What Was God's Rationale In This Instance?

Moral Orel · Oct 8, 2019

2PhiloVoid said:
I doubt it; and I don't think so. I pretty much disagree with most of what has so far, over the past year and a half, fallen onto the screen from @cvanwey's keyboard.

He's a relativist, as per his own claims. I'm an absolutist, and being this is a Christian Forum, it should go as no surprise that behind the difficult efforts we all must often make to 'read' and interpret the Bible, at the core is something that, like a chewy tootsie roll drop at the center of a Tootsie Pop, is substantive even if it takes at least 3 licks (or often more) to get to. And then we cry "owl" in regard to how hard God has made it to interpret. Well, BOO HOO! BOO HOO! (...said the wise old owl!)

If some things are wrong now, but okay in a different culture/time period, that's moral relativism not absolutism.

And I saw you disagree with him, I asked if you agreed with the post he responded to. Did you read it before you replied to him?

2PhiloVoid said:
Uh........................No, that's not actually how historical scholars typically envision their understanding of "the past," in which case now I'm alluding to the fields of Historiography, Epistemology, and also those of Philosophy of History and Literary Studies of the works of Past Cultures. Oh. And I almost forgot, Philosophical Hermeneutics, and Biblical Hermeneutics.

So, no dice on that one, Nick! Sorry! I just have to clear the air of your snafu before we move on to anything else..... And I'm saying it like that because I think you're surely too intelligent to really believe what you've just attempted to assert.

Really? We can't make even an inductive guess about how ancient people interpreted and applied ancient texts? Honestly I find that strange.

2PhiloVoid said:
Yes, "don't covet" would PRECLUDE the act of various kinds of molestation or other sexual immorality. And just like today, there were folks who "ran the STOP sign," I'm sure, which is I guess why the bible takes so much time to met out rantings about human sin and depravity all through its many pages the way it does. Right?

Okay, but they didn't interpret "don't covet" to mean "don't visit prostitutes", so what does that mean? Why didn't they see it the way you do?

2PhiloVoid said:
Tell that to the students who I had to give a grade of 'F' in the classes I used to teach. No, Nick, in practice, this expectation you seem to have for "most folks" regarding the Bible and its interpretation isn't something that can just be grabbed out of the thin air ... for ANY of us, no matter how much we might be tempted to contort John 14:26 or similar verses. It's difficult. Its time-consuming, and its also something that God in His Spirit ISN'T going to deposit into our heads by some powerful fiat, at least not most of the time. So, let's maybe drop kick this assertion of yours into the nearest waste-basket and start over.

I didn't say it was easy, I just said it was possible. You said that you were incapable, so this whole bit you wrote is irrelevant.

2PhiloVoid said:
Well, let's do some research on it all and see what various voices, both Christian and Rabbinical might have thought were the inherent "lessons" within a narrative like that of Samson and Delilah, with the whole story of Samson in sight. Do you want to go look for a source or two and see what you find to 'counter' or add to what you think I might find or have found?

My questions weren't rhetorical.

2PhiloVoid said:
Sure, it can happen. But just because someone 'sees' it that way doesn't mean they had their hermeneutical base-ball cap on firm and snug, Nick. What we also have to consider is the extent to which we think that it was the intention of the original author or authors to enable the 'account' to serve not only historical signifiers of sorts, but also moral coding for the readers (or hearers).

Alright, so you'll need to establish some reason to interpret it the way you do instead of merely pointing to it being an aspect of the story. Go ahead.

Like I said though, that story came after the other bits we've been talking about. How about a story that they had on hand before they wrote the laws we've been discussing. Like the story of Lot.

Remember I said that consent doesn't belong to females, that's not the way they saw it. When God sent angels to save just Lot's family from destruction because he was such a great guy, and the townsfolk rallied to "know" the angels that showed up, Lot offered to let a crazed mob have their way with his betrothed virgin daughters, and he was still the good guy. If it's okay to use your daughters as human shields before risking your own neck, why wouldn't they rape POWs because their prisoner-brides didn't have control over their own consent? If it's okay to use your own daughters the way Lot did, why wouldn't all the things we've been talking about have been A-Okay in their book?

