Using slaves for sex in the Bible

@sonship said
@vivify

Sarah commanded her Egyptian slave girl to have sex with her husband. God was clearly aware of this and even sent an angel to the slave girl, Hagar. Therefore, God was okay with commanding slaves to have to sex.

Simple logic.

[b]"Now Sarai, Abram's wife, bore him no children; and she had an Egyptian female servant, whose name was Hagar.

A ...[text shortened]... ex with Hagar.

I think your opinion about God's priorities in that episode are badly skewed.

"Does every suggestion someone in makes for another person to do, and it happens, represent God's perfect will?"

If Abraham had sex with a man, surely God would've said something, right? So why nothing about commanding a slave girl to have to have sex? If Abraham listened to Sarah about sex with a male, I'm sure it would've been a different story.

It's not just Abraham, the same happened with Jacob and at least two slave girls.

Add to this that God allows female POWs to be taken as wives---women who were undoubtedly afraid for their lives, since the Bible clearly indicated they wept for the dead family members---there's quite the case that female slaves were forced into sex.

I've read your extensive posts on the matter; but just imagine this happening today: an invading army slaughter's a woman's family, who then becomes the wife of an invading soldier. If this happened today, would you believe this was consensual in the slightest?

Again, I know we can go into "how it was back then", but this is supposed to be a perfect God. Bringing up the culture of time as a defense doesn't fly with a God who's supposed to be "perfect", and had no problem enforcing strict laws like death just for disobeying parents. If God wanted to stop slaves from being used for sex, he could've. In fact, if God wanted to stop slavery, he could've.

@vivify
Me:

"Does every suggestion someone in makes for another person to do, and it happens, represent God's perfect will?"
vivify:
[quote]
If Abraham had sex with a man, surely God would've said something, right?

As I read through the Bible I notice God's reaction is not ALWAYS described. Sometimes He made an example of a certain event to make a point.
He may not have made the identical same reaction in every OTHER occurrence of that matter.

You are implying that there should have been a specific sentence in which we learn God's attitude towards each and every action of Abraham. Realistically, you have to read between the lines sometimes.

So why nothing about commanding a slave girl to have to have sex? If Abraham listened to Sarah about sex with a male, I'm sure it would've been a different story.

What I see happening is that Abraham treated the slave girl with such respect that when Ishmael was born she thought of herself as the child bearing wife that fulfilled the divine promise to Abraham. It is her self dignity and feeling of preciousness to Abraham that caused Sarah to become resentful and jealous.

Two things stand out to me:
She was running away from Sarah not from Abraham.
So who was the one mistreating her in her mind?

Secondly, Sarah blamed Abraham for Hagar getting a self worth attitude towards her bearing Abraham's child. This suggests Abraham's well treatment of Hagar rather than exploitive sex slave raping relationship.

Lots of things happened in the Old Testament without an explicit mention of God speaking His mind in every instance. All things considered Abraham and Sarah were typical people struggling with faith in God's mind staggering promises.

Did they make some mistakes? Yes.
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob all were very human. God was faithful.

I might add that God's blessing of Hagar, her son Ishmael and his descendants speaks of His realizing her less than ideal circumstances and seems to compensating her the weaknesses and mistakes of His prophet and his wife.

God tells Abraham:

"But God said, No, but Sarah your wife will bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; and I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant for his seed after him,

And as for Ishmael, I have heard you; Indeed, I have blessed him and will make him fruitful and will multiply him exceedingly. Twelve princes will he beget, and I will make him a great nation." (Gen. 17:19-20)

Doesn't it appear that God was sympathetic to the slave woman and her son in their lower social status? He didn't display an attitude of "Who cares what happens to the sex slave and her little illegitimate child?"

God didn't pronounce prophetic blessings far into the future on everyone.
Isaac the divinely promised proper son received one.
But then again the unfortunate Ishmael the son of the concubine received one.
I have to take things like this into consideration.
It is a window into God's heart in the face of his prophet's blunders.

It's not just Abraham, the same happened with Jacob and at least two slave girls.

We have a fundamental disagreement which is not going to be resolved.
In the beginning of man's creation the perfect ordination of God was set forth for all history - one man with one wife. That is what God said OUGHT to be.
What ought to be and what happened and what God had to work with, is the whole history of the fall of man and God's salvation.

Add to this that God allows female POWs to be taken as wives---women who were undoubtedly afraid for their lives, since the Bible clearly indicated they wept for the dead family members---there's quite the case that female slaves were forced into sex.

I don't believe having to support a mourning POW for a month in your house who you could not MARRY until that period was over, indicates the scenario you wish to show. At least the law of Moses was there to protect the POW woman's rights.

I already showed that the law discouraged rather than encouraged on the moment lustful passion. I am told that when nations went to war women who realized their side might lose beautified themselves in case their nation be defeated and they become POWs.

God's law was that they had to dress in drab mourning cloths cut their hair and trim their nails and mourn their lose of family for 30 days. I hear you saying "Yeah, but after that they had to have sex with some forced upon them husband."

I am not sure they had that as the only outcome after a month.
You can jump to the conclusion "Of course!"
I have to see how it makes sense with the other laws God had for His nation.

I've read your extensive posts on the matter; but just imagine this happening today: an invading army slaughter's a woman's family, who then becomes the wife of an invading soldier. If this happened today, would you believe this was consensual in the slightest?

