According to What or Who?

[POI]

Otseng has asserted the following: "God also has many other attributes - love, patient, just, merciful, etc."

For debate: By what standard(s) does one measure these above said attributes of love, patience, being just, and being merciful? In other words, how do we know God actually possesses all these attributes?

[TRANSPONDER]

From what I recall there was no stipulation that those women were to be wives; they were designated to be taken by the conquerors to live happily ever after with those who had wiped their tribe out.

You may be right that being sure there was no comeback of the kind you mentioned was the reason to take only the virgins, and I may be right in suggesting that there was no way to know which were and which weren't other than picking only those who were simply too young to be much doubt. Though in that case love at first sight that would make the whole nasty business perfectly ok (at least to Bible - apologists) would seem rather unlikely.

[benchwarmer]

Ok, so, if you would not rape, why do you think someone else would? If you don't like to be accused of wanting to rape others, why it is ok for you to accuse other people for that, without any evidence and without knowing the people?

Please enlighten us... What exactly was the purpose of sparing only the female virgins?

Yes, I would like the answer to this as well

I've basically given up trying to continue this line of debate here. I feel that readers have been shown the relevant passages in the Bible and the kind of apologetics that are attempted to sweep the obviously bad stuff under the rug. Sometimes it's better to leave the clearly bad apologetic as the last word for all to see.

My recap:

The Bible clearly says that warriors are to spare the virgin females and keep them for themselves. Anyone not living under a rock realizes what this means. Anyone attempting to explain this away as not slavery and rape is welcome to tilt at the audience. I know the only ones that find these types of apologetics convincing are already convinced and simply hoping people on the fence will agree. Good luck!

You need to read the text again, It says that if a man sees a women he would LIKE to have as a wife with the stipulation that she is a legitimate wife then, not a slave, he’s allowed to do so.

As usual, you just make bald assertions and provide zero evidence. How about quoting the relevant scripture? I already quoted the passage in question (Numbers 31:18).

How come none of you atheists ever consider that a virgin has no veneral disease for which they had no cure? You always make it sound like the men were perverts and never consider that virginity before marriage prevents veneral disease.

I don't know whether to LOL or cry. Dear readers, a Christian is excusing the killing of everyone except virgin girls to be taken as spoils of war because they won't have STDs.

I feel like I don't have to say much beyond that. If readers find that a convincing reason to accept the immorality of this story, then there's not much else this poor atheist can do.

[Mae von H]

Ok, so, if you would not rape, why do you think someone else would? If you don't like to be accused of wanting to rape others, why it is ok for you to accuse other people for that, without any evidence and without knowing the people?

Please enlighten us... What exactly was the purpose of sparing only the female virgins?

Yes, I would like the answer to this as well

I've basically given up trying to continue this line of debate here. I feel that readers have been shown the relevant passages in the Bible and the kind of apologetics that are attempted to sweep the obviously bad stuff under the rug. Sometimes it's better to leave the clearly bad apologetic as the last word for all to see.

My recap:

The Bible clearly says that warriors are to spare the virgin females and keep them for themselves. Anyone not living under a rock realizes what this means. Anyone attempting to explain this away as not slavery and rape is welcome to tilt at the audience. I know the only ones that find these types of apologetics convincing are already convinced and simply hoping people on the fence will agree. Good luck!

You need to read the text again, It says that if a man sees a women he would LIKE to have as a wife with the stipulation that she is a legitimate wife then, not a slave, he’s allowed to do so.

As usual, you just make bald assertions and provide zero evidence. How about quoting the relevant scripture? I already quoted the passage in question (Numbers 31:18).

I forget you don’t know the Bible. This is the law:

When you go out to war against your enemies, and the LORD your God gives them into your hand and you take them captive, 11and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire to take her to be your wife, 12and you bring her home to your house, she shall shave her head and pare her nails. 13And she shall take off the clothes in which she was captured and shall remain in your house and lament her father and her mother a full month. After that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. 14But if you no longer delight in her, you shall let her go where she wants. But you shall not sell her for money, nor shall you treat her as a slave, since you have humiliated her.

