Virgins as Lords share?

[Tolworth John]

So the Israelites can just effectively enslave people after winning a battle? And this is supposed to be a moral people that takes prisoners of war for their own purposes?

That was the nature of warfare in those days.

 

[Tolworth John]

Way to strawman his position, pretty sure he didn't claim something that specific, he's likely referring to the scapegoating that is then applied to a fully human sacrifice to God: you know, Jesus, as you believe in him?

Follow the plot please.
I was challenged with 'Israelite sacrificed people to there God!'
This is boatently untrue so I challenged the poster to prove his claim.

 

[muichimotsu]

That was the nature of warfare in those days.

And that's not a justification for it, that's shirking any responsibility as a moral agent to consider that tradition and history do not grant goodness to an action, nor should we just accept it as something morally benign. Otherwise we'd still be treating women like chattel to be exchanged between families and marriage as purely for procreation or such nonsense

 

[muichimotsu]

Follow the plot please.
I was challenged with 'Israelite sacrificed people to there God!'
This is boatently untrue so I challenged the poster to prove his claim.

Point, but if we consider that they committed genocide, they still committed crimes against humanity regardless. Or is it not genocide in war or some other "defense" of slaughtering everyone and adding insult to injury with war prisoners and raping women?

 

[Tolworth John]

And that's not a justification for it, that's shirking any responsibility as a moral agent to consider that tradition and history do not grant goodness to an action, nor should we just accept it as something morally benign. Otherwise we'd still be treating women like chattel to be exchanged between families and marriage as purely for procreation or such nonsense

No it is accepting what happened in those days, whether you or I like it is irrelevant, it has happened and our like or dislike doesn't change it.

That said they acted in obedience to God's command to kill every one.
So your complaint is not about what the Israelites did or didn't do but with God

Was God just in ordering the slaughter of the people who opposed his chosen tribes?

Is God just?

 

[muichimotsu]

No it is accepting what happened in those days, whether you or I like it is irrelevant, it has happened and our like or dislike doesn't change it.

That said they acted in obedience to God's command to kill every one.
So your complaint is not about what the Israelites did or didn't do but with God

Was God just in ordering the slaughter of the people who opposed his chosen tribes?

Is God just?

I didn't say I could change it, I'm saying our response should not be regarding it in the same way we do mundane things like, "Oh, remember that terrible movie or that bad thing that happened on Friday the 13th one year?"

No, my complaint is that they believed that, but more importantly that we have no real evidence past a certain point back in history that the Israelites did anything alleged of them or their ancestors in the OT. Don't try to spin this like I hate God, when that's not remotely the line of thought I have: people believing false things that we can show are not rooted in any consistent evidence is frustrating if you actually care about truth rather than mere convictions, you don't have to direct anger at a fictional entity

The loaded questions aren't helping, because I don't think these events remotely happened and at best, the ancient Israelites were deluded into thinking over time that they were chosen by their tribal god to be victors in their conquest of the "Promised Land".

And the very notion of God being just is not only silly, but equivocation, as if you can compare the complex anthropomorphic concept of God with justice, a far more complex concept in terms of application and relevance to human endeavors than supernatural agency

 

[Nihilist Virus]

If any one I being silly it is you.
Please supply chapter and verse where humans were sacrificed in Jewish worship?

Refer to post #1 on this thread.

 

[Tolworth John]

fictional entity

That is your opinion, not mine or that of the Israelites.
I would point out that the OT is unique among ancient history accounts in that it tells a story that shows the bad points of there history.

Then have you considered that you could be wrong. What if the Bible is what it claims a message from the creator of the universe?

 

[Tolworth John]

Refer to post #1 on this thread.

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

The charge is that the Israelites sacrificed people in worship of there God.
That charge has not need proven and thecopening post only talks about the slaughter of people. It says nothing about people being sacrificed to God.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

The charge is that the Israelites sacrificed people in worship of there God.
That charge has not need proven and thecopening post only talks about the slaughter of people. It says nothing about people being sacrificed to God.

and 16,000 virgin girls, of whom 32 were the Lord ’s share

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So, to clarify, you do accept that your religion is based on human sacrifice. Right?

