Beauties And The Beast

Post 295

Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Headline News

“… The US man accused of imprisoning three women for a decade in his house in Ohio will plead not guilty to all charges, his lawyers say. Ariel Castro, aged 52, is charged with four counts of kidnapping and three counts of rape.
The women were abducted at different times and held in Mr Castro’s house in Cleveland. One of them escaped earlier this month and raised the alarm.
“He’s not a monster and he shouldn’t be demonized,” said lawyer Jaye Schlachet.
Speaking to the AFP news agency, he added that details of Mr Castro’s innocence “will be disclosed as the case progresses”.
Craig Weintraub, another defence lawyer, told WKYC-TV that his client “loves dearly” the child he fathered with 27-year old Amanda Berry - one of the three alleged kidnap victims.
The other women freed from Mr Castro’s house were Gina DeJesus, 23, and Michelle Knight, 32. …” (*1).

Really?~
Not a monster?

“As we now know from his late wife's father, Castro often locked his wife in a room while he went out, beat her, and never allowed her to use a phone or to go out alone. So it wasn't such a big step, after divorce, to start fantasising about abducting a fresh "wife" and treating her even worse.” (*2).
“In August 2005, Castro was accused of beating Figueroa [his former common law wife]. He broke her nose twice and her ribs, knocked out a tooth, dislocated each of her shoulders on separate occasions, caused a blood clot on her brain and threatened to kill her, records show…Also last year, Castro's former common-law wife died of a brain tumor. She and her family blamed Castro and his alleged beatings of her as the cause of her death, family members said.” (*3).

“Anthony Castro described his father as a violent and controlling man, who beat him and nearly killed his mother in the early 1990s. After years of abuse, his mother decided to move out of the house in 1996, taking him and his three sisters with her, Mr Castro said.”
“Media reports also suggest that the authorities have discovered chains and tape inside the house allegedly used to restrain the women. A police report suggests the women were all initially kept chained in the cellar, but eventually allowed to live on the second floor of the house. One report cites the victims as saying the "big inside door" of the home was usually locked when Mr Castro went out. On Monday, he apparently forgot to lock it as he went to a nearby McDonald's.
Even so, Amanda Berry was afraid to break open the locked storm door because "she thought Ariel (Castro) was testing her," said the police report. Instead, she tried to get the attention of neighbours to help; her screams were heard by Charles Ramsey who lived across the street and came to the rescue.” (*4).
“With two girls and one woman in his house, Castro allegedly made the captives obedient by testing them: he pretended to leave the house and then surprised them. He disciplined them if they sought to escape, a law enforcement source with direct knowledge of the investigation told CNN.
The three women feared their captor. They surrendered for years.” (*3).

“…in three rooms were his captives, controlled by the beatings, assaults and lack of food. They were aware of each other, but only in later years, when he felt he had sufficient power over them, did they ever mingle, and then not for long.” (*2).

“None of the victims was allowed to see a doctor during their captivity: A police report suggests Jocelyn was born in a plastic pool and delivered with the assistance of Ms Knight.
Ms Knight had told police her captor had threatened to kill her if the baby died, says the New York Times report.
She said Jocelyn stopped breathing at one stage, but that she had administered mouth-to-mouth resuscitation to keep her alive.
For her part, Ms Knight was reportedly impregnated by her captor five times - only for him to starve her and repeatedly punch her in the abdomen until she miscarried, added the newspaper.
Ms DeJesus told police she did not think she became pregnant during her captivity.” (*4).

Nope, no monster stuff going on here.~

“Local resident Elsie Cintron told the BBC she started to have concerns after her granddaughter told her she had seen a "naked lady crawling in the backyard of his house".
"That's when I got sick to my stomach. I told my grandchildren to stay away from there. …
Mrs Cintron also says she alerted police at the time - but that authorities did not seem to be interested.
Other residents claim they have made multiple calls to police regarding suspicious activity at the house.
They include sightings of women crying for help, the sound of pounding on the doors…” (*4).
“Nor is there any record of police calling at the home to investigate neighbours' suspicions or sightings.” (*2).

Are you kidding me!? Since when do our police not investigate multiple reports of women banging on doors and crying for help!?

“Charles Ramsey heard someone screaming in a nearby house. Luckily, he managed to help the woman, Amanda Berry, who was in distress. Because of his efforts, she, Gina DeJesus and Michelle Knight escaped from the house in Cleveland where they were held captive for a decade or more.” (*5).

