Virgins as Lords share?

[Godistruth1]

When a stranger resides with you in your land, you shall not do them wrong. You shall treat the stranger who resides with you as the native among you, and you shall love them as yourself". Leviticus 19:33-34

If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the Lord thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the Lord thy God, in transgressing his covenant, And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel: Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.
Deuteronomy 17:2‭-‬5

If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is among you. If thou shalt hear say in one of thy cities, which the Lord thy God hath given thee to dwell there, saying, Certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known; Then shalt thou enquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you; Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword. And thou shalt gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the street thereof, and shalt burn with fire the city, and all the spoil thereof every whit, for the Lord thy God: and it shall be an heap for ever; it shall not be built again.
Deuteronomy 13:6‭-‬16

 

[Nihilist Virus]

No wonder, everything looks dark to those who see through the darkness. Thanks for the discussion.

Oh, I didn't know personal attacks were allowed now. Or was that just your argument?

 

[GospelS]

Oh, I didn't know personal attacks were allowed now. Or was that just your argument?

It wasn’t any personal. It have taken that off if that’s how you were viewing it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The beauty of the Bible, is that, no matter which position you wish to 'support', you can likely find a verse or two to 'support' the position... Case and point...

My claim - which is in direct opposition to your claim.... 'God endorses/allows/sanctions the rape of prisoners'.

As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

@Nihilist Virus asked you to define rape? You have yet to offer a working definition?

Or maybe, such acts are no longer 'considered' rape, as soon as God weighs in upon such actions? Or, maybe as soon as the woman enters into this sham of a marriage, the term rape is no longer applicable - as the man is the head of the household in 'marriage'? Because, as common sense might prevail, I'm sure many woman were petrified of their captors; and would not want to upset their captor, by answering in a way which might displease them. Hence, silence and compliance was a means of continued survival.

So go ahead, let's continue to see some more rationalization

Leave her alone, cvanwey ...

 

[GospelS]

Or does taking someone as a slave for life count as loving them? If "stranger" literally means "any gentile" then your argument implies that you could own a slave for life and also love that person.

It's not a sin if God says you can "take the virgins for yourselves."

They are not to oppress anyone. To have them is to receive blessing and help them, without oppressing them.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

To take them is not mistreating them. They are not to oppress anyone. To take them is to provide them with their needs and care for them.

That is really a great answer, gospels, but just brace yourself for the partiality and the obfuscation that will likely come as a response to what you've said, especially since some of the skeptics here think this 'debate arena' requires a more gladiator style interaction. So, make sure you have your Armor of God on, young lady, just like the Apostle Paul said to do.

 

[GospelS]

That is really a great answer, gospels, but just brace yourself for the partiality and the obfuscation that will likely come as a response to what you've said, especially since some of the skeptics here think this 'debate arena' requires a more gladiator style interaction. So, make sure you have your Armor of God on, young lady, just like the Apostle Paul said to do.

Thanks. Pray for the Lord’s guidance.

 

[cvanwey]

Leave her alone, cvanwey ...

I didn't realize specific people here were given special rules. This is the apologetics forum. There exists many areas to post, (other arenas). She's a big girl. If she wishes to defend her faith, she is welcome to do so. If she does not, then one can only ask, why? --- While at the same time, still continuing to engage? I don't think she needs [your] protection, however

But sense you seem overly concerned, maybe you can pick up where she, cough cough, never began...

1. Define rape?

2. "Marriage" allowed for the male to then have 'legal' relations with their chosen female. All-the-while, it's likely many of these women victims were likely afraid to refuse such advances from their captors, in fear of suffering unfavorable retaliation; as they witnessed the prior slaughter of their relatives.

3. The Bible, in places, seems to condone/allow/endorse 'rape-like' practices?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

They are not to oppress anyone. To have them is to receive blessing and help them, without oppressing them.

You have been dodging the issue of slavery. They took "strangers" as slaves for life. If that's not oppression, then I don't know what is.

