Virgins as Lords share?

Nihilist Virus said:

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

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

Click to expand...

It should be 'cooperative'? Really? In what way(s)?

Why would donkeys not be sacrificed to Jehovah?

Click to expand...

One word: unclean. So, donkeys AIN'T gonna' be sacrificed! How much less so virgin females in a faith devoted to YHWH, especially if those virgin females hail from an 'unclean' Canaanite culture, a very, very unclean culture I might add?

I guess those unclean virgin females who have been taken as remainders into captivity after warfare will have to settle for being incorporated into the body of Israel and become servant women for sacred duties and, if they're blessed enough, nice little Jewish wives. And if they don't like it, well, they'll just have to learn which God is truly God, won't they? (Hint: It'll be the God that they're not familiar with ...)

So, from my candor in all of this, what do you think is my thought about whether or not any of those young virgin Canaanites women were actually sacrificed? Do you think that I think they were sacrificed?

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

Click to expand...

Nice tangential redirection there, NV! But, we've had this discussion before ... Remember what my answer was?

muichimotsu said:

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

Click to expand...

How about the teachings of Christ. It's only between you and Christ. That is the only thing which should matter to any of us. I admire Christ and and thus I follow.

gospels said:

How about the teachings of Christ. It's only between you and Christ. That is the only thing which should matter to any of us. I admire Christ and and thus I follow.

Click to expand...

You do realize Jesus was a devout Jew and would've been familiar with the stories in regards to the Israelites right? You can't possibly be this naive unless you literally seem to think that obedience is more important than reasoning and critical thought, which includes the humility to admit you might be wrong

Godistruth1 said:

Bible says
The plunder remaining from everything the fighting men had taken totaled 675,000 sheep and goats, 72,000 cattle, 61,000 donkeys, and 32,000 virgin girls. Half of the plunder was given to the fighting men. It totaled 337,500 sheep and goats, of which 675 were the Lord ’s share; 36,000 cattle, of which 72 were the Lord ’s share; 30,500 donkeys, of which 61 were the Lord ’s share; and 16,000 virgin girls, of whom 32 were the Lord ’s share.
Numbers 31:32‭-‬40

Why does lord want a share of Virgins?

Click to expand...

We don’t know it doesn’t say. It’s probably best not to speculate.

muichimotsu said:

You do realize Jesus was a devout Jew and would've been familiar with the stories in regards to the Israelites right? You can't possibly be this naive unless you literally seem to think that obedience is more important than reasoning and critical thought, which includes the humility to admit you might be wrong

Click to expand...

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.

gospels said:

It would be difficult for a woman to live off the land on her own in those days.

Click to expand...

You mean the land flowing with milk and honey? Because that's where they were and that's why their land was taken.

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.

Click to expand...

Where does it say that?

Nihilist Virus said:

Where does it say that?

Click to expand...

"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

“You shall not oppress your neighbor" Leviticus 19:13

gospels said:

"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

“You shall not oppress your neighbor" Leviticus 19:13

Click to expand...

Neither of which apply. A slave/prisoner of war is not a visiting person nor a neighbor.

Also I see you ignored my point about survival in the land of milk and honey.

Nihilist Virus said:

Neither of which apply.

Click to expand...

That is your understanding. They do apply for Israelite's.

Nihilist Virus said:

Also I see you ignored my point about survival in the land of milk and honey.

Click to expand...

Oh yes, it was a wonderful land flowing with milk and honey. So it wasn't difficult for them. Thanks for letting me know.

gospels said:

That is your understanding. They do apply for Israelite's.

Click to expand...

Exactly. The rule applies to Israelites. The prisoners of war were not Israelites.

Oh yes, it was a wonderful land flowing with milk and honey. So it wasn't difficult for them. Thanks for letting me know.

Click to expand...

OK, so would you rather live by yourself in a land flowing with milk and honey or instead be raped every single day by a man who killed your whole family?

Nihilist Virus said:

Exactly. The rule applies to Israelites. The prisoners of war were not Israelites.

Click to expand...

"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

For Israelite's this rule applies to all strangers.

Nihilist Virus said:

OK, so would you rather live by yourself in a land flowing with milk and honey or instead be raped every single day by a man who killed your whole family?

Click to expand...

Israelite's were commanded to love strangers. If a woman wanted to live off and anyone mistreated her, then they will be accountable for their sins.

2PhiloVoid said:

It should be 'cooperative'? Really? In what way(s)?

Click to expand...

I literally just explained it.

One word: unclean. So, donkeys AIN'T gonna' be sacrificed!

Click to expand...

One word: wow! You actually might've totally ended this whole issue. The donkeys were definitely listed in the same breath, or manner, or list, etc., as were the virgins. It certainly looks like the donkeys and virgins suffered the same fate, along with the cattle and sheep.

So what you would need to do is show that donkeys are unclean, and also show that unclean animals could never be sacrificed to Jehovah, even as a war bounty. That probably shouldn't be too difficult. I'll look it up eventually if I have time, or if you do it first that would be spectacular.

How much less so virgin females in a faith devoted to YHWH, especially if those virgin females hail from an 'unclean' Canaanite culture, a very, very unclean culture I might add?

Click to expand...

Er, no. Human beings are only unclean in the Biblical sense when they are menstruating.

