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.
Scripture tells us to be ready to give an account, iow's know what and why you believe what you do. Now as to how many people practice this, that is a different matter. That scripture tells us to do more than just say "because God says so" is a matter of accepting and believing and living what scripture says.
Please point out who here has mentioned child rape? Neither I nor the OP has done so, although I can understand the sensitivity given the text. The verses are clear and consistent with the OP, that behaviour of the Israelites was indistinguishable from the mores of any other warring tribe of the time. The implication from that is, to paraphrase a singer, "what's god got to do with it?". If a deity was involved, why does that deity act identically with anyone else of the time?
The evidence for this, other than self-references in the book, being ?
Recollect that I am an atheist and see nothing to distinguish your god other than a slightly greater popularity than the next one in line, which is more popular than the next and so on through thousands of the blighters. Another reason I am using "a god" and "deity" as much as possible is to try to step delicately around the sensibilities of those who wish me to provide an honorific capitalisation, which I will not, including for zeus, kalki and even pikkiwokki.
I did not ask why the story was included. I asked about the change in acceptable actions. No answer as yet.
No, wrong. The stories violate our current mores but are consistent with many of the period. God has always acted as his believers expect him to, throughout history.
I guess that is another discussion about when the final books which were included in the bible were actually written. I am sure you will find other debates on that and I will not pursue it myself.
If you decide things based on scripture, then why not decide upon the behaviour shown in Numbers 31:17-18? For that matter, why eat shellfish? Where did that rule get changed later? Did insects have four legs in those days (another reference I can dig out for you if you like) and change to six or eight later? It is not enough to say "scripture" unless you can firstly point to the relevant part and secondly, most importantly, explain what is the general biblical rule which chooses that part rather than a conflicting part.
Been there, done that, waste of time. I can see the "no true scotsman" fallacy about to break out here.
You are a literalist, then? You agree uncritically with everything it says? The earth is flat and its entirety can be seen by going up a mountain?
This simply avoids the question by saying we do not know the ends so we can not criticise the means! I do believe the end in question was victory over the Midianites and the Israelis then executed the able bodied and mothers, and took virgins to impregnate, as was repeated in the 1990s in Eastern Europe, where there was also disagreement between people with different gods.
Are you a determinist or playing Captain Obvious?
Not that of your god, yours to the extent you vest it in a god.
I think the point is not what was done by the Midianites, but the behaviour of the Israelites, apparently with their god's imprimatur.
My ethics work pretty well, and ethical decisions are demonstrably similar throughout humankind regardless of preferred religion or lack of any. God's seem seem to change historically precisely in line with the development of ethics by people. You have yet to explain how you interpret them other than through a personal view. A personal view remains the same thing whether or not you attribute it to an imaginary friend.
Citation please?
So only the young virginal women were not going to be wicked? Isn't that a little convenient for the men who took them?
May I observe drily that this is the first such reference, four pages in. Now, would you mind pointing me to the relevant texts please, showing how and why one superseded the other?
The first response was like most of them, basically saying anything done was good, which does not even attempt to answer the question. I replied first to you because I thought you made a reasoned attempt. However, unless your answer to my request just above takes us further, you have done no more than to say it is your interpretation of scripture that matters. If your personal interpretation is successful, where and why does scripture come in to it except as your salve for the fact you will die?
