you are, it will mess up your kids, too. So watch it, or you'll take down more than just yourself. I'm not saying I like that, mind you. But I think everyday about how my answers/reasons/reactions affect my child. When she asks why I set limits, I tell her I do that so she can grow up to be a good adult. Then she says "That way I can teach my kids to be good adults, and they can teach their kids to be good adults." She's 6, so wise coming from a child.

"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 fifty skelels of silver, and she shall be his wife, and he may not put her away all of his days" (Deuteronomy 22; 28-29).

Notice, the fine is paid to the father. In other words, the offense was committed against the virgin's father, not against the virgin. She has no standing before the law in her own right (which means she has no rights). The father has rights and if someone damages the property owned by the father, that person committed an offense against the father. She is property with a dollar value. It doesn't take too much study to find out about marriage conventions at the time. Prospective grooms paid a "bride price" to the father for the right to marry the daughter. It was a business deal worked out between father and prospective groom. (That "marriage market"--as we call it today.)

The other problem with that biblical passage is that it does not acknowledge that other women may be raped. No provision for married women who get raped, for instance--no fine paid to the male who owns that damaged property--because she is not a virgin and therefore her virginity cannot be damaged--therefore rape could not happen to a married woman. It's all about virginity--and virginity is what was negotiated in the marriage market. Prospective grooms were buying virgins.

So, the Bible does not really address rape at all. It addresses damage to the formerly virginal property owned by the male patriarch.

Kate

Deuteronomy 25-29
25; But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.

26; But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbor, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:

27; For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.

28; If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

29; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

Verse 25 says that if a man "forces" a woman he should die.
Verse 26 says that the woman should not be punished.
Verse 28 does not use the word "force", but "lay hold on her", and it does not mention the woman crying out, so is it rape or consensual?
Verse 29 the man should marry her, and not divorce her (meanwhile pay the dowry, which is not uncommon for the time period). So, don't have sex with anyone you don't plan to care for.

If I’m reading this correctly, it is a clear message against rape, and casual sex at that.

Verse 25 does not say that if a man "forces" a woman he should die. It says if a man forces an engaged virgin "in a field" (that is outside where no one can hear her cry) he should die.

Verse 26 only says the woman should not be punished because it is assumed she would have cried out if she could have AND it says that she has not committed a sin that is "worthy of death", not that she has committed no sin.

As Kate explains, Verses 28 and 29 are about any man forcing himself on a virgin (not just anyone, only a virgin who is not engaged to anyone) and the penalty is not death, it is pay the bride price to her father and then the poor woman has to leave her home and family and go live with her rapist, continue to be raped and bear him children. From your posts here, I assume this is not something you would think would be a kindness shown to a woman today. No more would it have been then. That is no "clear message against rape".

Clumsy, you said Widows and fatherless children were the most vulnerable. God took it personal if one of them were afflicted in any way. He would deal with those people himself.

Why do you say that god would "deal with those people himself"? Is there any evidence he ever did? I don't think so. Lots of widows and "fatherless children" are hurt every day and no god "deals with" anything. If you mean the wrongdoer has to wait until he is dead for god to deal with him, then what is the point, how does that help the injured widow or child?

It is the same for anyone who takes advantage of the most vulnerable people sexually. Does that really need to be spelled out for every occasion of "affliction"?

Yes, I think it does need to be spelled out, or at least defined. If that doesn't happen, how do you or I or anyone know what is meant? Doesn't that leave everything up to whatever the people reading the bible at a particular time or place think it should mean? In the link Labrea posted about the "beardless ones" it discusses how men in Afghanistan think it completely okay to kidnap, dance, with and rape young boys because they can't invite women to their parties and woman can't have out of wedlock sex with them. These men, though not Christians, are not unlike others who are Christian. The men of Bountiful and other polygamous Mormon cults think it okay to marry young girls to men old enough to their grandfathers with no consideration for the wishes of those girls. Guys like the man who kidnapped Jaycee Dugard use the bible to justify their actions because god didn't bother to "spell it out". That can not have been the plan, was it? If it was not intentional, why would a god choose to leave it open for crazy and not so crazy people to misinterpret his words when it would have been so easy to have been clear?

The compassion shown upon such victims was true.

What does this mean? If I show compassion towards someone, I am trying to lessen their suffering? In what way did the god of the bible lessen the suffering of the people he called abominations? How did he show them compassion? He showed lots of compassion to the rapists. He allowed them into his temples. He forgave them their sins as long as they didn't worship any other god. He never called them "abominations' despite the litany of cruelties they imposed on the most vulnerable, the most favoured of god.

Do you see why I don't get it? How do you personally reconcile all of this?

taphas (taw-fas')
to manipulate, i.e. seize; chiefly to capture, wield, specifically, to overlay; figuratively, to use unwarrantably
(doesnt sound consensual)

You're surprised that she also knows what God intended about young boys?

Hay

Little was known about this worship aside from Scriptural references until excavations in Syria uncovered the Ras Shamra, the "Bible" of the Canaanites. Extrabiblical sources indicate that the god El was considered to be the creator and sovereign. El is depicted as a rebellious son, that castrated his father and also as a bloody tyrant, a murderer, and an adulterer. In the Ras Shamra El is referred to as father bull. His consort was Asherah is referred to as the progenitress of the gods. However, their son Baal and their daughters Anath and Asherah were the principle gods of the time, forming the main trinity of worship.