2PhiloVoid · Oct 8, 2019

Moral Orel said:
If some things are wrong now, but okay in a different culture/time period, that's moral relativism not absolutism.

No, .... it's not. Let's not equivocate here, because even though it is true that the term 'relative' can be applied in this case, it would not then be the exact same denoted usage that is so often colloquially used. So, let's discern that different right now, shall we? Just as the term 'theory' means something different in the mouth of the typical plebe on the streets, it's quite different from what a mainstream scientist means when he applies it to his scientific work. As scientifically literate as you are, Nick, you already should know and clearly see that Einstein's sense of 'relative' is not your culture's, or just your own limited human sense, of 'relative.'

And I saw you disagree with him, I asked if you agreed with the post he responded to. Did you read it before you replied to him?

Y'know. Who knows? It's all getting so progressively ridiculous in trying to just beat a dead horse over and over and over again and then have atheistic interlocutors who seem to have already determined ahead of time that they're just going to swat away nearly any answer a Christian will give that I'm kinda like........................WHO CARES? Obviously, some of you atheists don't. If you did care, especially in the psychological vein that Pascal intimated, then I'd figure that atheist would be starving to go out and do their own research AND share the supposed truth they thought they found, for good or bad.......with everyone else. But no! What I'm seeing is atheists and skeptics just showing up to hash things out just for the sake of ongoing debate. I guess they find it exhilarating or something to "get Christians going." So, no, I'm not of late paying super-duper close attention to what cvanwey is saying. I've given some good leads in my answers more than once, and if those can't then be acted upon with interest, then I've got no more to offer. And as a Christian Philosopher (and Alternative Apologist) I'm not going to stomach it all beyond necessity.

Really? We can't make even an inductive guess about how ancient people interpreted and applied ancient texts? Honestly I find that strange.

Uh..........YOU said above, "We can Know.' That's quite different than "making an inductive guess."

Okay, but they didn't interpret "don't covet" to mean "don't visit prostitutes", so what does that mean? Why didn't they see it the way you do?

I didn't say it was easy, I just said it was possible. You said that you were incapable, so this whole bit you wrote is irrelevant.

My questions weren't rhetorical.

Alright, so you'll need to establish some reason to interpret it the way you do instead of merely pointing to it being an aspect of the story. Go ahead.

Like I said though, that story came after the other bits we've been talking about. How about a story that they had on hand before they wrote the laws we've been discussing. Like the story of Lot.

Remember I said that consent doesn't belong to females, that's not the way they saw it. When God sent angels to save just Lot's family from destruction because he was such a great guy, and the townsfolk rallied to "know" the angels that showed up, Lot offered to let a crazed mob have their way with his betrothed virgin daughters, and he was still the good guy. If it's okay to use your daughters as human shields before risking your own neck, why wouldn't they rape POWs because their prisoner-brides didn't have control over their own consent? If it's okay to use your own daughters the way Lot did, why wouldn't all the things we've been talking about have been A-Okay in their book?

I'm not even going to address all of this since it's all failing from the same kinds of inconsistencies of thought that you just keep attempting to hit back to me across the service net.

Take that as an ad hominem if you want; maybe we'll have to argue about how there are indeed times in discussion and debate when ad hominems actually ..... DO APPLY.

So, I'm done here with Numbers 31. I'll just let other Christians move in now to do what they can do further ........ enjoy.

