Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 23
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,313

    Does the Bible Support Sex Slavery?

    Sex trafficking is in the news quite a lot and a significant problem in today’s world, but did it exist in biblical times and if so what does the Bibles say about it? After doing a careful study into the matter of sex slavery in the Bible, the conclusion that seems inescapable is that the god called Yahweh not only allowed sex-trafficking, but supports it and promotes it as a legitimate means of gathering women for the Hebrew men. I am presenting a handful of biblical verses that more than adequately covers the practice of taking women captive for the specific purpose of sex. The first verse I will examine comes from Deuteronomy; it specifically lays out the procedure of how a man may capture a beautiful woman whom he desires and keep her for sexual purposes until he tires of her.

    Deut. 21:10-14 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.

    The second incident of sex slavery I will present comes from the book of Numbers. These verses describe orders given to Moses by Yahweh, where the Hebrew soldiers are commanded to kill all the Midianites – except the virgin girls – which are to be given to the men for sexual purposes. The biblical record claims that there are 32,000 captured virgins, who are to be divided up among the Hebrew men by order of Yahweh, along with all of the livestock that were taken from the Midianites. Clearly a case of women being trafficked and given to men as slaves for the purpose of sex, all done under the direct auspices of Yahweh.


    Numbers 31:15-18 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.


    Numbers 31:30-31 & 35 And of the children of Israel's half, thou shalt take one portion of fifty, of the persons, of the cattle, of the asses, and of the flocks, of all manner of beasts, and give them unto the Levites, which keep the charge of the tabernacle of the LORD. And Moses and Eleazar the priest did as the LORD commanded Moses…..And thirty and two thousand persons in all, of women that had not known man by lying with him.


    The third example of sex slavery I selected comes from the book of Judges. Here sex trafficking is ordered because of a need of six hundred women to satisfy a deficit of the female gender in the Hebrew tribe of Benjamin. The shortage of women came about because of a divine command given to kill all the members of the tribe of Benjamin, of which six hundred men escaped death by hiding in mountain caves. When the fighting was over all the women of the tribe of Benjamin were dead, and the six hundred surviving men wanted wives. None of the other Hebrew tribes were willing to give up their women, so they gathered together twelve thousand strong Hebrew men and went to a place called Jabeshgilead and slaughtered everyone there EXCEPT four hundred virgins who were taken to be sex slaves. Since Jabeshgilead only supplied four hundred women for six hundred men, there was still an additional two hundred women needed to at least give every man a wife. This time the men of Benjamin were told to go and hide in the vineyards, when the young girls of Shiloh came out to dance, the men would jump out, kidnap two hundred of the girls and take them as slaves. At least this time they only took the virgin girls without slaughtering everyone else.


    Judge 21:10-12 And the congregation sent thither twelve thousand men of the valiantest, and commanded them, saying, Go and smite the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead with the edge of the sword, with the women and the children. And this is the thing that ye shall do, Ye shall utterly destroy every male, and every woman that hath lain by man. And they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh-Gilead four hundred young virgins, that had known no man by lying with any male: and they brought them unto the camp to Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan…..14) And Benjamin came again at that time; and they gave them wives which they had saved alive of the women of Jabesh-Gilead: and yet so they sufficed them not….20) Therefore they commanded the children of Benjamin, saying, Go and lie in wait in the vineyards; And see, and, behold, if the daughters of Shiloh come out to dance in dances, then come ye out of the vineyards, and catch (chataph) you every man his wife of the daughters of Shiloh, and go to the land of Benjamin.

    It’s no wonder the value of women in the Bible is only seen as what they are worth to men, because even in the New Testament the apostle Paul makes it abundantly clear that women were created for the sole purpose of serving men.

    1Cor.11:8-9 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

    Also, it is noteworthy to mention that nowhere in all the teachings of Jesus, or the apostles is one word of condemnation ever given to any biblical passage that supports the sex trafficking and slavery of women. So, to reiterate the answer to the opening question of “Does the Bible Support Sex Slavery?” I will have to give a resounding YES. Not only does the Bible support the slavery of women for sexual purposes, it also encourages men to look at women as inferior beings and useful for only one purpose…to fulfill their desires. This inevitably leads to the question that we all should be asking; why does the Bible support sex slavery?


    Rose
    Last edited by Rose; 12-04-2012 at 09:54 PM.
    Never trust anything you are afraid to question ~

    To know oneself is to know the universe...


    Live Fully...Love Extravagantly...For the sake of Goodness

    Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Matt.10:16

    Come let us reason together...Isa.1:18
    ********************************
    My new Blog site: God and Butterfly

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Hello Rose

    As you know Rose, but refuse to accept, the 32,000 virgins were not all taken as slaves, but all were accepted and integrated into the Hebrew society. This example cannot be compared with slavery such as the Hebrews being slaves in Egypt. A slave is generally regarded as a person who is forced to work, unlike a servant who offers to work in exchange for some remuneration. The word "slave" might have been used to mean servant. If the Hebrews had permanent servants (slaves), then God gave them specific commands to observe that ensured their servants/slaves were not treated with the rigor that the Hebrews were put under. The Hebrews were made to remember their history and the time when they were slaves in Egypt and it was God who delivered (saved) them. These things are still celebrated by Jews in this age, just as God had instructed them to keep them for a perpetual memorial. Servants/slaves in Hebrew society still have their human rights which are protected by observance of the second great commandment, which Richard also includes in his theory of morality. Loving others as self is paramount, and we have no better law than this. God is not subject to human laws he has placed on humans and God will judge humans according the laws placed on them. It is not for humans to say God is wrong when God judges against that the law applying to humans.

