tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post4038418986421261515..comments2023-10-25T14:20:11.408-05:00Comments on RHOBLOGY: An answer to an angry trollRhologyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comBlogger86125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-63177121996000109892012-05-21T09:21:15.184-05:002012-05-21T09:21:15.184-05:00Liberal? Do you mean libel?Liberal? Do you mean libel?Damionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14360566092148805751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-53756811284872109622012-05-18T21:07:12.368-05:002012-05-18T21:07:12.368-05:00"Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth ..."Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." (Matthew 12:34) and resorting to such liberal against the longsuffering Rhoblogy, what was rightly deleted, is a testimony to the debased moral reasoning of the one who wrote it.PeaceByJesushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08754948549904895669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-67739743554895921492012-04-27T12:52:45.333-05:002012-04-27T12:52:45.333-05:00• Pt. 4
However, in regard to warfare, unlike ...• Pt. 4<br /><br />However, in regard to warfare, unlike religions as Islam which is bound to 7th century means of conquest, under the New Covenant the Lord's kingdom is not from here, else would His servants fight, and instead its weapons are spiritual, and it nowhere sanctions the church waging war against its theological foes by physical force (the just use of which it sanctions for the State), or taking vengeance thereby, or ruling over those without by such. (Jn. 18:36; 1Cor. 5:12,13; 2Cor. 10:3,4; Rm. 12:19; Eph. 6:12; 1Pt. 2:14; Rm. 13:1-5) Thus such things as the crusades were done by man presuming supremacy over Scripture, and fostering ignorance of it. <br /><br /> <i> with an asterisk to indicate that the word means whatever God might want it to mean </i><br /><br />Unlike atheists, wise men know not to superimpose their ideas on a dictionary, which in this case is not the superficial reasoning of some atheistic polemicists, but is revealed in a comprehensive revelation in a complimentary, not contradictory manner. <br /><br /> <i> Wahy don’t you just bite the bullet and admit that your God, in your Book, clearly didn’t love the Midianites in the usual sense of that term? </i> <br /><br />Why need to bite the bullet and admit that your god is you, and has a superficial idea of both the Bible and of love and moral reasoning, and under atheistic moral reasoning your kin, as moral supremacists, have justified the slaughter of <a href="http://www.christianaction.org.za/firearmnews/2004-04_thegreatestkiller.htm" rel="nofollow">millions</a> who would not bow to them in their quest to fashion the world after their image and <a href="http://thriceholy.net/killers.html#Pol" rel="nofollow">liking</a> and which attempts fostered a type of “religion” itself as it must. <br /><br />Sorry for the length, but morality is a substantial subject.PeaceByJesushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08754948549904895669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-19608584044576193272012-04-27T12:51:42.895-05:002012-04-27T12:51:42.895-05:00• Pt. 3
The reality is that the Creator is the ...• Pt. 3<br /><br />The reality is that the Creator is the one who ultimately defines what is right, just and merciful, and being omniscient and omnipotent, attributes not shared by man, He alone has the unique ability, wisdom and right to act in any way that expresses and effects what is right, just and merciful, and judgment upon evil can effect mercy toward others. Even if we may disagree from our perch in the universe. Certainly love for children hates that which affects them for evil, yet the same hand that hugs must also spanks if needed, while an aspect of such love can also demand capital punishment for child molesters. Spiritually, this love for good and hatred of evil, reward and punishment, extends into eternity, in two directions of contradistinction. <br /><br /> <i> For the fifth time, I’m not making an argument from morality. </i> <br /><br />From the beginning you have argued that God acted immorally according to your idea of what that is, and you continue to do so. <br /><br /> <i>Until you see that this is an argument about what constitutes loving behavior towards people (e.g. Midianites) we should perhaps not continue. </i> <br /><br />It is, “according to the text,” by dealing with the source of the account you invoked, not rejecting its veracity as polemically needed, or judging it by the external ever-morphing morality of you, which can differ from other atheists, etc. <br /><br /> <i>Ask any grade-schooler whether it is loving to slice up married people and kidnap their daughters, and they will tell you that it obviously is NOT loving behavior.</i> <br /><br />That is, unless they were raised up by such moral authorities as atheistic Communists who taught then this was right. And perhaps they are right. Perhaps they were facing a race of Nazis determined to ruin or kill them who would not relent by normal means of deterrence. <br /><br />It is also fitting that your appeal is to the judgment of those who have a superficial grasp of morality (and who would likely say war is always wrong), and are given only your perception of the context, as this is judgment what you are showing. Certainly doing unto others as you would have them do unto you makes sense, but as multitudes of even parents show, such motive without wisdom and underlying morality, can mean loving to death by indulgence. Every war, just as well as unjust, can be justified as doing to others (defending them from evil as perceived by them) as they would have others do to them. <br /><br />However, in Scripture “love thy neighbor” and the “golden rule” is not based upon the “golden compass” of man's own sovereign reasoning, though reasoning is fostered in Scripture, but is preceded by “love the Lord thy God” and thus by its definition of righteousness. Therefore exhortation to obeying of the Law was prefaced by, "Ye shall not do after all the things that we do here this day, every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes. " (Deuteronomy 12:8) It is upon that basis that moral judgment is rendered. And rather than the exceedingly superficial view of atheists, Biblical theology as regards jurisprudence can be quite deep.<br /><br />Moreover, while religion in general can be used to justify anything, so can the objectively baseless moral reasoning of atheism, as it rejects any transcendent moral authority as greater than his own reasoning, (even if the atheist may pick and choose from sources), that the atheist himself being the supreme judge. <br /><br />And which can result in very diverse ideas as to what is right, even in basic actions, none being subject to any other, which moral supremacy and rejection of any supreme moral authority is what they are most unified in (thus anarchy tends to be a cousin to atheism), and has shown itself to be capable of the same degree of moral atrocities it charges religion with in its rage against against it, without distinctions.PeaceByJesushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08754948549904895669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-89771648838149410012012-04-27T12:51:05.238-05:002012-04-27T12:51:05.238-05:00• Pt. 2