What you quoted was an incident in history whereby the men already knew the law and didn’t need it laid out. Do you need the book and chapter?

How come none of you atheists ever consider that a virgin has no veneral disease for which they had no cure? You always make it sound like the men were perverts and never consider that virginity before marriage prevents veneral disease.

I don't know whether to LOL or cry. Dear readers, a Christian is excusing the killing of everyone except virgin girls to be taken as spoils of war because they won't have STDs.

Cry because you don’t know your subject. Let’s have the LAW again:

When you go out to war against your enemies, and the LORD your God gives them into your hand and you take them captive, 11and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire to take her to be your wife, 12and you bring her home to your house, she shall shave her head and pare her nails. 13And she shall take off the clothes in which she was captured and shall remain in your house and lament her father and her mother a full month. After that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. 14But if you no longer delight in her, you shall let her go where she wants. But you shall not sell her for money, nor shall you treat her as a slave, since you have humiliated her.

I feel like I don't have to say much beyond that. If readers find that a convincing reason to accept the immorality of this story, then there's not much else this poor atheist can do.

If you refuse to read the full information, no one can help you.

[benchwarmer]

Ok, so, if you would not rape, why do you think someone else would? If you don't like to be accused of wanting to rape others, why it is ok for you to accuse other people for that, without any evidence and without knowing the people?

Please enlighten us... What exactly was the purpose of sparing only the female virgins?

Yes, I would like the answer to this as well

I've basically given up trying to continue this line of debate here. I feel that readers have been shown the relevant passages in the Bible and the kind of apologetics that are attempted to sweep the obviously bad stuff under the rug. Sometimes it's better to leave the clearly bad apologetic as the last word for all to see.

My recap:

The Bible clearly says that warriors are to spare the virgin females and keep them for themselves. Anyone not living under a rock realizes what this means. Anyone attempting to explain this away as not slavery and rape is welcome to tilt at the audience. I know the only ones that find these types of apologetics convincing are already convinced and simply hoping people on the fence will agree. Good luck!

You need to read the text again, It says that if a man sees a women he would LIKE to have as a wife with the stipulation that she is a legitimate wife then, not a slave, he’s allowed to do so.

As usual, you just make bald assertions and provide zero evidence. How about quoting the relevant scripture? I already quoted the passage in question (Numbers 31:18).

I forget you don’t know the Bible. This is the law:

When you go out to war against your enemies, and the LORD your God gives them into your hand and you take them captive, 11and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire to take her to be your wife, 12and you bring her home to your house, she shall shave her head and pare her nails. 13And she shall take off the clothes in which she was captured and shall remain in your house and lament her father and her mother a full month. After that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. 14But if you no longer delight in her, you shall let her go where she wants. But you shall not sell her for money, nor shall you treat her as a slave, since you have humiliated her.

You continue to make my case. Perhaps I'm blind and you could bold the bit where the woman has any choice in the matter besides what to do after the full month if the man eventually decides to not want her anymore. Do you seriously think this is any better than what I already quoted out of scripture?

Here, let me help, I've bolded the important bits above.

What you quoted was an incident in history whereby the men already knew the law and didn’t need it laid out. Do you need the book and chapter?

It's considered good form to provide the book and chapter (and preferably a link) so readers not familiar can follow along and fact check you.

Despite more baseless claims about me not being familiar with scripture, you don't seem to have improved your case. I say we let readers decide if what you quoted helps.

Basically, after the woman has been 'desired' and taken captive (and forced to remain for at least 1 month), if the man decides he no longer wants her, he can at that point finally give her her freedom (after humiliating her as you kindly quoted). Such a kind gentlemen he would be at that point 'following the law'.