    God's judgement on a reprobate society was just. A reprobate is a person who is beyond saving and God has given them up. It might be harsh but great crimes deserve the greater punishment A reprobate society such as the Canaanites are the ones to blame for the penalty that came on them from God.. That penalty that came on the whole of that society was all the Canaanites fault. The parents were responsible for the death of their own (innocent) children. The children would have grown up to be like their parents. Had the parents not been corrupt, their children would not have come under the same condemnation.

    In the time Moses was born we see that the Pharaoh of Egypt had issued a decree that all Hebrew sons born were to be killed, hence Moses was hidden and saved. The Egyptians that a plague that was to come upon the Egyptians later on in which their own first-born would be killed was of Pharaoh's doing and hard-hardheartedness. We note that not even the Hebrews were spared of the plague unless they followed the instruction given to them, which was to paint the door posts and lintels with the blood of the lamb that they had to eat by way of being fed and prepared ready to depart from Egypt. The angel of death passed over all the houses that had the blood painted as instructed and no first-born were killed in that house. Hence the association with the passover lamb that is Jesus. We can be saved from eternal death if we follow God's instruction. There is nothing more important in life than to be saved from eternal death. Here is the Book of Exodus, we have the gospel of salvation which is the same gospel preached and practiced by Jesus who gave himself as the passover lamb. To ignore the gospel after you know about it, is just foolishness. This has featured in a couple of recent posts; "the fool has said in his heart, there is no God".

    As you know, when you read the Bible record, the 32,000 virgins were not all given to the soldiers; only a proportion were were given to the soldiers to have as wives and be treated as wives and have the same benefits as Hebrew wives. We do not know the criteria that was used to determine which of the 32,000 were given to the soldiers. It is these practical details that are missing from the record and which have to be filled in as best we can. Why promote the worst when you do not know? You must take into account all possibilities including all the good possibilities. I see you ignoring all the positives and promoting the worst.

    The claim that "32,000 sexy virgins were all given to Hebrew soldiers as slaves" is an absolute lie, and a travesty of the Biblical record. I hate to see you and Richard both misquoting and putting out lies by distorting the truth of the words recorded. It might make a good headline, but failure to correct that headline is blatant lying and a distortion of the facts that are recorded in the Bible. God has left these facts on record for our learning and as a warning. You would do well to learn what the Bible is telling you, rather than what you want it to say.

    The straight forward answer to you question; Does the Bible Support Sex Slavery? my answer is; "No".

    David
    Last edited by David M; 12-05-2012 at 06:12 AM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,313
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Hello Rose

    As you know Rose, but refuse to accept, the 32,000 virgins were not all taken as slaves, but all were accepted and integrated into the Hebrew society. This example cannot be compared with slavery such as the Hebrews being slaves in Egypt. A slave is generally regarded as a person who is forced to work, unlike a servant who offers to work in exchange for some remuneration. The word "slave" might have been used to mean servant. If the Hebrews had permanent servants (slaves), then God gave them specific commands to observe that ensured their servants/slaves were not treated with the rigor that the Hebrews were put under.
    Hello David,

    A slave is someone who is taken against their will. It does not matter if as you say "they were integrated into the Hebrew society", the point is those women were taken against their will for the sole purpose of being sexual partners for the Hebrew men. You can be assured that not one of those women went willingly with their captors who had just slaughtered their families. If the women did eventually integrate into the Hebrew society, it does not change the fact that they were taken as sex slaves against their will, with the explicit approval of the Biblegod.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    God's judgement on a reprobate society was just. A reprobate is a person who is beyond saving and God has given them up. It might be harsh but great crimes deserve the greater punishment A reprobate society such as the Canaanites are the ones to blame for the penalty that came on them from God.. That penalty that came on the whole of that society was all the Canaanites fault. The parents were responsible for the death of their own (innocent) children. The children would have grown up to be like their parents. Had the parents not been corrupt, their children would not have come under the same condemnation.
    Why were the Hebrews allowed to take sex slaves from reprobate nations in the first place? If the male children weren't worth saving, why were the female children saved? The answer to those questions of course are very clear from the text. The Hebrew men were allowed to take women as sex slaves from the peoples they captured because the men desired beautiful women for their sexual pleasure, consequently they constructed laws they attributed to god to allow them to do so. The reason that only the female virgins were saved is because the men only wanted sex slaves and the male children were not useful in that area. Other times when the Hebrew wanted regular servants, or slaves they purchased them for those purposes. At those times the women who were bought as servants/slaves did not need to be virgins.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    In the time Moses was born we see that the Pharaoh of Egypt had issued a decree that all Hebrew sons born were to be killed, hence Moses was hidden and saved.
    So, are you saying that because the Egyptians killed the male children in the time of Moses, it was okay for the Hebrews to kill all the male children when they slaughtered the Midianites?

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    As you know, when you read the Bible record, the 32,000 virgins were not all given to the soldiers; only a proportion were were given to the soldiers to have as wives and be treated as wives and have the same benefits as Hebrew wives. We do not know the criteria that was used to determine which of the 32,000 were given to the soldiers. It is these practical details that are missing from the record and which have to be filled in as best we can. Why promote the worst when you do not know? You must take into account all possibilities including all the good possibilities. I see you ignoring all the positives and promoting the worst.

