Q&A: Gloria Steinem on ending rape in war

[Rose]

Originally Posted by Rose
The passage says: " that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.",

It says:
"and all the baby women that have not known a man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves.",

I'm not sure what your point is, but the Hebrew word in Numbers 31 is taph which means child, the word for baby or infant would be `owlel or yanaq.

How then could Pinchas (Phinehas) be rght in killing both the Israelite man and Midianite princess?

Numbers 25:8,
He went after the Israelite man into the chamber and drove [it through] both of them; the Israelite man, and the woman through her stomach, and the plague ceased from the children of Israel.

Again, I'm not sure what your point is, please elaborate.


Rose

[sylvius]

I'm not sure what your point is, but the Hebrew word in Numbers 31 is taph which means child, the word for baby or infant would be `owlel or yanaq.

with that I did refer to what Rabbi Ginsburgh did write:

http://www.rabbiginsburgh.com/

Constructing kingdom from nothing
Jul 19th, 2012 by admin

(...)
The numerical value of the phrase “the baby women” (הַטַּף בַּנָּשִׁים) is 496, which is also the gematria of the word “kingdom” (מַלְכוּת), referring to the feminine sefirah of kingdom. The Arizal[1] explains that the sefirah of kingdom is constructed out of judgments (gevurot), the same judgments whose pristine state is symbolized by the baby women of Midian

(...)

Constructing the kingdom of my soul

Translating this idea into the psychological realm, we can understand that once we are victorious in our battle against the evil powers of the soul that wish to seduce us away from serving the Almighty, we must take captive the “baby girl” inside us (this is true for men and women alike).

Again, I'm not sure what your point is, please elaborate.


Rose

If it were true that the biblical message is that men may rape to their heart's content
any women thy like, even baby-women, why then Pinchas was praised abundantly for his deed of killing both Zimri and Kozbi, even granted an eternal priesthood? and a covenant of peace?

[CWH]

Your logic is very flawed. The passage says: " that have not known a man by lying with him,keep alive for yourselves.", these girls are being defined by the fact that they have not slept with a man which is the only kind of female a man could keep for himself. Your logic also does not explain why the baby boys were killed, they were not sexually defiled and could have been kept as male slaves just like you say the girls were.

How do you know the boys were not sexually defiled?..... Pedophilia? How do you know if they were born from incest, extra-marital affairs, temple protitutes etc.? The boys probably participated in pagan rituals as well even when they were infants as prayer offerings to their pagan gods. We do not really know what were the customs that were practised in those times. The girls were more "pure" in the sense that they have not known a man by lying with them". Perhaps, I say perhaps, the boys "have known a man by sleeping with them" as Sodom and Gommorah which is in the region of Moab were well known for sodomy.

The one glaring fact remains that no one can explain away, is that ONLY the girls who had not slept with a man were kept alive, and given specifically to the male soldiers, not to the Hebrew families as slaves...only willful blindness keeps you from acknowledging that. Also, there is the account in Judges 21, where the male soldiers were specifically sent to Jabesh-Gilead to get wives by killing all the inhabitants except the virgin girls...then when there wasn't enough virgin girls to meet their needs they when to Shiloh and kidnapped more virgin girls. Usually when someone is kidnapped it's AGAINST their will! It's time to take the blinders off Cheow!

I can understand why they want to keep virgin girls... so that they can marry them. But why would they want to keep "baby" girls around 3 years old?.....child sex? Must be out of their minds! Most likely for their sons born from the merger of Midianites virgin women and Israelite men and for those Israelite men who managed to survive through the decades of wars.

Yes, I do hate men who rape women, and I'm willing to stand up and speak out against it wherever it is found...even in the Bible. What you call bitter is nothing more than me standing up for equal human rights and speaking the truth. No, I am not a rape victim, but I am human and know that anytime sexual relations are forced upon a woman against her will it is considered rape. Even in a marriage, every human being has the right to say what is done to their own bodies and whether or not they want to have sexual relations with another person. Unlike what the Bible teaches, when a woman gets married she is not owned by the man. Women's rights (including sexual rights) are human rights, and it's about time men like you realize that.

Thanks for the confirmation that you are not a rape victim, sorry for my wrong suspicion. I don't believe in equal male and female human rights but equal human rights in the sense that both male and female works together in their own natural ways and ability that they are endorsed for the common goal for the good of mankind and society. To me, equal human rights means that it doesn't matter if male or female is the "boss" but as long as they work to ensure for the betterment of mankind and society.