Wonderful, a local man helps young women in distress… as every man with the opportunity should and most likely would. I applaud his humanity.

So why does the story not end there? Because the media shark needs to be fed.
And the story continues:

"I knew something was wrong when a little, pretty white girl ran into a black man's arms," Ramsey said later. "Something is wrong here. Dead giveaway."… (*5).

Well, so much for a regular Joe, it sounds like we have a racist on our hands. Certainly a comment that should have been simply ignored by an honorable journalist in light of the more important story, but hey, we can use that!

“As it turned out, Ramsey's assessment was a twist on what is known among media critics as the Missing White Woman Syndrome.
Charlton McIlwain, a professor at New York University and the author of Race Appeal: How Candidates Invoke Race in US Political
Campaigns, defines the syndrome: "White women occupy a privileged role as violent crime victims in news media reporting."
In other words, the victim is white and middle class. Ideally, she is saved - by a white guy.
"Our victims are colour-coded," says McIlwain. A proper victim is one who looks like a journalist, he says.
"Research shows that in terms of crime victims, they are people who we view as being like us - like those who are covering the events or reading about them," he says.
"Our national ideal of who is vulnerable - and who holds victim status - are those who are white and female."
The perception of victimhood is partly a media creation.”… (*5).

But does that last, self-incriminating line, slow this reporter? Not a bit!

“In truth, nearly half of those individuals who go missing in the US are not white - though one might not know that from the news coverage. According to a 2010 academic study, roughly 80% of the news coverage about missing children is devoted to victims who are not black, while only 20% is given to children who are black.
The breakdown in media coverage does not reflect reality. "We have a sort of racial hierarchy," says McIlwain.
The coverage of violent crime and of people who have disappeared is biased and hurtful, says Natalie Wilson, co-founder of the Black and Missing Foundation, which fights racial stereotypes in the media.”…(*5).

So in the guise of “honorably correcting” the race bias of “the media” this reporter went about fixing that wrong by aggressively addressing this problem boldly and without shame. Bravo! Go get em.

OOPS;

“Correction May 13 2013: This story has been amended to remove the suggestion that the Cleveland Plain Dealer published considerably more stories about Amanda Berry while she was missing than it did about Gina DeJesus. The numbers cited were based on erroneously compiled data and we regret that error.” (*5).

Here is my question:
Why has this tragic story of three human girls kidnapped and raped for years, been turned into a fully corrupted and irrelevant debacle of race debate? What happened to the actual story? We have just dehumanized three women whose lives have been utterly shattered across ten long years of unspeakable slavery! Why? Because she ran into the arms of her rescuer… who just happened to be black?
* * *

So returning from la-la land and back to the real story:
Apparently the real victim here is poor Mr. Castro, who is really not a monster, he’s just misunderstood.
This kind of wholly stomach churning comment from his lawyer is the social result of a generation raised on Beauty and the Beast:

“He’s not a monster Mr. Prosecutor; You are!”

And like the irresponsible reporter of the above CNN article, we could begin running down the rabbit-trail following this poor man’s back-story that forced him to do such things, but the further we run the more trails there are to explore and eventually we will find ourselves analyzing the clothes these young girls wore the day he felt forced to abduct them;

“(CNN) -- It was a breezy summer day in Cleveland about a decade ago when Michelle “shorty” Knight put on eyeglasses, blue shorts and a white T-shirt and went to see her cousin.” “On the damp evening of April 21, 2003, Berry was every bit a teenager: she had pierced ears and a pierced left eyebrow -- vogue for her age… in her Burger King uniform” *3).

It was their fault! They defrauded him!

“Alicia Kozakiewicz [13] met Scott Tyree through a social networking website. Her webpage featured provocative photos of her wet from the shower and draped in a towel, and posed like Lolita, barelegged with lollipop and teddy bear.” (*6).
* * *

A Serious Cry for Reason:
So rather than find ourselves so lost in the deep woods of confusion regarding the means-to-the-end results that we cannot find our way back to functional rationality, let’s stop by God’s place, you know, the Creator?, Let’s see what he has to say about this case:

(Exhibit A:)
“But if a man find a betrothed (781) damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die: But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man raiseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter: For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her” Deuteronomy 22:25-27.