 

[muichimotsu]

How about the teachings of Christ. It's only between you and Christ. That is the only thing that should matter to any of us. Do the reasoning and critical thinking about the teachings of Christ.

I don't find the teachings compelling in themselves and incidental agreement with the golden rule that predates Christianity by centuries or more is no indication that claims about salvation and such are right, to say nothing of Jesus' apocalyptic fixation

 

[GospelS]

You have been dodging the issue of slavery. They took "strangers" as slaves for life. If that's not oppression, then I don't know what is.

Slavery was more of a legal thing so to let them live in Israel. In fact people considered it a blessing to find/have a master. Preferable than a prison/asylum/or to be left off alone and poor. Israelite's were required to be kindful towards their slaves. Slaves might leave their masters if they felt being oppressed.

Let them live among you wherever they choose, in the town of their pleasing. Do not oppress them. Deuteronomy 23:16

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I didn't realize specific people here were given special rules. This is the apologetics forum. There exists many areas to post, (other arenas). She's a big girl. If she wishes to defend her faith, she is welcome to do so. If she does not, then one can only ask, why? --- While at the same time, still continuing to engage? I don't think she needs [your] protection, however

But sense you seem overly concerned, maybe you can pick up where she, cough cough, never began...

1. Define rape?

2. "Marriage" allowed for the male to then have 'legal' relations with their chosen female. All-the-while, it's likely many of these women victims were likely afraid to refuse such advances from their captors, in fear of suffering unfavorable retaliation; as they witnessed the prior slaughter of their relatives.

3. The Bible, in places, seems to condone/allow/endorse 'rape-like' practices?

I'll define "rape" in biblical terms if YOU define "God's Sovereignty." Deal?


And you can also generally define for me what respect for women amounts to, in your now 'humanistically' inclined outlook on life.

THEN, you can mosey on over to this other thread I've created and take a big bite:

Cracking our humanitarian teeth on Godless Human Rights ...

And don't worry yourself about the amount of my participation in these threads. I'm sure you'll find enough on me here at CF, on the whole, to keep priming and pumping the insinuation that I'm behind the scenes, working on the ol' 'hypocrisy machine' that you think I'm greasing...

... and one more thing. Perhaps the sooner you stop coming here to CF and taking cheap shots at the Christian Faith, then perhaps the sooner you and I can finally speak on more friendly terms. It's that simple!

 

[GospelS]

I don't find the teachings compelling in themselves and incidental agreement with the golden rule that predates Christianity by centuries or more is no indication that claims about salvation and such are right, to say nothing of Jesus' apocalyptic fixation

You would never know until and unless you truly practiced His teachings. Thanks for discussing with me.

 

[Tolworth John]

and 16,000 virgin girls, of whom 32 were the Lord ’s share

And given to the Levitical priesthood as there share.

 

[Tolworth John]

It also has the bias from the start that the Israelites are a chosen people and God seemingly just forgives them as long as they submit to its authority, so it's still rooted in a cult of personality with the henotheistic underpinnings where their god is the best because it can do more stuff

If so, then it's an incompetent message from an equally incompetent creator, so I still have no reason to take it seriously even if I happen to be wrong in that particular conclusion: it shows far more signs of being written by zealous ancient peoples who wanted to create a narrative that showed their tribal deity as superior to the others by concocting stories that barely have any historicity until King David at best in terms of events we can corroborate otherwise.

A backward, egomaniac, xenophobic, rebellious people group who somehow wrote history that is more accurate then any ancient records of history, even from the top cultural people groups.

Then having had one idea knocked into there collective heads, that God is One, they produce someone who teaches that he is the Son of God.

Yes they are really weird, unless it is true.

 

[muichimotsu]

You would never know until and unless you truly practiced His teachings. Thanks for discussing with me.