The ISBE also states, “The Kenites appear...• Pt. 2<br /><br />The ISBE also states, “The Kenites appear to have been a branch of the Midianites...See KENITES. Again, the tribesmen are named indifferently Ishmaelites and Midianites (Gen_37:25, Gen_37:28, Gen_37:36; Jdg_8:22, Jdg_8:24).” <br /><br />And God did not command their utter racial extermination, and after Israel slew all the male Midianites who they found or battled, (Num. 31:1-18) we later read, “And the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the LORD: and the LORD delivered them into the hand of Midian seven years.” And the hand of Midian prevailed against Israel: and because of the Midianites the children of Israel made them the dens which are in the mountains, and caves, and strong holds...nd they encamped against them, and destroyed the increase of the earth, till thou come unto Gaza, and left no sustenance for Israel, neither sheep, nor ox, nor ass. ....And Israel was greatly impoverished because of the Midianites; and the children of Israel cried unto the LORD. Jdg. 6:1,2,4,6)<br /><br />In addition, in giving laws against a variety of physical sins, the Lord stated, "Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you: And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants. " (Leviticus 18:24-25) <br /><br />Thus the reason for their extermination or expulsion of these peoples, was moral iniquity flowing from idolatry, and included Midianites who shared in such. Psalms 106:35-38 also records in regards to Israel's spiritual and moral declension, "But were mingled among the heathen, and learned their works. And they served their idols: which were a snare unto them. Yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto devils, And shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood. " (Psalms 106:35-38) <br /><br /> <i> They do look an awful lot like fables, though </i> <br /><br />Your rejection of Divine inspiration is another issue; here i am dealing with whether God acted immorally according to what the Bible says, as this was your charge, “just going off the text,” but proceeded to substitute your scenario in seeking to misconstrue God according to your vision or polemical needs. <br /><br /> <i>you’re stuck with the problem of pointing to an old book loaded with undoubtedly horrific but alleged divine mandates for bloody conquest (in the name of a purportedly loving and merciful deity) </i> <br /><br />I am not the one “stuck” with something, as it is you who are stuck with a perverse idea of love divorced from justice and holiness, while as mentioned, unlike the Qur'an, the Bible makes it very clear that the supernatural reality of the living and true God was first made abundantly evident (as was what the unprincipled depravity of man could do) before calling the people into covenant, or executing judgment upon those who loved darkness and degradation. <br /><br />>Such a statement is simply another example of you judging what the Bible means by your idea of love.< <br /><br /> <i>It’s not my idea, it’s a word in the English language. I take it to mean what it usually means to native speakers of the language.</i> <br /><br />I see. So you are one who judges the Bible according to your idea of love, besides making the Midianities after your image, rather than allowing the Bible to define its terms in judging its consistency with its claims which you invoke. <br /><br /> <i> Might there have been more *loving* means than wholesale slaughter available to an all powerful being to solve the problem of the Midianites existing alongside the Hebrews? </i> <br /><br />If you read my earlier <a href="http://www.blogger.com/delete-comment.g?blogID=13358611&postID=1216731009407500447" rel="nofollow">response</a>, you would have seen this move was anticipated.PeaceByJesushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08754948549904895669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-57243961084100381422012-04-27T12:50:12.927-05:002012-04-27T12:50:12.927-05:00• Pt. 1
You are mischaracterizing my argument ag...• Pt. 1<br /><br /> <i>You are mischaracterizing my argument again. My contention is merely that it was not loving towards the Midianites to slaughter their men and take their young women to be war brides. </i> <br /><br />Which is a moral argument — you against the Bible, with your perception of God as Genghis Khan killing the Nelson family, versus the omniscient Creator taking life that He gave in judgment upon a wicked people (while not leaving these ones without a blood line), for the benefit of those who others who choose good. <br /><br /> <i>Where exactly does it say that they are being killed for something other than being Midianites (an ethnicity) or for practicing the religion in which they were raised? </i> <br /><br />As seen in the provided references, . (Num. 22:1-41: 25:1-18 31:1-54, http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10804-midian-and-midianites) to which is added Jdg. 6, Also see http://christianthinktank.com/midian.html, which source i used for three quotes here. <br /><br />"And the elders of Moab and the elders of Midian departed with the rewards of divination in their hand; and they came unto Balaam, and spake unto him the words of Balak. " (Num. 22:7) <br /><br />Thus the Midianites, were confederate with Moabites who are revealed as continually seeking Israel to be cursed, and though their first attempts failed, they soon succeeded: <br /><br />"And Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab. And they called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods: and the people did eat, and bowed down to their gods. " (Num.25:1-2) <br /><br />Physical fornication was part of such idolatry (the mother of all sins), and thus, referring to Israel's declension into idolatry and nakedness under Aaron who made the golden calf, (Ex. 32:19-25) 1 Cor. 10:7-8 warns, "Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play. Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand. " <br /><br />Thus in prefacing the order to “Vex the Midianites, and smite them,” God said, <br /><br />For they vex you with their wiles, wherewith they have beguiled you in the matter of Peor, and in the matter of Cozbi, the daughter of a prince of Midian, their sister, which was slain in the day of the plague for Peor's sake. (Num 25:17-18) <br /><br />“The matter of Peor“ refers to the doctrine of Balaam,” who went to the top of Peor, and later brought Israel into idolatry with it fornication. <br /><br />"But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication." (Revelation 2:14) <br /><br />And thus Phinehas “joined together — with a spear — the fornicating Israelite and a Midianitish woman, whom the man had brazenly brought in even in the sight of Moses. (Num. 25:6-9) <br /><br />“The Moabites worshipped the war god Cheomsh, but they must have also indulged in the fertility religion of Baal. This cult was marked by some of the most depraved religious practices in Canaan. In lurid and orgiastic rites, the worshippers would emulate the sacred prostitution of their gods and goddesses, often also participating in a ceremonial meal.” [HSOBX, at Num 25]<br /><br />“It is clear that, after sexual relationships had led to participation in the pagan sacrificial feasts, the next step was a formal association with a particular god. That god was Baal-Peor. Baal was the name of the great Canaanite god of vegetation.” [NICOT, Numbers, p517]<br /><br />Next, note also that the Midianites were tribes, and it is understood that “while a part of each tribe dwelt in cities and fortresses in the vicinity of Moab, another part led a nomadic life, living in tents and apparently remote from the seat of the war.”<br /><br />One source also says “There is evidence that Midian exercised a protectorate over Moab, Edom, and Sinai from ca. 1250-1000 BC.” (Eissfeldt).PeaceByJesushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08754948549904895669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-36435583108105121882012-04-26T15:53:20.559-05:002012-04-26T15:53:20.559-05:00Here's an idea - maybe every word in the BIble...Here's an idea - maybe every word in the BIble should have an asterisk saying "Did you know that to determine the meaning of a word in any human communication, you should consult the context in which it appears?" <br /><br />Now, it might make the Bible a good bit longer, but I think you've got a great idea cookin' here. You should pitch it to Zondervan. I'm sure they'd be all over it.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-25500436209993933642012-04-26T15:49:00.774-05:002012-04-26T15:49:00.774-05:00All I'm asking is that you consult the transla...All I'm asking is that you consult the translation committees and ask them to change "God is love" to "God is love*" with an asterisk to indicate that the word means whatever God might want it to mean (up to and including genocide) without any regard to fallible human language and ideas. That way, Christians will stand blameless of falsely advertising using easily understandable human concepts such as the everyday notion of what it means to be loving.Damionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14360566092148805751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-7929469301765669902012-04-26T15:29:52.141-05:002012-04-26T15:29:52.141-05:00It’s not my idea, it’s a word in the English langu...<i>It’s not my idea, it’s a word in the English language. I take it to mean what it usually means to native speakers of the language.</i><br /><br />And if Damion had some way to prove that his/mankind's concept of love is to be preferred over God's, he might have something.<br /><br />As it stands, he has nothing.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-56924721663603942062012-04-26T15:27:15.543-05:002012-04-26T15:27:15.543-05:00PeaceByJesus,
You are mischaracterizing my argume...PeaceByJesus,<br /><br />You are mischaracterizing my argument again. My contention is merely that it was not loving towards the Midianites to slaughter their men and take their young women to be war brides. Your answer seems to be that it was completely justified (which is a whole other can of worms) but that’s not really answering my point.<br /><br /><i>This “genocide” was not the systematic killing of people on the basis of ethnicity, religion, political opinion, social status, but was due to immorality…</i><br /><br />Where exactly does it say that they are being killed for something other than being Midianites (an ethnicity) or for practicing the religion in which they were raised?<br /><br /><i> …while you must relegate this to being fables in order to fit your construct. </i><br /><br />They do look an awful lot like fables, though. There is even a talking donkey in the lead up to the particular genocide under discussion. Of course, the Quran looks like fables as well, but (as you pointed out it) makes fewer fantastic claims. Either way, though, you’re stuck with the problem of pointing to an old book loaded with undoubtedly horrific but alleged divine mandates for bloody conquest (in the name of a purportedly loving and merciful deity) as your main piece of evidence. <br /><br /><i> Such a statement is simply another example of you judging what the Bible means by your idea of love </i><br /><br />It’s not my idea, it’s a word in the English language. I take it to mean what it usually means to native speakers of the language.<br /><br /><i> In Scripture, love is grieved by iniquity, which is what is destructive, and must deal with it, and the author of life uniquely has the right to take it away, and make it work for the good of those who love righteousness. </i><br /><br />Sweet loving genocide, for the greater good. Fascinating... <br /><br />Might there have been more *loving* means than wholesale slaughter available to an all powerful being to solve the problem of the Midianites existing alongside the Hebrews?<br /><br /><i> Your premise is that God acted immorally, according to your supreme judgment. </i><br /><br />For the fifth time, I’m not making an argument from morality. <br /><br /><i> If you will not see that this is your case then we can hardly continue. </i><br /><br />Until you see that this is an argument about what constitutes loving behavior towards people (e.g. Midianites) we should perhaps not continue.<br /><br />The problem here isn’t all that hard to spot. Ask any grade-schooler whether it is loving to slice up married people and kidnap their daughters, and they will tell you that it obviously is NOT loving behavior. You can tell them that the Midianites were a very sinful people (unlike who?) so they must have totally deserved it, but that won’t help, because meting out justice simply isn’t the same thing as treating someone with love. Even a kid can see that.<br /><br />Wahy don’t you just bite the bullet and admit that your God, in your Book, clearly didn’t love the Midianites in the usual sense of that term?Damionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14360566092148805751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-79695559368532241792012-04-25T06:54:33.407-05:002012-04-25T06:54:33.407-05:00More on Midianites:
