Why does my God allow children to die? Is he evil?

[Ingledsva]

Originally Posted by sincerly View Post
Originally Posted by sincerly View Post
ING, you have taken the instructions given prior to the conquest of the "Promised land" and added your bias to those instructions.
In Jericho, such a scenario did occur, The harlot Rahab believed GOD from the reports prior to the taking of that city. All the males of the city were slain--therefore, she was "without a husband" and the Scriptures say she is in the linage of Jesus Christ. NO rape--she chose to be the wife of one of her captive Israelites.

- And AGAIN - The whore Rahab has nothing to do with our discussion. That whore made a discussion to rat-out her people - and POSSIBLY - LATER - CHOSE to marry a Hebrew.

You have insisted that the intentions of those instructions and that "warrior" to have one of the women was only for sexual gratification. Not to be the "husband" as the text plainly states.

- AGAIN - It would not matter what his intention was! She is a kidnapped prisoner - and it is thus RAPE!

You may LOL all you desire and deride/mock the Scriptures in any fashion that is pleasing to you---but that doesn't change the true meaning/message of the Scriptures.

- I'm LOLing at YOU - not the verse. You are saying crap about a verse that is obviously RAPE!

ING, what is BULL is the insistence that an act has occurred when the conquest of the Land hadn't even begun.

The only "rape" that occurred was in your mind.

- Again - conquest of the land - is a red-herring. It has nothing to do with our discussion of this RAPE verse!

ING, The message given by Moses to the Israelites was before there was a conquest/war/or enemies. Marriage was established by GOD from Creation.

- RED-HERRING! Nothing to do with our RAPE verse! And again - they were not allowed to marry slaves and prisoners.

Samson's choice for a wife showed the instructions which Moses was teaching and GOD had sanctioned--Male and female were to by one flesh. That warrior was "married" for life as the "laws" stated when he "went in unto her".

- Going in onto her - just means sex! There is a difference between marriage and RAPE of prisoners!

The "woman" had 30 days to understand the situation of the facts--there were no males for her to marry of "her people" other than male children--and they were in no position to care for her. Yes, she could be a servant or a wife( that willingly or in hate/disobedient)

- WHAT? That blue section tells me what to think of you! How dare you call a kidnapped prisoner that doesn't want to scr*w the murdering kidnapper - "in hate" or "disobedient!" Are you a member of ISIS?

Then as Moses pointed out(as in Samson's case) the lust of one's "desire" may not be shared by the object "desired" and therefore, "displeasure" occurs.

- No kidding in a RAPE!

And the only solution to the situation would be "let her go". But, GOD'S Law of marriage still held true--don't commit adultery. Make sure there is a "compatibility of "minds"--because there is a "compatibility of sexual organs". That 30 days should/would give an indication of whether there was a meeting of the minds.

- So - 30 days after her kidnaping - YOUR DAUGJTER - has a "meeting of the minds," and decides it would be great to Scr*w her kidnaper, the murderer of her whole family, - a whole 30 days ago? And this is "marriage?" NOT! You folks are being absolutely ridiculous - in trying to make these rape verses somehow OK!

ING, "Rape" is contrary to the Laws of the Creator GOD and what the Prophets of the GOD has stated. Like ISIS you are distorting/corrupting the messages given by GOD.

- I'm distorting nothing! You folks are! The verses are there for anyone to read!

Those verses are silent upon what "would be the decision of the woman" at the end of thirty days" of an event that was "supposed"--in the future--"when".

- What absolute crap! The "decision" of a kidnaped woman - 30 days later - is NO! NO! NO! To the RAPE!

The "raping" only was conjured up in your mind--Not scripturally and certainly wasn't the law of GOD. The Evil doings of mankind are reasons that the wrath of GOD will be given.---HIS "strange act".

See above! The idea this is marriage was cooked up in later Christians minds, - hence the attempt to change the meaning!


*

 

[Simplelogic]

I will try to avoid the topic of God's sovereignty. I must say I disagree with you and believe the exact opposite but I definitely understand your logic. Romans 9 makes it very clear for those who hold Paul as an apostle.

You said- "Or could it be more comforting that a God in control is with their babies now, that they know no suffering,feel no pain have no more tears and the man that took their life will be punished by a Just and perfect God. Where is the evil in my premise and the lack of evil in yours? I find evil in evildoing going unpunished.I find evil in a life given for no purpose but to die and cease to exist.
What say you?"

