What Was God's Rationale In This Instance?

[cvanwey]

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?

'Good' points... Let's keep them in there, and then make a 'conclusion'?

Regardless of what any past, current, or future definition of 'rape' may be; or how the term 'rape' may evolve over time, it would appear God weighed in on this topic (i.e.) Numbers 31. And since God did so, we must ask ourselves....

Group A conquers group B, spares the 'beautiful virgin(s)', takes her/them as his/their wife/wives one month later, BUT the woman/women remain disgusted with this/these person(s), states they wish not to have relations with them, or states 'she is not in the mood'. Since they are now 'married', does she really have a say in the matter?

The reason I pose this scenario, is because, yes.... Your provided examples could very well be the case in some instances. However, taking the (black and white) approach mentioned prior by @Nihilist Virus and maybe @cloudyday2 , that some women may remain repulsed by the party whom slayed their entire family right in front of them, does the woman have the 'right' to refuse such apparent sanctioned courtships?

Again, what is the most basic and 'universal' definition of the word 'rape'?

Webster states:

"unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against a person's will or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent because of mental illness, mental deficiency, intoxication, unconsciousness, or deception"

Well, the beginning states 'unlawful'. Hence, the reason I posed the term 'sham marriages.' Meaning, once 'married', the man has full say, and according to the Bible, the woman is not mentioned as having any say-so. What if the woman agreed to marriage under duress? Marriage appeared the 'loophole' necessary for such men to receive/obtain carte blanche.

Moving forward, 'rape' would appear to entail the term 'consent'. However, in such a case, (i.e.) in Numbers 31, was consent from the woman required?.?.?.? I doubt it.

 

[cvanwey]

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?

Well, when you can break away from your busy schedule, please address post #334.

Thank you

 

[cvanwey]

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.

No, that is not my concern at all....

Nothing here addresses my assessments, in the slightest. Please actually address post #334, when you seem to have the time.

Thank you kindly

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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

And he didn't give ANY direct affirmation for it, either. Let's not forget that!

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.

Or, maybe Paul knew how his people could and would read the sacred writings he knew as Scripture? And it is possible that it may be "my hermeneutics" at work in my understanding, but for you to say as such indicates to me that you haven't actually bothered to look at what "MY" (or Paul's) hermeneutics are, while at the same time making it sound as if you've got a good handle on it all.

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.

Being "open" to interpretation doesn't mean that if maximal human intelligent is applied, the width of that spectrum can't be narrowed down. It's not a "free-for-all," despite the number of times we might want to listen to Ted Nuggent tell us otherwise.

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.

Yep. But the purpose and flow of the story is to show that Samson made some bad choices (sin?), and those choices, like the larger choices that Israel made corporately, led him into utter slavery. Just like today: Think the song, Snow Blind by Styx.

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.

The affiliated point is that the Israelite men DIDN'T also make "use" of her services while they were there. Of course, I'm sure someone out there will try to interpolate their own little view and ply it in such a way to say that they could have....and then ironically still be seen as 'heroes' of God. In which case I'd say, "not!"

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

I'd say that I agree with some of the things she says and disagree with some of the things she says. The deeper issue is this, however: we need to remember that prostitutes are "people too," just like Rahab. (What? 2PhiloVoid seemingly cares about sexually promiscuous folks despite all of his railing against sin? ............................uh, yeah! I do, actually. Surprise.)

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

I'm just say'n how all of this Christianity works out in 'real-time,' Nick. Sure, we can be friendly, but if all you can provide in our interlocutions are inherently acerbic criticisms of the Christian faith and its Sacred book, then there are limits to what you and I can have in the realm of social interaction. Simply the fact that we may be citizens of the same nation isn't enough for full friendship, and I think you know that. No hard feelings, I hope.

 

[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.)

I think what we need to realize is that ALL of the persons in this tribe of Midianites being dealt with in Numbers 31 were under the ban; the virgins too. BUT for some reason or other, they were given an extra "allowance" of grace.

