Posted by: edhensley | June 7, 2009

Rape, Circumcision, and Mass Murder


Genesis 34

Dinah and the Shechemites

1 Now Dinah, the daughter Leah had borne to Jacob, went out to visit the women of the land. 2 When Shechem son of Hamor the Hivite, the ruler of that area, saw her, he took her and violated her. 3 His heart was drawn to Dinah daughter of Jacob, and he loved the girl and spoke tenderly to her. 4 And Shechem said to his father Hamor, “Get me this girl as my wife.” 5 When Jacob heard that his daughter Dinah had been defiled, his sons were in the fields with his livestock; so he kept quiet about it until they came home. 6 Then Shechem’s father Hamor went out to talk with Jacob. 7 Now Jacob’s sons had come in from the fields as soon as they heard what had happened. They were filled with grief and fury, because Shechem had done a disgraceful thing in Israel by lying with Jacob’s daughter—a thing that should not be done. 8 But Hamor said to them, “My son Shechem has his heart set on your daughter. Please give her to him as his wife. 9 Intermarry with us; give us your daughters and take our daughters for yourselves. 10 You can settle among us; the land is open to you. Live in it, trade in it, and acquire property in it.” 11 Then Shechem said to Dinah’s father and brothers, “Let me find favor in your eyes, and I will give you whatever you ask. 12 Make the price for the bride and the gift I am to bring as great as you like, and I’ll pay whatever you ask me. Only give me the girl as my wife.” 13 Because their sister Dinah had been defiled, Jacob’s sons replied deceitfully as they spoke to Shechem and his father Hamor. 14 They said to them, “We can’t do such a thing; we can’t give our sister to a man who is not circumcised. That would be a disgrace to us. 15 We will give our consent to you on one condition only: that you become like us by circumcising all your males. 16 Then we will give you our daughters and take your daughters for ourselves. We’ll settle among you and become one people with you. 17 But if you will not agree to be circumcised, we’ll take our sister and go.” 18 Their proposal seemed good to Hamor and his son Shechem. 19 The young man, who was the most honored of all his father’s household, lost no time in doing what they said, because he was delighted with Jacob’s daughter. 20 So Hamor and his son Shechem went to the gate of their city to speak to their fellow townsmen. 21 “These men are friendly toward us,” they said. “Let them live in our land and trade in it; the land has plenty of room for them. We can marry their daughters and they can marry ours. 22 But the men will consent to live with us as one people only on the condition that our males be circumcised, as they themselves are. 23 Won’t their livestock, their property and all their other animals become ours? So let us give our consent to them, and they will settle among us.” 24 All the men who went out of the city gate agreed with Hamor and his son Shechem, and every male in the city was circumcised. 25 Three days later, while all of them were still in pain, two of Jacob’s sons, Simeon and Levi, Dinah’s brothers, took their swords and attacked the unsuspecting city, killing every male. 26 They put Hamor and his son Shechem to the sword and took Dinah from Shechem’s house and left. 27 The sons of Jacob came upon the dead bodies and looted the city where their sister had been defiled. 28 They seized their flocks and herds and donkeys and everything else of theirs in the city and out in the fields. 29 They carried off all their wealth and all their women and children, taking as plunder everything in the houses. 30 Then Jacob said to Simeon and Levi, “You have brought trouble on me by making me a stench to the Canaanites and Perizzites, the people living in this land. We are few in number, and if they join forces against me and attack me, I and my household will be destroyed.” 31 But they replied, “Should he have treated our sister like a prostitute?”

 This only makes sense if you view this as ancient tribal warfare. There is nothing divine about the actions of anyone in this story.

First, a gentile rapes Dinah, one of Jacob’s daughters. He then wants her for a wife, so he gets his father to ask Jacob’s family for permission to marry her. Jacob’s sons, Levi and Simeon, say it is OK if the gentiles get circumcised. Then, while the Hivite men are in pain from circumcisions, Levi and Simeon kill ALL the Hivite men and steal all their wealth, including their women and children. If should be noted that Levi and Simeon are two founders of two of the 12 tribes of Israel.

This is another case of the Old Testament’s strange infatuation with circumcision. It is strange how the removal of a piece of penis skin makes one man better than another.

Secondly, according to Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (see below), the gentile rapist must marry Dinah. Anyone who rapes a virgin must marry her. Never mind that the woman may not want to marry her rapist. Women have virtually no rights in the Bible.

Thirdly, the founders of two tribes of Israel do not take retribution upon the rapist, but they kill all the men of a tribe and steal all the wealth, including the women and children. This is the very definition of the word overkill. Furthermore, it shows that women and children are nothing more than wealth or property of the men in the bible.

Christians around the world read stories about biblical patriarchs and hold them up as examples to be followed. However, when all the verses about these patriarchs are read, I find no biblical patriarch who should be a role model for any child. That is especially true of this story, unless Christians condone lying, murder, stealing, and the treatment of women as property.

Deuteronomy 22:28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.


Responses

  1. Although this isn’t exactly the most popular story for Sunday reading, I have heard it before (in church or Sunday school or something, I can’t remember).

    It’s important to understand that the Bible isn’t simply a bunch of moral platitudes. Much of it is history and the stories are there, not because they are nice stories, but because they really happened, because history is about humans and humans are really screwed up.

    Also, about the law, you are being mislead by your interpretation. You see the point is not so much “the victim must marry the rapist” as it was “the rapist must marry the victim”. You see, in the context of the Ancient Near-East, society was extremely family based. As a result on of the worst possible fates for a women was to remain unmarried, to be a lonely old spinster if you will. This was the reality of the world back then and the Hebrews were no exception.

    Now, if you look at the case of rape, once a woman has been raped few people will be willing to marry her (I don’t know why, but they really had something out for virgins). So on top of just being helplessly violated, she’s now doomed to life of loneliness. Maybe if she’s lucky she’ll be someone’s maid. The law is there to protect her from this.

    TLDR: don’t be limited by your modern morality.

    • Thank you for your reply. What you are proposing is moral relativism, something that biblical literalists often accuse secular humanists of committing. “It may be bad today, but it was good back then.”

      Furthermore, you are admitting that my modern morality (secular humanism) is superior to your god’s ancient morality. What a moral god should have done in the case of rape was demand prison sentences and financial restitution for rapists. He (or she) should also have demanded full equality and opportunity for all women and men. He also could have decreed that women who were raped were innocent and were still worthy of marriage, thereby changing the immoral culture by which you limit your god’s ability to make rules.