[P.S. Nick, while it may not seem like it to anyone at the moment, deep down in my heart, it really is my hope that you and some of the rest of your skeptical compatriots come back to Christ. But when I meet what seems to me to be utter recalcitrance on all fronts and at all points that I can make or that any of my fellow Christians can make, even after the 490th time, I start to get a little frazzled about continuing to hold out any substantial hope for those skeptical persons ................................. and yes, that is my weakness, I know. And I'm sure someone will want to take this admission of mine and run with it somewhere, somehow... ]

Moral Orel · Oct 8, 2019

2PhiloVoid said:
No, .... it's not. Let's not equivocate here, because even though it is true that the term 'relative' can be applied in this case, it would not then be the exact same denoted usage that is so often colloquially used. So, let's discern that different right now, shall we? Just as the term 'theory' means something different in the mouth of the typical plebe on the streets, it's quite different from what a mainstream scientist means when he applies it to his scientific work. As scientifically literate as you are, Nick, you already should know and clearly see that Einstein's sense of 'relative' is not your culture's, or just your own limited human sense, of 'relative.'

So, I'm wrong, but you won't deign to explain how...

2PhiloVoid said:
Y'know. Who knows? It's all getting so progressively ridiculous in trying to just beat a dead horse over and over and over again and then have atheistic interlocutors who seem to have already determined ahead of time that they're just going to swat away nearly any answer a Christian will give that I'm kinda like........................WHO CARES? Obviously, some of you atheists don't. If you did care, especially in the psychological vein that Pascal intimated, then I'd figure that atheist would be starving to go out and do their own research AND share the supposed truth they thought they found, for good or bad.......with everyone else. But no! What I'm seeing is atheists and skeptics just showing up to hash things out just for the sake of ongoing debate. I guess they find it exhilarating or something to "get Christians going." So, no, I'm not of late paying super-duper close attention to what cvanwey is saying. I've given some good leads in my answers more than once, and if those can't then be acted upon with interest, then I've got no more to offer. And as a Christian Philosopher (and Alternative Apologist) I'm not going to stomach it all beyond necessity.

Yeah, if you had read what he was responding to, you'd remember. I know, because I wrote it, and it's...erm...memorable. How can you respond to something someone said without even bothering to understand the context of what they're responding to?

And again, we're wrong, but you won't deign to explain how. I don't think the Apologetics section is for you. You're probably looking for the Exploring Christianity section. If the conversations in the Apologetics section are offensive to you, there's the door. We're here to challenge notions of the Christian faith, that's what this section is here for. If you aren't here to defend those challenges, then you're off topic. All this complaining about how mean we all are to you is off topic.

2PhiloVoid said:
Uh..........YOU said above, "We can Know.' That's quite different than "making an inductive guess."

I said: "If we know what they did, then we know "what actually happened", albeit we can only "know" in an inductive sort of way". You're a bad listener.

2PhiloVoid said:
I'm not even going to address all of this *snip*

See? You don't address anything when people make points you just don't have any answers for. You say you aren't going to take any more guff from us filthy atheists, then you just disengage from every conversation that gets a little challenging. But that doesn't stop you from complaining when one of us doesn't bother to address everything you've got to say, now does it? See ya.

2PhiloVoid · Oct 8, 2019

Moral Orel said:
So, I'm wrong, but you won't deign to explain how...

Yeah, if you had read what he was responding to, you'd remember. I know, because I wrote it, and it's...erm...memorable. How can you respond to something someone said without even bothering to understand the context of what they're responding to?

And again, we're wrong, but you won't deign to explain how. I don't think the Apologetics section is for you. You're probably looking for the Exploring Christianity section. If the conversations in the Apologetics section are offensive to you, there's the door. We're here to challenge notions of the Christian faith, that's what this section is here for. If you aren't here to defend those challenges, then you're off topic. All this complaining about how mean we all are to you is off topic.

I said: "If we know what they did, then we know "what actually happened", albeit we can only "know" in an inductive sort of way". You're a bad listener.

See? You don't address anything when people make points you just don't have any answers for. You say you aren't going to take any more guff from us filthy atheists, then you just disengage from every conversation that gets a little challenging. But that doesn't stop you from complaining when one of us doesn't bother to address everything you've got to say, now does it? See ya.

We obviously have utterly, or nearly completely, different praxes and feelings about all of the various epistemological nuances of the structures of not only what Christian Theology and Apologetics "is" but also in how we think it is "supposed to do" this or that for unbelievers, as well as to what constitutes 'best ethics.'