The Midianites seem to have ...More on Midianites:<br /><br /> The Midianites seem to have been then a powerful and independent nation; they allied themselves with the Amalekites and the children of the East, and they oppressed the Israelites so severely that the last-named were obliged to seek refuge in caves and strongholds; they destroyed their crops and reduced them to extreme poverty (ib. vi. 1-6). The allied army of Midianites and Amalekites encamped in the valley of Jezreel (ib. vi. 33) after having crossed the Jordan. Gideon with his army encamped by the fountain of Harod, the Midianite army being to the north of him. With 300 men Gideon succeeded in surprising and routing them, and they fled homeward across the Jordan in confusion (ib. vii. 1-24). <br /><br />A point worth noting is that here only two Midianite kings, Zebah and Zalmuna, and two princes, Oreb and Zeeb, are mentioned (ib. vii. 25; viii. 3, 5, 10, 12, 18, 21). This would show that only two tribes bore the name "Midianites," while the remaining three probably were merged with other Arabic tribes, their kinsmen, and perhaps partly with the Israelites also. <br /><br />Midian is stated to have been "subdued before the children of Israel, so that they lifted up their heads no more" (ib. viii. 28). http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10804-midian-and-midianitesPeaceByJesushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08754948549904895669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-33000979106376604732012-04-24T21:07:13.099-05:002012-04-24T21:07:13.099-05:00Pt. 3
>…forced relations are always placed in ...Pt. 3<br /><br />>…forced relations are always placed in a negative light.< <br /><br /> <i> Other than in Deut 22:28-29, where such force is essentially prelude to honeymoon.</i> <br /><br />I was aware of that when i wrote “negative,” as that is just what it is. But context is a little something the atheistic polemicists typically leave out or misconstrue, and in this case it is a form of rape, and the man is penalized for it, and can never put her away, and the women delivered from being one far less likely to be married and raise children, which was the paramount importance. Here again you are anachronistically reading the modern dating game or means of procuring a wife into the ANE. <br /><br />And what is also evidenced but excluded in your perception is that her father must consent to the marriage, as the parallel verse stipulates, and also refers the man enticing a wife, and the giving of the dowry infers. This refers to the father having judgment as to whether the man would be a fit husband, and the communal nature of the Israelite culture fostered marriage to be a social contract. <br /><br />>Exodus 21:7-11 also speaks in favor of considerate care for wives.<<br /><br /> <i> Is that passage about wives or concubines? It appears to me that the relevant Hebrew term here is “maid-servant, female slave, maid, handmaid, concubine” rather than wife. Indeed, I could not find anything unequivocally about marriage (as opposed to concubinage or sexual servitude) in that particular passage. Good to know, though, that Hebrew men were expected to feed and clothe their female slaves. </i><br /><br />Concubines are wives, if secondary and perhaps more economical to obtain. Abraham's concubines, Hagar and Keturah, were also called wives (Gen 25:1; 1Ch 1:32), as was Bilhah, Jacob's concubine. (Gen 30:4; 35:22). And contrary to your expected compulsory minimization of care, they were not to feed and clothe them as slaves, but not only was the women to be treated after the manner of daughters, but the husband had to treat her equally as a wife. And <a href="http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html" rel="nofollow">here</a> and <a href="http://www.astorehouseofknowledge.info/Slavery" rel="nofollow">here</a> are good links which can help you see the issue of slavery in context and other than it being a monolithic institution or only as in the antebellum South. <br /><br /> <i> Where did you get this from, respecting the Midianites in particular? <br />The Midianites seemed okay to Moses when hid among them from Pharaoh and joined his fortunes and bloodline to that of a Midian preist. Evidently, though, they were grossly iniquitous even then?</i> <br /><br />“They' must be distinguished from exceptions within the extensive land of Midian, in which one may have retained the worship of the true God, being of the seed of Abraham, while simply being idolaters does not render one a hostile adversary to Israel, (the Gibeonites were idolaters but made peace with Israel), and the Midianites were not one of the 7 nations slated for utter extermination in the land of Canaan. <br /><br />But within less than a generation things can change for good or for bad iIn 1940 one would hardly believe that in less than a generation the U.S. and Japan would be an allies) and toward the close of the forty years' wandering of the children of Israel in the wilderness, the Midianites were allied with the Moabites in the attempt to exterminate the Israelites. The elders of Midian acted with those of Moab in calling Balaam to curse Israel, and also oppressed Israel. (Numbers 22:1-41 25:1-18 31:1-54.) They are thought to have worshipped a multitude of gods, including Baal-peor and the Queen of Heaven, Ashteroth,PeaceByJesushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08754948549904895669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-5392737446255666292012-04-24T21:06:12.256-05:002012-04-24T21:06:12.256-05:00Pt. 2