In an essay by John Newton: "Though he is of the masculine gender in the Hebrew Scriptures (Baal the Lord) he is of feminine gender in the Greek (Baal the Lady) At the licentious worship of this androgyne or two-sexed god, the men on certain occasions wore female garments, whilst the women appeared in male attire, brandishing weapons. During these festivals, priests having been castrated before puberty to maintain an effeminate appearance took the lead in festive celebrations that featured, among other things, sex orgies and child sacrifice."

Another work states: "The farming and cattle-raising Canaanites probably thought that their engaging in a prescribed ritual, a sort of sympathetic magic, helped to stimulate their gods to action according to the pattern enacted at their religious festivals. Hence Baal’s coming to life again to be enthroned and mated with his consort apparently was celebrated with licentious fertility rites marked with sexual orgies of unrestrained debauchery that involved not only men and women but young men and virgins, and even the animals that were to be blessed by the sexual contact of the gods. The idols themselves were made participants in this sordid scene."

Were such rites confined to the temples only? No. Each Canaanite city built its own Baal sanctuary at the highest point, usually a hill or mountain and phallic symbols were situated in public plazas and other conspicuous places in town. It was not unusual for similar rites on a smaller scale to be regularly performed on the roof tops of houses.

The goddess Ashtoreth is often represented as a nude female with exaggerated sex organs. She was a fertility goddess and the most prominent part of her worship consisted of sex orgies in the temples or high places devoted to Baal worship, where male and female prostitutes served.

Finally, Anath, the fairest of them all, was a representation of lustful sex and war. She is both mother-goddess and eternal virgin as well as goddess of sadistic violence. In the Ras Shamra she slaughters men and decorates herself with suspended heads and attaches men’s hands to her girdle while she joyfully wades in their blood. "Her liver swells with laughter, her heart fills up with joy." Says the Ras Shamra. In honor of her, virgins promptly lost their virginity and if they were really special, they were slaughtered and burned as sacrifices or were gibbeted as an open air offering.

Of their phallic worship, W.F. Albright observes that: "At its worst, the erotic aspect of their cult must have sunk to extremely sordid depths of social degradation."

Added to their other degrading practices was that of child sacrifice. According to Merill F. Unger: "Excavations in Palestine have uncovered piles of ashes and remains of infant skeletons, in cemeteries around heathen altars, pointing to the widespread practice of this cruel abomination." Halley’s Bible Handbook says: "Canaanites worshipped, by immoral indulgence, as a religious rite, in the presence of their gods, and then by murdering their first-born children, as a sacrifice to these same gods. It seems that, in a large measure the land of Canaan had become a sort of Sodom and Gomorrah on a national scale. Did a civilization of such abominable filth and brutality have any right longer to exist? Archaeologists who dig in the ruins of Canaanite cities wonder that God did not destroy them sooner than he did."

Indeed, Yahweh’s law of destroying all aspects of this religion was completely justified. In other versions of the Deuteronomy text, they use words like "detestable", "perverted", "twisted", "disgusting", and "abomination". The law to execute any participants in this form of worship was not just a form of punishment but a form of protection for the women and children who lived in the land he had given them. There were no phallic symbols in the houses and on the streets, there was no glorification of rape and abuse. This law spared them of having to suffer under what can only be described as religious sexual torture. God knew that if these religions were allowed to take hold in the land, it would be an absolute disaster.

Sadly, the Israelites disobeyed this clear law and a sex-centric society soon developed. Unfortunately, judging from the continuation of the worship of phallic symbols, the veneration of eternal virgins, homosexual and pedophiles in service as priests, and trinities of gods, it appears that Baal worship is still alive and well today. And people continue to suffer under it.

Bibliography:

Archaeography and the Old Testament
Halley’s Bible Handbook
Archaeology and the Religion of Israel
Comments on the Ras Shamra
Ancient Near Eastern Texts
Ancient Pagan and Modern Christian Symbolism

"Is there any evidence he ever did?" The answer to that question is yes. He mentions the suffering of widows and orphans in his prophetic warnings written in Jeremiah, Ezekial, and the minor prophets. He also paid attention to the fact that their frivolous divorces were "covering his altar with tears". He is painfully aware of all the suffering that occurs on this planet. In ancient times, God allowed the pagan nations to destroy and exile the deviant nation. Only repentant ones were allowed to return.

Likewise, the religions of today (Both Christian and otherwise) are deviant. They can expect no different outcome. The deviance now is on a world wide scale. It is safe (at least for me) to assume that the destruction of these deviants will also be worldwide and catastrophic. For lovers of God and fearers of God, this is very good news.

The fact remains: 50 bucks to your father and off you go with your rapist.

LOL

Fortunately, thanks to God's intervention, rapes were much more of a rare occurance. If I was a girl living back then, I would thank God every single day for the law of Moses.

David got a pretty nice catch for a mere 200 foreskins.

hay

A rare occurance? Oh, really? That "holy" book say so?

