What Was God's Rationale In This Instance?

[Nihilist Virus]

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.

Do you believe that God's existence guarantees inerrancy of scripture?

You can't see how chapter 25 connects. Ok.

I just explained how it does.

Just assuming God doesn't exist creates constant difficulty reading the text as it's meant looks like.

As a Christian I held to inerrancy. I lost my faith when I saw that the scriptures contain errors. But most Christians I talk to on here accept that errors exist in scripture, so I don't have to assume God doesn't exist in order to believe that the scriptures exist in an imperfect state and that I have to use my best inferences.

If you were agnostic you could try a different tack, more profitable. More... interesting.

I am agnostic, as are the vast majority of atheists.

I think back when I was atheist it was too...mentally confining finally.

Why?

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.

Most of the gospels are not his words, parables, or actions.

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

What part of anything that you've said here is actually relevant to the OP? Let's say the plague was a magical enchantment. There was no VD. How does that mean that rape did not occur at the behest of your God? "Take the virgins for yourselves" has a clear meaning to me.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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.

From what I read in Numbers 25, it sounds like this "Venereal Disease" killed 24,000 rather ... quickly.

But when we read the material in context in Numbers 25 to better understand what we find in Numbers 31, say with the first 5 verses of chapter 25, it doesn't quite sound like it was a venereal disease that caused "the plague." No, it rather sounds like it was "the sword of the judges."

Interesting. Jesus, too, in a more metaphorical way, said he came to "bring a sword." Maybe we should infer a further lesson in all of this, especially since this whole incident is referred to in the book of Revelation, even if, again, in metaphorical terms.

I don't know about you, but I find all of this a bit unsettling, as in, I shouldn't take the Lord's Mercy and Grace for granted.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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...

Yes. I can understand that, and to some degree, I think that is fair and useful and even needed. But if on some passages and topics, the INFO we'd all like to have just isn't IN the text, then there's really little or nothing any apologist can just dish out for you to mull over and say, "By Jove, My Dear Watson, I think you've solved the case!"

What do you think about that, Sherlock? (...and don't mind me. I'm just a philosopher, not a detective. )

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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.

How about we consider this instead: A Father tells His young Son to become vulnerable to the ruffians down the street, and the Son says, "Yes, Father!" Is the Son delusional, or sane if He complies?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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.

Midian is likewise described as in the vicinity of Moab: the Midianites were beaten by the Edomite king Hadad "in the field of Moab" (Gen. xxxvi. 35), and in the account of Balaam it is said that the elders of both Moab and Midian called upon him to curse Israel (Num. xxii. 4, 7).
​

And that's how it started: from the top down.

Reference:
MIDIAN AND MIDIANITES - JewishEncyclopedia.com​

 

[Halbhh]

Do you believe that God's existence guarantees inerrancy of scripture?

"Inerrant" in the way the word is thrown out at certain moments in debates? No, not that way -- what 'inerrant' used as an attack word really means is that person is trying to assert their interpretation is inerrant when they've used a doctrine (often not a mainstream one), and want to attempt to paint other interpretations as false by attempting to paint it that the other person does not believe in God or does not believe in scripture.

Too often (most of the time) those suddenly talking about inerrancy during a discussion between believers are trying instead of saying the scripture is true to use scripture selectively to claim their own ideas about how to interpret, with their own added assumptions usually (which often they don't even notice they use), are (those ideas) actually scripture. Putting it into different words, they think they have a perfect understanding and nothing to learn.

That's how the term 'inerrant' actually is typically used often (far too often), in actual situations of people talking about scripture. A similar debate tactic -- (sorta the same thing but different words) -- happens in discussions between believers when a pet doctrine is shown questionable, and next thing you know the person feeling their pet doctrine is undercut tries to assert the other believer is "making God a liar".

Problem is, their own understanding isn't so inerrant, after all.

From the point of view of an agnostic though -- If God exists, then the mysterious ways He communicates, often hard to understand quickly, are...what they are. Like things to meditate on. It's like Isaiah chapter 55 (read it for yourself, being sure to notice verses 8 and 9) -- God isn't merely like a wise and smart 70 yr old human.... Even the wisest human will fail to already understand many things from Him in scripture, though once a person has faith, then many mysterious things begin suddenly to open up, and one can get some of them for the first time. (that becomes a progress, like climbing a ladder) This is why I say to you it's a lot more interesting to truly assume the attitude of the agnostic than that of the dedicated atheist. The dedicated atheist is too dogmatic, and that causes a lot of extra inability to understand what's going on in scripture. The assumptions blind. The agnostic has the advantage of less assumption, and so can get a few more things.

