// "Less degraded than women today."
That is the most asinine, uneducated, wishfull thinking piece of intellectuall doggie doo You have spoken yet. //
Well you are entitled to your opinion Greg. But it is just your opinion. My opinion on most of what you say, is much the same.
//Tell Me Buzzkill, is God mandated Rape degrading? //
Tell me Greg, where did God mandate rape? I need chapter and verse so I can look it over see what your talking about. I am pretty sure you are not understanding something important to the meaning of the text, if you think God mandated rape.
//Is taking women captive, shaving their heads, killing their babies by smashing them against rocks not degrading? //
Again I need chapter and verse.
//How about being sold by your father to another man? Degrading? //
Today, yes of course. Then - no it wasn't. If the father was offered anything for a daughters hand in marriage - it was (I'm guessing) a huge compliment - as usually, the father was expected to pay the groom a dowry. Poor girls, with out a large dowry, were/are, at a disadvantage. It was the way society was all over the world at the time - and still is in large parts - and this doesn't mean this was ever what God wanted for His people.
This is an example of human tradition being mistaken for God's word. No where does God mandate that marriage be arranged in this way - but men began the tradition, and kept with it, and as it is described and mentioned in scripture, it has been viewed by some as the way it should be - because it is the way it was - and this is how the traditions of man, can take precedence over the word of God.
We are warned away from the traditions of man for this very reason. See Matthew 15. Colossians 2 vs 8. The Isaiah verse quoted in Matthew is, Isaiah 29 vs 13
//I am convinced you have no interest in the truth, only supporting your warped dogma based on a world full of supernatural boogiemen. //
You are convinced wrong. Truth is very important to me. I believe the Prophets and Apostles have taught the Truth. I think there is just tons of evidence that this is so. You, on the other hand, I think are deceived by the Great Liar; and will believe anything that supports the lies with out question or reflection.
//Tell me, is this degrading, to be considered just another piece of PROPERTY of the man that owns you?
"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's." //
Is your wife your neighbor's? No, of corse not. And your neighbor isn't to try and get her from you, or to wish she, or anything else that is yours,
were his - but rather is to be happy with his own. And no doubt his wife would be more honored by this as well.
This does not mean a wife is property. Yes, I know wives and daughters were (and in parts of the world still are) considered property - but again - what you have here is a tradition of men - not a commandment from God.
//And what of Jesus? He said you could never divorce under any circumstances unless the Wife was guilty of fornication. No mention of divorce if the man was similarly guilty. Further, divorcing her made HER guilty of Adultery.
" But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."
Is this degrading? //
You completely miss the point of this teaching. What was being said was, it is wrong for men to set aside their wives for the multiple and petty reasons allowed under the law. Jesus was telling the men he was talking to (and the churchmen today as well) that they are to keep and protect their wives for as long as they might live - and that it is wrong to think God approves of men casting out their wives for burning dinner.
He was talking about the sanctity of marriage and the seriousness of the convenient between man and wife. In God's eyes the two really do become as one; and Jesus was pointing out the seriousness of separating them by divorce; that as far as God is concerned, they are still married. The only justifiable reason for divorce is adultery - b/c if adultery has taken place, then the marriage convenient has already been broken. Even so - He does not say they must divorce. Only that in this case, they may divorce. This is a recognition that remaining married to an adulterer would be demeaning and more than can be expected of any man or woman.
He wasn't casting blame on the woman unjustly divorced by her husband - but rather blame on the hard heartedness of the husband - and pointing out to him the terrible situation he has placed his wife in. He was teaching that she must not be so demeaned.
//And Pauls teachings of women?
"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." Degrading? //
Degrading? No I don't think so. This was the accepted custom of his day. What he is saying is that the woman needs to be respectful and hold her tongue in church and not be starting arguments. I suspect he had good reason to make this suggestion. The authority he speaks of is spiritual authority - and it is true that he is teaching men are supposed to be the spiritual leaders in church and in the home - but this does not mean that if men ignore their responsibility, women can not pick it up. Rather, that this is the responsibility of men - that women have other responsibilities. But in no case are these responsibilities to be left undone if one or the other falls short.
//How about Lot, who offered his daughters to a mob of men that were out to rape to angels (silly concept) and then later IMPREGNATED his own daughters...all to cause god to call him a "righteous man" //
I have always been bothered by this situation in Lot's story; and it is one of the things that is occasion for debate in Christian circles. Myself - I tend to think those who say Lot was attempting to protect the guests in his home, above all other considerations, as was the custom then among God's people, to be closest to the truth. Note that the Angels interceded and kept all in Lot's house from harm.
As for the situation with his daughters, it seems incest was not the abomination then, that it is today. If I recall correctly, it was the daughters who had the idea - So I'd argue if that's case - if they were degraded by this, it was their own choice.
//Is this degrading to the raped children by the God pleasing pedofile Lot? //
I am certain there is nothing that indicates Lot was a pedophile.
He pleased God by wanting to honor God and live rightly; even tho all around him were exceedingly evil. We are not told Lot was perfect in all he did, nor Abraham or Isaac or Jacob, just that they were Faithful.
//Buzzkill, this entire discussion has cast you as a very intellectually dishonest person. You seem to have very little interest in historical accuracy at all but only want to redefine everything in your narrow supernatural world view. //
Intellectually dishonest? Why? B/c I don't think you have cornered the market on Truth? B/c I think you are deeply deceived?
I would argue it is you with no interest in historical accuracy and you who are wanting to redefine times and events to fit your narrow spiritual point of view.
//"less degraded than women today"
What a pile of shit that statement is. //
I disagree.
