• 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.

What Was God's Rationale In This Instance?

cloudyday2

Generic Theist
Site Supporter
Jul 10, 2012
7,381
2,352
✟591,302.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Sure, and I think you have some good sense in how you try to weigh the various academic evaluations that are out there in Scho-la-la-la-land. But, let's face another fact: It's not as if Archeaology as a field and discipline would be expected to just vomit up a host of artifacts if the Biblical text were true? I mean, if the parting of the Red Sea took place, what do any of us really expect to find with assurance? Chariot wheels galore? Moses's lost pair of extra sandal's that dropped off as he lead the Israelites between two walls of water? What? No, what is often found in Archaelogy is incidental and accidental leftovers of but a few things from the past, particularly of things left from say, a very narrow time----like one week that took place 2500 plus years ago.
That is very true about archaeology. (Maybe that is why CF's forum software doesn't consider "archaeology" to be a properly spelled word LOL)

But there are plenty of reasons to doubt the truthfulness and factuality of the Bible aside from archaeology. An example that comes to mind is Goliath. One book of the Bible has an elaborate narrative where David slew Goliath, but another book says some other warrior slew Goliath. Most historians believe that David's legend absorbed the accomplishments of the other warrior. That is only one of many examples. Many books of the Bible show signs of being edited for unknown reasons. There is no reason to trust the Bible except to satisfy a yearning for SOMETHING we can trust. It seems to me that we humans are not privileged to know what is real, whether we have a purpose, whether God exists, etc. If God exists, then this must be how he wants it, and we should be content in our ignorance rather than claiming to have answers in an infallible religious anthology. We need to trust that God will tell us what we need to know (if anything) and leave it at that IMO. (Of course even when we think that God has told us something, we can never be certain, because we might be imagining.)
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Recalculating!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,570
11,468
Space Mountain!
✟1,354,106.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
That is very true about archaeology. (Maybe that is why CF's forum software doesn't consider "archaeology" to be a properly spelled word LOL)
No, that's just what happens when you're typing in a rush and you try to spell arkeyology on your wife's cheap, extra laptop ... ^_^

But there are plenty of reasons to doubt the truthfulness and factuality of the Bible aside from archaeology. An example that comes to mind is Goliath. One book of the Bible has an elaborate narrative where David slew Goliath, but another book says some other warrior slew Goliath. Most historians believe that David's legend absorbed the accomplishments of the other warrior. That is only one of many examples.
That's understandable. But then we smack our foreheads with our palms as we read the rehash of everything in 1 Chronicles, and we might do so again when dealing with our confusion as we realize that more than one person in the bible (surprise) could have had the same name as another person. But some scribe writing the Bible was actually the one who got confused in the rehash.

Then, since the 3rd time is the charm, we smack our foreheads again when we see that the first account in 2 Samuel 21:19 is retained rather than lost or completely displaced, just like we do when we see that there are four (count'em, four!) Gospel accounts, all the while wondering why we needed four in the first place. [Is there an answer to that: Anybody? Anyone? Anyone?] :rolleyes:


Many books of the Bible show signs of being edited for unknown reasons. There is no reason to trust the Bible except to satisfy a yearning for SOMETHING we can trust.
Sure, there's always going to be limits to what we might believe, especially when it comes to the Bible. I could be wrong, but I think I've been saying something like that with all of my talk about epistemology and whatnot all along.

It seems to me that we humans are not privileged to know what is real, whether we have a purpose, whether God exists, etc. If God exists, then this must be how he wants it, and we should be content in our ignorance rather than claiming to have answers in an infallible religious anthology.
^_^ ...well, Socrates might disagree with you there on that one.

We need to trust that God will tell us what we need to know (if anything) and leave it at that IMO. (Of course even when we think that God has told us something, we can never be certain, because we might be imagining.)
I'll say one things for sure, it'll be a big kick to my backside if it turns out you're right. ^_^
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
65
California
✟151,844.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
Just so you know, I was composing my post above while you were posting #195, so I didn't see it until after I wrote and posted.

Regardless, on this one point, I disagree with Copan and Flanagan, although I may agree with them on other points in their book not related to Numbers 31.


If neither of us agree, then why bring them up? Seems as though the points raised by them, in which you've highlighted, do not really address my specific points regardless.

So case closed, I guess, on 'this' rebuttal/argument/angle...

Moving forward...


So, back to the virgins being spared issue. I agree with you that it seems most of the Midianites in this text were killed, and I say this for textual reasons, one being the presence of Numbers 31:35, which I thought you'd have cited by now.
And to tell you the truth, I'm not bothered by the fact that the text doesn't indicate every single nitty-gritty detail about this possible process or action involved in sorting out the virgins, nor do I demand (from God or the writer of the text) a list of every reason WHY it all just happened or had to happen that way. I mean, do you want a play by play account in the Bible of every time some man makes love to his wife in the text, or an account of every time they all went poo-poo?

I don't. Why do you?

Wait...? This doesn't really address my points either... :/

My first point is to demonstrate that anyone can state 'God told them to do this or that...' And when, you yourself, admit there is a chance that God would not tell a human to only spare virgins, you have to ask yourself.... Did Moses receive any instruction from God at all? Or is this just yet another elaborate example of legendary tale(s)?

Why would God, being all mighty and all, command for troops to spare virgins? Furthermore, there would exist no human way to decifer the true virgins. Thus, God would need to aid in the process. I'm not quibbling over the fact that the Bible does not lay out extensive blow by blow accounts of each and every command. My point is that God would need to intervene in this process. And if He had to intervene in this process, which might be rather tedious, why not just strike the opposing tribe dead, as needed? God intervenes to command killing, and pick the virgins, but watches the humans kill the other humans. Seems odd. Again, the fact that we know (now), that such processes are not feasible by humans alone, seems to expose yet another short-coming...

