What Was God's Rationale In This Instance?

[yeshuaslavejeff]

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'?

Why ONLY the virgin females?

Well, a lot of posts/ pages.....

No, they were not innocent, nor w/o sin for any part, let alone the most part.

But there is/was a way, in line with all TORAH, that Yahuweh always knew,

and thus He Spoke and Told Directly with Clear Instructions what to do.

Simply obey Him, trusting and relying on Him, and He Accomplishes all that is required for healing/ salvation.

 

[cvanwey]

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!

I am a moral relativist. I'm not speaking about the 'moral implications'.... Just pointing out that, if this specific rendition of Yahweh exists, it would appear that men and women are not considered equal. That's all...

I'm not passing 'moral judgement', even though I have my own personal views. However, I would assume you most likely feel the same...

Thus, how do you reconcile the 'fact' that God considers males and females not equal, in the slightest?

Furthermore, how do you 'square' the reasoning, as to WHY 'God' does not consider the male and female species 'equal'?

Does it make sense at least?

Again, what is the rationale? Nothing about 'morals' here; even though I have suspicion that you and I likely agree.

And in regards to the term 'rape', is there a generic enough definition, immune from time? I understand we invent our own terms. However, we humans have a nack for labeling actions. And in this case, what else would you call such actions? (i.e.) Numbers 31.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Just pointing out that, if this specific rendition of Yahweh exists, it would appear that men and women are not considered equal. That's all...

PERFECT !

So you do understand! WONDERFUL.

(p.s. no "rendition" of the Creator though - He is not able to be put in a box/ defined by sinful men)

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Furthermore, how do you 'square' the reasoning, as to WHY 'God' does not consider the male and female species 'equal'?

(ignore the word 'species' as irrelevant, unnecessary and combative)

Is this really a hard question ? ??

When a potter makes a large, 50 gallon pot,
and
a medium, 25 gallon pot,
and
a small, 3 gallon pot,

would he think of them as equal !?

 

[cvanwey]

Well, a lot of posts/ pages.....

No, they were not innocent, nor w/o sin for any part, let alone the most part.

But there is/was a way, in line with all TORAH, that Yahuweh always knew,

and thus He Spoke and Told Directly with Clear Instructions what to do.

Simply obey Him, trusting and relying on Him, and He Accomplishes all that is required for healing/ salvation.

Blind obedience. Great.

What about the ones whom doubt it was God issuing the command? I'll give you an example...

I'm willing to bet you believe God still intervenes with humans today. As such, it stands to reason that God is interacting with humans today.

I then ask you....

You see a fellow person commit an act you do not agree with (either morally and/or because it appears incoherent). You ask them why they did such and such. They tell you God told them to do it. How do you decipher if this claim is true???

However, in this case of Numbers 31, I'm not even questioning the moral implications. The command does not appear rational. Why not spare any of the males? The only difference in this event, is that we have purely male warriors, and they are told to keep some females. Since the males are not spared, what can the warriors do with the females, that they would not want to do with the males?

 

[cvanwey]

PERFECT !

So you do understand! WONDERFUL.

(p.s. no "rendition" of the Creator though - He is not able to be put in a box/ defined by sinful men)

Kool, then we agree that God has no problem weighing in on the fact that men can take women as their wives, and once they are 'married', the woman may have little to no say; and that it is only the male whom has the say-so.

Good, we have that settled.

 

[cvanwey]

(ignore the word 'species' as irrelevant, unnecessary and combative)

Is this really a hard question ? ??

When a potter makes a large, 50 gallon pot,
and
a medium, 25 gallon pot,
and
a small, 3 gallon pot,

would he think of them as equal !?

By 'equal', I trust you know I mean equal laws, as they are both humans.

You might want to try a better analogy. This pertains to physical attributes. All this would mean is that the male is likely bigger, and can physically carry more, and may even cost more - using more material. If such a law states a woman is not allowed to lift a certain amount of weight or something, you are golden

What would Numbers 31 have to do with any of this?

 

[Moral Orel]

....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?

