Virgins as Lords share?

muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
36
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
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.
You realize the dating of the texts puts it way past when Moses would've lived right? You're basically just taking the oral tradition as if it was literally true with no real basis beyond specious notions as if no one would know Egyptian in the area at all, which is ludicrous

No, they really didn't, because it's not specific enough to conclude it was Jesus, that's why scholars are not remotely certain about anything beyond that some person called Jesus was the inspiration for the Gospel stories, not that it was referring to someone nearly as specific as Christians would like to believe

Also, you think that someone HAS to believe Jesus is God even if we grant the truth of the events conveyed by the gospels? That doesn't remotely follow because you're still taking their interpretation in regards to the supposed messiah instead of considering any other more reasonable explanation that actually could conceivably fit into reality as we observe it. Just taking their word for it is assuming they are accurate rather than merely sincere in their belief that Jesus was God, which is no indication of truth
 
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
40
California
✟156,979.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
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

They were allowed to own their slaves for life, and to beat them as long as they don't die. Does that sound like a good arrangement to you when you could simply leave town and live off the land flowing with milk and honey?

I don't feel like you've ever been honest with me at any point. Let me make something clear to you. If I were to become Christian, it would be because I'd become convinced of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. I would still believe in evolution and the Big Bang. I would still believe that the Old Testament contains terrible things such as chattel slavery, rape, and the odd human sacrifice here and there. Continuing this behavior where you dance around my points and refuse to admit the obvious does not make me more likely to trust you. If you're talking to me and you have no intention of gaining my trust, aren't you wasting my time and your time?
 
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
40
California
✟156,979.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
... Canaanites were unclean. There, I've said it again.

Ok, I'm convinced now. You merely needed to assert it a certain number of times without evidence to convince me.

But, since you've brought some little 'racist' bits to my attentions,

Why are you putting those cute little quotes around racist? Pretty much everyone in the ancient world was totally racist. Pretty much everyone a couple generations ago was totally racist. The world was so racist that they didn't even recognize what racism even is, like a fish not noticing that it's in water.

I don't look down upon the ancient Jews for being racist. They didn't know any better. It's not like they had the creator of the universe giving them divine commands or anything.

I'll make a minor correction to what I said earlier above,

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 ISRAELITE 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 ...)​

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. :cool:

Oh, right. That's another thing. Just like racism wasn't a concept they were aware of, neither was rape. For the same reasons. Even a couple generations ago, spousal rape was not a crime. Rape was literally defined as the forceful copulation with a person who is not your own spouse. I think you and I have personally discussed this.

So again, if your whole family was slaughtered, and you were "taken as a wife" by one of the men who participated in the massacre, would you willingly consummate the marriage or would it be rape?
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,863.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Ok, I'm convinced now. You merely needed to assert it a certain number of times without evidence to convince me.



Why are you putting those cute little quotes around racist? Pretty much everyone in the ancient world was totally racist. Pretty much everyone a couple generations ago was totally racist. The world was so racist that they didn't even recognize what racism even is, like a fish not noticing that it's in water.

I don't look down upon the ancient Jews for being racist. They didn't know any better. It's not like they had the creator of the universe giving them divine commands or anything.

It might surprise you, but here on CF, I've addressed those things at various points over the last 10 years I've been on here.

Oh, right. That's another thing. Just like racism wasn't a concept they were aware of, neither was rape. For the same reasons. Even a couple generations ago, spousal rape was not a crime. Rape was literally defined as the forceful copulation with a person who is not your own spouse. I think you and I have personally discussed this.

So again, if your whole family was slaughtered, and you were "taken as a wife" by one of the men who participated in the massacre, would you willingly consummate the marriage or would it be rape?

See my response to cvanwey just above ... [i.e. post #120] :cool: That'll begin the reorientation process ...
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,863.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Ok, I'm convinced now. You merely needed to assert it a certain number of times without evidence to convince me.