The only way human rights violations will stop is when men of all political and religious persuasions start speaking out against rape, war, and violence of all kinds; even when it's found in the pages of their "holy books"!

This is a very flawed concept for we all know that even if politician, religious leaders speak out against rape and violence of all kinds, it will not stop rape and violence which people have been going on for thousand and thousand of years. But we all know that the cause of violence and rape is Money and Lust and to solve these problems is to get rid of the love of Money and Lust. Everybody knows that Money is the cause of most evils such as robberies, murders, greed, gamblings, wars, poverty etc. and Lust is the cause of rape, adulteries, fornications, prostituition, incest, pornography, pedophilia, homosexuality, molestations, nudity etc. To get rid of violence and rape is to get of the love of Money and Lust. Humanly possible?...... It is thus better to fight against love of Money and Lust than to to fight for equal human rights.

God Bless.

[Rose]

How do you know the boys were not sexually defiled?..... Pedophilia? How do you know if they were born from incest, extra-marital affairs, temple protitutes etc.? The boys probably participated in pagan rituals as well even when they were infants as prayer offerings to their pagan gods. We do not really know what were the customs that were practised in those times. The girls were more "pure" in the sense that they have not known a man by lying with them". Perhaps, I say perhaps, the boys "have known a man by sleeping with them" as Sodom and Gommorah which is in the region of Moab were well known for sodomy.

I don't have to make up "what if's" because the text in Judges 21 clearly says that the reason the Hebrew soldiers slaughtered the entire city of Jabesh-gilead, except for the virgins was for the sole purpose of taking wives. Then when they still didn't have enough women they went and kidnapped 200 more virgins from Shiloh. It doesn't get anymore explicit than that. When a woman is kidnapped for sex that is called RAPE!

I can understand why they want to keep virgin girls... so that they can marry them. But why would they want to keep "baby" girls around 3 years old?.....child sex? Must be out of their minds! Most likely for their sons born from the merger of Midianites virgin women and Israelite men and for those Israelite men who managed to survive through the decades of wars.

Where do you get the idea that all the virgins that were captured were around 3 years old? The text of Numbers 31 uses the word taph which means children not babies. The ages of children can range up to around 13. No matter how much you try to justify the kidnapping of virgin girls for wives it is still IMMORAL and WRONG! It is and will always be a violation of a woman's human rights.

This is a very flawed concept for we all know that even if politician, religious leaders speak out against rape and violence of all kinds, it will not stop rape and violence which people have been going on for thousand and thousand of years. But we all know that the cause of violence and rape is Money and Lust and to solve these problems is to get rid of the love of Money and Lust. Everybody knows that Money is the cause of most evils such as robberies, murders, greed, gamblings, wars, poverty etc. and Lust is the cause of rape, adulteries, fornications, prostituition, incest, pornography, pedophilia, homosexuality, molestations, nudity etc. To get rid of violence and rape is to get of the love of Money and Lust. Humanly possible?...... It is thus better to fight against love of Money and Lust than to to fight for equal human rights.

God Bless.

Don't you think that if everyone respected and fought for the human rights of others, there would be no need to fight against the love of money and lust?

Take care,
Rose

[David M]

Good morning Rose

Hi David,

In the case of the 32,000 virgins it was a clear command from Yahweh carried out by Moses.

You are forgetting that the instruction was to given to kill everyone and spare none. Harsh as that was, it was a prescriptive measure to eradicate those reprobates from the land so that the Israelites would not be snared. The fact is; the Israelites did not follow instruction and spared the women and children; I thought you might applaud their act of disobedience in sparing these people. Faced with the fact that these people had not been killed, then God permitted those not tainted (the virgins) to be spared, and so the remainder of the women and children were put to death. Neither of us were there to say exactly what was said and explained to the virgins that were saved, but it is not without reasonable speculation that the virgins would have come to know the reason why they had not been killed. They were harsh times, but the virgins had been spared and whilst they suffered the loss of their families, how do we not know,they were not grateful for their lives being spared?

Those women were not given a choice, but were given to the Hebrew soldiers by orders from Moses. These women had no say in the matter and that is the definition of rape, so there is no way you can say it was not rape. It was men who used the women like war booty without ever even considering the feelings of the women, because women were considered property. Anyone knows that if those women were given a choice they would have chosen freedom.