In this case between you, me and cvanwey, and perhaps among some other interlocutors here, it seems to me that we have somewhat irreconcilable positions. Therefore, I see the door in front of me, and while you can lay as much blame upon me for my shortcomings as I'm sure you'll feel prompted to do, I'll refrain from putting you on 'ignore' since I just don't like doing that to anyone. But in the meantime, I'm going to discontinue conversation with you and cvanwey, specifically and firmly until such a time that either one of you would actually like to engage the Christian faith from outside of the perceptual boxes you've locked yourselves into and, thereby, get outside of the stasis your in rather than exploring.

Maybe I should just take up Racketball or something instead ...

Anyway, best wishes to you! And I sincerely mean that. I hope things turn around for you at some point in your life, Nick, so you can come back to faith.

Same goes for you @cvanwey!

Peace.

Moral Orel · Oct 8, 2019

2PhiloVoid said:
We obviously have utterly, nearly completely, different praxes and feelings about all of the various epistemological nuances of the structures of not only what Christian Theology and Apologetics "is" but also in how we think it is "supposed to do" this or that for unbelievers, as well as to what constitutes 'best ethics.'

In this case between you, me and cvanwey, and perhaps among some other interlocutors here, it seems to me that we have somewhat irreconcilable positions. Therefore, I see the door in front of me, and while you can lay as much blame upon me for my shortcomings as I'm sure you'll feel prompted to do, I'll refrain from putting you on 'ignore' since I just don't like doing that to anyone. But in the meantime, I'm going to discontinue conversation with you and cvanwey, specifically and firmly until such a time that either one of you would actually like to engage the Christian faith from outside of the perceptual boxes you've locked yourselves into and, thereby, get outside of the stasis your in rather than exploring.

Maybe I should just take up Racketball or something instead ...

Anyway, best wishes to you! And I sincerely mean that. I hope things turn around for you at some point in your life, Nick, so you can come back to faith.

Same goes for you @cvanwey!

Peace.

yeshuaslavejeff · Oct 8, 2019

cvanwey said:
I'm afraid this does nothing to address my question. Furthermore, please do not presume to think you know what I know.

Be afreaid, be very concerned for life - as even Ekklesia are so warned, lest any miss the mark because of sin, lest anyone not endure to the end.

The spiritual man appraiseth all things, and is appraised by no one.

Probably, accordingly, what you think you "know", you likely don't know, and if you ever find a spiritual man to listen to, then perhaps it all can be explained to you in a way to be understood, Yahuweh Willing.

No presumption needed.

2PhiloVoid · Oct 8, 2019

Moral Orel said:

...well, that was really weird? I was backing my car out today to go to an appointment and what to my wondering ears was on the radio comedy channel, the last 30 to 40 seconds of a sound bite of a Mitch Hedberg performance, and the last 3 or 4 things he said included the quote you have from him in your signature, Nick.

The universe must be trying to tell me something. What that something is, though, I can't interpret. ^_^

cvanwey · Oct 10, 2019

cvanwey · Oct 10, 2019

2PhiloVoid said:
I'm going to discontinue conversation with you and cvanwey, specifically and firmly until such a time that either one of you would actually like to engage the Christian faith from outside of the perceptual boxes you've locked yourselves into and, thereby, get outside of the stasis your in rather than exploring.

@cvanwey! Peace.

@2PhiloVoid As I've stated multiple times in this thread... Even if such a claimed God exists, it would appear that God does not have His hand in this Chapter. I will again, provide the reasons, nothing of which has to really do with some 'perpetual box'. It is instead addressing these verses, from an unbiased perspective. Meaning, I don't necessarily carry any a priori, but do notice some points which appear to demonstrate such 'short comings' from any claimed 'divine entity.'

1. God sometimes tells humans to kill other humans in the Bible. Well, then how do humans discern which claimed God commands are legit, verses delusion? Who's to say some God commands still are not happening today, with orders to do something the human may not 'want' to do? I'll answer preemptively... It would appear we can't.

