• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

What Was God's Rationale In This Instance?

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
41
California
✟156,979.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I'll get to your points soon enough. I just want it to be a little more clear as to where my 'ground of context' is in my replies, because I think that gets missed. I feel under ZERO - 000 - compunction to have to align my ethics with the usual American modes of moral thinking, even if there is a lot of overlay and similarity since........well, I'm attempting daily to be a Christian for "goodness sake." :D

Zero compunction to align your ethics with usual American modes of thinking? We're not talking about bankruptcy laws here. Literally all we're discussing is mass murder and rape. Are your ethics on those issues not aligned with usual American modes of thinking? :scratch:
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Recalculating!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,570
11,468
Space Mountain!
✟1,354,106.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Zero compunction to align your ethics with usual American modes of thinking? We're not talking about bankruptcy laws here. Literally all we're discussing is mass murder and rape. Are your ethics on those issues not aligned with usual American modes of thinking? :scratch:

Oh, I'm sure much of it is; but maybe not for the same reasons or with the same, identical set of evaluations. You see, unlike many, whether they be Christian, Atheists, or whatnot Nihilists, I'm not afraid to question the sacred grounds upon which some of "their" ideals, morals and ethics are erected. Sound familiar? Of course it does.
 
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
41
California
✟156,979.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Oh, I'm sure much of it is; but maybe not for the same reasons or with the same, identical set of evaluations. You see, unlike many, whether they be Christian, Atheists, or whatnot Nihilists, I'm not afraid to question the sacred grounds upon which some of "their" ideals, morals and ethics are erected. Sound familiar? Of course it does.

Sure. Yes. It's great to question everything. But questioning the morality of mass murder and rape shouldn't be a long, arduous process. Would I like it very much if I was on either end of one of these things? No. Obviously I'd prefer not to have these things happen to me, and, since I am not a psychopath and I have a conscience, I'd find no pleasure in committing these acts either.

Exactly how different is your thought process here?
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Recalculating!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,570
11,468
Space Mountain!
✟1,354,106.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Sure. Yes. It's great to question everything. But questioning the morality of mass murder and rape shouldn't be a long, arduous process. Would I like it very much if I was on either end of one of these things? No. Obviously I'd prefer not to have these things happen to me, and, since I am not a psychopath and I have a conscience, I'd find no pleasure in committing these acts either.

Exactly how different is your thought process here?

For starters, the difference in my thought process (without making any overtures to my two new favorite t.v. shows) will be found in my hermeneutical approach to handling the texts in question. Because, that's what we're doing here: handling and interpreting texts, first, not deciding if bona-fide rape and murder are wrong [which they are, DUH!].

Let's just say that, if there is a God, and He is indeed the Holy, Omniscient, Righteous Creator of all, and so on, then if He makes the call that the Medianites on the whole or some tribal portion thereof, along with their culture, should meet their demise, then that..............................is ethically and morally 'meet,' American, democratic notions notwithstanding since these don't typically or mandatorily involve the input and consideration of a Divine Judge like that of the Jewish God.

So of course, when we read Numbers 31 today, to those who want to freely do eisgesis (rather than exegesis) and READ INTO the text something which it doesn't specifically say and to ignore the fact that a bevy of needed details are left unsaid by the author, then there will be a tendency to SEE nothing but rape and murder when there was no rape and no murder. No there will just be uncaring, eisegetical readers harboring delusive predilections from a stew of fully uncritical notions relying on Modern ethics.

Addendum: Then again, it seems strange to say that a Nihilist or a Moral Relativist would 'rely' on Modern ethics. :dontcare:
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
41
California
✟156,979.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
For starters, the difference in my thought process (without making any overtures to my two new favorite t.v. shows) will be found in my hermeneutical approach to handling the texts in question.

Why would your views on mass murder and rape depend upon words in a text? Do you not have a conscience?

Because, that's what we're doing here: handling and interpreting texts, first, not deciding if bona-fide rape and murder are wrong [which they are, DUH!].

Ok so we've made progress. Rape and murder are wrong. Now we proceed to explore how God allowed and/or commanded it. That's the purpose of this thread - exploring God's reasoning.

Let's just say that, if there is a God, and He is indeed the Holy, Omniscient, Righteous Creator of all, and so on, then if He makes the call that the Medianites on the whole or some tribal portion thereof, along with their culture, should meet their demise, then that..............................is ethically and morally 'meet,' American, democratic notions notwithstanding since these don't typically or mandatorily involve the input and consideration of a Divine Judge like that of the Jewish God.

It doesn't matter if he is our creator. Autonomy only grants authority, not moral immunity. Evil is still evil, even if you're allowed to do it or if no one can stop you.

Further, it doesn't matter if God is holy. He's holy until he's not. He's perfect until he's not.

It's just like Adam and Eve. They were perfect until they weren't. Right?

If God is holy then he didn't order or allow mass murder and rape. Perhaps this portion of scripture is misinterpreted, or not divinely inspired, or altered somewhere in history. But no, you just go ahead and defend atrocities.

So of course, when we read Numbers 31 today, to those who want to freely do eisgesis (rather than exegesis) and READ INTO the text something which it doesn't specifically say and to ignore the fact that a bevy of needed details are left unsaid by the author, then there will be a tendency to SEE nothing but rape and murder when there was no rape and no murder. No there will just be uncaring, eisegetical readers harboring delusive predilections from a stew of fully uncritical notions relying on Modern ethics.

No rape and no murder? So... it was checkers and horse shoes after all? They "took the virgins for themselves" to play parlor games. Confirmed. No rape occurred. Good to know!

Addendum: Then again, it seems strange to say that a Nihilist or a Moral Relativist would 'rely' on Modern ethics. :dontcare:

Shame on you. You know by now that I'm a logical nihilist. I've explained this to you before in great detail. Also, nice personal attack. What are you trying to do here... point out that a nihilist is more ethical than you? Mission accomplished.

And how is it that you call me a moral relativist when you're the one saying that certain actions are acceptable depending upon who commits them? Divine command theory takes moral relativism sky high.

What a terribly disappointing conversation. But that's nothing new.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Recalculating!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,570
11,468
Space Mountain!
✟1,354,106.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Why would your views on mass murder and rape depend upon words in a text? Do you not have a conscience?
Man, you really have a way to upend another person's point of view, don't you? You just have to poison those wells with your chutzpah and false inferences.

To set the record straight: What I'm getting at is that I think YOU are guilty of reading rape and murder into the biblical text by importing your own definitions, moral definitions you haven't established as either absolute in nature (i.e. REAL), or binding in their authority for moral deliberation. No, you just ask rhetorical questions to attempt to smear your opponent. Well, I'm not falling for that and, in fact, from this point forward, I will simply defy your unaccounted moral framework since you don't want to establish that first.

Ok so we've made progress. Rape and murder are wrong. Now we proceed to explore how God allowed and/or commanded it. That's the purpose of this thread - exploring God's reasoning.
Again, I'm just going to defy you and not allow you to assume and read into the text whatever the hell it is you think you want to read. Either interpret your reading fairly and wholistically, OR don't come here and do it at all. Or else I will take you to task for YOUR OWN moral foundations ... I'm sure we'd all like to see the fault lines that run through the substance of your own ethical point of view.

It doesn't matter if he is our creator. Autonomy only grants authority, not moral immunity. Evil is still evil, even if you're allowed to do it or if no one can stop you.
Yes, it DOES matter IF God is the Creator; you don't have autonomy if He exists.

I'll get to the rest (below) later ... right now I'm stewing and trying not to blow my lid!

urther, it doesn't matter if God is holy. He's holy until he's not. He's perfect until he's not.

It's just like Adam and Eve. They were perfect until they weren't. Right?

If God is holy then he didn't order or allow mass murder and rape. Perhaps this portion of scripture is misinterpreted, or not divinely inspired, or altered somewhere in history. But no, you just go ahead and defend atrocities.



No rape and no murder? So... it was checkers and horse shoes after all? They "took the virgins for themselves" to play parlor games. Confirmed. No rape occurred. Good to know!



Shame on you. You know by now that I'm a logical nihilist. I've explained this to you before in great detail. Also, nice personal attack. What are you trying to do here... point out that a nihilist is more ethical than you? Mission accomplished.

And how is it that you call me a moral relativist when you're the one saying that certain actions are acceptable depending upon who commits them? Divine command theory takes moral relativism sky high.

What a terribly disappointing conversation. But that's nothing new.
 
Upvote 0

RaymondG

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2016
8,546
3,815
USA
✟277,185.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Because even the Bible literalist can infer this conclusion, from this specific story line.



This response appears incoherent. The story speaks about literally sparing the girls alone, and not any of the males. Surely male infants would be just as innocent as a female infants, right?



Sounds as though you mean 'blinders', not 'filters'? Meaning, special pleading, non sequitur, or cognitive dissonance...? The Story of Adam and Eve has a fairly straight forward message, where a literalist, and a progressive, will both discern the same general message.

Numbers 31, on the other hand, requires 'backflips' to conclude what you are presenting.




So God likes to invoke apparent and explicit commands and stories, which appear 'savage' in nature, to assure humans remember a story?



Yes, and in that same story line, God states He will now punish all of human kind. It's pretty simple...

In Numbers 31, God commands party A to kill party B, and keep the females whom have not slept with a man, for yourselves. Simple...




Again, your response appears incoherent. If Numbers 31 meant what you are stating, then the story line would have included innocent young males. But it doesn't. Thus, trying to 'show-horn' some ad hoc // post hoc explanation, without any justification, fails.



Oh really? What other human tool are you able to use to discern any conclusion?



Again, this does not appear to be the message of Numbers 31. Nor, have you presented any type of rationale to support such an argument. Until you can at least explain why God would command the death of male toddlers, while keeping the females of the same case, I don't follow your 'womb' analogy...?




God stated He would then judge mankind because of this act; the 'fall of man,'

In Numbers 31, you have a command for the victors to preserve virgins, then, ---> The End.

It then segways off into another entirely different story/event. Not like Genesis, which leads up to the 'fall of man', and later judgment of the human race there-to-come..
I understand. Thanks for the conversation.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Recalculating!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,570
11,468
Space Mountain!
✟1,354,106.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Further, it doesn't matter if God is holy. He's holy until he's not. He's perfect until he's not.
WRONG! Similar to what we've "talked about" above, if God is Holy, then you have to know what Holiness even means, and if you don't, you can't critique it. Holiness is like Fire; you either become like fire, OR ... not. And you know what happens if we don't. We get burned instead of warmed and comforted.

It's just like Adam and Eve. They were perfect until they weren't. Right?
Uh.....no? WRONG! Adam and Eve were never 'perfect' in any kind of way that would even begin to equate to God's own perfect nature. No, they started as 'innocent' yet limited human beings (according to the Eden Account). They weren't "perfect" as God was perfect, so let's not equivocate our terms here, just like we wouldn't if we were talking about the term 'theory' in the context of science. Where in the world have you gotten your theology and your method of interpretation, pray tell?

If God is holy then he didn't order or allow mass murder and rape. Perhaps this portion of scripture is misinterpreted, or not divinely inspired, or altered somewhere in history. But no, you just go ahead and defend atrocities.
Again, you obviously don't understand the biblical meaning of Holiness, nor do you understand the directives God gives His people about "being Holy because He is Holy"! A failure to "be Holy" comes with a price-tag and possible repercussions: THERE'S THE RATIONALE!

Obviously, this rationale of God's not only doesn't comport with today's supposed moral sensibilities, but despite the Anti-Christian RE-rationalization against God's Rationale, we find the core of the matter isn't that we think it's wrong.......but rather that we just .... don't ... like it.

The upshot and the moral of the tale is this: If the Medianites had wanted to enjoy peace and blessing along with the Israelites, then they should have welcomed them with open arms instead of doing all of the scheming and other dastardly trickery that they did to infect and spiritually affect the people of Israel.

No rape and no murder? So... it was checkers and horse shoes after all? They "took the virgins for themselves" to play parlor games. Confirmed. No rape occurred. Good to know!
Where in America is this kind of so-called 'rape', or what we would currently call 'rape,' happening, by which we would attempt to 'measure' anachronisitically what transpires in Numbers 31? I don't know of any stories in U.S. literature where we Americans have been told by God to clean out another country, or then be told by our leaders to leave the virgins alive and to take them home as our wives. (And if they are to be wives, then biblically speaking, that is to make them become 'Israelites,' even against their will. And if they are Israelite women, well then..................that's a different story altogether.)

No, when we concern ourselves about rape victims today, as is often depicted in Crime Scene type t.v. shows, heard about on the 10 o'clock news, or studied in the context of Criminal Law, we're usually hearing about some estranged lunatic who picks women off at the park and does terrible things to them-----it's never usually a case where we see a Perp take a women off the streets.......................and then "makes her his wife for life" with all of the care and love that a husband is responsible to muster and express. So, GET REAL! Stop all of your equivocating.

Shame on you. You know by now that I'm a logical nihilist. I've explained this to you before in great detail. Also, nice personal attack. What are you trying to do here... point out that a nihilist is more ethical than you? Mission accomplished.
I'm confident that both I and just about any Nihilist, including yourself, are equally sinners in the eyes of God; I'm also confident that as a Christian, I'm more conscientiously ETHICAL than you, even as we may squabble about the particulars, and even as we each try day by day to positively put into action for "goodness sake" the moral deliberations that run through our heads as they filter through our Ethical frameworks.

Of course, you'll probably think this implies that I'm thinking I'm 'better' than you. No, it doesn't. My being 'more' Ethically conscientious doesn't mean I don't have moments of hypocrisy. Like everyone else, I'm sure I do, but as a Christian, I don't excuse those moments. Neither do I run roughshod over EITHER my being mindful of as many of the reasons and causative social factors which may have gone into my producing my hypocrisies OR in my then having a fuller awareness of the extent to which I am responsible to identify, come to terms with and correct and rectify my moral failures.

With that said, please put away your imputations about personal attacks being supposedly made on my part upon you. You do enough of that on me by poisoning the wells with your silly inferences. And if you've noticed, that is, if you've taken the time to notice, I drop a lot of comments around here where I imply that atheists are not always at fault for either their lack of belief or for all of the short sighted moral structures they mistakenly create in their heads. But, you don't seem to want to offer than kind of "benefit of the doubt" for Christians, not even for Christians like me. No, you just keep pushing, and when you think you have leverage, you push harder. Well, I've had enough of that! The buck stops here.

And how is it that you call me a moral relativist when you're the one saying that certain actions are acceptable depending upon who commits them? Divine command theory takes moral relativism sky high.
I'm not calling you a moral relativist, but since this thread is intertwined with dialogue with @cvanwey, then I'm calling YOU a moral Nihilist and I'm inferring that he is a Moral Relativist (by his own admission). And by the way, I'm not a Divine Command Theorist, or at least not of the kind you're used to hearing about, so get that straight!

What a terribly disappointing conversation. But that's nothing new.
Well, all that has to happen for this to be a better conversation is for you to become better educated about various fields (like that of Hermeneutics) which are definitively germane to our being able to humanly understand what we can of the Bible ................... and I would think that for a guy like you who clearly has the cognitive chops to expand your educational horizons, that wouldn't be difficult to do. But somehow, despite your high intelligence, you can't seem to open yourself up to learning. Why is that? The only thing I can surmise is that something has happened to you that militates against your willingness to learn further and get beyond just relying on the likes of, say, Richard Carrier or Richard Dawkins. Of course, I'm guessing that "something" has remained unshared with the rest of us ... not that you should share it, but as @cvanwey might say, "I'm just saying!"
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
65
California
✟151,844.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
@cvanwey , maybe you can summarize your understanding of the defenses presented so far by Christians?

I honestly have yet to see one. Otherwise, I would be happy to.

I have been reading some of the Christians posts, and I am having trouble seeing any clear defenses. I see attacks on your understanding of the troubling verses, and I see some suggestions that explanations for the verses exist but they are too complicated or spiritual to share with non-Christians.

I've seen a couple attempt, or more, to provide a 'rationale'. However, it is one which is purely speculative at best; unfounded, unsubstantiated, and/or not backed by any evidence. Instead just stabs in the dark, or wishful thinking. The fact of the matter, thus far, as I see it, is that Christians are not attempting to mount a defense or justification for such a command; which appears directly issued by God.

And again, my point being... Even if Yahweh were real, one might need to reconcile that some of the decided collections of Scripture may be purely man-made/added - (which then begs larger questions about any reliability at all in Scripture period), or, that God is inconsistent with His commands. An uncomfortable proposition, anyway one wants to slice it...

In conclusion, it would appear that either:

A. Some verses, claiming God's hand, are instead man made alone.
B. God appears to change His mind, in regards to His own 'morality' from time to time, as evidence by Numbers 31.
C. God is imaginary, and all writings as such in the Bible are merely collections of events in the past, some partially true, some more-so true, and some not-so-much; with the concept of God shoe-horned upon them from time to time.
D. They are all true, and the Bible is 100% correct and accurate on all of it's accounts. The evidence left behind, suggesting to the contrary, are to test the faith of the many who compare the evidence against the claim, and whom now doubt such Biblical claims.
E. Any claim from the Bible, which does not fit the evidence, was instead always meant to be allegorical or metaphorical all along. And the Bible literalists are instead the ones whom got it wrong.

Maybe some others.... I know this seems a lot to gather from one chapter of the book of claims. But to reconcile this command from God alone, raises more questions than answers apparently.


I'm sure I missed some posts, but that is all I am seeing.

Honestly, I don't think that you have missed anything thus far.

The goal of an apologist should be to defend through clear explanation a troubling issue in Christianity rather than performing a sleight of hand to give the impression that the issue is resolved without actually resolving it.

And as soon as I pointed that out to some posters, such as @RaymondG for instance, they bow out stating 'I just don't understand'. And yet, provide little to no evidence to support their position. They just instead assert one.

Mind you, if they had any evidence, I'm sure they would not hesitate to provide as such.


And an apologist should accept that an issue is troubling rather than pretending it is not troubling.

Bravo! I hope @Tone and @RaymondG are still following, and may address you? Fingered crossed...

If an issue troubles somebody then it needs to be addressed rather than swept under the rug. ... Of course it is great that some Christian apologists are sharing their thoughts. I just can't find the actual defenses that should be here somewhere. But again, I have only skimmed some of the posts. And of course I don't want to be dismissive of the thoughts that have been posted. Maybe they are good thoughts that I don't understand.

No, you appear to have hit the proverbial nail, on the proverbial head.

Which ultimately brings me to the five possible conclusions listed above: A., B., C., D., E., or maybe others?
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Recalculating!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,570
11,468
Space Mountain!
✟1,354,106.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I
And as soon as I pointed that out to some posters, such as @RaymondG for instance, they bow out stating 'I just don't understand'. And yet, provide little to no evidence to support their position. They just instead assert one.

Oh...my....Goodness! If that isn't your own act of "the pot calling the kettle black," I don't know what is! :doh:
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
65
California
✟151,844.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
Oh...my....Goodness! If that isn't your own act of "the pot calling the kettle black," I don't know what is! :doh:

'fraid not sir. You, yourself, have mounted no effort to 'justify' the apparently command from God. You, yourself, admitted there exists no additional texts, on God's behalf, to extrapolate on God's rationale, or justification for this post war action.

Thus, we are left with a command by God. One in which tells the victors to preserve only the girls whom have not yet laid with a man. And as we begin to explore any/all concepts, as to why God would issue such a command, your best effort, thus far, was to suggest that maybe the victors asked all the women, before killing them; "hey, are you still a virgin?"

In conclusion, as you have agreed, if there exists limited explanation to a command, we can only infer what information is there. The reason I bring up this story specifically, is because of that purpose. God issues a command, with no explanation; in spite of the fact such a command seems to demonstrate inconsistency in His claimed moral absolutes. As I pointed out in selection B. of my last response (God appears to change His mind, in regards to His own 'morality' from time to time, as evidence by Numbers 31.), which you have not addressed.


And now, you keep bringing up how our 'modern sense of morality' is getting in the way. As you would say.... 'sheesh.'
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Recalculating!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,570
11,468
Space Mountain!
✟1,354,106.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
'fraid not sir. You, yourself, have mounted no effort to 'justify' the apparently command from God. You, yourself, admitted there exists no additional texts, on God's behalf, to extrapolate on God's rationale, or justification for this post war action.

Thus, we are left with a command by God. One in which tells the victors to preserve only the girls whom have not yet laid with a man. And as we begin to explore any/all concepts, as to why God would issue such a command, your best effort, thus far, was to suggest that maybe the victors asked all the women, before killing them; "hey, are you still a virgin?"

In conclusion, as you have agreed, if there exists limited explanation to a command, we can only infer what information is there. The reason I bring up this story specifically, is because of that purpose. God issues a command, with no explanation; in spite of the fact such a command seems to demonstrate inconsistency in His claimed moral absolutes. As I pointed out in selection B. of my last response (God appears to change His mind, in regards to His own 'morality' from time to time, as evidence by Numbers 31.), which you have not addressed.


And now, you keep bringing up how our 'modern sense of morality' is getting in the way. As you would say.... 'sheesh.'

Well, if it's any consolation, there are those like Paul Copan and Matthew Flanagan who seem to think that Numbers 31 reflects an emendation by Moses to God's original directive in 'how to handle the Midianites' and their remaining virgins. I'm not sure I buy their interpretation, but there is that.

However, let's say it was God who provided all of the directive in the case of Numbers 31. How is it that you say God seems to have "changed" His mind? About what? And how?

As for how the Israelites 'discerned' between virgins and non-virgins, again: how can I tell you the method they did so IF the text itself gives no indication of how they did this? Am I supposed to pray for an answer from the Great Beyond or something in order to provide you with an answer? :dontcare:
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
65
California
✟151,844.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
Well, if it's any consolation, there are those like Paul Copan and Matthew Flanagan who seem to think that Numbers 31 reflects an emendation by Moses to God's original directive in 'how to handle the Midianites' and their remaining virgins. I'm not sure I buy their interpretation, but there is that.

Then why bring them up? And why should (I) buy such 'explanations'?

However, let's say it was God who provided all of the directive in the case of Numbers 31. How is it that you say God seems to have "changed" His mind? About what? And how?

Because in (this) particular battle, God commands group A to take group B's virgins, and to kill all the rest. He provides no reason for this command. God seems to change His mind. In this particular battle, He wants only the virgins spared. Why is that?

In other battles, or acts of genocide, virgins are not commanded to be spared. Please explain. Can you?


As for how the Israelites 'discerned' between virgins and non-virgins, again: how can I tell you the method they did so IF the text itself gives no indication of how they did this? Am I supposed to pray for an answer from the Great Beyond or something in order to provide you with an answer? :dontcare:

Are you too now admitting, 'prayer doesn't work like that?' :) Kidding aside...

My point is that unless God instituted 'magic' among the victors of battle, whom were selected by God to discern which females were still virgins, these mere humans would really not be able to.

And to add... if God is making these humans 'magical', in the selection process, to find out which females actually have never been touched by a man - (including the victims of former child rape), then why not just push the 'magic' a bit further, and give all the enemies spontaneous hard attacks to begin with? This way, a battle would have been avoided... The magic would be peculiarly selective it seems...? Almost in a way which easily suggests, maybe, no magic at all. Meaning, no 'God' intervention at all...?

My point being, mere humans do not have the ability to 'guess' which females were virgins. Again, if the Midianites were as bad as all that, it's fair to say some of the very young girls were raped (i.e.) no longer virgins.

Thus, I again ask... HOW were these soldiers able to discern which females were virgins, post war?
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Recalculating!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,570
11,468
Space Mountain!
✟1,354,106.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Then why bring them up? And why should (I) buy such 'explanations'?
...... I'm not saying you should buy into them. I'm inferring that they kind of sound like your attempted explanations.

Because in (this) particular battle, God commands group A to take group B's virgins, and to kill all the rest. He provides no reason for this command. God seems to change His mind. In this particular battle, He wants only the virgins spared. Why is that?

In other battles, or acts of genocide, virgins are not commanded to be spared. Please explain. Can you?
I explained that to Nihilist Virus in an earlier thread. I guess you missed it.

Are you too now admitting, 'prayer doesn't work like that?' :) Kidding aside...
Now admitting .... ??? (ha, ha!)


My point is that unless God instituted 'magic' among the victors of battle, whom were selected by God to discern which females were still virgins, these mere humans would really not be able to.
You don't know this. Why do you very often make claims for which you have nothing but your own unsound arguments on which to go on. Just admit that, like me, we don't know since the text doesn't indicate such information. All we can do is surmise, perhaps by gleaning from other portions of Scripture about what Israelites did among their own women, or perhaps by researching scholarly sources about similar practices from other cultures of the same time period that may remain as literary evidence. Otherwise, you and I may as well don our aluminum hats and wait for an answer from the Great Beyond or some higher, alien intelligence. In such an instance, we'd be waiting a very, very long time for an answer, don't you think?


And to add... if God is making these humans 'magical', in the selection process, to find out which females actually have never been touched by a man - (including the victims of former child rape), then why not just push the 'magic' a bit further, and give all the enemies spontaneous hard attacks to begin with? This way, a battle would have been avoided... The magic would be peculiarly selective it seems...? Almost in a way which easily suggests, maybe, no magic at all. Meaning, no 'God' intervention at all...?
Man, you just don't stop with the invalid deductions, do you? You keep rolling them out like you've got an assembly line factory in that head of yours! Surely, you're more scholarly than all that.


My point being, mere humans do not have the ability to 'guess' which females were virgins. Again, if the Midianites were as bad as all that, it's fair to say some of the very young girls were raped (i.e.) no longer virgins.
I'm sure you're correct that the early Israelites didn't have the ability to 'guess,' but since the text doesn't say: 1) they relied on magic, 2) they relied on mid-wives, 3) there was an early form of gynecology they practiced, or 4) they flipped a shekel, then it's probably best that as far as that 'method' is concerned, we just don't claim to know one way or the other.


Thus, I again ask... HOW were these soldiers able to discern which females were virgins, post war?
Who says it was the soldiers doing all of the work there? Do you 'see' unstated details in all of the books you read, or just in the bible?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

cloudyday2

Generic Theist
Site Supporter
Jul 10, 2012
7,381
2,352
✟591,302.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
@2PhiloVoid and @cvanwey and anybody else who is pondering the virginity testing methods, etc.,

Here are some assumptions/guesses:

(1) Marriage was motivated entirely by concerns over inheritance of property. Marriage wasn't motivated by morality. So virgins were valued for the certainty that children would be genuine offspring of the husband rather than sexual innocence.

(2) God's goal was genocide. Genocide was necessary, because the Hebrews were supposed to stay pure, holy, separated. The Hebrew gene pool could not be mixed with non-Hebrews. Much of the Law of Moses was designed to keep the Hebrews separate culturally from others, so God surely wanted to keep the Hebrew gene pool separate from other cultures too. To keep pure genes while conquering the Promised Land the native people either needed to be deported or sterilized genetically so that they could safely remain.

(3) The genetic contribution of the mother was not understood. The mother was imagined as soil, and the father's sperm was imagined as seed. The long-term genetics was imagined to come solely from the father.

(4) There was imagined to be a possible delay of many years between sexual activity and conception of the fetus. Just as a seed could lay dormant for years before suddenly sprouting, the Hebrews imagined that the seed of the father could lay dormant for years before the fetus begins to develop.

So with these assumptions, sparing the virgins was the most lenient way to commit genocide against the Midianites. All the Midianite men had to be killed, because they contained seed. All the non-virgin Midianite women also had to be killed because they might contain dormant seed from Midianite men that could be born after remarrying Hebrew men. But virgin Midianite women could safely be married to Hebrew men and their offspring would have no Midianite genes. Thus God's command to spare the virgin Midianites was a way to minimize the bloodshed while still achieving the goal of genocide.

Of course the problem with this theory is that God's strategy must be based on an incorrect archaic understanding of genetics. This theory could explain why the fictional God character could give this command while still satisfying the role of a benevolent and just god, but it doesn't explain why a real God could give this command in the real world.
 
Last edited:
  • Useful
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Recalculating!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,570
11,468
Space Mountain!
✟1,354,106.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
@2PhiloVoid and @cvanwey and anybody else who is pondering the virginity testing methods, etc.,

Here are some assumptions/guesses:

(1) Marriage was motivated entirely by concerns over inheritance of property. Marriage wasn't motivated by morality. So virgins were valued for the certainty that children would be genuine offspring of the husband rather than sexual innocence.

(2) God's goal was genocide.

(3) The genetic contribution of the mother was not understood. The mother was imagined as soil, and the father's sperm was imagined as seed. The long-term genetics was imagined to come solely from the father.

(4) There was imagined to be a possible delay of many years between sexual activity and conception of the fetus. Just as a seed could lay dormant for years before suddenly sprouting, the Hebrews imagined that the seed of the father could lay dormant for years before the fetus begins to develop.

So with these assumptions, sparing the virgins was the most lenient way to commit genocide against the Midianites. All the Midianite men had to be killed, because they contained seed. All the non-virgin Midianite women also had to be killed because they might contain dormant seed from Midianite men that could be born after remarrying Hebrew men. But virgin Midianite women could safely be married to Hebrew men and their offspring would have no Midianite genes. Thus God's command to spare the virgin Midianites was a way to minimize the bloodshed while still achieving the goal of genocide.

Of course the problem with this theory is that God's strategy must be based on an incorrect archaic understanding of genetics. This theory could explain why the fictional God character could give this command while still satisfying the role of a benevolent and just god, but it doesn't explain why a real God could give this command in the real world.

These are all very interesting lines of thought, if I do say so myself, but it would be nice (for me, anyway) if you could show that these aren't just theories in your imagination but rather reworkings of actually theoretical material reflected by various scholars, whether liberal, middle-toned, or conservative.

Got anything like that? I'm just wondering. :cool:
 
Upvote 0

cloudyday2

Generic Theist
Site Supporter
Jul 10, 2012
7,381
2,352
✟591,302.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
These are all very interesting lines of thought, if I do say so myself, but it would be nice (for me, anyway) if you could show that these aren't just theories in your imagination but rather reworkings of actually theoretical material reflected by various scholars, whether liberal, middle-toned, or conservative.

Got anything like that? I'm just wondering. :cool:
Would you agree with items #1 and #2? (NOTE: I edited my post to explain #2 better.)

It seems to me that the more questionable assumptions are #3 and #4 and especially #4. #3 is a fairly safe assumption. Think about the original meaning of "testify" that required an oath sworn on the seed of the male participants. There was no equivalent for women, because their genetic contribution to children was not understood. Circumcision was also a sign of the covenant with God applying to the seed of the man. I think #3 is a good assumption. #4 is a leap of my imagination, but I can see how ancients might imagine it, and it makes the whole thing fit together.
 
Upvote 0

cloudyday2

Generic Theist
Site Supporter
Jul 10, 2012
7,381
2,352
✟591,302.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
@2PhiloVoid and @cvanwey , I forgot to address the method of distinguishing virgins from non-virgins. Assuming what I posted on the the goal of God and the beliefs about genetics were true then there was only one type of sex of concern - the type of sex that might potentially leave dormant seed in the womb. This type of sex in the past could be detected by a physical exam by a midwife. Other types of sex that were more difficult to detect were of no concern.

And here is a interesting link on the Greek beliefs about embryos. Take a look in particular at the beliefs of Aristotle "the mother produces a seed that only serves as food for the embryo". Thus a Midianite virgin could produce genetically pure Hebrew offspring with a Hebrew husband.
Male and female bodies according to Ancient Greek physicians

The problem with this idea is the maternal descent of Jewishness. A cradle-Jew needed a Jewish mother but not a Jewish father. That is not what I would expect from people who believed that the genetics came solely from the father.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Recalculating!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,570
11,468
Space Mountain!
✟1,354,106.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
@2PhiloVoid and @cvanwey and anybody else who is pondering the virginity testing methods, etc.,

Here are some assumptions/guesses:
I'm responding to this more directly now, since you asked, Cloudy.

(1) Marriage was motivated entirely by concerns over inheritance of property. Marriage wasn't motivated by morality. So virgins were valued for the certainty that children would be genuine offspring of the husband rather than sexual innocence.
...mmm. Maybe, but I'm not sure it's safe to say that Israelite marriage "wasn't" motivated by morality since marriage was supposed to be honored as a covenant between a husband and wife, similar to how all Israelites were expected to relate with God within the concept and institution of the Covenant. Also, I don't think we can say that key figures in the O.T., like Abraham and Moses, didn't "love" their wives, however imperfect their lives (like ours) were.

(2) God's goal was genocide. Genocide was necessary, because the Hebrews were supposed to stay pure, holy, separated. The Hebrew gene pool could not be mixed with non-Hebrews. Much of the Law of Moses was designed to keep the Hebrews separate culturally from others, so God surely wanted to keep the Hebrew gene pool separate from other cultures too. To keep pure genes while conquering the Promised Land the native people either needed to be deported or sterilized genetically so that they could safely remain.
I think it may be an overstatement to say that God's goal was genocide; it had much less to do with actual intermingling of genetics than it did with prohibiting and inhibiting the Israelites from adopting the idolotry of worship of false gods than anything else. To support your point, you'd really need to do some heavy buttressing of this by surveying and citing relevant passages and verses from the Pentateuch. We can't just say it and it be so.

Whose ready to do a verse by verse survey and discussion here? ^_^ Anybody?

(3) The genetic contribution of the mother was not understood. The mother was imagined as soil, and the father's sperm was imagined as seed. The long-term genetics was imagined to come solely from the father.
This may have some truth to it, but again, I'd prefer to see it backed up by scholarship.

(4) There was imagined to be a possible delay of many years between sexual activity and conception of the fetus. Just as a seed could lay dormant for years before suddenly sprouting, the Hebrews imagined that the seed of the father could lay dormant for years before the fetus begins to develop.
...my response is the same here as for #3 above.

So with these assumptions, sparing the virgins was the most lenient way to commit genocide against the Midianites. All the Midianite men had to be killed, because they contained seed. All the non-virgin Midianite women also had to be killed because they might contain dormant seed from Midianite men that could be born after remarrying Hebrew men. But virgin Midianite women could safely be married to Hebrew men and their offspring would have no Midianite genes. Thus God's command to spare the virgin Midianites was a way to minimize the bloodshed while still achieving the goal of genocide.
No, it think the text implies that the virgins were spared because they wouldn't have been directly guilty of seducing Israelite men into idolatry and fornication.

Of course the problem with this theory is that God's strategy must be based on an incorrect archaic understanding of genetics. This theory could explain why the fictional God character could give this command while still satisfying the role of a benevolent and just god, but it doesn't explain why a real God could give this command in the real world.
Well, again, I'm not seeing that genetics plays the central role here, mainly because IF that were the case, then there would have been no Laws pertaining to the acceptance and acculturation of Strangers, Aliens, and other foreign Sojourners in the Promised Land. They would have been unexceptionally excluded, but that's not what we find happening, so we have to account for that in the overall equation of interpretation here. No, the Midianites got swatted, as the text implies, for inhospitality, scheming and seduction, idolatry, and fornication.

So, while it might be that I could be "shown" via the Biblical text to be wrong, this is were I stand with all of this at the current moment of interpretive deliberation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cloudyday2
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
65
California
✟151,844.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
I explained that to Nihilist Virus in an earlier thread. I guess you missed it.

Virgins are spared in this particular instance, and not in others. Why? Yes, I must have missed your prior explanation...

You don't know this. Why do you very often make claims for which you have nothing but your own unsound arguments on which to go on. Just admit that, like me, we don't know since the text doesn't indicate such information. All we can do is surmise, perhaps by gleaning from other portions of Scripture about what Israelites did among their own women, or perhaps by researching scholarly sources about similar practices from other cultures of the same time period that may remain as literary evidence. Otherwise, you and I may as well don our aluminum hats and wait for an answer from the Great Beyond or some higher, alien intelligence. In such an instance, we'd be waiting a very, very long time for an answer, don't you think?

Right, because you can't go back in time and ask the deceased authors... Lucky you ;) See below...

Man, you just don't stop with the invalid deductions, do you? You keep rolling them out like you've got an assembly line factory in that head of yours! Surely, you're more scholarly than all that.

I'm sure you're correct that the early Israelites didn't have the ability to 'guess,' but since the text doesn't say: 1) they relied on magic, 2) they relied on mid-wives, 3) there was an early form of gynecology they practiced, or 4) they flipped a shekel, then it's probably best that as far as that 'method' is concerned, we just don't claim to know one way or the other.


Who says it was the soldiers doing all of the work there? Do you 'see' unstated details in all of the books you read, or just in the bible?

The goal was to wipe out the Midianites. Right? Lets assume you agree with me, as also expressed in Numbers 31. Let's also assume, for YOUR sake, that there exists some caveat with the 'virgins.' --- Not taking into account biology, in this matter.

To answer your questions above:

I have a fairly deduced conclusion. Feel free to add a third option, IF you can...

A) Some human - (soldier/mid-wife/other) made an attempt to separate/identify/spare the virgins from slaughter.

Why this option does not fare.... To this day, humans are still not able to completely and perfectly detect if a woman has been sexually active in the past, unless it was very recent. The hymen can break w/o sex. Furthermore, girls have other orifices available for penetration/use, if you know what I mean. And again, how would you examine a 5 year old, who has not been active vaginally in a month? Furthermore, do you actually think every younger woman was thoroughly examined? And even still, what about the ones who were raped one year ago? Further still, if one slipped through the cracks, undetected, God's ultimate plan would be spoiled. Thus, the only way to assure all virgins were correctly identified, would be direct help from God. Thus, I ask again, if God instituted magical help, to assure 100% identification, why not just further the magic one step further, to avoid the battle altogether? Just make all the unwanted peeps drop dead on the spot. Makes little to no sense...

B) As @Nihilist Virus already suggested, it would appear the victors wrote of this tale after-the-fact, and claimed God's hand or command, when maybe there was no God there to really be had at all.

Thus, I ask you, do you admit, there exists a chance, that this story did not have God's hand in it? If so, then post #1 is validated. If not, then you need to start making sense. Because there has yet to be provided a proper/logical rationale for such a chapter...

Stating we do not have enough information, is not my problem, it's yours, if you believe it WAS commanded by God.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0