Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The discrepancy in your claim.
Anyway, virgin Midianite women and girls were not yet "perpetuating" the culture of their own people, and IF they became joined to Israel after being subjected through war, they also wouldn't be allowed to perpetuate a deviant culture within the nation of Israel itself. And when they had babies, those babies would essentially be born and raised as Israelite children, living under the admonitions of the Law given through Moses.
the claim was that the male children werent allowed to live because they perpetuated the bloodline. did you disagree with that?
My understanding is that Midianite males, as well as most Canaanite males, are not allowed to live in the Old Testament context of war because they cannot be conjoined to Israel through a reception of the dominant cultural priority of God's Will and Holiness as expressed in Israel's moral law.
In the context of the Old Testament, Midianite males would only penetrate INTO Israel's dominance, and would in time attempt to displace Israel's dominance. They would not become incorporated. As with males, this also applies to Midianite women who have "already known a man," and they carry within themselves the corruption (from the assumed superiority of their gods) and the promotion of their cultural corruption through their filial relationships. Virgin Midianite women, on the other hand, are in a different position: They can 'receive' Israel's spiritual dominance and give birth to children in Israel without the taint of previous totalizing social acculturation.
Sam, think about how the following verses from Leviticus plays into the overall context of what we're talking about here:
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.’”
It is only when these "foreigners" willingly and completely become assimilated to Israel's Law that they can start to be considered worthy of joining into any level of social commerce with the people of Israel.
Similarly, and as an example, it's not ok for people to come to the U.S. and bring with them ideologies of either total Communism or Radical Jihadism; neither of these ideologies can fit within a democratically oriented republic. In fact, it would be foolish to think Communists or Radicals could be assimilated into our culture. It's just not going to happen ... only a naive person would think such foreigners could be 'at peace' with any of us who support democracy. Only those who are willing to adopt democratic notions of social discourse can assimilate to what we expect in our culture and society.
Peace,
2PhiloVoid
I'm confused. Your wording was rather vague.
Ok. (Here we go again.) What part is specifically vague, Sam?
The dominance and cultural priority.
If you can prove me wrong on some point, or you can show me that I am incorrect and have failed to account for some loose factor, then please do, Sam. But, be specific.
Do you think the peacefulness in the NT is regarding the New Covenant?
To some extent yes, but not completely. As you know, we find Jesus saying,
34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
35 For I have come to turn
“‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’ [Matthew 10:34-36]
What do you mean to some extent?
That verse isnt referring to violence at all. I found an article that proves you wrong.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?