—Mental Rape—the OTHER Rape - Bible Law on Rape - the Pathology of Perverse Society - More from the "Ford Theater" & an article by Don Boys, Ph.D.: "Rapacious Rape Requires Resistance!"
The minds of the majority in subverted Christendom have been raped by the godless, Antichrist Marxist State. They are lobotomized against understanding truth—their consciences (those who have one) are INNOCULATED against the truth, and they are brainwashed with immoral perverse notions which skew their understanding of anything. Imagine a person going to a psychiatrist and the psychiatrist says, “Okay, let us free associate. I will mention something and you say the first thing that comes to mind.” Psychiatrist: “Banana”. Patient: “Rotting corpse”. Psychiatrist: “Sunrise”. Patient: “Festering boil.” Psychiatrist: “Hot Fudge Sundae.” Patient: “Vomit.” Psychiatrist: “Newborn lamb.” Patient: “Road kill.” The psychiatrist, disturbed, decides to try another diagnostic with Rorschach Ink Blots. He says, “Okay, next I will show you various white flash cards with randomly smeared black ink blots on them, and you tell me the first thought that comes to mind when you see each card. Card #1: Patient: “Brutal murder.” Card #2: Patient: “Hyenas eating a sheep.” Card #3: Patient: “Brutal murder.” Card #4: Patient: “Brutal murder.”
I think you get the idea. Their minds and consciences have been programmed with evil. That is all they see. There can be no discussion about anything, especially morality. They reject God and His Word, the only true Moral Standard. They reject the concept of morality or any moral standard. Their concept of morality is what they “like” and what the government says is good or bad—but, hypocritically, were a godly government to arise and established right or wrong based upon the Bible and the laws upon which our Republic were founded, they would reject the government.
[This is little different than the majority of Christians who pick and choose which Commandments of God they are going to “obey”. NOTHING they do is obedience, if they pick and choose, for they are not obeying but doing what they want. Mechanical compliance is not obedience. The heart / attitude, motive and letter of the law being followed together form a cluster that is called obedience.]
They cannot logically defend their position on anything. It does not matter. They will scream or resort to violence, like a psychopathic child or gang-banger, to assert themselves and force you to submit to them. There is no reasoning with them. It is a one-way street. They think you must bow to them. God, the Bible, our Founders, our Constitution, 200 years of precident in the U.S., 2,000 years of precident in Europe and the British Isles are meaningless to them. “Might is Right” is their “mental” motto; but of course, it too, hypocritically, is a one-way street—for it is only THEIR might that is right, not yours. If you attempted to use force, even rightful force, that makes you Hitler; whereas, if they do it, they are Gandhi.
[It is also quite interesting, but not unexpected, that now the blacks in South Africa are committing “black blasphemy”. Many of those blacks who have not benefitted from Sham-dela’s “Black Dream” once “equality” was legislatively decreed; those who have not become wealthy without having to work, and who are not able to simply retire and live a life of luxury and ease (because their black communist brothers who set themselves up as the new aristocracy have stolen the wealth of the nation) and thus Mandela’s promised “Heaven on Earth” has not materialized for 99% of the black population—are now claiming that Mandela was a “pawn of the white people”. The link between Mandela and Gandhi is even more fitting when you realize that originally, both were violent terrorists, but then realized that they could be more effective by playing on peoples motives and feigning peace publicly (while also funding actual terrorism, violence, murder, bombings, etc. privately). Mandela was not arrested for free speech. “He was then later charged with 193 counts of terrorism: for sabotage and for trying to smuggle, prepare, or manufacture (mostly Soviet-bloc) munitions, including: 210,000 hand-grenades, 48,000 anti-personnel mines, 144 tons of ammonium-nitrate, 21.6 tons of aluminum powder, 1,500 timing devices, and 2,000 lbs. of black gunpowder.” (from Bulala: A True History of South Africa; 392pp., pb., 18.38 + P&H) He should have been executed. Anyone else would have been. Any black nation would have executed him (after torturing him).]
Don Boys, Ph.D. has some good information in his article: "Rapacious Rape Requires Resistance!"
http://donboys.cstnews.com/rapacious-rape-requires-resistance
Here are some thoughts that I had:
Technically, the rape referred to in Scripture refers to rape by kinsmen, for those were the only people allowed to be living in the land of Israel.
[The Israelites are not the people known as Jews and the Law was not given to the Jews. The Law was given to ALL ISRAEL... the people known as Jews / Israelis are not even Judah (all twelve tribes of Israel were not Judah and none are Jews; Judah was one tribe; and the House of Judah after the split under Rehoboam was comprised the tribes of Judah with whom were confederated the tribes of Benjamin and Levi; so the Law was not given merely to the House or Tribe of Judah, but to all Israel). The Jews are the genetic mud-slide known as Edomite-Canaanites (who absorb the blood of all people with whom they come into contact). After true Israel was conquered and deported (c.722 B.C. traditional dates) and then true Judah (c.586 traditional dates), Canaanite peoples, whose ancestors had been either exterminated or driven from what had been called the Land of Canaan (but which had been the Land of the Hebrews before the Canaanites invaded it sometime after the dispersion at Babel and displaced, exterminated, or absorbed the Hebrews) roughly 900 years earlier, took it upon themselves to move back into the vacant land—and the King of Babylon imported naerly a dozen other corrupt peoples to occupy the land and to keep the land productive (olive orchards, vineyards, etc.) to keep the tax revenue flowing in. When the tiny remnant of Judah (.015%) returned 70 years later, the land was filled with a mixed multitude, including those mentioned as well as other corrupt and cursed peoples who took it upon themselves to move into the land (such as Ammonites*).