      Christian apologists often limit their god to the common morality (or immorality) of the people of the ancient near east. A true god would not be as limited as you proclaim. You place these limits on your god in order to justify the immorality of his laws when compared to “modern morality.” All these limitations placed on god in order to continue to believe that the bible is inerrant. It is the Christian apologist that is limited by the dogma of biblical inerrancy.

      Don’t be limited by your dogma!

  2. In my most sincere tone:
    Unfortunately, Mr. Hensley, you are uneducated in Biblical text. You have already made your mind up to curse the God of the Bible. There is nothing in the text that will be able to speak to you and make any sense because of your view. When you begin studying the word of God, the very first thing you realize is God has absolutely no limitations. I hope you can find educated Bible scholars to help you understand the dynamics of the text in the Bible. It can be misleading if you are not familiar with the culture and the result of sin. God will judge all the people for every sin-and His judgment is without flaw. When Adam & Eve sinned all creation became defiled. This is what has led to rapes you are referring to. As long as the Earth is full of sin, people will do bad things and God will always sit in final judgement. I certainly can’t explain in depth what you really need to hear, but I know God will send someone your way. The question is will you be willing to listen to the truth-or will your flesh keep holding you back? God bless you and keep you all your days my friend.

    • Thank you for your reply. Unfortunately, you make many false statements.

      First of all, I have consulted many educated biblical scholars and read many apologetics. Your claim that I have not done so is false.

      You claim that I misinterpret the text because of my view. This is false, because I was raised a fundamentalist Christian and my doubts arose while a Christian.

      Most importantly, you did not address these verses. Instead you chose to attack me. Ad hominem attacks mean nothing other than you have not presented any valid refutation of the verses in question.

      You also try to present this “bible as a whole” view in a couple of paragraphs. You simplistic statements regarding Adam and Eve and a just God ready to judge me and everyone else are taught to little children in Sunday school. By ignoring the text in question and preaching this simplistic doctrine, you are demonstrating why I have written these blogs. I have written these blogs to point out that the simple story and the morals espoused by preachers is contradicted by the verses in the bible. Your argument is a perfect example of Christians blindly igfnoring the stupidity and evil of the bible.

  3. I’m not here to debate the Bible. The Bible doesn’t need me to do that. It stands for itself. I just have to wonder, who has hurt you so deeply that you could attack so viciously the one who gave you life. Peace be with you. I hope someday you find the peace you where born to receive. God bless you. By the way, being raised a Christian doesn’t make you one, nor does it make those who have led you Christians either. Therefore, you can’t use that card to defend your knowledge.

    • Nothing has hurt me. I have 4 wonderful children, a wonderful wife, have travleled throughout the world, have a wonderful career, and am definitely not poor. Your assumption that I am hurt is completely unfounded.

      My purpose here is to discuss bible verse that are rarely read in church. Please do not go off in tangents such as your false claims about my life.

      • ahhh Christian self-righteousness… dont you just love it? when there seems to be something wrong with the bible or some other sacred doctrine, they somehow try and flip it around to say that there’s something wrong with whoever is criticizing it, no matter how logical the argument.

    • Don’t insult someone you do not know simple because he reads some text at face value. Rather than use childish syrawmsn tactics address the concerns Es has raised about the text. Simply saying god loves everyone does not solve anything but is intellectually dishonest. Other religions also say god is this and that without foundation simply because someone told them that. Are they right or wrong or are they lying ?

      Talk like and adult do not repeat like a robot

  4. WOW! I see your comment back to Shannon and I did not see anywhere that she was attacking you. And do you really think anyone can sit here and tell you what the bible means right here right now without sitting in front of you? I mean really? To understand the Bible we must all start as “children in Sunday school.” And I noticed that you accidently capitalized God but maybe that was b/c you were making a point, regardless this shows me that you must have some reverence for the Man UP Stairs! As far as you are raised up in the church…obviously you must have been forced or something to go to church and that is why you hate it so much!

    N-E-WAYS! I know nothing about you, but what you have taught me with your comments. And to me you don’t seem like anything special because your feel like you have to start this blog about someone who you don’t believe in? Do what?

    Needless to say. And the point of the verse you are talking about had really nothing to do with circumcision other than the brothers just wanted to mess with the rapist. They were weak, the rapist and it was the perfect plan to avenge. And remember that we as humans do not always make the right decisions when it comes to someone raping our sister. So, this is how they dealt with it. Their process of releasing their pain if you will. That does not mean that it is okay to murder b/c of revenge. For it is for God to give vengeance! But, we are weak in sin. God makes us strong and without him I cannot do anything right. So, sometimes I might really screw up and that’s okay if I in my heart, mind, and soul decide to do everything in my power to do better. I might fall off again and again and each time I am like this is the last time….BUT

    GOD LOVES ME NO MATTER WHAT!

    I have no clue how smart you are and I have no clue who you know or have talked to. I just want you to know that I love you as a person with a soul that needs to be saved from the pain you keep carrying around bottled up inside. Does it seem sometimes that you keep trying to fill your life up with material things, or people, or blogs, or money? But, there seems to be this unquenchable thirst for something else to achieve or receive?

    We are all always searching for that next trip to Aruba, that yacht, ooohhh I love that diamond ring!

    I cannot tell you anything other than what I have found to work for thousand and millions of people around the world…Open your mind to something that might scare the crap out of ya. Do it because it defies everything you believe in. Some people just don’t want to change and that is what keeps their hearts cold and away. Others, find that “Godly” people from their past caused them so much pain or disappointment that they run from the name of GOD!

    Step out of your comfort zone, open that Holy Bible and I would suggest getting one in TNIV or NASB. Open it and try not to let your ideas fill the pages and your belief of how life is or should be distort your heart. Open it and read without any stereotypes or regrets. Open it as you would an English book. Then, read the same thing again as though it could be real. Remember…

    This Bible was written to people who roamed the desert without showers and the food they prepared had no refrigerators to be stored in. God had to give them certain parameters that mean nothing to us today because we have ways to keep our food fresh and clean our selves. This was written so that it would be easy to remember for the Jews. So the stories might refer to the land, animals, trees, or such things because they understood these things back then. In the New Testament…

    Half of these books are letters from apostles to the churches covering areas that the churches were having difficulties in and such things. You have to know the culture, context, and to who this was written to for what purpose before you can truly understand why they would write certain things. If you know nothing of the people that these books were originally written to how can you truly understand what The Bible means?

    Some say the Holy Spirit. But, as for you? You already blocked that out. So, all you have left is to figure out what the purpose of this book was for and why? You hate God so bad that you have blocked him out completely. For example when Moses asked for his people to be let go…..God hardened his heart because he had already blocked God out!

    Stop holding yourself down to one certain way of thinking or believing…It is so much more than this….This Right Here.

