What Was God's Rationale In This Instance?

cvanwey said:

I already touched upon this @2PhiloVoid If the Midianites were this corrupt, it's quite possible many of the fathers raped their own young unmarried daughters. Thus, when the Bible speaks of 'virgins', are we speaking metaphorically, in the sense that we are only speaking about women not yet old enough to 'seduce' others? I'm trying to find your rationale here? Or maybe, God placed some type of sign on the ones not to kill, stating "virgin' on their forehead, or something? Please enlighten me?

Click to expand...

Why would I try to explain something the text itself doesn't directly say or at least imply in various contexts? I think that in the case of Numbers 31, we'll just have to assume that the Israelites had some minimal knowledge of "how things work" so as to discern the virgins from the non-virgins. And since you're one for infringing upon the interpretive process by bringing in and often relying on "possibilities," then maybe I can get away with some of the same thing by saying that there is the possibility that if a Midianite woman was questioned as to whether she had ever been with a man, she could have denied it and perhaps be given the benefit of the doubt. I'm not confident of this of course, since the Israelites apparently also had some minimal (emphasis on the word minimal here) understanding about female biology, particularly that of virgins and they could sometimes discern if a young woman was maybe lying about her state of virginity. This was something the Israelites could determine about their own young woman, more or less (emphasis, I'm sure, should be upon the lesser side of things in this case. But something is better than Red-Neck Nothing).

And no, I'm not going to devolve into further discussion beyond this point about how some young ladies can have certain portions of their biology torn before they've ever had physical contact with a man. I'm just--like you--going to go with the possibility that the Israelites had some insight into things that can happen, and so maybe some girls and young women were given the benefit of the doubt and allowed to live.

Regardless, any way we cut it, this is not a pleasant chapter that anyone wants to contemplate for very long nor have to do so over and over and over again, as some seem to do here by constantly going back to it, recursively. Talk about beating a dead horse .....sheesh!

cvanwey said:

I see Christians struggle with this topic as well, when asked... Furthermore, the reason some of us doubters 'beat this dead horse,' is because we receive such types of 'answers', and feel very unsatisfied, or feel we receive lack in earnestness... So not only am I going to continue beating the proverbial dead horse, but I'm going to keep milking it as well... At least until I feel I start to get answers which appear consistent in logic. I'm going to keep pressing accordingly. These are the types and kinds of topics which seem perfectly suited for an apologetics forum. You're welcome....

It seems clear that it was God's command to assure that every male, and every women, 'who has never slept with a man, be assassinated. But we need to really ask ourselves..... Was God's command literal?

In response to your prior response, this does not equate. (i.e.) -- You cannot ask a 6-year-old if they are a virgin. So how exactly would they know they were sparing 'untouched' girls? However, again, since the Midianites were a 'completely corrupt group', in need of God's complete extermination, seems likely that many of these prepubescent girls would have already been 'touched' by their peers, against their will or ability to consent. Thus, I again stress, what was meant when the command was issued to 'spare the virgins'? The reason I ask, is because if God's goal was to keep untouched women, we need to understand what this rationale might be?

God, Himself, would know that leaving some of the Midianite blood, (i.e) 'virgins', would allow continuance of the bloodline.

You eluded prior, that the Midianite women were unsavory or promiscuous. Thus, I ask, did the verse 'never slept with a man' simply really mean something along the lines of... 'girls who never purposefully slept with a man'?

I'm interested in hearing your take?

Click to expand...

Fortunately, it's not my job as a philosopher to make sure you feel "satisfied" on all aesthetic fronts ... I'll just leave you to enjoy the continuance of beating this dead horse and inquiring into nuances that the writer of the text itself didn't include.

cvanwey said:

I'll give you a quick example...

A complex math equation is placed on the chalk board. The professor asks the class for the answer. Someone raises their hand and states, 'potato salad.' I'm pretty sure that's not the correct mathematical answer.

Though this example might be a little extreme, I hope you get where I'm going?

I don't know for sure what the implied intend may actually be, but that does not mean I cannot logically rule out such 'conclusions' given.

Click to expand...