I'm baffled how you can attempt to defend this, but I'm glad you are trying, I really am. It shows the state of apologetics and what some are willing to excuse as 'lawful'/'good'/'whatever else makes this God character look good'.

How come none of you atheists ever consider that a virgin has no veneral disease for which they had no cure? You always make it sound like the men were perverts and never consider that virginity before marriage prevents veneral disease.

I don't know whether to LOL or cry. Dear readers, a Christian is excusing the killing of everyone except virgin girls to be taken as spoils of war because they won't have STDs.

Cry because you don’t know your subject.

Oh, I'm crying, but it's not your continued baseless assertions. It's because we have humans defending abhorrent behavior because their holy texts claim it's from their God, so it must be good and right.

I'm just glad we are having this debate so readers can see both sides. In the end it doesn't really matter what you believe about me, it only matters what case you can put forward in this debate. If you feel you are putting forth the more persuasive argument, I encourage you to continue.

[POI]

Ok, so, if you would not rape, why do you think someone else would? If you don't like to be accused of wanting to rape others, why it is ok for you to accuse other people for that, without any evidence and without knowing the people?

Please enlighten us... What exactly was the purpose of sparing only the female virgins?

Perhaps there just was no good reason to kill them.

Perhaps? Considering the time period in which the assertion was recorded, perhaps female virgins were considered the grand prize to the lustful and horny victorious warriors.

[POI]

Otseng has asserted the following: "God also has many other attributes - love, patient, just, merciful, etc."

For debate: By what standard(s) does one measure these above said attributes of love, patience, being just, and being merciful? In other words, how do we know God actually possesses all these attributes?

First one would have to ask how a man knows other men have those attributes. Is the inquisitive man able to perceive these qualities in others? By what measure does he know this?

Assuming some humans do possess some/all those traits, I'd then say the Bible-God does not possess the attributes of love, being just, being merciful, etc.

[POI]

Ok, so, if you would not rape, why do you think someone else would? If you don't like to be accused of wanting to rape others, why it is ok for you to accuse other people for that, without any evidence and without knowing the people?

Please enlighten us... What exactly was the purpose of sparing only the female virgins?

Yes, I would like the answer to this as well

I've basically given up trying to continue this line of debate here. I feel that readers have been shown the relevant passages in the Bible and the kind of apologetics that are attempted to sweep the obviously bad stuff under the rug. Sometimes it's better to leave the clearly bad apologetic as the last word for all to see.

My recap:

The Bible clearly says that warriors are to spare the virgin females and keep them for themselves. Anyone not living under a rock realizes what this means. Anyone attempting to explain this away as not slavery and rape is welcome to tilt at the audience. I know the only ones that find these types of apologetics convincing are already convinced and simply hoping people on the fence will agree. Good luck!

You need to read the text again, It says that if a man sees a women he would LIKE to have as a wife with the stipulation that she is a legitimate wife then, not a slave, he’s allowed to do so.

As usual, you just make bald assertions and provide zero evidence. How about quoting the relevant scripture? I already quoted the passage in question (Numbers 31:18).

I forget you don’t know the Bible. This is the law:

When you go out to war against your enemies, and the LORD your God gives them into your hand and you take them captive, 11and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire to take her to be your wife, 12and you bring her home to your house, she shall shave her head and pare her nails. 13And she shall take off the clothes in which she was captured and shall remain in your house and lament her father and her mother a full month. After that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. 14But if you no longer delight in her, you shall let her go where she wants. But you shall not sell her for money, nor shall you treat her as a slave, since you have humiliated her.

You continue to make my case. Perhaps I'm blind and you could bold the bit where the woman has any choice in the matter besides what to do after the full month if the man eventually decides to not want her anymore. Do you seriously think this is any better than what I already quoted out of scripture?

Here, let me help, I've bolded the important bits above.

What you quoted was an incident in history whereby the men already knew the law and didn’t need it laid out. Do you need the book and chapter?