As I've said before, not ALL questions are going to be answered by the Bible. On the other hand, another thing to consider is this: when our sins become so BAD that God puts us under "the BAN," then essentially what He says happens is that He will step out of the way and let many awful things potentially take place to us as an outcome; and some of those terrible things may be randomly mediated by human decisions (maybe Moses' in the case of Numbers 31?). We can see this even in some of the things that Jesus says, and this goes all the way down through the book of Revelation. Sometimes, GOD plays hardball with humanity, and we of course, hate it.

So, consider that. God steps OUT of the way and removes His protection of people, as well as their humanly asserted 'RIGHTS.' Sad and ugly and painful, I know, but biblically true. The sooner we all realize this, the better it will be for us.

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?

From my understanding, Matthew 7:12 is talking about times when WAR is not a real possibility. Here, Jesus is talking about typical human, domestic interactions among people, men and women, and refers to the 'normal' moral expectations He has for people to "love one another" as reflected by Leviticus 19:18.

Thus, there is ZERO room for any kind of domestic violence between husbands and wives, particularly on this side of Jesus in history; albeit, as a nation in the international political realm, there may be reason however to drop bombs on whole sections of people, such as did the U.S. government in WW II on the populace of Dresden and Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Of course, I know, those awful instances that have been a part of wartime operations open a whole other can of social issues ......... that properly belong in another thread discussion elsewhere, I think.

However, I will say that personally on my part, I'm a kind of pacifist, bible or no bible.

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?

Maybe you haven't seen, but I've already asserted my views on biblical egalitarianism elsewhere here on CF, in forum threads that probably aren't your usual bread and butter. So, keep that in mind, please. I'm not going to just accept the typical fundie interpolation of relations between men and women as they seem to appear in the biblical literature.

As far as my interpretation of all of this "inequality" business in the bible, there are a lot issues to unpack, but ON THIS SIDE of the cross in history (see the works of Catherine Kroeger), I think Christ recontextualizes a number of things that weren't present in the Law for the ancient Israelites, or even generally present in the Ancient World on the whole.

 

[Halbhh]

Cvanwey's assertion that Numbers 31 is endorsing rape is total guessing, and doesn't seem to fit the sense of the text A rapist doesn't choose someone with intent to marry and then have her shave her head and mourn for 30 days. Not the MO for rape.

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....

When people answer you -- including about the above new iterations -- as we each have many dozens of times various questions from you....

Then you seem to ignore most of our the answer as for instance when you represent one of our answer in a flawed new version of the answer missing key things we included in the actual answer.

Then after you repost your questions 4, 5 occasionally even 10 times -- various wordings of the same questions or assertions -- until everyone is tired of answering, then you can just claim no one could answer or no answer is good, but your versions of our answers make it appear you didn't read through our answers.

What does that gain you?

You seem to want to save your hypothesis/guess that the women in Numbers 31 were mostly raped.

But that's not fitting the actual words at all. It's a bad hypothesis.

You should give up that bad hypothesis.

Asserting it as if fact though makes is appear you are intentionally trying to create a false impression.

 

[cvanwey]

I think we will need to revisit post #325, for starters. Applying a 'response' isn't necessary addressing/answering my direct observations. I keep reiterating the same conclusions, in which you have not answered. When you state you 'answered' them, this appeared incorrect. Hence, the reason I have to keep asking.... See below....

Cvanwey's assertion that Numbers 31 is endorsing rape is total guessing, and doesn't seem to fit the sense of the text A rapist doesn't choose someone with intent to marry and then have her shave her head and mourn for 30 days. Not the MO for rape.

The verses may indirectly endorse 'rape.' The primary endorsement is that the man simply waits 30 days, takes the woman, if he chooses, and 'marries' her. Nowhere, in such verses, does Scripture state what the women is entitled to choose/decline. The law is written for the men. The men impose their choices. Again, read the verses. Pretty straight forward. Thus, if 'rape' happens, while married, it is not a 'sin'.

Now getting to your points....

