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?

[bluethread]

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?

Why not?

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.[/quote]

According to whom? She could stay living with her father and the man get off Scott free. Do you like that better? There is the option of the government stealing from the innocent to provide for the victim, but do you find that just?

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.

Can you think of a better option than to have the perp provide for her?

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.

Fending for herself is not necessarily a death sentence. However, in those times, it would have been rather difficult.

[marco]

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?

Compassion is to be lauded and one would expect a Holy Book to show its principal characters offering the best example. Destroying children may well have been acceptable among savages but why, then, should people read through such accounts and take them to be anything other than horrible tales? The passage of time does not miraculously change evil into good.

[Hawkins]

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?

Compassion is to be lauded and one would expect a Holy Book to show its principal characters offering the best example. Destroying children may well have been acceptable among savages but why, then, should people read through such accounts and take them to be anything other than horrible tales? The passage of time does not miraculously change evil into good.

What's wrong with sincerely recording down what actually happened as history? God commanded that for a reason. Humans (the Jews) just recorded what happened.

It is an unusual situation for the survival of the Jews themselves. After they settled in Canaan, God gave them the 10 commandments clearly saying that they should not kill.

[ttruscott]

[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.

One of the most important but not the only criteria for me is that it fit the rest of the narrative of the whole Bible...secular assumptions about right and wrong are in the far distance.

Would you use or allow forced marriage to condone a rape? What makes you think the Hebrews were so much less than you? Does the fact that someone in your culture might do that make you guilty? Does it make the law against rape a false law designed to allow the rape? Ken won't answer to/support his logic, will you?

[ttruscott]

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

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

Where please? If you can't produce a verse that allows non-consensual sex, a retraction would seem to be in order.

[bluethread]

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?

Compassion is to be lauded and one would expect a Holy Book to show its principal characters offering the best example. Destroying children may well have been acceptable among savages but why, then, should people read through such accounts and take them to be anything other than horrible tales? The passage of time does not miraculously change evil into good.

Nor does it miraculously change good into evil. That change is, as JBL pointed out, a matter of 21st Century sensibilities.

[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?

So what's your suggestion?

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

Here's a challenge for you. I presume you've got some education. So pretend hypothetically you go back in time and become leader of the Hebrews. Using your knowledge, what do you do to help ensure the survival of the Jews (and their religion). Do you resort to the same warfare practices as what's told in the OT? Or do you try and do something else without resorting to extermination and/or conquest?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 62 by Hawkins]

After they settled in Canaan, God gave them the 10 commandments clearly saying that they should not kill.

If we go by what's in the Old Testament...no. The 10 Commandments were given to Moses on Mt. Sinai, and as we all know, Moses did not enter the Promised Land.
The conquests were done under the leadership of Joshua, Moses's successor.

[PghPanther]

Let me see if I can wrap my head around all this...

So the almighty infinite God who spoke the universe and its laws into exists with its very words .....ends up picking one small planet as his footstool in the whole universe and then makes a pack with a tribe of people in a desert of all places and in one small area of the planet and has to have them fight over a slither of promised land by taking over others and herding them for booty or slaughter.........

.....and then this God commands this tribe to keep all the young girls because they are the easiest to raise as property (and must know whatever else the men of this tribe might do with them.)

While all along this God bends with the culture of the time rather than change it to abolish slavery and treating women as property........

and this is all from the same God that has the power and control to have spoken the universe into existence with just its very words???

Does anyone see a problem with this?

[marco]

What's wrong with sincerely recording down what actually happened as history? God commanded that for a reason. Humans (the Jews) just recorded what happened.

We have many horrible incidents recorded in our histories and we don't admire them, but condemn the perpetrators.

If, as you say, God was the perpetrator of murdering children, we should condemn God. But in fact many realise that we are just seeing the reflections of the brutality of ancient tribesmen in the God they created themselves.

What is WRONG is that this holy book sets out behaviour that we are meant to accept as good because it is divine, when every instinct in us tells us it is wicked. When our God allows us to view wickedness as good we are just a few inches away from modern suicide bombers.