No...I don't get where you're going...

cvanwey said:

Care to provide more than just an ambiguous link?

Click to expand...

I provided others a few posts down.

cvanwey said:

According to the (Bible), the entire human race ate from this forbidden fruit. This includes you. Thus, I again ask, under this specific rationale, how are you able to discern that the God (you) believe in, is THE Truth? Because if you remove all your filters, you really have no basis or starting point seemingly...

Click to expand...

It is nice to see that you read a story that seems to say that one man ate the fruit….yet was able to see that it referred to the “entire human race “ Which includes me, as you pointed out. It should be easy then, to tell you that even the verses you mentioned refers to the “entire human race “ including you. We were all given the instruction to kill all who slept with men and save the virgins for ourselves. And just like in the passages you mentioned, some refused to kill all, to our own demise.

And you can disagree with this, just like millions will disagree with your take on the fruit…..but does that make us wrong?

Filters create starting points….they tell us when things should begin and how they should sound, and only allows passed, that which fit its criteria. There should be no beginning or end. God is not bad or good, or big or small….God….is

Without the filters, we shall see Him as He is…..

cvanwey said:

What is the point of reading Scripture? This particular verse(s) explains an event. This event explains God telling a certain people to take virgins, (i.e.) Numbers 31:17-18. Is this 'the Truth' in this generic interpretation thus far? If not, where am I failing? We can then proceed forward as necessary to come to the rationale behind this story. And if you are saying we cannot, then I again ask, what is the point of reading Scripture?

Click to expand...

One point in reading, is to give us stories to remember and hold onto till the time of revelation. You will remember this story for the rest of your life…..Had it just states “keep your mind free from sin” You would have forgotten it minutes after you read it….

The story of Eden literally states that one man ate a fruit…..yet you have found an alternate interpretation for the event, which you believe to be correct. This being the case….even if you do not agree with my interpretation, you must, at the very least, agree that there CAN be alternate interpretations other than what plain literal reading would give. It would be unjust to say that the only alternate interpretations are the ones you’ve found yourself……you must leave open the possibility for the planting of seed for those you haven’t found yourself….

Open only to God, via virgin wombs…..not any that has been with man, which could still carry their seed, of course.

cvanwey said:

If you are incapable, then how were you able to discern that you 'must sit with an open mind free of the seeds of men.'?

Click to expand...

Sometimes things happen to force you into silence…..Sometimes we are hard on our path of righteous destruction that we have to be knocked down on a street called strait, like Saul….and blinded……..so that we can see….

I do not claim to have discovered anything on my own through study and discernment…… To gain wisdom, I had to forget everything I thought I knew……I had to kill all the women who have been with men. And I have to admit….I think I may has still left some alive.

But I am confident that He who has begun a good work in me, “will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ”.

cvanwey said:

Again, the Bible states that all humans have eaten from this forbidden fruit. Thus, (you) would be in the same boat as everyone else.

I then ask... How would God expect for anyone to discern what is true? If all human minds are corrupted, seems as though no one would be able to distinguish truth from fiction, ever. We then use our flawed human minds to discern a conclusion.

Click to expand...

We do not use our minds. As we continue in the way, we gradually become less of ourselves and more of Christ….until we can say, like Paul, no more I but Christ that liveth in me.

“And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.”

cvanwey said:

Quite the contrary, in my estimation. Seems as though you are somehow purvey to 'knowledge' I have yet to obtain.?.?.?

Seems as though you are saying that I must 'remove all filters' and/or go back to my 'naive childlike ways' to possibly receive Truth?

Going back to the OP, I again ask... What was God's rationale? Thus far, it seems as though you are implying that all taken virgins are pure to receive the truth. Is this correct?

Click to expand...

We are all privy to the same knowledge….It’s just that some knowledge do not make it through the filters. The more clean the filter….the more things can get through.

Seeds fight to get to the eggs….millions fight and only one wins. A womb that has no chance of old seed dwelling there, has a better chance of be impregnated by the seed which is “the word of God” Yes, call it a virgin womb, if it helps you remember.

cvanwey said:

Let me try to get this straight... It is only after we remove all filters, will Truth then begin to be revealed?