Such warriors were either following the superior commands of their perceived God, or man-made 'law' claimed as God's pronouncements. Hence, the warrior simply followed them, if they were believers in Yahweh. Prior to such battle, it would stand to reason the warriors were aware of their orders. (i.e.) Slaughter the entire populous, but retain the attractive virgin females. Such orders also called for such warriors to wait 30 days before 'touching' them. Just like they were aware of the orders to shave their heads as well...

So, to recap... Prior to battle, the orders are in place:

1. Conquer/kill all Midianites, but...
2. Spare the attractive virgins
3. Shave their heads and wait 30 days, then marry them; if you wish.

Well..... (answers):

1. If God's goal was to remove the Midianites, wouldn't God be aware that saving some Midianites would not accomplish this task? Basic biology...

2. The text is clear, keep the 'untouched' ones.

3. Their hair will grow back. Some men don't care if their hair is long or short. Marrying them, under the 'law', then gave them carte blanche to these women - (as per Biblical verse).

Thus, I ask you again:

1. Does waiting 30 days no longer constitute 'rape'? Rape no longer occurs under a 'marriage' title?
2. Stands to reason some women were frightened, and would do anything to remain alive. Saying 'I do' even. Would you trust a stranger who killed your entire family, but 'promised' he would not harm you, while he is shaving your head?
3. Where's the 'law' which expresses the woman's right to refusal of such imposed upon 'laws' in Numbers 31? Nowhere.

When people answer you -- including about the above new iterations -- as we each have many dozens of times various questions from you....

Then you seem to ignore most of our the answer as for instance when you represent one of our answer in a flawed new version of the answer missing key things we included in the actual answer.

Then after you repost your questions 4, 5 occasionally even 10 times -- various wordings of the same questions or assertions -- until everyone is tired of answering, then you can just claim no one could answer or no answer is good, but your versions of our answers make it appear you didn't read through our answers.

Incorrect. See post #325. A lot of loose ends on your part... Some recapped again here. Fingered crossed

What does that gain you?

You are not addressing my direct observations. Can you please start?

Your final answer, thus far, has been Matthew 7:12. However, as I pointed out repeatedly, the given 'laws" for men and women promote inequality. Hence, you must either dismiss Matthew 7:12, or, dismiss these 'laws' which promote the inequality in both the OT and the NT. Quite the quandary.

You can't have your cake, and eat it too.

You seem to want to save your hypothesis/guess that the women in Numbers 31 were mostly raped.

But that's not fitting the actual words at all. It's a bad hypothesis.

You should give up that bad hypothesis.

You have yet to begin demonstrating HOW it is a 'bad hypothesis.'

Again, we are speaking about some 'sham marriages' here. Under the 'law', it is no longer considered 'rape', once married. These believers were simply following the 'God given' 'laws'.

God weighed in on this topic. Hence, we must adhere to what was written. Such 'law' states the man may marry the woman after 30 days. No such verse says ANYTHING about the woman's consent. All the verses allude to is that the man 'may marry to woman'.

Stands to reason some of these woman feared for their lives, especially after seeing what happened to the rest of their families.

You don't think there were instances where they simply stated 'yes' to marriage, because they thought if they didn't, they would end up like the rest of their families? Regardless....

The 'law' looks pretty 'vanilla'. Under the 'law', the man is bound to this woman. IF the man chooses as such. And once he does, looks as though the woman does not have the same say-so.

Thus, again, I'm not sure why you reference Matthew 7:12.?.?.?.?

 

[cvanwey]

Thank you for taking a good stab at it. I really appreciate it. Now, let's get started

I think what we need to realize is that ALL of the persons in this tribe of Midianites being dealt with in Numbers 31 were under the ban; the virgins too. BUT for some reason or other, they were given an extra "allowance" of grace.

But again, this does not address the concern. Let me try a differing approach...

In other commanded battles, 'God' wipes out the an entire people. But in this commanded battle, God wants to wipe out the Midianites as well, but leaves some alive?

This is my beef... And hence, one of the reasons for the title of my OP. (i.e) 'In This Instance'

Looks as though this entire chapter may not have been God inspired at all. Why? For the shear and basic observation of basic biology. Again, sparing some Midianites would continue the bloodline. Hence, this chapter is distinctive from others.

Are we on the same page now?

And IF this chapter was not 'God inspired', then what metric does one use to determine which orders ARE God commanded, and which ones are not? Kinda rhetorical.... Kinda... To make one think... And please do not use 'hermeneutics.' I'm aware of what this term means.

I know I asked this many posts ago... But I'm not feeling a solid response from anyone on the apologist's side here...?

As I've said before, not ALL questions are going to be answered by the Bible. On the other hand, another thing to consider is this: when our sins become so BAD that God puts us under "the BAN," then essentially what He says happens is that He will step out of the way and let many awful things potentially take place to us as an outcome; and some of those terrible things may be randomly mediated by human decisions (maybe Moses' in the case of Numbers 31?). We can see this even in some of the things that Jesus says, and this goes all the way down through the book of Revelation. Sometimes, GOD plays hardball with humanity, and we of course, hate it.

Please see above

So, consider that. God steps OUT of the way and removes His protection of people, as well as their humanly asserted 'RIGHTS.' Sad and ugly and painful, I know, but biblically true. The sooner we all realize this, the better it will be for us.

Negative sir. I'm not really interested in the morality 'per se, in conclusion #1 anyways. Just the basic observation of biology, in this specific instance.

From my understanding, Matthew 7:12 is talking about times when WAR is not a real possibility. Here, Jesus is talking about typical human, domestic interactions among people, men and women, and refers to the 'normal' moral expectations He has for people to "love one another" as reflected by Leviticus 19:18.

Tell that to @Halbhh

But regardless, the Bible demonstrates the inequality between men and woman outside any WAR as well. I trust I do not need to start reciting such verses?

Thus, there is ZERO room for any kind of domestic violence between husbands and wives, particularly on this side of Jesus in history

; albeit, as a nation in the international political realm, there may be reason however to drop bombs on whole sections of people, such as did the U.S. government in WW II on the populace of Dresden and Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Of course, I know, those awful instances that have been a part of wartime operations open a whole other can of social issues ......... that properly belong in another thread discussion elsewhere, I think.

I want to stay on point....

Even if what you say were true, does this mean it's possible that God, in Numbers 31 specifically, made fairly vague commands....? And if the man 'married' the woman, after 30 days, and decided to force himself upon her, that it would not be considered 'rape', because the 'law' states they are now husband and wife? Hence, there is no 'law' broken? And God simply did not clarify any further, such law, and that it's quite probable that some women simply said 'yes' to marriage because they felt they had to, or to otherwise be exterminated like the rest of their family?

Maybe you haven't seen, but I've already asserted my views on biblical egalitarianism elsewhere here on CF, in forum threads that probably aren't your usual bread and butter. So, keep that in mind, please. I'm not going to just accept the typical fundie interpolation of relations between men and women as they seem to appear in the biblical literature.

As far as my interpretation of all of this "inequality" business in the bible, there are a lot issues to unpack, but ON THIS SIDE of the cross in history (see the works of Catherine Kroeger), I think Christ recontextualizes a number of things that weren't present in the Law for the ancient Israelites, or even generally present in the Ancient World on the whole.

No, I do not hang out on many other forum arenas, because I would never get anything done

But I have to ask...

Is it possible that the ones whom imply a nuanced approach, to what seems to be direct and straight forward proclamations from God Himself, which appear not to correspond with discovery, can justifiably be considered a 'cafeteria Christian?' I don't mean this to be harsh. But I really have to ask you...

When you read, what seems to be a literal and straight forward verse, and such a verse appears not to align with scientific discovery, or other, how does this process work for you? Do you ignore it? Rationalize it? State that's not what He means? Other?

Really, I'm NOT trying to be mean in the slightest. I just feel, after two years, I want to know what makes you tick; in regards to the fact that many verses in the Bible suggest a very straight forward 'conclusion', which appears NOT to align with 'reality. And I haven't really even been given a real and direct answer.

Because I will tell you, THIS is the PRIMARY reason I now harbor doubt. My intellectual honesty disallows me to continue 'believing' in this book, verses any other man-made written book. Meaning, some stuff may be true, some stuff may not be. However, in the case for the Bible, it claims it's all 'God inspired' - unless 'that is another verse NOT to be taken literally'?

 

[Moral Orel]

Or, maybe Paul knew how his people could and would read the sacred writings he knew as Scripture? And it is possible that it may be "my hermeneutics" at work in my understanding, but for you to say as such indicates to me that you haven't actually bothered to look at what "MY" (or Paul's) hermeneutics are, while at the same time making it sound as if you've got a good handle on it all.

I only said "maybe" because I don't know you and Paul's personal psychology that goes into your personal hermeneutics. I couldn't, so I wouldn't really guess one way or another, but it's always a possibility. I got that from the link you posted earlier that no one responded to, by the way.

Being "open" to interpretation doesn't mean that if maximal human intelligent is applied, the width of that spectrum can't be narrowed down. It's not a "free-for-all," despite the number of times we might want to listen to Ted Nuggent tell us otherwise.

Like I said, I'm asking how they did apply the morals of all those stories, you're asking how they should apply the morals of all those stories. Maybe both questions are important to answer, actually. What if you're right about how they should have interpreted things, and I'm right about how they did interpret things? What do you think that would mean?

I'd also say that ancient peoples weren't capable of "maximal human intellect".

Yep. But the purpose and flow of the story is to show that Samson made some bad choices (sin?), and those choices, like the larger choices that Israel made corporately, led him into utter slavery. Just like today: Think the song, Snow Blind by Styx.

Sleeping with a prostitute wasn't directly related to his downfall though. Trusting a treacherous woman was, sure. But he could have been tricked whether he slept with her or not.

I'm sort of thinking of how some folk think that it's specifically a sin to "spill seed" because that feller intentionally didn't create an heir for his deceased brother with his sister-in-law. I forget their names, you know who I'm talking about, ya? The moral of the story was about doing what's right for your family, and folks want to focus on the dirty bit and say that was wrong too. I dunno your stance, maybe you agree with them so this analogy isn't going to go over real well.

The affiliated point is that the Israelite men DIDN'T also make "use" of her services while they were there. Of course, I'm sure someone out there will try to interpolate their own little view and ply it in such a way to say that they could have....and then ironically still be seen as 'heroes' of God. In which case I'd say, "not!"

I don't know how we could know if they did or not. And I don't know why it would matter if they did or not.

 

[Halbhh]

Thus, again, I'm not sure why you reference Matthew 7:12.?.?.?.?

Your posts are too long. You use a lot of assumptions.

Often I read from the beginning and respond to the first incorrect thing near the start, and then another. Having already done that for your posts over...what, 30 times by now? 40? Enough in any measure.

For something new tonight, I'll respond to the first incorrect thing from the end instead.

Why is Matthew 7:12 relevant?

Because Christ, who was with God from the beginning, knows the law better than any of us, and this verse has His summary of the essence of the law.

Because it's from Him, that makes it a superior understanding to any of ours.

What exactly did He say?

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.

 

[cvanwey]

Your posts are too long. You use a lot of assumptions.

Often I read from the beginning and respond to the first incorrect thing near the start, and then another. Having already done that for your posts over...what, 30 times by now? 40? Enough in any measure.

For something new tonight, I'll respond to the first incorrect thing from the end instead.

Why is Matthew 7:12 relevant?

Because Christ, who was with God from the beginning, knows the law better than any of us, and this verse has His summary of the essence of the law.

Because it's from Him, that makes it a superior understanding to any of ours.

What exactly did He say?

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.

Well then, maybe you most likely aren't reading hardly any of my responses then. Because this response is incoherent, in relation to what I'm actually saying.

I've said everything I needed to say; more than once. You choose not to respond to them, as they are asked.

At this point, I really don't care if the reason stems from you not reading them, or, you not understanding what I'm saying or asking, or, if you are avoiding them. Whatever the reason may be, there's plenty there for you to actually read, if you so choose. Which I somehow doubt.

Good night.

 

[Halbhh]

Well then, maybe you most likely aren't reading hardly any of my responses then. Because this response is incoherent, in relation to what I'm actually saying.

I've said everything I needed to say; more than once. You choose not to respond to them, as they are asked.

At this point, I really don't care if the reason stems from you not reading them, or, you not understanding what I'm saying or asking, or, if you are avoiding them. Whatever the reason may be, there's plenty there for you to actually read, if you so choose. Which I somehow doubt.

Good night.

What a person needs in life is wisdom.

So, one needs then to seek a source of wisdom, and the wisest of all the great teachers is Christ, in the 4 gospel accounts.

 

[cvanwey]

What a person needs in life is wisdom.

So, one needs then to seek a source of wisdom, and the wisest of all the great teachers is Christ, in the 4 gospel accounts.

Again, nothing in relevance to my points/observations.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Thank you for taking a good stab at it. I really appreciate it. Now, let's get started



But again, this does not address the concern. Let me try a differing approach...

In other commanded battles, 'God' wipes out the an entire people. But in this commanded battle, God wants to wipe out the Midianites as well, but leaves some alive?

This is my beef... And hence, one of the reasons for the title of my OP. (i.e) 'In This Instance'

Looks as though this entire chapter may not have been God inspired at all. Why? For the shear and basic observation of basic biology. Again, sparing some Midianites would continue the bloodline. Hence, this chapter is distinctive from others.

As I posted earlier, the Midianites weren't wiped out, now were they? You did see that reference I made to the remaining Midianites in the book of Judges, right? Where did they come from, biologically speaking?

Are we on the same page now?

No, we're not on the same page, mainly because we have differing conceptions about how and what and why things happened in the Bible, and what that means overall. We also have different praxis in our respective hermeneutics we each use....and yes, you are doing your own form of hermeneutics whether you realize it or not, accept it or not, or are doing it well or not. (And maybe you are doing great on all three counts? Maybe I'M the one who just isn't 'getting it' and is in needs of few lessons here and there? I can imagine various things are possible when attempting to read this archaic thing called the Bible ..........)

And IF this chapter was not 'God inspired', then what metric does one use to determine which orders ARE God commanded, and which ones are not? Kinda rhetorical.... Kinda... To make one think... And please do not use 'hermeneutics.' I'm aware of what this term means.

The metric? The metric would be "reality," and then of course, the meaning that you or I will apply to that reality will depend upon our respective, relative views on how we SHOULD go about interpreting the Bible.

I know I asked this many posts ago... But I'm not feeling a solid response from anyone on the apologist's side here...?

That's understandable, but I'm not feeling that you're solidly registering or taking seriously much of anything I've said. So, I kind of feel like...............why bother?

The rest of your post I've, for the present, snipped off and won't be addressing it till later, i.e. not till after we've tried to come to some understanding about who and where and what these Midianites were and where they fit in in relation to all of the other tribes that God said were under the ban. So, who are all of these Midianites? They're not on the 7 Canaanite Tribes to Be Exterminated List.....are they?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I only said "maybe" because I don't know you and Paul's personal psychology that goes into your personal hermeneutics. I couldn't, so I wouldn't really guess one way or another, but it's always a possibility. I got that from the link you posted earlier that no one responded to, by the way.

Like I said, I'm asking how they did apply the morals of all those stories, you're asking how they should apply the morals of all those stories. Maybe both questions are important to answer, actually. What if you're right about how they should have interpreted things, and I'm right about how they did interpret things? What do you think that would mean?

....it would mean there's still a lot of work to do to uncover "what actually happened." I don't know; you're the Tech Expert. Have you and your friend, Spock, finished building a Time Transporter yet so all of us can finally go back in time and get all of our questions answered just the way we'd all like them to be answered?

I'd also say that ancient peoples weren't capable of "maximal human intellect".

I know of a number of people today who still aren't ......... me being but one example.

Sleeping with a prostitute wasn't directly related to his downfall though. Trusting a treacherous woman was, sure. But he could have been tricked whether he slept with her or not.

I beg to differ and I'll just kind of go with what my scholars might say about Samson's story.