I am not following your logic. Since you are a TULIP Calvanist, I assume you believe in eternal torment. Which means that evil people are elected for eternal torture before the foundations of the world. Elected and chosen before they were born to burn forever. This is definitely a much more evil concept than the typical atheist dogma. I'm not even sure I understand the logic in God judging "the man that took their life". The man was only doing what God intended for him to do. Its bad enough that this man is living out his evil life which was set up for him. What makes it even worse is the fact that he is going to be tortured forever because of it too!

Please help me understand how you sleep at night.

 

[Simplelogic]

Yes God is evil. In the sense that God hold no one individuals best interests at heart.

If another's child is saved and mine is not, then that is evil as far as I'm concerned.

If anyone goes to hell or is spiritually destroyed, then that is evil. If God plays favorites and you are one of the favorites, doesn't make God any less evil. Just makes you lucky.

I can understand your position on eternal torment. I personally do not believe in the concept. But I don't see the destruction of an evil person as wrong at all. Is it really "evil" for people like Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin and Osama Bin Laden to just cease from existence? Especially if these men had the complete free will to be good or evil.

 

[Ingledsva]

Originally Posted by sincerly View Post
Originally Posted by sincerly View Post
ING, you have taken the instructions given prior to the conquest of the "Promised land" and added your bias to those instructions.


ING - Red herring! Nothing to do with the Rape verses!


In Jericho, such a scenario did occur, The harlot Rahab believed GOD from the reports prior to the taking of that city. All the males of the city were slain--therefore, she was "without a husband" and the Scriptures say she is in the linage of Jesus Christ. NO rape--she chose to be the wife of one of her captive Israelites.

ING - Red herring! Rahab was a whore who sold out her people - and then - scr*wed a Hebrew. She was NOT a kidnapped women forced into sex 30 days later!

You have insisted that the intentions of those instructions and that "warrior" to have one of the women was only for sexual gratification. Not to be the "husband" as the text plainly states.

ING - The text does NOT plainly state! The words are also master/owner, and woman, not wife! Marriage does NOT fit these verses - RAPE does!


You may LOL all you desire and deride/mock the Scriptures in any fashion that is pleasing to you---but that doesn't change the true meaning/message of the Scriptures.


ING - I LOL'd YOU, for calling sex with a 30 day captive - marriage - instead of the Rape it is.


ING, what is BULL is the insistence that an act has occurred when the conquest of the Land hadn't even begun.

The only "rape" that occurred was in your mind.


ING - The verses are clearly rape! 30 days and the female is being scr*wed by her captor? RAPE!


ING, The message given by Moses to the Israelites was before there was a conquest/war/or enemies. Marriage was established by GOD from Creation. Samson's choice for a wife showed the instructions which Moses was teaching and GOD had sanctioned--Male and female were to by one flesh.

ING Red herring! Nothing to do with these RAPE verses!


That warrior was "married" for life as the "laws" stated when he "went in unto her".


ING - To "go in unto," merely means to have Sex with! It does not mean marriage!

And AGAIN - you keep ignoring their LAWS that said they could NOT marry these captive slaves!


The "woman" had 30 days to understand the situation of the facts--there were no males for her to marry of "her people" other than male children--and they were in no position to care for her. Yes, she could be a servant or a wife( that willingly or in hate/disobedient)


ING - OMG! Your choice of words tells me a whole lot about you!

Murder, Kidnaping, slavery, and she doesn't decide to Scr*w him, - so she is "in hate," or being disobedient?

Let's see - YOU - Kidnaped, your family murdered, and thirty days later YOU agree to be scr*wed by the murdering captor!

And if YOU choose not to be Scr*wed by the MURDERER - then YOU are somehow "in hate," or "disobedient!"

What you are saying is absolutely ridiculous - and you know it! All you have to do is put yourself in the woman's sandals!


Then as Moses pointed out(as in Samson's case) the lust of one's "desire" may not be shared by the object "desired" and therefore, "displeasure" occurs.


ING - No kidding Sherlock! Murder, Kidnaping, and RAPE, seem to have that result!


And the only solution to the situation would be "let her go". But, GOD'S Law of marriage still held true--don't commit adultery. Make sure there is a "compatibility of "minds"--because there is a "compatibility of sexual organs". That 30 days should/would give an indication of whether there was a meeting of the minds.


ING - THIRTY DAYS from MURDER of your family, KIDNAPING, and being ENSLAVED in enemy territory, is NOT time for a "meeting of minds."

These events, - and this time period, - can ONLY be RAPE!