A somewhat reasonable assumption overall t...Pt. 2 <br /><br />A somewhat reasonable assumption overall to a degree, especially from today's perspective, but which degree presumes they were shocked by brutality, rather than that being a regular occurrence, as with child sacrifice, and that they were treated well by husbands, and that while shocked, they were also relieved at having their lives spared as an iniquitous people . <br /><br />And this is what you are missing, as you continue to want to treat this as if it were the Brady bunch being murdered, rather than it being a judgment of genocide due to institutional iniquity, which delivered another generation from continuing it and facing the same, by a God whose reality was unmistakably manifest. <br /><br /> Your utter refusal to even allow the omniscient Creator and author of life to judicially take it, using men to whom He first powerfully revealed Himself, and instead to treat this if it were Pol Pot or Mao (the atheist) is necessary for your argument, but simply reveals your atheistic rejection of objectivity in your quest to disallow the authority of God over you. <br /><br /> <i>2) The captured women were forced to conform to Hebrew cleansing/mourning rituals (Deut 21) </i> <br /><br />This is hardly terrifying, and the Army required more of draftees. Likely you unequivocally oppose that as well, while these laws were beneficial. <br /><br /> <i> 3) The captured women were forced to marry their Hebrew captors (Deut 21)</i> <br /><br />Indeed, and rather than being killed as deserved they were married with the possibility of raising a family as a wife or leaving if the husband did not want you. Again, your premise that these were innocent victims is a problem. <br /><br /> <i> 4) The captured women were then ‘humbled’ (deflowered) by their new ‘husbands’</i> <br /><br />Yes, they were indeed humbled, though it is unlikely they were mostly virgins, and POWS also do get humbled. But being delivered from a degenerate country and becoming part of the victorious nation and raising a family as part of it is rarer, but that is the context, and something else you cannot allow as a possibility. <br /><br /> <i> Which of these four premises do you deny? Do you maintain that the women were given a choice at any step in the ritualized process for acquiring war brides? If so, where exactly are you reading female consent into this narrative, and why?</i> <br /><br />I deny they lived in terror, or were necessarily terrorized by any but likely the first event, while being shown mercy and not what they (or we) deserved, besides Hell, and instead they could normally have a positive future to look forward to. And the consent i am referring to is that of engaging in relations, rather than being forced. And in that culture to be barren was a cause of grief. <br /><br />Unlike the Qur'an, the Bible nowhere instructs beating wives. And the record of Judges 19 is not sanction.PeaceByJesushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08754948549904895669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-32857497497517533842012-04-24T21:04:54.938-05:002012-04-24T21:04:54.938-05:00Pt. 1
>your basic premise remains that God as ...Pt. 1 <br />>your basic premise remains that God as the giver of life acted unjustly in taking away the lives away of a morally destructive people… and thus you presume the place of the omniscient moral supremacist.<<br /><br /> <i> Nope. I wasn’t making an argument about justice at all, as I’ve said above. I do affirm that mandating genocide is manifestly unloving towards both the victims and the perpetrators. </i> <br /><br />Your whole argument is that of judgment as to what is just, which forces the context into being that of an innocent nations being murdered by Israel under the equivalent of the Islamic Allah, rather than God finally exterminating wicked peoples, and stopping generational iniquity as He did with Sodom and under Noah, which you in your superior omniscience and judgment cannot allow to be just, or the taking of women to be wives as part of judgment, and yet showing unmerited mercy toward them. <br /><br />This “genocide” was not the systematic killing of people on the basis of ethnicity, religion, political opinion, social status, but was due to immorality as a consequence of their religion, and make work for good for those who love what is Good. Thus judging the former was a beneficial act which only God could determine, and therefore making Himself unmistakably evident prior to the giving of the Law, and the conquests, is a critical aspect, while you must relegate this to being fables in order to fit your construct. <br /><br /> <i>It seemingly precluded blanket statements such as “God is love” which we find elsewhere in your Bible. </i> <br /><br />Such a statement is simply another example of you judging what the Bible means by your idea of love, which for an atheist can means whatever seems reasonable to them, including taking away the children of Christians or outright killing them. <br /><br />In Scripture, love is grieved by iniquity, which is what is destructive, and must deal with it, and the author of life uniquely has the right to take it away, and make it work for the good of those who love righteousness. Note that God also warned of execution of those who normally afflicted widows and the fatherless (a capital <a href="http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/TheDeathPenalty.html#Afflicting" rel="nofollow">crime</a> for man). <br /><br /> <i> Surely Muslims have said the same of Allah. I see no reason to find your book any more compelling than theirs. </i> <br /><br />Surely? This is just another example of your practice of arguing according to your assumptions. While the Qur'an refers to a few miracles, these are only those which are appropriated from Biblical stories, about people already written in the Jewish Old Testament (and the illiterate Muhammad skews some of them), and it has no historical narratives like the ones in which precede the commands of conquest, and which accompany many. <br /><br />Muhammad had no such contemporary proof that this was the living God before he began his wars of conquest. He first thought was that he had come under demonic influence, and resolved to go to the top of a mountain and commit suicide lest anyone find out. (<a href="http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.5282449/k.37D5/The_Lives_of_Muhammad_and_Jesus.htm" rel="nofollow">3,4</a>) There simply is no comparison here. <br /><br /> <i> For the third time, I’m not making an argument from morality.</i> <br /><br />Your premise is that God acted immorally, according to your supreme judgment. If you will not see that this is your case then we can hardly continue. <br /><br />And as regards sexual acts being performed [upon] the terrified, this presumes Israel sanctions such forced relations <br /><br /> <i> There are a few premises here we need to go over carefully: <br />1) The captured women were terrified, having seen their loved ones slaughtered by their captors (Num 31)</i>PeaceByJesushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08754948549904895669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-9769399041894098242012-04-24T09:12:54.845-05:002012-04-24T09:12:54.845-05:00It is an impossibility for God to command rape, as...<i>It is an impossibility for God to command rape, as such is against His character. </i><br /><br />Where exactly are you getting this from, Rho?Damionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14360566092148805751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-85163227994722824122012-04-24T09:11:11.973-05:002012-04-24T09:11:11.973-05:00Naked assertion, tendentious implication.