Why are you putting those cute little quotes around racist? Pretty much everyone in the ancient world was totally racist. Pretty much everyone a couple generations ago was totally racist. The world was so racist that they didn't even recognize what racism even is, like a fish not noticing that it's in water.

I don't look down upon the ancient Jews for being racist. They didn't know any better. It's not like they had the creator of the universe giving them divine commands or anything.



Oh, right. That's another thing. Just like racism wasn't a concept they were aware of, neither was rape. For the same reasons. Even a couple generations ago, spousal rape was not a crime. Rape was literally defined as the forceful copulation with a person who is not your own spouse. I think you and I have personally discussed this.

So again, if your whole family was slaughtered, and you were "taken as a wife" by one of the men who participated in the massacre, would you willingly consummate the marriage or would it be rape?

Oh, and one more thing. If you haven't already done so, you might want to have a look at the following thread I've made since it directly pours into my overall [SET] of considerations, pro, con and in-between where and when concepts of Human Rights and its violations are asserted ...

Cracking our humanitarian teeth on Godless Human Rights ...
 
Upvote 0

GospelS

A Daughter of Zion Seeking Her Father in Heaven!
Supporter
Aug 1, 2017
2,638
2,570
35
She is The Land!
✟441,860.00
Country
India
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
They were allowed to own their slaves for life, and to beat them as long as they don't die. Does that sound like a good arrangement to you when you could simply leave town and live off the land flowing with milk and honey?

I don't feel like you've ever been honest with me at any point. Let me make something clear to you. If I were to become Christian, it would be because I'd become convinced of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. I would still believe in evolution and the Big Bang. I would still believe that the Old Testament contains terrible things such as chattel slavery, rape, and the odd human sacrifice here and there. Continuing this behavior where you dance around my points and refuse to admit the obvious does not make me more likely to trust you. If you're talking to me and you have no intention of gaining my trust, aren't you wasting my time and your time?

Thanks for sharing. I don't understand why you would dance around these threads if you were to become Christian, it would be because you'd become convinced of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It does seems to me that you are wasting my time and your time.
 
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
40
California
✟156,979.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
...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.

How is it not? Christians drive the argument toward a predetermined conclusion rather than objectively following the facts wherever they may lead. That's how council does it in the court of law. Christians will be adversarial to achieve this goal, and not cooperative. This is also just like the courtroom.

Or at the least, I don't claim it as 'my' model.

But it is, Mr. Omega Man. You have predetermined that Christianity is correct, and you are uncooperative in your pursuit of showing that it is true.

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

But that requires that you would be willing to drop the faith if the case supporting it is weak enough. Is that on the table for you? Holding an inflexible conclusion does not make you cooperative.

Ok. There's more than one passage and/or verse, but I figure we can start simply with Exodus 13:13,

That's got nothing to do with donkeys being unclean. Look up at Exodus 13:1. It's saying that every firstborn, human or animal, belongs to Jehovah. But instead of sacrificing your firstborn to Jehovah, you can sacrifice a lamb instead. The same rule applies for a donkey. That's not saying that a donkey is unclean.

Exodus 34:20,

This is saying the same thing as above.

and Leviticus 11:3-8.

"3 Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, [and] cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that may ye eat."

If that truly is the definition of "clean" as it pertains to animals, then birds are certainly unclean. But birds are sacrificed in the Bible: see Leviticus 1:14.

But, well, of course birds don't have cloven hooves or chew the cud. They're birds! Right, well, of course donkeys don't have cloven hooves or chew the cud. They're donkeys! So is there some other aspect to this rule I'm not seeing?

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.’ ”

You actually had me convinced there for a second. The word "corruption" seems to work well with your idea that foreigners were unclean.

But look at this in the NIV:

24 You must not offer to the Lord an animal whose testicles are bruised, crushed, torn or cut. You must not do this in your own land, 25 and you must not accept such animals from the hand of a foreigner and offer them as the food of your God. They will not be accepted on your behalf, because they are deformed and have defects.