    The claim that "32,000 sexy virgins were all given to Hebrew soldiers as slaves" is an absolute lie, and a travesty of the Biblical record. I hate to see you and Richard both misquoting and putting out lies by distorting the truth of the words recorded. It might make a good headline, but failure to correct that headline is blatant lying and a distortion of the facts that are recorded in the Bible. God has left these facts on record for our learning and as a warning. You would do well to learn what the Bible is telling you, rather than what you want it to say.

    The straight forward answer to you question; Does the Bible Support Sex Slavery? my answer is; "No".

    David
    The text specifically says that the 32,000 virgins were to be given to the Hebrew men; whether or not those men were all soldiers (I didn't say they were all soldiers) makes no difference in the fact that the women were given as sex slaves. The Hebrew men had no other use for a captive "virgin" woman than to be used as a sex partner. Why do you think it says in Duet. 21 that if a man sees a beautiful woman that he "desires", or lusts after, he may take her as a wife, and if he tires of her he can get rid of her. The reason a man lusts after a woman is for sexual purposes, so in effect the Biblegod is allowing the Hebrew men to fulfill their lusts by killing people and taking their beautiful virgin daughters. It's pretty plain and simple with no travesty, misquoting or distortion of the biblical text involved. You would do well to take off your blinders and read what the text actually says, instead of trying to defend the atrocious behavior of the Biblegod.

    It is interesting to note the difference in your explanation of those passages in the Bible versus mine. I am able to just state what the text says without adding a lot of justifications and reasons that are not found in the text; whereas you have to make up a whole bunch of excuses as to why beautiful, virgin women that men capture, are not sex slaves!

    Take care,

    Rose
    Never trust anything you are afraid to question ~

    To know oneself is to know the universe...


    Live Fully...Love Extravagantly...For the sake of Goodness

    Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Matt.10:16

    Come let us reason together...Isa.1:18
    ********************************
    My new Blog site: God and Butterfly

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,145
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    The claim that "32,000 sexy virgins were all given to Hebrew soldiers as slaves" is an absolute lie, and a travesty of the Biblical record. I hate to see you and Richard both misquoting and putting out lies by distorting the truth of the words recorded. It might make a good headline, but failure to correct that headline is blatant lying and a distortion of the facts that are recorded in the Bible. God has left these facts on record for our learning and as a warning. You would do well to learn what the Bible is telling you, rather than what you want it to say.

    The straight forward answer to you question; Does the Bible Support Sex Slavery? my answer is; "No".

    David
    Good afternoon David,

    You would do well refraining from accusing others of lying when the accusation itself is a gross lie. Rose never said that "32,000 sexy virgins were all given to Hebrew soldiers as slaves" and you know this. Here is what she actually said:
    The second incident of sex slavery I will present comes from the book of Numbers. These verses describe orders given to Moses by Yahweh, where the Hebrew soldiers are commanded to kill all the Midianites – except the virgin girls – which are to be given to the men for sexual purposes. The biblical record claims that there are 32,000 captured virgins, who are to be divided up among the Hebrew men by order of Yahweh, along with all of the livestock that were taken from the Midianites. Clearly a case of women being trafficked and given to men as slaves for the purpose of sex, all done under the direct auspices of Yahweh.
    Rose accurately stated what the Bible stated. The 32,000 virgins were "to be divided up among the Hebrew men" exactly as the text says:
    Numbers 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. ... 25 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 26 Take the sum of the prey that was taken, both of man and of beast, thou, and Eleazar the priest, and the chief fathers of the congregation: 27 And divide the prey into two parts; between them that took the war upon them, who went out to battle, and between all the congregation: 28 And levy a tribute unto the LORD of the men of war which went out to battle: one soul of five hundred, both of the persons, and of the beeves, and of the asses, and of the sheep:
    Please acknowledge your error or show where I have erred in my explanation.

    Thanks,

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,145
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Hello Rose

    As you know Rose, but refuse to accept, the 32,000 virgins were not all taken as slaves, but all were accepted and integrated into the Hebrew society. This example cannot be compared with slavery such as the Hebrews being slaves in Egypt. A slave is generally regarded as a person who is forced to work, unlike a servant who offers to work in exchange for some remuneration. The word "slave" might have been used to mean servant. If the Hebrews had permanent servants (slaves), then God gave them specific commands to observe that ensured their servants/slaves were not treated with the rigor that the Hebrews were put under. The Hebrews were made to remember their history and the time when they were slaves in Egypt and it was God who delivered (saved) them. These things are still celebrated by Jews in this age, just as God had instructed them to keep them for a perpetual memorial. Servants/slaves in Hebrew society still have their human rights which are protected by observance of the second great commandment, which Richard also includes in his theory of morality. Loving others as self is paramount, and we have no better law than this. God is not subject to human laws he has placed on humans and God will judge humans according the laws placed on them. It is not for humans to say God is wrong when God judges against that the law applying to humans.
    Good evening David,

    Your statement that the slaves captured in war "cannot be compared with slavery such as the Hebrews being slaves in Egypt" is false. The Bible explicitly states that Hebrew slaves should be treated better than other slaves:
    Leviticus 25:39 "'If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you, do not make him work as a slave. 40 He is to be treated as a hired worker or a temporary resident among you; he is to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. 41 Then he and his children are to be released, and he will go back to his own clan and to the property of his forefathers. 42 Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 43 Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God. 44 "'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
    Two points:
    1. Hebrew slaves were treated differently than non-Hebrew slaves. They were set free in the year of Jubilee. Not so for the non-Hebrew slaves. They and all their descendents were kept as PERPETUAL SLAVES and could be passed down as an inheritance from generation to generation.
    2. God prohibited treating Hebrew slaves ruthlessly, which is how the Egyptians treated them. This is CONTRASTED with the non-Hebrew slaves. Treating them ruthlessly was not prohibited. Therefore, you assertion that "God gave them specific commands to observe that ensured their servants/slaves were not treated with the rigor that the Hebrews were put under" is seen to directly contradict what the Bible actually states.