So, where are you getting your information that the 16,500 virgin Canaanite women (or 32 or whatever) were sacrificed? I kind of need to see it so I can read it for myself. (And I don't mean "in the Bible").

Thanks!

 

[Nihilist Virus]

So, where are you getting your information that the 16,500 virgin Canaanite women (or 32 or whatever) were sacrificed? I kind of need to see it so I can read it for myself. (And I don't mean "in the Bible").

Thanks!

31,984 were taken as rape slaves. 16 were sacrificed to Jehovah.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

31,984 were taken as rape slaves. 16 were sacrificed to Jehovah.

Ok. You've asserted this. And I'll ask again: from what sources have you taken your interpretive 'information'?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

So, where are you getting your information that the 16,500 virgin Canaanite women (or 32 or whatever) were sacrificed? I kind of need to see it so I can read it for myself. (And I don't mean "in the Bible").

Thanks!

Your question isn't relevant to what you quoted from me. You quoted me as saying,

"So, to clarify, you do accept that your religion is based on human sacrifice. Right?"

Your religion is built upon the human sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Ok. You've asserted this. And I'll ask again: from what sources have you taken your interpretive 'information'?

My own brain. I merely read it with as little bias as I could possibly have. Are you asking me to search out sources that confirm my interpretation? Wouldn't that be contrary to objectivity?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

My own brain. I merely read it with as little bias as I could possibly have. Are you asking me to search out sources that confirm my interpretation? Wouldn't that be contrary to objectivity?

Would it be contrary to 'objectivity' to do basic research of any kind on a wider scale (...just like little ol' you and me would do if we were still students at our respective universities)?

No, I'm not asking you to 'confirm' your interpretation. What I'm asking you to do is to show support for your interpretation (which is, as I remember, ALSO something you and I would be asked to do as students at the university, in addition to any wider, basic research [including both pro and con and positions in-between] regarding any main points we might want to put forward in a paper which we would've submitted to a professor. Do you remember those days at the university? C'mon, now! Surely you don't have amnesia about all of that, NV!)

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Would it be contrary to 'objectivity' to do basic research of any kind on a wider scale (...just like little ol' you and me would do if we were still students at our respective universities)?

No, I'm not asking you to 'confirm' your interpretation. What I'm asking you to do is to show support for your interpretation (which is, as I remember, ALSO something you and I would be asked to do as students at the university, in addition to any wider, basic research [including both pro and con and positions in-between] regarding any main points we might want to put forward in a paper which we would've submitted to a professor. Do you remember those days at the university? C'mon, now! Surely you don't have amnesia about all of that, NV!)

My experience from universities in this area relates to argumentative essays, which are biased in nature as I described.

 

[muichimotsu]

That is your opinion, not mine or that of the Israelites.
I would point out that the OT is unique among ancient history accounts in that it tells a story that shows the bad points of there history.

Then have you considered that you could be wrong. What if the Bible is what it claims a message from the creator of the universe?

It also has the bias from the start that the Israelites are a chosen people and God seemingly just forgives them as long as they submit to its authority, so it's still rooted in a cult of personality with the henotheistic underpinnings where their god is the best because it can do more stuff

If so, then it's an incompetent message from an equally incompetent creator, so I still have no reason to take it seriously even if I happen to be wrong in that particular conclusion: it shows far more signs of being written by zealous ancient peoples who wanted to create a narrative that showed their tribal deity as superior to the others by concocting stories that barely have any historicity until King David at best in terms of events we can corroborate otherwise.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

My experience from universities in this area relates to argumentative essays, which are biased in nature as I described.

My experience was different from yours it seems ...

 

[GospelS]

It seems like you're arguing that the virgins were not sacrificed because you don't like the idea that it might've happened.

We don't base our faith on what might have happened. Thanks for discussing.