Ah, the no true Scotsman tactic, how trite

 

[muichimotsu]

A backward, egomaniac, xenophobic, rebellious people group who somehow wrote history that is more accurate then any ancient records of history, even from the top cultural people groups.

Then having had one idea knocked into there collective heads, that God is One, they produce someone who teaches that he is the Son of God.

Yes they are really weird, unless it is true.

Really, more accurate? Even though we have pretyt much no evidence the ancient Israelites were in Egypt or that the first humans emerged from the middle east rather than Africa? Not sure you actually understand the claim you're making and instead are just parroting terrible apologists. Maybe point out these extraordinary claims and substantiate that they are more accurate than, say, the Romans, who supposedly were very meticulous, yet no record about the events connected to Jesus' crucifixion that would kind of be hard to ignore

Your whole thought process is effectively an argument from ignorance: because I cannot show this ludicrous claim (gish galloping no less) to be conclusively wrong, you are justified in thinking it's true

 

[cvanwey]

I'll define "rape" in biblical terms if YOU define "God's Sovereignty." Deal?

Sure. Why not. You go first, as I requested first.

And you can also generally define for me what respect for women amounts to, in your now 'humanistically' inclined outlook on life.

You seem confused? My purpose here, in this thread participation, is to demonstrate the Bible's inconsistency. Further, @gospels apparent confusion in her assertions. You can't have your cake, and eat it too -- (i.e) post #98.

THEN

, you can mosey on over to this other thread I've created and take a big bite:

Um, okay.

Cracking our humanitarian teeth on Godless Human Rights ...

You'd be surprised, in that I might agree with [some] of your conclusions, more than you might think prior My concern, here, however, is to demonstrate the conflict in assertion here, by some; as mentioned prior. Namely, starting at post #98.

And don't worry yourself about the amount of my participation in these threads. I'm sure you'll find enough on me here at CF, on the whole, to keep priming and pumping the insinuation that I'm behind the scenes, working on the ol' 'hypocrisy machine' that you think I'm greasing...

Oh, don't worry @2PhiloVoid , I'm fairly certain as to your intent here in the apologetics arena.... Unless someone engages completely and entirely into your name-drops/books, line-by-line; or, does not express to be a believer in a man rising from the dead to save humans, then your engagements into their requests are merely taken with less-than-earnest effort.

Please remember the 'objective' of this area... To defend your faith. Can you do that?

... and one more thing. Perhaps the sooner you stop coming here to CF and taking cheap shots at the Christian Faith, then perhaps the sooner you and I can finally speak on more friendly terms. It's that simple!

Again, you appear confused. Firstly, your chosen statement paints @gospels as being defenseless. I think you need to give her a little more credit. And secondly, are you admitting there appears an irreconcilable conflict here -- (i.e) post #98?

 

[Tolworth John]

Really, more accurate? Even though we have pretyt much no evidence the ancient Israelites were in Egypt or that the first humans emerged from the middle east rather than Africa? Not sure you actually understand the claim you're making and instead are just parroting terrible apologists. Maybe point out these extraordinary claims and substantiate that they are more accurate than, say, the Romans, who supposedly were very meticulous, yet no record about the events connected to Jesus' crucifixion that would kind of be hard to ignore

Your whole thought process is effectively an argument from ignorance: because I cannot show this ludicrous claim (gish galloping no less) to be conclusively wrong, you are justified in thinking it's true

Evidence comes in many forms.
May I recommend the writing of one Prof Robert Dick Wilson whose analysis of the language used in the OT confirms the it is what it claims to be.
Eh. The first 5 books are attributed to Moses, who was educated in Egypt and Egyptian words are found in these five books. Elsewhere other nations dominant and there words and phrases that have been 'borrowed ' appear.

As for Roman and other historians mentioning Jesus that happened.
If you want information check out ColdcaseChristianity.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Sure. Why not. You go first, as I requested first.

Sure. Why not.

