Virgins as Lords share?

[muichimotsu]

We don't base our faith on what might have happened. Thanks for discussing.

So it's fine if the Israelites just captured them and didn't sacrifice them, but possibly raped them at the very least as a historical possibility in terms of warfare? It's like saying, "Oh ancient Israelite slavery was fine because you couldn't kill them, just beat them to an inch of their life,"

 

[Nihilist Virus]

We don't base our faith on what might have happened. Thanks for discussing.

Yeah you do. You can't be 100% sure that Jesus died and rose from the dead.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

My experience was different from yours it seems ...

You never wrote an argumentative essay with a thesis and sources?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You never wrote an argumentative essay with a thesis and sources?

No, I have. But part of the usual protocol was---as it was in my classes at a secular university---to keep in mind that in the process of 'making an argument,' I needed to NOT ONLY support my side, but to ALSO understand the alternative or opposing views and then anticipate and address their gripes and why I disagree with them.

It was NEVER to just blurt out on paper my 'own' point of view, even with support. But I guess at your university, you were taught differently?

Anyway, be that as it may. I want to see your sources, not just your own personal, isolated convolutions ...

 

[GospelS]

Yeah you do. You can't be 100% sure that Jesus died and rose from the dead.

I'm sure. It is obvious that you do not understand what 'faith' means.

 

[GospelS]

So it's fine if the Israelites just captured them and didn't sacrifice them, but possibly raped them at the very least as a historical possibility in terms of warfare? It's like saying, "Oh ancient Israelite slavery was fine because you couldn't kill them, just beat them to an inch of their life,"

Your assumptions have nothing to do with my faith and God. If they possibly raped them then they will receive their due punishment from God.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

No, I have. But part of the usual protocol was---as it was in my classes at a secular university---to keep in mind that in the process of 'making an argument,' I needed to NOT ONLY support my side, but to ALSO understand the alternative or opposing views and then anticipate and address their gripes and why I disagree with them.

It was NEVER to just blurt out on paper my 'own' point of view, even with support. But I guess at your university, you were taught differently?

Anticipating the alternate point of view and preemptively countering the argument is still a biased approach.

Anyway, be that as it may. I want to see your sources, not just your own personal, isolated convolutions ...

Just Google "Numbers 31 human sacrifice" and ignore all the biased apologetics to promote your biased search.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Your assumptions have nothing to do with my faith and God. If they possibly raped them then they will receive their due punishment from God.

Why would God punish the rapists? God gave them permission to rape the captives.

I mean, if your whole village and family was butchered right in front of your eyes, and then one of the men who slaughtered them "took you as his wife" and then consummated the marriage, would you call that rape?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Anticipating the alternate point of view and preemptively countering the argument is still a biased approach.



Just Google "Numbers 31 human sacrifice" and ignore all the biased apologetics to promote your biased search.

And which of the plethora of entries did you specifically use to formulate your conclusions?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Anticipating the alternate point of view and preemptively countering the argument is still a biased approach.

If you want to call it that, then have at it, but I think you'll be hard pressed to find any academically minded folks (like those atheists who taught me in my philosophy and sociology classes) to equivocate "complete bias" with the basic idea of utilizing "triangulation" and the use of "counter arguments" in one's argumentation structure.

So, you'll have to do better than that to argue for your view of "bias" since it seems to be one which is, I think, way, way too generic. I mean, do I literally have to start providing links to how argumentation at it's most poignant level should work. I thought you went to a university? Why would I have to back track in that way unless you're......................... a nihilist or something.


Geesh! By the way you're interpreting Numbers 31:39-40, I'd almost think that you're thinking that the donkeys were sacrificed in this passage. And if you think that, then I'm starting to get a bit concerned about you, NV.

 

[GospelS]

I mean, if your whole village and family was butchered right in front of your eyes, and then one of the men who slaughtered them "took you as his wife" and then consummated the marriage, would you call that rape?

Those woman would want to be married rather than being left on their own.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

And which of the plethora of entries did you specifically use to formulate your conclusions?

Already answered that.

 

[cvanwey]

Those woman would want to be married rather than being left on their own.

Nice avoidance there.... Can you actually address his question this time?

"if your whole village and family was butchered right in front of your eyes, and then one of the men who slaughtered them "took you as his wife" and then consummated the marriage, would you call that rape?"

Before doing so, please remember women were considered second class citizens in those days.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Those woman would want to be married rather than being left on their own.

So they would prefer to be raped every day for the rest of their lives rather than live off the land?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

If you want to call it that, then have at it, but I think you'll be hard pressed to find any academically minded folks (like those atheists who taught me in my philosophy and sociology classes) to equivocate "complete bias" with the basic idea of utilizing "triangulation" and the use of "counter arguments" in one's argumentation structure.

This is how our whole system is constructed. We have an adversarial legal system where opposing biased councils argue with one another.

So, you'll have to do better than that to argue for your view of "bias" since it seems to be one which is, I think, way, way too generic. I mean, do I literally have to start providing links to how argumentation at it's most poignant level should work.

How it should work? It should be cooperative, not adversarial. We should all be striving together to find the truth, whatever it is.

I thought you went to a university? Why would I have to back track in that way unless you're......................... a nihilist or something.


Geesh! By the way you're interpreting Numbers 31:39-40, I'd almost think that you're thinking that the donkeys were sacrificed in this passage. And if you think that, then I'm starting to get a bit concerned about you, NV.

Why would donkeys not be sacrificed to Jehovah?

Also, why don't you tell me what it means to "give something to the Lord"?

 

[muichimotsu]

Your assumptions have nothing to do with my faith and God. If they possibly raped them then they will receive their due punishment from God.

It's not an assumption so much as a provisional assessment based on the culture, or is that just optional in regards to considering the morality of "God's chosen people"?

 

[GospelS]

It's not an assumption so much as a provisional assessment based on the culture, or is that just optional in regards to considering the morality of "God's chosen people"?

It still has nothing to do with God. Our faith is not based on provisional assessments of culture and morality of “God’s chosen people”.

 

[GospelS]

So they would prefer to be raped every day for the rest of their lives rather than live off the land?

Nice avoidance there.... Can you actually address his question this time?

"if your whole village and family was butchered right in front of your eyes, and then one of the men who slaughtered them "took you as his wife" and then consummated the marriage, would you call that rape?"

Before doing so, please remember women were considered second class citizens in those days.

It would be difficult for a woman to live off the land on her own in those days. If any woman still wanted/could live off the land then she shall not be married against her will. They were not supposed to be mistreated. If anyone mistreated them then they are accountable for their sins.

 

[GospelS]

.

 

[muichimotsu]

It still has nothing to do with God. Our faith is not based on provisional assessments of culture and morality of “God’s chosen people”.

Then why even utilize the OT? You kind of need their prophecy to even point to anything significant about your messiah fulfilling some predictions and such, yet you apparently will just shirk any responsibility to consider whether God's chosen people were remotely representative of anything more than a bunch of tribal savages who were convinced their deity was superior to the others? That's horribly dishonest and intellectually lazy

If all you boil this down to is obedience, you've proven my general objection that faith based morality is little more than totalitarianism dressed up as piety