I guess my point being that as we discover more and more, many of us have no choice but to conclude that God's claimed 'hand' in any of these claimed events become less and less... It seems as though many are uncomfortable by this reality, and either care not to talk about it, ignore, make excuses, or other. Seems cognitively dishonest, if you ask me...

Then we have the fact that it would appear that God does not know the basics of biology... He orders complete 'vengeance' against the Midianites, but lets some women live?

Seems as though the author may not have been aware that women too carry the bloodline. It might be fare to say that the author was under the assumption that women were nothing more than generic carriers. Which again, is another example of a man made book, claiming to be from God.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Recalculating!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,570
11,468
Space Mountain!
✟1,354,106.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
If neither of us agree, then why bring them up? Seems as though the points raised by them, in which you've highlighted, do not really address my specific points regardless.

So case closed, I guess, on 'this' rebuttal/argument/angle...

Moving forward...
By bringing up the alternative interpretation from Copan and Flanagan, I'm just showing that I've done some home-work, which I'm waiting for other folks to do, especially in regard to those who think they can blithely share their so-called two moral sense ......................... and call it "common." As if, everyone can and should "JUST" wake up to some common sense fact that the Bible is wrong because............................well, skeptics SAY IT'S WRONG.

I have to envy the current strands of Atheists in their various verbalizations about current morality; all they have to do is say the magic word, "Common Sense!" and the world, for some reason......no, I take that back.............................for not real reason other than their emotions worn on their sleeve...........then start nodding their heads like bobble-heads.

Wait...? This doesn't really address my points either... :/

My first point is to demonstrate that anyone can state 'God told them to do this or that...' And when, you yourself, admit there is a chance that God would not tell a human to only spare virgins, you have to ask yourself.... Did Moses receive any instruction from God at all? Or is this just yet another elaborate example of legendary tale(s)?

Why would God, being all mighty and all, command for troops to spare virgins? Furthermore, there would exist no human way to decifer the true virgins. Thus, God would need to aid in the process. I'm not quibbling over the fact that the Bible does not lay out extensive blow by blow accounts of each and every command. My point is that God would need to intervene in this process. And if He had to intervene in this process, which might be rather tedious, why not just strike the opposing tribe dead, as needed? God intervenes to command killing, and pick the virgins, but watches the humans kill the other humans. Seems odd. Again, the fact that we know (now), that such processes are not feasible by humans alone, seems to expose yet another short-coming...

I guess my point being that as we discover more and more, many of us have no choice but to conclude that God's claimed 'hand' in any of these claimed events become less and less... It seems as though many are uncomfortable by this reality, and either care not to talk about it, ignore, make excuses, or other. Seems cognitively dishonest, if you ask me...

Then we have the fact that it would appear that God does not know the basics of biology... He orders complete 'vengeance' against the Midianites, but lets some women live?

Seems as though the author may not have been aware that women too carry the bloodline. It might be fare to say that the author was under the assumption that women were nothing more than generic carriers. Which again, is another example of a man made book, claiming to be from God.

And this is what it all comes down to, for you, isn't it? If something in the bible doesn't make automatic sense, it must be wrong, probably because the notion of 'holiness,' along with the consequence of sin before an utterly Holy, Righteous, Omniscient, All-Powerful CREATOR is almost utterly lost on today's world ...

The real kicker is that there's these folks called Moral Relativists (and some Nihilists) wandering around, saying that morality isn't clear, but then go on to make what are supposed to be very, very clear judgments that "the God of the Bible is an obvious Monster."

No, somehow, the Moral Relativist's position seems............................too easy, to me. Way too easy! It must be nice to be able to just say, "It's wrong!" and thereby have something "be wrong."
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
65
California
✟151,844.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
By bringing up the alternative interpretation from Copan and Flanagan, I'm just showing that I've done some home-work, which I'm waiting for other folks to do, especially in regard to those who think they can blithely share their so-called two moral sense ......................... and call it "common." As if, everyone can and should "JUST" wake up to some common sense fact that the Bible is wrong because............................well, skeptics SAY IT'S WRONG.

I have to envy the current strands of Atheists in their various verbalizations about current morality; all they have to do is say the magic word, "Common Sense!" and the world, for some reason......no, I take that back.............................for not real reason other than their emotions worn on their sleeve...........then start nodding their heads like bobble-heads.

Well, morality does seem relative. I've tried to point that out, even in this topic. Back then, women were considered possessions, way less-than-men, and/or virtually sub-human. But my gripe isn't so much about how (I) FEEL this is wrong.... MY gripe is the REASONS that "God" gives for these conclusions... (i.e.)

- "The woman sinned first" <- Seems illogical, which has nothing to do with 'morality'.

- "The woman came from a man" <- Well, this appears false, in the way the Bible describes.


In this case, if you look at my two points about Numbers 31, they don't really deal in morality either... (i.e.)

1. "God told me so". Well, really? Are we sure? Anyone can claim God told them this, that, other... And when we examine the premise and details, do they add up? Doesn't appear so...

2. Kill even the little ones, but keep the virgins? Basic biology here.

"Morality" isn't my personal concern here... My beef is that this claimed "God" gets things wrong. Which either means this claimed God is inept, or, the person whom claimed God's hand is delusional/lying/other and God is nowhere to be found in this story line.

Thus, which one of these paths do you wish to take? Because I cannot think of a third option quite frankly.

I have to ask you....

Will there ever come a time AGAIN, in the future, where women and men are considered unequal BECAUSE of claims that are now proven false? Such as 'women being created from men', (or) because a woman did something 'incorrect' before the man followed the same 'incorrect path'?

I'm trying to keep 'morality' out of it, as much as possible. I'm sorry if you feel 'atheists' have some type of an 'upper hand', in regards to 'morals' on some 'common sense' level.

When I state 'common sense', it is more for the reasons in my two points.