Today, I would be considering the New Testament which is the final word in the Bible. The Bible didn't conclude with Deuteronomy.

I read on to the New Testament and the Son of God Jesus saying He has come to fulfill the prophetic promise:

"The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, [Jesus], because He [the Father] has anointed Me to announce the gospel to the poor; He has sent Me to proclaim release to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind, to send away in release those who are oppressed, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, the year of of jubilee." (Luke 4:18)

I don't want to ignore Christ and the New Testament because I'm too busy hunting for bones to choke on the Old Testament's history with Israel under the law of Moses.

@sonship said
"The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, [Jesus], because He [the Father] has anointed Me to announce the gospel to the poor; He has sent Me to proclaim release to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind, to send away in release those who are oppressed, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, the year of of jubilee." (Luke 4:18)

Another of your misquotes - An honest poster will quote the version of the bible, and quote it verbatim as it appears. This is what I do and if I have comments I place that separately. You typically quote leaving out the version, changing the words or adding words, So here is another one of your misquote which you asked me to identify.

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. (Luke 4:18-19 KJV)

And there are dozens of such examples Normally I just shake my head in disbelief that you could be so dishonest.

@rajk999 said
You said that you were a lesbian, as if anyone cares. I dont care to know you, but what I do know is that you poke your stinking nose in discussions without contributing anything of substance. You just come around to insult and riddle people you dont like. So for have you contributed anything to the topic? NO. Then WTF are you doing in here if not to make trouble.

I have never claimed to be a lesbian. This is a lie you tell to "justify" your behavior against me to yourself.

As your friend and soulmate, FMF, says, this is a discussion board. If you don't want to discuss, what are you doing here? If you were honest, you would claim it (your behavior to me) is because I am a woman, which you seem to think means that I cannot have a voice.

I do respond when you come in here making a mockery of being a Christian. WWJD? Not what you're doing.

@suzianne said
As your friend and soulmate, FMF, says, this is a discussion board.

"Soulmate"?

Rajk999 and I are at opposite ends of the theist-atheist spectrum and at opposite ends of the political spectrum.

I undoubtedly say some things that make him shake his head, just as he undoubtedly says some things that make me shake my head. But we have a rough-hewn, warts and all respect for each other.

On this forum, I respect him more than I respect you ~ you are pusillanimous about some fundamental issues regarding your religious ideology and pusillanimous is the last word one would use to describe him.

If you think that that is the stuff "soulmates" is made of, and if you think such grasping banter is going to land a blow on adults' chins, then you are posting like an adolescent.

@fmf said
"Soulmate"?

Rajk999 and I are at opposite ends of the theist-atheist spectrum and at opposite ends of the political spectrum.

I undoubtedly say some things that make him shake his head, just as he undoubtedly says some things that make me shake my head. But we have a rough-hewn, warts and all respect for each other.

On this forum, I respect him more than I respect you ...[text shortened]... h grasping banter is going to land a blow on adults' chins, then you are posting like an adolescent.

I'm thinking it is more a comment on your "grasping at straws" finding an ally to help you in your misanthropy in this forum. You two have made "forum combat" your entire raison d'etre on this website. You're like peas in a pod in that respect.

And as far as "respect", neither one of you "respects" anyone. Yours is only a marriage of convenience. If there were no other targets here, or if either of you had a shred of integrity, you'd be at each other's throats.

And you only have the most superficial idea what I think. Most of what you write in these forums I regard as the ravings of a lunatic. But sometimes, rarely, you manage to burp up a gem of actual care for other human beings. My only concerns are for the few for whom these trinkets are good enough to consider you a serious poster.

@suzianne said
I'm thinking it is more a comment on your "grasping at straws" finding an ally to help you in your misanthropy in this forum.

"Soulmates". "Allies". "Forum combat". These sound like attributes or words-to-hurl from your mindscape, not mine.

@suzianne said
You two have made "forum combat" your entire raison d'etre on this website. You're like peas in a pod in that respect.

Rajk999 has a dogged interested in explaining his Christian theology. I am interested, as an ex-Christian, in talking about moral issues connected with religion as seen through an agnostic-atheist prism. I don't think the label "forum combat" does this reality much justice. I think it's just a label you apply to people you dislike.

@suzianne said
Most of what you write in these forums I regard as the ravings of a lunatic.

Thank you for your candour.

@suzianne said
I have never claimed to be a lesbian. This is a lie you tell to "justify" your behavior against me to yourself.

Yes and you have frequently mentioned “male” partners.

So why did you get so, so, so, bent out of shape at me a few weeks ago when I mentioned the male gender pronoun when replying to you about your talk about your partner?

It looked to me like a silly little attempt to virtue-signal to those males here who enjoy your skirt swishing.

@suzianne said
Most of what you write in these forums I regard as the ravings of a lunatic.

And yet you spend so much of your time talking to FMF.

@suzianne said
You two have made "forum combat" your entire raison d'etre on this website.

I’m just picking my jaw up off the desk.

@divegeester said
I’m just picking my jaw up off the desk.

For real. That woman has the gall to say that when she is the only one playing no chess to speak of [one game making 2 moves a month] , and drifting from one forum to another contributing nothing of substance, but is the common factor in all the animosity. She really needs to pick up a woman and settle down and give us some peace around here ... lol 😀

@divegeester said
And yet you spend so much of your time talking to FMF.

She is in love with the 3 of us .. obviously.
I think you are her #1.
Then FMF
Me last.