    Your ability to properly understand the Bible seems to be compromised by your adherence to the false and unfounded presumption that the Bible accurately represents a God who is good. This blinds you to what it really says and forces you to invent entirely unbiblical speculations to force the words to conform to your preconceived doctrine. This is an outrageous irony because on the one hand you claim the Bible is the Word of God while on the other you deny what it plainly states.

    Your assertion that "It is not for humans to say God is wrong when God judges against that the law applying to humans" makes no sense unless we accept your presupposition that the Bible accurately represents God. But you have given no reason anyone should believe that, and there are many reasons no rational skeptic would believe it. Therefore, your use of that baseless presupposition in your argument does nothing to support your case.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    God's judgement on a reprobate society was just. A reprobate is a person who is beyond saving and God has given them up. It might be harsh but great crimes deserve the greater punishment A reprobate society such as the Canaanites are the ones to blame for the penalty that came on them from God.. That penalty that came on the whole of that society was all the Canaanites fault. The parents were responsible for the death of their own (innocent) children. The children would have grown up to be like their parents. Had the parents not been corrupt, their children would not have come under the same condemnation.
    OK, so what you are saying is that God ordered the Canaanite children to be killed because their parents were wickedly sacrificing some of them? Is that supposed to make sense?

    Your argument is logically incoherent because if the Midianites were "so beyond saving" then why did the sexy virgins get saved? The virgins were the greatest threat since they would lead the Israelites astray, just like Solomon's wives.

    Your arguments are designed only to protect you own mind from the truth. The would never convince any rational skeptic who is honestly seeking truth. And neither would they ever satisfy any person truly committed to truth.

    All the best,

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Hello Rose

    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    Hello David,

    A slave is someone who is taken against their will. It does not matter if as you say "they were integrated into the Hebrew society", the point is those women were taken against their will for the sole purpose of being sexual partners for the Hebrew men. You can be assured that not one of those women went willingly with their captors who had just slaughtered their families. If the women did eventually integrate into the Hebrew society, it does not change the fact that they were taken as sex slaves against their will, with the explicit approval of the Biblegod.
    I do not agree with your use of the term "sex slave". A slave can include someone who is taken against their will, the same as we would call them prisoners or captives. Prisoners or captives are not necessarily slaves. The definition of slaves needs to be agreed. The definition I have does not fit the circumstances of the 32,000 virgins. The term "sex slave" is akin to "sex trafficking" and that is not what took place.
    In this case, we cannot be certain that this met with God's approval. It could have met with God's disapproval, though God did not punish His people for not carrying out the instruction as expected by Moses. We ought to take this as an example of "getting our wires crossed". It is an example of bad communication. This is akin to the way that we do not fully communicate our thoughts in the posts we write on this forum.
    In the case we are considering, God permitted His people to take vengeance and it is God who takes responsibility for this. The fact is; Moses, was displeased when the women and children had been saved when he expected them to be killed. We have to question whether it was God's instruction or the instruction of Moses that the officers controlling the soldiers misunderstood and did not follow. Moses expected all the women and children to be killed.
    It is a fact that the women and children were saved, and what follows next might be seen as a compromise which God permitted because it was of some benefit for His people. You have mentioned the other example where there was a shortage of wives. All I am saying is we do not know all the circumstances as God knew them and for that reason, God accepted or even directed Moses to make the compromise of keeping the virgins. Let us say, that if the instruction had been carried out as Moses expected, we would be discussing the matter of genocide in which none were saved and would not be discussing slavery of any kind.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    Why were the Hebrews allowed to take sex slaves from reprobate nations in the first place? If the male children weren't worth saving, why were the female children saved? The answer to those questions of course are very clear from the text. The Hebrew men were allowed to take women as sex slaves from the peoples they captured because the men desired beautiful women for their sexual pleasure, consequently they constructed laws they attributed to god to allow them to do so. The reason that only the female virgins were saved is because the men only wanted sex slaves and the male children were not useful in that area. Other times when the Hebrew wanted regular servants, or slaves they purchased them for those purposes. At those times the women who were bought as servants/slaves did not need to be virgins.
    It is good you ask the questions and in answer to your first question, the Hebrew army was not expected to take prisoners.
    Here is that quote from Deuteronomy again with the parts highlighted in red that you are ignoring.
    Deut. 21:10-14 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.
    This is not the treatment afforded to a slave. As I have said, I agree with you when you say the women were not taken captive willingly. These captives were not treated as slaves and put to work as slaves. I brought the Hebrew's slavery in Egypt to our attention by way of comparing what real slavery is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    So, are you saying that because the Egyptians killed the male children in the time of Moses, it was okay for the Hebrews to kill all the male children when they slaughtered the Midianites?
    My simple answer is; "No". I draw this episode to your attention and would expect you to condemn the Egyptians for what they did. Given that it is God to whom vengeance belongs and who takes the responsibility for the vengeance off His people, God will take vengeance at a time to suit His purpose. We can take it in the case of the Egyptians as a deferred penalty added to which the Egyptians were punished for not letting God's people go and get out of slavery. Remember, it was God who killed the first born, it was not the Hebrews who killed the first born.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    The text specifically says that the 32,000 virgins were to be given to the Hebrew men; whether or not those men were all soldiers (I didn't say they were all soldiers) makes no difference in the fact that the women were given as sex slaves. The Hebrew men had no other use for a captive "virgin" woman than to be used as a sex partner. Why do you think it says in Duet. 21 that if a man sees a beautiful woman that he "desires", or lusts after, he may take her as a wife, and if he tires of her he can get rid of her. The reason a man lusts after a woman is for sexual purposes, so in effect the Biblegod is allowing the Hebrew men to fulfill their lusts by killing people and taking their beautiful virgin daughters. It's pretty plain and simple with no travesty, misquoting or distortion of the biblical text involved. You would do well to take off your blinders and read what the text actually says, instead of trying to defend the atrocious behavior of the Biblegod.
    I am pleased on this point that you have taken into account that the 32,000 virgins were divided up and were not all given to the soldiers. This was not how it was presented in the past. You use the expression again "sex slaves" and I argue against this use of this term. It is not a good description for the events that took place and the term is misleading.
    Do you not think that in time, these 32,000 virgins would not have their own sexual desires to be fulfilled. This is another factor that has to be taken into account int order to get a correct balance to the story.
    Now you accuse me of doing the same thing as have accused you. I will let the readers (having read my responses to you in the past) judge which of us is taking in to account all the words written in these records of history. I hope others get a proper understanding of what was took place.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    It is interesting to note the difference in your explanation of those passages in the Bible versus mine. I am able to just state what the text says without adding a lot of justifications and reasons that are not found in the text; whereas you have to make up a whole bunch of excuses as to why beautiful, virgin women that men capture, are not sex slaves!
    Yes, it is interesting and it is good that others must read these passages and come to their own conclusion, including which of us is giving the bigger picture of these events. My justification is pointing out what is actually recorded and emphasizing the parts of the passages you wish to ignore. All I am doing is bringing these other points to the attention of our readers. I am not giving excuses, I am giving my reasons why God is justified in taking vengeance as a way of punishment upon reprobate societies that were a bad influence on God's people. I am not saying that God's people (at that time), were any better. For example,they proved they were not any better, when left alone, they made the golden calf. Nevertheless, God chose the descendants of Abraham to fulfill his promises and so God deals with the wayward actions of His chosen people and did not spare them from punishment that resulted in the loss of many lives. We must remember that God saves the righteous. We have numerous examples where the righteous (in God's sight) were given the opportunity to escape. Once again, we have to get a proper perspective of all these things. I am not blinkered as you suggest. I am opening up our eyes to take into account all the words of scripture. Saying the captive women were "sex slaves" is not an accurate description of events.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    Take care,