"Corruption" seems to be referring to defects in the animal itself.

I'm not running for a touchdown.

Agreed. This is looking more like a punt.

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.

... 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. :rolleyes:

Ok. If you say so. :cool:

I don't care about political correctness.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cvanwey
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
40
California
✟156,979.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Thanks for sharing. I don't understand why you would dance around these threads if you were to become Christian, it would be because you'd become convinced of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It does seems to me that you are wasting my time and your time.

No, it's you who wasted our time. Goodbye.
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
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.

Before I respond, I would like to take a stab at the 'Sovereign Will' claim now. And what better way to demonstrate, than to use, again, the Euthephro dilemma (i.e.):

My assertion... 'Might makes right'- as the 'best' case scenario, for Christians and the claims for 'God's Will'.

Recap, for all of those in the dark to this 'dilemma':

Either/or, A: or B:

A: Whatever God does is considered 'good'. Which makes morals arbitrary for two reasons:
1) What if God changes His mind
2) "What God say goes, and if you disagree (regardless of reason), God might punish you - (ala) 'might makes right'. You are merely following dictates.

B: God does something because it is considered 'good.' Which again, makes morals arbitrary, apart from God.

********************************


According to the Bible, can a husband 'rape' their wife? We have three possible choices here, it seems...

1. The Bible states it's a sin, (please show me where)?
2. The Bible eludes to the fact that you cannot, indeed, rape your wife, (please show me where)?
3. The Bible does not give enough specifics to answer this specific question, (God of confusion)?

If you are satisfied with these three options, and cannot add a forth, which option would you like to explore, moving forward?


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 ... )

The answer here seems simple.... My 'morals' are irrelevant, regarding this topic. The Christian however (i.e.) you, @gospels , etc, have to justify yours/theirs. I'm merely pointing out topics, from your beloved Book, which I'm sure you might have, (throat clear), more than a tough time trying to 'square' :)

If a Christian disagrees with one or more of God's moral pronouncements, then what? I'll answer preemptively... "Too bad, so sad." Hence, 'might makes right.' Follow the provided dictates. But do not also mention how your morals are 'superior' in the same breath ;) Go back to the described Euthephro for further inquiry. Instead, reconcile such 'morals' appear arbitrary, at 'best.'


You're purpose 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.

My purpose here is simple. To engage in topics which challenge your faith, in direct line with the purpose/objective of this specific arena. Of course I'm going o bring forth points of concern. This is the perfect place to do it ;)

At some point, hopefully you will engage. Meaning, to address the apparent irreconcilable conflict between some of God's commands, and the fact you likely morally disagree.


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 ...

Again, I'm pointing out verses, which I gather both you and @gospels don't agree. [My] disagreement is irrelevant; in the sense that I do not have to try and 'justify' why it was okay. You do ;) Further, you would then need to also claim, in the same breath, that you disagree with me, which you likely don't disagree with me. Quite the little pickle.... Again, having your cake and eating it too seems to be the common theme around these parts...?

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 :cool:]

Again with the name drops. But I feel I already touched on some of this above :)

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 ...


My point here is to demonstrate that Christians disagree with God. Yes, you likely feel the same as I, with many of these subjects. And hence, the invention of 'Christian apologetics'.


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?]

My objective here is simple. It has nothing to do with how I was raised, what I was taught, etc.... It starts at post #98. But nice try in the deflection, yet again.

A Christian made an assertion. I countered it. Thus far, you told me to leave here alone. And further eluded to the fact that she is defenseless. Thus, I ask you...

Is she defenseless because you deem her unequipped. Or, is she defenseless because her argument fails?

I'll stop here for now :)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

GospelS

A Daughter of Zion Seeking Her Father in Heaven!
Supporter
Aug 1, 2017
2,638
2,570
35
She is The Land!
✟441,860.00
Country
India
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
No, it's you who wasted our time. Goodbye.