    • Shannon said the following about me:
      “you are uneducated in Biblical text. You have already made your mind up to curse the God of the Bible. There is nothing in the text that will be able to speak to you and make any sense because of your view. ”

      This was an attack on me and is not relevant to the verses here.

      I did not accidentally capitalize God. I do so in such blogs purposefully so that Christians do not get hung up over lower case god. While I was a Christian, I often would stop reading anything that contained “god”. I want Christians to read my posts, so I generally use God.

      You are writing way too much in your comments. Please address the verses and only the verses.

      I have multiple versions of the bible, plus the Septuigant, the Hebrew Masoretic texts, books by Eusebius and other early church historians, apologetics, books by biblical scholars such as Bart Ehrman.

      My mind is open. Is yours?

      Please make shorter comments relevant to the verses mention. Please do not worry about how smart I am or other irrelevant issues.

  5. whatever is clever dude!

  6. You need to know that the law in Deut. 22 is a law for the Israelites from God. This law covers only the Israelites-the gentiles at that time were not covered under these laws. The Shechemites were gentiles, not Israelites. Therefore, this law would not have been enforced unless Jacob decided it was best. Had the Shechemites been under the law of God at that time-then Jacob, Dinah’s father would have followed God’s laws in full. Jacob’s sons were in complete rebellion in the aftermath of the rape. Note, Jacob did not approve of his sons behavior. As a matter of fact, he was furious and knew that there would be a heavy load to bear when the consequence of their behavior was upon them. He acknowledged that he and his household may be destroyed. Gen. 34:30. Jacob later received God’s full blessing because of his obedience during the time that followed the events at Shechem. This should help you understand how God’s law works for the good of His people.

  7. ” This law covers only the Israelites-the gentiles at that time were not covered under these laws.”

    You are admitting to moral relativism. If the bible promoted absolute morality then there would be one set of laws for all people at all times.

    The major point of this blog is the behavior of biblical fathers is morally repulsive. Simeon and Levi were the founders of 2 of the 12 tribes of Israel. They murdered and looted innocent people (only 1 person raped there sister) who were desiring to peacefully coexist with Jacob’s tribe.

  8. I am an agnostic.
    I understand that your commentary is aimed at Christians since this story appears in their holy text. However, I’d like to point out that their ‘new covenant’ turns its back on this kind of morality and in fact Judaism still completely embraces it. This fact, you fail to mention.
    Furthermore, as Nietzsche points out, your ‘secular humanism’, the prevalent moral framework in the west, is based almost entirely on this new covenant Christian morality.

    I very much appreciate your insights in this blog, keep up the good work!

    • Your reply shows a common misconception. The Christianity of today is not the same as it was 100 years ago, which was not the same as it was 100 years before that, etc. The morals that we consider positive today are not from the bible or the new testament, but are a direct result of the rejection of Christian dogma and the enlightenment. The church often takes the credit for these changes, but this credit is due to the influence of humanism, not the influence of the scriptures.

      I will let Mark Twain provide you with further insight on this matter. The following is from Europe and Elsewhere and A Pen Warmed Up In Hell.

      The methods of the priest and the parson have been very curious, their history is very entertaining. In all the ages the Roman Church has owned slaves, bought and sold slaves, authorized and encouraged her children to trade in them. Long after some Christian peoples had freed their slaves the Church still held on to hers. If any could know, to absolute certainty, that all this was right, and according to God’s will and desire, surely it was she, since she was God’s specially appointed representative in the earth and sole authorized and infallible expounder of his Bible. There were the texts; there was no mistaking their meaning; she was right, she was doing in this thing what the Bible had mapped out for her to do. So unassailable was her position that in all the centuries she had no word to say against human slavery. Yet now at last, in our immediate day, we hear a Pope saying slave trading is wrong, and we see him sending an expedition to Africa to stop it. The texts remain: it is the practice that has changed. Why? Because the world has corrected the Bible. The Church never corrects it; and also never fails to drop in at the tail of the procession – and take the credit of the correction. As she will presently do in this instance.

      Christian England supported slavery and encouraged it for two hundred and fifty years, and her church’s consecrated ministers looked on, sometimes taking an active hand, the rest of the time indifferent. England’s interest in the business may be called a Christian interest, a Christian industry. She had her full share in its revival after a long period of inactivity, and his revival was a Christian monopoly; that is to say, it was in the hands of Christian countries exclusively. English parliaments aided the slave traffic and protected it; two English kings held stock in slave-catching companies. The first regular English slave hunter – John Hawkins, of still revered memory – made such successful havoc, on his second voyage, in the matter of surprising and burning villages, and maiming, slaughtering, capturing, and selling their unoffending inhabitants, that his delighted queen conferred the chivalric honor of knighthood on him – a rank which had acquired its chief esteem and distinction in other and earlier fields of Christian effort. The new knight, with characteristic English frankness and brusque simplicity, chose as his device the figure of a negro slave, kneeling and in chains. Sir John’s work was the invention of Christians, was to remain a bloody and awful monopoly in the hands of Christians for a quarter of a millennium, was to destroy homes, separate families, enslave friendless men and women, and break a myriad of human hearts, to the end that Christian nations might be prosperous and comfortable, Christian churches be built, and the gospel of the meek and merciful Redeemer be spread abroad in the earth; and so in the name of his ship, unsuspected but eloquent and clear, lay hidden prophecy. She was called The Jesus.

      But at last in England, an illegitimate Christian rose against slavery. It is curious that when a Christian rises against a rooted wrong at all, he is usually an illegitimate Christian, member of some despised and bastard sect. There was a bitter struggle, but in the end the slave trade had to go – and went. The Biblical authorization remained, but the practice changed.

  9. I’m 18 and I recently accepted Christ as my Lord and Savior. To be honest, most things in the Old Testament confuse me, especially things such as these. However I don’t know the entire Old Testament either. In the New Testament, there are stories somewhat similar (speaking of son) such as the story of Saul’s killing of Christians such as Stephen. I think what may be going on in this story is of Jacob’s family and how they lived in sin and one day were touched by the Holy Spirit and changed. Much like Saul’s change from a murderer to a disciple. I may be wrong, but it’s the best explanation that I have. And I could say a billion things about what Christ has done for me, but this specific post is meant to discuss the Scripture above and I will honor it by strictly discussing the verses above.

  10. Speaking of SIN, not son*

  11. Mr edhensley seems like quite a scholar of the bible and from the post on April 8th I could tell, but please bear these facts in mind: Many Bible scholars are not Christians, being a Christian means you have accepted Jesus as your personal lord and saviour, and much of the Bible’s teachings require the application of faith and not merely academic power. There are so many Biblical issues that are guaranteed to never be revealed until you see Christ and there are some that will require you to seek God’s revelation on it. Unfortunately such requests can only be granted to Christians and you said you are not…sorry.