Click to expand...

No, I would not say that it is the only way. As mentioned above, you can get Knock down on the Street called Strait like Paul. Or get a chance to meet Christ and have an opportunity to stick your fingers in the holes of His hands and side.

I only say that blessed are they who, without seeing, Believe.

cvanwey said:

I ask you now, is there a way to interpret this passage incorrectly? Meaning, I read in Numbers 31:17-18, where it states to 'keep alive the virgins for yourselves.' To me, this means to destroy all humans from this opposing side, but keep the virgins as your own possession(s).

Click to expand...

I ask you also, is there a way to interpret this incorrectly?: Gen3:6 …”she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.”

What part of “He did eat” sounds like mankind ate “ including me”?

Are you privy to knowledge that others do not have? If you can find more in this idea, then it is possible that more can be found in others passages even if you haven’t found it yet…….is it not?

cvanwey said:

If it merely stated to keep alive virgins, excluding the caveat about having them for yourselves, then maybe you have some sort of a case. However, it also include 'yourselves.' This would imply some type of ownership to the humans, whom they apparently captured.

We also know, from history, that most wanted virgins when choosing a partner, and not for teaching, if you know what I mean.

Click to expand...

Yes, you are to keep them for yourself…..the virgin womb is yours and no one else. Keep it untouched by man and allow the seed of Christ to be born in you… For, like I said before….He has only come through a virgin womb…

cvanwey said:

Going back to the sheer basics of the story line, I would assume that one tribe conquered another tribe, right? We know this because it is what the Scriptures say.

So, do we AT LEAST agree that a battle took place in the past, and a race was exterminated (excluding virgins)?

If so, I ask... How would you know this without the verses in this chapter? I then ask, why is this True, but I somehow do not understand the other verses?

In my estimation, it seems pretty straight forward and simple...

(i.e.) Party A destroyed party B. Can we at least agree up to this point? If so, why can't we use the same reasoning to deduce the rest of the claims? I'm sensing possible cognitive dissonance...

Thank you thus far...

Click to expand...

We do not need to read the bible to know that wars happened in the past….you can watch the history channel or read history books, or watch movies.

The wars the bible speak of are concerning the war between the flesh and the spirit. These wars will continue until the day that we all become one.

cvanwey said:

Because even the Bible literalist can infer this conclusion, from this specific story line.

Click to expand...

This is incorrect. I know very few people who have come to the conclusion that you have. Here is what the bible literally states: “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:”

So even though your interpretation seems contrary to what the bible literately states, I leave open the possibility that it could not be false. E.g. I keep a virgin womb to myself…. Why do you have a hard time doing the same for my words?

cvanwey said:

This response appears incoherent. The story speaks about literally sparing the girls alone, and not any of the males. Surely male infants would be just as innocent as a female infants, right?

Click to expand...

Yes, however, males do not have wombs…..only female. You are to not understand my words now….just keep a virgin womb.

cvanwey said:

Sounds as though you mean 'blinders', not 'filters'? Meaning, special pleading, non sequitur, or cognitive dissonance...? The Story of Adam and Eve has a fairly straight forward message, where a literalist, and a progressive, will both discern the same general message.

Numbers 31, on the other hand, requires 'backflips' to conclude what you are presenting.

Click to expand...

I explained, above, how the story is not straight forward….I could go deeper into it and give you equally incoherent interpretations of that story as well…..but that would be off topic.

You see more in that story than most religious people see….and would be called a liar and incoherent for your views as well.

Number requires no more backflips than the ones you completed to change one man into every man and woman alive.

cvanwey said:

So God likes to invoke apparent and explicit commands and stories, which appear 'savage' in nature, to assure humans remember a story?

Click to expand...

No, He did it only for you. He knew what you needed to hear to remember this passage of scripture so He made sure to have His scribes add it for you. Why? Because He loves you and you are that special to him. He leaves the 99 to go after the 1.

cvanwey said:

Yes, and in that same story line, God states He will now punish all of human kind. It's pretty simple...