{* The Ammonites, like their cousins the Moabites, were both also Canaanite; though most Bible scholars do not realize this. Moab and Benammi were born of incest. The pure Hebrew Lot (Abraham’s nephew) had been served drink to make him drunk (two nights in a row) by his well-meaning but morally ignorant daughters, who wanted to honor him by raising up male seed to him, since their mother, his wife died leaving Sodom. Sodom and the other cities of the plains were in Canaan. Canaan was filled with Canaanites. These brothers born of incest were cursed. It is almost certain that they married Canaanite women, and their descendants continued to marry Canaanite women until they were a people numerous enough to marry among themselves without committing further incest, which of course is also not beyond the realm of possibility.}
However, the coup de grâce occured when the Edomites infiltrated the land of Israel en masse in 126 b.c. and adopted Israelite customs (circumcision, Sabbath, Passover, dietary laws—when it suited them, and corrupting the observance of them; even as they do today). Eventually the Edomite “converts” intermarried with true Israel to such an extent, they stole true Israel’s name, after they either mongrelized true Israel in the land of Israel out of existence, or those remaining true Israelites left and migrated to meet up with their brethren, the Anglo-Saxon and related peoples of Christendom in Europe and in all the Greek city states throughout the Mediterranean.
{The Greeks of Antiquity—not the modern Greeks who are mostly Turks (Hittites)—descended from the Israelites; and the Romans of Antiquity—not the modern Italians, who also are greatly Turkified—descended from the ancient Greeks.}
The Edomite-Canaanites (and a motley assortment of other alien and corrupt and cursed peoples) completely displaced true Israel (as prophesied) over the space of 2,500 years; even as we are seeing all of Christendom displaced by the Third World... before our very eyes, in merely a century overall, but mostly within a few decades. See my book, Uncovering the Mysteries of Your Hidden Inheritance, as well as my booklets, God’s Chosen People and Are You An Anti-Semite?]
The Biblical penalty for rape was death IF it was a married / betrothed woman who was raped. If the woman raped was not betrothed, then the man was required to pay the father a fine and he was required to marry the woman (Deut. 22:29)—which could never apply to an alien.
However, there are other factors involved not explained in this passage, which must be cross-referenced and combined. If the father of the maiden refused to allow his violated daughter to marry the churl, then the man who defiled her must pay the fine, which was the dowry of virgins; and they will not marry (Exodus 22:16,17). The 50-shekel fine (roughly 25 ounces of silver) is oddly a pittance (except to the poorest in the land); even at $20/ounce, that is merely $500 and a daughter’s honor would seem to certainly be worth far more than that.
[Note: Just because we in our day do not understand or do not agree does not make the Word of God or God “wrong”. Those who have such thoughts or who are even more foolish to express such notions broadcast their deprativity and reprobate minds.]
Since the maiden was no longer a virgin after being raped the father could no longer charge the dowry of virgins when he did marry off his daughter, so that 50-shekel fine seems to be one and the same with the dowry of virgins. This is separate from the overall dowry that a man would ask for his daughter in marriage. The general dowry was a price set by the father for any suitor for his daughter’s hand in marriage.
[Dowry was, it seems, synonymous with “security”. When Leah had born a goodly amount of sons to Jacob (which thus established her in his good graces, even though she had been party to her father Laban tricking Jacob), she expressed to herself “God hath endued me with a good dowry; now will my husband dwell with me, because I have born him six sons” (Genesis 30:20). Under ideal circumstances, this dowry was to be invested by the father on behalf of his daughter, in the event that she was divorced or widowed. Scripture tells us, “A good man leaveth an inheritance to his children’s children” (Proverbs 13:22). Laban was not that kind of “good man”. Rachel and Leah in their discussion when Jacob said they were leaving Padan-Aram for Canaan, expressed, “14...Is there yet any portion or inheritance for us in our father’s house? 15Are we not counted of him strangers? for he hath sold us, and hath quite devoured also our money” (Genesis 31).]
Yes, in the face of a rape (or attempted rape) a woman is required to cry out. Unless the man is a total savage, crying out will possibly give him reason to fear and flee, or put him out of the mood and ability to perform and also alert others. Of course resistance and crying out when being raped by a total savage can possibly cause greater violence and abuse, but when dealing with such savages, you have no guarantee that he is not going to kill you afterwards anyway. Furthermore, in a godly society that obeys God’s Law you are fighting for your life, because if you don’t cry out you risk being put to death for being a whore.