    • I am a former Chrisitan, one of many who became an atheist by studying the bible. Another is Bart Ehrman, chairman of religious studies at the University of North Carolina at Chappel Hill, and I recommend his books. The easiest way to become an atheist is to read the bible (ALL OF IT) and use your brain. You seem to admit that the Bible is a source of confusion (“so many Biblical issues that are guaranteed to never be revealed”). This contradicts another verse in the Bible (1 Cor 14:33, God is not the author of confusion). Your reply only further admits the Bible is not the word of any God.

  12. First I want to state that there is reason to doubt the “rape” story. I believe that a literal reading of this scripture woudl liken it more to the “good girl” that got seduced by the “bad man”. While Hamor did defile her this was due to the fact that they were not to intermingle with the “heathen” around them. That is why her father Jacob married his cousins.

    Pastor Chuck
    Franklin VA

  13. ………. There is a movement of Jews who are questioning circumcision, and working to end this abuse of children. The movement ranges from the Orthodox to the secular, and includes mothers, fathers, scholars, historians, medical professionals, activists, and intellectuals.

    Jewish Groups for Genital Integrity

    * Jews Against Circumcision http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/

    * Brit Shalom Celebrants by Mark D. Reiss, M.D. http://www.circumstitions.com/Jewish-shalom.html

    * Questioning Circumcision: A Jewish Perspective by Ron Goldman, Ph.D. http://www.jewishcircumcision.org

    * The Current Judaic Movement to End Circumcision: Part 1
    http://intactnews.org/node/105/1311886372/jewish-voices-current-judaic-movement-end-circumcision-part-1

    The Kindest Un-Cut Feminism, Judaism, and My Son’s Foreskin by Professor Michael S. Kimmel
    http://www.cirp.org/pages/cultural/kimmel1/

    Jewish Intactivist Miriam Pollack has some great commentary on Foreskin Man in this recent interview.
    http://www.beyondthebris.com/2011/07/defying-convention-interview-with_27.html

    Jews Speak Out in Favor of Banning Circumcision on Minors
    http://intactnews.org/node/103/1311885181/jews-speak-out-favor-banning-circumcision-minors ……

  14. …. Many sites explain the problems of circumcision, and why it should be bypassed.

    The History of Circumcision
    http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/

    Intact America
    http://www.intactamerica.org/learnmore

    Doctors Opposing Circumcision
    http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/DOC/publications.html

    NOCIRC
    http://www.nocirc.org/about.php

    Students for Genital Integrity
    http://www.studentsforgenitalintegrity.org/ ………….

  15. Most christians do not appreciate the origin of circumcision. I have read somewhere that circumcision was a special ritual that was only performed on the pharoah and signified they were special or chosen. Naturally it would appear that the Jews copied this idea from their neighbours but applied it to everyone in the country because they after all said they were the chosen people in the promised land.

  16. It would appear that your god gave us logic and common sense only for us to turn our backs on them and blindly believe a book which has been manipulated by kings and laymen alike for their own hunger for power over His flock of sheeple.

  17. Wait, where does it say that God commanded this? It does not say that. Two men took up swords and did this. The old testament is full of examples of men’s sin and the new testament shows the redemption.

    • I never said God commanded anything in this passage. However, the men responsible for the mass murder were the founders of two of the twelve tribes of Israel.

  18. Hi Ed, I just came across your blog. This is the first thread I’ve read and am eager to read more. Thanks.

  19. Ed, I have a feeling this blog is long gone and outdated, but I wanted to point out to you that you refer to humans, their errors and mistakes to infer what and who God is, all of which truly attests to who God is in giving us free will.

    “The Church” and the humans in that you refer to don’t directly represent who God is, but His full capacity to forgive us and bless us nonetheless. You can’t use all the bad examples in the Bible to define who God is, just as you can’t decide who I am based on the leaders of America and the decisions they make as our representatives.

    One thing I would like to bring up as a possibility is that the word “defiled” may not truly mean “raped” in the way you are thinking. And not every law that the Jews had was directly sanctioned by God, but by representatives of the Jews. Think about it. The validity of the Bible is actually increase based on the incriminating information in it, and obviously gives people such as yourself enough blind evidence to believe what you want and criticize what your cerebral mind can’t understand.

    • all of which truly attests to who God is in giving us free will

      Your god cared more about the free will of Adam Lanza as he watched Adam kill 20 children and 6 adults in Newton, Connecticut. A just god could have given Adam a heart attack, caused the gun to misfire, warned police, etc. Why does your god care more about the free will of child rapers and murderers than about the welfare of innocent children? The answer to that question is easy when you realize god does not exist.

      I would like to bring up as a possibility is that the word “defiled” may not truly mean “raped” in the way you are thinking.

      “Possibility” and “maybe” can be applied to any word. I highly recommend you read The End Of Biblical Studies by Hector Avalos.

  20. I pray for you whoever created this. And I thank you. You are helping me to become a more fervent Christian. Thanks to haters like you I don’t skip Church anymore, and have increased my tithing. God Bless You. God is working through people like you to strengthen Christians and Christianity.

    Praise God

    • Thank you for your prayers. I remain an atheist, so that is proof that your prayers are not answered. I am one of the most prayed for men in Kentucky. However, you are wrong in writing that I am a hater. I do not hate you. I only desire that people stop believing in assertion based dogma and start believing only in things that are supported by evidence. Since you are probably not a Muslim or a Mormon, you probably also desire that Muslims not believe in their assertions and that Mormons do not believe in their assertions. We have that in common. I only ask that you examine your assertions in the same manner that you probably examine the assertions of Muslims and Mormons.

  21. Hi Ed 🙂

    Edward was my grandfathers name who has passed in 2001, it’s nice when I come across an Ed as it makes me think of him. He was a strong Christian man but he was down to earth and told it like it is “like you” aside from you being atheist and all 🙂 lol …

    I am a Christian however I appreciate your site, I wish you would wright more as I noticed their all from 2009, as I admit I have not read the full bible and its entirety due to stories such as these push me from the bible. However I enjoy church as they don’t speak of such things so for me its more out of site out of mind. “horrible I know”

    What I like more about your site is the replies I believe I have learned more from you on that and I would like to read more. I see you heart and it is for helping, not to cause harm or hate but to enlighten us “Christians” what we choose to overlook/dismiss as I never can recall a time when my grandmother read the rape.. like the pillar of salt I heard this story a million times but did I ever catch the “full” part of it never.. lol until I caught your other blog just now..