In Numbers 31, God commands party A to kill party B, and keep the females whom have not slept with a man, for yourselves. Simple...

Click to expand...

Again, not simple at all. And not females…..female children who have had no partners. “And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.”

And I’ve explained Numbers already….you are just not ready to receive it.

cvanwey said:

Again, your response appears incoherent. If Numbers 31 meant what you are stating, then the story line would have included innocent young males. But it doesn't. Thus, trying to 'show-horn' some ad hoc // post hoc explanation, without any justification, fails.

Click to expand...

Again, Males do not have wombs…..therefore it would not make sense to include them.

I find your theory that every man and woman of every generation, ate the fruit in the beginning, base off of God saying He will punish mankind…..Lacking, ad hoc and incoherent….based off the literal reading of scripture. Does that make you wrong?

cvanwey said:

Oh really? What other human tool are you able to use to discern any conclusion?

Click to expand...

You do know you have more than five senses, don’t you? If not, this would be another can of incoherent worms, better left for another time.

cvanwey said:

Again, this does not appear to be the message of Numbers 31. Nor, have you presented any type of rationale to support such an argument. Until you can at least explain why God would command the death of male toddlers, while keeping the females of the same case, I don't follow your 'womb' analogy...?

Click to expand...

Males do not have wombs, females do. Also note it with female children……Im sure the story could of allowed for a few virgin older women as well….but the youth is important.

cvanwey said:

God stated He would then judge mankind because of this act; the 'fall of man,'

In Numbers 31, you have a command for the victors to preserve virgins, then, ---> The End.

It then segways off into another entirely different story/event. Not like Genesis, which leads up to the 'fall of man', and later judgment of the human race there-to-come..

Click to expand...

The bible states one man ate, In the Old and new testament. Just because mankind will be punished…..doesnt mean the act wasn’t committed by one man. Likewise, it states that one Christ was crucified…..to become the savior of all mankind. Using your reasoning….It would lead me to believe that all mankind was crucified, including you, simply because the act affected all mankind. This is far fetched to the filtered mind. Equally as far fetched as my take on Numbers 31. Yet it seems ok for you make these extrapolations, but not anyone else. And Im ok with that.

RaymondG said:

We do not use our minds

Click to expand...

cvanwey said:

Oh really? What other human tool are you able to use to discern any conclusion?

Click to expand...

RaymondG said:

“And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.”

Click to expand...

Indeed, we have His Mind:

1 Corinthians 2
"15The spiritual man judges all things, but he himself is not subject to anyone’s judgment. 16“For who has known the mind of the Lord, so as to instruct Him?” But we have the mind of Christ."

@cvanwey , maybe you can summarize your understanding of the defenses presented so far by Christians? I have been reading some of the Christians posts, and I am having trouble seeing any clear defenses. I see attacks on your understanding of the troubling verses, and I see some suggestions that explanations for the verses exist but they are too complicated or spiritual to share with non-Christians. I'm sure I missed some posts, but that is all I am seeing. The goal of an apologist should be to defend through clear explanation a troubling issue in Christianity rather than performing a sleight of hand to give the impression that the issue is resolved without actually resolving it. And an apologist should accept that an issue is troubling rather than pretending it is not troubling. If an issue troubles somebody then it needs to be addressed rather than swept under the rug. ... Of course it is great that some Christian apologists are sharing their thoughts. I just can't find the actual defenses that should be here somewhere. But again, I have only skimmed some of the posts. And of course I don't want to be dismissive of the thoughts that have been posted. Maybe they are good thoughts that I don't understand.

cvanwey said:

You are under no obligation to respond, regardless of your 'profession.' This is a voluntary forum.

However, you first opted into this argument. I then addressed your points. You then choose not to rebut accordingly; at least thus far. Of course, again, this is voluntary. However, given your history on this forum, I can only wonder why you now choose to opt out?

Click to expand...