:wave: I look forward to discussing with you on other points though if i may have your permission or given a chance. I hope you find what you are seeking. Take care. :)
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,863.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
How is it not? Christians drive the argument toward a predetermined conclusion rather than objectively following the facts wherever they may lead. That's how council does it in the court of law. Christians will be adversarial to achieve this goal, and not cooperative. This is also just like the courtroom.
Objectivity? Who said anything about that ol' shibboleth? I think you know how me and Mr. P and Mr. K "feel" about that whole subject, not to mention many of the current Philosophical Hermeneuticsts who follow suite somewhere on the same epistemic continuum, right? ;)

But it is, Mr. Omega Man. You have predetermined that Christianity is correct, and you are uncooperative in your pursuit of showing that it is true.
Oh, what a kindred soul you are, NV! I suppose "Omega Man" isn't far off of the mark, and I'm glad you're perceptive in that way so as to see that about me, but truth be told, I've always kind of thought of my analogous identity as one similar to being an 'extra' protagonist in George Lucas's old film, "THX-1138." :rolleyes:

At least you seem to 'get' me. That's something.

But that requires that you would be willing to drop the faith if the case supporting it is weak enough. Is that on the table for you? Holding an inflexible conclusion does not make you cooperative.
Of course it's on the table ... but then we can get into all of that juicy "meta-epistemology" that makes us wonder: is there a conceptual table, really, or is it just all in your mind that you think it's all just in my mind? :p

That's got nothing to do with donkeys being unclean. Look up at Exodus 13:1. It's saying that every firstborn, human or animal, belongs to Jehovah. But instead of sacrificing your firstborn to Jehovah, you can sacrifice a lamb instead. The same rule applies for a donkey. That's not saying that a donkey is unclean.
True enough, but that's what I meant by saying that I'm starting 'simply,' because as you already know, I never really think something being 'simple' provides any real answers, especially where just one or two short verses of the Bible are concerned, even verses like Numbers 31:39-40.

This is saying the same thing as above.
Yep.

"3 Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, [and] cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that may ye eat."

If that truly is the definition of "clean" as it pertains to animals, then birds are certainly unclean. But birds are sacrificed in the Bible: see Leviticus 1:14.
Did you by chance read Leviticus chapter 11 at all on your own?

Here's another little "simple" tidbit from biblegateway.com, but feel free to vet out the overall meaning that may or may not be there since, obviously, this quote and citation I'm making is way too cursory to be definitive:

Leviticus 27:11 Contemporary English Version (CEV)
11 Donkeys are unfit for sacrifice, so if you promise me a donkey," you must bring it to the priest,

Footnotes:
  1. 27.11 Donkeys. . . donkey: The Hebrew text has “If you promise me an unclean animal,” which probably refers to a donkey (see Exodus 13.13; 34.20).

But, well, of course birds don't have cloven hooves or chew the cud. They're birds! Right, well, of course donkeys don't have cloven hooves or chew the cud. They're donkeys! So is there some other aspect to this rule I'm not seeing?
There's not a lot, is there? What did you find on all of this, by the way?

You actually had me convinced there for a second. The word "corruption" seems to work well with your idea that foreigners were unclean.

But look at this in the NIV:

24 You must not offer to the Lord an animal whose testicles are bruised, crushed, torn or cut. You must not do this in your own land, 25 and you must not accept such animals from the hand of a foreigner and offer them as the food of your God. They will not be accepted on your behalf, because they are deformed and have defects.

"Corruption" seems to be referring to defects in the animal itself.
Well, again. The semantic implications aren't nicely and systematically laid out in the Torah, are they? I think we can both agree they're not, so that means that we'll have to scrounge for various cross-currents that flow intertextually, and look for any 'echos' of Jewish idiom that may may inferences rather than bold, intellectual statements like we'd find in modern legal terms.