2. God intervenes to issue commands, as well as to also apparently help with correctly identifying all the female virgins. But watches, with no aid/intervention, as humans kill other humans in this very same scenario. Bazaar. God intervenes with orders, and identifying virgins, but let's the humans do the actual 'dirty work' themselves. Why?

3. Such claimed 'God instruction' allows for males to take females, after 30 days, as their 'wives'. This looks to be a 'loophole', for the humans whom invented this/these 'law', quite frankly. -- Deeming such future actions with their brides now within the 'law.' Period... Remember, God has His hands directly in these 'laws' apparently. Regardless of how terms and definitions change over time, it appears plain to conclude that God condones/allows/sanctions some form of 'rape.'

4. God wants the soldiers to spare the female virgins. Does God know how basic biology works? The Midianite bloodline would continue just the same, only absent in 'name.'

5. What rationale is there to spare untouched women, above and beyond young untouched boys? Their only difference, above and beyond the young boys, is their genitalia. Since the Midianite bloodline would continue, if they pro-create there-after, what other distinction is served between the women and the men who were spared?

As you can see, I'm not really addressing the 'moral' implications. Just that we appear to have claimed events, which contradict logic and reason.

Is it no wonder I'm a skeptic to this claimed 'faith'?

Redac · Oct 10, 2019

I can't remember every post that's been made in this thread, so I'll just ask:

Has it been pointed out that it's Moses ordering that the captives be treated in this way? I've looked at a couple different versions of Numbers 31, and all that God directly commands, to Moses, is that revenge be taken on the Midianites. Verses 17-18 are Moses speaking to his commanders.

I don't know what effect that has on the overall arguments about this chapter, but I've seen it repeated again and again that God directly intervened and gave the command in question, and unless I'm mistaken that does not at all seem to be the case.

cvanwey · Oct 11, 2019

Redac said:
I can't remember every post that's been made in this thread, so I'll just ask:

Has it been pointed out that it's Moses ordering that the captives be treated in this way? I've looked at a couple different versions of Numbers 31, and all that God directly commands, to Moses, is that revenge be taken on the Midianites. Verses 17-18 are Moses speaking to his commanders.

I don't know what effect that has on the overall arguments about this chapter, but I've seen it repeated again and again that God directly intervened and gave the command in question, and unless I'm mistaken that does not at all seem to be the case.

Thank you for kind of strengthening my position

One of my main points was to demonstrate that even if this Yahweh/Jesus does somehow exist, it's likely He had no hand in this Chapter. Otherwise, one might need to reconcile that 'God's command' is rather erroneous, and begs some further questions. (i.e.)

31 The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites. After that, you will be gathered to your people.”

AND

"7 They fought against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses, and killed every man.

What exactly does the above 'command' want, as it's outcome?

Did God really issue this command at all?

If so, why wouldn't Yahweh more-so specify what is meant by '"vengeance" and "after that, you be gathered to your people''?

If God is interactive with Moses, throughout his life, seems as though God never guided this particular attack in a different way; verse what was instructed by Moses.

Moses apparently takes this 'command' and runs with it. It's 'assumed' Moses is carrying out God's direct objective. If He's not, then maybe verse 1, 2, and 7 are simply bogus as well? And as I've stated to @2PhiloVoid many posts back, if the above commands were never issued to Moses, then what else was never issued to Moses? The 10 commandments, other? Opens up a pretty large can of worms.....

2PhiloVoid · Oct 17, 2019

Moral Orel said:
So, I'm wrong, but you won't deign to explain how...

Yeah, if you had read what he was responding to, you'd remember. I know, because I wrote it, and it's...erm...memorable. How can you respond to something someone said without even bothering to understand the context of what they're responding to?