I'm sort of thinking of how some folk think that it's specifically a sin to "spill seed" because that feller intentionally didn't create an heir for his deceased brother with his sister-in-law. I forget their names, you know who I'm talking about, ya?

....shhhhh! Let me whisper it in your ear.

The moral of the story was about doing what's right for your family, and folks want to focus on the dirty bit and say that was wrong too. I dunno your stance, maybe you agree with them so this analogy isn't going to go over real well.

No, I'd probably just focus on the multiple bits that have something to do with the fact that Onan broke the Law; and the good news in all of this is that despite the fact that I'm not Roman Catholic, and despite the fact that my wife was quite happy recently that I responsibly resorted to wearing a blanket as we cuddled, I'm still alive and kick'n!

I don't know how we could know if they did or not. And I don't know why it would matter if they did or not.

Well, I'm sorry that my blustering about Rahab and friends hasn't found a ready audience here at this time. Maybe we'll discuss things in the future about some of this, but since this point isn't a primary focus, I think we can let this one slide for now.

 

[cvanwey]

As I posted earlier, the Midianites weren't wiped out, now were they? You did see that reference I made to the remaining Midianites in the book of Judges, right? Where did they come from, biologically speaking?

Not sure why you have to go to another book of another chapter...

If God commands the execution of even the infants; then it's safe to say God is ordering complete extermination. Again, as @cloudyday2 pointed out way-back-when... If your 'rationale' was that the virgins were innocent, then so were the little boys.

Hence, either God is inept to basic biology... Or, some dude wrote up such laws to sanction 'marital rape'. (i.e) sham marriages, loopholes, etc... (i.e.) as @Halbhh pointed out in Deuteronomy 21:11-14 ---> Does the woman have any say in such imposed upon laws? Doesn't look that way...

My take is a believer in Yahweh wrote of this 'law', as a loophole; to coincide with their beliefs.

If true, makes you wonder what other 'laws' were merely man-made?

No, we're not on the same page, mainly because we have differing conceptions about how and what and why things happened in the Bible, and what that means overall. We also have different praxis in our respective hermeneutics we each use....and yes, you are doing your own form of hermeneutics whether you realize it or not, accept it or not, or are doing it well or not. (And maybe you are doing great on all three counts? Maybe I'M the one who just isn't 'getting it' and is in needs of few lessons here and there? I can imagine various things are possible when attempting to read this archaic thing called the Bible ..........)

Clearly we are not on the same page then...

The rest of your post I've, for the present, snipped off and won't be addressing it till later, i.e. not till after we've tried to come to some understanding about who and where and what these Midianites were and where they fit in in relation to all of the other tribes that God said were under the ban. So, who are all of these Midianites? They're not on the 7 Canaanite Tribes to Be Exterminated List.....are they?

See above

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Not sure why you have to go to another book of another chapter...

Oi rin fsqisjodh a sepv tay fwh, geph Y'm qpv cuxe asszn lom rentalxm, wy?

 

[fwGod]

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'...?

The idea that God shouldn't do certain things if He's loving.. seems to come from the idea that love would not punish sin.. or take revenge against enemy tribes that sought to totally wipe out those in covenant with Him.

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?

If there is not a specific stated reason in the context of the event.. then a general answer would be offered. And that is.. that in spite of God's revenge against most of the Midianites.. the compassion of God was shown to the virgins.. not to include them for death.

It could also be possibly due to the Midians being descendants of Abraham. So as distant family the virgins were accepted into the Israelite tribes.

And, Moses had married a Midianite woman, the daughter of a priest. So there are some reasons.

For more information read this article "https://www. gotquestions.org/Midianites.html" or do a more indepth research on your own.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

'Good' points... Let's keep them in there, and then make a 'conclusion'?

Regardless of what any past, current, or future definition of 'rape' may be; or how the term 'rape' may evolve over time, it would appear God weighed in on this topic (i.e.) Numbers 31. And since God did so, we must ask ourselves....

Group A conquers group B, spares the 'beautiful virgin(s)', takes her/them as his/their wife/wives one month later, BUT the woman/women remain disgusted with this/these person(s), states they wish not to have relations with them, or states 'she is not in the mood'. Since they are now 'married', does she really have a say in the matter?

The reason I pose this scenario, is because, yes.... Your provided examples could very well be the case in some instances. However, taking the (black and white) approach mentioned prior by @Nihilist Virus and maybe @cloudyday2 , that some women may remain repulsed by the party whom slayed their entire family right in front of them, does the woman have the 'right' to refuse such apparent sanctioned courtships?

Again, what is the most basic and 'universal' definition of the word 'rape'?

Webster states:

"unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against a person's will or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent because of mental illness, mental deficiency, intoxication, unconsciousness, or deception"

Well, the beginning states 'unlawful'. Hence, the reason I posed the term 'sham marriages.' Meaning, once 'married', the man has full say, and according to the Bible, the woman is not mentioned as having any say-so. What if the woman agreed to marriage under duress? Marriage appeared the 'loophole' necessary for such men to receive/obtain carte blanche.

Moving forward, 'rape' would appear to entail the term 'consent'. However, in such a case, (i.e.) in Numbers 31, was consent from the woman required?.?.?.? I doubt it.

Wow! One can't get much more ethically anachronistic than this, can they? And after everything I've all along been attempting to convey about how you skeptics shouldn't fall into this tar pit of pseudo-reasoning. As if resorting to Webster's is somehow going to pull you out of this sticky situation you're in and which, obviously, you're not seeing clearly, cvanwey. Maybe wipe some of the tar away from your eyes for this one before commencing further ... Mr. Moral Relativist!

 

[cvanwey]

Thank you for joining the party

The idea that God shouldn't do certain things if He's loving.. seems to come from the idea that love would not punish sin.. or take revenge against enemy tribes that sought to totally wipe out those in covenant with Him.

I agree. However, this does not address my quoted OP.

If the virgins were spared, according to your response, this would suggest the virgins were innocent, or maybe w/o 'sin' for the 'most' part'? And I would have to ask you, then why weren't the 'little ones' spared? Neither group were deemed 'enemies' or 'sinners' of such an offense. If anything, a new born/toddler/child would be less culpable than a slightly older prepubescent female, wouldn't they?

Why ONLY the virgin females?

If there is not a specific stated reason in the context of the event.. then a general answer would be offered. And that is.. that in spite of God's revenge against most of the Midianites.. the compassion of God was shown to the virgins.. not to include them for death.

We must first remember, God specifically apparently weighed in on this event. Hence, we must evaluate what God is saying, and how it applies. God appears to have no problem giving reason, as to why He does this, that, or the other; as with other story lines. And though some of these 'reasons' in other story lines might sometimes appear illogical, or contradict basic discovery; at least He gives (a) reason or two. But in this case, He commands to spare a specific sect of humans, female virgins alone. And thus, we can ask ourselves....

A. Does God choose not to give adequate reason, even though He seems to in other cases, and instead lets humans scratch their heads with this specific event?
B. OR, is the reason already so obvious, that further 'reason' is not necessary, or would be redundant?

In this case, if we are speaking about 'compassion for virgins' - (as you stated above), why not the male virgins?

It could also be possibly due to the Midians being descendants of Abraham. So as distant family the virgins were accepted into the Israelite tribes.

See above

And, Moses had married a Midianite woman, the daughter of a priest. So there are some reasons.

This would instead suggest "God" is adhering to human tradition, verses God commanding His rule.

For more information read this article "https://www. gotquestions.org/Midianites.html" or do a more indepth research on your own.

I already did research prior to posting the topic here... I'm looking for the perspectives of the apologists here, and thus far, don't really seem to have one - in regards to my specific questions. And saying, 'He doesn't give a reason' - suggests the above A. and B. scenario in red.

And yes, we can always research on our own. Heck, I've even done my due diligence in probing through apologists videos, whom 'really had time to think and reflect on this topic', only to see not much of an answer, for example:

I can 'google', read, and/or research practically any topic for myself. My intent here, is to challenge apologists. As is also the intent of this forum arena. Thus, what was God's rationale?

See above