Not all the virgins were given to the soldiers to be married, so first of all, you must accurately portray what happened. Of those that were given to the soldiers, the women might not have been willing and if they had refused to have sex with their arranged husband, then that would have given the soldier no delight and so he would have divorced her. What you or I say is not going to be true in every case and there will always be the exception, so that in part, whatever we say is likely to have some truth in it. What you say regarding men's warfare, in general, I would agree with you, but you cannot apply this generality in every case and with the 32,000 virgins you make general statements that cannot be supported and the written evidence suggests you are not correct. These 32, 000 virgins were treated with respect, to say differently is to ignore what is written.

I am astonished at the way you speak of women's feelings, there is not a woman on the planet who wants to be passed around from man to man to be screwed. Don't you have a wife or a daughter? Would your wife or daughter want to be given to another man to be raped, because you committed some offense in God's eyes. Women have feelings just like you, they are not alien beings that want to have sex with the men who just murdered their families.

If you are astonished at the way I speak, it is because you are denying certain facts about women. The culture of that day might have been a lot different to as it is to day (in general), but even today, we can find examples to support what we say. In some cultures women are equally as promiscuous as men and this is a shame, because children born as a result are never certain who their true farther is.

Also, we can think that women who were taken as wives and concubines by the kings is deplorable, yet the women who became wives and concubines were treated well and most would have considered it an honor to be accepted by the king. We have to get this into perspective. Of course women, were not always treated with respect and this is a failing of man and has nothing to do with the way God treats women.

You are correct in part and I expect that many women at first would not have wanted to marry soldiers who had been responsible for killing their families, but as with examples that can be cited in the last two world wars, reconciliation does take place with some people. A soldier operating under instruction does not make them savages. Soldiers operating under instruction can make very good fathers and I expect those who are married and have children look after their wives and children. Why do you not concede that Israelite soldiers would have made good husbands and looked after their wives. Whilst some of those virgins who were given in marriage might have objected in the first instance when they knew what was going to happen, in time, they would come to see just how fortunate they were considering the alternatives that could have happened.

It's time for believers like yourself to stand up and condemn the atrocities that are contained in the Bible. Whether one believes in God or not, does not change what is wrong, and rape is WRONG. Men are the ones who need to speak out and condemn rape wherever it is found, and that means even in the Bible.

I will condemn the atrocities of men as recorded in the Bible which are attributable to men when not acting as God's instrument of punishment on a nation. Rape is wrong, we have nothing to disagree with, only the incidents you regard as rape and I do not.

The Canaanites could very well have been reprobates, but then so were the Hebrews.

There is no doubt about it, the Canaanites were reprobates and I see you are reluctant to concede the inevitable though I sense you concede a little. What you say about the Hebrews means; either your definition of the word "reprobate" is different to the definition I am using, or else, you have forgotten the Bible you once studied.
According to one definition found in the dictionary, reprobate means; cast off by God and not worth saving That was the case with the Canaanites, but as to the Hebrews, this was not the case. Yes, the Hebrews had their faults and they were not completely blameless and God did punish them, but God said he would never cast them off completely. (Jer 30:11) For I am with thee, saith the LORD, to save thee: though I make a full end of all nations whither I have scattered thee, yet will I not make a full end of thee: but I will correct thee in measure, and will not leave thee altogether unpunished.

The Canaanites offered their children to Moloch and the Hebrews slaughtered the Canaanite children by Yahweh's command...what's the difference?

I am not surprised you want to ask me the question and you do not try to attempt to understand this for yourself. The Canaanite's mindset was that they worshiped gods that did not exist (only they thought the gods existed). The true God does not ask us to sacrifice our children to Him. The Canaanite children were killed only because they would have grown up in the same environment as their parents to have been taught by their parents to do the same thing. It is the same as curing cancer (as has been said by others on many occasions), the whole of the cancer has to be removed or else it can come back. The severe punishment of God that came on the Canaanites and their children was the blame of the parents (not God). God has given instructions to man and has warned man of the consequences for disobedience. God knows what is acceptable behavior and just as you can say to me that offering children to gods is unacceptable behavior, so God was correct to punish that unacceptable behavior in the Canaanite nation. Provided God keeps His word, God cannot be blamed. Show me one case where God has not kept to His word other than where God has been merciful or has listened to the prayers made in intercession for the people, and whereby God has not executed the judgment that would otherwise be due.