 

[Halbhh]

From what I read in Numbers 25, it sounds like this "Venereal Disease" killed 24,000 rather ... quickly.

But when we read the material in context in Numbers 25 to better understand what we find in Numbers 31, say with the first 5 verses of chapter 25, it doesn't quite sound like it was a venereal disease that caused "the plague." No, it rather sounds like it was "the sword of the judges."

Interesting. Jesus, too, in a more metaphorical way, said he came to "bring a sword." Maybe we should infer a further lesson in all of this, especially since this whole incident is referred to in the book of Revelation, even if, again, in metaphorical terms.

I don't know about you, but I find all of this a bit unsettling, as in, I shouldn't take the Lord's Mercy and Grace for granted.

Basically, the overall sense of all the first 7 books are pointing out (many places) that God intends to remove (from the Earth!) the cultures of the peoples that worshipped idols, those we learn were burning children in fires (e.g. Deuteronomy 12:29-31 and many other places). God isn't killing in the sense atheist imagine -- He will wake everyone back up, and then sort them all out: the unrepentant guilty to the 'second death', and the innocent (ala Romans 2, 4:15, 5:13) we can expect to His mercy (1rst Peter 3 also helps show), thus to Life. The most essential error the dogmatic atheist makes I think is to not remove from their own mind the pervasive assumption that death of this temporary body is final -- they think this death here in this temporary life is the final end for a person, and that leads to practically every objection they (then reasonably) make. It would indeed be unfair for God to let children die in wars, famines, diseases....if God was somehow the atheist version of 'god', where there is no afterlife. The assumption this mortal body's death is the final death is so pervasive that typically they cannot easily notice how it affects all their interpretations. But it's only like assuming the actual God revealed in scripture doesn't exist (the one who calls death 'sleep', and who wakes everyone up later) -- thus they almost always do some of the circular reasoning from that, as many of these OP questions have embedding in them.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Basically, the overall sense of all the first 7 books are pointing out (many places) that God intends to remove (from the Earth!) the cultures of the peoples that worshipped idols, burning children in fires. He will sort them all out, the unrepentant guilty to the 'second death', and the innocent (ala Romans 2, 4:15, 5:13) we can expect to His mercy (1rst Peter 3 also helps show), thus to Life. The most essential error the dogmatic atheist makes I think is to not remove from their own mind the pervasive assumption that death of this temporary body is final -- they think this death here in this temporary life is the final end for a person, and that leads to practically every objection they (then reasonably) make. It would indeed be unfair for God to let children die in wars, famines, diseases....if God was somehow the atheist version of 'god', where there is no afterlife. The assumption this death is final is so pervasive that typically they cannot easily notice how it affects all their interpretations. But it's only like assuming the actual God revealed in scripture doesn't exist (the one who calls death 'sleep', and who wakes everyone up later) -- thus they almost always do some of the circular reasoning from that, as many of these OP questions have embedding in them.

That's an interesting way to see it. I'm not sure I've ever framed it just like that, but what you're saying sounds like a working theory that has some truth to it, even if not perhaps for every atheist out there. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this, brother Halbhh!

Awesome!

 

[Nihilist Virus]

"Inerrant" in the way the word is thrown out at certain moments in debates? No, not that way -- what 'inerrant' used as an attack word really means is that person is trying to assert their interpretation is inerrant when they've used a doctrine (often not a mainstream one), and want to attempt to paint other interpretations as false by attempting to paint it that the other person does not believe in God or does not believe in scripture.

Too often (most of the time) those suddenly talking about inerrancy during a discussion between believers are trying instead of saying the scripture is true to use scripture selectively to claim their own ideas about how to interpret, with their own added assumptions usually (which often they don't even notice they use), are (those ideas) actually scripture. Putting it into different words, they think they have a perfect understanding and nothing to learn.

That's how the term 'inerrant' actually is typically used often (far too often), in actual situations of people talking about scripture. A similar debate tactic -- (sorta the same thing but different words) -- happens in discussions between believers when a pet doctrine is shown questionable, and next thing you know the person feeling their pet doctrine is undercut tries to assert the other believer is "making God a liar".

Problem is, their own understanding isn't so inerrant, after all.

From the point of view of an agnostic though -- If God exists, then the mysterious ways He communicates, often hard to understand quickly, are...what they are. Like things to meditate on. It's like Isaiah chapter 55 (read it for yourself, being sure to notice verses 8 and 9) -- God isn't merely like a wise and smart 70 yr old human.... Even the wisest human will fail to already understand many things from Him in scripture, though once a person has faith, then many mysterious things begin suddenly to open up, and one can get some of them for the first time. (that becomes a progress, like climbing a ladder) This is why I say to you it's a lot more interesting to truly assume the attitude of the agnostic than that of the dedicated atheist. The dedicated atheist is too dogmatic, and that causes a lot of extra inability to understand what's going on in scripture. The assumptions blind. The agnostic has the advantage of less assumption, and so can get a few more things.