Agreed. This is looking more like a punt.
I never agreed to playing football with you ... :rolleyes:



I don't care about political correctness.
I'm glad that's you saying this and not me.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
@2PhiloVoid

Second response:

Litmus test for 'rape'. Using your own reason, are the following considered 'rape'? A simple yes or no please. I'll start:

1. A wife gives in to her husband's sexual advances, post menopause, knowing it's going to be somewhat painful, but wants her spouse to be satisfied. Or maybe, she's just not in the mood at the moment, but still gives in to satisfy her spouse? No
2. A wife gives in to her husband's sexual advances, knowing if she does not, she may fear what could happen to her, (whether the fear is rationale or not). Yes

In regards to the Bible, and the many verses from the OT predominantly, which one of the two above [more] closely resemble the situation? 1 or 2?

And going further still, in direct response to post #98, to take it a step further, I posit the following scenario:

You slaughter a woman's family in front of her. You keep her alive, and ask that a priest/other marry you two. Based upon this woman's likely limited experience and knowledge, what's more plausible?

1. She now admires you because she is now married to you, and wants to please you.
2. She is scared for her life, knows her rights may be limited, and stays quiet, and agrees to all requests of her captor, for survival's sake.

You see where I'm going with this sir? Yes, rape is a slippery topic. But basic reason can prevail :)


And it would seem than the Bible at least endorses/allows for such action.

So please acknowledge the contradiction made by @gospels , that "Israelite's were commanded to love strangers."
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,863.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
@2PhiloVoid

Second response:

Litmus test for 'rape'. Using your own reason, are the following considered 'rape'? A simple yes or no please. I'll start:

1. A wife gives in to her husband's sexual advances, post menopause, knowing it's going to be somewhat painful, but wants her spouse to be satisfied. Or maybe, she's just not in the mood at the moment, but still gives in to satisfy her spouse? No
2. A wife gives in to her husband's sexual advances, knowing if she does not, she may fear what could happen to her, (whether the fear is rationale or not). Yes

In regards to the Bible, and the many verses from the OT predominantly, which one of the two above [more] closely resemble the situation? 1 or 2?

And going further still, in direct response to post #98, to take it a step further, I posit the following scenario:

You slaughter a woman's family in front of her. You keep her alive, and ask that a priest/other marry you two. Based upon this woman's likely limited experience and knowledge, what's more plausible?

1. She now admires you because she is now married to you, and wants to please you.
2. She is scared for her life, knows her rights may be limited, and stays quiet, and agrees to all requests of her captor, for survival's sake.

You see where I'm going with this sir? Yes, rape is a slippery topic. But basic reason can prevail :)


And it would seem than the Bible at least endorses/allows for such action.

So please acknowledge the contradiction made by @gospels , that "Israelite's were commanded to love strangers."

I'm just going to call a truce on this at the moment since the world is ailing, and I'm sure everyone isn't in the best frame of mind to talk about very touchy subjects, what with all of the emergency responses that are required to deal with catastrophic levels of illness.

So, here's what I'm going to do: I'll just simply say that all of those various hermeneutical nuances we talked about that applied to the jurisprudence of ancient Israel in the case of slavery should also apply to this topic you've landed upon here. And maybe we can chat about some other topic that isn't so psychologically and socially "charged" ...

So, with that, I bid you well, cvanwey, and I'll continue to pray for you and your family as you go about your work and daily lives. :cool:
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: cvanwey
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
40
California
✟156,979.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Objectivity? Who said anything about that ol' shibboleth? I think you know how me and Mr. P and Mr. K "feel" about that whole subject, not to mention many of the current Philosophical Hermeneuticsts who follow suite somewhere on the same epistemic continuum, right? ;)

No, I can't say that I know how you feel on that.