It is accounts like this and all the others in the Bible that has led me to the conclusion that the biblegod does not exist. It is not me who is promoting the biblegod as evil, but rather it is the authors who portray Yahweh in a very evil light. I am only responding to what is written in the pages of Scripture.

It is your "biblegod" that does not exist. The God of the Bible has to be understood correctly and that is what many fail to recognize. God says;"I create evil" and that has to be understood in the correct context, otherwise God is a God who is just; the fact that you do not agree with God's justice does not make God unjust or evil. As I have already quoted and it is worth quoting again so we get the balance of God correct, God says; (Jer 9:24) But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the LORD. This is what we need to know and understand and whilst (Rose) you never talk about the lovingkindness of God, or the judgments that He rightly executes, your balance of God is totally one-sided. This is the way you present God, it is not a failing of the Bible which is the inspired word of God and not a man-made work of fiction, as you claim it to be. I would ask you to write something positive about God from what you know the Bible says about God or the biblegod that has been written about.

There are many positive things written in the Bible, and I have said so many times, but there are also just as many or more negatives. I am no longer willing to blind my eyes to the bad and that is why I can no longer believe that the biblegod is the creator of the universe. As I have said many times before, there is no way a male-biased tribal warrior god could be the intelligence behind the cosmos.

If you have said many positive things about God on this forum, then I have not read them, so please point me to some of your past posts. I do not blind my eyes to the terrible events in the Bible and I understand the justice and judgment of God which is the difference between us. All I can see is you applying the negative filters in your mind and unfortunately, unless you recognize that, nothing about the way you see these things will change. I see the positive as well as the negative in the Bible, and I do not block out parts of it. I balance the Bible to make sense of it, and because I can, I am accused of twisting words, when in fact it is my accusers who deliberately blind themselves to alternative explanations that are plausible and rational.

If the Bible is speaking to you today, then it is telling you it is okay to treat women as property, okay to kill a woman's family and give her to the soldiers, and okay to have slaves because that's what the Bible teaches and Jesus never went against any teaching contained in the Bible.

The Bible does not say that we are free to do any of these things. What is recorded in the Bible is God's execution of judgment on people who were reprobates and this only applies to God and it is not man's judgment to make. God made the judgment and that is why I can explain it in this way. When it comes to a life and death judgment on any individual, it is not mine to make. I have not set the rules, I have not set the instructions. I read the instructions God has given man, and I can see when and where man has not obeyed the instructions. It does not surprise me or shock me that God has judged people to be reprobates and not worth saving. I am thankful to God that I was not amongst those who got destroyed and I am doing my best not to be included amongst those who will be destroyed when God's judgment is poured out on the nations making up this evil world.

God is merciful and is extending the opportunity to those who will not be blind and deaf to His message. He has on the table the offer of eternal life and that is up to you and I to take up God's offer. I see nothing bad in God for making this offer and I see nothing bad in God destroying all those who do not believe in Him and who do not want to accept what God is offering. For the majority, God is fair and He allows everyone to live by time and chance and to live out their lifespan. You have the freedom to pick and choose what you want to keep and discard and so we should see nothing wrong in God exercising the same choice to pick and choose who He will save.

All the best,

David

[Rose]

Good morning Rose


You are forgetting that the instruction was to given to kill everyone and spare none. Harsh as that was, it was a prescriptive measure to eradicate those reprobates from the land so that the Israelites would not be snared. The fact is; the Israelites did not follow instruction and spared the women and children; I thought you might applaud their act of disobedience in sparing these people. Faced with the fact that these people had not been killed, then God permitted those not tainted (the virgins) to be spared, and so the remainder of the women and children were put to death. Neither of us were there to say exactly what was said and explained to the virgins that were saved, but it is not without reasonable speculation that the virgins would have come to know the reason why they had not been killed. They were harsh times, but the virgins had been spared and whilst they suffered the loss of their families, how do we not know,they were not grateful for their lives being spared?


Not all the virgins were given to the soldiers to be married, so first of all, you must accurately portray what happened. Of those that were given to the soldiers, the women might not have been willing and if they had refused to have sex with their arranged husband, then that would have given the soldier no delight and so he would have divorced her. What you or I say is not going to be true in every case and there will always be the exception, so that in part, whatever we say is likely to have some truth in it. What you say regarding men's warfare, in general, I would agree with you, but you cannot apply this generality in every case and with the 32,000 virgins you make general statements that cannot be supported and the written evidence suggests you are not correct. These 32, 000 virgins were treated with respect, to say differently is to ignore what is written.

Hello David,

First off, in the case of Number 31 there were no explicit instructions given for everyone to be killed, that is the reason the soldiers brought back all the women and children.

Num.31:7 And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males...And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods...And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle. And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?...But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Ah yes, your benevolent biblegod spared the virgin women so they could be raped by the soldiers. I don't care how harsh the times were, because that has nothing to do with the way the biblegod consistently violated women's human rights.

If you are astonished at the way I speak, it is because you are denying certain facts about women. The culture of that day might have been a lot different to as it is to day (in general), but even today, we can find examples to support what we say. In some cultures women are equally as promiscuous as men and this is a shame, because children born as a result are never certain who their true farther is.

Also, we can think that women who were taken as wives and concubines by the kings is deplorable, yet the women who became wives and concubines were treated well and most would have considered it an honor to be accepted by the king. We have to get this into perspective. Of course women, were not always treated with respect and this is a failing of man and has nothing to do with the way God treats women.

There you go again, making excuses for the biblegod's bias and unequal treatment of women instead of condemning his actions. Women have always been equal to men even though men have seldom treated them that way, and it has always been WRONG to violate a woman's human rights no matter what time in history people lived!

How do you know the women were treated well? They most certainly would have been foreigners, and the men who married them were responsible for the deaths of their families...have you no understanding of peoples feelings in those areas?

You are correct in part and I expect that many women at first would not have wanted to marry soldiers who had been responsible for killing their families, but as with examples that can be cited in the last two world wars, reconciliation does take place with some people. A soldier operating under instruction does not make them savages. Soldiers operating under instruction can make very good fathers and I expect those who are married and have children look after their wives and children. Why do you not concede that Israelite soldiers would have made good husbands and looked after their wives. Whilst some of those virgins who were given in marriage might have objected in the first instance when they knew what was going to happen, in time, they would come to see just how fortunate they were considering the alternatives that could have happened.


I will condemn the atrocities of men as recorded in the Bible which are attributable to men when not acting as God's instrument of punishment on a nation. Rape is wrong, we have nothing to disagree with, only the incidents you regard as rape and I do not.

Statistics in modern times shows that there is a high number soldiers who come back from war that participate in acts of domestic violence, so war does turn many men into savages. How could it not? To be able to slaughter women and children who have done you no harm has to harden anyone's heart.

Anytime a woman human rights are violated and she is taken against her will to be the wife of her captor, that is RAPE! You seem to have a very low opinion of women's human rights, because you are always defending and never condemning the many accounts of women's human rights being abused in the Bible.

There is no doubt about it, the Canaanites were reprobates and I see you are reluctant to concede the inevitable though I sense you concede a little. What you say about the Hebrews means; either your definition of the word "reprobate" is different to the definition I am using, or else, you have forgotten the Bible you once studied.
According to one definition found in the dictionary, reprobate means; cast off by God and not worth saving That was the case with the Canaanites, but as to the Hebrews, this was not the case. Yes, the Hebrews had their faults and they were not completely blameless and God did punish them, but God said he would never cast them off completely. (Jer 30:11) For I am with thee, saith the LORD, to save thee: though I make a full end of all nations whither I have scattered thee, yet will I not make a full end of thee: but I will correct thee in measure, and will not leave thee altogether unpunished.

Whether or not someone is a reprobate does not justify the violation of their human rights by rape. On numerous occasions the biblegod explicitly orders and allows women to be specifically kidnapped for the purpose of sex, that is called RAPE.

I am not surprised you want to ask me the question and you do not try to attempt to understand this for yourself. The Canaanite's mindset was that they worshiped gods that did not exist (only they thought the gods existed). The true God does not ask us to sacrifice our children to Him. The Canaanite children were killed only because they would have grown up in the same environment as their parents to have been taught by their parents to do the same thing. It is the same as curing cancer (as has been said by others on many occasions), the whole of the cancer has to be removed or else it can come back. The severe punishment of God that came on the Canaanites and their children was the blame of the parents (not God). God has given instructions to man and has warned man of the consequences for disobedience. God knows what is acceptable behavior and just as you can say to me that offering children to gods is unacceptable behavior, so God was correct to punish that unacceptable behavior in the Canaanite nation. Provided God keeps His word, God cannot be blamed. Show me one case where God has not kept to His word other than where God has been merciful or has listened to the prayers made in intercession for the people, and whereby God has not executed the judgment that would otherwise be due.