It's considered good form to provide the book and chapter (and preferably a link) so readers not familiar can follow along and fact check you.

Despite more baseless claims about me not being familiar with scripture, you don't seem to have improved your case. I say we let readers decide if what you quoted helps.

Basically, after the woman has been 'desired' and taken captive (and forced to remain for at least 1 month), if the man decides he no longer wants her, he can at that point finally give her her freedom (after humiliating her as you kindly quoted). Such a kind gentlemen he would be at that point 'following the law'.

I'm baffled how you can attempt to defend this, but I'm glad you are trying, I really am. It shows the state of apologetics and what some are willing to excuse as 'lawful'/'good'/'whatever else makes this God character look good'.

How come none of you atheists ever consider that a virgin has no veneral disease for which they had no cure? You always make it sound like the men were perverts and never consider that virginity before marriage prevents veneral disease.

I don't know whether to LOL or cry. Dear readers, a Christian is excusing the killing of everyone except virgin girls to be taken as spoils of war because they won't have STDs.

Cry because you don’t know your subject.

Oh, I'm crying, but it's not your continued baseless assertions. It's because we have humans defending abhorrent behavior because their holy texts claim it's from their God, so it must be good and right.

I'm just glad we are having this debate so readers can see both sides. In the end it doesn't really matter what you believe about me, it only matters what case you can put forward in this debate. If you feel you are putting forth the more persuasive argument, I encourage you to continue.

Reminds me of this video:

[Mae von H]

Otseng has asserted the following: "God also has many other attributes - love, patient, just, merciful, etc."

For debate: By what standard(s) does one measure these above said attributes of love, patience, being just, and being merciful? In other words, how do we know God actually possesses all these attributes?

First one would have to ask how a man knows other men have those attributes. Is the inquisitive man able to perceive these qualities in others? By what measure does he know this?

Assuming some humans do possess some/all those traits, I'd then say the Bible-God does not possess the attributes of love, being just, being merciful, etc.

How do you know what those traits are if no human possesses them?

[POI]

Otseng has asserted the following: "God also has many other attributes - love, patient, just, merciful, etc."

For debate: By what standard(s) does one measure these above said attributes of love, patience, being just, and being merciful? In other words, how do we know God actually possesses all these attributes?

First one would have to ask how a man knows other men have those attributes. Is the inquisitive man able to perceive these qualities in others? By what measure does he know this?

Assuming some humans do possess some/all those traits, I'd then say the Bible-God does not possess the attributes of love, being just, being merciful, etc.

How do you know what those traits are if no human possesses them?

That's not what I said. I said "Assuming some humans do possess some/all those traits, I'd then say the Bible-God does not possess the attributes of love, being just, being merciful, etc."

[Mae von H]

Otseng has asserted the following: "God also has many other attributes - love, patient, just, merciful, etc."

For debate: By what standard(s) does one measure these above said attributes of love, patience, being just, and being merciful? In other words, how do we know God actually possesses all these attributes?

First one would have to ask how a man knows other men have those attributes. Is the inquisitive man able to perceive these qualities in others? By what measure does he know this?

Assuming some humans do possess some/all those traits, I'd then say the Bible-God does not possess the attributes of love, being just, being merciful, etc.

How do you know what those traits are if no human possesses them?

That's not what I said. I said "Assuming some humans do possess some/all those traits, I'd then say the Bible-God does not possess the attributes of love, being just, being merciful, etc."

Why does your position require you to assume that some humans posses good character quality traits? Don’t you see any humans possessing any? It’s like saying “assuming humans have two, not three eyes.”


I seemed to have asked an extremely valid question when I posed the inquiry as to
how do you measure these traits in those you can easily see. You only ASSUME but don’t see any of those traits. It naturally follows that since you cannot see any of those traits in people but just have to “assume” they are there, you cannot possibly see them in God.

So your conclusion fits. Your thought process is quite consistent. Of course your not seeing these traits in God or man doesn’t preclude them being there.