And this is what it all comes down to, for you, isn't it? If something in the bible doesn't make automatic sense, it must be wrong, probably because the notion of 'holiness,' along with the consequence of sin before an utterly Holy, Righteous, Omniscient, All-Powerful CREATOR is almost utterly lost on today's world ...

False, as post #1 indicates. I've truly given this chapter a fare shake. And cannot reconcile any logical conclusions, in favor of this supposed Yahweh character. Nor have you, in all your apparent study, been able to provide what seems to be anything close to a proper rationale.

What it 'comes down to', for me, is I'm now here, raising topics to Christian apologists like you. As stated prior, this chapter alone seems to demonstrate a pretty large flaw or two. If examined without bias, seems to suggest either an inept God, or a story in where God has no place within it; even though the very same book states that it does.

And after some type of 'resolution' has been concluded, for this topic; I may decide to post yet another verse/chapter demonstrating another occurrence on how.... even if there exists some creating agent/agents/etc, it might appear more and more likely that the claims of this particular flavor of a God may not hold true in reality...


The real kicker is that there's these folks called Moral Relativists (and some Nihilists) wandering around, saying that morality isn't clear, but then go on to make what are supposed to be very, very clear judgments that "the God of the Bible is an obvious Monster."

I have to ask you @2PhiloVoid .... If morals ARE objective, what IS God's stance on taking virgins in warfare? Does He change His mind?

No, somehow, the Moral Relativist's position seems............................too easy, to me. Way too easy! It must be nice to be able to just say, "It's wrong!" and thereby have something "be wrong."

Well, I hope, as stated from above, you now know why I have concluded that this chapter is 'wrong' ;)

And on a side note, it's fare to state that yourself, myself, and @Nihilist Virus ALL agree that murdering children, but sparing female virgins, post war, seems 'wrong.' But maybe now I'm 'wrong'?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Recalculating!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,570
11,468
Space Mountain!
✟1,354,106.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Well, morality does seem relative. I've tried to point that out, even in this topic. Back then, women were considered possessions, way less-than-men, and/or virtually sub-human. But my gripe isn't so much about how (I) FEEL this is wrong.... MY gripe is the REASONS that "God" gives for these conclusions... (i.e.)

- "The woman sinned first" <- Seems illogical, which has nothing to do with 'morality'.

- "The woman came from a man" <- Well, this appears false, in the way the Bible describes.


In this case, if you look at my two points about Numbers 31, they don't really deal in morality either... (i.e.)

1. "God told me so". Well, really? Are we sure? Anyone can claim God told them this, that, other... And when we examine the premise and details, do they add up? Doesn't appear so...

2. Kill even the little ones, but keep the virgins? Basic biology here.

"Morality" isn't my personal concern here... My beef is that this claimed "God" gets things wrong. Which either means this claimed God is inept, or, the person whom claimed God's hand is delusional/lying/other and God is nowhere to be found in this story line.

Thus, which one of these paths do you wish to take? Because I cannot think of a third option quite frankly.

I have to ask you....

Will there ever come a time AGAIN, in the future, where women and men are considered unequal BECAUSE of claims that are now proven false? Such as 'women being created from men', (or) because a woman did something 'incorrect' before the man followed the same 'incorrect path'?

I'm trying to keep 'morality' out of it, as much as possible. I'm sorry if you feel 'atheists' have some type of an 'upper hand', in regards to 'morals' on some 'common sense' level.

When I state 'common sense', it is more for the reasons in my two points.




False, as post #1 indicates. I've truly given this chapter a fare shake. And cannot reconcile any logical conclusions, in favor of this supposed Yahweh character. Nor have you, in all your apparent study, been able to provide what seems to be anything close to a proper rationale.

What it 'comes down to', for me, is I'm now here, raising topics to Christian apologists like you. As stated prior, this chapter alone seems to demonstrate a pretty large flaw or two. If examined without bias, seems to suggest either an inept God, or a story in where God has no place within it; even though the very same book states that it does.

And after some type of 'resolution' has been concluded, for this topic; I may decide to post yet another verse/chapter demonstrating another occurrence on how.... even if there exists some creating agent/agents/etc, it might appear more and more likely that the claims of this particular flavor of a God may not hold true in reality...




I have to ask you @2PhiloVoid .... If morals ARE objective, what IS God's stance on taking virgins in warfare? Does He change His mind?



Well, I hope, as stated from above, you now know why I have concluded that this chapter is 'wrong' ;)

And on a side note, it's fare to state that yourself, myself, and @Nihilist Virus ALL agree that murdering children, but sparing female virgins, post war, seems 'wrong.' But maybe now I'm 'wrong'?

Sparing virgins is wrong? I'm not understanding. Would you rather see them having been killed in Numbers 31? :dontcare: I wouldn't.

Moreover, it seems like you (a self-claimed moral relativist) are under the impression that people (such as the Midianites on the whole) somehow have an integral 'right' to life no matter what ... from whence does this notion come? Because, as far as I can tell, this notion isn't prevalent in the animal kingdom, and likewise, it's not prevalent in the Bible.

And of course, it goes without saying that on this side of history, thousands of years progressively removed from anything in the biblical view of both world and history, all of this kind of analysis, such as we're doing here on Numbers 31, is disturbing and shocking, as it should be! But maybe the missing puzzle piece for you is that....SIN is disturbing, but so many people today no longer register this "thing" on their moral or ethical "radars," ................................................

.........and so when we look back on biblical texts such as we find in Numbers 31, we just "don't get it!"
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
65
California
✟151,844.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
Sparing virgins is wrong? I'm not understanding. Would you rather see them having been killed in Numbers 31?

It seems like you're under the impression that people somehow have an integral 'right' to life no matter what ... from whence does this notion come? Because, as far as I can tell, this notion isn't prevalent in the animal kingdom, and likewise, it's not prevalent in the Bible.