There are some reasons I tend to refrain from furthering this inquiry of yours. One reason is that the fact stands that when any of us is handling and reading any texts, we need to realize that not just any and all questions will be found to have obtainable answers from those texts. Anyone with even basic knowledge of Hermeneutics would and should understand this fact of the matter. Yet, although I could be wrong, you seem to plow ahead with the Bible as if an answer can and should be obtainable in any given instance. And you definitely like to 'give' in this regard, beyond what might be called, "Common Sense."

Am I implying that you're stupid? No, but you do seem to be unaware of the limits of inquiry, even with the Bible. No, you're all an ethereal puff of "logic" here and a snort of "common sense" there, with a strong does of assumptions about what the nature of the Bible is and should be.

The point of Numbers chapter 31 isn't to provide a biology lesson; no, it is rather to provide an illustration to the reader about the "kind" of people we don't want to be, in which case, I'm referring to the immoral Medianites. This is something which I'm confident the Apostle Paul would think is a more or less correct assessment on my part.

And in post #118, you stated, in response to @Nihilist Virus

"Genocide? Rape? In this "particular case"? Where?"

I then answered:

"Were the captured women free to leave then?"

Again, common sense....

Thank you

Click to expand...

No, if anything, this isn't "common sense," nor is it all simply a facility of bandying about loosely the term "logic," as if it's some kind of monolithic catch-all idea that can simply be claimed and, thereby, seemingly in your case, makes it all so, again, seemingly in your case.

As far as your last question is concerned, the answer is "potentially, yes; necessarily, no." But how you feel about that answer isn't--and this may shock some when I say it--something that can be clearly discerned through purely American eyes ... as if American sensibilities somehow get to play part and parcel in the Hermeneutical and Moral evaluations we make here. No, they do not!

And surely, since you've claimed to be a Moral Relativist, you can understand at least some of what I'm implying here.

So, we can take your question, "Were the captured women free to leave then?" and see it as the loaded question that it is, one loaded specifically with American anachronism.

As for the other question about Medianite virgins and whatnot, I have no clear answer to that because I find no clear text in the Bible that tells us how Israelite mid-wives (or whoever performed such acts of discernment regarding female anatomy back then and there) analyzed and assessed in such a situation. If you know of one or two, let's here it!

2PhiloVoid said:

Genocide? Rape? In this "particular case"? Where?

Click to expand...

"Take the virgins for yourselves."

Was that so they could play checkers with them? Or perhaps horseshoes?

You mentioned that the girls who weren't a virgin were executed for seducing Israelites. You ignored the possibility that they were simply good, faithful wives to their husband and had been with no other man. And that scenario is actually more likely, since it is unreasonable to assume that most of these women had sexual relations with the Israelites. Further, of those who had sexual relations with the Israelites, how many were raped? How do you know any of them seduced the Israelites? The explanation given by Moses is vague. He's basically saying that the Israelites contracted venereal diseases, which does not imply that the sex was consensual - particularly when you consider that in 600+ laws there is not a single one which unilaterally condemns rape.

To be clear, I doubt these events ever happened. But here's what I do know: the Israelites were proud of what they were writing down. They thought that slaughtering an entire village and taking the virgins and raping them was great. And they thought they were committing genocide by only sparing the virgins because they didn't understand biology, and at the very least we can see that mass murder is depicted. Apparently your eternal and unchanging God, with his absolute morality weighing on him, allowed and commanded what would today be considered heinous war crimes.

How is this not obvious? And yet, astonishingly, you ask where there is rape and genocide in this passage.

And even more astonishing is when apologists act like the virgin girls were being shown mercy. Because if they were let go, they would die. They would starve to death in this land that is flowing with milk and honey, and fruit clusters so large you need two men to carry them. So no, the women were not kept captive as an act of mercy. They were sex slaves. Please just admit the obvious.

When your religion has gotten you to the point that you're defending mass murder and rape, there's a problem.

As far as the Israelites being considered by God as "great, impeccably moral people" even during warfare, I think this notion of yours is a bit of a stretch, especially when it's all hermeneutically considered.

Click to expand...

But they are considered "great, impeccably moral people" during warfare. If I could go around committing mass murder and rape and you commend me for doing so, then I simply couldn't help but to be morally impeccable in your eyes. In fact the only time the Israelites "did anything wrong" with regards to warfare was when they were not fully obedient to God and didn't kill literally everything, down to the village dog.

