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 nave and gullible?

[ttruscott]

Forcing virgins to marry their rapist and the murderer of their family because god was not creative enough to come up with a better alternative is no defense.

This reasoning is not worthy of a being considered omnipotent, benevolent or merciful.

I'm eager to hear a argument otherwise.

Is there any mention of marriage or rape in the verses under consideration? Gee...

But to follow your hard turn into distraction, the law that a rapist must marry their victim was to force the criminal to be responsible for his crime especially if there was a child. A virgin rape victim was left destitute with no chance to marry, put out of the family and often died or became a prostitute. To remedy this, the rapist had to marry her which committed him to spousal and child support for the rest of her life sanctioned by the courts. HE had no rights to her life, home, work or body, only her welfare. Wonderful what a bit of study in cultural history can provide, eh?

But perhaps you see that as immaterial, eh? Better to throw her to the dogs?

[bluethread]

[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.

What makes you say that? The Greeks had young boys as sex slaves.

[KenRU]

Forcing virgins to marry their rapist and the murderer of their family because god was not creative enough to come up with a better alternative is no defense.

Firstly, the whole point of this thread was to answer the question did the Mosaic law support sex slavery.

Perhaps I am wrong but the OP (above) is asking if anyone is gullible enough to defend Numbers 31:17.

Clearly, you are defending it (I am not arguing that you are gullible, that is the OPs word, not mine).

The answer is a catagoric no. No counterargument has stood to in challenge of that conclusion.

I assume the OP is asking who could defend Numbers as a benevolent order from god. Perhaps I am wrong? If not, you have already argued that sex is implicit in the spoils of war when taking young virgins, so, are you now saying that you do not condone such a commandment?

As has been demonstrated the law required the soldiers or the men the girls were given to (sons etc) were married BEFORE any sexual activity, meaning they were considered wives or concubines and had the same status thereof as any Hebrew woman in a similar positon. The allowances quoted in the OP have been demonstrated not to mean the girls were to be abused, raped, physically restrained, kept in cages, tied up, prostituted for money or any of the other abuses associated with "sex slavery".

This is utter nonsense. What happens if the virgins refused marriage? What happened to the virgins family? Whether they got married before or after is irrelevant " especially if we are supposed to be talking about a benevolent god.

This commandment is indefensible.

Id love to hear how an omnipotent and benevolent being is incapable of coming up with a more humane system.

Secondly, killing in wartime is not generally considered "murder" or we have a lot of murderous Veterans being honoured in American on Veterans Day.

It is from the victims point of view " that was the point.

Are you really arguing that the young maiden is going to say:

Oh it was just war, I understand why you lopped the head of my 9 year old brother, disemboweled my mother and gutted my dad. What? Will I marry you? Of course! How sweet of you to ask. Mom and dad would be so proud!

Really? Thats how you envision this going down?

Whether individuals feel any given war is justified is a personal matter, but the point is people get killed in them and those that win have basically kill more of their opponents than they lost.

Of course they do. And they often take the women for themselves, and that is the point. And that is also why this is an argument that Numbers was clearly written by a man. A clearly very flawed man.

Given the fact of the above, the Mosaic law had a merciful provision for captives of war: they were not to be abused, they came under the protection of the law and were allowed if they chose to fully integrate into the nation.

Here is where you lose me. Sure it can be considered merciful when compared to some barbaric systems of long ago. But this is a very low bar to set, isnt it?

However, if we are supposed to believe that this is a commandment from god, then we have a problem. A benevolent god would never order such a thing.

A command that orders young virgins to marry against their will the people that butchered her family is one that couldnt have possibly come from a benevolent deity.

-all the best

[KenRU]

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

That is the logic?

It is if you accept 'virgin girl' as a very young and dependent child...

And the other "untouched" maidens? The older ones?

They wouldn't hold a grudge?

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 33 by JehovahsWitness]

You clearly accept that the narrative of "keep virgin girls for yourselves" as it was told, i.e. young women being taken as spoils of war. That alone is enough to support the claim that the Mosaic law, at best, condone if not outright support sex slavery. It seems you have a different standard as to what qualify as "sex slavery" to the rest of us.

Interpreting "keep virgin girls for yourselves" as implied sex slavery is not a standard of sexual morality but a mis-standard of exegesis. Our bias at least follows the bias of the book as it reveals the nature of GOD. Your bias, your leap of faith that the phrase must mean they were reared as sex slaves, seems to fit nothing but a need to reconstruct the story to denigrate our version of GOD.

[KenRU]

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.

Of course it is, from the Christian pov. Death is the natural and inevitable consequence of sin. Yes, all sinners die. Are you arguing over the fact of death as a judgment (evil should not be opposed) or are you dismayed that more than one sinner died at one time? Do you not think that the death of one is the same as the death of all? How is death from "natural causes" better than death for a conviction for a capital crime to the dead person?

I don't see the logic of this yet...

You are attempting to redefine the argument. I am not discussing how all sinners should die from a Christian perspective. That is irrelevant to the OP.

Unless you wish to defend that the order that 2 year old boys deserve to die, but 13 year old virgin girls should live is a benevolent order from a benevolent god, then Numbers should be called what it is - barbaric. And clearly not an order from a benevolent being.

If an omnipotent and benevolent deity existed, he could surely do better than this.

-all the best

[KenRU]

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.

Excellent question....in warrior cultures, young boys had a duty of revenge and may grow up to fulfill that duty, on you, their benefactor, or your natural children. The story of the scorpion and the frog comes to mind...

2 year old boys would not have such a memory.

Babies would have no knowledge of said events.

[KenRU]

Forcing virgins to marry their rapist and the murderer of their family because god was not creative enough to come up with a better alternative is no defense.

This reasoning is not worthy of a being considered omnipotent, benevolent or merciful.

I'm eager to hear a argument otherwise.

Is there any mention of marriage or rape in the verses under consideration? Gee...

Well lets look at that shall we?

Does the virgin marry against her will? Yes.

Is she expected to have sex with her husband? Yes.

Distinction with no difference.

But to follow your hard turn into distraction, the law that a rapist must marry their victim was to force the criminal to be responsible for his crime especially if there was a child.

This is cruel by any definition.

A virgin rape victim was left destitute with no chance to marry, put out of the family and often died or became a prostitute. To remedy this, the rapist had to marry her which committed him to spousal and child support for the rest of her life sanctioned by the courts. HE had no rights to her life, home, work or body, only her welfare. Wonderful what a bit of study in cultural history can provide, eh?

Sure is. If only we could agree that these were rules condoned by man, and not a god.

Wonderful what a bit of context can provide, eh?

But perhaps you see that as immaterial, eh? Better to throw her to the dogs?

Why are you limiting gods options?

Is he not omnipotent?

Is he not benevolent?

Seems I have a better opinion of the Christian god than you.

[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.

What makes you say that? The Greeks had young boys as sex slaves.

Lol, the Greeks didn't have a holy text saying the men shall not lay with men, now did they?

[ttruscott]

This is utter nonsense. What happens if the virgins refused marriage? What happened to the virgins family? Whether they got married before or after is irrelevant " especially if we are supposed to be talking about a benevolent god.

Because we would answer these unanswerable questions in a supportive way that some proper alternative, taking their desires into consideration would be made means we are gullible? Yet a knee jerk assumption that a lack of detail proves they would be held chained to a bed to be abused at will is deemed to be a respectable reading between the lines?

I claim my bias pro-GOD in this story is more true to the book as a whole and the revelation of GOD found in the book than your bias of (aggressive?) hostility to HIM.