It's almost as if you didn't read anything I wrote... But somehow, I have a pretty fare feeling you did. The question remains, why did you ignore practically all of it?

And in regards to the 'morality', I seem to find when the opponent ignores seemingly valid points, and instead raises the 'moral argument', it is nothing more than a red herring of sorts....

But I'll bite.... As long as you ACTUALLY address the apparent fork in the road I've assessed; about this story line (Numbers 31). (i.e) It appears that either:

1. If this particular God exists, he's incorrect about some things...

(or)

2. This story line does NOT have God's proverbial hand within it. Which raises the deeper question, what other stories have God shoehorned into them without just cause?


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

Now back to your response (for now)...

"Sparing virgins is wrong?" For someone whom prides themselves upon context/interpretation, you either missed the mark, or, are 'playing games.'

Orders to only keep virgins for yourself, while murdering all other young defenseless life 'seems' 'wrong'. But I am only being honest in admitting that I also cannot truly 'justify' it. Hence, the term moral relativist... My point, is that we LIKELY agree on this particular point, in this particular instance. So why doesn't God? Which means, He either disagrees with both you and I, or, God is absent from this 'command.' ;)

"Would you rather see them having been killed in Numbers 31?" It would make more sense. Then at least the story line might be half way coherent.


"It seems like you're under the impression that people somehow have an integral 'right' to life no matter what ... from whence does this notion come? Because, as far as I can tell, this notion isn't prevalent in the animal kingdom, and likewise, it's not prevalent in the Bible." I don't recall saying that... All it may suggest is that I possess a trait, as I'm sure you do too, in which we label 'empathy'. But does my personal compassion for situational ethics deem morality objective? I doubt it... I'm only suggesting that it's likely we can come to the same conclusion about Numbers 31, which begs the question; WHAT is God's rationale for sparing the virgins alone?.?.?.?.?


If this particular God does exist, it seems apparent that whatever He says, goes. No matter what. ---- Regardless of the apparent rationale, or lack there-of... And for someone like myself, if something does not logically follow, then I simply feel justified dismissing it.


And BTW, I'm going to keep referencing post #205, until you address the necessary points there as well. I have nothing else to add....
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Recalculating!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,570
11,468
Space Mountain!
✟1,354,106.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
It's almost as if you didn't read anything I wrote... But somehow, I have a pretty fare feeling you did. The question remains, why did you ignore practically all of it?
...for the same reason you have practically ignored much if not most of everything I've ever posed to you since May of 2018. If you dismiss practically out of hand much of what I say, as if I've never said it, why would I have ongoing, let alone increasing, incentive to listen to you?

And in regards to the 'morality', I seem to find when the opponent ignores seemingly valid points, and instead raises the 'moral argument', it is nothing more than a red herring of sorts....
Says you. And what I'm about to say will sound mean, but I intend for it to simply be taken as an eye-opener, not as a total affront, but here it is: It's just your morally relative jaw flapp'n, open and shut, open and shut, buttressed by nothing but the repetition of, "...this doesn't make sense to me!"

But I'll bite.... As long as you ACTUALLY address the apparent fork in the road I've assessed; about this story line (Numbers 31). (i.e) It appears that either:
1. If this particular God exists, he's incorrect about some things...
...hence, you've forgotten all those things I've said about the nature of ancient literature, historiography, and philosophy of history.

(or)

2. This story line does NOT have God's proverbial hand within it. Which raises the deeper question, what other stories have God shoehorned into them without just cause?
It doesn't need to exude some ethereal "proverbial hand" that really can only be defined subjectively by each one of us, and I say t his for various philosophical reasons that theology and 2 bit skeptics seem to miss. And sure, you have the freedom to ignore all those other factors that I may bring to the table and by which I make my own evaluations, but it wouldn't mean that you're somehow "more objective" than me because you refuse to hear me out or to bring into your matrix of evaluation any more additional, even relevant factors.


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

Now back to your response (for now)...
"Sparing virgins is wrong?" For someone whom prides themselves upon context/interpretation, you either missed the mark, or, are 'playing games.'
I'm sorry it seems that way to you.

Orders to only keep virgins for yourself, while murdering all other young defenseless life 'seems' 'wrong'. But I am only being honest in admitting that I also cannot truly 'justify' it. Hence, the term moral relativist... My point, is that we LIKELY agree on this particular point, in this particular instance. So why doesn't God? Which means, He either disagrees with both you and I, or, God is absent from this 'command.' ;)
If God is Holy and has deemed an entire culture, or tribal culture--or sometimes even His own People--- to be morally deficient as they attempt to waltz around in what is .... really.... HIS World, not ours, then I kind of expect the text to say some weird stuff.


"Would you rather see them having been killed in Numbers 31?"
It would make more sense. Then at least the story line might be half way coherent.
......what?! :dontcare:


"It seems like you're under the impression that people somehow have an integral 'right' to life no matter what ... from whence does this notion come? Because, as far as I can tell, this notion isn't prevalent in the animal kingdom, and likewise, it's not prevalent in the Bible."
I don't recall saying that... All it may suggest is that I possess a trait, as I'm sure you do too, in which we label 'empathy'. But does my personal compassion for situational ethics deem morality objective? I doubt it... I'm only suggesting that it's likely we can come to the same conclusion about Numbers 31, which begs the question; WHAT is God's rationale for sparing the virgins alone?.?.?.?.?
Reflecting what I've said to others here in this thread, I'm guessing (and I'm just offering my opinion) that the virgins aren't implicated in the Seduction of the Israelite men, nor in the idolotary that was being offered to the Israelites through all of that, and so................the virgins (or at least all those women whom were thought to be virgin or close to it) were allowed to live, unlike those in the SEVEN Canaanite tribes designated for destruction.


