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?

[marco]

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

I can see your consistent logic, bluethread, but it rests firmly on accepting the utter rectitude of one's own convictions. When a situation arises that challenges our convictions - e.g. murdering children is wrong - then at the very least we should review our opinion. When we call what is blatant wickedness, by civilised standards, good then we have sacrificed a part of our civilised self in favour of barbarity. This is exactly what happens today when others believe as firmly as you do in their God and justify murder.


This was wrongly called right at the time; today it is rightly called wrong.

[marco]

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

We regularly INTERPRET biblical passages. The words:


"But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves."

certainly suggest that men are invited to keep girls for their own sexual purposes, provided these children are still virginal. This is a perfectly reasonable interpretation whereas one that ignores the terms "girl" "virgin" and "keep for yourselves" appears also to ignore the meaning. Someone hearing these words could be excused for thinking they had licence to rape the girls.

It is amazing that the slaughter of children is by-passed and accepted while the raping of girls is questioned. Who would think that child murderers would do such a thing?

[JehovahsWitness]

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).

Well if ignoring the insulting word "gullible" the whole point of the thread is "does anyone defend the position taken by the Mosaic law" then the answer is Yes and the discussion ends there.

If there is there was a follow up point feel free to add it. If not, end of discussion.

JW

[JehovahsWitness]

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.

Firstly no law covers every possible situation, that is why we have judges. The Mosaic law had elders or tribal judges that made decisions on a case by case basis. What I and others have presented are the legal basis that protected a foreign slave girl (or boy) from abuse. The law specifically stipulated to treat slaves with compassion and kindness in this regard, something that was a part of the national culture since their history included their own slavery and suffering as a nation in Egypt.

So even captives of war could not legally be physically restrained (chained or kept under lock and key), they were thus able to run away, seek a protector elsewhere within the nation or even take their chances with other nations. (The latter would be the worst of all choices because other nations did not have such merciful provisions for foreigners and slaves), but the point is they were free to try.

For a war captive, the option of marriage was an advantabge for her and the best possible outcome given the circumsatances. Yes, she did have the right to refuse marriage but given her limited options this would not be a very logical choice, especially when marriage effectively improved her status and ensured full property rights for her children.

Remember at the time marriage was the only guarantee a woman had for further security slave or freewoman unless she inherited land herself (because her father had no male children). All girls lived under the protection of the patriarch, meaning he had to provide food and shelter for them and eventually culturally a husband. This was the case for his flesh and blood daughters or the girl slaves of his household. In Hebrew there was no word for "bachelor" much less "bachelorette", marriage and increase through childbirth was part of the national culture. Rape and abuse of slaves was not.

Was being taken as a captive of war by the Israelites ideal? No, but her parents should have made better choices. Was the Hebrew arrangment the height of barbarism, guaranteeing a girl a life of misery and abuse? Absolutely not.








Is God guilty of FAVORITISM regarding the Israelites?
viewtopic.php?p=1027465#p1027465


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

[marco]

Well if ignoring the insulting word "gullible" the whole point of the thread is "does anyone defend the position taken by the Mosaic law" then the answer is Yes and the discussion ends there.

Well that starts another discussion since much of the Mosaic Law is wicked. Of course people can and do attempt to brush out the nasty bits but they are there for all to see.
For example:


Deuteronomy 21:18"21 -

"If any man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father or his mother, and when they chastise him, he will not even listen to them, then his father and mother shall seize him, and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gateway of his home town. And they shall say to the elders of his city, This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey us, he is a glutton and a drunkard. Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death; so you shall remove the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear of it and fear."

I don't really care how people defend this. It is wrong to stone people. In today's world where Moses is revered people are stoned, usually poor girls. This comes from accepting the word of savages over civilised behaviour.

[JehovahsWitness]

Well if ignoring the insulting word "gullible" the whole point of the thread is "does anyone defend the position taken by the Mosaic law" then the answer is Yes and the discussion ends there.

Well that starts another discussion.

Excellent. Hope you find someone to participate in it. I myself have participated in the discussion started by the OP and made many contributions. I'm sure you will find the same level of participation in "another discussion".

Enjoy!

JW

[JLB32168]

Compassion is to be lauded and one would expect a Holy Book to show its principal characters offering the best example.

It seems to me that youre presupposing that your definition of whats best trumps all others. What evidence is there that your version of best is actually the best at all times unto the ages of ages?

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 evidence is there that what you call horrible tales are actually horrible or evil?

[marco]

Excellent. Hope you find someone to participate in it. I myself have participated in the discussion started by the OP and made many contributions. I'm sure you will find the same level of participation in "another discussion".

You required to be shown how evil is the Mosaic Law. All I was doing was providing the example you seem to have forgotten.

Given that the Mosaic Law is packed with wicked injustices it is hardly surprising that the savages of the time, sarcastically called Children of God, would select virgin girls, not as altar servers but as sexual playthings.

[Talishi]

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?

Virgin girls are over-rated, believe me. You gotta learn 'em everything.

[Bust Nak]

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.

Are you suggesting that morality is relative and not absolute? That something can be wrong now but right in another time?

Would you use or allow forced marriage to condone a rape?

No.

What makes you think the Hebrews were so much less than you?

Because they would allow forced marriage to condone a rape and I wouldn't.

Does the fact that someone in your culture might do that make you guilty?

No.

Does it make the law against rape a false law designed to allow the rape?

Depends on the exact circumstances, e.g. does it exclude by definition that "you can't rape your spouse?"

Is it the skeptics assertion that the command to take the virgin girls as wives while destroying everyone else is morally wrong?

Yes, that is my assertion.

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?

Yes. that is why it is morally wrong.