[Sinful humans (antichrists) who hate God’s Law will invent a plethora of exuses, all of which are vapid and irrelevant. Just shut up and cry out! (a bit of an oxymoron if not understood, of course; those who are attempting to ridicule God’s Law: shut up; those who find themselves in the horrific prospect of being raped: cry out”. It is only natural. Do what is natural. Cry out. Scripture does not say how long or how repeatedly. The intention of crying out is to be heard, so at the very least, obey God and cry out with the loudest, longest blood-curdling scream that you can muster up. You may not have opportunity to cry out again if he gags you or knocks you out, but if you cry out once for all your are worth then you have obeyed God and God may then deliver you either by giving the brute a change of heart, or causing someone to hear and stop the rape in progress; or at the very least you will be indemnified in court. Don’t make excuses. Just obey. It is really quite simple. The situation is anything but simple, but obedience is simple. Just do it. Furthermore, and even more importantly, as I shall discuss below, is prevention.]
It also needs to be understood that I think in such cases the Bible gives general guidelines not intended to adjudicate blindly every single case without considering special circumstances. But, “yes”, there were judges, courts, and prisons even in the wilderness wanderings—such did not only come into existence until the time of the kings. Moses, based upon the counsel of his father in law Jethro (his princely name) / Reuel (his priestly name) and upon God’s command established a sophisticated hierarchy of judges in all the tribes to hear every case (Deuteronomy 1:15); and those too difficult for them, they would bring to Moses. Furthermore, in two cases in the wilderness wanderings, someone guilty of a certain offense was “put in ward” until God should inform the judges / Moses what was to be done to the offender; in both cases the offender was put to death (Leviticus 24:12; Numbers 15:34). In the first someone blasphemed the Name of Yahweh while struggling with another; in the second a man was gathering firewood on the Sabbath.
Clearly if a woman was mute (in the article link above by Dr. Boys I believe the word “deaf” is once used by mistake, concerning a maiden unable to cry out because she was deaf) special consideration would be made. If the woman had been gagged, that does not mean that she should not try to cry out anyway... as gags do not muffle 100% of sound. However, if she had been gagged, knocked out, or if a knife was held to her throat and the rapist told her that she cried out he would kill her, that seems to be possible be grounds for consideration. In the former homogeneous communities of our people that had not been invaded by aliens, undoubtedly there were men who might risk raping a woman if he thought that she could not prove it, there being no witnesses; however, it was quite another thing for a rapist to be a murderer in those times. Today, when savages roam freely, look the same, and move in and out across the border freely, and in our day in which criminals are hardly punished (and if so, they are not punished justly, but only to enrich the State) rape has become something brutal beyond the brutality of rape. The invading savages do it to humiliate, torture, and punish. Killing is not something they shy away from; but they prefer to let the woman live and suffer the rest of her life with her injuries and her memories. Such animals should be put down. This does not appear to be the type of rape that Scripture talks about, for many reasons. Kidnapping was also a crime for which death was the penalty. If an Israelite injured another it was GOD* Who had commanded “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”. Had these rapes referred to in Scripture been brutal, then God would have clearly indicated that the man should be taken out and have the crap beat out of him to an equal degree. That type of discussion is entirely missing in the Scritpural passages. Likewise, the notion of murder, attempted murder, or threat of murder is also completely absent from the Scriptural Judgment for rape. Thus, while we can refer to the type of rape being discussed in Scripture as “simple rape”, which is not intended to play down the heinousness of it or the violence of it, but it is not compounded by the additional crimes of kidnapping, brutal beating causing physical injury of any type, or threat of murder.
[* This Law of “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” was not invented by man. Most “Christians” wilfully and utterly misinterpret Christ’s statement thinking that it somehow abolished the Law, which is ludicrous. It restored the proper meaning of the Law, to the minds of His hearers, according to both the letter and the spirit—which is the actual meaning of the 10th Commandment itself, in showing that all sin begins in the heart.]
God gave us His Law with full knowledge that both men and women are sinful and will lie.
The Biblical passages are general guidelines and they are for “normal” cases as described. They are not referring to all the perverted schemes of a serial psychopath who plans evil intricately. The Bible passages are not referring to a psychopath in a city who digs a basement and soundproofs it so that no scream can be heard. Extenuating circumstances will always be granted extenuating consideration.
Similarly, just because a woman may be being raped in a field does not mean that she should not cry out. Crying out, again, can prevent and stop the crime; and you never know who may hear the cry and then be able to serve as a witness or even intervene. It seems rare that a woman would be out in the country all alone, so remote that there would be no one to hear her cry out. Maybe the roar of a stream and the bellowing of cattle and bleeting of sheep and goats were considered factors that would prevent a scream being heard and recognized as a scream and not an animal. However, the land of Israel was not like Texas with million-acre ranches. Land was limited and certainly there were shepherds in the fields or other travellers on the roads. However, the point seems to be that it may be possible somene else would not be within earshot in the country (and thus the benefit of the doubt given to the woman), it is far-less likely in the city, that no one would hear a scream. Again, we are not talking New York City skyscraper penthouses. Houses were close together, without out relatively sound-proof windows, and no one had their air conditioners, tvs, or stereos on.
Again, general rules do not mean that special considerations will not be adjudicated. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that evil people for revenge may falsely accuse someone, in the city or in the field. A women could be in the field as her victim approaches, she asks him a question, then jumps and holds on to him and starts yelling “Rape!” and then, as “out of the blue” two other people appear to “witness” it. The Bible does not pretend that there are no “female black widows” or “female praying mantis” who would invent such a scenario (either on their own or at the behest of someone who will pay her well or who has some blackmail on her) either for revenge, or for blackmail money. While the ancients may not have had as sophisticated schemes, that they did in fact so scheme should not be underestimated. Joseph himself in Egypt—two centuries earlier—found himself in that very situation in which he learned that “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned” [from English poet and playwrite William Congreve’s poem “The Mourning Bride” (1697)].