Moreover, no one is asking you or me to 'like' this account in Numbers Ch. 31; no, but from another angle, I am asking you to use more of your God-given analytical powers for interpreting, and I'm confident that brain of yours can surely muster the effort to do so.

Click to expand...

My "God-given analytical powers" tell me that if the Israelites had no intentions of rape, then they would've executed everyone, including the virgins.

It's quite simple. Moses realizes that when the Israelites had sex (consensual or not) with the Midianite women, they contracted venereal diseases (a "plague"). So he solves that by executing everyone who wasn't a virgin. The rest are "taken" and forced to have sex with the very men who had slaughtered their entire families. I'd call that rape. Please, get on the same level and reassure me that we are both talking in English here.

Nihilist Virus said:

"Take the virgins for yourselves."

Was that so they could play checkers with them? Or perhaps horseshoes?

You mentioned that the girls who weren't a virgin were executed for seducing Israelites. You ignored the possibility that they were simply good, faithful wives to their husband and had been with no other man. And that scenario is actually more likely, since it is unreasonable to assume that most of these women had sexual relations with the Israelites. Further, of those who had sexual relations with the Israelites, how many were raped? How do you know any of them seduced the Israelites? The explanation given by Moses is vague. He's basically saying that the Israelites contracted venereal diseases, which does not imply that the sex was consensual - particularly when you consider that in 600+ laws there is not a single one which unilaterally condemns rape.

To be clear, I doubt these events ever happened. But here's what I do know: the Israelites were proud of what they were writing down. They thought that slaughtering an entire village and taking the virgins and raping them was great. And they thought they were committing genocide by only sparing the virgins because they didn't understand biology, and at the very least we can see that mass murder is depicted. Apparently your eternal and unchanging God, with his absolute morality weighing on him, allowed and commanded what would today be considered heinous war crimes.

How is this not obvious? And yet, astonishingly, you ask where there is rape and genocide in this passage.

And even more astonishing is when apologists act like the virgin girls were being shown mercy. Because if they were let go, they would die. They would starve to death in this land that is flowing with milk and honey, and fruit clusters so large you need two men to carry them. So no, the women were not kept captive as an act of mercy. They were sex slaves. Please just admit the obvious.

When your religion has gotten you to the point that you're defending mass murder and rape, there's a problem.



But they are considered "great, impeccably moral people" during warfare. If I could go around committing mass murder and rape and you commend me for doing so, then I simply couldn't help but to be morally impeccable in your eyes. In fact the only time the Israelites "did anything wrong" with regards to warfare was when they were not fully obedient to God and didn't kill literally everything, down to the village dog.



My "God-given analytical powers" tell me that if the Israelites had no intentions of rape, then they would've executed everyone, including the virgins.

It's quite simple. Moses realizes that when the Israelites had sex (consensual or not) with the Midianite women, they contracted venereal diseases (a "plague"). So he solves that by executing everyone who wasn't a virgin. The rest are "taken" and forced to have sex with the very men who had slaughtered their entire families. I'd call that rape. Please, get on the same level and reassure me that we are both talking in English here.

Click to expand...

See my response (#135) to @cvanwey just above your response ...

2PhiloVoid said:

See my response (#135) to @cvanwey just above your response ...

Click to expand...

I did. Are you implying that you address my points there? Because clearly you didn't. That's ok - I don't expect you to address points from the future or anything - but why act like you already addressed my points when you clearly haven't?

Nihilist Virus said:

I did. Are you implying that you address my points there? Because clearly you didn't. That's ok - I don't expect you to address points from the future or anything - but why act like you already addressed my points when you clearly haven't?

Click to expand...

I'll get to your points soon enough. I just want it to be a little more clear as to where my 'ground of context' is in my replies, because I think that gets missed. I feel under ZERO - 000 - compunction to have to align my ethics with the usual American modes of moral thinking, even if there is a lot of overlay and similarity since........well, I'm attempting daily to be a Christian for "goodness sake."