ING, "Rape" is contrary to the Laws of the Creator GOD and what the Prophets of the GOD has stated. Like ISIS you are distorting/corrupting the messages given by GOD.


ING - This is BULL! I suggest you go to a Jewish site and read up on it!


Those verses are silent upon what "would be the decision of the woman" at the end of thirty days" of an event that was "supposed"--in the future--"when".


ING - THAT IS BULL! Her answer would be NO! It is RAPE!


The "raping" only was conjured up in your mind--Not scripturally and certainly wasn't the law of GOD. The Evil doings of mankind are reasons that the wrath of GOD will be given.---HIS "strange act".

"In the Talmud Bavli 12 we see in Kiddushin 21b the general agreement that a soldier is allowed one act of intercourse with a captive, but not on the battlefield. Another opinion is also mentioned by the jews: "..it seems to Rabbenu Tam 13 that a first cohabitation is permitted in war.."

Maimonides (1195a: 5:8:4): "A priest is permitted to have relations with a captive woman once, for permission to have relations with a captive woman is a concession to man's evil impulse; but he is not permitted to marry her, because she is a proselyte."


Maimonides (1195a: 5:8:2,3): "A soldier in the invading army may, if overpowered by passion, cohabit with a captive woman - [but] he is forbidden to cohabit with her a second time before he marries her - Coition with her is permitted only at the time when she is taken captive - he must not force her in the open field of battle - that is, he shall take her to a private place and cohabit with her."
19

How about RAPE of little boys?

(Talmud, Sanhedrin 54b — see note 7): Our Rabbis taught: In the case of a male child, a young one is not regarded as on a par with an old one; but a young beast is treated as an old one [i.e, bestiality was punished regardless of the age of the beast]. What is meant by this? — Rab said: Pederasty with a child below nine years of age is not deemed as pederasty with a child above that. Samuel said: Pederasty with a child below three years is not treated as with a child above that...

Or RAPE of three year old girls -

It is even stated that “A girl aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition, and if her deceased husband’s brother cohabited with her, she becomes his.” 80 http://www.global-dialogue.com/swidlerbooks/womenjudaism.htm Josephus, Antiquities, XIX, 354

OBVIOUSLY - Women and children were allowed to be raped in this patriarchal culture.


*

 

[sincerly]

"In the Talmud Bavli 12 we see in Kiddushin 21b the general agreement that a soldier is allowed one act of intercourse with a captive, but not on the battlefield. Another opinion is also mentioned by the jews: "..it seems to Rabbenu Tam 13 that a first cohabitation is permitted in war.."

Maimonides (1195a: 5:8:4): "A priest is permitted to have relations with a captive woman once, for permission to have relations with a captive woman is a concession to man's evil impulse; but he is not permitted to marry her, because she is a proselyte."


Maimonides (1195a: 5:8:2,3): "A soldier in the invading army may, if overpowered by passion, cohabit with a captive woman - [but] he is forbidden to cohabit with her a second time before he marries her - Coition with her is permitted only at the time when she is taken captive - he must not force her in the open field of battle - that is, he shall take her to a private place and cohabit with her."
19

How about RAPE of little boys?

(Talmud, Sanhedrin 54b — see note 7): Our Rabbis taught: In the case of a male child, a young one is not regarded as on a par with an old one; but a young beast is treated as an old one [i.e, bestiality was punished regardless of the age of the beast]. What is meant by this? — Rab said: Pederasty with a child below nine years of age is not deemed as pederasty with a child above that. Samuel said: Pederasty with a child below three years is not treated as with a child above that...

Or RAPE of three year old girls -

It is even stated that “A girl aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition, and if her deceased husband’s brother cohabited with her, she becomes his.” 80 http://www.global-dialogue.com/swidlerbooks/womenjudaism.htm Josephus, Antiquities, XIX, 354

OBVIOUSLY - Women and children were allowed to be raped in this patriarchal culture.
*

ING, Like your conclusions, those writings in the "Talmud" and by Maimonides, Josephus, etc. ARE NOT THE SCRIPTURES---but opinions.
The Jewish Nation had become corrupted by the time of Jesus and HE was teaching the correction of the Scriptures. It was a reason that Jesus said "your house is left to you desolate."

The instructions from GOD remain valid.

 

[sincerly]

I will try to avoid the topic of God's sovereignty. I must say I disagree with you and believe the exact opposite but I definitely understand your logic. Romans 9 makes it very clear for those who hold Paul as an apostle.