I think you are missing something. Verse 25, in the version I posted, says that the man "forced" the woman. Verse 28 says he "laid hold of her", some versions say seize. There is definitely a different choice of words in 25 than in 28, and that is an important distinction. Because different words are used, we know that there is a different meaning, and a different quality to the sexual encounter. One would have to go back to the original text to see what the Bible meant by "lay hold" or "seize". You cannot google the word seize and know what the original text, and what the people of the time, meant by that word. Words evolve and change meaning in 5,000 years. And you also have to remember the time in which this was written. Yes, women and children were property. And yes, virginity was highly valued. A "defiled" woman would have had a terrible time of it, so God commanded a man that if he defiled a woman, he must also marry her (the old "do the right thing if you screw up), because back then, that would have been better for her. This is not advice for our modern day, this is Old Testament. This was a reflection of what things were like then, not a command for now. Bad stuff like this is a very good reason for why God did send His son to die for us, so we could move past all that old, despicable stuff. And yes, things have gotten better on that front. I think we need to judge the time period, not what God commanded a man to do in response to what the time period called for.

As far as the "sin not worthy of death" there are different contexts of the word sin. Sometimes sin is a synonym for a wrongful deed, sometimes sin is in the general context of meaning no one is perfect, and sometimes sin can be when one person’s sinful act is inflicted upon someone else. The act itself was sinful, which brought sin to the victim, but not by the victim’s choice. It is not comfortable for me to call the victim sinful, but in reality, we are all sinful (if you believe in sin). I see it as that sin was brought to the woman, and now her life will be different and she will feel ill effects of what was done to her. Because Adam and Eve brought sin into the world, there are consequences against us even if we did no wrong. Call it PTSD if you want. Again, I’m referring to the effect of the sin; the trauma that the victim goes through afterwards, is the result of sin. The Bible also says that a man lusting after woman is a sin, and that man has the full burden of that sin even if he did not act on the thought. To me that means the man who commits adultery in his mind sins only against himself, but if he acts on the adultery, he brings the victim into that sin.

We need to look at the whole Bible. You can’t look at a few verses in isolation and understand them. In a recent Bible class my pastor said that for the most part we interpret the Bible as it is, without adding or subtracting words. If it is clearly it is a parable, we don’t take it literally, we glean meaning from it. Also, if we see that it contradicts something else, then we need to study every reference that relates and the context in which it was written. As I said, I am not a Bible scholar, and I am not confident in my ability to understand everything. But I do know that the Bible also says a lot about loving our neighbor, treating others as we would be treated, that one who harms a child would be better off dead. So if we take everything in context, knowing that a husband should love a wife as Christ loved the Church (therefore women can’t be all that bad), I think we know that God disapproved of rape.

From your posts here, I assume this is not something you would think would be a kindness shown to a woman today. No more would it have been then. Yes and no. I do not think that would be a kindness today, but I think it was a better alternative than being shunned. If I remember correctly, this happens in some parts of India today. A divorced woman, I think even a widow, is considered pretty much a dog, homeless, penniless, mistreated. Some "shelters" have been created over the years for these women, but if not for those, they would be beggars living in the street. And again, I am not convinced that verse 28 is rape, at least not in our 21st century definition of rape. Obviously, the woman would be better off to not have been raped, no one is suggesting that is a good thing for her. But in ancient society, which of course was patriarchal, a woman who was not a virgin was probably worthless. So, God says, don’t make a woman worthless and then just ignore her. He commands the man to take responsibility for the bad deed he has done. Very cavemanish, I agree, but maybe that’s just how it was. A man "marked" his property by having sex with her. Yes, terrible. But again, don’t judge God, judge the society that was behaving in that way.

"The Bible also says that a man lusting after woman is a sin, and that man has the full burden of that sin even if he did not act on the thought. To me that means the man who commits adultery in his mind sins only against himself, but if he acts on the adultery, he brings the victim into that sin."

This is a reference to the Sermon on the Mount at Matthew chapter 5. Jesus took the law of Moses and took it to a higher level. While the Law itself was not wrong, one had to really work to "get" what God's perfect standard was. In this text, Jesus also declared that continued anger and vile speech was murder. Divorce was struck down completely unless it was in the case of adultery.

Jesus replaced all the Commandments of the Law with his declaration that we love God with all our hearts and love our neighbor as ourselves. His sacrifice replaced all the sacrifices prescribed in the Law of Moses.

However, there is still much to learn from the Hebrew Scriptures and I am still learning.

I'm no scholar, either, but as far as I am aware from my Catholic background, the only words God actually gave were the Ten Commandments... and that's if you believe the word of those who penned everything.

The bible can be interpreted any way you like... and some parts read like justification for acts compassionate people would never condone. I used to think the bible was sort of a guide on how to live a good, decent life... but now, I'm not so sure...

Can you imagine the Bible if it were written by a random sampling of the religious zealots of today? Lot of bunk is what it amounts to.

Hay

God was capable of telling people not to steal or covet or dishonor their parents, but he wasn't capable of telling them not to rape? He just had to put up with society behaving the way it was--couldn't say there was something wrong with it? Or he just didn't think women were important enough for him to issue a commandment to quit raping women and then making them suffer the consequences by blaming them?

Such a "god" is too flawed and limited for me.

But, hey--that virgin was probably dressed inappropriately anyway and therefore inviting sexual violation, don't you think?

As the above posts show, some people don't think rape is a serious violation of the victim. Pay her a monthly sum to live on, and she will be all right.

Yeh, right.

Kate

There is no other reason why the Law existed back then. If it weren't for an outside source, Deuteronomy 23:17,18 would not have existed. That I'm sure of. That land, that whole region, was immersed in the religion of Baal.

Without those religious, the Israelites didn't have any reason to think of ways to torture each other.

And that's only relevant if you believe a single God exists.