And again, we're wrong, but you won't deign to explain how. I don't think the Apologetics section is for you. You're probably looking for the Exploring Christianity section. If the conversations in the Apologetics section are offensive to you, there's the door. We're here to challenge notions of the Christian faith, that's what this section is here for. If you aren't here to defend those challenges, then you're off topic. All this complaining about how mean we all are to you is off topic.

I said: "If we know what they did, then we know "what actually happened", albeit we can only "know" in an inductive sort of way". You're a bad listener.

See? You don't address anything when people make points you just don't have any answers for. You say you aren't going to take any more guff from us filthy atheists, then you just disengage from every conversation that gets a little challenging. But that doesn't stop you from complaining when one of us doesn't bother to address everything you've got to say, now does it? See ya.

Ok. So, you're saying we can "know" in an inductive sort of way, is this correct...or is my hearing aid battery giving out again (I don't know!) And are you sure it's inductive? What does that mean, and are you sure this is the case, and are you sure that we shouldn't just be thinking about things either Deductively instead, or abductively?

The hemeneutical floor is now yours, Nick!

2PhiloVoid · Oct 18, 2019

cvanwey said:
@2PhiloVoid As I've stated multiple times in this thread... Even if such a claimed God exists, it would appear that God does not have His hand in this Chapter. I will again, provide the reasons, nothing of which has to really do with some 'perpetual box'. It is instead addressing these verses, from an unbiased perspective.

Um....no one, and I mean no one, has a completely unbiased perspective. So, before moving on to anything else, this will be the first epistemological (and psychological) item you'll need to clear up, especially IF you already affirm a relativized affirmation about human perception or opinion.

Moral Orel · Oct 19, 2019

2PhiloVoid said:
Ok. So, you're saying we can "know" in an inductive sort of way, is this correct...or is my hearing aid battery giving out again (I don't know!) And are you sure it's inductive? What does that mean, and are you sure this is the case, and are you sure that we shouldn't just be thinking about things either Deductively instead, or abductively?

The hemeneutical floor is now yours, Nick!

If you want to get real technical about it, I think anything about the real world any one examines is going to be done in the abductive sense. There is always the possibility of unknowns. And if there's something that you don't know, you don't know that you don't know it. I don't use it as a term because being that all-encompassing makes it essentially meaningless; like going without saying. So I simply state "deductive" for certainty, and "inductive" for probabilistic. I think some things can definitely be ruled out deductively, but things can only be ruled in inductively.

Tinker Grey · Oct 19, 2019

Moral Orel said:
And if there's something that you don't know, you don't know that you don't know it.

[aside] Which makes claims of omniscience suspect. [/aside]

Moral Orel · Oct 19, 2019

Tinker Grey said:
[aside] Which makes claims of omniscience suspect. [/aside]

Ya know? I made a whole thread about that right here a long time ago. It ended up having to be defined into existence. "Part of who God is is that He knows everything, so he knows that there is nothing that he doesn't know".

2PhiloVoid · Oct 19, 2019

Moral Orel said:
If you want to get real technical about it, I think anything about the real world any one examines is going to be done in the abductive sense. There is always the possibility of unknowns. And if there's something that you don't know, you don't know that you don't know it. I don't use it as a term because being that all-encompassing makes it essentially meaningless; like going without saying. So I simply state "deductive" for certainty, and "inductive" for probabilistic. I think some things can definitely be ruled out deductively, but things can only be ruled in inductively.

Alright, although there could be possible exceptions to this within actual praxis, this all generally sounds fine to me, otherwise.

Moral Orel · Oct 20, 2019

2PhiloVoid said:
Alright, although there could be possible exceptions to this within actual praxis, this all generally sounds fine to me, otherwise.

So are you going to go back and address what I said at the end of post #381? That's where you stopped the discussion. If we can look at the story of Samson and say, "He did X, it led to bad things, therefore X is bad" then we should be able to look to the story of Lot and say, "He did X, it led to good things, therefore X is good" or at least fine and acceptable. Further, the NT says he was righteous, so it seems to me as though getting wasted and knocking up his own daughters was seen as the girls being the villain in that story, taking advantage of poor Lot. Is there any reason to think that his behavior is worthy of condemnation?

If it isn't worthy of condemnation, and if he was in the right to control his daughters consent in such a manner, what reason is there to think that consent by the woman was something anyone considered when wedding POWs?

cvanwey · Oct 24, 2019

2PhiloVoid said:
Um....no one, and I mean no one, has a completely unbiased perspective. So, before moving on to anything else, this will be the first epistemological (and psychological) item you'll need to clear up, especially IF you already affirm a relativized affirmation about human perception or opinion.

@2PhiloVoid I'm going to address this response for (2) reasons....

1. I can't help but to wonder if this is yet another diversion tactic of yours, to instead redirect from such cited points and/or inquiries.

2. Please remember one of my main claims, for this topic... That even if God exists, it would appear this entire Chapter does not have God's hand within it. - Which then opens up a large can of worms.

Now, to your concern....

I'm aware that bias will exist where applicable.... However, in the (5) points provided, they look to be completely void of personal opinion. They are instead objective sightings. You do understand the different between subjective and objective observations, don't you? (rhetorical of course). Thus, regardless of my current view, stance, or opinions about Christianity, or any other claims of the supernatural for that matter, one can still read a presented set of claims, and make objective inquiries about them, regardless of whether or not the reader believers the claimed end result, or not.

When you look at my (5) points, which now becomes (6), as @Moral Orel provided another doozie, you really have to address them as objective findings, which warrant response void of your personal feelings on the matter.

So, lets try this again.... I will re-purpose them for clarification:

1. God sometimes tells humans to kill, especially in the Bible. How do we know God no longer is telling people, outside of the Bible, to kill?

2. In Numbers 31, God must intervene to tell humans to kill, and must intervene to sort out the virgins correctly. Everything else, He leaves up to the humans (i.e) the actual acts of the killing. Why does God require the humans to do the killing, but then directly intervenes to identify the virgins? Why not just wipe out the tribe Himself here? You know, like He does in other claims and stories...

3. God choose to specifically weigh in on this Chapter. And yet, it looks like the only preconditions prior to sexual relations with the identified attractive captive virgins, was to wait 30 days, and to marry them. Thus, we have 2 questions:

a: Did the women also need to consent?
b: What is the most vanilla version for the concept of 'rape'?

4. It's likely possible that consent was done often under duress, due to the circumstances at hand (i.e.) - (seeing your entire tribe executed, and now fearing for your own life -- by agreeing to anything or survival). - Not a question here..... But it does shed like to some of question number 3 a. and b.

5. If God wanted to eliminate a bloodline, why didn't He just wipe them ALL out? Does God not understand biology?

6. @Moral Orel wrote - "If it isn't worthy of condemnation, and if he was in the right to control his daughters consent in such a manner, what reason is there to think that consent by the woman was something anyone considered when wedding POWs?" <-- Ties in to questions #3.

As you can see, we do not need to quibble on how 'no one is completely unbiased.' In the case above, it really wouldn't matter.

SPF · Oct 24, 2019

cvanwey, a word of advice. I know you enjoy trolling this website looking for ways to disprove Christianity, but I would suggest you instead try focusing on the person of Christ, instead of OT stories of God sometimes intervening and sometimes not intervening in the tribal life of a culture that we can't relate to, and don't understand half the time.

You aren't going to convert a single Christian with this tactic, nor will you ever be satisfied with the answers that are provided to you.

You should know that Christianity stands or falls primarily upon the person of Christ. Who He says He is, what He is recorded to have done, and how we relate to Him.

I personally don't know why God did a lot of the things He did in the OT. However, like most all Christians here, I'm OK not knowing why God did a lot of the things He did in the OT. You really are wasting your time.

What Was God's Rationale In This Instance?

Proud Citizen of Moralton

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Proud Citizen of Moralton

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Proud Citizen of Moralton

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Proud Citizen of Moralton

Wanderer

Proud Citizen of Moralton

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Proud Citizen of Moralton

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads