What Was God's Rationale In This Instance?

[cvanwey]

...and you'll need to provide your sources for this. I'm not taking it on 'faith' here, Moral! Nor am I taking on faith that the remnants of the "written Torah" that we have left to us to day was, by all historical necessity, ALL that there was by which the Israelites made legal decisions, as if the written was all they had and they were too stupid to do anything better than look at each law and each case with the same superficiality that many today apply when reading the bible by way of simplistic "proof-texting."

As I said to NV, I can stomach the supposed deficiency we all feel with the fact that comparatively, the O.T. Law doesn't seem to be comprehensive in the way that, say, Modern American Law attempts to be (if it indeed can...)

...but what I won't put up with is the constant hand-waiving that goes on which assumes ipso-facto that the Israelites were as "simple" as we like to take them to have been.

I thought this was covered many posts back....? Many of these marriages were sham marriages. Meaning, once the woman was married to the man, the man makes the decisions; the woman followed. There was no such thing as 'raping' your wife; especially during these times... Once the woman was the man's 'wife', the relations were legal.

In the case for Numbers 31 specifically, the logical conclusion was that the victors hand-selected the 'attractive one', - as reiterated from this chapter; and the men 'made' them their wives --- after one month of course.... "End of story," as YOU would say

 

[Halbhh]

Cvanwey's questions were answered, extensively.
Is she allowed to leave if she wants? -- Yes -- in Israel, men could not keep a war captive for sex without marriage it seems by the text, but had to marry her --so the women then gain rights as wives or concubine wives. If she became a wife (or concubine, either way) then yes, she could go free if she chose, and the provisions are clearly made in Deuteronomy chapter 21, as already shown in answers above.

Also, is her consent required? --- Yes, because any rapist -- any -- who does not repent in a way that is real and total, so as to gain God's forgiveness, will be consigned to the Lake of Fire on the Day of Judgement.

As fully explained in answers above, already.

Cvanwey has several times refused to accept answers as given, and either at times has asserted in various threads that there is no answer after one is given, or gives a very flawed version of the answer as a strawman to mock or disparage (and has sometimes attempted to smear the character of someone answering; if he continues in this, we may want to request he be banned for trolling).

Finally, he returns later to claim in some manner the question was not really answered, or not answered well. No matter how many times it is answered.

 

[cvanwey]

Cvanwey's questions were answered, extensively.
Is she allowed to leave if she wants? -- Yes -- in Israel, men could not keep a war captive for sex without marriage it seems by the text, but had to marry her --so the women then gain rights as wives or concubine wives. If she became a wife (or concubine, either way) then yes, she could go free if she chose, and the provisions are clearly made in Deuteronomy chapter 21, as already shown in answers above.

Incorrect. Below is the entire verse, in which I addressed 'extensively'. Verse 11, in red, pertains to what is allowed by the male, NOT the female. Verse 14, in red, again states what the male is allowed to do, NOT the female.

Marrying a Captive Woman

'10 When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.'

This chapter then moves on to a differing topic. Thus, again you are entirely incorrect. The laws make provisions for the males, NOT the females. There is a clear inequality here, between men and woman. Thus, Matthew 7:12 is irrelevant; unless you ignore the above verses.

Nowhere do these verses state the woman is allowed to leave, on her OWN recognisance.

Also, is her consent required? --- Yes, because any rapist -- any -- who does not repent in a way that is real and total, so as to gain God's forgiveness, will be consigned to the Lake of Fire on the Day of Judgement.

As fully explained in answers above, already.

As I already explained, once the couple is married, there is no such thing as 'rape'. The male can have relations, and female consent is not required. Thus, according to God, there would be no 'Hell fire' in such a case.

Cvanwey has several times refused to accept answers as given, and either at times has asserted in various threads that there is no answer after one is given, or gives a very flawed version of the answer as a strawman to mock or disparage (and has sometimes attempted to smear the character of someone answering; if he continues in this, we may want to request he be banned for trolling).

Finally, he returns later to claim in some manner the question was not really answered, or not answered well. No matter how many times it is answered.

I stated they were 'answered', just incorrectly. Anyone can read these verses, as given, and discern for themselves the most logical conclusion. It's really not that difficult.

 

[Halbhh]

Cvanwey: Assumptions and suppositions and guesses based on your own views are not facts. When you think that you have a reasonable guess, in your own view, and you repeat it and claim it's how it must have been, etc., that guess does not eventually become more credible. It remains just a guess, just like when you first thought of it.

Some of the assumptions/guesses:

That there was much rape. -- This appears a very weak guess. There's no reason to think that after the 30 days of the woman mourning (with a shaved head also!) that many of the men would try to rape a woman they are supporting as a potential wife or concubine wife. Just guessing on psychology alone, we'd expect few rapes in these circumstances.

That one passage is exhaustive to all the OT law on this. -- All the given laws that can apply to any aspect or situation also apply. The other passages already quoted in the thread were generally quoted for aspects to which they apply.

Cvanwey wrote: "As I already explained, once the couple is married, there is no such thing as 'rape'" -- This supposition is wrong.

God sees all, and knows all hearts. God knows what wrongful actions are done, including those behind closed doors. Nothing is hidden from Him.

The OT law summed up by an expert far more knowledgeable than any of us:
Matthew 7:12 In everything, then, do to others as you would have them do to you. For this is the essence of the Law and the Prophets.

And what that implies for all of Israel, under that law, is that all hurtful acts, rape and all others also, will face this Justice:
Romans 2:6 God "will repay each one according to his deeds."

Or in more full form:
6God “will repay each person according to what they have done.” a 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11For God does not show favoritism.

12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.
----------

 

[cvanwey]

Cvanwey: Assumptions and suppositions and guesses based on your own views are not facts. When you think that you have a reasonable guess, in your own view, and you repeat it and claim it's how it must have been, etc., that guess does not eventually become more credible. It remains just a guess, just like when you first thought of it.

The law states the man is to wait 30 days, then he MAY TAKE her as his wife. Again, what you are completely avoiding, is the law says absolutely NOTHING about what rights the woman actually has - (aside from what the man is allowed to impose upon her). What if she refuses? The Bible says nothing about that. Why? Because the 'law' is designed to provide specific instruction for the man, not the woman. The woman has little 'say' in the matter. Please see below, in red brackets.

Thus, I ask you, as a 'litmus test' if you will.... What if the woman did not want him after 30 days of mourning? I'll answer this for you (again), as I already did in a previous response 'extensively':

If the verse said something to the effect of: "11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife, (as long as she is also a willing participant after such a given mourning period ends)." --- Then you would have a solid case...

BUT, no such verses exist. Again, because the woman has less rights then men. --- Both in the OT AND NT.

Please actually address what I am saying this time.... Thank you.

Some of the assumptions/guesses:

That there was much rape. -- This appears a very weak guess. There's no reason to think that after the 30 days of the woman mourning (with a shaved head also!) that many of the men would try to rape a woman they are supporting as a potential wife or concubine wife. Just guessing on psychology alone, we'd expect few rapes in these circumstances.

First of all, hair grows back. Second of all, some men like short hair.

But even if everything you just stated were true, and that is a very large IF, once the man takes the woman in marriage, the Bible lays down no previsions about the woman's consent, especially in post marriage relations. The Bible states what the man can do. Nothing about the woman's right to refuse. But the Bible certainly has no problem laying down arbitrary and 'less important' more specific laws, which seem hardly relevant even back then, much less today.

Cvanwey wrote: "As I already explained, once the couple is married, there is no such thing as 'rape'" -- This supposition is wrong.

God sees all, and knows all hearts. God knows what wrongful actions are done, including those behind closed doors. Nothing is hidden from Him.

Again, God provides a 'law'. This law provisions how the man may take the woman. The law states nothing about the woman's consent in such transactions. Thus, again, the law states how a man may take a woman. The law says nothing about the woman's right to refuse the offer in this instance. Hence, even if such 'sin' existed, God apparently does not consider such transactions 'sin' regardless.

The OT law summed up by an expert far more knowledgeable than any of us:
Matthew 7:12 In everything, then, do to others as you would have them do to you. For this is the essence of the Law and the Prophets.

And what that implies for all of Israel, under that law, is that all hurtful acts, rape and all others also, will face this Justice:
Romans 2:6 God "will repay each one according to his deeds."

Then whoever wrote such a 'law', would then need to reconcile that this same 'law maker' wrote other laws demonstrating severe inequality between the male and female race. Hence, such a 'law maker' would need to then reconcile that Matthew 7:12 conflicts with other stated laws. Thus, how might such a 'law giver' square such a discrepancy?

Or in more full form:
6God “will repay each person according to what they have done.” a 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11For God does not show favoritism.

12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.
----------

As I stated in a post long ago, to you... You will most likely 'sin', in some fashion, almost all the way up to your last breath. Thus, I'm not sure why the provided verses even matter... As long as you believe in Christ, repent, and attempt to follow His laws to the best of your flawed ability, you should be golden, right? And again, taking a wife post war, and marrying her, is your right, as per God's law. Thus, again, it is not considered 'sin.' Nor, does the woman have the right to refuse relations, especially post marriage. Hence, the sham marriages....

I trust you agree the definition of 'sin' is anything opposed to God's wishes?

Well, God's wishes state nothing about the requirements for the woman's consent in relations post marriage. And again, this is also knowing God has no problem laying down many 'laws', in much detail, which appear much less relevant to anything regarding human interaction. Thus, out of the laws written, seems odd that not one law pertains to a woman's right to refusal in such a relevant case.

Furthermore, on a side note, off topic, if heaven is somehow achieved through your 'works', then how might you square John 3:16-18 in conjuction?

 

[Moral Orel]

Ok. Sure. Although there might be more verses that could be relevant that I'm not at the moment thinking of, we could apply:

Leviticus 19:29
‘Do not prostitute your daughter, to cause her to be a harlot, lest the land fall into harlotry, and the land become full of wickedness.

Deuteronomy 23:17
“There shall be no [ritual?] harlot of the daughters of Israel, or a perverted one of the sons of Israel.

Deuteronomy 23:18
You shall not bring the wages of a harlot or the price of a dog to the house of the Lord your God for any vowed offering, for both of these are an abomination to the Lord your God.

Leviticus 17:7
They shall no more offer their sacrifices to demons, after whom they have played the harlot. This shall be a statute forever for them throughout their generations.” ’

Exodus 34:16
...and you take of his daughters for your sons, and his daughters play the harlot with their gods and make your sons play the harlot with their gods.

Oh, and just for deeper context, let's bring in:

Leviticus 19:15
You shall do no injustice in judgment. You shall not be partial to the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty [tough guys?]. But in righteousness you shall judge your neighbor.

I see a common theme here too. Where's the condemnation for visiting a prostitute?

I'm sure more could be said, but let's not assume that conceptual bits and pieces of the various laws, such as these, weren't considered together in ONE WHOLE, since there are some laws about being careful to observe ALL of the Law of God and about not "doing what is right in one's own eyes," which I suppose would be to sell one's daughter into harlotry, or for a man or woman to become one.

If there isn't a specific law for them to reference, then they don't really have a choice but to do what's "right in one's own eyes" though. Isn't that hermeneutics at work? You're always saying it's unavoidable.

Sure, but that's why we don't expect the Israelites to perform as they should; they're sinners, so they're given laws (and like today, half the people won't really follow the law half the time). This is what we find inferred by statement in Deuteronomy 9:4-7.

So since it wasn't illegal, we agree that men were raping their wives...right? POWs were married then raped, wives not in the mood were raped, divorced women were raped out in the fields, etc. And nothing was done by the law to stop it. What are you contending, exactly?

I never said I don't have to answer questions.

Mmm... You did though. In the Pascal's Wager thread you told me "I don't think I should have to answer every single question, especially not all at once". I think forum etiquette dictates that you should answer all of our questions if you want all of your questions answered. And we certainly shouldn't be deciding for the other party which questions we deem fit to answer. Besides, every question you bypass just looks like you don't have an answer, and that's a point for us.

My gripe is that you guys seem to want it all your way, without concession, and without challenge. And I'm going to challenge it all, both our understanding of the legal past.................and the legal present. And I'll let stand what stands.

My gripe is that you don't actually try to challenge us. I'd love to see you start though. Personally, I love a real challenge. You've got to engage us to challenge us though.

 

[Moral Orel]

Allow me to play Devil's Advocate and side with the Christians here for a moment. @Nihilist Virus @cvanwey Let me know what you think about this. Was rape all that bad for women in that culture? What's the harm, really?

Think about this, one aspect of rape that makes it so terrible is that the victim often feels guilt because their body still has the automatic physiological response of arousal amidst abject terror. Because of that automatic response, the victim thinks that they're responsible because it feels as if they actually had the desire, on some level, perhaps only subconsciously. But in their culture, providing sex for their husband was their function as they understood it. There's nothing to feel guilty about because even if you hated doing it, you were doing what you were supposed to be doing.

Another example. Victims often feel a loss of control from being forced to do something they had no desire to do. Their autonomy was disrupted so violently that victims often develop things like eating disorders to have control over something in their lives that they feel they've lost. But in that culture, women never really had autonomy. It was their lot in life to be used by men, so they likely accepted their fate from an early age. If you never felt like you had a right to choose whether and who you had intercourse with, it wouldn't really be a shock to not be given a choice, would it?

Even the physical violence of it all wouldn't necessarily exist if women were simply accepting that the choice wasn't theirs. I mean, they wouldn't be resisting even if they lacked any desire, so it probably didn't cause the kinds of physical trauma we see today that likely occurs mostly because women today are putting up a fight.

So maybe we're thinking about rape anachronistically. If women are subjugated hard enough, they'll probably consent to anything, and then it isn't really rape anymore, is it? Maybe rape just wasn't a big deal no matter how often it happened. Waddya think?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Allow me to play Devil's Advocate and side with the Christians here for a moment. @Nihilist Virus @cvanwey Let me know what you think about this. Was rape all that bad for women in that culture? What's the harm, really?

Think about this, one aspect of rape that makes it so terrible is that the victim often feels guilt because their body still has the automatic physiological response of arousal amidst abject terror. Because of that automatic response, the victim thinks that they're responsible because it feels as if they actually had the desire, on some level, perhaps only subconsciously. But in their culture, providing sex for their husband was their function as they understood it. There's nothing to feel guilty about because even if you hated doing it, you were doing what you were supposed to be doing.

Another example. Victims often feel a loss of control from being forced to do something they had no desire to do. Their autonomy was disrupted so violently that victims often develop things like eating disorders to have control over something in their lives that they feel they've lost. But in that culture, women never really had autonomy. It was their lot in life to be used by men, so they likely accepted their fate from an early age. If you never felt like you had a right to choose whether and who you had intercourse with, it wouldn't really be a shock to not be given a choice, would it?

Even the physical violence of it all wouldn't necessarily exist if women were simply accepting that the choice wasn't theirs. I mean, they wouldn't be resisting even if they lacked any desire, so it probably didn't cause the kinds of physical trauma we see today that likely occurs mostly because women today are putting up a fight.

So maybe we're thinking about rape anachronistically. If women are subjugated hard enough, they'll probably consent to anything, and then it isn't really rape anymore, is it? Maybe rape just wasn't a big deal no matter how often it happened. Waddya think?

Ok. In regard to all this nasty stuff in Numbers 31 that we just keep sociopathically beating over and over again with glee [apparently?!], you've convinced me, that it would have been better to just have run all of those virgins through with a sharp sword............................instead.

I mean, since we all want to play "Project Master Mind: OUT THINK GOD," what alternative was there when we're striving (Yes, striving!) to take in every conceivable context and nuance about the biblical view of the world and its All-Sovereign God and then apply it to our ( ...**ahem**... Moral) analysis of Numbers 31.

And yes, I jest. In part.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I thought this was covered many posts back....? Many of these marriages were sham marriages. Meaning, once the woman was married to the man, the man makes the decisions; the woman followed. There was no such thing as 'raping' your wife; especially during these times... Once the woman was the man's 'wife', the relations were legal.

In the case for Numbers 31 specifically, the logical conclusion was that the victors hand-selected the 'attractive one', - as reiterated from this chapter; and the men 'made' them their wives --- after one month of course.... "End of story," as YOU would say

You can tell all of that to the Sovereign Judge, cvanwey. The truth of it all is this: sin is ugly, and so are its outcomes. God isn't a 'nice' God, and it's time for people to get their heads out of the sand and realize who is Lord. It's not me. It's surely not you!

And if the Lord has pronounced a judgment against all of the various tendrils of Balaam's Error, then it's going to be a hard day for those who dare to come against Him, isn't it? I mean, we can go another 200 pages of forum postings on Numbers 31 alone, but at the end of the day, it all comes down to who the Boss Is, Was, and Will Be. Hint: it ain't the individual who hides behind pieces of paper defining our present notions of autonomy.

Full Autonomy was never really in the political/social cards that God has dealt, anyway ... (Psalm 2)

So, there. Suck on that Gob-stopper, but just don't choke on it. End of Story! (Unless, you want there to be more to the story, and in which case, I'll open another chapter to read to you ... the one about repentance and forgiveness.)

 

[cvanwey]

You can tell all of that to the Sovereign Judge, cvanwey. The truth of it all is this: sin is ugly, and so are its outcomes. God isn't a 'nice' God, and it's time for people to get their heads out of the sand and realize who is Lord. It's not me. It's surely not you!

And if the Lord has pronounced a judgment against all of the various tendrils of Balaam's Error, then it's going to be a hard day for those who dare to come against Him, isn't it? I mean, we can go another 200 pages of forum postings on Numbers 31 alone, but at the end of the day, it all comes down to who is the Boss. Hint: it ain't the individual who hides behind pieces of paper defining our present notions of autonomy.

Full Autonomy was never really in the political/social cards that God has dealt ... (Psalm 2)

So, there. Suck on that Jaw-Breaker. Just don't choke on it. End of Story.

Believe it or not, I kinda agree with you here.... But maybe not in the way you are hoping

As stated many posts ago... If God does exist, He can obviously do and/or command whatever He wishes, at any time. Heck, He could even change His mind later as well. Humans would really have no say in the matter. Nor, would we need to agree in the slightest. Hence, in that sense, I would agree with you. If this specific God does exist, and this specific God commanded such an outcome, then that's that, it's a wrap... I could 'complain' about it. But hey, I'm not God. So God would 'owe' me nothing... Right...?

HOWEVER.....

If (this) particular God does exist, here's the gist.... In regards to Numbers 31, God would have appeared to weigh in on it directly. What does this mean?

1. God wants to exterminate a population by not exterminating the population? (the biology problem)

2. God tells humans to treat each other like they would like to be treated (i.e.) Matthew 7:12, but clearly makes special concessions for both men/women, which are not equal? This also holds true in the NT as well. (contradiction).

3. The reasons God gives for men/women not being equal appears not to be for 'divine' reasons. (i.e.) (a) The woman was made from the man? (contradicts basic science). (b) The woman sinned before the man? (juvenile rationale)

As I've stated about other topics, like 'slavery' for instance. If God never directly weighed in upon such a topic, then Christians could certainly make the claim that 'God does not like it'. However, if this God does exist, and God did chime in on Numbers 31, then 'Houston, we have a problem.'

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Believe it or not, I kinda agree with you here.... But maybe not in the way you are hoping

As stated many posts ago... If God does exist, He can obviously do and/or command whatever He wishes, at any time. Heck, He could even change His mind later as well. Humans would really have no say in the matter. Nor, would we need to agree in the slightest. Hence, in that sense, I would agree with you. If this specific God does exist, and this specific God commanded such an outcome, then that's that, it's a wrap... I could 'complain' about it. But hey, I'm not God. So God would 'owe' me nothing... Right...?

HOWEVER.....

If (this) particular God does exist, here's the gist.... In regards to Numbers 31, God would have appeared to weigh in on it directly. What does this mean?

I hate to sound like I'm inferring that you've got a short in your circuits, but..........this is YOUR assumption, and it's a literary assumption I might add, one that I think you need to seriously reconsider because it smacks of simplicity beyond hermeneutical repair, as do the following.

1. God wants to exterminate a population by not exterminating the population? (the biology problem)

2. God tells humans to treat each other like they would like to be treated (i.e.) Matthew 7:12, but clearly makes special concessions for both men/women, which are not equal? This also holds true in the NT as well. (contradiction).

3. The reasons God gives for men/women not being equal appears not to be for 'divine' reasons. (i.e.) (a) The woman was made from the man? (contradicts basic science). (b) The woman sinned before the man? (juvenile rationale)

As I've stated about other topics, like 'slavery' for instance. If God never directly weighed in upon such a topic, then Christians could certainly make the claim that 'God does not like it'. However, if this God does exist, and God did chime in on Numbers 31, then 'Houston, we have a problem.'

So, what do you think the answers to these questions will be which various Christian apologists might give? I'm asking, because I'm not confident that despite all your claims to having read widely, you actually have done so. I mean, no one gave me any of my answers, and here you show up wanting everyone to do all of the work for you. Maybe for once show that you've done some reading. You act and talk as if you're stuck in a void rather than standing (or in my case, sitting) on planet earth.

 

[cvanwey]

I hate to sound like I'm inferring that you've got a short in your circuits, but..........this is YOUR assumption, and it's a literary assumption I might add, one that I think you need to seriously reconsider because it smacks of simplicity beyond hermeneutical repair, as do the following.

So, what do you think the answers to these questions will be which various Christian apologists might give? I'm asking, because I'm not confident that despite all your claims to having read widely, you actually have done so. I mean, no one gave me any of my answers, and here you show up wanting everyone to do all of the work for you. Maybe for once show that you've done some reading. You act and talk as if you're stuck in a void rather than standing (or in my case, sitting) on planet earth.

Since we are on the subject of giving our 'assumptions' about our opponent's 'conclusions', here's my take upon your rationale....

I find that the ones whom do not take Biblical verse literal, where applicable, are simply instead inventing their own form of religion, to maybe place themselves at ease to the 'fact' that there appears many of verse, in the Bible for such a case, which does not jive with their own 'moral compass' or perceived knowledge to 'educational discovery'.

Hence, they rationalize it, dodge it, cherry pick it, avoid it, flat out not address it, change the subject, etc.... As with posts #205 and #209, which you really did not answer, I now add #330 to the list.

Thanks for the exchange, I guess?

And on a side note, a first grader tells you 'the moon is 239K miles away from earth.' Do you question their educational background, or do you instead challenge the claim, if you don't agree?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Since we are on the subject of giving our 'assumptions' about our opponent's 'conclusions', here's my take upon your rationale....

I find that the ones whom do not take Biblical verse literal, where applicable, are simply instead inventing their own form of religion, to maybe place themselves at ease to the 'fact' that there appears many of verse, in the Bible for such a case, which does not jive with their own 'moral compass.'

I'm sorry you take everything such a literal vain. That must be a difficult situation to be in.

As far as "my" moral compass is concerned, I find HIM to be just fine in my Book!

Hence, they rationalize it, dodge it, cherry pick it, avoid it, flat out not address it, change the subject, etc.... As with posts #205 and #209, which you really did not answer, I now add #330 to the list.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you've probably never read Pascal or Kierkegaard, have you?

Besides, when I said I "have it in" for atheists and skeptics not so long ago, I wasn't kidding. Same goes for little "anti-Christs" that like to pop up here and there. If you're not one, then don't speak like one.

Thanks for the exchange, I guess?

No thank you!

And on a side note, a first grader tells you 'the moon is 239K miles away from earth.' Do you question their educational background, or do you instead challenge the claim, if you don't agree?

Look, Cvanway, what's the problem? We're here on a public forum website, verbally hashing it out, and all you've ever been able to say to us....nay, to everyone as far as I can tell...is nothing other than disagreeable and unappreciative in nature of anything that anyone can or could say. So, forgive me if I come across a bit crass. But here's the facts: I have ears to hear. You have ears to hear. I have eyes to see. You have eyes to see. I have a brain, and so do you. I'm a smart guy (and I'll say so because I don't have to capitulate to notions about humility that are false---a.k.a. false humility and/or self-flagellation), AND you're a smart guy.

So, WHAT'S THE REAL PROBLEM? Who broke your heart?

 

[cvanwey]

I'm sorry you take everything such a literal vain. That must be a difficult situation to be in.

As far as "my" moral compass is concerned, I find HIM to be just fine in my Book!

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you've probably never read Pascal or Kierkegaard, have you?

Besides, when I said I "have it in" for atheists and skeptics not so long ago, I wasn't kidding. Same goes for little "anti-Christs" that like to pop up here and there. If you're not one, then don't speak like one.

No thank you!


Look, Cvanway, what's the problem? We're here on a public forum website, verbally hashing it out, and all you've ever been able to say to us....nay, to everyone as far as I can tell...is nothing other than disagreeable and unappreciative in nature of anything that anyone can or could say. So, forgive me if I come across a bit crass. But here's the facts: I have ears to hear. You have ears to hear. I have eyes to see. You have eyes to see. I have a brain, and so do you. I'm a smart guy (and I'll say so because I don't have to capitulate to notions about humility that are false---a.k.a. false humility and/or self-flagellation), AND you're a smart guy.

So, WHAT'S THE REAL PROBLEM? Who broke your heart?

I'm not sure why you continue to throw out red herrings? WHY is that? Really? I would like to know?

Hypothetical....

A 'high schooler' reads this chapter and surmises the following, after some thought:

1. If God wanted to exterminate a people, why leave some girls alive? This would continue the bloodline. Why not spare the little boys too? Does God understand basic biology? (Special thanks to @cloudyday2 in help with this observation.)

2. If God commands Matthew 7:12, then why does God ALSO issue commands which clearly state men and women are not equal? Wouldn't you need to either concede this verse, or, all the others which appear to oppose Matthew 7:12?

3. God states women were 'made' from men. God states women have differing special rules, because the woman sinned first. Is this more-so likely the commands/pronouncements of a 'divine' being, or a human?

Please stop avoiding, and address them. If they are misguided, please correct accordingly....

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm not sure why you continue to throw out red herrings? WHY is that? Really? I would like to know?

Hypothetical....

A 'high schooler' reads this chapter and surmises the following, after some thought:

1. If God wanted to exterminate a people, why leave some girls alive? This would continue the bloodline. Why not spare the little boys too? Does God understand basic biology? (Special thanks to @cloudyday2 in help with this observation.)

What does this have do with anything? You're concerned about whether God will allow SINNERS to continue to live or not? Which Midianites are you concerned about, by the way, these?:

Judges 7:12
Now the Midianites and the Amalekites and all the sons of the east were lying in the valley as numerous as locusts; and their camels were without number, as numerous as the sand on the seashore.

 

[Moral Orel]

Ok. In regard to all this nasty stuff in Numbers 31 that we just keep sociopathically beating over and over again with glee [apparently?!], you've convinced me, that it would have been better to just have run all of those virgins through with a sharp sword............................instead.

I mean, since we all want to play "Project Master Mind: OUT THINK GOD," what alternative was there when we're striving (Yes, striving!) to take in every conceivable context and nuance about the biblical view of the world and its All-Sovereign God and then apply it to our ( ...**ahem**... Moral) analysis of Numbers 31.

And yes, I jest. In part.

Were you going to get to the post that was directed to you, or is this you disengaging (once again) because you don't really have anything to say?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Were you going to get to the post that was directed to you, or is this you disengaging (once again) because you don't really have anything to say?

No, it's called having a life. Y'know, responding to posts between jobs and on breaks. Besides, I'm listening to Karen Carpenter at the moment and you know you don't want to step on Karen ... do you?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Allow me to play Devil's Advocate and side with the Christians here for a moment. @Nihilist Virus @cvanwey Let me know what you think about this. Was rape all that bad for women in that culture? What's the harm, really?

Think about this, one aspect of rape that makes it so terrible is that the victim often feels guilt because their body still has the automatic physiological response of arousal amidst abject terror. Because of that automatic response, the victim thinks that they're responsible because it feels as if they actually had the desire, on some level, perhaps only subconsciously. But in their culture, providing sex for their husband was their function as they understood it. There's nothing to feel guilty about because even if you hated doing it, you were doing what you were supposed to be doing.

Another example. Victims often feel a loss of control from being forced to do something they had no desire to do. Their autonomy was disrupted so violently that victims often develop things like eating disorders to have control over something in their lives that they feel they've lost. But in that culture, women never really had autonomy. It was their lot in life to be used by men, so they likely accepted their fate from an early age. If you never felt like you had a right to choose whether and who you had intercourse with, it wouldn't really be a shock to not be given a choice, would it?

Even the physical violence of it all wouldn't necessarily exist if women were simply accepting that the choice wasn't theirs. I mean, they wouldn't be resisting even if they lacked any desire, so it probably didn't cause the kinds of physical trauma we see today that likely occurs mostly because women today are putting up a fight.

So maybe we're thinking about rape anachronistically. If women are subjugated hard enough, they'll probably consent to anything, and then it isn't really rape anymore, is it? Maybe rape just wasn't a big deal no matter how often it happened. Waddya think?

Man, did you feel dirty writing that? Anyway, you've still got to incorporate an omniscient, omnibenevolent deity into this with perhaps an "objective" morality. Then you have to explain what objective morality is and ensure it is well-defined if you go that route. Or if you say that morality is relative then I think it's an uphill battle to defend the necessity of the cross.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I see a common theme here too. Where's the condemnation for visiting a prostitute?

Wow! How about that. You've got a good point, right out of the starting gate! I'm kind of impressed. The only problem is that you're going to have a difficult time finding any place in the O.T. where the choice of a man or women to visit either a harlot or a dog is considered, contextually, a good thing that God smiles on: as if He'll just look the other way on all counts, despite the fact that He might not actually have given much in the way of any kind of direct prohibition against it. Or did He?

If not, then what is all of that fussing that Paul the Apostle has done over sexual immorality of this or that form? Did he get his ideas from Jesus and the O.T.? I'm kind of think'n he did.

It's almost like..............I mean, I could be wrong.......but it's almost like you're not aware that some of the moral coding in Israelite society didn't ONLY come from the 613 laws themselves? No, there is the inferred moral coding that comes by way of the narratives in the O.T., and even in just the first five books we find lots of narrative, all of which make up "the Torah." Gee-whiz! Let's not pretend that the biblical narratives were written "only" to provide some stories for us to read and give us something by which to either be amused by or from which to cringe (see Dershowitz [2000], and Wenham [2000]).

Look at Samson as but one example of many. Once he got the "hook-ups" with Delilah, things kind of went down-hill for him from there, didn't they? And as for Rahab, well......she stopped being a prostitute the moment the men of Israel showed up and she protected them. Now, she's ensconced--permanently I might add--in the eternal record related to Jesus (see Lamb, 2015).

So, where else would you like for us to go with this, Moral? [[Here?]]

{Shall we say one question down and only the Lord knows how many more you want fielded all the way across.....? I might be tempted to say that, but I'd like to leave you the benefit of the doubt that somewhere in that nogg'n of yours is a brilliant chap with whom, if he just finds Christ (again?) could make a good friend. But being the weak-minded human being that I am, I waffle between hoping and being realistic. Please show me I'm wrong about being "realistic," Nick.}

References:
Dershowitz, Alan M. (2000). The Genesis of Justice: Ten stories of biblical injustice that led to the Ten Commandments and Modern Morality and Law. New York, NY: Warner Books.

Lamb, David T. (2015). Prostitutes and polygamists. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Wenham, Gordon J. (2000). Story as Torah: Reading Old Testament narrative ethically. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

 

[Moral Orel]

Wow! How about that. You've got a good point, right out of the starting gate! I'm kind of impressed. The only problem is that you're going to have a difficult time finding any place in the O.T. where the choice of a man or women to visit either a harlot or a dog is considered, contextually, a good thing that God smiles on: as if He'll just look the other way on all counts, despite the fact that He might not actually have given much in the way of any kind of direct prohibition against it. Or did He?

No, He did not give any kind of direct prohibition against it.

If not, then what is all of that fussing that Paul the Apostle has done over sexual immorality of this or that form? Did he get his ideas from Jesus and the O.T.? I'm kind of think'n he did.

Maybe it's just Paul's use of hermeneutics as he focuses on the things that he personally doesn't like and looks for things to justify his pre-existing position. Maybe that's what your hermeneutics are doing too.

It's almost like..............I mean, I could be wrong.......but it's almost like you're not aware that some of the moral coding in Israelite society didn't ONLY come from the 613 laws themselves? No, there is the inferred moral coding that comes by way of the narratives in the O.T., and even in just the first five books we find lots of narrative, all of which make up "the Torah." Gee-whiz! Let's not pretend that the biblical narratives were written "only" to provide some stories for us to read and give us something by which to either be amused by or from which to cringe (see Dershowitz [2000], and Wenham [2000]).

I get that the stories have morals to them. But the thing about stories is that they're open to interpretation. The question I think we're trying to answer is what morals they found in those stories, but you seem to be asking what morals you think they should have found in those stories.

Look at Samson as but one example of many. Once he got the "hook-ups" with Delilah, things kind of went down-hill for him from there, didn't they? And as for Rahab, well......she stopped being a prostitute the moment the men of Israel showed up and she protected them. Now, she's ensconced--permanently I might add--in the eternal record related to Jesus (see Lamb, 2015).

The Samson story is definitely a cautionary tale for men to be wary that females will use their devious sexual wiles to deceive them. But Samson (the feller) was still the hero, and Delilah (the filly) was still the villain. Not sure how a prostitute (Rahab) that wasn't acting in her role as a prostitute fits into the discussion about people procuring the services of a prostitute, though.

So, where else would you like for us to go with this, Moral? [[Here?]]

Sure. What would you like to say about that link?

{Shall we say one question down and only the Lord knows how many more you want fielded all the way across.....? I might be tempted to say that, but I'd like to leave you the benefit of the doubt that somewhere in that nogg'n of yours is a brilliant chap with whom, if he just finds Christ (again?) could make a good friend. But being the weak-minded human being that I am, I waffle between hoping and being realistic. Please show me I'm wrong about being "realistic," Nick.}

Aww... We can't be friends if I'm not a Christian? Okay, no hard feelings.