OK, this is a very close example of the present situation, but because a man’s life is at stake we really need to dial in the details to be sure we are actually applying the correct passage to the case. Clearly this young woman and these girls, ages 21,16,14 when they were taken, were not betrothed to anyone;

Betrothed 781 ‘aras; a primitive root; to engage for matrimony:-- betroth, espouse,

neither was the kidnapping or rape done in the field but in fact a city. So is there another passage that might be closer to this specific case?

(Exhibit B:)
“If 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; Then 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” Deuteronomy 22:28-29.

“And then, five days after Amanda went missing, her mother, Louwana Miller, got a phone call. She later said: ‘It's this guy and he's telling me Amanda is with him. She's all right and he wants her to be his wife.’” (*2).

Sounds perfectly biblical. Great, that’s it then; Mr. Castro should be found guilty of finding himself a wife and sentenced to pay each of their fathers 50 shekels. The girls should be obligated to be his lawful wives-- with of course the stipulation that he can never divorce them as long as he lives, no mater how bad they make his life. Justice served. God is happy. Case closed… Right?
Hardly.

More information reveals that at least 21-year-old Michelle was not a virgin at the time of her abduction:

“Her grandmother believed Knight just walked out of their lives, she told the Cleveland Plain Dealer newspaper. But not her mother. She knew her daughter was troubled by the loss of custody of her son -- but to never call home again, even to check in?” (*3).
“Michelle Knight was 20, and a single mother who had lost custody of her son to welfare authorities.” (*2).

Obviously there will be other details also that muddy the waters as we attempt to apply the Law of God.
A worthy lawyer studies the law from every angle in the effort, not to find a loophole but to discover the true application in his specific case:
What is the intent of the law as it applies practically?
* * *

Deeper Reasoning:
The surface of these laws in their simple and obvious direct application is the distinction between a free virgin damsel and an engaged virgin damsel. Now for our Modern Christian American (i.e. unrighteous), application of the Laws made for a Middle Eastern Freshly Godly (i.e. righteous) culture, we must understand that our immediate perceptions of God’s Social Laws will be tainted and misaligned.
The distinction of virgin in Israel, as God’s holy people (before they corrupted themselves), was held to a very high meaning of national purity. But here in America (after we corrupted ourselves) the status of virginity is something our daughters themselves are embarrassed about, thinking themselves “lacking” in the distinction of “woman” by immaturity. In otherwords; virginity is an undesirable state of shameful adolescence, that the sooner it can be cured the better. This is directly due to our over-sexed cultural mindframe; “If your not ready or able to put out sex, you have no value”: A complete reversal of the Jewish social mindframe in agreement with God, and our founders as well, I might add. So as we explore God’s intent for these specific laws of morality we must view them through the proper eyes of perception in order to apply them correctly in our own perverted values… though our original Christian laws are in fact based on that same morality for the same reasons.
So in short, the focus in the above distinction is not regarding their virginity but their availability for matrimony. Engaged is off the table, she is spoken for; the unengaged therefore is available for wooing. This is the distinction intended regarding the laws of illicit fornication with a young woman.

Laws are written for the lawless, so as we review these laws we are to understand that a pre-law foundational morality is already expected in the cultural mind that reads them, both their and ours:

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams

Applying God’s Laws falls under the same quote in general, but not in specifics; agree with them or not, God’s laws always apply, but we must use great caution to apply them rightly in a foundationally rebellious society. To help us see the foundational values that under-gird these laws we see that the first Exhibit we reviewed begins with “But.”
So starting with our Exhibit passages regarding kinds of virgins, we back up in context to find the connection to the “but” and we see that the previous passage is regarding married women vs. virgin women (Deuteronomy 22:22-24). Backing up further we find in Deuteronomy 22:13-21 the discussion of a woman who marries but is found not to be a virgin, and in this we find the very foundational purpose of all these several laws regarding each class of woman; It is regarding basic moral virtue to the following national purpose:

“…So shalt thou put evil away from among you” Deuteronomy 22:21b

In these laws, almost as a side note; lying falls under a far less consequence than does infidelity (Deuteronomy 22:17-19 vs. 22:20-21). Since we know elsewhere that God hates a liar (Proverbs 6:16-19), we can comprehend by comparison the magnitude of God’s feelings toward the other. Because we are such simple creatures God gave us his truth reflected in genders, but this is a human law and as God’s brides we are all to comprehend the meaning of this gender focused law in the flesh as it applies spiritually across the board.
So, understanding that the immorality of copulation outside of holy matrimony is the key topic of the several laws, we can apply our first understanding regarding our three women as un-betrothed damsels even though the one at least was not a virgin at the time of the abduction. Exhibit B: is the application that seems to apply thus far in the investigation.
But now what can we say is the real difference between the two damsels of our Exhibits other than a state of engagement? In a culture of morality-as-a-virtue applying these laws, we can say the difference is “culpability.”

Let me Explain:
Between the damsel in v.23 and the damsel in v.25 we see the only distinction is location, yet one is guilty and the other innocent. There is no doubt by the passage that the reason is her state of willingness; i.e. culpability. The point of the law regarding the location of the event is clearly centered on the girl’s participation in the act; Did she scream out for help or was this something consensual in lust as with the previous married woman? In the case in the field, because of the risk of false accusations leading to death, the girl is found not guilty by reason that she might have cried out but it cannot be proven, so the law assumes that she did.
Now we see that the additional laws that followed, were not speaking of her freedom to be married to the perpetrator but whether she was a willing party (Exodus 22:16). When two free kids are found having sex in the hay God holds them as already married, even without a ceremony. They are not allowed a moment of fun without the bond of marriage that goes with it. Which comes first is unimportant in this determination… but it is still important:
Knowing that by their conduct they lack foundational self-control, God adds a stipulation to their union; they can never divorce for any reason. In otherwords; they will have to work out their serious problems that will surely come up from their uncontrolled self-gratifying mindframes. Marriage won’t be a fun road for quite some time but having no other option allowed, they can figure it out if they try hard, and end up with a good marriage that makes them both better people.

So now we need to ask the question; Does anyone believe these three girls wanted to have sex with this man?
Clearly the answer is undeniably “NO!” So in this case we see that Exhibit A: now applies in this case. The damsels may not have been betrothed to someone specific at the time, but they were to be engaged to someone eventually; they were to eventually be someone’s wife, and NOT his. This is the distinction intended between our two exhibits. Rape is NEVER a means to get a wife! I mean Really; how hard is that to figure out?! (*9).

So although this disturbed miry man, and even an entire Middle Eastern mired religion allowing slave wives, might use the Mosaic Law to justify this action as Just in the eyes of God; the ruling of the Law’s intent declares all three girls innocent and the man, when found guilty of rape, is to be put to death without mercy.

“…Then the man only that lay with her shall die: But 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: For he found her in the field, and the…damsel cried, and there was none to save her” Deuteronomy 22:25-26.

"I cry inside. I mourn for that child that was me. The child that was stolen from me. Make no mistake – that child was murdered." - Alicia Kozakiewicz (*6).
* * *

The Cause of his actions simply doesn’t matter to the Justice of the case:
"It was also in 2004, after he captured Gina, that Castro wrote a letter found in his home by police last week. "I don't know why I kept looking for another," he wrote. "I already had two in my possession." (*2).

Is this man redeemable? Should we forgive him? Should we spend millions of dollars rehabilitating him to allow him back on the streets? According to God the social answer is, No. He has between now and the electric chair to find redemption through salvation, but his temporal life is forfeit for his crimes.

It is a certainty that there will come though the media back-stories of this poor man’s life, and I am sure it will pull at your heart. But according to God, a man is accountable for his actions regardless of the circumstance. Sure we can feel sorry that our culture allowed such events that led him to his crimes, but those are to be tried in another court. This man is to die for the slaying of three innocents. This is Justice. And it must be served for both the preservation of the nation, and the validation of these girls guiltlessness in the events. They don’t need vengeance they need redemption of their humanity; this is blood that must be spilled if there is to be any Justice.
* * *

Why forgiveness does not equate with pardon:
Kidnapper of Jaycee Dugard in 1991 (*7); “Garrido was charged with the rape of another girl in Antioch in 1972. The 14-year-old said that he gave her barbiturates and raped her when she passed out. But she refused to testify, and the charges were dropped. She would come forward in 2009 to make sure officials were aware of the incident, even though the statute of limitations on her case had long since passed.” - (http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/criminal_mind/sexual_assault/jaycee_dugard/2.html).

Had the girl in 1972 brought Mr. Garrido to justice, Jaycee would not have experience those 18 years of horror. In our confused society we attempt to apply forgiveness from an emotional Godless perspective, yet in God’s name. Forgiveness is a great and honorable grace extended, which God himself commands. But God did not confuse forgiveness with pardon; that is our own confusion talking. By pardoning the man that God himself has judged, we propagate the crime that was to have ended with the judgment. By practical application we are found guilty of Ezekiel 33:6. We are actually disobeying God by our Type gender driven compassion of misguided “forgiveness”! God tells us that “To obey is better than sacrifice” I Samuel 15:22.
* * *

But:
Before we just pull the switchhandle and then discard the body as justice served, we really need to examine our entire system as it now operates. Our teenage daughters are typically willing to fornicating with whatever boy seems convenient at the time, with very little persuading and without any intention of marriage, so how can we then apply the life-ending Justice of the law only to one man regarding a similar classed crime? Sure in this case the facts are clear and the case is easy to determine, but the laws are administered by the state, and the state has openly long neglected the law regarding a man and young woman in the field. Our own culture of permissive sins has created the environment that produces such monsters. The Beauty and the Beast mentality is what caused this beast to imagine such a thing was OK and would turn out well in the end.
Our new laws and progressive culture that permit illicit relationships as a way of life, unresisted distribution of pornography, rape without the death penalty, children with the social approval to seek their spouses using pheromones and hormones and that without adult guidance, and many other corruptions that result in confusion, is to blame for this exact case and most others. This is a mind frame problem, a perspective of our culture that prepares the ground for such demonic seed to grow in either or both genders.
Is Gaston really so barbaric for demanding that the beast must be killed? But if he is to be so judged we really need to clean up the other related sins that breach the Law too, otherwise we are just hypocrites (Job 8:11-15).

Kids, if you are caught fornicating at “lookout point” let it be known now, you’re going to be married, and with a license that states it is unlawful to absolves this marriage. You better take that under advisement as you plan your night out. Sex is not a thing designed for irresponsible pleasure. And parents, the burden of maintaining that pre-mature marriage will fall squarely on your own shoulders. They will need your help, even to your own suffering. This is the restoration of a broken nation. It’s called basic responsibility under a life of self-control.
And if this is the way we will go, let it be proclaimed that anyone encouraging such crimes will be held legally accountable as well: Giving away condoms, teaching this junk in pre-school, letting hotel rooms to unmarried couples, all must be accountable under the law…as it once was.
Otherwise, why kill this beast that “wouldn’t hurt anyone?” Let’s just send the girls back to win his troubled heart. Like his lawyer said; “He’s not a monster Gaston, You are!”
* * * * * * *

(*1) - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22543247
(*2) - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/the-ohio-abductions-a-decade-of-torment-in-the-city-of-cleveland-8612407.html
(*3) - http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/12/us/cleveland-abductions-narrative
(*4) - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22446157
(*5) - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22441124
(*6) - http://seniorexit2008.angelfire.com/Page_4.htm (see *8a)
(*7) - Jaycee Dugard http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/criminal_mind/sexual_assault/jaycee_dugard/1.html (see *8b)
* * *

(*8) The Growing List of Sex Slave/Wives:
[table not attachable]

(*8a) Alicia Kozakiewicz - (http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/15/health/human-factor-alicia-kozakiewicz/?hpt=hp_t1)
“The Wyoming Attorney General’s Office produced a map (*8aa) showing the locations of half-a-million identified individuals who are trafficking in images of child pornography. Sharing this with me, Alicia [Kozakiewicz] was quick to correct this label: “These are actually crime scene images of child rape. I think the term ‘child pornography’ waters it down a bit.” Moreover, one in three dots on the map marks the location of a hands-on child abuser.” - http://www.covenanteyes.com/2012/01/13/caught-by-a-predator-10-years-after-her-abduction/


(*8aa) - http://notonemorechild.org/map/
* * *

Knowledge Is Not Enough!
I have made myself literally ill reviewing the data for this post. The national condition is far worse than any of us can imagine. Knowledge is a good start, but it’s just a start. What do you do with knowledge? Go watch TV to get over it?
My harsh treatment of Glenn Beck is not because he is not doing his job, he is doing it admirably, I believe he feels called to do it and I admire him for his obedience. My harshness is because he has no idea what to tell people to do, so he throws trivial stuff out there just because something needs to be done. But what, actually?
By a lack of knowing what to do with the information, Mr. Beck has fallen into the trap of assuming that the knowledge he is spreading is the cure itself. It is not.
Yes it is desperately needed, not for the sake of knowing, but for what that knowledge can motivate us to DO.
But what is that? Should we take up guns and storm the Whitehouse, “giving them what they deserve”? No, and you can’t possibly conclude that is what he is saying, or I. So what else is there? Glenn does not know. That doesn’t make his information wrong, but it might lead you do make the wrong conclusion; either to take up arms, or go watch a movie because you now “know.” But neither of those will bring the cure… (unless you think the French Revolution, or the obedient marches to the death camps, were the right cures.)
How do you stop the red dots on the picture above? Is it possible? With Guns? With Talk? I don’t think so… not like that. Awareness of something you didn’t know before is a first step, but not to fixing the problem directly.
Rather, it’s the first step to becoming broken.
To weep with the destroyed.
To come undone by the magnitude of the real problem revealed.
To be willing to actually change.

This is a national problem. But for every red dot on the picture are thousands of others “not red,” not guilty. The question is then; “How are these few monsters able to hide among the population?” It’s because they are not all that distinguishable from the others.
Since we can’t fix them, the answer is to fix US!
WE need to become a people so unlike the monsters that they CANNOT walk unnoticed among us!
The fact that they can is what all the red dots on the picture tell us. Likewise it tells us our daughters are missing that element of clean water of spirit that would not allow them to fall for such tricks because God’s Spirit would warn them; “Danger! something is wrong.” We are losing our children in our own homes, under our own care! This is what should break us.
It should cause us to weep uncontrollably.
It should make us come virtually undone regarding our own culpability.
We must be willing to really change!

We must, as individuals alone, as neighbors together, as assembly members in our small communities, and then lawmakers in our states, and eventually lawmakers in our nation. We must return to the God of our land, the God of our forefathers, the God of our faith. We must personally repent of our national crimes against God, as did Daniel:

“And I set my face unto the Lord God, to seek by prayer and supplications, with fasting, and sackcloth, and ashes:
And I prayed unto the LORD my God, and made my confession, and said, O Lord, the great and dreadful God, keeping the covenant and mercy to them that love him, and to them that keep his commandments;
We have sinned, and have committed iniquity, and have done wickedly, and have rebelled, even by departing from thy precepts and from thy judgments: Neither have we hearkened unto thy servants the prophets, which spake in thy name to our kings, our princes, and our fathers, and to all the people of the land…O Lord, to us belongeth confusion of face, to our kings, to our princes, and to our fathers, because we have sinned against thee. To the Lord our God belongeth mercies and forgivenesses, though we have rebelled against him; neither have we obeyed the voice of the LORD our God, to walk in his laws, which he set before us by his servants the prophets.” Daniel 9:3-6,8-10.

Our national crimes are our personal crimes, because we hide them by our miry likeness. When you have put away your sins and finally know what it actually means to live clean, When the Spirit of God actually fills you as you only imagine that he already does, Then you will live so purely before God and man that a monster cannot hide in your presence. Not a child-molester, or a thief, not a killer, or a terrorist, the spirit of God will eagerly expose them just as today the spirit of darkness hides them. The unexplainable “freak” incompetence that allows them to slip by the investigating authorities will suddenly end… Just like in Uganda (see Post 272 The Witchcraft of Uganda http://when-did-reason-die.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-witchcraft-of-uganda.html).

Your honest and full repentance CAN and WILL make a powerful difference,
Getting into heaven later is simply a by-product!

(*9) Rape is NEVER OK:
The reason why I have gone into such stepped detail in this case is because of the astronomical confusion regarding something that has literally taken the world by storm as is evidenced by the above map. Compounding our own wickedness, The Islamic faith that perverts the Mosaic law itself, is now creeping over the earth like a shadow as the Christian sun goes down under a dark moon. It is important then that while we still possess even a little reason, we investigate that Law with a pure heart to learn what it actually says, rather than read it to say what we want it to say. The monster that abducted these young women was simply using is mired spirit of lust to do what he felt needed to be done. Islam does it too, but with the Holy Scriptures of Moses’ Law to validate it!
The following are a few select Posts from the entire previous section that directly relates to this topic as our singular study continues:
Post260 The Nephil Consideration - http://when-did-reason-die.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-nephil-consideration.html
Post 261 Fair Daughters - http://when-did-reason-die.blogspot.com/2012/08/fair-daughters.html
Post 264 Folly of Angels - http://when-did-reason-die.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-folly-of-angels.html
But you really need to read the whole thing! Preparing The Way Of The Lord - Book sales coming soon!
* * *

But then what about the Hebrews who kidnapped virgin girls to take them home as brides?
I really hate to address this topic in this post because we are such a mired society there is no chance that we won’t corrupt the interpretation. But, since we are here and it is directly relevant, let’s give it a go:

“Then said they, Behold, there is a feast of the LORD in Shiloh yearly in a place which is on the north side of Bethel, on the east side of the highway that goeth from Bethel to Shechem, and on the south of Lebonah. Therefore they commanded the children of Benjamin, saying, Go and lie in wait in the vineyards; and see, and, behold, if the daughters of Shiloh come out to dance in dances, then come ye out of the vineyards, and catch you every man his wife of the daughters of Shiloh, and go to the land of Benjamin.
And it shall be, when their fathers or their brethren come unto us to complain, that we will say unto them, Be favorable unto them for our sakes: because we reserved not to each man his wife in the war: for ye did not give unto them at this time, that ye should be guilty” Judges 21:19-22.

In the light of the spirit of the laws we just covered regarding moral virtue, how are we to justify this mass abduction of young virgin girls at a “wholesome” party?
Clearly rape is not the subject this passage suggests in the discussion. We can more easily understand the intended concept through the musical; Seven Brides for Seven Brothers. These mountain men really wanted wives but circumstances and ignorance seemed to leave them little options, so in good faith they went to town and packed the wagon full of eligible girls and took them back to the mountains. Nobody got raped.
The men then went about wooing these girls in a deserted island kind of way with the intention of wining their hearts. The girls being treated respectably by ruff but tender men, discovered these guys were really quite eligible and so gave their hearts to them. In the story both we and the characters know that the pass would soon be opened and the rescue would come, so we comprehend that if the men failed to woo the girls in that short period of time, the girls would return home none the worse for the wear.
The great and significant distinction between monster and suitor is the absence of uncontrollable lust and or violence that motivates and characterizes the abduction. Was it right? I would say not. This was an age when every man did what was right in his own eyes because they had no central government (Judges 21:25), but this does not mean they existed in anarchy but more like the Old West. Sometimes things not quite right in a civil setting were done because there are no other options. The Benjamites who took themselves wives were honorable men who desired a happy marriage. I have no problem believing, because of the moral foundation they had, that if any girl simply didn’t want to stay after a short time, they were taken back home to their parents.
I’m not saying I agree with this conduct in today’s normal setting with civilized laws, only that it is not at all the same as we see today in abductions. These are two different animals entirely.
* * *

Deuteronomy 21 adds another dimension to this concept as we see a man choose a wife from among the captives of war:

“When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, and seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine houses; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; and she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month; and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.” Deuteronomy 21:10-13.

Again, this concept is perceived today to validate lust and dehumanize the woman because she is a defenseless captive, but this is not the intent of the passage as this perception would violate the spirit of the whole scriptures. It’s simply not in the nature of God to permit such wickedness. So we look for a closer interpretation to the nature of God.
The way to explain what I mean is to consider Prisoners of War.

Not long ago (WWII) America was still reasonably honorable and officially conducted the affairs of our nation under God’s moral law, which was the law of our land. While Japan and Germany and Italy treated their POWs with documented unspeakable cruelty, America fed, clothed, and housed their POWs as human beings. Still imprisoned because they were dangerous to us in time of war, but human beings nonetheless. From that mindframe of different perspectives we can now picture an American soldier seeing a POW woman that really strikes his fancy. And although already at that time in our history the average US troops were corrupted according to God’s true morality regarding fornication, we can see that they would not treat her cruelly as our enemies would treat their own female captives (*9b).
So backing up in history further, we can see that with a still greater practice of national virtue in an earlier age, one of God’s people might seriously be drawn to a captive of war, but as the passage shows, it was with marriage as the honest intent. So he begins to woo her. They talk pleasant through the wire, she brushes at her hair with a coy finger... they are real people in a unique setting.
So how does God tell him to go about it? It seems barbaric!

“…thou shalt bring her home to thine houses; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; and she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month;”

So why would God make this a requirement?
First, by taking her out of the confinement behind barbed wire and mud, and giving her actual clothes to wear she is no longer seen by you as a prisoner but a human woman. Next by cutting her hair and nails she looses all her beauty, and by living with her in your own house in such a condition you get a chance to see the person she is and not the infatuation of beauty you saw helpless in captivity. Thirdly, during this period allowing her to mourn the loss of her home and family in war, she is not at her best. Only after a whole month of this reality are you allowed to make your decision of whether you want this woman to be your wife. If not she gets to go back into captivity with the others, no worse for the wear. But if so, THEN you get to be married and go in to her bed.
Now thinking about this realistically, in that month of shaven mourning, if she really hates you don’t you think she can make you lose interest in her as a wife? But if not, then we can easily suppose that considering the option, she might figure that being a wife of a man who wants her even in such a condition, might not be such a bad deal. Life is not fair, war is hell, and circumstances are not perfect. But this seems really reasonable.

So now you are married.
To a foreign woman with foreign values.
And things don’t go so good as you had hoped.
Americans divorce all the time, because things don’t go so good as they had hoped.
So why should it be any different because your wife by happen chance was a captive of war? If you really can’t get along-- which probability is higher being of different cultures-- then God allows you to divorce:

“and it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her” Deuteronomy 21:14.

So why include all that extra beyond; “let her go”? It’s because selling captives of war as servants-- not slaves-- is permissible. And because of this some wicked Joe will get the idea that he can take an attractive captive, enjoy her for a while, then if/when he gets tired of her, he can always sell her for a profit because she was a captive, it’s a win/win for him.
God says NO. If you want a wife that is one thing, but the other is something else. The motive of marriage must be true or the whole thing is folly.

Again, when I contemplate this discussion with a Muslim… or even an American Christian today, I shudder at watching the lust-filled wheels turn. These passages were not written to perverted and twisted people, remember:

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
- John Adams

Same laws, different people, different results.
The problems our government faces today in trying to use our Constitution for a faithless immoral unbridled lust-filled people is evidence that neither can we use the scriptures as they were intended!
You don’t like the idea of being a servant of a Muslim by permission of God? You don’t even want to have any servants from war? Then I suggest you try harder to fix your nation so that by the blessing of God you won’t be the looser in war and you can make those choices. That is what freedom is all about! And that is why it is so very important that we don’t loose it by offending God!
* * *

Now let’s take one last contemplation:
Clearly the Benjamite mass abduction was a one time, very unusual event in a very specific location.
Like the events in Jabeshgilead (Judges 21:8-14) “Circumstances” had arranged the facts that made the men of Shiloh guilty of not “contributing to the war effort” against evil, which we can imagine meant a willing giving of their daughters to men in need of wives:

“And it shall be, when their fathers or their brethren come unto us to complain, that we will say unto them, Be favorable unto them for our sakes: because we reserved not to each man his wife in the war: for ye did not give unto them at this time, that ye should be guilty” Judges 21:19-22.

The Septuagint reads like this:

“And it shall come to pass, when their fathers or their brethren come to dispute with us, that we will say to them, Gant them feely to us, for we have not taken every man his wife in the battle; because ye did not give to them according to the occasion, ye transgressed” Judges 21:19-22 Septuagint.

Consider also that sometime after this event, in spite of Shiloh being the seat of His first tabernacle in the Promised Land (Joshua 18:1, I Samuel 3:21,4:4), God so utterly destroyed Shiloh for their folly (Psalms 78:58-64) that it was thereafter used as an example to His people, much as Sodom and Gomorrah was used toward the Pagans (Jeremiah 49:18):

“But go ye now unto my place which was in Shiloh, where I set my name at the first, and see what I did to it for the wickedness of my people Israel” Jeremiah 7:12 (+7:14-24, 26:6-8,9).

So now we see that the only survivors of Shiloh were these young wives taken by the men of Benjamin who became the mothers of an entire tribe of God’s people, not as slaves but as willing wives who had an “interesting” beginning.
“So how did you two meet?” “Well, that’s an interesting story…”

(*9b) [Added 5/17/2013 by a very timely unexpected BBC report on 5/14/2013]: [sic] “Osaka Mayor Toru Hashimoto said on Monday that the "comfort women" gave Japanese soldiers a chance "to rest”. […] Mr. Hashimoto said on Monday that the use of such women had been “necessary”.
Japan forced an estimated 200,000 women in occupied territories to become prostitutes for troops during World War II.
Many of the woman came from China and South Korea, but also from the Philippines, Indonesia and Taiwan. […]
“Mr. Hashimoto, the co-founder of the nationalist Japanese Restoration Party, which has a small presence in parliament, said enforced prostitution had been necessary to keep troops in line.
If you want them [troops fighting a war] to have a rest in such a situation, a comfort women system is necessary. Anyone can understand that.”” - (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22519384).

There is God’s point of view on how to run a nation, and then there is Not.
Are you so willing to simply let slip away God’s nation and His point of view?
*