As the above posts show, some people don't think rape is a serious violation of the victim. Pay her a monthly sum to live on, and she will be all right. Absolutely not. Either you did not read my post, or I didn't explain it well, or you just don't want to see my point, if you think I believe that.

God was "capable" of saying a lot of things, that doesn't mean people always did what he said.

I understand and agree with your point that this directive to a rapist to marry the woman he violated might be something that was "the lesser of two evils" in that time and place. I understand you to also be saying god would not require that of a anyone today because we live in a different society with different needs. Fine.

But if the word of god is open to being disregarded when we deem it to no longer matter because society has changed, why can't we do this about other biblical requirements? Why can't we say that any biblical prohibitions on homosexual activity were only god's way of recognizing that it was dangerous to be homosexual "back then" and since we have a more tolerant society now, those rules no longer apply? This way I can "judge the society that was behaving in that way" and avoid judging god for discriminating against homosexuals. I can avoid saying as many do that "God is opposed to gay marriage". In fact I can interpret the whole "thou shall not lie with a woman" thing as god's way of saying that he preferred and protected gay people and didn't want them harmed by that inolerant society.

Unfortunately, this brings me back to the same problem I have with some of Clumsy's posts. If the biblical god really wanted to protect violated women from the evil society in which they lived, if that god was really compassionate about the victims of sexual violence, that god should have and could have simply told the society at that time to stop valuing women only for their virginity, to stop hating gay people, to stop raping women, to stop raping children. That god could have clearly said "don't make a woman worthless " but didn't. That god could have backed up those orders with the threats of smiting and everlasting damnation that we see directed at other groups like those who worship other gods/false idols. But instead that god said "if you make a woman worthless, guess what it? You have to marry her and get to rape her at will forever".

I have to think that since much more effective orders could have been given by this god but were not, that the bible was either not written by a god, or not written by a god who valued equally all human beings or the god did not care about stopping child rape, etc as much as he cared about being worshipped by rapists.

It seems to me that many people who use the bible to support their positions on things like gay marriage adhere to a rigid view of some of the words in the bible but feel free to say about other things (like rape and child sexual abuse) that god's biblical directives no longer need to apply.

On another point, the biblical god we seem to be discussing appears to be very understanding about tailoring his commands to the social mores of the society existing at the time the bible was written. This god understood about the valuing of women for their virginity and made rules to help mitigate the damage done when a virgin was raped. This god seemed content to allow society to change slowly in that regard and continually offered full membership in the church to those who continued to devalue women and children. Why did the same god not understand about the worship of other religions, the way that those earlier religions had social a well as spiritual value, the difficulty in that time of educating people to this god and forgive those who refused to abandon their old religion and adopt the new one? Why did the same god hold such rigid views about worship of other gods when he could be flexible about things like child rape?

Looks to me like there were a lot of dirty old men doing the writing.

Inspired by this God you've created of course.

I agree with Olyagrove. What a waste of time and energy to dwell on all this nonsense. It's worse than all all the time we waste here on this forum.

Hay

As far as homosexuality in the Bible, obviously there is a lot of debate on that. Some would say that that the condemnation of Sodom and Gomorrah was not due to acts of homosexuality, but due to the inhabitants not feeding the poor and needy.

Ezekiel 16:48-50 (New International Version)
As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, your sister Sodom and her daughters never did what you and your daughters have done.

"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

The Old Testament laws are null and void, in my opinion.

That's not what Fusa, nor I was saying. The God of Jesus and the God of the Israelites was one and the same. (Don't forget, Jesus was a Jew!!) He added nothing new to the Law of Moses, what he did was fulfill it. This was not because "society had changed, it was because God was moving forward in his purpose and the Law of Moses was no longer adequate.

"Why can't we say that any biblical prohibitions on homosexual activity were only god's way of recognizing that it was dangerous to be homosexual "back then" and since we have a more tolerant society now, those rules no longer apply?"

Jesus himself pointed to the reason when he said, In reply he said: "Did YOU not read that he who created them from [the] beginning made them male and female and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh’?"

Homosexuality was banned from the beginning, the ban predates the writing of the Law of Moses. That's why Christians do not condone homosexuality in anyway.

" that god should have and could have simply told the society."

Interestingly, he never said "Make a woman worthless". The society they lived in made women worthless, not God.

Beside, even I doubt they would have listened. He tried to keep them away from those evil religions and they did not pay attention to the commandment. Because of that, things were just as bad, as if the Law did not exist. Protection only occurred if they listened to the commands he gave them. They did not. They suffered because they disobeyed Not because they obeyed.

God could have said a lot of things. He could have said from the beginning not to divorce, and to only take on one wife. But for the stubbornness of their hearts, he allowed divorcing and polygamy to continue. He knew how far he could push the stiff-necked Israelites. And they still refused to live up to his standards.

"I have to think that since much more effective orders could have been given..."

More effective? Kill all those who are worshipping vicious sex? How is that not effective? It stopped the child abuse as far as it could be stopped. I don't know who's condoning child abuse on this forum. This whole topic was started because the Bible suggested death for those raping children in religious rites.

"On another point, the biblical god we seem to be discussing appears to be very understanding about tailoring his commands to the social mores of the society existing at the time the bible was written."

Did you read my post about the "social mores of the people at the time of the Bible's writing"? Those were some sick little puppies. Please feel free to re-read if you can stomach it. Frankly, you're criticizing the wrong god. Perhaps you would like to read about these religions so you can better acquaint yourself with the spiritual "value" of this debased idol worship.