Oh, what a kindred soul you are, NV! I suppose "Omega Man" isn't far off of the mark, and I'm glad you're perceptive in that way so as to see that about me, but truth be told, I've always kind of thought of my analogous identity as one similar to being an 'extra' protagonist in George Lucas's old film, "THX-1138." :rolleyes:

At least you seem to 'get' me. That's something.

No, sorry, but the truth is that I really don't get you. I just have a good memory.

Of course it's on the table ... but then we can get into all of that juicy "meta-epistemology" that makes us wonder: is there a conceptual table, really, or is it just all in your mind that you think it's all just in my mind? :p

OK. So atheism is on the table for you. Could you set the goalposts then? Recall that I set mine.

True enough, but that's what I meant by saying that I'm starting 'simply,' because as you already know, I never really think something being 'simple' provides any real answers, especially where just one or two short verses of the Bible are concerned, even verses like Numbers 31:39-40.

Yep.

Did you by chance read Leviticus chapter 11 at all on your own?

I've read the entire Bible. But no, I don't think I've read any chapter of Leviticus this decade.

Here's another little "simple" tidbit from biblegateway.com, but feel free to vet out the overall meaning that may or may not be there since, obviously, this quote and citation I'm making is way too cursory to be definitive:

Leviticus 27:11 Contemporary English Version (CEV)
11 Donkeys are unfit for sacrifice, so if you promise me a donkey," you must bring it to the priest,

Footnotes:
  1. 27.11 Donkeys. . . donkey: The Hebrew text has “If you promise me an unclean animal,” which probably refers to a donkey (see Exodus 13.13; 34.20).

There's not a lot, is there? What did you find on all of this, by the way?

That's not what it says. You have created a composition of quotes. Leviticus 11:4 describes which animals are ceremonially unclean. Leviticus 27:11 describes another situation entirely. You've yanked it out of context and then inserted your own words into it.

In short, don't do that again please.

The footnote does not appear in the NIV. I wonder why they put it there in the CEV. Anyway, the footnote reference makes no sense. Exodus 13:13 says that you can redeem your donkey with a lamb sacrifice, but it also says you can do the same for your son. If that implies donkeys are unclean, then doesn't it imply that your son is unclean also? But if you just read Exodus 13:1, it says that ALL firstborn belong to Jehovah, including both human beings and animals.

Well, again. The semantic implications aren't nicely and systematically laid out in the Torah, are they? I think we can both agree they're not, so that means that we'll have to scrounge for various cross-currents that flow intertextually, and look for any 'echos' of Jewish idiom that may may inferences rather than bold, intellectual statements like we'd find in modern legal terms.


I never agreed to playing football with you ... :rolleyes:



I'm glad that's you saying this and not me.

Yeah, we can agree that the Old Testament is pretty disorganized.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
37,390
11,318
✟433,409.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
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?

You think it's odd god wants virgins?

I think it's odd god wants anything. Doesn't he create things with magic? Can't he just magic some virgins into existence if he wants them?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: GospelS
Upvote 0

Tolworth John

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 10, 2017
8,278
4,680
68
Tolworth
✟369,559.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
You know it's bad when you're trying to make something sound better by saying that human beings were given away as someone's share.

I am not trying to make something sound better.
I am challenging thecflaim that the Israelite sacrificed people to their God.
 
Upvote 0

Tolworth John

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 10, 2017
8,278
4,680
68
Tolworth
✟369,559.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
You realize the dating of the texts puts it way past when Moses would've lived right? You're basically just taking the oral tradition as

I'm talking about someone who analysed the use of verbs and tracked how they changed over time in Egyptian inscriptions and compared that usage to the books attributed to Moses. His results of his extensive research in Egyptian, phonetian, Aramaic, Persian, and every language written in the middle East ( he was fluent in 45 languages) was that the OT was not written thousands of years after the events.

Yes genesis contains oral history. Why do you distain oral history, something that has been shown to be remarkable accurate.

that's why scholars are not remotely certain about anything beyond that some person called Jesus was the inspiration for the Gospel

Then you are unaware of the research by Dr g Habermas who states there isn't a historian who doubts the existence of Jesus as. Historical person.