You said- "Or could it be more comforting that a God in control is with their babies now, that they know no suffering,feel no pain have no more tears and the man that took their life will be punished by a Just and perfect God. Where is the evil in my premise and the lack of evil in yours? I find evil in evildoing going unpunished.I find evil in a life given for no purpose but to die and cease to exist.
What say you?"

I am not following your logic. Since you are a TULIP Calvanist, I assume you believe in eternal torment. Which means that evil people are elected for eternal torture before the foundations of the world. Elected and chosen before they were born to burn forever. This is definitely a much more evil concept than the typical atheist dogma. I'm not even sure I understand the logic in God judging "the man that took their life". The man was only doing what God intended for him to do. Its bad enough that this man is living out his evil life which was set up for him. What makes it even worse is the fact that he is going to be tortured forever because of it too!

Please help me understand how you sleep at night.

SL, "evil doing", Scripturally, will not go "unpunished in the end of all actions. But since we ALL are guilty of death, AND GOD is LOVE, MERCIFUL, GRACIOUS, AND JUST, WE CAN BE THANKFUL THAT GOD avails one of those qualities of HIS and accepts one's humble confession of disobedience and the remorseful Repentance one expresses in submitting to HIS WILL.
Mal.4:1-3 assures one that it isn't eternal "punishing", but
punishment"---ashes/dust has no life of feelings.

NO ONE is set up to be "evil" that is a choice one makes based on one's "logic"---rather than the Clear "Thus saith the Lord GOD."

GOD gave the only means for entering into "The Kingdom of GOD" and I believe HIM---so why should I NOT sleep at night?

 

[Ingledsva]

ING, Like your conclusions, those writings in the "Talmud" and by Maimonides, Josephus, etc. ARE NOT THE SCRIPTURES---but opinions.
The Jewish Nation had become corrupted by the time of Jesus and HE was teaching the correction of the Scriptures. It was a reason that Jesus said "your house is left to you desolate."

The instructions from GOD remain valid.

LOL! They PROVE that what I have been saying about those RAPE verses are correct. They obviously understood them to mean exactly that!

Maimonides was a Jewish Torah scholar.


*

 

[Simplelogic]

SL, "evil doing", Scripturally, will not go "unpunished in the end of all actions. But since we ALL are guilty of death, AND GOD is LOVE, MERCIFUL, GRACIOUS, AND JUST, WE CAN BE THANKFUL THAT GOD avails one of those qualities of HIS and accepts one's humble confession of disobedience and the remorseful Repentance one expresses in submitting to HIS WILL.
Mal.4:1-3 assures one that it isn't eternal "punishing", but
punishment"---ashes/dust has no life of feelings.

NO ONE is set up to be "evil" that is a choice one makes based on one's "logic"---rather than the Clear "Thus saith the Lord GOD."

GOD gave the only means for entering into "The Kingdom of GOD" and I believe HIM---so why should I NOT sleep at night?

Let me be clear. I am not stating my position on this thread. I was discussing the views of the OP.

I don't believe in eternal torture either.

I don't believe in your logic of original sin either. The assertion that all men are born guilty of death. Maybe we can discuss this on another thread.

For the most part, I agree with you. But the Calvinist position was what I was questioning…not my own.

 

[sincerly]

LOL! They PROVE that what I have been saying about those RAPE verses are correct. They obviously understood them to mean exactly that!

Maimonides was a Jewish Torah scholar.*

Just as Moses and GOD had stated at Sinai---mostly a "stiff-necked people"---which the Scriptures and history has shown.

 

[Ingledsva]

Just as Moses and GOD had stated at Sinai---mostly a "stiff-necked people"---which the Scriptures and history has shown.

That allowed the RAPE of women and children.

I forgot to add in # 5346 that Jesus did NOT change or correct any scripture.

Mat 5:17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Mat 5:18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Mat 5:19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Mat 5:20For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.


*

 

[CG Didymus]

That allowed the RAPE of women and children.

I forgot to add in # 5346 that Jesus did NOT change or correct any scripture.

Mat 5:17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Mat 5:18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Mat 5:19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Mat 5:20For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.