I've been there. Ugly. I'm with God. Get that crap off this planet.

All of them books declared "holy" are anything but.

This says it all for me. The infallible God working stuff out. Infallibility? Inadequate efforts by God?

Biblical scribes, religious scholars of their age, wrote elements of the Old Testament, as civil and judicial rules for the illiterate and religiously uneducated and likely the irreligious commoners. Jehovah/G_d/? dictated those particular versions so you better behave or you will be punished and even fined.

The Law of Moses was perfect, for the ancient nation of Israel. But after the death and resurrection of the promised Messiah, it was time to start getting closer to the original standard of creation. The Old Covenant (Testament) was replaced by the New Covenant (Testament).

That is not difficult to understand.

These principles are easy to understand and cross all borders and cultures. Like the branch and trunk of a tree, they do not move.

Laws hanging on the principles do change, like the leaves. But at God's direction. Man cannot change them because then they would cease to be God's Laws.

But God's Laws are always understandable. Maybe not immediately, but yes, they are.

Please re-read my comments on Christian "faiths". They're no better than the Baal worship.

The Bible is no law book, so it doesn't cover every possible infraction. Picking individual bible references has never been a healthy way to base one's theological attitudes upon. Thus rape and child abuse must be seen in the light of God's caring for all his creatures, His compassion for the oppressed and poor, as Christians we add: God's love is manifested in the life, death and resurrection of Christ. If the same Spirit which empowered Jesus to speak and act the way he did also empowers us (and I do believe so), then coercion and use of violence cannot be the fruits of this spirit ...

Still not answered; Why are the victims considers abominations? the attempts at explanations really just dance around the issue.

Oh...wait....

Fortunately, God is more than willing to provide answers to the satisfaction of anyone asking him, so long as they ask with a sincere and humble heart.

Abraham, a good friend of his for many decades, had a serious issue with God's desire to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. "It is unthinkable of you! Is the Judge of all the earth not going to do what is right?" he asked, "If there were just 50 good people in the cities, wouldn't you spare them?"

God assured him that he would, but Abraham wasn't satisified. What about 45? 40? Finally, he got down to 10. "If there were just 10 would he spare the city?"

God said that he would.

What's interesting is that Abraham kept asking until he got a satisfying answer and what's even more important is that God kept listening and answering until Abraham was satisfied.

I hope that you guys keep asking in faith because if you do, you'll be satisfied.

Genesis 18:22-33
Proverbs 2:1-5
Matthew 5:6
Matthew 7:7-11

It still seems strange that god was so accepting of the abusers and rapists, yet so condemnatory towards the victims.

This conversation took place before the inspection of the city. So neither God nor Abraham knew the answer to your questions at the time.

All participants of the Baal-religion were to destroyed. All of them.

It may take some time and effort, but if you seek out the answer you will find it.

.....And thy elder sister is Samaria, she and her daughters that dwell at thy left hand: and thy younger sister that dwelleth at thy right hand is Sodom, and her daughters. 47 But neither hast thou walked in their ways, nor hast thou done a little less than they according to their wickednesses: thou hast done almost more wicked things than they in all thy ways. 48 As I live, saith the Lord God, thy sister Sodom herself, and her daughters, have not done as thou hast done, and thy daughters. 49 Behold this was the iniquity of Sodom thy sister, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance, and the idleness of her, and of her daughters: and they did not put forth their hand to the needy, and to the poor. 50 And they were lifted up, and committed abominations before me: and I took them away as thou hast seen.
Give a man who begs gold to buy food but create laws that forbid selling food to beggars or strangers.

Rabbi Ze era said: The men of Sodom were the wealthy men of prosperity, on account of the good and fruitful land whereon they dwelt... Rabbi Nathaniel said: The men of Sodom had no consideration for the honour of their Owner by not distributing food to the wayfarer and stranger, but they even fenced in all the trees on top above their fruit so that so that they should not be seized; not even by the bird of heaven... Rabbi Joshua... said: They appointed over themselves judges who were lying judges, and they oppressed every wayfarer and stranger who entered Sodom by their perverse judgment, and they sent them forth naked...

Rabbi Jehudah said: They made a proclamation in Sodom saying: Everyone who strengthens the hand of the poor or the needy with a loaf of bread shall be burnt by fire. Peletith, daughter of Lot, was wedded to one of the magnates of Sodom. She saw a certain very poor man in the street of the city, and her soul was grieved on his account... Every day when she went out to draw water she put in her bucket all sorts of provisions from her home, and she fed that poor man. The men of Sodom said: How does this poor man live? When they ascertained the facts, they brought her forth to be burnt by fire. She said: Sovereign of all the worlds! maintain my right and my cause (at the hands of) the men of Sodom. And her cry ascended before the Throne of Glory. In that hour the Holy One, blessed be He, said: I will now descend and I will see whether the men of Sodom have done according to the cry of this young woman, I will turn her foundation upwards, and the surface thereof shall be turned downwards

Did they make mention of "personal responsibility" while denying the poor?

Can't fathom such weird obsession and association; makes sense there is no mentioning of it.

"You shall not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD your God for any vow: for even both these are abomination to the LORD your God.
Still not answered; Why are the victims considers abominations? the attempts at explanations really just dance around the issue."

The victims are not the abominations. The acts are the abominations, IMO. ie You shall not bring the HIRE of a whore...isn't that the subject of the sentence? The HIRE? Not the whore. In another part of the Bible a "whore" cries and washes Jesus' feet with her hair and her tears, asking for forgiveness. He basically tells her there is no need to treat him that way, and that her sins are forgiven. He is reprimanded by the muckie mucks of the time for even speaking to her, but he has no interest in being chided by them. He clearly treats her as a valuable, decent person. He treats her with more decency then he treats the muckie mucks in other parts of the Bible.

The Bible is an extremely complex book. While I don't agree nor understand for that matter everything Clumsy has to say, I applaud her stick-to-itiveness.

You absolutely cannot read one verse or even one chapter and think you understand what it means. There is so much context to keep in mind. And, if a person approaches the Bible doubting it, and without having a good relationship with Christ and an open mind to the Bible, then you will probably come away with the same or worse perceptions. The Bible is an ancient document, not meant to be read like most of our modern texts. It just doesn't work that way. That's why many of us depend on help from our pastor's who makes it their life's work to understand one book.

Lest you pigeon hole me and make assumptions of who I am as a person, I am a Christian pro-life democrat who does not believe in over-turning Roe V Wade. I am fine with gays getting married, and I do not belive in the rapture as Sarah Palin and George Bush seem to believe in it. I don't speak in tongues, and I'm all for universal health care. So, I'm all over the board, in case you think I'm some right wing fundamentalist sure to provoke your ire. In other words, I'm a Christian Liberal.

It's interesting to read posts from the same people I admire on political issues, but then see them being less then open or kind on religious issues.

Christian is a very broad term. Every individual has their own individual definition.

It's late, I'm rambling.

Fusa, thank you, I interperet that as the act of a customer engaging with a prostitute in a temple is an abomination, not the male or female adult or child who is the prostitute nor the customer him or her self(?)

"Lest you pigeon hole me and make assumptions of who I am as a person,"

I do not.

* * * * *

In the beginning there was no religion. Let's not forget that. There was only God and man that God put on Earth. Mankind had a simple task, fill the earth, take care of it.

However there was one law. I think everyone here knows it. The tree of the knowlege of good and bad. They were not to eat of it or they would die. Notice here that death was the punishment. The reward for obedience is simply life, and not a bad one either.

However the serpent, later described as the Devil, made up another way by asking a simple question. "Is it really so?" he asked. "Is it really so that you cannot eat from every tree in the garden? You won't die. In fact, you'll be like God if you disobey. He knows this. That's why he told you not to eat from this tree." He told Eve this, knowing that she was the least experienced. However, did Eve go back and tell her husband? Did she ask God about what a suddenly vocal serpent had to say?

Apparently, the idea of freedom from God appealed to her.

What did Adam do? Did he rebuke Eve? No. He went along with her in her rebellion.

When God asked them why they had abandoned him. They gave two excuses. 1) "The woman you gave me made me eat it." This is by far the most common excuse people have for ignoring the Bible. "I'm disobeying and it's all God's fault!" 2) Eve said, "The serpent deceived me and so I ate." Many people have been deceived into thinking that they are somehow better off not listening to what the Bible says and not believing in God. However is that really the case?

The serpent was the one who was lying. Adam and Eve died, just as God had promised. Unfortunately, the excuses have continued here on this forum. When it was discovered that the Bible does talk about child abuse, the issue became, "But the child abuse was sanctioned and the victims were condemned!" When it was shown that the child-sex religion was the root of the issue, which was resolved by Deuteronomy, the issue became, "What about rape of women? That doesn't seem really nice. Clearly the Bible was written by men."

Now I see, "Well, the Bible lied about Sodom, they weren't really trying to rape Lot and his guests, they just weren't nice to them in giving them food."

While at the same time, what has been completely ignored, was the point I was trying to make in the previous post. That is, if someone wants to know the Bible and its intent, one needs to ask its author with a humble and sincere desire to know and learn.

It's been ignored because there is no sincere desire. Just like the back-handed question of the Devil, people have been asking themselves, "Is it really so that the urgings of my body and my heart are evil? Is it really so that I can't do whatever I feel like? Is it really so that there are consequences to my exercise of free will?"

However, in their heart, they've already found the answer. They search the scriptures not to find the reality, but the excuse they're looking for. They read the Bible, but in their hearts, they've already thrown it in the trash.

In the meantime, God hasn't forgotten about his planet and his plans for it. He promised us this planet, and just like in the case of Adam and Eve, he's allowing us to choose whether we want it or not. But in the end there will be consequences for the choices we make. We should all ask ourselves, are we going to make the same mistake our first parents did? Or are we going to write a different end to our story?

Next is 'abomination', a word you don't hear a lot and apparently didn't exist before the 14th Century I wonder what word was used when this was first written. Then: there were no 'Christians' before Jesus.

Being as this is the holiday season. ;)

There's a little toy hampster on sale. It's supposed to act like a real hampster, but in truth, it only does what its designer has manufactured it for. How long before the kid gets tired of it? 1 week? 1 day? An hour?

On the contrary, give a kid a large box. Hours of fun there.

What's the difference? The box can be anything, do anything, you can cut open a hole, paint it, put wheels on it. Until the thing falls apart.

Similarly, God did not create any of his intelligent creatures to be automatons. He put man on Earth, gave him free will, and said, "Have at it." Have you seen some of the parks and gardens people can create? The art? The dance? The music? With the gift of free will, people are happy. That's why someone would rather die than live under oppression.

In the end, that's what he wanted. Our happiness. He knew that if he gave us freedom (within limits) everyone would be happy that way. However, the misuse of freedoms have caused no end of heartache. People created their own abominable religions and it resulted in the miseries and deaths of an untold amount of women and children. We have wars, pollution, illness, greed and injustice to deal with all our lives. And then we die.

It wasn't oppressive to not eat from one tree when they had hundreds to choose from.

That's what makes the story of Adam and Eve so tragic. God looks at this world, and still remembers what it was. Fortunately, he took measure to restore it.

In the end, there will be no religion. The Bible says:

"The end, when he (Christ) hands over the kingdom to his God and Father, when he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power. For he must rule as king until [God] has put all enemies under his feet.

As the last enemy, death is to be brought to nothing. 27 For [God] "subjected all things under his feet." But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ it is evident that it is with the exception of the one who subjected all things to him.

But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone."
* * *

The results of sin is death. Without sin, there's no need for any sacrifice or temple or law. When Christ subjects himself to his Father, Christianity will end. And it will be just as it was in the beginning.

1 Letter to the Corinthians chapter 15 verse 26.

Fusa, No from what you have written I see a different interpretation.

I've been told by more than one Roman Catholic priest that the bible is written by man and no one can prove it was written by anyone but man. That the interpretations are purely personal unless you blindly follow what church leaders tell you. These same priests have told me that no matter what my fellow man thinks of me and my life (married to another man here) that I only have to answer to God and that God loves us all.

One of these priests said the clergy are basically waiting for the older leaders to die off and then there will be major changes to the church.

I don't trust mans interpretation and scribing of the word of God, I've been blessed with a wonderful life, fantastic family and friends, and an inquisitive mind. I follow no one blindly and question almost everything. What Clumsy sees in the words I don't and for some reason I have a hard time following what is attempted to be explained by him/her (?).

When I'm confronted by zealots (not throwing that at anyone here) my belief is basically keep your mind out of my bedroom and I'll stay out of your church.

In one of the evolution threads Clumsy explained to us all exactly how the universe was created and why.

This is just a continuation of the story.

We're blessed to have someone who understands the workings of God so well.

Hay

And thank you for allowing yourself to view that passage from a different perspective. I speak for myself when I say it can be easy to get stuck believing a certain thing, and be unwilling/unable to see it in a different way. I was taught my whole life (when it came up, that is, it was not a frequent sermon topic) that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for homosexual acts, but wise Bible scholars have showed me that it may have been because the people were so awful to outsiders and to the poor (sounds like modern times). When it comes to sexuality, in particular, I just try to keep my nose out of it. Like you said, "my belief is basically keep your mind out of my bedroom and I'll stay out of your church." Whether the Bible was written by God or man, it is translated and interpreted by man.

I agree that we only have God to answer to. I cringe when I hear Christians condemn (I don't mean anyone on this forum) others or misbehave in agregious or hypocritical ways, as I feel is gives "us" a bad name. In those cases I always have to remember what you said, that God is who we will answer to in the end, and God will not take kindly to hypocrisy.

Marysdottir, you said this a while back in this thread but I wanted to respond. God commanded men to love their wives as Christ loved the church. Since I don't think Christ literally or figuratively raped the church, I don't think God would be okay with husbands raping their wives. Maybe you or others will say that since the Bible does not clearly state this then God is too imperfect for you. Personally I don't think that is a fair assessment of God, but obvously that is your choice. I think the Bible is a book that is meant to be read in full, not taken in chunks. As Punky said, the Bible is not meant to be a sum total of all of the laws in the old testament, either. Imagine if the Bible was only a rule book. HOw many gazillions of law books are there, and how many people have read them? It'd be impossible to put every law ever applicable into one book. The 10 commandments says "Thou shall not commit adultery" ie don't have sex with anyone you are not married to. Doesn't that cover a lot right there?

Thank you for addressing my comment.

In the bible, god did command men to love their wives as Christ loved the church. I have always wondered what that was supposed to mean. Love her as Christ loved a community he created. I suppose that is a meant as a good thing (it has been interpreted that way usually) although it is certainly possible to argue that it is insulting and demeaning to treat women like a non-conscious entity a man created and used for the glory of himself and his father but... for the the sake of this conversation let's assume it is a good thing and god meant to tell men to really care for and love their wives as fully functioning and feeling human beings. Why would a sane god who understands human beings since he created them,require a woman to live with a man who has proved that he is not capable of treating her fairly or kindly? Why would that god make such a specific rule (that women were bound by in many religious traditions) about this issue but be unclear about other things? When I ask why your god didn't make other rules I am not asking why he left some possible arenas of human behaviour without rules. That makes sense; I would not expect the bible to be filled with rules about every possible human failing (you're right; it would be huge). What I wanted to know was why did the god of the bible choose to address the specific things he did and make the specific rules he made. Why were these rules worth mentioning (and often in such strong language - abomination! smite! damnation! make his wife a widow! etc) and others of often more importance to human health and welfare were not? Why did god think it important to spell out petty details but left unsaid rules like don't sexually abuse people? Did god just come up with a bunch of "oh by the way" rules casually tossed over a shoulder and not meant to be a true guide to behaviour?