However, understand, Bible Law is clear in these cases, and nowhere in the Biblical text concerning these rape cases is anything inferred in reference to “accusation” by the woman without witnesses. The word used at the beginning and the end of this block of Scripture text (which we shall see shortly) clearly refers to a man and women “being found” in the act of carnally lying together or in the act of rape. That necessitates WITNESSES. Thus, it is not a mere case of “he said — she said”.
Also, the “law of latches” applies to Biblical Law in that a person had to act in a timely fashion to seek justice. Those who, years later, seek carnal revenge were guilty of crimes themselves (like Ahithophel) and their actions were not sanctioned by God. Even in the case of accidental death, a the one who caused the death had to flee to a city of refuge and remain there. If it was not accidental or if someone challenged the accidental death as actually being intentional, then the case was tried by the judges and if they found that it was indeed murder, the guilty party was turned over to the blood avenger (nearest kinsman). If found innocent or murder, he had still shed blood (manslaughter) and was still guilty, but had to live in the city of refuge until the death of the priest of that town. If he ever left that city before such a time, the blood avenger could slay him and be guiltless.
[While indeed these “cities of refuge” were not established until after the Conquest, the laws governing manslaughter and the judges existed at the time of the wilderness wandering at the time that the Law was given, for the first time, in a complete codefied, written form to God’s people as a whole. Before that time, God’s Law had been passed down from Adam, in part, orally, from Patriarch to Patriarch / family; and periodically, as man descended into greater sin, God updated the Law with more-specific laws concerning issues that arose. It is ironic that those who declare that God should have given clearer and more precise explanations of His Law, generally don’t read, understand, or believe the sufficient amount that He did give us. Sin bears consequences. When sinful man finds out that he is in the unfortunate situation of having to “kick against the pricks” or “make bricks without straw (being provided for him)”, his first reaction is to blame everyone else, including God—but God declared, “the curse causeless shall not come” (Proverbs 26:2).]
However, even in the case of an accidental death, it needs to be understood that these are general guidelines and not set in stone in terms of extenuating circumstances or even mercy having no bearing on individual cases. Clearly, if the nearest kinsman KNEW that it was merely an accident, he could certainly FORGIVE the person who caused the accidental death and there could be a public hearing in which he declared that he forgave him, and the guilty party would not have had to flee to the city of refuge; and the nearest kinsman thereafter could then not lawfully put him to death. Actually, in cases in which the nearest kinsman loved equally the one accidentally killed and the one who was responsible for the accidental death, it is most probable that he legally forgave the guilty party.
Similarly, all verses in the Law have to be put together for the whole picture in any particular case. One-eyed theologians prone to making hasty, snap judgments based upon a singular verse are usually wrong.
For example: Putting to death was not mandatory in 100% of cases of adultery; though if you only consider one passage that may seem to be the case. The husband could also forgive. The husband could also divorce. The husband could also “put away” the wife, which was not a divorce, but which was kicking her out of the house legally without giving a Bill of Divorcement; which means that she could never again have a relationship without being guilty of adultery.
However, carnal minds fixate on their own wickedness and narrow-minded understanding rather than on holiness and the big picture. They think that putting away is “cruel” of a husband. REALLY? If YOU were a woman and found guilty of adultery —which would you prefer? being put away or being stoned to death? Get your eyes off yourself, off the criminal and onto the victim and on to God. The purpose of the Law is to PUT AWAY EVIL from among us. This cannot happen if criminals know that they will be forgiven. It is up to the VICTIM to decide whether to absolutely forgive (waive judgment) or forgive the person but still demand judgment—not for his own selfish revenge*—but to put evil out from among the community.
[* This is actually a glimpse into the heart and mind of the howling liberals (including most “Christians”). Because their hearts are corrupt and their minds are selfish and polluted, they never even consider for a moment an ulterior godly motive; and so they condemn the victim without a trial (imagining the criminal to be the victim) because of their own wicked nature. Furthermore, the very fact they identify with and defend the criminal also is a glimpse into their own nature.]
Understand. All sin is first and foremost against God. God is not doubleminded. Though God is Merciful, He is not Merciful to all people all the time (and to some people He is Merciful never) because God is also Just and Holy. Had God not wanted adulterers and murderers stoned to death He would not have commanded it. He did not command it because of man’s sinfulness in “not forgiving”—but because of His OWN Holiness. If the Law were not real and were not intended to be followed with its Judgments, there would be no incentive for the majority to obey. However, at times, under specific circumstances, there is room for mercy with both man and God; otherwise, man would have ceased to exist long ago.
Dead-hearted liberals and feminists also overlook other salient points, in their own self-worship in declaring “cruel” what God commanded and declared “good, perfect, just, and holy” (Romns 7:12; Psalm 19 and 119). A man putting away his wife may not do so solely because of the “hardness of his heart”, as I already indicated, but also to prevent his wife whom he loves from being put to death! Understand (regardless of sinful man’s polluted practices), the Word of God says that if a man divorces a wife, if she marries another, he can never take her back—even if any subsequent husband dies! Thus, putting away (while it may have been done through the hardness of heart of WICKED Israelites, was NOT the only reason that a man would put away his wife if he was GODLY). Think outside the carnal, ego-centric, God-hating box. If a man loves his wife, and does not want her to be stoned to death, he can put her away... during this period of abandonment (better than execution? do you think?!) if she truly repents, he can then TAKE HER BACK AS HIS WIFE...!!!!!!!! HOW WICKED of carnal minds to blame God and His Law and husbands for BLESSINGS of which they have no clue!
[AND I SPEAK FROM EXPERIENCE BEING IN THIS VERY POSITION! —for nearly 8 years now! I did not put away. I essentially have been “unbiblically” put away myself, due to NO fault of my own. THAT is what a woman does when she abandons her husband who loves her more than his own life. I take into account tragic extenuating circumstances and choose to forgive, though each day I die more alone. So feminists—don’t talk to me about “hardness of heart”...! What would you do in my situation? True love longs to forgive. True honor seeks to please God. However, there is a point in time and space that God’s Mercy ends where His Justice and Holiness demand; and the human heart can only endure so much. My life ended nearly 8 years ago (for the SECOND time—25 years of my life cut off and dumped alone into late middle age). My “life” (if it can be called that) has been put “on hold” indefinitely. NO LIFE. No family. No friends. No holidays, weekends, vacations, amusement, leisure, pleasure. Now let’s ask those feministas who think that men who would “put away” their wives for adultery, let’s ask them if they divorced their own husbands (in violation of the Law of God), took his children from him (in violation of the Law of God) and robbed him of His wealth (in violation of the Law of God). I’ve never had any children, so I can’t truly know what it is like to have them taken from me—but I have lost everyone else that meant anything to me and I know what that is like. According to the Law of God the man have all authority and the women are to be in subjection. The women if they are honorable, will be treated honorably. If they are not submissive and loving, they deserve nothing. That is God’s incentive for women to be submissive and loving to their husbands. So it is with children and their parents. God declares, “Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour” (Romans 13:7). On the other hand, it is immoral to reward wickedness with blessings. God established the Law of the Harvest and also pronounced a curse on those who could call evil good and good evil—which is what you do when you reward wicked behaviour as if it were good. Today, because of feminists who demanded equality and who therefore have seduced the majority of women into living abominably before God, the men suffer, the children suffer, and the women suffer. It does not make it right, but you tell me if a carnal man who is upset that his wife just divorced him, took his house, car, and children, is not going to be more inclined to possibly rape a women and even beat her. Women help set in motion the “perfect storm” then look around for whom they can blame. Don’t talk to me about “hardness of heart” or God’s Law being “unfair”...! I pray for my beloved with every breath, as I do for all of Christendom! How many women who “feel wronged do the same thing out of love and to honor God...? —or do they just “go for the jugular” as if God does not exist? God is Just in whatever He does because He is sinless and He owns all that exists. It is His RIGHT to do what He wills for His Own Good Pleasure with that which He owns (everything, including you and me). Repent of your own wickedness while there is hope. “Humble yourselves therefore under the Mighty Hand of God, that He may exalt you in due time” (I Peter 5:6) — and until then — “Wherefore let them that suffer according to the Will of God commit the keeping of their souls to Him in well doing, as unto a Faithful Creator” (I Peter 4:19) and “And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not” (Galatians 6:9).]
Furthermore, just because a man puts away his wife DOES NOT MEAN that he cannot also eventually give her a lawful bill of divorcement (during which time she can contemplate and appreciate the kindness and mercy that did not demand her being stoned to death and also repent before God and never commit whoredom again). Carnal minds hate God. Most “Christians” have carnal minds. You can finish the syllogism for the only true conclusion.
[For more in-depth information, see my: The Christian Israelite and Polygamy: The Frenzy, The Facts, The Foundation & Other Controversial Topics Concerning the God-Ordained Roles of Man and Wife; this booklet neither promotes nor condemns polygamy; but rather, reveals what Scripture saith on the matter, in both law and principle. The minds of modern Christians have been corrupted by liberalism as feminism and paganism have crept into the modern church (which has been carried over unawares even into the true Israel churches). The carnal mind (often masquerading as a converted mind) rebels against the clear teachings of the Word of God in numerous areas, which are considered by the average person as “old-fashioned,” “archaic,” “obsolete,” “oppressive,” “barbaric,” etc. God set down the Law. It is up to us to follow it; not dismiss it because it “makes waves” and “rocks the boat” in our families and churches; or because it indicts our hearts of our rebellion against God’s Plan. 80pp., 6.00 + P&H.]
Let us look briefly at the main passage in question:
Deuteronomy 22 —
“22If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.
23If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
24Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
25But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:
26But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:
27For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.
28If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
Note: The phrases “be found lying with” of v.22 and “and they be found” of v.28 both presuppose that all the verses in between are to be adjudicated by the same discovery. Nothing is mentioned about a solitary woman making an accusation. Certainly the guilty parties of an affair undiscovered would not confess. Without witnesses or proof an accusation cannot be made. According to God’s Law if an accusation of a crime is made and it cannot be proved, the one who made the accusation was to suffer the very fate of the accused had he been found guilty. Thus, a woman accusing a man of rape would subject herself to being put to death were she not able to PROVE it.
[There also are other verses that come into play, in different situations which alters this a little, but it all depends on the status of the one doing the accusing, the one wronged, etc.]
While this cuts down on false accusations considerably, it does not mean that rape will not happen. However, if you don’t put your finger where someone is hammering a nail the chances of your having your finger smashed are reduced considerably. Here we see then, that “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”. If women are NOT off by themselves, unaccompanied, then they have ZERO chance of being raped by a single individual.
We see the one instance in which Israelite women who took a jaunt off to a Canaanite town ended in Jacob’s daughter Dinah being abducted and raped. Times have only grown worse as we have allowed the invasion of savages into Christendom and no longer demand proper judgment. Before this time of the Third World invasion, or the freeing of the black slaves in the U.S., crime was barely in existence because people were truly Christian and the law was truly just. Times have changed. Since we don’t have a time machine (believe me, if I had one I would not be typing this to you, but scratching out a warning with a quill and inkwell—not being able to afford a manual typewriter—of what the future holds to the people of 1888 if they turn from God’s Law). If people want to “liberate” themselves from God, then they need to just shut up and accept the consequences. But understand, the rest of us don’t want a thing to do with you and we separate ourselves from you like Moses from Korah so that God’s Judgment can fall on you alone!
Also, understand the double-edged sword of justice and forgiveness. If the wronged husband forgives his wife, he has to forgive the adulterer too. He cannot split judgment and mercy. It is both or none.
Finally, the foul-minded caller who called Dr. Boys (whom he mentions in his article) in response to his previous article that she did not like, referred to the Bible as “a 3,000 year old book”. Those who have such minds are utterly regenerate and cannot even veil their dripping venom and hatred of God and His established morality. Such persons are antichrist. Christ declared of such persons: “But those Mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before Me.” (Luke 19:27) If you don’t like the prospects of that, “Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, and ye perish from the way, when His Wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in Him” (Psalm 2:12). However, for the rest, for “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God” (Psalm 14:1) then by all means— “32Fill ye up then the measure of [God’s Wrath, as did] your fathers. 33Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the Damnation of Hell?” [—a rhetorical question meaning, “ye cannot”.] (Matthew 23). See! The Bible has something for everyone!
God, please grant such hateful, perverted minds a saving knowledge of the truth or remove them SWIFTLY from the land of the living so that their polluted minds cannot influence the easily confused minds of the majority of Your people!
To those who speak the truth as Dr. Boys, I leave you with:
“11Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for My Sake. 12Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in Heaven: for so persecuted they the Prophets which were before you.” (Matthew 5)
“Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets.” (Luke 6:26)
“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” —George Orwell
And always remember the Polish proverb:
“Tell the truth and run!”
----------------------
This also ties in with an email I sent out yesterday in regard to these news links in reference to an Egyptian man having lunch with a woman. In Saudi Arabia (which was news to me), even in restaurants or employee lunchrooms, families / married couples eat separately—and single men and women eat in separate areas and do not fraternize. An Egyptian man and presumably Saudi woman who was fully veiled were seen sharing a meal together and laughing. The man was arrested and evicted from the nation. Again, the liberals (including those who think they are “Christians”) squeal like stuck pigs!
https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-45471549
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-45804749
It is truly amazing that atheists and “Christians” alike can speak so holier-than-thou when they are immoraler-than-thou.
There used to be MORAL STANDARDS IN CHRISTENDOM. Married or single men were not alone with single or other married women. Women did not work in the office before the war. Familiarity breeds contempt as well as temptation.
It seems clear that the majority of “Christians” are just as much hedonistic humanists as are the atheists. Rather than realizing that we are here on earth to obey and serve God, they think it is all about pleasure and what individual humans want, regardless of morality established by God. All people are (unconstitutionally and unbiblically) declared by Act of Congress to be “equal”—but it seems that blacks, Jews, Muslims, Hispanics, and women all trump Christian white males so it does not matter what Christian white men want and it certainly does not matter what God wants.
Such small-minded humanists (including most “Christians”) show their utter depravity by thinking it “evil” for laws to be enacted and enforced which serve to PREVENT adultery and fornication. Feminists of every stripe (including those who think they are Christians) don’t sink from fear of the wind and the waves after having taken their eyes off Christ—their eyes have never been on Christ! Ones eyes cannot be on self and Christ at the same time. I guess such feminists think it is a good idea to let children play with knives, guns, matches, and gasoline too.
Clearly the Muslims of various different sects go overboard one degree or another about how women are covered and women being in a role of submission not authority.
[—though hypocritically, it is Muslim women who are often the ones in charge of many groups in Christendom that interface with the host nation; disseminating Islamic propaganda, heading special interest groups, etc.]
However, what is even more shocking is that “Christians” don’t have 1/1,000th the zeal to obey the true God in what He commanded* as the Muslims show in their albeit perverse obedience to their imaginary god. Interestingly, one of the individuals who commented in one the above links is a Muslim woman who is offended that this woman was not punished as well as the man!
[* The TRUE GOD commanded that the women of God’s people are to be veiled in the sanctuary, and Scripture seems to indicate that they were also veiled in public too, though not all the time—and not with pup tents or lawn and leaf bags, but clothing and veils that properly veiled what modesty suggests needs to be veiled (and not mere tokenism, like wearing a bikini and a see-thru sheer supposedly considered clothing). And yet the same women don’t seem to bat an eye about all the women being raped and brutalized in Christendom by invading Muslim savages. However, under normaly (non-savage) circumstances, a woman being properly covered prevents causing someone else to lust. A woman’s not being decently covered does not justify a man violating a woman, but it makes her an accomplice. Likewise, all advertisers who use sex to sell everything from hamburgers to hot rods are accomplices in rapes againt women. All women become open targets by sinful lustful men (and savages) when other women parade around half naked or appear sensually on billboards (or on “music” stages, or in movies or in magazines). Only very rarely will a special type of predator seek out and stalk a specific woman from a movie, or a singer, or model from an advertisement, or porn star. The run-of-the-mill predators will simply be vamped up from viewing the high profile provocative women, or from any provocative woman strolling down the street in public; then they will go somewhere secluded and pick off a stray member of the herd or flock that is vulnerable, not merely the one they initially lusted after. Any fresh meat will do once they are hungry. So, in reality, all loose women are also responsible for all rapes of other women—not merely their own. This does not absolve the rapists of guilt, but it means they are indeed accomplices. Why don’t the women’s rights activists denounce the models in magazines and billboards and on tv? the clothing designers? the tv shows and movies and commercials? the porn industry? When people are swimming in the ocean and someone else is dumping blood into the water, the sharks are not the only ones to blame. Politicians who invite savages into our nations, who release them after their committing crimes, are accomplices, even as are politicians and special interest groups who release wolves and bears “back into the wild” in a breeding program—even though the “wild” is not really the wild any more, but right in the middle of farming communities and peaceful neighborhoods. It is criminal and each politician who votes for such immoral stupidity (whether reintroducing bears and wolves or introducing savages from the Third World) share in the guilt of every single damaged and lost life and—they themselves should be thrown to the wolves (or savages) to be eaten alive.]
It may seem “over the top” to us that a single man and single woman engaged together in “laughter and eating in the work place” can be considered “exceeding the limits of morality”, that is, to those who themselves are immoral, who have no moral standards, and who think that they should be able to do anything that they want without consequences. However, they don’t realize the anti-intellectualism of their own mindless position. How can that person think that she has the right to live as she pleases and that she has the right to impose her notions of “morality” on everyone else, but then not think that others have the right to live as they please and likewise force their notions of “morality” on everyone else? Maybe that is a result of women staring at themselves in the mirror for so much time that it eventually does something internally. But the world does not revolve around them. They did not create the universe. They are unable to intellectually defend any position; they think that emotionally vomiting all over their opponent wins the argument.
Another ignorant person commented about the Saudi men having fragile egos as the reason for such laws; which merely demonstrates that person is clueless about most everything.
Crime is very low in such countries (for those who don’t stray outside the narrowly painted lines of their “civilization”—but those who do step outside the line are “fair game”). However, it is rather hypocritical for their laws and religion to believe it is okay for men to rape and brutalize and kill women if they are dressed improperly. It is a pretty good arrangement for the dogs, when a pack of dogs in heat can do what dogs in heat do, the moment anyone accidentally steps over an imaginary line into their territory. Bringing someone who violated a law before the courts is one thing. Gang raping a woman not properly dressed, according to the dogs’ standards, is entire different—especially when those dogs are in someone elses country!
It is the Muslim men committing the savage crimes in Christendom—even 100 men gang-raping a white woman. That is rather hypocritical for either a religious or a legal system. How can animalistic savagery be “holy” or “just”...?
[While I certainly have no right to judge another nation’s laws or religion, we are not talking about another nation, but my own and all of Christendom—and savages have no right to be in it even on vacation or to be educated. Furthermore, those feminists and humanists who hate God and hate the Bible and hate the misogynistic, racist laws upon which this nation was founded—move to any Third World country and see how well you fare! Don’t bother to send a post-card. I know how it will turn out and I don’t want to see the pictures. If you think it will turn out differently—prove it! Otherwise, shut up and repent before God.]
Animals in the wild or in the zoo have no business roaming free in civilized society. Had we not taught them technology and educated them, they would still be living in tents and herding goats and camels. Again, our violation of the Law of God has caused our enemies to “progress”, flourish and overpopulate to the point that they oppress one another, and every host nation they invade, just as the Africans, Hispanics, and Asians do. Just like our forefathers in the wilderness, we are a sinful enough people, we don’t need aliens or the mixed multitude adding to the wickedness of our society; we don’t need to learn the way of the heathen: We are sinful enough on our own.
To those with no or very low morals, “morality” indeed appears “oppressive”.
While how alien peoples live may seem oppressive to us, the solution is not to invite them all here and “liberate” them from their sense of morality, but force them to stay in their own nations—and as God commanded, do NOTHING to seek their peace or prosperity FOR EVER. Board up the ghettoes and ignore the Third World and let nature take its course. God declared through the seer Jehu: “Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the LORD? therefore is Wrath upon thee from before the LORD.” (II Chronicles 19:2) Understand the context. This was spoken to the godly King Jehoshaphat of Israel concerning his plans to join with his cousin the wicked King Ahab of Judah to fight off a common enemy! How much more wrath, therefore, can “Christians” expect, who help God’s sworn enemies with whom God forbade us to have any interaction?
God please pour out Your Holy Spirit to convict the perverted minds of Your people (“Christians” especially!) to convict them of what sin is, their guilt of it, and their need to repent and turn to obeying all that you commanded, trusting in the Holy Spirit for the desire and ability to obey, and trusting in Christ’s Sacrifice for forgiveness of their sin... but also knowing that
“26For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 27But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.” (Hebrews 10)
[Note CLEARLY. This passage is NOT referring to a person being able to “lose” his salvation—which is impossible. God determines who will be saved. God saves. God is not a defective Saviour. God is Immutable and determined the elect before the foundation of the world. Nothing post-facto can alter what He determined before planet earth even existed. God’s Foreknowledge is not passive, but active—determinative. God is not a spectator in His own universe.
“It is God Who worketh in you [for you] both to WILL and to DO of HIS GOOD PLEASURE”. (Philippians 2:13)
“The LORD of hosts hath sworn, saying, Surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, so shall it stand.” (Isaiah 14:24)
“And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and He doeth according to His Will in the army of Heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay His Hand, or say [authoritatively] unto Him, ‘What doest Thou?’” (Daniel 4:35)]
What this passage in Hebrews 10 is referring to is a “window shopper” who passed on without making the item that he was considering his own—disesteeming it and thinking that something down the road was more important. It is like the rich young ruler who went away UNCONVERTED; as opposed to the person searching for the Pearl of Great Price and willingly sells all he owns to obtain it—not that you can “purchase” salvation; that is not the point of the parable. Analogies / parables / prophecies are only intended to convey a lesson in a few limited points. The point here is the difference in attitude and zeal and esteem between the rich young ruler (who deemed his wealth more important than following Christ—than Eternal Life) and the one who gladly sold all to have the Pearl of Great Price.
The passage in Hebrews 10 says nothing about “conversion”. It refers to mere knowledge of facts; but not to conversion, change, adoption of that truth as ones own, assent to the truth, submission to God through it, etc. It says there remains no more sacrifice for sins (i.e. no more opportunity for forgiveness) to those who learn what God commands but spurn it to continue to wallow in filth. Pigs return to the mire (their own urine and feces mixed with mud). Dogs return to their own vomit (or even someone elses). Those called by God’s Holy Spirit respond to the call. This verse is not referring to those who slip and fall. It is referring to those who never crawl out of the mire and make no attempt to. This passage in Hebrews 10 can also be likened unto the parable of the 10 Virgins. The 5 Foolish were not “kicked out of the Wedding Feast Castle—they never crossed the threshold! The doors were closed as they tarried and the opportunity to enter was discovered not to be theirs.
God please pour out Your Wrath upon the wicked and deliver us or just squash planet earth like a bug and end all this wickedness!
----------------------
“O what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.” —Sir Walter Scott [Canto VI, Stanza 17 of “Marmion” (1808)]
The first and last of the 3 youtubes below are superb. The middle one gives a couple facts in a poor presentation, but important facts; though he, like most people, does not understand the difference between “proof” and “evidence”.
This is a wonderful presentation—try not to laugh out loud in several places!
To Understand Christine Blasey Ford, Take a look at Palo Alto University
Also, it needs to be understood that if a person will lie (under oath or not) about anything (such as not being able to fly, when she flies for vacations frequently) that person cannot be trusted. As I quote in my Liberty Document:
Guilty in one area, guilty in all.
“False in one thing false in everything. Where a party is clearly shown to have embezzled one article of property, it is a ground of presumption [reasonable suspicion, probable cause] that he may have embezzled others also.” (The Boston, 1 Sumn. 328, 356, Fed. Cas. No. 1,673; The Santissima Trinidad, 7 Wheat. 339; White vs. Disher, 67 Cal. 402, 7 Pac. 826)
“He who is once a criminal is presumed to be always criminal in the same kind or way.” (Coke’s English King’s Bench Reports, tempore Charles I, 317; Best on Evidence, 345)
If Ford wanted to have her testimony believed, she should not have started out with lies. Her entire testimony is contaminated.
Reportedly, Ford does not even have a license to call herself a psychologist, and her university has now quickly changed how it bills her.
This other youtube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wJMAanHztE
has some good information... the cheesey high-brow introduction is really funny considering the guy himself is a bit lackluster and soft spoken.
After the cheesey drawn-out intro, he then wastes a minute of time telling you what he is going to tell you, repeats what he tells you, and spends more time telling you about his new name for Ford and why he won’t call her “doctor” than he spends on the salient details.
Also, this one
Jeanine Pirro Rips Christine Ford A New One- Opening Statement
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaRfrS_2A1M
It it hard not to laugh as it starts out... I dub her, “Judge Jeanine Piranha”... she’s like a piranha coming out of an underwater cave attacking. Watching her is hard on the blood pressure, but she is at the top of her game on this one and it is hard not to admire her (despite the hardening-of-the-arteries effect she has on the viewer).