Rape, according to the Bible would be: any sexual action made by a person acting unrighteously [i.e. apart from the Sovereign Will of God] upon another person which, with that action, violates the sanctity of the latter person's physical being and thereby also defies God's Will.

There. See? That wasn't so difficult, now was it? Of course, this definition could be modified by just about any of my fellow Christian brethren, and I will, along with that, also assume that any and all alternative or opposing modes of ethical thought outside of a Christian framework are, to some level or other, lesser in ethical substance (and in some cases, I'd even aver, those other views are often nearly non-existent in their overall substance, ontologically and axiologically speaking ... of course, these days, no one wants to go out on a limb and say as much. But, I'll just hang here with John the Baptist in the Wilderness and let the World think what it wants ... )

You seem confused? My purpose here, in this thread participation, is to demonstrate the Bible's inconsistency. Further, @gospels apparent confusion in her assertions. You can't have your cake, and eat it too -- (i.e) post #98.

Your purpose here on CF is almost ONLY and EVER to show what you think is the "inconsistency" of the Bible or of the Christian faith. So, that's nothing new.

Um, okay.

You'd be surprised, in that I might agree with [some] of your conclusions, more than you might think prior My concern, here, however, is to demonstrate the conflict in assertion here, by some; as mentioned prior. Namely, starting at post #98.

Actually, I'm not surprised, since it's been more than once that you've mentioned your supposed moral relativism here on CF. But then, if you're truly a moral relativist in the usual meaning of the term (i.e. complete moral relativist), why is you you raise a stink over the 'ethics' of the Bible and talk as if you're presenting a more or less objectively acquired Absolutist evaluation. Strange that, and I guess I really do have to take into fuller consideration what my Social Philosophy professor said---being the former lawyer and atheist that he was---that we're ALL really Moral Absolutist in one way or another ...

Oh, don't worry @2PhiloVoid , I'm fairly certain as to your intent here in the apologetics arena.... Unless someone engages completely and entirely into your name-drops/books, line-by-line; or, does not express to be a believer in a man rising from the dead to save humans, then your engagements into their requests are merely taken with less-than-earnest effort.

Should I take anything less than the most thoughtful and academically robust positions very seriously? Ever since I went to the university, I wasn't told that I should, even by my atheist professors. [....I take that back: there were those several professors who, being more heavily under the influence of Marxist and/or Leninist teaching, thought that grassroots ethical opinions 'counted' for something. And I guess that, too, on some level, even Jesus thought this as well, even if not in an utterly compatible way with that of Marx or Lenin ]

Please remember the 'objective' of this area... To defend your faith. Can you do that?

Well, sure, but being that it's a WELL KNOWN FACT that modern Christian apologetics isn't, and can't be, categorized as a one size, one form definition, I'm rather taken aback by anyone who would try to pidgeon-hole apologetics as the 'mere defense' of the Christian Faith, or even one that is solely and only 'nicety nice-nice' at every moment in one's waking life. For my part, I hold no such myth in my head as to the fuller, even interdisciplinary nature of "Christian Apologetics." So, someone's opinions about 'apologetics' being just 'one thing, and one thing only' will have to, at some point, give way to the fuller social reality ...

Again, you appear confused. Firstly, your chosen statement paints @gospels as being defenseless. I think you need to give her a little more credit. And secondly, are you admitting there appears an irreconcilable conflict here -- (i.e) post #98?

Maybe I am confused. Maybe I'm just bonkers. I'm sure that could happen. But if I'm confused, let's make it clear that in my "confusion" in attempting to answer the entirety of the skeptical peanut gallery that likes to reside upon these here CF forums, I think a case could also be made out that due to your boxed-up, fundamentalist past in whatever church you were in before you lost your faith, by all of that, I think you're somewhat uniformed. [...yes, yes, yes. I know. You'll want to deflect that charge with all of the denial you can must in subscribing to 'ad hominem' fallacies. Am I wrong in that?]