Let me...<i> Naked assertion, tendentious implication. </i><br /><br />Let me get this straight, Rho. If the woman is terrified of the man who is on top of her (the man who killed her relatives) that counts as consenual sex in your book?Damionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14360566092148805751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-53825015228493015512012-04-24T08:59:51.106-05:002012-04-24T08:59:51.106-05:00…your basic premise remains that God as the giver ...<i> …your basic premise remains that God as the giver of life acted unjustly in taking away the lives away of a morally destructive people… and thus you presume the place of the omniscient moral supremacist.</i><br /><br />Nope. I wasn’t making an argument about justice at all, as I’ve said above. I do affirm that mandating genocide is manifestly <b>unloving</b> towards both the victims and the perpetrators. It seemingly precluded blanket statements such as “God is love” which we find elsewhere in your Bible.<br /><br /><i>…not just some god giving some dreams or visions, but one who made His reality unmistakably manifest.</i><br /><br />Surely Muslims have said the same of Allah. I see no reason to find your book any more compelling than theirs.<br /><br /><i> we are dealing with morality in the light of the Biblical record </i><br /><br />For the third time, I’m not making an argument from morality.<br /><br /><i> And as regards sexual acts being performed [upon] the terrified, this presumes Israel sanctions such forced relations </i><br /><br />There are a few premises here we need to go over carefully:<br /><br />1) The captured women were terrified, having seen their loved ones slaughtered by their captors (Num 31)<br />2) The captured women were forced to conform to Hebrew cleansing/mourning rituals (Deut 21)<br />3) The captured women were forced to marry their Hebrew captors (Deut 21)<br />4) The captured women were then ‘humbled’ (deflowered) by their new ‘husbands’<br /><br />Which of these four premises do you deny? Do you maintain that the women were given a choice at any step in the ritualized process for acquiring war brides? If so, where exactly are you reading female consent into this narrative, and why?<br /><br /><i> …forced relations are always placed in a negative light. </i><br /><br />Other than in Deut 22:28-29, where such force is essentially prelude to honeymoon.<br /><br /><i> Exodus 21:7-11 also speaks in favor of considerate care for wives. </i><br /><br />Is that passage about wives or concubines? It appears to me that the relevant Hebrew term here is “maid-servant, female slave, maid, handmaid, concubine” rather than wife. Indeed, I could not find anything unequivocally about marriage (as opposed to concubinage or sexual servitude) in that particular passage. Good to know, though, that Hebrew men were expected to feed and clothe their female slaves.<br /><br /><i> And whose old husbands were likely the ones who were adulterous and abusive. </i> <br /><br />Where did you get this from, respecting the Midianites in particular? <br /><br /><i> However, no pagan nation was attacked simply because they did not worship the manifestly living God of Israel, but because of their long term gross iniquity... </i><br /><br />The Midianites seemed okay to Moses when hid among them from Pharaoh and joined his fortunes and bloodline to that of a Midian preist. Evidently, though, they were grossly iniquitous even then?Damionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14360566092148805751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-21808656977207917212012-04-24T08:08:55.207-05:002012-04-24T08:08:55.207-05:00It’s a yes or no question, Rho. I’ll ask again - A...<i>It’s a yes or no question, Rho. I’ll ask again - Are you seriously suggesting that all of the 15,968 virgin girls consented to be married and ‘humbled’ by their captors?</i><br /><br />What about "I have made no statement either way" don't you understand?<br />I am instead asking you for <b>evidence</b> that your interp is correct. Apparently you don't have any and are thus attempting to trap me with bad questions. But thankfully, it's a transparent ploy.<br /><br /><br /><i>It doesn't occur to you that they would most likely be terrified, angry and resentful in that situtation, even though they are merely women of the ANE?</i><br /><br />Asked and answered already.<br /><br /><br /><i>Sexual acts performed upon one of whom one is terrified are not consensual sex acts.</i><br /><br />Naked assertion, tendentious implication.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>I already explained that I’m pointing out the internal tension between two different descriptions of TGoTB.</i><br /><br />And I already explained why you're doing it wrong. Too bad you don't care enough about truth to amend your flawed strategery.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>Which ones? The people whom the Israelites killed or the ones they kept for themselves?</i><br /><br />The victims of the pagan abuses that these Canaanites engaged in all the time.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>I don’t see what justice has to do with love.</i><br /><br />1) It has a great deal to do with love. Often we must show love to the victim of a crime by exercising just judgment on the aggressor.<br />2) But that wasn't even what I was getting at. I didn't say "love is also just". I said "<b>God</b> is also just". Sometimes God's justice gets more play than His love, sometimes vice versa.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>Certainly I prefer to write about the latter</i><br /><br />And the next time we're discussing "Damion's baseless opinions on morality", I'll be happy to hear what you have to say. <br /><br /><br /><br /><i>3) Since all humans deserve death right now… <br /><br />What a very sad way to view the world.</i><br /><br />1) Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you were trying to do an internal critique. Guess not.<br />2) Why? Seems to me it's a GREAT way to view the world; Jesus is the great Redeemer of lost mankind. The love He has shown to a sinner like me is incalculable.<br />3) No argument is given, so what we're left with is that <b>you think</b> it's sad. So what? In 100 years we'll all be dead and whether I held a sad view of the world won't matter any more than that you held a happy-skippy Polyanna view of the world.