If this particular God does exist, it seems apparent that whatever He says, goes. No matter what. ---- Regardless of the apparent rationale, or lack there-of... And for someone like myself, if something does not logically follow, then I simply feel justified dismissing it.
Yeah. God is Sovereign, and He has indicated (Deuteronomy 29:29) that some INFO is under His prerogative to hold and withhold, which chagrins many of us even today, doesn't it? On some these things, I feel what everyone else feels existentially, and I ask along with everyone else: God, couldn't you have given us a bit more info so we could understand better? Pascal felt some of this; Kierkegaard too.

Apparently people today, however, are ready for Revolution against God.

Well...............let's just see how all of that goes. In philosophical fashion, I'm skeptical about the success of human rebellion in that if there is this Jesus who is Sovereign Lord and Savior of the World [and I personally think there is], then any Revolution set up against Him is probably going to go sour somewhere along the way. That was the case in Numbers 31; it's the case today, or will be in the future (Psalm 2, Book of Revelation).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
65
California
✟151,844.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
...for the same reason you have practically ignored much if not most of everything I've ever posed to you since May of 2018. If you dismiss practically out of hand much of what I say, as if I've never said it, why would I have ongoing, let alone increasing, incentive to listen to you?


Um, okay...? Or as you now say... "I'm sorry it seems that way to you."

But somehow, I highly doubt this is the origin of your dismissal :) Moving forward... Post #205 please.


Says you. And what I'm about to say will sound mean, but I intend for it to simply be taken as an eye-opener, not as a total affront, but here it is: It's just your morally relative jaw flapp'n, open and shut, open and shut, buttressed by nothing but the repetition of, "...this doesn't make sense to me!"

You just justified your prior 'answer,' where you tried to place to the forefront a 'moral argument', (an argument I really have no stake in), with yet another red herring with an ad hominem twist/kicker. Tisk tisk... Post #205 please...

hence, you've forgotten all those things I've said about the nature of ancient literature, historiography, and philosophy of history.

No sir... It's just that none of it applies in (this) instance apparently. Nor, have you been slightly successful in refuting my points, namely in post #205.

It doesn't need to exude some ethereal "proverbial hand" that really can only be defined subjectively by each one of us, and I say t his for various philosophical reasons that theology and 2 bit skeptics seem to miss. And sure, you have the freedom to ignore all those other factors that I may bring to the table and by which I make my own evaluations, but it wouldn't mean that you're somehow "more objective" than me because you refuse to hear me out or to bring into your matrix of evaluation any more additional, even relevant factors.


Numbers 31 seems to demonstrate that God orders group A to eradicate group B. But seems to also order group A to keep some of the recipients in group B (i.e.) "untouched women". Well, this demonstrates that either God does not abide by His own term in the title of chapter 31 (i.e.) 'vengeance', where He orders the killing of all, including infants. It would appear that God is seemingly unaware of how to resolve an issue. Seems as though vengeance would mean to eliminate a people. Leaving virgins would continue to carry the same bloodline He intended to erase. So He appears either incompetent, or, the story line, where God issues commands, appears man-made alone. Make your choice..... Oh, and address all points in post #205, not already addressed in this response please. Thank you.

If God is Holy and has deemed an entire culture, or tribal culture--or sometimes even His own People--- to be morally deficient as they attempt to waltz around in what is .... really.... HIS World, not ours, then I kind of expect the text to say some weird stuff.

Sorry sir, but I'm gonna have to call 'word salad' here...

I already conceded that if God does exist, He can do whatever He wants. But if this God does actually exist, best case scenario would suggest He was NOT aware that leaving some women Midianites alive would further the bloodline; which would directly contradict the title of the entire chapter.


At best, it would appear that If this particular God does exist, He seems unaware of biology. And at worst, He is completely absent from this claimed event. Which again, begs the question, what other events is He truly absent?
......what?!

What do you not get here? Appears God's goal was to eliminate the Midianites. This would mean one would have to exterminate them all. Again, this is one of the crux's of this topic. It seems quite possible this story line falls more-so in line with a legendary and 'glorious' tale of valor and victory; as told by the winners; and maybe smuggling in 'God' to 'justify' their choice/selection of retaining the virgins. Makes more sense, since mere human beings were unaware or oblivious at this time.

*** And sure, (on a side note), we can only wonder WHY the virgins were spared ;) But of course we can't truly KNOW. Lucky you, in this case; am I right? :) ***


Reflecting what I've said to others here in this thread, I'm guessing (and I'm just offering my opinion) that the virgins aren't implicated in the Seduction of the Israelite men, nor in the idolotary that was being offered to the Israelites through all of that, and so................the virgins (or at least all those women whom were thought to be virgin or close to it) were allowed to live, unlike those in the SEVEN Canaanite tribes designated for destruction.

This is the reason I am not comparing THIS story to the Canaanites. In those stories, seems as though God is aware how to rid the planet of a people. This story, not so much... You starting to pick up what I'm laying down yet? Please also address post #205, where applicable...

Yeah. God is Sovereign,

Yea, but does might make 'right'?


Let's give this a quick test. A mother kills her children and swears God told her to do it. How are you able to discern she is either delusional or lying, verses, telling the truth? Because it would seem God tells humans to kill, from time to time. Who's to say then, right???

Again, this is the crux of this entire thread. Anyone can CLAIM God told them to do this, that, or the other. But how can we evaluate it's reality coherently????


Apparently people today, however, are ready for Revolution against God.

Well...............let's just see how all of that goes. In philosophical fashion, I'm skeptical about the success of human rebellion in that if there is this Jesus who is Sovereign Lord and Savior of the World [and I personally think there is], then any Revolution set up against Him is probably going to go sour somewhere along the way. That was the case in Numbers 31; it's the case today, or will be in the future (Psalm 2, Book of Revelation).