*

Since men did the actual writing of what is considered "Scripture"... and, other men interpreted it, provided explanations, helped fill in the blanks, and/or commented on it and called their book the Talmud, if not considered Scripture to all Jews, it's still pretty important and holds quite a bit of authority. And, like you pointed out, it shows how those Rabbi's viewed those Scriptures. But, what especially difficult for me, is the fact that they were only men. What was the difference between the men that wrote the "Scripture" and those that wrote the Talmud? What was the difference between the men that decided which books were to be made "Scripture" and those men that commented on it and wrote the Talmud? Most of the authors of Scripture are only based on "traditions". Traditions of whom? Those men that attributed authorship, and those men that decided on the canon, probably weren't that much different than the Rabbi's that wrote the Talmud. But one of those things they did, The Bible, is considered, by some, to be the inerrant, infallible, Word of God?

I wonder, if that word is meant to be followed, why don't we have our military destroy whole villages, bring back young girls to be "wives", kill all the boys and non-virgins, and, if God allows, take all their possessions and bring them back? Of course, I'm sure all those things are going on, but at least we aren't saying that God told us to do it. At least, I hope we aren't.

 

[Ingledsva]

Since men did the actual writing of what is considered "Scripture"... and, other men interpreted it, provided explanations, helped fill in the blanks, and/or commented on it and called their book the Talmud, if not considered Scripture to all Jews, it's still pretty important and holds quite a bit of authority. And, like you pointed out, it shows how those Rabbi's viewed those Scriptures. But, what especially difficult for me, is the fact that they were only men. What was the difference between the men that wrote the "Scripture" and those that wrote the Talmud? What was the difference between the men that decided which books were to be made "Scripture" and those men that commented on it and wrote the Talmud? Most of the authors of Scripture are only based on "traditions". Traditions of whom? Those men that attributed authorship, and those men that decided on the canon, probably weren't that much different than the Rabbi's that wrote the Talmud. But one of those things they did, The Bible, is considered, by some, to be the inerrant, infallible, Word of God?

ING - The whole Bible is written by patriarchal human men. A God did not write it, or inspire it.

I wonder, if that word is meant to be followed, why don't we have our military destroy whole villages, bring back young girls to be "wives", kill all the boys and non-virgins, and, if God allows, take all their possessions and bring them back? Of course, I'm sure all those things are going on, but at least we aren't saying that God told us to do it. At least, I hope we aren't.

Because "MOST" modern societies have separated religion from law and politics.

And created laws against such.

The ones that don't separate them, continue to abuse.

However, rape and murder are well know in every military around the word - right up to this minute.

Bush took us OUT of the RAPE Accords, so our men couldn't be charged in other countries.

In Vietnam our military killed whole villages and raped the women and children.

ALL of our military groups, including the Coast Guard, right now, are allowing men to get away with raping female soldiers. It is sick.


*

 

[Simplelogic]

"In the Talmud Bavli 12 we see in Kiddushin 21b the general agreement that a soldier is allowed one act of intercourse with a captive, but not on the battlefield. Another opinion is also mentioned by the jews: "..it seems to Rabbenu Tam 13 that a first cohabitation is permitted in war.."

Maimonides (1195a: 5:8:4): "A priest is permitted to have relations with a captive woman once, for permission to have relations with a captive woman is a concession to man's evil impulse; but he is not permitted to marry her, because she is a proselyte."


Maimonides (1195a: 5:8:2,3): "A soldier in the invading army may, if overpowered by passion, cohabit with a captive woman - [but] he is forbidden to cohabit with her a second time before he marries her - Coition with her is permitted only at the time when she is taken captive - he must not force her in the open field of battle - that is, he shall take her to a private place and cohabit with her."
19

How about RAPE of little boys?

(Talmud, Sanhedrin 54b — see note 7): Our Rabbis taught: In the case of a male child, a young one is not regarded as on a par with an old one; but a young beast is treated as an old one [i.e, bestiality was punished regardless of the age of the beast]. What is meant by this? — Rab said: Pederasty with a child below nine years of age is not deemed as pederasty with a child above that. Samuel said: Pederasty with a child below three years is not treated as with a child above that...

Or RAPE of three year old girls -

It is even stated that “A girl aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition, and if her deceased husband’s brother cohabited with her, she becomes his.” 80 http://www.global-dialogue.com/swidlerbooks/womenjudaism.htm Josephus, Antiquities, XIX, 354

OBVIOUSLY - Women and children were allowed to be raped in this patriarchal culture.


*

No wonder Yeshua HATED the oral laws!

 

[Ingledsva]

No wonder Yeshua HATED the oral laws!

He should also have hated the ones written in the Bible as being the word of God, when they are not.

*

 

[Simplelogic]

He should also have hated the ones written in the Bible as being the word of God, when they are not.