I see you redacted most of what I had to say, including the part where I tried to get us back on topic. Is there a reason why I should read anything you have to say here?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

From what I read in Numbers 25, it sounds like this "Venereal Disease" killed 24,000 rather ... quickly.

But when we read the material in context in Numbers 25 to better understand what we find in Numbers 31, say with the first 5 verses of chapter 25, it doesn't quite sound like it was a venereal disease that caused "the plague." No, it rather sounds like it was "the sword of the judges."

Interesting. Jesus, too, in a more metaphorical way, said he came to "bring a sword." Maybe we should infer a further lesson in all of this, especially since this whole incident is referred to in the book of Revelation, even if, again, in metaphorical terms.

I don't know about you, but I find all of this a bit unsettling, as in, I shouldn't take the Lord's Mercy and Grace for granted.

Midian is likewise described as in the vicinity of Moab: the Midianites were beaten by the Edomite king Hadad "in the field of Moab" (Gen. xxxvi. 35), and in the account of Balaam it is said that the elders of both Moab and Midian called upon him to curse Israel (Num. xxii. 4, 7).
​

And that's how it started: from the top down.

Reference:
MIDIAN AND MIDIANITES - JewishEncyclopedia.com​

VD... curses... spiritual warfare. I don't care about any of it. You've still yet to acknowledge the obvious: "Take the virgins for yourselves" is talking about rape.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

VD... curses... spiritual warfare. I don't care about any of it. You've still yet to acknowledge the obvious: "Take the virgins for yourselves" is talking about rape.

Does the text actually SAY that the virginal women and girls were FORCED to do this or that with Israelite men? No, it doesn't. So, YOU, my good man, don't KNOW anymore than anyone else does what actually transpired or what went on, regardless of how much you trust your intellect (and I do know that your intellect is pretty high for you, I must admit ).

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Does the text actually SAY that the virginal women and girls were FORCED to do this or that with Israelite men? No, it doesn't. So, YOU, my good man, don't KNOW anymore than anyone else does what actually transpired or what went on, regardless of how much you trust your intellect (and I do know that your intellect is pretty high for you, I must admit ).

I appreciate the flattery but I think you're over-complicating a simple issue. It says "take for yourselves." They were hostages. Permission does not seem to be relevant.

Yes, I don't know what really transpired. As I said before, I doubt this even happened at all. But for you to think that they took virgin girls as maid-slaves or something and that there was no sex involved seems a bit naive.

 

[Halbhh]

I see you redacted most of what I had to say, including the part where I tried to get us back on topic. Is there a reason why I should read anything you have to say here?

That's up to you.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I appreciate the flattery but I think you're over-complicating a simple issue. It says "take for yourselves." They were hostages. Permission does not seem to be relevant.

Yes, I don't know what really transpired. As I said before, I doubt this even happened at all. But for you to think that they took virgin girls as maid-slaves or something and that there was no sex involved seems a bit naive.

Ok. So, let's not argue about it since both YOU don't think it happened anyway, and I don't think the text tells us enough of what we need to know either way, anyway.

How about that option?

And no, I wasn't providing you with flattery. You're education and brain cells are what they are; and even if people disagree with you, they don't get the privilege of taking that away from you.

How about you help us out in my other thread I just made. Maybe we need some help with ... ***ahem***..............."counting."

 

[Halbhh]

Most of the gospels are not his words, parables, or actions.

A wildly speculative idea. I can remember 35 and 50 years ago, including many events in detail.

Why shouldn't the writers of the Gospel of Mark, after comparing memories, have the same ability?

I doubt they'd be far less capable than me.... Some people have perfect recall, but even that is not required.

When witnesses have memories that are mutually confirming, we can expect those memories are reliable.

I'll stick with the mainstream view of scholars:

It was probably written c. AD 66–70, during Nero's persecution of the Christians in Rome or the Jewish revolt, as suggested by internal references to war in Judea and to persecution.
Gospel of Mark - Wikipedia

We can expect the account is excellent in accuracy, because 35 years isn't a barrier to remember major events in one's life. I vividly recall a lot of things from that long ago.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Ok. So, let's not argue about it since both YOU don't think it happened anyway, and I don't think the text tells us enough of what we need to know either way, anyway.

How about that option?

Like I said, I think it's conquest bragging. The Israelites were known for that. Some people worshipped fertility goddesses, but the Israelites worshipped a warlord deity. So of course they would invent stories about winning wars and raping women. But if you set aside whether it is true or false and just evaluate the story itself, the virgins were clearly raped. No, they didn't get into every specific detail and they didn't even have a word for rape.