Ignoring this unfalsifiable claim....
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Recalculating!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,570
11,468
Space Mountain!
✟1,354,106.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
*** And sure, (on a side note), we can only wonder WHY the virgins were spared ;) But of course we can't truly KNOW. Lucky you, in this case; am I right? :) ***



NOW, you're finally "getting it." :ok:

 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
65
California
✟151,844.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private


NOW, you're finally "getting it." :ok:

You mean the part where I state "lucky you"? Yea, I got that :) A matter of fact, I stated that near the beginning of the thread somewhere I believe.

Are you going to address post #205? Or, are you going to continue using this flimsy excuse; by acting 'hurt', that you seem to think I ignore some of your responses?

We are all waiting your highly educated synopsis.

The anticipation is killing me.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Recalculating!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,570
11,468
Space Mountain!
✟1,354,106.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
You mean the part where I state "lucky you"? Yea, I got that :) A matter of fact, I stated that near the beginning of the thread somewhere I believe.

Are you going to address post #205? Or, are you going to continue using this flimsy excuse; by acting 'hurt', that you seem to think I ignore some of your responses?

We are all waiting your highly educated synopsis.

The anticipation is killing me.

And what do you think I'll say about how Moses's role as literary mediator BETWEEN God's voice and the Israelite people, and then us thousands of years later, disrupts any chance of the Bible being a PERFECT document .................. anyway. You know, already, that I don't expect the Bible to be perfect. I think we've had that discussion already over a year ago or so, if I remember right.

I just throw the WHOLE expectation for any kind of innerrancy out the window as a not only superfluous idea, but one that is impossible to have if human minds and hands are involved in the process of 'messaging' humanity, so to speak [...INSERT A LARGE DOSE OF THE PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY AND OF HISTORIOGRAPHY HERE].

Of course the biblical accounts are missing some stuff we'd like to have.

Of course, it's not always clear and in need of further hermeneutical consideration, if possible (and it ain't always possible).

Of course, it seems there are conceptual errors in the warp and woof of the ideas used by the Israelite author/authors to represent the narratives and poetic expressions we find therein.

But so what? The real discussion has nothing to do with virgins, then, does it? :redcard:

So, what's your next thread idea?
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
65
California
✟151,844.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
And what do you think I'll say about how Moses's role as literary mediator BETWEEN God's voice and the Israelite people, and then us thousands of years later, disrupts any chance of the Bible being a PERFECT document .................. anyway. You know, already, that I don't expect the Bible to be perfect. I think we've had that discussion already over a year ago or so, if I remember right.

I just throw the WHOLE expectation for any kind of innerrancy out the window as a not only superfluous idea, but one that is impossible to have if human minds and hands are involved in the process of 'messaging' humanity, so to speak [...INSERT A LARGE DOSE OF THE PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY AND OF HISTORIOGRAPHY HERE].

Of course the biblical accounts are missing some stuff we'd like to have.

Of course, it's not always clear and in need of further hermeneutical consideration, if possible (and it ain't always possible).

Of course, it seems there are conceptual errors in the warp and woof of the ideas used by the Israelite author/authors to represent the narratives and poetic expressions we find therein.

But so what? The real discussion has nothing to do with virgins, then, does it? :redcard:

So, what's your next thread idea?

If you are going to make no attempt to answer my very specific and very pointed assessments, then please at least address the following, which eludes to the final conclusion of this thread....

From post #209:

"Yea, but does might make 'right'?

Let's give this a quick test. A mother kills her children and swears God told her to do it. How are you able to discern she is either delusional or lying, verses, telling the truth? Because it would seem God tells humans to kill, from time to time. Who's to say then, right???

Again, this is the crux of this entire thread. Anyone can CLAIM God told them to do this, that, or the other. But how can we evaluate it's reality coherently????"


By addressing the above, you can start to understand why it is quite easy to dismiss the Bible. And not necessarily because of the 'moral implications alone'. But because it would appear the Bible does not seem to reveal any forward thinking "knowledge". (i.e.) Any knowledge unknown by humans already at the time of it's publication; instead only revealed by an all mighty agent. Case and point, the biology thing for extreme starters....

And by knowledge, I don't mean revelation/prophecy. This stuff can be deemed self-fulfilling... Especially where the Bible is concerned.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Site Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,340
9,285
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,223,341.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Numbers 31:17-18 (underlined area specifically)

'17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.'

As the title suggests, what was God's focus in this particular case? I have struggled to find a logical rationale/conclusion, but thus far, draw a blank - in support of an asserted 'loving Yahweh'...?

Seems as though the author of this narrative 'commands' that the taking of virgins was permissible.

Thus, I now ask, what was God's rationale?
What all is going on here?

More than this brief excerpt shows, it turns out.

Let's have a look at the exact situation (earlier verses of this same story, the context and situation):

1 The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites. After that, you will be gathered to your people.”

3 So Moses said to the people, “Arm some of your men to go to war against the Midianites so that they may carry out the Lord’s vengeance on them.
...

... 9 The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. 10 They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. 11 They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, 12 and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho.

13 Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.

---------
Interesting moment! Moses is angry. And now he will ad lib, we will see. And, this is not the first time Moses gets angry and ad libs. In fact, it's already doomed him to not be allowed to go into the promised land, the land beyond the Jordan, which is to be taken away from the child-sacrificing people/cities there.

(Moses had already gotten angry before and directly disobeyed the instructions about calling water from the rock in Exodus, to God's displeasure. God's aim was to grow the faith of Israel, and by striking the rock to get the water, Moses made it seem merely ordinary luck of knocking loose the right spot for a spring.)


----------

15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he [Moses] asked them. [Generally God intended certain evil tribes to be wiped out; the degree of extinction depending on the degree of their evils.]

16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

-------
Here Moses has ad libbed again. In a moment of anger. Perhaps not as harmful as before, it's hard to say -- that previous instance of Moses ad libbing in anger had harmed the effort to build faith in Israel, while here is a chance that survivors of a idol worshipping people will help lead Israel astray. (Idol worship generally means things like abandoning the real God, and sacrificing innocent children in fire, etc.)

It is uncertain which deities the Midianites worshipped. Through their apparent religio-political connection with the Moabites[9] they are thought to have worshipped a multitude, including Baal-peor and the Queen of Heaven, Ashteroth.
-- Midian - Wikipedia


Now, you would not know this unless you read fully through many full books in the Bible, but it is routine that individuals that are mostly doing what God wants (King David, etc.) will sometimes do some other thing, on their own, that goes directly against some instruction God has given them.

In fact, it's the rule: they will, at times, do what God did not instruct or want them to do.

God already has a plan for all people who die -- they will all live again.


All will live again, and
face a fair day of Judgment: Romans 2:6-16. In fact, we can expect the innocent that died (children and others not commiting wrongs) will find His Mercy on that Day. Further, we know -- 1rst Peter 3 -- that Christ went to proclaim the to the "spirits in prison"....

So, no one that dies is actually dead.

Not yet.

Got that? Death is an illusion.

Now, if you assume the exact opposite: that death is final, you've merely assumed some version of 'god' completely unlike the one in the Bible.

In that case, you merely substitute in a made-up version of god, a kind of straw-god (pretend version), if you use that assumption that death of this body is final.

And, the fate of many it appears was not even set even after they died, and became disembodied spirits! Christ would come to proclaim to them after the cross!


So, when a mixed mass of people are all removed entirely from this mortal life, to the next, their culture erased from this world, they are still going to be sorted, the innocent on which God has mercy to eternal life, the unrepentant guilty to the second death (the real death).

You can just assume God does not exist by assuming death here is final, and then...it leads to an interpretation that seems to show God is entirely unfair-- that made-up version of God where there is no afterlife -- and with that assumption you are just arguing by yourself in a circular logic, if you do that.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
41
California
✟156,979.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Well, morality does seem relative. I've tried to point that out, even in this topic. Back then, women were considered possessions, way less-than-men, and/or virtually sub-human. But my gripe isn't so much about how (I) FEEL this is wrong.... MY gripe is the REASONS that "God" gives for these conclusions... (i.e.)

- "The woman sinned first" <- Seems illogical, which has nothing to do with 'morality'.

- "The woman came from a man" <- Well, this appears false, in the way the Bible describes.


In this case, if you look at my two points about Numbers 31, they don't really deal in morality either... (i.e.)

1. "God told me so". Well, really? Are we sure? Anyone can claim God told them this, that, other... And when we examine the premise and details, do they add up? Doesn't appear so...

2. Kill even the little ones, but keep the virgins? Basic biology here.

"Morality" isn't my personal concern here... My beef is that this claimed "God" gets things wrong. Which either means this claimed God is inept, or, the person whom claimed God's hand is delusional/lying/other and God is nowhere to be found in this story line.

Thus, which one of these paths do you wish to take? Because I cannot think of a third option quite frankly.

I have to ask you....

Will there ever come a time AGAIN, in the future, where women and men are considered unequal BECAUSE of claims that are now proven false? Such as 'women being created from men', (or) because a woman did something 'incorrect' before the man followed the same 'incorrect path'?

I'm trying to keep 'morality' out of it, as much as possible. I'm sorry if you feel 'atheists' have some type of an 'upper hand', in regards to 'morals' on some 'common sense' level.

When I state 'common sense', it is more for the reasons in my two points.




False, as post #1 indicates. I've truly given this chapter a fare shake. And cannot reconcile any logical conclusions, in favor of this supposed Yahweh character. Nor have you, in all your apparent study, been able to provide what seems to be anything close to a proper rationale.

What it 'comes down to', for me, is I'm now here, raising topics to Christian apologists like you. As stated prior, this chapter alone seems to demonstrate a pretty large flaw or two. If examined without bias, seems to suggest either an inept God, or a story in where God has no place within it; even though the very same book states that it does.

And after some type of 'resolution' has been concluded, for this topic; I may decide to post yet another verse/chapter demonstrating another occurrence on how.... even if there exists some creating agent/agents/etc, it might appear more and more likely that the claims of this particular flavor of a God may not hold true in reality...




I have to ask you @2PhiloVoid .... If morals ARE objective, what IS God's stance on taking virgins in warfare? Does He change His mind?



Well, I hope, as stated from above, you now know why I have concluded that this chapter is 'wrong' ;)

And on a side note, it's fare to state that yourself, myself, and @Nihilist Virus ALL agree that murdering children, but sparing female virgins, post war, seems 'wrong.' But maybe now I'm 'wrong'?

Our mutual friend has flatly denied that rape occured, refusing to "read between the lines." Meanwhile he talks about the spiritual corruption that the Midianites brought upon the Israelites. What?!

Just read earlier in the chapter. Moses is complaining about the "plague" inflicted upon the men after having been seduced by the Midianite women. So basically they got venereal disease. While I can boast that I've never experienced such a thing, I remain confident that there is nothing spiritual about it.

Now, their contraction of VD from previous encounters may or may not have been the result of rape. The intercourse could very well have been consensual... provided the women could get past the bizarre appearance of the circumcised Israelite men. We can and should give the Israelites here the benefit of the doubt. But, as has been stated, if these circumcised men had slaughtered your entire family, I think that having intimate experiences with one of them would be quite repulsive. It would be rape.

"But hold on," says the apologist. "The Israelites were taking mercy upon them by taking them as wives. If they had exiled these poor girls, they would starve to death in the land flowing with milk and honey."

Hmm... ok... interesting point, Mr Strawman. But it's still rape, even if you think it was in their best interests.

It's quite obvious, given the totality of the text, that the Israelites knew enough about biology to figure out that killing all of the non-virgins would eliminate the spreading of the "plague." So the non-virgin girls were executed. The boys didn't have enough going for them in terms of utility, so they were executed. We're just left with the virgin girls and "the natural use of a woman," as the apostle Paul so elegantly put it.