Once again, you are justifying the killing of the Canaanite children by the Hebrews. Your God can do no wrong no matter what is recorded in the Bible, whether it be the slaughter of children or the rape of women!

It is your "biblegod" that does not exist. The God of the Bible has to be understood correctly and that is what many fail to recognize. God says;"I create evil" and that has to be understood in the correct context, otherwise God is a God who is just; the fact that you do not agree with God's justice does not make God unjust or evil. As I have already quoted and it is worth quoting again so we get the balance of God correct, God says; (Jer 9:24) But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the LORD. This is what we need to know and understand and whilst (Rose) you never talk about the lovingkindness of God, or the judgments that He rightly executes, your balance of God is totally one-sided. This is the way you present God, it is not a failing of the Bible which is the inspired word of God and not a man-made work of fiction, as you claim it to be. I would ask you to write something positive about God from what you know the Bible says about God or the biblegod that has been written about.


All the best,

David

Throughout the entire Bible women's human rights are violated over and over again by the explicit command of your God! The reason I am one-sided on women's human rights is because the Bible is one-sided when it come to male-bias and violating women's human rights. Not one time in the entire Bible does Jesus, Paul or anyone else condemn the practice of women being considered the property of the male.


Take care,

Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

You are forgetting that the instruction was to given to kill everyone and spare none. Harsh as that was, it was a prescriptive measure to eradicate those reprobates from the land so that the Israelites would not be snared. The fact is; the Israelites did not follow instruction and spared the women and children; I thought you might applaud their act of disobedience in sparing these people. Faced with the fact that these people had not been killed, then God permitted those not tainted (the virgins) to be spared, and so the remainder of the women and children were put to death. Neither of us were there to say exactly what was said and explained to the virgins that were saved, but it is not without reasonable speculation that the virgins would have come to know the reason why they had not been killed. They were harsh times, but the virgins had been spared and whilst they suffered the loss of their families, how do we not know,they were not grateful for their lives being spared?

Good morning David,

There are many logical, factual, and moral problems with your justification of the moral abominations attributed to God in the Bible.

1) it was a prescriptive measure to eradicate those reprobates from the land so that the Israelites would not be snared.

That doesn't work because the incorporation of 32,000 Midianite women most certainly would have corrupted the Israelites with their pagan ways, just like Solomon's many wives. If you try to argue against this point, then you have no justification for the killing of the baby boys.

2) God permitted those not tainted (the virgins) to be spared

Your statement blows my mind. You speak of God as if he was just a bystander who "permitted" his personal spokesman to command something contrary to his will. Your argument fails because God gave his tacit approval of everything that Moses commanded, as is confirmed by the fact that he himself gave the command to distribute the virgins to the soldiers. If anything happened contrary to God's will, he could have corrected it then and there when he as talking to Moses. He said nothing against what Moses commanded so he was implicitly approving the command to kill everyone but the virgins.

And the idea that the female virgins were the only ones not "tainted" is obviously fallacious because the if they were not tainted then neither were the virgin boys.

3) it is not without reasonable speculation that the virgins would have come to know the reason why they had not been killed

Yes, the virgins knew perfectly why they were not killed and it certainly is "not without reasonable speculation" that they were utterly horrified by the knowledge that they were spared so that they could be sex-slaves to the very soldiers that had just slaughtered every person they ever loved.

David, please consider what you are actually doing when you attempt to justify the moral abominations of the Bible. You will never convince any moral person of anything other than the fact that the Bible tends to corrupt both the mind and the morals of those who believe it. Can you not see the great irony here? By justifying the Bible, you only prove that it destroys good morals and rationality.

4) how do we not know,they were not grateful for their lives being spared?

It's easy to know how they would have felt. Just ask any woman in a war zone who was captured and raped by the soldiers who killed every person she ever loved. The fact that you can't see this stuns me. What has your religion done to your humanity? From my perspective, these conversations confirm absolutely that I was correct in my rejection of Biblical Christianity.

Not all the virgins were given to the soldiers to be married, so first of all, you must accurately portray what happened. Of those that were given to the soldiers, the women might not have been willing and if they had refused to have sex with their arranged husband, then that would have given the soldier no delight and so he would have divorced her. What you or I say is not going to be true in every case and there will always be the exception, so that in part, whatever we say is likely to have some truth in it. What you say regarding men's warfare, in general, I would agree with you, but you cannot apply this generality in every case and with the 32,000 virgins you make general statements that cannot be supported and the written evidence suggests you are not correct. These 32, 000 virgins were treated with respect, to say differently is to ignore what is written.