    I will remain a Christian as I do believe in God, and I agree with others from past post on your other blogs as I seriously don’t understand the bible or why bad things continue to happen if the lord says he will never give us something we cant handle and these horrible things continue to happen to innocent children nor do I ever think I will fully understand.. Your right the bible is something else ….

    but I figure it like this…. say there is not a God; the parts they teach in church “sum it all up” its just about peace/love/loving your neighbor and your enemies I always looked at this like a hippy thing lol not really lol, but I mean they just wants us to live in a sin free peaceful “Zen” type of earth 🙂 and church always feels to me like a self help seminar that’s why people feel rejuvenating or stress free burden lifted because they helped us figure things out and give us instructions until next week lol why pay money for seminars when church is free 🙂

    ooooh and back to worst case scenario there is no God at least I lived my life the best peaceful way I can, and if there is a God {which in my heart I know there is} but for the sake of argument “if” there is at least im in heaven not hell because I believed {all im saying both ways i’m living a pretty good life} 🙂

    I know I know your blogs are not geared for what I wrote, again your right the bible has some wired things, but I just wanted to say…..

    I appreciate you Ed and just wanted to say thank you for teaching me things, you have a Christian admirer “of you views” as I feel your opinion is great and is necessary for others to hear.. your only helping us make choices or in my case helping me to understand that I should read the bible more and not let it discourage me even though there is parts I really do not understand why they are in here, maybe they could have been better written since it was man who written it, but it was “man” lol need I say more they hated us women back then {stupid eve} lol I know I for one would have been stoned to death.. okay I rambled enough I look forward to hearing from you, and I really do hope you start more blogs up again for the 2013 generation 🙂 your amazing

    • “…but for the sake of argument “if” there is [a God] at least im in heaven not hell because I believed”

      Not a true statement. If the true god is Allah, then you are in hell.

      I admit I have not read the full bible and its entirety due to stories such as these push me from the bible.

      I hope that you do read the entire bible (including the books removed from the protestant bible in 1885), and I hope that as you read it you determine whether or not it is the perfect word of a perfect god.

      • See this is why I appreciate you Ed I would have never of known about protestant bible , I’m going to search for this, and you have ignited my curiosity and now I’m going to start familiarizing myself with the “full” bible 🙂 Something I’m ashamed I have not done sooner ….

        In regards to : “Not a true statement. If the true god is Allah, then you are in hell. ”

        I’ve always been curious about this as well; unsure if you ever watch the Simpsons but I kinda always wanted to do what Lisa Simpson did and go and familiarize myself with every religion, I know that sounds wrong as I know in my heart im a Christian but they speak of so many other religions in the bible and other faiths seem more devoted then Christians that are extremely judgmental which most Christians makes me embarrassed to be a Christian as most feel there better then others.

        I like to think I’m more of a realest Christian that does not want to be segregated by denomination; im kinda just a free spirit Christian don’t believe there is such a thing .. lol I guess like one foot in the world and the other foot in faith if that makes any sense…

        Thx Ed look forward to speaking with you soon 🙂

      • Good luck in your search. I encourage you to examine other religions.

      • Regarding “the books removed from the protestant bible in 1885”, it is my understanding that the Apocrypha (if that’s what you’re referring to) has never been considered part of Inspired Scripture. I have read many Christian books from centuries before 1885, and not one of them treats the Apocrypha as Scripture, or even as factual. There are a lot of things included with many Bibles that are not considered Inspired. Ex., study Bibles.

      • You need to learn about how books were selected for the bible. I suggest The apocryphal books removed in 1885 were in the Septuagint, which was used by the authors of the New Testament. They were considered canonical by many early church leaders, more in the west than in the east. Tertulian and Augustine are among Christian fathers who accepted these books, and they are included in many old manuscripts. The church councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419) listed the books as scripture. Some of these books were found with the Dead Sea Scrolls. There were other early church leaders who questioned their authority. Martin Luther did not like some Catholic doctrines supported by books such as Maccabees, so he put them in an Apocrypha section (Luther also had a New Testament apocrypha section that included Hebrews, James Jude, and Revelation). The authors of the 1611 King James bible included the apocryphal books in a separate section. All complete KJV bibles included these books until they were officially removed in 1885 (they were removed in other versions at later dates). The situation is more complicated than this summary, and you should read both sides. The Catholics claim protestants removed books for doctrinal reasons (which is true), and the Protestants claim the Catholics officially canonized these books as a response to the protestant revolution (which is also true).
        You should also read more about early New Testament books that were considered canonical by the wide variety of Christianities that existed prior to the Council of Nicea. I recommend Jesus Interrupted, Misquoting Jesus, and Lost Christianities by Bart Ehrman.

  22. I find it odd that this story bothers you so much. First of all, it’s HISTORY. If the Bible were full of nothing but flowery stories that only told about people doing nice things, it would not reflect reality. Have you read much history?

    Second, “Anyone who rapes a virgin must marry her. Never mind that the woman may not want to marry her rapist. Women have virtually no rights in the Bible.” Have you been to many third-world countries to see what happens to women who are raped? The Bible deals with REALITY. Women had little protection in ancient societies. A raped woman would be unlikely to find a husband (reality) and (especially if she had a child) unable to care for herself. Technically, it isn’t placing obligation on the woman, but on the man. Rather than leaving her to herself, with no one to care for her, it obligates the man who violated her to care for her without ever being able to put her away (divorce). To a raped woman in those eras, that would be great PROTECTION. It does not say the woman has no choice, but places a lifelong obligation to FINANCIALLY take care of the woman and any child that was produced. She was instantly placed in a PROTECTED status.

    Third, “This is the very definition of the word overkill. Furthermore, it shows that women and children are nothing more than wealth or property of the men in the bible.” So, you admit that it is obvious to any casual reader that what they did was overkill, then you want to claim that the Bible is trying to show us here that women and children are nothing more than the wealth or the property of men? You can’t have it both ways. That’s kind of like reading a story about George Washington chopping down a cherry tree and then claiming that the moral of the story is that all cherry trees must be chopped down. RIDICULOUS! There are many reasons why the Bible records the wicked actions of men (history), but you do not get to arbitrarily place the worst possible moral onto any piece of history you like. Even you can recognize that these men’s reactions were “overkill”. It is intended to show just that! It is obviously NOT a story intended to train men on the relative value of women, and the proper response to insult. It does, however, show us what happens to people WITHOUT LAW. (Note that this story comes before the Mosaic law.)