To deny that the mass murder of children occurred is perhaps technically correct if we just label this as a mass execution. But "killing is killing whether done for duty, profit, or for fun."

Personally, I have never killed anyone. I don't know what I'd do if I was under orders to shoot a kid who is wielding an AK47. But engaging in a mass execution of children and then raping the virgins takes a special kind of evil... or at least ignorance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cvanwey
Upvote 0

cloudyday2

Generic Theist
Site Supporter
Jul 10, 2012
7,381
2,352
✟591,302.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
No, that's just what happens when you're typing in a rush and you try to spell arkeyology on your wife's cheap, extra laptop ... ^_^
I believe you spelled it correctly ("archaeology"), but the forum software doesn't include that word in its dictionary and therefore highlights it as a misspelling. Maybe there is some other spelling that the forum software accepts. I know that some words have American and English spellings that differ. ... But whenever I type "archaeology" it makes me wonder if that is considered a dirty word among some Christians - sort of like "evolution" LOL
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Site Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,340
9,285
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,223,341.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Just read earlier in the chapter. Moses is complaining about the "plague" inflicted upon the men after having been seduced by the Midianite women. So basically they got venereal disease....

You think your invented version will fool anyone?

Perhaps it would fool someone not knowing the text, I suppose.

What good is that though, for you?

6 Then an Israelite man brought into the camp a Midianite woman right before the eyes of Moses and the whole assembly of Israel while they were weeping at the entrance to the tent of meeting. 7 When Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the priest, saw this, he left the assembly, took a spear in his hand 8 and followed the Israelite into the tent. He drove the spear into both of them, right through the Israelite man and into the woman’s stomach. Then the plague against the Israelites was stopped; 9 but those who died in the plague numbered 24,000.

That's VD in your experience? lol

And then you try to suggest some other person in this thread was using a strawman?

...ah...

ok. What good does it do you in life to live just making up your own imaginary stuff as you did above? It seems....such a waste of your life.

What good is that for you? I'm really asking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
41
California
✟156,979.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
You think your invented version will fool anyone?

Perhaps it would fool someone not knowing the text, I suppose.

What good is that though, for you?

6 Then an Israelite man brought into the camp a Midianite woman right before the eyes of Moses and the whole assembly of Israel while they were weeping at the entrance to the tent of meeting. 7 When Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the priest, saw this, he left the assembly, took a spear in his hand 8 and followed the Israelite into the tent. He drove the spear into both of them, right through the Israelite man and into the woman’s stomach. Then the plague against the Israelites was stopped; 9 but those who died in the plague numbered 24,000.

That's VD in your experience? lol

No, that isn't VD in my experience. But then again, you're not quoting chapter 31. That's chapter 25, which is about the Moabites. We're talking about the Midianites. Why would you do that?

Chapter 25 abruptly cuts to this execution of a Midianite woman here as you quoted. Are you saying that a plague ceased to propagate because of an execution? Hmm, sounds kind of desperate. I read this as a declaration to the people that they are not to engage in sexual relations with the Midianites. And that is why the plague stopped. They even killed them both with the same spear, illustrative of the fact that the physical attraction was fatal.

And then you try to suggest some other person in this thread was using a strawman?

No, I was referring to my own use of a strawman. Re-read.

...ah...

ok. What good does it do you in life to live just making up your own imaginary stuff as you did above? It seems....such a waste of your life.

What good is that for you? I'm really asking.

Imaginary stuff? I'm doing my best to interpret this nonsense. I think there was VD. That makes more sense than a magical enchantment that was causing people to die and then was lifted when someone was executed. Lol, what kind of a world is this where magical enchantments are a more logical explanation for a plague than VD? Especially when these were two isolated populations that had come in contact and then engaged in sexual activity. Yeah, I think that could cause illness to spread. Call me crazy, but that makes more sense than a curse.
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: cvanwey
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Site Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,340
9,285
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,223,341.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No, that isn't VD in my experience. But then again, you're not quoting chapter 31. That's chapter 25, which is about the Moabites. We're talking about the Midianites. Why would you do that?

Chapter 25 abruptly cuts to this execution of a Midianite woman here as you quoted. Are you saying that a plague ceased to propagate because of an execution? Hmm, sounds kind of desperate. I read this as a declaration to the people that they are not to engage in sexual relations with the Midianites. And that is why the plague stopped. They even killed them both with the same spear, illustrative of the fact that the physical attraction was fatal.



No, I was referring to my own use of a strawman. Re-read.



Imaginary stuff? I'm doing my best to interpret this nonsense. I think there was VD. That makes more sense than a magical enchantment that was causing people to die and then was lifted when someone was executed. Lol, what kind of a world is this where magical enchantments are a more logical explanation for a plague than VD? Especially when these were two isolated populations that had come in contact and then engaged in sexual activity. Yeah, I think that could cause illness to spread. Call me crazy, but that makes more sense than a curse.
I get it you prefer your version.

But if God exists then it's as the text says instead, like "magical enchantment" as you'd like to label it.

You can't see how chapter 25 connects. Ok. Just assuming God doesn't exist creates constant difficulty reading the text as it's meant looks like.

If you were agnostic you could try a different tack, more profitable. More... interesting. I think back when I was atheist it was too...mentally confining finally. I wanted to really get the actual intended sense of meaning of things Christ said. I wanted to understand these mysterious stories that meant the most, those of Christ. Of course the most interesting ones are His words, parables, actions, the gospels.

Live a little is what I'd want. Read a gospel, try to get what He meant.
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
65
California
✟151,844.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
So, what's your next thread idea?

I haven't looked into it yet. This one appears to be winding down I guess....? Maybe...

In case you haven't noticed, the aim here is to get believers to really dig deep, in justifying their beliefs. -- For the dedicated apologists in defending their faith...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0