    Rose
    And you Rose

    David

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564

    Arrow

    Hello Richard
    I have responded to Rose's reply as you will read.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Good afternoon David,

    You would do well refraining from accusing others of lying when the accusation itself is a gross lie. Rose never said that "32,000 sexy virgins were all given to Hebrew soldiers as slaves" and you know this. Here is what she actually said:
    The second incident of sex slavery I will present comes from the book of Numbers. These verses describe orders given to Moses by Yahweh, where the Hebrew soldiers are commanded to kill all the Midianites – except the virgin girls – which are to be given to the men for sexual purposes. The biblical record claims that there are 32,000 captured virgins, who are to be divided up among the Hebrew men by order of Yahweh, along with all of the livestock that were taken from the Midianites. Clearly a case of women being trafficked and given to men as slaves for the purpose of sex, all done under the direct auspices of Yahweh.
    Rose accurately stated what the Bible stated. The 32,000 virgins were "to be divided up among the Hebrew men" exactly as the text says:
    Numbers 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. ... 25 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 26 Take the sum of the prey that was taken, both of man and of beast, thou, and Eleazar the priest, and the chief fathers of the congregation: 27 And divide the prey into two parts; between them that took the war upon them, who went out to battle, and between all the congregation: 28 And levy a tribute unto the LORD of the men of war which went out to battle: one soul of five hundred, both of the persons, and of the beeves, and of the asses, and of the sheep:
    Please acknowledge your error or show where I have erred in my explanation.

    Thanks,

    Richard
    I stand corrected and have agreed with Rose that in her first post in this thread she has accurately stated that the number of women were divided up amongst the Hebrew men and not all given to the Hebrew soldiers. It is good of Rose to take on board my correction of this point I made in another thread. I apologize for not noticing this. However, this does not alter the fact, that Rose is conveniently ignoring parts of the record that do not support her claim. She returns the accusation I made against her. I ask our readers to judge between Rose and me, which of us is taking into account all the words of scripture. If you disagree with me, I challenge you to give us your own verse by verse exposition of the story recorded in Deuteronomy 21 and I will do the same. Giving our own exposition of the verses in a chosen passage, might be the only way we can continue any discussion of the Bible to get to the truth.

    All the best

    David

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Hello Richard

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Good evening David,

    Your statement that the slaves captured in war "cannot be compared with slavery such as the Hebrews being slaves in Egypt" is false. The Bible explicitly states that Hebrew slaves should be treated better than other slaves:
    Leviticus 25:39 "'If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you, do not make him work as a slave. 40 He is to be treated as a hired worker or a temporary resident among you; he is to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. 41 Then he and his children are to be released, and he will go back to his own clan and to the property of his forefathers. 42 Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 43 Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God. 44 "'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

    It is interesting you point out to us the Hebrews were not to treat their own kind as slaves. Therefore, anyone working in the capacity or a servant or a worker of their own kind, was not to be treated as a slave. I will argue that the 32,000 virgins, although taken as captives and originally non-Hebrews were to be integrated into the Hebrew society as wives and treated as their own kind and not treated as non-Hebrew male slaves. Therefore, by integrating these women to become Hebrews by adoption, you would have to agree to them not being treated as slaves.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Two points:
    1. Hebrew slaves were treated differently than non-Hebrew slaves. They were set free in the year of Jubilee. Not so for the non-Hebrew slaves. They and all their descendents were kept as PERPETUAL SLAVES and could be passed down as an inheritance from generation to generation.
    2. God prohibited treating Hebrew slaves ruthlessly, which is how the Egyptians treated them. This is CONTRASTED with the non-Hebrew slaves. Treating them ruthlessly was not prohibited. Therefore, you assertion that "God gave them specific commands to observe that ensured their servants/slaves were not treated with the rigor that the Hebrews were put under" is seen to directly contradict what the Bible actually states.
    I do not argue that non-Hebrew captives in general were not to be treated as slaves. However, as you ought to agree, the Israelites (Hebrews) were commanded to love others as self. Who is our neighbor? can be taken up in the thread already started. If we were in the situation of the Hebrews, would we accept captives who would like to kill us as our neighbor? I am not suggesting that we treat other humans with rigor and not be humane. We have to have a right balance to this. The Hebrews were not expected to treat slaves with the same rigor as the Egyptians treated the Hebrews. Show me an example where this happened or was permitted or was condoned by God. We know God punished His own people for not following his principles. Why do you think there were so many dispersions of God's people. God has kept to His promises; blessing and cursing as appropriate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Your ability to properly understand the Bible seems to be compromised by your adherence to the false and unfounded presumption that the Bible accurately represents a God who is good. This blinds you to what it really says and forces you to invent entirely unbiblical speculations to force the words to conform to your preconceived doctrine. This is an outrageous irony because on the one hand you claim the Bible is the Word of God while on the other you deny what it plainly states.
    Now you are saying things about what I think about God which are not true. I do not only think of God as "good", I also see the side of God that is judge. God's judgment I accept is better than human judgment. Humans are going to be biased and not recognize their own evil and sinfulness. Those who do, ought to be humbled as any good Christian will be, just as Jesus was humble.
    I am not denying what the Bible plainly states. What Rose is saying, is not what is plainly stated. I know you have to defend Rose as this is your own position and shows me you make the same mistakes. I have challenged you in my earlier reply to give our readers your own verse by verse exposition of this story and I will do the same. I will let our readers decide between us, which of us is giving the best explanation and the truth of the matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Your assertion that "It is not for humans to say God is wrong when God judges against that the law applying to humans" makes no sense unless we accept your presupposition that the Bible accurately represents God. But you have given no reason anyone should believe that, and there are many reasons no rational skeptic would believe it. Therefore, your use of that baseless presupposition in your argument does nothing to support your case.
    Since you have not given me any specific examples, you have not supported your accusation against me. It is God who has made the rules for man and God is judging by those same rules. I think this is plain enough to understand. I understand you are a skeptic and have to say the things you do. You do not support your case as adequately as you think you do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    OK, so what you are saying is that God ordered the Canaanite children to be killed because their parents were wickedly sacrificing some of them? Is that supposed to make sense?
    That one fact alone should be sufficient. "Some" instead of "all" does not lessen the crime. These people were steeped in idolatry and we know this is what God hates.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Your argument is logically incoherent because if the Midianites were "so beyond saving" then why did the sexy virgins get saved? The virgins were the greatest threat since they would lead the Israelites astray, just like Solomon's wives.
    I agree that Solomon's wives led him astray, and the Israelite people were lax in following the commands of God and were not keeping His laws as they should. God's principles do not change. It is people who change.
    In the first place, Moses expected all the women and children to killed and they were not. The compromise began after the officers failed to act according to Moses expectation. This shows an example of bad communication. If the women saved were properly integrated into the Hebrew society and taught the ways of God, then they would not have led the Hebrews astray. It is a failing on the part of the Hebrews, if they did not fully integrate the women into their society. It was Solomon's mistake for marrying wives that corrupted him and Solomon should have converted his wives to believe and follow the principles of the God of Israel. If Solomon was not prepared to do this, then he should not have married them. We know who is to blame.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Your arguments are designed only to protect you own mind from the truth. The would never convince any rational skeptic who is honestly seeking truth. And neither would they ever satisfy any person truly committed to truth.
    Please give me your own exposition of the events and I will do the same. If you do not do this, it is just rhetoric you are spouting. You like to make these assertions, so let us test out your assertions. I have already given explanations in other threads which you have rejected, so let us see what your full explanation of these stories are when taking into account all the words of scripture and not just cherry picking to suit your own version.

    All the best,

    David
    Last edited by David M; 12-06-2012 at 04:46 AM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,145
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    I stand corrected and have agreed with Rose that in her first post in this thread she has accurately stated that the number of women were divided up amongst the Hebrew men and not all given to the Hebrew soldiers. It is good of Rose to take on board my correction of this point I made in another thread. I apologize for not noticing this.
    Good morning David,

    Thanks for acknowledging your error. It never should have come up. There are only so many words we can fit on a page. It looks like a rather obvious attempt to distract the conversation from the essential issues. Even if your criticism were true it would not have altered the substance of Rose's post and it certainly would not justify the outrageously false accusations you threw out. You said Rose and I were guilty of "blatant lying and a distortion of the facts that are recorded in the Bible" and that our comments were "an absolute lie, and a travesty of the Biblical record." You attacked our character and called us LIARS. It looks like you were using the most egregious of the "38 dishonest tricks" you have elsewhere falsely accused me of employing even as you employed them yourself (as I proved again in this post and many others). How does your behavior cohere with the teachings of the Bible? Is it not grossly sinful by Biblical standards?

    Though we've never met in person, I think of you as a good friend since we've exchanged thousands of words on many topics and have actually gotten to know each other a bit. So let's try to hold ourselves to higher standards, OK?

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    However, this does not alter the fact, that Rose is conveniently ignoring parts of the record that do not support her claim. She returns the accusation I made against her. I ask our readers to judge between Rose and me, which of us is taking into account all the words of scripture. If you disagree with me, I challenge you to give us your own verse by verse exposition of the story recorded in Deuteronomy 21 and I will do the same. Giving our own exposition of the verses in a chosen passage, might be the only way we can continue any discussion of the Bible to get to the truth.
    Yes, let the readers judge! I am fully confident that all rational skeptics will have no problem seeing where the truth lies. That's why these conversations are so valuable. You bring forth your attempts to justify the Bible and all rational skeptics can see that there is no justification at all. The Bible says what it says and means what it means, and there's no way to avoid this fact.

    If anyone is "conveniently ignoring" what the Bible actually states, it is you and all Biblical fundamentalists who ironically claim to believe the Bible. I say "ironically" because the one characteristic common to all Biblical fundamentalists is that they twist, ignore, pervert, and distort words to force the Bible to fit their preconceived opinions. I consider this an indisputable fact confirmed by ten thousand posts on this forum.

    I'm glad you ask me to do a careful exegesis of Deuteronomy 21. I will do that today if time permits. It will be a part of the foundation of my much larger exegesis that proves the 32,000 virgins in Numbers 31 were taken for "wives" just like the 400 virgins in Judges 20-21 were forcefully taken against their will to be wives. And God himself was actively involved in all these moral crimes.

    All the best, my friend,

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,145
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    It is interesting you point out to us the Hebrews were not to treat their own kind as slaves. Therefore, anyone working in the capacity or a servant or a worker of their own kind, was not to be treated as a slave. I will argue that the 32,000 virgins, although taken as captives and originally non-Hebrews were to be integrated into the Hebrew society as wives and treated as their own kind and not treated as non-Hebrew male slaves. Therefore, by integrating these women to become Hebrews by adoption, you would have to agree to them not being treated as slaves.
    Your statement that "Hebrews were not to treat their own kind as slaves" is not entirely accurate. It applies only to male Hebrew slaves. The slavery laws instituted in the Bible are both sexist and racist. Here is the evidence I presented in my article The Art of Rationalization: A Case Study of Christian Apologist Rich Deem:

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
    The Bible has many verses that institute and regulate the moral abomination known as slavery. All Christian apologists apply the art of rationalization to the full extent to cover up this damning fact. As with the sexism of the Bible, they often are forced to simply omit the facts because they are impossible to explain away. Here are a few of the facts:

    1. Male Hebrew slaves were to be released after serving six years. This rule does not apply to female Hebrew slaves or slaves bought from foreigners which can be kept for life. (Exodus 21:2-6)
    2. Female Hebrew slaves are kept for life. If they do not please their master they can be sold, but not to foreigners. (Exodus 21:7-8)
    3. If a Hebrew slave is given a wife by his master and they have children, the slave can go free after six years, but the wife and children remain the master's property forever. (Exodus 21:2-6)
    4. A slave may be beaten to the point of death, but if he recovers after a couple days there is no punishment because the slave is the master's "property." (Exodus 21:20-21)
    5. Gentile slaves, including their children and grandchildren, can be kept in perpetuity and handed down as an inheritance from generation to generation. (Leviticus 25:44-46)

    The slavery laws given in the Bible are also sexist and racist. Different rules apply depending on whether the slave is a male or female, Hebrew or Gentile. The laws are grossly immoral.
    Your assertion that the captured virgins were "integrated into the Hebrew society as wives and treated as their own kind and not treated as non-Hebrew male slaves" has no basis in the Biblical text. You just made that up. This seems like an egregious error given that you constantly assert that Rose and I are guilty of doing what you constantly do. The text says that female Hebrew slaves could be kept forever, neither they nor their children were ever granted freedom like MALE Hebrew slaves (servants) who willingly sold themselves into temporary servitude. This is all plainly written in the text, but you "conveniently ignored" it. Again, your double standards, inconsistencies, and false accusations are exposed.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    I do not argue that non-Hebrew captives in general were not to be treated as slaves. However, as you ought to agree, the Israelites (Hebrews) were commanded to love others as self. Who is our neighbor? can be taken up in the thread already started. If we were in the situation of the Hebrews, would we accept captives who would like to kill us as our neighbor? I am not suggesting that we treat other humans with rigor and not be humane. We have to have a right balance to this. The Hebrews were not expected to treat slaves with the same rigor as the Egyptians treated the Hebrews. Show me an example where this happened or was permitted or was condoned by God. We know God punished His own people for not following his principles. Why do you think there were so many dispersions of God's people. God has kept to His promises; blessing and cursing as appropriate.
    Your question about what is meant by "neighbor" is answered in the text:
    Leviticus 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.
    The parallelism in context shows that "thy neighbor" refers to "the children of thy people" (fellow Israelites). I don't know of any command that Hebrews should love Gentiles anywhere in the Old Testament.

    And you assertion that "The Hebrews were not expected to treat slaves with the same rigor as the Egyptians treated the Hebrews" is not stated in the text. On the contrary, the text explicitly CONTRASTS the treatment of non-Hebrew slaves with the better treatment of Hebrew slaves which were not to be ruled over with "rigour" (which is the same word used in reference to Egypt):
    Leviticus 25:46 46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.
    The fact that you cannot see or will not admit these elementary facts plainly stated in the text suggests that your entire exegesis is fundamentally flawed and biased. I find it outrageously ironic that you constantly assert that Rose and I do the very thing you consistently do.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM
    Your ability to properly understand the Bible seems to be compromised by your adherence to the false and unfounded presumption that the Bible accurately represents a God who is good. This blinds you to what it really says and forces you to invent entirely unbiblical speculations to force the words to conform to your preconceived doctrine. This is an outrageous irony because on the one hand you claim the Bible is the Word of God while on the other you deny what it plainly states.
    Now you are saying things about what I think about God which are not true. I do not only think of God as "good", I also see the side of God that is judge. God's judgment I accept is better than human judgment. Humans are going to be biased and not recognize their own evil and sinfulness. Those who do, ought to be humbled as any good Christian will be, just as Jesus was humble.
    I am not denying what the Bible plainly states. What Rose is saying, is not what is plainly stated. I know you have to defend Rose as this is your own position and shows me you make the same mistakes. I have challenged you in my earlier reply to give our readers your own verse by verse exposition of this story and I will do the same. I will let our readers decide between us, which of us is giving the best explanation and the truth of the matter.
    Your assertion that "God's judgment I accept is better than human judgment" is logically incoherent. You have no knowledge of "God's judgment." Any and all opinions you hold about the Bible are the result of your own fallible human judgment. Suppose, for example, that some perverse person put the story of the 32,000 virgins in the Bible to make God look bad. How would you know? There is no way. Has anything like that ever happened before? Yes! Think of the Comma Johanneum which teaches the Trinity:
    1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
    How do you think that got in there? You are an adamant anti-trinitarian, so I assume you think that this verse is false. And what about all the apocryphal books accepted by the vast majority of Christians (both Catholics and Greek Orthodox)? If those books are falsely masquerading as the "Word of God" how do you know other than by using your own fallible human reasoning? Your entire presupposition is logically incoherent and so cannot be trusted.

    You say "Humans are going to be biased" - man, you've certainly proven that, in spades! But why do you think that you are less biased than others? When I read your arguments, I see them dripping with the thickest bias imaginable. You do not deal with what the Bible actually states or what logically flows from the text, but rather you use every trick in the book to justify the Bible to make it conform to your preconceived beliefs. There is a great irony here. If such manipulation is required to understand the Bible, and its plain message cannot be trusted, how then can anyone trust it as a guide to truth? The fact that you firmly believe in fringe doctrines rejected by the vast majority of Christians proves this point. If the Bible is as you say it is, it is useless because no one can agree what it even means.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM
    Your assertion that "It is not for humans to say God is wrong when God judges against that the law applying to humans" makes no sense unless we accept your presupposition that the Bible accurately represents God. But you have given no reason anyone should believe that, and there are many reasons no rational skeptic would believe it. Therefore, your use of that baseless presupposition in your argument does nothing to support your case.
    Since you have not given me any specific examples, you have not supported your accusation against me. It is God who has made the rules for man and God is judging by those same rules. I think this is plain enough to understand. I understand you are a skeptic and have to say the things you do. You do not support your case as adequately as you think you do.
    I made no accusation. I informed you that your argument depends upon your presupposition that the Bible is God's Word and so it cannot convince anyone who does not already hold that presupposition. This forms a vicious circle (begs the question) - no one can rationally choose to believe the Bible if that choice must be predicated upon a prior belief in the Bible. You need to show that the Bible is not immoral without merely ASSUMING it is the "Word of God" and hence "moral" by definition.

    Your assertion that "It is God who has made the rules for man and God is judging by those same rules" is no more meaningful than saying "It is Allah who has made the rules for man and Allah is judging by those same rules." But it does bring up a point of central importance. If God really did inspire the Bible, then he knew that RATIONAL MORAL PEOPLE would have every reason to reject it because it is filled with gross irrationality and moral abominations attributed to God. No amount of sophistry and rhetoric will ever fix this problem because normal folks with basic intelligence can see through all that.

    If I "do not support my case as adequately as I think I do" then you shouldn't be having such a difficult time showing me my errors.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM
    OK, so what you are saying is that God ordered the Canaanite children to be killed because their parents were wickedly sacrificing some of them? Is that supposed to make sense?
    That one fact alone should be sufficient. "Some" instead of "all" does not lessen the crime. These people were steeped in idolatry and we know this is what God hates.
    You missed my point. If it was wicked for the Canaanites to kill some of their own children, how much more wicked was it for God to command the Israelites to kill them all?

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Please give me your own exposition of the events and I will do the same. If you do not do this, it is just rhetoric you are spouting. You like to make these assertions, so let us test out your assertions. I have already given explanations in other threads which you have rejected, so let us see what your full explanation of these stories are when taking into account all the words of scripture and not just cherry picking to suit your own version.
    Sounds good! I'll get on it asap.

    Great chatting,

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •