Attempting to defend “keep virgin girls for yourselves�

[Zzyzx]

.
Attempting to defend “keep virgin girls for yourselves� (supposedly a command from Moses -- representing God)

Numbers 31:17"Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. 18"But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves.

Of course there were no sexual connotations. The intent was to be NICE to the little virgin girls – after killing their mothers, sisters, brothers, fathers, etc. Who would ever even think that there were sexual motivations?

Is anyone actually THAT naïve and gullible?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 13 by JehovahsWitness]

He that says "virgin girl" says "young girl" that will presumably more easily be assimulated into Hebrew society and whose children will create an emotional bond/loyalty for her that would protect the Israelites from the development of a revenge seeking sub-culture.

Why not save the virgin/young boys too?

Also, why would it be wrong to take revenge on the Israelites? Look at what is being described as happening: entire cities are conquered, and their inhabitants slaughtered (except for one select group).
I'd be a bit ticked off to say the least, if that happened to me.

[Strider324]

[quote]Ttruscott gave an excellent answer (see post 11 by ttruscott). He that says "virgin girl" says "young girl" that will presumably more easily be assimulated into Hebrew society and whose children will create an emotional bond/loyalty for her that would protect the Israelites from the development of a revenge seeking sub-culture.[\quote]

And here I thought that the best way to prevent a revenge seeking sub-culture would be to treat your enemies with some modicum of respect. But clearly the best way is to slaughter a girls siblings and parents, take them prisoner by force, then force them into marriage, and then force them to have sex against their will - with the monsters that slaughtered their families. I mean, what virgin girl wouldn't be eager to assimilate under those terms? Cool morality, bro.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 21:

Why not save the virgin/young boys too?

Not a Catholic priest?

[rikuoamero]

From Post 21:

Why not save the virgin/young boys too?

Not a Catholic priest?

Can't believe I didn't think of that retort. My brain must have been asleep.

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 2 by JehovahsWitness]

The why the distinction between virgin and non virgin?
Why mention this at all?
-all the best

Hi KenRU,
These were war slaves and a male would grow up to be a warrior and want to avenge his father. A non-virgin girl would be married and would teach her children to seek revenge upon her dead husband.

A virgin girl would not harbor a grudge????

That is the logic?

Only virgin, that is, the youngest girls could be properly assimilated and loyal to their new family and tribe and increase the tribe's strength when they finally married.

Right, being forced to marry against your will your rapist and murderer of your family - that NEVER will cause a grudge.

You sure have a low opinion of god's intellect, or at best, his understanding of women.

[KenRU]

Why does numbers specifically signal out virgin women?

Ttruscott gave an excellent answer (see post 11 by ttruscott). He that says "virgin girl" says "young girl" that will presumably more easily be assimulated into Hebrew society and whose children will create an emotional bond/loyalty for her that would protect the Israelites from the development of a revenge seeking sub-culture.

Marrying an older woman, whose husband and male children you ("you" as in your army not nessarily the individual himself) has killed is a very good way to ensure you will be murdered in your sleep. A young girl is more likely to accept her lot and emotionally invest in her children.

JW

And death to everyone else is the "divine" answer.

You and I have different opinions of what a divine god should and shouldn't command.

[JLB32168]

English teacher here – I want to clarify the meaning of “virgin.� Males are simply “chaste.� Virgin is like “maiden� – they can only be females. 20th Century butchering of the English language has applied to term to boys alike.

In any case, virgins can bear children boys can’t. Boys are physically stronger and can rise up against their oppressors. Physical strength – in a time when it was absolutely necessary – isn’t generally associated w/women.

And as someone already mentioned the women had to be made wives and all wives had to be treated the same according to Hebrew law. Failure to do so was a capital crime. It was actually quite generous for the time.

[KenRU]

Numbers 31:17 "Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. 18 "But all the girls who have not known man intimately, .spare for yourselves."

The words "spare for yourselves" much like "take� and “know�, are, in this context, without a doubt, sexual in nature.

Can the expression "spare for yourselfs" be understood to be a euphemism for "have sex with"?

No. The Israelites soldiers were also on occassions told to "spare" or "take" animals for themselves; does this automatically imply they were keeping them for sex?

Wow, way to ignore context. Did this command also say "spare only those animals who have not yet bred?"

No.

The passage speaks of girls knowing men "intimately".

Regardless of how you want to retcon the subject, the passage is clear. take these women for yourselves (marry them or not is irrelevant).

God (a benevolent one too, supposedly) is telling men to forcibly take young women for themselves to wed and/or have sex with.

God doesn't get a pass for this cruelty because he isn't creative enough to think of an alternative other than death.

The girls were selected by whether they had had sex or not to filter out their age and avoid taking mothers (who would probably seek revenge for their killed husband and children).

Right, virgins wouldn't ever harbor a grudge. God must think that they are quite happy to marry their rapists and the murderer of their family.

Indeed if "spare for yourselves" were a euphemism for "have sex with" we may well ask why limit the choice to virgins at all since older women can also be raped or kept for sexual purposes?

Perhaps it is for the same reason god forgot to say somewhere that slavery is bad?

Besides, are you really going to argue that men (of the time period in question) weren't seeking virgins and young women to have sex with?

It is the perfect justification that men needed to condone such behavior.

In any case "spare" or "spare for yourselves" is never an expression in the bible equated with sexual intercourse.

I wholeheartedly disagree.

You can only say this if you ignore context.

Refering to only choosing girls that have "not known (Heb yada)" a man is obviously an allusion to sex but in no way an indication that the girls were to be used as "sex slaves" (see previous posts on the Hebrew Law).

Forced into marrying your rapist and those who murdered your family is pretty a horrific command.

You've set the bar quite low for your deity.

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 13 by JehovahsWitness]

He that says "virgin girl" says "young girl" that will presumably more easily be assimulated into Hebrew society and whose children will create an emotional bond/loyalty for her that would protect the Israelites from the development of a revenge seeking sub-culture.

Why not save the virgin/young boys too?

Excellent question.

It is obvious why. The young virgin boys were not coveted by the men as spoils.

[JLB32168]

Marriage is an individual choice. I have been married to the same woman for 45 years. And that was our choice.

Are arranged marriages inferior?

We could just as easily have decided to stay together and not to get married, and our lives would have turned out exactly the same.

You don’t actually know that for sure. Solemnizing a marriage as law does change the nature of a relationship.