No, that's not really an answer to my question. If we know what they did, then we know "what actually happened", albeit we can only "know" in an inductive sort of way, but your answer dodges the actual question.

So let's return to a previous question that never got answered. You say that "Don't covet" should have been interpreted to mean "Don't visit prostitutes", but they still visited prostitutes. What does that mean that they didn't interpret things the way you think they should have? I'd say that at a minimum they didn't interpret it as "Don't rape" either, and that's evidenced by what laws they bothered to write on both subjects.

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

Then you can't narrow down the width of that spectrum of interpretation. I would disagree, actually. Although neither of us is a maximally intelligent person overall, of course, I think most folks are able to achieve an application of maximal human intelligence to a topic through understanding logic and reasoning; something that was still a long ways off for ancient peoples, and that's how we get instructions on breeding striped goats.

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

Okay. Is there any kind of "consensus" amongst historians and scholars about it, or are you just going to agree with the ones that you already agree with? Chronologically, doesn't Samson's story happen way after all the wiping out of the Canaanites and the writing of all these laws we're questioning? Wouldn't any interpretation of this story be a mute point?

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!

Then we can both see how folks can deem something to be sinful because it's an aspect of a story, even though it's not part of the moral of the story.

 

[Moral Orel]

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!

I think accusing someone of being ethically anachronistic is being morally relative. Are you agreeing with the post he was responding to?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think accusing someone of being ethically anachronistic is being morally relative. Are you agreeing with the post he was responding to?

I doubt it; and I don't think so. I pretty much disagree with most of what has so far, over the past year and a half, fallen onto the screen from @cvanwey's keyboard.

He's a relativist, as per his own claims. I'm an absolutist, and being this is a Christian Forum, it should go as no surprise that behind the difficult efforts we all must often make to 'read' and interpret the Bible, at the core is something that, like a chewy tootsie roll drop at the center of a Tootsie Pop, is substantive even if it takes at least 3 licks (or often more) to get to. And then we cry "owl" in regard to how hard God has made it to interpret. Well, BOO HOO! BOO HOO! (...said the wise old owl!)

 

[fwGod]

Thank you for joining the party
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'?

The matter of what "virgin" means is contrasted with each of the women who'd been with a man.

And I would have to ask you, then why weren't the 'little ones' spared?

You'd have to check on other scripture references that use the words "little ones". Depending on the context there are verses that use the words, yet in studying it out.. it refers to young adults. Such as those who harassed, and insulted the prophet in calling him grey head.

Neither group were deemed 'enemies' or 'sinners' of such an offense.

Well then, I know now that you didn't look at the link-url that I provided.

It states that the Midianites joined with the Moabites who fiercely hated the Israelites.. implying that the Moabites so influenced the Midianites against them that they came to destructive judgement from God.

That situation of conflict with enemies indicates plenty of offense.

If anything, a new born/toddler/child would be less culpable than a slightly older prepubescent female, wouldn't they?

Well, anyone who just reads on the surface level of the text without doing research might come to that erroneous conclusion.

Why ONLY the virgin females?

It seems that you are deliberately refusing to accept the results of Biblical research and more indepth study on the matter.

In that case, you perpetuate your own frustration. As long as you do that. You are spinning your wheels in the mud.

We must first remember, God specifically apparently weighed in on this event. Hence, we must evaluate what God is saying, and how it applies.

Don't be dragging me into your jaunts of private interpretations.

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

That sort of deductive reasoning is your own. Putting forth false speculations, and making conclusions in an attempt to fill in the gaps that you consider are lacking.

..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?

If you are describing yourself, then you've just indicated that you don't rely upon the Holy Spirit to lead and guide you into all the Truth of God's Word.

B. OR, is the reason already so obvious, that further 'reason' is not necessary, or would be redundant?

No it's not obvious. It must be searched out in other chapters. Or it becomes easier with a quality reference Bible.

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

Because males carry the Midianite and Moabite seed. Therefore it's an inbuilt conflict. The Israelites are supposed to remain pure, and not to mingle their tribes with the seed of the enemy.

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

You could not be more wrong. Jesus Himself spoke against adhering to human traditions.

To put human influences with the commands of God is contradictory thinking.

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.

You might think that you're questions would cause an answer that you apparently are looking for. But obviously the results so far indicate that you need to get more clear of what you are looking for.

But, on the other hand.. no one can correctly go beyond what Bible research has already given.

And saying, 'He doesn't give a reason' - suggests the above A. and B. scenario in red.

Only in your own mind.

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:

The text in Numbers is not about "rape and sexual slavery" The idea is not at all depicted in the chapter. You've barked up the wrong tree on that one.

I can 'google', read, and/or research practically any topic for myself. My intent here, is to challenge apologists.

No apologist worth their salt will be willing to leap away from proper apologetics into incorrect thinking.

As is also the intent of this forum arena.

The challenge is to those who ask questions of those in this apologetic forum. Those who ask usually do because they don't know the right answers.

Thus, what was God's rationale?

No matter how many times you ask, the answer will not suddenly be different than what is already given.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No, that's not really an answer to my question. If we know what they did, then we know "what actually happened", albeit we can only "know" in an inductive sort of way, but your answer dodges the actual question.

Uh........................No, that's not actually how historical scholars typically envision their understanding of "the past," in which case now I'm alluding to the fields of Historiography, Epistemology, and also those of Philosophy of History and Literary Studies of the works of Past Cultures. Oh. And I almost forgot, Philosophical Hermeneutics, and Biblical Hermeneutics.

So, no dice on that one, Nick! Sorry! I just have to clear the air of your snafu before we move on to anything else..... And I'm saying it like that because I think you're surely too intelligent to really believe what you've just attempted to assert.

 

[cvanwey]

The matter of what "virgin" means is contrasted with each of the women who'd been with a man.

Okay. So were these specific women 'innocent'; not to be exterminated? Apparently so, according to 'God.' See below...

You'd have to check on other scripture references that use the words "little ones". Depending on the context there are verses that use the words, yet in studying it out.. it refers to young adults. Such as those who harassed, and insulted the prophet in calling him grey head.

I have to ask, are you playing coy with me? The exact verse states "17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man"

I was under the impression you know what I mean, when using differing words from literal verse... I guess I'll keep it Biblical, moving forward, as to not cause any 'confusion.'

Regardless of what was written in other Chapters, it would not matter. The command appears pretty straight forward; axiomatic even.

Well then, I know now that you didn't look at the link-url that I provided.

It states that the Midianites joined with the Moabites who fiercely hated the Israelites.. implying that the Moabites so influenced the Midianites against them that they came to destructive judgement from God.

That situation of conflict with enemies indicates plenty of offense.

But I did... I'm speaking about the apparent women whom had not been touched by men, as well as any child not 'touched' by the opposite sex, or even the same sex for that matter...

Seems as though God would exterminate the entire populous. But since He decided to command the sparing of the untouched women, why not the untouched young boys? See below....

Well, anyone who just reads on the surface level of the text without doing research might come to that erroneous conclusion.

As I told you, I didn't just read the verses, place my hands in the air, and post my thoughts here. If you've read through the entire thread, I trust you may have surmised as such?

Thus far, seems as though some observations can be intelligently concluded. If you can rebut them, be my guest

It seems that you are deliberately refusing to accept the results of Biblical research and more indepth study on the matter.

How so?

Or is it possible it is you instead, whom refuse to reconcile conclusions in which do not serve favor to your wanting/liking?

Please remember, the OP is not to challenge 'God' per se; but to instead challenge the notion that God commanded THIS Chapter.

Again, as I recently asked @yeshuaslavejeff Just because someone states God told them to do this or that, do we automatically conclude the command MUST have been God commanded???? Again, how can we evaluate if such a command could possibly be from such a claimed Being? Do we judge it's 'moral' implications alone, it's logic, and/or other???

My beef is that I'm confident that such a claimed God had no hand in this Chapter. And it's not for the 'moral' reasons... Please read the rest of the thread, as I do not wish to repeat them.

Because males carry the Midianite and Moabite seed. Therefore it's an inbuilt conflict. The Israelites are supposed to remain pure, and not to mingle their tribes with the seed of the enemy.

The bloodline would still continue. Biology...

That's all for now...

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

My beef is that I'm confident that such a claimed God had no hand in this Chapter.

.... finally? ...... the hidden motive comes out in the open .....

 

[cvanwey]

.... finally? ...... the hidden motive comes out in the open .....

Well, I stated this much earlier in the thread. And you have yet to address my question posed to you.

Since you trust every bit of Yahweh's commands, I ask you...

HOW do you know this Chapter even has Yahweh's direct hand within it?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Well, I stated this much earlier in the thread. And you have yet to address my question posed to you.

Since you trust every bit of Yahweh's commands, I ask you...

HOW do you know this Chapter even has Yahweh's direct hand within it?

It is completely in Harmony with all His Word, His Plan, His Purpose, and
(as you are a skeptic) something you do not know anything about -
His Spirit.

Those who reject His Word also have rejected Him, as Jesus says clearly.

He will not make them change their mind, even though they continue then on the wide road to destruction.

 

[cvanwey]

The rest...

You could not be more wrong. Jesus Himself spoke against adhering to human traditions.

If such a claimed God exists, I would agree. However, when one reads the Bible, it looks as though God is more-so conforming to humans, verses, the other way around, in some cases. Left for another topic....

To put human influences with the commands of God is contradictory thinking.

You might think that you're questions would cause an answer that you apparently are looking for. But obviously the results so far indicate that you need to get more clear of what you are looking for.

But, on the other hand.. no one can correctly go beyond what Bible research has already given.

Quite honestly, I wouldn't really expect to. However, I have yet to see sufficient reason to oppose certain conclusions made thus far... (i.e.)

A. biology - (the blood line continues from the female just as well, 'seed' or no 'seed')
B. sanctioned 'rape' - (not a moral objection really, but merely observing how God issues verse to allow for it)
C. Man>women, in regards to humans rights - (again, just an observation where God weighed in upon the topic)

Only in your own mind.

What else would I have to decipher such conclusions..?

The text in Numbers is not about "rape and sexual slavery" The idea is not at all depicted in the chapter. You've barked up the wrong tree on that one.

Okay, great. Then please educate me... The Bible states, '18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.'

Then apparently, another section is brought up by apologists (i.e.) Deuteronomy 21:10-14

In this section, please demonstrate the area where the woman has any say in the matter?

Because please remember, a woman's family is slaughtered right in front of them. Their heads are then shaven. God tells the warriors they must wait 30 days first.

Regardless of how one wishes to define or label 'rape', here's the 'facts' of the matter, as given from the Bible.

- Everything the woman has ever known, gone.
- Her head is shaved
- A man claims her as his wife
- He waits 30 days, then receives his 'wife'

I ask you, don't you think it might be possible, in many of these cases, that the woman was terrified of what might happen to them if they didn't agree with this God asserting warrior, whom is now in front of her?

So we get to the term 'rape'.

Does waiting 30 days no longer make the act 'rape'?
Does calling her your wife no longer make the act 'rape'?
Does her saying, 'okay', out of fear, no longer constitute any sort of 'rape'?

I guess only 'God' knows the answers to these questions...

The challenge is to those who ask questions of those in this apologetic forum. Those who ask usually do because they don't know the right answers.

Okay, so what are the 'right' answers? And do all apologists, 'worth their salt', agree with you and your answers? I doubt it. If you don't believe me, you might want to read the entire thread.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So let's return to a previous question that never got answered. You say that "Don't covet" should have been interpreted to mean "Don't visit prostitutes", but they still visited prostitutes. What does that mean that they didn't interpret things the way you think they should have? I'd say that at a minimum they didn't interpret it as "Don't rape" either, and that's evidenced by what laws they bothered to write on both subjects.

Yes, "don't covet" would PRECLUDE the act of various kinds of molestation or other sexual immorality. And just like today, there were folks who "ran the STOP sign," I'm sure, which is I guess why the bible takes so much time to met out rantings about human sin and depravity all through its many pages the way it does. Right?

Then you can't narrow down the width of that spectrum of interpretation. I would disagree, actually. Although neither of us is a maximally intelligent person overall, of course, I think most folks are able to achieve an application of maximal human intelligence to a topic through understanding logic and reasoning; something that was still a long ways off for ancient peoples, and that's how we get instructions on breeding striped goats.

Tell that to the students who I had to give a grade of 'F' in the classes I used to teach. No, Nick, in practice, this expectation you seem to have for "most folks" regarding the Bible and its interpretation isn't something that can just be grabbed out of the thin air ... for ANY of us, no matter how much we might be tempted to contort John 14:26 or similar verses. It's difficult. Its time-consuming, and its also something that God in His Spirit ISN'T going to deposit into our heads by some powerful fiat, at least not most of the time. So, let's maybe drop kick this assertion of yours into the nearest waste-basket and start over.

Okay. Is there any kind of "consensus" amongst historians and scholars about it, or are you just going to agree with the ones that you already agree with? Chronologically, doesn't Samson's story happen way after all the wiping out of the Canaanites and the writing of all these laws we're questioning? Wouldn't any interpretation of this story be a mute point?

Well, let's do some research on it all and see what various voices, both Christian and Rabbinical might have thought were the inherent "lessons" within a narrative like that of Samson and Delilah, with the whole story of Samson in sight. Do you want to go look for a source or two and see what you find to 'counter' or add to what you think I might find or have found?

Then we can both see how folks can deem something to be sinful because it's an aspect of a story, even though it's not part of the moral of the story.

Sure, it can happen. But just because someone 'sees' it that way doesn't mean they had their hermeneutical base-ball cap on firm and snug, Nick. What we also have to consider is the extent to which we think that it was the intention of the original author or authors to enable the 'account' to serve not only historical signifiers of sorts, but also moral coding for the readers (or hearers).

 

[cvanwey]

It is completely in Harmony with all His Word, His Plan, His Purpose, and
(as you are a skeptic) something you do not know anything about -
His Spirit.

Those who reject His Word also have rejected Him, as Jesus says clearly.

He will not make them change their mind, even though they continue then on the wide road to destruction.

I'm afraid this does nothing to address my question. Furthermore, please do not presume to think you know what I know.

I'll ask again - (maybe a more relatable version):

A fellow Christian performs an act you do not agree with. You ask this Christian why? This Christian states 'God told them to'. Is pure blind obedience warranted in such a case, or, does such a case warrant at least some remedial analysis?

Because remember, you are both Christian. Which would mean you both institute full trust in Christ, right?

Again, how were you able to discern if a command is from God or not? Is it if they are a true believer and they tell you so?

Then, read Numbers 31, view my points of observation, and tell me where I went astray?

 

[cloudyday2]

@cvanwey , @2PhiloVoid , @fwGod , and anybody else, here is a thought:
Maybe females were classified with livestock rather than the males? So if God said "kill all the Midianites" it would meant "kill all the male Midianites" (because males were considered human and females were considered livestock). Just as the sheep and goats were not considered tribe-members, maybe the human females were not considered tribe-members?

However, the seed planted in the wombs of their females by the Midianite males might have been considered potential future Midianite tribe-members. Thus all the males and all the ADULT females needed to be killed, but the young females could be taken as war booty along with the sheep and goats.

There was still the problem of distinguishing virgin females from non-virgin females, but the priority would have been to err on the side of killing more females. If the females were considered livestock then there would have been only the financial loss of excessive slaughter rather than the moral problem. Sparing only the very young females would have probably been a simple method.

Evidence that this low view of females as livestock was the norm may be available in other references to foreigners. Was there a textual distinction made between the tribe and the females? In the counts provided in Exodus I believe there is no mention of females. Maybe there are other examples of this low view of females in other Bible verses that others here might know?