But let's just lay down some facts here. The Israelites had no law against raping their own women, so they surely had no law to protect prisoners of war. Human rights are thousands of years away. Rape was common in ancient history. And only the virgins were allowed to live.

At this point, I feel like I'm talking to Slick Willy about what the meaning of "is" is. I feel like you think this is a joke. "Yeah, plenty of atrocities were committed in the OT. Genocides-a-plenty. But here it doesn't explicitly state what the soldiers did with those virgins, so I'm off the hook! Lol."

And no, I wasn't providing you with flattery. You're education and brain cells are what they are; and even if people disagree with you, they don't get the privilege of taking that away from you.

How about you help us out in my other thread I just made. Maybe we need some help with ... ***ahem***..............."counting."

Your thread about the mark of the beast? Yeah I watched the first few minutes of the video and lost interest to be honest. 666 refers to Nero, I thought that was case closed. Revelation is not prophetic. I've explained to you already that Christians don't understand how prophecy works.

 

[Halbhh]

Regarding post #235 just above, about the accuracy of the Gospel of Mark --

I was just going to look up something I learned about on NPR one day, a teacher of an english class talking about how some of her students had an uncanny ability to perfectly recall everything that happened accurately, though most could not. These students, a few, nailed it, with perfect memory, while most did not have that. Searching, I found at the top of the results a 60 Minutes video on the same topic, which is always fun. I recall 60 Minutes fondly from youth, when I used to turn on the TV sunday evenings so that I could see it as a 12 yr old and a teen.

(Most people don't have that this kind of perfect memory, but one more fuzzy, so that it takes multiple witnesses to compare their memories to get a confident view about something in the past).

In a trial, it will always be more convincing to a skeptical juror when they hear more than one witness recalling common details. Of course thousands heard Jesus when He preached, and that's part of why the religious authorities wanted him dead.

.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

A wildly speculative idea. I can remember 35 and 50 years ago, including many events in detail.

Why shouldn't the writers of the Gospel of Mark, after comparing memories, have the same ability?

I doubt they'd be far less capable than me.... Some people have perfect recall, but even that is not required.

When witnesses have memories that are mutually confirming, we can expect those memories are reliable.

I'll stick with the mainstream view of scholars:

It was probably written c. AD 66–70, during Nero's persecution of the Christians in Rome or the Jewish revolt, as suggested by internal references to war in Judea and to persecution.
Gospel of Mark - Wikipedia

We can expect the account is excellent in accuracy, because 35 years isn't a barrier to remember major events in one's life. I vividly recall a lot of things from that long ago.

Sounds like a great thread topic. You should do that.

 

[Halbhh]

Sounds like a great thread topic. You should do that.

Now's good. See just above for another, interesting factor -- perfect memory -- a kind of...out of left field piece of the picture: not required for an accurate Gospel of Mark, but very interesting....

Of course of the many thousands (the accounts indicate thousands in the crowds at times) that heard the increasingly famous Jesus, some would probably have this unusual type of memory, intriguingly.

But generally, I just take it that the hundreds of witnesses (or...I guess really that would be thousands, not hundreds) -- they would tell their stories to groups, and each other, over the 35 years until Mark was written down, and continuing after, as those few that lived into advanced old age might approach what we now call the century mark of the 2nd century. For instance, someone hearing Christ at age 20 in 30AD, and then being 90 years old at the beginning of the 2nd century, those few exceptionally long lived ones. Intriguingly, John, of the various disciples, is thought by some to have been very long lived.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Now's good. See just above for another, interesting factor -- perfect memory -- a kind of...out of left field piece of the picture: not required for an accurate Gospel of Mark, but very interesting....

Of course of the many thousands (the accounts indicate thousands in the crowds at times) that heard the increasingly famous Jesus, some would probably have this unusual type of memory, intriguingly.

But generally, I just take it that the hundreds of witnesses (or...I guess really that would be thousands, not hundreds) -- they would tell their stories to groups, and each other, over the 35 years until Mark was written down, and continuing after, as those few that lived into advanced old age might approach what we now call the century mark of the 2nd century. For instance, someone hearing Christ at age 20 in 30AD, and then being 90 years old at the beginning of the 2nd century, those few exceptionally long lived ones. Intriguingly, John, of the various disciples, is thought by some to have been very long lived.

Now is good, but not here. You're not hijacking the thread. Please stop. Just answer the simple question:

What's the thinking behind "Take the virgins for yourselves"?


Gosh, I've had to ask this question so many times that when I merely pressed "T" my phone had the rest of the sentence ready! Sad. So very sad.