    Fourth, “However, when all the verses about these patriarchs are read, I find no biblical patriarch who should be a role model for any child. That is especially true of this story, unless Christians condone lying, murder, stealing, and the treatment of women as property.” This story in no way is intended to be a model to follow. Anyone who thinks so is insane. To continually act as if that is the purpose of this story shows a clear bias and intent to deceive. This is a piece of gruesome history. The only people who seem to think that this story intends what you claim are those who are searching for any means to falsely discredit the Bible and deceitfully portray it as evil.

    “There is nothing divine about the actions of anyone in this story.” Finally, something we agree on. Just because it is believed that the Bible is a divine book, in no way means to any thinking person that God is giving us stories of wickedness and “overkill” in an attempt to cause us to act the same. Nor did it mean that to ANYONE (not insane) from the time it was written until now.

    If you want to discredit the Bible, you’ll have to do better than that. Drawing the conclusions you draw from this story only works on the ignorant, the foolish, and those who are grasping at straws to disbelieve the Bible.

    • The bible would have been a superior moral authority if it said “Rape is wrong, and rapists should be punished by long jail sentences. Women who are raped are not to be shunned, but are to be accepted and treated as equally as those who have not been raped. If a child is the result of the rape, then society should raise that child, with or without the mother as an active parent. The child is to be treated as an equal to all other children.”

      In that short paragraph, I have written some guidelines on rape that are morally superior to the bible. Moral guidelines should challenge societies to become better places for all people to live. Moral guidelines should deter those who desire to harm others and should promote the equality of all citizens. According to your interpretation, women are PROTECTED when they are forced to marry their rapist, a person who has performed harm against her. Biblical laws such as the rape law here do not challenge ancient views on rape and women to change, but rather permit these views to continue. It is a shame that you and so many Christians are such moral relativists that you defend such laws in the bible that you would not support in societies today.

      • “Rape is wrong, and rapists should be punished by long jail sentences. Women who are raped are not to be shunned, but are to be accepted and treated as equally as those who have not been raped. If a child is the result of the rape, then society should raise that child, with or without the mother as an active parent. The child is to be treated as an equal to all other children.”

        Already you seem to be missing some obvious things. Rape was considered bad back then. With literal laws giving punishment for doing such a thing and being that this act required having sexual involvement with someone without marrying them, which was also seen as wrong. So already we know that God made it clear that rape is wrong, if it wasn’t, no law would have been required at all. Another mistake you made, that’s seen by your first reply to Alan Trick, is that you think women were shunned or because there were raped, when that’s also not the case, The women would be seen as less “preferable” for marriage by the men of that time. The women was still able to marry, but being defiled many men wouldn’t “prefer” her. None of her rights as a women was lowered, but again she wasn’t seen as the ideal wife for an average Israelite men. Like how men in our society prefer women who are slim and fairly attractive. Women who don’t meet those type of standards, aren’t shunned, but seen as less desirable. You have to then force men to prefer women who are defiled, which would kinda diminished the whole free will thing. Also, if the women couldn’t support the child her best bet was to give her child to the turbancle where they would serve God for their entire lives. By your own law, you have no swayed men to prefer women who are defiled, you have not solve the problem of women not being able to marry with a very low chance of ever doing so, and showed some ignorance in your Bible. Also with verse Exodus 22:16-17 existing, it would be basically the father’s who will allow the daughter to be married. And not many fathers would do that, and even then the man must pay a bride price, which would be something that he might have to work on getting. So with cultural context, we learn that this is a very moral law indeed.

      • Replying to J.

        Exodus 22:16-17 is NOT about rape but is about a man who seduces an unmarried woman. Seducing a woman is not rape. Deuteronomy 22:23-30 discusses the punishments for rape, Verses 23-24 are about a woman pledged to be married and another man having consensual sex, since they are in the city and the woman could have cried rape and been helped. Their punishment is death. Verses 25-27 refers to a woman pledged to be married being raped in the country. Only the man is put to death because nobody was around to hear the woman scream. Verses 28-30 refer to a woman NOT pledged to be married being raped. The man is not killed but must marry the woman and pay the father silver. Modern USA laws do not follow the bible on this issue but are much closer to the paragraph I wrote earlier because we as a society view these biblical laws as immoral and unjust.

  23. Since my longer reply has not been accepted (I’m assuming because of length?), I’ll try to reply in parts, and attempt to keep it concise. First, I wish to reiterate that this is a story, and anyone who reads it can see that. Every Christian and Jewish commentator that I am aware of condemns the actions of Simeon and Levi. I hope you can see the sheer foolishness of using this story as proof that the Bible is unjust. Do you condemn God for recording the actions of man? Would you suggest that every book that records the wicked actions of man is wicked itself? You’d have a small list of readable books in that case, and few history books. You err in taking a specific story with obvious implications and inventing your own interpretation, treating it as if Christianity disagrees that “There is nothing divine about the actions of anyone in this story,” when, in fact, practically every Christian leader would agree with you there. You seem to draw many conclusions from this story that you wouldn’t draw if it were written in any other book.

    “I find no biblical patriarch who should be a role model for any child. That is especially true of this story, unless Christians condone lying, murder, stealing, and the treatment of women as property.” I feel sorry for you if you grew up in a church that somehow condoned the wicked actions of these men, but any honest Christian that actually reads the Bible knows better. I know of no one that sets up Simeon and Levi as examples. Their own father cursed them for their actions on his deathbed rather than bless them. (Genesis 49:5-7)

    I’ll reply to your other points in a bit, and attempt to keep them short.

    • The short answer is that I posted these verses because they are not read very often on Sunday. I stand by my statements regarding biblical examples. Abraham is considered the father of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The bible declares that his a good man because he was willing to kill his son when god asked him to. While I would not expect any human being to be perfect, I find not good moral examples in the biblical patriarchs.

  24. I understand your dislike of various Patriarchs; I’m trying to stay on topic here and discuss this particular story re: Levi and Simeon. In the interest of keeping my posts short, I’m ONLY referring here to that particular story. I wasn’t trying to go outside your main topic and discuss all the Patriarchs. I apologize for the misunderstanding. I’m simply referring to “this story”, while waiting to discuss the Law’s expectations regarding rape separately. Can you not see that your use of two men that are universally held by Christianity and the Bible as unGodly is not a valid argument for your major premise that you “find no biblical patriarch who should be a role model for any child. That is especially true of this story…”? I’m not here trying to disprove your major premise, as that is not the direct focus of this story.

    There are plenty of characters you could use (Abraham, David, etc…) to try to label the Bible as promoting wickedness, but this story just doesn’t work; unless you can show that the Bible either promotes the actions of these men as Godly, or that Christianity or Judaism does. Judaism and Christianity universally condemn the actions of the men in this story. Their father, the “Patriarch” Jacob condemned them both here and on his deathbed, as recorded by the Bible in Genesis 49:5-7. (No one promotes Levi or Simeon as a “role model for any child.”)

    I hope that, while we will no doubt disagree on many things, we can be honest enough to at least recognize where we are in agreement, while being careful not to mischaracterize either person’s/group’s point of view.

    • What you state is my “major premise” was the second sentence of my sixth and last paragraph. My major premise is that many bible stories and laws are often bizarre, evil, immoral, and not discussed in churches regularly or at all. I stand by my statement that I find no biblical patriarch who should be a role model for any child, especially in this story. I recognize that the actions by these men are not promoted, but other immoral actions and laws throughout the bible are promoted. This post also lists Deut 22:28-29, which is an immoral law regarding rape, which did occur in this story.
      The curse you mention is vague and does not promise harm like other curses (such as Noah cursing his grandson’s descendants into slavery). The Levites would become the priestly class in Israel. Moses and Aaron were both great-grandsons of Levi. The Levites received the Levite Tithe from the other tribes. It does not really sound like Levi or his descendants were cursed.

  25. I’ll be happy to discuss each of those points; preferably one at a time, though, because of your understandable restrictions on the length of my posts. Yes, yes, I agree that you have a major premise that seems to occupy your entire blog. I was referring to the main thing I saw as discussed in this particular post, which begins with a long story about Simeon and Levi, and ends with a comment about patriarchs not being role models for children, which you say is “especially true of this story.” I don’t see this particular story as “evil” or “immoral”. As for “bizarre”, Yep. Your right. People do bizarre things.

    Concerning “not discussed in churches regularly or at all,” you are expecting more than is ordinarily possible. No one is hiding these stories. I have looked through many of the stories you’ve posted on this site, and I’ve yet to find one that I’m unfamiliar with. There are, however, only 52 weeks in a year; while there are more than 1,100 chapters and 31,000 verses in the Bible. If we discussed one chapter in church every week, it would take more than twenty years to discuss them all. If we discussed one verse a week, it would take nearly six hundred years! If the only Bible you hear or read is in a public church service, then obviously it’s impossible for anyone to meet your standards of discussing these stories “regularly.” You should know, though that these stories are discussed and commented on, both in private and public.

    “I recognize that the actions by these men are not promoted…” Thank you for admitting that. As for the actions of other men, I’ll look around your blog to read what you have to say, and comment there.

    • *Correction: By “I don’t see this particular story as “evil” or “immoral”,” I am referring to the Bible being evil or immoral by recording it.

  26. Back to rape and the Mosaic Law. You said, “The bible would have been a superior moral authority if it said “Rape is wrong, and rapists should be punished by long jail sentences. Women who are raped are not to be shunned, but are to be accepted and treated as equally as those who have not been raped. If a child is the result of the rape, then society should raise that child, with or without the mother as an active parent. The child is to be treated as an equal to all other children.”” I’ll comment on each part of your moral expectation, one piece at a time.

    First part: “Rape is wrong” — It clearly says that in principle, or it wouldn’t be a crime, and their wouldn’t be punishment for that crime under the Mosaic Law.

    And: “rapists should be punished by long jail sentences” — What jail? The Mosaic Law was not written to an established society with jails in place but to a nomadic people that lived in tents. Tents don’t have bars to keep offenders inside. It was a basis for law, and not intended to cover every single future possibility, except in principle. A RAPIST HAS TO PAY FOR HIS CRIME FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE. Forced servitude can be as much a prison as a concrete house with bars. This precept took into account the fact that they were nomadic, and the greatness of the crime. Again, the rapist had to pay for her upkeep for the REST OF HIS LIFE. The woman was cared for financially, her child was cared for financially, and ALL at the expense of the rapist.

    • If a rapists spies a beautiful woman, he can rape her. and then he has her as a wife and gets to have sex with her all the time. And if he rapes 10 different women, he now has 10 different wives. There is no indication in this law that a woman has a choice not to marry her rapist.
      The bible does not state which parts are only for Bronze Age tribesmen and which are for all time.

  27. Every decent judge consults all of the applicable law in any case, just as any good lawyer argues what the law says, what it doesn’t say, and what its’ intent is.

    Exod 22:16-17 (16) And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.(17) If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.

    1. Here is a former statute with a lesser, but similar crime: consentual sex; as opposed to Deut 22:28, which is nonconsentual. (pre-marital)
    2. The Law here, gives a judgment of forced marriage, and says, “if the father utterly refuse…” In other words, it was in the father’s power to “refuse”, even though it was commanded by law.
    3. This shows that the side of the groom had no choice legally, but the side of the bride did have an option. The bride’s father could refuse.
    4. This gives a legal precedent.
    5. Any good lawyer would argue that if a girl’s father has the legal right to refuse when she consented to sex, then he would still maintain that right when she did not consent.

    • There is no indication that the bride has the right to refuse in the Exodus 22:16-17 verses. Nice try to try to dodge the issue I raised in following the Deut 22 verses: if a man rapes 10 women he would have 10 wives if those verses were followed. The prior chapter, Exodus 21, states “20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.” I do not think we should base our laws on such an immoral book.

      • I get your issue with Ex 21:20-21. I’m commenting over on your post about that passage.
        I’m not trying to dodge anything. I fully intend to discuss the 10 wives part; I’m just trying to discuss one piece at a time, specifically where you said, “There is no indication in this law that a woman has a choice not to marry her rapist.” I guess I should have made that clearer. Any thoughts on the legal precedent I pointed out for the bride’s father to refuse?

      • No further comments are needed.

      • BTW, I’m also not dodging “There is no indication that the bride has the right to refuse in the Exodus 22:16-17 verses.” Point taken and understood. Ex 22:16-17 does not actually state that the bride has the right to refuse. Are we in agreement, then, that the father of the bride has the right to refuse?

      • Yes, we can agree that there is no choice afforded to the rape victim, but her father can make the decision for her.

  28. I’m delighted to find a relatively polite discussion about (one of the the many) highly ambiguous biblical stories. People who see the bible, in whatever form (only the canonical books or including additional material) as God’s revealed truth have a really hard time to find a coherent prescription for a good life if they have to take all the stories as equally valid guidance. This being impossible (IMHO) they pick and choose, leading to an almost infinite variety of views by believers on matters such as slavery, homosexuality, rape and whatnot.

    But, if you consider the bible not so much as revealed truth but as a collection of stories, some historical, some exaggerated in different ways, told over the ages to the yung’ones sittin’ around the campfire whiling away long dark nights without access to electricity or television, it becomes a really interesting window on life in ancient desert societies, and some of their customs seem to live on in some primitive parts of the Middle East. One would hope that discussions like the ones here will enlighten those people too, at some point. I can’t be optimistic about this unfortunately, but let’s pray to God that I’m wrong on this.

  29. If the Jewish law about forcing the rapist to marry the rape victim was for the benefit and protection of the woman (no one else would want her), then the actions of Simeon and Levi are not only in direct violation of the law, but also are harmful to their sister that they CLAIM to be so upset for. Her rapist actually WANTED to marry her and BY THE PASSAGES appears to actually have feelings for her. He is a prince. She would have been set for life. So the brothers clearly don’t care about her as much as they do about themselves and how they can gain from this situation. They leave her as unwanted by her own people ‘damaged goods’.

  30. Look the creator of this website makes very good points. TOO MANY people take the fundamentalist approach, when the bible is nothing special like they claim it is, all its ideas come from older religions. When you look at the bible, know that you are looking at the evolution of pagan religions. It was made official when emperor Constantine had a vision (with the cross you shall conquer) the motif was mithranistic (the popular and very identical religion to christianity at the time). But the emperor decided to unite all of the Roman empire (to stop the division, because as soon as an occupying Roman army would leave, people ignored the soverignty of the Roman empire)to save it from dying. So he united all the PAGANS of the land, who brought along their most cherished works of religion, they argued, and fought, and when the dust settle, you had a biblios of all the most cherished books, the books that were too arcane, or that gave away too much of the sacred sciences , like the book of Judas (yes there is a book of Judas, there is a whole documentary from national geographic if you care to know) were made aprophyical. The one religion unified the roman empire because it meant that they did not have to force anyone to respect the roman empire since it was inline with their beliefs, and if they did oppose the empire, the very nieghbors of these people were more likely to persecute these heretics….Think about it, a one world government, one world religion, why do you think the new world order is called as such, because this catholic empire (the cradle of all christianity)was the old world empire. These beliefs found in the bible stand testament to how far civilization has advanced, for some of us anyway. More the times go on, more time we realize how awful people even in the bible were. Just for the fact alone that the bible justified slavery and suggested punishments the bible should be condemmend, or religated to only the research section in a university somewhere. You have to understand your history, and line it up with the bible. I’m not talking about the historical inconsistencies, of which a whole library alone could be written, i’m talking about how in different ages, we resonate with different passages that are ethincally/culturally appealing to us. As the time changes we rather stop reading those passages, like the ones about slavery and concentrate on the others. So the bible, is not perfect, was not intended to be read by anyone else except the priesthood, shows how far we have come from these draconic times, and should not be taught as truth, lest you agree with the most foul parts. Even the comment made by the Rabbi early on in this discussion (with much respect to his title)is an interpretation, which will change as ages roll past us, untill the book is so out of sync that you would be unable to interpret even by stretching your faith to the breaking point. So lets all step out together, realize we are all human, we want to all be successful, we all want to get ahead and prosper together letsform one humanity with one purpose, not a world divided by ignorance, fear of change, and hate. We are one people, one species, now we need the one great purpose, of which I shall omit to allow you to consider what it should be.

  31. Thank you, edhensley. I was searching for this passage. It came to mind as to another example as to why I do not accept Christianity in any form. Like you, I was raised as a fundamental Christian. In my case, I accepted Jesus as my “Lord and Savior” at age 16. I went on to graduate from Wheaton College, Wheaton, Illinois (one of the most highly respected, Christian Liberal Arts Colleges in the world. My majors were Biblical Studies and Speech Communications. I was so dedicated that, to meet my foreign-language requirement, I took 2 years of Koine Greek (which is what the New Testament was written in).

    After taking to some to get established in life after I graduated, I looked back on the teachings I encountered and realized that they just did not make sense. At age 27, I turned my back on Christianity based on intellectual reasons. I never regretted that decision. The decision I regret was becoming involved in Christianity in the first place.

    You are right about being attacked. The only defense a Christian can offer is that you just have to “know” God and take it all by faith. So what is left: Personal attacks against the unbelievers? I am glad you did not succumb to the temptation to stoop to the level of your attackers in your responses.

    Keep up the good work.

    • I bet he became a Christian!

  32. Yes we do respect the entire bible because it is The Word of God but Christians live and should obey The New Covenant (New Testament)which is The Lord Jesus Christ and Him crucified. If people have a grip with The Word Of God they have a choice, either believe it and live by it or do not live by it and suffer eternally for rejecting The Lord Jesus Christ.

    • suffer eternally for rejecting The Lord Jesus Christ.

      The only thing more immoral than murder is torturing someone to death. The only thing more immoral than that is eternal torture. I am sad to learn that you worship an immoral eternal torturer.

      I recognize that some Christians, like Billy Graham, realized eternal torture was immoral and became annihilationists.

  33. I am grappling with similar questions as to why evil is allowed to persist and I struggled with many verses in the new testament but I do believe that God never wanted evil and he created us for good. However, he also did not create us to be slaves and that led to choice and men have and continue to choice evil actions. The great thing is is that God didn’t give up, he still continues to reach people to stop them from committing acts that are heartless and loveless. He sent Jesus who did question all the things you question and did fight the wrongs in this world. He told many believers that you do not fit in because you believe in yourselves as a god and he fought the oppression of churches, pharisees, etc. He destroyed temples and flipped tables. He stood in front of a prostitute condemned to death and saved her and turned people’s judgment onto themselves. He healed, prayed, taught, for all of us to love opening and choose to do good and not evil. Jesus tackled and showed how to walk in love and faith for others in his life and death. Just focusing on the specifics of the bible where we don’t understand will always keep us in the dark, we need to read the whole story, meditate, research, ask questions, and keep an open mind. We will always be growing, isn’t it great we have been given such capabilities? Amen

    • He stood in front of a prostitute condemned to death and saved her and turned people’s judgment onto themselves.

      This passage is a well known later addition to the bible. It is not in the oldest scriptures and it is inserted into different locations in later scriptures.
      From wikipedia: “In terms of simple quantities, 1,495 Greek manuscripts include the pericope adulterae (or part of it, supporting the inclusion of the passage as a whole), and 267 do not include it. Among those 267, however, are some manuscripts which are exceptionally early and which most textual analysts consider the most important.”
      Why base you life on Bronze Age fairy tales?

  34. sorry, i meant old testament, but there are things in the new testament hard to understand too.

  35. […] The Daughter Of Llyr, the incestuous jealousy of the heroine’s brother surpasses even that of Dinah’s brother’s – at least in […]


Leave a comment

Categories