Matthew tells us:
" And suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.�
Billions of babies get baptized but the Voice doesn't express delight. I've checked to see if this Voice was heard by any Roman writer of the time but apparently it was a local phenomenon for Christ's pointless ceremony. Sadly nothing concrete was dropped from what is called heaven but I suppose that could have ended in tragedy, for it's one thing for a pigeon to descend on the jubilant Jesus, quite another for a ton of gold to hit him. So all we have is the testimony of unstable Matthew to let us know about this fantastic piece of history.
Can we take the tale as a symbolic tribute to Christ, rather than fact?
Does the Bible lose credibility through Matthew's indulgence in such stories?
Did God really shout to his son?
Moderator: Moderators
- Mithrae
- Prodigy
- Posts: 4304
- Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:33 am
- Location: Australia
- Has thanked: 100 times
- Been thanked: 190 times
Re: Did God really shout to his son?
Post #61[Replying to post 59 by JehovahsWitness]
Where did you read that these girls were permitted even the pretense of "consent" to marry the Israelite soldiers who desired them? You yourself have acknowledged that even in cases of fathers betrothing their own daughters to someone else within the tribe or nation consent was sometimes coerced or outright ignored, an issue which the Torah makes no attempt to acknowledge or remedy. Yet you're still trying to defend the obvious fact of mass rape in these passages; the obvious fact that not even adult women would willingly marry their families' killers without extreme coercion (would you?), let alone captive young girls whose 'consent' would not be legally recognized in even the best of circumstances today!
Where did you read that these girls were permitted even the pretense of "consent" to marry the Israelite soldiers who desired them? You yourself have acknowledged that even in cases of fathers betrothing their own daughters to someone else within the tribe or nation consent was sometimes coerced or outright ignored, an issue which the Torah makes no attempt to acknowledge or remedy. Yet you're still trying to defend the obvious fact of mass rape in these passages; the obvious fact that not even adult women would willingly marry their families' killers without extreme coercion (would you?), let alone captive young girls whose 'consent' would not be legally recognized in even the best of circumstances today!
- JehovahsWitness
- Savant
- Posts: 21073
- Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
- Has thanked: 790 times
- Been thanked: 1114 times
- Contact:
Re: Did God really shout to his son?
Post #62marco wrote: You suggest "arranged marriage"; the flaw in this is that there was no arrangement - it was an imposed union on someone who had no choice.
ARRANGEMENT
An informal agreement or settlement especially on personal, social, or political matters
TO ARRANGE
To put into a proper order or into a correct or suitable sequence, relationship, or adjustment
source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arrange
An "arranged marriage" is by definition arranged whether the arrangement is imposed on one or more of the parties or not. In the historical context here it would be arrranged (ie put into place) by the family patriarch. It is worth pointing out that all marriages (including those of the patriarchs natural born daughters) would have been initiated in exactly the same manner. The slave girl however stood to gain more than the natural Jewess in tems of greatly improving her legal and financial status.
To confligate the above patriarchal system to a mass rape program is to display a dichotomic mindset worthy of the most radical "new wave feminist". It demands we believe under such an arrangement all women then went on to refuse to have sex with their husbands and all men went on to rape their wives. Since rape is naturally abhorrent to all but the perverse and the psychologically deranged such a conclusion is not only insulting to men in general but statistically improbable.
JW
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681
"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" - Romans 14:8
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681
"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" - Romans 14:8
- Difflugia
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3017
- Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
- Location: Michigan
- Has thanked: 3247 times
- Been thanked: 1997 times
Re: Did God really shout to his son?
Post #63So, it's for her own good, then?JehovahsWitness wrote:The slave girl however stood to gain more than the natural Jewess in tems of greatly improving her legal and financial status.
Then why are you doing so? If you recall, we're talking about the forced "marriages" of prisoners of war. You're the only one trying to turn the argument into the straw man of "all arranged marriages no matter how benign the social construction are rape." That is certainly an easier argument to refute than "forcing enslaved prisoners of war to have sex with you is rape," but even so, is that really the hill on which you want to make your stand?JehovahsWitness wrote:To confligate the above patriarchal system to a mass rape program is to display a dichotomic mindset worthy of the most radical "new wave feminist".