<br />4) No, rather a view of the world in which humans amount to nothing more than biological gene-passing machines is really sad. A world in which the final answer is Meh; <b>that's</b> sad.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>Certainly I wouldn’t do unto female POW’s as I would not be done by</i><br /><br />1) Good for you.<br />2) And your argument that they weren't doing to them as they would be done by is... what? Oh, right, we've seen already many times that you don't have an argument. You're just continually making anachronistic judgments and putting yourself in their place as if you have any idea what they thought and believed. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><i>The internal conflict remains between how the Bible describes your deity (loving and merciful) and the commands that he is alledged to have given (unloving and genocidal). </i><br /><br />Rather the onus is on you to demonstrate the unlovingness and how a created being is in any position to make moral judgments on God, to put Him in the dock.<br />Since I've already asked you to give such and you're not stupid, I can only conclude that you can't fulfill said onus. <br /><br /><br /><i>If God had said to the Israelites “kill all the men, rape all the women, and eat all the children” that would have been upright and good, by definition?</i><br /><br />You might as well be asking me to opine on whether God could make a square circle. It is an impossibility for God to command rape, as such is against His character.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-51795982548557123842012-04-24T05:38:30.728-05:002012-04-24T05:38:30.728-05:00Despite what Rhology said (thank you) and i said,...Despite what Rhology said (thank you) and i said, your basic premise remains that God as the giver of life acted unjustly in taking away the lives away of a morally destructive people, and preventing the innocent young from perpetuating that and falling into the same damnation, and thus you presume the place of the omniscient moral supremacist.<br /><br />And in order to do so, you ignore that in contrast to Islam, and a desert tribe making up a god and using it to justify their expansionist genocide, the Biblical account, instead, as i expressed, the Bible makes it clear that the mandate at issue was not just some god giving some dreams or visions, but one who made His reality unmistakably manifest. There could be no atheists among them with an degree of credibility, though that did not stop them from acting as such. <br /><br />Of course, your recourse here is to deny the Biblical account, which is another debate, but we are dealing with morality in the light of the Biblical record, not your denial of it. <br /><br />And as regards sexual acts being performed by the terrified, this presumes Israel sanctions such forced relations, which assumption lacks warrant, and is contrary to any description of sanctioned marital relations, while forced relations are always placed in a negative light. <br /><br />And as noted, if she did not please the husband and he release her, then she could go wherever she wanted, while the law that mandated the release of a wife in the case of the neglect of equal care for a wife in food, or in clothing or in sexual relations (Exodus 21:7-11) also speaks in favor of considerate care for wives.<br /><br />And in the light of the reality that barrenness of womb was most grievous, and that Israel were the victorious and ascending nation with higher laws and salvific religion, it can be reasonably surmised that to be wedded to victors in which to raise children would be viewed positively by most, and would in fact be so. And whose old husbands were likely the ones who were adulterous and abusive.<br /><br />The picture you seem to hold is that of some peace-loving nation with Ozzie and Harriet (showing my age) marriages being butchered by greedy religious zealots led by an insecure deity who needs attention, which demonic imagination is wholly contrary to the Biblical reality. <br /><br />However, no pagan nation was attacked simply because they did not worship the manifestly living God of Israel, but because of their long term gross iniquity, which included child abuse.<br /><br />And commanding worship of the God of Israel was done as part of a covenant with the people, after God has made His reality and character abundantly manifest, And which is not to fill any need of God, who needs nothing (Acts 17:25), and who would save Himself a lot of grief without man, but which command is what is right an beneficial for man, the alternative being making the created your ultimate source of security and object of spiritual affections, but which will ultimately fail you. <br /><br />And <a href="http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/RevealingStatistics.html" rel="nofollow">here</a> you can see some of the various costs of America's war against God.PeaceByJesushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08754948549904895669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-36945332700252354692012-04-23T15:45:48.268-05:002012-04-23T15:45:48.268-05:00* Meant to say "someone who is terrified...&q...* Meant to say "someone who is terrified..."Damionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14360566092148805751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-66050486759533239182012-04-23T15:30:11.640-05:002012-04-23T15:30:11.640-05:00Are you seriously suggesting that all of the 15,96...Are you seriously suggesting that all of the 15,968 virgin girls consented to be married and ‘humbled’ by their captors, because that is just how women were back then?<br /><br /><i> You're just confirming my diagnosis of your argument's strategy, without taking into account what I just said. </i><br /><br />It’s a yes or no question, Rho. I’ll ask again - Are you seriously suggesting that all of the 15,968 virgin girls consented to be married and ‘humbled’ by their captors?<br /><br />It doesn't occur to you that they would most likely be terrified, angry and resentful in that situtation, even though they are merely women of the ANE?<br /><br /><i> They may have been (terrified and resentful) And your argument is....what exactly? </i><br /><br />Sexual acts performed upon one of whom one is terrified are not consensual sex acts.<br /><br /><i> I'm not seeing the reason why I should think that any of this was morally unjustifiable. </i><br /><br />You don’t see any problem with sexually subjugating female POW’s even when they don’t come down with the Stockholm syndrome? <br /><br /><i> Why argue like this unless you think you've found a moral fault with TGoTB that Christians should acknowledge?</i><br /><br />I already explained that I’m pointing out the internal tension between two different descriptions of TGoTB.<br /><br /><i> 1) Aren't you forgetting the victims? </i><br /><br />Which ones? The people whom the Israelites killed or the ones they kept for themselves?<br /><br /><i> 2) I mean, you clearly forgot that God is also just, so... I figured maybe you didn't remember. </i><br /><br />I don’t see what justice has to do with love. Certainly I prefer to write about the latter, because people generally share more intuitions about what counts as loving than what counts as just.<br /><br /><i> 3) Since all humans deserve death right now… </i><br /><br />What a very sad way to view the world.<br /><br /><i> 4) You've just told us that you'd consider it rape if you were in their shoes </i><br /><br />Certainly I wouldn’t do unto female POW’s as I would not be done by. This seems like a decent moral rule of thumb to me, but I cannot now recall where I first came across it.<br /><br />The internal conflict remains between how the Bible describes your deity (loving and merciful) and the commands that he is alledged to have given (unloving and genocidal). <br /><br /><i> <b>Whatever God commands is by definition morally upright and good. </b></i><br /><br />If God had said to the Israelites “kill all the men, rape all the women, and eat all the children” that would have been upright and good, by definition?Damionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14360566092148805751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-68280829782739470922012-04-23T15:00:11.932-05:002012-04-23T15:00:11.932-05:00Are you seriously suggesting that all of the 15,96...<i>Are you seriously suggesting that all of the 15,968 virgin girls consented to be married and ‘humbled’ by their captors, because that is just how women were back then?</i><br /><br />You're just confirming my diagnosis of your argument's strategy, without taking into account what I just said.<br /><br /><br /><i>It doesn't occur to you that they would most likely be terrified, angry and resentful in that situtation, even though they are merely women of the ANE?</i><br /><br />1) "Merely" is your word, not mine.<br />2) They may have been. And your argument is....what exactly?<br />3) I'm not seeing the reason why I should think that any of this was morally unjustifiable.<br /><br /><br /><i>I don't remember using the term "morally faulty" or anything like it.</i><br /><br />Don't play ridiculous games. Why argue like this unless you think you've found a moral fault with TGoTB that Christians should acknowledge?<br /><br /><br /><i>pointed out that killing the men and raping the virgins is not particularly loving nor merciful towards anyone involved.</i><br /><br />1) Aren't you forgetting the victims?<br />2) I mean, you clearly forgot that God is also just, so... I figured maybe you didn't remember.<br />3) Since all humans deserve death <b>right now</b>, every breath those ppl got to take, every moment they got to live was b/c of God's love and mercy. <br />4) You haven't proven God commanded rape. You've just told us that you'd consider it rape if you were in their shoes, and been unable to show why anyone would think that your projected opinion is relevant.<br /><br /><br /><i>The internal conflict is between how the Bible describes your deity and the commands that he is alledged to have given.</i><br /><br />Except there is no conflict. It's actually extremely straightforward, but your emotion clouds your judgment.<br /><b>Whatever God commands is by definition morally upright and good. No man is in any position to judge as morally faulty a command of God.</b><br /><br />If you can keep that in your memory going forward, you might be able to actually formulate an internal critique. Whether it will be successful is another question, but at least you'd have made a start.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-33589581603882496182012-04-23T14:26:48.589-05:002012-04-23T14:26:48.589-05:00Rho,
Are you seriously suggesting that all of the...Rho,<br /><br />Are you seriously suggesting that all of the 15,968 virgin girls consented to be married and ‘humbled’ by their captors, because that is just how women were back then? After seeing their families slaughtered and their towns torched, they had no problem giving themselves willingly to those perpetrated these acts? It doesn't occur to you that they would most likely be terrified, angry and resentful in that situtation, even though they are merely women of the ANE?<br /><br /><i> truly internal critique would take as most fundamental the idea that no man is in any position to judge as morally faulty a command of God. </i><br /><br />I don't remember using the term "morally faulty" or anything like it. I said that Christians describe their deity as loving and merciful, and pointed out that killing the men and raping the virgins is not particularly loving nor merciful towards anyone involved. The internal conflict is between how the Bible describes your deity and the commands that he is alledged to have given.Damionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14360566092148805751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-10109272879191379132012-04-23T14:14:20.359-05:002012-04-23T14:14:20.359-05:00morally* faultymorally* faultyRhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-32721043610043765482012-04-23T14:13:52.364-05:002012-04-23T14:13:52.364-05:00If Christians claim that God is loving and mercifu...<i>If Christians claim that God is loving and merciful (as they generally do) one might imagine He could have been a fair bit more loving and merciful than to command wholesale genocide of everyone other than the pretty young virgins.</i><br /><br />YOU'RE the one confusing external with internal critique. You haven't been; a truly internal critique would take as most fundamental the idea that no man is in any position to judge as moral faulty a command of God.<br /><br />In other words, you need to go back to the drawing board.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.com