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?

[KenRU]

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?

Apologies, T.

Gullible is used in the OP, and I'm reluctant to claim anyone is gullible, especially when I do not know that person. That is not my intent or position.

I am only concerning myself with arguments that defend this commandment as coming from a benevolent and omnipotent being, and arguments that defend it as a benevolent one.

No offense was ever intended.

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?

No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that a lack of detail shows how inept the commandment is, and that it could not possibly have come from a benevolent and omnipotent being. And, this kind of commandment cannot be in anyway considered a moral highpoint.

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.

Well, you do have god killing everyone in the flood (babies and animals and those poor kittens we talked about in another post) on your side, so yeah, I will agree that your position is consistent.

As is mine.

-all the best

[bluethread]

Well lets look at that shall we?

Does the virgin marry against her will? Yes.

That is not what the passage says.

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

Apart from consummating the marriage, which is not mandatory(see above), the passage does not say that. In fact, nowhere in the Tanakh, that I am aware of is a women required too have sex.

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.

By who's definition? Are you saying that victims of rape are to be left to fend for themselves, even if there is a child involved?

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

That is correct and those same Scriptures do not condone rape.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 44 by ttruscott]

It seems you are happy to accept the narrative as stated, of taking young women as spoils of war too. It really doesn't matter how you try and dress that up at this point re: it can't be rape when they are married first.

[KenRU]

Well lets look at that shall we?

Does the virgin marry against her will? Yes.

That is not what the passage says.

Can the virgins referenced in Numbers refuse the marriage offer?

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.

By who's definition?

The victim's. Is there another one that matters more?

Given the two options (death or marriage), sure one is less cruel than the other.

I maintain that a benevolent deity can and should do better than those two options.

Are you saying that victims of rape are to be left to fend for themselves, even if there is a child involved?

.

Nope. I'm saying a omnipotent and benevolent god could do better than those two choices.

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

That is correct and those same Scriptures do not condone rape.

Marry or die.

Distinction with no difference.

[JLB32168]

Is it the skeptics assertion that the command to take the virgin girls as wives while destroying everyone else is morally wrong? It was seen as quite acceptable practice at one time. Why does the skeptic presume to say that these peoples decisions were wrong " because his/her 21st Century sensibilities are offended?

[KenRU]

Is it the skeptics assertion that the command to take the virgin girls as wives while destroying everyone else is morally wrong? It was seen as quite acceptable practice at one time. Why does the skeptic presume to say that these peoples decisions were wrong " because his/her 21st Century sensibilities are offended?

I think the commandment is quite apropos for its time period, and it is very much a commandment I would expect from a barbaric and tribal-oriented human.

It is not what I would expect an omnipotent and benevolent being.

I would expect better from god, if I believed in one.

-all the best

[polonius]

[Replying to JLB32168]

JLB posted:

Is it the skeptics assertion that the command to take the virgin girls as wives while destroying everyone else is morally wrong? It was seen as quite acceptable practice at one time. Why does the skeptic presume to say that these peoples decisions were wrong " because his/her 21st Century sensibilities are offended?

.

RESPONSE: Aren't you overlooking the complete instruction of God?

That is to slay all male children and allow non-consensual sex.?

And applying such isn't God approving "situation ethics" where there is no absolute right or wrong?

[Hawkins]

That's the war practice back then. You'll get everything when win and lose everything when lose. They get women not for serving sexual desire, but rather as human resources. The Canaanites worship Baal and his wife because they want human resources. They need woman to give birth of labors and warriors. That's why the Jews took them as wives. For the Jews own survival God allows them to adapt a similar war practice as the Canaanites' to avoid the Jews from being wiped out as they were out-numbered by the Canaanites.

Virgin girls are to adapt the religion of their husbands. Non-virgin girls already adapted the religion of their existing husbands. The Jews are educated to maintain their religion this way. That's why Judaism survived till today.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 57 by Hawkins]

For the Jews own survival God allows them to adapt a similar war practice as the Canaanites' to avoid the Jews from being wiped out as they were out-numbered by the Canaanites.

Because as we all know, this all powerful, all knowing God doesn't have the ability or the knowledge to keep the Jews alive via any other method.

I'd expect and understand such methods coming from primitive man in a time with scarce resources and not much scientific knowledge...but a god?

[Hawkins]

[Replying to post 57 by Hawkins]

For the Jews own survival God allows them to adapt a similar war practice as the Canaanites' to avoid the Jews from being wiped out as they were out-numbered by the Canaanites.

Because as we all know, this all powerful, all knowing God doesn't have the ability or the knowledge to keep the Jews alive via any other method.

I'd expect and understand such methods coming from primitive man in a time with scarce resources and not much scientific knowledge...but a god?

So what's your suggestion?

His miracle is not for the Canaanites to convert, but for the Jews and their religion to survive.