[QnwOTE="muichimotsu, post: 74899630, member: 149131"], you think that someone HAS to believe Jesus is God[/QUOTE]

I don't think someone has to believe Jesus is God. I think they have not examined the evidence or are unwilling to accept the evidence.

Lee Strobel's book the Case for Christ goes over the evidence and discusses the evidence with leading experts. Or check out coldcasechristianity, a web site where an experienced cold case detective uses the same skills used to solve old murder enquiries on the gospels.
 
Upvote 0

muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
36
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
I'm talking about someone who analysed the use of verbs and tracked how they changed over time in Egyptian inscriptions and compared that usage to the books attributed to Moses. His results of his extensive research in Egyptian, phonetian, Aramaic, Persian, and every language written in the middle East ( he was fluent in 45 languages) was that the OT was not written thousands of years after the events.

Yes genesis contains oral history. Why do you distain oral history, something that has been shown to be remarkable accurate.

Accurate by what measure? You're assuming that it was somehow easier to convey things because people were more often than not illiterate and thinking that there's no possibility of corruption over time in the message to take away from what was originally there, not unlike the telephone game? Seems more than a bit too much assumptions to reinforce your preconception that the bible is somehow unique

Semitic and Egyptian could have relations in linguistics (I'm no expert, it's only a stretch by regional connections), that doesn't follow that Moses' particular uses mean that the claims he made, assuming he was the author, were actually true, especially given the end of Exodus or so where he dies, so it seems far more logical to conclude he was a heroic/mythical figure that might've existed, but there was much embellishment, same as with Alexander the Great or such

Then you are unaware of the research by Dr g Habermas who states there isn't a historian who doubts the existence of Jesus as. Historical person.

A quote from one authority is hardly substantive, it's quote mining and dishonest



I don't think someone has to believe Jesus is God. I think they have not examined the evidence or are unwilling to accept the evidence.

Lee Strobel's book the Case for Christ goes over the evidence and discusses the evidence with leading experts. Or check out coldcasechristianity, a web site where an experienced cold case detective uses the same skills used to solve old murder enquiries on the gospels

The evidence is not as cut and dry as you're making it, even Christians don't agree on Jesus' nature even if they agree on most everything else (which even that is debated, given the Arminian/Calvinist split, among other soteriological quibbles)

Lee Strobel's conclusion is dishonestly comparing it to a trial when that's not how historical conclusions work. And Cold Case Christianity already seems to be utilizing the same notion, as if we have any kind of meaningful forensic evidence rather than hearsay from people we don't even know the names of regarding the gospels and at best, have some notions that Paul of Tarsus wrote many of the epistles.

You're still making the leap from, "We have reason to think these people didn't lie," to "Their stories about the supernatural must be true," which is utterly absurd by any objective standard of evidence that isn't just following the evidence blindly with no critical thought. Also, pretty sure Lee Strobel was a journalist by trade, there's a distinct criticism based on his spin of things with the experts that is emphasized by criticisms I can find with a quick Google search. His book is not universally lauded, it's only praised by apologists who think they can just refer to him and think someone won't come out of it with a different opinion.

Your conclusion that Jesus is God is unjustified given that even if we grant Jesus' historicity, that doesn't follow to the other claims made in terms of any historical evidence, because history doesn't deal in the supernatural anymore than science
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
40
California
✟156,979.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I am not trying to make something sound better.
I am challenging thecflaim that the Israelite sacrificed people to their God.

Why? Your entire religion is founded upon human sacrifice. There are only stipulations in the Bible that sacrifices are not made to false gods and that one does not sacrifice one's own child to Jehovah. There is no stipulation that POWs couldn't be sacrificed.

So... what is the Biblical basis by which this is an unfair interpretation? What do you interpret "give X to God" to mean?
 
Upvote 0