I guess those unclean virgin females who have been taken as remainders into captivity after warfare will have to settle for being incorporated into the body of Israel and become servant women for sacred duties and, if they're blessed enough, nice little Jewish wives. And if they don't like it, well, they'll just have to learn which God is truly God, won't they? (Hint: It'll be the God that they're not familiar with ...)

Click to expand...

Before you run for the touchdown, it's best to make sure you've got the football in your hands. Yes, there is institutional racism in the Bible. But classifying other races as unclean is just not the category they used.

So, from my candor in all of this, what do you think is my thought about whether or not any of those young virgin Canaanites women were actually sacrificed? Do you think that I think they were sacrificed?

Click to expand...

You obviously don't think they were. But you need to curl up the "Jump to Conclusions mat" and stow it away in the closet.

Nice tangential redirection there, NV! But, we've had this discussion before ... Remember what my answer was?

Click to expand...

It's not tangential - it's the whole basis of the argument. And no I don't remember your answer.

gospels said:

"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

For Israelite's this rule applies to all strangers.

Click to expand...

Leviticus 25:44-46 also says,

44 And as for thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, whom thou shalt have; of the nations that are round about you, of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they have begotten in your land: and they shall be your possession.

46 And ye shall make them an inheritance for your children after you, to hold for a possession; of them shall ye take your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel ye shall not rule, one over another, with rigor.

A "stranger" is obviously just a person who strolls into your town. It is NOT a prisoner of war.

Israelite's were commanded to love strangers.

Click to expand...

Irrelevant here. 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.

If a woman wanted to live off and anyone mistreated her, then they will be accountable for their sins.

Click to expand...

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

Nihilist Virus said:

Before you run for the touchdown, it's best to make sure you've got the football in your hands. Yes, there is institutional racism in the Bible. But classifying other races as unclean is just not the category they used.

Click to expand...

... Canaanites were unclean. There, I've said it again. But, since you've brought some little 'racist' bits to my attentions, I'll make a minor correction to what I said earlier above,


I'll address the rest of your post later. Right now, it's time to get my daily exercise since the work day is done.

.

.

Nihilist Virus said:

I literally just explained it.

Click to expand...

...yes, I get the whole 'legal theme' you've planted into the context here. It's not that I'm blind to it; I just don't feel it represents the model of what we're doing here in the apologetics section. Or at the least, I don't claim it as 'my' model.

But I will still say, I'm all for cooperative study, if people can actually be coralled into doing so.

One word: wow! You actually might've totally ended this whole issue. The donkeys were definitely listed in the same breath, or manner, or list, etc., as were the virgins. It certainly looks like the donkeys and virgins suffered the same fate, along with the cattle and sheep.

So what you would need to do is show that donkeys are unclean, and also show that unclean animals could never be sacrificed to Jehovah, even as a war bounty. That probably shouldn't be too difficult. I'll look it up eventually if I have time, or if you do it first that would be spectacular.

Click to expand...

Ok. There's more than one passage and/or verse, but I figure we can start simply with Exodus 13:13, Exodus 34:20, and Leviticus 11:3-8.

Er, no. Human beings are only unclean in the Biblical sense when they are menstruating.

Click to expand...

Sure, there are those verses about uncleanness regarding 'human emissions,' as pleasant as all of that is, but I had more in mind the full reasoning behind a verse like:

Leviticus 22:24-26 New King James Version (NKJV)
24 ‘You shall not offer to the Lord what is bruised or crushed, or torn or cut; nor shall you make any offering of them in your land. 25 Nor from a foreigner’s hand shall you offer any of these as the bread of your God, because their corruption is in them, and defects are in them. They shall not be accepted on your behalf.’ ”

Before you run for the touchdown, it's best to make sure you've got the football in your hands. Yes, there is institutional racism in the Bible. But classifying other races as unclean is just not the category they used.

Click to expand...

I'm not running for a touchdown. I don't see this as a literal strategy game ... and if I were to think of it as a a game at all, I'd only think of it this way in the sense that Wittgenstein would have thought of it.

You obviously don't think they were. But you need to curl up the "Jump to Conclusions mat" and stow it away in the closet.

Click to expand...

... okay. It's back in the closet then, but I'll have you know that what you're suggesting I do so is very non-PC these days.

It's not tangential - it's the whole basis of the argument. And no I don't remember your answer.

Click to expand...

Ok. If you say so.

gospels said:

"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

For Israelite's this rule applies to all strangers.



Israelite's were commanded to love strangers. If a woman wanted to live off and anyone mistreated her, then they will be accountable for their sins.

Click to expand...

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

cvanwey said:

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

Click to expand...

Go experience a war on a battlefield and then come and talk. Let the woman and the children live. Then we will talk about how they can be taken care of. Bye.

gospels said:

Go experience a war on a battlefield and then come and talk. Bye.

Click to expand...

How do you know I haven't? However, not sure how this would even matter...

Furthermore, your response addresses absolutely nothing of my request(s).

You state your God promotes equality, and then provided verse. I state God sometimes promotes inequality, and I also provided verse. My point is that you can likely 'support' both sides of the argument (equality/inequality). But one of us HAS to be mistaken. Care to actually engage?

If not, I will just assume, again using basic common sense, that your claims of God preaching equality may present a problem for you. Where-as I, on the other hand, claim God is the direct author of confusion; as His rules seem inconsistent, at 'best'.