-
- Guru
- Posts: 1330
- Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 8:44 am
- Location: Canada
- Has thanked: 32 times
- Been thanked: 66 times
Post #64
marco wrote:
https://biblehub.com/greek/3004.htm
The Greek word is λÎγουσα. It is translated "saying" because that's what the word means. It doesn't mean shout or holler or roar. The root word means "to say". See here:Transmissions from the sky presumably require a LOUD voice given the absence of mechanical assistance. Ergo shout or scream. Salutation, from the Latin first conjugation verb salutare, to greet, is just a way of saying God greeted people to that announcement.
https://biblehub.com/greek/3004.htm
- Difflugia
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3017
- Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
- Location: Michigan
- Has thanked: 3247 times
- Been thanked: 1997 times
Re: Did God really shout to his son?
Post #65I hope you realize that you're dancing very close to claiming that promotion of sexual autonomy for women is something you perceive as insulting.JehovahsWitness wrote:To confligate the above patriarchal system to a mass rape program is to display a dichotomic mindset worthy of the most radical "new wave feminist".
- JehovahsWitness
- Savant
- Posts: 21073
- Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
- Has thanked: 790 times
- Been thanked: 1114 times
- Contact:
Re: Did God really shout to his son?
Post #66Difflugia wrote:If you recall, we're talking about the forced "marriages" of prisoners of war.
Firstly speaking about war captives as "prisoners" is a misnommer since at no time were slaves to be put in prisons (the Hebrew system didn't have prison). Further there is the unproven assumption that slave girls offered the opportunity of an arranged marriage would automatically need to be "forced" to accept. Given her circumstances, that would be unlikely to say the least.
If we remove such subtianiated notions, are you suggesting that, because of the unique aspects of the history of such a girl, an arranged marriage for a war bride is indeed tantamount to rape? If yes, explain why. If no we have no issue.
JW
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681
"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" - Romans 14:8
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681
"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" - Romans 14:8
- Difflugia
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3017
- Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
- Location: Michigan
- Has thanked: 3247 times
- Been thanked: 1997 times
Re: Did God really shout to his son?
Post #67You've hinged your arguments on split hairs before, but this might be the winner. "War captives," then.JehovahsWitness wrote:Firstly speaking about war captives as "prisoners" is a misnommer since at no time were slaves to be put in prisons (the Hebrew system didn't have prison).
This is one of the most surreal apologetic arguments I think I've ever had to deal with and believe me, that's saying someting. Your first implication here is that Deuteronomy 21:10-14 can somehow be construed as an "offer of marriage" with, apparently, an inherent right to refuse. Your second is that the prospects of being a slave were apparently (according to your argument) so much worse than marriage to one of your captors that a woman or girl would be not only willing, but eager to accept such a marriage and this somehow amounts to meaningful consent.JehovahsWitness wrote:Further there is the unproven assumption that slave girls offered the opportunity of an arranged marriage would automatically need to be "forced" to accept. Given her circumstances, that would be unlikely to say the least.
I am literally, viscerally horrified.
The "unique aspects" were being taken captive after the slaughter (the text assumes) of her parents. Just so we're all clear.JehovahsWitness wrote:If we remove such subtianiated notions, are you suggesting that, because of the unique aspects of the history of such a girl...
Even if I agree that an "arranged marriage" is somehow not rape by virtue of being a marriage by someone's definition (which I don't), then a captor "arranging" his marriage to his own captive strains even the broadest definition of "arranged marriage."JehovahsWitness wrote:...an arranged marriage for a war bride is indeed tantamount to rape?
Good gods! In the immortal (if apocryphal) words of some Christian guy, "Hier stehe ich, ich kann nicht anders!"JehovahsWitness wrote:If yes, explain why. If no we have no issue.
- Nonconsensual sex is rape.
- Nonconsensual sex within marriage is rape.
- Consent given as a response to coercion or threat is not consent.
- Consent given by someone held against their will, even as a condition of release, is not consent.
- JehovahsWitness
- Savant
- Posts: 21073
- Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
- Has thanked: 790 times
- Been thanked: 1114 times
- Contact:
Re: Did God really shout to his son?
Post #68Difflugia wrote: Even if I agree that an "arranged marriage" is somehow not rape by virtue of being a marriage
Since marriage is a legal contract and a rape is force sexual intercourse I cannot see how you can do anything BUT agree that a marriage (of any description) is not a rape. If however you indeed trying to redefine the plain meaning of words, free to present argumentation that is more substantial than your shock and horror (both of which will presumably subside with access to a good dictionary).
If you accept that arranged marriages regardless of the parameters, are not rape but are actually arguing that the former must by definition lead to the latter, I have already addressed this point, and can see little in the way of counterargument that doesn't amount to "I don't like it".
Facts don't care about your feelings and the fact of the matter is that there is nothing in scripture or in the cultural context of Hebrew society to indicate the girl couldnt have refused marriage (and the legal status as a wife and the inheritance for her children ) in favor of remaining childless slave in her master's house forever*. Short of running away and taking a chance on how much better a young virgin girl without protection would be treated by the child sacrificing Cananites, or attempting to wander about in the desert until shes picked off by a wild animal, a non-crazy girl would most likely accept her lot in life, agree to marriage and live up to her part of the arrangement.
* Most men past and present that are not psychopaths will choose not to marry a girl if he believes he will have to rape her to have sex with her.
Those were the facts which are arguably comparatively humaine, and in any case, and whether we find them morally agreeable or not there is no reason to confligate them to a presumption of systematic rape which defies both the national law and basic human nature which usually finds rape repellent.
JW
Last edited by JehovahsWitness on Tue May 19, 2020 3:54 pm, edited 6 times in total.
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681
"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" - Romans 14:8
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681
"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" - Romans 14:8
- 1213
- Savant
- Posts: 11342
- Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:06 am
- Location: Finland
- Has thanked: 312 times
- Been thanked: 357 times
Re: Did God really shout to his son?
Post #69Thanks for showing the scripture. As all can see, it does not say “it is righteous to rape, beat or destroy�. Makes me wonder, why do people claim so, if everyone can clearly see it is not true.Difflugia wrote:Deuteronomy 21:10-14 is quoted often enough that I'm always surprised when someone forgets about it:1213 wrote:Where it is said in the Bible that it is righteous to rape, beat or destroy? Destroy is only one that I can agree that can be righteous, if it is evil that is destroyed.
When you go out to battle against your enemies, and Yahweh your God delivers them into your hands and you carry them away captive, and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you are attracted to her, and desire to take her as your wife, then you shall bring her home to your house. She shall shave her head and trim her nails. She shall take off the clothing of her captivity, and shall remain in your house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month. After that you shall go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife.
I think what you say tells more about you than about the Bible. If you would be in the same situation, would you rape?
Re: Did God really shout to his son?
Post #70If one argues simplistically one can justify anything or overlook murder. There is no command that says we must not murder - we must not kill. The above details give God's permission for a man to abuse girls he has snatched away. We don't need to search for a four-letter word.1213 wrote:Thanks for showing the scripture. As all can see, it does not say “it is righteous to rape, beat or destroy�. Makes me wonder, why do people claim so, if everyone can clearly see it is not true.Difflugia wrote:Deuteronomy 21:10-14 is quoted often enough that I'm always surprised when someone forgets about it:1213 wrote:Where it is said in the Bible that it is righteous to rape, beat or destroy? Destroy is only one that I can agree that can be righteous, if it is evil that is destroyed.
When you go out to battle against your enemies, and Yahweh your God delivers them into your hands and you carry them away captive, and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you are attracted to her, and desire to take her as your wife, then you shall bring her home to your house. She shall shave her head and trim her nails. She shall take off the clothing of her captivity, and shall remain in your house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month. After that you shall go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife.
We get a good idea of God's intentions from the man God conversed with, to whom he offered his commandments: In Numbers 31 we have this beautiful passage:
"Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. "
Perhaps "kill" does not mean kill and perhaps the virgin girls are to be given roses. But let us follow your advice and read what is written.
Is it more moral to defend violence to girls or to condemn it, 1213?
I think what you say tells more about you than about the Bible. If you would be in the same situation, would you rape?