1) Not all the virgins were given to the soldiers to be married, so first of all, you must accurately portray what happened.

Half of the women were given to the soldiers. That is sufficient to establish all the points Rose and I have been making. There was no need to specify this point. Adding unnecessary words makes for bloated posts.

2) if they had refused to have sex with their arranged husband, then that would have given the soldier no delight and so he would have divorced her

Yes, that's what the "Holy Law" commands. After a man has used and abused a woman and stolen her virginity he was free to cast her out like a soiled rag if she didn't "please" him. And you are good with that? Again, I am continually stunned by how the Bible corrupts good morals.

3) These 32, 000 virgins were treated with respect, to say differently is to ignore what is written.

There is not one word that indicates the captives were "treated with respect." You are making things up. If they were "treated with respect" they would have been freed. If they were treated with respect they would not have been raped and then tossed out if they failed to "delight" the rapist who murdered everyone they ever loved. Your comments reveal a total lack of human compassion. But on the upside, at least you are obeying God's command to "show no mercy."

I will condemn the atrocities of men as recorded in the Bible which are attributable to men when not acting as God's instrument of punishment on a nation. Rape is wrong, we have nothing to disagree with, only the incidents you regard as rape and I do not.

Genocide is absolutely immoral. But Christians can't admit this simple fact because God commanded it in the Bible. This came up in the debate between Hektor Avalos and Keith Darrel called "Is the Bible a Moral Guide for Today." The Christian asserted that without God there could be no absolute morality. The great irony is that the ATHEIST was able to declare that genocide is absolutely immoral whereas the CHRISTIAN refused because God commanded it. This proves yet again the vanity and logical incoherence of the Christian beliefs. The Bible corrupts good morals. It does not establish them.

There is no doubt about it, the Canaanites were reprobates and I see you are reluctant to concede the inevitable though I sense you concede a little. What you say about the Hebrews means; either your definition of the word "reprobate" is different to the definition I am using, or else, you have forgotten the Bible you once studied.
According to one definition found in the dictionary, reprobate means; cast off by God and not worth saving That was the case with the Canaanites, but as to the Hebrews, this was not the case. Yes, the Hebrews had their faults and they were not completely blameless and God did punish them, but God said he would never cast them off completely. (Jer 30:11) For I am with thee, saith the LORD, to save thee: though I make a full end of all nations whither I have scattered thee, yet will I not make a full end of thee: but I will correct thee in measure, and will not leave thee altogether unpunished.

"Not worth saving." So that's how you see a whole nation of people, including innocent babies? Such a view is morally corrupt.

And from a Biblical perspective, the Canaanites were no different than the Israelites. Indeed, the Israelites were worse because they had the Law of God and yet behaved worse than the Canaanites.

I am not surprised you want to ask me the question and you do not try to attempt to understand this for yourself. The Canaanite's mindset was that they worshiped gods that did not exist (only they thought the gods existed). The true God does not ask us to sacrifice our children to Him. The Canaanite children were killed only because they would have grown up in the same environment as their parents to have been taught by their parents to do the same thing. It is the same as curing cancer (as has been said by others on many occasions), the whole of the cancer has to be removed or else it can come back. The severe punishment of God that came on the Canaanites and their children was the blame of the parents (not God). God has given instructions to man and has warned man of the consequences for disobedience. God knows what is acceptable behavior and just as you can say to me that offering children to gods is unacceptable behavior, so God was correct to punish that unacceptable behavior in the Canaanite nation. Provided God keeps His word, God cannot be blamed. Show me one case where God has not kept to His word other than where God has been merciful or has listened to the prayers made in intercession for the people, and whereby God has not executed the judgment that would otherwise be due.

Yes, the Canaanites were sooooooo verrrrry bad because they were killing some of their children, so God sent in the Israelites to do it for them!

Your attempt to demonize the Canaanites can never justify the genocide. Sorry.

It is your "biblegod" that does not exist. The God of the Bible has to be understood correctly and that is what many fail to recognize. God says;"I create evil" and that has to be understood in the correct context, otherwise God is a God who is just; the fact that you do not agree with God's justice does not make God unjust or evil. As I have already quoted and it is worth quoting again so we get the balance of God correct, God says; (Jer 9:24) But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the LORD. This is what we need to know and understand and whilst (Rose) you never talk about the lovingkindness of God, or the judgments that He rightly executes, your balance of God is totally one-sided. This is the way you present God, it is not a failing of the Bible which is the inspired word of God and not a man-made work of fiction, as you claim it to be. I would ask you to write something positive about God from what you know the Bible says about God or the biblegod that has been written about.

I think it would be great to have a balanced discussion of the biblegod, but that's impossible as long as you refuse to admit that the Bible says many things about him that are both irrational and immoral.

If you have said many positive things about God on this forum, then I have not read them, so please point me to some of your past posts. I do not blind my eyes to the terrible events in the Bible and I understand the justice and judgment of God which is the difference between us. All I can see is you applying the negative filters in your mind and unfortunately, unless you recognize that, nothing about the way you see these things will change. I see the positive as well as the negative in the Bible, and I do not block out parts of it. I balance the Bible to make sense of it, and because I can, I am accused of twisting words, when in fact it is my accusers who deliberately blind themselves to alternative explanations that are plausible and rational.

You can surf around the old versions of my website and you will see nothing but exuberant praise of God beyond all limits:

biblewheel.com 2.0 (2009 - 2011)
biblewheel.com 1.0 (2001 - 2009)

Well, we are off to the mountains for the day.

Talk more soon,

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

There is no doubt about it, the Canaanites were reprobates and I see you are reluctant to concede the inevitable though I sense you concede a little. What you say about the Hebrews means; either your definition of the word "reprobate" is different to the definition I am using, or else, you have forgotten the Bible you once studied.
According to one definition found in the dictionary, reprobate means; cast off by God and not worth saving That was the case with the Canaanites, but as to the Hebrews, this was not the case. Yes, the Hebrews had their faults and they were not completely blameless and God did punish them, but God said he would never cast them off completely. (Jer 30:11) For I am with thee, saith the LORD, to save thee: though I make a full end of all nations whither I have scattered thee, yet will I not make a full end of thee: but I will correct thee in measure, and will not leave thee altogether unpunished.

"Not worth saving"? That is perhaps the most "unchristian" comment I could imagine. And it directly contradicts the fact that the 32,000 virgins were "saved" for use by the Israelites.

If the Midianites were all "reprobates" then so were the 32,000 virgins, unless you want to argue that merely losing their virginity made them reprobate. But that would mean that the baby boys were not "reprobates." You argument fails.

[David M]

"Not worth saving"? That is perhaps the most "unchristian" comment I could imagine. And it directly contradicts the fact that the 32,000 virgins were "saved" for use by the Israelites.

If the Midianites were all "reprobates" then so were the 32,000 virgins, unless you want to argue that merely losing their virginity made them reprobate. But that would mean that the baby boys were not "reprobates." You argument fails.

Good morning Richard

I am not going over your last post to my reply to Rose. Much of what you say is not backed up by scripture so I am not going to respond to your humanist thinking that you have now adopted.

Regarding reprobates, the word occurs several times in the New Testament. The most appropriate reference to consider is that of Paul which occurs between Romans 1:18 reading through to the end of chapter 2 and instead of posting the whole of this section, I will leave this for others to follow up.

Romans 1:
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.


Paul has summed up the situation very well and so I will leave it at that.

Have a good day in the mountains.

David

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Good morning Richard

I am not going over your last post to my reply to Rose. Much of what you say is not backed up by scripture so I am not going to respond to your humanist thinking that you have now adopted.

Regarding reprobates, the word occurs several times in the New Testament. The most appropriate reference to consider is that of Paul which occurs between Romans 1:18 reading through to the end of chapter 2 and instead of posting the whole of this section, I will leave this for others to follow up.

Romans 1:
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.


Paul has summed up the situation very well and so I will leave it at that.

Have a good day in the mountains.

David

Hey there David,

First, I find it fascinating that you frequently refuse to answer my points and choose instead to simply reject them under the pretense that they are "not backed up by scripture" and based on "humanist thinking." Such empty assertions mean nothing and are nothing but an admission that you can't refute what I wrote.

Second, your point about "reprobates" doesn't work unless you are asserting that babies can be reprobate and that every man, woman, and child of the Midianites were reprobate except the 32,000 sexy virgins. That ain't gonna fly. I already explained why, but you ignored my answer.

Have a nice day!

Richard