Perhaps you are right and "thou shalt not commit adultery" is supposed to cover all sexual behaviours but, if it was, why specifically mention some other types of sexual behaviour and reinforce the wrongness of them? This god thought some items were important enough to be explicit about and others got subsumed into the more general rule.

You also said that the bible must be read as a whole and cannot be taken in chunks. That makes sense and I appreciate that this is how you seem to interpret the bible. Unfortunately, I read the words of many Christians who use the "chunks" to support their particular view of the world. I see them using particular phrases of that book to justify laws against gay marriage and abortion. I understand that you seem to not be that kind of Christian, but they use chunks of your book to support those political positions. They say that the bible can be read in chunks. Either the book has to be read in its entirety to understand its message or it doesn't.

Especially that miserable, enlightened creature, Paul.

Hay

Kate

When I was a little girl, my mom read me part of one of his letters. Then asked me, "Now, how did Paul convince the people about his faith?"

I thought for a moment. "By confusing them with all those words he said!"

My mom laughed for days. In fact, if I remind her, she'll probably still laugh.

Ephesians 5:25
Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and GAVE HIMSELF FOR IT

This verse is not referring to a building, nor a "non-conscious entity a man created" IMO. It is referring to something he gave himself for, that he died for. He died for Believers, so that believers could have eternal life in heaven. So I think the verse is saying "Husbands, love you wives as Christ loves his believers, love them enough to put their needs ahead of your own."

I have been a part of a Lutheran church my whole life. I’ve spent A LOT of times with the families of my Pastor’s (as baby sitter, friend, guests together at holiday meals, Sunday School teacher etc.) and I would say my Pastor’s always set a very good example of how to treat their wives. They were nice, and loving. Always nice and loving. And in return, it seems the wives were always quite infatuated with their husbands, in a pleasant way, although sometimes sappy. My dad I swear worships my mom, absolutely thinks the world of her. I know this is anecdotal. But I guess I’m saying that I was taught a certain thing, and the Christians in my life upheld what I was taught, and made it look like a good thing, so it is easy for me to embrace. My husband, whether I deserve it or not (I’m often impatient with him), seems to think I am the Cat’s meow.

"Why would a sane god…require a woman to live with a man who has proved that he is not capable of treating her fairly or kindly." Are you referring to the rape thing in Deuteronomy again? I still don’t think that is rape, but that is only my interpretation, I have not specifically sought out info on that from a pastor. One verse says "She cried out" the other does not. I take that to mean she did not want to cry out, as she was ok with the sexual interaction. I think the words are different in each verse for a reason. "If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;" This verse also says "THEY be found" not "HE was found doing this bad thing". Maybe you think I’m stretching to read into this, but to me it is a couple having some fun behind the barn and her dad catches them. Also, if a man is not being fair or kind to his wife, he is sinning. God commanded the man to not be unfair or unkind to his wife. Commanding doesn’t make it so, I realize, but God did speak against treating a wife unfairly. My Lutheran Church, while it frowns on divorce in general, understand that it is sometimes necessary, if either the husband or the wife are disobedient to God’s word in a way that harms the other.

As to why God was not more specific, I do not know. I can kind of see why this concerns you, I for one do not have a problem with it, but maybe that’s just me. As I said, I grew up with many good examples of loving, caring husbands. And, I’m personally fine putting this verse with that verse to get an overall meaning.

I agree that Christians are guilty of taking chunks of the Bible to suit their purposes. No one ever claimed that once you become a Christian you are more Godlike and less imperfect. Well, maybe some do, in fact… Maybe God did mention those things more specifically and man (meaning patriarchal males), chose not to include those in the Bible. Then again, as others have pointed out, Paul has a lot of good things to say.

Christians overall do seem to be quite anti-gay rights. Yes, they quote the Bible all the time as condemning homosexuality, and I agree with you, they take those chunks they want, and maybe forget those overarching "love thy neighbor" bits. I don’t have an answer, wish I did. My Lutheran Church would probably do just what you are saying you have a problem with. I personally diverge a bit from my church on this. I don’t feel I know for sure what God has to say about homosexuality, but I happen to think that it is not the Church’s business to try to influence policy, same on abortion. I myself think that abortion is killing a child, and I am so happy to have never had an unwanted pregnancy to deal with, but I do not think it is for me or my church to tell someone else what it is to be moral. That is between that person and God. Unless laws are broken, then the government can get involved of course.

Back to Christians seemingly picking and choosing verses to justify anti-gay sentiments, I honestly do not think this is done just to be mean or exclusive. Christians are taught to spread the word and not sugar coat it, so they think they are doing what they are supposed to be doing. Besides, it is possible for someone to be opposed to homosexuality, while not being opposed to the homosexual as a person. Homophobia, however, seems to be against the person him/herself, and is not ok in my book. Someone who slanders the gay person himself is not being very Christlike in terms of loving their fellow man. In other words, one should hate the sin, but not the sinner.

I’m sure I did not answer every question, and maybe did not do justice to the ones that I did answer, but I need to attend to some things right now. I’d be happy to talk more, I just gotta go.

Isn't the word 'hire' being used, as the money, or pay, that came in from the selling of other peoples bodies? - and not the bodies themselves? As in don't donate your dirty money, here [ essentially, sordidly earned by pimping ], in an attempt at spiritual money laundering?

Also, this is maybe kind of a a stretch, but so called 'honor killings' have been in the news lately. This gives a fuzzy sort of deep background context, to that unfathomable practice.