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?

[JehovahsWitness]

[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.

That is true. And the reasons for that have been explained earlier in post 11 by ttruscott and by myself.

Arguably, if the girls were being kept as sex slaves (as the original post implied) then boys would serve some just as well or better than girls (according to the soldiers taste in this regard). That is if we are going to ignore (as those that argue sex slavery was not prohibited) the law.

[JehovahsWitness]

in post 11 by ttruscott,


[Replying to post 13 by JehovahsWitness]

[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.

That is true. And the reasons for that have been explained above.

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.

[JehovahsWitness]

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

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".

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

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.


RELATED POSTS

Can the expression "spare for yourselfs" be understood to be a euphemism for "have sex with"?
viewtopic.php?p=814434#p814434

Where Israelite soldiers permitted to rape their captives?
viewtopic.php?p=356474#p356474

Why does numbers specifically single out young virgin girls?
viewtopic.php?p=814419#p814419

Were Hebrew soldiers allowed to keep sex slaves?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 73#p814373

did the Mosaic law support sex slavery?
viewtopic.php?p=815539#p815539

Did the Mosaic Law prohibit sex outside of marriage?
viewtopic.php?p=404057#p404057

What future could a young captive girl expect?
viewtopic.php?p=815772#p815772

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

WOMEN, SLAVERY and ...WAR CAPTIVES

[Bust Nak]

[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.

[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.

The false assumption that "slavery"/spoils of war and "sex slavery" are synonymous was the point of the series of posts I wrote. Feel free to offer any counter argument (please quote directly the point you are refering to, to avoid confusion)

[...] It seems you have a different standard as to what qualify as "sex slavery" to the rest of us.

Well the OP wasn't specific, seeming to favor innuendo and sarcasm over plain statements. If you feel qualified to speak for "the rest of us" (whoever "us" may be, feel free to clarify), then please do stipulate in clear terms what you mean by "sex slavery".

I have outlined in my conclusion post 4 the specific behaviors I was arguing were illegal under the Mosaic law.


JW

[ttruscott]

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...

[ttruscott]

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...

[ttruscott]

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...

[bluethread]

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...

Also the story of Esther. Haman is a perfect example of that.