*

The Torah condemns rape. You are making the common error of associating modern morality with historical. I assume you are offended because the Torah requires a woman being raped to cry out for help.

This command would make no sense in a society like ours. But it did make sense in ancient Israel.

All males of Israel were required to intervene when innocent people were being abused. There was no concept of being an "innocent bystander". To witness violence to someone and do nothing meant that you were COMPLICIT IN THE ACT ITSELF. The command for the woman to cry out was to inform the closest male to come help HER! This command only applied to when a woman was rapped in the town or city (were other men could hear).

If a woman was rapped in a isolated place (away from society) she was not required to cry out. And she could not be blamed for not calling out. The male who committed the offense was to be killed though.

Yes, if you were to rip this command out of the Israelite setting it would completely be distorted because most men today are cowards and do not behave this way. They would just keep walking or act like they didn't see.

 

[Sonofason]

Aapparently it does. Brilliant men of science thousands of years later coughed up the idea that leprosy was hereditary and that was proof the bible was wrong...

Are you suggesting that leprosy is not contagious? With a simple search, I found this:

"Leprosy is an infectious disease that causes severe, disfiguring skin sores and nerve damage in the arms and legs. The disease has been around since ancient times, often surrounded by terrifying, negative stigmas and tales of leprosy patients being shunned as outcasts. Outbreaks of leprosy have affected, and panicked, people on every continent. The oldest civilizations of China, Egypt, and India feared leprosy was an incurable, mutilating, and contagious disease.

However, leprosy is actually not that contagious. You can catch it only if you come into close and repeated contact with nose and mouth droplets from someone with untreated leprosy. Children are more likely to get leprosy than adults."
Leprosy Symptoms, Treatments, History, and Causes

How does this affect what you were saying with regard to the accuracy of the Bible?

 

[Sonofason]

It however makes perfect sense assuming species aren't as cut and dry as previously thought. That puts another kill switch in creationism because creationism depends on kinds being discernible.

I do not believe that your conclusion is logical. The Bible actually does not extrapolate into a distant future with regard to creatures of the past necessarily being the same kind of creatures as those in the distant future. It does not suggest that creatures do not evolve slowly over time. In Genesis 1, The Bible uses terms like this:
"Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind"

Here, we are considering individual living creatures that have been "brought forth" from the earth, over time. Each creature is brought forth after another creature, it's parent, which is always the same kind of creature. Every single creature is the same kind of creature as it's parent. And that is fact. And that is what the Bible is saying here in Genesis. The Bible is also saying in these verses, that if you could trace back the ancestry of each kind of creature, you will inevitably discover that the first creature was brought forth from the earth.

Thus, there is no kill switch in creationism, even if evolution were true.

 

[Ingledsva]

The Torah condemns rape. You are making the common error of associating modern morality with historical. I assume you are offended because the Torah requires a woman being raped to cry out for help.

This command would make no sense in a society like ours. But it did make sense in ancient Israel.

All males of Israel were required to intervene when innocent people were being abused. There was no concept of being an "innocent bystander". To witness violence to someone and do nothing meant that you were COMPLICIT IN THE ACT ITSELF. The command for the woman to cry out was to inform the closest male to come help HER! This command only applied to when a woman was rapped in the town or city (were other men could hear).

If a woman was rapped in a isolated place (away from society) she was not required to cry out. And she could not be blamed for not calling out. The male who committed the offense was to be killed though.

Yes, if you were to rip this command out of the Israelite setting it would completely be distorted because most men today are cowards and do not behave this way. They would just keep walking or act like they didn't see.

I guess you haven't read the thread.

I very specifically posted verses that ALLOWED them to Rape.

Only the rape of Hebrew women (in most instances) is not allowed.


*

 

[sincerly]

Just as Moses and GOD had stated at Sinai---mostly a "stiff-necked people"---which the Scriptures and history has shown.

That allowed the RAPE of women and children.

I forgot to add in # 5346 that Jesus did NOT change or correct any scripture.

Mat 5:17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Mat 5:18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Mat 5:19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Mat 5:20For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.*

ING, Jesus did come to "FULFILL". Therefore, some things which point to HIS saving mission were "completed"---because they were symbolic of that mission of HIS.

The "sexual sins" were not abolished and applied to all of mankind. GOD never allowed "rape" that was done/allowed by those who had departed from the righteous thinking of the Creator GOD.

 

[Simplelogic]

Absolute BULL!


A captured 30 day slave is not agreeing to be a wife, she is being raped! PERIOD!




*

This is silly. You have no idea.